8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 161:
Line 161: + + + +
explaining edits
The whole second criticism is actually not a criticism of the Archaeopteryx, or the fossil specimens. It is really a refutation of the commonly accepted evolutionist interpretations. I have no quick way to correct this in mind, as it would probably require a rewrite of the whole section. In fact both "criticisms" could be better described as controversies. Anyone got any suggestions?[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:12, 14 January 2009 (EST)
The whole second criticism is actually not a criticism of the Archaeopteryx, or the fossil specimens. It is really a refutation of the commonly accepted evolutionist interpretations. I have no quick way to correct this in mind, as it would probably require a rewrite of the whole section. In fact both "criticisms" could be better described as controversies. Anyone got any suggestions?[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:12, 14 January 2009 (EST)
== does conservapedia want to be taken seriously ==
So I made my edits here without realising there had already been a discussion about this. But, if conservapeida wants to be taken seriously it needs to align just a little but with reality. Hoyle's argument for the London fossils being a fraud are very, very weak - so much so almost no creationists sites taken them seriously. In fact, Hoyle is at odds with the usual creationist interpretation of Archaeopteryx his he concluded it was an ''reptile'' fossil with added feathers, whereas creationists argue it's a modern bird! Hoyle never claimed the bones of the fossil had been doctored (only that the feathers had been added) so how did the forgers sneak all those bird-like properties into their 'reptile' fossil? The current article is so bad, and so poorly cited, I'm reverting it back to my edits. If you want to claim Hoyle's snub for the Nobel was due to this fine - by find a valid reference that establishes that.