+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/23/2018 11:05 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.965 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/24/2010 10:18 AM ID: 86481 Permalink   

Pterosaurs a Prisoner to the Elements


The archaic giant creature flying gracefully in the breeze 65 million years ago was fine until the weather changed from a balmy breeze to a crushing storm wind. At least that is what scientists are saying.

Some scientists have said that the pterosaurs, also known as pterodactyls may not have flown at all. All of this despite its reputed 12m wing span. Strength and aerodynamic tests have cast doubts on the creature’s ability to even leave the ground.

However through good fortune amongst the elements the Pterosaurs survived the Mesozoic era 220 to 65 million years ago. The researchers have discovered that the Pterosaurs were stunningly adapted for certain types of flight.

    WebReporter: alisha rose Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  scientists !!!  
most likely the same idiots that said a bumble bee couldn´t fly~!
  by: shannon853   11/24/2010 04:10 PM     
is because the Bumble bee came from the Pterosaurs.
It could fly and after a few million years, then it couldn´t, then became a bee that couldn´t, that now can.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/24/2010 04:50 PM     
  by: MannyisHere     11/24/2010 05:29 PM     
that´s the magic of evolution. Trying to make sense of what does not make sense. Like making something fly that cannot. Or developing pointless wings to adapt, for no reason.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/24/2010 05:59 PM     
  @alisha rose  
Evolution makes sense. Like they say you either believe in evolution or your not smart enough to understand it. And just like a peasant from the dark ages you declaim it as magic. It is not F$%kig Magic, Neither is your F$%kig Ipod, some one much smarter than you understands it.

Pterosaurs would have evolved wings to Glide first and then fly, they are 2 different things no one is disputing that Pterosaurs were master gliders. And by the distribution of fossils it suggests they could fly (at least some of the 1000?s of different species of pterosaurs) Really the article says we don?t quite understand its flight method (not surprising considering we only have a few bones) but if it were like bats, like we though, they wouldn?t have worked, and nothing would evolve 12m wings that didn?t work while in competition with dinosaurs.

And Are you really so ignorant that you think anywhere in the theory of evolution it suggests that a Pterosaurs could turn into a Bee?

The example of the bumble bee is a good one we thought it shouldn?t be able to fly but now with high speed cameras we can see how it achieves it. the bees wings tilt and so does its body in such away that the wing creates downwards force on both the up and down strokes. This makes it one of the most efficient fliers, so over time it has been able to evolve from a regular bee that could create enough lift with just the down stroke to fly and would have used this skill for extra speed or lift while carrying pollen, to a larger bodied bumble bee that is not able to create enough life with just the down stroke. the precise factors that caused the bumble bee to be bigger bodied are unknown but they could include prolonged famines or ice age or even lack of predators in an area so it didn?t need the extra speed, and better insulation and fat storage helped it survive while the ones that didn?t get bigger died or didn?t mate as much as the big ones. We still have other sorts of bees besides bumble which didn?t follow this evolutionary path and are still capable of flight from just the down stroke.

[ edited by veya_victaous ]
  by: veya_victaous     11/24/2010 10:47 PM     
its not the scientist, it is the reporting. the scientist that said by physics the bumble bee cant fly wasn´t saying it as in ´the bee cant do it´ but was referring to the fact that he realised that physics at the time didn´t have all the answers, because we couldn´t explain how the bumble bee did it. Science never claims to know everything, that is religion and religious people claiming to know science.

It has really only been in the last few decades with improvements in high speed photography that we have been able to uncover a myriad of secrets from the insect world, they literally move too fast for our eyes to see.
  by: veya_victaous     11/24/2010 10:57 PM     
then what i should have said is that is the inbuild engineerial brilliance of evolution. Or maybe the wonder of evolution.
You are correct I should have said that and then I wouldn´t have the religious rant. Sorry for touching da idol.

