HOW DID DINOSURS LIVE

The so-called Age of Dinosaurs .4

The bigger they are ...5

Galloping Giants .....5

Carnivorous dinosaurs had plant diet..6

Dino puberty blues for paleontologists .7

DID DINOSAURS REALLY DIE OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO

Dinosaur bonesjust how old are they really? ..7

Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? .... 8

The extinction of the dinosaurs 9

Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy .17

Liaoceratops: a missing link of the horned dinos? 20

New evidence of Global Flood from Mexico . 21

Gastroliths deposited by mass flow 22

Dinosaur herd buried in Global Flood in Inner Mongolia, China ...23

Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution .25

WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS FOOTPRINTS

In the footsteps of giants ..26

Dancing Dinosaurs? .27

Thousands of Dinosaur footprints found in China ..28

Dinosaur stumble preserved in trackways, Utah, USA 29

DINOSAURS BLOOD CELLS, BLOOD VESSELS AND PROTEINS

Sensational dinosaur blood report! ..30

Still soft and stretchy ....30

Schweitzers Dangerous Discovery ...32

Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur ..32

Dinosaur soft tissue and proteineven more confirmation! 34

DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone ..36

Squirming at the Squishosaur 37

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS

Feathered dinos: no feathers after all! ..38

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoaxit is a true bird, not a missing link .40

ArchaeoraptorPhony feathered fossil ..40

Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies ..41

New four-winged feathered dinosaur? .44

Be sceptical about the skepticsPart 1 .. 47

Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory ....49

Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot ..50

Sue the T. Rex ...51

Living Dinosaurs or Just Birds? ...52

Feathery flight of fancy ...54

Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group ....54

Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma ..57

THE ICE AGE AND MAMMOTH

What about the Ice Age? .. 59

WAS THERE REALLY AN ICE AGE

Tackling the big freeze 62

A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow 63

Loess problems ...64

ANOTHER THREAT TO THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY QUALLED

How did 90% of large Australian Ice Age animals go extinct? .66

Another threat to the Milankovitch theory quelled? .. 68

On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles ..70

MAMMOTHS WHAT EXACTLEY ARE THEY

Lost world animalsfound! ....70

The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? ....71

Mammoth among the pharaohs? .78

Woolly mammoths were cold adapted .78

RELETED DALY ARTICLES

Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? ..79

Amazing preservation: Three birds in a dinosaur! ...84

Which came first: the Archaeopteryx or the dinosaur egg? 85

Is Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? 87
Unscrambling the mysteries .87
North American feathered dinosaurs a flight of fancy .89
Dinosaurs ate birds ...90
Supposed icon of evolution, Archaeopteryx, was dressed for flight .. 92
Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered dino? .93
Feather fossil fantasy ..94
Grass-eating dinos ...95
Jurassic Park feathers? ....95
Plucking the dinobird .. 96
Eggceptionally different 97
Big birdosaur blues ..99
Pterosaurs flew like modern aeroplanes ...100
Chickens with teeth
...100
Dinos breathed like birds? ... 101
Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics? ..102

SOFT TISSUE

Original Animal Protein in Fossils? 105

Double-decade dinosaur disquiet .106

ORIGIN OF DINOSAURS

Evolutionary troubles with the origin and demise of dinosaurs ..107

Thunder lizards 108

Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution ..109

Polar dinosaur conundrum ..110

Did dinosaurs really rule the earth? ...111

HOW DID DINOSURS LIVE

The so-called Age of Dinosaurs
Why there never was a land before time millions of years ago!
by Calvin Smith
No
matter
where Creation
Ministries
International speakers go, they are practically
guaranteed to be asked about dinosaurs in
question time. Both creationists and non-believers
want to know how we can answer the evolutionary
interpretation for the supposed Age of Dinosaurs,
both from the science.A classic evolutionary portrait
of dinosaurs, such as above, typically depicts a
group of them in a forest of exotic tropical-looking
plants, with various reptilian creatures sprinkled
about and a volcano erupting in the background. It
gives the impression of a land before time when
dinosaurs ruled the earth.Typically, a chart showing the
geologic column will be offered nearby (below), showing
the so-called ages of Earths geologic history with the
order and timing of when Earths life forms supposedly
appeared. Usually simple organisms will be shown at
the bottom, marine animals next, reptiles after that,
dinosaurs appearing, then mammals and finally humans
at the top.Many people get the impression that the
remains of such creatures always appear in that order
in the fossil record (with the understanding that there
were millions of years of time separating the groups
shown on the chart).Many still think that mammals and
dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it
was only for a short period when only small shrew-like
mammals were present.To the surprise of many,
ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3beaver-like4 and
badgerlike5 creatures have all been found in dinosaur-era rock
layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine
trees. Most people dont picture a T. rex walking along
with a duck flying overhead, but thats what the socalled dino-era fossils would prove!A creature
called Gansus was found, supposedly 120-millionyears-old. Apart from a few features (like wing claws,
still found on some modern birds) it looked very much like a modern duck or loon. But the standard dinosaur-age scenario is
so entrenched, that one National Geographic News article declared:
It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.6Being partial to farmer logic myself, I feel
that if it looks like a duck and acts (quacks, even?) like a duck, it most likely is some sort of duck!7Many people are surprised
when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one
evolutionary paleontologists explanation.We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed
years ago . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to
some researcher. Its not that they are not important, its just that you only live once and I specialized in something other
than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs. 8Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in
dinosaur rock are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more
representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed
out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in dinosaur rock, including nearly 100 complete mammal
skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few
dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.
As for the Age of Dinosaurs, another evolutionary paleontologist explains;
In a sense, The Age of Dinosaurs is a misnomer Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the
dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.11
So, what happened to the dinosaurs?
Evolutionary scientists have offered a variety of explanations for what they think happened to the dinosaurs. Heres a partial
list:
A large asteroid collided with our planet long ago.
As a high-roughage plant group became extinct, the plant-eating ones died of chronic constipation, leading to the death of
the carnivores dependent on them.
They became addicted to plants with narcotic properties.
The worlds climate became either too hot, too cold, too dry or too wet.
A supernova exploded nearby, showering the earth with radiation.
Mammals ate their eggs.

There are serious problems with the evidence proposed for any of these events. Take the large asteroid impact theory, for
example. Why would that event only wipe out the dinosaurs and not the ducks, squirrels, beavers, etc. that co-existed with
them as mentioned above? Not to mention lizards and crocodiles, supposedly their close cousins? Some evolutionists
dispute the evidence of this impact as causing dino extinction 12 (cf. p.8). No one event that has been proposed by
evolutionists can completely explain the evidence (which is why there are so many different ideas about what happened to
dinosaurs).Creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died and were buried in a Global Flood (for which there is a huge
amount of evidence). With their numbers greatly reduced, all animals would have been subject to many pressures, such as
varying climates (including the Ice Age14) following the Flood. They may have had a unique physiology that made them less
able to adapt as rapidly to the many different environments after the Flood. For example, evolutionists have suggested that
dinosaurs may not have been warm-blooded or cold-blooded, but something completely different from either. They may
have had a unique type of metabolism, unlike any living animals today.15This may have contributed to them becoming
extinct, along with the very same reasons animals become extinct today (being hunted, disease, climatic changes, habitat
changes etc.).Some dinos, at least, must have survived until relatively recent timesfor example, evidence of UK dinosaur
depictions from the 1400s,16 and a Cambodian stegosaur carving centuries (but likely not millennia) old.17 This is completely
unacceptable to old-Earth believers, of course, who insist that the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago, way before
people arrived.But there is other evidence, too, that literally shouts that the dinosaur fossils cannot be millions of years old
the discovery of soft tissue, including not just stretchy ligaments with identifiable proteins, but flexible transparent branching
blood vessels, containing an ooze that could be squeezed out like toothpaste. And inside these vessels were the easily
identifiable remains of red blood cells, even showing the nuclei,18typical of reptiles (cf. pp.1314).
The bigger they are
by Carl Wieland
People and dinosaurs living at the same time? Surely the creationists cant be right about that, some people think when
confronted with the evidence. After all, they reason, any such people would be helpless prey for huge meat-eaters
like Tyrannosaurus rex, wouldnt they?In fact, dinosaurs probably had to steer clear of people, not the other way around.
Humans may have even helped in killing off the last remaining ones of some kinds of dinosaur. A number of factors need to
be taken into account.First, mans intelligence and ingenuitypresent from the beginninghave always been far more
formidable than any animals size or strength. People have consistently shown that, especially when they band together,
they can outwit, trap, and/or kill even the biggest elephants, whales, or rhinosor the largest meat-eating cats or bears,
even with so-called stone age technology. There is no reason to think that the dinosaurs would have been the exception.
In any case, some scientists now believe that T. rex could not have been the ferocious hunter-killer depicted in, for example,
the film Jurassic Park. For one thing, its teeth seem to have been too shallow-rooted to chomp into a liveTriceratops without
risking leaving many of them behind. 1As if that were not demotion
enough from its status as everyones favourite fierce monster, dinosaur
expert James Farlow, of Indiana-Purdue university, now says that if you
were attacked by a chargingT.rex, simply tripping it up or getting its feet
somehow tangled would have been enough to smash it into a lifeless
heap.2Farlow and a physicist colleague have calculated that the huge
beast was so heavy and high that if it tripped and fell while running, a
tumbling tyrannosaurs torso would have slammed into the ground at a
deceleration of 6g (six times the acceleration due to gravity). Its tiny
front legs would have been inadequate to substantially break its fall.This
means that in dry soil, its body would have made an impact crater 20
centimetres (eight inches) deep! Its head would have hit with a brainshattering impact of more than twice as much force.Farlow states that it
is unlikely that a big dinosaur of this type could have run anywhere near
as fast as some have assumed, because the danger of a stumble would have been too great. He says a fall at any speed
could have been lethal.3Thus, hunters would only have had to have caused T. rex to trip, stumble, and fall in order to obtain
an easy prey.
Galloping Giants
Was T. rex a speedster after all?
by Carl Wieland
In the blockbuster movie Jurassic Park, a huge Tyrannosaurus rex was shown not only gobbling up humans, but chasing
after them in a speeding jeep at perhaps 70 km/h (45 mph). Such fearsome predatory capacity raised the question in many
minds as to how humans would have survived in a world that once included such seemingly swift and mighty carnivores.
However, not long after that, we featured in our magazine Creation (and later, on our website) the results of scientific
analysis (by evolution-believers) that debunked this image.1Dinosaur expert James Farlow, of Indiana-Purdue University in
the USA, and a colleague, concluded that the sheer size and weight of a large T. rex meant that it could never have
achieved such speeds. As an animals size varies, everything else does not scale up or down in proportion. Thus, if a horse
fell down a mineshaft deep enough for it to break limb bones, the same fall by a mouse would leave it unharmed. An
elephant, on the other hand, would likely splatter and die instantly from the same misadventure.For the same reason, while
elephants can reach appreciable speeds at full gallop, they cant hurdle over fences that a horse would take in its stride. And
their speeds relative to their body size are pathetic compared to many of the most humble insects.Besides stating that
strength of a tyrannosaurs thighbone was not sufficient to support fast running, Farlows chief conclusion was that the
limiting factor on T. rexs speed was not simply one of relative bulk, but a real danger of death in the event of a fall. As we
reported in our magazine article on the subject:
simply tripping [a charging T. rex] up or getting its feet somehow tangled would have been enough to smash it into a
lifeless heap.
Farlow and a physicist colleague have calculated that the huge beast was so heavy and high that if it tripped and fell while
running, a tumbling tyrannosaur's torso would have slammed into the ground at a deceleration of 6g (six times the
acceleration due to gravity). Its tiny front legs would have been inadequate to substantially break its fall.This means that in
dry soil, its body would have made an impact crater 20 centimetres (eight inches) deep! Its head would have hit with a brainshattering impact of more than twice as much force.The relevance of all this to creation/evolution is, of course, that humans
would have little to fear from this dinosaur that could be killed by merely tripping it up, and which would likely have moved
very slowly to avoid any risk of an accidental stumble.This was reinforced a bit later by a report on the discovery of fossil

allosaurs (a smaller version of tyrannosaurs) which showed evidence of ribcage fractures from just such falling-type injuries.
Their smaller size meant that the injuries were not severe enough to kill them. 2We also reported in 2001 on the comment by
Dinosaur Jack Horner, the famous fossil expert after whom the hero in Jurassic Park was modeled, that T. rex couldnt run,
because its thighbone was longer than its shinbone, contrary to the pattern in fast bipedal predators of today.In late August
2007, however, research results were published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which were supposed to show
thatT. rex was a lot faster than thought.3This was claimed to be the most accurate assessment of dinosaur speeds to date; it
suggests that T. rex could reach speeds of nearly 30 km/h (18 mph). While not exactly in speeding-jeep territory, this is
slightly faster than a fit sportsman can run. Its reasonable to ask whether this should cause one to discard the previous
ultra-low-speed assessments. Maybebut first its worth briefly discussing this 2007 research, which was based on
computer models of the biomechanics. While this approach accurately predicted human top speeds, and included many
more variables at a higher degree of sophistication than previous such attempts, there is no indication that the above issues,
particularly the crucial one of tripping and falling to death, were taken into account.So even if
tyrannosaurs were biomechanically capable of these sorts of speeds (by no means a settled question) natural selection (a
fact of life) would actually tend to eliminate tyrannosaurs which were programmed to habitually charge after their prey at top
speeds. And their short arms would have been nearly useless in breaking their fall.Incidentally, many have suggested that T.
rex was most likely a scavenger, anyway, not a hunter, given for example the apparently poor eyesight suggested by fossil
remains.4Finally, even in the unlikely event that tyrannosaurs were capable of outrunning and killing humans, it would not
mean that humans would be wiped out by these beasts, and thus be an argument against the biblical coexistence of
humans and dinosaurs. Elephants can outrun and even kill humans. Yet human ingenuity, even when only spears, rocks and
traps were available, has always seen elephants at greater risk from humans than vice versa. There is no reason to think
that the same would not have been true of even the largest carnivorous dinosaurs.
Carnivorous dinosaurs had plant diet
And: More challenges to dino-to-bird dogma
by Jonathan Sarfati and Lita Cosner
T. Rex and Velociraptor were hypercarnivorous predators; part of
the sub-order Theropoda.1Dinosaur documentaries and movies
like Jurassic Parkroutinely feature realistic-looking depictions of
them ripping other dinosaurs limb from limb, even swallowing
newly-hatched dinosaurs whole. There is some good evidence for
this: the turkey-sizedCompsognathus was found with a lizard in its
belly;2there is a famous fossil of Velociraptor locked in mortal
combat with a Protoceratops, and a T. rexcoprolite (fossil dung)
was found with a high proportion (3050%) of bone
fragments3 (see also T. rex drops clue).
Vegetarian theropods
However, the discovery of Nothronychus graffami, one of the
therizinosaur branch, suggested that at least this branch of
theropods ate plants.4 And a new study,5 by the same lead author,
Dr Lindsay Zanno of the Chicago Field Museum, suggests that
even in the theropod suborder, usually considered the carnivorous
dinosaurs, they were more the exception than the rule. 6 Out of 90
species of theropods she and her colleague Peter Makovicky
analyzed (a likely-inflated number), 44 of them showed clear signs
of
vegetarianism:
the
ornithomimosaurs,
therizinosaurs,
oviraptorosaurs, alvarezauroids, several early birds [sic], and the
single troodontidJinfengopteryx.7When trying to deduce the diet of
an animal that has been fossilized, normally the bones and teeth
are all that remains. So a scientist might think that a certain animal
was a carnivore based on its sharp teeth and claws that would be
good at ripping flesh. But those same teeth and claws would also
be good at processing rough vegetation. In the case of the
theropods, there was a small amount of fossilized dung and
stomach contents that allowed scientists to analyze the actual diet
of the dinosaurs. Imagine their surprise when members of this
hypercarnivorous family turned out to have salad5 as a regular part
of their diet! This made more sense of the peg-likeor even absentteeth in some of these theropods.This bat eats fruit,
although its classified as a carnivore because of its fangs and carnassials.Creationists, who believe that all animals were
once vegetarian should not be surprised when traditionally carnivorous animals turn out to be able to survive on, or actually
prefer, a vegetarian diet. Weve often featured living examples of animals such as lions, cats, and dogs who prefer a
meatless diet. We also point out the fallacy of relying solely on tooth structure to identify the diet of an animal. Our speakers
often show a slide with this very carnivorous looking skull (pictured left), and people are surprised to find that it is actually a
fruit bat.And from a purely ecological point of view, it takes far less biomass to support a vegetarian diet than a carnivorous
diet. Therefore we should not be surprised to find that many animals are not obligate carnivores, as being vegetarian or able
to survive on vegetation would be a great advantage in times when prey was scarce.
By contrast, evolutionists resort to convoluted reasoning about meat-eating and plant-eating evolving and re-evolving. A
report on ref. 3 states:
Before this we thought that plant-eating theropods like therizinosaurs were a rare occurrence, Zanno told LiveScience. We
knew they must have evolved from meat-eaters somewhere in their ancestry, but before our study it seemed like planteating was the exception not the norm for maniraptoran theropods.
Many lineages of maniraptoran dinosaurs likely ate some amount of plants as part of their diet, and they probably inherited
this ability from the common ancestor of the whole group, Zanno said. Thus, predatory maniraptoran dinosaurs
like Velociraptor must have re-evolved exclusive meat-eating.8
Dinosaurs to birds? Or vice versa?

The reporting4 on the find in Ref. 7 inevitably links the vegetarian diet of the theropods to the general change in the shape of
their teeth on their alleged evolutionary transition to becoming birds, citing Zanno:
Most theropods are clearly adapted to a predatory lifestyle, but somewhere on the line to birds, predatory dinosaurs went
soft.To read these accounts, one would think that this was undisputed in the scientific community.
But even evolutionists cant agree on whether the theropods are the ancestors of birds, or even possibly their descendants,
as one headline9 reporting on a 2010 discovery10 suggests. The article states:
The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birdsfrom-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a
commentary[11] in PNAS on the new research.
Ruben also said:
When interpreting the paleobiology of long extinct taxa, new fossils, and reinterpretations of well-known fossils, sharply at
odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up. 2 Ruben is the author of other studies that seriously harm
the dinosaur-to-bird link, including the problems with dinosaur lungs evolving into bird lungs 12,13 and the fact that dinos didnt
have a fixed thigh bone to support the avian air sac system. 14,15 See our previous article Bird breathing anatomy breaks
dino-to-bird dogma. Weve written before about committed evolutionists who think the evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution
is lacking. For example, Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian
Institution in Washington, D.C. wrote a scathing open letter about National Geographics Archaeoraptor claim,
subsequently shown to be a hoax: The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively
promulgated by acadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographicwho
themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.
Discussion and conclusion
As weve covered extensively, theres no conclusive evidence that there are any dinosaurs that have feathers as opposed to
frayed collagen fibres (see Feathery flight of fancy). Furthermore, we have argued that even if a feathered dinosaur were
discovered, that would not be evidence for evolution, since there is nothing in the creationist model that states that
dinosaurs could not have feathers (or fur, for that matter)see for example Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered
dino?All this is important when trying to decipher the mainstream media reports, which give the impression that the evidence
for bird evolution is cumulative and extensive. But in reality the reports are incongruous, because they have been
interpreted according to two mutually incompatible ideas of bird origins: the dinosaur one which is a cursorial (running)
ground-up model, and the less popular one supported by Ruben, the arboreal (tree) model that they evolved from gliding
from branches. See the discussion in New four-winged feathered dinosaur?
Dino puberty blues for paleontologists
Dinosaur juveniles and adults wrongly labelled as separate species
by David Catchpoole
So what did a young T. rex look like? Something that paleontologists had given a different species name altogether!
Nanotyrannus was a bit like a Tyrannosaurus rex, except it had 17 teeth in its lower jaw, while a T. rex had 12 lower jaw
teeth and a less elongated skull.However, now it seems that Nanotyrannus should never have been identified as a separate
species at all. Leading dinosaur paleontologist Dr Jack Horner of Montana State University says that Nanotyrannus was in
fact a juvenile T. rex, whose skull changed dramatically as it matured. The transition to adulthood also saw it trade its small,
blade-like teeth to make room for a larger set of adult teeth.The Nanotyrannus mix-up came to light after a dinosaur mid-way
between a Nanotyrannus and T. rex was discovered, which had 14 lower jaw teeth.Horner, with his paleontologist colleague
Dr Mark Goodwin of the University of California, cited this as just one of many examples of juvenile and adult dinosaurs
having been wrongly labelled as separate species. They suggest that as many as a third of all known dinosaur species will
need to be reclassified.1,2Some paleontologists, e.g. Dr Hans-Dieter Sues of the National Museum of Natural History in
Washington, D.C., think that the estimate of one-third of dinos needing reclassification might be an exaggeration. However,
he does acknowledge that there are indeed well-known instances of different species names being given to dinosaurs that
were in fact juveniles and adults of the same species. He explained that in the 1970s paleontologists discovered that some
duck-billed dinosaur species were in fact merely at different stages of maturityrepresenting a smaller number of species.
Many dinosaursjust like many present-day vertebrateschanged a lot in their appearance as they grew up, he said. 1Of
course, we can observe dramatic juvenile-to-adult transitions occurring today in many land animals, e.g. those which have
antlers and horns as adults, but not as juveniles. And the physical changes are even more dramatic in amphibious
vertebrates, e.g. frogs, as they make the transition from tadpoles to adults. The tadpoles and adult frogs are, of course,
the samespecies. In birds, too, the physical changes associated with the juvenile-to-adult transition can be dramatic.
Hornbills, for example, grow a distinctive helmet-like head casque. (Perhaps the head crests served a similar function in the
crested theropod dinosaurs?)Horner and Goodwin noted very marked changes in the form of Triceratops fossils that had
died at various stages of life. They found that the youngest animals tiny straight horns changed as they got olderjuvenile
horns curving backward, adult horns pointing forward. Also, the juveniles triangular spiked bones surrounding the frill
became flattened as the animal matured, lengthening into a bony fan-like shield. Thus, despite the radically different
appearance of juveniles and adults, they are the same species.The list goes on. E.g., we have featured Dracorex
hogwartsia, the dinosaur that looks like a dragon, 3pointing out that some paleontologists have suggested that it
and Stygimoloch spinifer are actually immature forms of Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.4 In other words, different
names were unwittingly given to juveniles and adults of the same creature.This announcement that one-third of dinosaur
species never existed follows an earlier analysis of the 1,401 scientific names given to dinosaurs from 1824 to 2004 which
showed that about 16% of names were duplicates, and 32% embodied other errors.48 Its a bit scary, University of Bristol
(UK) paleontologist Michael Benton said at that time. He explained that paleontologists were keen to name new species
and would often rush into print with new names for every odd leg bone, tooth, or skull cap they happened to find. Later
work, on more complete specimens, reduced more than 1,000 named dinosaurs to 500 or so, he said.9
And now the dinosaur puberty blues have further forced paleontologists to rethink dinosaur species classificationthere
have been way too many dinosaur names.
DID DINOSAURS REALLY DIE OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO
Dinosaur bonesjust how old are they really?
An evolutionary dinosaur expert reveals some fascinating facts!

by Carl Wieland
Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old
because, after all, they have turned to stone, havent they?Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long
enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with
rock minerals. But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out
some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.1
For one thing, it says:
Bones do not have to be turned into stone to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur
fossil.2
Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under
the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly permineralized. This means that rock minerals have been
deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesnt this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must
represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:
The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is
heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can
become permineralized within a matter of weeks.
So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been
totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.Now of course if a
dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such
as bone to just naturally fall apart. So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of
years old.However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water,
one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying
the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.There are actually
instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules
shortly after being buried. We are told:
The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from
modern bone.4This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million
years old. We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and
hemoglobin.5 Also, we wrote about fresh dinosaur bones in Alaska. 6 Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm
this:
An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any
significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not
report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.
In summary, therefore:
Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.
Even when heavily permineralized (fossilized), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood
scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal
conditions.Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all
intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.
Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?
What about the iridium layer?
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. (2001)
Secular theories
Mammals eating dinosaur eggs.
New narcotic plants evolved.
Global cooling/global warming.
Loss of plants causing herbivores to starve, which in turn caused the carnivores to starve.
Lowering of oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere.
Great impact theory
The current glamour theory was proposed by the geologist Walter Alvarez in about 1980, that a meteor strike 66.4 million
years ago caused dramatic climatic changes much like nuclear winter. This caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and
many other species. His evidence was his discovery of an allegedly world-wide layer of clay with a high iridium content. His
father Luis, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968 for work on subatomic particles, helped him publicize the theory. It
is now accepted as proven fact in many circles, and popularized in documentaries such as Walking with Dinosaurs.
Problems with the great impact theory
The secular book The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy exposes the way that the meteor explanation for the dinosaur
extinction has become a new dogma that has way outstripped the evidence (see review by Carl Wieland in Journal of
Creation 12(2):154158, 1998). Some of the reasons are:The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age
interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary
deposits were formed in Flood.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Extinctions dont correlate with crater dates.
Modern volcanic eruptions dont cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.
Drill cores of the apparent smoking gun Chicxulub Crater on the Yucatn peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the
idea that it is an impact crater.It seems that some scientists didnt speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the
nuclear winter idea, and being grouped with nuclear warmongers.
The overview article by meteorologist Mike Oard, The extinction of the Dinosaurs (Journal of Creation 11(2):137154,
1997) explains many features of dinosaur fossils that are consistent with a flood, and dinosaur tracks consistent with fleeing
from encroaching flood waters. Oard points out that iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many

evolutionists agree. However, Oard agrees that the largest iridium anomalies were caused by meteorites striking during the
Flood:
Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would accumulate only during temporary lulls in the Flood.
This explains the fact that so-called spikes are really composed of multiple spikes or are spread over a wider layer of
sediment. John Woodmorappe has pointed out:
there are now over 30 iridium horizons in the Phanerozoic record. These can be explained by a slowdown in
sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no
problem for the Flood at all.That is, the iridium layers mark lulls in the sedimentation rate during the Flood, the iridium rain
itself being more-or-less continuous during the Flood.
K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary
Oard also pointed out that the K/T boundary supposedly marking the end of the dinosaur age is most likely not synchronous
around the world, and is not defined coherently. Very few dinosaur fossils are actually found near this boundary. Sometimes
the argument becomes very circular. For example, the end of the dinosaur era is supposed to be clearly marked in the
geological column by the K/T boundary, but in many localities the K/T boundary is defined by the highest dinosaur fossil. Or
else the Alvarez theory is supported by the iridium spike in the K/T boundary, but in some localities the K/T boundary is
defined by the iridium spike.
The extinction of the dinosaurs
by Michael J. Oard
Dinosaur extinction is still a major enigma of earth history. In this review article, extinctions in the geological record will be
briefly mentioned. Many of the imaginative theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs will also be presented. Within the
uniformitarian paradigm, the meteorite impact theory, once considered outrageous, now is the dominant theory. However,
the volcanic theory is still believed by a majority of palaeontologists. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses.
The unscientific behaviour of those involved in the meteorite paradigm change will be briefly explored. Evidence that the
dinosaurs died in a cataclysm of global proportions will be presented, such as the huge water-laid dinosaur graveyards
found over the earth. Occasional monospecific bone-beds and the rarity of fossils of very young dinosaurs suggest a
catastrophic death and burial. The billions of dinosaur tracks recently discovered provide testimony to unusual, stressful
conditions. Nests, eggs, and babies are a challenge to a Flood model, but there are enough unknowns associated with the
data that solid conclusions are difficult to draw. The part that impacts and volcanism play in a Flood paradigm will be briefly
discussed. The question of whether the K/T boundary and the extinction of the dinosaurs should be considered a
synchronous event within the Flood will be considered.
Introduction
Dinosaurs bring wonder to children and adults alike. That such great beasts once roamed the earth is hard to imagine. Even
harder to imagine is that some dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex were probably giant killing machines (after the Fall,
anyway). Of all the many questions related to dinosaurs, their disappearance from the earth is the most mysterious of all.
(Their demise, of course, assumes that no dinosaurs are alive today, as some people believe, but which is beyond the
scope of this review article.)The mystery is heightened when one realises that the dinosaurs were well adapted to their
environments and apparently had a worldwide distribution. Dinosaurs have been unearthed on every continent, including
Antarctica.1,2Their traces are even found on a few isolated oceanic islands, such as Spitsbergen 3 and North Island, New
Zealand.4Besides Antarctica and Spitsbergen, dinosaurs have been dug up from other high latitude or inferred high
palaeolatitude locations.5 For instance, they have been unearthed from the North Slope of Alaska near the Arctic Ocean. 68
These high latitude discoveries have initiated many questions on whether dinosaurs were endotherms, ectotherms, or
some combination in between; whether they migrated towards lower latitudes to avoid winter cold and darkness; or if they
actually lived at these polar locations all year round.9 Polar dinosaurs have greatly perplexed uniformitarian scientists, as
exemplified in the following comment by Michael Benton:
Should we now imagine dinosaurs as thermally insulated warm-blooded animals that ploughed through snowdrifts and
scraped the ice off the ground to find food?10
Figure 1. Worldwide distribution of dinosaur
footprint discoveries. About 1,500 locations
have been known to yield dinosaur
tracks.During the past 20 years, dinosaur
tracks have been discovered at over 1,500
locations from around the world (Figure
1).11 Tracks are even known from polar
latitudes, such as in Alaska near the coast of
the Arctic Ocean12 and from the isolated North
Atlantic island of Spitsbergen.13 The number of
tracks is in the billions. Some areas display
tracks on multiple layers of sedimentary
rock.1416Dinosaur eggs, as well as nests,
embryos and hatchlings, are now recognised
from at least 199 locations around the world
(Figure 2).17 A new discovery from Spain
suggests a whopping 300,000 eggs packed
into a rock volume of about 12,000 cubic
metres.18,19 These rocks are probably within
marine sandstone, so according to the
uniformitarian paradigm the nests are automatically said to have been laid at the seashore. Despite all these eggs, embryos
within the eggs are very rare.20 Characteristics of nests, eggs, and hatchlings in north central Montana, USA, have given rise
to interesting interpretations of dinosaur maternal care.21,22
Why did the dinosaurs, as well as the marine reptiles and the flying reptiles, vanish from off the face of the earth? This is the
burning question. Although many dinosaurs became extinct well before the End Cretaceous, nevertheless Zhao Zi-Kui
indicates that dinosaur extinction still remains a major enigma of earth history, despite two promising theories:

Thus, the dinosaurs could quickly make use of the available ecological and evolutionary opportunities. However, they all
vanished from the earth in the global events at the end of the Cretaceous. The cause poses a difficult question for which no
ready answer is apparent.23
Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of
the 199 sites where dinosaur eggs
have been found. Major deposits
are few. The fragile eggs were
easily broken and then dissolved in
groundwater. Most of those that
were fossilised go unrecognised by
the untrained eye.
Extinctions in general
Dinosaurs, although creating the
most interest, are but one group of
animals that became extinct at the
end of the Cretaceous (the
geological timescale is used for
communication purposes only and
is not meant to endorse the
geological column or time-scale).
Extinctions have also occurred in all
other periods of geological time.
The subject of extinctions is rather controversial due to taxonomic difficulties, the unknown time-stratigraphic range of most
species,the multiplication of names for the same organism, and the unknown palaeobiogeographic distribution of many
taxa.24A few evolutionists actually believe there was no such thing as mass extinction.25 Many others see a background
level of extinction punctuated by nine periods of high extinction rates. Table 1 lists the geological time of these nine mass
extinction events and their probable causes.26The most singular extinction event in the supposed history of life was not the
End Cretaceous disappearance of the dinosaurs, but the End Permian demise of most groups of marine and terrestrial
animals.27 The gravity of this End Permian event varies, depending upon the scientist doing the analysis and upon whether
the datum is at the species, genus, or family level. One estimate is that 57 percent of marine families and 96 percent of
marine species were decimated.28 Referring to Table 1, this extinction is attributed to cooling from an ice age in combination
with a marine regression. However, according to the uniformitarian paradigm the late Carboniferous and early Permian ice
age had ended millions of years before29 and should have caused a marine transgression due to melting ice, at least up until
mid Permian time. Recent research is now trying to tie in the massive End Permian time extinctions with a giant meteorite
impact, based on the finding of shocked quartz in Australia and Antarctica. 30Since geologists love cycles, five of the
extinction events in Table 1 motivated David Raup and John Sepkoski to postulate a 26 million year extinction periodicity
over the past 250 million years of geological time. 31 One hypothesis for the cycle was that Nemesis, a twin star of the Sun,
periodically disturbed the hypothetical Oort cloud of comets, some being ejected into the Solar System. 32 Some of these
comets then collided with the earth, resulting in the periodic mass extinctions. Nemesis has of course never been observed,
neither has the Oort cloud. It is interesting that the 26 million year periodicity motivated other scientists to statistically
scrutinise terrestrial impact structures, which supposedly verified the 26 million year cycle. 33 Many scientists now dispute
the 26 million year periodicity, revealing in the process questionable assumptions in taxonomic analysis:
Patterson and Smiths analysis produced the unexpected result that only a quarter of the families and family distributions
recognised by Raup and Sepkoski are valid. The other three-quarters fell into six inappropriate groupings 34
The 26 million year cycle of impact craters is very likely an example of the reinforcement syndrome, in which an hypothesis
tends to be supported by further research, when the support really is not there.35
Theories of dinosaur extinction
Extinction event
Suggested uniformitarian causes
Naturally, such a mystery as
dinosaur extinction has spawned
a wide range of theories, ranging
1. Late Pleistocene
Climate warming and predation by man
from the plausible to the
entertaining.3641 In
1963,
a
2.
Eocene/Oligocene Severe cooling, Antarctic glaciation, and ocean current geologist counted 46 theories,
Transition
changes
and many more have been added
since then.42 Probably only the
cause of the Pleistocene ice age
3. End Cretaceous
Bolide impact
has
generated
as
many
bewildering theories. (As of 1968,
4. Late Triassic
Increased rainfall and marine regression
there were 60 theories for the
cause of the ice age. 43 In 1957, a
5. End Permian
Severe cooling, glaciation, and marine regression
prominent ice age specialist, J. K.
Charlesworth, summarised ice
age theories:
6. End Devonian
Cooling related to widespread anoxia of epeiric seas
Pleistocene phenomena have
produced an absolute riot of
7. Late Ordovician
A Gondwana glaciation
theories ranging from the
remotely possible to the mutually
contradictory and the palpably
8. Late Cambrian Habitat
reduction probably caused by marine transgression
inadequate.44)
Some
dinosaur
extinction
9. Late Precambrian Marine
regression, anoxia, sluggish ocean, biological stress, theories postulate that dinosaurs
etc.
died from the cold, while others
suggest the beasts died from the
heat, or else it was too hot in the
Table 1. Nine major mass extinctions and their suggested cause or causes.
summer and too cold in the
winter. One theory hypothesises that the climate became too wet, while another that the climate dried out to kill off the

dinosaurs.The dinosaurs could have starved to death or died from overeating. Or their extinction may have been caused by
a nutritional problem, such as newly evolved flowering plants not providing the proper nutritional balance. Or the flowering
plants could have evolved poisons that killed the dinosaurs, as some theorise. A variant on the poisoning theme is that
poisonous insects evolved and stung the dinosaurs into extinction. Others thought the water became poisonous with
chemicals. Another ingenious twist is that butterflies and moths evolved and the larvae stripped the plants of leaves causing
the herbivores to pass away, bringing on the extinction of the carnivores. Another theory suggests the herbivorous dinosaurs
simply changed their eating habits to a less favourable diet, causing the demise of all the dinosaurs. Some postulate that too
many carnivores decimated the herbivorous dinosaurs.Astronomical or geophysical causes have often been invoked, for
instance a change in the earths gravity, the axial tilt, or a reversal in the magnetic field. Some postulate a sudden bath in
cosmic radiation. One theory, reinforced at one time by the iridium anomalies in sedimentary rocks, is that a supernova
exploded near the earth.45 In this case the supernova would have increased the solar proton flux, which would have broken
down the protective ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet radiation to zap the dinosaurs. Or the supernova explosion could have
sharply increased cosmic rays.46 Another imaginative hypothesis claimed that intense volcanism spewed up large quantities
of radioactive elements, so that the dinosaurs died of radiation poisoning.In 1978, it was proposed that a spillover of cold
brackish water from an isolated Arctic Ocean caused an ecological chain reaction, first killing off the pelagic plankton and
ending with the terrestrial animals.47 Another terrestrial theory postulated that the land became too hilly. Many
palaeontologists favour a regression of shallow seas, which suppressed dinosaur speciation rates and increased extinction
rates. The mechanism for this vague hypothesis supposedly was due to competitive interchange between faunas and
increased disease vectors.A variety of theories suggest that either the pressure or some other component of the
atmosphere changed to kill off the dinosaurs. One example is a decrease in carbon dioxide; another example is an increase
in oxygen given off by too many plants. However, others have suggested oxygen decreased due to a decrease in
plankton.48A past popular favourite was that little mammals, waiting for the great die-off in order to evolve, advanced
dinosaur extinction by eating dinosaur eggs. However, vertebrate palaeontologists generally believe the mammals were too
small to have accomplished this feat.49There is a large list of far-fetched to entertaining theories (some possibly suggested
tongue-in-cheek), including extinction by parasites, slipped vertebral discs, hormonal disorders, shrinking brains, chronic
constipation, over specialisation, inability to change, becoming too large, senility, hyperpituitarism, cataracts, racial
senescence (they simply lived long enough), and social problems causing malformations of their bones during growth.
Charig lists the following as the most outrageous: poison gases, volcanic gases, meteorites, comets, sunspots,mass suicide
and wars.50 Interestingly, volcanism, meteorite impacts and cometary collisions are now the major contenders. Outrageous
geological theories, for example, J. Harlen Bretzs Spokane Flood as the origin of the channelled scabland in eastern
Washington, USA, should not be so freely dismissed.In spite of the recent dominance of the meteorite hypothesis, scientists
continue to add new causes or subsidiary causes for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Some of these recent mechanisms
are:cancer triggered by huge bursts of neutrinos released by dying stars in the Milky Way
Galaxy;51,52AIDS;53 andhypercanes, super hurricanes that could be triggered by meteorite impacts, causing environmental
catastrophe.54,55
Revival of the meteorite extinction theory
Ever since 1980, the meteorite hypothesis has swept to centre stage, and a large literature now surrounds it. Back in 1979,
the meteorite hypothesis was considered outrageous by many geologists. The turnaround came with the discovery of an
iridium (Ir) anomaly at the Cretaceous/ Tertiary (K/T) boundary.56 In thin clay layers (1 cm to several tens of centimetres
thick) found at Gubbio, Italy, and at Stevns Klint, Denmark, the contained Ir concentrations were increased 30 and 160 times
respectively above background levels. The earths crust is depleted in iridium and other platinum group elements, while
meteorites are enriched in them. A 10 km diameter meteorite was said to have injected 60 times its mass in pulverised rock
into the stratosphere, causing a cooling trend that wiped out about 50 percent of the biota, including all the dinosaurs.
Conversely, others envision the impact caused a sudden, short-term temperature rise, instead of cooling from a nuclear
winter-like mechanism.57 The sudden heating supposedly was caused by an oceanic impact which injected water into the
stratosphere producing a vapour canopy effect.It did not take long to discover Ir anomalies at other K/T sites. 5860 Currently,
there are 103 known K/T iridium anomalies from around the world, mostly in marine sediments either on the bottom of the
ocean or on land.61 As for the frequency of meteorite bombardment, Eugene Shoemaker estimated that the earth probably
was struck 5 to 10 times by meteorites that formed craters greater than 140 km in diameter. 62So an impact at the K/T
boundary is not as outlandish within the uniformitarian paradigm as many first thought. Other scientists using computer
climate models reinforced the scenario of disastrous climatological and ecological effects. 63The discovery of shocked quartz
in eastern Montana, USA, in 1984,64 and at many other sites around the world 65 since then, is considered further proof of the
meteorite hypothesis. Shocked quartz differs from ordinary quartz, in that the crystal lattice has become compressed and
deformed by pressure. Under a scanning electron microscope, the quartz exhibits planar striations in one or more directions
on a crystal face.Various other, more minor and equivocal evidence has been adduced in favour of the meteorite/asteroid
extinction hypothesis, such as:
a palynological change from ferns to angiosperms in continental deposits;66 the existence of microtektites,67 which are
small, droplet-shaped blobs of silica-rich glass; soot-rich horizons supposedly from global wildfires caused by the heat of
impact;68 various isotopic ratios;69 various other platinum group elements;70 and the discovery of the smoking gunthe
Chicxulub structure on Mexicos Yucatn Peninsula.71Thus, the meteorite extinction theory has seemingly been verified by
an overwhelming amount of observational data.
The volcanic theory
The triumph of the meteorite theory has come with much dissent, especially from palaeontologists who opted for a volcanic
mechanism, often combined with marine regression, to explain the data. 7275 Even in spite of what seems like impressive
confirmation of the meteorite theory and reinforced by the scientific press and news media, the dispute continues. 76 If you
read only the evidence for the impact theory, you would be impressed. However, if you read further the evidence for the
volcanic theory, you would discover that the meteorite theory is not as well supported as it may seem.Volcanic adherents
point to the evidence of massive volcanism around the K/T boundary, for instance, the 1 million km 3 of Deccan basalts in
India and the extensive volcanism in western North America related to the Laramide Orogeny. To them, it is more logical that
the dinosaurs died out gradually from all this volcanic activity.As it turns out, iridium is also associated with volcanism,
especially with dust injected into the atmosphere from basaltic extrusions. 77 For instance, the fine airborne particles above
an Hawaiian basaltic eruption were found to be highly enriched in iridium, much higher than in the K/T boundary clays at
Gubbio and Stevns Klint.78,79 High iridium has also been associated with other volcanic eruptions and found within volcanic
dust bands in the Antarctic ice cores. This fine material is of similar particle size as the K/T boundary clay.Even shocked
quartz has been associated with volcanism.8082 Impact supporters counter that this shocked quartz is only weakly deformed

compared with the K/T boundary shocked quartz, and that shocked quartz is associated with known impact craters as well
as nuclear bomb test sites.83,84 However, Officer and Page argue that shocked grains are not found at some K/T boundary
clays, and some shocked quartz grains are too large to have been transported far by the atmospheric winds. 85 Officer adds
that evidence of high-pressure shock is now found within rocks formed by explosions within volcanoes. 86Many other
arguments are brought forth that favour the volcanic theory and/or are inimical to the meteorite theory, such as:
various elemental ratios, especially arsenic and antimony to iridium;87
iridium spread over too thick a vertical interval at the K/T boundary, which supposedly would represent hundreds of
thousands of years;8891
clays above and below the K/T boundary not much different from the K/T boundary clay; 92
survival of some environmentally sensitive plants and animals that should have gone extinct, 93 such as frogs, tropical
plants94,95 and marine plants that require uninterrupted sunlight;96,97
iridium spikes and shocked quartz at many other geological times;98105
many extinctions well before the K/T boundary;106108
many missing K/T intervals;109
the new discovery of polar dinosaurs that supposedly could withstand periods of cold and darkness;110,111
much Cretaceous clay or shale of volcanic origin in North America;112
no statistical support for a sudden extinction of dinosaurs;113 and
the possibility that the Chicxulub structure is not of impact origin.114
Because the extinctions near the K/T boundary are believed to be either gradual or stepwise, 115 some impact enthusiasts
have backed off and instead have suggested extinctions by multiple comet impacts over a 3 million year period. 116 The main
problem with the cometary hypothesis is that comets have a low abundance of iridium. 117 Since relatively small iridium spikes
have been found associated with 10 other extinction horizons, some investigators have suggested post-depositional mobility
of iridium and other platinum group elements.118 This mobility also would render ambiguous any elemental or isotopic
ratios.Adherents to the volcanic hypothesis offer good counter arguments to all the arguments used in support of an impact.
However, impact enthusiasts counter all the volcanic arguments. There is evidence both in favour of and against each
hypothesis.
The process of paradigm change in science
The dinosaur extinction controversy has revealed how a particular subfield reacted to a paradigm change. Before 1980,
practically all scientists were strongly biased against the meteorite hypothesis. This strong bent was mostly due to the
uniformitarian assumption of historical geology:
Geological sciences have undergone a major shift in paradigms. For two centuries, the tenet of uniformitarianism,
encapsulated in the phrase the present is the key to the past, was the skeleton upon which the history of the Earth was
constructed.119The meteorite hypothesis severely challenged the uniformitarian assumption.120 But, the impact enthusiasts
had chemical data, instead of speculation. The iridium anomalies could not only be observed, but could be further tested at
other K/T sites. The finding of iridium spikes at other K/T boundaries convinced most scientists, although at the time the
geochemistry of iridium was poorly known, and still is poorly known in a marine environment. 121 Eventually, meteorite
impacts came to be viewed as part of the uniformitarianism paradigm after all.Thus the meteorite theory was quickly
supported and built up by the scientific press, especially by the journals Science and Nature. Then the popular press
accepted it as fact, followed by most intellectuals. 122 The only group of scientists that were not persuaded were the
palaeontologists, except for those who advocated punctuated equilibrium, since the idea of impacts fits nicely into their
theory. The palaeontologists had already worked out the order and timing of dinosaur palaeonecrology, and it was a slow
evolutionary birth and death. They also did not like outsiders such as alien physicists (Luis Alvarez was a famous physicist
who had received the Nobel prize) messing around in their speciality.123,124 Palaeontologists mostly favour the volcanic theory
with marine regression.So, before 1980 scientific bias was against the meteorite theory, but afterwards it was against all
other theories. Scientists, nowadays, barely consider the palaeontologists arguments, many of them quite good from the
uniformitarian standpoint. They simply believe the iridium anomalies and the shocked quartz grains prove the meteorite
theory.An overview of the controversy shows that whether a person accepted or rejected the meteorite theory was greatly
preconditioned by his institution of higher learning and his scientific discipline.125 The peer pressure to conform to the
preconceived ideas of ones institution is strong, as Stephen Jay Gould admits:
I think orthodoxy is enormously supported. In fact, I would make an argumentand I think that anyone who argues against
this is not being quite honestthat institutions, universities in particular, are very conservative places. Their function is not
despite lip serviceto generate radically new ideas. Theres just too much operating in tenure systems and granting
systems, in judgmental systemsusually older upon younger people [with] the pretenure needs to conform. 126Such strong
peer pressure results in what is called by many others a bandwagon effect,127 another name for the reinforcement
syndrome. William Glen explains:
The bandwagon effect, exacerbated by the rapid pace of the mass-extinction debates, was strongly in evidence in this
study; it was also documented in vivo in studies of the accretionary-terrain research program 128Biases were so strong
that scientists resorted to many unscientific ploys to get their personal way, such as verbally attacking one another; using
polemics to push their preferences, sometimes using outdated data; refusing to publish key data; and refusing grants for
research they did not agree with. 129,130 An after-the-fact study by William Glen indicated that few, laymen and scientists alike,
really knew much about the issue.131 This is a sad state of affairs within scienceit is no different when it comes to the
creation/evolution controversy.
Evidence the dinosaurs died in a global flood
Despite the popularity of the meteorite theory, many scientists believe the extinction of the dinosaurs has not been solved, or
else that the meteorite theory needs a secondary, boosting mechanism. The extinction of the dinosaurs is still a major
mystery. Gregory Paul exclaims:
The history of the dinosaurs is marked by remarkable success and stability during the Mesozoic. Far from being inherently
vulnerable, the dinosaurs survived in spite of repeated changes in sea level and climate, enormous volcanic eruptions, and
great impacts. Indeed, the dinosaurs fecundity makes it hard to see how such resilient animals could ever have been killed
off. The extinction of the dinosaurs was probably not part of the normal course of evolutionary fluctuations, nor was it just
another result of random extraterrestrial disruptions. Instead, it remains one of the most extraordinary and inexplicable
events in Earth history. 132Could the reason the extinction of the dinosaurs remains such a major mystery be because of the
uniformitarian bias within historical geology?

A watery cataclysm and dinosaur graveyards

For most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of
the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answerthey simply died in a Flood .Although there are still many
unknowns associated with the observed fossil data on dinosaurs, and the information that is available is often incomplete
and interpreted within the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm, much of what is known so far fits quite well within the Flood
paradigm.The most obvious aspect of dinosaur fossils is that most dinosaurs must have been buried rapidly in water.
Alternately, the dinosaurs could also have been entombed in giant mass flows. Based on the random mixing of charcoalised
wood with sand found in Colorado and northeastern Wyoming, Edmond Holroyd provides evidence for at least region-wide
catastrophic debris flows associated with dinosaur remains. 133135Furthermore, after burial fossilisation must have proceeded
rapidly under special conditions in which minerals moving through the saturated sediments replaced the organic matter.
Therefore, it is no surprise that water is closely associated with the burial and fossilisation of the dinosaurs. Clemens states
that organisms must be buried rapidly by rare (in his mind 100-year or 500-year events) floods in order to be preserved as
fossils.136 The largest dinosaurs must have been buried by even rarer floods.A sizeable number of dinosaurs were
entombed in obvious marine sediments.137139 In assumed terrestrial sediments (the equivocal environmental designation of a
terrestrial environment will be briefly discussed later), mainstream scientists commonly interpret the action of water as
fluvial. For diluvialists, the dinosaurs could have been buried either by sheet flow or channelised flow; either one is possible
in a global Flood depending upon many variables.Dinosaurs are often found in large bone-beds or dinosaur graveyards,
where many dinosaur bones are packed together. This provides evidence for at least catastrophic local floods.140142 A few of
these bone-beds contain thousands of dinosaurs and indicate catastrophic action. Probably the largest bone-bed in the
world is located in north-central Montana, USA. Based on outcrops, an extrapolated estimate was made for 10,000 duckbill
dinosaurs entombed in a thin layer measuring 2 km east-west and 0.5 km north-south. 143,144 The bones are disarticulated and
disassociated, and are orientated east-west. However, a few bones were standing upright, indicating some type of debris
flow.145Moreover, there are no young juveniles or babies in this bone-bed, and the bones are all from one species of
dinosaur. Horner and Gorman describe the bone-bed as follows:
How could any mud slide, no matter how catastrophic, have the force to take a two- or three-ton animal that had just died
and smash it around so much that its femurstill embedded in the flesh of its thighsplit lengthwise?146A cataclysmic event
obviously is implied.Another bone-bed containing thousands of duckbill dinosaurs, mostly in a single layer, is found in northeastern Wyoming.147 Over 90 smaller bone-beds make up the huge deposit in Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. 148
150
Dinosaur National Monument in Vernal, Utah, USA, is world famous for its display of a water-laid jumble of disarticulated
dinosaur bones.151 Another well-known bone-bed, mostly of large carnivores, is Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in central
Utah.152 Colbert described the stacked dinosaur bones in Howe Quarry, Wyoming, USA as being piled in like logs in a
jam.153 Robert Bakker cant help but think of a cataclysm when viewing the dinosaur graveyard at Como Bluff, Wyoming:
Anyone who cherishes notions that evolution is always slow and continuous will be shaken out of his beliefs by Breakfast
Bench [Como Bluff] and the other geological markers of cataclysm. 154There are many other dinosaur graveyards in western
North America, practically all, if not all, indicating catastrophic burial by water or aqueous slurries.Dinosaur graveyards are
not found just in the western United States, but worldwide. One of the first graveyards discovered was
anIguanodon graveyard in Belgium.155 A new sauropod graveyard has been discovered in Niger, Africa. This graveyard is
dated as Cretaceous, even though the dinosaurs closely resemble Jurassic dinosaurs of western North America and are
dissimilar to dinosaurs from South America, which was expected according to the theory of plate tectonics. 156 A dinosaur
graveyard of well preserved, articulated dinosaurs is now being excavated at Dashanpu, China.157Another dinosaur
graveyard that has recently made the scientific news is in Mongolia, also known for its many dinosaur eggs. This is one of
the few graveyards that some scientists believe was buried, not by water, but by catastrophic sandstorms.158,159 Just recently
a brooding oviraptorid was found on top of fossilised eggs in Mongolia. 160 David Weishampel says that what these
dinosaurs ate in the desert is a problem. Moreover, the unique preservation of a brooding dinosaur
owes a great deal to rapid death and burial in what must have been a powerful sandstorm, so sudden that we are left
with the impression of an animal freeze framed in the act of nest brooding. 161It is doubtful a sandstorm could freeze-frame a
brooding dinosaur. Usually any little disturbance will cause an animal to leave its eggs. There is the added question of how
the dinosaurs are to be fossilised in a desert. It is more likely this powerful sandstorm was a giant watery sandwave in a
catastrophic flood.Similar to the huge bone-bed in Montana,162,163 many of these dinosaur graveyards contain only one or
mostly one type of dinosaur.164Practically all the bones in these monospecific bone-beds are disarticulated and
broken.165 Furthermore, babies and young juveniles are not only missing from monospecific bone-beds, but are extremely
rare as fossils anywhere:
Except for nesting horizons, baby dinosaur remains are extremely rare in the fossil record, suggesting that most, if not all,
baby dinosaur mortality occurred in the nesting area.166Since dinosaurs lay many eggs, based on the number of eggs found
in nests and clutches, and because infant mortality is normally high in animals, there should be many more fossils of babies
and young juveniles than older juveniles and adults. In referring to dinosaur fossils worldwide, Horner and Gorman state:
As succeeding years yielded no other major finds of baby dinosaurs, the question grew in importance. If you think about it,
more dinosaurs should have died young than died old; thats what happens with most animals. And the high infant
mortality should have produced a lot of fossils over the course of 140 million yearsa lot of fossils that had never been
found.167The pervasive lack of very young dinosaurs and the occasional monospecific bone-beds of broken and disarticulate
bones is most unusual. Some type of herding behaviour is normally invoked to explain monospecific bone-beds, although
the stratigraphic character of some bone-beds does not favour this hypothesis. The lack of young juveniles in the
monospecific bone-beds is perplexing, because young dinosaurs should have accompanied older dinosaurs in a herd, as
observed in herds of animals today. The character of these bone-beds has given rise to a number of speculative theories,
including local catastrophes. One would expect that local catastrophes, such as a flash flood or a volcanic eruption, would
entomb more than just one type of animal.Could these monospecific bone-beds containing older juveniles and adults
provide further evidence of a unique watery catastrophe? One would surmise that during the initial onslaught of the Flood,
adult and older juveniles would have been better able to flee the encroaching Flood waters. Dinosaurs of the same species
may then have herded up, when normally they do not, only to be later buried together. Herding behaviour during times of
stress is observed today among elk during cold, stormy weather; cattle before earthquakes; and many other species. The
herding in this case would have nothing to do with gregarious behaviour as some evolutionists surmise. Is it possible the
reason for the rarity of baby dinosaurs outside nesting areas is because they could not keep up with the fleeing herd and
perished quickly. Their bones were not fossilised probably because they were too fragile.The existence and characteristics
of dinosaur graveyards not only provide strong support for a Flood, but also tell us a few details of what occurred during that
great cataclysm. For instance, some bone-beds, especially those in Montana and southern Alberta, show signs of exposure
on land for a while following death. This is indicated by the remains of carnivorous dinosaur teeth, and only teeth, found

