Personally when I look at the debate that Evolutionists have amongst themselves about Archaeopteryx, I find it both compelling and disturbing.

One will say it's a half-dino half-bird, another will say it's not a dinosaur at all, but instead is a halfway form between a tree-dwelling reptile and a bird, yet another will say that it's much more of a feathered dinosaur than a bird.

Then there are the more recent studies that seem to be confirming that this is a bird. An exotic bird, but still very much a bird, rather than a reptile.

(Perhaps I need to read more of Feduccia's work, but it seems contradictory when he emphatically says it's a bird on one hand and then says it's a half-bird half-reptile on the other. I want to make sure to do him justice in this regard, but this seems very contradictory.)

In any case, Evolutionists cannot seem to agree amongst themselves what archaeopteryx is, yet I am just supposed to check my brain at the door and blindly accept that this is proof of Evolution.

This is the number 1 example of a transitional species, supposedly.

Anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs abound. They have similarities, but they also have differences.

My expertise is more in genetics than in anatomy. But paleontologists have the kind of training where they can tell you what kind of creature lost the fossil tooth that you found.

So then why do we have so many contradictory claims about this creature? One expert says this creature is a feathered dinosaur, while another says it has nothing to do with dinosaurs.

I am going to repeat myself here: In any case, Evolutionists cannot seem to agree amongst themselves what archaeopteryx is, yet I am just supposed to check my brain at the door and blindly accept that this is proof of Evolution.

Evolutionist propaganda would lead one to believe that the number of transitional fossils is overwhelming, yet all they can produce is a handful of highly disputed examples. They can't even make up their mind about what can be plainly observed about a particular fossil species.

It's embarrassing.

I know I am going to be criticized for saying this, but make up your minds. Next you'll be telling me that you can't agree on whether a fossil is a fish or a monkey.

That might be snarky, but if there is so much debate then stop lying to the public, especially high school students, that this is proof of anything.

If you can't decide whether this is a feathered dinosaur, a bird that has nothing to do with dinosaurs, or any of a number of other proposals, then at least be honest with the public, and don't say that this proves that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because it doesn't.

Also, if the star example of a transitional fossil is so open to interpretation, then what does that say about the evidence for Evolution from the fossil record as a whole?