Evolution or Creationism

[Coccygia]

He is?

Elohim is apparently a plural, so either it's a poetical plural, or they are different.

Elohim is indeed a plural, but has always been interpreted as "the plural of majesty" (sort of like the royal "we", I guess) and construed as singular. It has also been assumed that Elohim is another word for JHVH.

Unless it's a trace of early polytheism that the editors of the Bible couldn't figure out how to get rid of.

[Abdju]

I don't expect you to believe I'm right, it really doesn't bother me either way. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and don't feel the need to involve others with them. If you want to, that's fine, just say so. If not, that's fine too. As I said, I'm happy enough just to bring along some popcorn and watch modern day Lions and Christians

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

I challenge my own beliefs constantly, my uni work forces me to study them in the cold light of day, every day. The original comment by me was a joking/light-hearted response to your comment about having debated the nature of gods from multiple different religions. So, no I wasn't baiting you, and I'm not an intellectual coward about my beliefs. I stand by them and am willing to debate them.

[The Corparation]

True. But it hardly ever happens in America.
And don't give me the crap about "what about other nations?" OI'm comin' right out, I only care about America, Canada and England.

really hardly ever?
america has a higher rate of serial killers than any other nation, and I can name two successful (in terms of actually shooting said president) attempts on various presidents in the last ten presidents. intellectual isolation is the one thing they all share in common.

Three if you count RFK's, who probably would have won had he not been shot.

[Beldonia]

really hardly ever?
america has a higher rate of serial killers than any other nation, and I can name two successful (in terms of actually shooting said president) attempts on various presidents in the last ten presidents. intellectual isolation is the one thing they all share in common.

Three if you count RFK's, who probably would have won had he not been shot.

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

[Coccygia]

Three if you count RFK's, who probably would have won had he not been shot.

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

Really? As a loyal USian myself, I find that figure rather hard to believe. Must be a lot of serial killers, huh?

[DaWoad]

Science created nuclear weapons though. I think what he means is that science has created lots of stuff that harms the environment but not on purpose in most cases. I think the world was much more "eco friendly" during the medieval period. Ozone is being depleted, I believe, due to the use of fossil fuels or something like that.

But your telling me that science didn't discover the power of splitting an atom, or harnessed the power of fossil fuels? That sir, is bullshit.

Science is neutral. It's how people use it that's good or bad.

which was my point. It's a tool, and, frankly, it's one that shows more promise than it could ever do harm. Long run (very long run), "science" is the only way we or anything on our planet can get off this rock. The worst case scenario is going to happen to everything on earth eventually anyway, "science" at the very least, gives us a shot at surviving that.

[Ceannairceach]

Three if you count RFK's, who probably would have won had he not been shot.

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

Proof of that statistic? I heard it was more around 10-15%.... Counting manslaughter, of course.

[Sociobiology]

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

Really? As a loyal USian myself, I find that figure rather hard to believe. Must be a lot of serial killers, huh?

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... something/

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... of-victims

we are also number one in cheese production.

[Beldonia]

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

Really? As a loyal USian myself, I find that figure rather hard to believe. Must be a lot of serial killers, huh?

Hard to believe high or low?

[Beldonia]

So that's 50 years. And way, way under 1% of Americans have ever killed anyone. That's pretty good.

Proof of that statistic? I heard it was more around 10-15%.... Counting manslaughter, of course.

No proof, it's an educated guess. 10-15????? You think that 3 million Americans have commited murder?

[Ceannairceach]

Proof of that statistic? I heard it was more around 10-15%.... Counting manslaughter, of course.

No proof, it's an educated guess. 10-15????? You think that 3 million Americans have commited murder?

Counting. Manslaughter. As in 10-15% of Americans have killed someone, accidental or not.

[Abdju]

we are also number one in cheese production.

srsly? That's pretty scary given the reputation of USian cheez....

[Coccygia]

Really? As a loyal USian myself, I find that figure rather hard to believe. Must be a lot of serial killers, huh?

Hard to believe high or low?

Low! This is the US! The most violent of all industrialized societies! More guns per capita than high school diplomas! How COULD it be that low? That's un-American!!!!

[Sociobiology]

we are also number one in cheese production.

srsly? That's pretty scary given the reputation of USian cheez....

the UK is number one in closed circuit television (security cameras) and also tea consumption.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... l=en#gid=3

infographic has many strange but interesting things.

[Beldonia]

No proof, it's an educated guess. 10-15????? You think that 3 million Americans have commited murder?

