"One says A. was mostly bird , the other says mostly reptile . One says A. was a link , another says that A. could not have been a link ."
"I see that you lack the integrity to even learn how to spell the words necessary to discuss the topic . Let me help . That is Archaeopteryx . Those who have actually invested the integrity to learn what they are talking about and those who have studied evolutionary theory in detail know that A. is only meaningful when previously referenced and then , only when the species is also mentioned - in this case A. lithographica or A. bavarica . But since you ca n't spell platypus , why would anyone expect that you had actually done a detailed study to the extent that you could spell Archaeopteryx ? But , no matter . Your total ignorance of science is apparent from the very fact that you think that disagreement on some details casts a doubt on the grander theory . ( Of course , you do n't seem to see disagreements on major tenets of faith as evidence against your form of christianity , based primarily on mythology ) A minority of evolutionary biologists disagrees with the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs . One of those is Allan Feduccia , a favorite son of creationists , in spite of the fact that gives no credence to creationism . Creationists even offer quotes from Feduccia as if they were somehow supportive of creationism . Those who do are , without question , totally ignorant of the principles of logic and science . Disproof of one hypothesis does not support any other . Thus , any arguments against evolutionary theory are not support for creationism . Creationism must either stand or fall on its own merits . Scientists ( who were also creationists ) struck down a literal reading of Genesis more than 200 years ago . And yet , American fundamentalist creationists have reject their contradictory findings , based on actual study , in favor of the mythology of nomadic herdsmen ."
"One says A. was mostly bird , the other says mostly reptile . One says A. was a link , another says that A. could not have been a link ."
"I see that you lack the integrity to even learn how to spell the words necessary to discuss the topic . Let me help . That is Archaeopteryx . Those who have actually invested the integrity to learn what they are talking about and those who have studied evolutionary theory in detail know that A. is only meaningful when previously referenced and then , only when the species is also mentioned"