The pterosaur did not have the mammilian bat as a predecessor. It was clearly a reptile.
We see wings on mammals, birds, and even on some fish. Wings apparently are handy things to have.
The only primates that had them were in the Land of Oz.
Posted on 01/09/2009 7:19:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Jan 9, 2009 — Imagine giraffe-sized animals that could fly. They lived. National Geographic News has an illustration of an extinct pterosaur, tall as a giraffe, that was able to leap into the air and flap its wings for sustained powered flight...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
But it was a nice try. Better than many of the posts that folks send my way.
Do you believe that pterosaur’s existed? Do you believe that they flew?
Do you believe that they were living at the same time Adam and Eve were living?
Yes. Perhaps. Yes.
Coyote, how can you say you are right when Creationists have "trained scientists," "scientific proof," Dr. Dino, and Jack Chick?
THE FRUITS they bear and share with humankind, fruits that have saved, extended, and enriched lives for the better of all -- out of pride and self-deceit, you take for granted the many mighty accomplishments of science, accomplished by men willing to undertake its disciplines, which you clearly have never done, but you certainly reap the rewards (as do we all) of their work -- and don't expect to fool ME with silliness of thinking that just because some scientists choose to interpret and act on what they learn as "proof" that God doesn't exist, somehow indicts all of science, including paleontology and Darwinian theory, as worthless.
You spit in God's face when you reject the Coyotemen of the world merely because they offend your personal interpretation of the Bible.
You and heaven knows how many of your loved ones are are probably alive today ONLY because of scientists who used evolutionary theory to design vaccines and figured out how to defeat diseases that would have killed you otherwise, or who came up with ways to save your mother who may have died in childbirth while YOU died a preemie. Men of science, evolution studies or not, atheists or not, who live the Judeo-Christian ethic (unlike the scientists who did experiments on Jews in the Third Reich), do us much good. You should be praising God and thanking Him for them; instead you indulge in pride and reject them in God's name!!!! You are BAD dogs.
YOU and GodGunsGuts are the ones behaving like lost causes -- but YOU SHOULD KNOW that the ONLY determiner of a Lost Cause is God Himself.
Evolution doesn't challenge God -- it challenges human pride.
You wrote:
“God and Jesus are our spiritual salvation; They gave us Coyoteman and men like him to be our worldy salvation,...”
We need no worldly salvation, nor do men like Coyoteman provide it. Scientists are men like all other men - there are good ones and bad ones.
“... you arrogant, prideful fools!”
I have said and done exactly nothing that is prideful nor foolish. You can’t make that claim since you think scientists will save us.
“Scientists to venture where YOU are afraid to go because your faith in God is too weak to handle His ways that insult your pride — those scientists are creatures of and gifts from God, and if they are self-declared atheists, then that is their own cross to bear and all we can do is pray that they see the light before they die; other than that, it’s none of our business because as long as they don’t engage in murder or false witness or cruelty or theft, it’s between God and them.”
Nonsense. Evolution doesn’t insult my pride. Many things about it, however, insult our intelligence. Also, evolution has nothing to do with my pride. I am humbled by the creative power of God.
“THE FRUITS they bear and share with humankind, fruits that have saved, extended, and enriched lives for the better of all — out of pride and self-deceit, you take for granted the many mighty accomplishments of science,..”
No. I take nothing for granted. I just don’t confuse human ingenuity with “salvation”. I also keep in mind that some scientists have been enemies of their own species using their God-given talents merely to develop new ways to torture, kill, maim, harm and terrorize men, women and children.
“...accomplished by men willing to undertake its disciplines, which you clearly have never done, but you certainly reap the rewards (as do we all) of their work — and don’t expect to fool ME with silliness of thinking that just because some scientists choose to interpret and act on what they learn as “proof” that God doesn’t exist, somehow indicts all of science, including paleontology and Darwinian theory, as worthless.”
And don’t try to fool us by falsely waxing eloquently - expending verbal gas really - that scientists are our saviors that that means we are all evil and scientists are all wonderful. That’s just nonsense.
“You spit in God’s face when you reject the Coyotemen of the world merely because they offend your personal interpretation of the Bible.”
I never brought up the Bible. I also never mentioned my personal interpretation of it. I in fact have no personal interpretation of it in this regard. I reject Coyoteman - if that is in fact what I am doing - because of his silly adulation of neolithic coyote myths over the great Western canon. Got a problem with that? I really don’t care.
“You and heaven knows how many of your loved ones are are probably alive today ONLY because of scientists who used evolutionary theory to design vaccines and figured out how to defeat diseases that would have killed you otherwise,...”
No. 1) I am alive because of God. No scientist could keep me alive if God wanted me to expire. Case closed. 2) Scientists rely on the real evolution of actual viruses much more than they ever will on any theory of man coming from apes.
