Replies

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.

<< 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. >>

The link demolishes the credibility of those who've dealt with archy:

<< The Feather >> - they actually count a feather as a separate specimen!

<< Huxley, who was a staunch "Darwinist" failed to recognise the true import of the fossil and merely remarked on it as a "reptile-like bird" >> (He was closer to the truth in the first place)

<< complete head, albeit badly crushed, >>

<< This specimen is of the torso only ... the specimen was found to be missing ... It's whereabouts remain unknown. >>

<< It (your pre-feather specimen) lay in a museum after being classified as Pterodactylus crassipes >> (If you look at your own link, this is one of the most incomplete specimens)

<< differs in other aspects such as the tooth structure and the poorly ossified shoulder bones >> (maybe it's not an Archy?)

<< First identified as Compsognathus, >> (Do they misidentify all of them?)

<< information is limited. The specimen has been classified as a new species >> (yet another misidentification)

You are putting a lot of stock in something that your evolutionary comrades have wrestled with for 100 years. Misclassifications, reclassifications, lost specimens, incomplete specimens, crushed specimens, and Huxley called it closest to the truth upon first examination.

<< 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." >>

The "posturing" is the evolutionists vainly trying to PRETEND something is transitional. Many, perhaps most, of your evolutionary comrades disagree with you on Archy being transitional. From Huxley to Olsen and Feduccia, and multitudes more, they believe it's a bird.

Nobody screams for "the transitionals" like a creationist, but nothing is ever ever ever a transitional to a creationist

Every "transitional" was, in its day, a fully-developed, walking-around, eating, drinking, and reproducing species. They didn't have half a leg sticking out of their backs or something -- which is probably what the typical creationoid thinks of when he calls for transitionals. So when the creationoid -- blinders firmly in place -- examines the fossil of a transitional and sees nothing amiss, he has no problem dismissing it. After all, it's a full-blown species isn't it? It is exactly what it is, no more and no less. It doesn't wear a sign that proclaims it a transitional. So what's "transitional" about it? Thus, the creationoid exhibits his total incapacity (or unwillingness) to connect the dots and see the bigger picture. Hopeless. Simply hopeless.