philosophy – Page 7 – The Bible and Modern Pterosaurs

April 27, 2010April 27, 2010

“Objective Ministries” site is a hoax

For many years a web site has proclaimed ongoing plans to explore Africa with the hope of capturing living pterosaurs. I tried to communicate with the person who seemed to be in charge of the “Objective Ministries” project but never received any response. It eventually became apparent that no progress was being made. I eventually concluded that the whole site is a hoax. This seems to be confirmed.

There seems to be no professor named “Richard Paley.” Even “Fellowship University” is nonexistent. Although parts of at least some of the pages refer to real persons and at least one real expedition (by the real person Carl Baugh), “Objective Ministries” is a huge joke, with no actual plans for any expedition.

Why would anyone take so much time to write and publish such a hoax? It seems that somebody took great pleasure in ridiculing religious leaders and those labeled “creationists.” How could such an elaborate hoax have been created by someone who believes similarly to creationists? The only explanation that I know of is that the person responsible has no respect for creationism. In other words, this site is not at all creationist, for it mocks rather than promotes the ideals of those it seems to portray.

This is not to be confused with my own site: www.objectiveness.com, which is serious.

April 20, 2010April 20, 2010

1400 American eyewitnesses of live pterosaurs

Last year I wrote a press release on my estimate of how many Americans have seen an obvious living pterosaur from 1980 through 2008. At least one cryptozoologist appeared to take offense, thinking that I was trying to use circular reasoning to promote the concept of living pterosaurs. Such was not my motive.

The eyewitness testimonies that we have received from many Americans, over the past few years–those are the evidence for living pterosaurs. The 1400 who mostly have kept quiet, not telling any cryptozoologist about any sighting–those testify, in their numbers, how serious is the problem we have in Western countries: Eyewitnesses are afraid to tell anybody about what they have seen. And 1400 is a conservative estimate.

See more about 1400 American Eyewitnesses

April 15, 2010June 29, 2010

Objectiveness in the investigations

How easy it is to snatch at anything that seems to support ones view! Galileo snatched hold of a tidal hypothesis that he hoped would be evidence for the Copernican model (sun-centered solar system); it was wrong. More recently, one living-pterosaur investigator tried to shore up the story of what I call the “Tunnel Pterodactyl.” It now seems obvious that signs of a hoax outweigh anything that may be said in favor of that story. But tunnel vision can be seen in the investigations and research of scientists and cryptozoologists of all fields and philosophies. Galileo’s mistake about tides does not mean that the sun revolves around the earth.

I recently came to the conclusion that the Naga Fireballs of the Mekong River (Southeast Asia) are probably the bioluminescent glow of large insects. I briefly researched a few reports of these glowing orbs with hope that they may be related to the kor of Northern Papua New Guinea or the ropen of Umboi Island. It now appears to be no close connection except that there is another not-yet-classified bioluminescent creature, a cryptid awaiting to graduate from cryptozoology into zoology.

Maintaining the quality of objectiveness in our investigations requires constant vigilance, regardless of how deeply we believe in the foundation of our work.

Strange Flying Creatures and Bulverism

“Objective Ministries” seems to be a parody, and there is no such organization: “objectiveministries”

April 9, 2010April 13, 2010

Is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea?

What is a living pterosaur? It’s a presently-living animal, with pterosaur ancestors, and with features making it an obvious pterosaur. It presently lives as a cryptid in the realm of cryptozoology, according to Western classification. According to critics, it lives only in the imagination of some creationists.

What is a creationist? It’s a human, with a belief in Adam and Eve as their original human ancestors on earth. Disbelief in the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is one feature of a creationist. Not all cryptozoologists believe in living pterosaurs, and not all creationists are convinced. Some who belief in GTE assume that universal pterosaur extinction cannot be successfully challenged and that those who mention eyewitness sightings are misguided in a severe bias. The problem with that position becomes obvious when we examine the eyewitnesses: Few of them are creationists.

So is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea? From 1993 to early 2010, most expeditions were led by creationists, most research was done by creationists, and most writings were written by creationists. But no, the idea that pterosaurs continue to fly through our skies–that comes from openly considering testimonies of eyewitnesses of various beliefs, various languages, and various cultures. But the living pterosaur as part of a support for literal interpretations of many events recorded in Genesis–that is a creationist idea.

March 29, 2010May 7, 2010

Do live pterosaurs “disprove evolution?”

I sometimes encounter a criticism such as this: “A living pterosaur would not disprove evolution. It would just be another example of an ancient species that survived.” That appears simple and airtight, appearently proving me and my associates to be fools to think that an extant pterosaur would relate to the conflict between “religion and science.” One problem with that reasoning is with the word “evolution.” That word some people assume to precisely refer to gradual shifting of biological forms; few people know that the word itself is a shape-shifter. Another problem relates to “disprove,” a word appropriate to mathematics or to science (not to the popularity of a philosophy). In addition, the “conflict between religion and science” is a phrase referring to a conflict between two extremely conflicting philosophies (1); but a conflict between a general belief in God and a belief in the efficacy of sound scientific principles for making discoveries—that is nonexistent: There is no conflict.

In a conversation about biology, “evolution” may refer to different concepts. Unfortunately, those engaged in conversation often fail to realize or distinguish the differences, or fail to appreciate the significance. The limited changes in sizes, shapes, and colors for the same basic kind of organism, commonly observed changes—that kind of evolution has been observed by Darwin and many others. But that is not the kind of change needed to cause one organism to have a future descendant that will be a completely different kind of organism, for example, a mammal with a liver having an ancestor that did not have a liver.

For those who insist that a general definition of “evolution,” a definition like “gradual change over time,” is sufficient in a conversation about biology, consider Professor Peter Beach (2). Over a period of time, the opinion held by this biologist, about Darwin’s ideas about Common Descent, changed dramatically, for his original confidence in Darwin’s philosophy of unlimited common ancestry decreased until it had evaporated. His opinion gradually changed over time, and that process of thinking involved biological brain functions. But how far removed is that kind of evolution from the usual concepts! The real problem is with the vagueness of “evolution.” I suggest, to those who would communicate about the conflict between life-origin philosophies, that we be precise: Use “unlimited common ancestry” when appropriate and other phrases for other concepts. Never converse with the word “evolution” without prior agreement on what is meant by that word.

What is the problem with the word “disprove?” When this word comes up regarding extant pterosaurs (3), their relationship to unlimited common ancestry, the true subject is not scientific but philosophical. Darwin’s idea that there is no limit to common ancestors (as we trace back family trees into the past)–that is a philosophy, and a philosophy cannot be proven or disproven. How serious here is the problem in reasoning! What a problem! Those who think that they are talking about something scientific are blind to the nature of what they are trying to protect: their philosophy.

I will not dwell upon the “conflict between religion and science.” There is no such thing. What some people sometimes refer to is a conflict between strict Naturalism philosophy and the Genesis-account of Creation and the Flood of Noah, especially the philosophy of the “Young Earth Creationist” (YEC). Contrary to the declarations of some of my critics, extant pterosaurs do relate to such conficts, for those who have not already settled their hearts into a philosophy will find that modern pterosaurs fit better with literal concepts in Genesis than with universal common ancestry.

1 Opposing philosophies

2 Brave biologist: Peter Beach

3 Extant Pterosaurs in an issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly

Advertisement

Did you know that living pterosaurs have been reported in North America, even in the United States? Read the many eyewitness sighting reports by purchasing a nonfiction book on Amazon or from the publisher—Live Pterosaurs in America.