Interesting and believable ideas, but do you have sources besides Wiki? Since Wiki articles can be changed, they are not reliable. I would like to pursue this further.

The only thing I am sure of is that I am sure of nothing. As my knowledge changes, so do my answers. When I speak of science, I don't accept of refute the existence of God. Science is based on what can be tested & observed. I don't know how to propose testing God. I am not sure I want to. I am reasonably sure that my perception of God is different from that of nearly everybody else. As a scientist, I have no idea as to how to determine who is right or who is wrong about God. I choose to leave that decision in the category of belief, not science. I believe in kindness and love also, but I don't know how to prove they do or do not exist, or are just a physiological manifestation of my brain. Should it be "I think, therefore, I am" or "I am, therefore I think."?

Moses did not write anything while in Egypt. The 10 Commandments were supposedly inscribed by the hand of God about 1400 BC, at the end of the wandering period. The rest of the Pentateuch was probably started by Joshua and continued over the next 1000 years to Malachi, about 450BC. Earlier stories were passed by oral tradition, and not inscribed until after Moses.

I agree regarding anything Wiki, but Galileo published in 1609, but most of the rest is fairly accurate. Wiki is not peer reviewed, or even checked by anyone. Other sources will support most of this one though.
The problem with science is that the more we learn, the more we find there is to learn. As a result, Galileo proposed tides, but didn't understand them. We can measure and predict building on his work. We still miss often, especially with storms and Tsunami. However, the more we look, the more accurate we get. For those seeking comfort in surety, science make life very uncomfortable.

I believe your are correct. Hebrew then.

http://feederwatch.org/learn/tricky-bird-ids/coopers-hawk-and-sharp-shinned-hawk/

Describes the difference between Cooper's & Sharpshinned

Let me rephrase: There are those who think that gravity should be returned to theory status. It has not generally been accepted. String theory and behavior in or near black holes is adding data to many studies, and it is not at all clear what it means.
The disturbing thing is that those who find all their answers in the Bible are quite sure of their answers. Those who find answers in the data are not so sure. I think the difference makes some people uncomfortable. However, science is a constant quest for answers, with the understanding that each new answer raises new questions. Most people don't understand that when science questions its own conclusions, it is not doubt, but a quest for increasing accuracy.

Let me rephrase: There are those who think that gravity should be returned to theory status. It has not generally been accepted. String theory and behavior in or near black holes is adding data to many studies, and it is not at all clear what it means.
The disturbing thing is that those who find all their answers in the Bible are quite sure of their answers. Those who find answers in the data are not so sure. I think the difference makes some people uncomfortable. However, science is a constant quest for answers, with the understanding that each new answer raises new questions. Most people don't understand that when science questions its own conclusions, it is not doubt, but a quest for increasing accuracy.

definitely not the American Kestrel. The European Sparrowhawk and the Sharpshinned are both Acipiter, but the Kestrel is Falco as a genus. The European Sparrowhawk is not found in PA. After further observation of the pictures, I am going to go with Coopers Hawk. It is also an Acipiter, but the Coopers has yellow legs and the Sharpshinned are darker. The position of the eye also suggests Coopers.

Are you saying Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 is true, since they present a different time line for events.
The Bible says what happened, but the how was in terms understood by people of the time. As for science, we need to be using the same terms for the same meaning. Hypothesis is a possible answer to a problem that can be tested. A theory is not pulled out of thin air, but is the hypothesis tested and not found to be incorrect. That is not the same as proof. It means that there is repeatable evidence for the conclusion. Once it is proven, it is no longer a theory, but a law of science. For example, take the Theory of Gravity. Yep, science has moved it back to a theory status because it appears that there are areas of our universe that do not behave according to the rules concerning gravity as we understood them. Time for more research.
Now, did God create things in 6 days, or 6 periods of time, or none of the above. How many translations do you want? Do you have a translation of the original Aramaic? Are you telling me that you understand the mind of God? You know, because of human words in a book, how God thinks and how he accomplishes miracles? You must have eaten of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. God told us not to do that. The original sin was to try to have knowledge equal to that of God.
I don't accept that Darwin cause any problem with understanding. I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that what I call scientific evolution is not exactly the same thing you call creation. You don't seem to accept that God may operate on a time scale that humans cannot comprehend.
Lacking evidence to resolve this, this conversation cannot ever reach a conclusion. Once you meet God, you may ask, and then let us know.

I believe it is a Sharp Shinned Hawk

You don't tell us what film SLR you had. Canon & Nikon will used some of the same lenses on their DSLR cameras. If you can use those lenses, that will keep your cost down. I use a Canon T3i because I had a Rebel G film camera. If your lenses won't transfer, I would suggest renting both Canon T3i or T5i, and a Nikon (let Nikon users suggest which) shoot the kind of pictures you plan to take, and compare results, ease of use, and personal comfort.

We are done. You have no clue what it means to be case history. I refuse to have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

You keep believing that, Cupcake. I choose not to be case history.

50% of the population was classified as poor prior to a minimum wage that at least equaled the poverty level. After minimum wage, the percentage of poor dropped. No one ever claimed it was a utopia that would eliminate all poverty. However, the percent of those in poverty was significantly reduced, along with the burden on public assistance. Since Reagan's Trickle Down, the middle class has been declining, and those on public assistance has been rising. The basics still go back to supply & DEMAND. Most of the wealthy understood this. Today, we are re-enacting "The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg". You can rely on any theory you want, but if you are not willing to examine factual results, you stay theoretical. Reality can be quite different.