And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Birds are the descendants of dinosaurs... which evolved about 150 million years ago."
-Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994, p. 214, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3
The Bible says the Lord God created birds and all the beasts of the earth, and that birds and beasts alike will only be able to bring forth offspring after their kind. However, in the public school textbooks and classrooms, the religion of evolution is being taught to students by telling them that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So far, the Biblical model that creatures bring forth after their kind (birds produce birds, lizards produce lizards, etc) is the only observable (scientifically verifiable) model in existance; the religious model of evolution, that beast can produce bird, has never been observed in nature, but is still taught as if it's "science."
"The earliest known bird is Archaeopteryx (meaning 'ancient wing')... Because of these dinosaurlike features, several Archaeopteryx fossils were originally classified as dinosaurs... Today, most biologists agree that
Archaeopteryx is very closely related to the small dinosaur Compsognathus."
-Biology, Holt, 2004, p. 725
Archaeopteryx is one of the most commonly used examples of evolution's religious claims to the "dinosaur-bird connection," but evolutionist Alan Feduccia, professor and published author on the evolution of birds, says archaeopteryx could NOT have possibly evolved from dinosaurs.
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And
no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."
-Alan Feduccia [evolutionist biology professor], "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science, Feb 5, 1994, p. 764-765
Similarities do not prove common ancestry, but that's what's being used in the public school textbooks to spread this religious concept. For example, Berkeley teaches the following:
Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wingwhich could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees)."
-"Archaeopteryx: An Early Bird," UCMP Berkeley, retrieved June 17, 2013, [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html]
Unlike all living birds? Even other evolutionists understand that a variety of birds have claws on their wings, and that's been known for centuries at minimum:
"[C]laws are generally present in
ratites, gamebirds, waterfowl, divers, storks and kin, finfoots, owls, New World vutures, the Secretary bird Sagittarius serpentarius, waders and many others(Jefferies 1881, Fisher 1940)"
-Darren Naish [evolutionist], "Clubs, Spurs, Spikes and Claws on the Hands of Birds," ScienceBlogs, June 30, 2010, retrieved June 17, 2013, [http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/06/30/clubs-spurs-spikes-and-claws/]
Some birds have claws, and some don't, so what does that prove? Nothing. It certainly does not prove that dinosaurs turned into birds! Unless the folks at Berkeley want to admit that they have little real knowledge about birds, or that they did not actually study this topic before writing about it, they are lying to students to get them to believe in evolution.
Some evolutionists will object to my statements, claiming that these birds don't have teeth, they have "teeth-like" sections in their mouths, but on what basis do they say that these birds don't actually have teeth? Because it HAS TO be that way. Why? Because according to evolution, no modern bird has teeth, so therefore, to the evolutionist, they only look like teeth, but they can't be teeth because evolution teaches that no bird today has teeth. That's not logical. That's like saying no modern man has hands; you just have hand-like apendages. That kind of slieght-of-hand might work on little children, but we're adults, so let's start thinking like adults. These birds have teeth and claws, but evolutionists don't want to call them teeth or claws because the fallacious argument of their bird-dinosaur connection relies heavily on no bird today having claws or teeth, and some evolutionists are so desperate for evidence of their religion, they are willing to lie to children to get them to believe in it.
There are so many major biological differences between birds and reptiles, the changes necessary to go from one to the other in nature is so inconceivable, I think the average person does not understand what evolutionists are claiming.
For example, birds have hollow bones, and the change from lizard bones to bird bones is a joke. An evolutionist will typically embarrass himself by saying, "Well, sometime in the past the bones just hollowed out and they became better for flight," and move on without first considering that any change in bone structure also automatically changes the nervous system, the muscular system, the organ structure, the spinal cord configuration, and all attachments to the brain in turn with the millions of corresponding electrical connections, and all of these must be done SIMONTANEOUSLY or the creature will die. Going from evolution's religious wishes to actual biological science takes gigantic leaps of extraordinary faith.
Bird feathers evolved from the same scales that protected the dinosaurs so well."
-Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994, p. 214, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3
to illuminate the origin of feathers by examining the scales of modern reptiles, the closest living relatives of birds.Both scales and feathers are flat. So perhapsthe scales of the birds' ancestors had stretched out, generation after generation. Later their edges could havefrayed and split, turning them into the first true feathers. It made sense too that this change occurred as an adaptation for flight."
-Carl Zimmer, "Evolution of Feathers," National Geographic Magazine, February, 2011, retrieved June 18, 2013, [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/02/feathers/zimmer-text]
Carl Zimmer is a writer for the New York Times, and is well-known for his articles about his faith in the religion of evolution. The funny thing about the article I just quoted is that when Zimmer talks about the miraculous evolution from dinosaur to bird, he uses the following phrases in almost every sentence:
- It might have...
- It could have...
- Imagine that...
- IF this happened...
