I shared PD's character assasination of myself with Ed. Here's what Ed had
to say:
"I agree Pastor Bob is the one who is psychotic. He's probably a real hoot
at his own family reunions, judging everyone who believes differently from
him as being worthy of eternal hell."
-ETB


From: Edward T. Babinski
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: Question for I.D.ers concerning the "waste" and "junk" in nature

I'd say that the evolutionists have won the intellectual skirmish, but
Pastor Dave keeps denying every anatomical point they keep scoring (Dave's a
regular "doubting Thomas" in that respect), and he continues to rely on two
quotations from Stephen J. Gould as if they were "holy writ." It appears
Gould is his shield and his salvation against the theory of evolution! Too
bad Pastor Dave doesn't even read the "fine print" or at least the
contextual print concerning what Gould said:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html
<http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html>

As for Archie (Archaeopteryx), he was hardly an example of perfect design.
His flaws are all too apparent. You need only look at the flimsy size of his
keel bone beside those of all known modern species of birds to see the
tremendous difference in size. The keel bone is the bone in the middle of a
bird's chest to which its flight muscles are attached. Modern day flying
birds have long deep keel bones running the full length of their torsos to
which are attached enormous thick wide muscles for flight. Archie had a
relatively TINY keel bone and you cannot attach the thick expansive flight
muscles of modern birds to such a tiny keel bone. And without such a bone
there is not much to attach such muscles to, so there is little doubt that
Archie could probably flap its wings, but there is no evidence it was a
powerful flier, at best it was merely a powered one. (Does pastor Dave know
the difference between "powerful" and merely "powered?") Archie also had a
long bony tail which added weight and drag in flight. Again, not a highly
efficient design. And it had teeth and a thick-boned triangular-shaped skull
exactly like reptiles have, and unlike the modern bird's curved
aerodynamically shaped helmet skull. Archie also had unfused wrist bones,
meaning it had to exert extra muscle power to keep it's wrists straight in
flight. All in all, there is no evidence that Archie was a powerful flier,
maybe the Designer was practicing, fiddling around, TINKERING? The record of
the earliest fossilized flying reptiles would make one think so. Only much
later did the Designer hit upon the idea of modern day birds, so much more
well designed, so much more powerful. including the hummingbird a recent
species, that can even do something no other birds can do, fly backwards.
But it took a lot of TINKERING apparently to get to the hummingbird. The
Designer didn't start there. He started with early feathered reptiles, then
feathered flying reptiles, but there is NO anatomical evidence that any of
the early feathered flying reptiles were powerful fliers, since they ALL had
small keel bones.

Pastor Dave should study and compare some actual fossilized anatomies. I had
photos of Archie's anatomy and his reptilian cousins, showing the amazing
similarity of triangular-shaped skulls of Archie and reptiles, and the
differences between Archie's skull and the light helmet shaped skull of
modern birds. The pictures also showed the tremendous differences in sizes
of keel bones of Archie and modern birds. I printed them in my first little
newsletter, Theistic Evolutionists' Forum. Apparently I need to put them on
the web for others to see for themselves the evidence that makes it
impossible for anatomists to believe that Archie or any of the earliest
feathered flying reptiles were "powerful" fliers.

Cheers!
edwardtbabinski.us