Re: half-evolved feather pt 2

Ron Chitwood (
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:04:00 -0500

>>>. 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.<<<

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

> From: Glenn Morton <>
> To: Ron Chitwood <>;
> 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
> report of this was in a 1972 article long before your 1987. And yes they
> know what they had because the first article was P. F. A Maderson, "On
> 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.
> 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
> >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
> and the research would have been from 1972 and 1973. It is much more
> that Stahl either missed a 1972 article or was not sure of the reaction
> chose not to include it. However, by 1987 the article was 15 years old
> should have been found.
> >The whole concept of macroevolution is an error. When schoolchildren
> >confronted with the bias and preconditioned macroevolutionary responses
> >see, really see, what flimsy supports it really has they turn from
> >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
> >'possible' not a confirmed, scientific fact. Your posts seem to assume
> >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
> is wrong for YECs to state that there is NO evidence of such a thing
> is really what my point is. Why do they say NO evidence when there is
> 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