Icon of Evolution?

The archaeopteryx is still even to this day one of those things that evolutions like to claim as evidence for evolution. Pictures of what artists suppose the bird/dinosaur would have looked like are shown in bright, appealing colors in science textbooks, with the words “missing link” printed boldly underneath. It is still taught to be one of the best pieces of evidence that evolution has to show. What exactly about the archaeopteryx gets evolutionists all hyped up, and could they possibly have a valid reason for using this fossil as evidence? Or could there be more to this here?


Part of the features of this almost complete fossilized skeleton of the archaeopteryx show those of a reptile. This is the first part that makes evolutionists excited. It has a long, bony tail, and clawed hands, and also teeth. All of these point to evidence of this being a dinosaur-like animal. But this isn’t half as exciting except for one thing: there are other parts to this fossil that appear to be characteristics of that of a bird! Along with the reptilian physical characteristics, the fossil also appears to have feathers. However at the same time, it seems to have scale-like skin! The fossil also appears to have wings!


So is this the transitional fossil that evolutionists have been looking for? Many seem to think so. And it may seem to be a very good argument. The animal – whatever it is – seems to cross right between dinosaur and bird. Some dinosaurs had wings, but they did not have feathers, scientists say. And birds did not have long, bony tails, hand-like claws, and they especially did not have teeth. So what else could this be, evolutionists say, except a dinosaur caught right in the middle of the process of evolving into a bird?


What are we really looking at here? Are evolutionists right? Creationists do not think so. First of all, this fossil can be classified as a bird. The feathers are fully developed, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the transition of scales to feathers. It has feathers that are identical to those of modern day birds. The bone structure of the archaeopteryx are the same as that of a bird. Also, other fossils of extinct birds in the fossil record have been found to have teeth. Why is the archaeopteryx a transitional fossil because it has teeth and these birds are not?
Evolutionists say that the skull was more reptilian than other fossils of birds they have found. But in reality there is no evidence for this. 54Also, fossils of birds have been found earlier in the fossil record. And not just fossils of birds, but all fossils are those of fully developed birds. So why is there a “transitional fossil” so much later in the record when this transition supposedly was supposed to be over?


So what does the evidence point to? It points to an extinct kind of bird that unique qualities. When evolutionists say that this is their best evidence, this sure doesn’t seem to be saying much. This is just another example of how we all – evolutions and creationists alike – come to the table of evidence with our biased opinions forefront in our mind. We must all try to look at the evidence as objectively as possible in hopes to learn the truth. In reality the claims that the archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution should be taken out of the textbooks, just as the evolution of the American horse was, the whale argument, and many others that over time have shown to be false arguments.

Aesthetic Experience Argument

The biggest topic of our world today: If you're so sure God exists, give me a reasonable argument for it. All Christians have their favorite arguments for this; mine is the aesthetic experience argument.

And what the heck is that? Aestheic experience is that feeling you have when you are in nature, witnessing something absolutely beautiful or stunning. It could be something as simple as a flower, the wind moving through the trees, or a butterfly floating by. It could be something big and grand: a beautiful sunset on the beach; a humongous, powerful waterfall; the vibrant colors of the rain forest; the exxpanse of the African savanna; the Grand Canyon. For me, that would include music, playing the piano, or harmonizing in singing. What is behind that feeling that you have rising up in you? Some would define it as feeling a connection with the world around you. Christians call it the knowledge that God is near, and experiencing His beautiful creation through His eyes. It's knowing that we are witnessing something truly beautiful, spectacular, and breath-taking.

But what gives us this feeling of awe? What defines beauty? Just the other day I asked my ten year old little sister why she was scowling at a dead fly on her window sill. "Because it's so ugly," she replied. When I asked her why she found it ugly, she was unable to give a reasonable answer. I think the majority would agree with her; the fly is somewhat ugly in appearance. Similarily, most would agree that a free, galloping, spirited horse is a beautiful sight. Why?

God is a God of creativity, beauty, intentionality in design. He created things that He found beautiful, so that we could experience them with Him, and ejoy the pleasure of them. A way of arguing this with an evolutionist would be to say: a sense of beautiy is not necessary for survival. Shouldn't that have been a mutation that disappeared long ago? Why is it still around?

God created us with a sense of what is beautiful and what is not. He created us with the sense of being able to enjoy His creation. The very fact that we have this built into each and every one of us is, I think, a good start to argue the existence of a God.

The aesthetic experience argument branches off a second argument, the cosmological arguement, which basically states that the world, as a finite, material thing had to have a beginning. things do not just happen by themselves. This is the basic prinicple of cause and effect. This can give a good starting point for the existence of God, since Christians believe that God created the world. However this argument has many different weak spots, such as the inability to know the world had a beginning, and if everything must have a cause, where did God come from? I would suggest really knowing where you stand before using this argument.