If you had actually read the articles you would find that the second one is indeed an update and refers repeatedly to the hoax theory of the first article and dismisses the hoax theory. Most of us already knew the hoax theory was itself a hoax. When Hoyle made his ridiculous claim, the fossil itself was extensively investigated. There was no way it was a forgery at all, much less a 19th-century-technology forgery.
However the very evidence that dismisses the hoax theory also establishes Archaeopteryx as a true bird and not a reptile.
Archaeopteryx is almost as perfect a halfway creature as anyone could want.
The basis of the hoax theory is that Archaeopteryx looks like a dinosaur, except for the feathers. It does look like a dinosaur. It has a dinosaur head, a dinosaur tail, and dinosaur claws. Even funnier, we have these Chinese dinosaurs that look like Archaeopteryx and they have feathers, too. They're basically Archy's closest known relatives, but they're not even birds. They're feathered dinosaurs.
For the umpteenth time, the itemized lists:
The Bird Features.
The Dinosaur Features.
What Archy's skeleton looked like:
Here's what a modern bird skeleton looks like:
The big plow-blade shaped thing is the sternum. It has been adapted by *ahem* evolution to anchor the big flapping muscles of a flying bird. Archy's sternum isn't depicted in the drawing above. When a specimen was finally found with a preserved sternum, it was a regular little saurian plate, not a mighty blade.
Funniest of all, DannyTN should have learned all this years ago.
You evo's never cease to amaze me.
PH slams Ken Ham by posting a link to Hovind trying to smear Ham by association.
I post a long list of Evofraud in response.
You focus on the one pair of links on Archaeopteryx that initially suspects a hoax and then dismisses it after a Creation Scientist is allowed to examine the fossils.
First you claim creationists are trying to have it both ways, despite the fact that the intent of what I posted was clear.
Then when I point out how clear it is. You just keep harping on Archaeopteryx. You'll never address all the fraud that I posted. You'll never admit that PH was wrong in his attempted slam of Ken Ham.
Archaeopteryx has some characteristics that resemble a dinosour. But it's not considered ancestral even by evo's to any modern birds. And there seems to be a great dispute about whether it can truly be linked to the theropods. Instead it's just another species. An evolutionary dead end thought to have descended from yet another unknown common ancestor.
The skeleton you posted is oversimplified in that there are a lot of variety in bird skeletons. Ostriches and Emu's don't have enlarged sternums like the picture you posted. And as you admitted, the Archaeopteryx skeleton you posted was missing the sternum completely, yet the bird had one, just not as large as most common birds today.
So the Lord made a lot of variety in the beginning. The Duckbill platypus is a mosaic of features also. Designers mix styles every once and a while. There are other true birds that do resemble modern birds in their entirety found in the same layer's as Archaeopteryx which were apparently living at the same time as Archaeopteryx. Once again evo's have found a leaf with out any supporting branch.