I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.
I am not satisfied with this. There's nothing that i would have had to define about my position earlier. I think it is very clear that any position a person takes or any knowledge someone holds can be wrong. I didn't change anything about my position. You just didn't understand it.
I don't need respect for my knowledge. Knowledge is something that just is. I also need no respect for the time i put into this thread. I didn't have to do it. But in the spirit of fairness i would expect you to concede the points our discussion was actually revolving about.The first would be that Archaeopteryx as transitional form is not a "well documented fraud" and is not "rejected by the scientific community".
And the second point is that your assertion ""that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is wrong.
This has nothing to do with my conviction that evolution is a natural process and that Archaeopteryx evidentially is a fossil representative of an evolutionary transition. Nor has it something to do with your beliefs contradicting this option as supposable. This is just about your initial claims on what scientists have to say on the topic. And not even just some scientists, but all
A refusal to acknowledge or even just address the two points i - once again - spelled out above is what keeps me from shaking and moving on.
And because i really would like to have these points cleared up i'll type them again in bold and put as direct questions:BibleStudent, do you acknowledge that Archaeopteryx is still regarded as transitional form by several paleontologists and biologists in the present day?
Bible Student, do you admit that i could conclusively show that your statement "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is wrong?
A simple yes or no to those questions will suffice. Thank you.