The creationist one looks about right, except they didn't legalize gay marriage until recently, and even if same sex couples were around back then, they certainly couldn't have had any children.
Seriously though, why does only the first generation require females?
@AnUnSi: I wrote a whole response to your comment, but have deleted it because it is so far out there and ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a direct response. Believe me, I could write a dissertation on how big of an idiot you are.
Let's have a contest to see who can come up with the most pointless semantic arguments. A semantic arguments contest. A argusematest!
I think there is more to this story. The victim makes it sound as if the dog was kidnapped, but offered a reward? The dog sounds like it was lost and somebody found it - then wanted to milk to situation.
You might be able to make an argument for extortion, but it doesn't sound like theft.
Also, I think $50 is a generous reward for finding a lost dog. $200 is a bit ridiculous.
@c-dub: Not a complicated equation? Do a google search for "logical fallacies" and see how many you hit in your statement above.
More guns does not equal more violence - accidental or otherwise. While your argument seems reasonable, history and real world examples seem to disprove your point every time.
Guns are like nukes - if everyone has them, nobody is dumb enough to try to use them.
Here are some relevant links for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
I live in Utah. While open carry is legal - it has two problems.
1. You cannot have the gun loaded. By definition that means you are two mechanical actions away from firing. I.E. putting one in the chamber, and then firing. Some people count removing the safety as an "action" but I'm not sure that actually counts. On a triple action trigger like on an XD, you could probably argue that pulling the trigger alone is at least two mechanical actions.
2. It's stupid. The point of carrying a gun is for self defense. If someone comes into a store and tries to rob the place, but sees that you have a gun, they're just going to shoot you first. Carrying your weapon concealed is much more intelligent.
Seriously though, why does only the first generation require females?
... until they did Thriller.
Let's have a contest to see who can come up with the most pointless semantic arguments. A semantic arguments contest. A argusematest!
"GINA is an acronym, or a collection of letters. Geometry = Shapes, Function = How things work, Adaptations = Changes"
Thanks, Bill Nye!
http://gthing.net/my-first-potential-lawsuit/
You might be able to make an argument for extortion, but it doesn't sound like theft.
Also, I think $50 is a generous reward for finding a lost dog. $200 is a bit ridiculous.
More guns does not equal more violence - accidental or otherwise. While your argument seems reasonable, history and real world examples seem to disprove your point every time.
Guns are like nukes - if everyone has them, nobody is dumb enough to try to use them.
Here are some relevant links for you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
1. You cannot have the gun loaded. By definition that means you are two mechanical actions away from firing. I.E. putting one in the chamber, and then firing. Some people count removing the safety as an "action" but I'm not sure that actually counts. On a triple action trigger like on an XD, you could probably argue that pulling the trigger alone is at least two mechanical actions.
2. It's stupid. The point of carrying a gun is for self defense. If someone comes into a store and tries to rob the place, but sees that you have a gun, they're just going to shoot you first. Carrying your weapon concealed is much more intelligent.