Well my Shorter (3d ed), Concise (7th ed) and Pocket (4th)Oxford all say mammal.
Ans=d I think the older definition is better than "any of several large sea animals, some of which are hunted for their oil and flesh" eg The Elephant Whale 
Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A hominid skull discovered in Ethiopia could fill the gap in the search for the origins of the human race, a scientist said on Friday.
The cranium, found near the city of Gawis, 500 km (300 miles) southeast of the capital Addis Ababa, is estimated to be 200,000 to 500,000 years old.
The skull appeared "to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and the later Homo sapiens," Sileshi Semaw, an Ethiopian research scientist at the Stone Age Institute at Indiana University, told a news conference in Addis Ababa.
It was discovered two months ago in a small gully at the Gawis river drainage basin in Ethiopia's Afar region, southeast of the capital.
Sileshi said significant archaeological collections of stone tools and numerous fossil animals were also found at Gawis.
"(It) opens a window into an intriguing and important period in the development of modern humans," Sileshi said.
Over the last 50 years, Ethiopia has been a hot bed for archaeological discoveries.
Hadar, located near Gawis, is where in 1974 U.S. scientist Donald Johnson found the 3.2 million year old remains of "Lucy," described by scientists as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in the world.
Lucy is Ethiopia's world-acclaimed archaeological find. The discovery of the almost complete hominid skeleton was a landmark in the search for the origins of humanity.
On the shores of what was formerly a lake in 1967, two Homo sapien skulls dating back 195,000 years were unearthed. The discovery pushed back the known date of mankind, suggesting that modern man and his older precursor existed side by side.
Sileshi said while different from a modern human, the braincase, upper face and jaw of the cranium have unmistakeable anatomical evidence that belong to human ancestry.
"The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors," he added.
Check to the power.
If it's human, it's the best human gap-filler between Homo erectus and "later Homo sapiens." Not sure if they mean Heidelbergensis or Idaltu. The next latest thing.
If you accept Homo erectus as human, no problem. If you don't, then why does this look so much like erectus and come right after it in time, etc.?
Lost prime placemarker.
Which says a whale is a marine mammal
He must have an even older version of the OED than me - mine says "marine animal!" Luckily I don't rely on an outdated dictionary for scientific information!:p
O.K. Then we can mark you down for D (Homo habilis) on up as being human. That makes you rather an outlier among creationists/antievolutionists, but that's alright.
. . . which feature(s) takes precedence?
Human morphology undergoes dramatic change in the history of an individual. Comparative morphology, if it is dealing with specimens of the same age, should reveal consistencies in bone structure, but these consistencies need be no more rigid than comparisons between Shaq and a dwarf. I think number and shape of bones is a good rule of thumb. What else do we have to work with after decay has had its way?
If evolution is not intelligent where are all the mutants so to say? There has to be a whole bunch of them that did not work out if evolution has no end game so to say. As far as every thing breaking down, take a dead chicken and let it lay in your front room far a few days and you'll notice it's not getting up and jumping around its breaking down (stinks). Show me in the world where it is not breaking down but evolving into a better system.
Does this mean that all marine animal lifeforms, in the broad definition, are fish? Fish, molluscs, crustraceans, zooplankton etc?
Does this method of classification extend to terrestrial life? Are humans, dogs, birds, snakes, frogs, bees, slugs, flatworms, mushrooms etc. all in the one group? And where do freshwater fish come in? And diadromous fish, such as salmon and eels that migrate between the sea and freshwater? And seals?
Well my Shorter (3d ed), Concise (7th ed) and Pocket (4th)Oxford all say mammal.
Ans=d I think the older definition is better than "any of several large sea animals, some of which are hunted for their oil and flesh" eg The Elephant Whale
Four (or more, depending on how you count them) elementary errors in one sentence. Nice packing!
FISH, n. L. piscis. 1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters
" Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you." We note your retreat.
No retreat, I have the answers to those 'deep' questions.
The first (1933) edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D) has the definition on page 872 of vol.1. The first meaning listed, dating back to circa A.D.800, uses bird as a young fowl, such as a 'hen and her birds'. The second meaning listed is the modern 'feathered vertebrate animal'. But after stating that definition, the O.E.D adds the following revealing note: 'Now used generically in place of the older name Fowl which has become specialized for certain kinds of poultry, and by sportsmen for wild ducks and geese' (which is meaning number 3 in the OED)....At the time of the Authorized Bible was translated, fowl had the wider meaning of 'winged creatures' (OED meaning 2 under Fowl). Meaning number 4 adds: 'In various figurative applications, chiefly from sense 2, as a reference to a winged or noiseless flight....In Leviticus 11:19 the word bat appears in the context of fowl (vs 13) and so, since it is a winged creature, there is no problem there beyond an 'archaic' meaning of fowl; but Deuteronomy 14:18 uses bat with bird....note the fourth O.E.D. meaning for bird in the generic term for 'silent, winged flight'
Regarding the hare... The hare chews the cud by passing its food twice. After the first pass, the hare eats and chews its fecal pellets (Book of Bible Problems, Geradius D. Bouw, Ph.D, 1997, pg. 49-50)
Regarding evidence for the Flood,
Nevertheless, the actual facts or geology still favored catastrophism, and flood geology never died completely. Although the uniformitarian philosophers could point to certain difficulties in the Biblical geology of their predecessors, there were still greater difficulties in uniformitarianism. Once uniformitarianism had served its purpose—namely, that of selling the scientific community and the general public on the great age of the earth—then geologists could again use local catastrophic processes whenever required for specific geologic interpretations. Stephen Gould has expressed it this way: "Methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm." 1 Heylmun goes even further: "The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved."2 http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54
You evolutionists are going to have a time of it explaining to God why you rejected His truth!
I would like to know what are the empirically tested rules for the interpretation of bones. I rather think they may compare to the empirically tested rules of astrology.
If the posterior superior angle of the left parietal bone is more pronounced in one skull than in another, may we conclude the former individual was more block-headed, and hence more primitive, than the other? I put it crassly, but what are the empirically tested rules for interpreting a find? What are the emprically tested rules for interpreting the strata in which they are found?
It seems to me there is enough variation in bone morphology of the current human population that, if any or all happened to be found buried in sediment at various levels, they could be rendered as having a history ranging over millions of years.
That would be an elephant seal, of course.
bacteria thats the best you can do. From the moment your are born you are headed for death you are dying you are breaking down.
Only if you are following the modern way of defining the various species.
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one.
Ofcourse, evolutionists may consider themselves as such, but they would be wrong.
Bone evidence is most often denigrated after a certain scenario is played out. We did it again on this thread.
Most of us grow some along the way. On these threads you can see who stopped a long time ago and who didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.