among the bones, as well as tooth marks incised onto the bones. 168171 In other words, these bone-beds were scavenged,
which has given rise to the idea that T. rex was just a scavenger. Since the bone-beds are lying on thousands of metres of
Flood sediments, it seems reasonable that the Flood sediments became temporarily exposed during the Flood. 172 Flood
sediments could be exposed by either tectonic uplift or the falling of sea level due to the dynamics of ocean currents on a
relatively shallow, flooded continent.173
Dinosaurs fleeing the encroaching flood waters
Dinosaur tracks also provide more details on unusual conditions during their formation. The importance of dinosaur tracks is
that they represent live animals, so that in a Flood model, the tracks were made within the first 150 days of the Flood. 174,175 In
the western United States, billions of dinosaur tracks have recently been discovered. 176178 Of special note are the
megatracksites. One megatracksite in south-east Utah is on the upper boundary of the Entrada Sandstone, a supposedly
desert sandstone. All the tracks are from a fairly large, carnivorous theropod. It is indeed strange that one type of dinosaur
lived in a large area of an alleged desert. What were they supposed to eat in a desert? The evidence could be better
interpreted as a group of theropods embarking on a temporarily exposed sandy surface during the Flood. Since tracks must
be buried rapidly within a matter of days or weeks to be reserved, 179 the sandy exposure was brief, followed by another
depositional event.A dinosaur freeway has been discovered that stretches from north-east New Mexico to north-west
Colorado. The tracks are generally of two types and are found on multiple stratigraphic levels that supposedly span several
million years. Since the strata containing the tracks are probably conformable, it does not seem reasonable that only two
types of dinosaurs used this freeway over several millions of years. It is more reasonable that dinosaurs found a linear strip
of land (or a series of shoals separated by shallow water) during the Flood while the sea level was oscillating and sediments
were being deposited.There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial
model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. First, the tracks are practically always
found on bedding planes,180 generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood
followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldnt the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediments were
deposited slowly over long periods of time?Second, the lack of relief on the track-bearing strata 181 indicates a rapid
sedimentation event forming flat strata over a huge area. Otherwise, erosion over millions of years would have produced at
least hilly topography and, therefore, tracks would traverse up and down hills.The dinosaur-bearing Morrison Formation in
the western United States (assuming all the many outcrops are time equivalent, which is questionable) represents what
must have been a thin, flat plain a little above sea level. This plain covered 1,800,000 km 2 from central Utah east to central
Kansas, and from central New Mexico north to the Canadian border. The description of this Morrison peneplain seems
unreasonable:
The enormous area covered by Morrison sediments and the general thinness of the sedimentary sheet (being in most areas
less than 100m in thickness) indicate that the sediments were distributed by widespread, flowing water. 182I can believe the
widespread flowing water part, but did this flowing water excavate channels and valleys or create unconformities over a long
period of time? The evidence for fluvial action is almost nonexistent:
Given the flat surface over which the Morrison was deposited the absence of evidence for major single channel systems.
Lack of initial valley incision into the surface left by the retreating seas, and the absence of unconformities within the
Morrison 183How can sediments be deposited thinly and evenly by rivers over a huge, flat surface with little slope without
leaving significant channels? Such a flat plain containing both dinosaur tracks and remains is most unusual: Nothing on
earth today closely resembles the environment of the Morrison Formation. 184 Indeed, the observations of the Morrison
Formation bear striking evidence for catastrophic sheet flow, and not slow processes over millions of years.Third, unusual,
stressful conditions are also indicated by the fact that practically all trackways are straight. 185 Lockley and Hunt state: First,
the sauropod was changing direction, turning to the right, a phenomenon rarely recorded in trackways. 186 Any deer or elk
hunter knows that land animals frequently meander, especially while looking for food. Straight tracks are usually made when
the animal is in a hurry, escaping a predator or a hunter, or rapidly migrating. Even in these situations, the trackways will
sometimes curve or meander a little. The fact that practically all dinosaur trackways are straight strongly favours animals
desperately trying to escape some catastrophe. The worldwide extent of these straight dinosaur trackways provides
evidence for a cataclysm of global proportions.Fourth, there are very few tracks of babies or juveniles.187,188 Coombs states:
As with bones, footprints of juvenile dinosaurs are quite rare but this apparent scarcity may be in part an artifact of
taxonomic bias.189Regarding this claim of taxonomic bias, it is interesting that 50 percent of the elephant tracks from
Amboseli National Park, Africa, were made by juveniles.190 Although elephants probably grow much slower than dinosaurs
grew, and it can be difficult recognising a small track, dinosaurs are expected to have produced many more babies than
elephants. So the reasons for the rarity of tracks of both babies and juveniles is not in accord with observations from the
modern world, and hence it is against the uniformitarian principle that guides geological thought. The lack of tracks of young
dinosaurs fits better into the Flood model, in which babies and juveniles were less able to flee the encroaching Flood waters
and hence were unable to make too many tracks.Fifth, another uniformitarian puzzle that is better explained within a Flood
paradigm is the nearly complete absence of tracks of stegosaurs, ankylosaurs and ceratopsians, although they are certainly
heavy enough to make tracks and their skeletal remains are common.191 Their thick armour and large bony plates suggest
they were poor swimmers (in the track record, there is evidence of swimming dinosaurs and dinosaurs making tracks in
shallow water192194) and so they probably succumbed to the first inundation of their habitat.In summary, all these unusual
characteristics of dinosaur tracks do not fit into the uniformitarian paradigm of slow, gradual processes over millions of
years. The evidence fits better a time of worldwide stress on dinosaurs trying to escape rising Flood waters. Since the tracks
were made on hundreds to thousands of metres of Flood sediments, the evidence, as with bone-beds, indicates briefly
exposed sediments or shallow water during the period of rising Flood waters. 195 Track layers on more than one bedding
plane represent brief exposures during a generally, continuous sedimentation event. The oscillations in local sea level would
have been caused by local or distant tectonic events, tides, the dynamics of the Flood currents,196 tsunamis, etc.
Can dinosaur nests, eggs, and babies be explained within the Flood?
The hypothesis of exposed Flood sediments during the early stages of the Flood is further supported by dinosaur bone-beds
and tracks. It is expected from this hypothesis that pregnant female dinosaurs would have laid eggs on these temporary
refuges. So, the finding of fossilised dinosaur eggs, sometimes in nests, which have recently been discovered in many parts
of the world,197 is not unexpected. However, of the thousands of fossilised dinosaur eggs discovered, only several contain
embryos,198 and most of these have been discovered in north-central Montana and southern Alberta. 199201Several features of
the nests, eggs, and babies appear to contradict the above Flood model; it seems as if too much time was required for all
the indicated dinosaur activity.202204 For example, at a few locations, eggs have been found at two or three stratigraphic
horizons, for instance, at three levels within a 3 m vertical section on Egg Mountain. 205 It also has been reported that 15 baby
Maiasaurs, found in and around a nest 1 km north of Egg Mountain, north-central Montana, had grown for a while.Before

discussing this subject, the reader must be aware of the many unknowns associated with dinosaur eggs, which are subject
to variable interpretation by mainstream scientists. Much of the detailed information has not been published. What at first
may seem contradictory to a Flood model, may be shown not to be discrepant with further data. For instance, the 15
Maiasaur babies believed to have partially grown had worn teeth, some teeth three-quarters worn. 206 At first glance, these
worn teeth suggest the babies had fed for a relatively long period with the help of attendant mother dinosaurs. Garner states
in referring to these worn teeth: It is difficult to see how this sequence of events can be accommodated within the year of
the Flood.207 An alternative explanation is that the babies wore down their teeth while in the eggs and need not represent a
long time of feeding. Based on the analysis of embryos near the Montana/Alberta border, Horner and Currie have concluded
that embryos ground their teeth while still in the egg.208,209 (For the baby dinosaurs, worn teeth would have been no problem,
since the teeth would have been simply replaced by new teeth.) Therefore, data on dinosaur eggs that at first seem inimical,
may still be explained within a Flood model after further information is published. 210,211With the above example in mind, let us
take a cursory view of Egg Mountain and vicinity. In north-central Montana and southern Alberta, there are several claims for
nests, eggs and babies at multiple stratigraphic levels. However, in one instance the different levels are many tens of
kilometres apart.212,213 Since outcrops are isolated, the stratigraphy could easily be a little confused, due to facies changes or
erosion that could have stripped more strata from one area than the other. In these cases, the eggs could be at the same
time horizon.On Egg Mountain, it was earlier published that eggs of hypsilophodont dinosaurs, Orodromeus makelai, were
laid on three separate horizons within a 3 m thick vertical section. The eggs were half embedded in limestone layers
between mudstone.214 Just having eggs at different stratigraphic levels is really not a problem in a Flood paradigm, in which
portions of exposed land were periodically inundated.215 (It would be the same mechanism for the formation of multiple
dinosaur track layers.) For example, turtles lay their eggs within hours in beach sand and then leave them. Conceivably, a
fluctuating sea level could bury their eggs with more sand, and then re-expose the beach for more turtles to lay their eggs
soon after the first group. 216However, palaeontologists believe that many of the eggs hatched. Support for this argument
comes from the observation that many eggs have broken tops, and that 20 to 25 juveniles of various sizes were found within
the nesting area on the horizons. 217 Garner accepts this evidence at face value, concluding that a long period of time was
required:
Thus nest construction, egg-laying and nurture of juveniles occurred at this locality three times. If one cycle of this sort is
difficult to fit into the Flood year, the establishment of three successive nesting colonies one after the other surely strains the
imagination, notwithstanding that the growth of baby dinosaurs was rapid. 218Actually, nests on Egg Mountain are rare; the
eggs were mostly laid in a spiral on limestone with the pointed end down. 219,220There is new information and several
observations that suggest that there is more to the story of what happened on Egg Mountain. First, there is some question
on the number of horizons with anywhere from two to four suggested.Second, the dinosaur eggs are no longer considered
hypsilophodonts, but the theropod Trodon.221,222 This mistake was easy to make at the time since there was little skeletal
material of Trodon and the bones of each are similar in many ways. There are eggs from a second type of dinosaur
called? Trodon, which is not Trodon but from an unknown species. The 20 to 25 partial dinosaur skeletons at Egg
Mountain are still considered Orodromeus, but they had not been hatched from the egg clutches, which are
now Trodon eggs.Third, the eggs may or may not have hatched. Just because the tops of many eggs were broken, does
not necessarily mean the dinosaurs hatched. There are other possible explanations for this observation. Broken egg tops
could have been caused by erosion from the next sediment layer or by compaction of the sediments. The tops of the eggs
could have been broken by scavengers, for which there is abundant evidence in the area. There are fossils of small
mammals, varanid lizards, pterosaurs and other types of dinosaurs at Egg Mountain. 223226 Trodon teeth are abundant at
Egg Mountain.227 Trodon teeth are commonly associated with eggs at other sites of north-central Montana and southern
Alberta.228,229 Could Trodon have cannibalised its own eggs on Egg Mountain, as is suggested for Coelophysis from the
dinosaur graveyard at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico? 230 Teeth of Albertosaurus, very similar to T. rex, also are found at Egg
Mountain.231Skeletons of 20 to 25 young dinosaurs are scattered among the eggs.232 Could they have scavenged the eggs?
All this evidence suggests the eggs may have been scavenged after being laid, which need not take a long period of time on
exposed land during the Flood.Although the stratigraphy of the Maiasaur nesting area, 1 km north of Egg Mountain, is
confused due to a high degree of lateral variability, 233three stratigraphic levels are claimed.234 Eggs are believed to have
been laid at the top and bottom horizons, but not vertically above each other. Local erosion or soft sediments while the
sediments were briefly exposed during the Flood could account for eggs on two of three stratigraphic horizons. In other
words, it is possible that the dinosaurs laid eggs on a surface that cuts through the stratigraphy. 235One horizon contains eight
closely-spaced nests, two that contained hatched baby dinosaurs. This is the horizon where 15 babies were found
associated with a nest-like structure, 11 babies inside and four around the perimeter. The skeletons are 1m long. The ones
in the nest were disarticulated and jumbled together, a rather unusual condition for babies that supposedly died in a nest.
One of the other eight nests contained babies only 0.5 m long. Babies 0.5 m long were also found outside the nests.236 So,
it appears that the 1 m long babies in the nest grew for a while, suggesting mothering dinosaurs. Horner believes they grew
rapidly and reached 1 m in length in about one month. It is possible that during the first 150 days of the Flood the Maiasaurs
laid eggs and that the babies hatched and grew to 1 m long.However, the idea of mothering dinosaurs for altricial babies has
recently been challenged.237 If this claim is true, the mothers did not need to care for their young. Then what were the 15
babies each 1 m long doing in and around one of the nests? If eight duckbill dinosaurs made nests at the same time, which
the evidence suggests, why are some babies only 0.5 m long and some 1 m long? Is it possible that multiple-sized babies
were hatched at the same time? Are the claimed nests really nests made by mothering duckbill dinosaurs? They appear to
be so, but other explanations are possible, especially in view of the possibility that baby Maiasaurs were precocial. At this
point, whether the baby Maiasaurs were precocial or altricial is controversial. There are still too many unknowns to answer
these questions.There are several other indications of unusual, stressful conditions associated with fossilised dinosaur eggs.
However, not enough study has been devoted to these conditions to know whether these were general or isolated
occurrences. I will only briefly mention them. There are a number of reports of extremely thin egg shells. 238240 Pathological
eggs, especially with multiple shell layers, have also been reported.241245Pathological eggs are rather rare in western North
America compared to other areas of the world. 246 It is rather strange that of the thousands of eggs recently discovered,
embryos within the eggs are extremely rare.247,248 Palaeontologists believe the reason for this rarity is because the egg
contents are not preserved:
Fossil experts think that normally egg contents leak, or decompose until the bones dissolve, or are eaten by predator
dinosaurs before fossils are formed.249Further data may indicate whether the above observations of fossilised dinosaur eggs
are general or rare. If general, they would indicate unusual conditions; if rare, they probably would be the result of chance.
Volcanoes and meteorites during the Flood
The adherents of the meteorite theory and the volcanic theory for the demise of the dinosaurs possess both supportive and
contrary data. The contrary data indicate that neither mechanism is the full story.Creationists expect the Flood to have been

a volcanic, tectonic, and hydrological cataclysm. Both submarine and subaerial volcanism is expected, and indeed there is
abundant evidence for volcanism in both Precambrian 250and Phanerozoic251 sedimentary rocks. In Montana, Wyoming and
southern Alberta, the dinosaur-bearing beds contain copious amounts of volcanic material. So volcanism could easily be
associated with the demise of the dinosaurs during the Flood, but not the main cause.However, it is very likely that meteorite
impacts also occurred during the Flood. Jeremy Auldaney suggests that impacts triggered the Flood. 252,253 Carl Froede and
Don deYoung propose that a planet broke up between Mars and Jupiter, based on the Titius-Bode relationship. The debris
from this breakup was responsible for the cratering observed in the Solar System, with most impacts on earth occurring
during the Flood.254 These authors are probably correct, since both the pre-Flood and post-Flood time-frames are expected
to have been times of relative geological quiet.255 Furthermore, there are around 150 probable impact craters now known on
earth.256 Most of the impact craters are dated between 1 million and 1 billion years. 257 One would expect that most of these
150 impacts occurred during the Flood, especially if the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Cainozoic of the
uniformitarian timescale.258260 The reason for this deduction is that erosion since the Flood has been slight, especially in
areas not glaciated.261 An impact within the Flood is expected to have been greatly eroded and filled with sediment, showing
just the bare circular outline, with little or no detectable ejecta. On the other hand, a post-Flood impact is generally expected
to exhibit relatively sharp features plus ejecta, especially in a non-glacial and dry environment. A classic example is the
Arizona Meteor Crater.262 Therefore, since most impact craters are barely detectable in the Flood sediments, it is likely that
most impacts occurred during the Flood.The largest iridium anomalies are probably due to impacts. This is because
volcanically-produced iridium is mainly from basaltic eruptions, which probably were underwater eruptions during the
Flood.263,264 Either way, multiple impacts and volcanic eruptions would explain the evidence of the many iridium anomalies,
shocked quartz grains, tektites, etc. found in the geological record. The rapid sedimentation during the Flood would explain
the observation that an iridium spike can be composed of multiple spikes or else spread over more than a thin layer of
sediment. Uniformitarian geologists date such relatively thick layers as lasting hundreds of thousands of years, but within the
Flood an iridium-rich layer would be only an instant of time. Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would probably
accumulate during temporary lulls in the Flood. The clay could fall rapidly due to coagulation of particles. Accumulations of
iridium-rich clay would be unlikely at the beginning of the Flood, but more likely during the middle or end of the Flood. This is
because of the rapid erosion and sedimentation likely at the beginning of the Flood.The fact that few extinctions occur right
at the exact K/T boundary bodes ill for the meteorite theory. There are only 20 locations where dinosaurs are even close to
the K/T boundary, as defined by an iridium anomaly or some other fossil criterion:
In the case of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, many peopleeven professionalsare very surprised to discover that
there are only about 20 localities, most of which are in North America, that preserve the last days of the dinosaurs. 265If most
dinosaur extinctions are not associated with an Ir anomaly, then how could impacts have been the main cause for the death
of the dinosaurs?In a Flood model, the problem of the survival of certain sensitive organisms across the K/T boundary is not
a problem, mainly because that boundary is nothing special within the Flood paradigm and probably is not synchronous.
The new discovery of polar dinosaurs is a problem for the meteorite theory, but can be explained within the Flood
paradigm.266
Is the K/T boundary synchronous?
All the hypotheses of dinosaur extinction assume that many dinosaurs, ammonites and other groups of organisms died out
near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. But is the K/T boundary, especially in relation to the extinction of the dinosaurs, a
synchronous event worldwide within the Flood? It probably is not even a synchronous event within the uniformitarian
paradigm.The definition of the K/T boundary varies in different parts of the world, depending on whether the strata are
presumed marine or terrestrial and depending upon which fossils are found in the strata. Defining a terrestrial or marine
environment can be challenging and is normally based on the fossils. Many terrestrial fossils could have been buried in
marine environments, especially within a Flood paradigm and even within a uniformitarian paradigm. For instance, a
classical late Cretaceous dinosaur site in eastern Montana is considered a terrestrial environment. However, shark remains
are also found. Since dinosaurs and coal are abundant, the shark remains are relegated to having lived in a freshwater
habitat,267 even though sharks are marine today and it seems impossible physiologically to assign extinct sharks to a
freshwater environment. In the Flood model, the observation of shark remains among dinosaurs would not be considered
unusual, since one would expect that sharks would scavenge floating dinosaurs and occasionally end up entombed with
dinosaurs.The K/T boundary was first defined as changes in fossil marine biota in rocks of northern Europe. 268 Nowadays,
the fossil dating method is so refined that each microorganism, whether a diatom, foraminifer, coccolith or radiolarian, has its
own boundary-defining criterion. Some have claimed the definition of the K/T boundary based on these microfossils is rather
subjective,269,270 and when the particular fossil is absent, a hiatus is presumed. 271Even the classical marine K/T section with a
large Ir spike at Gubbio, Italy, is not without controversy. One geologist, after careful research, concluded that the section
was a reworked Miocene turbidite.272 This idea was published after the section had been touted as a K/T impact horizon.
Nevertheless, Alvarez and Lowrie 273 jumped all over this result and prevailed. It seems that reworking is mainly invoked to
support the prevailing paradigm. The K/T boundary at Gubbio is of reversed palaeomagnetism, so the K/T boundary in other
areas also has to be reversely magnetised. However, at least one ocean core at the supposed K/T boundary was found to
be normally magnetised.274 These two K/T boundaries are thus probably not synchronous.For presumed terrestrial
sediments, the boundary had been universally defined as the last appearance of the dinosaurs:
Critics charged that Rigby and his colleagues didnt know exactly where the end of the Cretaceous was in the sediments
that they were studying; after allit was pointed outthe end of the Cretaceous was commonly recognised as the place
where the last (youngest) dinosaur was preserved. 275However, defining the K/T boundary on the basis of the youngest
dinosaur fossil in a vertical section is a poor criterion, when only about 20 dinosaur localities from around the world are close
to this boundary.276
Defining the K/T boundary based on the last dinosaur is also a circular definition, since scientists claim that the dinosaurs
only lived in the Mesozoic when the presence of a dinosaur automatically defines the strata as Mesozoic. For instance,
dinosaur remains from France and India were discovered in what were considered Tertiary strata. The strata were
subsequently redefined as Cretaceous!277,278In eastern Montana, there is a controversy over whether dinosaurs lived into
the Tertiary. The K/T boundary in this area is defined by a floral change, but it is also associated with a weak iridium anomaly
(an original report of a significant Ir anomaly turned out to be contamination from a platinum ring worn by a technician
preparing the samples for analysis 279). Dinosaurs have been found above the defined K/T boundary from at least six sites,
while ungulates, normally considered Tertiary, have been found below the boundary.280282 Dinosaurs are also said to have
survived well into the Palaeocene in other areas, such as the tropics of India, the Pyrenees, Peru and New Mexico. 283 Of
course, the data from Montana have been strongly contested with the suggestion that reworking had mixed the
fossils.284 Reworking is a common mechanism for accounting for fossils in the wrong strata, 285,286 preserving a semblance of
order in the slow evolution of organisms with time. In spite of claims of reworking, Keith Rigby and his colleagues are

sticking to their claim of Tertiary dinosaurs. 287 Despite the merits of the various arguments, the circular reasoning is
evident.Another K/T defining criterion for a presumed terrestrial environment is a change in certain pollen or spores. In
eastern Montana, the K/T boundary is also defined as the base of the Z coal layer. But some geologists believe this coal bed
is diachronous, which would mean this definition of the K/T boundary is subjective. 288 The problem for defining the K/T
boundary in eastern Montana is compounded due to the many coal beds and the scattered nature of the outcrops.All the
many definitions of the K/T boundary are difficult to reconcile with each other into a worldwide synchronous time horizon
within the uniformitarian paradigm:
Even given the entire fund of techniques, methods, and principles of correlation extant, there was still, in the past decade,
widespread uncertainty about correlating marine rocks of K/T boundary age with their continental contemporaries, even
where both sections were richly fossiliferous, because the two sections were almost always mutually exclusive in timediagnostic fossils.289That the K/T boundary from various areas is asynchronous is also admitted by Olsson and Liu:
Examination of recently reported K/P [K/T] boundary sections indicates that the placement of the K/P boundary is based on
equivocal criteria and that the boundary as placed is not synchronous. The conclusion that the K/P boundary in several U.S.
Gulf Coast sections is complete and within a condensed section is simply the artifact of delineating the K/P boundary on
disparate paleontologic datum planes and preservational bias of the microfossil assemblages. 290And in correlation of widely
scattered outcrops, there is the common problem of lateral facies and fossil changes that can cause uncertainty even in
local and regional correlations.Defining the K/T boundary as the last appearance of a particular fossil, a common procedure,
is a dangerous exercise. This is because fossils have a habit of disappearing vertically at one location and reappearing at a
higher level at another location. This has been labelled the Lazarus Effect.291,292Even though the various fossil definitions of
the K/T boundary are asynchronous, could an Ir anomaly be used to define a synchronous K/T boundary, whether in a
uniformitarian or a diluvial paradigm? The problem here is that there are many Ir anomalies in the strata, and many of the
spikes at the K/T boundary are weak or non-existent. In regard to dinosaur extinction, few dinosaur localities are even close
to the defined K/T boundary, and even fewer are close to a significant Ir anomaly. There is also the problem that the K/T
boundary is sometimes defined by the Ir spike, 293295 introducing an element of circular reasoning.Although palaeontologists
believe most of the age differences between various defining fossils are minor, it underscores the subjective nature of the
process and some of the problems in choosing the K/T boundary. The various K/T boundary defining criteria, as viewed by
uniformitarian scientists, are probably asynchronous. Therefore, creationists should not assume the K/T boundary and the
extinction of the dinosaurs is a synchronous event within the Flood.
Summary and conclusions
Despite the many theories on dinosaur extinction, including the currently popular meteorite impact theory, the demise of the
dinosaurs is still unexplained. Wherever dinosaur bones are unearthed, the evidence predominantly suggests catastrophic
entombment by water, sometimes by clearly marine water. Just the burial and fossilisation of such massive hulks as the
large dinosaurs indicates catastrophic action. There is also evidence that some dinosaurs were rapidly buried in at least
regional debris flows. The large dinosaur bone-beds especially indicate a major catastrophe. Some of these bone-beds
represent the remains of one dinosaur species, an unusual taphonomic condition. Babies and young juveniles are almost
entirely missing as fossils, another enigmatic occurrence for those who assume uniformitarianism.Billions of dinosaur tracks
have recently been discovered, and these provide further evidence for unusual, stressful conditions. For instance, the tracks
do not traverse hills, they are practically always orientated in a straight line, there are very few tracks of baby dinosaurs, and
some dinosaurs that may have been poor swimmers are nearly absent. It is suggested that dinosaur tracks and remains
could have occurred during temporary exposure of sediments during the first half of the Flood.Dinosaur eggs, nests, and
babies at first glance appear to contradict the hypothesis of briefly exposed sediments during the Flood. However, many
unknowns still surround this fascinating evidence of in situ dinosaur activity.The volcanic and meteorite theories for dinosaur
extinction have both supportive and contrary data. The data from these theories can be fitted into a Flood model, a model in
which the dinosaurs perished at different times within the first 150 days.
Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
Book by Charles Officer and Jake Page
by Carl Wieland
The idea that a massive impact from outer space was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs is now very firmly
entrenched in the public imagination. This book, written entirely from an evolutionary/long-age viewpoint, makes a fairly
overwhelming case that, even within that evolutionary framework, the impact-extinction hypothesis is a complete nonstarter.
Officer is a geologist; Page is a science writer who was once the editor of The Skeptical Inquirer. Good, for a change, to see
Skeptics being sceptical of something within their own camp, I thought.I must admit, however, that even as a creationist I
wondered how they would deal with all the apparent evidence for impact-extinction with which I had become familiar through
the mainstream general science journals.It has been presented so convincingly within their framework; the impact which
wiped out the dinosaurs is nowadays referred to in passing, as fact rather than hypothesis.In that which follows, terms like
Cretaceous and Tertiary need clarification. The reviewer shares with the books authors the usage of these terms as valid
categorisations of correlated rock layers containing characteristic fossil assemblages in a particular sequence. Thus,
Tertiary rock was deposited on top of Cretaceous. Obviously, I do not share the belief that these layers represent vast
ages of deposition. We can agree with evolutionists that there is a time sequence involved here as one traces the layers in
the geologic column from bottom to top. However, organisms entering or leaving the record are regarded somewhat
differently. Thus, when the authors of this book refer to periods of extinction, it needs to be understood that in the short-age
framework, this is merely acknowledging the fact that, above a certain point, no further such creatures are found buried. 1
The discussion here also requires no assumption about where in the sequence of layers one locates the Flood/post-Flood
boundary, something still the subject of healthy creationist controversy.
The background to the idea
In the late 1970s, geologist Walter Alvarez found a thin layer of clay in Italy at the boundary between Cretaceous and
Tertiary. This is known as the K-T boundary (K for Cretaceous, also known as the Chalk, which in German =Kreide).This
clay turned out to have 9.4 parts per billion of a rare element called iridium. Although this is a tiny amount, it is about 300
times more than what is normally found in earth strata. Iridium (along with other elements such as osmium) is rare on Earth
but common in extra-terrestrial objects.Walter Alvarez made his father Luis a co-author of the original paper. The fact that
the elder Alvarez was a Nobel prize winning physicist certainly did the hypothesis no harm, adding some of the prestige
associated with the hard or exact sciences.Discoveries of similar iridium enrichment at the K-T boundary in other parts of

the world soon followed. Then grains of shocked quartz, said to be associated with large impacts, were found in the
appropriate places to further cement the idea. Similar finds were made at other levels in the fossil record where there
appeared to have been a major extinction, and a huge bandwagon had begun to roll.The popular press relies on major,
frequently published, technical (but non-specialist) journals such as Science and Nature for most of its science information.
These seemed full of enthusiasm for impact-extinction, and the authors maintain that they failed to properly inform their
readership of the many refutations in specialist publications. A run through the relevant headlines in Science would make it
hard to believe that any more than a small minority of scientists had any doubts about the impact-extinction hypothesis, yet
two separate surveys among various relevant specialities show that only a small minority ever accepted it! However, the
momentum became irresistible. Some scientists claimed that anyone who didnt support it was likely to experience negative
effects on their careers or funding.
More apparent evidence
In 1984, palaeontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski caused a stir with their paper analysing extinctions in the fossil
record and showing recurring peaks every 26 million years. By now, the impact hypothesis had more or less convinced
people that there was an impact-extinction event in end-Cretaceous times, and again in the Eocene. These two extinction
peaks matched their 26 million year period. In other words, Raup and Sepkoski appeared to have shown that every 26
million years or so on the evolutionists time-scale, huge numbers of species were wiped out, presumably from extraterrestrial catastrophic causes. Again, Science and Nature went to town in publishing speculation as to what sort of extraterrestrial clock might be causing such periodicity.A companion star to the Sun was hypothesised, quickly dubbed the
Death Star. The theory proposed that this star circulated in an orbit which brought it, every 26 million years or so, into the
Oort cloud of comets. (This is a [thus far imaginary] shell of comets which evolutionists and long-agers insist must be there
in order to explain how come we still have comets when they break up so quickly. See More problems for the Oort comet
cloud) Some of these comets are then knocked into another orbit, causing them to collide with Earth. This completely
imaginary star, also called Nemesis after the Greek goddess of vengeance, made it to the front cover of Time, and even
into Readers Digest.Finally, in the 1990s, it seemed as if the smoking gun had been discoveredthe Chicxulub crater, a
circular structure of some 200 km diameter on Mexicos Yucatan peninsula.
Reasons for its immense popularity
In addition to the apparent evidence, there are powerful psycho-social reasons why the theory was adopted so quickly and
vigorously. And why, according to the authors, the substantial contrary evidence was given short shrift.First, there is the
ever-present fascination with dinosaurs and the mystery of their disappearance. Those thinking in an evolutionary
framework believe in an age of dinosaurs followed by an age of no dinosaurs, in effect, so the obvious question is what
happened?2 People like mysteries, but they like to see them eventually solved. Impact provided what seemed like such a
neat, clean, simple solution.Next, the enhanced environmental awareness of our age, coupled with prophecies of impending
doom for mankind. Here was something with an appropriately apocalyptic, doomsday flavour. If this could happen to the
dinosaurs, was this not a foretaste of our own demise? 3Also, it fitted nicely with the now-popular punctuated equilibrium
model of evolution in staccato mode. Here was a stark example of the sort of creative crisis which could fuel major bursts of
evolutionary change.Further, by capturing the public imagination, the impact-extinction hypothesis generated a new source
of funding for a host of related projects, not the least being sentinel watches in astronomy, on the lookout for a re-run of the
alleged K-T catastrophe.The authors show that even at the time of the heyday of the impact hypothesis, only a tiny minority
of palaeontologists actually believed it. So why didnt we hear more from the doubters? Weve already mentioned the
pressure from mass opinion, and it was interesting to read of one prominent scientist who published opinions contrary to the
impact hypothesis, resulting in his career actually being threatened. 4Another powerful social effect which may have been at
least as significant in making dissenters reluctant to publish was the popularity (and political significance) of Carl Sagans
nuclear winter hypothesis. This was the notion that global nuclear war would throw up so much dust into the atmosphere,
along with smoke and ash from uncontrolled wildfires, that much of the Suns heat would be blocked from reaching the
Earth. The resultant big freeze could wipe out everyone who had not been killed in the initial impacts, if only from hunger
due to crop failures.The same sorts of consequences were being postulated as the reasons why asteroid impact at the K-T
boundary led to major extinction. Thus, people who had serious scientific reservations about at least this part of the Alvarez
hypothesis were reluctant to voice these, in case it put them at odds with the anti-nuclear war movement. The book
documents how at least one scientist deliberately suppressed his personal uneasiness with the scientific validity of the
impact hypothesis in order not to undermine a clearly worthwhile cause, namely scientists opposition to nuclear war.The
Sagan scenario was also the likely inspiration for some wild extrapolation concerning the finding of minute amounts of
carbon black at some of the K-T sites. Impactors enthusiastically claimed this as evidence of global wildfires. These were
linked to impact by postulating that the worlds forests had been freeze-dried by the nuclear winter effect, then set alight by
lightning as the skies cleared.
Evidence against the impact-extinction hypothesis
Fossils decline gradually
Some of the strongest contrary evidence presented by Officer and Page comes from careful analyses of the types of fossils
found as the end of the Cretaceous is approached. In several sites, there is a gradual decline in the number and variety of
dinosaur fossilshardly consistent with the impact hypothesis. However, it is interesting to note in passing that a
creation/Flood framework would have much more difficulty dealing with a global pattern of uniform sharp cut-off at the K-T
boundary, rather than a blurry picture, which appears to be the reality.
Survival of light-sensitive species
Within their framework, 50% of all species went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. This included shallow-water
organisms. Yet some of the shallow-water organisms which survived were of a type which require uninterrupted light, thus
discounting the Sun blacked out by a dust cloud scenario.Extinctions not correlated with crater datesUsing evolutionary
assumptions, it was not possible to find correlations between the times of major extinctions and the geological dates
assigned to the Earths known impact craters. Some of these known craters are huge, yet show no sign of being associated
with major extinctions in the fossil record. Note in passing how a creationist would have no apparent reason to suspect
correlations between impact craters and the layers at which certain fossils cease to be buried in abundance.
Analogous events fail to support
The huge 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which nearly obliterated an island, was heard over 3,000 miles away. The resultant
effects of the ejecta on sunlight dropped the average mid-summer temperature in the US the following year by 7F, causing

widespread crop failure. There was even worse havoc and famine in Europe. Not only was it not followed by any global
extinctions, there is evidence of an eruption in the past some 400 times greater than Krakatoa. There are no associated
extinctions in the fossil record. Granted, the Alvarez hypothesis postulated something about a thousand times greater than
the Krakatoa eruption, but why would there be absolutely no effect at all for something which was 40% as powerful as
something which is supposed to have wiped out half the species on Earth?
Iridium enrichment spread out too much
One study by another researcher examined the original clay at the site in Gubbio, Italy, which started all the excitement.
Enhanced iridium levels are found above the layer in question, spanning a depth which, according to the whole method of
long-age reasoning, covers around half a million years! This makes sense if the enrichment came from a long-drawn-out
period of volcanism.5
The shocked quartz
Grains of quartz may, under the microscope, appear to have planar deformation features. These are sometimes called
shock lamellae, but since they are not always caused by shock deformation, it is a term which can mislead. They may be
caused by impact, by volcanism, or by prolonged pressure from tectonic activity, such as when one rock grinds against
another. Certain types are more commonly associated with impact, others more commonly with volcanic activity. There was
a brief flurry of finds of a thin layer of these impact grain types in North America, but not associated with any widescale
extinction (other than at most a local one). There was an alleged impact crater associated with these for a while, but it went
out of favour with further studies. Moreover, in other parts of the world, the deformed quartz associated with iridium
anomalies at the K-T boundary is found in much more diffuse layers, and is of the type more commonly associated with
volcanism.
The Death Star theory dies
I recall at the time of publication of the Raup-Sepkoski hypothesis being challenged in public about their findings. The
reason is clear; since creationists regard most of the fossil record as being the record of the Flood, extinctions simply mean
points above which there are no more such fossils found buried. There would therefore be no reason to expect any
periodicity to such extinctions.
However, when one takes a closer look at the Raup-Sepkoski analysis, one sees that the 26 million years was simply
an average of the distance between peaks! Also, the authors point to a devastating critique in Nature which showed that the
data could merely be a statistical aberration. The item pointed out that any such data using their starting assumptions would
have built into it a pseudo-periodicity very close to that claimed.
Iridium not correlated either
Overall, there is simply no correlation of iridium anomalies with most of these periods of great extinction. Furthermore, of
the known impact craters that have been studied, only one, in Australia, is associated with increased concentrations of
iridium in the soil.Volcanic eruptions are now known unquestionably to raise iridium levels. The 1983 eruption of Kilauea in
Hawaii registered iridium levels within airborne particles of 630 ppb, which is some 11,500 times the concentration in
Hawaiian volcanic rocks.Interestingly, the further away one went from the eruption, the higher the iridium levels in the soils.
Apparently, iridium preferentially binds to the finer particles, which are airborne for greater distances.
Signs of desperation
By the time all the above had come to light, the faltering hypothesis needed shoring up, so multiple impacts were proposed,
say Officer and Page. However, this involved a switch to comets, not asteroids. The problem is that comets are not very rich
in iridium at all.It was instructive (especially to one involved in the creation/evolution controversy) to note the way in which,
after this mini-paradigm had gained sufficient momentum, the trendy theory was driving the interpretation of evidence, even
in the face of accumulating counter-evidence.For example, at a certain stage, the still-popular idea was being slowly
overwhelmed by the accumulating evidence that most of the iridium was caused by the volcanism of the Deccan traps
(almost unimaginably huge outpourings of lava at a site in India). Lo and behold, say the authors, it was then postulated that
an impact caused the Deccan traps volcanism! However, not only is this geophysically ridiculous, if one remains consistent
within their framework, the Deccan traps would have started erupting hundreds of thousands of years before the postulated
K-T event!The authors highlight a number of instances in which new geology was invented to shore up the impactextinction idea. For example, a 1990Nature article suggested that a layer of rocks in Cuba was an ejecta blanket from a
massive impact, despite the fact that no-one had ever seen such a consequence from impact. Subsequent studies refuted
the notion, but the ball kept on rolling.
That still leaves us with the matter of the Chicxulub crater, a circular structure of some 200 km diameter on Mexicos
Yucatan peninsula. Was this not supposed to be the irrefutable smoking gun for the impact hypothesis? That was certainly
the impression I had gained from the mainstream science journals, with even quite recent references to it as if it were
everyday common knowledge. The chapter in Officer and Pages book is, however, headed The Missing Crater. By now I
was not totally surprised to find that here again the mainstream science journals had been blindly following a bandwagon.
Chicxulub, which has been studied by gravity and magnetic surveys, has also had a number of oil wells drilled into it. The
geology revealed by these borehole data totally rules out the idea that Chicxulub is an impact crater. This quote from the
books p. 156, taken secondarily from Geology Today, tells the story:
The non-excavating impact: Its probably true to say that most Earth scientists have come to accept that an asteroid
impact directly or indirectly did for the dinosaurs and other species 65 million years ago, if only because theyve been beaten
into submission by the endless barrage of propaganda in its favour. And the word thats been in their ears constantly for the
past few years is Chicxulub But waithear the other side first
The excerpt then refers to a 1994 paper by Meyerhoff et al. in Geology 22:3, which points out that:
There is obvious volcanism interspersed in the layers
There is no sign of any sort of impact melt sheet.
An asteroid large enough to make such a crater would have blasted out all the Upper Cretaceous sediments within the
structure. They are still there; ergo, no impact.
The authors own ideas
Officer and Page, as evolutionists, would feel under compulsion to put forward some sort of alternative hypothesis for
dinosaur extinction. However, they point out that in a complex world, there may be no one, simple cause. Many causes are
already available to them within their framework, if allowed to work in combination. For example, increased competition from

mammals, changing sea-levels, and gradual climate change. The latter may have been due to the effects of the huge
amounts of lava released while forming the aforementioned flood basalts known as the Deccan traps. Here more than one
million cubic kilometres of lava was released, and there were other sites around the world erupting at about the same point
within the geological column.Note in passing that this has been a significant point raised within the Flood/post-Flood
boundary controversy.6 The huge amount of volcanism would have released massive amounts of CO 2 into the air, causing
global warming. The sulphur dioxide released would have contributed to acid rain, and the chlorine would have depleted the
ozone layer, thus increasing UV radiation would have severely affected the global ecology.7
Other issues
The book offers a few forays into the history of such ideas as continental drift, the geological column, radiometric dating and
the age of the Earth; and some useful background brush-up on comets and meteors. While not surprised to see the usual
ridicule of Archbishop Usshers 4004 BC age for the Earth, it was disappointing to see the authors historical sloppiness in
saying that Ussher assigned creation to exactly 9 a.m. on Sunday October 26. Ussher was a much maligned man; a
formidable scholar of repute, he used sound Biblical reasoning, coupled with deductive logic, to come up with his suggested
date of October 23 (not 26).8 The 9 a.m. comes from Bishop Lightfoot, not Ussher, as this book claims.There is even a little
passing dig at Fred Hoyles now pass theory about the Archaeopteryx fossils being clever fakes [see Archaeopteryx (unlike
Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoaxit is a true bird, not a missing link].
Conclusion
The authors make a compelling case, without emotive overkill, for their thesis that the dinosaur-extinction-by-impact
hypothesis is wrong. And furthermore, that it is a classic case of what some philosophers have called pathological science,
not unlike the cold fusion fiasco. Leaning on the philosopher Imre Lakatos, they refer to the Alvarez hypothesis as, among
other things, a degenerating research program. Such are characterised by an absence of stunning new discoveries on the
basis of the theory, ad hoc explanations in the face of criticism, and ignoring facts to fit with preconceptions. One wishes that
these authors could see how closely evolution fits their Lakatian prescription.
Liaoceratops: a missing link of the horned dinos?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
28 March 2002
A team of American and Chinese paleontologists have discovered two small dinosaur skulls in China. This prompted
headlines such as Dino discovery fills in missing link because they were perceived as Triceratops Tiny Ancestors. The
researchers published their findings in Nature 416(6878):314317, 21 March 2002 (A ceratopsian dinosaur from China and
the early evolution of Ceratopsia).The researchers found two skulls which they named Liaoceratops yanzigouensis, after the
Laioning province and Yanzigou village, while ceratops is the usual ending for horned dinosaur names, from Greek keras,
kerat horn andopsis face. They dated the finds at 128139 Ma (millions of years) or possibly 145 Ma. The spokesman was
Peter Makovicky, assistant curator of dinosaurs at Chicagos Field Museum. Other team members include Mark Norell, an
ardent advocate of the dino-to-bird theory who has discovered many alleged feathered dinosaurs such
asProtarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx and BPM
1
3-13;
and
Xu
Xing,
who
helped
expose
the Archaeoraptor hoax.The holotype, the single specimen selected by a discoverer to be the definitive example of a new
species, was a skull 4.4 inches (11.1 centimetres) long. The animal was estimated to be about 3 feet (1 metre) longabout
the size of a large hare. The other skull was only about half the size, and was considered a juvenile skull. The skull had a
frill, which may have been for display but also functioned as an attachment for its powerful jaw muscles. Liaoceratopshad a
small horn facing sideways under each of its eyes, which the researchers claim wouldnt have been much use in defence, so
it supposedly had evolved for display.Many evolutionists believe that the bipedal 2-metre-long Psittacosaurus (parrot lizard,
dated 11997.5 Ma) was an ancestor to the ceratopsians, or horned dinosaurs (e.g. see psittacosaurids). But according to
this paper, basal ceratopsians, of which Liaoceratops is claimed to be the most primitive, branched into the psittacosaurids
and neoceratopsians, and much earlier than previously thought. The latter branch includes the elephant-sized Triceratops,
the largest, commonest and most famous ceratopsian, and supposedly one of the last dinosaurs to become extinct.
Was it really a missing link?
As usual, although the mass media used such terms, the original paper, while pro-evolution, was not so forward. For
example:
Even the holotype skull was sub-adult, as shown by the incompletely closed sutures between skull pieces. One must
wonder whether its really a young specimen of an already-known type of dinosaur. It wouldnt be the first time this has
happened. One creature was named Mussaurus (mouse lizard) because it was only 916 inches long (1837 cm) long. But
the large eyes indicate that it was a baby, possibly of the 10 to 13 feet long (34 m) Coloradisaurus, a pro-sauropod
like Plateosaurus (see Mussaurus).The horns may have just been underdeveloped because of the juvenile state of the
specimen. For many vertebrates with horns, the horns only develop with sexual maturation. So these small horns may be
more relevant to the study of dinosaur ontogeny (development) than phylogeny (evolution).Liaosaurus has features that
spoil the idea of a smooth evolutionary progression. Rather, some structural similarities between different ceratopsians are
now regarded as homoplasies, i.e. independently arisen and not the result of evolution from a common ancestor. This is
consistent with separate creation. The homoplasies have also caused the researchers to reverse the previous order of
evolution (phylogeny) in one case, showing how uncertain evolutionary theories are.Dinosaur taxonomy (classification)
seems rife with splitting, i.e. different specimens of the same type of creature are given different names. E.g. with
sauropods, the largest dinosaurs including Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, 87 genera are commonly cited, but
only 12 are firmly established and another 12 are considered fairly well established [McIntosh, J.S., Sauropoda; in
Wieshampel, D.B. et al., The Dinosauria, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 345, 1992]. In the theropods, the
carnivorous dinosaurs includingAllosaurus and T. rex, a genus Antrodemus was named, but this was based on a single
damaged and incomplete vertebra, and was probably just an Allosaurussee Antrodemus valens. So how many so-called
evolutionary progressions in the fossil record are reallyvariations within a kind? Anyway, as shown in Dinosaurs:
Phylogenetic Chart, gaps, not progressions, dominate.For more information about dinosaurs, see Q&A: Dinosaurs, and also
see Q&A: Radiometric Dating.
(Article available in Spanish)
New evidence of Global Flood from Mexico
Dinosaur dig reveals dramatic insights into the degree of devastation, not so long ago

by Tas Walker
Artist rendering of Velafrons coahuilensis
A new dinosaur find from Mexico gives a vivid insight into the
enormous extent of Flood catastrophe as well as the magnitude
of the processes involved. An international research team led by
scientists from the Utah Museum of Natural History unveiled the
fossilized remains of one of the casualties of that event, a
previously unknown species of dinosaur, which they
called Velafrons coahuilensis.1,2The team, of course, did not
report the evidence within a Flood framework. So, although the
team hopes the find will give fresh insights into the ancient
environments of western North America, they have not
considered the most important factorGobal Flood. Its a bit like
trying to explain the history of Europe without reference to the
Second World War.
Rapid sedimentation
The dinosaur skeleton was excavated in the 1990s in north-central Mexico about 27 miles west of Saltillo, near a small town
called Rincon Colorado in the state of Coahuila. The creature was a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, with a large crest on
its head that looked like a small sail.
Diagram after Eberth, D.A., et al., ref. 3
Part of the sedimentary section of Cerro del Pueblo
Formation in which Velafrons coahuilensis and
other
dinosaur
fossils
were
found.
(Cl=claystone;Si=siltstone; Fss=fine
grained
sandstone; Mss=
medium
grained
sandstone; Css=coarse
grained
sandstone; Cg=conglomerate). The vertical trace
fossils interpreted as burrows could rather
bedewatering
tubes.
Even though the animal was judged to have been
young when it died it would still have been some 25
feet long. Its remains would have needed to be
buried promptly to be preserved, and this would
require a considerable quantity of sediment.The
sedimentary layers in which the remains of the
animal were buried were thick. They are part of the
sedimentary rock unit called the Cerro del Pueblo
Formation, and its characteristics indicate
something of the enormous magnitude of the
watery catastrophe involved.Paleocurrent analysis
reveals that the floodwaters were flowing to the
east while the enormous quantities of sediment
comprising the formation were deposited in huge
sheets over a wide geographical area.3The
thickness of the formation varies from about 500 m
in the west to 150 m in the east near Saltillo, a
distance of 70 km. The Cerro del Pueblo Formation
is part of a much larger sedimentary package many
kilometres thick deposited in the extensive Parras
Basin.4 Such a huge depth of sediment would not
accumulate unless the relative sea level in the area
was rising continually to provide the necessary
accommodation.
The flow of water was highly variable during
deposition, as indicated by characteristics of the
different strata. There was ample evidence of
cross-stratification within the strata, including
planar
cross-stratification,
trough
crossstratification and ripple cross-lamination, all of
which indicate strong water flow.5Some sandstone
strata contained pebbles and granules, which also
give insight into the water currents involved.Another indication of the power of the water was the thicknesses of the
individual strata. The beds of sandstone were frequently massive
and many metres thick. There were numerous multi-metre beds
of massive mudstone that coarsened upwards, suggesting
repeated, enormous and extensive mudflows. Beds often
displayed what is called soft sediment deformation, indicating a
deposition so rapid that the beds slumped and moved before
they had time to settle and consolidate.
Widespread devastation
Reconstructed skull of Velafrons coahuilensis.

Its clear that the events that deposited the sediments had a devastating effect on the living environment, unlike anything
that we see happening in storms and floods today. Not only was the hadrosaur, Velafrons, buried, but excavations unearthed
a second kind of duck-bill dinosaur, a horned dinosaur similar to Triceratops with two massive horns and a long bony frill.
They also uncovered several large tyrannosaurs (related to T. rex), and smaller animals with hooked claws on their feet
like Velociraptor.
The dinosaur remains were not just buried as isolated skeletons, but excavations uncovered large beds containing the
bones of duck-bill and horned dinosaur skeletons all jumbled together. Team leader, Terry Gates said that the region was
outstandingly prolific, yielding large numbers of high quality, well-preserved dinosaur fossils.The catastrophe affected both
the land and the sea. Other vertebrate fossils recovered from the formation included turtles, fish, and lizardsthat is, both
terrestrial and marine animals buried together.The Cerro del Pueblo Formation also includes fossils of snails, marine clams,
ammonites, marine snails, oysters, non-marine snails, fossil wood, leaves and fruit. 6 Again, terrestrial and marine life within
the same formation.
What happened?
Field crew at site where Velafrons coahuilensis was found
The researchers tried to reconstruct the sort of environment that
could explain the remarkable evidence they were finding in the
area, but by ignoring Flood they were hard pressed to make a
plausible story. It was clear that the sediments pointed to a large
watery catastrophe involving mass deaths but they were straining
to find a modern analogy.The team speculated that the events
were associated with high sea levels that caused the flooding of
the low-lying areas (the Cretaceous is recognized as a period of
high sea level around the world). They suggested that powerful
storms devastated miles of fertile coastline, killing off entire herds
of dinosaurs. Perhaps, they said, the storms were like the storms
that occur around the southern tips of Africa and South America
today. But storms in these areas do not kill and bury entire herds
of animals, such as crocs, along with fish, and lizards, shells, wood and leaves. Such storms do not preserve the remains of
such creatures in animal graveyards buried in metre-thick layers of mud and sand.Rapid and catastrophic deposition of
sediments, of course, means that they would not take much time to accumulate. In other words, there is a problem with the
age of 72 million years quoted for the sediments, which was established from the standard geological column (based on the
kinds of fossils found). There is also a problem with the average deposition rate for the formation of 0.55 mm per year, which
was based on magnetostratigraphic data.7 The long-age paradigm has a time problem. Where is the time represented in the
geological section? How could animals be buried and preserved at such a slow sediment accumulation rate?
Towards the end of the inundation stage
We can conclude that the sediments were deposited as the floodwaters were rising on the earth, because the land animals
were still alive, as indicated by the assemblages of dinosaur trackways found in the area. 8 Its likely that these sediments
were deposited just before the time when the floodwaters covered the entire earth. 9The new dinosaur find from Mexico and
the associated investigations of the geology provide a new and exciting window onto past events. They reveal vivid insights
into the conditions and devastation associated with the largest watery catastrophe and into the sorts of animals that were
caught up in that event.
Gastroliths deposited by mass flow
by Michael Oard
Gastroliths are defined as Highly polished, rounded stones or pebbles from the stomach of some fossil vertebrates, esp.
reptiles.1 They are thought to have been used for grinding food. Stones usually believed to be gastroliths are commonly
found in the Morrison Formation, which is believed to outcrop over one million km 2 from southern Alberta and
Saskatchewan, Canada, south to New Mexico, USA. 2,3 The Morrison Formation is famous for its dinosaur fossils, especially
the large sauropod dinosaurs.
Challenge to the Flood
Figure 1. Outcrop of quartzite gravel about 20 km east of Moran
Junction. Note that the quartzites have pressure solution marks
and percussion marks, and are polished and fractured.While on a
field trip in Wyoming, I found several of these stones in the
Morrison Formation after looking for only an hour. If I can find
several after a quick search, there must be billions of these socalled gastroliths in the late Jurassic Morrison Formation. Since
few gastroliths are associated with dinosaur bones, the Flood
would have had to pulverize tens of millions of dinosaurs just in
the Morrison Formation to account for so many gastroliths, if that
is what they are. How could such a feat be accomplished in a
short period of time within the Flood?Several years before this
field trip, my exposed Flood sediment hypothesis for dinosaur
tracks and eggs was challenged on the basis of the presence of
gastroliths in the Morrison Formation.4,5 Garner et al.6 wrote:
The problems are not limited to nest sites. Stokes (1987) has investigated gastroliths (stomach stones) from some Lower
Cretaceous dinosaurs. He found that many of these gastroliths were composed of lithified, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock
which appeared to be derived from Palaeozoic and pre-Cretaceous Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. This is further evidence
that these dinosaurs were living after the Flood, unless we want to suppose thatas well as fleeing from the rising Flood
waters, making tracks, building nests, and feeding their youngthey were swallowing pebbles of earlier Flood sediments for
use as gastroliths! At the time, I did not have an answer to this gastroliths problem.
Problems with dinosaurian origin

This Lower Cretaceous formation actually was part of the late Jurassic Morrison Formation but was reassigned to the
above formation.7 Stokes did point out that there is much negative evidence against the dinosaurian origin of all these
stones and that there were a number of skeptics. Two reasons for skepticism are the huge number of stones and the rare
association of gastroliths with dinosaur skeletons. Moreover, stream and wind polished stones, which can be common in
sedimentary deposits, look similar to gastroliths. 8 A study of gastroliths in modern birds has shown that sandstone rocks
quickly crumble in the birds gizzards, and that limestone lumps dissolve after just a couple of days. 9 Rose quartz and
granite stones disintegrated more slowly. None of the stones retrieved from ostrich gizzards were highly polished, such as
the stones found in the Morrison Formation and others. So, the data on real gastroliths does not line up with the abundance
of stones found in the Morrison Formation.A recent article about gastroliths from the Lower Cretaceous Cloverly Formation
of Wyoming suggests that the stones likely are not gastroliths at all.10 The polished and rounded stones are believed to have
been transported long distance by mass flow from sources to the west, probably in Idaho. This belief is based on the
lithologies of the gastroliths and the fact that some of the stones contain fossils similar to those that outcrop in southeast
Idaho. Mass flow is suggested as the cause because the stones are floating in a finer grained matrix. Since the source is
200 to 400 km distant over a surface with a low slope, the authors suggest the mass flow is a hyperconcentrated flow, which
is a flow between a turbidity current and a debris flow. Hyperconcentrated flows are defined generally as flows with a
sediment volume percent in water of 2047 % (40 to 70 weight percent). 11 Debris flows cannot transport sediments this far
on such low slopes; they transport sediments less than 25 times their descent height. 11But the deduction of a hyperconcentrated flow is really a guess. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that hyperconcentrated flows can travel such
distances on low slopes. Unfortunately, hyperconcentrated flows are poorly understood:The physical processes by which
sediment is transported by, and deposited from, hyperconcentrated flows are unclear.12
The authors suggest that their results for the Cloverly Formation also may have implications for other formations with
presumed gastroliths, including the Morrison Formation just below the Cloverly Formation. If the billions of rounded rocks in
the Morrison Formation, as well as the Cloverly Formation, are not gastroliths, the time problem for the Flood evaporates.
Flood options
In the Flood, several options are available that would allow the transport of the rounded rocks for 200 to 400 km. It could
have been any type of underwater bottom-hugging mass flow aided by strong currents flowing to the east. It is likely that the
rounding and polishing occurred in watery transport and not mass flow, since water is a very efficient mechanism for
rounding and polishing rocks. Rounded and polished quartzites are observed in many locations in northwest Wyoming,
eastern Idaho, and southwest Montana. They have accumulated thousands of meters thick in paleovalleys in northwest
Wyoming and adjacent Idaho13 (figure 1). Quartzites make up 38% of the gastroliths in the Cloverly Formation. After
rounding, the quartzites could have been entrained with much fine sediment as a matrix-supported mass flow by the time
the quartzites and other lithologies were deposited much farther east.
I am disappointed, however, that the gastroliths I collected likely are not real gizzard stones from dinosaurs.
Dinosaur herd buried in Global Flood in Inner Mongolia, China
by Tas Walker
Published: 14 April 2009(GMT+10)
Figure 1. Location of the fossil site in Inner Mongolia, China
An international team of scientists have uncovered graphic
evidence of the deadly terror unleashed on a herd of dinosaurs
as they were buried under sediment by the rising waters of
Global Flood in western Inner Mongolia (figure 1).1
Dinosaur bones were first discovered at the site, located at the
base of a small hill in the Gobi Desert, in 1978 by a Chinese
geologist. After about 20 years, a team of Chinese and Japanese
scientists recovered the first skeletons, which they
named Sinornithomimus, meaning Chinese bird mimic.A few
years later in 2001, the international team excavated the remains
of more than 25 dinosaurs, creating a large quarry in the process
as they as they followed the skeletons into the base of the hill.
Remarkable excavation
As the team carefully mapped the location of the bones and
strata that contained them (figure 2), it became clear that the
dinosaurs were all within the same layer of mudstone (i.e. the
same bedding plane), generally facing the same direction and
remarkably well preserved.2
Figure 2. Map of some dinosaur remains at the site in Inner
Mongolia. Note the skeletal parts have generally remained
together indicating that the animals were buried before their
remains disintegrated.Most of the dinosaurs were buried in a lifelike crouching posture and, even more surprisingly, the limbs of
the dinosaurs were plunging down into the underlying mud as
deep as 40 cm (figure 3). 3 Their hind legs were often still bent
indicating that they were struggling to escape. Two of the
skeletons were found one right over the other where they
apparently fell. This fossil find captures in stone how the
dinosaurs perished when they became mired in the mud.The
thick layer of mud in which the animals were trapped displayed bedding that was twisted and convoluted 4 indicating that the
sediment was only recently deposited from flowing water and still soft when it was disturbed. There was an absence of
bioturbation (such as burrowing by worms or crustaceans) in the underlying mud, 5which also indicated that the mud was
only recently deposited.Not only was the thick under layer of sediment recently deposited, but the overlying sediments were
deposited soon after the animals were trapped, burying the animals before their soft parts had a chance to rot away. Nearly
all the fossil bones were surrounded by a drab, blue-gray halo indicating how far the soft tissue extended (figure 3), and that
the carcasses had decomposed after being buried, not before. In addition, gastroliths (stomach stones) were found in the

fossilized ribcages of some animals, as well as carbonized stomach contents (figure 3). 6 So promptly were the animals
buried that the delicate bones in the eye (sclerotic rings) of some animals were preserved. The team interpreted the site as
a catastrophic miring of an immature herd.
Figure 3. Fossil skeletons 3 and 4 (see figure 2) recovered from site. Note the bluish-gray halo surrounding all the bones
indicating the skeletons were buried with the soft parts in tact. A: Plan view of the two skeletons. Note how they
overlap. B: Snout and unusual neck curvature likely indicating death throes. C: Pelvis almost all preserved. D: Gastrolith
(stomach stone) mass and carbonized stomach contents within rib cage indicating rapid burial. E:Cross-section of rear leg
mired deep in mud and in bent position and F: cross section of foreleg deep in the mud, both indicating catastrophic
entrapment. White scale bars are 10 cm.
Global Flood?
When I read of such a large herd of animals being
frantically trapped in thick mud that was only recently
deposited and then rapidly buried by more sediment I
immediately think of Noahs Flood. The fossil evidence is
exactly the sort of thing that you would expect as a result of
the global catastrophe However, Noahs Flood is not an
explanation that came to the minds of the paleontologists
who excavated the dinosaurs in Inner Mongolia.
Consequently, they struggled to explain what they found.
Their main problem was that they were looking for a
modern environment that corresponds with the evidence
but Noahs Flood was a unique event.7 There has been no
geological disaster in the last 4,500 years that has come
anywhere close to what happened during the Flood.A herd
of juveniles Lead author, David Varricchio, assistant
professor of paleontology at Montana State University,
USA, indicated his surprise at what the team uncovered
and alluded to their inability to explain it with a modern
environment. Finding a mired herd is exceedingly rare
among living animals, he said.
Nearly all the fossil bones were surrounded by a drab,
blue-gray halo indicating how far the soft tissue extended,
and that the carcasses had decomposed after being
buried, not before.
One problem that the paleontologists encountered is that
according to uniformitarianism the fossils layers preserve a
living environment that existed at that time. Therefore, the
team was surprised that the dinosaurs consisted only of
juveniles without any adults or hatchlings present.
However, that is perfectly understandable in the Flood
catastrophe when animals were fleeing. You would expect the hatchlings to have already perished and the adults to have
fled and abandoned the youngsters.
In scientific circles these sorts of anomalies are never reported as a problem. Rather, the paleontologists reported this
unexpected result as a new discovery. They said it was evidence of distinctive dinosaur sociality where the immature
dinosaurs were left to fend for themselves in juvenile herds while the mature adults were occupied elsewhere with parental
care of eggs and hatchlings. What an amazing story.
All that mud
Another problem for the team was the thickness of the mud in which the dinosaurs were trapped. They suggested the area
was a low energy lake environment, which is the standard interpretation that uniformitarians invoke to explain muddy
sediments.
The lamination and very thin beds of the intervening unit represent slow deposition under quiet, low-energy conditions and
an absence of significant invertebrate or vertebrate bioturbation.
However, recent laboratory experiments have shown that such an automatic interpretation is almost certainly incorrect
because mud readily deposits from flowing water.8In order to account for the depth of mud in an area where the animals
could be trapped the team claimed the water level of the lake was lowering as a result of drought. That could account for the
mud depth in a limited region close to the shore. But it is hard to imagine how, under normal conditions, so many animals
could have become trapped together so suddenly in a small area of mud at the edge of a lake.
Finding a mired herd is exceedingly rare among living animalsDavid Varricchio, assistant professor of paleontology at
Montana State University, USA
It is also hard to account for the absence of bioturbation in the mud. If you say that worms and crustaceans had not
colonized the sediment because the mud had only been recently deposited then you would have to explain what sort of
process would deposit half a metre of mud so quickly. And, how could such a thick deposit have been laid down at the edge
of a lake? The authors opted to say that the unbioturbated laminae suggested the mud was situated in deeper water. But
deeper water would help the animals escape because water would help to support their body weight.Another problem is that
the team found mudcracks on the mud, which they also interpreted as indicators of drought. Mudcracks form when mud
emerges from the water and has dried for a day or so. How could the mudcracks form on the mud surface if it was in deeper
water?This array of evidence that conflicted with their expectations puzzled the team and they once again presented the
results as an exceptional discovery. However, the thick mud deposit, rapid sedimentation and catastrophic entrapment of
the animals are easily explained by the Flood catastrophe. And mud does not need to be exposed above water for mud
cracks to form. Shrinkage cracks will form in situ once the overlying sediments have been deposited and the water within the
mud is expelled and the mud contracts.9A desert?These dinosaur fossils were found in the Cretaceous sediments of Inner
Mongolia that were interpreted as being deposited on the continent. More specifically they were found in the Ulansuhai
Formation of the Upper Cretaceous, which is interpreted as being a desert environment.
Through this period the region experienced an increase in overall aridity and a shift from lacustrine [lake] and fluvial [river]
Lower Cretaceous facies [rocks] to predominantly aeolian [desert] dune and associated interdune facies in the Upper

Cretaceous.10What were these herds of dinosaurs doing in a desert? Where did they get the food then needed? How was
such a large herd trapped in mud so quickly in a desert? And how were they buried so quickly in a desert, before the soft
flesh had time to rot away and before the skeletons had disintegrated? The fact that sediment was able to accumulate to
such a depth over the animals (now at the base of a small hill) indicates that the depth of the water was rising on the
continent to provide the necessary accommodation, not falling.So, it was not a desert. Uniformitarian geologists invoke a
desert interpretation in an attempt to explain the large thickness of the sandstone strata and the huge sand dunes within the
beds. They say it was a desert to hold onto their uniformitarian philosophy that it was like a modern environment and thus try
to avoid acknowledging the huge volume of water that must have been necessary, as indicated by the obvious signs of
catastrophe within the sand. So they are prepared to propose an explanation where lakes and rivers turn into deserts full of
dinosaur herds that become trapped in thick mud and are buried quickly. One wrong interpretation leads to another.
Take off the blinkersBlinkers change the way a horse sees the world and the uniformitarian paradigm has a similar effect on
scientists. Even though they carefully excavate and document the fossil dinosaurs buried around the world the philosophy of
uniformitarianism biases the way they look at the evidence, stops them exploring all the options and controls the sort of
explanations they promote.Here in Inner Mongolia in the middle of Asia the historical reality of Global Flood explains the new
dinosaur finds elegantly. The herd of dinosaurs was a casualty of the enormous watery catastrophe that engulfed the region
during the Flood. They were overwhelmed during the first half of the catastrophe as the waters were rising on the earth,
while air-breathing, land-dwelling animals were still alive. Sediment continued to accumulate on the continent during this
Inundatory stage as the waters continued to rise. Then, when the waters receded from the continents they eroded some of
the overlying material, shaping the landscape, and leaving occasional erosional remnants, such as the small hill where the
geologists were able to excavate this dinosaur graveyard.
Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution
by Michael J. Oard
You have heard it said that the mammals were small and
undiversified during the time of the dinosaurs, but then
after the dinosaurs became extinct the mammals
blossomed tremendously in an adaptive radiation. Robert
Carroll writes: The extinction of the dinosaurs left vacant a
broad range of adaptive zones that were subsequently
occupied
by
therian
mammals.1Net
mammal
diversification rate according to the latest uniformitarian
sources.
Note
little
change
through
the
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary but diversity rates peak in
Mid-Cretaceous and Miocene. (After Bininda-Emonds et
al.,7 p. 510, figure 2b).The notion of an adaptive radiation
is considered to be based on the fossil record. However,
the age distribution of fossils is partly based on circular
reasoning.2-5 In other words, the finding of a dinosaur
automatically places the rock containing the fossil into the
Mesozoic, and mammalian fossils are always assumed to be Cenozoic. Similarly, the end of the Cretaceous is often defined
as the last preserved dinosaur in a vertical sequence. 6A new article in Nature now claims that this evolutionary belief is a
myth.7 Bininda-Emonds and others have constructed an evolutionary lineage of nearly all living mammals using DNA
comparisons tied to fossil dates for the beginning of major lineages. They have called their results supertrees. The authors
admit that using molecular data alone or fossil data alone sometimes gives conflicting results:
Molecular data and the fossil record can give conflicting views of the evolutionary past. 8In the case of mammals, the fossil
record favoured (or at least had favoured) an explosive increase in mammal diversification just after the Cretaceous/Tertiary
(K/T) boundary, but the molecular data pushed most origins of the same orders back into the Late Cretaceous. 8 The authors
compiled a huge data set, and from the phylogenies they developed they were able to estimate diversification rates with
time, all within the evolutionary paradigm of course.Because their analysis is tied to the recent findings of many complex
mammals in the Jurassic and Cretaceous,9,10 their diversity analysis showed an increase in diversity in the mid Cretaceous,
85 to 100 Ma, and in the early Eocene. In fact, nearly all the living orders of mammals had originated by 85 Ma. 10However,
there was little or no change in diversity through the K/T boundary, as had been assumed for over 100 years. In fact, the few
mammal groups that did diversify after the K/T boundary subsequently declined or died out. 11 The graph leaves the
evolutionists with a major question of mammal evolution:What, then, was delaying the diversification of present-day
mammals? Clearly, the priority is to identify why net rates of diversification remained low for so long after the major lineages
became established.11It is interesting that their diversification graphs show the mammal diversification rate increasing to a
maximum in the Miocene and then rapidly dropping to zero today. 11 This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living
mammals today, nor has there been in the recent geological past. Such a change is what we would expect in the post-Flood
worldany changes that do occur are just the shuffling of genes within kinds. Because there is diversification of mammals
up until the very late Cenozoic, the graph implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very late Cenozoic based on
this parameter, since any significant diversification rate in the rock record would likely represent burial characteristics in the
Flood. The Flood interpretation of the diversification graph reinforces other evidence that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is
in the very latest Cenozoic.12-14

WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS FOOTPRINTS

In the footsteps of giants
by Michael Oard

Three out of a series of five dinosaur tracks (two badly eroded) forming a
straight trackway on a bedding place in north-east Wyoming, USA.Millions
of dinosaur tracks have been discovered in sedimentary rocks all over the
world. Evolutionists have naturally interpreted these tracks within their
belief system, assuming they represent normal animal behaviour some
one hundred million years ago. A closer inspection of the details,
however, demonstrates that the Flood is a more reasonable explanation.
Straight trackways
First, individual trackways (defined as more than one track from the same
dinosaur) are, all over the world, almost always straight.1 Normal animal
behaviour should often involve meandering tracks, as readily observed by
animals making tracks in the snow. Straight trackways indicate that the
animals were fearful, as if fleeing from a catastrophe. Researchers
recently found forty straight, parallel trackways of two types of large planteating dinosaurs in southern England.2 The trackway of a large meateating dinosaur was also discovered nearby, going in the same direction. 3
These trackways provoked a predator-prey interpretation by the
evolutionists. But the tracks could just as easily, if not better, be
interpreted as different types of dinosaurs, all fleeing the same event in
the same direction.
Few young dinos
There are few, if any, baby or young juvenile tracks associated with older juvenile and adult dinosaur tracks. A normal
assemblage of tracks should include abundant baby or young juvenile tracks. For instance, 50% of the elephant tracks in
Amboseli National Park, Africa, were made by babies or young juveniles. 4 Since immature dinosaur tracks are rare, the
trackways were probably formed during unusual conditions, rather than by normal animal activity. In the Flood, babies and
young juveniles would likely have been left behind, as those more able to flee the approaching Flood waters hastened away.
Trackways on Flood rocks
Tracks are found only on flat bedding planes. 5 The discovery of the recent track in England just mentioned provides a good
example. This favours rapid sedimentation forming flat strata. Erosion over even hundreds of years in the evolutionary
scheme would have produced at least a hilly topography, exposing several bedding planes. We should observe trackways
on different bedding planes, traversing up hills and down into valleys.These unusual characteristics of dinosaur tracks do not
fit well with normal animal behaviour. The evidence agrees better with a time of worldwide stress on dinosaurs.How can the
tracks be explained within the Flood? Since the tracks were made by live dinosaurs, they had to have been made during
the first 150 days of the Flood, because all air-breathing animals that lived on land perished by that time. 6 In the Rocky
Mountains and high plains of North America, dinosaur tracks are often found on top of hundreds to thousands of metres of
sedimentary rock that had already been laid down in the Flood. It is known from erosional remnants that the tracks were
buried by many hundreds of metres of sedimentary rocks laid down on top of them. 7 These later sediments were
subsequently eroded down to the level where we find the tracks. This great erosion fits with the later stages of the Flood, as
the water retreated off the rising continents into sinking ocean basins.8
Flood went up and down
The Flood was a complex event; the waters did not smoothly cover all the pre-Flood land and then gently retreat. There
were forces at work that would have caused rapid sea-level oscillations during the general rise of the early floodwater.
Besides tides, the sea level would have rapidly risen and fallen, due to vertical shifting of the Earths crust and strong
currents sweeping across the shallow landmasses. Geophysicists John Baumgardner and Daniel Barnette modelled
currents on a totally flooded Earth. 9 They began with all the water at rest. Within a very short time, the Earths rotation
would cause strong currents of 40 to 80 m/sec (90 to 180 mph) over the shallowly submerged continents. But most
interestingly, they found that in some areas sea level fell by hundreds of metres and intersected the bottom. This pattern
moved so slowly that the exposed land would have persisted for many days, but with rapidly fluctuating sea level at the
edges.
When were dino tracks formed?
The large region in western North America where the tracks are found would have started as a deep basin early in the
Flood. The basin would have rapidly filled with sediments, shallowing the area. The sediments would have become
exposed for a while as the sea level fell due to one of the mechanisms mentioned above. 10 Desperate dinosaurs would
likely have found only a series of shoals and banks. Either swimming, floating on debris mats, or trapped on higher land
nearby, the adult dinosaurs would have climbed onto the freshly deposited sediments, made tracks, and quickly laid eggs.
When the water rose once again, they would have desperately tried to escape, forming straight trackways on single bedding
planes. The rising floodwaters would also have rapidly buried the tracksa necessary condition for preservation. In fact,
the very existence of dino tracks is evidence for rapid burial.11

What about tracks on multiple bedding planes in a local area?

Geologists have discovered that dinosaur tracks are
occasionally found on bedding planes at more than one vertical
level in a local or regional area. The same situation occurs with
dinosaur eggs. The most difficult (for Flood geology)
occurrence of multiple planes of tracks is in the Jindong
Formation, South Korea.1In this formation, over 100 dinosaur
trackways have been discovered on numerous different thin
bedding planes in a strata sequence 100 to 200 m thick.
Dinosaur track expert Martin Lockley explains the occurrence of
dinosaur tracks as representing groups or herds of
subadults and adults passing through the region on purposeful
local or long-distance migrations (that is, not milling around or
browsing locally). 2 Can the Flood explain such a vertical
sequence of tracks?Actually, it is not too difficult. As the main
text explains, the Flood involved oscillating sea levels. In some places, this would have forced dinosaurs to move back and
forth on the exposed land. A thin layer of sediment would have been laid during each rise, and the dinosaurs would have
walked back over the same area during each fall of sea level. In the case of the Jindong Formation, one could expect that the
exposed land would have been quite small, so that the dinosaurs would have walked over the same area, i.e. containing
previously-made tracks. A similar sequence is suggested for multiple egg horizons, which occur on far fewer horizons than
tracks in a local area.There is substantial evidence favouring the Flood interpretation over Lockleys. Within the evolutionary
worldview, a sequence of dinosaur tracks made in strata 100 to 200 m thick would be expected to have been laid down over a
long period of time, perhaps several million years. This being the case, one would expect many types of dinosaur tracks.
Actually, the tracks on all these many bedding planes are similar on each horizon, and Lockley deduces they are from one
species of dinosaur. This would be a nigh-impossible occurrence within the evolutionary scenario, but expected within the
Flood model.

Dancing Dinosaurs?
Stony footprints point to something more serious
Figure 1. University of Utah geologist Winston Seiler walks among hundreds
of dinosaur footprints in a trample surface
by Michael J. Oard
Published: 28 October 2008(GMT+10)
Geologists from the University of Utah recently announced finding a
remarkable array of dinosaur footprints on the Arizona-Utah border in the USA
(figure 1).1 They described their find as a dinosaur dance floor and said it was
located alongside an oasis in a sandy desert 190 million years ago.Dinosaur
tracks in sedimentary rocks are no longer unusual. They are found all over the
world,2 especially in the Rocky Mountains and High Plains of the western
United States. Millions of tracks are now known, some of them forming large
areas with a huge amount of tracks. In some cases, there are so many tracks,
that the strata are greatly mixed up or dinoturbated.
Circular impressions interpreted as dinosaur tracks
Once in a while a new find will have some unusual features. This new dinosaur track site, actually a new interpretation of an
old site, displays a few unusual features. Pothole-like impressions in the Navajo Sandstone had previous been interpreted
as weathering pits. Now, it is believed the circular depressions were made by dinosaurs. 3 The impressions are located within
the Navajo Sandstone of the Paria Plateau of the USA at the Utah/Arizona border.The impressions, which range in size from
3 cm to 50 cm, do look like simple holes in the ground, but they have features that lend themselves to having been formed
by walking vertebrates, assumed to be dinosaurs. For instance, there are claw and toe impressions with rare tail drag marks
(there are fewer than a dozen tail drag marks in the world). One of the most conclusive evidences is that the tracks line up to
form straight trackwayspractically all moving in a west-southwest direction. The holes are of the correct size and are
concentrated on one bedding plane at about 12 impressions per square metre. There are probably a few thousand
impressions all together. Because of the number of tracks, the authors referred to the surface as a dinosaur dance floor.
The dinosaurs would thus be dancing dinosaurs, an obvious flight of imagination given the straight trackways. But, the case
is strong that the impressions are modified dinosaur tracks, although one anonymous review of the Palaios paper still
believed that the holes are erosional features.1
Interesting dinosaur features
Besides the strongly preferred orientation and the rare tail drag marks, a few other features are worthy of note. It is claimed
that there were four types of dinosaurs including carnivores and herbivores. It is interesting that such enemies traveled the
same path at probably near the same time. Also, the small tracks are interpreted to be the tracks of babies, a most unusual
discovery, if the small impressions are really tracks, since tracks of babies are very rare.Also of interest is the authors
contradictory interpretation. The tracks are in the Navajo Sandstone, interpreted to be desert sand that lithified (hardened)
into rock. So, they postulate a desert oasis or watering hole. If this were the case, why are practically all the tracks going in
the same direction? Animals usually mill around a watering hole, making tracks in multiple directions.

What are dinosaurs doing in a monstrous desert?

Figure 2. Navajo Sandstone up to 600 m high above Kayenta Formation in

Zion National Park, Utah, as seen from the top of Angels Landing.The most
contradictory feature is that the tracks are found in what is believed to have
been a monstrous desert. The Navajo Sandstone and its equivalent deposits
occupy an area greater than 265,000 km2 and may have once been two and a
half times as large before erosion. The Navajo Sandstone is up to about 600 m
thick in south central Utah (figure 2). That makes this desert larger than the
Sahara Desert! What are dinosaurs doing in a huge desert, even at an oasis?
Desert oases are normally small and could hardly sustain dinosaurs in such
large numbers.Moreover, there are 60 other track sites in the Navajo
Sandstone, mostly of carnivorous dinosaurs. Just as mysterious from a
uniformitarian point of view4 is that hardly any bones are found in the Navajo
Sandstone. One would think that with shifting sands, a huge number of
dinosaurs would easily be covered up, which is the first step in fossilization.
The Navajo Sandstone is not a desert deposit
The thousands if not millions of dinosaur tracks just in the Navajo Sandstone should be a big hint to uniformitarian scientists
that this Sandstone is not from a desert environment. As we see with the Coconino Sandstone from Grand Canyon, 5 there
are several obvious features that strongly suggest a water-laid deposit. First, the sandstone is flat or nearly flat at both its
lower and upper contacts. How many desert sands have such a property? 6 To make matters worse, the overlying Carmel
Formation is a marine formation7 that should have torn up the top of the Jurassic Sandstone (as well as the thin desert
Temple Cap Formation), but the contact is very flat.
Photo Michael J. Oard
Figure 3. Navajo Sandstone with cross beds and multiple truncating
planation surfaces near Checkerboard Mesa, Zion National park, United
States.Second, within the thick Navajo Sandstone, the cross beds are
truncated by flat planation surfaces that can sometimes be traced for
kilometers. Dozens of these planation surfaces can be seen in tall vertical
exposures of the Navajo Sandstone (figure 3). What sort of desert process
shears off sand dunes? Although uniformitarian scientists have attempted to
explain such anomalous features, the lack of any close modern analog
shows that they are grasping at straws.Third, the sand grains that are wellrounded and frosted, providing evidence for the desert interpretation, show
that the frosting was not by wind abrasion. Scanning electron micrographs
show that the frosted surface is actually etched.8 In other words, the grains
have been chemically frosted, probably after deposition by water moving
under pressure through the spaces between grains.Fourth, the direction of
transport of the sand is the same as the general transport of practically all the supposed eolian sandstones on the Colorado
Plateau.9 The direction is from the north to the northwest. A further problem is that the transport direction must be
maintained for hundreds if not thousands of kilometers, since there is no source for the sand immediately to the north of the
Colorado Plateau. Such consistent directions over a supposedly 100-million-year period make little sense. In all that time,
why wouldnt a significant change in wind direction, from the south for instance, deposit some dunes with a different
orientation?
What really happened?
These unusual dinosaur tracks and their strongly preferred orientation provide more evidence for the briefly exposed Flood
sediment hypothesis.1012 Tracks, as well as dinosaur eggs, were made by dinosaurs during the Flood while they were still
alive, as the waters were rising. They would have perished later on, at least by Day 150, when the entire earth was covered
by water. Based on many unusual features of dinosaur tracks, eggs, and bonebeds, freshly-laid Flood sediments must have
become briefly exposed during the first half of the Flood as the waters were rising. Such an exposure can easily be
accomplished after heavy sedimentation and a brief drop in sea level (and there are at least four mechanisms that could
cause this). Dinosaurs coming ashore onto this land would of course make tracks and lay eggs. Their death en
masse would produce large bonebeds as found in other parts of the fossil record, graveyards that sometimes contain
thousands of dinosaur remains.
Thousands of Dinosaur footprints found in China
by Tas Walker
Published: 23 February 2010(GMT+10)
Ruth Walkley and the dinosaur trackway she found in Canada in 2003.
Four footprints and 2 handprints are visible (the prints have been wetted
for better contrast).According to a recent BBC report, scientists from China
have found 3,000 dinosaur footprints in the Zhucheng area of eastern
Shandong province.I always enjoy these reports because they are
describing evidence of Global Flood but dont realize it.One puzzling
feature is that the dinosaurs were running the same way. Why were they
doing that?The scientists from China suggest the footprints could
represent a migration or a panicked attempt to escape predators.
A migration? I wonder why they ran through all that soft mud. I wonder if
their papers were in order.Fleeing predators? Panicked? Just note this: the
scientists have identified sixtypes of dinosaurs, including tyrannosaurs,
coelurosaurs and hadrosaurs. And they are suggesting that all these
animals are so frightened of predators that they are all fleeing in panic?
Some of the footprints were nearly a metre long. I wonder how big the predators were. Are they telling us that, for all its
size, Tyrannosaurus was a wimp? That would make a good angle for a science paper.Footprints are a key classification
criteria that help us work out when rocks formed in history.The sediments are thick so a lot of material was brought in quickly

and spread over a large area. The mud was still soft so it was deposited not long before but quickly hardened preserving the
prints, which were soon covered by more sediment.So its easy to understand why the dinosaurs panicked. They were
fleeing the rising waters of the Flood. Footprints mean the animals were alive, so the waters were still rising and had not yet
covered the whole earth and destroyed all air-breathing animal life.Lots of dinosaurs perished in the area, as evidenced by
dinosaur fossils being found at some 30 sites around Zhuchengso many that it has been called dinosaur city. But it really
should be called dinosaur graveyard.The animals fossilized because they were buried quickly, another sign of the
magnitude of the Flood disaster. And evidence that the 100 million years mentioned in the article are imaginary. The
sediments were deposited rapidly so the eons of time did not exist.Scientists and journalists present this sort of evidence
within their personal philosophy of evolution over millions of years. Its a belief system about the past that they simply
assume without question because that is what they have been told.
Dinosaur stumble preserved in trackways, Utah, USA
by Tas Walker
Scientists have described a trackway of a theropod dinosaur beautifully
preserved in soft mud, now turned to stone, within Lower Jurassic strata at
St George in south-western Utah, USA (figure 1). 1 As well as leaving a trail
of footprints, they report the dinosaur left intermittent tail drags, and in one
place sat in the mud and left impressions of both of its hands, its feet, its tail,
and its buttocks.2 The tracks were found in the Whitmore Point Member of
the Moenave Formation at the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, St
George.
Illustration after Milner et al., ref. 2
Figure 1: Location of the St George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson
Farm
The report focused on connecting the dinosaur traces with the anatomy,
posture and behaviour of birds, citing as evidence the rotation of the
dinosaurs forearm and the way it sat in the mud. However, in their
preoccupation with the unsubstantiated speculation of birds evolving from
dinosaurs the authors overlooked the obvious evidence of huge watery
catastrophe recorded by the fossils and the rocks.The Whitmore Point Member is a 20-m-thick deposit of mudstone, shale
and sandstone strata, and has abundant horizons containing dinosaur trackways (figure 2), including tracks of theropods
that were larger and smaller than the ones described in the report. 3 The strata also contain clawmark tracks, indicating times
when the animals were swimming in deep water and just
managing to scratch their claws along the sand on the
bottom.4 The sediment beds are also packed with body fossils
including megaplants, sharks, lungfish, coelacanths, ray-finned
fish, crustaceans, clams and dinosaur remains. To preserve such
an abundance of body fossils and footprints requires rapid
sedimentation in order to prevent the degradation processes that
would normally destroy them.The paper documents other features
within the strata that point to rapid sedimentation in association
with moving water, including ripples, tool marks, flute marks, rill
marks and load casts.5 Many different kinds of ripples were
present including current ripples, symmetrical ripples, wind-driven
ripples, interference ripples, wave-formed ripples and mega
ripples. Tool marks are formed on the surface of sedimentary
beds by objects being dragged along by the water. They are often
prominent as casts protruding on the underside of the overlying
bed. Tool marks can be continuous as a result of the object being
continually dragged by the current, or they can be intermittent
because the object is repeatedly picked up by the current and
bounced along the bottom. Flute casts are bulges that look like a
spoon or flute on the bottom of sandstone beds. They form when
sediment fills a scoop-shaped depression on the underlying
surface; a depression caused by fast-flowing turbulent flow. Rill
marks are dendritic channels that form on the downstream side of
objects sitting on the surface in the presence of flowing water.
Load casts are rounded blobs of sand that have oozed into the
finer sediment in the underlying bed, showing that both beds were
soft
and
unconsolidated,
and
indicating
rapid
sedimentation.Figure 2: Stratigraphic section of the Moenave
Formation at the St George Dinosaur Site. The resting trace and trackway is in the top surface of the Main Track-Bearing
Sandstone Bed indicated by an arrow toward the base of the Whitmore Point Member.As well as rapid deposition in flowing
water, the sedimentary formation points to waters rising in the area at the time. The Whitmore Point Member is part of the
100-m-thick Moenave Formation, and for such a thickness of strata to have been preserved requires the water level to have
been continually rising with respect to the land surface by the same amount. The increasing depth was needed to
accommodate the sediment and prevent it being eroded and transported out of the area.Within a creationists geological
context, trackways provide a significant classification criteria to help decide when the sediments were deposited. 6 To make
trackways the animals needed to have been alive. This means the tracks were either made before the waters of Global
Flood covered the earth, or after the animals had come off the ark and repopulated the earth. The tracks could not have
been made during the Recessive stage of the Flood because by that time every air-breathing, land-dwelling animal had
perished.The sedimentary deposits at St George are of such an immense size, both vertically and geographically, that they
could not have been deposited after the Floodthat would have required too large a catastrophe. In other words, the
trackways point to their being formed during the Flood as the waters were rising on the earththe Inundatory stage. They
preserve the frantic efforts of the animals trying to flee from the rising waters, running, stumbling and falling in the mud as
they fled; even occasionally swimming in a situation of rapid sedimentation and highly variable water levels.
DINOSAURS BLOOD CELLS, BLOOD VESSELS AND PROTEINS

Sensational dinosaur blood report!

by Carl Wieland
Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes
blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterousto those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65
million years old.It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at
most only a few thousand years old.In a recent article, 1 scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to
allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to
strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found.
These photos are of a later (2005) find
by Schweitzer which produced soft
tissue, in addition to strengthening the
red blood cell identificationsee Still
Soft
and
Stretchy
Left: The flexible branching structures
in the T. rex bone were justifiably
identified as blood vessels. Soft
tissues like blood vessels should not
be there if the bones were 65 million
years
old.
Right: These microscopic structures
were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to look like cells as the researchers said. So
once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, How could these cells last for 65 million years?The
story starts with a beautifully preserved T. rex skeleton unearthed in the United States in 1990. When the bones were
brought to the Montana State Universitys lab, it was noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not
completely fossilized. To find unfossilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the
fossils (see More on fresh dino bone, below).
Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking
through a microscope at a thin section of this T. rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels.
The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever
noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted,
Youve got red blood cells. Youve got red blood cells!2
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist Dinosaur Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really
be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, So far, we havent been able
to.
Looking for dinosaur DNA in such a specimen was
obviously tempting. However, fragments of DNA can be
found almost everywherefrom fungi, bacteria, human
More on fresh dino bone
fingerprintsand so it is hard to be sure that one has
To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years
DNA from the specimen. The Montana team did find,
without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility.
along with DNA from fungi, insects and bacteria,
The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section
unidentifiable DNA sequences, but could not say that
of dinosaur bone is not the first time such bone has been
these could not have been jumbled sequences from
found.
present-day organisms. However, the same problem
Biologist Dr
Margaret
Helder alerted
readers
would not be there for hemoglobin, the protein which
ofCreation magazine to documented finds of fresh,
makes blood red and carries oxygen, so they looked for
unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.3
this substance in the fossil bone.
The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this
dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the
millions of years idea) is, to date, as follows:
The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain
wavelengths of laser light were applied.
Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteinsextracts from this specimen reacted
in the same way as modem heme compounds.
To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein
hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of
hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this
compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful
testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago.
Still soft and stretchy
Dinosaur soft tissue finda stunning rebuttal of millions of years
by Dr Carl Wieland, CMIAustralia
25 March 2005
We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of
hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further
announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State Universitys Dr Mary Schweitzer 2) stretches (pun intentional) the
long-age paradigm beyond belief.
Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really
is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the
previous discovery is completely history.

A: The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have
lasted for 65 million years.
B: Another instance of fresh appearance which similarly makes it hard to believe in the millions of years.
C: Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this
structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.
One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original
shape.3
The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus
rex fossil to lift it by helicopter.
The bone was still largely hollow
and not filled up with minerals as
is usual. Dr Schweitzer used
chemicals to dissolve the bony
matrix, revealing the soft tissue
still present.4
She has been cited as saying
that the blood vessels were
flexible, and that in some
instances, one could squeeze
out their contents. Furthermore,
she said, The microstructures
that look like cells are preserved
Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as
in every way. She also is
blood vessels. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were
reported as commenting that
65 million years old.
preservation of this extent,
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the
where you still have this flexibility
blood vessels, and can be seen to look like cells as the researchers said. So once
and transparency, has never
again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, How could these
been seen in a dinosaur before.
cells last for 65 million years?
It appears that this sort of thing
has not been found before
mainly because it was never
looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood
cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her
known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens!
The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in millions of years. The
long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such
things should be preserved for (in this case) 70 million years.
Will they now be convinced?
Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science
Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not
discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.
Thats just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T.
Rex specimen, she said, It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldnt believe it. I said to
the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long? 6 Notice that her
first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say
theres something funny about the emperors clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an accepted
phenomenon that even stretchy soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after
all, we know that this specimen is 70 million years old.) See how it works?
Schweitzers mentor, the famous Dinosaur Jack Horner (upon whom Sam Neills lead character in the Jurassic Park movies
was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in
the hope of finding more such Squishosaurus remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of
course. Butnothing about questioning the millions of yearssigh!
I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the
proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a
few thousand years ago at most.7

Schweitzers Dangerous Discovery

by David Catchpoole and Jonathan Sarfati

Published: 19 July 2006 (updated 21 July 2014)
Thats the title of an article in Discover magazine1 about Dr Mary Schweitzers discoveries of fresh dinosaur tissue (which
weve earlier reported onDinosaur bone blood cells found, Creation 16(1):9, 1993; Sensational dinosaur blood
report! 19(4):42; 1997; Dino soft tissue find, 27(4):7, 2005). There was a very similar article in Smithsonianmagazine a
month later, which even mentioned our Creation magazine citations.2
Why dangerous? A sub-heading (our emphasis in bold font) explains: When this shy paleontologist found soft, freshlooking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.

The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65
million years.
Another instance of fresh appearance which similarly makes it hard to believe in the millions of years.
Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this
structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.
The line referred to is the supposed 65 million years that dinosaurs are reputed to have been extinct. The Discoverarticle
described how the fresh dino tissue had electrified creationists, who interpret Schweitzers findings as evidence that Earth
is not nearly as old as scientists claim. I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious, wrote Carl
Wieland [CMIAustralias Managing Director; his article Still soft and stretchy promptedatheist-inspired criticism from longage compromisers] last year. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils
are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at
most.
The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even
to the point that Dr Schweitzer was having a hard time trying to get her work published in scientific journals.
I had one reviewer tell me that he didnt care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasnt possible, says
Schweitzer. I wrote back and said, Well, what data would convince you? And he said, None.
Schweitzer can understand why so many are skeptical. If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have
nothing recognizable in about a week, she says, adding, So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?
Why indeed? Unless of course they havent been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly by
an unusual event. Schweitzer says of the moment she found dinosaur red blood cells in the 1990s: I just got goose bumps,
because everyone knows these things dont last for 65 million years.
Smelly bones
Schweitzer recounts how, after that first discovery, she noticed that a T. rexskeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a
distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner, he said Oh yeah, all Hell
Creek bones smell.
Astonishing, isnt it? So ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that
the smell of death didnt even register with themdespite the evidence being right under their noses.
Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur
Carl Wieland
2 August 2008
The structures recovered from dino bone by Thomas Kaye and colleagues, which they claim
are not blood vessels but modern biofilms.
In late July 2008, the internet was abuzz with the news that some scientists had published
research doubting the claim that blood vessels and other soft tissues were found in T.
rexfossils. This was a claim that creationists have made much about. According to these
researchers, the vessels were actually the result of biofilms.
We have had many questions already, so this weekends feedback by Dr Carl Wieland will
respond to the announcement in at least a preliminary way.
Background
In March 2005, in an article entitled Still Soft and Stretchy, we wrote in some detail about the
sensational discovery of soft tissue in a fossilized T. rex bone after the mineral matrix had
been dissolved away by a weak alkaline solution (though a weak acid would have worked too,
and many of the subsequent reports call it that). The images from that article are so important
to this one that they are repeated here, along with the captions.
Dr Mary Schweitzer, the (theistic evolutionist) scientist responsible, had a few years
previously discovered structures looking just like red blood cells inside blood vessels, in
another piece of T. rex bone. Immunological tests even seemed to confirm the presence of
hemoglobin, a complex and fragile molecule that should in no way be able to last for millions
of years. The relevant portion of the bone in that case actually appeared to be unfossilized
(see Sensational dinosaur blood report!)

In both instances, long-agers were keen to demolish the strong implications of such finds against long-age views, with very
limited success. See for example, this response to a critic concerning the original red cells claim. And our article Squirming
at the Squishosaur responds to various long-ager counterclaims about the soft tissue find.
This latest claim for biofilms needs to be considered carefully and unemotively. If a great argument for creation has to fall by
the wayside, so be it. In my own public presentations that touch upon dinosaur issues, I have repeatedly indicated that it is
surprising enough to have soft tissue like this after thousands of years even. And I have written:
Certainly it taxes ones imagination less [but it still taxes it-CW] to believe that such structures have survived a few
thousand years, as opposed to >65 million. Even the most rabid long-ager would surely have to agree with that simple
proposition.1
The point being that if these structures were to turn out not to be soft tissues after all, then this would not prove the millions
of years by any means, as it would be quite within the bounds of likelihood to have no soft tissue remaining after the
thousands of years since the Genesis Flood.
However, as will hopefully become clear, to conclude that no dino soft tissues have been found would be very premature
and unwarranted, to put it mildly.
The bombshell report
The paper by Thomas Kaye and colleagues questioning the soft tissue finds was published 30 July 2008 inPloS ONE, the
journal of the Public Library of Science. Being open-access on the web, all readers can check the original article for
themselves, saving the need to go into too much detail.2
The introduction acknowledges that apparent soft tissue in ancient fossils is not just a one off but has been confirmed now
numerous times, across a range of time and taxa. The researchers were thoroughthey used 200 hours of scanning
electron microscope (SEM) time to look at the inside of dinosaur fossil bone, before the mineral was dissolved, in seven
geologic formations and more than fifteen taxa. They also used infrared spectroscopy.
After this, they said that their findings caused them to reinterpret the original Schweitzer findings as being the result of
bacterial biofilms. These are well-known types of structures that are often labelled as slime. (An example would be what
appears on the walls of your fish tank, the stuff on which the watersnails feed.)
From the appearances they discovered under the SEM, they make a good case for evidence of past bacterial activity.
They claim that their findings indicate that the Schweitzer soft tissues were produced by modern bacteria infiltrating the
specimen and forming endocasts of bacterial film that would preserve the shape of the blood vessels, for example. (An
endocast is a cast made of the inside of a hollow cavity, preserving the shape of the cavity, for example.) Another claim, also
with supporting evidence, is that the apparent red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids.
These claims are probably bolstered in the eyes of the average reader by Kayes statement (untestable though it is) that he
would have liked to have confirmed that soft tissue really had been found.
Comment
The suggestion would be more convincing if all that had been found were transparent blood vessels and some round lumps
vaguely resembling red blood cells. However, it seems to require a fair amount of credulity to think that the biofilm/framboids
explanation could cover the range of findings in the original report. This is why it was important to reproduce the illustrations
here.

Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as blood vessels. Soft tissues like blood
vessels
should
not
be
there
if
the
bones
were
65
million
years
old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to look
like cells as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, How could
these cells last for 65 million years?
Consider that not only were there flexible transparent blood vessels found, but that these had inside them red blood cell
structures with every appearance of still having nuclei, all in a substrate that could be squeezed out of the vessels like
toothpaste. (Note that unlike mammalian red blood cells, reptilian ones keep their nuclei when fully developed.) Also found
were clearly discernible bone cells (not shown here), called osteocytes, with a very characteristic appearance. (The Kaye
team believes these were similarly formed by bacteria.) But one would think that of all the original Schweitzer finds, the most
difficult to explain via the bacterial films theory would have to be the flexible ligament-like structures shown in the diagrams
below. I could not find these discussed anywhere at the date of writing.
Actually, there is no reason why both could not be presentbacterial biofilms (and/or their partially mineralized remnants) as
well as elements of the original structure, something that fits all the evidence to date. That concept also fits with the
observation that in one well known dinosaur location, the Hell Creek formation in Montana, palaeontologists have long
known that most of the fossils when cracked open have the smell of death (decomposing, cadaverous flesh) in them. 3 This
suggests not only that bacteria have indeed invaded the fossils, but still have organic material available to decompose. And
since most bacteria require organic material to live on, the presence of soft tissue may be a good reason why they have
migrated into the fossil-bearing rock in the first place.

What does Mary Schweitzer think?

To conclude that no dino soft tissues have been found would very premature and unwarranted, to put it mildly.
Schweitzer is apparently standing by her claims. Being an evolutionist, albeit a theist at last reckoning, she can hardly be
accused of sympathy for creationists. Schweitzer has in fact expressed dismay at discovering her work being utilized to
defend Genesis history. It seems that so far she is unconvinced by the biofilm hypothesis, though acknowledging that some
bacterial action could be involved. TheDiscover magazines site says that she claims that she and her team considered this
biofilm hypothesis as a possibility early on, and rejected it. 4 For one thing, she is reported elsewhere as saying, over time
gravity should have made such films thicker at the bottom, contrary to observations.
Carbon dating
Creationists have all along been keen to see the soft objects in Schweitzers discovery subjected to carbon dating. 5 If they
were millions of years old, there should not be any radiocarbon in them. So we would have anticipated, and welcomed,
results giving any sort of radiocarbon date, as this would automatically weaken the claim of millions of years. But the first
CMI has heard about such dating being carried out is in the Kaye et al. paper. It states that radiocarbon results on the
structures they found were greater than modern, indicating a modern origin for the material. In fact, such a result would
also be expected by creationists as it certainly would inspire even more doubt about the idea that these dino tissues are
millions of years old. Of course, the Kaye et al paper sees this radiocarbon result as confirmation of its claim that these
were modern bacteria invading the fossil.
Interestingly, a report on PhysOrg.com says that carbon dating placed the origin at around 1960. 6 Assuming that to be the
case, then ignoring the huge limitations and error possibilities in such dating, are they saying that in this entire range of dino
fossilsfrom many different geologic sites and levels, and all sitting there for millions of yearsthis slime has only been
manufactured in the last few decades? Presumably further reports will shed more light on this.
T. rex fossils?" style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; outline: none; text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(34, 139, 246);">Evolutionist questions CMI report Have
Dinosaur soft tissue and proteineven more confirmation!
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteinsand the
same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before.
by Carl Wieland
Published: 6 May 2009(GMT+10)
Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen.
Background
Creationists were fascinated, and evolutionists mostly
skeptical, when evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer claimed in
the 1990s that an unfossilized piece of T. rex bone
contained red blood cells. Further, that there was
immunological and spectroscopic evidence of the
presence of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein that
gives red blood cells their colour.1
Then in 2005, Schweitzer announced a further sensational
discovery in a different T.rex bone. After the mineral matrix
was dissolved,2what remained were structures with all the
appearance of soft tissue, still soft and stretchy. Some of
these appeared to be transparent branching blood
vessels, with a substance inside them containing further
structures looking just like nucleated red blood cells, and
able to be squeezed out of the vessels like toothpaste.
How could such fragile structures survive for millions of
years? Long-agers went into intense, but not very effective damage control, such as seen in the item (containing CMIs
response) Squirming at the Squishosaur.
Gradually, further evidence strengthened the case that Schweitzer had indeed discovered evidence of astonishing
preservation of organic material in fossils. In 2007, in Squashing Squishosaur Scepticism, we reported that she and her
team had performed careful tests to establish the presence of the protein collagen in the dino fossilan important protein in
bone. They were even able to sequence stretches of it, which showed that it was 58% similar to collagen from a chicken,
and 51% similar to that from a frog.3
It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall
apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist
have passed since Schweitzers T. rex specimen was entombed.4,5 Furthermore, bones of an Iguanodon allegedly twice as
old (dated to 120 Ma) contained enough of the protein osteocalcin to produce an immune reaction.6
Many anti-creationists therefore breathed a sigh of relief when in mid-2008 a paper claimed to have found evidence that the
transparent blood vessels, for instance, were the result of recent bacterial formation
of biofilms, forming endocasts that followed the shape of where the original
vessels lay, and that the red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called
framboids. There were substantial reasons why not just creationists, but Schweitzer
and other non-creationists were not at all convinced by these claimssee Doubting
doubts about the Squishosaur.
The new findings
An illustration of a real type of duck-billed dinosaur known as a Hadrosaur.
Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious
journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous
findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur
(duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by
evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

In short, the researchers found evidence of the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved
microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.
Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed extraordinary, required extraordinary
evidence. But this is a clich; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics
demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from
other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur
encased in sandstone.
Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an
even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They
reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteinselastin and laminin. They also found structures
uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there
were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if
the antibodies would bind to them.
Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is difficult to identify with current technology. Dr Pavel
Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be much bigger news
[than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.9
Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique
used in Schweitzers analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study was done the right way, with more
stringent controls to guard against contamination, for one thing.
There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids
as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from
mastodon fossils and her T. rexsequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the
others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instanceresults which would also confirm
her previous identification of T. rex collagen.
The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They
were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as
well.
As Schweitzer says, These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.
Power of the paradigm
These data [from a hadrosaur] not only build upon what we got from theT. rex, they take the research even further.
Dr Mary Schweitzer.
Philosophers of science have written much about the power of a paradigm, especially when it has worldview implications,
such as long-age belief. Such a paradigm is seldom, if ever, overthrown simply because of observations that contradict its
expectations. Even Schweitzer herself, despite professing to be an evangelical Christian, is extremely defensive about the
old-age paradigmsee Schweitzers Dangerous Discovery.
What happens is that auxiliary hypotheses and assumptions are constructed to preserve the intactness of the core
hypothesis, in this case what is known as deep time (see further explanation). In simple terms, proteins should simply not
have been able to last for these tens of millions of years. So when they are found in specimens dated this old, the paradigm
is under serious threat.
The most straightforward fit to the evidence is that the time of burial of these dinosaurs was not millions of years ago at all,
but only thousands of years ago at most. As the evidence continues to mount that dinosaur fossils do indeed contain wellpreserved soft tissue structures and identifiable proteins, the assumption that will increasingly be made is that we now know
that such tissue components can last that long, after all.
Not many will see this as the paradigm-rescuing assumption that it is. Consider the line of reasoning:
1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that
long.
3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)though we dont know for sure how,
collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because
5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more sciencebased:
1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.
2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that
long.
3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a
worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.
We hope that many readers will be able to use this sort of evidence to gently pry open many closed minds.
Update 9 May 2009: see answer to a critic who disputes that these findings are a big deal.
Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzers original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with
some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published
September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or
cartilage. (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009)
Postscript: Phil Currie on Mary Schweitzers May 2009 finds
The extras on CMIs 2009 documentary DVD The Voyage that Shook the World include extended interviews with several
scientists. One of these is evolutionist and world-renowned dinosaur expert Dr Phil Currie, who talks about Mary
Schweitzers astonishing finds, prior to her latest research above, and how the paradigm is shifting. There are many ways
in which this DVD can be used to break down barriers of resistance to the Gospel. Dont miss it! See the free trailer.

DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone

by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the
evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in
dinosaur bones.1 These discoveries have included blood cells,
blood
vessels,
and
proteins
like
collagen.
But
under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted
for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if
they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer
climate proposed for the dinosaurs).2 As she said in a popular TV
show:When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology
and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it
should be degraded completely.3
as well as the following in a scientific paper:
The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for
fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in
this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic
conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental
extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.4As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic
blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:
It was totally shocking, Schweitzer says. I didnt believe it until wed done it 17 times.5
Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really
bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids. 6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence
Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail. 7,8 However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the
long-age paradigm.9
Dino bone cells and proteins
Schweitzers more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs,
the famousTyrannosaurus rex (MOR 112510) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR
2598).11 Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress, 12 and uses the finely designed protein
osteocalcin,13 which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, dated to 120 Ma.14 The most
plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and
have a vital role in immediate responses to changing stresses.10
James D. San Antonio, Mary H. Schweitzer, Shane T. Jensen, Raghu Kalluri, Michael Buckley, Joseph P. R. O. Orgel.
(2011).
Dinosaur
Peptides
Suggest
Mechanisms
of
Protein
Survival. PLoS
ONE 6(6):
e20381.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020381
Schweitzers team again removed the hard bony mineral
with the chelating agent EDTA. They found transparent
cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just
the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some
containing internal contents, from both dinos.They also
used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and
tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes
in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar
binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and
alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out
contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not
bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, thus a
biofilm
origin
for
these
structures
is
not
supported.10 Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a
fibrousanimal protein, and it was found in these bonesbut not in surrounding sediments.
Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could bone cells and the molecules
that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?Mary Schweitzer et al.
Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein
called PHEX. This stands forPhosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone
mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein. 15 Detecting a distinctive bone protein is
very strong support for osteocyte identification.
The problem for long ages is as they ask:Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so
how could bone cells and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone? 10They try to
solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the
cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the
mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a
vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.
Actually, this is all reasonable from a reationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are
compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only
proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally
attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions
of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.16
Dino DNA
However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1
bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA strand after 6.8 Myr.M.E. Allentoft et al.
The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of
survival at 125,000 years at 0C, 17,500 years at 10C and 2,500 years at 20C.2 One recent report said:

There is a general belief that DNA is rock solidextremely stable, says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological
sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. Actually DNA is highly reactive.
On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a
combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental
sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes. 17
A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone.18 But even there, there is no
way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of
DNA (no intact bonds) is 22,000 years at 25C, 131,000 years at 15C, 882,000 years at 5C; and even if it could
somehow be kept continually below freezing point at 5C, it could survive only 6.83 Maonly about a tenth of the assumed
evolutionary age. The researchers state:However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5C, our model predicts
that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA strand after 6.8 Myr. This displays the
extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 8085 Myr old Cretaceous bone. 18Yet
Schweitzers team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies
specifically detect DNA in its doublestranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA
less than about 10 bp dont form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI 19 lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix,
which requires even more bp. (see diagram below)
Again, the first possible response by long-agers is contamination. But
the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions
of the cells. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like
biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNAdetecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more
complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small
part of the cellthe nucleus.Futhermore, Schweitzers team detected a
special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big
problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA
is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are
alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex
organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is
wrapped.20 But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et
al. say, These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these
dinosaur cells.11
Conclusion
Its hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzers early quotes:
It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldnt believe it. I said to the lab technician: The
bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?21
But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific question would be:
This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin,
collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they cant survive for 65 million years. What I dont see is the
claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.
Squirming at the Squishosaur
A refutation of a progressive creationist response to our articles on the finding of soft dinosaur tissue
by Carl Wieland
16 May 2005
It had to happen, I suppose. The lashback from progressive creationists about our excited announcements on the soft
tissue found in a dinosaur fossil (Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue finda stunning rebuttal of millions of
years and Ostrich-osaurus discovery?: Shedding more light on the new startling find of soft tissue in a T. rexbone).
The ministry Reasons To Believe (RTB), propagating the views of progressive creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, is totally
committed to the millions of years philosophy. This despite the fact that, sadly, this has to involve abandonment of any
consistent, time-honoured, and intellectually honest approach to hermeneutics (as is overwhelmingly clear from my
colleague Dr Sarfatis classic book Refuting Compromise). In fact, it turns the words of the Lord Jesus on humanitys time of
appearance upside down, and puts millions of years of bloodshed, suffering ofnephesh (soulish) creatures, extinction, thorns
and cancer before Adam (the Curse before the Fall), and much, much more that is equally tragic (So, they could scarcely let
it slide when our web articles, picked up by tens of thousands and circulated widely, said things like:
This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all,
but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most
The first counter was a radio broadcast featuring Hugh Ross and associate Dr Fazale (Fuz) Rana. That referred to some
detective work done by one of their apologists, a Greg Moore, who has now published two articles on this sort of topic on
the RTB website, the latest being the one rebutted here. (The previous one was attacking our announcements on the 1997
discovery, by the same researcher, of red blood cells.) This article cites the RTB broadcast five times. Even more
importantly, the original article, Dinosaur Blood?, by this same author acknowledges that its background is an article by
one Gary Hurd, an antitheistic social scientist, posted on an unsavoury atheist site; Moores follow-up here largely follows
Hurd as well.In view of the importance of the issue, the entire article 1 has been reproduced here under the fair use
provisions (so no-one could think that we had misrepresented or selectively quoted it). I respond to it in interspersed email
style. As will I trust be clear, apart from some hairsplitting about definitions, and despite clever use of prejudicial language
and similar rhetorical maneuvers, no evidence has been presented that would generate any discomfort in our standing
behind the conclusions of the articles. In fact, if anything, our conclusions are reinforced by the transparent desperation in
some of the tactics employed.

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS

Feathered dinos: no feathers after all!
by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
Published: 24 July 2012 (GMT+10)
Sinosauropteryx specimen GMV 2124, from Liaoning Province, China; in
the Staatliches Museum fr Naturkunde (State Museum of Natural History),
Karlsruhe, Germany. Note the classic dead dino posturehead thrown back, tail
extended, with hind limbs bentcalled opisthotonus, the result of muscle spasms
caused by suffocation.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had a huge difficulty: the fossil record lacks
the innumerable missing links predicted by them and required by their theory.
Instead, all evolutionists can produce are a handful of debatable examples (see The
Links are Missing); whereas its not just links that are missing but whole lengths in
the evolutionary chain!
From time to time, evolutionists produce a transitional-series-du-jour. One of the
most prominent recent claims is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs,
a supposedly carnivorous group that included T. Rex andVelociraptor. However,
even a number of evolutionary paleo-ornithologists (fossil bird experts), such
as Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina, have
been harshly critical of the dogmatic way in which the theory has been promoted.
They partly blame this dogma for the notorious Archaeoraptor hoax of 19992000.
Another big problem is the hugely different avian lung design. The alleged first
bird Archaeopteryx had the classic avian through-flow lungs, while the alleged
feathered dino Sinosauropteryx had a clearly reptilian bellows lung. And it
wasyounger than Archaeopteryx, according to the evolutionists own dating
methods and contrary to evolutionary expectations. As Feduccia likes to quip, You
cant be older than your grandfather. While evolutionists claim that a trait might
persist in a lineage well after a descendant lineage has evolved, the evidence they
are claiming dates the version with a fully-formed avian lung prior to the other.
When did the avian lung, then, evolve? And the main point was that evolution was alleged to be supported by the order of
fossil succession, but clearly this is not so.
Feathered dinosaurs?
One major point evolutionists use to support their missing link between birds and dinos is dinosaurs having feathers. One
of the most famous isSinosauropteryx (meaning Chinese reptilian wing), a tiny creature discovered in 1996. The largest
known specimen weighed only about 0.55 kg (1.2 lb), and was only 1.07 m (3.5 ft) long. This included its tail, the longest in
relation to its total body length of any theropod.CMI has long pointed out that there is nothing in the biblical creationist model
that states that dinosaurs must lack feathers. Having said that, however, we also point out that the examples to date have
been far from convincing. There is good reason to believe that the feathers were just frayed structural collagen fibres.1,2
Nonetheless, the feather claim has its defenders as well, such as Prof. Zhang Fucheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
and his colleagues, who claim to be refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.3
This Struthiomimus dinosaur is also in the
dead dinosaur pose.
To support their claimed refutation, Zhang et
al. claimed to have discovered colourproducing
cell
organelles
called
eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes in
a Sinosauropteryx specimen. These produce
the very dark eumelanin and reddish-brown
pheomelanin pigments in feathers (see
also Colourful creature coats). From this, they
argued that they even had proof for stripes on
its tail. But Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at
the University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa
(and co-author of Refs 1 and 2) has criticized their claims as an: optical illusion created when the SEM [scanning electron
micrograph] is reproduced at low image size.4 And in a recent paper, he has provided further evidence against this claim.5
Animal decay
As noted above, Sinosauropteryx had a reptilian lung. How could we know? Because unlike most dinosaur fossils, which are
nothing but mineralized bones, this creature was well enough preserved that one could analyze the shape of some of its
internal organs. The fact that these details were preserved points to very rapid burial, before these organs could rot or be
scavenged away. (Since the discovery ofSinosauropteryx, dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and collagen,
and osteocalcin have been found, which could not have lasted millions of years.) Also, the preservation of the internal
organs would seem to rule out vertebrate predators or scavengers, since they usually target the gut first.
Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as quickly as a lion.Theagarten LinghamSoliar.
Therefore, Lingham-Soliar wanted to find out why Sinosauropteryx should be so well preserved. He noted the typical dead
dinosaur posture with the neck and tail thrown backwards (all the fossils illustrated in this article illustrate that posture). In
the last few years, scientists have realized that this posture was actually opisthotonus, the result of severe muscle spasms
caused by malfunctioning of the central nervous system, especially with oxygen deprivation. 6 Thus they are the final death
throes, which we have argued is consistent with most of them being drowned or buried alive by the Flood.
Since no-one saw the creature die and fossilize, the next best thing is to see what happens to dead animals. (The study of
decay and fossilization is called taphonomy). Lingham-Soliar analyzed two dead animals over time in a natural setting: a

genet (Genetta genetta), a cat-like animal but probably in the mongoose kind; and the Mozambique spitting cobra (Naja
mossambica), the second deadliest snake in Africa, after the black mamba.
Sparing some of the gory details, with the genet, within a day, internal decomposition and bloating had already forced liquids
out the body openings. Then maggots had their fill, but notably, not in the gut region until day 4. After that, the decay
increased exponentially, so only one day later, almost all the soft tissue was gone, and the maggots left the carcass
to pupate. The authors note about the creationist founder of taxonomy (classification):
Wikimedia/H. Raab
Archaeopteryx lithographica, Museum fr Naturkunde(Museum of Natural History) in
Berlin. This is a picture of the actual fossil, not a cast. It also shows clear signs of
opisthotonus.
Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as
quickly as a lion.
With the cobra, the process took longer, but once again, it was mainly maggots, but
this time also ants, and again the gut was targeted quite late. Also, the insects liked
the protein-rich connective tissue under the scales, which quickly separated the
scales from the body. The authors note:
it is possible to hypothesize from this phenomenon why scales are so rarely (or
sparsely) preserved in small non-avian dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx,
Compsognathus andJuravenoterthe absence of scales have frequently been used
to suggest the presence of feathers in the animals primary condition.
But neither the genet nor the cobra carcasses exhibited opisthotonus, which ruled out
the earlier idea that the dead dinosaur posture was caused by post-mortem changes.
Applications to Sinosauropteryx death
As noted, the dead dinosaur posture indicates death by suffocation. The specimen
seemed to exhibit the signs of the same purged decomposition liquids as the dead
genet. The preserved gut (including a pair of eggs), indicate that any scavenging was
likely by insects, then the carcass was quickly buried at most a few days after death.
The authors attribute the death to toxic volcanic gases, then burial by volcanic ash or
mud flows.
Actually the evidence, considering how widespread the dead dino posture is (also seen inArchaeopteryx), is consistent with
the Global Flood. This would produce greatly increased volcanic activity. The rapid burial is also consistent with the Flood.
But what about insect decomposition? Actually, computer simulations have shown that the flood waters would not rise
steadily but would fluctuate so that land would be exposed for days at a time. 7 This is why we find dinosaur footprints and
eggs (see In the footsteps of giants). This exposure would allow insects time to colonize the carcass, but not time to eat the
gut, before it was buried completely.
Crest not feathers
Back to the heading of the article, the dead dino posture provided insights into what the claimed feather filaments actually
were. The death throes caused buckling of the thick integument (skin) on the animals back, which would be possible only if
the filaments were part of a single structure not separate feathers.
compressive and tensile forces acting on a clearly unified structure, i.e. an upright frill or crest overlying the neck, back and
tail ofSinosauropteryx as opposed to individual proto-feathers, is considered more reasonable
the results include the most controversial issue associated with Sinosauropteryx and strongly demonstrate, based on soft
tissue analysis and forensic animation, that the dorsal, externally preserved integumental tissue represents a dorsal crest
rather than protofeathers
This supports their earlier statement:
The description presented here shows that the filamentous structures were internal support fibres that together with the
overlying dermal tissue comprised a composite structure, i.e. an external frill or crest (compare Jesus lizard, Basiliscus
plumifrons, and frilled lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii), comprehensively refuting the notion of free filaments, i.e. protofeathers
in Sinosauropteryx.
In further support, the tail terminates in a unique, smoothly edged, spatula-shaped structure, which near the end provided
little surface area for the attachment of protofeathers. Also, because this creature seemed to live near a lake, according to
evolutionary reconstructions anyway, a crest-like structure on the tail or body or both [would be] useful in swimming, so
they express amazement that such a structure had not been considered.
Conclusion
While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and
more dubious. In one of the most famous claimed feathered dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, the evidence indicates that the
filaments were not separate feathers, but support fibres for a unified structure like a crest. Also, the death posture indicates
suffocation, and careful analysis of the normal decay process of animal carcasses in nature shows that it must have been
buried completely within a few days at most.
Update: Another theory for the dead dino posture is also consistent with the Flood: it turns out that recently killed chickens
spontaneously go into the same arched-back pose after immersion under water (see also Water and death throes). They
have a strong ligament along the spine, the Ligamentum elasticum, which is already taut. The buoyancy under water
enabled the ligament to overcome the weight and pull the neck and tail back. As the muscles decayed, this ligament
encountered even less resistance, so the bending increased even more.
This effect would have been even stronger in dinosaurs with long, slender necks and tails. They would have needed very
strong, elastic ligaments for energy saving. The length would have also increased the leverage of the elastic forces.
Swiss sedimentologist Achim Reisdorf and German paleontologist Michael Wuttke, authors of a detailed study8, explained:
A strong Ligamentum elasticum was essential for all long necked dinosaurs with a long tail. The preloaded ligament helped
them saving energy in their terrestrial mode of life. Following their death, at which they were immersed in water, the stored
energy along the vertebra was strong enough to arch back the spine, increasingly so as more and more muscles and other
soft parts were decaying. It is a special highlight that, in the Compsognathus specimen, these gradual steps of recurvature
can be substantiated, too. Therefore, biomechanics is ruling the postmortem weird posture of a carcass in a watery grave,
not death throes.9,10Of course, a Globl Flood would provide excellent conditions for full immersion of animals!

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoaxit is a true bird, not a missing link
by Jonathan Sarfati, CMIAustralia
24 March 2000
by Steve Cardno
With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax
UpdateNational Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir
Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a
forgery.1Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms
promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to
dismiss it as a forgery.
However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist
anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight
feathers, not a transitional formand certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr
Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:
Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered
dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is
going to change that.2
Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points
out that the Archaeopteryxbones have tiny bumps where the feathers were
attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to
attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints
added to a dino skeleton.
Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle is
completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating manganese
dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the
Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he
backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding
dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split.
Since that book, more recent evidence has even further devastated the hoax theory:
The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac,
i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already
present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not
have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have
always been birds.
Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern birds,
three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even
had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and
semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying birds. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a
similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. 5 Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain
structures for flightthe large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for
coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying. 6 Once more, a forger adding feathers to a
dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.
Creation Ministries International will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a
disclaimer, because it is the truth which shall set you free (cf. John 8:32), not error.
ArchaeoraptorPhony feathered fossil
The latest feathered dinosaur claim provokes even some evolutionists to use words like total hoax
by Jonathan Sarfati
3 February 2000
A National Geographic (NG) article Feathers for T. Rex? by the Senior Assistant Editor, Christopher Sloan, 1 has attracted
fierce criticism from some prominent evolutionists for its promotion of the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The article
even illustrated a baby T. rex with feathers, as well as putting feathers on another theropod dinosaur, Deinonychus. In a
prominent heading, the article proclaimed: We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that
humans are mammals.2 It was based on a fossil illegally exported3 from Liaoning Province, China, tentatively
named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, allegedly a feathered dinosaur.
Dinosaur-to-bird theory: Problems!
Readers of Creation magazine should be familiar with the extensive scientific critiques of the dino-to-bird evolutionary
theory, despite the sensationalist claims in the mediasee some of articles hyperlinked in note 4. Even among evolutionists,
some have refused to be swept along by the hype. For example, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds. 5 He pointed out much evidence
against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs
have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the socalled feathered dinosaurs are dated by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds.
His colleague, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin, commented on the wishful thinking and bias of another
feathered dinosaur claim:
You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur. 6
Evolutionist slams National Geographic for bias and tabloid journalism
But the NG article was the last straw in shameless sensationalism for Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum
of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. He wrote:
National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid
journalism.
it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma
that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloans article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented
information that makes the news rather than reporting it.
[The feathered dinosaur pictures are] simply imaginary and ha[ve] no place outside of science fiction.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have
become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have
been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our
agethe paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.7
Among other things, Dr Olsen, an evolutionist, pointed out:
None of the structures illustrated in Sloans article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers.
Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact.
hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers8 as:
nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is
even more hypothetical.7
Piltdown bird?9
Since Dr Olsen wrote that scathing critique of NG, even more disturbing news has surfaced. An eminent paleontologist in
Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was really combined
from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private
collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor.
But it mightnt be a deliberate fake like Piltdown Man, a human skull and an apes jaw. Dr Xu said:
For science, this is a disaster. When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together
mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.10
At the time of writing, research is still ongoing, but Czerkas said that Xu may be right, and National Geographic plans to
publish a correction in the March issue.10
After that, scientists in China claimed to have discovered yet another faked tailthis one added by a Chinese farmer to a
flying pterosaur. Apparently this one has fooled the editors of Nature, another journal singled out by Dr Olsen (above) as
overzealous to proselytize the dinosaur-to-bird theory.11
History of hoaxes
This wouldnt be the first time that National Geographic, in its eagerness to proselytise for the evolutionary faith, has rushed
into print with evidence that has turned out to be a hoax or an overblown claim that was later discredited. Many years ago,
the magazine had a glossy picture displaying amazing artistic licence of our supposed ancestor, the missing
link Zinjanthropus boisei or Nutcracker man, discovered by Louis Leakey.12 Now no evolutionist would claim that this robust
australopithecine was a human ancestorsee Marvin Lubenows book Bones of Contention.
Some atheistic/evolutionary/sceptical/anti-Christian websites are, amazingly, trying to downplay the Archaeoraptor fiasco, by
pointing out that it was science that put it right. Of course, they deceitfully equate science and evolution, although
evolutionary wishful thinking was responsible for the hoax in the first place! And now they tell us that NG is a popular
general interest magazine and not a peer-reviewed scientific journalnot a peep from them while NGs shameless
evolutionary sensationalizing remained unexposed! See also Be sceptical of the Skeptics!
What should we think about feathered dino claims?
The dino-to-bird scenario has become a dogma into which the evidence must be twisted.
Dont believe everything you read in the media. Mostly, the media are biased towards evolution and. We should not be
surprised that they splash supposedly pro-evolution evidence on the front pages, but when this evidence is refuted, even
by other evolutionists, this is either buried in an obscure place, or not reported at all. This has happened repeatedly
remember the alleged life from Mars in an Antarctic meteorite, now almost universally discounted? See the articles
hyperlinked in Ref. 13. And it has happened with many other missing link claims, including alleged feathered dinosaurs.
Another example is Pakicetus, based on a few skull fragments, which was heavily touched up as a missing link between
land mammals and whales, to indoctrinate schoolteachers. As shown, the NG article simply takes media sensationalism to a
new low. But for a change, the news media have publicised theArchaeoraptor problemsof course, accusations of fraud
usually sell newspapers far better than quiet discrediting of evidences for evolution that informed evolutionists no longer
believe.There is nothing in creationist theory forbidding dinosaurs from having feathersit would not make them any more a
transitional form than the egg-laying mammals, the platypus and echidna. But so far the evidence is lacking. And even if
they existed, it would not prove they evolved from scalesfeathers are completely different from scales in just about every
respect.4,14The dino-to-bird claim has huge scientific problems as outlined above.4,5,7 In fact, Feduccia wrote: All in all, I find
the whole dino-bird business a total hoax.15
Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies
by Dr Emil SilvestruCanada
18 March 2005 (pre-publication version)
We can even choose to apply the concept of birdness yet further back, although this would include animals that are even
further removed from our common understanding of what birds are.This is what the new exhibition opened at the Royal
Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto from 12 March to 5 September 2005 says on a poster. Although the official title of the
exhibition is Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight it turns out one of the main topics is in a sense language, not
fossils. This is because it ventures into altering the definition of birds in order to accommodate fossil discoveries into the
ever-changing evolutionary scenarios. The organizers are the Dinosaur Museum of Blanding, Utah, and the Fossil
Administration Office of Liaoning, China, in collaboration with the Geological Institute of the Chinese Academy of Geological
Sciences.
The history
The fossils come mainly from the famous Liaoning area in China, but the real starScansoriopteryx heilmanni(Heilmanns
climbing wing)comes from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (in China). Allegedly, 40 to 60 million years older than
the Liaoning fossils and 25 to 45 million years older than the ancient bird Archaeopteryx, this is hailed as the earliest
feathered flying dinosaur or as the earliest bird! Yes, confusing as it may sound, they havent made up their minds yet,
because there are so many unusual fossils preserved in Liaoning that both approaches seem to fit.

Some of these Chinese fossils have been presented in previous exhibitions around the world (see Chinese feathered
dinosaurs, where are the skeptics?), but this exhibits layout and some of its diagrams and posters are a clear departure
from
the
well-known
evolutionary story of the
dinosaurbird
connection.
Even more so since the
same fossils in an exhibition
with the same title in San
Diego, California, presented
a significantly different story
(see www.sdnhm.org/exhibits
/feathered/). To start with,
one of the very first posters
clearly states, The few
dinosaurs that were known in
the 1800s were initially
thought of as giant reptiles or
lizards. However, scientists
soon realized that there was
some kind of relationship
between
dinosaurs
and
birds. What
the
actual
relationship is still remains a
question
to
this
day [emphasis added].
Figure 1: Click image to enlarge. Partial cladogram showing the supposed
evolutionary relationship between Deinonychus and modern birds
Cladistics
Since a clear-cut answer to
that question cannot be offered, the approach this exhibit takes is cladisticswhich means it determines the evolutionary
relationships of living things based on derived similarities, unlike phenetics, which groups organisms based on
their overall similarity and more traditional approaches, which tend to rely on key characters. A cladogramthe family tree of
cladisticsis made up of a series of connected nodes (figure 1). Ideally, each node splits the chain into two upward
evolutionary branches, one leading to the next node, the other one to an existing or extinct group of animals. One of the
main consequences of cladistics is that it allows so-called primitive and evolved creatures (that seem to suggest
grandparents and grandchildren of each other in evolutionary ways of thinking) to coexist, claiming they share a common
ancestornot that the grandchild/evolved form actually came from the grandparent/primitive one. Cladistics replaces
this unknown common ancestor with a node that bears the name of a group (clade), but it doesnt give a face since the
actual (completely hypothetical) ancestral animal has not been discovered!
The cladogram called The dinosaurian heritage of birds at the very end of the exhibitions long winding path tells a very
long story. But it is worth a complete read in order to understand the extent of wishful thinking with which cladistics abounds.
Translated into plain English, it says: from a foggy unknown ancestor came reptiles (a clade). An unknown reptile diverged
at some stage into turtles and into another clade called Diapsida (with two openings). Later, an unknown diapsid diverged
into the group oflizards, snakes, etc. and into a clade named Archosaurs (ruling lizards). An unknown archosaur then
diverged into crocodiles and another clade called Ornithodira (bird necks). An unknown ornithodiran then diverged (by way
of
evolution,
obviously)
into Pterosaurs (winged
reptiles)
and
into Dinosaurs (terrible lizards). As evolution stubbornly continued,
dinosaurs later allegedly branched out into Ornithischians(bird-hipped
dinosaurs) and Saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs). An unknown
saurischian went on to diverge into Sauropodomorphs (with legs like
sauropods) and so on up until Neognathae (modern birds).It is easy to
notice that not a single actual common ancestor has ever been
discovered; the hypothetical creature in each case is assigned to a group
consisting of many different types. Very convenient, yet lacking the basic
evidence most people would reasonably want to have.
Ironically, the ROM has one little item related to that. As you enter the
lobby, lift your eyes and have a look at the beautiful gilded mosaic on the
vaulted ceiling (figure 2). Right in the centre there is a square bearing the
inscription, THAT ALL MEN MAY KNOW HIS WORK (Job 37:7).
Figure 2: Mosaic on the ceiling of the
Unfortunately, this small detail is completely ignored by the vast majority of
Royal Ontario Museums foyer
the visitors. For them this is a temple of unquestioned pagan, secular,
humanistic religion and teachings. It is sad to see how much our culture
has changed.
The exhibition
The introduction to the exhibit shows the clever imagination of the bird-dinosaur believer. Models of
feathered Deinonychus (terrible claw) are exhibited in the shadow of Therizinosaurus, a gigantic combination of Sesame
Streets Big Bird and a giant sloth (figures 3 and 4). Therizinosaurus is believed to be the ancestor of dromaeosaurs. This
creature, with 1 foot-long claws on its forelimbs, gazes down on its alleged relatives and visitors alike as they exit the
exhibition. To the left there is a nice set of three non-feathered Deinonychus reconstructions (figure 5) with the following text:
These sculptures were originally made between 1986 and 1989 with scaly hides, based on fossil skin impressions from
other dinosaurs. When Deinonychus was first described in 1969, it was thought to be a bird-like dinosaur and a possible
ancestor to birds. Now it is known that Deinonychus itself had ancestors that flewflying dromaeosaurswhich makes it a
form of flightless bird instead of a dinosaur. Had Deinonychus been found after the discovery of fossil flying dromaeosaurs
in China, scientists could not have thought of itas a scaly dinosaur, but as a bird that had lost its ability to fly [emphasis
added].

The implications of this text are massive and reveal

the flakiness of the concept of evolutionary trees. First
notice that this text clearly states what the exhibit is all
about: a fundamental change in the interpretation of
long-known dinosaur fossils. It also shows that many
of the all-too-familiar features of many dinosaurs are in
fact inferred, not demonstratedthough that is not the
impression one is left with on visiting any exhibit on
the topic. It is almost pathetic to claim that science
once believed (mind you, at that time the wording was

Figure 3: Feathered models of deinonychus, with a

therizinosaurus in the background
more like we know that ) Deinonychus was a possible ancestor to
birds but now we know the same animal was a degenerate bird
descended from the flying dromaeosaurs! This text claims that flying
dromaeosaurs were in fact birds, whose descendants lost their ability
to fly. However, later into the exhibit dromaeosaurs are considered
flying reptiles not birds!
The famous Discovery Channel documentary Walking with
Dinosaurs (seeWalking with untruths!) depicted the velociraptors
as ferocious and shrewd predatory dinosaurs. Yet now we find they
were in fact de-evolved birds (because the Velociraptor like
the Deinonychus are considered dromaeosaurs).
Figure 4: Close-up of a therizinosaurus

The fossils
The exquisite details that have been preserved are spectacular. Even
veins within leaves and insect wings are clearly seen on the surfaces of the lake and volcanic sediments of the Yixian
Formation (Early Cretaceousallegedly 125 million years old).1
After spending many hours closely looking at the exhibits, I came to the conclusion that feathers are present on the fossils of
birds, but the presence of feathers on dromaeosaurs and pterosaurs (flying reptiles like Pterorhynchus) is very much a
matter of speculation, with no clear evidence on display
that they are true feathers and/or that they belong to the
fossil dinosaurs. There is no doubt that thin dark or even
black filaments are associated with many of the small
dromaeosaur fossils. Yet they could just as easily be the
remains of a water plant that grew in those ancient lakes.
There are at least two hints in this exhibition of such a
possibility:
The fossil Ginko species named Ckanowskia rigida is
shown and described as having thread-like leaves!
In the ultraviolet image of the Pterorhynchus there is a
marked contrast in colour between the bones and the
alleged feathers, which suggests quite different origins of
the two.
Another possibility is that the filaments are from bird
feathers which are preserved with the dinosaur fossils.
There is a significant density of preserved bird fauna at this
location, one may safely assume there were a great many
Figure 5: Non-feathered models of deinonychus
nests, too. Since birds are known to use feathers to
insulate/decorate their nests, it is possible that the violent
volcanic eruptions that seem to have contributed to the
rapid and excellent fossilization blew many of these nests and their contents into the lakes where they became closely
associated with some of the dying dinosaurs and pterosaurs. It is also possible that this area was a traditional shedding area
for birds (like in the case of penguins on certain shores) so that large amounts of feathers were incorporated in the rapidly
depositing sediments.
The one thing that amazed me as I was looking at these fossilsmost of them compressed to almost 2-Dis how the
paleontologists reconstruct such minute details of morphology and anatomy from flattened (in many cases displaced)
skeletons. But then I remembered; these fellows would be doing their work with a clear image in their minds; like apeman
artists, they would have pretty well known what they wanted to come up with. I was reminded of what Donald Johansen (the
discoverer of the alleged human ancestor Lucy) admitted about bias, I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern
that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain. 2
Feather evolution
In order to convince the visitor about the authenticity of the feathers on these dinosaurs, a large panel with the hypothetical
development of feathers presents the evolution from a single filament (stage 1) to the full, asymmetrical flight feather (stage
5). However, no clear evidence is provided in this exhibition. The microphotographs that claim to show v-shaped structures
(features considered to be feathers, in the skin ofPterorhynchus are unconvincing. These structures could be collagen fibres
or fossilization artifacts, and to my eyes they look more like hairs. Finally, the photo enlargement of what is claimed to be a
feather in the third stage (though it looks like one in the fourth stage in the adjacent diagram) is not as compelling a piece of
evidence as they claim. I could again see many similarities with some water plants.One even more intriguing claim is that

a Psittacosaurus (considered the earliest ancestor of horned dinosaurs like the Triceratops) had strand-like bristles
(primitive feathers) on its tail. This ornithischian (bird-hipped dinosaur) is not considered an ancestor of birds, although it
shares with them a derived characteristic: the pelvic girdle (cladistics again). This is the only exhibited fossil that is clearly
3-D, so one can see more details. Yet those details do not really prove there are also feathers associated with the fossil.
New ideas, new teachings wrapped in the same old story
I found three of the texts posted in the exhibition especially riveting, as they seem to take logic one step closer to
extinction:We now know that birds are not the only animals which had feathers. Pterosaurs, the flying reptiles, and some
dinosaurs had feathers of one kind or another. This raises interesting questions: how were these three kinds of animals
related to each other? Did feathers evolve once, twice or three separate times? Did one of these groups descend directly
from one of the others or do the three groups share a distant common ancestor? How far back in time does each group go?
A plain reading tells us that this means that birds are not dinosaurs since they are contrasted in the first sentence to
pterosaurs and some dinosaurs. Yet another text states:
You have seen that birds share many specialunique or nearly uniquefeatures with dinosaurs [but there are many more
differences]. The best way to explain these special shared features is to conclude that birds share common ancestors [or
maybe a common Designer?] With other dinosaurs. Some of these shared characteristics are shown here on the cladogram.
As you can see, modern birds (Aves, at top right) are the only surviving members of the vast dinosaur family.
And the third text makes things even more confusing:
However, the discovery that some dromaeosaurs could fly identifies them as birds and now places them within the class
Aves. Furthermore, the discovery of Scansoriopteryx supports the alternative that birds could have evolved from the trees
down. This discovery also suggests that a separate tree-dwelling ancestry for birds existed, one so old that it predated the
appearance of theropod dinosaurs.
So are birds dinosaurs or not? I must confess to faint bemusement at the use of the word kind rather than species,
genus, family, clade, etc.
And there are more problems with the first text: feathers may have evolved three times! Once from scales (though that, by
itself, represents a serious problem, see what CMIs Dr Sarfati has to say about that in Skeptics/Australian Museum
"Feathered Dinosaur" display: Knockdown argument against creation?). The second time from skin (in the case of
pterosaurs) and finally from well its not clear, since we dont know what the separate tree dwelling ancestors were and if
they had scales or skin.In plain English, what this exhibition appears to say is: there are so many fossils which we believe
are connected to the ancestry of birds that we cannot make up our minds about their evolution. It may well be that they
followed a different evolutive path before the appearance of theropod dinosaurs because by the time theropod dinosaurs
had feathers and some even flew, true birds were already present. But the unknown bird ancestor had to be a dinosaur
because there are too many derived characteristics they share. Just as some birds lost their ability to fly, some of the flying
dinosaurs also did, so that species like Velociraptor and Deinonychus have not evolved feathers for insulation but for flight,
but in time they lost their ability to fly. Flightless birds and dinosaurs coexisted and competed, yet the dinosaurs died off all
at the same time while some of the birds survived to this day.
There are many questions left unanswered:
Why is it that a very successful group of flying animalspterosaursdespite having evolved feathers, never evolved into
birds?
Why is it that the animals that had the most important (and difficult-to-evolve) feature for flight, (i.e. massive forelimbs), did
not evolve into birds, whereas others allegedly did?
How could dromaeosaurs shift the vast majority of the physical strength from their lower limbs (all other theropods had 75%
of their strength in their hips) to the upper limbs, in order to be capable of flight?
Where did the genetic information for such a massive change come from? Mutations cannot possibly act in such a way.
It is the Flood and the associated volcanic activity that killed, and so wonderfully fossilized, all these animals in the Liaoning
area. They represent a clear archive of sudden death and burial in pooled, quiet water (the so-called lake environment),
where the sediments were fine and interbedded with volcanic ash, suitable for the fantastic preservation of the fossils.
Immediately after burial, more energetic water flows brought in huge volumes of sediments which covered this exquisite
archive, preserving it for the puzzlement of evolutionary paleontologists. The environment and circumstances, however,
obviously favoured the birds and mammals, while the dinosaurs and pterosaurs became extinct some time later.
New four-winged feathered dinosaur?
by Jonathan Sarfati
28 January 2003
Papers have been flapping with new headlines about the latest in a long line of alleged dinosaur ancestors of birds. This one
is claimed to be a sensational dinosaur with feathers on its hind legs, thus four wings. 1 This was namedMicroraptor gui
the name is derived from words meaning little plunderer of Gu after the paleontologist Gu Zhiwei. Like so many of the
alleged feathered dinosaurs, it comes from Liaoning province of northeastern China. It was about 3 feet (1 metre) long from
its head to the tip of its long tail, but its body was only about the size of a pigeon.
Microraptor gui has led to renewed interest in an almost forgotten idea that bird evolution went through a tetrapteryx phase
(from Greek tessares four / tetartos fourth; pteryx wing).2 However, once more there are serious
problems with this evidence. Readers wishing to skip the detail can jump to to summary.
Are the feathers genuine?
We have often pointed out that there is nothing in the creationist model that states that dinosaurs could not have feathers (or
fur, for that matter). However, nothing so far has been remotely convincing. The main candidates are simply collagen fibres,
or are on animals that are not dinosaurs but flightless birds like Caudipteryx. [Update: see Dr Feduccias recent research
supporting the identification as collagen, Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and
Paleontological Evidence, by Alan Feduccia, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe, Journal of
Morphology 266:125166, 2005; Published Online: 10 October 2005 (DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382).]
The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist
himself, sounded a note of caution about the feathered dinosaurs in general in an interview with the
evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3It certainly seems strange that all these feathered dinosaurs
come from a single province of Chinathe same place as the Archaeoraptorhoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first
named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax! 4 However, neither our case nor Feduccias against previous

feathered dinosaurs has ever depended on this particular problem, and the same is true of Microraptor gui, as will be
shown.
Discover: What
about
all
the
other
evidence
for
feathered
dinosaurs?
Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at
secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in
fact related to dinosaurs. Thats a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils.
Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think
there
are
others?
Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark
shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, its difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are
not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where
many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.
Journals like Nature dont require specimens to be authenticated , and the specimens immediately end up back in
China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are
claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.
Discover: Why
would
anyone
fake
a
fossil?
Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black
market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.
It is not unreasonable to apply Feduccias scepticism to the current find. Even the original paper should make us cautious.
Commenting on the paper point-by-point:
Notes on the specimens. Of the six specimens in the present study, IVPP V13476 was collected by the Liaoxi expedition
team of the IVPP in 2001, IVPP V13352, V13320, V13477 and V13351 were purchased by the IVPP during the field
seasons of 2001 and 2002, and TNP00996 was purchased by Tianjin Museum of Natural History in 2002.
It is highly suspicious to rely on purchased fossils, since one has no proof of the geological context or whether they have
been doctored. As Dr Feduccia says, no-one from Nature would have checked the authenticity of the specimen. Dr Storrs
Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has
also noted that Natures reliability on this issue is highly suspect:
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have
become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.
Its vital to note that only one of the supposed feathers was found on the specimen actually collected by the authors (IVPP
V13476). And this feather was sufficiently indistinct that the authors could not discern its asymmetry (question mark in
Table 1). Furthermore, this fossil that the authors actually collected was so unexciting that it did not even warrant having its
photograph displayed for the reader to verify the feather claim. There are 18 illustrations of fossils in this paper, but all are of
the purchased fossils. All the illustrated feathers (16 photos) are on the bought fossils, but especially IVPP V13352
(see Table 1). We have to rely solely on the authors claim that the fossil they collected had a feather on it and that it was
clearly part of the Microraptor gui fossil.
We observed that there are some pieces of blocks mistakenly glued to the specimens;
So they admit that there were some dubious aspects to these specimens!
however, we excluded all the dubious parts from the study ( Fig. 1b). We carefully examined the specimens under the
microscope and with high-resolution X-ray computerized tomography (CT) to test the authenticity of one of the studied
specimens [ref.] (IVPP V13352)
But this is involves X-rays, so can test only for the authenticity of the bones, not the feathers.
and can guarantee the accuracy of the information that we provide in this study.
Wow, that guarantee should reassure us all, despite the history of frauds from that region, and the fact that China has had
major industries of faking ancient artefacts for many years, e.g. Ming vases, etc.! However, to be fair, its extremely
unlikely that the lead researcher Dr Xu Xing himself would ever be part of any deliberate fraud, since he was one of those
who exposed Archaeoraptor.
Dating dilemma
Once more, the dating is problematicthe researchers date their finds at 124128 Ma (million years) ago. But this is yet
another supposed ancestor for birds that lived ~25 Ma after the first undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma) and even
about 10 Ma after the beaked birdConfuciusornis (135 Ma)!
As Feduccia puts it, you cant be older than your grandfather! Some of his critics argue that sometimes a grandfather can
outlive his grandson. This is correct, but it boggles the mind that such an advanced beaked bird like Confuciusornis could
appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its feathered dino ancestors. More importantly, one of the major evidence
of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the
dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation.
Of course, the above simply grants their evolutionary assumptions for the purpose of the argument, and lays aside their
problems (see Q&A pages on Young Earth Evidence and Radiometric Dating?creationists dont regard
the fossil sequence as a sequence of age but a sequence of burial by the Flood and its after-effects).
Another problem in this case was revealed inadvertently by Dr Angela Milner, Associate Keeper of Palaeontology at
Londons Natural History Museum, who was quoted as follows:
With the dino-birds of Liaoning, the actual material, the keratin from the feathers, is still there. The discovery is stunning. 5
However, keratin is a protein, which is a type of condensation polymer, and is subject to degradation into its monomers. Well
known observational evidence from chemistry shows that proteins could not possibly last for millions of years. Its true that
keratin is quite stable for a protein, but it is less stable than many man-made polymers. Feathers compost quite readily, and
hair and skin soon disappear even in buried animals.
Later, Dr Milner said that she was more tentative than the above statement the press attributed to her (and there is no
reason to doubt her). However, it would not be the first time that keratin has been found in bird fossils dated millions of
years ago.6 So while we cant be too dogmatic about M. gui specificially, the principle still stands.
Gliding to flying?
The dominant theory about bird evolution is the cursorial one, where flying birds evolved from running creatures (usually
dinosaurs) which flapped their forelimbs for various proposed reasons. The latest theory, published a few days before this
tetrapteryx paper, was to aid traction as they ran up slopes (see Yet another flap about dino-to-bird evolution).

Dr Feduccia has always championed the older arboreal theory, where birds evolved from gliding creatures. But this theory
has long been under a cloud, because of strong arguments against it from cursorialists, and the weight of the current dinoto-bird paradigm.
However, although M. gui is supposed to be a dinosaur, and Feduccia thinks dinosaurs could not have been ancestral to
birds, he described M. gui as a new kind of animal that weve never seen before, and said that its characteristics argue
against a ground-up origin of flight.7 Its not surprising that Feduccia would be favourably disposed towards this creature,
but it doesnt seem right that other evolutionary propagandists have jumped on this bandwagon even though they are known
ardent cursorialists. For example, the theory that birds evolved from a glider such as M. gui is incompatible with any
cursorial theory, including the recent one about inclined running. The researchers say:
The metatarsus feathers [i.e. between the toes and ankle] are inconsistent with the suggestions that basal dromaeosaurs
[i.e. raptors] are cursorial animals [refs.] because such long feathers on the feet would be a hindrance for a small cursorial
animal.1
Yet the popular press fosters the impression among the public that all this evidence is cumulative when in reality it
is incongruous.
Its important to note that even evolutionists acknowledge the difficulties in making the jump from a gliding stage to musclepowered flight. Pondering Microraptor, Henry Gee noted in the Nature perspective cited:
Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight.8
But then he continued with a typical just-so story, which hasnt the slightest evidence either in direct observation or the
fossil record:
When flight evolved in later dromaeosaurs and birds, the hindwing might have been lost and the hindlimbs reverted to
walking and perching.
Gee also pointed out that researchers have yet to study the hip and shoulder joints of Microraptor gui to see if this creature
could have splayed its limbs to glide. A major distinguishing feature of dinosaurs is that they have column-like legs
underneath the body, unlike other reptiles where they are sprawled out to the side.
Also, while the imagined transition from parachuting (where the wings merely offer resistance to downwards movement
through the air) to true gliding represents a major evolutionary hurdle in itself, the supposed development of the required
musculature and skeletal frame for powered flight is an even greater obstacle. The main point of the wings in flapping flight
is not to act as a moving parachute by directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Rather, most
researchers into bird flight agree that the flapping wings mainly direct airbackwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so
the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generates lift (see From grasping arms to flying wings). Therefore flapping flight
also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for
these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.
Summary
While this four-winged creature has probably sold many newspapers, there are many questions about its status as the
ancestor of birds. They include:
The dubious nature of the evidence itself, since it all comes from the same area as the Archaeoraptor hoax, and the first
named Microraptor was actually part of this.
The dates are the opposite of what evolution would predict, because M. gui is a lot younger than undoubted birds, even
ones with beaks.
This latest discovery would refute the dominant paradigm of the cursorial theory.
The imagined transitions from land animal to parachutist to glider to powered flier would each have required substantial new
genetic information to have arisen. And a dinosaurs column-like legs underneath the body could not have splayed out to
adopt a gliding posture without substantial modification to hip and joints.
Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists
Evidently some evolutionists have got to Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against
dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question. 3 So we had better head this off
at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as evidence for their paranoia about creationists misquoting. This and
Feduccias response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed.
Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely.
A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccias work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian
Museum, for using the dino-to-bird evidence as proof of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite
Feduccias severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he
is a world-class expert on fossil birds.
Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird
theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue
against a far-biggerpicture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibianssee Ostrich eggs break
dino-to-bird theory.
Discover: How do you feel about that?
A tug at the heartstrings.
Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up,
He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion.
and theyve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesnt bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists hijack Goulds ideas?). E.g. supporters of
jerky evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show
gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point
out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle.
Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution cant happen, and gradual evolution cant happenin fact, particles-topeople evolution cant happen at all!
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccias devastating
criticism against the idea that birds evolved ground up from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird
advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccias trees-down (arboreal) theory. The evidence
indicates that the critics are both rightbirds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In
fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were
created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:2025)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my
book Refuting Evolutionhas a chapter on birds which includes Feduccias support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It
is also perfectly appropriate to use these quotes as classic admissions against interest from those who cant be accused of
believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist
presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary proof is out of context by definition, because the person quoted still
believes in evolution!
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
related to dinosaurs or not.
Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite
Feduccias comment that this is paleobabble because Archie was clearly a perching bird. 9 See also An anatomist talks
about Archaeopteryx.
These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:
This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming there is no doubt that
evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.
But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining lifes complexity without
designer. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of
various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so its
perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.
Animals and plants have been changing.
This is a classic equivocation or bait-n-switch. Of course, we have long pointed out that we dont deny that things change ;
rather, we point out that evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires changes which increase genetic information in the
biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels. But in Feduccias case, its not likely to be conscious deception, but merely
ignorance of what creationists actually say, because hes never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge.
The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If thats not
evolution in action, I do not know what is.
Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that
this is anincrease in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird
lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10). Rather, this is yet
another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic informationthis sort of change is in the opposite
direction from evolution (see The evolution trains a-comin).
Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is
in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, The fossil
record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists
have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution. But an embryologist says, Richardson showed
that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the
similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor. However, the molecular biologist says, There are huge
differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of
thebacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.
Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated:
The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into
feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.
This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already
present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccias
evidence offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously
existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile,
which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccias claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid
(vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles and The strange recurring case of the feathered
reptile for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales.
Also, feather proteins (-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (-keratins).11
These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside
their own field. So creationists have nothing to fear from them. Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be
atheistic story-tellers like theeugenicist Richard Dawkins or political animals like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie
Scott.
Be sceptical about the skepticsPart 1
By Carl Wieland
This is a four-part series examining some of the arguments in the book Creationism: An Australian Perspective(edited by M.
Bridgstock and K. Smith)a publication of the Australian Skeptics. This is an organization affiliated with similar groups
overseas, which tests claims of paranormal phenomena. Many of its members are heavily committed to
atheism/evolutionary materialismsee How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?Rather than just
keeping to their usual mandate of exposing bogus claims by repeatable scientific testing (with which we could heartily
agree), they have chosen to attack biblical Christianity by attacks on creation science. This series deals with a few of the
most obvious and easily demonstrated fallacies in the book.
Summary Comments
The four articles in this series should have been sufficient to cause readers to be very cautious before accepting at face
value any argument put forward by the Skeptics. Most leaders of evolutionary thought were strongly atheisticsee A Whos
Who of evolutionists.
Part 1: Putting Feathers on Reptiles
Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between
different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about
Gaps in the fossil record, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken
up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that the fossil record contains literally
thousands of transitional forms.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional
structurepart-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there
are none.
However, all of this has been so adequately documentednot only by creationist writers such as Dr Duane Gish (Evolution:
The Fossils Still Say No) by also by leading evolutioniststhat this is not the issue I wish to discuss here.
Archaeopteryx is a fossil creature with some reptilian and some bird features. Most leading evolutionary paleontologists
today would not regard it as a transitional form because it has no transitional structures, and because fossils of true birds
have been found in a supposedly earlier geological layer. Under the subheading Archaeopteryx and feathers the author
says
Is it really impossible for scales to have evolved into feathers? Many birds, from chickens to ostriches, show a continuous
gradation from scales on some parts of their bodies to feather elsewhere (Lucas and Stettenheim 1972; Dyck 1985).
Moreover scales and feathers are identical in chemistry, molecular structure and mode of development (Spearman 1966).
[However, see Editors Note 2]
Most significant of all is the fact that scales and feathers are interchangeable. Recent laboratory studies demonstrate that
chicken embryos can be induced to transform their developing scales into feather, and their feathers into scales (e.g.
Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel 1980). In their structure and appearance such artificially induced feathers are indistinguishable
from natural ones. Indeed, it now seems possible for scientists to transform scales to feathers, and vice versa, almost at will!
Similar interchanges between scales and feathers are known to occur spontaneously in wild populations of birds. Does the
transformation of scales into feathers require massive genetic engineering? The answer is no. The transformation is
triggered by a single chemicalretinoic acid, which is probably better known as vitamin A.
Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a transitional fossil, showing an undeniable mixture of reptile and bird
characteristics. In every feature except its feathers Archaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs. That one distinguishing
featurefeathersrepresents the crucial dividing-line between reptiles and birds. And today, in the laboratory, it is possible
to breach that dividing-line by using simple chemical treatment to transform scales into feathers.
Simple Transformation?
One gets the impression that it is a fairly simple matter to transform scales into feathers with the addition of a single
chemical. If so it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic
change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this argument.
First, let us look below at the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times (Photos
courtesy of David Menton)

Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a
quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every
structure or organ must be represented byinformation (written in a chemical alphabet on
the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the
construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale.
For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic
information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the birds DNA which is not
present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a
feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David
Menton).
At this stage we should be feeling uneasy about the idea that a simple chemical, containing
a small amount of information, could cause such an ordered structure to arise. And heres
the catch, of course. The author himself has already told us that the experiment was done
on chicken embryos, which already have the information coding for feather construction.
The simple chemical is used as a switch or trigger during embryonic development.
That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the
developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in
scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the
structure of the feather isalready there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no
evolutionary changeno information has been added to the organisms blueprint which was not already there.
So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birdsalthough in locations at which they would
not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there
would normally be an antenna. Such homoeotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken
example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing
ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the
information coding for fur or legs.Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of
evolution.What if a researcher reported that vitamin A in a reptile embryo caused feathers to form? Now that
indeed would be spectacular evidence for evolution. But no serious scientist would expect that such a thing were possible,
for the simple reason that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of entropy/information theory. The reptile does
not contain the information for feather construction in its code. Vitamin A contains less information in its chemistry than that

required to code for a complex feather. The addition of a small amount of unrelated information cannot spontaneously cause
a quantum leap towards information which was not there already.
Put simply, you cannot get something from nothingthis is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
Exactly the same principle of science forbids reptile feathers as forbids perpetual motion machines.If a clever genetic
engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken embryo, and splice it into a reptile
embryo to cause it to grow feathers, this would confirm the point we are trying to make herethat is, such complex
information cannot spontaneously ariseit has to be created or transferred from a preexisting source. And furthermore that
an intelligent mind is required to conduct the experiment.
Ed. notes:
See the sequel, The Strange Recurring Case of the Feathered Reptilea refutation of an evolutionist who tried to answer
this article.
After both the Skeptic book and this Creation magazine articles were written, we came across evidence that refutes this
claim. For example, feather proteins (-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (-keratins). A
feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes:
At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development,
morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.
A.H. Brush, On the origin of feathers, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131142, 1996. [Back to the Article]
Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory
by Jonathan Sarfati
22 August 2002
Subsequently published in
Creation 25(1):3435, December 2002 February 2003.
Diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.
Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five
regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes) [after Sadler, T.W.,
ed., Langmans Medical Embryology, 7th Ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore,
Maryland,
USA,
pp.
154157,
1995].
Right: In frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide [after Tyler,
M.J., Australian Frogs: a natural history, Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia, p. 80,
1999].
The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia,
professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). He
has pointed out many anomalies, e.g. the allegedly birdlike dinosaurs are dated 25
80 million years after the oldest true bird they are supposed to have evolved into.
And the theropods had curved, serrated teeth while the oldest birds such
as Archaeopteryx had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. He explains the superficial
similarities between birds and dinosaurs as convergent evolution, i.e. where different
groups evolve similar structures because of a similar lifestyle, in this case walking upright on two hind legs. Creationists
would explain this as evidence of a common designer who designed similar structures for similar purposes.
Feduccia published a significant paper in Science1 showing that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had,
suggesting that it is almost impossible for the species to be closely related. 2 We reported on this and other current
discoveries in Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat! (1998).3
Now Feduccia and a new Ph.D. graduate, Julie Nowicki, have refined the embryological study and published their findings in
the leading German biological journal Naturwissenschaften.4 They opened a number of ostrich eggs to examine the
embryos at various stages of development. Most studies had concentrated on embryos in the second half of development,
when most of the structures are fully formed and merely need to grow. But Feduccia and Nowicki found that the main
skeletal features in ostriches, supposedly primitive birds, develop between days 8 and 15 of the 42 days in the egg.
The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers)
develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out:
This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for
example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be
almost impossible.4If the birds evolved from dinosaurs, then one would expect common genes. These in turn would code for
a common development in the embryo. But this is not so here, hence Feduccia is right to argue against the dinosaur-to-bird
theory. However, a common designer is a coherent explanation for the fact that similar structures (in this case, threefingered hands) are programmed to develop in totally different ways.This is not the only example where superficially
homologous structures actually develop in totally different ways. One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the
pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in
a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on
the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five
regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells
divide (see diagram, right).This difference is even more striking than that discovered by Feduccia which he published in
prestigious journals and which he (correctly) used as evidence against the dino-to-bird theory. So, logically, this huge
difference in limb formation should likewise be regarded as evidence against a common ancestor for humans and
amphibians. In other words, as evidence against the entire evolutionary big picture.
Wider application: We have often noted that discoveries that supposedly support evolution are trumpeted throughout the
worlds media; but when they are refuted, even by evolutionists, they are rarely given the same prominence. A notorious
example was the alleged life in the Martian meteorite, now almost universally discredited as being of non-biological origin.
Similarly, there was almost no publicity of this research by a leading paleo-ornithologist undermining the dino-to-bird dogma,
in contrast to claims in National Geographic that dino-to-bird evolution was conclusively proven by the new fossil
Archaeoraptor. But this turned out to be a fraudulent Piltdown Bird.
We hope readers of Creation magazine and this web site will fill this gap by spreading the true information as widely as
possible.

Vestigial digits?
Feduccias Naturwissenschaften paper also presented the first concrete evidence for a thumb in birds. In ostriches, the
thumb appears around day 14 and disappears around day 17. But in dinosaurs, there are supposed vestiges of digits four
and five in bumps on early dinosaur skeletons.However, these are not proofs of evolution, and one should be especially
wary about jumping to any conclusion on such a recently discovered phenomenon. Rather, its likely that these vestiges are
aspects of the program designed to develop the embryo. At least two possibilities which apply in other creatures could apply
here:Sometimes one structure in the embryo is necessary to trigger other structures, and once the other structures have
formed, the first one has done its job and disappears. For example, the embryos of baleen whales have tooth buds that are
later reabsorbed so the adults have no teeth. However, the teeth have a completely different disposition in both form and
number from those in toothed whales, and have a crucial role in guiding the developing massive jaw, acting as points on
which the developing bone moulds itself. So its possible that the ostrich thumb and extra dinosaur digits have a role in
guiding the hands development.Another explanation for a vestigial organ applies to male nipples. They are caused by the
common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to
male and femaleagain an example of design economy. Nipples are a part of this design economy. Similarly, the vestigial
digits could be part of a design economy that modifies one of the many embryonic development programs that produce the
pentadactyl limb pattern. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air
conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness,
although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model.
Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot
Need for a new paradigm in bird evolution
by Michael Matthews
13 March 2003
Under a barrage of attacks from creationists, Scientific American has published a 10-page cover story admitting the need to
abandon old dogmas about dinosaur-to-bird evolution. They just dont work.Instead, in a surprising article entitled Which
came first, the feather or the bird? (by Richard Prum and Alan Brush, March 2003, pp. 8493), the authors propose a new
paradigm to help answer the vexing questions about bird evolution.But before we look more closely at this new paradigm,
its interesting to look at how the article dismisses the old arguments, while skimming over other inherent flaws in their
theory that still plague them.
Out with the old
Since the start, the dino-to-bird theory has had one insurmountable problemThe authors are surprisingly honest about the
challenges they face. In the opening two paragraphs, they state,How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight,
amazingly intricate appendages evolve? Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance
of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for
understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.Bravo. [C]reationist
organizations have been saying all along that its deceptive to lump minor variations in the same category as the
emergence of entirely new structures. And we have made it clear that its not just a question of accumulating minor
variations, but that they are the wrong type of variation. I.e. goo-to-you evolution requires genetic information to increase,
while the observed variation involves sorting and loss of informationsee The evolution trains a-comin. At least
the Scientific American authors recognize these as two categories, though they still call them both evolution. This is the
deceptive tactic of bait n switch, or equivocationsee Definitions as slippery as eels.So what old, long-cherished views
did the authors toss out, after examining them under the glare of new findings (the treasure trove of feathered dinosaurs
recovered over the past five years in northeast China)?
1. Archaeopteryx
No news here. Although this is widely claimed to be the oldest bird, the authors admit:
Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from
those of todays birds.
2. Feathers from scales
Apparently the authors have been keeping tabs on what creationists have been saying about the flaws in the argument that
complex feathers arose from reptilian scales. The Scientific American authors end their article grudgingly acknowledging the
work of creationists, saying:
Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of
evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they argued.
The first two or three pages of the article show why they believe that evolutionists made a false assumption that the
primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale. They say they have a new appreciation of what a
modern feather is and how it develops.The feather is a skin appendage, like hair, that grows as a unique hollow tube from a
follicle by the controlled proliferation of cells in a ring. Pennaceous (rigid, non-downy) feathers have an even more complex
development, where barb ridges grow helically (spirally) inside the follicle, and meet to form the rachis (shaft) ridge. Then
the feather emerges from the sheath and unfurls to its planar shape. And to make the barbs lock together, each barb has a
branching pattern very similar to the rachis and barbs. That is, the main shaft of the barb, the ramus, has a branching
pattern of barbules (little barbs). In turn, the tips of the barbules have a tiny hooklets that fit into grooves on adjacent
barbules. This enables the feather to form a stiff vane, and if it is ruffled, the bird merely has to preen it and it will lock back
into shape.Obviously this has no similarity to scales, and so early evolutionary theorists were hampered by the lack of
primitive fossil feathers, at least until some of the more recent finds since Archaeopteryx. Indeed, we have cited an earlier
paper by co-author Brush to refute the scale-to-feather transition (On the origin of feathers, Journal of Evolutionary
Biology 9:131142, 1996). So we hope that this more widely publicized article will finally lay to rest the common evolutionary
claim that feathers are just evolved scales.
3. Feathers for flight
The article also admits that creationists correctly asked why natural selection for flight would first divide an elongate scale
and then evolve an elaborate new mechanism to weave it back together. So the authors solution is to propose that feathers
were not initially designed for flight. They say the new evidence puts to rest the popular and enduring theory that feathers
evolved primarily or originally for flight.

Their revolutionary answer to the feather question is:

Feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of
flight.
Yet in all 10 pages of discussion and illustration, the authors offer no new evidence and suggest no new mechanism to
explain how or why feathers would have formed for something other than flight. They simply allude to unresolved
guesswork:
Numerous other proposed early functions of feathers remain plausible, including insulation, water repellency, courtship,
camouflage and defense. Even with the wealth of new paleontological data, though, it seems unlikely that we will ever gain
sufficient insight into the biology and natural history of the specific lineage in which feathers evolved to distinguish among
these hypotheses.
In with the newthe so-called evo-devo paradigm
This debunking of old views is some heady stuff, which you might think would be an embarrassment to evolutionary theory.
But in fact, challenging evolution as fact was never in view. The authors simply believe evolutionists need to look at the
evidence in a fresh way. They call their model evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo.
According to evo-devo, the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form can
provide a window into the evolution of a species anatomy. In other words, by looking at the stages of feather development
in a bird today, we can look for ancient dinosaurs that had feathers similar to that stage of development.
The authors have a pretty, two-page illustration showing five stages in the development of a feather, and along the bottom
they show a proposed timeline of current feathered dinosaurs that fit the respective stages in the development of a modern
feather.This proposed model for understanding the evolution of feathers is rife with ungrounded assumptions and
unsupported conclusions.
Archaeopteryx, which is shown as a fully formed bird, has been dated as evolving before many of the dinosaurs with
allegedly primitive feathers (see Which came firstthe dino or the bird?).Since the Archaeoraptor hoax of 1999, the cloud of
faked fossil hangs over everything coming out of China (see New four-winged feathered dinosaur?).Similarity of design is
not an indicator of similar history. We would expect creatures with a similar lifestyle to have been designed by the Creator
with similar structures, but that does not mean one of these creatures descended from the other (or was even related to the
other). In fact, its likely that the similarities are a biotic message from the Creator that points to a single designer rather
than many, while the differences thwart evolutionary alternatives.
Developmental evolutionary novelty is more consistent with created new information. The authors say:
Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series of transitional stages, each marked by a
developmental novelty, a new mechanism of growth.
However, they also point out that the developmental sequence is precisely controlled by a sequence of expression of two
other genes, one which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this proliferation and promotes cell
differentiation (i.e. into specialized types). So this is yet another layer of genetic information required to form feathers, and
which is lacking in reptiles.The claim that the sequence of feather development parallels the evolutionary sequence is
reminiscent of Haeckels embryonic recapitulation fraud. This argued that embryonic development (ontogeny) recapitulates
evolutionary history (phylogeny)see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit).Our knowledge about
the real nature of these feathers is too sketchy to draw such confident conclusions about a continuous scale of dinosaurs
from so-called primitive symmetrical downy feathers to the asymmetrical flying feathers. Even co-author Brush previously
said about Sinosauropteryx, The stiff, bristlelike fibers that outline the fossils lack the detailed organization seen in modern
feathers (cited in: Gibbons, A., Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur, Science 278(5341):1230, 14 November 1997).
The attempt to differentiate types of feathers is highly artificial and incomplete. The authors admit that they have not found
any clueseven with evo-devo, to help them explain the transition from a loose downy feather to symmetrical feathers with
vanes. Their own illustration of the five stages of feather development has a question mark beside stage 3 (the critical divide
between the two major classes of feathers.)The authors admit that their approach raises basic questions about the definition
of birds and feathers, to begin with. Yet many of the creatures touted as feathered dinosaurs appear to be nothing of the
kind. Creatures likeArchaeopteryx were just another type of bird, not a dinosaur (see Bird Evolution flies out the window: An
anatomist talks aboutArchaeopteryx). And fossil expert Dr Alan Feduccia (an evolutionist) has claimed that the feathers
of Sinosauropteryx were frayed collagen fibers. He also argued that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx were
really flightless birds, which the Scientific American authors lamely disagree with.Moreover, the debate over feathers barely
scratches the surface of the problems with bird evolution. For example: bird embryos lack a thumb that dinosaurs had, the
lungs of the feathered dinosaurs could not have evolved into the complex lungs that birds require, and the pelvis does not
have any similarity to that required in modern birds (see Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat, Which came firstthe dino or the
bird?,Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory and Blown away by design: Michael Denton and birds lungs).
Sue the T. rex
Does it show that dinosaurs evolved into birds?
by Jonathan Sarfati
On 17 May 2000, an amazingly complete 12.5-metre (41 foot) long skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex was unveiled at the
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This huge creature, named Sue after Sue Hendrickson who discovered it in
1990, was four metres (13 feet) tall at the hip, weighed seven tonnes, and had teeth as long as a human forearm.1
It also showed amazing designCAT scans of its skull show that its senses were acute. The Jurassic Park scene in which
a T. rex failed to detect a child literally under its nose is mythical. The T. rex could see and hear well, but its sense of smell
was amazing. Their olfactory bulbs2 were the size of a grapefruit, and the bundle of olfactory nerves leading to the brain was
wider than the spinal cord, judging by the size of the skull openings. 1 National Geographicreported that is was also built to
move, with 1214 feet per stride.3
When did Sue live and die?
The report stated that Sue had a broken rib, a left fibula (lower leg bone) deformed by an infection, 3 and teeth marks from
other T. rexes.1 Evidence of blood cells and hemoglobin found in another T. rex bone supports the biblical teaching that they
could not be millions of years old, because they would break down after only tens of thousands of years at most.4
The report also stated that Sue was probably washed into this position by a flood.1

Could dinosaurs have evolved into birds

Readers of Creation magazine should be familiar with many reason why dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds, and
even many evolutionists agree.5 They include:
The birds lung has a system of tubes connected to valves and air-sacs, while reptiles have a a bellows-type arrangement.
The embryonic thumb structure is different in dinosaurs and birds, so one could not have developed into the other.
Dinosaurs have entirely the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs, and short forelimbs.
Even some evolutionists believe that the claimed feathered dinosaurs were really flightless birds.6
These alleged feathered dinosaursare dated by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds.
Does Sue rescue evolution?
However, not for the first time, headlines have proclaimed that new discoveries have proven evolution beyond doubt. On
Sue, they found two bones that had never before been found with T. rexes:7
A bone that resembles a furcula, or wishbone,3 supposedly unique to birds.
A small ear bone called the stirrup (stapes) that helps transmit sound to the inner ear. This is usually too delicate to be
preserved.However, such similarities (allegedly homologies) are hardly proof that meat-eating dinosaurs evolved into birds.
There are several points to consider:
None of the above arguments against the dino-to-bird dogma is affected in the slightest.
We should beware of evolutionists wishful thinking, where small scraps of bone are given an evolutionary slant. In Sue, the
two shoulder blades seem to be joined by a very small, slightly curved piece of bone, and this was supposed to suggest that
this was a wishbone like a birds. But a birds wishbone is a highly specialised v-shaped bone, and very springy so it can
support wing motion. Sues wishbone could not function at all like a birds real wishbone.Dinosaurs are very different form
living reptilesin particular, dinosaur legs were directly under their bodies, instead of being spread sideways. So its not
surprising that they had some different bones. The similarities are more likely the result of a Creator who designed
dinosaurs with organs they needed, including those that resembled other creatures, and who wanted to leave the message
that there is one designer not many.8There are many similarities that no evolutionist uses to prove an evolutionary
relationship; they claim that they evolved independently (convergent evolution). But this shows that creationists can regard
similarities as the result of a common designer. Two examples are:Many dinosaurs have a hip bone arrangement that is so
similar to that of birds that they are classified in the major group called the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithischians
Greek ornis/ornitha = bird, ischion = hip). This includes the horned dinosaurs, duckbills, stegosaurs and armoured
dinosaurs. But despite this striking similarity there is no obvious close relationship between birds and
ornithischians.9 Rather, those evolutionists who promote the dino-to-bird theory believe that birds evolved from the other
major subgroup, the reptile-hipped dinosaurs (saurischiansGreek sauros = lizard/reptile), in particular, the small
carnivorous ones similar to Velociraptor. Thus the evolutionists believe the bird hip arrangement evolved independently in
two different creatures, but creationists can point to a common designer.Although evolutionists believe that feathers evolved
from scales, the two have very little in common. Rather, feathers are strikingly similar to hairs in many ways, including
coming from follicles in the skin, while scales are just skin folds. 5(b) In fact, feathers on flightless birds, which merely need to
be heat insulators rather than being amazingly designed aerodynamically, resemble hairs in shape as well. But since
evolutionists dont (at present) believe birds evolved from mammals, they believe instead that these hairs and feathers
evolved independently.
Living Dinosaurs or Just Birds?
Evolutionary enthusiasts today claim that you can see live dinosaurs hovering around the hummingbird feeder. What are the
facts?
By Daniel Anderson
Published: 5 December 2006 (GMT+10)
So which is it? Kentucky Fried Chicken or Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? Should we
actually refer to songdinos instead of songbirds? In short, did some dinosaurs
really evolve into birds?Theropod dinosaurs share many skeletal similarities with
birds. In addition, fairly recent fossil discoveries in China have caused evolutionists
to claim that several theropods may have possessed feathers. So what makes a
bird a bird and what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur?There is a biological chasm
separating these wonderful creatures, one that can never be crossed by the bridge
of evolution. Lets take a closer look!
Pelvis
There are two groups of dinosaurs: bird-hipped or ornithischian
(including Stegosaurus, Camptosaurus,
and Triceratops),
and
reptile-hipped
or
saurischian
(including T.
rex and Brachiosaurus). However, birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptile-hipped dinosaurs, not the bird-hipped
ones!1 So the similarity of hips of birds to bird-hipped dinosaurs is called a homoplasy, and attributed to convergent
evolution.
But its more likely that the ornithischian dinosaurs shared a similar pelvis design with birds
because they all were made by the same Designer. This would be consistent with the biotic
message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message. That is, the
evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts
evolutionary explanations, such as widespread homoplasies.
Keeled Sternum
Flying birds often possess a keeled sternum, which serves as an attachment point for the
flight muscles. However, two non-flying terrestrial creatures have been discovered with
keeled sternums. Mononykus, a theropod dinosaur, shares this bird-like feature, and some
evolutionists got excited about this apparent support for their theories. However, so does
the mole, a digging mammal, and many now believe that Mononykus was a digging
dinosaur (see Flighty flap). Moles also have wrist bones that are very bird-like as well. It appears that a common Designer
utilized a similar design in different creatures.

Wing Claws
Ancient birds such as Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, and Confuciusornis had wing claws. Living birds such as ostriches, emus,
hoatzin, turacos, moorhens, and coots also possess wing claws, at least at some stage of their life, though they are different
in shape and size.2 Theropods did not have wings, but they had long, sharp claws on their forelimbs. Claws do not define
reptiles or birds.
Teeth
Theropods had sharp, serrated teeth, while many ancient birds had small, peg-like teeth. It is strange to think of birds having
teeth,
because
no
living
bird
exists
with
teeth.
However,
extinct
birds
such
as Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, Confusiusornis, Hesperornis, and Ichthyornis all had teeth. Mutations can cause some living
birds to develop teethsee Chickens with Teeth.Not all reptiles have teeth. Turtles are toothless. The Pteranodon, an
extinct flying reptile, did not have teeth. Teeth are not defining characteristics of either birds or reptiles.
Beaks
It is a common notion that dinosaur jaws evolved into bird beaks in order to lighten
the load for flying. However, weve already seen that some ancient birds possessed
teeth. Bats are extremely capable flyers and they too have teeth. Obviously, the
presence of teeth does not inhibit flight.Beaks are lightweight, but some birds have
huge, cumbersome beaks. The Indian hornbill, toucan, and pelican all have
enormous beak sizes and they are still capable flyers. 3Beaks are unique structures
and require a distinct genetic code to create. They are not modifications of scales
around a reptiles mouth.
Shoulder Joints
Theropod dinosaurs did not have the anatomical machinery in the shoulder joints to
lift their forelimbs upward. Birds can take off effectively because of a sophisticated pulley system in their shoulder joints.
Theropods did not have this machinery, because they were not designed to fly.One dinosaur, named Unenlagia, did have a
highly mobile shoulder joint that was quite bird-like. However, at over 2.5 m (8 ft) tall it was way too big to lift off the
ground.4 Without observational evidence, it is not known how Unenlagia may have used its unique shoulder joint.
Feathers
Feathers are not modified scales, nor do they grow out of scales. They are truly
unique biological structures that require their own special design template. (See the
section on feathers in chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution.)Today, we only see feathers
on birds. Of course, this does not mean that in the past, only birds bore feathers.
Some theropods may have possessed feathers as well, for all we know. However,
despite enthusiastic evolutionary claims for feathered dinosaurs, to date no such
claim has stood up; some so-called feathers are likely collagen fibressee Dino
feather folly). Note that if feathered dinosaurs were indeed to be discovered in the
fossil record, this would not be proof for dinosaur-bird evolution (see for
example BPM 1 313have theyfinally found a true feathered dinosaur?). There
are many creatures with unorthodox skin coverings. For example, the pangolin is a
scaly mammal. The hairy frog is an amphibian that sports hair-like fibers on parts of
its body during mating season. Some fish and crustaceans also possess hair-like
filaments. It has often been claimed that extinct reptiles such as pterosaurs were
covered in a thin layer of fur, though this view has been challenged. Why couldnt a
dinosaur with, say, a layer of insulating feathers still be a true dinosaur
Bipedalism
Like birds, theropod dinosaurs were bipedal. Based on skeletal design, theropods were likely fast and agile on their two
legs. But as Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary paleo-ornithologist who scathingly rejects the dino-to-bird dogma, says: Its
biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,
exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.5 Many creatures are bipedal. Apes possess some degree of bipedality (although not
even the alleged ape-woman Lucy walked in any human way). Bears, raccoons, kangaroos, and other animals can move
bipedally in their own unique ways.
Lungs
The flow-through lung of a bird has no parallel in the animal kingdom. Its unique lung is vastly distinct from the bellows (inout) lung of a reptile. The reptilian lung is similar to the amphibian and mammalian lungs, but the avian lung stands alone in
the animal world. See also Blown away by design: Michael Denton and birds lungs.The soft tissue remnants of a colon,
liver, intestines, and abdominal muscle in the extinct theropod,Scipionyx, strongly suggest that theropods possessed a
similar respiratory system to that of crocodiles and not birds. It is inconceivable how a reptilian lung could change into a bird
lunghow would it breathe while the airflow direction changed? See also Dinos breathed like birds?
Reproduction
Dinosaurs laid eggs, as do birds. Fossil evidence also suggests that some dinosaurs
may have brooded their eggs in a similar manner to birds.There is another animal,
not thought by evolutionists to be in any way related to birds, that shares several
reproductive features and habits with birds. The platypus, a bizarre mammal, builds
a nest, lays a small clutch of eggs, and broods its young like birds. In addition, the
platypus possesses a system of ovaries that is very similar to that found in birds.6
Hand Digits
After analyzing ostrich embryos, some scientists discovered that only digits 2, 3 and
4 develop in the wings of birds. Theropod hands seem to have developed from digits
1, 2 and 3. This speaks strongly against one group being the ancestor of another.
Temporal Paradox

Using evolutionary methods and assumptions, the string of allegedly feathered dinosaurs is dated as younger than
birds such asArchaeopteryx, Sinornis, and even older than the first bird (with a beak of the modern variety, minus
teeth), Confuciusornis. Evolutionists have to do very fancy footwork to explain why
we find the alleged transitional forms millions of years after their supposed
descendants.
The Final Answer
We can safely conclude that people eat KFC, not KFD. We can still refer
to songbirds, not songdinos. Birds are not living dinosaurs, nor did they descend
from dinosaurs.
Birds and dinosaurs are similar in some ways, but vastly different in other ways.
The overall picture confirms that birds and dinosaurs have always been distinct
creatures.
Feathery flight of fancy
Alleged protofeathers fail under close scrutiny
by Shaun Doyle
Photo: Don Batten
Figure 1. Sinosauropteryx prima was a find hailed by evolutionists as evidence for
feather evolution in dinosaurs.Sinosauropteryx (figure 1) has been one of the stars of
the evolutionary dino-to-bird story. First reported in Science in 1996,1 it was excitedly
paraded (along with certain other fossils) with much fanfare by evolutionists, who
declared that 1996 was a good year for finding fossils that tell us about the origin of
birds.2 The cause of the controversy and media attention was hard, bristly fibres
found in the skin on the back of the neck and on the tail of the Sinosauropteryxfossil.
Even then, there was much debate among evolutionists about whether these fossils,
especially Sinosauropteryx, provided evidence for the dino-to-bird theory (see Dinobird evolution falls flat!). However, just a year later, Larry Martin suggested that the
fibres found on the back of the neck and tail of Sinosauropteryx were likely frayed
collagenous fibers under the skin.3 Since then, further research has suggested that
the protofeathers of Sinosauropteryxwere not protofeathers at all (see Dino feather
folly).4Now, a team of researchers led by Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar from the
University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa has added to the mounting body
of evidence that shows thatSinosauropteryx is not a dino-to-bird intermediate fossil.
They reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society B that the filamentous structures in
the skin of a recently discovered Sinosauropteryxoften touted as protofeathers
are nothing more than structural collagen.5,6
These findings have sent orthodox dino-to-bird believers into damage control. David
Unwin, dinosaur expert at the University of Leicester, UK, is convinced that the work
of Lingham-Soliar et al. is solid. However, he also said Theres no need to panic. This
doesnt in any way challenge the idea that dinosaurs had feathers and that dinosaurs gave rise to birds. 7 However, this
completely flies in the face of the report by Lingham-Soliar et al.: The pervasiveness of the beguiling, yet poorly supported,
proposal of protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx has been counterproductive to the important question of the origin of birds.
Lingham-Soliar et al. are more right than they would probably care to admit. Because, despite the fatal blows their latest
paper inflicts on a widely-held evolutionary idea, theyre not about to question the evolutionary paradigm itself. 8 This shows
once more that evolutionists continue to deal fatal blows to one anothers pet theories, yet fail to come to terms with the
underlying problem of their fossil investigationsthe evolutionary worldview. Once again, these well preserved fossils prove
to be wonderfully consistent with rapid burial in the global Flood.
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group
by Andrew Sibley
In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts current evolutionary
hypotheses. Instead of adjusting the hypotheses to fit the new discoveries, evidence has been forced to fit the prevailing
paradigm, sometimes through misleading interpretations and occasionally through apparent fraud. The subjective evidence
of feathered dinosaurs is widely promoted by the science media. The Jehol Group was originally dated to the Jurassic.
However, it has recently been assigned to the Early Cretaceous despite the known equivocal nature of the biostratigraphic
evidence that contains dinosauria from the Triassic to the late Cretaceous.
Character of the Jehol Group
The Early Cretaceous sedimentary layers of the Jehol Group of northeastern China, which includes outcrops in the Liaoning
Province, have proved a rich source of fossils with numerous varieties of flora and fauna
often found with soft tissue preservation. The Jehol Group consists of the Jiufotang and
Yixian formations, which outcrop in southeastern Inner Mongolia, western Liaoning and
northern Hebei provinces of China. The Jehol Group strata are extensive with the lower
Yixian Formation being 4,700 m at maximum thickness and the higher Jiufotang
Formation being a maximum of 1,650 m. Similar layers with comparable biota are found
in other parts of eastern and central Asia, including Korea, Japan, Siberia, and as far
west as Kazakhstan. A map of the area is shown in figure 1 with table 1 showing a
selection of fauna from the different strata together with revised dating.
Figure 1. Map showing the area of coverage of the Jehol Group. (1) The higher
Jiufotang Formation is marked with a dashed line. (2)The lower Yixian Formation is
marked with a dotted line. The circle marks that area of major vertebrate fossil finds in
Liaoning Province. (After Zhou et al.4).The conformable layers show an assemblage of
terrestrial and freshwater fossils that are more consistent with a terrestrial lake environment as opposed to fluvial, deltaic or

open marine environments. The lithology shows finely laminated siliciclastic sediments consisting of sandstones and shales,
and layers of extrusive basalt and tuffs. 1 Researchers believe that during deposition there was increased tectonic activity
with extensive volcanism along the distant Pacific Rim as evidenced by conformable deposition of tuffaceous sediment
within the layers.2 It is also believed that volcanic activity was more prevalent during the deposition of the lower Yixian strata
with decreasing activity exhibited in the overlying Jiofotang strata. 1Within the Jehol Group, terrestrial and freshwater
organisms are found buried together in the same layers. A large diversity of organic material is well preserved such as insect
wings, exoskeletons and plant material, and feathers and fur from birds and mammals, including keratinous beaks and
cartilage. The perfect preservation is said to be due to burial in a relatively low energy aqueous setting together with falls of
ash that sealed the flora and fauna in quickly. It is envisaged that this provided an anoxic environment that prevented
bacterial decay and scavenging by burrowing organisms. However, these conditions, known as KonservatLagerstatten conditions,3 provide evidence of catastrophic mass mortality events, especially in the Lujiatun area of western
Liaoning Province where three-dimensional preservation of mammals, dinosaurs, lizards and frogs is evident with no
obvious bedding plane in the ash tuffs.4While the Jehol Group strata have only become well known within the last decade,
popular science writers and the media have given the impression that these layers demonstrate the evolution from theropod
dinosaurs to modern birds. A closer examination of the fossils from these layers reveals this reasoning to be deeply flawed.
These layers do in fact contain an abundance of modern looking, fully formed bird fossils such as Confuciusornis
sanctus and Yanornis martini, together with perfectly formed theropod dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx prima. The
Liaoning fossil beds and the nature of the sediments do not provide evidence for evolution, but in fact present some
powerful challenges to the claims of Darwinists. These amazing fossils are more consistent with the global Flood, involving
the rapid burial of a complex ecosystem due to tectonic and volcanic activity.
Confuciusornis sanctus
One of the first bird fossils to be described from the Jehol Group was that of Confuciusornis sanctus, which was identified as
a beaked bird without teeth. It was initially dated to the Late Jurassic period. 5 Numerous fossils of this bird have
subsequently been found suggesting that it flew in flocks, and in many ways this small bird, with clearly identifiable wings,
long tail feathers and a toothless beak is similar to modern birds. This particular species of bird has wing claws, which are
not unknown in modern birds. For example, the Hoatzin bird of the Orinoco river delta in South America uses claws for
climbing. The dating of this bird initially gave it a Late Jurassic age of 135 to 145 Ma, possibly as old as
the Archaeopteryx bird fossil found in the Solnhofen quarry in 1861. However, such early dating of Confuciusornis
sanctus presented problems for evolutionists as Archaeopteryx is widely considered to be the best evidence of a transitional
dinosaur to bird form.Finding Confuciusornis sanctus and other birds as fully-formed, modern-looking varieties in the Late
Jurassic layers presented a serious challenge to the view that Archaeopteryx should be identified as a transitional form.
Strata within the Jehol Group also contain placental mammals and angiosperm plants, which suggested that the prevailing
evolutionary theory would have to be radically changed to fit a Late Jurassic age for these layers. For this reason it was
considered necessary to adjust the age of these Late Jurassic layers forward to the Early Cretaceous instead of revising the
evolutionary concept in light of new evidence from China. Other evidence of suspect origin and quality was also accepted to
support the prevailing dinosaur to bird evolutionary hypothesis against the fresh evidence that was accumulating from the
Jehol Group strata.
Sinosauropteryx prima
The first dinosaur used to claim evidence for bird evolution was Sinosauropteryx prima. It is a small theropod dinosaur, but
with the appearance of a line of proto-feathers along the spine of the animal. 6 These purported fibres along the animals
back encouraged the researchers to wrongly name it as the first-Chinese-winged-reptile. However, in just about all other
respects this animal found in the Liaoning strata is almost identical to the Late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the
Solnhofen quarries of Germany. Later studies have shown that the line of proto-feathers is in fact collagen fibre, often aptly
named dino-fuzz. It is possible that these fibres existed beneath the skin.Further evidence shows that Sinosauropteryx
prima had a pelvis and lung physiology typical of other theropod dinosaurs, and with close similarities to the present day
crocodile.7 Crocodiles and alligators have diaphragm muscles that attach from the pubic bone, these extending forward to
the rear part of the liver with the diaphragm directly in contact with the liver. The piston like movement of the diaphragm
muscles causes the septate reptile lungs to inflate and deflate in typical bellows-like action. Birds are markedly different, with
suprapubic muscles attached from the rearward extending pubic bone to the base of the tail. These muscles pull down the
tail, causing the pelvic bone to rotate and lift the spine in front of the pelvis. This draws air into the rear air sacs with
subsequent unidirectional flow of air through the lung system. This unidirectional flow is instead of the bellows like lung
system of reptiles, and whereas reptile septate lungs consist of large chambers and are relatively inefficient, birds have
thousands of tiny highly vascular septae or faveoli. Both reptile and bird lungs appear perfectly designed although markedly
different, being designed for different environments.Bearing in mind the critical nature of the lung system together with
functionality being systemically integrated with the bone and muscle structure, it is quite clear that one could not evolve from
the other. Ruben for instance notes that any transitional form would have suffered a
hernia,7 and both seem irreducibly complex. Sinosauropteryx prima can be shown to be
typical of other theropod dinosaurs known throughout the world from the fossil record,
as well as sharing physiology with still living crocodilian reptiles.
Archaeoraptor fraud and Microraptor gui
A few years later a rather strange fossil creature appeared in the world of
palaeontology. Archaeoraptor was announced in National Geographic as a four-winged
reptile with the appearance of feathers.8 This fossil was claimed to have both bird and
dinosaur features with visible impressions of feathers. The fossil later turned out to be
fraudulent, consisting of at least two and possibly five separate fossils. 9 The Chinese
researcher Dr Xu Xing identified the front half of the fossil as a fish eating bird
named Yanornis martini, again having close similarities to some modern birds. The rear
part was found to fit perfectly as a mirror image to the fossil of a reptile found in a
private collection in China. This tail was subsequently stated as belonging
to Microraptor zhorianus.10 The artistic imagery that was provided alongside the fossils
had all the appearance of Chinese Dragon, and interestingly, is surprisingly similar to a
drawing of the hypothetical early bird Proavis drawn by the artist Gerhard Heilman in
1926.

Figure 2. Photograph of small fish Lycopterafound in Liaoxi area of Liaoning Province China showing a Jurassic date of 150
Ma. These layers were subsequently reassigned to the Early Cretaceous. The evidence remains equivocal, with fauna from
both the Triassic and upper Cretaceous present in the Jehol Group.Some time after the Archaeoraptor debacle, Microraptor
gui was presented to the world in a Naturearticle. The lead author of the Nature paper was Dr Xu Xing who uncovered
the Archaeoraptor fraud, and later identified the tail part of Archaeoraptor as Microraptor zhorianus.11 Microraptor gui was
again depicted as a four-winged dinosaur that used flight feathers for gliding. Jonathan Sarfati, in his critique of the paper,
pointed out that five of six specimens presented in the Nature paper with apparent feathers, were bought from dealers in the
same area of Liaoning province where theArchaeoraptor fake was made and purchased.12 This raised serious doubts about
the bird fossil finds. Sarfati notes that the one fossil found by the researchers in the field (IVPP V13476) from Liaoning
Province had nothing on it that could be positively identified as feathers. 12 The more likely scenario is that the impressions
are no more than collagen fibres. The researchers also admitted that some of the pieces of rock from the purchased fossils
had been glued together improperly.It should be noted that not all palaeontologists have accepted the evidence for dinosaurto-bird evolution found in Liaoning Province. Such sceptics are committed to the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs (BAND)
evolutionary hypothesis. One dissenting evolutionist from the BAND group is Alan Feduccia, who commented that
the Archaeoraptor fraud was the tip of the iceberg. Feduccia noted that there are scores of fake fossils in existence, which
has cast a shadow over the field of palaeontology, making it very hard even for the experts to tell the real specimens from
the fake. He also commented on rumours that there exists a fake-fossil factory in Liaoning Province, northeast China, near
to where the fake fossils were allegedly uncovered. 13 Feduccia also points out that Caudipteryx zouiand Protarchaeopteryx
robusta, which show feathers, should really be classified as flightless birds and not as Coelurosaur dinosaurs.14Another
leading scientist, Storrs Olsen, who is a Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institute, National Museum of Natural History,
commented that the fabrication of evidence in support of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis is in effect one of the grander
scientific hoaxes of our age.15 He noted that there exist a group of zealous scientists who are acting together with some
editors at Nature and National Geographic. According to Olsen, some members of this group have become highly biased
promoters of the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary hypothesis and are not shy in speaking out. This has led to the careful
scientific weighing of evidence and truth to become casualties as a result of this programme. 15 The age of the Microraptor
gui fossils is at odds with, and therefore inconsistent with, current evolutionary theory as the claimed fossil evidence is
stated as being from the higher Jiufotang Formation, whereas both Sinosauropteryx prima and Confuciusornis sanctus are
found in the lower Yixian Formation. This contradiction has not been resolved despite the re-dating of the Jehol Group as
discussed below.
Equivocal radiometric dating of the Yixian and Jiufotang formations

Disagreement exists over the dating of the Jehol Group in Liaoning Province. Different techniques have given varying dates,
but the earlier consensus for the Yixian and Jiufotang formations was for a Late Jurassic period with the JurassicCretaceous boundary initially placed about 135 Ma. However, the date of this boundary is not universally accepted with
many geologists favouring an age of around 144 Ma. Not only has the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary been revised to an
earlier date, but the Jehol strata have subsequently been revised to a later period as well. The earlier radiometric dating
methods for this region gave a Late Jurassic age, which was in agreement with the prevailing biostratigraphic evidence that
was broadly accepted at the time. Typical dates determined from the lower Yixian Formation were given as: 4 40K40Ar: 137
7 Ma, and 87 Rb87 Sr: 143 4 Ma. Biotite crystals from a tuff in the Yixian Formation gave dates of: 40Ar39Ar: 145.3 4.4
Ma and the combined isochron: 147.1 0.18 Ma.However, this dating was subject to revision in 1999 (table 1). 4 The first two

dates still fit within the revised Early Cretaceous boundary and are acceptable to evolutionary scientists. However, the last
two methods are now considered suspect because they say the samples used may have contained trapped argon or were
altered diagenetically. Argon is an inert gas and can migrate through rock layers, therefore escaping faster from some rock
types than others. There is in fact no way of assessing, after the event, which rock samples contained the correct amount of
argon for radiometric dating purposes. There are of course other problems with radiometric dating, and the ICR/CRS RATE
team have also provided further evidence that radiometric dating methods are unreliable with regard to the way in which
inert helium migrates through zircons.16
Table 1. The Jehol Group showing a selection of fauna from the different layers, together with previous and later accepted
dates.4
The later revised dating assessments for Liaoning Province provided dates that are consistent with an Early Cretaceous
time frame:4 40Ar39Ar: 124.6 0.1 Ma, 40Ar39Ar: 125.0 0.18 Ma (total heating and incremental heating analysis of sanidine
and biotite crystals in the Jianshangou beds); 40Ar39Ar: 128.4 0.2 Ma basalt capping the Lujiatun beds; 235 U207 Pb: 125.2
0.9 Ma from zircons in Jianshangou beds; and 235 U207 Pb: 121.1 0.2 Ma from zircons overlying lava in Jianshangou
beds. A date for the Tuchengzi Formation at the base of the Jehol Group was reported as: 40Ar39Ar: 139.4 0.19 Ma. The
intrusive Basalt in the Jiufotang Formation from Inner Mongolia gave an age approximation of: 40Ar39 Ar: 110.59 0.52 Ma.
Equivocal biostratigraphical dating
The other method used in dating these layers is biostratigraphic correlation. It involves comparison of animal and plant
fossils found in different sedimentary formations. This work is highly subjective, with some objections and disagreements
raised by uniformitarian palaeontologists over the equivocal nature of the process. For instance, some taxa are considered
to have poor stratigraphic resolution, other taxa are difficult to diagnose or differentiate, while other objections are that some
vertebrates have limited biostratigraphic utility.17,18Close examination shows that the Jehol Group strata contain taxa from the
Late Triassic layers, through the Mid-Jurassic, to the Late Cretaceous. Some of the taxa, which extend across much of the
Mesozoic, include the Jurassic pterosaur Dendrorhynchoides and a Tritylodontid synapsid normally known from the Triassic
to Mid-Jurassic period, which is found in Early Cretaceous strata of Japan. 4 Another animal that appears in the Jehol Group
is Sinosauropteryx prima, an almost identical theropod to the Late JurassicCompsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries
of Germany. Other animals that have been found in the Jehol Group are more typically associated with the Late Cretaceous,
such
as
tyrannosaurs
and
oviraptor
theropods,
titanosauriform,
dromaeosaurid
and
iguanodontian
dinosaurs.4 Biostratigraphic analysis of the Jehol Group has therefore provided equivocal evidence with the layers of East
Asia now stated as being Early Cretaceous instead of the previous identification as Jurassic. Figure 2 for instance shows the
fossil of a small fish Lycoptera found in Liaoxi area of Liaoning Province, China, prior to 1998 with assignment then to the
Jurassic period.Palaeontologists struggle to account for such diversity of animals and plants that are found in one region,
and such conflicting evidence is contrary to existing theories of evolutionary progression. The reason given for such diversity
is that isolation allowed relic species to survive, and then once isolation was breached, the region became a centre for
diversification and colonisation by cosmopolitan species. More likely it demonstrates that such strict classification of layers
into separate ages is incorrect and that all the strata were deposited in rapid succession. More recently a beaver like
mammal Castorocauda lutrasimilis19 has been identified from the Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Inner Mongolia, with
stated age of around 164 Ma, again presenting a serious challenge to the established evolutionary biostratigraphical
evidence.
Conclusions
Radiometric dating is inconsistent with equivocal biostratigraphic evidence used in establishing a defensible age for the
materials found in the Jehol Group. There is circularity in this reasoning with the acceptable evolutionary hypothesis
determining how the observational evidence is interpreted. Such evidence is then used to support the desired hypothesis. It
is hard to avoid the conclusion that the reassignment of the Jehol Group to the Early Cretaceous was considered necessary
because modern birds and placental mammals cannot occur in the Jurassic. Modern birds occurring with similar ages
to Archaeopteryx would cause serious problems for evolutionists where dinosaur-to-bird evolution has become a major pillar
of evolution. If the Jurassic age for the Jehol Group was acceptable to uniformitarian palaeontologists then modern birds
would occur at the same time as the dinosaurs from which they are thought to have evolved, thus completely negating the
evolutionary idea that dinosaurs evolved to modern birds. Morphological comparisons between the Early
Cretaceous Sinosauropteryx prima indicate that it is an almost identical reptilian animal to the Late
Jurassic Compsognathus.Not only have dates been revised to overcome problems with recent discoveries, but forced and
fraudulent evidence has been widely publicised by leading science journals to give the impression that the Jehol Group
strata are full of transitional dinosaur-to-bird fossils. As a result, this has now entered the popular imagination in spite of the
fact that the real evidence tells a different story. Even some evolutionists, those committed to the BAND hypothesis, have
recognised that this is no more than a grand scientific hoax. The truth is that theropods and birds appear fully formed in
these layers, and are buried together with fauna that extend from the Triassic to the Late Cretaceous. Claimed transitional
forms have also been shown to be fraudulent.Layers in the Jiufotang and Yixian formations consist of sandstone and
conglomerates, together with interspersed volcanic ash tuff deposits and basalt, with animals and plants buried rapidly. All of
this is consistent with the global Flood involving tectonic and volcanic activity wiping out a single ecosystem. All of this
evidence in the Jehol Group is consistent with the Global Flood, and it runs counter to the prevailing evolutionary
hypotheses.
Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma
by Jonathan Sarfati
Bird feet (red-footed booby)
Published: 16 June 2009(GMT+10)
Do we eat Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? According to the dogma of many evolutionary propagandists for the last decade or so,
indeed we dothey believe that birds evolved from the carnivorous dinosaur group known as theropods. Yet there are many
problems with this idea. And now, new research into the birds lung and leg anatomy provides more strong evidence against
it.

Dinosaurs living todayin trees?

The BBC program Walking with Dinosaurs proclaimed that we can see and
hear dinosaurs outside our windows. Many museums have proclaimed the
dinosaur origin of birds as fact, such as the Australian Museum in Sydney
and Queensland Museum in Australia. National Geographic was so gung-ho
for this idea that they promoted Archaeoraptor, which turned out to be
aPiltdown Bird forcing an embarrassing retraction.
Evolutionary dissent
However, there have been some lonely dissenters even among evolutionists.
For example, Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of
Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. wrote
a scathing open letter about National Geographics Archaeoraptor:
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being
actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with
certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have
become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.
Another skeptic is Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who criticized the dogma
onanatomical grounds:
Its biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,
exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.1
And he criticized it on chronological grounds too. The alleged ancestors for birds are dated (by evolutionary methods) as
millions of years younger than the birds. E.g., claimed feathered dinosaur ancestors Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx are
dated at 125 Ma (million years old), which is 28 Mayounger than the first undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma) and even
about 10 Ma younger than the beaked bird Confuciusornis (135 Ma)! As Feduccia quips, you cant be older than your
grandfather! Dino-bird believers respond that sometimes a grandfather can
outlive his grandson. But while correct, its hard to understand that an
advanced beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million
years before there is a trace of its feathered dino ancestors. Also, one of the
major evidences of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly
matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds
is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation.
Avian lung design
Yet another problem for the dino-bird theory is that birds and reptiles have very
different lung systems. Reptilian lungs operate like bellows (like our own lungs,
although the reptile lung structure is different). The stale air is then breathed
out the same way it came in. But birds have a complicated system of air sacs,
even involving their hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing
in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in
the lung, and blood moves through the lungs blood vessels in the opposite
direction for efficient oxygen uptake,2 an excellent engineering design.3 (See
also Blown away by design, and the Avian Lung from Refuting Evolution ch.
4).
Recent research has shown that Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized
vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and
abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds.
This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest
bird.4
Conversely, alleged feathered dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was found so well fossilized that the outlines of some internal
organs could be analysed. The lead researcher Dr John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University
in Corvallis, concluded5 that its
bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.6
So the earliest bird had the through-flow avian lung system, while one of its closest ancestors had a reptilian bellows
lung. The transitional forms are lacking.Ruben noted the problem for the dino-bird theory in general: how would the
bellows-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not
conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. One of the first stages would be a poor
creature with a diaphragmatic hernia (hole in the diaphragm), and natural selection would work against this. Ruben writes:
The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would
have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds.
Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems
unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.
New discovery: fixed thigh bone is vital for breathing
Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their
abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the
dinosaur-bird link.John Ruben
Dr Ruben has continued his research into bird breathing. Recently, he and his OSU colleague Dr Devon Quick made a
fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight and the finding means
its unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.7It has long been known that birds have a fixed femur
(thigh bone), so they are knee runners. Mammals and reptilesincluding dinosaurshave movable femurs that are highly
involved in their walking and running. But why do birds have this unusual arrangement?Quick and Ruben found that this
fixed femur and the accompanying muscles and hip bones were essential for the bird to keep its air-sac lung from collapsing
inwards when the bird inhales.8 Quick said:This is fundamental to bird physiology. Its really strange that no one realized this
before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them
enough lung capacity for flight.7

But since the theropods had moving femurs, they could not have supported the air sacs needed for the avian lung system.
According to a report:
For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,
Ruben said. Thats a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities
in their lungs, Ruben said. However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that
worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of
supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.7
Frankly, theres a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new
scientific evidence raises questions.John Ruben
Ruben has long been sceptical of the dino-to-bird dogma, even from the 1990s. Yet he notes:
Frankly, theres a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new
scientific evidence raises questions.7
He pointed out that many museum displays treat the dino-to-bird theory as fact, just as we noted above. The only nod to
dissent might be an asterisk with some fine print saying, some scientists disagree. But now Ruben says, But now there
are more asterisks all the time. Thats part of the process of science.7
Evolutionary dogma
Sinosauropteryx prima
Despite their rejection of dino-to-bird dogma, both Ruben and Quick, like
Feduccia, believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile. But here they
become tentative, e.g. Quick says:
We arent suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a
common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. Thats quite possible and
is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were
evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the
theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later.
But an evolutionary criticism of Feduccia and his supporters applies equally
well to Ruben and Quick:
Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known
fossil birds have been found. And although they rightly argue that cladistic
analyses [comparisons of shared characteristics] are only as good as the
data upon which they are based, no cladistic study has yet suggested a
non-theropod ancestor.9
But goo-to-you evolution in general, not just the dino-to-bird theory, has
become a dogma. Most scientists believe in evolution not because of the
evidence, but because most scientists believe it. I.e. the oft-touted
consensus on evolution was reached by counting heads that themselves
came to this consensus by counting heads. And when asked to provide
evidence, many cannot make a good casee.g. Feduccias best proof of
evolution was not in his field of ornithology, but corn turning into corn!
There is another alternative: Ruben, Quick and Feduccia are right that birds
didnt evolve from theropods; their evolutionary detractors are right that
birds didnt evolve from non-theropod reptiles. Rather, they did not evolve at
all!
THE ICE AGE AND MAMMOTH

What about
the Ice Age?
How many ice ages were there?
Where does an ice age fit with creationism?
How much of the Earth was covered by ice?
How long did it last?
What about the frozen mammoths?
How were people affected?
THE only clear evidence we have is for one Ice Age. We still
see its remnants in such things as glaciers and the U-shaped
valleys they carved. This Ice Age is said by evolutionists to
have started about two million years ago and ended about
11,000 years ago. It was punctuated by relatively warm
interglacial periods, which lasted about 10% of the time. Most
creationists, on the other hand, believe the Ice Age began
soon after the Flood and continued for less than a thousand
years. Indeed, as we shall see later, the Global Flood provides
a good basis for understanding how the one Ice Age
developed. However,evolutionists have great difficulty
accounting for any ice age.1 In their understanding there would
have been multiple ice ages, every 2030 million years or so.
Earlier ice ages?Using their principle that the present is the
key to the past2 evolutionistsclaim that there is evidence for

earlier ice ages. However, supposed similarities between the rocks in those geological systems and the special features
produced in the Ice Age are not consistent.35 Today, glaciers grind up the rock they travel over, creating deposits of fine
and coarse material mixed together. This unsorted material is known as till, or tillite when it becomes bound together to form
a rock unit. The grinding action of rocks embedded in the glacier also scores parallel grooves in the bedrock the glacier
slides overthese grooves are called striations. When some melting occurs in summer, the glacier releases rock flour
which is washed into glacial lakes and settles to form fine and coarse alternating layers known as varves. Sometimes a
piece of ice will break off the glacier or ice sheet and float into such aglacial lake, dropping embedded boulders as it melts.
These dropstones fall into the fine sediments (varves) on the lake floor, so that stones are sometimes found in the varves.
Geologists have claimed that these features have been found in ancient rock layers, proving that there had been previous
ice ages over geologic time. Many lines of evidence now indicate that the observations have been misinterpreted:3
The tillites of lower rock layers are small in area, commonly thick, and probably all of marine origin, whereas those of
modern glaciers are relatively large in area, thin and continental.
There are limestones and dolomites frequently associated with these tillitescarbonates which form today in warm water,
not cold.
The largest boulders in the ancient tillites are much smaller than the larger boulders being deposited by glacial action
today.
Underwater mass flows can produce tillite-like deposits, as well as striated bedrock and striated stones in the tillite. Such
mass flows would be expected during the Global Flood.
Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very quickly.6 These sediments are more accurately called
rhythmites. A varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a
Swiss lake that such varve-like rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows.7 At one location, five
couplets of these varve-like rhythmites formed during a single year. At Mount St Helens in the USA, an 8 m (25 ft) thick
stratified deposit consisting of many thin varve-like laminae was formed in less than one day (June 12, 1980).8 Flow tank
experiments have shown how laminations can form rapidly when two different grain sizes are carried together in flowing
water.9
The so-called dropstones could not have been dropped into the ancient varvites10 because such a method of placement
would result in tell-tale disturbance of the laminations, which is rarely observed.
The evidence suggests they were placed with the enclosing sediments by turbidity currents or other mass flowsagain
consistent with what would be expected during a global Flood. In other words the varvites did not come from cyclical,
annual, glacial lake deposition.
The extent of the ice
The effects of the Ice Age are still with us, particularly the
giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, the alpine
glaciers, and the glacial landforms and sediments.
Because these effects are seen on the current land
surface, it is clear that the Ice Age occurred after the
Flood. During the Ice Age, great ice sheets developed
over Greenland and North America (as far south as the
northern United States) and in northern Europe from
Scandinavia to Germany and England (see diagram). In
the North American Rockies, the European Alps, the South
American Andes and other mountain chains, permanent
ice caps rested on the summits, and extensive valley
glaciers descended down almost to the plains below.
Another ice sheet covered most of Antarctica. Ice caps
developed on the mountains of New Zealand, Tasmania, and the highest parts of southeastern mainland Australia. Some
glaciers still remain in the high Southern Alps of New Zealand, and in the Andes Mountains, but glacial landforms are all that
are left in New South Wales Snowy Mountains, and in Tasmania, as areminder of the action of the ice. Nearly all textbooks
used to claim that the Ice Age involved at least four advances and retreats of the ice, with relatively warm periods (called
inter-glacials) in between. Based on the quest to find a cyclical pattern of ice ages, the number of ice ages during the past
two million years of geological time has jumped to more than 20. However, the dense clay soils, old river terraces, and other
phenomena, interpreted as evidence for multiple ice ages, can be more readily understood as resulting from advance and
retreat phases of a single ice age after the Flood.11 The Ice Age and human habitation It is important to realize that the ice
never covered more than a third of the Earths land surface, even at its greatest extent. At the same time as there was
glaciation in the upper latitudes, there was probably a period of higher rainfall in the lower latitudes. Such higher rainfall
towards the equator would have assured an abundant water supply even in present-day desert areas such as the Sahara,
the Gobi, and Arabia. Indeed, archaeological excavations have yielded abundant evidences of lush vegetation, human
occupation and complex irrigation economies in these now desolate regions. There is also evidence that human societies
lived near the edge of the ice sheet in Western Europe throughout the Ice Agethe Neandertal peoples, for instance. Many
anthropologists now rcognize that their somewhat brutish appearance was at least partly due to disease (rickets, arthritis)
caused by the dark, cold and damp climate of the region at that time. Their resulting lack of exposure to sunlight, which
stimulates vitamin D synthesis necessary for normal bone development, and poor diet, would have caused rickets.12 Apart
from highly questionable dating methods (see Chapter 4), there is no reason why Neandertals could not have lived at the
same time as the advanced civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, and others that were developing unhindered in the lower
latitudes. The Ice Age can be better understood as lasting 700 years or so rather than two million years.
The Global Flood:
the trigger for the Ice Age To develop an ice age, where ice accumulates on the land, the oceans need to be warm at midand high latitude, and the land masses need tobe cold, especially in the summer.5,1315 Warm oceans evaporate lots of
water, which then moves over the land. Cold continents result in the water precipitating as snow rather than rain, and also

prevent the snow from thawing during summer. The ice thus accumulates quickly. Slow-and-gradual evolutionary
scenarios16 to explain the Ice Age do not work. Long-age theories involve a slow cooling down of the Earth, but this will not
generate an ice age. If the oceans gradually cooled, along with the land, by the time everything was cold enough so that the
snow didnt melt during summer, evaporation from the oceans would be insufficient to produce enough snow to generate
the massive ice sheets.17
A frozen desert would result, not an ice age. However, the global Flood provides a simple mechanism for an ice age. We
would expect warm oceans at the end of
the global Flood, due to the addition of hot
subterranean water to the pre-Flood ocean
and heat energy released through volcanic
activity.The Flood and its aftermath would
provide the warm oceans and cold
continents to produce an Ice Age.
Oard and Vardiman point to evidence that
the ocean waters were in fact warmer just
before the Ice Age, as recorded by the
oxygen isotopes in the shells of tiny
marine animals called foraminifera.1820
Large amounts of volcanic dust and
aerosols from residual volcanic eruptions
at the end of and after the Flood would
have reflected solar radiation back into
space, causing low temperatures over
land, and especially causing the summers
to be cold.21 Dust and aerosols slowly
settle out of the atmosphere, but continued
post-Flood
volcanism
would
have
replenished these for hundreds of years following
the Flood. In support of this, there is evidence of
continued widespread volcanism in the large
quantities of volcanic rocks among so-called
Pleistocene sediments, which probably formed
soon after the Flood. Vardiman19,20 has shown,
using standard knowledge of atmospheric
circulation, that the warm oceans after the Flood,
and the large rates of cooling at the poles, would
have driven extreme atmospheric convection.
This would have created an enormous polar
hurricane-like storm system covering a large
portion of the Arctic. This, he suggests, could
have functioned for much of the 500-year period
up to the glacial maximum (see next section).
Such circulation patterns would have delivered to
the higher latitudes the vast amounts of snow
that would have quickly become ice sheets,
spreading firstly over the continents, and then later over the oceans as the water cooled down towards the end of the glacial
period.
How long an ice age?
Meteorologist Michael Oard22 has estimated that it would have taken only about 700 years to cool the polar oceans from a
uniform temperature of 30C at the end of the Flood to the temperatures observed today (average 4C). This 700-year
period represents the duration of the Ice Age. The ice would have started accumulating soon after the Flood. By about 500
years after the Flood, the average global ocean temperature would have cooled to about 10 C, and the resulting reduced
evaporation would have caused much less cloud cover. This, combined with the clearing of the volcanic dust from the
atmosphere, would have allowed more radiation to penetrate to the Earths
surface, progressively melting the ice sheets.
Thus the glacial maximum would have been about 500 years after the
FloodIn recent years the conventional age estimate for the Ice Age has been
seemingly reinforced by claims that ice cores drilled from the Antarctic and
Greenland ice sheets contain many thousands of annual layers. Layering is
certainly visible in the uppermost section of such ice cores, but it only
correlates with an annual pattern in the past fewthousand years, as it should
if it represents annual snow deposits since the end of the Ice Age. Lower
down in the ice cores, the so-called annual layers become less distinct and
can be understood as being caused by other mechanisms, such as
individual storms. Vardiman1820 has demonstrated that the ice core data
support a longage model only if they are interpreted that way. The ice core
data readily fit a young-Earth model, with the bulk of the ice sheet thickness
having been deposited by the hurricane-like circulation in the relatively brief
500-year period following the Flood. In this understanding, the oxygen
isotope variations, for example, do not represent annual seasons but
individual storms from different directions depositing water evaporated from
oceans differing in temperature.
The riddle of the frozen mammoths

The remains of hundreds of thousands of woolly mammoths are found

across northern Europe, Siberia and Alaska. There was a lucrative trade in
mammoth ivory for many years. At least a million mammoths must have lived
in Siberia and Alaska.24 But how could the frozen wastes of Siberia have
ever produced enough food for the mammoths?Woolly rhinoceros, bison,
horses and antelopes also lived there in abundance. Even if the animals
migrated there in summer, there would not have been enough food for them.
Furthermore, what did animals such as woolly mammoths, rhinoceros, bison
and horses drink during the frozen winters? Such animals need large
quantities of liquid water. Evolutionists, with their eons of time and multiple
ice ages, believe that Siberia and Alaska are relatively warm at present,25
compared with the time when mammoths lived there. So, how could these
large populations of animals have lived in these areas? Many carcasses or
partial carcasses may still exist. The vast majority show signs of substantial
decay before they were buried and frozen, though about a half-dozen intact frozen carcasses have been found. Some of the
intact carcasses have been found with their stomach contents largely undigested. Some have claimed that an extraordinary
snap-freeze would be needed to preserve such stomach contents. However, undigested stomach contents have been found
in non-frozen mastodon remains in Ohio, USA. Studies of elephant digestion show that the stomach acts as a storage vat
for food, with fermentation and digestion occurring in the hindgut (as with horses). Consequently, an elephants stomach
contents remain largely undigested. Mammoths would almost certainly be similar. So a snap freeze is not necessary to
explain this observation. Most of the mammoth remains show that they were in various states of decay, some with pupae of
carcass-consuming flies, others showing signs of scavenging, indicating that this was no instantaneous regional freeze.
Some of the plant species identified in the stomach of the famous Beresovka mammoth now grow only in warmer climates.
The evidence thus suggests a change in climate in northern Siberia / Alaska. The mammoths lived there because the
climate was much warmer, with more precipitation, than today. Mammoth remains have been found as far south as Mexico,
showing that they were probably adapted to a wide range of climates. Cave paintings of mammoths were obviously done by
people living after the Flood.26 Furthermore, since the mammoth remains are frozen in silt on top of sediments laid down in
the Flood, they must have been frozen there at some time during the Ice Age, after the Flood. The burial and freezing of
these mammoths cannot be accounted for with uniformitarian / evolutionary explanations of a slow-and-gradual onset of the
Ice Age over many thousands of years, and its slow waning over a similarly long period. However, while the mammoths are
a big mystery to evolutionists, the Flood / Ice Age model provides a framework for understanding the mammoths. Michael
Oard proposes that the mammoths were buried and frozen towards the end of the post-Flood Ice Age.27,28 Note that
because of the warm Arctic Ocean after the Flood, the ice sheets did not cover the sea, nor the lowlands near the sea,
resulting in a relatively temperate climate near the sea. Significantly, mammoth remains are most abundant close to the
Arctic Ocean and in the islands off the coast. Mammoth remains are also found south of the maximum southern limits of the
ice sheets, indicating that the distribution of the ice sheets determined where the mammoths lived and died. It was at the
end of the Ice Age that the sea froze over and the lowlands became permafrost. This coincided with the demise of the
mammoths. As the oceans cooled in the hundreds of years following the Flood, the humidity of the air over the oceans
reduced and the climate of the Arctic coast dried out. Droughts developed. The ice sheets melted back exposing the land,
allowing massive dust storms of sand and silt to bury the mammoths, suffocating some of them. This explains why the
carcasses are found in whats known as yedoma or muck, whichcomprises loess, or wind-blown silt. Some were entombed
in a standing developed on the land, resulting in the carcasses buried in the sand and silt being frozen, where they are
found today.
WAS THERE REALLY AN ICE AGE
Tackling the big freeze
Interview with weather scientist Michael Oard
by Carl Wieland
Michael J. Oard has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He works as a
meteorologist/weather forecaster for the (US) National Weather Service, and has published several papers in his field in
widely recognised journals. When I first spoke with Michael (Mike) Oard, he jokingly put down the State where he lives as
home to the (maybe) Unabomber and a bunch of other interesting people.
Mike Oard examining evidence of the Ice Age in the Rocky Mountains.
Montana is in fact a beautiful part of the United States, one associated with rugged
backwoodsmen and scenic wilderness. It is also a place where one can see a lot of evidence
that large chunks of the world were once covered by huge glacial sheets. For example, Mike
points out there are huge boulders which show signs of having been transported a long way
from their original location. He says this was either from their being carried by an ice sheet, or
dropped from an iceberg floating in one of the many lakes which were abundant near the ice
sheet.
Although he does a lot of thinking and parttime research into other aspects of creationism,
particularly in regard to the Flood, Mike (who has written quite a number of items for our
associated Journal of Creation ) is best known for his work on the Ice Age. He has written a
technical monograph on the subject, as well as Life in the Great Ice Age, a family book co
authored with his wife Beverly. This book really makes the subject come alive with its clever
use of illustrated fiction, as Neanderthals and other postFlood groups of humans interact with
the harsh climate conditions.
As time went on, he increasingly realised that if you start messing with something thats reasonable, clear-cut and
straightforward. Mike says that he first began to think seriously about the mechanism for an ice age about twenty years ago,
when he noticed that the evidence for the boundary of the North American ice sheet was right at the edge of where the
presentday permanent winter snow accumulates. He says that putting that together with ideas that other creationists have
had over the years was the key.

The important thing for any ice age theory, he says, is to find a way to cool the summers, to stop ice from meltingin most
areas that were once glaciated, the winters are already cold enough. One such cooling mechanism was readily available
after the Flood, with much volcanic ash and gases still in the air from the breaking up of the crust, which also liberated the
fountains of the great deep described in Genesis. Such volcanic matter in the air would reflect much of the suns heat back
out to space.

Glacier at Prince William Sound, Alaska. Glacial ice.

Erratic boulder at Yellowstone National Park (moved from its original location by ice)
However, just having cooler air is not enough. Mike points out that in Siberia today, there are very low temperatures, but it is
so cold that there is not enough moisture in the air to maintain an ice sheet. To have an ice age, he says, you need a way
to get lots of water out of the ocean up on to the land.
After the Flood you would have both, says Mike. The came from under the ground during the Flood would have been very
warm or hot. This water mixing with the preFlood ocean would result in a significantly warmer ocean, right after the Flood,
than today. Warmer water means more evaporation. So you have more moisture in the air available for storms, generating
snow and ice at middle and upper latitudes, close to the developing ice sheets. And the ash and gases in the air is what
gives the cooling of the summers. All this, he points out, would have been like a loaded gun at the end of the Flood. There
would have been no way to delay it, an ice age just had to start.
Evolutionists, says Mike, have a favoured astronomical theory for the Ice Age which gives them a little cooling, but no way to
get more moisture into the air (a colder world means less evaporation from the oceans).
Mike Oards calculations show that a likely estimate for when the Ice Age reached its maximum would have been around
500 years after the Flood, with about another 200 years to melt. He warns that this is only a ballpark figure, which could
vary by hundreds of yearsbut thats still a short time for evolutionists.
What about the riddle of the frozen mammoths? Mike says he is sure that they were the result of postFlood events, since
most of them are found in the frozen socalled muck, on top of Flood sediments, in cliffs which are actually river deltas, or
on marine shorelines. Theyre actually rather surficial, and although scientists estimate there are hundreds of thousands, or
millions of mammoth skeletons in Siberia, there are only several dozen which have flesh on them, and this is mostly scraps.
There are only a few fairly intact carcasses, like the Beresovka mammoth in the Leningrad museum. Some of these were
found with stomach contents only partially digested.
Does this prove they were frozen extremely rapidly, as one frozen food company suggested? Mike replies, The Beresovka
mammoth was preserved largely by freezing, but it didnt have to be a super cold snap freeze?. A mastodon with some
stomach contents was found in the Midwest of the United States, where the ground isnt frozen at all. So there may be other
mechanisms at work.
Does this mean no evidence for catastrophe? Oh, no, says Mike, There is no doubt that there has been a permanent, rapid
climate change in northern Siberia/Alaska. Today, the ground there, in which these mammoths are buried, is permanently
frozen, so you couldnt push a mammoth into it today. The vegetation today is too sparse to support large herds of
mammoths anyway. After the mammoths were buried in it, the ground had to become frozen fast enough to preserve the
flesh which is found, and has stayed that way since.
Though he doesnt claim to have all the answers, Mike speculates that these creatures died at the very end of the post
Flood Ice Age, when the vast sheets were melting, bringing in permanent climate change and also catastrophic flooding
events when huge lakes burst through ice dams. Believe it or not, he says, summers would get warmer, but winters would
get a lot colder, developing a permafrost. He says there is published evidence of a massive catastrophic burst of an ice dam
in Siberia, on the scale of the Spokane Flood which carved the channelled scablands of the northwest US. As huge amounts
of fresh water surged into the Arctic Ocean, it would cause a drop of up to thirty degrees Centigrade in around a week.
Its hard to freeze saltwater, but when a mass of fresh water (which floats on top of the saltwater) pours into a region with
subzero temperatures, you could freeze much of the Arctic ocean surface within days. The air above this sea ice is
deprived of heat and moisture from the ocean. The snow that soon falls will reflect much of the sunlight back to space,
cooling the air further.1 As a result, there would be a tremendous cold front over the land which, with the added wind chill,
could possibly explain the frozen mammoth carcasses.
[Ed. note: a few years after he gave this interview, Mike Oard proposed that the mammoths were killed and buried
by gigantic dust storms, because the yedomas and muck are loess, or windblown silt. See Mr Ice Age solves woolly
mammoth mystery, and his overview The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? Journal of
Creation 14(3):2434, 2000.]Mike says that secular scientists have been deafeningly silent about his published work. The
only exception was a vigorously anti-creationist geophysicist who, Mike says, could only point to a few real small points he
thought were mistakes, and I dont think they wereand he said there isnt all this volcanic dust in the sediments, but I went
back and found out that there is, so he wasnt correct on that.
A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow
by Michael J. Oard
Tillites, assumed to be the lithified equivalents of glacial till (rubble), are often found in the strata of the Earth. Hence,
uniformitarian scientists postulate a number of long-lasting pre-Pleistocene ice ages, the Late Palaeozoic ice age in
southern Africa being the most notable. Many glacial-like diagnostic features also are associated with these tillites. However,
Schermerhorn questioned the conclusion that many of these tillites, mainly from the Late Precambrian, were caused by
ancient glaciation, pointing out that practically all the claimed diagnostic properties can be duplicated by mass flow and other
processes.1One of the classical Late Pre-cambrian tillites is the Bigganjargga tillite of northern Norway. It is even called
Reuschs moraine. The tillite overlies a striated pavement in which two striae directions, a sharp NWSE set overprinting a
faint EW set, were embossed on the sandstone below. Two subparallel sets of striae are supposedly diagnostic of
glaciation. One author claimed to have observed striated and faceted clasts within the tillite. The top layer of the tillite is

composed of thin beds containing clasts larger than the thickness of the bedding, reminiscent of dropstone varvites. The
above three characteristics of the Bigganjargga tillite are the main diagnostic features for an ancient ice age. 2 Thus, most
geologists accepted without question that the tillite was a remnant of the Late Precambrian ice age. 3,4,5 However, a few
geologists did question whether the tillite was really glaciogenic or else a mudflow deposit. 6Recently, a more in-depth
analysis has indicated that this classical tillite is very likely a submarine debris flow. 7 The striated pavement was found to
have been made by rocks sliding along soft sandstone, because a few clasts are embedded in the sandstone. Moreover,
clast imprints on the sandstone have the same random spacing as in the tillite above. There are other soft-sediment
deformation features. The sandstone had been assumed lithified and dated 150 million years older than the tillite. The
authors now suggest this time gap is not real.The matrix and clasts in the tillite are rounded with the fine fraction missing.
This is very unlike a glacial till. The rocks in the tillite show flow layers around clasts indicating an underwater mass flow
origin. Marine deposits are also closely associated with the tillite. Jensen and Wulff-Pedersen conclude:
The evidence for a debris flow origin for the Bigganjargga diamictite [a non-genitive term for till-like rock] seems compelling;
the diamictite is massive and has random fabric, mound formed top, marginal snout(s), projecting boulders and a striated
pavement.8The implication of this result is that the main diagnostic features for an ancient ice age are really not diagnostic
at all. It has been known for a long time that the fabric of a tillite cannot be distinguished from a debris flow. Early workers
did not concern themselves with distinguishing between the two processes and just assumed ancient glaciation. It is,
therefore, no surprise that the strata of the Earth have so many remnants of ancient ice ages. Just as with Reuschs
moraine, these claimed ancient ice ages are very likely submarine debris flows a process that is consistent with a global
Flood.9,10,11,12
Loess problems
by Michael J. Oard
Loess, generally considered to be wind-blown silt, has caused a number of problems for uniformitarism. The major problems
are the missing periglacial loess from past ice ages, a lack of a source for the immense volume of loess (covering about
10% of Earths land surface) and the lack of eroded loess from past ice ages. How loess is produced has also caused a
quandary for uniformitarians, with only fluvial tumbling in mixed-sized sediment producing a large volume of silt. However,
the Flood and post-Flood Ice Age provide a more plausible framework in which to explain the volume and distribution of
loess. Extreme turbulence in the Flood would have provided the right context for producing the necessary silt, which may
have been reworked during the dry, deglacial phase of the Ice Age.
Figure 1. Burlingame Canyon rhythmites from one
large Lake Missoula flood at the peak of the Ice
Age. Notice that only about one metre of windblown silt was deposited on top of the sequence.
Loess is difficult to define, but it is generally
considered to be wind-blown (eolian) silt.1 It is
composed mostly of quartz grains, with minor
portions of clay and sand often mixed with the silt.
Loess is commonly intermixed vertically with
paleosols, which are supposedly fossil soils that
have been preserved in the geologic record or
buried deeply enough that it is no longer subject to
soil forming processes.2Scientists previously
believed the silt particles in loess were derived from
ice abrasion, but they now believe that loess has
both a glacial and non-glacial origin.36
Loess covers much of the mid and high latitude
continents, forming a thickening belt in Europe from the Atlantic coast east into Russia and the Ukraine in areas generally
south of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. It also covers a large portion of the Midwest of the United States, the lowlands of
Alaska, southeast Washington and eastern Idaho 7 and some 440,000 km2 of central China, where it is up to 300m
thick.8 Millions of woolly mammoths and other Ice Age animals are mostly entombed in loess in non-glaciated areas of
Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.9 Wind blown material is common within the Ice Age portion of the
Greenland ice cores.10
Despite the large number of studies, there are many problems associated with loess from a uniformitarian view: Few
problems in Quaternary geology have raised so much controversy as loess.11
Missing loess
The most difficult uniformitarian problem is the missing loess. Practically all periglacial loess is derived from the last
glaciation within the uniformitarian multiple glaciation system, and specialists have tended to avoid discussing the
implications:
The periglacial loesses from China and elsewhere predominantly date from the last Pleistocene glaciation: relatively few
comparable occurrences are known from earlier Quaternary glaciations . A loess problem that is rarely touched upon is
the almost complete lack of loesses from ice ages before the last one. 12The periglacial loess in China is different from the
thick, extensive loess in central China, which is considered non-glacial.13 Quaternary geologists once believed there were
only four ice ages, but now they claim there have been over thirty during the past 2.5 million years of geological time, based
on deep-sea cores.14 Where is the loess from all these previous supposed ice ages? The most straightforward deduction is
that there were no previous ice ages; there was only one Ice Age, which was one of eleven reasons I listed in support of just
one.15Uniformitarian scientists have attempted to explain this missing loess in various ways. The simplest explanation is that
the loess was eroded by water and wind during interglacial periods. The problem with this explanation is that the earth is
currently in an interglacial (the Holocene) and supposedly about ready to plunge into the next ice age, according to the
Milankovitch mechanism for multiple ice ages. If it was eroded, the loess from the last ice age has hardly been eroded
during the current interglacial, despite accelerated erosion caused by deforestation and agriculture.16As a result of this
contradiction to the uniformitarian idea of multiple ice ages, some scientists have simply suggested that the current
interglacial is different from all the previous interglacials. But such a special condition for the current interglacial is difficult to

imagine for some geologists,17 probably because such a suggestion defies the very uniformitarian principle upon which
current geological interpretation is based.
A recent hypothesis suggests that the loess from each ice age is simply recycled. 18 According to this idea, each ice age
produces a little more loess than is lost during interglacials. So, the amount of loess builds with time from the first glaciation
to the thick loesses of today.It seems inconceivable that the entire amount of loess is reworked during each glaciation so as
to destroy evidence of loess from previous glaciations. Besides, the idea is untestable and ad hoc. Since some of this loess
is trapped in river valleys, such as the Mississippi Valley, how would loess be scoured out of these valleys and redeposited?
There is also the problem that each time the loess is recycled, why is it always recycled at the same location and not spread
all over the continents? Do strong ice age winds that would rework loess only blow in the loess belt?
Lack of a source for loess
A second conundrum is the missing sources for loess. The amount of loess on the continents is immense, greater than the
volume of glacial till. It covers 10% of the earths land surface. 19 Where and how did all this silt originate? The source and
erosion of loess is difficult to explain:
This leaves one well known question (where do the loesses come from?) and one rarely (if ever) asked question: where did
the eroded loesses go to?17One of the main problems for the origin of loess is that quartz in igneous and metamorphic rocks
has a mean grain size of approximately 700 m, while the main size of detrital quartz in 60 m. 20 The cutoff between sand
and silt is 63 m and most loess is in the range of 20 to 50 m. So, the size of the quartz has to be reduced 90% from its
source to account for the formation of loess. How does this happen?Four sources of loess have been proposed: (1) hot
deserts, (2) cold deserts, (3) drowned sources covered by late-glacial sea level rise and (4) glacial grinding. 21 All these
sources raise questions. Hot and cold deserts do not produce significant quantities of loess. There are problems associated
with the origin of loess from continental shelves, now underwater, since many loess belts are far inland from the sea. 22It had
been assumed that the formation of loess was only by subglacial grinding. 3 However, loess has been discovered in areas far
from present or past glaciers or ice sheets, such as in northern Tunisia, northern Nigeria, Israel and Saudi Arabia. 23 Minor
amounts of loess have even been found in the Sahara Desert. Furthermore, experiments have shown that glacial grinding
does not produce much silt.3,5 This deduction is reinforced by the observation that hardly any loess is produced by or
deposited in front of present-day glaciers.21 So, there does not appear to be a viable source for the immense volume of
loess.
Where is the eroded loess?
A third problem is the lack of eroded loess. In the last quote above, an ignored problem is the location of all the eroded loess
over the several millions of years allotted to multiple ice ages by uniformitarian scientists. Loess does not erode easily, but
when it starts, vertical erosion proceeds relatively fast.16 So, there should be a huge volume of eroded loess deposited
somewhere if all these glaciations were real. However, there is little of this reworked loess found on the continents. Just like
the missing loess, the supposedly eroded loess is also missing. Furthermore, little of the loess, such as the Chinese loess,
has been eroded.The lack of erosion of current loess deposits and the failure to find several millions of years of eroded
loess strongly suggest that those millions of years are imaginary. Loess is very young and fits in well with the young-earth
timeframe and one Ice Age.
How is loess produced?
Fourth, how is loess produced? There are now several other mechanisms besides glacial grinding suggested for the
formation of loess. These mechanisms include wind abrasion, weathering, frost weathering, salt weathering and fluvial
abrasion. However, experiments in the formation of silt particles have demonstrated that these other mechanisms are either
ineffective or too slow, except for fluvial abrasion of mixed-size sediment:
The tumbling of sand alone in water resulted in very little comminution or silt production However, the addition of gravelsized ceramic spheres to simulate a mixed-size sediment load in a turbulent, high-energy fluvial environment, produced
rapid comminution and particle size reduction.24Based on a table of the amount of silt and the time needed to produce it,
fluvial tumbling with mixed-sized sediment rapidly produced a large volume of silt, while wind abrasion was a distant
second.25
Flood-Ice Age solution
How would the Flood, followed by a post-Flood Ice Age, explain the observations of loess? There does not seem to be
enough time in the Ice Age to generate so much loess by glacial grinding or any other post-Flood mechanism. For instance,
the monstrous volume of non-glacial silt in the Chinese loess cannot be accounted for even within 2.6 million years of
uniformitarian time:
The supply of immense quantities of quartz-dominated silt over the past 2.6 Ma for the Chinese loess plateau is indeed a
very intriguing problem.26
It is inconceivable that the sediments for the Chinese loess can be formed after the Flood.
A much better possibility for explaining the thick sources of loess is extreme turbulence in the Flood, which would provide
an ideal environment during rock erosion for producing large volumes of silt. The Flood would act like a global water
abrasion mechanism, similar to the tumbler experiment of mixed-grain sizes described above.The Flood might also explain
the origin of the particles that make up thick siltstone and shale, which contains ~75% silt, observed in the rock record. The
formation of all this silt and its concentration in the rock record is a difficult uniformitarian problem. 27 One siltstone formation
in Africa averages 300 m thick. 28As the Floodwater drained, mud with much silt would have been deposited in slackwater
areas, which are areas with low current velocity late in the Flood. This mud could be left on the surface after the Flood in
various areas. For the Palouse silt, such a slackwater area could have been created by the uplift of the Cascade Mountains
of western Washington and Oregon. Strong Ice Age winds would then rework the top of the mud layers into true wind-blown
deposits and spread real loess downstream from sources.The origin of most of the loess from Flood abrasion is a rather
radical idea but seems to be the only possibility within the young-earth timeframe. There is further evidence suggesting the
original Flood generation of surficial silt deposits. One of the reasons is that water seems to be involved in the transport
process of the silt at some stage:
Indeed, many loess-like deposits seem to have undergone some transport by water and many such deposits accumulated
in previous depressions even seem to have formed by settling from suspension in shallow pools or lakes.16
The action of water at some stage is reinforced by Wright:
Finally, a recent geochemical and isotopic study of loess deposits by Gallet et al. (1998) revealed that all loess particles
must have experienced at least one cycle of aquatic transport.27

The above quotes seem to suggest more than transport by glacial meltwater within the uniformitarian paradigm. Gallet et
al. further state that the geochemical characteristics of loess are indistinguishable from shales, which favours a Flood
generation of loess.29
Figure 2. The rolling Palouse
loess
of
southeast
Washington.
The
rolling
character is caused by the
bulbous surface of the
Columbia
River
Basalts
below the loess.
In
studying
the
Lake
Missoula flood,30 I noticed
that since the peak of the Ice
Age, only about a metre of
wind-blown
silt
was
deposited on top of flood
rhythmites in Burlingame
Canyon
of
southeast
Washington (figure 1). This
canyon is within the area of
the deposition of the thick
Palouse loess that ranges in
thickness from 2 to 75 m and
covers an area greater than
50,000 km2.31 Figure 2 shows a picture of the rolling Palouse silt. The rolling character is actually derived from the underlying
Columbia River Basalts.32 The early Ice Age should have been wet with the formation of little loess, while deglaciation
should have been much drier with great amounts of wind blown silt. If all the Palouse loess was formed by dry winds during
deglaciation, much more than a meter of silt should have been deposited on these rhythmites.
Furthermore, sponge spicules have been found in the loess.33 Harold Coffin collected sponge spicules, likely marine,
at all nineteen locations sampled within the Palouse loess of southeast Washington.34 The lower layers of the Palouse silt
are layered, and rounded gravel is also found at some locations within the silt.33
This evidence suggests that the lower portions of many silt and sand deposits on the surface of the earth likely were laid
down in the very last moments of the Flood. This material was subsequently reworked during the dry, deglacial phase of the
Ice Age. This reworking can explain the fact that loess contains some Ice Age mammals.
A further implication is that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the late Cenozoic in the loess source areas, in particular in
the early to mid Pleistocene, such as in the Palouse loess and probably in the Chinese loess. Such a boundary was
advocated by the late Roy Holt.35

ANOTHER THREAT TO THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY QUALLED

How did 90% of large Australian Ice Age
animals go extinct?
Michael J. Oard
Most large mammals and
birds went extinct at the
end of the Ice Age, but
Australia was the hardest
hit of all the continents,
with 90% going extinct.
Uniformitarians
try
to
explain this via two
different
hypotheses:
either they went extinct
because of climate change
the overchill hypothesis,
or humans hunted them to
extinctionthe
overkill
hypothesis.
However,
there
are
numerous
problems
with
these
explanations in general
and in their specific
applicability
to
the
Australian
extinctions.
From
a
biblical
perspective,
severe
drought at the end of the
Ice Age is likely the
primary factor that caused the severe extinction event of the large animals in Australia.
The percentage of large mammals, usually defined as greater than 40 kg, that becameextinct on the continents at or near
the end of the Ice Age. Extinction on a continent does not necessarily mean extinction across the earth. The extinction
record Throughout much of the world, most of the large mammals and many large birds became extinct at the end of the Ice
Age. Some animals disappeared from whole continents, but never became extinct. In North America 70% of mammals
weighing over 40 kg disappeared.1,2 About 75% disappeared from Eurasia.3 But Australia was the hardest hit, loosing
about 90% of its large Ice Age animals, including all marsupials exceeding 100 kg, 22 out

of 38 species between 10 and 100 kg, three large reptiles, and three large flightless birds.4,5 Strangely, Africa is the only
continent where mass extinction did not occur at the end of the Ice Age.6 The mystery of the end-Ice Age mass extinctions
In evolutionary thinking, these extinctions occurred at a time when the ice was melting and the climate was supposedly
becoming warmer. This melting resulted in more land becoming available for the animals. Furthermore, few extinctions took
place during other glacial or interglacial periods, though there supposedly were several dozen glacial/interglacial cycles
during the Quaternary of the uniformitarian ice age paradigm. Why
did this mass extinction occur only at the end of the last Ice Age? To make the mystery more profound, the extinctions in
Australia supposedly occurred 45,000 years ago, well before the end of the last Ice Age, while extinctions on other
continents occurred at the end of the last Ice Age purportedly around 10 to 15,000 years ago. Overchill or overkill? There
are two main categories of uniformitarian extinction hypotheses: either they died of a climate change the overchill
hypothesis; or they died at the hands of manthe overkill hypothesis. A third possibility of disease is believed by very few
scientists. The cause of the mass extinction has been debated for over 150 years and not always on scientific grounds:
Debate about the possible cause of the extinction has continued for over 150 yr , stimulated by new fossil finds, dating
techniques, and modes of analysis. The debate is not strictly scientific, however, because it impacts on the broader
understanding of the evolutionary theater of early human cultures, the fact of contemporary global biodiversity, and the rights
of indigenous hunters 7 Other authors have suggested that the overkill hypothesis is being reinforced by the
environmental movement: For these discussions, and others like them, overkill provides powerful political capital.8
Furthermore, scientists are entrenched in their positions, and both sides have lately claimed that they are right. The debate
is often acrimonious: Few topics in Quaternary science match the late Pleistocene megafauna extinction debate for the
intensity of polemic it has generated, with most authorities championing either a human or a climatic cause.9 Regardless of
polemics, both the overchill and the overkill hypotheses have serious, seemingly insurmountable problems trying to fit within
the uniformitarian paradigm.10 Some scientists advocate both hypotheses, but the problem is really within the uniformitarian
paradigm of slow processes over millions of years, along with dozens of regularly repeating ice ages according to the
astronomical theory of the ice ages.
Problems specific to Australia
The demise of the animals in Australia comes with several unique problems of its own. One is that the extinctions occurred
some 20,000 years or more before the end of the Ice Age.11 This date supposedly eliminates climate change, since most
Quaternary scientists believe massive drought did not occur until the end of the Ice Age at about 20,000 years ago. Yet,
some scientists still argue that Australia had been drying up for the past 500,000 years, and that increasing drought caused
by climate change killed off the megafauna.12,13 The overkill advocates, of course, dispute this claim by saying the animals
had survived countless oscillations between wet periods and droughts with hardly any extinctions before 45,000 years ago,
and that the climate was not that dry about 45,000 years ago.7,1416 Overkill advocates point to New Zealand and other
islands where hunting destroyed many species of animals, including large flightless birds.17 However, overchill advocates
make a good case that islands cannot be extrapolated to continents because many other variables must be included for
continents, such as a greater space for the animals to hide.12,18 Overkill enthusiasts, of course, point to humans entering
Australia around 55,000 years ago. They say that this date is too much of a coincidence with the megafauna disappearing
10,000 years later. This seems to be their most significant argument.12,16 Such a belief does eliminate the more radical
overkill hypothesis of blitzkrieg in which, according to the hypothesis, the animals died off within a hundred years or so of
humans first entering the land. Some overchill advocates further claim that the megafauna had mostly died out well before
the magical date of 45,000 years ago.12 They also claim that some of the fauna survived beyond 45,000 years ago.13,19
Overchill advocates also claim that there are very few or no kill sites, and that archaeological sites during the period 45 to
55,000 years ago show no evidence of the type of technology required to have killed big game.13,20 They doubt that
primitive humans could have possibly killed the immense hippo-sized marsupial, Diprotodon, as well as the other large
beasts of the Ice Age. There seems to be plenty of archaeological sites that do contain megafaunal remains,21 but the
number of the remains within those sites is sparse.22
Problems with Australian uniformitarian scenarios
Accurate dating is required to correlate human settlement with megafaunal extinction and it is freely admitted that this is a
big problem.2325 Furthermore, to arrive at an extinction date of about 45,000 years ago, some researchers have
dismissed fauna with younger dates.20,26,27 So, there is an element of circular reasoning regarding the dates of settlement
in Australia and the time of extinction, similar to the situation in North America with the magical date of 11,000 years ago.
There is even a paucity of data upon which to determine the accuracy of either hypothesis:28 This is partly because few
well-stratified faunal successions have been discovered, but more so because of the rarity of field-based studies and the
historical difficulties involved with dating deposits beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating (ca. 45 ka).9 It is obvious the
assumptions of the researchers have often driven their conclusions.25
A creationists interpretation
How would I as a creationist
interpret the data? First, I would
throw out all the dates, which are
admittedly problematic and likely
subject to bias. The significant
dates are beyond the range of
radiocarbon dating and hence are
not reliable. Besides, with
different creationist assumptions,
the calculated radiocarbon dates
become much younger.29 I would
go with the general trend that
many large and diverse animals
thrived for a while in Australia
after the Flood during the early

and middle stages of the Ice Age. This was a time when the climate was cooler and wetter and a small ice cap formed on
the mountains of southeast
Australia. Most of Tasmania was glaciated.
Uniformitarians believe that Diprotodon australis, one of the Australian Ice Age megafauna that died out towards the end of
the Ice Age in Australia, went extinct about 40,000 years ago. The largest Diprotodon fossils found have been up to 3 m long
and 2 m tall at the shoulder. Humans enter the picture about midway through the Ice Age, having been held up building the
Tower of Babel in the Middle East and then later spreading away from there. It would take some time to reach Australia. In
other words, the animals came first, followed by humans. Then conditions changed, in tandem with other areas of the world,
at the end of the Ice Age. Second, the Ice Age was much different from what uniformitarians believe.30,31 Instead of the Ice
Age being a time of cold, the winters were actually mild. This is because the ocean temperatures at mid and high altitude
were warm and much more latent heat was released to the atmosphere due to more precipitation. Summers were cool,
especially over large continental areas, due to large amounts of volcanic ash and aerosols in the stratosphere. Winters then
become cold at the end of the Ice Age, much colder than today, especially at mid and high latitudes due to drier air, more
sea ice, cooler oceans and more reflection of sunlight from ice sheets. The animals were not adapted to cold winters and did
not have time to adapt. Such very cold winters can account for many of the extinctions on other continents, but likely not
Australia. Due to cold winters, less oceanic evaporation, more sea ice and stronger upper winds, dust storms would be
severe on some continents. Severe dust storms likely account for the extinctions in Siberia.32 One variable most applicable
to Australia was extreme drought. This probably played a minor role on other continents but was likely the number one
cause of extinctions in Australia. The severe drought dried up pluvial lakes and caused the large animals that required more
food and water to die out. Humans played a little part in the extinctions. Climate change was the real culprit. The post-Flood
rapid Ice Age can account for both the thriving of the megafauna at the beginning, and their extinction at the end.On
interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles Some of the impl i c a t ions following from the article entitled
On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles1 should be noted. If the 1/20th subharmonic of the
Duffing equation is the cause of the anomalous, supposedly 400,000-year cycle in the original paper by Hayes et al.,2 then
its appearance elsewhere in the stratigraphic record should herald either a quick catastrophic event or a global event of
short duration on the spinning earth. Its appearance anywhere would speak against a Milankovitch cycle interpretation of the
stratigraphic layers under examination; its appearance should help pinpoint catastrophic events in a creationist model.
Interestingly, Late Triassic to Middle Cretaceous cycles interpreted as being approximately 400,000 years long do seem to
exist in data from eastern North America3, central Italy4 and Hungary5. Even though such cycles are asserted to also exist
at the Permian/Triassic6 and Cretaceous/ Tertiary7 mass extinction boundaries, the bundling of ~ 100 k.y. eccentricity
cycles into ~ 400 k.y. eccentricity
cycles7 seems at present to be wishful thinking lacking the rigor of a real signal processing analysis. Certainly the
hypothesized enhanced sensitivity of the oceans to orbital forcing for almost 1 m.y. [million years]7 due to a single
hypothesized extraterrestrial impact must strain the incredulity of even evolutionists (and lend support to the alternative
Deccan Trap volcanism explanation). If the articles conjecture about modal coupling of physical systems being the cause of
the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the 40,000- year cycle is correct, then the socalled transition problem of
having no explanation for the 100,000-year cycle being dominant over the last one million years when the 40,000-year cycle
was dominant for the previous two million years does not exist. Instead such a transition marks the onset of modal coupling,
the evidence for the physical progression of a catastrophic event into a new region. It is probable that further data on such
transition problems for stratigraphically older layers will help elucidate and refine a creationist model. Indeed, just an
examination of the relative amplitudes of the 1/20th subharmonic at various localities to other orders of harmonics at the
same places may reveal the progression of the physical phenomenon responsible for the stratigraphic layers. Different rates
of attenuation for these different frequency components are expected. Many other tests revealing details of the physical
process could be applied if the data were available. From our research8 it appears that recovering the catastrophic tell-tale
400,000-unit anomalous Milankovitch cycle from Pennsylvanian strata has the potential to be fraught with a great deal of
difficulty due to diagenetic separation of floating forest layers (unless, of course, the application of a low pass filter to the raw
data proves effective). Anyway, further finds of supposedly 400,000-year stratigraphic cycles can only help hasten the
demise of the Milankovitch cycle paradigm.
Another threat to the
Milankovitch theory quelled?
Michael J. Oard
Two major paradigm changes have transformed geology during the past 75 years: 1) plate tectonics and 2) the Milankovitch
theory of the ice age.1 Geoffrey Boulton, writing of progress in glacial geology during a 50-year period ending in 1987,
remarked:
'The demonstration of an insistent pulse of environmental change with frequencies of 40,000 and 100,000 years has been
one of the two most important geological discoveries of the last 50 years, the other being the plate-tectonic synthesis of
Earth's structural evolution.' 2
Neither theory was new, and both were once believed impossible. Both were quickly 'verified' by several key pieces of
research and are now widely accepted. Since then, in a band-wagon effect, new research must be explained within the
context of the paradigm. For the Milankovitch paradigm, the watershed paper was published in 1976, purporting to correlate
mainly oxygen isotopes in deep sea cores with changes in the earth's orbital geometry.3 Many geological variables have
since been correlated to the Milankovitch cycles, in seemingly consistent agreement. William Ruddiman expounds:
Everything fits together so well that it would have to be a preposterously cruel joke if we were wrong. '4
Therefore, it is understandable that a challenge to the Milankovitch theory would be met with great resistance. One such
challenge came in 1988 when Isaac Winograd and co-workers reported a supposed global climate chronology for the latest
Quaternary Period.5 Their results were based on uranium-series dating and oxygen isotope analysis of a thick calcite
coating on the walls of a water-filled fault crack. The crack, called Devil's Hole, is located in the desert 115 km westnorthwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. (Figure 1). The researchers later extended their chronology for 500,000 years of
supposed geologic time.67 They claim their U-series dates of the calcite are ten times more accurate than any other Useries dates, including the U-series dates of raised coral reefs that indirectly provided the dates for oxygen isotope
fluctuations in deepsea cores. Winograd and colleague's chronology conflicts with the Milankovitch theory.8 Winograd and
co-worker's oxygen isotope curve superficially appears similar to the Milankovitch radiational time series for high latitudes of
the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2). However, a closer look reveals a number of serious discrepancies. Mainly that the

termination of the 'next to the last ice age' was about 140,000 years ago (supposed geological time), while the Milankovitch
theory predicts it should be 123,000 years ago. But the timing difference is even greater because of the lag in ground water
that flows to Devil's Hole. The time it takes precipitation to filter through the ground to Devil's Hole is supposedly anywhere
from a few thousand to 20,000 years. This lag would push the Devil's Hole 'ice age' termination back from 140,000 to
150,000 years or so. Therefore, the oxygen isotope curve from Devil's Hole is out of phase with the Milankovitch radiational
curve at 60 N ice ages would melt during cool temperatures and develop during warm temperatures. A further challenge
from the Devil's Hole chronology is that the oxygen isotope fluctuations ranged from 80,000 to 130,000 years and did not
display the neat 100,000 year periodicity predicted. Since 1988, there have been many attempts to discredit the Devil's Hole
chronology. One of the latest attempted to show that the Devil's Hole chronology was related to Milankovitch radiational
changes at latitudes other than 60 N and seasons other than summer.9 If such a correlation were possible with the outofphase Devil's Hole chronology, the Milankovitch theory would be plastic indeed! All these attacks on the Devil's Hole
chronology seem to have been adequately addressed by Winograd and co-workers. Recently, it was claimed that the
challenge from the Devil's Hole oxygen isotope chronology on the Milankovitch theory had been quelled. Edwards and
associates 'redated' Barbados coral terraces that were presumably formed during interglacial high sea level stands. The
terraces were one of the main original methods which were used to indirectly date oxygen isotope curves in deep sea cores.
The Milankovitch theory was not totally based on the dated terraces, but partially so. Using the 231Pa/235U method (one of
the U-series methods), but with ten times the previous accuracy, they supposedly vindicated the Milankovitch theory,
because they obtained similar dates to the original work.10 Breathing a sight of relief,
Richard Kerr expounds:
'For a while, it looked as if
a waterfilled crack in the
Nevada
desert
might
doom
the
accepted
explanation of the ice ages
...If the Devil's Hole
chronology was a true
record of the world's ice
ages, researchers would
have
to
dump
the
astronomical mechanism
and look for something
new.' 11
Unfortunately,
Edwards
and colleagues by the
same dating method also
verified the Devil's Hole
chronology! They could
find nothing wrong with it.
So
both
contradictory
chronologies are deemed
correct! Since Milankovitch
is confirmed to be correct
and Winograd is too, there must be some other explanation for the Devil's Hole chronology. At least researchers can now
concentrate their attention on the challenge to climatic change, instead of errors in U-series dating. However, climatic
hypotheses to explain the discrepancy at Devil's Hole have nearly been exhausted. Winograd is not impressed with the new
results of Edwards and colleagues, stating that they have simply reanalyzed coral samples that have already been used to
support the Milankovitch theory. Interestingly, Edwards and colleagues discovered in the process a few large errors in
previous dating.12 Winograd also suggests Edwards and co-workers have neglected coral reefs from other locations that
may not support the Milankovitch theory due to older dates.13 Winograd does not believe the discrepancy between Devil's
Hole and the Milankovitch theory has been solved,14 but believes the Devil's Hole
Figure 1. Location of the Devil's Hole in Nevada. Major mountains with contours of 2400and 3600 m are shaded. Major
roads are shown.
chronology is recording true global climatic changes, just like the Milankovitch chronology, and not just local climate
fluctuations as some researchers have
claimed.15 Most scientists, however, still favour
the Milankovitch paradigm. Throughout this
decade-long controversy, one learns that Useries dating on corals has not really been that
accurate, in spite of claims to the contrary. There
are processes that disturb the chronology, such
as the diagenesis of calcite. Despite all the
claimed successes throughout the years, we now
find that, 'Getting accurate dates for the ancient
reefs has always been a challenge...'.16 Another
interesting fact is that, beyond the range of
carbon-14 dating, deep-sea sediments are
indirectly dated.17 These indirect dates are
mainly from U-series dates of coral terraces,
such as at Barbados; paleomagnetic reversals in
the sediments, the first marker being about
780,000 years ago (the Brunhes-Matuyama
reversal); and by simply assuming the
Milankovitch theory is true and tuning the
chronology to the theory, a form of circular
reasoning. When you think about it, such
methods are a rather shaky foundation for such a

major paradigm change. The Devil's Hole chronology has one mysterious feature that currently has no solution, which may
hint that there are some unrecognized problems with the U-series dating method. The 500,000 year chronology begins
60,000 years ago and ends about 556,000 years ago (supposed geologic time). There has been no calcite precipitation on
the outside of the deposit for 60,000 years! Researchers can find no environmental reason for such a change; the water is
still supersaturated with respect to carbon
dioxide. One also wonders why so much research on so many aspects of Quaternary earth sciences over the years fits so
well the Milankovitch range of frequencies, despite the theories many lapses.
Figure 2. An ice age 'out of synch'? Whether the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination
II) fell at a sunshine minimum or maximum depends on which record is preferred
SPECMAP or Devil's Hole. (The vertical scale shows standard deviation units.)

On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles

Some of the impl i c a t ions following from the article entitled On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch
cycles1 should be noted. If the 1/20th subharmonic of the Duffing equation is the cause of the anomalous, supposedly
400,000-year cycle in the original paper by Hayes et al.,2 then its appearance elsewhere in the stratigraphic record should
herald either a quick catastrophic event or a global event of short duration on the spinning earth. Its appearance anywhere
would speak against a Milankovitch cycle interpretation of the stratigraphic layers under examination; its appearance should
help pinpoint catastrophic events in a creationist model. Interestingly, Late Triassic to Middle Cretaceous cycles interpreted
as being approximately 400,000 years long do seem to exist in data from eastern North America3, central Italy4 and
Hungary5. Even though such cycles are asserted to also exist at the Permian/Triassic6 and Cretaceous/ Tertiary7 mass
extinction boundaries, the bundling of ~ 100 k.y. eccentricity cycles into ~ 400 k.y. eccentricity cycles7 seems at present to
be wishful thinking lacking the rigor of a real signal processing analysis. Certainly the hypothesized enhanced sensitivity of
the oceans to orbital forcing for almost 1 m.y. [million years]7 due to a single hypothesized extraterrestrial impact must
strain the incredulity of even evolutionists (and lend support to the alternative Deccan Trap volcanism explanation). If the
articles conjecture about modal coupling of physical systems being the cause of the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle
over the 40,000- year cycle is correct, then the socalled transition problem of having no explanation for the 100,000-year
cycle being dominant over the last one million years when the 40,000-year cycle was dominant for the previous two million
years does not exist. Instead such a transition marks the onset of modal coupling, the evidence for the physical progression
of a catastrophic event into a new region. It is probable that further data on such transition problems for stratigraphically
older layers will help elucidate and refine a creationist model. Indeed, just an examination of the relative amplitudes of the
1/20th subharmonic at various localities to other orders of harmonics at the same places may reveal the progression of the
physical phenomenon responsible for the stratigraphic layers. Different rates of attenuation for these different frequency
components are expected. Many other tests revealing details of the physical process could be applied if the data were
available. From our research8 it appears that recovering the catastrophic tell-tale 400,000-unit anomalous Milankovitch
cycle from Pennsylvanian strata has the potential to be fraught with a great deal of difficulty due to diagenetic separation of
floating forest layers (unless, of course, the application of a low pass filter to the raw data proves effective). Anyway, further
finds of supposedly 400,000-year stratigraphic cycles can only help hasten the demise of the Milankovitch cycle paradigm.
MAMMOTHS WHAT EXACTLEY ARE THEY
Lost world animalsfound!
Cave drawings brought to life by exciting new discoveries
The spread from our 1996 Creation magazine
article showing these living mammoth-like
elephants.
by Carl Wieland
Tantalising rumours of huge, unusual elephants,
with features similar to extinct elephant types like
the mammoth, have circulated for years in
remote areas of western Nepal.
In a time when it seems as if there is not much
left to be discovered, Colonel John BlashfordSnell is an explorer whose very name evokes
some of the romance of past colonialera
expeditions.His discovery of two of these
elephants has confirmed the rumours and sent a
buzz through the scientific community. The two
bulls, named Raja Gaj and Kanji, are hugeRaja
Gaj stands 3.7 metres (12 feet) tall, taller than the
biggest Asian elephant on record, and weighs
around seven tonnes.
Mammoth Discovery
Their features happen to be remarkably like those shown in cave drawings of the mammoths, for example in southwest
France, which are dated by evolutionists to as much as 30,000 years (and never less than 10,000 years) ago. 1 These
distinctive characteristics include unusually sloping backs, reptilian appearance of the tail, a swept-up forehead interrupted
by a deep depression and a large dome-shaped hump on the top of their heads.
Media speculation about the Nepalese giants has canvassed not only mammoths, but also species believed to be extinct for
millions of years, such as the Stegodon, and Elephas hysudricus. Fossil bones of the latter, as well as of mammoths, have
been found in Nepal.2,3
Obtaining DNA samples to compare with the DNA of mammoths (of which there are some samples) involves some difficulty.
Also, neither mammoth nor modern elephants DNA has been properly sequenced yet. Nevertheless, using dung believed to

be from these creatures, preliminary DNA testing is said to show that they are more similar to the Asian elephant than to the
mammoth. Some speculate that these unique giants might represent some sort of throwback due to unusual inbreeding.
Those who blithely accept evolutionary dating have a problem: what are features found in mammoths which supposedly
vanished more than 10,000 years ago doing in animals today? 4 These features are presumably caused by the same genes
which produced them in the extinct mammoths. It is most unlikely that even the most ardent evolutionist would think that
the same distinctive features evolved twice in creatures that happened to be similar in many other ways as well.
A horse, of course
Not long after the elephant discovery, another team of explorers found a previously unknown breed of horse, grazing in a
remote valley in Tibet, which looks exactly like those in Stone Age cave paintings. Known as the Riwoche (pronounced
Reewoechay) horse, it has the same wedge-shaped head (zebras have this too), the same black stripe on its back, and
black lines on its lower legs.
Discoveries like this, of animals (or features) which are supposed to be extinct long ago, in spite of the discomfort they may
cause to evolutionary thinking, seem to always generate headlines laced with evolutionary assumptions. Statements such
as prehistoric survivors or creatures from millions of years ago that time forgot are routine, and serve to further
indoctrinate the public into an evolutionary, when the evidence contradicts this view.
A Creationists understanding
The cave paintings which show features just like the living Nepalese elephants and the Riwoche horse would have been
made in the early centuries after the Flood, following the dispersion at Babel, when many rapidly migrating groups would
have needed to shelter in caves and use stone tools. This is so, not only because of the fact that small groups leaving a
culture do not necessarily carry all its technological know-how, but also because of the harsh climatic conditions of that
inevitable consequence of the Global Flood, the Ice Age.6
Since the time when these paintings were made is obviously much, much more recent than evolutionists claim, the fact that
the same animals are still alive is nowhere near as surprising for creationists as it is for the evolutionist, who has to believe
that they survived unchanged for tens of thousands of years, with no other record of their existence in the intervening period.
It is not surprising to find that the Riwoche horse has a zebra-like head, being descended from the same gene pool. For the
same reason, it is not surprising to find that genes giving rise to characteristics similar to those in vanished types are still in
some elephant populations today.
The Riwoche horse was described in news reports as primitive or as looking archaic. 7 It is obvious that there is nothing
primitive about this real, modern horse living normally in the same world as the rest of us. Such terms merely demonstrate
a belief system being forced onto the facts. It is easier for believers in evolution to label these presentday elephants and
horses as archaic, than to face the uncomfortable alternative proposition; namely, that finding them in the modern world
means that the culture which drew the same creatures was far less archaic, and far closer to modern times, than
evolutionary belief requires.
The Riwoche horseall the same features as the horses common in stone age cave drawings

Creationists agree with evolutionists that forests once covered Tibet, only creationists believe it was much more recent than
evolutionists do. Not surprisingly, the discoverers of this horse also found what look like living remnants of these forests of
conifer, willow, birch and other vegetation.
The frequent discoveries of such prehistoric survivors and so-called living fossils make it ever more difficult to believe the
alleged long timespans between prehistory and the present.
The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze?
by Michael Oard
Summary
Apart from formerly glaciated areas, woolly mammoth remains are abundant in the surficial sediments of the mid and high
latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, including western Europe, northern and eastern Asia, Alaska and the Yukon. There
are probably millions of mammoths buried in the permafrost of Siberia alone. The mammoths are found with a wide variety
of other mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. They lived in a grassland environment with a long growing
season, mild winters, very little permafrost, and a wide diversity of plantsquite different from the climate in the region
today.
The mammoths and other animals colonised the region after the Flood during the ice age. The regions climate during the
ice age was ideal for rapid population growth and, in the 600 or so years before their demise, the population had grown to
many millions of animals. They were buried in the dust storms that deposited the loess blankets found in those regions
today. Some were entombed in a standing position. The good state of preservation of the stomach contents does not call for

super-rapid freezing of the carcasses. Rather than food digestion, the mammoth stomach acts as a food storage pouch. The
mammoths became extinct when, at the end of the ice age, the climate in the region became more continental, with colder
winters, warmer summers, and drier conditions.
Frozen carcasses and many thousands of tons of bones and tusks of woolly mammoths are buried in Siberia and Alaska. In
March 2000, the Discovery Channel produced a special on the excavation of a carcass in north central Siberia, called the
Jarkov mammoth. This mammoth was cut out of the permafrost and transported by helicopter into cold storage for future
analysis and possible cloning.1
Mammoth remains have puzzled scientists and laymen for hundreds of years. Many explanations have been offered. One of
the most popular hypotheses is that one eventful day, the hairy elephants were peacefully grazing on grass and buttercups
when suddenly, tragedy struck, and millions of them froze instantly.
This article examines the life and death of the woolly mammoth in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory of Canada. These
areas, together with the surrounding shallow ocean (Bering Strait), are called Beringia. There are still unknowns associated
with the woolly mammoth and its environment in Beringia. Some information is conflicting. However, the data is pointing to a
unique environment and extinction of the woolly mammoths in Beringia.
What is a woolly mammoth?
A woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)
is one of several types of mammoths in the
genus Mammuthus within
the
order
Proboscidea. The woolly mammoth is
essentially a hairy elephant with a large
shoulder hump, a sloping back, small ears, tiny
tail, unique teeth, a small trunk with a
distinctive tip and two finger-like projections,
huge spirally curved tusks up to 3.5 meters
long, and spiral locks of dark hair covering a
silky underfur.2
Mammoths are classified mainly on variables
such as molar hypsodonty (height of the
crown), number of lamellae (ridges on crown),
and enamel thickness. History shows there has
been much taxonomic splitting of mammoths,
as well as other members of Proboscidea. It is
likely that they are all descended from a single
created kind.2 In general, there seem to be two
main varieties of mammoths on both Eurasia and North America. The woolly mammoth is the smaller variety that generally
inhabited the north. The second, more southern variety, from both Eurasia and North America can be lumped together for
simplification and referred to as the Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi).
Figure 2. Distribution of woolly mammoth remains, and the mammoth steppe. Glaciated areas are shown speckled.
Mammoth steppe is shown hatched. The area referred to as Beringia is shown separately (after Guthrie 143). Note that the
extent of the northern and eastern boundaries of the Scandinavian ice sheet is controversial.
Mammoth distribution
Mammoths are commonly found in surficial sediments from western Europe eastward through northern and eastern Asia,
Alaska and the Yukon (Figure 2).3,4 Mammoth remains are also found on some of the islands in the Bering Sea 5,6 and are
dredged from the shallow continental shelves surrounding Beringia. 7,8 Enormous numbers of ice age mammals, most
commonly mammoths, are dredged up from the unconsolidated sediments of the North Sea by trawlers. 9 Woolly mammoths
are found in abundance south of the North American ice sheet. They are rare in formerly glaciated areas. Mammoth and
mastodon teeth have been dredged from 40 sites along the continental shelf off the eastern US in water up to 120 m deep.10
In Siberia, the woolly mammoth inhabited the whole area from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Their east-west
distribution is generally uniform, except that they are especially abundant in northeast Siberia.11 Their numbers increase
farther north.12,13 Mammoth remains are amazingly abundant on the Lyakhov Islands 14 and the other islands of the New
Siberian Islands, 230 km north of the Arctic coast. 12,15Frozen mammoth carcasses are usually found eroding out of river
banks and along the shore of the Arctic Ocean.
Mammoth fauna
Woolly mammoths are not the only fossil mammals found in the permafrost of Beringia. There are a wide range of other
mammals, large and small, that accompany the mammoths. These include the woolly rhinoceros, wolf, fox, lion, brown bear,
camel, deer, ground sloth, pika, wolverine, ferret, ground squirrel, moose, reindeer, yak, musk ox, giant beaver, lemming,
porcupine, coyote, skunk, mastodon, antelope, sheep, voles, hare and rabbit, plus many species of birds, rodents, horses,
and bisons.4,1619 Frozen carcasses of these animals, especially the woolly rhinoceros, are also found. Generally, the same
animals are found together throughout much of the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.3,20
How many mammoths are buried in Siberia?
There has been much controversy over how many woolly mammoths are frozen in the permafrost of Siberia. A few scientists
attempt to downplay the number,21 but practically all observers describe the number in superlatives.
The top expert on woolly mammoths in Siberia, Nikolai Vereshchagin, has spent nearly a half century of research on the
mammoth fauna. He states that there are many hundreds of thousands of large mammals buried in Siberia22 and also many
millions of bones.23 One estimate he made for one region of Siberia would suggest five million mammoths buried. 24 Is he
exaggerating? It would be conservative, therefore, to conclude that several million mammoths are buried in Beringia.
Perplexing mammoth data
There are many perplexing aspects to the Siberian mammoth finds, including the existence of frozen carcasses and the
good preservation of their stomach contents. In addition, a number of the carcasses and skeletons have been unearthed in
a general standing position, as if the animal sank in a bog.2527 The Selerikhan horse was entombed in a general standing
position.28 The new Jarkov mammoth was dug up in a standing position.

It is also relevant that an analysis of several features of the carcasses shows that three woolly mammoths and two woolly
rhinocerosessuffocated, including the Beresovka (or Beryosovka) mammoth. 2932 The Beresovka mammoth also had a
broken pelvis, ribs, and right foreleg.13,27For carcasses to be frozen and the bones and tusks well preserved, quick burial is
necessary. But how could all these woolly mammoths have been forced into the rock hard permafrost, which starts about
half a meter deep, below the summer melt zone?
Beringian paleoenvironmental deductions
The animals themselves tell us much about the paleoenvironment a controversial subject.33 The diversity of animals was
so great that there must have been a highly diverse vegetation.34 The only similar diversity of mammals is on the Serengeti
of East Africa.34,35 Practically all the large mammals were grazers that ate a wide variety of herbaceous vegetation, mainly
grasses. Based on the large numbers of
healthy individuals, Beringia, as well as
Europe and western Russia, must have been
mostly one huge grassland during the ice
age, called the mammoth steppe or steppe
tundra (Figure 2).3,34,36,37
Figure 3. Ability of animals to walk through
deep snow or to stay on top of crusted snow
depends on foot loading and chest height
(after Guthrie).144 The sheep and wolf could
not have tolerated deep snow or boggy
substrate.To maintain a large variety of
herbaceous vegetation on the mammoth
steppe would have required a long growing
season with warm soil and rapid spring
growth.38 This contrasts strongly to the
current environment where green vegetation
does not appear in northern Siberia until mid
June to early July.39 Ninety percent of the
biomass of grass is in the roots below the
surface, and the grass cannot grow until the
snow melts and the soil warms up.
Therefore, winters must have been milder
with light snowfall. The growth pattern of the mammals reinforces the deduction of a longer growing season. 34 The shaggy
ruffs, heavy horns, long tusks, and enormous antlers are what wildlife managers would recognise as indicators of highquality habitat with light competition and a long growing season. 40 Open range with light snowfall during winter is also
supported by the existence of several animals that are intolerant of deep snow, such as the saiga antelope, bighorn sheep,
Dall sheep, and wolf (Figure 3).41With milder winters and a longer growing season over an extensive grassland, it is likely
that there were no significant areas of permafrost. This is because permafrost would have caused a boggy substrate in
summer, making it difficult for much grass to grow. Further paleoecological evidence for a lack of permafrost comes from the
existence of some animals with small hooves, such as the saiga antelope. This animal cannot manage on boggy substrate.
Furthermore, there is plenty of other evidence that the climate of Siberia was once much warmer, but again this evidence is
somewhat obscured by uniformitarian dating and pigeonholing the evidence into supposed interglacial and interstadial
periods.42
Mammoth uniformitarian problems
How millions of mammoths became entombed in Siberian permafrost really taxes the uniformitarian principle. Why would
multitudes of mammoths, plus the many other animals, even want to live in Siberia with its fierce winters and summer bogs?
What would these large beasts eat? Siberia today supports only a very few large animals, and these are especially adapted
to boggy vegetation and often migrate to escape the full force of winter. Most perplexing of all, how did the woolly
mammoths die in Siberia? Was it a quick freeze? Was man the hunter responsible for the demise of the mammoths?
Today, Siberia is well known for its bitterly cold winters. The lowest temperature in the Northern Hemisphere is -68C at
Verkhoyansk.43 Large mammals can usually tolerate a fair amount of cold. But could the mammoths, horses, bison, and
other animals tolerate 6 to 9 months of bitter cold with even colder wind-chill temperatures in blizzards? Vereshchagin and
Baryshnikov44 state: There would be no place for mammoths in the present arctic tundra of Eurasia with its dense snow
driven by the winds.Could the animals have lived in Siberia today during the relatively warm summer, perhaps migrating
there from the south? The temperature likely would have been pleasant for them, but the environment deadly. Siberia today
is in the permafrost zone where up to a metre of the surface melts in the summer. Water pools on the surface forming
massive bogs and muskegs, making summer travel difficult, if not impossible, for man and beast.44,45 Tolmachoff 46 states that
a few inches of this sticky mud makes the substrate practically impassable for a man, and that a foot or more would
probably trap a mammoth.Siberia may be lush with vegetation in the summer, but it is the wrong type. Although there are
patches of grass, bog and muskeg vegetation predominates, and these are low in nutrition for grazers. 47 The taiga forest
vegetation south of the current tundra is also poorly digestible for grazers. 48 Comparing living elephants to mammoths, the
daily requirement for a woolly mammoth would have been about 200 to 300 kg of succulent vegetation 49 and 130190 litres
of water! Vereshchagin50 flatly declares: Neither mammoth nor bison could exist in the sort of tundra that exists there [in
Siberia] today.The problem is even more paradoxical in a uniformitarian ice age climate. Ice age climate simulations are of
variable quality, depending upon the initial conditions, the approximations employed for complex variables, the particular
physics, the number of variables, whether the simulation is a general circulation model, etc. Nevertheless, the better general
circulation models demonstrate that the glacial climate of Siberia (assuming uniformitarianism) would have been colder
(about 1020C) than today: During glacial and stadial stages, the climate of Siberia was much colder than at
present. 51 This deepens the mystery of why the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska were never glaciated!Except possibly on
Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean,5254 the woolly mammoth died out in Siberia at the end of the ice age. Furthermore, the
woolly mammoth and many of the other large mammals, including 33 genera from North America, disappeared on whole
continents or went extinct. There are two main hypotheses to account for all this extinction at the end of the ice age: either
they were killed by man in a great blitzkrieg slaughter, or they died because of climate change. 55 Uniformitarian scientists do

not know the answer to this, but it has been extraordinarily controversial for more than 200 years. At a recent mammoth
conference, Alroy expressed his frustration:
After many decades of debate, the North American end-Pleistocene megafaunal mass extinction remains a lightning rod of
controversy. The extraordinarily divergent opinions expressed in this volume show that no resolution is in sight. 56
Non-creationist hypotheses
Such confounding enigmas, not only about the mammoth and the mammoth steppe fauna, but also about the ice age itself,
have naturally produced many hypotheses. Early scientists produced a lot of confused writing. For example, Sir Henry
Howorth,7,12 who gathered copious observations from Siberian explorers that are considered fairly accurate, believed the
mammoths met their demise in a continental-scale flood, but that this flood was not a Global Flood.Immanuel Velikovsky
wrote two influential popular books on astral and earth catastrophes, called Worlds in Collision57 and Earth in Upheaval.58In
these books the demise of the woolly mammoths in Siberia played a lead role. He weaved the mysteries of the mammoth,
the ice age, and many other puzzles from the earth sciences into a catastrophic adventure featuring Venus and Mars,
occurring about 3,500 years ago. Velikovsky is sharp at pointing out the many earth science puzzles of the past, which a
large number of scientists seem to either ignore or minimise. However, he cannot help but add an element of hyperbole,
such as the following in referring to the muck of Alaska:
Under what conditions did this great slaughter take place, in which millions upon millions of animals were torn limb from
limb and mingled with uprooted trees? 59His mechanism for explaining the extinction of the woolly mammoth, supposedly
living in a warm climate and then suddenly being quick frozen, is a catastrophic poleshift to a more vertical Earth axis (to
warm the region up) and then back again to near the present23 degrees (to cool it down). The idea of a quick freeze is
based mainly on the presence of food in the mammoths mouths and not enough time for their last meals to decay in their
stomachs. Other popular writers have accepted and embellished Velikovskys ideas. 6062Charles Ginenthal63 provides an
updated, more elaborate defense of Velikovskys pole shift hypothesis. There is one major problem, among many, with
Ginenthals and Velikovskys hypothesis, and that is a pole shift to a more vertical axis will cool the region, not warm it up.
Creationist hypotheses
The information on the woolly mammoths in Siberia is confusing, and most of it is published in Russian. All this data, and the
many hypotheses, were bound to influence creationists, who also have been attempting to interpret the evidence in a
catastrophic framework related to the Flood. Harold Clark 64 recognised that the extinction of the mammoths in Siberia was a
major puzzle that needed a creationist explanation:One of the most perplexing phenomena of geology is that of the socalled frozen mammoths of Siberia.Many creationists have leaned towards a Flood demise. 6568 Joseph Dillow,69 who
wrote an in-depth book on the vapour canopy, focussed considerable attention on how the woolly mammoth became
extinct.70 He proposed that the hairy beasts were quick-frozen just before the Flood. Walter Brown32 included a chapter in his
hydroplate model on what happened to the woolly mammoths. He proposed that the woolly mammoths died during the
Flood by a quick freeze. Dillow and Brown made several mistaken deductions on the data related to the woolly mammoth
and its environment in Beringia, such as that there is over 1,200 m of muck containing animal and vegetative remains.71,72
Clark,64 Harold Coffin,73 and myself 74 believe that the woolly mammoth lived and died during the ice age after the Flood.
Did Siberian mammoths die in the Flood?
There is abundant evidence that the woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon died after the Flood. They were
truly denizens of the post-Flood ice age.The woolly mammoth is part of an ice age mammoth steppe community that ranged
across the non-glaciated portions of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2). 3 Strong arguments favour a post-Flood origin for
the mammoth steppe animals outside of Beringia. The animals are found in: 1) glacial till near the edge of the ice sheets, 2)
river flood plain debris, 3) river terraces, 4) tarpits, 5) caves or rockshelters, 6) loess, 7) sinkholes, and 8) peat bogs. There
are an estimated 51 predominantly male mammoths that are found in a sink hole at Hot Springs, South Dakota. 75 In
northwest Siberia, mammoths are found in sediments above glacial till.76 Spear points are associated with or embedded in
the remains of mammoths at a dozen or more localities in North America. 77 Woolly mammoths are commonly depicted in
cave art from Europe eastward to the Russian plain and Ural Mountains. 78,79 Ivory carvings are rather common in early-man
sites in southern Siberia.80 More than 70 mammoth bone huts have been discovered on the Central Russian Plain. 81,82 Such
surficial features and deposits would be virtually impossible to form during the Flood and must be post-Flood. To isolate the
woolly mammoths in Beringia for a special catastrophic extinction during the Flood, while ignoring the fate of the remainder
of the post-Flood mammoth steppe fauna does not make sense.Another strong argument against the mammoth death-inthe-Flood hypothesis is that the Beringian animals are buried in unconsolidated surficial sediments overlying lithified
sedimentary rocks. If the animals were killed by an ice or hail dump from space during the early Flood, as envisioned by
Dillow and Brown, the animals should be found in the lower portion of the sedimentary strata, a little above crystalline rocks.
This surficial sediment with indications of post-Flood processes lies upon hundreds of meters of consolidated sedimentary
rock that a large majority of creationists would attribute to the Flood. For instance, the Selerikhan horse carcass was found
in frozen loam between peat layers and above a gold placer that lay over Mesozoic rocks. 83 The baby mammoth, Dima, was
found within slope wash on the 10 m terrace of the Kirgilyakh River. The terrace was carved out of Jurassic shales and
sandstones.84,85 Below the surficial sediments that contain the mammoths, most of Siberia is composed of sedimentary
rocks from all ages of the geological column. 86 The bedrock below the Cape Deceit fauna of Kotzebue Sound, Alaska,
consists of Paleozoic metalimestone, Paleozoic schists, and Pliocene basalts.87
The post-Flood rapid ice age
Mammoth remains in the northern hemisphere are associated with events during the ice age. However, uniformitarian ice
age models cannot explain the mammoths, or even the ice age itself. The August 1825, 1997, issue of US News & World
Report had a long series of articles on eighteen great mysteries of science. One of those mysteries is: What causes ice
ages? 88 The June 1996 issue of the popular earth science magazine Earth, reported on a new theory of the ice age. Daniel
Pendick89 starts his article titled The dust ages by saying: If they hadnt actually happened, the ice ages would sound like
science fiction. However, the unique creationist post-Flood ice age offers a reasonable solution for the mammoth mysteries.

Figure 4. Effect
of volcanic dust
on cooling of
continental
interiors. Straight
lines are solar
radiation, partly
reflected back to
space by dust
and
aerosols.
Wavy lines are
infrared radiation.
The result is the
inverse of the
greenhouse
effect.
The ice age was caused by the climatic aftermath of the Genesis Flood. 55 As a result of this great tectonic and volcanic
upheaval, the stratosphere would have held great quantities of dust and aerosols immediately after the Flood. Copious postFlood volcanism would have reinforced the polluted stratosphere. Thus sunlight would have been partially reflected back to
space from the volcanic products trapped in the stratosphere (Figure 4). Less sunlight would have meant cooler land
surfaces, as was observed at various locations after the great volcanic eruption in ad 535. 90 During the Flood, warm water
from the fountains of the great deep would have produced a warm post-Flood ocean. Evaporation would be much greater
at mid and high latitude than today due to the much warmer water. Copious evaporation close to the ice sheets would have
been most favourable for their rapid growth. After many centuries, once the oceans cooled, the ice sheets would have
melted rapidly. Many other aspects of the ice age have been estimated, including the average thickness of the ice sheets,
the length of the ice age, the number of ice ages, etc.55
Mammoth population explosion
Was there enough time for the mammoth population to increase to millions by the end of the post-Flood ice age? We can
estimate the mammoth growth after the Flood by examining the reproductive habits of African elephants, a good analogue.91
The elephant reproductive rate can vary significantly.92 Elephants do not reach sexual maturity until age 10 to 23.93 They live
50 to 60 years. Eltringham94 states that generally, elephants produce a calf at intervals of four to five years with twins 1.35 %
of the time. However, some have suggested that elephants can give birth every two to three years, and there is a case of a
zoo elephant giving birth two years and five months after its first birth. 95 The reproductive rate is especially enhanced in a
favourable environment as when the population is low or the animals are being hunted regularly.92,9699 There are no natural
enemies for a mature elephant, except man, 100 but calves are subject to predation.So, mammoths have the potential to
increase rapidly following the Flood.
Based on doubling rates of 10 years 101 and 25 years91 observed in Africa, there would be (assuming ideal circumstances
with no predation or calf mortality) 2.1 million mammoths in 300 years or 8 million mammoths in 550 years, 102 respectively. In
other words, there should be no problem for the population of woolly mammoths to reach many millions toward the end of
the ice age some 600 years after the Flood.
The post-Flood rapid ice age would have had milder winters and cooler summers with little if any permafrost, mainly
because the Arctic and North Pacific Oceans were warm, and ice-free. 55 It would not have been the formidable landscape
observed today or deduced from uniformitarian ice age expectations. Since the lowlands of Beringia were not glaciated,
another uniformitarian conundrum, Beringia would have been a favourable environment for many mammals.
Extinction of the mammoths at end of ice age
Of all the questions related to the mammoths, their extinction has been the most perplexing. It was not only mammoths that
became extinct at the end of the ice age, but also many other large animals. Why? We will first discuss their extinction in
Siberia and then the extinction of the mammoths and other ice age mammals on whole continents or worldwide.
Were woolly mammoths quick-frozen in Siberia?
The existence of carcasses with identifiable stomach remains and well-preserved bones and tusks has suggested a quickfreeze to many. This has been reinforced by the research of the Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company, which calculated a
sudden fall to below -100C based on heat conduction.103
Creationist quick-freeze advocates32,69 postulate that the quick-freeze was directly related to the Flood. However, as
previously discussed in the section Did Siberian mammoths die in the Flood? the evidence is strong that the Siberian
mammoths are buried in post-Flood sediments
associated with the ice age. All the arguments
presented in that section, such as the mammoths of
Beringia being part of one Northern Hemisphere ice
age fauna, would apply against the quick-freeze
hypothesis.
Figure 5. Headless horse in mine shaft indicates that
some time elapsed between when the animal was
trapped
and
final
burial.
Guthries
cartoon145speculates how the horse was trapped in a
bog with its head and neck exposed, which was
subsequently eaten by a carnivore. The sixth picture
illustrates how the legs of the horse protruded into the
mine shaft. One of its hind legs was used to attach
cables and hang lanterns. The horse could have just
as easily been mired in wind-blown dust as in a bog.
Indeed, the horse was found in loam, sandy loam and
sand
with
a
steppe-like
sporo-pollen
complex,146 typical of wind-blown deposits and
vegetation.

There are other arguments against the quick-freeze hypothesis.

1. The number of frozen carcasses, in spite of under-reporting, is very small compared to the number of mammoth bones
that underwent normal decay and are entombed in the permafrost.104,105
2. The carcasses are often partially decayed with fly pupae and display signs of scavenging, 3,79,106,107 not expected during a
quick-freeze.
3. The unique condition of several of the carcasses, such as the famished condition of Dima and the headless Selerikhan
horse (Figure 5),3,83 indicate some time elapsed before final burial.
4. For some of the carcasses, death appears to have occurred at different times of the year. 83,108 A quick-freeze during the
Flood, especially as advocated by some creationists, would have occurred in a single instant.
5. The characteristics of the permafrost that entombs the carcasses and bones, show that it was not dumped quickly from
above. It is doubtful that ice wedges would form during a quick drop of ice or hail from above.

How are the stomach contents explained?

The fact that the stomach contents were only partially decayed can be explained satisfactorily by understanding the
digestive physiology of the elephant, which was little known until the 1970s. 109 From studying 50 freshly killed elephants, it
was discovered that the main digestive process of elephants does not occur in the stomach, but after the food passes the
stomach, especially in the caecum and colon.109,110 Digestion is achieved mainly by bacteria and protozoa. Yet the
researchers found noprotozoa, no fermentation and very little hydrolysis of cellulose taking place in the stomachs, although
the stomach had a very acidic pH of about 2. This high acidity is expected to partially degrade the stomach vegetation. It is
clear, therefore, that the stomach is mainly a storage area before digestion.111,112
Further evidence that the stomach contents should not necessarily decay completely upon death is provided by the
preserved stomach contents of mastodons found in North America. Preserved vegetation from the gastrointestinal tracts of
mastodons, which are generally found in former peat bogs, have occasionally been reported from the northeast United
States.113115 Recently, the skeleton of a mastodon was discovered within peat on top of an ice age end-moraine in
Ohio.115 The remains yielded a discrete, cylindrical mass of plant material found in association with the articulated vertebrae
and ribs.
Thus a quick chill is not needed to explain the partially preserved stomach contents of the mammoth carcasses.
The big chill and desiccation at the end of the ice age
Near the end of the ice age, as the ocean surface temperature cooled at mid and high latitude, and evaporation slowed, the
equable ice age climate would have changed to a drier, more continental climate with more seasonal
extremes.116 Permafrost would begin developing in Beringia, and the substrate would become boggier in summer. As the
climate became more continental during deglaciation, many animals in Siberia would tend to migrate closer to the Arctic
Ocean, where the waters were still unfrozen and the climate would have been less continental. However, the changing
climate finally caught up with them and they ended up buried in the permafrost that has continued to this day.
Extinction of woolly mammoths in Siberia
With this climatic change, there are a number of ways the mammoths and other animals could have died and become
interred into the permafrost. One is by becoming trapped in bogs. 73 I once thought the cold and wind, itself, could have
simply killed them off,117 but it is probable that the mammoths could have endured much cold. I am sure some of the animals
were trapped by the flooded rivers draining ice sheets and were buried in fluvial or lacustrine deposits. 83,118 Upon further
investigation, I now believe the vast majority of the mammoths and other mammals died and were interred into the
permafrost by none of the above mechanisms. I believe the secret to their demise and burial can be found in the type of
sediment surrounding the woolly mammoths.According to those who have studied these deposits, the vast majority of the
animals are found in the yedomas of Siberia 22 and the muck of Alaska. The yedomas, a Yukut term, are hills 1020 m,
sometimes up to 60 m, high, containing a large percentage of ground ice.119,120 The hills formed after a period of post-ice-age
surficial permafrost melting. Muck is the name given by gold miners to the organic-rich material deposited above goldbearing gravels in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. 121 Vereshchagin122 states that the yedomas contain a great abundance of
mammal bones:
The great abundance of bones of large herbivores in the Yedoma is convincing evidence of the rich pasturage offered by
this region during the Pleistocene .
What type of sediment makes up the yedomas and muck? There has been much controversy and a number of hypotheses
on the origin of this sediment. There is now general agreement that the yedomas and muck are loessa wind-blown silt!
121,123127
Much data support the wind-blown origin of this sediment. The loess is also rich in ground ice and ice wedges. The
ground ice formed by a segregation process in which layers and lenses of ice, sometimes clear and sometimes inter-mixed
with sediment, developed within the silt. 128130 The loess is notthousands of feet deep in Siberia and Alaska, as some have
thought, but is a relatively thin veneer that is widespread in Beringia. 123,125,131,132 Some of the loess, especially in Alaska, has
been reworked by downslope mass flow. Redeposition of the loess has broken and twisted the vegetation and disarticulated
mammal bones, and this has inspired Velikovsky and others to suggest exotic catastrophes.
In the post-Flood ice age model, strong wind would have characterised the big chill and dessication during deglaciation. 133 In
a dry environment, this wind would have picked up and transported large quantities of silt and sand. Abundant wind-blown
material is observed as relic features of the ice age in the Northern Hemisphere. Copious wind-blown dust even occurs in
the ice age portion of the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores. It is known that mammoths and other mammals are entombed
in loess in other areas.122,134136 Thus, it seems likely that the mammoths in Beringia were mostly killed and buried by dust
storms.
Dust storms of variable intensity likely blew from time to time for a few hundred years near the end of the ice age. The
animals could have died from the direct effect of the dust or some other cause. Regardless, the dust would have buried their
remains fairly quickly. The characteristics of the small number of carcasses that must have been buried very rapidly can
likely be explained by gigantic dust storms. From the Dust Bowl era in the midwest of the United States, it is known that a
dust storm can produce dust drifts several meters high, burying tractors and partially covering buildings. It is possible that
dust storms at the end of the ice age would be so intense that they could cover and suffocate a woolly mammoth trying to
survive the storm. It may even be possible to suffocate a mammoth by the strong wind and blowing dust. The animal would
have been buried quickly, since the animal would act like a snow fence. It is not inconceivable that a few of these animals
would have been left in a standing position, braced by the dust around them. The permafrost would then move upward after
the loess was deposited and rapidly freeze the remains, thus accounting for the rapid burial, which seems impossible any

other way. The broken bones of the Beresovka mammoth could easily be explained by the shifting of ground ice and frozen
sediment137 in other words a diagenetic, post-mortem effect of shifting permafrost. 138,139 Although some researchers lean
toward such a diagenetic explanation, there was considerable blood near the wound of the foreleg of the Beresovka
mammoth. Bleeding had occurred between the muscles and the fatty and connective tissues.140
Mammoth fauna extinction elsewhere
The mammoths and many of the other animals went extinct either over the whole world or on continents they once
inhabited. This occurred at the end of the ice age and probably into early post-glacial time. The mystery has a reasonable
solution within the post-Flood ice age model.141
The animals thrived during the ice age because the temperatures were more equable with cool summers and milder winters.
(Note that much of the continental land mass was never covered by ice sheets, even during the ice age.) The disharmonious
associations of plants and animals all over the Northern Hemisphere during the ice age are evidence of this equable
climate. But, this equable climate ended during deglaciation, and the climate became more continental with colder winters
and warmer summers. The existence of ice sheets, the development of sea ice and eventually a cooler ocean than today,
would have resulted in less evaporation and a drier climate. The cold winters and dry climate would stress the animals all
across the Northern Hemisphere. The larger mammals would have been especially susceptible to drought. Thus climate
change likely was the main cause of the end-of-the-iceage extinctions. The reason the large animals did not die out at the
end of previous glaciations is because there were no previous glaciations. 142 Man likely aided the extinction process by
harvesting weakened animals.
Conclusion
Carcasses and bones of woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon have been difficult to explain. The mammoth
remains are abundant over the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, except in formerly glaciated areas. There
are probably millions of them buried in the permafrost of Siberia alone. A wide variety of other mammals, large and small,
accompanied the mammoth. Many of these animals are grazers, implying that the paleoenvironment of Beringia was a
grassland with a wide diversity of plants. This diversity of plants and animals points to a longer growing season with milder
winters and very little permafrost.
This paleoenvironment is contrary to what is observed in Beringia today, with its very cold winters and boggy substrate in
summer. Scientists constrained by uniformitarian thinking seem to face conundrum after conundrum in regard to the life and
death of the woolly mammoth in Beringia, as well as by the ice age itself. A uniformitarian ice age climate would have been
even colder still. It is difficult to conceive that the woolly mammoth and all the other animals could have lived in Siberia
under these conditions. It is obvious the uniformitarian assumption does not apply. Thus, many hypotheses, both creationist
and non-creationist, have been proposed. Creationists have been divided on whether the woolly mammoth perished in the
Flood or afterwards. A number of creationist hypotheses involve a quick freeze, because it was thought that the state of
preservation of the carcasses with only half-decayed vegetation in their stomachs demanded it.Reasonable explanations for
all these mysteries are available within the context of a unique post-Flood ice age. Astral catastrophies, pole shifts and other
such exotic hypotheses are not needed. A quick freeze is also not necessary, and besides, there is much data against the
hypothesis. There is strong evidence that the woolly mammoth died after the Flood during the ice age. There was enough
time for the population of the mammoths to have grown to millions by the end of the ice age. Furthermore, this unique ice
age was characterised by colder summers and warmer winters, resulting in a more favourable habitat for the animals in the
non-glaciated lowlands of Beringia. The animals became extinct at the end of the ice age because the climate changed to a
more continental climate, with colder winters and warmer summers, and drier conditions. There is copious data against the
hypothesis of a quick freeze. The state of preservation of the stomach contents are better explained by the post-gastric
digestive system of elephants in which the stomach is mainly a holding pouch for vegetation.The question of how the
mammoths died in Beringia can be answered by analysing the sediments surrounding the mammoths and other animals.
They are mostly entombed in yedomas in Siberia and muck in Alaska. These are mostly loess and reworked loess. It is
postulated that the animals were buried by dust storms, whether they met their demise directly by wind-blown silt or not. The
carcasses and other perplexing data associated with the carcasses, such as death by suffocation, entombment while in a
standing position, and broken bones, can be explained by death during gigantic dust storms and post-mortem shifting of the
permafrost.
Mr. Ice Age solves woolly mammoth mystery
November 11, 2000
The woolly mammoths have puzzled scientists for hundreds of years, but Ice Age researcher, Mike Oard, has proposed a
radical solution in the latest issue, 14(3), of Journal of Creation.
According to Oard, there is nothing particularly unusual about the mammoths themselves. They are essentially a hairy
elephant, Mike explains. The woolly mammoth has two distinctive spirally curved tusks up to 3.5 metres long. It has a large
shoulder hump, small ears, a tiny tail and a small trunk. Its coiled locks of dark hair cover a silky under-fur.
But, says Oard, there are many perplexing questions relating to the Siberian mammoth finds. Why would they want to live
in Siberia anyway? The point is that they need a grassland environment with a long growing season, mild winters and very
little permafrostquite different from the climate in the region today.
There is another bewildering feature, Mike Oard explained. They are not found in isolation, but with a wide variety of other
mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. Indeed, there have been many hundreds of thousands of large
mammoths found in Siberia, and many millions of bones.
What did they eat? Siberia today supports only a few large animals, and, unlike the woolly mammoth, these are well suited
to the boggy conditions and the sparse vegetation.
Perhaps they migrated for the winter. But that raises more questions than it answers, and already there are enough
questions to deal with.
Most perplexing of all, how did they die and how were the carcasses frozen? To freeze like that, and for the tusks and
bones to be well preserved, quick burial is necessary, Mike said. There needs to be a plausible explanation for how all
those mammoths ended up in the rock-hard permafrost.
What about the amazing preservation of their stomach contents? Was an asteroid involved? Where does s Global Flood fit
in?
Many theories have been advanced but according to Mike, the solution is staring us in the face. It is in the loess blankets
found in those regions today, those fine silt deposits that were blown into place by the wind. It forms yedomas in Siberia
and muck in Alaska.

The full article about the woolly mammoth extinction is found in the latest issue, 14(3) of Journal of Creation (see online
version, PDF file). For a briefer and less technical explanation, see Mammothriddle of the Ice Age.
How did millions of mammoth fossils form?
Q: It has been guesstimated that there are the remains of some six million woolly mammoths in the Arctic Circle alone. My
neighbour states that it would be impossible for such a number to have multiplied in the approx. 1700 years from Creation to
the Flood. J.E.
A: First, six million mammoths is hugely exaggerated. There are fewer than 50 known woolly mammoth carcasses, only
about a half-dozen of which were complete. An estimated 50,000 tusks have been found, although there may have been a
million mammoths living at one time.
Second, modern creationists think that the mammoths were not fossilized by the Flood. Rather, they were fossilized about
700 years later by catastrophes towards the end of the Ice Age, which was an aftermath of the Flood. This is shown by the
fossil locations always in deposits near the surface throughout the mid and high latitudes, mostly in river valleys,
occasionally in ice wedges.1
Third, the large numbers are a problem for the sceptic only because he has not performed the simple calculations required.
Consider that the African elephant reaches breeding age at about 14, and its gestation period averages 670 days, while the
Indian elephant matures even earlier and has a shorter gestation time.2 Thus it would not be unrealistic to assume that a
single mammoth pair could have four offspring by the age of 25. So it is actually generous to the sceptic to assume that the
population could double four times per century (even if the parents in each generation died soon after their offspring were
weaned).. It takes only 22 population doublings to exceed eight million, and this number could be reached in only 550 years.
Mammoth among the pharaohs?
by Dennis Swift
A mammoth in an Egyptian painting? Surely nothavent we been told in textbooks that mammoths definitely died out some
9,500 years ago?
The fact is, however, that at least a dwarf type of mammoth must have been around some 1500 years before Christ, even
by conventional dating.
The photo here (available in Creation magazine) is of a painting in the tomb of Rakh-Mara in the Valley of the Nobles. 1 A
photo of the same figure also appeared in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1994.2
The tomb relief is about the ivory trade. The Nature item says that the creature is not an immature elephant because of its
large tusks but its features (including the domed skull) are more like a reconstruction of a living mammoth than an
immature elephant.
The author points out that Egyptian artists were skilled at life-like depictions of animals from which one could scientifically
identify them. He thus identifies the bear in the picture as a sub-species of Ursus arctos. Although it is possible that the
representation is of a pygmy version of the mammoth, since the man is carrying tusks on his shoulder, he says it is possible
that the animal could be symbolic of the ivorys source rather than intended to be an accurate representation of its size.
This would indicate that the artist likely knew what living full-size mammoths looked like.
Keith Eltringham, a Cambridge University biologist, in his book Elephants, carefully studied the amount of trade in mammoth
ivory and concluded remains are so plentiful that it is tempting to wonder if its demise was not more recent Altogether, it
is estimated that the tusks of at least 45,000 mammoths from Siberia have been sold in the past 300 years. 3
When I brought the photographic evidence to the Cairo museum in Egypt, the authorities had never thought of the
implications of a mammoth painted on the walls of an Egyptian tomb. This sort of find adds weight to the many other items
of evidence (such as rock drawings of dinosaurs 4) which indicate that the dates attributed to the extinction of many well
known creatures have been substantially skewed by evolutionary/long-age thinking. Dennis L. Swift, B.A., M.A., M.Div.,
Ph.D., has been actively engaged in ancient Indian archaeological research and biblical archaeology. His articles on
dinosaurs and man have been published in Russia and he has lectured in Russia as well as appearing on Russian
television. He is currently pastor of Beaverton Nazarene Church in Beaverton, Oregon, USA.
Woolly mammoths were cold adapted
by Michael Oard
Figure 1. A typical illustration of a woolly mammoth, which had three types of
hair. The outside hair was up to one metre long. Besides woolly mammoth skin
having had oil glands, it was also discovered that the hair had adaptations for
the cold.The common perception is that woolly mammoths were denizens of
the cold who lived during the northern hemisphere glaciation. 1 However, some
scholars have questioned whether they were truly cold adapted. 2 Even though
they had thick hair and small ears, adaptations to cold, their hair would have
needed oil to repel rain and snow. Soaked hair would be disastrous in a cold
climate. As late as 1982, an analysis of woolly mammoth skin failed to find oil
glands, known as sebaceous glands: modern elephants do not have these
glands either.3 New information has discovered that the skin of woolly
mammoths indeed had sebaceous glands, and therefore woolly mammoths would not have had a problem living in a cold
climate.
Warm climate mammoth hypotheses
The apparent lack of sebaceous glands is likely to have been responsible for the many hypotheses that place woolly
mammoths in a warm climate that suddenly became very cold. Velikovsky advocated a pole shift from a passing planet,
where a lower-latitude climate suddenly shifted to a higher latitude, thus freezing the mammoths to death.4,5 Hapgood
postulated a crustal shift from low to high latitudes to explain the demise of the woolly mammoths. 6 Walter Brown believes
mammoths lived in a pre-Flood warm climate, but that those at high latitudes froze instantly and were buried in muddy hail
at the beginning of the Flood.7 A lack of sebaceous glands for cold adaptation probably helped spawn his hypothesis:
Mammoth and elephant skin are similar in thickness and structure. Both lack oil glands, making them vulnerable to cold,
damp climates. Arctic mammals have both oil glands and erector musclesequipment absent in mammoths [emphasis in
original, references deleted].8
Recent research indicates woolly mammoths adapted to cold

Recent research has shown that woolly mammoths did have sebaceous glands. 3,9 One of the reasons presented to explain
why these glands were not observed before is that the sample skin was too dry. 3 Apparently, early researchers either had
poor samples or poor methods of analysis. Repin et al.stated:
Here, we present a documentary proof of the presence of sebaceous glands in the woolly mammoth, Mammuthus
primigenius Blum. Thus, our study is a documentary confirmation of the presence of sebaceous glands in the hairy
mammoth. Sebaceous glands are a sign of cold adaptation. The presence of sebaceous glands in mammoths is a
convincing argument in the discussion of the question if mammoths really lived in cold climate zones. 10
Further evidence pointing toward the woolly mammoths adaptation to cold is in a microscopic analysis of their three types of
hair. Extra rod-like medullae were found within the length of the outside hairs (about 1 metre long) of the woolly mammoth,
as well as the woolly rhino. These medullae are likely to have strengthened the outer hair and helped it maintain its shape,
trapping air, and resisting distortion.9 Tridico et al. conclude:
These attributes probably prevented the long overhairs and coarsest guard hairs [middle layer of hair] becoming intertwined
and/or matted. Matted hair is likely to be less efficient at channeling moisture/water and snow away from the body, which
would have proved fatal in the depths of an arctic winter.11
Early decay of woolly mammoth carcasses
Tridico et al. also found some microscopic indications that the carcasses they analyzed had already started to decay before
being frozen, providing evidence against the quick-freeze theory that was suggested in the early 1800s by George
Cuvier.1 The Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company had earlier concluded that the woolly mammoths must have been quick
frozen at temperatures possibly as low as 100C. 12 However, post-mortem banding near the roots of the hair, also called
putrid root, had already occurred, revealing that the specimens of woolly mammoths that were analyzed underwent some
degree of decay before being frozen. Evidence of insect activity in the form of bite marks and hair lice sacs on woolly rhino
hairs reinforce the evidence of some post-mortem decay. Variable fungal damage was also observed in the hair. Skin
slippage, which occurs in the early stages of decomposition, also occurred.
We should not be too ready to accept the data
The evidence favours the notion that the woolly mammoth was cold adapted and lived in the mid and high latitudes of the
northern hemisphere during the rapid onset of the post-Flood Ice Age. 1 The rare woolly mammoth carcasses and other
animals with flesh still preserved are more likely to have been frozen at modest rates, not instantly. A possible scenario
could be the freezing of the animals during a dry, severe Arctic cold front with blowing dust that would bury or mostly bury
them. Such conditions may have been characteristic of the end of the Ice Age.13
As creation scientists, we need to be aware of the pitfalls of evolutionary and deep time interpretations of data. Numerous
paleoenvironmental deductions seem almost obligatory in technical articles about the past. 14 Occasionally, scientific data is
erroneous, or the reported data is of too small a sample size, or may even have been selectively reported, which was part of
the problem for the claim of no sebaceous glands in woolly mammoths. Sometimes, an inappropriate conclusion is difficult
to discern, as evidenced by the earlier reported lack of sebaceous glands in woolly mammoths. In such cases, and if there
are contrary data, it may be necessary to defer judgment pending further studies. Nevertheless, creation scientists need to
be able to adjust their ideas as further research becomes available.15
RELETED DALY ARTICLES
DID BIRDS EVOLVE FROM DINOSAURS
Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?
by Michael J. Oard
A review of the popular dinosaurbird link shows that the case for feathered dinosaurs is mixed, with some claimed
protofeathers possibly being fossilized features of the skin. Some claimed theropods did have true feathers, some even
with flight feathers on their feet, but there are questions as to whether these creatures are really dinosaurs or are unique,
extinct birds similar to Archaeopteryx. Furthermore, careful reassessment shows that the popular belief in the dino-to-bird
transition is based on a flawed cladistics analysis.
Figure 1. A display of a feathered Deinonychus attacking a duckbilled dinosaur, Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana.The idea
that birds evolved from dinosaurs has excited the evolutionary
imagination for many years. Thomas Huxley, called Darwins Bulldog
because of his aggressive promotion of evolution, was the first to
suggest an evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds, an
idea that remained popular in the 1800s.1However, this idea waned in
the early 1900s because paleontologists believed dinosaurs were too
specialized for birds to have arisen from that line. By specialized they
meant that dinosaurs had evolved too many specific complex features
for birds to have evolved from them. The avian origin from reptiles
was still accepted, but the parent creature was thought by some to be
a crocodile-like animal, and by others to be from the flying reptiles, the pterosaurs.In about 1980, the dinosaurbird
connection once again became popular. It started with the idea that dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. 2 The theory
has been fuelled by numerous discoveries of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and other creatures in Liaoning Province,
northeast China. Among these fossils were at least nine that paleontologists claimed were feathered theropod dinosaurs.
This has been widely reported and promoted by the media and popular science journals. Even the journal Nature cited
these discoveries as proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. 3 It is even suggested that some tyrannosaurids (similar to, but
not quite like, T. rex) had protofeathers4,5 Museum displays are now adding feathers to dinosaurs where there is no evidence
for feathers, such as the display in the Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana, showing a
feathered Deinonychus attacking a duck-billed dinosaur (figure 1).However, these claims have met with controversy within
evolutionary circles. Creationists have analyzed these arguments in detail and found them problematic.69 This issue of
feathered dinosaurs is confusing, partly because we do not have all the information, and future discoveries will undoubtedly
change the picture. At present, however, enough is known to question the reality of feathered dinosaurs and the avian
descent from these reptiles.The origin of feathers from scales or some other part of the skin is an extremely difficult
evolutionary problem.10Feathers seem simple but are very complex. 7,11 Furthermore, the whole anatomy and physiology of

the evolving creature must be radically changed. The evolution of powered flight also presents a major obstacle. Even those
who have implicit faith in the reality of evolution have noted these difficulties:
In either case, the anatomical changes needed for flying must have evolved in a sequence of very small steps, because
nothing we know about evolution allows us to believe that feathered wings could have appeared abruptly as an innovation in
avian anatomy. Wings must have evolved over a very long time span. And each new modification of body plan or limbs
during that period must have made some contribution to fitness long before the day when a jumping or gliding creature gave
the first strong beat of its forelimbs and ceased simply falling back to earth.12
Prior to 1980, it was argued that birds had not evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs lack a furcula, or a
wishbone.13 Since then, it has been discovered that some dinosaurs do have furculas of various types. 1419 This discovery
helped tilt opinion towards the dino-bird link. 20Another discovery
supporting the avian descent from dinosaurs was that some
dinosaurs had hollow bones, generally considered a bird
trait.21,22 But the most convincing argument for evolutionists has
come from the new classification system known as cladistics.
Therefore, I will summarize each of these recent discoveries and
ideas, demonstrating that the evidence is not as strong as many
think.
Figure 2. Drawings of two Sinosauropteryx prima fossils from
China. Note the bent necks, tails, and limbs at the joints, which is
the death throes position. (From Currie and Chen, ref. 23.)
Claimed feathered dinosaurs from China
All the discoveries of feathered dinosaurs have been made in
northeast China.2225 There seems to be two groups of feathered
dinosaurs: those with protofeathers and those with true
feathers. Sinosauropteryx
prima is
claimed
to
have
protofeathers, dubbed dino fuzz by some, as shown by fibres
that emanate from the skeletons (figure 2). 22,23 Such fibres are
also found on Sinornithosaurus millenii from China.26 They have
been called integumentary (skin) structures. Recently, colour
pigments have been found in the integumentary structures
of Sinosauropteryx that lend support to the belief that these
structures
are
decayed
feathers.27,28Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor and
a
few others are claimed to have true feathers of modern
aspect and
are
classified
as
small
theropod
dinosaurs. Microraptoractually has four wings, with the second
pair coming off the hind legs.29Such data has been hailed as infallible proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. 22 Paul Sereno
stated in 1997 that the origin of birds from dinosaurs has been resolved in its favour. 30 Phil Currie has no doubts and
believes that theropod dinosaurs are alive today:
In fact, because birds are the direct descendants of theropods, they are technically classified as theropod dinosaurs.
Therefore, there are more than 10,000 species of theropods alive today.31
Currie believes that many dinosaurs had feathers. 32 Others are even more dogmatic: Richard Prum is adamant that
birds are modern dinosaurs, claiming that those who disagree with him are non-scientists. 33 In doing so, he dismisses all the
critical evidence against his position. Prum believes the new information has redefined the science of ornithology: The
recognition that birds are theropod dinosaurs has redefined the science of ornithology as extant dinosaur biology.34
As a result of this new theory, scientists have discovered many behaviours in birds that they believe can be traced back to
their dinosaur ancestors, such as parental care and brooding. These links are supported by findings of adult dinosaurs
fossilized in close association with egg clutches. 35 However, brooding is not unique to birds, and claims that this fossil
evidence demonstrates brooding go beyond the evidence, since they were not in a brooding pose above the eggs. 36,37 There
are other possibilities; e.g. the fossil dinosaurs could have died while laying their eggs.
Problems with feathered dinosaurs
In spite of recent discoveries and the enthusiasm for the dinosaur ancestry of birds, significant evidence suggests that the
question remains open to doubt among many evolutionists. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia and others have challenged all the
claims of feathered dinosaurs. However, part of their opposition is based on their bias that birds evolved from different
reptiles that lived before the dinosaurs, although Feduccia admits that there is little or no evidence for this hypothesis,
either.38 Another possibility, of course, is that neither hypothesis is valid because evolution has not happened. We need to
examine some of the other problems with the new discoveries.Another reason for skepticism should be the discovery that
some of the fossils promoted as proof turned out to be fraudulent, cobbled together to look like a missing link between
dinosaurs and birds. Archaeoraptorwhich made the front cover of National Geographic in November 1999was hailed as
proof of feathered dinosaurs and the dinosaurbird link. However, like so many transitional fossil proofs, it was
subsequently shown to be a forgery.39 It turned out to be a fossil bird with a dinosaur tail glued on. Most telling was that this
simple deception succeeded in fooling many scientists.
Bird evolution from a lizard-hipped dinosaur?
Dinosaurs have long been classified by the structure of their hip; the two branches are the lizard-hipped dinosaurs and the
bird-hipped dinosaurs.40 Interestingly, it appears that bird evolution was from the wrong typethe lizard-hipped theropods.
Barrett noted: Confusingly, bird-hipped dinosaurs are only distantly related to birds, whereas the direct ancestors of birds
are to be found among the lizard-hipped dinosaurs.41
DeCourten corroborated this observation:
Confusingly, though, these bird ancestors were members of the order Saurischia [lizard-hipped dinosaurs], not the
Ornithischia [bird-hipped dinosaurs], as we might expect from the names alone.42
So, evolutionists are forced to believe that hips diagnostic of birds evolved at least twice, despite the complete lack of fossil
evidence for such an evolutionary swerve.
Integumentary structures likely not protofeathers
Although it is possible that the integumentary structures are decayed true feathers, there are some problems with that
deduction. Feduccia and others have analyzed the claims of the feathered dinosaurs from China in some detail.43 They
found experimental and fossil evidence that the fibres found along the outside of the skeleton of Sinosauropteryx and others
are better explained as collagen fibres that were simply a part of the skin of the dinosaur.4446We also know that there are

several dinosaurs with no claimed evolutionary link to birds that also have these fibres. One of these is Psittacosaurus, a
horned dinosaur similar to ceratopsians.43,45,47,48 A second is a new birdhipped dinosaur found in China that incidentally
extended the stratigraphic range of this particular kind of dinosaur up towards the present by at least 60 million
years,49,50 illustrating, if nothing else, that theoretical changes may be demanded by new evidence waiting to be discovered.
Birds did not supposedly evolve from bird-hipped dinosaurs, but from lizard-hipped dinosaurs (see above), which is why the
discovery of integumentary structures on a bird-hipped dinosaur is so significant.Other types of fossil animals also show
these bristlelike collagen fibres, such as a pterosaur, an ichthyosaur, and other reptiles and dinosaurs.51 Even collagen fibres
from a dead dolphin were similar to the claimed protofeathers from China.52 Thus, these fibrous structures cannot be
considered unique to dinosaurs in the evolutionary chain leading to birds, which also supports the conclusion of Feduccia et
al. that they are simply collagen fibres.43 For those who believe in dinosaur-bird evolution, the picture has become fuzzier:
Perhaps the only clear conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing is that little Tianyulong has made an already
confusing picture of feather origins even fuzzier. Such an outcome is common in palaeontology.53
It may be that the colour pigments found in the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx are not unique to feathers, but
this is disputed by Lingham-Soliar.48,54 Lingham-Soliar summarizes by concluding, after much research, that the evidence for
protofeathers is non-existent:
It is important to understand that this paper neither supports nor refutes the hypothesis of protofeathers but rather rejects
the alleged evidence from fossils to date.55
The temporal paradox
Another more minor problem with the feathered dinosaurs from China is the reported age of the new fossils. They are
mostly 25 Ma youngerthan the first true bird fossil, Archaeopteryx, which was found in the Late Jurassic, which is
supposedly 150 Ma ago.56 Scientists tend to come up with complex terms for simple issues, and this is no exception;
geologists call it the temporal paradox. However, supporters of the dinosaur-bird link have a point when they claim that the
paradox is not significant because the feathered dinosaurs from China and the first true bird could have diverged from a
common ancestor over 150 Ma ago.22,57 But Feduccia noted that Archaeopteryx has such well-developed feathers and other
avian anatomical features that the evolutionary origin of birds must be much earlier than 150 Ma.51And as expected, the
temporal paradox is believed to have been solved just recently, but not without a cost. A crow-sized feathered
theropod, Anchiornishuxleyi, was found in strata dated 151 to 161 Ma oldbefore the age of Archaeopteryx at 150 Ma
old.58,59 The problem with this new feathered dinosaur is that it had feathers on its legs, like Microraptor.Another bird-like
creature with feathers on its feet, which is a little older than Archaeopteryx and is called Pedopenna, has also been
found.60Although some birds have feathers on their legs today, such as some pigeon breeds, they are not flight feathers as
those on Anchiornis,Microraptor, and Pedopenna. These three creatures are now classified into a basal group of theropods
called Paraves.Microraptor has always been dated significantly younger than Archaeopteryx. However, the early dates,
before Archaeopteryx, on Anchiornisand Pedopenna are actually poorly resolved.61 But a new find of an alverezsauroid,
dated at 63 Ma older than previous fossils, supposedly rescues the solution to the temporal paradox. In Science, the
creature is depicted with feathers.27 However, the accompanying article says nothing about feathers, so this creature cannot
be called a feathered dinosaur. It seems the temporal paradox may have been solved by dating manipulations.So, in
solving the temporal paradox, evolutionists have opened up more conundrums within their paradigm. The new discovery
shows that feathers and other bird-like features could be older than Archaeopteryx. Secondly, it appears that the
evolutionists have a more convoluted origin of flight.59 Feathers, they say, first evolved on all four limbs and then
disappeared on the hind limbs over time. Then some of these feathered dinosaurs even lost the ability to fly and became
secondarily flightless birds. Anchiornis also had slender limbs causing the original researchers to conclude that this animal
was adapted to running.62 How would these creatures run with flight feathers on their feet? And if the evolutionists go further
back in their time scale, evolution becomes very complicated. The earliest dinosaurs are far from bird-like; they are too
specialized.63 Then some of these specialized first dinosaurs had to evolve feathers and other bird-like features, only to lose
them again as small theropods evolved from these feathered dinosaurs.
Same type of dinosaur, but no feathers
Many of the dinosaurs thought to be feathered have been found outside China lacking the expected feathers. For example,
a new dinosaur found in the Solnhofen limestone in Bavariathe formation that produced the best Archaeopteryx fossils
comes from the same group that was reported to possess protofeathers in China.64 There were no integumentary structures
and: The discovery will encourage a re-evaluation of feather evolution. 65 Not only that, but many of the feathered dinos
coming out of the Jehol group in China have no feathers (or integumentary structures) either:
e.g. Mahakala,66 Gigantoraptor,6 and Velociraptor.67 Feathers are often assumed a priori without evidence. Since feathered
dinos are so controversial they should have clear evidence of feathers before being admitted into the discussion. Cladistic
similarity is not enough.
Dinosaur lungs more like those of reptiles
It takes more than feathers to make a bird. Dinosaurs would have had to evolve a variety of unique structures along the path
to true birds. A major hurdle is the development of an avian respiratory system. Dinosaur lungs, including those of the
theropods, which some paleontologists believe evolved into birds, were unique. Based on hollow air spaces in some
theropod dinosaur bones, some evolutionists have tried to claim that these dinosaurs had lungs like birds. 68,69 Such air
spaces are equivocal as far as whether these dinosaurs had bird-like lungs. 70 However, others believe the theropod lungs
resembled those of modern-day crocodiles, not birds. 71,72 This also implies that theropod dinosaurs were ectothermic (coldblooded), providing another hurdle on the evolutionary trail to birds. It is difficult to even imagine how an ectothermic animal
with lungs like a crocodile could have evolved into a bird with their clearly divergent respiratory and metabolic systems:
The evolutionary implications are even more far-reaching. Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung
would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.73
After twelve years of further research, Quick and Ruben recently conclude that the theropod breathing apparatus was like a
crocodile and unlike birds:
We conclude that there are few data supportive of there having been an avian style lung airsac system in theropods or that
these dinosaurs necessarily possessed cardiovascular structure significantly different from that of crocodilians. These
conclusions are reinforced by previously cited evidence for crocodilian-like lung ventilation in theropod dinosaurs (Ruben et
al., 2003).74
Advocates of the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary path have argued that the barriers are not impossible to climb, but their
argument appears quite convoluted.75Dinosaurs not only possessed lungs like crocodiles, but possessed the narrow noses
of these reptiles, which is consistent with low lung ventilation. 76 Nasal passages of dinosaurs are small, only a quarter as
large as those of warm-blooded animals. This supports the conclusion that dinosaur metabolism was significantly lower than
that of birds or mammals.
Bird and dinosaur limb digits differ in their development

Evolutionists argue for a link between dinosaurs and birds based on comparative morphology, even during embryonic
development. Birds and dinosaurs have similar features, called shared derived characteristics (see cladistics analysis
below). However, a major morphological feature supports an opposite conclusion. During embryonic growth, bird limb digits
developed from a five-finger arrangement into one that has only the second, third and fourth digits (II, III, IV). On the other
hand, dinosaur growth exhibits a different embryonic patternI, II, III. 7779 The bird trend in the past had been a little
uncertain but has been verified.80,81 This is powerful evidence as adduced by paleontologists.One obvious interpretation of
these data is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. However, those who refuse to accept that conclusion have developed
the frame-shift hypothesispart of avian evolution included a frame shift in the expression of the digits.82 During the
transitions from dinosaurs to birds, the embryonic expression somehow shifted from I, II, and III to II, III, and IV.
Unfortunately, bias and circular reasoning permeate this hypothesis:
One solution to the problem of avian digit homology [similarity] in favor of the II, III, IV hypothesis is to assume that birds
are not theropod dinosaurs Removing birds from theropods implies that the similarities between the hands
of Archaeopteryx and that of theropods are convergent and not homologous. This is, however, not a very satisfactory
explanation for the available data [emphasis mine].83
Frame shift advocates point to a theropod fossil discovered in China that hints at such a shift.84 But the dinosaur in question
not only reduced digit I, but also IV and V, so that it only had two long digits. Proponents cannot find an adaptive reason for
the proposed shift either.81 I.e. there is no evolutionary advantage that would accrue from this shift. Nor is there any
advantage to the intermediate steps required by this shift.Feduccia asserts that there is no evidence for the frameshift
hypothesis.51 James and Pourtless IV conclude that it was simply made up to explain away the digit contradiction by those
that were adamant that birds evolved from dinosaurs:
these data do not alter the logical status of the frame-shift hypothesis as an ad-hoc auxiliary hypothesis It was
introduced for the explicit purpose of restoring agreement between predictions of the BMT [birds are maniraptoran theropod
dinosaurs] hypothesis and repeatedly obtained falsifying observations.85
Despite all this, Chiappe steadfastly maintains his faith in a dinosaur origin for birds, but his analysis is not convincing. 86 This
type of reasoning is why many critics say evolution cannot be falsified.
Dinosaurs with true feathers are birds
Some researchers now embrace the idea that the small theropod dinosaurs with true feathers, especiallyMicroraptor, are
really birds,43,87,88 probably flightless.43,89 In fact, when first discovered, some were classified as birds. Scientists first
thought Caudipteryx was a bird.90 Scientists once believed that alvarezsauroids were flightless birds but now believe they
are theropods.27 Wellnhofer states that the classification is basically a problem of definition that possibly may never be
resolved.91 If this is true, then the avian-dinosaur link and even the existence of feathered dinosaurs are called into
question.In a more sophisticated cladistic analysis (see below), James and Pourtless IV reach the same conclusion: that the
feathered dinosaurs are in fact birds.92 Feduccia et al. related how one Chinese dinosaur-to-bird advocate admitted
that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx could be birds:
Xu et al. (2001, p. 200) concede that two taxa with true feathers, Caudipteryx andProtarchaeopteryx, are controversial
insofar as they have been proposed to be flightless birds rather than dinosaurs and that confirmation of the theropod origin
of feathers requires documentation of unambiguously feather-like structures in a clearly non-avian theropod.93
It is more than possible that the early excitement of finding feathered dinosaurs caused the case to be overstated, and that
the strange fossils found in China are quite likely to be extinct, unique birds, similar to Archaeopteryx in a number of
features.There are also bird fossils found with the feathered dinosaurs,94 making it more likely that the creatures that
possessed true feathers were indeed birds. Microraptor also had bird teeth and not dinosaur teeth, reinforcing this
view.95 And the new Anchiornis also had bird-like teeth in their being unserrated. 59 Xu et al. also originally
classed Anchiornis as a bird.96
Archaeopteryx is a unique birdso no missing link
Archaeopteryx was first reported in 1861 within fine-grained limestone in Bavaria (figure 3). The name means ancient wing
and the creature is said to be 150 Ma old.97 Archaeopteryx is considered the perfect missing link:
The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher
groups of living organismswhat has come to be called a missing link, a Rosetta stone of evolution.98
Figure 3. Replica of Archaeopteryx displayed at the
Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana.Since
then, a total of ten specimens have been found, if the
isolated feather (which is considered too small to be
from Archaeopteryx by Wellnhofer99) is counted as
one. The tenth fossil was reported in 2005. 100,101There
is no doubt that Archaeopteryx is unique. It had a
generally reptilian skeleton with a tail made up of
extended vertebrae, teeth, and claws on its wings. But
it also had 100% modern feathers showing the
asymmetry of flight feathers. It is considered the first
bird, but those advocating the dinosaurbird link want
to make Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur. In fact
many of the so-called feathered dinosaurs
resemble Archaeopteryx.Many
evolutionists
emphasize its reptilian features, but these are
overstated.102 For instance, no modern birds have
teeth, but some fossil birds do. Even some dinosaurs
did not have teeth, such as Oviraptor and the mansized ornithomimids.103,104 Also, its teeth are bird-like
and not those of reptiles.95 Thus, the teeth are not
conclusive, and being an extinct bird, this is not
surprising. Feduccia stated that Archaeopteryx was much more birdlike in many features than has been previously
thought.105Its wing claws are not indicative of reptilian status either. Some young birds, especially flightless birds, have
claws on their wings when young, including the hoatzin and the young of the touraco. 87,106Its tail was reptilian, but a number
of extinct birds, including some of the feathered dinosaurs, have long tails that are extensions of their vertebrae,
like Archaeopteryx.
Claws like modern perching birds

Other features place this fossil squarely within the family of birds. Archaeopteryx had bird-like claws. Feduccia analyzed the
curvature of the hind claws and concluded that their curvature was similar to claws in modern perching birds. 107109 Birds can
have less curvature, but these are invariably ground dwellers. Archaeopteryx would have been ill-suited for running, but well
suited to gripping tree limbs. Its wing claws may have been used to climb tree trunks, like a woodpecker.Several dinosaur
bird enthusiasts dispute this analysis, saying that the Archaeopteryx hallux (the first toe which is opposed to the other three)
is less than an optimal 180 in the tenth specimen, making it a poor percher. 100,101 However, modern perching birds exhibit
hallux angles from 65180.56 Also, Mayr et al. ignored the curvature of the claws.100,101
Brain and inner ear like a bird
An analysis of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx showed that they were similar to birds:
Here we show the reconstruction of the braincase from which we derived endocasts of the brain and inner ear. These
suggest thatArchaeopteryx closely resembled modern birds in the dominance of the sense of vision and in the possession
of expanded auditory and spatial sensory perception in the ear.110
It could fly well
Advocates of avian evolution from dinosaurs claim that Archaeopteryx could not fly well because it lacked powerful flight
muscles and that its primary four feathers were not asymmetrical. 111,112 Some even believe that Archaeopteryx was adapted
to running and taking off from the ground. But its wing and tail feathers were strongly asymmetricwell within the range of
modern birds that flap their wings. 113115 Their argument is also contradictory because more powerful flight muscles are
needed to take off from the ground than from trees: Both anatomy and phylogeny strongly suggest that Archaeopteryx was
an arboreal bird.116 Given its many adaptations for
flight,
one
would
expect
that
it
flew
well.117 Archaeopteryx not only looks like a modern bird
in
many
ways,
but
evidence
suggests
that Archaeopteryx had an advanced aerodynamic
morphology.118 Its feathers are indistinguishable from
those of modern birds:
Regardless of the degree to which Archaeopteryxs
skeleton was reptilian, there can be no doubt that its
feathers were indistinguishable in any important ways
from those of living birds. Its wings had the basic pattern
and proportions of the modern birds wing; indeed, there
has been no essential change in this aerodynamic
structure for about 150 million years.119
Even Chiappe admits: its feathers are already
differentiated into structurally modern types.120
Why believe in the dinobird link?
Given this evidence, why then do many paleontologists
remain dogmatic about dinosaurs evolving into birds?
The main reason, even before the discovery of
feathered dinosaurs, is their analysis of comparative
anatomy using a relatively new classification scheme
called cladistics that puts birds together with theropod
dinosaurs.121 Witmer wrote:
Birds are dinosaurs. Thats hardly the stuff of headlines
any more, as data have streamed in revealing
anatomical similarities [from cladistics] between birds
and the theropod dinosaurs from the tips of their noses to the tips of their feathered tails.122
Figure 4. Cladogram relating birds with major non-avian coelurosaurian theropods. The numbers at each branching node
indicate the first appearance of key morphological characters in the analysis. (From Zhou et al., ref. 25.)Cladistics is a
method that classifies organisms in a nested hierarchy of similarity based on a comparison of individual characteristics. It
also depends on objective, quantitative analysis, employing computers. When comparing fossils, the program uses a binary
system of either yes (1) or no (0) for a particular feature or characteristic that either exists or does not exist. Many traits are
compared in the analysis. The more that score (1), the more closely related the subjects are assumed to be. Scientists then
build cladograms (figure 4) and infer evolutionary relationships from them. Practitioners of cladistics dismiss their critics,
such as Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin, and Storrs Olsen. 123 They claim that the many shared-derived characteristics in birds
and theropod dinosaurs could not happen by chance.81 This is ironic, given that chance is fundamental to evolution
(random mutations are its engine), and, of course, common design explains the shared traits quite readily.Evolutionary
cladistics presents itself as objective science, yet is very subjective. A major problem is that one must know ahead of time
which traits have real evolutionary significance, rather than having been caused by convergent evolution. Traits believed to
be the result of evolution are called shared-derived characters. Convergent evolution is the evolution of similar structures in
similar environments by organisms that are not directly related by evolution, such as flight in birds, bats, reptiles, and
insects. It is assumed that similar environments resulted in all the anatomical modifications required for flight. Ironically,
evolutionists admit that there are more traits developed by convergence than by true evolutionary descent. In fact,
convergent evolution seems little more than an ad hoc explanation for many evolutionary puzzles:
It is difficult for me to theoretically understand how convergent evolution could work, due to all the many subtle differences
between present similar environments, the rarity and randomness of mutations, the lack of direction and the conservative
nature of natural selection, and the multitudinous pathways that organisms could have taken.124
Ronald Jenner has subdivided cladistic analysis into three steps: (1) the analysis of the morphological data, (2) the
computer program, and (3) the results in the form of a cladogram that supposedly shows evolutionary relationships (figure
4).125 Jenner states that cladistics, as currently practiced, is seriously flawed:
Uncritical and nonexplicit character selection, character coding, and character scoring seriously compromise Step 1 .
Failure to identify problems and errors generated in Step 1 of the research cycle is testament to the general failure of Step
3.126
However, the problem goes deeper. The cladograms and mathematical analyses involved in cladistic analysis gives
paleontology an air of objectivity it has no right to claim. Paleontology always works with vastly incomplete morphological
data, which means Jenners step 1, the analysis of morphological data, will always be uncertain and subjective. Burke and
Feduccia stated: The conflict pivots on the significance awarded to different types of data in the identification of

homology.127 Homology is any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry through
evolution. Feduccia added:
Another way of stating the problem is that cladistic methodology in paleontology has forced into algorithmic form what is
arguably the most subjective and qualitative field in biology.128
Because of the incomplete nature of paleontological data, there is never any certainty of whether traits are due to descent or
convergence. It often becomes nothing more than an expression of the bias of evolutionists. 75 This means evolutionary
cladistics is essentially circular reasoning. Ornithologist Larry Martin was blunt in his assessment:
As for the many cladograms that demonstrate a dinosaurian origin of birds, Martin charges that they are riddled with
characters based on mistaken anatomyin other words, garbage in, garbage out on a massive scale.129
Jenner infers that the major problem is that not all anatomical information goes into the computer analysis. 125 He strongly
recommends thatall anatomical information should go into cladistics analysis and that a conscious effort to minimize bias
should be developed.James and Pourtless IV did just this in a cladistic analysis of the dinobird link, concluding that a
dinosaur to bird path was not strong. 92 Birds could just as easily have evolved from crocodiles or other extinct reptiles.Of
course, creationists have no trouble explaining similarities, using the concept of common features resulting from common
design, thus avoiding the messy uncertainty of real vs convergent evolution. The regularity of convergence in evolutionary
explanations testifies to this: there is similarity in many biological traits, with enough divergence in specifics to thwart
common origin as an explanation. Just as man-made artifacts have similarities due to design parameters, so too do
creatures. Different models of cars share many traits because they are intended to do the same thing. Each one possesses
tires, an engine, steering, windshields, lights, etc. Differences show variations in purpose: an off-road truck is not the same
as a family sedan.
Summary
Secular paleontologists argue whether or not birds could have evolved from dinosaurs. But these paleontologists all have
one thing in common; they refuse to debate their assumption that evolution occurred. Consistent with the view that it has
not, we agree with the arguments that there is no compelling evidence for the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary path:
However, answers to the question of the immediate ancestor of birds remain elusive, as does the overall early radiation
from the Dinosauromorpha.130
Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs; they did not evolve from anything. Feduccia et al. admit: The major problems related to
the origin of birds are still unresolved. 95 Feduccia further admits that there are no other ancestor candidates for the
evolution of birds:
Paleontological cladists claim that opponents of the theropod origin must produce a more suitable ancestor, but alas, we
simply dont have sufficient evidence. We can only say, as dictated by science and logic, that the ancestor was surely a
small, quadrupedal, arboreal archosaur [extinct reptile], a pre-dinosaur in the overall scheme of the genealogy.38
Thus, even the experts acknowledge that the origin of birds is still unknown. This is surprising, given the amount of time,
man-hours, and money that has been poured into research over many decades. Feduccia is puzzled:
Whats the problem? We have some of the best-preserved fossils in the entire vertebrate series in the seven skeletons
ofArchaeopteryx, we have a wonderfully preserved array of fossil reptiles from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous
periods, and we have scores of well-educated scientists working on the problems of avian relations. So why isnt the
problem resolved after much more than a century?131
There is an easy answer to that question, though one not accepted by secular scientists because it questions their
presuppositions, which are generally held by faith rather than evidence. The answer is to reject the constraints of the
worldview of naturalism and to jettison faith in evolution, to look at the actual evidence that shows discontinuity between
major groups, and to admit the likelihood of creation.Feduccia and other ornithologists who say that there is no evidence for
the dinosaurbird link are correct. Their opponents, who argue that there is no evidence for the evolution of birds from
extinct reptiles, are also correct. Both are correct because evolution down any path never happened. Observation and
reason both support an original creation of different kinds of organisms .
Amazing preservation: Three birds in a dinosaur!
Did dinos give rise to birds? Nothey ate them
by David Catchpoole

A fossil
of
the
small
theropod
dinosaur
Sinocalliopteryx gigas found in Liaoning, China, was
so well preserved that researchers were able to make out its intact stomach contents. 1 They were able to see the last thing it
had eatena bird dinner. As the bird had only been partially digested (indicating death of the Sinocalliopteryx had occurred

not long after its last meal) the researchers were even able to identify the species of the bird: Confuciusornis sanctus.
Whats more, that bird specimen was not the only one found in the dinosaurs stomach. There was another Confuciusornis
sanctus carcass as well, and both were in a similar state of partial digestion.1 Given that remains as delicate as small bird
bones have presumably short digestion periods, the researchers conclude, logically enough, that the two Confuciusornis
birds must have been consumed in fairly rapid succession, in order for the first individual not to have had time to be
digested noticeably beyond that of the second.1 Evidently the dinosaur liked eating birds, because there were the remains
of a third bird in its stomach too, in a somewhat more advanced state of digestion, which the researchers say might also
have been a Confuciusornis. Paleontologist Scott Persons mused, The fact that this Sinocalliopteryx had not one but three
undigested birds in its stomach indicates it was a voracious eater and a very active hunter. 2
The secular uniformitarian models, based on the idea that the present is the key to the past, really dont even begin to
make sense of the fossils even just at Liaoning, let alone globally How did this fossil, and many other fossils at Liaoning
similarly exquisitely preserved,3 with even abdominal contents in exquisite detail being preserved,4 come to be this way?
The secular uniformitarian models, based on the idea that the present is the key to the past, really dont even begin to
make sense of the fossils even just at Liaoning, let alone globally. Rather, knowing what really happened in the past is the
key to understanding the present worldincluding fossils. This correct understanding utterly washes away the millions of
years so needed by the evolutionary paradigm. Textbooks, museums, and television documentaries promoting that
paradigm have said that over millions of years dinosaurs gave rise to birds, which in turn evolved the ability to fly. But the
Confuciusornis birds in the dinosaurs stomach were birds capable of powered flight, 1 and also had a beak rather than
teeth. And as this is not the first dinosaur discovered with bird remains in its belly,5 where does that leave the millions-ofyears dino-to-bird scenario? No wonder that evolutionists are in a flap.6
Which came first: the Archaeopteryx or the dinosaur egg?
by Russell Grigg
Published: 27 May 2014 (GMT+10)
This childrens book pictures a large egg, suggests it might be a dinosaur egg, and
spends the rest of the book asking which reptile might have laid it.Look what theyre
telling your kidsthe first bird was an Archaeopteryx, which hatched from an egg that
was laid when the only other animals on the earth were reptiles! This is the storyline
of a childrens picture-story book titled The Wonderful Egg, by Dahlov Ipcar (ne
Zorach, 1917 ), that has just been republished. It first saw the light of day in 1958. 1
She is best known for colourful and geometrically-patterned paintings of
animals.Although the original edition was loaded with scientific errors (including some
which even evolutionists repudiate), incredibly it achieved specific recommendation
from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAC) as well as
from the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education
International.2 We are waiting to see if these recommendations reoccur, as almost all
of the books claims are factually erroneous, and none has been corrected in the 2014 reprint.
Error upon error in The Wonderful Egg
There never was a time when the whole earth was covered with big green jungles, as The Wonderful Egg claims. Now,
even evolutionists have conceded that there was grass for dinosaurs to eat. Nor is it a fact that the only animals that lived in
the green jungles of the world were the dinosaurs. For instance, we now know that dinosaurs ate birds and the mammal
Repenomamus ate dinosaurs. Nor yet that most of them were big. Some were indeed big, but there were also small
chicken-sized ones. Those reptiles that swam in the warm seas are not called dinosaurs, and neither are those that flew
through the air.3 See Evidence for a young world, and Dinosaur Questions and Answers.

A double-page spread from The Wonderful Egg. The book claims that 100 million years ago the earth was covered with big
green jungles, and the only animals were the dinosaurs. Also, many of the illustrations show the dinosaurs with tails
dragging on the ground and the bipedal ones with a kangaroo-like tripod posture. This is an outdated view; from the
structures of the hip and shoulder bones, paleontologists now think that dinosaurs held their spinal column almost
horizontally with their tail held straight out as a counterbalance.

Brontosaurus is given pride of place in The Wonderful Egg. Unfortunately Bronty never existed.

The first of the 12 reptiles individually pictured and described in The Wonderful Egg is Brontosaurus. However, there never
was a Brontosaurus dinosaur. Bronty simply never existed! In the 1870s, Othniel Charles Marsh (18311899) discovered
some very large dinosaur fossils in Lake Como, Wyoming, USA, and thought that he had discovered a new genus. He gave
them the name Brontosaurus, meaning thunder lizard, because he thought that the ground must have thundered when
such a huge animal walked by. Unfortunately the head was missing. To remedy this obvious defect, he added a skull that he
found several kilometres away in a different quarry and in a different layer of stratum, but told no one about this. With its
correct head, it was found to be a type of dinosaur that had previously been namedby the same paleontologistand
called Apatosaurus. By the rules of naming, the first validly published name of a creature has precedence, so Apatosaurus
stands and Brontosaurus is relegated to a junior synonym not for formal use.
See Thunder lizards.
Another candidate for laying the egg, pictured and described in the book, is an
Elasmosaurus. This is one of a group of marine reptiles called plesiosaurs.
However, there is now evidence that several of the plesiosaurs gave birth to live
young rather than by laying eggs. 4 Hence it is incorrect for The Wonderful Egg
book to say that Elasmosaurus definitively laid eggs.
As this classic sketch (above) so beautifully illustrates (p. 63 in Duane Gishs
book, Dinosaurs by Design), its hard to
imagine what a supposed transitional
form, making its way from water to land,
might have looked like. It was neither
well-suited to where its [supposedly]
going, nor to whence it [supposedly]
came! And, as the evolutionist Stephen
Jay Gould himself acknowledged, what
are the chances of producing a hopeful
monster rather than a monstrosity, and
with what would the hopeful monster
mate? (The scan below is taken from p.
107 from Gary Parkers 1980 book
Creation: the Facts of Life.)
The bird that hatched out of the egg, Archaeopteryx, is no longer regarded even
by evolutionists as being the first bird species, as claimed in The Wonderful Egg. As to any specimen being the first bird
ever, with what would it mate? If it couldnt produce offspring, it would not be an ancestor of anything. The book describes it
as the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the treetops of the green world of long, long ago. Birds sing for two
main reasons: to say Go away to other male birds and thereby establish their territory, or to say Come hither to female
birds to attract a mate. Neither of these two types of bird-calls would have had any meaning if there was ever a time when
there was only one bird! See also Birds: fliers from the beginning.
So where did the concept of a bird hatching from a reptile egg come from?
Schindewolf, Darwin, and that reptilian egg
This miraculous egg concept goes back to the 1930s, when a German evolutionist paleontologist, Otto Schindewolf (1896
1971),5 had a problem. His problem was that the zillions of intermediary links in the progression of non-birds turning into
birds, as required by the fiction of evolution, were all missing from the fossil record. There was nothing new about this, of
course. In 1859, in his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin devoted the whole of Chapter 9 to this pervasive problem (which
was not just limited to birds) under the heading On the Imperfection of the Geological record.6 He wrote:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination [i.e. natural selectionEd.] has acted on an enormous scale, so must
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my
theory.7
Darwins solution, in typical evasive Darwinian fashion, was to re-state the problem; he wrote: The explanation lies, as I
believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. However, the evidence for the imperfection is the lack of
intermediates; when it comes to kinds of living creatures we actually have today, the record is very complete. See The links
are missing.
Schindewolfs solution to the same problem was much more innovative, albeit wildly preposterous. He too wrote a book,
published in 1936, in which he said (translated from the German text): The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.8
Goldschmidt and hopeful monsters
We know this because Richard Goldschmidt (18781958), a German evolutionary geneticist, who in 1936 became
Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley,9 (unsurprisingly) had the very same problem concerning the
fossil record. As he put it: practically all known orders and families appear suddenly and without any apparent
transitions.10 He conceded that the gradual accumulation of small mutations advocated by neo-Darwinians was sufficient for
microevolution,11 but for him, this could not bridge the unlimited gap between species. So he too wrote a book, published in
1940, and titled The Material Basis of Evolution.12
He gave his purpose for this on pp. 6 & 183:
It will be one of the major contentions of this book to show that the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an
understanding of macroevolution.
The decisive step in evolution, the first step towards macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another
evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations. (All italics in the original.) As Goldschmidt
approved of, translated, and introduced this bizarre bird-from-reptilian-egg concept to American academia, it is usually
attributed to him in English textbooks and journal articles.Goldschmidts solution to the problem was to introduce his readers
to Otto Schindewolf, and he wrote (p. 395): He [Schindewolf] shows that the many missing links in the paleontological
record are sought for in vain because they never existed: The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.
As Goldschmidt approved of, translated, and introduced this bizarre bird-from-reptilian-egg concept to American
academia,13 it is usually attributed to him in English textbooks and journal articles. And in fact he sought to provide a basis
for it in his book. Under the heading The hopeful monster,14 he said (p. 393): the hopeful monster is one of the means
of macroevolution by single large steps. He explained (p. 390):

A monstrosity appearing in a single genetic step might permit the occupation of a new environmental niche and thus
produce a new type in one step. A Manx cat with a hereditary concrescence of the tail vertebrae, or a comparable mouse or
rat mutant, is just a monster. But a mutant of Archaeopteryx producing the same monstrosity was a hopeful monster
because the resultant fanlike arrangement of the tail-feathers was a great improvement in the mechanics of flying.
And he gave his mechanism for this thus (p. 396):
Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The
genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system.
Chromosomes are long structures of double-helical DNA. Goldschmidt imagined that re-arranging existing chromosomes
could create a fundamentally new creature. However, it is now known that the way in which chromosomes/genes are
inherited does not create new creatures, but only variations of what already existed. We suggest that the only hopeful
aspect of this scenario was that in the mind of Prof. Goldschmidt. Orthodox Darwinians characteristically rejected this denial
of their cherished gradualism over immense ages.
Gould and punctuated equilibrium
In the 1970s, Stephen Jay Gould (19412002), was Professor of Geology, Biology, and the History of Science at Harvard
University and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at its Museum of Comparative Zoology, and he had a problem. It was
the same problem that Charles Darwin, Prof. Schindewolf, and Prof. Goldschmidt had all faced. And now (in 1977), 118
years after Darwin had written Origin of Species, Gould still had not found any evidence of intermediate species in the fossil
record. He wrote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.15
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between
major groups are characteristically abrupt.16
The evolutionist dogma that reptiles turned into birds, ubiquitously taught in universities and schools, is totally false.Goulds
solution was basically a rephrasing of Goldschmidts concept of sudden appearances, without the latters erroneous views
about chromosomes and genetics. In 1977, in an article entitled Return of the Hopeful Monster, Gould, after noting that
hopeful monster was the terminology used by Goldschmidt, wrote: As a Darwinian I wish to defend Goldschmidts
postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur
rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages. Gould called his version punctuated equilibrium. 17,18 He was not
unaware of the problems, such as what would the first such monster mate with, if all its relatives were members of a
different species? And: Major disruptions of entire genetic systems do not produce favoredor even viablecreatures.
Despite these total confutations, Gould went so far as to say: I predict that during this decade [i.e. the 1980sEd.]
Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology. Not surprisingly, this did not happen!
Bully for Brontosaurus
According to an article Prof. Gould wrote entitled Bully for Brontosaurus (published in a 1991 book of the
same title), he regarded the names Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus as synonyms, but preferred Brontosaurus
(meaning thunder lizard) as being more descriptively appropriate than Apatosaurus (meaning deceptive
lizard).
Surprisingly, the non-existent Brontosaurus is depicted on the postage stamps of some 29 countries,
including a 1989 United States 25c and, most recently, a 2013 Bequa $2.75. Shown is a 1991 North Korea
20 won.
We hasten to add that Gould did not go so far as to support the concept of
the first bird hatching from a reptiles egg. But if animals dont go from
reptile to bird in one jump, how far do they go? From leg to wing? Or from
mostly leg to just a little bit of wing? If so, how would such encumbered
monsters survive? As Henry Morris and Gary Parker have pointed out, If
the jump isnt big and dramatic, whats the difference between the hopeful
monster mechanism and the discredited concept of the gradual
accumulation of minor mutations?19 See: Hopeful monsters revisited and
Punctuated equilibrium: come of age?
In short, the evolutionist dogma that reptiles turned into birds, ubiquitously
taught in universities and schools, is totally false. Nevertheless, children are
being indoctrinated with this nonsense via the recently republished
childrens book The Wonderful Egg.No animals of any kind have ever
changed into different animals of another kindneither overnight, nor yet over millions of years. So the answer to the
question that forms the title of this article is: Archaeopteryx.
Is Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur?
by Michael J. Oard
Figure 1. Photograph and line drawing of Xiaotingia
Zhengi,15 a newArchaeopteryx-like creature from China
claimed to be a theropod dinosaur.
Practically all paleontologists think ofArchaeopteryx as the
first bird or the missing link between dinosaurs and birds.
The fossil is used as a showcase for evolution.However,
Chinese paleontologists now challenge this classification,
and instead make a case thatArchaeopteryx is a feathered
theropod dinosaur.1This belief is based on the finding of
anArchaeopteryx-like fossil in China called Xiaotingia
zhengi (figure 1), the affinity of which is supposedly with the
early theropod dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs. The new
fossil is said to resemble theropod dinosaurs and, just
likeArchaeopteryx, it has teeth, claws on its wings, and a
vertebrate tail. But the new fossil still has many features of
birds, such as: feathers; small size; boomerang-shaped
wishbone; and features of enantiornithines, unique fossil birds.

