|
Author
|
Topic: Can someone explain Archeopteryx to me?
|
joshua221 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 11 (65637)
11-10-2003 6:43 PM
|
|
|
I am wondering about the fossil of Archeopaetrax, anyone know anything about it, if it is real or whatever? ------------------ "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -Jesus John 3:3
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-10-2003 6:51 PM | | joshua221 has replied | | | Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 11-10-2003 10:07 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 2 of 11 (65641)
11-10-2003 6:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
11-10-2003 6:43 PM
|
|
It's thought to be an example of a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. It has characteristics of both reptiles and birds, including teeth and feathers. For a more detailed info you could go the the talkorigins.org Archaeopteryx site here. Also, some have claimed that it's a forgery and this is discussed here. If you need help with any of the terminology or anything else, let us know. Our bark is always louder than our bite.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by joshua221, posted 11-10-2003 6:43 PM | | joshua221 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by joshua221, posted 11-20-2003 8:30 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6033 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
|
|
Message 3 of 11 (65729)
11-10-2003 10:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
11-10-2003 6:43 PM
|
|
I'd like to point out subtle mistake you make in your question: you refer to "the fossil". Actually there are several known fossil specimens of archeopteryx. Interestingly, the original finds were classified as dinosaurs. When later finds that were more finely preserved showed imprints of feathers, it was classified as a bird and only later did anyone realize that the earlier fossils, in coarser sediment that did not preserved feather imprints, were the same organism. So it's very weird to me that today's creationists (at least the ones who aren't fringe enough to declare it a hoax) insist that Archie is "100% bird".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by joshua221, posted 11-10-2003 6:43 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
joshua221
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 4 of 11 (68144)
11-20-2003 8:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
11-10-2003 6:51 PM
|
|
K thanks ------------------ Bible Search Results "love" was found 865 times in 751 verses. Thats a Whole Lotta Love
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-10-2003 6:51 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
Atapuercan Zusayan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 5 of 11 (70105)
11-30-2003 5:14 PM
|
|
|
yep, its a bird. The wicked philosohpers of Darwinism gave it a strange name which makes a change to raven or robin but is rather unweildy. And it is older than the lizards Darwinists pretend it evolved from. So its name could be translated as "I am even older than my grandpa who could have been a horse or something". ------------------ Oinkus Erectus
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 12-01-2003 11:52 AM | | Atapuercan Zusayan has not replied | | | Message 7 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 12:08 PM | | Atapuercan Zusayan has not replied | | | Message 8 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:10 PM | | Atapuercan Zusayan has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
yep, its a bird.
The wicked philosohpers of Darwinism gave it a strange name which makes a change to raven or robin but is rather unweildy. Like they usually do, taxonomists named the fossil using greek root terms. Arch- is greek for ancient or old, and ptera for wing. Therfore, if you understand the use of latin and greek root words, Archeopteryx means ancient wing. Makes sense to me.
And it is older than the lizards Darwinists pretend it evolved from.So its name could be translated as "I am even older than my grandpa who could have been a horse or something". Do you have anthing to back this up, like a website that references dating of the fossils. Specifics would be nice instead of unsupported assertions.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Why is it a bird rather than a therapod? Mark
|
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4572 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: 04-22-2003
|
quote:
yep, its a bird.
The wicked philosohpers of Darwinism gave it a strange name which makes a change to raven or robin but is rather unweildy.
And it is older than the lizards Darwinists pretend it evolved from.
So its name could be translated as "I am even older than my grandpa who could have been a horse or something".
All right, I'm calling troll on this one. A.Z., Either you're baiting us or you're out of your mind. Which one is it?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by gene90, posted 12-11-2003 1:09 PM | | zephyr has not replied | | | Message 11 by gene90, posted 12-11-2003 1:10 PM | | zephyr has not replied |
|
M82A1
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 9 of 11 (72289)
12-11-2003 12:10 PM
|
|
|
Damn, you guys beat me too it...
Pic of Archeopteryx:
------------------ "The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
|
gene90
Member (Idle past 3845 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: 12-25-2000
|
|
|
Message 10 of 11 (72294)
12-11-2003 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by zephyr
12-01-2003 12:10 PM
|
|
Uggh, I hate toothed birds...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:10 PM | | zephyr has not replied |
|
gene90
Member (Idle past 3845 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: 12-25-2000
|
|
|
Message 11 of 11 (72295)
12-11-2003 1:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by zephyr
12-01-2003 12:10 PM
|
|
Uggh, I hate toothed birds...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:10 PM | | zephyr has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2