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.
Citation, please! I know of no modern birds in the Solnhofen limestone. If you've discovered one, please enlighten us all.
You don't think Ham and Hovind are the same animal, but Archeopteryx is an ordinary bird. I shake my head.
I post a long list of Evofraud in response.
I ignored it, although I paused to agree with someone who noted the schizophrenic articles on Archaeopteryx. I have in the past already noted creationists dismissing Archy as 1) just a bird, 2) a fake, and 3) just a dinosaur. In creationism, it isn't how you sweep the evidence under the rug so long as you do it.
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.
You guys were a little late to the party. The definitive refutation of the hoax claim was done by mainstream science in a detailed forensic examination of 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.
Creationists are all over the map on everything except whether evolution happens. Nobody has no ape for granddaddy.
Archaeopteryx has some characteristics that resemble a dinosour.
That plus all the other extinct species that show mixed characters are evidence that the bird group arose from the dinosaur group.
But it's not considered ancestral even by evo's to any modern birds.
Can't be determined and isn't important. It's on a branch that arose from dinosaurs and led to birds. The odds are it's a dead-end twig on that branch because there figure to be more dead-end twigs in the fossil record than there figure to be true ancestors of later forms. The whole trick of dismissing a fossil because somebody said it's probably not a direct ancestor is just dishonest. Thus, it fits right into creation science.
You see, even if not one dino-bird transitional fossil is itself a direct ancestor, they all come off of a trunk that's moving from dinosaur to bird. Thus, there's this bridge of transitionals which only exists because birds came from dinosaurs, and there's no similar bridge from fish to birds or amphibians to birds or mammals to birds. (No, the bat isn't such a bridge. It can fly, but all of its homologies are with tree-dwelling insectivores.)
And there seems to be a great dispute about whether it can truly be linked to the theropods.
Source? That skeleton is far more theropod than bird. I love the way you wave away hard evidence and lots of it with some vague mumble about something somebody said. As if your reading could be trusted. As if your integrity were not suspect at best.
Instead it's just another species. An evolutionary dead end thought to have descended from yet another unknown common ancestor.
Meaningless wave-away. Every movie still-frame is just another still picture in creationist Me-No-See-ist logic.
You snuck this by me. That's a problem with your stuff. Essentially every sentence is complete BS. The eye of the critic glazes over and some of it goes unparsed and thus unrebutted. Happily, Right Wing Professor caught this.
There is nothing that fits your description in the fossil record until long after Archaeopteryx. Read what you posted, then go back to the dumb-ass pamphlet you're cribbing from and read that again.