Replies

<< It's almost an archaeopteryx, except Archy could fly >>

How do you know? Ever see an archaeopteryx in the sky?

<< The thing that's just a feathered dinosaur: >>

Oh, look at the pretty pictures done by a professional artist! Aren't they cute!

Notice that one has wings like a bird and the other looks like a hairy lizard. You need to get a better artist. Try the ones who did all the wildly different artist renditions of homo rudolphensis and zinjanthropus (see them at http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/Aprecon.htm).

<< The thing that's just a bird with teeth and a bony tail. (If it's a fake, somebody faked six separate specimens.) >>

Only two of the specimens (both found in the stomping grounds of Ernst "Faker" Haeckel) are well enough defined to be useable. One of your six specimens consists of A feather! I thought it was a stretch to build up a specimen based on A tooth, but this exceeds that when it comes to evolutionary imagination.

<< Note that the closeup is of a forelimb. Did they teach you at the seminar to ask, "What use is the halfway thing between wing and claw?" >>

Wings WITH claws on the end (like an ostrich), are not 1/2 way anything. They are wings with claws on the end. It is not a wing evolving into a claw, or a claw evolving into a wing. Something in the process of evolving from one to the other would indeed be of little use as either.

When you find a wing with a claw on the end in the fossil record, you can PRETEND something is transitional, or evolving. When the SAME THING is found on bats, or birds like ostriches, which are alive today, you can't pretend, because we can observe that nothing is transitioning or evolving.

You have to live in a fairy tale land to pretend evolution has ocurred.

Ever see an archaeopteryx in the sky?

I've seen birds. Isn't Archaeopteryx "just a modern bird?"

Oh, look at the pretty pictures done by a professional artist! Aren't they cute!

So look at the fossils.

Notice that one has wings like a bird and the other looks like a hairy lizard.

Pretty much the same frame under the coverings. What modern bird looks like what modern lizard?

Only two of the specimens (both found in the stomping grounds of Ernst "Faker" Haeckel) are well enough defined to be useable.

All of the specimens were found in limestone from the same continent (but a rather different era) than Haeckel. [Ernst Haeckel, (1834-1919), Archaeopteryx lithographica, (~150 million years ago)]

I've not seen this defense raised before. How far away from Haeckel does something have to be before it's a real fossil? Note that one specimen, mis-identified until 1970, was found in 1855, well before the 1861 London specimen. Three specimens were found after 1950. The preceding link also demolishes most creationist arguments related to Archaeopteryx.

Wings WITH claws on the end (like an ostrich), are not 1/2 way anything... When the SAME THING is found on bats, or birds like ostriches, which are alive today, you can't pretend, because we can observe that nothing is transitioning or evolving.

The uselessness of creation science on display for all to see. Nobody screams for "the transitionals" like a creationist, but nothing is ever ever ever a transitional to a creationist. The appearance of demaninding physical evidence is just posturing for the bystanders. Inferring (in the wrong direction) from physical evidence, no matter how plentiful or how detailed said evidence may be, is "conjecture." You can have no idea if some population of bats somewhere is "rapidly" evolving or not, and neither can I, as even the "rapid" scenarios are not rapid on the human timescale.

Try the ones who did all the wildly different artist renditions of homo rudolphensis and zinjanthropus (see them at http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/Aprecon.htm).

Your link into Malcom Bowden's website doesn't work. Maybe you'd like to recommend this article of his instead:

The Evidence for Geocentricity.