Hellbender

Atlantis was alluded to once by Plato (I think), and now you got people looking all over the world for the damn place. It never existed. Here are some links: http://skepdic.com/atlantis.html http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-09/atlantis.html (I don't yet know how to post links properly, so you will all have to deal with the whole thing. Sorry.....)

Are you drinking a Michelob Ultra?! Tsk tsk, bascule.....

Ok, I will be sure to. I haven't recieved anything like this before, just so you all (Mods) know. Thanks for the help.

2 seconds ago I got this PM from a "mrs dainey". Unfortunate, if it is true, but nonetheless it sounded like a chain E-mail. Did anyone else get this? (If you want I can post the whole message.)

AFAIK, Linnaean names only need to be Latinized, or in other words to sound Latin. Sometimes other elements are mixed in as well. For instance a person's name can be mixed in and organism's Linnaean name (like Galeocerdo cuvieri, you can see Georges Cuvier's name in the tiger shark's latin name) or sometimes the place the organism is from or was found, such as Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, the hellbender, which can be found in the Allegheny region of the United States. So I suppose it is okay to mix Greek and Latin, if I can think of any examples of this I will post them.

I don't know why, but you could just post it under "General Sciences", I recall seeing some geology stuff there. I understand this is a bit belated, but I hope it helps.....

I would also try Bufo anthropus, that sounds better. What game is this for, by the way?

"Anthropomorphic" is a good way to say "human-like". Thats all I can think of right now.

I don't know as of now, but I'm sure Mokele would. Too bad he is off doing field research.

LOL herme3's final few responses in that thread were hilarious. I went back to it through your link and had a great laugh.

Wow. What a tragic series of screw-ups. Odd. Any idea of how this blood came to be drawn in the first place? For that matter, what became of the pilot and co-pilot before they crashed?

Now you show your true colors. Why the hell would a high school student go to a pastor to learn science? Why do you think they teach evolution is school in the first place? And they explain it as? See on one side there is scientists saying that natural processes are responsible for the phenomena they observe. They learn from it, and it broadens our understanding of the world. Creationists aren't follwong the scientific method. They are looking at things and saying "oh there's god's handiwork, oh theres some more" which is subjective. Mainstream scientists don't say whether or not a god or gods are responsible for their observations. For all they know, everything you see that seems natural could be the work of the supernatural. But there is no way this can be proven, much less detected or measured; hence assumptions like these fall under the realm of metaphysics, which is not part of science. As I have stated above, this is not the case. When religious beliefs (and don't fool yourself, ID is still religion-based) try to masquerade as science, it is the paragon of subjectivity. Which side continuously brings up the same arguments that have been refuted in books published as long as 30 years ago, or which one side often refuses to address points made by their opponents that make them uncomfortable? For that matter, which side never gets the freaking point?

Why is this you think? Yeah, a real scientist will usually ponder what the observation can tell them. Your "special creation scientists" will just say "god did it." Try to replace "secularist" in your head as "objective scientific".

3, it looks like Drizzt.

I think it is necessary for basic physics students to be exposed to both sides of a theory-even if one is metaphysical in nature. IF is a perfect alternative to the humanistic theory of gravity, and I support it being taught in schools. PS I elect Edisonian for the "creepiest avatar" award....

If you allow me to nitpick for a second, while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to. Many christians (and other religious folk) have the brainpower to reconcile their beliefs with fact.

it is postulated that many animals, including some fish (like salmon) and cats have adaptations that aloow them to navigate this way. I don't know anything about earth's poles reversing (or how it would work, if it is even possible, I'm no geologist), but would it effect the climates as well?

I don't really see it changing anything.

And completely ad hoc, I might add.

sort of biology and conservation. I wanted to be an ichthyologist since I was a kid, but there were a lot of things stopping me, so I went to college for a while as an English major, got sick of that, and found a school with a wildlife management degree and here I am. Is pretty fun so far.

i wan't talking about the context of the book, I was talking about the quote. To continue your sentence for you: ",because secularist scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to prop up a theory that they know to be false to promote their godless philosophies." That about right? I'm afraid there is no such thing as an "unsubstantiated assumption" in a scientific theory. If there is no immediate evidence, there may be many other reasons why scientists will think something. The fossil record for snakes is far from complete (thanks to their delicate skeletal structure), but they infer from other things that snakes evolved from early lizards, through comparative anatomy, homology, etc. (Plus the fact that snakelike (legless and glass lizards) creatures have in a sense, started to evolve from lizards again, which we can see happening). So it isn't just an "unsubstantiated guess" if there isn't this perfect, flawless and clear fossil line. Scientists can go on much, much more.

Another reason why it pays to actually read the whole book. Trying to use out of context quotes from ICR can really make one look the fool.

Don't bet on anything good, man. If you are lucky, a creationist may come by and propose problems for evolution, using the faulty logic that this is evidence of creation.

I'll give a few a shot: Homo petraderms Homo microraptor

While we are recommending books, I liked Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale - Don't remember Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism - Philip Kitcher The Panda's Thumb - Stephen Jay Gould Ever Since Darwin - Stephen Jay Gould