“...or who came up with ways to save your mother who may have died in childbirth while YOU died a preemie.”
Neither situation had anything to do with Darwin or evolution.
“Men of science, evolution studies or not, atheists or not, who live the Judeo-Christian ethic (unlike the scientists who did experiments on Jews in the Third Reich),...”
What do you do about the fact that there are scientists who actually claim that those Nazi butcher scientists did some worthwhile scientific work? I guess you now give them a pass in a sense and dismiss them? It took you this long in your rant to admit that are scientists who indulged in evil?
“... do us much good. You should be praising God and thanking Him for them; instead you indulge in pride and reject them in God’s name!!!! You are BAD dogs.”
You are just not very bright. I never indulged in any pride. That’s clearly you. Look at your rant here. It is completely out of touch with the reality of what I have written and why. That hasn’t stopped you, however.
“YOU and GodGunsGuts are the ones behaving like lost causes — but YOU SHOULD KNOW that the ONLY determiner of a Lost Cause is God Himself.”
True enough - except that Coyoteman exults coyote myths from neolithic people while dismissing the importance of the Western canon and then derides anyone who dares to believe in a creative God.
“Evolution doesn’t challenge God — it challenges human pride.”
No, evolution creates pride. As it clearly has with you.
Yes. Perhaps. Yes.
So my next question is when do you believe Adam and Eve lived?
It’s puzzling to me how pterosaurs actually flew, or even, did they? Could they actually achieve flight from level ground? Could they really sustain flight, or did they have a very limited flight distance? Did they perhaps just glide from higher to lower topography? Any experts care to summarize?
They had wings for a reason. Creationists and evolutionists can agree on that.
LOL! Yes, one would think so, but they have no predecessor other than bats, do they? It’s easier to imagine small skin-wing animals flying, but those honking things?
The pterosaur did not have the mammilian bat as a predecessor. It was clearly a reptile.
We see wings on mammals, birds, and even on some fish. Wings apparently are handy things to have.
The only primates that had them were in the Land of Oz.
Or, since there were no cats on Madagascar, there are lemurs who evolved to a cat-like shape. Likewise, there were no cats in Australia, but a marsupial evolved to the shape of a cat, until the Europeans colonized there with their cats and dogs and the marsupial cats went extinct.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Spreading liberal lies on a conservative website is just no way to go through life.
That site lacks content. It’s a “sign a petition against Darwin” site, which might feel good, but he won’t read it.
And spreading anti-science lies on a conservative website is no way to advance anything, let alone conservatism. Yet we see a lot of that here of late.
If you are trying to establish the dichotomy that liberals are scientific and rational, where would that leave conservatives? I don't think you really want to go there.
Being a liberal or a conservative has nothing to do with science. Science is what it is. Commies and Americans can jointly build a space station.
Many scientists are conservatives, and many accept evolution.
I can’t say for sure, but I suspect the only conservatives who don’t accept evolution do it out of an underlying religious fundamentalism.
They don’t do it out of science, although they attempt to try to argue the science. It’s not very persuasive.
They’d be better off ignoring the evidence than discussing it.
I’ve been reading Coyoteman’s posts for a long time, and as far as I can tell, he’s always given everyone else’s creation myths just as much respect as he gives the Native American ones.
"Like I told the others. I have a paper written by a creation scientist that I believe makes an air-tight case rendering materialist evolution completely impossible. I’d be glad to post it. Are you guys up for the challenge?"
Yes, please. I would very much like to read this paper. Additionally, since you claim that established science journals are capriciously rejecting creationist papers, could you append a list of journals to which the author has submitted his paper?
You seem to have a problem separating your realities. Science in its pure form deals in facts. Scientists have a political reality to deal with, as well as a crushing cast system.
You proclaim all things you believe to be scientific fact, because you are a scientist, cool, that means you can never be wrong.
You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is.
This is the way Heinlein addressed this exact problem:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.You proclaim all things you believe to be scientific fact, because you are a scientist, cool, that means you can never be wrong.A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
As far as "proclaim[ing] all things you believe to be scientific fact" -- I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards.
A fact can be defined as "an observation confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers." Because of this repeated confirmation, facts are accorded a great deal of confidence in science.
Hypotheses and theories then attempt to explain those facts.
Nowhere does "belief" enter into this process. And nowhere does science proclaim our data or theories to be "TRUTH" -- that is left for religion.
Rather, scientific theories are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Those theories must explain the facts, and must not be contradicted by any applicable facts. And over time, as new data arises, those theories are subject to modification or falsification.
That is why we don't claim that status of "truth" or "TRVTH" for our theories. And that is a significant way in which science differs from religions, which generally do claim "truth" or "TRVTH" for their beliefs.
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.