Bats were birds that mutated. It would take a miracle or a reevolution process to bring them back to being birds again.
donnann vs. Science
- Thread starter A Cup Of Tea
- Start date
Bats were birds that mutated. It would take a miracle or a reevolution process to bring them back to being birds again.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Wrong, the earliest fossil bats, which evolutionists date at more than 50 million years, are clearly identifiable as bats, with no hint that they have evolved from anything that was not a bat.
There are two suborders of bats:
1. The Megachiroptera, which includes the largest species of bats, such as fruit bats and flying foxes.
2. The Microchiroptera, which have small eyes, complex ears, and the ability to find prey and navigate by echolocation.
Differences between the two suborders in flight and sensory capabilities have led some biologists to propose that they evolved from separate ancestral lineages, and that the large Megachiropteran bats are more closely related to primates, the order into which apes, monkeys and humans are classified.
Get your history and science together before claiming stupid stuff.
**References
1. Science.jrank.org
2. Science Daily
3. Scientific American
4. Lostkingdoms factsheet
5. Science.jrank.org
So how old is the earth? And when did the bats change from birds to bats? Understand?
Hint Hint .....the ones they liken to vampire bats are really birds....I am not stupid.
Vampire Bats: Blood sucking neck biting fire breathing killers saliva stroke
Look simular to your avatar?
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
The ones 'who' liken to vampire bats? Vampire bats are bats, period, they are not birds, did not come from birds, and cannot miraculously become birds . . .
**I would never call you stupid on a forum.
The ones 'who' liken to vampire bats? Vampire bats are bats, period, they are not birds, did not come from birds, and cannot miraculously become birds . . .
**I would never call you stupid on a forum.
Look I know a lot more about this kind of stuff than people give me credit for. Those bats really are birds in origin. They are deevolving and will die if they do not start re evolving back to their original condtion.
The ones 'who' liken to vampire bats? Vampire bats are bats, period, they are not birds, did not come from birds, and cannot miraculously become birds . . .
**I would never call you stupid on a forum.
They can become birds again though, maybe god will do a miracle....I hope so.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
"sometimes i just know things" - sheesh. why bother? i'm call this particular line of enquiry. i say it's bollocks. i will now maintain that you are a small purple handbag. i just "know".
two points, about "bats are birds" - look, the Torah is *not* trying to define them scientifically. that list is of "flyers in the heavens", not "birds" - and, specifically, its purpose is to describe what species are kosher and what aren't (normally, not of interest to anyone but us). "flying creatures" are kosher unless they're on the list. the bat's on the list, so it's not kosher. it's got absolutely nothing to do with the scientific definition of a bird - it is about the HALAKHIC criteria for being considered a kosher or non-kosher "flying creature".
secondly, it's the same with "fish" - or, to be more precise, "dwellers in the waters". it's about kosher and non-kosher creatures; if it has fins and scales, you can eat it, if not, you can't. that's all. by this logic, a dolphin is, HALAKHICALLY SPEAKING, a "non-kosher water-dweller", nobody is claiming it is a fish, scientifically or otherwise.
b'shalom
bananabrain
two points, about "bats are birds" - look, the Torah is *not* trying to define them scientifically. that list is of "flyers in the heavens", not "birds" - and, specifically, its purpose is to describe what species are kosher and what aren't (normally, not of interest to anyone but us). "flying creatures" are kosher unless they're on the list. the bat's on the list, so it's not kosher. it's got absolutely nothing to do with the scientific definition of a bird - it is about the HALAKHIC criteria for being considered a kosher or non-kosher "flying creature".
secondly, it's the same with "fish" - or, to be more precise, "dwellers in the waters". it's about kosher and non-kosher creatures; if it has fins and scales, you can eat it, if not, you can't. that's all. by this logic, a dolphin is, HALAKHICALLY SPEAKING, a "non-kosher water-dweller", nobody is claiming it is a fish, scientifically or otherwise.
b'shalom
bananabrain
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
See, the problem is that donnann is a radical idealist (nearly solipsist), like several other "hard to convince" folks here. The problem is that the most consistent arguements are the least believable and the least consistent the most believable to rephrase Whitehead. It is like my Sister, who really believes that when she does not see it, the moon ceases to exist.
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
I simply know the language of the holy books.
You have the wrong idea about me I am talking about balance. There is an imbalance of the male and female energy because of the fall. The bible passage when the moon is shining like the sun like the light of seven full days refers to a bringing back of a balance. I am not radical I just put things simply because I dont see the point of spewing out big words to make myself sound smarter.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
There is nothing inherently wrong with "radical", it simply indicates "getting to the root"
Panta Rhei! Everything Flows
Panta Rhei! Everything Flows
Well I am not politically radical and that term if for those politically well extreme.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Depends on what definition you care to use.
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)