Slashdot Mirror

Of course they don't. Years of iron defecation have reduced their feet to tiny hip bones

"50/50 isnt too shabby for historical accuracy ;) "

I agree entirely. However, the fact that a controversy exists means that the question of whether we are dealing with a real man is still open, although the fact that new texts are periodically being discovered in unusual places means that it may not always be.

"Not a straw man, I think you misuse that term here."

You wrote the following:

"the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists"

I did not describe a situation where Jesus did not exist, but one where the evidence for his existence is at best debatable. It was therefore entirely correct to use the term "straw man" for your answer.

"The problem is, the eyewitness's of Jesus were largely turned Christian and their writings Canonized if they had any legitimacy to them. Unfortunately today that means they are discredited."

The problem is actually the fact that we don't have very much at all that can be directly attributed to eyewitnesses, or for that matter anyone who'd spoken to an eyewitness.

"Citation needed."

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/hypatia.html

"There were systematic massacres [of pagans]. One ordered by [Christian emperor] Theodosius in 380 in Thessalonica was unique. The pagans were invited to `games' at the Circus. The entrances were blocked and the soldiers of Theodosius killed 15,000 women and children for the true glory of Christ"

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm

Many incidents here.

"Sorry there bud, he is definitely a part of history. He just happens to be a religious figure as well. You will be hard pressed to find historians who say otherwise."

You'll be even harder pressed to find historians who say he was _definitely_ part of history. Many claim that a preponderance of evidence indicates he was _probably_ a real historical figure, but few of the neutral ones would say that it's definite,

"Not to mention that even now we are contesting his authenticity yet don't apply the same level of scrutiny to other historical figures."

I think we do apply an equal level of scrutiny to other historical figures from the period. We know for example that Alexander The Great existed, and have a pretty good idea what he looked like because there were many statues of him built during and after his life, cities were named after him also during and after his life, and many chronicles from widely different sources were written during Alexander's "eyewitness" period. Most Roman emperors are equally well supported by both physical and historical evidence, likewise Egyptian Pharoahs, etc.

"If there were not a religion tied to him no one would debate historical documents."

If there wasn't a religion based around him, there wouldn't be any historical documents about a Jewish carpenter who, like tens of thousands of other completely anonymous people that nobody except their friends and families cared about, fell afoul of the Romans and ended up being executed for it.

Note also that religions all over the world and throughout history have a notable penchant for incorporating both completely fictitious elements, and ones that are aggregates of others, some of which get "borrowed" from older religions and then modified to fit with whatever dogma the religion is based on. It's not therefore either surprising or a sign of bias for historians to question whether the central figures in any religion are entirely or partially mythical.

"no push to rid us of the greek gods prevalent in society, talking of buddah and Muhammed is encouraged"

1) Nobody is trying to claim that the Greek gods anything other than myths.
2) Buddhists don't care what anyone else says about their religion or the various figures that are a part of it.
3) Discussion of any

"Long before scientists stated (and proved) that the heavens are expanding, the Bible has stated this fact (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, as well as many others)."

• 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
• Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
• Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
• Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
• Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
• Psalm 24:2, for example, it was said that "the world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the earth and all who live on it are his. He built it on the deep waters beneath the earth and laid its foundations in the ocean depths,"

I could go on and on about many pieces of evidence, however this evidence is not really hidden. One can find references to most of it online. Yes, I fully expect that this post will be modded down and labelled as flaim bait (typical). However I post such information so that people will get to see a broader view and diverse opinions.

The line in the summary, "Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.", isn't present in the article.

You're right, it's not in the article.

I may very well be missreading into your comment, but if you are suggesting that it is untrue, then you're wrong. Googling: dolphin fetuses hind
confirms the dolphin fetus comment with the very first hit.

How exactly could this be evidence of back legs?

I haven't seen an X-ray of this dolphin, but based on the photo they clearly attached to the pelvis. We have transitional fossils showing the sequence of how the front fins are modified arms, and the rear are modified legs. The typical bone structure of the mammalian hand is still present within the skeleton of the regular (front) dolphin fin, and many normal dolphins and whales have identifiable femur bones buried inside their bodies. The front and rear fins really are arms and legs. I have no doubt that an X-ray of this dolphin will show the rear fin bone structure is distinctly different than the front fin bone structure... that the rear fin won't have the mammalian hand bone structure inside but instead will carry the specific hallmarks of leg bone structure.

All whales and dolphins carry leg genes in their DNA, but the genes have been actively switched off. It only takes a relatively simple mutation to undo the "switch off" mechanism and thereby turn the genes back on. That is much simpler than trying to independantly replicate the front fins into a "new" second set.

