Re: Whales: Are they mammals or fish?
Tom McDonald
>
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
Now that's funny!
--
Tom
Sammybaby
So? Why would a Christian care?
The Bible does not weigh in on the set of mammals. God could have
made creatures with similar qualities - having mammary glands - at
different times.
You're picking a fight that, from a Christian perspective, is
unimportant.
AllSeeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. THATS reality
AllSeeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excuse me. You do not speak for Christians.
God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
They are not, nor have they ever been, water creatures as the
proponents of evolution would have everyone believe.
.
Sammybaby
Look at your own quote:
God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
What does that have to do with them being mammals?
They have mammary glands that could have been made by God or
evolution.
For a Christian it is a non-issue whether there are strong structural
and other features in common between whales and land mammals.
For an individual Christian looking to create a fight out of nothing,
sure it can be an issue.
I cannot speak for you, but I can and have read the Bible, and Genesis
many, many times, and this is not a Christian battle.
Sammybaby
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
I dunno, to me nonsense can never make for a clever ruse. I don't
know why you Abrahamists hinge the existence of your God on a document
written by fallible humans a long time ago. You can believe in God
AND in evolution.
You don't believe in God, you believe in a book and do mental
gymnastics to argue that the book is perfect.
If it turned out to have some flaws would that mean there is no God?
Is you faith so weak?
Tom McDonald
As if you'd recognize reality.
--
Tom
Mike Painter
> >
> Excuse me. You do not speak for Christians.
>
> God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
This version has *everything* coming out of the water before man is created.
>
The second story of creation (2:19)has god making man(2:7) before the plants
and animals, then all the animals out of the earth.
Two stories separated by plot and language usage (Shakespeare Vs. Dr. Seuss
as one scholar put it.)
Clearly the redactor knew these were myths.
Father Haskell
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
Here. Care for a wedge of whale cheese?
Father Haskell
Incontrovertible proof that the bible really does
cause brain damage.
SkyEyes
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
Actually, the class "mammalia" was defined by Linneaus, who was *not*
an atheist.
> Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
Actually, the class was well established by Carl Linneaus, who lived
Carl Linnaeus 1707 – 1778.
Whereas Darwin lived 1809-1882, and didn't formulate his ideas until
he was around 30. He published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859.
So you can clearly see, I trust, that the class "mammal" predates
Darwin by about a hundred years.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
You have *got* to be a loki. Nobody could be so stupid as to think
that having mammary glands wouldn't qualify an animal to be a mammal.
Jesus H. Pinocchio Christ, they're makin' 'em dumb these days.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
SkyEyes
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:26:53 -0800 (PST), Sammybaby
> arbitrary classification criterion (mammal) was initially advanced was
> to fabricate a reason for claiming that whales evolved from land
> animals. As such, it was and is part of the atheistic struggle to
> discard creation as overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
No. It was to encompass mammals that have all of the following
characteristics: are warm blooded; have hair; nourish their young
with milk from mammary glands; have 4-chambered hearts; and a couple
others that I forget, as it's late at night. But mammals have all
these things. Whales have all these things; therefore, whales are
mammals.
SkyEyes
> On 13 mar, 03:40, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>
> I dunno, to me nonsense can never make for a clever ruse. I don't
> know why you Abrahamists hinge the existence of your God on a document
> written by fallible humans a long time ago. You can believe in God
> AND in evolution.
I'll tell you why: because to the fundamentalist, if every word in the
bible is not *literally true*, factual, then it puts their "salvation"
in doubt. With them it's all about not having to be permanently dead.
>
> You don't believe in God, you believe in a book and do mental
> gymnastics to argue that the book is perfect.
> If it turned out to have some flaws would that mean there is no God?
> Is you faith so weak?
Yes, their faith *is* that weak. That's the flaw in fundamentalism,
and that's why they have to push against real science with such
ferocity.
Sammybaby
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:26:53 -0800 (PST), Sammybaby
> arbitrary classification criterion (mammal) was initially advanced was
> to fabricate a reason for claiming that whales evolved from land
> animals.
Where did you get the idea that was the reason scientists drew the
conclusion whalles went back in the ocean? or really the species that
ended up leading to whales? How do you know the motivations of those
scientists?
As such, it was and is part of the atheistic struggle to
> discard creation as overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
Whales being mammals, as I have pointed out in three threads now, does
not discard anything. One can believe in the literal translation of
Genesis AND believe that whales are mammals. God could have made them
closely related to land mammals and not to fish.
There is no need to engage in this fight, but waste your time if you
must.
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
You don't know anything about my beliefs so keep your little threats
in your pants.
Sammybaby
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
some other problematic ideas, here.
It is not 'in the United States' but in the scientific community over
the entire world.
Also these ideas were developed by theist and atheist scientists alike.
Sammybaby
> On Mar 12, 8:43 pm, Sammybaby <warlocksho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 mar, 03:40, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
>
> > > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> > > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> > > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> > > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>
> > I dunno, to me nonsense can never make for a clever ruse. I don't
> > know why you Abrahamists hinge the existence of your God on a document
> > written by fallible humans a long time ago. You can believe in God
> > AND in evolution.
>
> I'll tell you why: because to the fundamentalist, if every word in the
> bible is not *literally true*, factual, then it puts their "salvation"
> in doubt. With them it's all about not having to be permanently dead.
>
be mammals. There is nothing in the Bible about the category
mammals. That is why I find this so strange. God could be sitting up
there thinking, what the heck are they fighting about that one for.
Whales are mammals, but I made them first. Then I made the land
mammals.
It's like they don't already have enough to fight about with atheists.
Olrik
>
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
8/10 on the troll scale, based on the number of responses you got. But
you're too transparent and you'll not last long.
Ciao, creep.
<plonk>
Irreverend Dave
news:muhon6tqrfu99tv37...@4ax.com:
> Yes, thank you, and thank you also for admitting that non sequitur is
> the best rebuttal you have.
Except it's not a non sequitur, but it *does* require you to think
logically. If it were possible to hook up a milking machine to a whale
then it would be also be possible to make whale cheese.
By the way, it's not "the atheistic establishment currently in
control of scientific opinion in the United States" that makes the
determination of what is a mammal and what is not.
It should be obvious, even to the most dimwitted cretinist troll that the
reason mammals are classified as mammals is because they have *mammary
glands*.
--
Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don't have all
the answers, to think that they do. - Bill Maher
Kadaitcha Man
> Here. Care for a wedge of whale cheese?
Crikey. Whales have foreskins?
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
alt.atheism atheist to Kadaitcha Man:
"Imagine if I were to suggest "I have a prehensile tail". You
would, naturally, ask for evidence."
Kadaitcha Man in reply to alt.atheism atheist:
"Not at all. I would unquestionably accept your admission to being
a monkey."
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
JimmyJohn
On 13 mar, 03:40, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
Anyone who thinks whales are not mammals must have been bottle fed
instead of being nursed like baby whales are.
--
Science is based directly on objective physical evidence,
and nothing that is not based directly on objective physical evidence
can be science.
Christopher A. Lee
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whale meat again,
Don't know where,
Don't know when.
Wombat
Where do seals fit in? Or Manatees?
Wombat
Wombat
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:21:15 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>
> >On Mar 12, 9:40 pm, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
> >> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> >> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> >> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
>
> >Here. Care for a wedge of whale cheese?
>
> Whale meat again,
> Don't know where,
> Don't know when.
Wasn't that when Vera Lynn was stuck with an Inuit tribe for a few
days?
Wombat
Darwin123
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
>
believed in a literal Genesis.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/introduction.html
"These are necessarily arranged with the Mammalia,' he demanded,
'though their habits and manners are like those of fish.' Whales, he
pointed out, have hearts like ventricles and auricles like mammals,
they are warm-blooded, have lungs, nurse their young -- just like
mammals on land. They even have eyelids that move. . . “
Also, Aristotle distinguished whales and dolphins from fish about 347
BC. This was way before Darwin.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html
Genetic sequencing places whales among the even toed ungulates.
However, that is a bit of an anticlimax.
Whales still have an even number of toes on their hind legs! Zero
is an even number!
truexactly
evolved from
land mammals. Even the Wikipedia articles are good enough for reading
about this.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
so the bible was wrong
and you are a whore. you believe in EVERY fringe belief in history. NO
creationist believes HALF of the nonsense you do.
truexactly
> On 3/12/2011 8:40 PM, Gideon wrote:
>>
>> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
>> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
>> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
>> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
>> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
>> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>>
>> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
>> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
>> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
>> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
>> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
>> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
>> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>
>
indeed, another one with delusions of his Satan,
firstly he would have to identify where atheists have an altar !
we have no altar, find no need to worship anything or anyone.
