The name “flying fox” is a popular term for members of the bat genus Pteropus. If you do a Google image search for that name you’ll find lots of pictures.

You are too generous to the creationists about Hitler. Hitler and the National Socialists never used evolution to justify their actions and beliefs. In Mein Kampf the word evolution was used once: in the context of the evolution of a political situation, not biological evolution (and I have read the book, many years ago, and refreshed my memory recently). The justification for the persecution of the Jews was couched in Christian terms that would be familiar to theologians from the early days of the Church, through Martin Luther to the present day.

and no, personal incredulity is not an argument. For my entire educational career I have tried and tried and I have approached the subject with as open a mind as I can muster as a human being in an attempt to understand the complex intricacies of calculus and linear algebra. I don’t understand them, often times I am highly incredulous that what they have come up with these past 500 years is even real at all. If your logic were true, I would be able to take my personal incredulity to my university’s board of governors and have those two C-’s stricken from my record. Too bad my personal (and everyone else who doesn’t understand high level math) incredulity are not valid arguments in disproving math because it’s been too well supported in it’s use and application by others, even if I don’t understand it.

“I will not take my complaints to the scientific community for I am not a scientist. Perhaps personal incredulity is not an argument and you are right that I do not understand the evidence (and I am not convinced by it).

Undoubtedly – this is due in large part to the fact that I have not read much on evolution – definitely not much that was convincing. Again – I will try to look at the link you sent.”

Isn’t following an anti-science, anti-evolution statement with the admission that you neither know much about science or evolutionary theory because you’re not a scientist and haven’t done much reading on the topic of evolution a bit like discrediting every single thing you’ve just said? You can’t make an honest or valid argument about anything if you don’t know what it is that you’re actually arguing.

“In any case – that is the whole POINT – that you cannot prove/observe what they would call MACROEVOLUTION. Now, since this cannot be observed and proved (experimented) – why are you so dogmatic and sure that it actually happened? I understand that it is NOT POSSIBLE because it took millions of years etc…but can you see how many understand this as a “cop out’? Well – I cannot prove/show/observe it because it took millions of years. Everybody agrees that there is microevolution/adaptation or whatever you call it. But to jump from that to what I call macroevolution (by simply throwing in some millions of years) stretches the imagination (at least for me).”

Here’s an example I have used when debating this in the past – If you are walking along alone on a desolate beach, with no one around that you can see and you come across some footprints in the sand – what conclusions do you reach? assuming that you have not walked in a circle, are of reasonable intelligence, are aware of the principle of cause and effect and have at some point in your life met another human being, you will likely assume that the footprints were made by another person walking along the beach before you arrived.
When a person who studies evolution tries to talk to an incredulous creationist, it feels a little like this:
“Evolutionist: did you see those footprints? I wonder who made them? do you think it was a man or a woman? when do you think they walked along the beach? how tall were they? I know, I will use my powers of science – I will check to see what the weather was like today so I will know how long they might have been there before being blown away by the wind. Then I will measure the depth of the footprints and the pattern of depression to try and calculate how heavy they were. I will also measure the distance between them to see how long their stride was so I can make a reasonable assumption about their height. Then I will combine those two pieces of information, along with footprint size to try and make a guess (though it won’t be a very reliable guess I admit) about the age and sex of the person who made those footprints. then I will take all that data and present it to my peers and we can debate about the conclusions I have drawn because arriving at age and sex from a set of footprints is open to interpretation, though accepting that it was a person who made them is not. The reason we will debate is because for the sake of this hypothetical situation we are going to accept that knowing the identity of the person who made those footprints has real world importance and significance to our health, our place in this world and what it means to be a human being, therefore investigation and discussion into the nature of that person is vital to furthering our development as a society, finding cures for diseases and understanding the environment so we can better protect it.

Creationist: What do you mean person who made those footprints? I didn’t see someone walking on the beach. Neither did you. Therefore you can’t say it was a person who made them. It might have been god, or aliens. They might have put them there to test my faith in the belief that I was walking on the beach alone that day. It was probably god. I didn’t see it, so I don’t believe it and nothing you can say or do will change my mind. furthermore, believing that it was a person who made those footprints violates my sense of morality and if you convince others that it was a person who made those footprints society will collapse and we will all go to hell

Evolutionist: um, what? What about those important questions about health, disease, the environment and what it means to be human? if you shut down the discourse because you don’t accept that those footprints were made by a person and then teach that belief to our school children how will we ever answer those questions?

