|
Searching for Ropens |
|
1) What is a ropen?
2) What does it look like?
3) How big does it get?
4) Is it dangerous?
5) Why is there no clear photo of any ropen?
6) How is the author qualified to write about living pterosaurs?
7) How does the author explain how it has survived for millions of years?
8) Is this book anti- evolutionist?
9) Is the author a biologist?
10) Is Whitcomb a Creationist?
11) Is this a religious book that only looks scientific?
12) Does a Christian belief cause bias in a scientific investigation?
13) How could a large creature glow brightly?
14) Why are no fossils of pterosaurs found above the Mesozoic strata?
15) Why does the author believe so firmly that these testimonies are not from hoaxes or hallucinations? |
|
The author concludes that it is a rare nocturnal Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur living in many coastal areas of Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea (and prob-ably in surrounding countries).
It’s featherless. One kind has a mouth a bit like a crocodile’s. For the ones living around Umboi Island, the tail is as long as about half the wingspan. The author believes there’s more than one species.
Estimates for the wingspan of the larger ones: twenty-two feet to about fifty feet
Searching for Ropens mentions two incidents, both on the mainland, in which human death resulted from ropen attack. But attacks are rather uncommon.
The rare creature lives in areas where almost nobody owns a camera. Until the November, 2006, expedition, in which Paul Nation videotaped two indavas (another name for “ropen”), nobody had brought back any image to the United States.
Mr. Whitcomb is a forensic videographer who videotapes people for attorney firms. He recognized the credibility of eyewit-nesses of the ropen and traveled to Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, interviewing many natives. He has also interviewed American and Australian eyewitnesses. He realized that the descriptions of the ropen suggested a pterosaur more than any other living thing. (very unlike a bat.)
The author does not try to explain the modern existence of an “ancient” creature. He doubts the fossils are very old and suggests pterosaurs are not ancient but modern: They’re not primitive.
The book distinguishes the General Theory of Evolution (G.T.E.) from other forms of biological evolution. It brings up scientific approaches that throw doubt on G.T.E., and explains why this “standard model” has been more of a philosophy than a scientific theory. The book supports other forms of evolution: “descending” and “horizontal.”
Mr. Whitcomb does not have any degree in biology, but then neither did Darwin.
Like all researchers and investigators, Whitcomb has a philosophical foundation, or set of axioms or beliefs that influence his approaches. He believes in the Bible as far as it is correctly understood. He does not believe that the Bible provides any precise method of determining how long ago God created the earth, though he believes it is far younger than standard model estimates.
This is answered in the introduction: “Is it a true-life adventure, a religious commentary, an expose of a Western superstition, or a scientific inquiry? I’d say about 25% each, but you decide . . .”
Belief in Jesus Christ did not hinder Isaac Newton or Galileo. Atheists and agnostics have their own core philosophical beliefs which tend to lead to different biases than those who believe in and interpret the Bible.
Bioluminescence is the answer, but the mechanics may be revolutionary, once cryptozoological investigations have been replaced with zoological research (Once ropens have been studied in detail).
The concept of “Mesozoic” is based on the standard models that include the assumption that pterosaurs lived many millions of years ago and became extinct by about 65 million years ago. This “Mesozoic” concept cannot be used as if evidence against living pterosaurs because of circular reasoning.
The eyewitnesses are from several differing cultures: Australians, natives (of a number of differing languages), and Americans. Neither hoaxes nor hallucinations (nor a combination of both) would cause dozens of reports with many similarities in descrip-tions. In addition, over several years, there have been no indications of any hoax or hallucination among the witnesses. |
|
Questions and Answers: The Book and the Ropen |
|
If you have read the book and wish to make comments or suggestions, email to: |
|
The first edition of Searching for Ropens, at 207 pages, has 15 chapters, 95 images, a 47-page appendix, and a 12-page index. (Published in 2006)
The second edition of Search-ing for Ropens, at 263 pages, has 17 chapters, 140 images, a 50-page appendix, and a 21-page index. (Published in 2007)
Although it has no photograph showing features of any ropen (such evidence was not avail-able at the date of publication), the book includes a composite sketch created from eyewitness testimonies. The second edition has images from a video taken of two “indava” lights; investi-gators believe the indava is similar to or the same species as the ropen.
Consider also Questions
Fossils of Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs show that these long-tailed “pterodactyls” differed from Pterodactyloid pterosaurs in more than just tail-length: The head connects to the body differently and the tail anatomy differs as well.
The ropen is not any Flying Fox fruit bat, as it holds itself up-right on tree trunks, eats fish and other sea food, has a long tail, and glows brightly at night.
What happened to pterosaurs? Is extinction the answer? The idea that they all became extinct millions of years ago is the problem, not the answer. The creationist perspective relates to the Flood of Noah in Genesis.
Pterodactyl sighting
Sightings, in America, of
|
|
comment |
|
searchingforropens.com |