Imagine then the brilliance of evolution with the example you gave of how it was let´s say discovered how the Bumble bee can fly.
Excuse my simple mind but does that mean that for sometime the Bumble bee could not fly until it was adapted enough to fly using the principle that you explained. Once again excuse my ignorance but how long would it have been the case and how did it survive in the meantime if it needed to fly to continue the process of adaptation with the constraints of survival

So (not being a scientist and relatively clueless) how did it and why did it pass the relevent information down the line of podginy to allow it to be in the position to fly.
I have a theory how it could have happened. Obviously a bee lives and exists in a colony where each party or individual plays a part.

As the joke goes one day the bees went on strike. Their demand at least for the worker bees was to have shorter flowers and more honey.

In closing I can see that it is a philosphical debate point the only difference is atheists need to dislocate themselves from philosophy so that they can attach themselves to every and any ´scientific´ discovery as being a part of themselves. That is why the rant because in essence it is their idol.

As the Bob Dylan song says ´everybody has got to serve somebody´

Anyway enough from this primative anyway what is an I pod? Is it peas that I have shelled myself?

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/25/2010 12:16 AM     
  Well that solves that  
"we don?t quite understand its flight method (not surprising considering we only have a few bones"

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/25/2010 02:13 AM     
how angry people can get isn´t it?
  by: kalika   11/29/2010 03:01 PM     
  Dislocate ourselves from philosphy?  
Just because atheist/scientific philosophy is different from religious philosophy, doesn´t mean we are dislocated from it.

Scientific Philosphy: Research/Theorize/Test/Adjust/Test.

Religious Philosophy: Stories made by goat herders thousands of years ago are good enough for me, no reason to think it over anymore.
  by: Pyronius     11/29/2010 03:52 PM     
like that! And that is just the point. Most are just gobblers as signified by these (Dot Points) Research/Theorize/Test/Adjust/Test.
Being a "Scientific Philosphy"
So if it ain´t babble to you what is the difference?


Being a BELEIVER in evolution you would have to believe that we all have a common ancestory, right? To label a believer in God as being a Goat-hearder is to elude that some one is stuck in the past and what past generation thought. Well then as an evolulusionist (Illusion) surely this could only be an insult to you because you point to (pond scum) the past also for your validation. This would actually make you ignorant. Wade into that one sucker if you can! I know you do not understand what i am saying and you will now as always introduce a closing comment. Mainly because you think that some one such as myself is incapable of debate. More like you have met your match and you have to resort to platitudes.
Or not comment at all.
Feel his peery eyes looking working out a way of introducing the religious rant argument.
This is your moment, this is your time!
Hey do not chicken out this time.
You know you did. If you have half the brain that you think you have.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 08:30 AM     
cool as a cucumber!
Interesting that one could say that christians are not open to debate and then fold when debate comes your way with a christian.
Like saying that christians do not move with the times and yet pounce on any, stand back, compromise that a christian might make for changing times.
Case in point dealing with things head on. Like the debate as to evolution being a philisophical stand point. Getting offended by the concept and then writing comments that do only one thing, and that is to comfirm it.
And then to label the comments of that said christian as being angry. Is once again a cop out and a comfirmation that they are either gobblers or cultists or closed-minded descendents of a monkey.

Anyway to be obtuse....thanks! Enjoying the ´debate

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 11:33 AM     
stuff that I wanna just go back to being relegated as a simple little goat-herder. Please forget I said anything, or ranted, or confused, or spoke to a Mister in the sky.
Here goats, goats, goats!
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 11:58 AM     
Not to get involved (oh, well, why not), but being "descended from monkeys" is often cited during the debate of science and religion, but the fact is it doesn´t belong at all. Mostly because nobody in the modern, popular theory of evolution has ever proposed descending FROM a monkey. A common ancestor, yes. But we are only related. Not descended.
  by: Dayron   11/30/2010 12:12 PM     
  @alisha, anyone who wants to read an awesome story  
I also don´t think you´ll find the same convictions in a "believer" of science, as you would someone who is religious.

See, religion gets very upset when you knock their ideas. Or, in the case of a very sure religious person, they´ll usually resort to pitying you. A scientist, on the other hand, doesn´t "believe" stuff. They have theories wherein they´ve decided, based on all evidence, "Hey, this seems the most plausible." but their worlds aren´t going to be shaken if it turns out untrue.

