"
You are talking about the age of rocks and stars and the idea that these could well have existed before God created life on this earth. Before God separated the water from the land."
But those hundreds of millions of years old rocks have fossils of LIFE in them.
Besides, are you now saying that God did not create EVERYTHING in six days? This is a mighty big departure from mainstream YEC. So there was light before God said "let there be light" in verse 3?
"
Are you aware that I never argue that "atheist evolutionists quit being atheist or evolutionist" when their theories hit the rocks?"
And this is you normal response when you are shown to be quoting out of context. Like Asimov. And horses. Start here for one series of horse posts.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163
"
The "salient" point is that EVEN evolutionists "admited" that this was a huge embarrassment for evolutionism. EVEN evolutionists admit that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD."
What exactly was a huge "embarrassment for evolutionism." Do you have a citation for this one? No? Why am I not surprised?
Do you have a citation yet for your assertion that the conference decided it was just a "true bird?" No? Why am I not surprised?
I will post my evidence against your assertion. Take a look, again, at this list of paper presented at the conference. Remeber that this is a conference on archy and ask yourself if this sounds like the kind of papers that would be presented if they thought that archy was a mere bird completely unrelated to the reptiles.
They may all be found in
The Beginnings of Birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt, 1984. I am also only listing the first author.
Norberg, "Evolution of flight in birds: Aerodynamic, mechanical and ecological aspects."
Raath, "The theropod Syntarsus and its bearing on the origin of birds."
Schaller, "Wing evolution."
Peters, "Functional and Constructive Limitations in the Early Evolution of Birds."
Gauthier, "Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight."
Bock, "The arboreal theory for the origin of birds."
Rayner, "Mechanical and ecological constraints on flight evolution."
Peters, "Constructional and Functional Preconditions for the Transition to Powered Flight."
Taquet, "Two new Jurassic specimens of coelurosaurs (Dinosauria)"
Rietschel, "Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability."
Molnar, "Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a Survey of Proposed Early or Ancestral Birds."
Now, do these really sound like the kinds of papers that would be presented at a conference where they decided that what we have is merely a unique bird and not any sort of transitional?
"
EVEN evolutionists admit that the supposed link between Archy and lizards was a bit TOO fabricated (did you read the quotes? - I guess not - eh?)"
Give them again. I think you quoted Feduccia who has also said "
Certainly, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptile to bird." He also said "
The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution."
"
EVEN evolutionists admit that TRUE BIRDS are found BEFORE THE OLDEST Archaeopteryx."
All together now. Archy is not on the direct line to birds. It is a descendent of a creature that wa on the direct line. This side branch preserves many of the features of that intermediate.
"
Never-the-less Atheists admit the bird Archaeopteryx has true flight feathers and and true flying bird and is NOT as old as the TRUE BIRDS preceeding it."
Microraptor had true flight feathers. Let us see you make a case for it, too, being a true bird.
"
UTEOTW is simply trying to sidestep and obfuscate away from these undeniable salient points by arguing "YES but these atheist evolutionists STILL cling to the evolution of archaeopteryx AND enjoy pointing out the reptile similarities in that TRUE BIRD". "
It is not just similarities. It is a long list of traits tht archy shares with NO BIRDS but that it does share with the theropods. Some of these traits are even shown to be in transistion between the two. You really should look up the definition for "obfuscate." I think you practice it when you try to point it out.
A few...
It lacks a beak! You claim a true bird that does not have a beak!
Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.
Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.
Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.
Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.
It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.
Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.
Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.
Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.
Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.
