“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said.
“To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.’” -->(!!!)<--

Creationists and Bird Evolution

"Feathered dinosaurs are theoretical transitional forms required by the evolutionist worldview, which holds that birds have evolved from reptiles in the distant past."

NOT TRUE. "Feathered dinosaurs" is just a bogus fantasy cooked up between Jurassic Park and imaginative evolutionist who don't critically think about issues like the time-line.

The argument is against "cretaceous dinosaurs" as ancestors of birds. To say otherwise is a denial of the fossil record. Crocodiles and many other "reptiles" among the archosaurs were not "true dinosaurs"... Some of us uphold evolution as a means to explain the "basal archosaur" which lead to common ancestry between birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs, but certainly not a "dinosaur" from the Cretaceous.

See the following chart which contains some primitive birds (in red) in contrast to dinosaurs (in green). Birds already existed and predate dinosaurs which are sadly referred to as the dinosaurs in which birds supposedly "evolved from."

Birds evolved from a common archosaurian ancestor shared with dinosaurs, in the early Jurassic or Triassic? Well who knows? But definitely not after Archeopteryx (in the late Jurassic), a true bird. And should Protoavis turn out to be a fully formed bird, living in the Triassic then that pushes back the timeline even further.

"Throughout the years, there have been many excavations that claim to have discovered dinosaurs with feathers. While there is no evidence rejecting the idea that there could have been feathered dinosaurs, there is also no evidence proving, without doubt, that there were. There is evidence that in at least some cases these so-called feathered dinosaurs are really misidentified birds."

TRUE. The farther back one goes into the fossil record you will encounter:

  1. Bird-like dinosaurs.
  2. Dinosaur-like birds.

Due to shared common ancestry between Dinosaurs, Crocodiles, Birds- if you go back far enough -- you will reach the "common ancestor threshold" where neither bird nor dinosaur exist, but on the contrary, only an ARCHOSAUR.

"Also, most of these fossils are from China, of which they are known to have a fake fossil industry. This places a question mark on all such finds. While some evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are ancestors to our modern day birds, there is no evidence to prove it, but all the evidence against it."

Fake fossils, true. Some as high as 80%. Thank goodness he understands that only "some evolutionists" believe the myth that "birds evolved from Cretaceous dinosaurs."

The dino-bird hypothesis is a separate and independent hypothesis apart from Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection -- of which we have legitimate fossil evidence and actual examples upon which to found it as a valid theory.

"These birds are primary examples of how evolutionary dating is all speculative."

The dino-bird hypothesis has cast a dark shadow over all scientific credibility and lead to a meltdown in paleontology. The hypothesis does not follow standard scientific protocol and is rejected, or judgment withheld by many scientists, knowing the hypothesis poses direct conflict with the fossil record. His observations are correct... except that the "dino bird hypothesis" is an independent hypothesis, promoted by some very vocally outpoken non-scientists who are mainstream journalists, and has no bearing on the whole of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the fossil evidence for evolution.

"...A feather found fossilized in amber by evolutionary paleontologists has been dated to be around 100 million years old. By evolutionists, it is said to represent the intermediate stage of the development of feather evolution. In disagreement with these dated facts are previous findings, such as the archaeopteryx. The archaeopteryx was said to be the link in dinosaur-to-bird evolution and was then dated to be 150 million years old.[1] It was also supposed to be the very first recognizable feathered bird. Another example that shows a flaw in the evolutionary theory of this feather is the confuciusornis. This beaked bird was dated to approximately 135 million years ago.[2] All the Chinese fossils indicating transitional forms from theropods to birds are dated to about 121 millions years old,[note 1] but they are 29 millions years after the first true bird. Therefore these creatures found in China couldn't possibly be the missing links to an already existing animal.[3] These birds are primary examples of how evolutionary dating is all speculative."

The Creation Wiki article takes one of the many failures of the dino-bird hypothesis -- which many legitimate scientists of notable reputation have vocally pointed out such numerous flaws, themselves... because they know the hypothesis contradicts the standard method of dating organisms and scientific dating methods in the fossil record. Extrapolating the FLAWED LOGIC of the dino-bird hypothesis as though it were somehow representative of legitimate dating methods like carbon-14 dating... is a non-Sequitur argument fallacy.

Creationists, like the dino-bird hypotheses crowd... do not care about science and seek to destroy Paleontology.

No comments:

Interesting Related Links

For the Anti-Creationism Darwinist Among Us

Thales of Miletus

My Other Blog:
Genesis in the Ancient World
"The Jews integrated into Greek culture around 300 BC. Notably, much of the modern Biblical literature is actually Greek. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis. "One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

Namely this *ouch!*

Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World
"...For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."

(Source, ucmp.berkeley.edu History)

[Sadly, what the site fails to mention is that the oldest known biblical manuscripts date no earlier than around 300 B.C., therefore, Anaximander (610-545 B.C.) could not have based any of his concepts on Biblical Hebrew. However it can be deduced, the Hebrew Genesis account was borrowed from mainstream Greek philosophy.] [The analysis by Harvard and several other University sources are quite impressive: (Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy)]