(By the way, I once had the opportunity to hold a life but sleepy bat in my gloved hands and inspect it very carefully in broad daylight. They are amazing and beautiful creatures. )
Bats hover to catch the smallest of insects,
I've personally seen a bat hovering. I was fishing in a lake up in the mountains, and when it started getting dusk, a bat started swooping over the surface of the water, hunting. Several times he stopped and hovered by my fishing line and nibbled/tugged on it.
Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, you do seem to ask a lot tougher questions of ID then you do of the big bang, abiogenesis, and creation by speciation.
-Jesse
[[Speaking of the poor bat: Imagine how rough it must have been for him for the several hundred thousand generations while his fingers were too long to walk and too short to fly. It’s amazing he lived!]]
What I find interesting is that all the dinos that supposedly took to the air were said to do so out of ‘need’ for food, yet amazingly, every other ground creature was able to find plenty of ground or tree food to sustain them- but somehow, these poor tiny dinos, instead of feasting off nature’s bounties o nthe ground, felt the ‘need’ to take to the air to catch hard to secure bugs? Fickle diners I guess. as well, the marsupials which supposedly ‘learned to’ not just glide, but later, to fly fro mthe treetops, ‘had to do so’ to ‘escape enemies’, in ‘order to survive and carry on their lines’ yet these critter were far faster than many other tree dwellers already, and htese other tree dwellers susrvived just fine (Even htough they must have- if Macroevolution were actually true) had even greater pressures put on them after the marsupials took to the skies. You’d think the remaining tree critters would have ‘evolved’ jet engines since the pressures to survive were thus increased tenfold after their buddies the marsupials became airborne- theaving these other critters the only items on the new menue
I don't think so. Same questions. I'm just waiting for ID to supply me with some positive answers--what, how, when, where. The other thing is that science is willing to answer "I don't know" to some things, and I'm willing to accept that answer. ID tends to be uncomfortable with that and to insist on their explanation, even in the absence of positive evidence. It doesn't impress me.