Creationist: God did it.”

our skeletons are the footprints. Evolution was the person walking ahead of us in the sand. The evidence is so plainly displayed in the bodies of of every living thing, in the DNA of every cell and in the fossil record of the whole planet it starts to get frustrating to have to continuously argue the fact with people who choose to not learn enough about it to draw valid conclusions of their own

I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…

Re: ‘Evolutionists and Atheist claim they have millions of fossils’ AND the response that ‘There are plenty of transitional fossils.

As you know if scientists, evolututionists or atheist had scientific evidence such as Darwin’s promised (hopefully they will be found) transitional fossils showing gradual change from one species to another, or showing gradual improvement of a limb, organ etc IT WOULD BE EASILY AVAILABLE – with full details on the internet. But they have nothing. I believe you must be honest with yourself on this particular point and accept that the backbone of the theory of evolution is broken.

You explicitly know that 150 years ago, or longer, Darwin knew that this was a major death blow to his theory, IF the transitional evidence was not dug up.

You must remember that it is your theory that every different life form or species (and there are millions) evolved over millions of years from one source – a 1 cell or something similar. Evolutionists claim they have millions of fossils – but they have zero transitional fossils showing gradual change from one species to another species, or showing gradual improvement of a limb, wing or fin etc.

Archaeopteryx

Wikipedia states (Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) “That the Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 155–150 million years ago. It was similar in size and shape to a European Magpie. Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.”

Evolutionist and atheists put this forward as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Wikipedia edited by scientists do not go that far, and state:
“Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes (“killing claw”), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.”

Scientists admit that this is the ‘first clear candidate for a ‘transitional fossil’ between dinosaurs and birds. Please examine what they are actually saying, and compare it to what you previously believed. It is to be noted that scientists do not claim it is a ‘transitional fossil’ only that it is the first clear ‘candidate’.

Please think about this. The Bible states that God created every different species. What evidence do we have to look at to show creation or evolution? “Archaeopteryx” – A fully formed creature in every manner and which can also perch and fly. No partially formed organs, limbs etc – the finished item. The evidence for the theory of evolution is zero.

But as you know the poor people who accept evolution is correct, are shown the wonderful creature Archaeopteryx and by deception, they are told it is a ‘transitional fossil’ between a dinosaur and a bird. A complete falsehood.

Please look at what it states further down under the heading :–
Phylogenetic position

[1]

“Modern paleontology has consistently placed Archaeopteryx as the most primitive bird. It is not thought to be a true ancestor of modern birds but, rather, a close relative of that ancestor…”

They admit it is not an ancestor of modern birds – But they falsely tell the poor people it is a ‘transitional fossil’ – part of your factual evidence that you have studied and accepted.

[2]

“Nonetheless, Archaeopteryx is so often used as a model of the true ancestral bird that it has seemed almost heretical to suggest otherwise. Several authors have done so.[52] Lowe (1935)[55] and Thulborn (1984)[56] questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx.[57] Barsbold (1983)[58] and Zweers and Van den Berge (1997)[59] noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.”

The evidence from the scientists own mouths is – they know that Archaeopteryx is not a transition fossil and yet like some mad priest they hold it up as evidence – just as they did the ‘Piltdown man.’

And you say this is factual evidence you have examined and believe. If you take away the deception ‘transitional fossil’ Archaeopteryx (the first and only one) What are you left with? ZERO

P.S. The Notes:

52^ a b Witmer, Lawrence M. (2002). “The debate on avian ancestry”, in Witmer, L.; Chiappe, L.: Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 3–30. ISBN 0520200942.

55^ Lowe, P. R. (1935). “On the relationship of the Struthiones to the dinosaurs and to the rest of the avian class, with special reference to the position of Archaeopteryx”. Ibis 5 (2): 398–432. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1935.tb02979.x. ISSN 0019-1019.
56^ Thulborn, R. A. (1984). “The avian relationships of Archaeopteryx, and the origin of birds”. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 82 (1-2): 119–158. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1984.tb00539.x.
57^ Kurzanov, S. M. (1987). “Avimimidae and the problem of the origin of birds”. Transactions of the joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition 31: 31–94. ISSN 0320-2305.
58^ Barsbold, Rhinchen (1983). “Carnivorous dinosaurs from the Cretaceous of Mongolia”. Transactions of the joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition 19: 5–119. ISSN 0320-2305.
59^ Zweers, G. A.; Van den Berge, J.C. (1997). “Evolutionary patterns of avian trophic diversification”. Zoology: Analysis of Complex Systems 100: 25–57. ISSN 0944-2006.
END