Bullshit.
The claim that archeoraptor is a fake is completely true — no BS there. But what they won’t mention is other “missing links” like Archaeopteryx. Hell, they also won’t mention things like Tiktaalik, Archaeothyris, or Ambulocetus, but it’s probably safe to say they don’t believe in any of them.
There’s a very tentative list of transitional fossils at Wikipedia that shows that there is certainly one or more transition out there.
What they fail to mention is that archaeoraptor wasn’t even thought to be anything by the scientific community because no one had even studied it. Once someone got the chance to study it, the fossil was quickly found out to be fake. Fake in the sense that the fossil hunter had likely placed the bones of two species together unknowingly. This all happened in less than one year. Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, has been known since 1862 and is most definitely not a fake.
For more information on archaeoraptor, click here.
Kirk Cameron is a failure, added to the list of many who have been quickly proven wrong with some simple knowledge. In fact, I’ve never heard one convincing creationist argument against evolution — and with good reason — because there isn’t one.
I’m making a list of the creationist failures. This can be considered post one of the series, so congrats to our number one:
- Kirk Cameron
SCIENCE!
Also, Darwinism doesn’t exist. Any atheist involved in evolutionary theory would know this, plus the guy at the end was looking at something a few different times that seemed to catch his interest. He was reading from a teleprompter. Yeah, failure.
Yeah, lying for Jesus runs pretty rampant in the Christian community. I found this “Bible” that someone left in the break room at my place of employment. I call it the bait and switch Bible.
[...] Kirk Cameron (Lying for Jesus: Kirk Cameron Edition) [...]
This blog appears to be a bit out-of-date on the research regarding Archaeopteryx (I haven’t researched the other transitional forms you mentioned so there might be updated information on those as well). It is my understanding that the world authority on birds, Dr. Alan Feduccia, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (an evolutionist himself) has said this was a perching bird and not a feathered dinosaur.
From what I have read, scientists are now questioning the dino-bird link:
“We now question very strongly whether there were any feathered dinosaurs at all.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06
/000625231641.htm
“No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all…”
“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said. “To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10
/051010085411.htm
Yeah, no. Archaeopteryx has more features of dinosaurs than it does birds, although you can clearly see in the skeletal structure some things that liken it to modern birds.
It’s an incomplete transition at that, because its line likely went extinct. Birds do not descend from Archaeopteryx, but it’s entirely likely that birds came about as a result of evolution in which the end result was similar to Archaeopteryx.
What?? I am so confused by your response. Also, have you read the more recent research in the science daily magazines I cited? Scientists are questioning the link they formerly thought existed between dinosaurs and birds because the fossil evidence does not support it.
Archaeopteryx = more dinosaur than bird.
Archaeopteryx = shares some things in common with birds.
Archaeopteryx = line went extinct.
Archaeopteryx = not the ancestor of modern birds.
Birds = came about through evolutionary means similar to that which caused archeopteryx.
And yes, I have read about the few scientists who have shown a lack of interest in the reptile to bird branch of the tree. However, even if birds didn’t descend from dinosaurs (genetics pretty much confirms that they did), that is not a blow to evolutionary theory at all.
We’re simply realizing our mistakes as it relates to the evolution of birds. But again, I doubt that this will become a majority view any time soon.