It seems more likely that an extra set of fins would be moving dolphin evolution forward. e.g., having a extra set of fins may allow the dolphin to swim faster, navigate better, etc

Possible, but very unlikely. The very reason the rear limb genes got switched off is because the rear limbs were detrimental.

Fins are not used for thrust, so you can scratch the speed suggestion. The powerful tail provides thrust. Additional limbs merely add drag. This dolphin would have had to work harder and would get more tired to keep up with the other dolphins.

The front fins provide the manuverability, and I think it improbable that the rear limbs would add much here. They were formerly present and were already tried and discarded. The re-activated second set of limbs will only stick around as an evolutionary advancement if they somehow provide some different third kind of functionality (other than thrust or steering).

Reactivating a dormant gene is a fairly simple mutation and it has doubtless happened to dolphins many times in the last million years and died out each time. So this is an intersting mutant, but almost certainly a dead end (as are almost all mutations).

The article doesn't mention if the dolphin can use (move) the fins.

I have no idea how much of the musculature was reactivated along with it, but I can tell you that the dolphin pelvis is a "free floating bone", it no longer attaches to the spine or to any other bone. Picture here. So even if the muscules are there, the strength and control of the fins would be distinctly limited.

-

I'd like to point out that the documents, in which Archimedes invented calculus, were written over with relgious hoodoo and lost for thousands of years by Christian relgious 'scholars'. And in the constant persuit of 'peganism' they also burnt the library of Alexandria to the ground: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/library_alex andria.html. And these are only minor examples of the literal war against science that was waged in the name of Christian fundamentalism.

It was actually not Christian religious scholars that ushered in the renaissance, but instead Muslim--- who founded schools in France during the middle ages. Much of the technology, philosophy, mathematics, biology, that was discovered by the Greeks and the Romans, managed to survive the religious fundamentalism of the West in the Middle East.

Far right religious zealots have never preserved any shred of scientific truth--- although they may have discovered some on their own as is the case of Mendel.

Literacy may have been preserved through the middle ages by religious scholars, but they only preserved it from themselves. Commoners were not expected to read, or write, and in fact discouraged from such.

Here is an excerpt from a previous post of mine, maybe this will help:

For some examples of living transitional species, look at dogs and wolves (which can be interbred), modern agriculture, and a few species of squirrels( On different sides of the Grand Canyon you'll find nearly identical squirrels, the difference being that on the side of the canyon that is higher, it is colder and you see that over time they've developed traits suited more for the climate and eventually became an individual species. Also if you take certain species of squirrels from say Pennsylvania and mate them with that same species from Ohio, they can mate fine, but try to mate it with a squirrel of the same species from California and it will most likely fail or be extremely hard to get to work because this species is on the verge of speciation where they form into two separate species that can no longer breed together.)

Anyone who claims that there is no evidence of transistional fossils or species is just plain and simple repeating non-sense, but no matter how much you say, it isn't true. Here is the known cladogram for just dinosauria, look at all transitions, and these are just the ones that have been found and proven, there are still large parts of the earth left to search, not to mention under the thousands of miles of ice at the poles which are currently unreachable but in the age of the dinosaurs were most liklely prolific with life. You kind find similar diagrams for *every* single species. When combined, it is huge, one of the biggest and best documented diagrams in all of man's history.

Hereis a very truncated version of the cladogram for modern killer whales, the full cladogram contains significantly more detail. The things I present here are just the beginning, actually look at the science in depth and realize what a well founded and proven theory evolution is.

The "Godzilla" croc doesn't go against evolution. Read this for one example of convergent evolution, which is what happened with this croc (having fish like and carnivorous features due to the niche it lived in). I have a feeling that certain aspects of the findings are being sensationalized by the media for headlines, i.e. the "Godzilla" nickname implies certain things about the croc that just aren't true, and the media is paying too much attention to the nickname. The species btw did not appear out of nowhere :) It was similar enough to previous species that it already was in a Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Sub-Family. It only was given a genus and species, implying that it has more similarities than differences with already found fossils. Keep in mind though that paleontology is under 200 years old, so there still is alot to be uncovered... finding a brand new never before seen animal isn't that far fetched, further research and explanation usually fills in the holes if there are any.
Regards,
Steve

Sorry, my tag for the cladogram for the killer whale got messed up, here it is.
Regards,
Steve

Yep, single words and minor misspellings. Like, for instance, the Number of the Beast. Turns out it was 616 in earlier editions. Never mind, just a minor misspelling of a single word. Doesn't change anything, really.