PBS.org Wrote:
We know from both studies of DNA and the anatomy of living animals and fossils that whales are part of a mammalian group known as the Artiodactyla. Modern artiodactyls include animals like cows, pigs, sheep, giraffes, camels, and hippos. Artiodactyls have many characteristics that distinguish them from other mammals, but the most distinctive of them are in the foot and ankle. First, artiodactyls reduce the number of toes such that the foot is symmetrical between two digits (a condition called paraxonic). If you think about a cow foot, the hoof seems “split” in two. These animals are often called cloven-hoofed for this reason. The foot actually isn’t split into two at all. Rather, it is actually two toes fused together. Second, artiodactyls have a bone in the ankle called the astragalus (which is found in other mammals as well), but in artiodactyls, it takes on a characteristic form with a pulley shape at each end. Early whales share these characteristics with other artiodactyls. The group of fossil artiodactyls that we think are most closely related to whales is called the Raoellidae, and they lived in Indo-Pakistan, China, and Mongolia during the early and middle Eocene. These animals were probably omnivorous, and some people think they foraged by walking on the bottom of bodies of water.
There are only two groups of mammals (that we know of) that have become completely aquatic. These are the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and the Sirenia (sea cows and dugongs). These two groups both originated in the early Eocene, and have followed rather similar evolutionary pathways, particularly in how their limbs and modes of locomotion evolved. This is despite of the fact that cetaceans are carnivorous and sirenians are herbivorous. In addition, the Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walruses) evolved from a group of dog-like Carnivora in the late Oligocene.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/...tion/7577/
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.