The mistake here is that religious folks have already made a decision, and they´re sure of it, even though they have no real evidence. A scientist is "sure" of something, but ready to search elsewhere if necessary. Case in point, if something was discovered that totally flawed the theory of evolution, scientist would go on seeking another theory, whereas a religious person would claim victory. Because, to a religious person it´s this struggle between one idea and another. For science, that´s not so. We have what we believe to be the best idea, and if that falters, they´ll search for another. It´s not a, "Oh, evolution wasn´t right, so I guess there IS a God after all."

I´m mostly writing this in response to your capitalized use of the word "believe", which I´m guessing is to imply that a man or woman of science is no better/different than a man or woman of religion. But, truth is, the two operate in very different ways. It´s not the same kind of belief. It´s not "faith".

On a side note, sometimes I like to imagine meeting a new group of people that are ignorant of the Christian faith. And I´d love to hear a Christian explaining it all to this ignorant person:

"Oh yes, see. For a while we were doing things, like stoning people to death for working on Sunday. I don´t know, after a while, some progressive thinkers came along and changed things. The big change came from this Jesus guy. Yeah, Jesus. He was the son of God, except he was God. Except he also prayed to God. It was a really strange situation, but it makes total sense when you think about it, just try and not. Anyway, Jesus basically was born of a Virgin. Yeah, no father. Except God. Which he is. Anyway, he grew up to be a great teacher. And one day he was crucified for the sins of all mankind. Sins are the aforementioned stuff you shouldn´t do because we said so a long time ago.

Anyway, after he died for all of our sins, he came back to life 3 days later. What? That´s not a real sacrifice? Well, why not? And what do you mean if he´s God he totally knew he was coming back in 3 days anyway? You´re missing the point. He died and came back, and then a little while later he flew into heaven. Yes, beyond the clouds. Well, I don´t know where he actually began to disappear. I mean, maybe he DID hang out in space for a while, how should I know?"

Anyway. You get the point. The story of Christianity has got to seem off-the-wall ridiculous to someone not born into believing it.

[ edited by Dayron ]
  by: Dayron   11/30/2010 12:29 PM     
One... You claim victory everytime someone doesn´t respond in 5 minutes..For the record, I pretty much only read Shortnews in the early hours at work each morning.. So it is kind of humorous to find you ranting to yourself all day to an empty audience throughout the day.

2nd. I didn´t label believers in a god goat herders.. I labeled the people who wrote the stories and passed them down.

You have severe reading/writing comprehension problems.

Also, I don´t think you are incapable of debate.. I know you are incapable of debate.

One of the strongest arguing points religion has in debates is its malleability, since nothing is stated very clear, generally speaking, debaters for ID or creation or hocus pocus in generally bend and twist what was stated previously to fit their argument. You haven´t even learned to utilize that properly.

You see there is a stark difference between you and me. I have seen both sides of the coin, I understand both sides.. I´ve been through Catholic school, I´ve read the Bible (would dare to say I probably know more of the stories than you do), however as a skeptic I didn´t just accept what was crammed down my throat.

By stating that evolutionist believe we evolved from monkeys, you are pretty much blatantly stating you have no idea what the generally accepted science behind evolution is, and have not graced yourself with the chance to explore and understand the theory.

You see if you want to make informed points in a debate you need to know both sides.. All you seem to know about evolution is what the people pulling your strings tell you. Try looking into it with an open mind... Then take into account the fact that everything you know about religion and the rules you are supposed to follow, weren´t told to you by a divine being...they were told to you by another person...and from a book...written by other people. Just like everyone else in every other religion you don´t follow.
  by: Pyronius     11/30/2010 02:34 PM     
"I pretty much only read Shortnews in the early hours at work each morning.. So it is kind of humorous to find you ranting to yourself all day to an empty audience throughout the day."
I guess that can come about by being in different time zones. (now being 12.50 am) I´m going to ´chicken out´ now and catch some sleep. Have a good night or day at work everybody.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 02:54 PM     
to the monkeys too!! Good night!
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 03:00 PM     
Good night Mormon lady.
  by: Pyronius     11/30/2010 03:25 PM     
back up still thinking about work.
This monkey ain´t a Mormon, but, good guess. 2am and still thinking about work how annoying!
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 04:06 PM     
  Might not be..  
But I´m no monkey either, which was the point : P

  by: Pyronius     11/30/2010 04:12 PM     
I think there are studies you can read about where, as you said, a lot more agnostics/atheist´s are more informed about the Bible than some Christians. This is probably because we´re typically raised (indoctrinated) with some type of faith, and eventually we start to ask the harder questions.

That´s in addition to the fact that it may be because most American Christians rely on a figurehead, such as a preacher, to convey stories to them, as they take his word for it (why not, God is clearly speaking through him). And what happens when the average person opens a Bible to read it themselves? They can´t interpret it in the modern sense. So, what do they do? They buy a Life Application Bible. Or a "Miracle" bible. Basically, a dumbed down version of the good book which loses and or totally manufactures new meaning.

Example: The KJV has Jesus standing in front of the council, they "ask" if he is God, he responds, "You say I am". The modernized versions of the Bible go as far as having the council "screaming" at Jesus, and Jesus blatantly answering their question with, "I am God".

What has happened is that Christians are taking the old stories, and saying, "Oh, here´s what I think was meant..." which is a clear violation of the book of 2 Peter, where we are all warned of coming up with personal interpretations.
  by: Dayron   11/30/2010 05:15 PM     
I get it. No I was more saying sorry to the monkeys for lumping them in the same basket.
I hope they don´t stay up all night wondering how to crack some nuts.
Not that I crack nuts for a living and I dare say you don´t either.
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 05:17 PM     
like to camp some times.

Anyway, a question to all those Bible experts out there - what does the Bible teach about sleep disorders? 3.26 am I might as well stay up and wait for a bloody Pterosaurs to go past

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 05:23 PM     
  Bible Quiz  
Just a question, while we´re on the subject, are there any believers out there that can help me out? I´ve had this burning question for a while.

Before Jesus ascended to heaven, he made it clear to his followers that he would return before the next generation. He even goes as far to imply that there were people present at that moment that would be around for his return.

So, what happened? He´s over 2,000 years late. Is no one alarmed but me? Now, the word used for "generation" in the original Greek meant the same as English, so don´t try to imply that "generation" meant "generation of mankind" or some crap.

Now, Peter (or someone else, it´s disputed), came along and wrote a nice book near the end of said generation. He says God is granting mercy so that more people can be saved. But, er, if Jesus and God are one, wouldn´t he know he was going to do this? So, why the speech on coming back before the generation was over, if he´s God and KNOWS that´s not what´s going to happen?

Now. I know the answer, it´s easy: It´s all just a bunch of crap, so don´t look for the sense in it. But surely a believer doesn´t draw this same conclusion, so what´s up? Jesus. Dude. Where are you?
  by: Dayron   11/30/2010 05:26 PM     
probing for me I´m going over to the sheep story.
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 05:32 PM     
Which is a huge hole in modern religions arguments. They like to shift and change the meanings of things in the bible so they don´t seem so incredulous and try to apply them to modern society (Which as society has changed much over time so has the "applied" meanings of different sections of the bible.)

What I wonder is how they apply rules such as in Leviticus (And man are there a lot of fun ones in there) such as... It´s ok to have sex with your sister as long as she is a virgin and not married.

I mean..god directly telling these things to Moses means they are fact, right? Apparently god thinks big or lil sis could use a pity f*ck if she hasn´t been taken yet.
  by: Pyronius     11/30/2010 05:43 PM     
Psalm 127:2

In short... god gives sleep only to people he loves.

  by: Pyronius     11/30/2010 05:47 PM     
for me at the mo´ it would have to be don´t worry be happy.

I used to have really good sleep and rhen I went and got myself a small business. Maybe I should go back to being an employee. 4.48am.
My comments must be riveting, but hey everyone is asleep down on this side of the globe.
  by: alisha rose     11/30/2010 06:49 PM     
I´ve never seen Christianity summed up so well:
  by: spacechimp     12/03/2010 02:23 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: