Pterosaur Flight Plans (the idea that "they evolved flight naturally...defies common sense")

ICR ^ | August 31, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

What does that have to do with my question? ID specifically disavows using God’s Word as an historical guide to investigating creation. How is that promoting the Christian God?

[Ira_Louvin]

“The claim that they evolved flight naturally, complete with their precise landing skills, defies common sense.”

GGG, you have outdone yourself, again a textbook example of an argument from personal incredulity.

You are on a roll today.

Also I fail to see any evidence in this article that supports a 6-day creation or a young earth.

Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation. - Science and Unreason, Radner and Radner

[ColdWater]

Don't worry, the IDers know it. The "intelligent designer" ruse is just a way for them to claim ID isn't religion and therefore should be taught as science instead of theology. The problem for them is that nobody's buying it. I have to hand it to admitted creationists, at least they're honest about their position.

GGG's is an honest creationist. He believes that the Intelligent Designer and the Creator are one and the same.

[GodGunsGuts]

Do you even understand the difference between the historical and operational sciences? The historical sciences are concerned with the unobservable, unrepeatable past, and therefore rely on multiple competing hypothesis and inference to the best explanation. And as is becoming increasingly clear in virtually every scientific discipline that touches on origins, Creation/ID wins the inference to the best explanation hands down.

[count-your-change]

After reading some of the comments here it obvious that the Intelligent part of “intelligent design” just didn't take hold in these guys.

If the pterosaurs were landing without running forward, as the footprints indicate, it seem they would be quite elegant in landing and approach. It would also indicate they had enough wing strength to take off from a standing start, that sounds like a strong flyer.
Interesting article.

[ColdWater]

Creation/ID wins the inference to the best explanation hands down.

God did it. Right?

[antiRepublicrat]

ID specifically disavows using God’s Word as an historical guide to investigating creation. How is that promoting the Christian God?

One Christian's reading of the Bible vs. another Christian's reading of the Bible. I'm not going to get in the middle of a Christian internecine conflict.

[Ira_Louvin]

I know that you refuse to understand what is and is not an historical science as shown by socialismislost in this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2325829/posts My personal favorites were post #37, #47, #45, #52, #54, #55, #62,and #66. The smack down delivered was truly a thing beauty

Repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it fact, especially after that fallacy has been pointed out to you. I believe the 9th commandment addresses that issue.

Also where in this article does Brian Thomas MS present any evidence to support his assertion?

He simply makes an argument from personal incredulity.

It is too complex to for me to understand, so that proves that God did it…………

That is the entirety of Brian Thomas MS explanation.

[ColdWater]

What does that have to do with my question? ID specifically disavows using God’s Word as an historical guide to investigating creation. How is that promoting the Christian God?

? You said that God and the Intelligent Designer were one and the same?

[Wacka]

Brian Thomas MS claims to be an expert in genetics and now palentology. He has a way to go to also be an expert in cosmology, chemistry, physics, geology and palentology like GGG and his groupies.

I wonder if there is creationist engineering- it is about the only thing the crevos don’t claim they are experts in.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Common sense? What has common sense got to do with evolution? Evolution makes perfect sense, except when it doesn’t, and then we need to claim that it’s very counter-intuitiveness is proof positive that it’s real!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I'll give him bonus points, though, for covering his butt by noting that even though the bible clearly says that bats are "fowl," Brian Thomas *MS notes that HE knows the bible actually meant "fowl" to mean all sorts of flying things: Birds, reptiles and mammals. He's awesome.

What's ironic is that you'd know that too, if you had the wits to engage in even a cursory word study of the term involved.

[whattajoke]

What's ironic is that you'd know that too, if you had the wits to engage in even a cursory word study of the term involved.

Eh. It doesn't interest me. Until someone publishes the definitive bible with color-coded passages denoted what I'm supposed to take literally vs. what I'm to take figuratively vs. metaphorically, why bother? I see a LOT of $ in that version of the bible.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Oooooo.....haven't read any Brian Thomas *MS tripe in a while...

...instead of making a running landing like ducks do.

Observational note: I've never seen a duck land on anything but water....and they don't "run in"...they "water-ski in"...

Ah yes....the false conclusion:

The claim that they evolved flight naturally, complete with their precise landing skills, defies common sense. The correct wing area and shape, body weight, bone articulations,2 muscular strength and attachment points, nerve coordination—as well as integrated visual, wind, and balance detection—were all required just to make one landing. Remove or significantly alter even one feature and the poor creature would have “landed” in a heap, likely causing injury and making itself easy prey.

Deem it nonsense....therefore it must be nonsense. Dear Brian Thomas *MS seems to think that evolution theoretically occurs in one generation. Lizard walking around...lays an egg....POOF!! Pterosaur!!!

At least he used some good imagery this time.

[blackpacific]

St Augustine already wrote the manual you seek. It’s called “On Christine Doctrine”. I won’t spoil it for you, it is a short read, but very illuminating. Written around 400 A.D., about a 1000 years before the first printing press. Enjoy it!

[blackpacific]

It just means they knew how to flare. It does not indicate how they might have taken off.

It would indeed be interesting to see analysis of the footprint pattern for takeoff, if such a pattern exists. From it rotation speed, vmcg, vmca, and a host of other parameters could be calculated. This in turn would say something about either the aerodynamics of the wing, or the properties of the air at the time.

[blackpacific]

They can land on grass too. But I prefer watching the water landings.

Ducks and geese also need water for mating.

What amazes me the most about snow geese are the heat transfers that occur in flight during the harshest days of winter.

[ElectricStrawberry]

How is that promoting the Christian God?

It's not. IDers are OBVIOSULY promoting the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster as the Creat......er.....Designer....

Since they ARE promoting the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the Designer.....and the Designer, according to you, is "one and the same" as your Christian God....well....how DO you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster in accordance with the Bible and why does Man, made in His image...not look like the Flying Spaghetti Monster???

The simple answer is generally the correct one...ID is the same as Creationism and the Designer is God no matter how many times the opposite claim is made.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Yes, of course, no flying animal could possibly survive unless it could land perfectly every time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zGEbVxr0mk

(Landings in that last 30 seconds, and sorry for the inane "humorous" voiceover.)

[count-your-change]

More than just knowing how to flare, they would’ve had the wing and breast muscle strength to do so, which would seem to indicate the ability to take off in the same manner, I should think.