Archaeopteryx Debate and Deception Continues

Sometimes a subject seems to be settled, only brought back by uninformed people; evolutionists do not get the word out very well about refuted things, and those of us with knowledge need to correct them. Archie (I call it that because I cannot spell Archaeopteryx) is one of them.

This critter has been called a missing link between reptiles and birds for a mighty long time. The best evidence indicated that it was a perching bird, case closed. But no, viperine Darwinist owlhoots not only redefine terms, but they use their self-serving cladistics. Worse, some creationists are using that nonsense.

Archaeopteryx trading card, 1890s-1920 / copyrightexpired.com

An area under development in biblical creation science is baraminology, and they disagree on how to proceed. Some seem to figure, "Evolutionists are wrong but they're really swell folks and honest at heart, and hey, cladistics is a tool to work with, so let's use that." Bad idea.  Cladistics involves circular reasoning: Assuming evolution to prove evolution. Creationists should be above such poor logic and judgment.

The paper featured here discusses the problem of cladistics. Also, why baraminology should leave it alone and how using it causes problems. We also see some of the history of Archie (including how some people originally thought it was fake or tried to classify it in various ways). Some of the paper will probably be skimmed by most readers, that's fine. The most important part is how, despite dishonesty among Darwin's cheerleaders, Archaeopteryx is not part dinosaur, not a transitional form, it's an interesting but extinct bird.

Archaeopteryx has been one of the most studied fossils since its discovery in 1861. Yet, the classification of the species is still under debate. Many controversies remain regarding the feather, taxonomic classification, flight capabilities, its “evolution,” and whether Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, a reptile with feathers, or a bird. This paper’s scope is to briefly discuss the latter controversy because it has kept creation and secular scientists’ view divided. The history of Archaeopteryx findings, their historical interpretations, the role of Linnaean and cladistics classification methods, and the implications of all that on Archaeopteryx’s classification were analyzed. This analysis demonstrates its placement as a bird is supported.

You can read it all at "The Debate over Classification of Archaeopteryx as a Bird." Also of interest is a bird with interesting similarities to Archie, "Hoatzin Bird Hassles Evolutionists."