AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D

[BibleStudent]

Yes and no. 

I think most of us would readily admit that con men and hucksters exist in all professions.  Science is not an exception.  But it is also the process of science that found them out.  What pricks up the ears of many of us is that your initial response does not seem to acknowledge that, but rather seems to paint science itself with a broad brush, as if the process is corrupt.

peace
020

Well, I didn't mean to give that impression. I can tell you, honestly speaking, that I do not believe that science is one big con job. I tried to emphasize that at the beginning of my post #60.

And I agree with what you said about deceit coming in all shapes and sizes from all walks of life.

Are we good ?

[Disciple of Sagan]

Hi, BibleStudent.

One of the links the Mod is referring to happens to be one I provided in an early post. It is in regards to you labeling the discovery of the Archaeopteryx fossil as being an example of scientists lying or perpetrating a hoax:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

For the sake of fairness, I had asked you to take a moment to check out the information provided, which I believe did an unbiased job covering both sides of the "controversy", for lack of a better term.

I am simply curious if, after considering the article and the statements contained within, you will still stand by your original stance that the scientists "lied", or were they unfairly labeled as perpetrating a hoax?

[BibleStudent]

Hi, BibleStudent.

One of the links the Mod is referring to happens to be one I provided in an early post. It is in regards to you labeling the discovery of the Archaeopteryx fossil as being an example of scientists lying or perpetrating a hoax:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

For the sake of fairness, I had asked you to take a moment to check out the information provided, which I believe did an unbiased job covering both sides of the "controversy", for lack of a better term.

I am simply curious if, after considering the article and the statements contained within, you will still stand by your original stance that the scientists "lied", or were they unfairly labeled as perpetrating a hoax?

In almost all highly unique fossil discoveries, there is a debate within and amongst the applicable scientific disciplines as to what the discovery signifies. What is unfortunate is that some (not all) of these scientists go too far, get on the bandwagon and start screaming “we’ve found it, we’ve found it….the missing link”….before it has been properly and accurately examined and tested. While I don’t know for certain, I like to believe that this type of behavior is not as prevalent today as it once was. Still, when you have such a large contingency of non-theists in the scientific community whose livelihoods depend on successfully finding evidence that supports a claim, there is bound to be some instances of deceit and manipulation. I think the study that I linked to earlier in the thread satisfies the validity of the statement I just made.  For example, the report indicated that “a staggering 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices like changing the methodology, design or results of a study under pressure from a funding source.” That's pretty remarkable. Also, if I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), there was a high-profile report within the last year or two about a group of scientists who were manipulating data in a global warming study…..emails were found revealing some rather inappropriate behavior, etc. (not sure what the outcome of that story was?)

With regards to the Archaeopteryx, there has been a long standing debate within science as to whether this creature was strictly a bird or a type of transitional animal. Again, what I will say about this is that some scientists either lied or were practicing some irresponsible science by asserting this as something that had not been proven to be what they wanted everyone to believe it was. Most evolutionists today regard the Archaeopteryx as a bird and not a transitional creature.

To say that it is impossible for some (not all) non-theist scientists to be conducting research and studies with a slant (either consciously or unconsciously) on their beliefs is naïve’.

You agree?

Again, I want to clarify....I DO NOT believe that the scientific community as a whole is deceitful and motivated by the wrong reasons.

edit: added a couple of words in first sentence, first paragraph.

[swordcrasher]

I sorry, didn't see any questions really being asked, there is like massive flame war about science's credibility and I'm just skimming  .

For your benefit, I will now bold and underline every question-sentence in xphobe's post:

                  For this one, he first went on to say how much the Bible has been right. Predicting where cities where and such. The flaw he said people believe is it was all written by one person at one remote time.

What???  Why would your dad even say that?  I can't think of anybody with even a basic level of education who seriously believes it was all written by one person.  Christians don't believe it and atheists don't believe it.   If it wasn't just you misunderstanding him, and your dad actually said that, then he's using it as a smokescreen to divert attention from the real flaws in the Bible - of which there are many.

About predictions, it's a no-brainer to write a prediction about something that's already happened.  Since we don't have the original documents anymore, but only copies that were penned after the event took place, how do we know someone didn't just add it after the fact, but before the document copy was widely known?

And if you know of a particular prediction, and you know it's something you could pull off, how difficult is it to take steps to make it happen?  According to the Bible, Jesus did this on more than one occasion.  In fact, he basically committed suicide by manipulating the authorities into a position where they had no choice but to kill him, which -surprise surprise- fulfills some ancient prophecy.  Anyone could do that if they were motivated enough or deluded enough.

So, one per paragraph.  Plus lots of material of substance for an interesting back-and-forth.

Oh jeez rub it in haha, I kinda looked at those as rhetorical. Something like me going "why do you gotta get on my case!!!!!!!!" I don't actually expect you to necessarily answer the question depending on the situation, I'm just ranting.

So yeah, this seemed more of an rant or list of facts against the Bible than anything. I didn't think they were anything directed at me but maybe I'm just stupid... I dunno... 

[nogodsforme]

BibleStudent;

Scientists are human beings. They work for other humans. Of course there can be bias and mistakes. But the process of the scientific method, and the application of peer review halp to mitigate these problems.

I have a colleague who delights in telling stories of various scientists who publish the measurements that support their favorite theory and leave out others. But other people catch them and call them on it! And rarely do these problems call entire fields of study into question-- we are talking about tinkering around the edges of primate classification, ie, exactly what kind of hominid is this, and did it have the type of voice box capable of speech--not scrapping the whole theory of evolution and denying the existence of hominids.

We are still waiting for an acknowledgement that it was the community of scientists applying the secular scientific method that revealed the hoaxes, mistakes, con jobs etc. that have happened. How else would we know whether they were true or not? It is only after the fact that religious people use what the scientists discover and try to use it to criticize science! 

People frequently pop up with lies, discoveries and inventions that we wish were true, like the
bracelet that cures arthritis,
car that runs on water,
wonderful new weight loss tea,
nasty mushroom that treats cancer
drink that flushes drugs so you can pass a drug test
etc. etc.

How do you suggest we evaluate them, tell if they work or not, if they are harmful or just useless, if we don't apply the methods of science?

Will religion work as a substitute? No, because religion is based solely on wishful thinking and any effect is identical to placebo effect. Many televangelists promote just this sort of thing;"This prayer candle, special necklace, statue of whoever, will help you in some unspecified way if you send in some money..."

Do other televangelists routinely uncover the misdeeds, frauds and hoaxes perpetrated by their peers? Of course not. It takes secular investigators using the same kind of methods that scientists use to evaluate other scientist's claims.

It is telling that, now with computers, video and international collaboration, science is even quicker at uncovering frauds, hoaxes and errors than ever before. Mistakes or unsubstantiated conclusions are far less likely to find their way into mainstream textbooks nowadays than in the 19th century. (Unless some fundamentalist groups convince textbook publishers to distort scientific information based on their feelings and  opinions, rather than on the scientific merits of the information....)

[Disciple of Sagan]

In almost all highly unique fossil discoveries, there is a debate within and amongst the applicable scientific disciplines as to what the discovery signifies. What is unfortunate is that some (not all) of these scientists go too far, get on the bandwagon and start screaming “we’ve found it, we’ve found it….the missing link”….before it has been properly and accurately examined and tested. While I don’t know for certain, I like to believe that this type of behavior is not as prevalent today as it once was.

Bolded mine.

Since we are discussing a specific incident here, was the bolded statement true for this specific case, and if so, please cite the source.

In addition, do you consider the bolded statement to be an example of a scientist(s) knowingly and willingly perpetuating a lie/hoax?

Still, when you have such a large contingency of non-theists in the scientific community whose livelihoods depend on successfully finding evidence that supports a claim, there is bound to be some instances of deceit and manipulation.

You are presenting an insinuation that "instances of deceit and manipulation" are somehow linked to the lack of belief of a god for "a large contingency" of scientist.

In the specific case of Archaeopteryx, were any of the scientists involved with it's discovery motivated by a "non-theist" agenda? If so, please cite the source.

I think the study that I linked to earlier in the thread satisfies the validity of the statement I just made.  For example, the report indicated that “a staggering 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices like changing the methodology, design or results of a study under pressure from a funding source.” That's pretty remarkable.

Was this the case in regards to the scientists involved with Archaeopteryx? If so, please cite the source.

Also, if I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), there was a high-profile report within the last year or two about a group of scientists who were manipulating data in a global warming study…..emails were found revealing some rather inappropriate behavior, etc. (not sure what the outcome of that story was?)

Not relevant to the specific topic being discused.

With regards to the Archaeopteryx, there has been a long standing debate within science as to whether this creature was strictly a bird or a type of transitional animal.

True, but irrelevant as to what the motives are of the scientists who support the transitional nature of the fossil.

Again, what I will say about this is that some scientists either lied or were practicing some irresponsible science by asserting this as something that had not been proven to be what they wanted everyone to believe it was.