Counting. Manslaughter. As in 10-15% of Americans have killed someone, accidental or not.

I know. It's still a whole lot.

[Ceannairceach]

Counting. Manslaughter. As in 10-15% of Americans have killed someone, accidental or not.

I know. It's still a whole lot.

Wiki states that over 600,000 murders have occurred since 1960. This, of course, that someone had to kill them. It could be many people, it could be one person for quite a few, etc. But the point is, Americans have killed. And that's not even counting Americans who accidentally kill, are acquitted, kill in war, kill for self defense, etc.

[Sociobiology]

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

I challenge my own beliefs constantly, my uni work forces me to study them in the cold light of day, every day. The original comment by me was a joking/light-hearted response to your comment about having debated the nature of gods from multiple different religions. So, no I wasn't baiting you, and I'm not an intellectual coward about my beliefs. I stand by them and am willing to debate them.

1. the picture of the cat in hilarious, it is without a doubt the strangest look I have ever seen on a cat's face.
2. For some reason being a paleontologist means I have a giant sign on my back saying "come talk to me about your religion and how it makes my science pointless, evil, ect." I used to try to avoid or ignore such debaters but now I simply strive to be better at the debate then they are, because I have found them unavoidable and have grown more unforgiving of illogic and ignorance.

3. if you want to debate fine, I gave my requests, if you don't want to debate then stick to humor and not pretend at evidence.

[Abdju]

1. the picture of the cat in hilarious, it is without a doubt the strangest look I have ever seen on a cat's face.
2. For some reason being a paleontologist means I have a giant sign on my back saying "come talk to me about your religion and how it makes my science pointless, evil, ect." I used to try to avoid or ignore such debaters but now I simply strive to be better at the debate then they are, because I have found them unavoidable and have grown more unforgiving of illogic and ignorance.

3. if you want to debate fine, I gave my requests, if you don't want to debate then stick to humor and not pretend at evidence.

Indeed, nice cat is nice. I know it's a pain, but I am loathe to skin back through 50+ pages on this laptop as it's liable to freeze and/or BSOD (I think the RAM is dying) so if you can give me direct link back to, or re-quote, the particular points, and I will explain my position as best I can.

I don't think your science is evil, nor un-necessary. Keep digging the dinos, my friend.

[Sociobiology]

1. the picture of the cat in hilarious, it is without a doubt the strangest look I have ever seen on a cat's face.
2. For some reason being a paleontologist means I have a giant sign on my back saying "come talk to me about your religion and how it makes my science pointless, evil, ect." I used to try to avoid or ignore such debaters but now I simply strive to be better at the debate then they are, because I have found them unavoidable and have grown more unforgiving of illogic and ignorance.

3. if you want to debate fine, I gave my requests, if you don't want to debate then stick to humor and not pretend at evidence.

Indeed, nice cat is nice. I know it's a pain, but I am loathe to skin back through 50+ pages on this laptop as it's liable to freeze and/or BSOD (I think the RAM is dying) so if you can give me direct link back to, or re-quote, the particular points, and I will explain my position as best I can.

I don't think your science is evil, nor un-necessary. Keep digging the dinos, my friend.

present me with a god, with a definition, including their influence, if he/she/it has/had any, on the universe, life, humanity, ect.
like I have said before "god" is such an amorphous term that it requires a definition for logical discussion.
This also cuts down on the "thats not the kind of god I'm talking about" game.

[DaWoad]

True. But it hardly ever happens in America.
And don't give me the crap about "what about other nations?" OI'm comin' right out, I only care about America, Canada and England.

England once attacked America. So did Canada, if memory serves.

And you realize that all it would take is a crazy Russian fool to take power and blow us all to oblivion and back, yes? Or, more recently, one insane revolutionary to jack gas prices up to eleven. Literally.

other way 'round. America attack what is now canada.

[Ceannairceach]

England once attacked America. So did Canada, if memory serves.

And you realize that all it would take is a crazy Russian fool to take power and blow us all to oblivion and back, yes? Or, more recently, one insane revolutionary to jack gas prices up to eleven. Literally.

other way 'round. America attack what is now canada.

Ah, right. I always get that switched around... Point is, America and Canada weren't always the best of neighbors.

[West Stankonia]

congratulations here is one that does not.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_03

SPIRITUAL PEOPLE BASE THEIR FAITH ON DATA WHICH THEY INTERPRET TOWARDS A CERTAIN END THEY ARE PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE. EVIDENCE IS A TRICKY WORD AND A HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT. E.G. I HAVE A PILE OF CRUMBS IN MY COOKIE JAR. COOKIES WERE THERE YESTERDAY. ALL I KNOW FOR A FACT IS THE COOKIES ARE GONE. THE PILE OF CRUMBS COULD BE EVIDENCE OF RATS OR A HUMAN COOKIE THIEF. TO UTILIZE THE EVIDENCE OF MISSING COOKIES I HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OR THE OTHER. UNLESS I WITNESSED IT FIRSTHAND OR CAUGHT THE CULPRIT WITH THE SMOKING GUN ALL I HAVE IS EDUCATED GUESSES WHICH ARE STILL IN FACT- GUESSES!

actually assuming either is wrong, you look for evidence then interpret it not the other way around

I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way.

first one professionally, second one occasionally (now a days you outsource dating to specialized labs because the equipment is very expensive.)

ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE DIRECTING THE WRONG ARGUMENT AT ME. I DONT DO CHURCH. IM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I DONT HAVE A RELIGION. NOW TO ADDRESS YOUR IDIOCY DIRECTLY...THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THOSE PARISHIONERS AND SCIENTISTS IS THAT THEY ARE MEN. FALLIBLE MEN WHO YOU DONT KNOW AND ALL HAVE AMBITIONS AND ALLEGIANCES BEYOND THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR CHOSEN FIELDS. YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHO DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO FALSIFY DATA. THE POWER OF WESTERN CULTURE IS DEPENDENT ON WESTERN SCIENCE AND RELIGION FOR ITS EXISTENCE. THE RELATIVE RESULTS SHOW US THAT THESE DISCIPLINES HAVE MAJOR FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS.

accept other scientists are constantly checking the "word" or each scientist, that's what reproducible results are. scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong that's what makes science accurate in the long run. scientists do occasionally falsify data and its found out by other scientist usually very quickly, because their is a powerful incentive to prove another scientist wrong. In paleontology you cannot even publish on a fossil if it is not publicly accessible. Just to ensure other scientists can try to prove you wrong.

lenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.

yes because we all know it was scientists who gave the order to the bomb on japan, oh no wait is was the military which is neither religious nor scientific.
scientists can't do anything right after all I mean polio is still one of the leading causes of death, oh no wait, no one has died of polio in forty years because we cured it.

and as for the ocean vs the moon, to quote a horrible movie "space is easy there is nothing there." while the deep ocean subjects a craft to 91 TIMES the force a space craft is subjected to.[/quote]


lol. What kind of slack-jawed yokel do you take me for? LOL. So its inner ear structure makes it a whale? LOL. So a platypus bill makes it a bird then right? Elephants hear in the same manner. That shit is not unique to whales. And they just found a skull, drew up what they think the whole animal looked like and stuck it in a sequence. Im not responding to the rest of your pretentious bullshit post based on its false premise.+


PAKICETUS EARS

As if the leg structure were not enough, the ‘whale’ status of Pakicetus received another potentially fatal blow. This came from a recent study of the semicircular canal systems in both living and fossil cetaceans (whales and dolphins).1 The semicircular canal system is a set of tubes connected to the inner ear that provides information on head (and therefore also body) movements. The tubes are filled with small, solid particles suspended in liquid. The inner surfaces of the tubes are covered with sensors that show which way the contents are flowing. This organ gives us our sense of balance.

To the surprise of the international team of scientists, the cetaceans, both living and fossil, all had the same ‘unique’ small canal size—about three times smaller than all other mammals, when corrected for body size.1 The researchers suggested that the canal system had to be small to reduce the sensitivity, thus preventing information overload as the animals rolled around.1 They concluded that the early whales had semicircular canals unlike those of any non-cetacean mammal. This, they said, shows that even the ‘earliest’ whales had unique behaviour, suited to aquatic life.

But while the paper defended whale evolution, the detailed analysis demonstrated a sharp gap in relative sizes between whales and non-whales, including the pakicetid Ichthyolestes (creationists would probably group it into the same created kind as Pakicetus). There were no examples of slow and gradual shrinking of the canals—they were either one relative size or the other.2 In fact, the paper affirms that the alleged change in canal structure happened ‘instantaneously’ and produced a ‘unique’ apparatus.
References and notes

1. Spoor F., Bajpai S., Hussain S.T., Kumar K. and Thewissen J.G.M., Vestibular evidence for the evolution of aquatic behaviour in early cetaceans, Nature 417(6885):163–166, 9 May 2002.
2. Spoor et al., ref. 1, fig. 2a is a logarithmic graph of canal radius vs body mass. There were two distinct best-fit lines: Ichthyolestes was on the same line as other land mammals, while the whale data points formed a totally distinct line.

[Sociobiology]

[box]

lol. What kind of slack-jawed yokel do you take me for? LOL. So its inner ear structure makes it a whale? LOL. So a platypus bill makes it a bird then right? Elephants hear in the same manner. That shit is not unique to whales. And they just found a skull, drew up what they think the whole animal looked like and stuck it in a sequence. Im not responding to the rest of your pretentious bullshit post based on its false premise.+


PAKICETUS EARS

As if the leg structure were not enough, the ‘whale’ status of Pakicetus received another potentially fatal blow. This came from a recent study of the semicircular canal systems in both living and fossil cetaceans (whales and dolphins).1 The semicircular canal system is a set of tubes connected to the inner ear that provides information on head (and therefore also body) movements. The tubes are filled with small, solid particles suspended in liquid. The inner surfaces of the tubes are covered with sensors that show which way the contents are flowing. This organ gives us our sense of balance.

To the surprise of the international team of scientists, the cetaceans, both living and fossil, all had the same ‘unique’ small canal size—about three times smaller than all other mammals, when corrected for body size.1 The researchers suggested that the canal system had to be small to reduce the sensitivity, thus preventing information overload as the animals rolled around.1 They concluded that the early whales had semicircular canals unlike those of any non-cetacean mammal. This, they said, shows that even the ‘earliest’ whales had unique behaviour, suited to aquatic life.

But while the paper defended whale evolution, the detailed analysis demonstrated a sharp gap in relative sizes between whales and non-whales, including the pakicetid Ichthyolestes (creationists would probably group it into the same created kind as Pakicetus). There were no examples of slow and gradual shrinking of the canals—they were either one relative size or the other.2 In fact, the paper affirms that the alleged change in canal structure happened ‘instantaneously’ and produced a ‘unique’ apparatus.
References and notes

1. Spoor F., Bajpai S., Hussain S.T., Kumar K. and Thewissen J.G.M., Vestibular evidence for the evolution of aquatic behaviour in early cetaceans, Nature 417(6885):163–166, 9 May 2002.
2. Spoor et al., ref. 1, fig. 2a is a logarithmic graph of canal radius vs body mass. There were two distinct best-fit lines: Ichthyolestes was on the same line as other land mammals, while the whale data points formed a totally distinct line.

[/box]
yea sorry no pakicetus has back, neck, and tail vertebra most of the limb elements and some ribs, they hardly made up the rest of the animal.

some other early whales for you
Artiocetus, Crenatocetus, Eocetus (syn. Mesocetus), Gaviacetus, Indocetus, Maiacetus, Protocetus, Qaisracetus, Rodhocetus, Takracetus

if you had bothered to read the actual pater you might notice your "rapid"change takes place in the span of 15 million years.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36110445/NPG- ... e-6885-May

you also might want to learn a little statistics so you understand the difference between a log scale and a linear scale. the semi-circular canal is not suddenly changing in size it is however shrinking while body mass increases, not that difficult given what we know about the developmental pathways.
Thanks for the reference though the study was not something I had read, and behavioral/anatomical correlates are always interesting. aquatic + immobile neck = small semi-circular canals.
I do love though that Williams and Safarti say this
is obviously just like a modern whale because it has whale semi-circular canals, but is obviously not a whale because it has legs, they seem confused themselves.
they also claim a paper published in the 60's has more information about whale evolution than the dozens of papers published about fossils found in the 80's and 90's. the logic is intriguing papers published before the fossils were found are better than those published after.

also magazine =/= journal it is an important distinction.
Discover, science, time, wired = magazine
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology = peer reviewed journal
You might want to try doing your own research instead of relying on some who publishes in a magazinne instead of a scientific journal.

[Coccygia]

LOL. So its inner ear structure makes it a whale? LOL. So a platypus bill makes it a bird then right? Elephants hear in the same manner. That shit is not unique to whales. And they just found a skull, drew up what they think the whole animal looked like and stuck it in a sequence. Im not responding to the rest of your pretentious bullshit post based on its false premise.

You seem to give credence to the saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Another couple of things that don't make your argument any more persuasive are boldface and underline. At least you haven't used huge size yet.

[Comtern]

You have a right to your own beliefs, I personally believe in Creationism.