As an educational exercise in how positions can be distorted. From this page: http://bhcsa.org/DinoStory.asp
"Evolutionists theorize that the Edmontosaurus died millions of years ago, and some have recently speculated that this was a partially feathered type of dinosaur which eventually evolved into modern birds. The Creation Expedition team believes their discovery challenges such theories. "
Notice there is no reference to the "evolutionists" and where they say this.
The theory is that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. Edmontosaurus is a large duck-billed dino. Now, a different theory is that many dinosaurs had feathers.
The creationists have combined these two ideas to make us think that birds evolved from duck-billed dinos. For those not familiar with the term, this is called building a strawman: something that is not real and stuffed with straw. Now, our friends will proceed to tear the strawman apart:
"It was a few days before we knew for certain what kind of a dinosaur we had discovered. But the pelvic bones gave it away. Once we found them, we knew we had some form of Hadrosaurus. It was clearly a bipedal ornithopod, not a quadruped. "
Now, an "ornithopod" is actually an ornithiscian dinosaur. It would help if these people actually used the correct terms. The reason for the name is that this order f dinos has hips that resemble those of birds. It shows that features are added one at a time. The ancestors of birds had "bird" hips long before they were birds. However, Hadrosaurs are not theropods. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/ornithischia/ornithischia.html
"Believed to be an herbivore, the duckbilled Edmontosaurus has teeth which form a large grooved surface, well-suited for grinding plants in a manner similar to modern cows and horses."
Theropods were meat eaters. Raptors were theropods. Still ornithiscian, but not Hadrosaurs.
"Our find dispels the myth that the Edmontosaurus was a pre-bird, said Pete DeRosa, president of Creation Expeditions and team leader on the South Dakota dig. The rich ash and sulfur content in the soil beautifully preserved the animals skin down to the very pigment. It is clear that this was a reptilian-like animal with skin closer to that of a crocodile than a bird. Our discovery demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility of feathers on this animal. "
That's nice, since the myth originated with the creationists. It's nice of them to dispel their own myths, don't you think.
The critical paragraph is this one:
"DeRosa continued, Buried in the same strata with Ezekiel were evidences of animals which, by evolutionary standards, should not be there, including garfish and turtles. The deposition of the animal, the fossilization and preservation of the skin, the full articulation of the animal, and the fact that it appears to be part of a fossil graveyard, all point to the relatively recent death of Ezekiel. We believe he died thousands, not millions, of years ago. His death is best explained by the catastrophic events surrounding the flood of Noahs day, as described in the Bible. "
1. It is well established that turtles and garfish lived at the time of the dinosaurs.
"Garfish
In the year 1995 an old lady donated a 120 million year old fish to the Geosciences Collection. She has lived in South America for many years and was cherishing the fossil as a souvenir from Brazil. This fossil fish was housed for many years in a drawer of the collection before it was realised as a rare garfish. Preparing a special exhibition in 2001 the head of the collection recognised the actual identity." http://www.geosammlung.uni-bremen.de/sammlung/highligh/hecht_en.php3
"Turtles first appeared on the earth around 200 million years ago, during the Triassic Period." http://theturtlepages.crosswinds.net/evolution/
2. Full articulation has nothing to do with how long ago it died. Articulation is dependent on how fast it was buried, whether scavengers got to the bones, etc.
3. There is no explanation of why they think it has to be Noah's Flood. But, if we go to the previous paragraph, we find:
" The rich ash and sulfur content in the soil beautifully preserved the animals skin down to the very pigment. It is clear that this was a reptilian-like animal with skin closer to that of a crocodile than a bird. Our discovery demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility of feathers on this animal. "
Ash and sulfur are indications of a volcanic eruption, not a flood. Floods produce mud, not ash. So, their own evidence says that this fossil was not due to Noah's Flood.
As to the skin, yes, it does not have feathers. Big whoop.
http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/Archives/OldSite2001/HuntMus/dinosaur/skin.html
"The skin impressions of dinosaurs is rarely preserved. The illustration here shows that the skin of a hadrosaur was not smooth but covered in small scales." Notice that the site is 2001 and the creationist discovery was 2003. Talk about rediscovering the wheel!
It's even worse http://www.alaskamuseum.org/webed/dinosaurs/tracks&skin.html has skin impressions of Hadrosaurs discovered in 1978 and that they were scaled.
Oops, here's another one from 1998 http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/18-739-745.html
I suppose these guys think it's a new discovery that water is wet.
What this shows is that these guys knew long before they discovered the fossil that hadrosaurs had scales and not feathers. Instead, they mislead the audience, made a strawman myth, and then showed that their own myth is a myth! DUH!
Creationists out there, we evolutionists do not like seeing people getting conned. For those of us as Christians, we have a duty to expose false witness. For those of us who are agnostics and atheists, it is simple ethics and compassion to see that you are not fed untruths. This is the basis of our anger at creationists. It's not about God, or creationism, it's about simple honesty and respect for our fellow human beings. You deserve better than the professional creationists do to you. You deserve not to be misled by people who say you can trust them.
