Barbarian observes:
Actually, it seems to have been a mesotherm, like other dinosaurs. And it has dinosaur teeth, and no beak. And a dinosaur tail, instead of an avian pygostyle. And dinosaur ribs. And no furcula (wishbone). And unfused digits. And no keeled breastbone... And (long list)
So, having more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones (and those are ones shared by dinosaurs and birds), it's classified as a dinosaur.
I don't know of any scientist who thinks birds evolved from Archaeopteryx.
(your scute misunderstandings are cleared up in a different post)
Berkely disagrees with you!
Too bad for them, then. As you now realize, Archaepteryx is not the ancestor of birds, and it has more dinosaur features than avian features. And it's been known for nearly a decade that Archaeopteryx isn't a bird:
Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all. The latest discovery of a fossil that treads the line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is leading palaeontologists to reassess the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two.
Archaeopteryx has long been placed at the base of the bird evolutionary tree. It has traits that have helped to define what it is to be a bird, such as long and robust forelimbs. Yet in recent years, the discoveries of numerous small, feathery dinosaurs have created a conundrum for palaeontologists, raising questions about which animals are the ancestors of modern birds and which are just closely related cousins.
Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News
I notice that UC Berkey doesn't say it's a bird, either:
"Archaeopteryx is
considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. ... Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its
ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern
birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups."
Archaeopteryx - UCMP Berkeley
As you learned, the old idea of Archaeopteryx as a bird has been demonstrated to be wrong for almost a decade.
Barbarian observes:
It means you think that if a more evolved form exists, all the less-evolved forms must be extinct. It's like the old excuse we get from creationsts:"
but you offered a drawing showing transitional forms that appear in the geologic column long after archeoptryx , so they cannot be transitional forms.
Your fellow YEC, Kurt Wise, disagrees with you...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as
Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods),
Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates),
Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and
Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors.
Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the
Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise,
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
And Wise actually knows what he's talking about.
Well Pteranadons and pteradactyls had membranous wings and are not part of the supposed ascent to birds so they are moot! They did not have feathers.
Well, that's kind of a problem for you, too...
Two spectacular fossils found in China show that the flying reptiles known as pterosaurs had primitive feathers to help keep them warm, just like many dinosaurs. The finding suggests that feathers evolved far earlier than we thought.
The wings of pterosaurs were made of skin, muscles and fibre, so they had no need of flight feathers. The feathers they had are small and tufty.
“They are almost certainly just for insulation,” says Mike Benton at the University of Bristol, UK, a member of the team that discovered one of the fossils about two years ago. The second specimen was found several years ago but its importance is only now being appreciated.
Stunning fossils show pterosaurs had primitive feathers like dinosaurs
Remember when I told you that not knowing what you're talking about is a huge disadvantage? 
