From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Archeopterix revisited
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:25:53 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <7080@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
writes:
> 
> Daniel Ashlock writes:
> 
> >Lionel, Archeopterix is a well known reptile/bird intermediate.
> 
> Wrong. Archeopterix is a well-known fossill which evolutionists theorize
> is areptile/bird intermediate.

   No, we know it is an intermediate.  The only question is why does it
exist?  Because is evolved or because God has a warped sense of humor?

> 
>>Could you please impeach that status other than by bald assertion?
> 

>That status is *only within the theory of evolution.*

   No, the status is the result of it's (evolution independent) 
morphology.

> If anyone who
>does not believe in evolution is to be asked to give Archeopterix
>intermediate status, it is up to the evolutionist to provide
>scientific evidence of that status.

   We did.  It shares avian and reptilian characteristics in a single body.

>  It is not up to anyone else to
>impeach the evolutionist's view. (If the standard used is to be
>"accept this assertion as a fact unless you can show it wrong," then
>for consistency, creationist statements must be either accepted as
>fact or shown to be wrong.)

   HA!  The standard is that careful morphological observation (the basis of
the "intermediacy claim" for archeopterix") is superior to the bald
assertions of Bob "ignore inconvienient evidence" Bales.
 
> When one asks why Archaeoperix should be considered an intermediate,
>the answer is in the form of a list of Archaeoperix's supposedly
>reptillian characteristics.  But when one asks how we know that a form
>with these characteristics is an intermediate form, the answer is
>simply an assertion that it is.

   No, we have a list of reptillian characteristics, a list of avian
characteristics, and we note acheopterix has some of both.  This makes it
"in between" or "intermediate", so in fact that status in unimpeachable. 
The only question is WHY is there a critter that looks half bird and half
reptile.  The theory of evolution gives a good explaination.  Bob Bales
gives no explaination or a bad one (e.g. God made it that way and it missed
the Ark) depending on his horoscope (or something).

> There is no experiment or
>observation to show that an organism with this characteristic must be
>an intermediate form.

   Sure there is.  The thousands of morphologically intermediate forms are
observations.  Doesn't any of the stuff the regulars post sink in?

> Just as it takes more than a bald assertion to impeach an 
>intermediate form, it takes more than a bald assertion to establish an 
>intermediate form.

   We have far more than that.  We have observed thousands of intermediate
forms.  You have no choice; admit their existence or be a fool.  Your ONLY
DAMN OPTION is to explain WHY there are intermediate forms with "creation
science".  Since there isn't any real creation science, this is a daunting
task.

>    Bob Bales

   Bob, the problem is that you're confusing "intermediate form" with
"evolutionary intermediate".  Try taking a course in English as a Foreign
language.  You'll meet some interesting people and have a slightly lower
chance of sounding like a complete ignoramus.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Can I get a membership to the "I dumped on Bob Bales" club now?  I hear they
are considering restricting membership because they can't get a football
stadium to meet in...