Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: valkyry1
He was speculating on the origins of reptilian/avian and mammalian flight and saying that IF flying fish had adapted into perfect flying creatures their oceanic origins would hardly be suspected.

You took it out of context to make it look like something it was not, a prediction rather than as a hypothetical example.

Typical of the deceitful quote mining creationists regularly engage in.

One might suspect that they know an honest account would doom their argument.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be a creationist.

88 posted on 04/13/2010 8:39:07 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream

Look he picked a really absurd example to hypothesize from and it was his faith in his model that allowed him to do that. I am sure he believed it to some degree.

Even nowadays evolutionists use gliding squirrels and the other gliding creatures to suggest that they are in the stage of evolving into a true flying creature.

The whole quote mining thing is another evo red herring anyway. Its very clear what the evolutionist suggests and insinuates, they just like to word it in way that leaves them an out when they get exposed like you have done here.

You cant seriously defend that so you go on the attack at ‘creationists’ again. Its so predictable you are getting tedious.


90 posted on 04/13/2010 9:04:44 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson