An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[betiko]

by the way, I would still like to know who created god, because you know, everything has a creator apparently.

[Viceroy63]

Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

Those kinds of questions are designed to draw one away from the issues and not for discussing the issues.

To Discuss an issue you make an argument as I have just done in "Evolution Has Never Happened!" I pointed out the details and made claims. Show me the flaws in the argument and that is where we begin discussing this.

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used by Darwinists to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter first. Shall we?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

[Metsfanmax]

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

[Viceroy63]

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

[Metsfanmax]

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

The only issue here is that you aren't willing to draw the same conclusion from the available fossil evidence that basically all working scientists have drawn. You won't be convinced unless scientists are able to demonstrate the link between every species in detail, and that level of rigor is not necessary to accept the basic premise. This is not a debate about the evidence, it is a debate about what it means to develop and test a scientific theory.

[Gillipig]

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

Evolution does not need fossils to justify it's validity. Fossils are just a bonus, not the big thing that the entire theory builds on like many creationists seem to think. It just so happens though that the fossil record does not contradict evolution, it does however strongly contradict creationism.

[jonesthecurl]

Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

I know this is not the original drawing.
In which museums and textbooks does the original to which you refer appear?


And are you seriously sugesting I go through every textbook to show the absence of this drawing? I'll do that when you prove that there are no textbooks with the words "Viceroy asks for the most stupid things" in.

[AAFitz]

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

[AAFitz]

Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

I know this is not the original drawing.
In which museums and textbooks does the original to which you refer appear?


And are you seriously sugesting I go through every textbook to show the absence of this drawing? I'll do that when you prove that there are no textbooks with the words "Viceroy asks for the most stupid things" in.

That would actually be an educational phrase that should immediately be included in every textbook in the nation.

[Viceroy63]

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

The point is, where is the evidence for that?

Are you saying that because we can't see the evidence of millions of years of evolution, that we should accept the theory as true anyway?

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

[mviola]

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

Are you saying that because we can't see the evidence of millions of years of evolution, that we should accept the theory as true anyway?

wat

Try reading what was written next time. Holding your hands over your ears while people are trying to tell you what we know isn't making you look too smart.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.

[Metsfanmax]

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.

And with that, the thread has been won. Good game, Viceroy.

[AAFitz]

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

The point is, where is the evidence for that?

Are you saying that because we can't see the evidence of millions of years of evolution, that we should accept the theory as true anyway?

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

The evidence is in every living being, and all fossils. You just discount it.

And definitely do not just accept the theory as true, but as extremely likely given said evidence, which you have foolhardily discounted.

What you consider evidence of a world wide flood, will not necessarily be evidence to me or (a real scientist) of a world wide flood.

But what would be cool in addition is you showing me evidence an ark I can fit each kind of animal into as well, or did that part of the story escape you?

Anyways, I cant show you evidence of the ball of hydrogen turning into our sun because it happened 5 billion years ago as well, but alas...it highly probably did, and more importantly, could have.

[AAFitz]

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

How do explain this experiment?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

Me? Well, it could be magic. It might be aliens. God may have had time to f*ck around with some e-coli on a slow day just to mess around with us, but my final answer is going to be EVOLUTION.

Sorry for the all caps there. That is just stupid on my part.

Do shoot me a pm when it turns into Captain Trips though. Ill need to retreat to my prepper bunker.

[Viceroy63]

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.

No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?

[AndyDufresne]

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?

Yes. Does your evidence include the Epic of Gilgamesh (18th century BCE), which talks about a massive flood, and how it seems there has been cultural history of floods in Mesopotamia dating back perhaps further, and that likely the Bible incorporated some of these accounts?


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.

No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?

So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?

[AndyDufresne]

So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?

Something like this:




--Andy

[Viceroy63]

[Note]
I would just like to state for the record that not considering to read an article because of it's source is not only unscientific but ignorant as all hell and tantamount to mental and spiritual book burning mentality. Those who comment on these HOAX articles in the negative attitude, without even reading them, should be ashamed of themselves. Really and truly ashamed of themselves. I would personally take my own life because I could not live with the shame of being so stupid. The evidence presented is so very clear. For example...

The four main and only specimens for Archaeopteryx were all found in the same place only two months apart from each other by the same person even. If that alone does not raise suspicion then there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you. And cheaply too if you just hurry up and write me the check. Further more if in the past hundred years we had found tens of thousand of Dinosaur Bones yet only four specimen for Achaeopteryx then the majority of humans deserve to wallow in ignorance because that is just simply unheard of. That's like only finding Four T-Rex out of all the hundreds if not thousands of completed skeletons of Dinosaurs and claiming that they must have eaten the rest of the population among themselves because that's all that there is. Come on people, you can't be that arrogant? Can you?
Viceroy63
-End Note

This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

This is only an excerpt from the article itself.

THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA
by Ian Taylor


ABSTRACT
The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent "discoveries" are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

INTRODUCTION
To many people the very word 'fossil' causes about as much excitement as watching grass grow. However, when we lift the veil which shrouds the world's most famous fossil, we find a labyrinth of intrigue and deception making it all somehow far more palatable. The fossil of the Archaeopteryx is said to be the paleontologist's "Rosetta Stone" providing irrefutable evidence that evolution of the species actually occurred. It has taken pride of place in every biology textbook for over a century and has recently been wreathed in controversy following the claims that one of the principal specimens is a fake. We will first trace out the history of the discovery of the various specimens, then examine the claims that the London specimen is fraudulent. Following this, we will determine if the more famous Berlin specimen can withstand the harsh light of scrutiny. It will be shown that the weight of evidence from both human activity and technical detail for all the known specimens points overwhelmingly to both the London and Berlin specimens of the Archaeopteryx being nothing more than a clever hoax.

It is now almost a century since Professor Hurst published his criticisms based upon personal observations of both the London [39] and Berlin specimens. It may be wondered why this information is not more widely known. The scientific establishment has been virtually dominated by biologists ever since Darwin's day and a kind of censorship of any work critical of evolution has been in effect throughout this time. Hurst had published his work in a scholarly journal offering a balanced airing of contrary opinions; the journal was short-lived (from 1892 to 1899) and is seldom found in library collections today. Similarly, because of the nature of Hoyle and Spetner's findings, these were not found acceptable to the mainline biological journals and they were obliged to report them in The British Journal of Photography.

THE FEATHERS.
Impressions of modern feathers only appear on the London and Berlin specimens and only on the tail and in the wing areas. Hurst had remarked on the marvelous state of preservation of the feather impressions saying, "even the barbules of some of the quills are recognizable" [40]. It may be added that there are no other examples of feathers having been preserved in such detail in the fossil record. One very recent case reported in 1988 from Spain [41] is of a single, half-inch long feather but this had been carbonized. That the preservation of such microscopic detail should occur in the two specimens already shrouded in suspicion is simply what one might expect from a forgery where the forgers had little choice but to use modern feathers. It raises an interesting question concerning the kind of detail present in the wing areas of the Berlin Specimen after its apparent modification about a century ago? As far as specimens assigned more recently to the status of Archaeopteryx are concerned, the popular accounts typically say that "feather impressions are distinct" [42] but, in fact, the investigator's statements say, "These features are interpreted as imprints of feather shafts" [43]. Quite a different thing where for example the "feather shaft impressions" may have been produced by quills and not feathers. Moreover, there is not a hint of a feather or feather shaft impression near any of the tails of the Maxberg, Haarlem, or Solnhofen specimens; Wellnhofer [14] claims there are feather impressions in the tail area of the Eichstatt specimen but Ostrom denies this.

CONCLUSION
In this paper we have not been concerned with the unlikely possibility that the Archaeopteryx was a strange mosaic creature like Australia's duck-billed platypus. The concern has been with fraud: its motive seems to have been monetary gain, the result has been to provide evidence for a theory. When all the published facts regarding the Archaeopteryx are brought forward, any unbiased jury would find it extremely difficult not to conclude that both the London and Berlin specimens were fraudulent. The more recent "discoveries" are seemingly an attempt to restore confidence in an oft-told myth and have been carried out by mere re-classification of the same kind of fossil used for the hoax; the feather evidence, like Percival Lowell's 700 canals on Mars, is more in the eye of faith than it is in fact. Professor Ostrom, who has examined every specimen, confesses that only the London and Berlin specimens contain clear feather impressions while the Eichstatt tail has a "plume" but no evidence of feathers. The London specimen is the only one having a clearly defined feature said to be a furcula and, while Ostrom claims the Maxberg specimen has a furcula, this is not at all convincing. Even if an undoubted furcula were discovered in another specimen, this would only tend to confirm that the furcula in the London specimen was genuine. However, it would not remove the suspicion of fraud because it seems likely that the Compsognathus itself may have had fused clavicles. Finally, it is surely incumbent upon the paleontologist to provide convincing explanations for: a) the change from straight feather impressions to the unlikely bent feather impressions in the Berlin specimen and b) why primary feathers, which are modern in every respect, attach to the ulna instead of the manus as in modern birds? Until such explanations are forthcoming the suspicion of fraud will remain.

This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

[DoomYoshi]

So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?

I think I asked that around page 5, still waiting on an answer.

[AndyDufresne]

This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA
by Ian Taylor

In what journal was this peer reviewed under? Maybe by the other members from his association?

Ian Taylor is President of Creation Moments
(formerly Bible Science Association)


--Andy

[crispybits]

Is the Twin Cities Creation Science Association a well respected and unbiased scientific institute without any agenda to push?

I'll give you a clue - no respected and unbiased scientific institution would ever put anything like this on their web page:

TCCSA STATEMENT OF BELIEF

We believe in God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs; this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of actual historical truths.

We believe that the origin of matter and all basic types of living things, including man, came about through direct creative acts of God during the six-day creation week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since the creation week have accomplished only changes within the created kinds.

We believe that the great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event, world-wide in extent and effect.

We accept the account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. Their subsequent fall into sin, by disobedience of God's direct command, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.

Therefore, we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and only Savior and that personal faith in Him is necessary for salvation.

When you go into any research with preconceptions that cannot be proven true, then you lose the right to have your results taken seriously.

[comic boy]

So in summary ;
The argument against the theory of evolution is entirely driven by a minority of theists who feel it undermines their fundamentalist creation beliefs.....Well tough luck that their faith needs to be underpinned by lies and distortions

[AAFitz]

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.

Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.

No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?

So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?

A note from God saying it was a transition species.