chose not to include it.<<<
Its also possible that she did not believe it had any value.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: half-evolved feather pt 2
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 8:16 PM
>
> At 07:14 PM 4/16/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>Consider Morris and Parker's statement:<<<
> >
> >They wrote in 1987. Your so-called 'evidence' for a half-feather,
> >half-scale creature was written in 1996 and even they were not sure of
> >exactly what they discovered.
>
> Ron, as I have many times and you keep ignoring, the first English
language
> report of this was in a 1972 article long before your 1987. And yes they
did
> know what they had because the first article was P. F. A Maderson, "On
How
> an Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather," The
> American Naturalist,106(1972):424-428, p. 424-425
>
> Like it or not, the 1987 writing by the creationist missed this article.
In
> other words, they didn't do sufficient research on their topic.
>
>
> >
> >Since you are so fond of quotes. let me give one from Michael Denton's
book
> >EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, pp. 209. He quotes from B.J. Stahl
> >VERTEBRATE HISTORY: PROBLEMS IN EVOLUTION, pp349. "how they (feathers)
> >arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis." Now
> >who should I believe? Your quote or Denton?
>
> My quote. I would like to point out that Stahl's book was published in
1974
> and the research would have been from 1972 and 1973. It is much more
likely
> that Stahl either missed a 1972 article or was not sure of the reaction
and
> chose not to include it. However, by 1987 the article was 15 years old
and
> should have been found.
>
>
> >The whole concept of macroevolution is an error. When schoolchildren
are
> >confronted with the bias and preconditioned macroevolutionary responses
and
> >see, really see, what flimsy supports it really has they turn from
science
> >to other pursuits, unless they go along with the 'Emperor's New Clothes'
> >idea that permeates our higher education philosophy at present. By the
> >way, there is no 'fossil evidence'. Even your quote indicates it is
just
> >'possible' not a confirmed, scientific fact. Your posts seem to assume
its
> >a fact, not a possibility. It is wrong for you to make it so.
>
> I would agree that the feather is a possible half evolved feather. But
it
> is wrong for YECs to state that there is NO evidence of such a thing
which
> is really what my point is. Why do they say NO evidence when there is
SOME?
> As I said the other day, it is OK to say that this is not a half evolved
> feather, it is not ok to say it doesn't exist.
>
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
>
> and
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>