Meet Anurognathus. Looks like a bat, right? Well it's actually a pterosaur: an extinct flying reptile that lived alongside the dinosaurs.
It lived about 150 million years ago during the Jurassic period. It was less than a foot long, had about a foot to a foot and a half wingspan and was likely nocturnal. We even know the colour of these animals thanks to fossilized melanosomes. Brown. Not exciting but excellent for a small animal living in the forest!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Um...it doesn't prove that. There are many, many non-flying fossil animals which existed before Anurognathus. The Jurassic is the middle period of the Mesozoic. The Triassic last from 245-208 Million years ago.
Can you explain why you feel this is confirmation of the creation story?
@Pikachu Reptiles came after birds, not before! You are trying to prove the Bible incorrect, but birds came before reptiles. First birds, bats, flying things, and fish, and then reptiles.
With all due respect, Carazaa, you have not done any research and certainly none which could contest the conventional understanding of the fossil record.
I know this because some of your explanations for the stratification of the fossil record include quote [i]"Because they had different mass!"[/i] or [i]"obviously some animals were on the mountain tops and some didn’t climb!"[/i]
So you're right, your research will not convince me and i'm happy to leave it there.
@Pikachu [quote]Yeah i definitely need a little bit of explanation for this one lol[/quote]
The only way it can be explained is by totally disregarding several hundred years of geology and paleontology. Sciences which were around long before Darwin and Wallace came up with the idea of natural selection.
[quote]I know this because some of your explanations for the stratification of the fossil record include quote "Because they had different mass!"[/quote]
the different mass concept always amuses me. If that was the case, why aren't blue whales at the bottom of the geological column and why are fossils of many different sizes found in the same strata? The understanding of science appears to be a lost art in some circles.
@Bushranger Are you a scientist and can think for yourself or are you just believing what [i]other [/i]people say? It cracks me up how people believe other peoples conclusions to research! I always leave room for doubt when I read research. People that are so sure that they [i]know[/i] that the world is millions of years old are just not thinking clearly. Maybe it is, but maybe it isn't. Maybe it just [i]looks[/i] old, like God says.
@Carazaa No, I'm not a scientist, but I do have a science background. I believe what people say when they can back their statements with data.
I've seen the so-called evidence for a young earth and, honestly, none of it has sufficient data or scientific rigor to be taken seriously. I have seen one non-creationist article that I can recall, that spoke about disproving creationism. Most creationist articles start by saying they intend to disprove evolution. Answers in genesis refuse to publish anything that disagrees with their belief in Genesis. Does that sound very objective to you?
You read creationist material and believe it because it agrees with your religious beliefs, regardless of the evidence that disproves their claims. You leave absolutely no room for doubt. You do not examine the data, just accept the claims of a 17th century Catholic Bishop and the pseudo-scientific claims of creationists. Yes, some of them do have PhDs, but that doesn't guarantee that all their work will be valid. You accept their claims without question, but refuse to accept the results of objective science.
You are a nice person, however, you have been taken in by a movement that presents easily disproved pseudo-science that appeals to people with a poor understanding of science.
[quote]I gave you about 20 articles 2 month ago![/quote]
Sorry, no memory of that. 20 seems like a lot so i doubt it. I know what you have done in the past is link me to AiG. I know that those articles don't dispute the fossil record as it stands the way you do. I know that they make the same easily dismantled arguments that you have regarding hydrological sorting (i'll wait while you google that)
You haven't done the research. You've googled whatever creationist source you can find and accepted it [i]uncritically [/i]because it says what you [i]want [/i]it to say. It agrees with the bible. You don't care about how valid the arguments are, how legitimate the research is or what the bulk of evidence and research actually shows. You're determined to ignore the scientific consensus where it disagrees with your faith position. You've said as much yourself and so has AiG.
[quote]he different mass concept always amuses me[/quote]
lol me too. It's absurd. And yet young earth creationists trot it out like it's an actual argument. Even Answers in Genesis which likes to play at being scientific makes this mistake.
