Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Fossil may exemplify birds' evolution
from dinosaurs

Original article = blue text
Our response = black text

In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.

Update to this response on 11/20/1999:

On 11/9/1999, this letter to the editor was sent to several editors and reporters at the Columbus Dispatch informing them that the Natural Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution had come out in strong opposition to the scientists referenced in this Dispatch article. In this case it was not a creationist organization that was accusing these scientists of practicing bad science, but a traditionally evolutionist organization. This Dispatch was very willing to give these pseudo-scientists plenty of space in their paper to promote their evolutionist propaganda, but to-date, they have not let the public know about this compelling opposing view from the Smithsonian..

This is an excellent example of the kind of unbalanced reporting that creationists often see in the liberal news media, and the Dispatch in particular. When a story suites some personal agenda the reporters or editors have, they'll print it. But getting them to print an opposing view to some pet issue they cherish, particularly concerning the false religion of evolution, is exceedingly difficult if not impossible. When I was younger, I used to look up to the news media as people we needed to help keep our government in check, and corruption at a minimum. Now as I've grown older and wiser, I see that the personal biases that exist in the scientific community against God are also rampant in the liberal news media. It's too bad, because the Dispatch is missing some real opportunities to be a much more positive contributor to their community. A recent Gallup poll showed that 81% of Americans favor teaching creationism in the public schools. Americans clearly have an interest in knowing more about the issue from the creationists side. Why does the Dispatch continue to ignore such an overwhelming desire in its community for this kind of information?

WASHINGTON A fierce turkey-sized animal with sharp claws and teeth may have been the first flying feathered dinosaur, a missing link between the lumbering lizards of millions of years ago and the graceful birds of today.

Notice how they start off saying "may have been". This is the last time in this article you'll see any hint of uncertainty. From this point on, the article reads like it's a given fact that dinosaurs evolved into birds, which is typical of evolutionist propaganda. They are so desperate to find a real missing link that there is almost no limit to how for some of them will twist their interpretation of the evidence to suit their needs. This article provides the reader with an excellent opportunity to see a favorite ploy of evolutionists. That is, "If I have a fancy title, and I speak with certainty and conviction, I can razzle-dazzle them into believing anything, and distract them away from the glaring problems with my interpretation of the evidence". See this link for more information.

Fossils of the animal, Archaeoraptor 1iaoningensis, suggest that it lived 120million to 140 million years ago when a branch of dinosaurs was evolving into the vast family of birds that now live on every continent researchers said Thursday.

Again, spoken with conviction and certainty, with no hint of the major problems we'll reveal in our response. This statement about the dating methods of course assumes an evolutionary bias and gives no hint of the problems with dating methods.

"We' re looking at the first dinosaur that was capable of flying," said Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, a dinosaur expert who helped analyze the new fossil.

See any hint of uncertainty here? Does it appear that Mr. Currie has an open mind about this? It is typical of evolutionists to make grand statements like this without being able to support it with solid evidence. And for those who think these fossils ARE solid evidence, please read on.

"We don't know how good a flier it was, but it certainly has all of the structures you would expect to see in a flying animal", he said.

That's because it's just a new species of bird. Nothing more, nothing less. As Christians, we can be certain of this because God told us he created the dinosaurs on the 6th day of creation, and birds on the 5th day.

The animal's shoulder girdle and breast bone resemble those of modern birds, Currie said,

Here's the first major problem with their hypothesis.

and its hands had been modified to form part of its wing structure.

This is speculation masquerading as certainty.

It also had a full set of feathers and a long tail that probably gave it stability in flight. "The long stiff tail suggests that it helped maneuver in flight, but it also suggests that the animal wouldn't have been a very good flier,"

Here's another major problem.

Currie said. Archaeoraptor also had hollow bones, typical of birds. Such bones are strong but light enough to help the birds fly.

As you will see later, these hallow bones help to make a strong case for why this bird could not possibly have evolved from a dinosaur. This is some of the strongest evidence against it occurring.

This animal was larger than the others, about 7 feet long, and apparently had stiff, narrow feathers that provided warmth.

Here's another major problem with their hypothesis. Natural selection would preserve such feathers, not encourage them to evolve into flying feathers. This this link for more information about this.

The National Geographic-sponsored researchers suggest that Tyrannosaurus infants may have hatched with a coat of down that was shed as they older.

Where did the information in their DNA come from to grow something as complex as feathers? This is yet another major problem with their hypothesis.

Up until now, we've just made a few high-level comments about the problems with their hypothesis. Next, we'll get into some specifics. What you will see on the next page are details of the many problems with their hypothesis that we're sure they'd rather you not know about. Some of it is from a new book titled, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M.. We obtained permission from Answers in Genesis to put the entire chapter of this book dealing with this issue on our web site. Click HERE here to go to it now.

Contact us with your comments or questions.