Lee, it is good to hear from you again. I would not wish to argue against
your professional opinion of Archaeopteryx other than that your view appears
to be in the minority. Is this true or am I in error?
>The existance of morphological intermediates by itself does not prove or
>disprove any specific cosmology because one can always propose hypotheses
>for the existence of these rare cases. They do not prove evolution because
>the necessary steps from one form to another are still missing; archae is
>only one of many steps that would be necessary to evolve from a reptile to a
>bird. The missing steps are explained away by the ad hoc statement of
>incompleteness of the fossil record. Similarly, creationists can also
>explain away the problem by the ad hoc statement that God originally created
>a more complete scale of nature, most species of which are now extinct.
>Either of these ad hoc statements have equal probability of being true until
>tested. What creationists cannot do, however, is argue that morphological
>intermediates do not exist. Creationists need to spend less efffort
>attacking evolution and more time devising testable hypotheses consistent
>with their cosmology, and then changing their hypotheses to remove those
>aspects that have been falsified.
This was what drove me from being a YEC. I kept devising these tests for
the geological data I worked with every dat. I finally had to admit to
myself that nothing was turning up roses for the global flood concept.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm