You haven't explained how the Miller/Urey experiment is wrong. Unless that information is in the AIG link you provided (which I cannot access for some reason). I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that oxygen has always been present on earth, but it was in the form of CO, CO2, H2O, etc, not as free oxygen.
The early atmosphere itself was possibly composed of NH3, CH4, and H2, whereas only a tiny fraction of the early atmosphere was composed of free exygen. This free oxygen was likely due to photochemical reactions. Most, if not all, of the free oxygen was immediately taken up by oxidation reactions to produce CO2, H2O.
Evidence for lack of abundant free oxygen is in the rocks. Anything on the surface of this planet is subjected to oxidation, especially those rich in Fe: soils, rocks, sediments, etc. And it wasn't until about 2.5 billion years ago that there is any record of oxidation of rocks, soils, sediments.
As for archaeopteryx, I think you are still missing the point. You aren't grasping what a transitional fossil represents. Every living thing you see around you is a transitional form, as are all the fossils in the rock record. These fossils do not represent one single line of descent, but many hundreds of thousands.
Archaeopteryx is simply one of thousands of forms that developed from the same ancestors (note the plural!) as dinosaurs that MAY have been an ancestor of birds - but not necessarily. It has characteristics that make it bird-like and some that are dinosaur-like. You can't deny that. And those very simple reasons make it transitional.
quote:
keith63:
If creation was right we should find a perfect recycling earth, which we do.
Equilibration is found all through nature.
quote:
We should find no transitional fossils, which we don’t.
You are wrong. We do. Hundreds and thousands of them. Every fossil is in fact a transitional fossil. Your lack of vision here is an artifact of not understanding the classification nuances involved in pigeon-holing life.
[quote]And since the bible said we could eat anything on earth, we should be able to take any living thing, eat it, and turn it into our bodies. Since we are all made of the same material it is possible for us to do this.[\quote]
What does this have to do with evolution? Is this part of your "perfect earth" scenario?
quote:
You see the same evidence when looked at with an open mind can actually be used to support creation better than evolution. Were are your missing links?
keith, the only way you can use any science to support creationism is to ignore 99% of it.
Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by all the natural sciences. Creationism must pick and choose what it is supported by.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-18-2003]