Bolded mine.

Which scientists, and how soon after their discovery did they "assert" their "irresponsible" claim?  Please cite the source.

Could it be that they stated their hypothesis after they had reached a reasonable concensus?

Also, you are ascribing a specific, negative motive (deceit) to their actions. Please cite the source that backs up this allegation.

Most evolutionists today regard the Archaeopteryx as a bird and not a transitional creature.

Bolded Mine.

What is the percentage for and against? Please cite your source.

To say that it is impossible for some (not all) non-theist scientists to be conducting research and studies with a slant (either consciously or unconsciously) on their beliefs is naïve’.

You agree?

Who claimed that it is impossible? Perhaps I might have missed it, so could you point to the poster that stated this?

But since you are asking if I personally agree with your statement, in respect to the part saying that some scientists having a biased slant, yes. I agree.

In regards to your once again subscribing a possible motive of anti-theism for their biased slant, that appears to be a personal bias on your part. Is it possible? Sure. But to insinuate... and yes, you did. Twice... that the motivation of [i[some[/i] scientists who happen to discover evidence that disproves or discredits the Bible in any way is based on a non-theist agenda is, again, nothing more than speculation on your part unless you can provide evidence of your own to support your claim.

I do not consider myself to be naïve’ when it comes to human nature and it's inherently selfish nature, but I will state with confidence that the vast majority of scientists... whether they are theist or atheist... revere the scientific method and the pursuit of absolute truth, even if it the evidence they might find rattle their respective belief systems.

And as for the minority that do not, they are inevitably outed and discredited by their peers.

DoS

[Disciple of Sagan]

Oh, I forgot to mention....

While it might seem I was nitpicking when I repeatedly requested for your to provide proof for the accusations/assumptions/statements that you had made in replying to my post, the underlying point I was attempting to make was that as an atheist, I hold evidence (or lack thereof) to be extremely important when forming a stance on any particular subject.  Perhaps it is the latent scientist in me trying to get out.

I have read a good chunk of your postings here over the past, few days, and I know that you feel the same way when asking my fellow non-theists to back up their claims.

Just a friendly reminder that I (we) will hold you to just as high a standard as you will towards us.

Edited for grammar.

[Cyberia]

Archeopteryx has BOTH reptilian and avian characteristics......that makes it a transitional fossil/species UNDENIABLY.

The question is weather or not it is a direct ancestor to birds.  Current thinking is "no", that it belongs to a sister taxon to the true avian ancestor.  However, it is definitely closely related to this ancestor, if it isn't that ancestor itself.

[Emergence]

Late edit: Cyberia posted before i finished typing, so my reply is kind of redundant. Sorry.

Most evolutionists today regard the Archaeopteryx as a bird and not a transitional creature.

Total and utter humbug!

Archaeopterix shows both, characteristics of early theropod dinosaurs and characteristics of (modern) birds, and is as such an example of evolutionary transitions or a "transitional form". Within cladistics Archaeopterix is defined as first representative of the class "Aves", i.e. "birds". That means that due to the novel main characteristics Archeopterix shares with modern birds paleontologists decided to rank these characteristics (e.g. skeleton-structure, feathers and flight among others) as the defining characteristics of the class "Aves" making Archaeopterix per definitionem a bird (sometimes also [slightly mistaken] called the common ancestor of later birds) and excluding every species lacking these characteristic from the class "Aves". That means that Archaeopterix is a bird as well as an example of a transitional form, exhibiting characteristis of more than one group within the superior phylum, including such characteristics that are no longer present in later representatives of that class. In other words: The classification is a human made system to group species according to their degree of relation and the "hard" boundaries - eg. reptile/bird -  are not that "hard" at all, but represent the structure of the classification system rather than a hard and distinct natural structure.

Another approach would be to abandon the still widely spread classification into 'kingdom', 'phylum', 'class', 'order', 'family', 'genus' and 'species' and instead just regard any species as a "reproductive class" of it's own. Even that view within modern Cladistics isn't without its problems, since it still doesn't represent the natural structure correctly (though much better), besides being immensely impractical in its use.

Bottomline: Archaeopterix represents 'the first' bird and still is a transitional form.

Further read: Downsized Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary Transition to Modern Birds (Chiappe; Evo Edu Outreach; 2009; PDF)

I doubt that this will register, but i thought i'll throw my 2 cents as biologist in anyway.

