Dinosaur Feathers Part 2 — What a Stupid Concept

In our last installment, we saw that Darwin's Desperate Cheerleaders are ignoring facts from paleontology and geology, and trying to make an ancient bird into a feathered dinosaur. This post has two more items that need your investigation.

Megalosaurus, a bird-hipped dinosaur

Some Darwinists are so intent on determining the origin of flight that they see feathers in all sorts of dinosaur fossils. It has been speculated that dinosaurs had feathers, and then branched into two kinds: Lizard-hipped (which allegedly evolved into birds) and bird-hipped (which did not allegedly evolve into birds, despite having an advantage in the hip department). I actually laughed when I read that. Things that look like feathers to some enthusiastic scientists actually have almost no resemblance to them. Here are two articles that show why the feathers are from the land of imagination. First:

The media have jumped all over a discovery of fuzz on a small ornithischian dinosaur, ignoring the evolutionary problems. 

No sooner had we published the previous entry about true feathers on an imaginary dinosaur (7/24/14) when another paper came out in Science Magazine announcing “feathers” on a real dinosaur. The media spin machine immediately went into high gear:
The discovery of a weird dinosaur, Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus, looking something like a cross between a chicken and a fuzzy kangaroo according to the artist’s imagination, was announced in Science Magazine. The authors, however, preferred the phrase “featherlike structures” instead of feathers throughout the paper. The only times they spoke of “feathers” per se, they qualified the word as interpretive:

You can read the rest by clicking on "Featherlike Structures Are Not Feathers", and remember that there is another strong article waiting for you below.

To continue, not only are some evolutionary scientists and the wild-eyed sensationalistic press seeing feathers on dinosaurs, or unjustifiably turning dinosaurs into dino-bird things, feathers on dinosaurs are ridiculous. It is like paying for "being hit on the head lessons", what a stupid concept. There would be no advantage for scaly dinosaurs to grow feathers. Nor is it feasible for the huge transformation to evolve from walking to flying. These scientists want to prove evolution, but have tunnel vision and act in a very unscientific manner by elevating their presuppositions above their ability to actually find explanations for what is observed. Of course, the best explanation is that evolution did not happen and that the Creator designed living things, but that wrecks their paradigm. That would mean that God is the Creator, not some pantheistic force of Evolution.

A new dinosaur fossil discovered in China supposedly indicates that it had feathers. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the fossil of the Yutyrannus huali, the “beautiful feathered tyrant,” was the largest yet found of the now famous Chinese “feathered dinosaurs.” The technical description published in Nature claimed that a “gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of China” was recovered. But do these fossils really reveal former feathers, or does another interpretation, perhaps something as simple as decayed skin fibers, better explain them?

Below its headline, the Christian Science Monitor qualified the “feathered” label: These “feathers” are actually just “feather-like features,” or “simple filaments.” Similarly, the Nature text described them as “filamentous integumentary [skin] structures.” Real bird feathers are complicated, with semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, but the fossil’s filaments apparently did not have these features. If the word “feather” just means “filament,” then could any filament—like a hair or plant fiber—not also be called a “feather”?

To read the rest, click on "Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?"