Archaeopteryx was a Birdie!

For around a century, evolutionists have told us that fossils of Archaeopteryx show it to be an undeniable intermediary form between Reptiles and Birds. To date, eleven specimens  have been found, primarily in Germany and China. What has made evolutionists so set on this particular fossil for so long?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." 

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.) 

Well, if only all evolutionists were as honest as Dr. Wald! But since they aren't, many will stick like glue to any shred of evidence that could lend the tiniest bit of weight to their belief system. So, back to Archie (for short!). In addition to fully bird-like feathers (some specimens do not show feathers, but just like wide variations within kinds in many species today, this does not indicate evolution, just amazing versatility in creature DNA as God designed it), Archie had wing claws, a bony tail, was three toed and had teeth, which are the main four supposed links with reptiles. 

- but there are birds still living that have clawed wings including Ostriches, Touracos and Hoatzins (below)

- there are also birds today that have bony tails, such as Penguins (as seen from the skeleton below)

- although most living birds today have four toes, not all do. For example, Emus, Button Quails (below) and Kori Bustards are all three toed. 

- no bird living today has enameled teeth. But that does not mean because some extinct birds do, that they evolved from reptiles. Reptiles usually have teeth, but not all do (which does not make the latter non-reptiles). The converse is apparently true of birds. And, of course, there are birds today that have "teeth" which comprise of either beak or bone serrations, such as the common goose (below). 

 Because Archie had feathered wings, we know it was warm-blooded, not cold-blooded like reptiles so no connection is indicated there. None of the "Archie" fossils discovered after more than a century of digs show any evidence whatsoever of body scales, so to classify it as a transitional form is truly fanciful. BBC News online ran an article in 2004 which reported that Dr Angela Miller of the London Natural History Museum had concluded from extensive research of Archie's brain, using a method called "commuted tomography scanning" that it was found to have "all the structures that allowed birds to fly" and that the brain, which they expected to show transitional reptilian features was instead "completely bird-like" * The obvious conclusive would be that Archie was a bird then. As has been pointed out  :

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur ....but it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

(Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms", Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764)

 If Archie had evolved from reptiles, why have no earlier versions of Archie been found showing limbs turning into wings or scales into feathers, the real tests of evolution? But no such examples of Archie have been found. Nevertheless, evolutionists continue to insist (as of July 2014), as they have done for decades now that Archie is a transitional form, despite the fact that we now know that at least some varieties of the bird were one hundred per cent feathered, including on it's legs, as one of the more recently found specimens (below) has shown. ** 

 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3535272.stm

** http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28129078

The Fossil Record asks us to move along and says "No Evolution to see here folks!"

Did you ever stop to wonder why animals all have four limbs? Why aren't there any with, say, one leg or three * or maybe six legs plus another additional "evolving" seventh leg we can see on Discovery Channel? Seeing even one or two clear examples of Evolution in progress would really help the cause. Surely if Evolution has occurred, there would be at least a few animals around today with some number of limbs other than four? This would not prevent Atheists from referring to the "survival of the fittest" surely? Remember, Evolution, if it happened, is 100% reliant on chance mutations. It did not have a "Survival Handbook" to refer to and there certainly wasn't a blueprint. If Evolution is true, the jigsaw pieces have come together purely randomly, and not under a guiding pair of hands or based on a picture on the box lid. There is such a lid available of course, but Evolutionists have chosen to ignore it.

Of course, when you look at it this way, Evolution kind of seems like a tall tale. Well, maybe that's because it is. Evolutionists just love to dreamily take us back billions of years ago and talk of soups and gloops. They really like this bit because it's the bit nobody's able to contradict (we weren't there and nor were they). But the fact is, if Evolution had been running the show ever since the gloop, there should be many bony-structured mammals on the earth today perhaps with five legs, or two heads, or four tails as the norm. And if not, why not.....exactly (answers on a postcard)?

There's one more place that weird and wonderfully structured creatures should be found with a degree of regularity. And that's the fossil record. The fossil record is 100% non-discriminatory. The fossil record doesn't care whether you believe in Evolution or Biffo the Bear, because the fossil record has no bias. It is simply an historical record and does what historical records always do - give testimony to what happened. After a number of human lifetimes since Darwin and many well paid careers, the fossil record has only yielded two definite conclusions (a) that Catastrophism has occurred in the past, either once or more than once and (b) that Evolution as a process has not happened. Two good reasons to become a Creationist, since the Creationist model predicted both of these conclusions beforehand.

If Evolution were true, there should be all sorts of wacky looking bony-structured creatures found in the fossil record. But they aren't there. We do see fossilized extinct creatures, but they're all four-limbed too. Funny that. What are the odds, eh?!! But if land creatures all evolved, shouldn't there be a ton more variety in bony structures? Common sense, not to mention the Laws of Probability tells us, of course there should. So an unbiased interpretation would be that all animal life came into being at some point in the past, but this involved no Evolutionary processes whatsoever, neither Uniformitarian or Punctuated in nature.

The fossil record then is yet another indicator (not a proof mind you, but definitely a strong indicator to the rational mind, if Evolutionism is rational, perhaps that's the problem right there, it isn't?) and that indicator is, that Evolution hasn't happened at all, zilch, nothing, nada. Belief in Evolution then, is a leap of faith, lemming-like. Worse than that, it's just plain ignoring the evidence. The fossil record simply says "sorry, no Evolution here". Science has advanced in so many spheres in the last 150 years, but the fantastical tale of an Evolutionary past still has gazillions of us stuck in a series of intellectual cul-de-sacs that most of the scientific community categorically refuses to budge from and which the non-scientific community tries not to think about in case it gives them a headache. Teaching fairy tales in College is a high price for Science to pay just to be stubborn.

The far more logical explanation of why all reptiles, mammals and birds are four-limbed is because they have a common Designer. He came up with a basic blueprint that He thought was good ** for all land-based creatures which generally speaking involved them all having one head, one brain, two ears, two eyes, one mouth, a pair of nostrils, four limbs, one heart, two lungs, one excretory system, unique male and female genitalia, plus much more. All of this commonality points towards Intelligent Design rather than chance mutation, which would surely have produced a "shop of horrors" *** rather than what science can observe today.

Thanks for reading!!!!......

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripedalism - if you're interested in a short Wiki article that notes there are no known naturally occurring three legged animals on earth. For some reason, it doesn't question how odd this is from an Evolutionary perspective. But then, questioning Evolution is kind of taboo, isn't it?!!

** Speaking of God's creation process in Genesis Chapter 1, the Bible says "And God saw that it was good." (v9, again v12, and additionally in v18, v21 and v25) and then after creating Man, "And it was very good." (v31). During the entire creation process God was both causing and monitoring everything. Nothing was left to chance mutation and the evolutionary process was not used. Instead, God came up with a perfect base model and employed it, with multiplied beautiful and purposeful variations in all land-based animal life.

*** When it comes to Science Fiction writers of the last 70 years, all manner of alien creatures have been imagined as having evolved elsewhere in space. When evolutionists let themselves go a bit, they have no problem in assuming evolution would have dealt many a strange hand in the resultant intelligent life forms. Does it not strike them then as odd, that given multiplied millions of years on earth in a near perfect environment, that the fruits of alleged human evolution are, disappointingly, not nearly as bizarre? The more obvious answer for this lies again in the Bible where God lets us know that He made us in His image (Genesis 1:27).