[29A]

Also, if I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), there was a high-profile report within the last year or two about a group of scientists who were manipulating data in a global warming study…..emails were found revealing some rather inappropriate behavior, etc. (not sure what the outcome of that story was?)

What you are referring to was called Climategate. Some hackers leaked emails from a research team onto the internet and tried to say that the scientists were deliberately skewing the results. After research into the issue, it was found that the scientists were not guilty of skewing the results.

Climategate team were 'guilty of sloppiness - NOT cheating'

[BibleStudent]

Archeopteryx has BOTH reptilian and avian characteristics......that makes it a transitional fossil/species UNDENIABLY.

Total and utter humbug!

Archaeopterix shows both, characteristics of early theropod dinosaurs and characteristics of (modern) birds, and is as such an example of evolutionary transitions or a "transitional form".

If you don't mind then, could you please provide your thoughts on the findings that were published as a result of the International Archaeopteryx Conference which was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria.

[Emergence]

If you don't mind then, could you please provide your thoughts on the findings that were published as a result of the International Archaeopteryx Conference which was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria.

You mean the 1985 1984 conference? I fear you have to be a bit more specific: What specific findings do you want to hear thoughts about? The proceedings of the conference are quite substantial (>300 pages).

What i can say without need for further specification is, that considering the importance modern cladistics gained in the 1990s, the taxonomic findings of the conference are outdated by - about - 20 years.

Edit: Corrected date after lookup and clarified my post.

[velkyn]

with respect to Mod 20, I have yet to see that BibleStudent has acknowledged that what he has claimed are lies and have no trouble continuing to call him a liar. I myself have pointed out where is claims about Haeckel are wrong as have others.  I have also not seen BS show where any of these "controversies" have a "non-theist" bias as he attempted to intimate in his initial post about bias.

We see this constantly with creationists, the usual use of long superseded information, half-truths, and outright lies, from the "big" names like Answers in Genesis, on down to people like BS who repeat such nonsense in their willful ignorance.   

[Jim]

I, myself, point no fingers at BibleStudent.  I have pity for him and his thoughts.

I think the whole of "practical" Theology is one big boiling pot of excrement, myself.

[BibleStudent]

with respect to Mod 20, I have yet to see that BibleStudent has acknowledged that what he has claimed are lies and have no trouble continuing to call him a liar. I myself have pointed out where is claims about Haeckel are wrong as have others.  I have also not seen BS show where any of these "controversies" have a "non-theist" bias as he attempted to intimate in his initial post about bias.

We see this constantly with creationists, the usual use of long superseded information, half-truths, and outright lies, from the "big" names like Answers in Genesis, on down to people like BS who repeat such nonsense in their willful ignorance.   

Here is what is reported to be Haeckel's own acknowledgement of the fraud he committed:

"To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at once with the contrite confession that a small fraction of my numerous drawings of embryos (perhaps 6 or 8 per cent.) are really, in Dr. Brass’s sense, falsified – all those, namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continuous chain of the evolutive stages, to fill up the gaps by hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing-links by comparative syntheses … After this compromising confession of “forgery” I should be obliged to consider myself ‘condemned and annihilated’ if I had not the consolation of seeing side-by-side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. For the great majority of all the figures – morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological – that are widely circulated and valued in the best text – and handbooks, in biological treatises and journals, would incur in the same degree the charge of “forgery.” All of them are inexact, and are more or less “doctored,” schematized, or “constructed.” Many unessential accessories are left out, in order to render conspicuous what is essential in form and organisation. "(Haeckel 1908)

[BibleStudent]

If you don't mind then, could you please provide your thoughts on the findings that were published as a result of the International Archaeopteryx Conference which was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria.

You mean the 1985 1984 conference? I fear you have to be a bit more specific: What specific findings do you want to hear thoughts about? The proceedings of the conference are quite substantial (>300 pages).

What i can say without need for further specification is, that considering the importance modern cladistics gained in the 1990s, the taxonomic findings of the conference are outdated by - about - 20 years.

Edit: Corrected date after lookup and clarified my post.

This conference is the last instance I could find where a group of scientists came together on behalf of the scientific community specifically to discuss the Archaeopteryx and make an official delcaration on what it represented. They delcared the Archaeopteryx was a bird. This was not a unanimous decision, however, it did represent the majority of the scientists.

[Emergence]

Can you link a source for that "declaration" where i can read its exact wording?

Edit: BTW i am not disputing that it is - per definitionem - a representative of birds. However that doesn't say anything on its status as transitional form.

[BibleStudent]

Can you link a source for that "declaration" where i can read its exact wording?