Bird feathers and reptile scales have only one thing in common: they are both made from a protien called keratin. That's it. That's where the similarities stop. Bird feathers are incredibly complex for their design of flight structure, temperature control, and weather resistance.
If two things are made from the same substance, does that prove one produced the other? Battleships and forks are both made from iron, so does that prove they both evolved from a tin can 150 million years ago?
The reason battleships, cans, and forks are all made from iron is because iron is a good substance with which to make things. Designers use iron as a basis for many models because it works well. Likewise, feathers and scales both being made from keratin does not prove dinosaurs turned into birds, it simply demonstrates that keratin is a good substance with which to make things, and God used it to make a number of things, including skin, hair, nails, hooves, horns, teeth, etc. Both a cow's hoof and a raptor's claw is made of keratin, so according to evolutionary thinking, it would be "scientific" to believe raptors evolved into cows.
Despite all this, the folks at Berkeley still lie to get students to believe there's evidence for dino-to-bird:
"In fact, the
evidence is overwhelmingly in favorof birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur,"
-"Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?" UCMP Berkeley, retrieved June 18, 2013, [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html]
I'm not saying that everyone at Berkeley lies, but I am saying the people who are writing this propaganda are either must admit that they are ignorant of bird/lizard anatomny, or they are lying to students to get them to convert to their religion. In fact, the evidence is so LACKING, many "reputable" evolutionists get desperate to accept any evidence they can find, even if it's a fraud.
All the major evolutionary publications were quick to write about the amazing "Breaking News" that the missing link had finally been discovered! Of course, they claimed there was evidence everywhere for the dino-bird connection up until this point, but now they suddenly had evidence! Until it was shown to be a fraud...
"From the remote Liaoning Province of China, an unusual dinosaur fossil has made a mysterious journey from the hands of Chinese smugglers to the polished halls of the National Geographic Society in Washington... [It] may be remembered as modern paleontology's greatest embarrassment...
added by an entrepreneurial Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur... Whether a deliberate fake or an honest mistake, it is the tale of a tail that has children believing in feathered dinosaurs that never existed... The popular view, thanks most recently to the fictional Jurassic Park, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. National Geographic and Nature have co-published magazine articles and scientific papers supporting the view... Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian... tried to warn officials at National Geographic... that the organization was headed for embarrassment if it endorsed the fossil."
-Tim Friend, "The 'Missing Link' That Wasn't," USA TODAY Feb 3, 2000
Surprising to some that such big name in "science" would make such a huge oversight, but it happens much more often than most people think in the religion of evolution. This is why I hear evolutionists often say, "The latest research says..." and they always refer to research that just came out a few weeks or months ago, and has not stood the test of time to be verified. That typically happens because all their "evidence" is eventually proven wrong, fraudulent, or there are a number of other options available besides the imaginary view of evolutionism.
Some evolutionists still insist that they have "dino fuzz" which proves dinosaurs were growing feathers. The fuzzy section seen in this fossil picture is not "dino fuzz," it is skin that frays (spreads out) as it fossilizes during decomposition, but evolutionists often call them "proto-feathers," or what they claim is the beginning of bird feathers.
"On the contrary, there is a considerable body of evidence that these fossil traces, known as
'dino-fuzz', have nothing to do with bird feathers... I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures represent protofeathers."
-Alan Feduccia [evolutionist and professor at UNC], "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem," The Auk, Vol. 119 (4), October, 2002, p. 1187-1201
Even Feduccia, one of the world's foremost experts on birds, who is also an evolutionist, says that "dino-fuzz" has nothing to do with bird feathers. In another publication, he expands on this:
Our findings show no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morphogensis of the feather.Rather, based on histological studies of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude that 'protofeathers' are probably the remains of collagenous fiber "meshworks" that reinforced the dinorsaur integument.These "meshworks" of the skin frequently ormed aberrant patterns resembling feathers as a consequence of decomposition... [and] show a strong resembance to the collagenous fiber systems in the dermis of many animals."
-Alan Feduccia & J.R. Hinchliffe, "Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence," Journal of Morphology, Vol 266 (2), 2005, p. 125
I know there was a lot of big words in there, but summed up what he said was that the so-called 'dino-fuzz' is simply fibers of the skin fraying as it fossilzes, and it happens with a variety of animals, not just dinosaurs. But despite experimental data, evolutionists continue to preach 'dino-fuzz' as evidence for evolution between dinosaurs and birds, and it's simply not true.
Though many evolutionists will not take the philsophical thought process through to its conclusion, we have to ask why it is so desperately important for kids to believe that dinosaurs turned to birds. Why are they pushing this so hard? If you can believe that dinosaurs turned to birds, then you can believe that you came from a monkey. And if you believe you came from a monkey, then the Bible is wrong about the history of man. And if the Bible is wrong about the history of man, then man is free from the Law of God. If man is free from the Law of God, then man is guilty of nothing and gets to make his own rules. The hidden philosophy behind the lies of evolution is escape from God's authority over mankind.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.