"Evolutionists theorize that the Edmontosaurus died millions of years ago, and some have recently speculated that this was a partially feathered type of dinosaur which eventually evolved into modern birds. The Creation Expedition team believes their discovery challenges such theories. "
Notice there is no reference to the "evolutionists" and where they say this.
The theory is that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. Edmontosaurus is a large duck-billed dino. Now, a different theory is that many dinosaurs had feathers.
The creationists have combined these two ideas to make us think that birds evolved from duck-billed dinos. For those not familiar with the term, this is called building a strawman: something that is not real and stuffed with straw. Now, our friends will proceed to tear the strawman apart:
"It was a few days before we knew for certain what kind of a dinosaur we had discovered. But the pelvic bones gave it away. Once we found them, we knew we had some form of Hadrosaurus. It was clearly a bipedal ornithopod, not a quadruped. "
Now, an "ornithopod" is actually an ornithiscian dinosaur. It would help if these people actually used the correct terms. The reason for the name is that this order f dinos has hips that resemble those of birds. It shows that features are added one at a time. The ancestors of birds had "bird" hips long before they were birds. However, Hadrosaurs are not theropods. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/ornithischia/ornithischia.html
"Believed to be an herbivore, the duckbilled Edmontosaurus has teeth which form a large grooved surface, well-suited for grinding plants in a manner similar to modern cows and horses."
Theropods were meat eaters. Raptors were theropods. Still ornithiscian, but not Hadrosaurs.
"Our find dispels the myth that the Edmontosaurus was a pre-bird, said Pete DeRosa, president of Creation Expeditions and team leader on the South Dakota dig. The rich ash and sulfur content in the soil beautifully preserved the animals skin down to the very pigment. It is clear that this was a reptilian-like animal with skin closer to that of a crocodile than a bird. Our discovery demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility of feathers on this animal. "
That's nice, since the myth originated with the creationists. It's nice of them to dispel their own myths, don't you think.
The critical paragraph is this one:
"DeRosa continued, Buried in the same strata with Ezekiel were evidences of animals which, by evolutionary standards, should not be there, including garfish and turtles. The deposition of the animal, the fossilization and preservation of the skin, the full articulation of the animal, and the fact that it appears to be part of a fossil graveyard, all point to the relatively recent death of Ezekiel. We believe he died thousands, not millions, of years ago. His death is best explained by the catastrophic events surrounding the flood of Noahs day, as described in the Bible. "
1. It is well established that turtles and garfish lived at the time of the dinosaurs.
"Garfish
In the year 1995 an old lady donated a 120 million year old fish to the Geosciences Collection. She has lived in South America for many years and was cherishing the fossil as a souvenir from Brazil. This fossil fish was housed for many years in a drawer of the collection before it was realised as a rare garfish. Preparing a special exhibition in 2001 the head of the collection recognised the actual identity." http://www.geosammlung.uni-bremen.de/sammlung/highligh/hecht_en.php3
"Turtles first appeared on the earth around 200 million years ago, during the Triassic Period." http://theturtlepages.crosswinds.net/evolution/
2. Full articulation has nothing to do with how long ago it died. Articulation is dependent on how fast it was buried, whether scavengers got to the bones, etc.
3. There is no explanation of why they think it has to be Noah's Flood. But, if we go to the previous paragraph, we find:
" The rich ash and sulfur content in the soil beautifully preserved the animals skin down to the very pigment. It is clear that this was a reptilian-like animal with skin closer to that of a crocodile than a bird. Our discovery demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility of feathers on this animal. "
Ash and sulfur are indications of a volcanic eruption, not a flood. Floods produce mud, not ash. So, their own evidence says that this fossil was not due to Noah's Flood.
As to the skin, yes, it does not have feathers. Big whoop.
http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/Archives/OldSite2001/HuntMus/dinosaur/skin.html
"The skin impressions of dinosaurs is rarely preserved. The illustration here shows that the skin of a hadrosaur was not smooth but covered in small scales." Notice that the site is 2001 and the creationist discovery was 2003. Talk about rediscovering the wheel!
It's even worse http://www.alaskamuseum.org/webed/dinosaurs/tracks&skin.html has skin impressions of Hadrosaurs discovered in 1978 and that they were scaled.
Oops, here's another one from 1998 http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/18-739-745.html
I suppose these guys think it's a new discovery that water is wet.
What this shows is that these guys knew long before they discovered the fossil that hadrosaurs had scales and not feathers. Instead, they mislead the audience, made a strawman myth, and then showed that their own myth is a myth! DUH!
Creationists out there, we evolutionists do not like seeing people getting conned. For those of us as Christians, we have a duty to expose false witness. For those of us who are agnostics and atheists, it is simple ethics and compassion to see that you are not fed untruths. This is the basis of our anger at creationists. It's not about God, or creationism, it's about simple honesty and respect for our fellow human beings. You deserve better than the professional creationists do to you. You deserve not to be misled by people who say you can trust them.
FAKES!!! No such thing.