Haeckel, Ernst (1908) from newspaper article in Berliner Volkszeitung (12-29-1908), quoted in Assmuth, J. & Hull, Ernest R. (1915) Haeckel's Frauds And Forgeries, pp14-15.

[Emergence]

I don't care for what you think about Heackel. I won't spread myself thin on all topics you misrepresent. I am talking about:

...specifically to discuss the Archaeopteryx and make an official delcaration on what it represented

(my bolding)

[BibleStudent]

with respect to Mod 20, I have yet to see that BibleStudent has acknowledged that what he has claimed are lies and have no trouble continuing to call him a liar. I myself have pointed out where is claims about Haeckel are wrong as have others.  I have also not seen BS show where any of these "controversies" have a "non-theist" bias as he attempted to intimate in his initial post about bias.

We see this constantly with creationists, the usual use of long superseded information, half-truths, and outright lies, from the "big" names like Answers in Genesis, on down to people like BS who repeat such nonsense in their willful ignorance.   

Also:

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,"[ii]  source: SCIENCE magazine, September 1997 - “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered”

[BibleStudent]

I don't care for what you think about Heackel. I won't spread myself thin on all topics you misrepresent. I am talking about:

...specifically to discuss the Archaeopteryx and make an official delcaration on what it represented

(my bolding)

Sorry. My bad.

No, I cannot locate the exact wording released. My source is a reference to an article from the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:179, June. written by Peter Dodson.

[Emergence]

No, I cannot locate the exact wording released.

Too bad.

[...]Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:179, June. [...]

June 1985, right?

[BibleStudent]

No, I cannot locate the exact wording released.

Too bad.

[...]Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:179, June. [...]

June 1985, right?

Yes, 1985. Let me know what you find.

[sammylama]

@ BS

I think you're hanging too much on this Haeckel argument, as such.  What's the point?  Does this "dishonest" scientist somehow lend weight to your assertion that there is a god?  I fail to see how credibility is being added.  Ultimately, that's what your underlying message is, right?  That "god" really does exist, but that there are dishonest scientists running about giving misinformation to the world? 

And by the way, the whole "transitional fossil" argument is a red herring.  Here is a list of the fallacies contained in that argument:[1]

• No True Scotsman (ad hoc usage of term 'transitional fossil')
• Equivocation (what is meant by "transitional fossil")
• Straw Man (inaccurate portrayal of nature of transitional fossil/completeness of fossil record)
• Suppressed Evidence (of good examples of transitional fossils)
• Moving Goalpost Syndrome (creationists claim presented examples are inadequate)
• Perfectionist Fallacy (only a perfect fossil record will do)
• Argument from Incredulity (lack of evidence should not be seen as negative evidence)
• Red Herring (proof of evolution does not rest in transitional fossils)

1.	Cut and Paste from here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking

[BibleStudent]

@ BS

I think you're hanging too much on this Haeckel argument, as such.  What's the point?  Does this "dishonest" scientist somehow lend weight to your assertion that there is a god?  I fail to see how credibility is being added.  Ultimately, that's what your underlying message is, right?  That "god" really does exist, but that there are dishonest scientists running about giving misinformation to the world? 

Actually, it isn't me who pressed the Haeckel argument. See velkyn's post #99. I was ready to drop it but he accused me of failing to concede that I had erred in my statements about Haeckel. I had no choice but to continue the discussion.

 

[sammylama]

@ BS

I think you're hanging too much on this Haeckel argument, as such.  What's the point?  Does this "dishonest" scientist somehow lend weight to your assertion that there is a god?  I fail to see how credibility is being added.  Ultimately, that's what your underlying message is, right?  That "god" really does exist, but that there are dishonest scientists running about giving misinformation to the world? 

Actually, it isn't me who pressed the Haeckel argument. See velkyn's post #99. I was ready to drop it but he accused me of failing to concede that I had erred in my statements about Haeckel. I had no choice but to continue the discussion.

 

And the rest of my questioning? 

[BibleStudent]

And by the way, the whole "transitional fossil" argument is a red herring.  Here is a list of the fallacies contained in that argument:[1]

• No True Scotsman (ad hoc usage of term 'transitional fossil')
• Equivocation (what is meant by "transitional fossil")
• Straw Man (inaccurate portrayal of nature of transitional fossil/completeness of fossil record)
• Suppressed Evidence (of good examples of transitional fossils)
• Moving Goalpost Syndrome (creationists claim presented examples are inadequate)
• Perfectionist Fallacy (only a perfect fossil record will do)
• Argument from Incredulity (lack of evidence should not be seen as negative evidence)
• Red Herring (proof of evolution does not rest in transitional fossils)

1.	Cut and Paste from here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking

Your point is noted.

[sammylama]

@ BS

This: 

Does this "dishonest" scientist somehow lend weight to your assertion that there is a god?  I fail to see how credibility is being added.  Ultimately, that's what your underlying message is, right?  That "god" really does exist, but that there are dishonest scientists running about giving misinformation to the world? 

True or not true?

[Emergence]

Yes, 1985. Let me know what you find.

Ok, Dodson's article of 1985 has the title Internationnal Archaeopteryx Conference (link to first page preview) and is - of course - a conference report, three pages long. Unfortunately i or our institute have no JSTOR subscription, so i can't access the full article atm. But from what i read on the first page of the report available to me it is not at all clear that the conference attendees deemed Archaeopteryx a "full" bird without any transitional characteristics. They simply weighted the characteristics in a way that favored a classification of A. as a bird rather than a reptile. This is very apparent from the second paragraph of the second column on the first page of where Dobson reports:

[...]The major questions discussed dealt with the origins of Archaeopteryx (Thecodont, crocodile, or theropod dinosaur?); the relationship of Archaeopteryx to living and fossil birds (the first bird or a feathered reptile?); the arboreal or terrestrial nature of Archaeopteryx; and the analysis of the origin of flight (from the ground up or from the trees down?)

[...]  

(my emphasis, original formatting lost in retyping)

As it seems the decision fell in favor of a classification of "bird" in the end. But that doesn't change that Archaeopteryx has 'reptilian' characteristics not found in modern birds. This is also obvious from how Dobson's report gets cited subsequently in the scientific community. I'd like to give one example i found when searching fro Dobson's report from the page of the Christian "American Scientific Affiliation" (which has no proscribed position on Evolution, btw.):

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record (Keith B. Miller)[1]

Fossil Transitions Associated with Major Adaptive Shifts

[...]

The most famous of transitional fossils is the earliest known bird, Archeopteryx. Ostrum has described over 20 shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and coelurosaur theropods. Among these are: a theropod-like pelvis, the close similarities of the bones of the forelimbs including a swivel wrist joint, and the similarity of the hind limbs and feet with the presence of a reversed first toe (Hecht, et al., 1985; Dodson, 1985; Ostrom, 1994). The similarities of Archeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs such as Velociraptor and Deinonychus are especially strong, and a newly discovered dinosaur called Unenlagia has features of the limbs and pelvis that are the most bird-like yet known (Novas & Puerta, 1997). As interesting as the similarities with the theropods are, the differences between Archeopteryx and modern birds are also significant: it has a long bony tail, a sternum is absent, its vertebrae are not fused together over the pelvis to form a synsacrum, and air ducts are absent in its long bones. In most respects, Archeopteryx is more of a flying feathered dinosaur than a bird. In the last several years the discovery of new fossil birds from the Cretaceous has led to the erection of a whole new subclass of primitive birds called the enantiornithes (Chiappe, 1995). This new group includes several fossil species previously identified as theropod dinosaurs (e.g., Ornithomimus)! There are also some newly discovered fossils whose classification as theropod or bird is in dispute (Chiappe, 1995). The recent discovery in China of a theropod dinosaur with the possible preservation of fine feathers, even suggests that feathers may not be exclusively characteristic of birds (Morell, 1997). This again illustrates the taxonomic uncertainties that surround transitional forms.

Conclusions

From this brief survey of fossil vertebrates, it is clear that transitional forms between higher taxa are common features of the fossil record. The morphology of species within a higher taxonomic group becomes less divergent toward the point of origin of that group. Morphological diversity and disparity increase with time. In addition, transitional species possess mixtures of morphologic characters from different higher taxa often to the extent that their taxonomic assignment is uncertain. This pattern is obscured by taxonomy which gives a false impression of discontinuity.

The fossil record thus provides good evidence for the large-scale patterns and trends in evolutionary history. Recognizing its limitations, the fossil record appears to be consistent with the wide range of evolutionary mechanisms already proposed. Any wholesale abandonment of present paradigms would be very premature. Many critical gaps in our knowledge remain, but as evident from this review important discoveries are continually being made that intrigue, surprise, and enrich our understanding of the evolutionary history of life.

In this Miller expresses almost exactly what i wanted to say in my post following Cyberia.

1.	could not find a date unfortunately but from the citations i'd guess mid-nineties