In the beginning....

Well hello there fellow blog readers!

I've decided to start a blog about the topic of Evolution vs Creation, hopefully its something that interests you as much as it does me!

Now what I don't want is for you, the visitors, to think that this blog is in any way shape or form, on the sides of creation. Not by a long shot! But, this doesn't mean that I don't allow creationists to enter into the fray, by all means, contribute to the discussions! I will welcome it! But lets also try to keep things civil, Mmmkay.

So why call the blog "How to be a Creationist" if its not really geared towards that topic? Over the years that I've been exposed to the idea of creationism, I've found highly interesting patterns that tend to continually present themselves among all proponents of this so called "science". These patterns and tendencies are almost staple traits one must be able to convey if they wish to be seen as a creationist, and while much of the opposition points these observable traits to the rest of the population, creations tend to dismiss nor defend their short comings.

Now while this blog will contain many of my own opinions, this first post is to talk about a recent article posted on the CMI website. The article in question is titled "North American 'Feathered' Dinosaurs a Flight of Fancy" and can be found by clicking that very title.

The article discusses recent discoveries on the early uses of wings within a species of dinosaurs (Ornithomimus) found in North America, and cites their resources from two press releases on "popular media" science websites. Those two articles can be found HERE and HERE. The author presents the articles as the basis for the studies, and vilifies the websites as misrepresenting the data, saying that:

The puzzles, bloopers, problems and need for exaggerated artist’s reconstructions disappear when we look at this evidence from the point of view of biblical history.

Of course when talking about this, the author is referring mainly to the reconstructed image of the dinosaur in question, assuming that not much evidence has been found to create such a reconstruction. However, the author has not gone to the lengths of actually reading the published paper that discusses these findings and the research done on them. The author makes a list of problematic ideas presented within the articles. I attempted to respond to these questions, but have yet to hear whether my comments will get accepted by the website. But, here is what I proposed to them in reply to the questions asked by the author;

1.      Ornithomimus was too big and its alleged wings were too small for it to be able to fly. The researchers said this indicates the initial use of its wings was not for flight.

This does not pose any problems. Many birds have wings, but do not use them specifically for flight; ostriches or penguins are an example of this. Do a Google search on “birds that can’t fly” for a more comprehensive list and do a bit of research on what their feathers are for.

2.      The large clusters of feathers on its forelimbs (as drawn by the artist) would have been of no use for flying. But they would have been a major hindrance for walking and feeding. The researchers said the dinosaurs may have used their “flashy feathers” to woo potential mates, peacock style.

  Quite unsure of why this would hinder walking or feeding. As for using their feathers “peacock style”, what problem exactly does this pose? Its been recorded extensively that many creatures display to show potential mating interests, or for dominance.

3.      The announcement said the find will "shed light on origin of wings". However, according to evolutionary assumptions wings already existed. Archaeopteryx is ‘dated’ as 80 million years older than this CanadianOrnithomimus, which was assigned to the late Cretaceous, supposedly 71 million years ago. This has long been claimed to be the ancestor of birds and already had wings—impressive ones at that. Indeed, it looks like it could fly.

 While Archaeopteryx is an older species, the evidence of wings do not fully explain why wings or feathers evolved. Archaeopteryx does not seem to be an ancestor of Ornithomimus, but more of an offshoot that deviated much earlier from other possible feathered species, while Ornithomimus would have evolved from a different, and thus, flightless ancestor. The evidence of plumage gives more insight into wings and feather and their usage, not just in terms of flight.

4.      The reports said the Ornithomimusspecimens were apparently covered in “stringy down up to 2 inches (5 cm) long”. Note that these are not feathers but just “stringy down”. Yet the report described the strings as “filament-like feathers” (more spin). Note that the artist’s embellishment, showed not lengths of stringy down on the limbs but, an impressive array of fully formed feathers.

 Yes, a popular news media outlet on science gave limited information to the lay population… why not actually look into the article the info is cited from? The actual peer reviewed paper gives and presents the evidence of the feather structures on the older adult specimens found. Primary sources are whats usually used in science…. Not popular media sources. Hence, no “spin”.

5.      Most of the fossils of Archaeopteryx, which is dated at 80 million years older than thisOrnithomimus fossil, include impressions of feathers—impressions that were of an ‘advanced’ form, in that they are of flight feathers. So Ornithomimus throws no light on the origin of feathers, even within their own evolutionary framework, because feathers already existed.

 Again, Archaeopteryx does not explain the development of feathers, nor does it fully explain why feathers are used. More evidence of feathers can further the research already done so far.

6.      Note that the fossil is well preserved, indicating that the creature was buried rapidly before it had been scavenged and before the remains had rotted and disintegrated. The evidence points to a short time for the death and burial of the fossil.

 Rapid or slow burial (of which the latter would be more likely) has nothing to do with feather development. This is also not the only fossil(s) that the primary source is examining. Surely a large institution as CMI has the resources to gain the actual article?

7.      Note, too, the posture of the animal. Its back is arched, legs thrown forward and bent, neck curved tightly and head forward. This is the classic ‘dead dinosaur posture’ which indicates rapid burial. It has been suggested this opisthotonic posture is due to the animal being suffocated as it was buried (see Death throes), or submersion increasing buoyancy so that a strong spinal ligament can pull back the tail and neck (see ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!).

 Uh… this is also found in recent species, as well as humans who have not been rapidly buried….  so this does not prove rapid burial, nor does so called “rapid burial” have any relevancy to the development of feathers.

While my answers may not be fully developed, or maybe misinterpreting the author, I find it somewhat disturbing that a source claiming to be "truthful" in all matters, would go to lengths of telling their audience that these "press articles" are outright lying about data. No mention of the actual research was made, therefore, not even looked at. This contributes to one of my "traits" for creationists: Lying.

Ok so this is not a major trait, everyone lies, but the way it is done by creationist resources is fairly harmful to the population they tend to. While it probably wont disappear in any foreseeable future, hopefully lying will become another point on the creationist list of "arguments to not use".