Replies

You're the best! you are my favorite creationist. You have a knack for stumbling and bumbling over and through pretty much every goofy creationist idea, with no regard for what you are actually typing. Awesome. How do you know a bat without wings never existed.

Um, because they wouldn't be bats, by definition. (Keep in mind, please use a dictionary or zoology text when looking up what bats are. For, as I'm sure you know, the Bible calls bats "fowl," which, as I'm sure you know, happen to be avian, something which, as I'm sure you know, bats are not. Bats are mammals. Not birds. Fowl are birds. Not mammals. Careful where you learn your biology from.

Of course, bats are a creationist favorite (after the eye and bombadier beetles) since someone once learned that their fossil record is spotty (due to their habitats and tiny/brittle bones). So they get picked on. But, if you did a google search and weeded out the creationist sites, you could actually learn a thing or two.

And btw, why would I particularly care one way or another if either foxes or squirrels can glide?

Well, I think I know why you wouldn't care. Because you have no thirst for knowledge about the natural world around you. Others, however, may find gliding mammals (and reptiles and fish) rather an interesting evolutionary adaptation. "Hmmm," an inquisitive bloke might say, "All the squirrels I know can't glide. I wonder why these particular ones do. Perhaps, in their niche, their is an advantage to gliding, whereas in my backyard there isn't. I wonder why that is." Then they'd google something.

Um, because they wouldn't be bats, by definition.

Really. who named them? And why wouldn't they be bats if they didn't have wings just based on the wings alone. A bat that evolves wings or loses them is still a bat. Your logic doesn't follow. If I knock the doors off a car, it's still a car. For that matter, if I knock them off a trans am, it's still a car and a transam. It just doesn't have doors. So are you saying that a Human being that has no limbs is not a human being... Sorry, but you stepped into that trap yourself and went laughingly in as though you thought you were catching me. Would you like the dunce cap now or later?

Of course, bats are a creationist favorite

I don't particularly find it a favorite anything. And I'm not quite sure what it matters to the argument whether creationists like bats or not. My name here is havoc. Deal with me.

Well, I think I know why you wouldn't care. Because you have no thirst for knowledge about the natural world around you.

Take a hint. Don't give up your day job. Gliding would be an advantage for humans, being able to breathe under water would be as well. Being able to withstand pressure without concern for the benze would also be a plus. Humans have not developed such capacities. So advantage would seem to have little to do with evelution if the theory had any factual basis at all - and it doesn't. However, an animal designed a specific way will always appear that way in nature - even fossilized (which, btw, doesn't happen in nature other than in wet places and even then only where something can be quickly buried. Another tick on the board for the good old flood fact.