ICR Lies--Feathered Dinosaurs

The following article was found on the ICR.org website August 13, 2005 by darwindad (me). I just randomly clicked on one of their articles. I have found in the past these articles to be full of errors and omissions that anyone with a science background would instantly see. It has been five years or more since I last checked one of their articles but the same old tricks are still being played by ICR little god propagandist.

The writers of this masterfully written propaganda count on the fact that their readers do not have the background to know when they are being snookered by the ICR propaganda. I have highlighted in bold face crazy lies and omissions by the ICR propagandist who wrote the article and given additional information to point out errors and omissions in italics. The words of the ICR article are in their entirety the only change is to bold face the most egregious errors in logic and the greatest deceptions.
Peter Welch former science teacher, Christian(long time Sunday School teacher, Christian Scouting leader with multiple awards for Christian service form the Porterville Church of the Nazarene). I once debated of ICR’s own master propagandist, Duane Gish—recently retire, on National Public Radio during an hour long show. The debate was aired in the winter of 1995 long before his recent retirement.
_____________________________________________________________--
Feathered Dinosaurs?
May 16, 2005
For several years, paleontologists – mainly in China - have been unearthing fossils of dinosaurs bearing alleged feather-like imprints. Macroevolution theory states that modern birds are simply feathered dinosaurs. This means the scales of reptiles slowly evolved into feathers.
A dated showcase for evolution – Archaeopteryx – was discovered soon after the publication of Darwin’s infamous book in 1859. Other fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx were later discovered, but they all had feathers and wings, with no indication of how the front legs gradually evolved into wings. More importantly, the flight feathers of this creature are fully developed with no indication as to how they allegedly evolved from scales.
Ever heard of phrase as “Scarce as hen’s teeth?” Reason for saying is no bird on earth today has teeth in its mouth. Birds used their hardened (horny) beak for biting. The gizzard is (enlarged area in esophagus is used to grind food the way molar(back) teeth in mammals do. The gizzard is full of rocks in birds. The remains of rock filled gizzards have been found in dinosaurs as well.) Why did archaeopteryx have teeth unlike any bird today?

Why did it not have a strong wishbone? All existing species of flying birds have a huge wishbone.

Why did it have exposed claw-like fingers on its wings? Name a bird that has claws on its wings. Birds today have two fingers that are modified from the five finger buds in embryo. Two are completely reabsorped. One is tiny.

Why do little god creationists dismiss archaeopteryx as a chimera in books from the seventies and eighties? Because it had so many features that were both bird and dinosaur like that if the feathers were not clearly visible it was classified as a small meat eating dinosaur by expert paleontologists at the time. Indeed one was misidentified for years until more layers of sediment were removed and imprints found. The incredible similarity to dinosaurs clearly made archaeopteryx a transitional species, but little god creationists do not accept any transitional species. A lie to confuseor misdirect must be crafted for each one and there are hundreds of transitional species for every major group of animals including man.


The reader is urged to consult Dr. Duane Gish’s book, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO for a more detailed discussion.
After many decades of finding no fossils that would make the connection between birds and dinosaurs (Archaeopteryx being a contentious exception), secular scientists have now discovered fossils that provide a critical connection. But the “feathered dinosaur” fossils could be viewed as discoveries of convenience, much like the 1996 discovery of “microfossils” on the famous Mars meteorite conveniently made at a time that NASA needed government funding. (Today, the Martian “microfossils” are controversial at best, with a majority of scientists dismissing them.)
How would the creationist view the feathered dinosaur discoveries?
Let’s begin by looking at the big picture.

There has never been a single discovery, either in the laboratory or in the field of fossil hunting (paleontology), that the secularist could triumphantly point to and claim as positive evidence for macroevolution.
Typical broad yet carefully crafted statement that appears to be a statement of fact but is just a deception meant to lead readers to an incorrect conclusion.

This has held true right up to the eve of school board battles presently raging in no less than 18 states in regard to the teaching of origins. What better time to discover fossils that finally validate Darwinism?
The reader should be very cautious of such claims, keeping in mind the embarrassing Archeoraptor fiasco, and National Geographic’s rush to publication, disregarding calls for a more detailed investigation of this strange fossil. (See Dr. Steve Austin’s excellent article on Archeoraptor at Impact No. 321 . See also “ Open Letter to Dr. Peter Raven of National Geographic Society” http://members.aol.com/acoxon1274/Olson_archaeraptor.html )
Several years ago a carefully faked fossil of a dinosaur with feathers from China turned out to be two or more fossils combined by an expert “fossil” forger. Just like in art museums, forgeries occasionally slip by. But just as with art pieces other experts look at and correct mistakes. Science is self correcting process that gets closer and closer to truth. Real paleontologists discovered the mistake, no ICR researcher was involved, no creation scientist was involved. Many other genuine unaltered feathered dinosaur fossils have been found since then.

Feathers, “Protofeathers” or Fibers?
Evolutionism posits that the scales of reptiles slowly evolved into the beautiful and ornate feathers of birds today.
The first question the skeptic should ask is, “Do these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ have real feathers, and if not – what are the markings?”
Creation scientist David Menton provides compelling scientific evidence why such a transition could never take place. Even from their embryonic stages, scales and feathers are completely different.

Dr. Menton describes how feathers are very complex, composed of a barb, barbules, and hooks, first erupting from complex follicles. Scales come from folds in skin.
There are more than one type of feathers on a bird. Downy feathers that seem hairlike are underneath the complex flight feathers. Downy feathers are quite simple and approach the simplicity of a enlarged scale (think fish) that has been been split down the middle several times.

Zoologists would need to see fossil evidence showing scales in the process of converting into feathers. So far, this has not been documented.

Dinosaur discoveries of the past, such as Sinosauropteryx (meaning ‘first Chinese dragon feather’) and its “protofeathers” were seen by evolutionist John Ostrom as nothing of the sort.(Now considered to be far outside the mainstream of thought in paleontology. Many years ago he argued against the dino bird connection based on bones in the feet. Scientist make names for themselves by arguing back and forth. Science advances this way. The scientists who has the preponderance of evidence wins the day and is accorded honors.

Oregon State University’s John Ruben is a professor of zoology and says these structures are likely collagen connective fibers.1 Sinosauropteryx was just a theropod and did not possess any characteristics attributable to birds. Indeed, theropods had long, stiff tails, hardly a requirement for flight! Other front-rank evolutionists are divided on Sinosauropteryx , as well as more recent feathered dinosaur discoveries.
The recently discovered Falcarius utahensis is described as having not true feathers, but “ a woolly feather-like plumage” according to BBC News.2
The story also states the creature was found in a "mass graveyard;" this fact fits the Flood model. Not if the mass graveyard was caused by a sandstorm.

Many animals of the pre-Flood world were bizarre to be sure, with structures and tissues not seen in animals today. Those holding to an evolutionary worldview are sometimes quick to see such unique structures as possible transitions. Creationists view dinosaurs having woolly plumages and collagen fibers as –dinosaurs with woolly plumages and collagen fibers, nothing more.

The above is its own self indictment. ICR staff admitting they are not scientists no are they using scientific methods. Science must accept all new evidence no matter how cherished the theory that the evidence overturns. Famous quote about “There is no such elegant theory that some little niggling fact cannot overturn it.” That is the way science works. That is the way detective work of any kind works.

Stephanie Crow’s murder in Escondido<< www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/>> was blamed on her brother an his friends but a transient (Richard Tuite) seen in the area identified by neighbors and family at the time was stopped and his shirt taken for evidence by police at the time.( The shirt was never thoroughly examined by Escondido .) Three years later when the defense lawyer for the brother requested that it be tested, the shirt was found to contain the blood of Stephanie Crow. Her brother had not killed her after all. The transient had. Just a little blood overturned an elegant theory by the incompetent Escondido Police Department. The above underlined statement indicates that the little god liars of ICR are admitting the existence of transitional fossils that show transitional traits, yet they ignore them. No matter the evidence little god creationists will not accept it for what it is.

1. Appenzeller, T. 1999. T. rex was fierce
All italicized answers written by darwindad in less than a half hour. No reference to sources was needed as the errors and deliberate omissions were so easy to spot.