Why does he care about those that don't follow his faith ?
We got the message, Gideon is a lunatic, now leave us alone.
Gregory A Greenman
79d20c...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net
says...
>
> On Mar 12, 8:43 pm, Sammybaby <warlocksho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 mar, 03:40, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> > > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
> >
> > > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
> >
> > > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
What a stupid tag line.
> > I dunno, to me nonsense can never make for a clever ruse. I
> > don't know why you Abrahamists hinge the existence of your
> > God on a document written by fallible humans a long time
> > ago. You can believe in God AND in evolution.
>
> I'll tell you why: because to the fundamentalist, if every word in the
> bible is not *literally true*, factual, then it puts their "salvation"
> in doubt. With them it's all about not having to be permanently dead.
> >
> > You don't believe in God, you believe in a book and do mental
> > gymnastics to argue that the book is perfect.
> > If it turned out to have some flaws would that mean there is no God?
> > Is you faith so weak?
>
> Yes, their faith *is* that weak. That's the flaw in fundamentalism,
> and that's why they have to push against real science with such
> ferocity.
I'm gonna have to disagree here. I think this is the one place
that fundys are actually logical. They agree (more or less) that
there's no evidence for god. You have to believe on faith. But,
the god they believe in is infallible. So, if their god wrote a
book, it must be inerrant. An error in the bible would falsify
their beliefs. Of course there are many errors (and other things
incompatible with an omniscient non trickster god) in the bible.
But they can't admit that because they cannot allow themselves
to face the fact that their god is just a myth.
So, it's not their faith that's weak, but their willingness to
face reality. As to why they fear reality, I agree with you that
fear of death is probably one of the main reasons.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
John J Stafford
Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" [...]
The word Whale does not appear in early versions of the bible.
Apostate
Let's not be taking the name of Pinocchio in vain, please!
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 plonktheist #1
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Brian E. Clark
gid...@manas.seh says...
> It is indeed a Christian battle, since the only reason such an
> arbitrary classification criterion (mammal) was initially advanced was
> to fabricate a reason for claiming that whales evolved from land
> animals.
Yes, that arch-atheist and supreme evolutionist Linnaeus
never missed an opportunity to tear down religion, did he?
"Gideon," you are one of the least original trolls this
newsgroup has ever had to endure.
Troll score: 0
Yawn score: 10
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, warloc...@gmail.com
says...
> Whales being mammals, as I have pointed out in three threads now, does
> not discard anything. One can believe in the literal translation of
> Genesis AND believe that whales are mammals. God could have made them
> closely related to land mammals and not to fish.
Impossible. It sullies both sense and the English language
to say that God (or any creator) could "make" a whale
closely related to a land mammal. The word "related" means
joined by common biological ancestry, so separate creation
ex nihilo for two creatures precludes their being related
in the biological sense by definition. They are instead two
unrelated creatures who share similar design features.
I don't object to the motivation behind your comments --
aside from Creationists, everyone knows that belief in God
and creation are not contradictory to acceptance of
evolution.
However, at best your central conjecture implies that your
god deliberately deceives people: i.e., despite the fact
that all lines of scientific inquiry point to the whale's
being a literal cousin of other mammals, under your
scenario these evidences amount to divine misdirection.
God could be sitting up there thinking, what the heck
are they fighting about that one for. Whales are
mammals, but I made them first. Then I made the land
mammals.
If the above were true, whales and hamsters would not not
true relatives -- not great-great-greats grandchildren of
the same common ancestor. They'd be two entirely separate
populations built to a similar design specification. Even
God cannot render two populations related, if they share no
common ancestor.
The temporal ordering of creation in Genesis remains a
problem, too. All scientific evidences indicate that land
mammals came first, with whales arising millions of years
later from one branch of even-toed ungulates related to the
ancestors of cows and hippos. Thus Genesis cannot be
literally true unless science has the time line wrong, and
vice versa. As was the case above, it wouldn't help to
invoke God's power. God cannot by fiat turn past into
future. Whales either came first (as in Genesis), or they
came later (as in science). Both cannot be true.
raven1
I call Loki.
>
>Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
>of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
>control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
>now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
>meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
>fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
>The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
>to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
>(which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
>definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
>other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
>ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
>else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
>
>
>
raven1
>It is indeed a Christian battle, since the only reason such an
>arbitrary classification criterion (mammal) was initially advanced was
>to fabricate a reason for claiming that whales evolved from land
>animals.
> As such, it was and is part of the atheistic struggle to
>discard creation as overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
Loki-ometer reading: 100%
sarge
That is not my problem. Nor does it contradict anything I said. I
don't think you read my posts carefully. I don't believe the Bible is
literally true.
sarge
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
The word "whale" is a misnomer, for the Hebrew word tanniyn can be
translated as "monster" and as "a long drawn out thing.''1 When the
English scholars were translating the Hebrew word tanniyn, the largest
water animal that they knew about was the whale, because they didn't
have access to the fossil record and the knowledge of the dinosaurs.
Dr. W. Bennett says that tanniynim, translated "monsters," can be
explained "as a long, thin, stretched-out thing, like a serpent."2 By
relating this translation to the known vertebrates, one can see that
the great Giant Lizards or Dinosaurs of the Mesozoic fit the Biblical
description in a most remarkable way. The reconstruction of a Jurassic
sauropod dinosaur, "Apatosauras," bears a remarkable resemblance to
this description (Figure 5-2), as it is a long, thin, stretched-out
thing like a serpent.
So genesis was probably referring to sea dinosaurs or some other large
creatures.
Smiler
During rationing in WWII, whale meat was on the menu in the UK for several
years.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Jimbo
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States.
It's not scientific opinion, it's science fact. Genetically, they are
mammals. Some years ago, before the advent of genetic texting and
comparison, the not so arbitrary criteria were used.
Whales are warm blooded
Whales give birth to live young
Whale Egg development occurs in the uterus
Whales nurse their young with their own milk
Whales obtain thier oxygen directly from the air.
Whales show enhanced neocortex development.
All of these are characteristics of all Mammals, with scant few
exceptions (Monotremats, for example), and none of them are
characteristics of fish.
Jimbo
> On Mar 12, 8:42 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/12/2011 8:40 PM, Gideon wrote:
>
> > > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> > > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> > > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>
>
> > --
> > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, that's simply ignorance.
Jimbo
> On Mar 12, 9:12 pm, Sammybaby <warlocksho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> > > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> > > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> > > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>
> > The Bible does not weigh in on the set of mammals. God could have
> > made creatures with similar qualities - having mammary glands - at
> > different times.
> > You're picking a fight that, from a Christian perspective, is
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> God created the whales
Using Scientific evidence, prove that assertion.
sarge
> Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>
> I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
Whales look a lot more like humans than a zygote does.
Wombat
Just a point. There never were any sea dinosaurs during the Mesozoic
Era. A possible exception was Hesperornis <g>.
Wombat
John Baker
>On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:26:53 -0800 (PST), Sammybaby
><warloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13 mar, 04:16, AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:12 pm, Sammybaby <warlocksho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 13 mar, 03:40, Gideon <gid...@manas.seh> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
>>> > > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
>>> > > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
>>> > > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
>>> > > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
>>> > > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>>>
>>> > > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
>>> > > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
>>> > > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
>>> > > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
>>> > > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
>>> > > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
>>> > > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
>>>
>>> > > I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
>>>
>>> > So? Why would a Christian care?
>>> > The Bible does not weigh in on the set of mammals. God could have
>>> > made creatures with similar qualities - having mammary glands - at
>>> > different times.
>>> > You're picking a fight that, from a Christian perspective, is
>>> > unimportant.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Excuse me. You do not speak for Christians.
>>>
>>> God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
>>>
>>> They are not, nor have they ever been, water creatures as the
>>> proponents of evolution would have everyone believe.
>>> .
>>
>>Look at your own quote:
>>
>> God created the whales before the land creatures. Genesis 1:21.
>>
>>What does that have to do with them being mammals?
>>
>>They have mammary glands that could have been made by God or
>>evolution.
>>
>>For a Christian it is a non-issue whether there are strong structural
>>and other features in common between whales and land mammals.
>>
>>For an individual Christian looking to create a fight out of nothing,
>>sure it can be an issue.
>>
>>I cannot speak for you, but I can and have read the Bible, and Genesis
>>many, many times, and this is not a Christian battle.
>
>It is indeed a Christian battle, since the only reason such an
>arbitrary classification criterion (mammal) was initially advanced was
>to fabricate a reason for claiming that whales evolved from land
>animals. As such, it was and is part of the atheistic struggle to
>discard creation as overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
>
>
>
>I will destroy the altar to your false gods.
<yawn>
<PLONK!>
sarge
Expertise is always welcome.
Wombat
I'm just a (hopefully well read) layperson. My uni training was in
Technology.
Wombat
Father Haskell
>
> to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> other animals that suckle their young.
Such as catholic priests. Or so I hear.
Father Haskell
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bottlenose dolphins owe much of their human appeal
to their facial appearance.
Father Haskell
tuna-taco> wrote:
> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> meowed:
>
> > Here. Care for a wedge of whale cheese?
>
Before their bris, yes.
Irreverend Dave
I pity the mohel if the whale happens to be orthodox.
--
Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don't have all
the answers, to think that they do. - Bill Maher
Joebruno
> On 3/12/2011 8:40 PM, Gideon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary definition
> > of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment currently in
> > control of scientific opinion in the United States. Hence, the debate
> > now ongoing herein regarding whether or not whales are mammals is
> > meaningless. Further, the classification "mammal" is itself a
> > fabrication created solely for the intention of pushing Darwinism.
>
> > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment tries
> > to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other "mammals"
> > (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous nature of the
> > definition) somewhow means that the whales are genetically related to
> > other animals that suckle their young. It's an admittedly very clever
> > ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known for his very clever ruses,
> > else we wouldn't even be here arguing this nonsense.
The class Mammalia is a human invention and it's defined by humans.
They are called mammals because the mother has mammary glands with
milk.
There is nothing supernatural about it.Animals are put in classes
because they have similar characteristics. Suckling young is only one
characteristic of mammals.They also give birth to live young and don't
lay eggs. They also breathe air through lungs and have no gills.
They are vertebrates with a backbone. They are warm-blooded and
regulate their own body temperature.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placental_mammals
Whales are mammals
Wombat
Try addressing your remarks directly to Twatman. He's the one with
the problem.
Wombat
Irreverend Dave
> On Mar 12, 7:42 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 8:40 PM, Gideon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Whales are mammals, but only if one accepts the arbitrary
>> > definition of "mammal" propogated by the atheistic establishment
>> > currently in control of scientific opinion in the United States.
>> > Hence, the debate now ongoing herein regarding whether or not
>> > whales are mammals is meaningless. Further, the classification
>> > "mammal" is itself a fabrication created solely for the intention
>> > of pushing Darwinism.
>>
>> > The real evil lies in the fact that this atheistic establishment
>> > tries to use the fact that whales suckle their young as do other
>> > "mammals" (which is merely a tautology, given the superfluous
>> > nature of the definition) somewhow means that the whales are
>> > genetically related to other animals that suckle their young. It's
>> > an admittedly very clever ruse, but as we all know, Satan is known
>> > for his very clever ruses, else we wouldn't even be here arguing
>> > this nonsense.
>
> The class Mammalia is a human invention and it's defined by humans.
> They are called mammals because the mother has mammary glands with
> milk.
> There is nothing supernatural about it.Animals are put in classes
> because they have similar characteristics. Suckling young is only one
> characteristic of mammals.
Mammary glands is the one characteristic that is seen in all mammals.
> They also give birth to live young and don't
> lay eggs.
Wrong. Monotremes lay eggs but are mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-beaked_Echidna
> They also breathe air through lungs and have no gills.
As do birds and reptiles.
> They are vertebrates with a backbone.
Definitely the least distinctive feature.
> They are warm-blooded and
> regulate their own body temperature.
As do birds.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placental_mammals
>
> Whales are mammals
Two other features that mammals don't share with other classes of animals
are hair and sweat glands.
Too bad [M]addy doesn't understand this.
bob
<Joeb...@mail.com> wrote:
>O
>
>The class Mammalia is a human invention and it's defined by humans.
EXACTLY...this is something creationists dont get.
>Whales are mammals
funny how the creationists, driven bat shit crazy by religion, disgree