Based on questionable phylogenetic analysis

To back up their claim, the Chinese paleontologists have used numerical phylogenetic analysis, cladistics, that compares
anatomical features of many individuals. The idea is that the more similar the fossils, the closer they are related by
evolution. But the researchers also admit: It should be noted that our phylogenetic hypothesis is only weakly supported by
the available data.2They go on to add that other phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated just the opposite,
that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird: Although Archaeopteryx is placed within the Avialae [basal birds] by nearly all numerical
phylogenetic studies3 In order to attempt to weaken the cladistics data that says Archaeopteryx is a bird, the Chinese
paleontologists claim that some of the traits used in the cladistics analysis are questionable. So, it seems that the
classification ofArchaeopteryx and Xiaotingia zhengi depends upon the traits selected for the cladistics analysis.Perhaps this
is one of the reasons that cladistics analysis has been claimed to be subjective by some researchers. 4,5This new designation
for Archaeopteryx supports this belief. Cladistics is a poor tool by which to classify unique fossils as feathered
dinosaurs,6,7 or any fossil for that matter.8 Michael Balter, in Science, acknowledges that the Chinese paleontologists
admitted to the weak statistical connection for claiming Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, but adds: And other
researchers say such ambiguities in classification are not surprising. 9 This shows the widespread ambiguity of cladistics
analysis.
The claim is controversial
This new designation of Archaeopteryx is of course based on the opinion of four Chinese paleontologists, who are
challenging a major icon of evolution. Lawrence Witmer states:
For the past 150 years, the famous feathered fossil species from Bavaria in Germany has been a symbol of evolution, a
textbook example of a transitional fossil and, above all, the oldest and most primitive bird. The finding is likely to be met
with considerable controversy (if not outright horror), in part because of the historical and sociological significance
that Archaeopteryx has held, but also because it may mean that much of what we thought we knew about the origin and
early evolution of birds will need to be re-evaluated.10
Could feathered dinosaurs be unique fossil birds?
Because of all the subjectivity, I lean toward the idea of several ornithologists that feathered dinosaurs, those with true
feathers and not probable collagen fibers,11 are really unique, fossil birds.1214 Some of the feathered dinosaurs were first
classified as birds, showing the equivocal nature of the classification. 15 Many of the true extinct birds found in China have
unique features that are shared by some dinosaurs, but they are still birds. True birds are also found with so-called
feathered theropods, suggesting that maybe all the animals in the location are types of birds. And even one cladistics
analysis on the subject, if it can be trusted, concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact birds.4
Whats in an Egg?
Unscrambling the mysteries
by David Catchpoole
Imagine a container filled with amorphous-looking bits of metal, plastic and some
software chips. Could you imagine it breaking out as a fully-assembled scale model
motor car? Then growing larger as it absorbs raw materials, as well as energy, from its
surroundings? What sort of advanced software engineering would be required? As for
any ideas of it being able to marry another like itself, thus repeating the whole cycle by
producing another container of metal, plastic and software such notions could rightly
be dismissed as ludicrously far-fetched, even in our technologically advanced age. Yet
in the world around us, similar things are happening all the time in those shell-wrapped
marvels-in-miniature called eggs.
From egg to chicken
Chicken eggs are laid only about 25 hours after ovulation (i.e. release of the egg from
the hens ovary). Breaking open the shell of a freshly-laid fertilized egg would reveal a
tiny (2 mm, or 1/12 inch, in diameter) white mass of cellsthe blastodiscon top of the
yolk.1 If an intact egg is kept warm under a broody hen or in an incubator, the chick will
develop from these blastodisc cells, with body folds of the embryo beginning to
separate from the underlying yolk.
Birds not hatching from over-fragile egg shells first alerted the world
to certain industrial pollutants. Man-made chemicals were also
responsible
for
the
mutation-caused
deformity
in
this
cormorant.Crucial to embryo development is the formation of various
membranes (partitions) including the yolk sac, amnion and allantois.
The amnion encloses the embryo inside a fluid-filled cavity which not
only buffers the embryo against short-term external temperature
extremes but also cushions it if the egg is bumped. With the embryo
closed off from the outside world by the shell, 2 there is the problem of
how to dispose of excretory wastes. Here is where the allantois is so
crucial, as it serves as the embryos garbage bag. (When the chick
hatches, the accumulated wastes can be found sticking to the inside
of the abandoned shell.)While these membranes are forming, the
embryo itself continues to develop, differentiating the various organ
systems. Four days after an egg is laid, the heart is visible and large
blood vessels can be seen to have grown out from the embryo into
the yolk sac. By eight days the eyes, darkly pigmented, are
prominent. On the 11th day the brain is visible through the transparent skull, the limbs are obviously developing, and feathers
appear by the 14th day. By 21 days (i.e. just before hatching), the egg tooth is visiblethe knob on the end of the beak
which the chick uses to break out of the shell.
Eggsacting traditions
Eggs have long been hand-coloured and exchanged, apparently as part of the pre-Christian rites of spring. 1 It is easy to
see how the egg would be regarded as symbolic of the renewal of life after a long cold winter. In many cultures, the egg
represented fertility and was a sacred symbol to the Babylonians.As Christianity spread, the egg was adopted by many as a
symbol of Christs Resurrection. People in central European countries have a long tradition of making elaborately decorated
Easter eggs. The Russian royal family carried this tradition to great lengths, as can be seen from the ornate jewelled eggs
made by goldsmith Carl Faberg from the 1880s until 1917.

What is an egg?
In biology, the term egg most often refers to the female sex cell, or gamete,
across a multitude of species, from rabbits to redwood trees, camels to corn
plants.
However, egg can also be used to describe the entire specialized structure or
capsule that consists of the ovum, its various protective membranes, and any
accompanying nutritive materials. Thus, for most people, an egg is a hard-shelled
reproductive body (normally regarded as food) that is produced by a bird or
reptile.
But its not just bird or turtle eggs that are considered as food. Fish eggs (roe)
are eagerly consumed by many around the world. In Russia, caviarthe salted
eggs of sturgeonfishis a prized delicacy.1
All birds, and some reptiles and fish, are oviparoustheir eggs continue to
develop after being laid, and hatch later. Some reptiles (e.g. Garter Snakes) and
fish (e.g. guppies) are ovoviviparousi.e. they have shelled eggs that hatch as
they are laid, making it look like live birth. However (unlike the situation
in viviparous organisms giving birth to live younge.g. sheep), after ovulation,
the mothers body supplies no nutrientsonly oxygento the developing
embryo, which thus develops on the energy in the yolk.If you hard-boil freshly-laid
(still warm) eggs, the shell will stick to the white, making it hard to peel. But as the
egg mass shrinks from water loss after a few days in the dry air of a refrigerator,
the membrane separates from the hard shell, allowing easy peeling.
Eggs harden when boiled due to the heat first breaking (unfolding) the proteins, which
then allows these to form new, stronger bonds with other proteins. As these stronger
cross-links form, the protein chains are prevented from sliding past each other, leaving
the egg hard. Mechanical whisking of egg whites also breaks protein bonds, and again,
new, stronger bonds subsequently form, so the material will never return to its original
consistency.Blood spots in the egg are the result of rupture of one or more small blood
vessels in the yolk at the time of ovulation.Double/triple yolks result when two/three ova
are released from the ovary at the same time or when progress of the previous days
ovum through the oviduct is slowed and the newer ovum catches up.Variation in internal
colour is due to many factors. If very fresh, the egg white (albumen) will be cloudy, while
a clear egg white is an indication the egg is aging. Pink or iridescent egg white indicates
bacterial spoilage. The yellow shading of the yolk varies according to the hens diet
lighter on a colourless diet (e.g. white cornmeal) and dark yellow if she eats plenty of
yellow-orange plant pigments called carotenoids (e.g. marigold petals and yellow corn). A
green surface on the yolk is the result of overcooking, caused by sulfur compounds in the
white reacting with iron compounds in the yolk.The colour of the eggshell depends
largely on the breed of chicken. Chickens with white feathers, such as the Leghorn,
White Rock and Cornish, lay white eggs. Dark-feathered (red-black) chickens such as
the Rhode Island Red, New Hampshire and Plymouth Rock lay brown eggs. Araucuna chickens in South America lay eggs
with shells ranging from medium blue to medium green.1
The egg is laid blunt end first.
Quail eggs have been successfully hatched in space (on the Russian Mir spacecraft in 1990 and 1992). 2The extinct giant
elephant bird (Aepyornis maximus) of Madagascar laid eggs 39 cm (15.4 in) long with a volume of 12 litres (2.26 gal). Of
living birds, the ostrich egg is the largest, being up to 20 cm (8 in) long and weighing up to 1.76 kg (3.87 lb)equivalent in
volume to 24 chicken eggs. The smallest known birds egg was a Vervain Hummingbird (Mellisuga minima) egg less than
9.9
mm
(39/100 in)
long,
and
weighing
just
0.365
g
(0.0128
oz).3,4
5,6
The largest dinosaur egg ever recovered (in China) was 46 cm (18 in) long.
North American feathered dinosaurs a flight of fancy
by Tas Walker
Published: 8 November 2012 (GMT+10)
Julius Csotonyi
Figure 1. This artists reconstruction greatly misrepresents the fossil
evidence for feathers
The science news has been abuzz with astounding claims that the first
feathered dinosaur has been found in North America (See Dinosaurs
looking for love grew alluring feathers).ScienceDaily announced, Fossils
of first feathered dinosaurs from North America discovered: Clues on
early wing uses.However, the small print of the news release reveals
that researchers have merely discovered lengthy wisps on an
adult. They did not find any wisps on any juvenile specimens.Note it was
just lengthy wisps. I would not be surprised if the wisps turn out to be
something other than feathers, such as partly decayed collagen fibres.In
order to make the announcement convincing and grab the medias
imagination the news releases were accompanied by a spectacular
drawing of a dinosaur running through long bushes arrayed with massive
plumage of brilliantly coloured feathers on its forelimbs (figure 1). These
were drawn as proper feathers, not just a few wisps.The news release
was accompanied by an image of the actual fossil (figure 2). There is not
a single feather visible on the fossil, or even an impression of a feather.
Obviously the feathers on the drawing were found in the artists head.
And to call the drawing an artists reconstruction seems like spin.Apart

from the misinformation in the claim that the dinosaur Ornithomimus had feathered wings, it raised many puzzles and
questions. It was not difficult to list some of them.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.
Royal Tyrrell Museum
Figure 2. Dinosaur fossil is well preserved and in classic dead dinosaur pose pose. This has been attributed to
opisthotonus due to suffocation by being rapidly buried, or to buoyancy upon submersion enabling a spinal ligament to pull
back the neck and tail.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.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 wingsimpressive ones at that. Indeed, it looks like
it could fly.The reports said the Ornithomimus specimens 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 artists embellishment, showed not lengths of stringy down on the limbs but, an impressive array
of fully formed feathers.
Most of the fossils of Archaeopteryx, which is dated at 80 million
years older than this Ornithomimus fossil, include impressions of
feathersimpressions 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.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.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!).The
puzzles, bloopers, problems and need for exaggerated artists
reconstructions disappear when we look at this evidence from the
point of view of creation history. These dinosaurs were buried during
the Flood as the waters were rising. They were overwhelmed and
their remains were interred without much passage of time
(See Watery catastrophe deduced from huge Ceratopsian dinosaur
graveyard). To be more precise, the dinosaurs were likely buried as
the waters neared their peak. Did these dinosaurs have stringy
filaments on their front legs when they were alive? That is an open
question. But these animals were not on the way to evolving into
birds. They and the birds existed together, and, apart from those on
the Ark, they were all overwhelmed and perished during the Flood.
Dinosaurs ate birds
by David Catchpoole
Published: 13 November 2012 (GMT+10)
For years weve been hearing, from various authorities on evolution, that
dinosaurs gave rise to birds. E.g.,1973, John Ostrom, writing in Nature journal,
revives the dino-to-bird idea attributed to Charles Darwins friend Thomas H.
Huxley: Inasmuch as the Thecodontia include the most primitive as well as
the most ancient archosaurs known, it is highly probable that all subsequent
archosaurs (including birds) were derived from members of this order.1
1998, Paul Willis, writing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website:
In a nutshell, the majority of palaeontologists working on the ancestry of birds
agree that dinosaurs, particularly small theropods, are the grandparents of
present-day parrots, partridges and pigeons. There are some detractors to this
emerging orthodoxy but the dino-bird theory is supported by both the most widely used methodology ( cladistics) and a
rapidly growing collection of primitive birds and advanced meat-eating dinosaurs. A reasonable assessment of the debate
would have to conclude that its all over, including the shouting, in favour of dino-birds.2
2005, John R. Horner: If there are any people left who do not believe birds came from dinosaurs, I would put them in the
same group as the Flat Earth Society.3
2009, Xu Xing under the headline Feathered fossils prove birds evolved from dinosaurs, say Chinese scientists: This fossil
provides confirmation that the bird-dinosaur hypothesis is correct and supports the idea that birds descended from theropod
dinosaurs, the group of predatory dinosaurs that include allosaurus and velociraptor.4
2011, Laurence Pringle in the book Billions of Years, Amazing Changes: Some of the most exciting news about evolution
today is that more and more of these missing links are no longer missing. One example comes from the evolution of birds
from dinosaursan idea suggested by Thomas Huxley, a friend of Charles Darwin . (A close look at the skeletons of a
small dinosaur and a bird reveals that they have many features in common.)5
To be fair to the supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, not all proponents of evolution agreed with the above (and many
other) proclamations that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Most notable of these was avian paleobiologist Alan Feduccia. He
and others spoke out publicly against the idea, pointing out the many difficulties with dino-to-bird evolutionwhich we were
very happy to include in our many articles rebutting bird evolution claims. See Did birds really evolve from dinosaurs?In fact,
the notion that flight-capable birds could have evolved from any non-bird stretches credulity to the extreme. Given how long

it took human engineers, with all their technical prowess, to intentionally design craft capable of acceptably safe, powered
flight (and theyre still trying to emulate the landing and in-flight control finesse that birds have, in order to improve safety),
evolutionists would be looking to invoke long time periods for their claimed time-and-chance processes to work their magic.
However, recent discoveries of the contents of dinosaur stomachs pose a gut-wrenching challenge to the idea that
dinosaurs gave rise to birds. Because it now turns out that dinosaurs ate them.
Capable of powered flight
A fossil of the theropod dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx gigas found in Liaoning, China, was sufficiently well preserved that
researchers were able to make out its intact belly contents. 6 They were able to see the last thing it had eatena bird dinner.
As the bird had only been partially digested (indicating death of the Sinocalliopteryx had occurred not long after its last meal)
the researchers were even able to identify the species of the bird: Confuciusornis sanctus. This was a bird capable of
powered flightand it had a beak as well. 7A beaked bird capable of powered flight, living alongside dinosaurs. Living so
close to dinos in fact, as to be able to be swallowed by them.Did the Sinocalliopteryx happen across
a Confuciusornis carcass, and opportunistically scavenge it? No, say the researchers, for two reasons.First, the
dinos Confuciusornis dinner showed a high degree of articulation, i.e. bones still joined to each other, indicating that when
eaten, it was at least fresh enough not to have disarticulated.Second, that bird specimen was not the only one found in the
dinosaurs stomach. There was anotherConfuciusornis sanctus carcass as well, and both were in a similar state of partial
digestion. Given that remains as delicate as small bird bones have presumably short digestion periods, the researchers
conclude, logically enough, that the two Confuciusornis birds must have been consumed in fairly rapid succession, in order
for the first individual not to have had time to be digested noticeably beyond that of the second.Whats more, the dinos
abdominal contents included a third bird, in a somewhat more advanced state of digestion, which the researchers say might
also have been a Confuciusornis. (Hence why the researchers refer to at least two [Confuciusornis] individuals [emphasis
added].)So, arguing against scavenging as the source of the three bird dinners, the researchers speculate that the
association of two or more birds is perhaps more easily explained by selective hunting than by the chance discovery of
multiple C. sanctus carcasses and it is improbable that every individual organism represented within the gut contents was
consumed exclusively as a result of scavenging, as true obligate tetrapod scavengers are rare.Speaking to the media, one
of the researchers, paleontologist Scott Persons, put it more bluntly: The fact that this Sinocalliopteryx had not one but
three undigested birds in its stomach indicates it was a voracious eater and a very active hunter.
A hunter. Of birds that could fly. Birds that didnt just glide, but flew with powered flight.
Beware of spin!
The difficulties this raises for the millions-of-years dino-to-bird idea are obvious. No wonder the researchers (and others)
were careful to spin the findings in various ways, to minimize the damage to the evolutionary paradigm.For example the
researchers referred to Confuciusornis as being primitivethe primitive avialan, to be exact. They also said
Confuciusornisand other Jehol birds were not as well adapted for flight as modern aves. (The term Jehol is used by
evolutionists to refer to all creatures represented in the fossils of northeastern China dated to around 120133 million years
ago.) As the news media relayed it: The primitive birds were probably limited to slow take-offs and short flights, had not
yet mastered the art of fast take-offs, being slow-flying birds.
But what evidence is there for that? None.
Anatomically, Confuciusornis can in no way be considered primitive compared to
modern birds. Theres no basis for saying it was a slow flyer, with slow takeoffs.In fact, the authors themselves address the likely objection to their findings
from their own evolutionary colleagues that active hunting of flight-capable prey
by a land-bound predator may seem intrinsically implausible by pointing out some
of the many examples evident today.Foxes, for example, are expert bird hunters.
As are many of the cats. The black-footed cat (Felis nigripes) of southern Africa
routinely ambushes and chases down cursorial birds before they are able to
become airborne. Servals (Leptailurus serval) are adept at snagging fleeing birds
midair.And lest anyone seek to deflect this argument by saying that dinosaurs
are reptiles, the researchers point out that monitor lizards and various snakes
consume birds in both arboreal and terrestrial contexts.So theres no reason why
dinosaurs couldnt have captured flight-capable birds, either. And in
fact Sinocalliopteryx is not the first dino to have been discovered with bird remains
in its gut. In November last year this headline in the UKs Daily Mail aptly broke
the news: First proof of bird-eating dinosaur has scientists in a flap.8That news
was based on a scientific paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences in which the researchers report on a unique specimen of the small
nonavian theropod Microraptor gui from the Early Cretaceous Jehol biota, China,
which has the remains of an adult enantiornithine bird preserved in its abdomen,
most likely not scavenged, but captured and consumed by the dinosaur.9 Well, its
hardly unique any more, now thatSinocalliopteryx is known to be another bird-eating dinosaur.And if the discovery
of Microraptors propensity for eating birds was sufficient to put evolutionary scientists in a flap, then how much more so
now with Sinocalliopteryx. Dinosaurs ate adult, flight-capable birdsone can imagine the angst this generates amongst the
evolutionary fraternity behind the dinos-gave-rise-to-birds idea. And this is not the first time that fossil discoveries have upset
the supposed bird evolution timeline. Bird fossils that pre-date their supposed ancestors have repeatedly put the
evolutionary cart-before-horse, and in fact the Jehol fossil group has already been re-dated in the past to try and salvage
the bird origins claims and other aspects of the evolutionary storyline.Try as they might, however, salvage isnt going to be
easy. Thats because its not the evolutionary paradigm that explains bird origins, but rather the creation account of history. A
history that says that birds preceded land animals (rather than the reverse, as evolution claims). A history that also describes
a global catastrophic event (the Flood) that beautifully explains not only the exquisitely preserved gut contents of the
Liaoning fossilised creatures of the Jehol group, but fossils worldwide, too.

Supposed icon of evolution, Archaeopteryx, was dressed for flight in modern, probably black, feathers
by David Catchpoole
Published: 31 July 2012 (GMT+10)
School and university students could be forgiven for
thinking thatArchaeopteryx is pivotal evidence for dino-tobird evolution, given the obligatory photos of fossils like
this one adorning the pages of their science textbooks.
The stark reality, however, is that even some leading
evolutionists do not regard it as such.According to a paper
published in Nature Communications earlier this year,
Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an icon of evolution
ever since its discovery from the Late Jurassic limestone
deposits
of
Solnhofen,
Germany
in
1861.1Certainly Archaeopteryx has
been
continually paradedas an icon of evolution in biology
textbooks and the like. And the Brown University press
release
drawing
attention
to
the Nature
Communications paper
was
no
exception,
calling Archaeopteryx a winged dinosaur.2However, as
we have written many times (e.g. see Bird evolution flies out the window), there are even leading evolutionists who most
certainly do not regardArchaeopteryx as an icon of evolution. Thats because the facts about Archaeopteryx really offer no
joy to anyone hungry for evidence supporting the evolutionary paradigm.
For example, as paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina and a world
authority on fossil birds, sums it up:
Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching
bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.3
Note that Feduccia is an evolutionist himself, not a creationist (see Feduccia vs Creationists). And the dating
of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists own reckoning puts it millions of years after the creatures it supposedly gave rise to! (E.g.
seeNew four-winged feathered dinosaur?) As Feduccia likes to quip, You cant be older than your grandfather.However, it
seems that Ryan Carney and his co-authors of the recent Nature Communications paper are oblivious of all that. Their
findings are couched in the usual evolutionary spin aboutArchaeopteryx that one has come to expect in the Nature stable of
publications.4 But thats despite their own research findings pointing to Archaeopteryx having modern feathers in line with
the creation account of birds having been designed for flight from the very first. Or, as the Brown University press release
put it, Archaeopteryxsfeather structure is identical to that of living birds and it was dressed for flight.Carney and his coworkers examined a well-preserved Archaeopteryx feather, dated as being 150 million years old. Contrary to previous
interpretations, they determined that it was an upper major primary covert (i.e. one of the feathers that cover the primary and
secondary wing feathers that birds use in flight). But the really landmark breakthrough made by the researchers was the
discovery of fossilized colour-imparting melanosomes; the pigment-producing parts of a cell.The impetus to search for
melanosomes in Archaeopteryx fossils came following co-author Jakob Vinthers discovery in 2006 of melanin preserved in
the ink sac of a fossilized squid. (See Fossil squid ink that still writes!) This made me think that melanin could be fossilized
in many other fossils such as feathers, explained Vinther. I realized I had opened a whole new chapter of what we can do
to understand the nature of extinct feathered dinosaurs and birds.(Well, extinct dinosaurs and birds, maybe. But as
for feathered dinosaurs, the claimed evidence to date is far from convincing. SeeFeathered dinos: no feathers after all!)
Sure enough, Vinthers hunch proved right in Archaeopteryxs case. Although the tiny melanosomes (about 1 micron long
and 250 nanometres wide) had long been seen in other fossil feathers, they had not been recognized as such, having been
misidentified as bacteria. Carney and Vinther and their colleagues used a very powerful type of scanning electron
microscope to locate patches of hundreds of melanosomes encased in the Archaeopteryx feather fossil. They then sought to
better define the melanosomes structure by examining the fossilized barbules of the feather. (Barbules are the tiny
appendages on feathers that form a microscopic network of hooks and grooves which overlap and interlock to give a feather
rigidity and strength. During preening, the network of barbules separated as the bird runs its beak along the feather reinterlock behind the preening bill like a zipper.) Their unequivocal finding: The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes
within them are identical to those found in modern birds.Once again, note what the researchers have themselves observed
and reported: Archaeopteryxs feather structure is identical to that of living birds. And when they compared the
melanosomes to those of 87 species of living birds, they concluded that the colour imparted
by Archaeopteryxs melanosomes was highly likely (with 95% certainty) to have been black. Thats why their press release
said Archaeopteryxwas dressed for flight:The color and parts of cells that would have supplied pigment are evidence that
wing feathers were rigid and durable, traits that would have helped Archaeopteryx to fly.However, the researchers were at
pains to say that the pigment doesnt prove that Archaeopteryx could fly, as it could equally have served to regulate body
temperature, act as camouflage or for sexual display. And they were very eager to put an evolutionary spin on the origin of
the pigmentation. As Ryan Carney said:
We cant say its proof that Archaeopteryx was a flier. But what we can say is that in modern bird feathers, these
melanosomes provide additional strength and resistance to abrasion from flight, which is why wing feathers and their tips
are the most likely areas to be pigmented. With Archaeopteryx, as with birds today, the melanosomes we found would have
provided similar structural advantages, regardless of whether the pigmentation initially evolved for another purpose.
Doesnt it make more sense to conclude that the reason that melanosomes in Archaeopteryx look like they had
a purpose was because they were put there by a purposeful Designer? Archaeopteryx had modern feathers and
melanosomes not because it would have been advantageous during this early evolutionary stage of dinosaur flight as the
evolutionary researchers tried to spin in their paleobabble, but rather was dressed for flight because Someone,
the Master Designer, dressed it.

Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered dino?

by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 6 October 2009(GMT+10)
Anchiornis huxleyi, artists impression, including the claimed feathers.
Headlines are again buzzing with new proof of the dino-to-bird story,
again from China, and again an alleged four-winged phase. The new
creature is Anchiornis huxleyi, named after Darwins Bulldog T.H.
Huxley, and seems to be a type of carnivorous dinosaur called a
troodontid. These dinosaurs, including Troodon (pronounced TRO-odon, from Greek for wounding tooth), were usually smaller than
adult humans, and had very long legs, large brain, large eyes and
binocular vision.Anchiornis is tiny even by those standards, estimated
at 34 cm (13 in) long and weighing only 110 g (3.9 oz). It also had
very long forelimbs, 80% as long as the hind limbs.One of the most
exciting features, for its discoverers, is its evolutionary ageit hails
from the Tiaojishan formation of Jianchang county, recently dated to
between 161 and 151 Ma (million years old). Because this could be
older than the extinct undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma), this
is supposed to solve the temporal paradox of all the claimed
feathered dinos being younger than the birds they supposedly evolved into. 1 In fact, this paradox was even worse,
because the usual feathered dino candidates were about 10 Ma after the beaked bird Confuciusornis (135 Ma).
What should creationists think?
This is not the first alleged four-winged dinosaur that made headlinesin early 2003, Microraptor gui was the star. Most of
the objections made in New four-winged feathered dinosaur? apply to the new star.
Is the fossil genuine?
Leading evolutionary paleo-ornithologist, and critic of the dino-bird theory, Alan Feduccia, is cautious about the current find.
He says the new fossil species adds a dazzling new piece to the complicated puzzle of early bird evolution, showing just
how blurred the distinctions are between groups in this area of the dinosaur evolutionary tree. 2 But about Microraptor, found
in the same general area, and by one of the same discoverers, he didnt mince words, given that its tail was part of the
notorious Archaeoraptor hoax:Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and
they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, its difficult to tell which ones are
faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province,
near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.Journals like Nature dont require
specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them.
They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any
of this stuff.3
Are the feathers genuine?
As we have long explained, there is nothing in creation theory to forbid feathers on dinosaurs. However, there have been so
many dubious claims that caution is warranted. Feduccia himself and colleagues have shown that feathers
on Sinosauropteryx are most likely frayed collagen fibres.4,5Anchiornis is an interesting case, because different types of
feather were reported, and they seemingly covered almost the entire body. This even includes the feet, unlike modern birds.
Two types of plumulaceous (downy) feather covered almost the entire head and neck, torso, upper legs, and the first half of
the tail. There were also pennaceous (contour) feathers covering both limbs, and even the feet and toes. But these were
symmetric, as opposed to the asymmetric flight feathers of flying birds, including Archaeopteryx.
What has this to do with flight?
The dino-to-bird theory is usually connected to the cursorial theory about bird evolution, where flying birds evolved from
running creatures. Supposedly flight evolved from flapping their forelimbs for various proposed reasons.
Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flightHenry Gee
Evolutionary critics of the dino-to-bird idea, including Feduccia, tend to promote the rival (and older)arboreal theory, where
birds evolved from gliding creatures.Anchiornis is a strange beast, and doesnt really fit either theory. Its long hindlegs would
be good for a fast runner, but feathers on its feet and toes would get in the way. So this would be strong evidence against
the cursorial theory. So evolutionary propagandists who support this theory ought not to invokeAnchiornis as support for the
dino-to-bird idea.Yet its symmetric, rounded small feathers would not be very effective for gliding either. And in any case,
there is a huge gap between flying and gliding. Concerning Microraptor, supposedly a better flyer thanAnchiornis, Henry
Gee noted in Nature :
Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight.6
So he resorted to a typical just-so story:
When flight evolved in later dromaeosaurs and birds, the hindwing might have been lost and the hindlimbs reverted to
walking and perching.
The problem for evolution is much greater than such handwaving would indicate. The imagined transition from parachuting
(where the wings merely offer resistance to downwards movement through the air) to true gliding represents a major
evolutionary hurdle in itself. But an even greater obstacle is the supposed development of the musculature and skeletal
frame required for powered flight. The main point of the wings in flapping flight is not to act as a moving parachute by
directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Rather, as shown, the flapping wings mainly direct
air backwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generateslift.Therefore
flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has
the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.This new
discovery also fails to solve the problem of the different breathing system of reptiles and birds. In particular, a highly
movable hindlimb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the
lungs.7 See Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma.
Temporal paradox solved?
Certainly, its not surprising that evolutionists would finally be delighted with an alleged feathered dinosaur older
than Archaeopteryx. But they have merely replaced one temporal paradox with another:
Anchiornis huxleyi is probably Oxfordian in age, and unquestionably represents the oldest troodontid reported so far. The
presence of a troodontid in the earliest Late Jurassic indicates that all groups of derived theropods had originated by this

time. A calibrated theropod phylogeny based only on well-corroborated fossil occurrences suggests that all major tetanuran
groups, including Aves, might have originated and diversified rapidly in the Middle to earliest Late Jurassic. This rapid
divergence event would have coincided with documented palaeogeographical changes that took place around the same
time. Alternatively, a calibrated theropod phylogeny incorporating fragmentary material suggests that tetanurans have a
much longer evolutionary history, and that great potential exists for discovering derived theropod fossils, even in the
Triassic.
That is, according to their own calibrated phylogeny,8 Anchiornis is about 30 Ma older than the next youngest, and more
dino-like, troodontid. This means they must postulate a much earlier evolutionary history than actually demonstrated in the
fossil record.
Feather fossil fantasy
Amber-encased feathers no help to feather evolution
by Shaun Doyle
Is this the ancestor of modern birds?
Evolutionary paleontologists have recently claimed to have found evidence of early feather evolution in amber. 1They dated
these finds to about 100 million years ago (Ma), and claim that they represent an intermediate stage in the evolutionary
development of feathers.
Out of time
The title of the article reads: The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France [emphasis
added]. This title is misleading for two reasons: (1) The article dates these fossil feathers to 100 Ma, but Archaeopteryx, a
recognizable feathered bird, is dated by evolutionists to 150 Ma, and even the beaked bird Confuciusornis is dated to 135
Ma; (2) Archaeopteryx, by the authors own admission, has modern-type feathers that are similar to those of extant birds.2
This begs the question: why are these fossil feathers evidence for the earlyevolution of feathers if theyre clearly (according
to the evolutionists own dating scheme) anything but early?The conclusion is painfully obvious, even just from these two
points: these fossil feathers mean absolutely nothing for feather evolution. However, this brings to light an often overlooked
point about orthodox dino-to-bird theory.3 When the fossil evidence contradicts the evolutionists own timeline the standard
way to save their story is to have ghost lineages4 haunting the phylogeny:
Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million
years after the origin of birds Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic
method.5
Interestingly, researchers recently used a number of different molecular dating techniques to arrive at a date for the origin of
modern birds of 103 Ma at the earliest.6 This is 3 Ma earlier than this fossil evidence for the early evolution of feathers. If this
is the case, what did the ancestor of modern birds look like? I couldnt help wondering whether the TNR (totally naked
rooster) mutant7 isnt a mutant at all, and is very close to the ancestral form of modern birds!
Feather morphology, development and evolution
However, the claim for evolutionary significance rests on the morphology of the feathers. Perrichot et al. believe that these
feathers represent an intermediate stage between two stages of the of Prums developmental theory of feather evolution. 8
But how can we be sure that these feathers dont fall within the full range of morphology in fully functional feathers? These
feathers are very small (12 mm) and are described as morphologically similar to down, ornamental or afterfeathers. 9 And
other explanations for their origin are not considered. For example, the size could suggest that they are from a chick, or the
lack of barbules may indicate degenerate feathers that have lost functionality. 10When it comes to giving these feathers a
certain place in the evolutionary chain of feathers, the authors demur in favour of keeping their missing link brand:
We prefer not to create a new stage for this morphology, as it merely illustrates a transition between two well-established
stages rather than a distinct, stable stage.
Not a stable stage? This stage has either reappeared or, more likely, had to persist for over 50 Ma in the evolutionary
scheme if it is important for evolution! Once again, it seems that all that matters in dino-to-bird evolution is morphology. The
timeline can be conveniently ignored when it doesnt neatly fit the story.
Dino feathers?
Perrichot et al. also claim that these feathers are far more likely to come from dinosaurs than birds:
The morphology of the new fossils described herein, with a rachis 11 forming primitive vanes without barbules, is entirely
consistent with the shafted feathers displayed by these two theropods. But the poor early feather record still prevents a
complete reconstruction of the distribution pattern of morphologies among non-avian coelurosaurs and basal birds, and the
possibility that they are derived from an early bird cannot be excluded.2
Fossil feathers purported to show evidence of the early evolution of
feathers. There is however little consideration of other possible
explanations of the feather morphology.This is mind boggling! They
are seriously arguing that seven 1-mm long broken feathers that
have likely been twisted and crushed when trapped in the amber
are prima facie evidence fordinosaur feathers. Of course, they couch
their claim in tentative terms by saying that the possibility that they
are derived from an early bird cannot be excluded. All the same, this
statement shows they think the feathers are more likely to come from
dinosaurs than birds.12Surely feathers are prima facie evidence for
birds, especially given the interpretive controversies that surround
feathered dinosaurs.13However, this is probably where the
evolutionary age (100 Ma) would be invoked to explain the likelihood
of them coming from dinosaurs. There are also a number of
dromaeosaurid and trodontid fossils14 found in strata closely related
to where the feathers were found.2The problem is that the age cant
be important here and also be significant for the early evolution of
feathers except by appealing to evolutionary stasis, which is an
evolutionary interpretation of ghost lineages.The best case scenario
for the evolutionist is that this is a dinosaur feather dated 50 Ma
after unequivocal evidence of fully developed feathers in an early
bird.
If
anything,
these
feathers
would
represent
feather degeneration in dinosaurs, not evolution.
Conclusion

It makes no sense to place these fossils into a dino-to-bird evolutionary context because they produce too many
conundrums and unexplained questions. The timeline doesnt fit and other options for the origin of the feathers are not
considered. Assuming that the feathers come from a dinosaur is a complete reversal of any reasonable prima
facie consideration of the source of the feathers. Such an assumption can only be made from a deep commitment to
evolution in general and dino-to-bird evolution in particular. From a creation view, these feathers are likely to have come
from a chick and were encased in amber during the Flood.
Grass-eating dinos
A time-travel problem for evolution
by David Catchpoole
Evolution textbooks have long taught that fossil evidence shows
grasses evolved around 55 million years ago, afterthe extinction of the
dinosaurs (around 65 million years ago). Woe betide any illustrator who
drew dinosaurs and grass in the same picture!But new evidence leaves
the evolution textbooks with a dramatic grassy time-travel conundrum.
Researchers have discovered fossilized dinosaur droppings that contain
the remains of at least five types of grasses. 1 This means that not only
did grass already existat the same time as dinosaurs, but (at least
some) dinosaurs also ateit.2 But how could they have eaten something
that supposedly hadnt even evolved yet?As one of the researchers
commented, the discovery of grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in
plants) in dinosaur coprolites (fossil dung) was a complete shock. 3,4 So
the new evidence will force a dramatic revision of evolutionary theory
about the origin of grasses.Reporting on the new find, New
Scientist highlighted the dramatic turnaround by explaining that
illustrators who had previously made the mistake of drawing dinosaurs alongside grass actually had it right, after all:Artists
impressions of dinosaurs grazing on grassy plains were considered as bad as depictions of them cavorting with cavemen,
but an examination of fossilised dung has shown that the prehistoric beasts did indeed eat grass. 3As we have commented
many times, wrongly interpreting the fossil record as an evolutionary progression over millions (and billions) of years will
always raise conundrums for evolutionists. But from a creation perspective, sedimentary rock layers and the embedded
fossils are a logical legacy of the global Flood (around 4,500 years ago) and its aftermath. (See box: The dino dung
dilemma.)So its quite okay for illustrators to depict grass, man, 5 dinosaurs and other animals and plants as co-existing on
this planet at the same time. And dinosaurs are not prehistoric since they lived after the beginning of written history, which
starts, by the way, at the very beginning of time itself .
Photo by Linda Lou Haywood, <rocksandminerals.com>.

The dino dung dilemma

The fact that we find fossilized dinosaur dung at all speaks
of rapid burial in an oxygen-free environmentfor how else
could dung have been so preserved?
And such coprolites have been found right around the world
this is consistent with a global Flood of cataclysmic
proportions .
Jurassic Park feathers?
Does Velociraptor fossil suggest dinos had feathers?
by Shaun Doyle
From Turner et al., ref. 1.
Figure 1. The grand evidence presented for quill knobs on
a Velociraptor ulna. A The whole Velociraptorbone; B The portion
of the bone with the proported quill knobs magnified; and C A
modern turkey vulture ulna for comparison. From Turner et al.1
Click here for larger view
Once more, another feathered dinosaur claim has been paraded
around as evidence for dino-to-bird evolution. Evolutionists have
re-examined a fossil ulna (forelimb bone), reported to be from the
dromaeosaur Velociraptor mongoliensis (meaning fast thief from
Mongolia) dated at 80 million years old, and have found what
they dubbed direct evidence for feathers in a dinosaur.1They
found six small bumps in the central third of the bone which they
interpreted as quill knobs, which provides their direct evidence

for feathers. However, no actual feathers were found, so this is an inference based on apparent similarity of the bone
structure to some birds.
What of the quill knobs?
The images in the article do not do justice to the significance the researchers put on their find (figure 1). This may just be a
problem with the images. However, in contrast to clear quill knobs on the turkey vulture ulna shown for comparison, the quill
knobs on the Velociraptor bone are rather inconspicuous even in the magnified image. 2 One must wonder if these quill
knobs are really quill knobs at all.The specimen these claims are based on, IGM (Geological Institute of Mongolia) 100/981,
appears to be nothing more than a single ulna bone. Turner et al. say that it possesses several characteristics normally
found inVelociraptor mongoliensis and that it was found in rocks that have produced other Velociraptor specimens. However,
their whole case rests on this one bone. Taxonomic misidentification is always a possibility when all that was found was one
bone.Another important point is that quill knobs are usually evidence of secondary feathers used for flight. However, nobody
believes that velociraptors could fly. This suggests the bumps may have a different function than anchoring feathers.The
evidence presented is hardly enough to make a definitive claim for the existence of feathered dinosaurs.
Bird evolution on the rocks
The assumption behind all these feathered dinosaur claims are that they actually have something important to say about
bird evolution. But heres one problem for a start: the claim doesnt even fit into their own contrived geological dating
context!
This Velociraptor fossil
is
dated
to
80
million
years
old.
However,
recognizable
birds
likeArchaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are dated by evolutionists to 153 and 135 million years old respectively.
ThusVelociraptor was alive, by evolutionary reckoning, over 70 million years after the earliest birds. This mismatch of dates
is a regular feature of fossils touted as the closest relatives of modern birds. 3Evolutionists thus have to postulate at least 70
million years of evolutionary stasis for this fossil to have any significance for bird evolution. And whats more, there isnt a
shred of fossil evidence to place velociraptors (or anyother feathered dinosaur found to date)
before Archaeopteryx. (See Plucking the dinobird).Thus, this Velociraptor fossil (like the others) is too late according to the
evolutionists own dating scheme to have any bearing on their own bird evolution stories.
How to look at one bone 300 different ways
National Geographic reported an interesting comment from Alan Turner, the principal author of the Sciencepaper; If people
saw this animal now, they would think its a really strange-looking bird. 4 If we assume this bone did have quill knobs and
feathers, and it was a Velociraptor, whats stopping it being a flightless bird? Even if it were a true feathered dinosaur, whats
the problem of having creating feathered dinosaurs as separate creatures?You may notice Ive suggested several
completely different interpretations of the evidence in this article. This raises perhaps the biggest problem in paleontology
the scarcity of the evidence. In the light of such a small amount of evidence one can hardly be expected to hold to any
interpretation with any sort of certainty. This has not stopped evolutionists from announcing the evidence with all boldness
and claiming it as another grand triumph for orthodox dino-to-bird evolution. And all this on the rock solid basis of one arm
bone with a few bumps?
Plucking the dinobird
Little fossil means little for dino-bird evolution
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 28 September 2007(GMT+10)
Once again, a dinosaur purported to shed more
light on dino-bird evolution has been unveiled
from
MongoliadubbedMahakala
omnogovae.1,2 The supposed importance of this
latest find is in its small size: it apparently
transfers the small size requirement for flight from
the early birds to their dinosaurian ancestors. In
reality, however, its small stature also reflects its
small significance for dino-to-bird evolution.
Frank Ippolito, American Museum of Natural
History.
Figure 1. Artists conception of Mahakala. These
sorts of conceptions misrepresent the fossil
evidence because there was no fossil evidence
of feathers on Mahakala.
Feathered fossil folly
The first thing that needs to be stated before anything else is that no feathers were found with this fossil. This of course
doesnt stop them postulating that they had them and rendering them as such (figure 1) because they require Mahakala to
have them for dino-to-bird evolution to even get off the ground. This is the same problem that researchers ran into
with Gigantoraptor. They assume it was feathered,3 then claim it as evidence that dinosaurs were feathered, without
providing any independent evidence! This doesnt mean it didnt have feathers, it simply means they currently have no fossil
evidence to show that it did.Secondly, they speculate that Mahakala is an evolutionarily significant find that sheds light on
the origins of dromaeosaurs (which advocates of dino-bird evolution believe are close dinosaurian cousins of birds), and, by
extension, birds. However, the morphological and chronological sequences they construct to place Mahakala do not bode
very well for its claimed significance. Mahakala is claimed to be a basal dromaeosaur largely because of its small size, but
this requires evolutionists to postulate 60 million years of evolutionary stasis (itself a contradiction in terms). However, other
relatives of Mahakala diversified to a far greater extent at a much earlier period (figure 2). They seek to justify this by
claiming that small theropods like Mahakala are more unlikely to be preserved than their larger relatives. 4 However, their
evidence is equivocal, and they admit that at times it plainly contradicts their argument because in some of their branches,
the smaller creatures predate the larger ones, showing that indeed the smaller can preserve earlier. Moreover, earlier birds
such as Archaeopteryx were of a similar size to Mahakala, so their size can hardly be significant for the origin of avian flight
because the small size already existed before dromaeosaurs apparently branched off from everything else.
From Turner et al., ref. 1, p. 1380.

Figure 2. Cladogram, assumed to be an

evolutionary lineage of birds and their supposed
closest dinosaurian ancestors. The silhouettes are
to scale, and the left-facing silhouettes near open
circles show reconstructed ancestral body
sizes. Mahakala is needed to make the ancestral
size of dromaeosaurs match supposedly related
lineages, but it came on the scene a little late. Click
here for a larger view.This is perhaps more an
example of the researchers trying to bolster support
for the importance of their particular fossil rather
than actual significance, especially when their own
contrived geological dating context speaks against
its significance. Therefore, in evolutionary terms,
the grand importance of this find is readily disputed.
Unfortunately, however, the widespread publicity
given to the find, with its repeated references to
evolution, gives an impression that this is yet more
evidence of evolution, no doubt misleading many.
Archaeopteryx strikes again!
Archaeopteryx, dated to around 150 million years,
and a recognizable bird, should squash claims
these supposed feathered dinosaurs mean anything for bird evolution. This is no different for Mahakala, since it is about 70
million years younger than Archaeopteryx according to the evolutionary dating scheme.5However, to preserve the
significance of their supposed feathered dinosaur (though Mahakala had no feathers) they do what may seem like a nice
bit of sleight-of-hand. They turn all these supposed feathered dinosaurs into ghost lineages, which then
makes Archaeopteryx younger than the feathered dinosaurs.However, evolutionary critics of dino-bird orthodoxy have
pointed out the inconsistency here. That is, the older fossils (Archaeopteryx) bear more morphological similarities to todays
birds than their supposed dinosaurian ancestors. Ghost lineages is also just another way of saying evolutionary stasis,
and evolutionist Peter Dodson points out the absurdity of placing as much weight on it as the dino-to-bird theorists do:
Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million
years after the origin of birds . Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the
cladistic method. Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only
sister taxa. Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic
gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of
evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years? Or are actual ancestors far more
basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?6
Evolutionists also shuffle Archaeopteryx off to the sidelines of bird evolution by citing differences from modern birds, such as
the presence of teeth. They have also claimed that chickens found with mutations that produce teeth-like structures in their
beaks prove their reptilian ancestry.7 However, one cannot have ones cake and eat it too. The embryo shows that at least
some modern birds have the genetic information for teeth, but do not develop them through a mutational loss of information
in perhaps a tooth development gene. Therefore, the difference between modern birds and Archaeopteryx is not as great as
evolutionists would like.Not only that, there is no guarantee that modern bird morphological diversity represents the original
condition between different bird kinds, which may have been wider since some are likely to have gone extinct post-Flood.
Therefore, from a creation point of view there is no need to bow to evolutionary limits on significant bird
morphology.Archaeopteryx however does possess unique structures that set it apart from other birds, of which some may
bear some similarity to dinosaurs. However, all the traits appear fully formed in all Archaeopteryx specimens. Therefore, it
does not demonstrate evolutionary change, but only presents a unique combination of fully formed traits (a mosaic or
chimaera). Despite evolutionists protestations, Archaeopteryx presents evolutionists with the problem of having to deal with
a recognisable bird (with feathers and powered flight to boot) that (by their reckoning) is 70 million years older than this
latest find.
Tempest in a teacup
The more fossils that get unearthed, the more complicated the evolutionary storytelling gets to fit all the data
in. Mahakala adds to the confusion. However, feathered dinos and other such fossils that are regularly paraded in the
media reinforce the myth that evolution is a fact. They are unusual and capture peoples imaginations, and because theyre
always presented in an evolutionary framework, people assume there is no plausible explanation for these creatures
.However, feathered dinosaurs per se do not contradict the creation model , as they could be original creations that went
extinct after the Flood. Moreover, several evolutionists dispute that feathered so-called dinosaurs (that is, the ones that
actually have feathers) are actuallydinosaurs. Rather, they say they are flightless birds, meaning they would be extinct birds
instead of dinosaurs from a creation view. And once again, Mahakala had no feathers! Mahakala is a little fossil of little
significance that evolutionists have blown up into a stormbut in reality the storm is so little that it fits into a teacup.
Eggceptionally different
by Mark H. Armitage
Scanning electron microscope comparisons between dinosaur fossil egg shells and recent, unfossilized eggshells from
modern reptiles and birds show that dinosaur eggs are unique. Dinosaur eggs are dramatically thicker, more crystalline in
their construction, and remarkably patterned across their outer surfaces. Reptile and bird eggs are much thinner and
smoother and, in the case of the avian eggs studied, constructed by a meshwork of collagen or fibrin. If dinosaurs were
related to lizards, as evolutionists claim, their eggs should be similar in such details as large bumps on the exterior surface
and a thick, crystalline egg wall, yet such is not the case. If birds were descended from dinosaurs then bird eggs should
preserve some hint of the unique aspect of dinosaur egg morphology, yet none is seen. Egg morphology supports the
concept that reptiles, dinosaurs and birds are not related by common descent.

Figure 1. Iguanodon egg, France, scaleFigure 2. Saltasaurus robustus egg,Figure 3. Unidentified dinosaur egg,
bar
=
400
m.Salta Argentina, scale bar = 400 m. Patagonia, Argentina, scale bar = 400 m.
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
A comparative scanning electron microscope study was performed between several dinosaur fossil eggshells 1 and recent,
unfossilized eggshells from modern reptiles and birds. Dinosaur fossil eggs were acquired from collectors who stated that
they came from well-known digs in France and Argentina (Jurassic sedimentary layers) and were completely mineralized
due to the fossilization process. According to Mr Joe Taylor, who provided samples for this study, none of these dinosaur
eggs have ever appeared to be thin or even squashed flat. They appear to have been thick and hard prior to any
breaking or fracturing, like chicken eggs.1 For scanning electron microscopy, samples were gently cleaned with compressed
air, affixed to microscope stubs and sputter coated with gold. They were observed and photographed on a JEOL scanning
electron microscope.It is well known that dinosaur egg preservation is remarkable, even down to molecular details.2
4
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the fossilization of these dinosaur eggs preserved macroscopic details, if not
microscopic ones as well (see reference 5 for remarkable preservation of ultrastructural details in dinosaur bone). It could be
argued that fossilization has erased, or otherwise altered, unique features in dinosaur eggs, but the literature supports the
commonly held theory that fossilization often preserves even the most minute of morphological structures.5

Figure 4. Modern lizard egg, scale bar=Figure 5. Modern ostrich egg, scale bar =Figure 6. Modern chicken egg, scale bar =
m.20
200
m.40
m.
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
This study in no way reflects a comprehensive comparative review of avian, reptile and dinosaur eggshells. Additionally, this
study does not concern itself with cross-sectional comparisons between these types of eggs, as has been done
before,2,4 although such a comparative study is warranted and is forthcoming. A pattern definitely emerges, however, from
this small sample set. Since dinosaurs, birds and reptiles all seem to share certain morphological similarities, it would be
reasonable to assume that their eggs would likewise be similar in construction. The purpose of this ongoing study will be to
determine if the eggs of dinosaurs, reptiles and birds examined show any visual hint at high magnification of an evolutionary
progression, or even similarities, as would be expected on the basis of evolution from reptile to bird.
Outer surface
It is clear that the dinosaur egg shells (Figures 1, 2, 3) have significantly rougher surfaces than the reptile egg (Figure 4) on
their respective exterior faces, and even more so than those of the chicken (Figure 5) and the ostrich (Figure 6). The distinct
pattern evidenced by the three dinosaur samples is that of regularly spaced bumps emanating from a flat surface. The avian
eggs appear as fairly flat surfaces otherwise crisscrossed with a meshwork of a collagen matrix and some cracks and
crevasses.

Figure 7. Iguanodon egg, France, scaleFigure 8. Saltasaurus robustus egg,Figure 9. Unidentified dinosaur egg,
bar
=
400
m.Salta Argentina, scale bar = 800 m. Patagonia, Argentina, scale bar = 400 m.
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
No such cracks (even very small, isolated ones) are evident at all on any of the dinosaur exterior egg surfaces.It could be
argued that the fossilization process may have occluded such cracks and crevices in mud and debris, if they existed at all
between the bumps on these dinosaur eggs (and some debris does seem to exist between the bumps on Figure 3), but in
general, these eggs seem to be free of such material.

Table 1. Shell thicknesses of eggs studied.

Additionally, one might expect such cracks or collagen networks, if they
existed, to extend to the upper knoll portion of the bumps. Yet clearly
Specimen
Thickness (mm)
none are there. There does not appear to be any loose, unfossilized
debris whether on the bumps or the valleys between them, which could
Iguanodon
2.5
cover these features. Therefore we conclude that we are actually
looking at the outer surfaces of dinosaur eggs. From this comparison,
therefore, it appears that the bird eggs differ from the dinosaur eggs in
Saltasaurus
5.5
that their outer surface is flatter, and is covered by cracks, crevasses,
collagen fibres laid down in a mesh, and delaminations of the surface
Patagonia
5.0
material.
Further, the dinosaur eggs are thicker by 25 mm on average (see
Table 1) than are lizard and chicken eggs, which is well known from the
Lizard
0.1
literature.2,6,7 The only resemblance between the dinosaur eggs and the
modern specimens is found in the ostrich egg which has a thickness
Ostrich
2.2
approaching that of the Iguanodon. Finally the bird eggs do not exhibit
the regularly spaced pattern of bumps that are characteristically shown
by all three dinosaur eggs.The lizard specimen also has a rough
Chicken
0.6
exterior. However, its woven almost linen-like appearance under
magnification is much smoother than the dinosaur eggs and it looks as
pliable as it actually is in reality. As discussed previously, the dinosaur eggs all have a similar bumpy pattern in common
which extends across the surface. No such pattern of bumps is evident on either of the bird specimens or the lizard sample.
Interior surface
The dinosaur eggs diverge somewhat in their similarity when examined from the inside. The Iguanodon (Figure 7) and
the Saltasaurus (Figure 8) samples show rough surfaces on their inner aspect, with somewhat of a regular, crystalline
texture to the Saltasaurus specimen not exhibited in the other dinosaur eggs. The Patagonia sample (Figure 9) is dramatic
in that a clear pattern of large bumps again appears. Otherwise, the dinosaur eggs are fairly smooth inside with absolutely
no hint of the dense matrix of collagen fibres exhibited on the avian eggs (Figures 11, 12). The reptile egg (Figure 10) is also
again unique from all other samples in that a fine carpet of shallow bumps is displayed.

Figure 10. Modern lizard egg, scale bar = Figure 11. Modern ostrich egg, scale barFigure 12. Modern chicken egg, scale bar
200
m.=
10
m.
10
m.=
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
Click here for larger view
Conclusions
It seems that if dinosaurs were related to lizards, as our evolutionary colleagues would remind us, their eggs would have
similarities in such details as large bumps on the exterior surface, and a thick, crystalline egg wall. Yet here we clearly see
that such is not the case. If birds were descended from dinosaurs, then some hint of the unique aspect of dinosaur egg
morphology might be preserved in bird eggs. Yet none of that is seen as well. It will be argued that there was sufficient
geologic time for such anomalous morphological differences to have been smoothed out in transition, but this is obviously an
argument from lack of evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that what we are looking at in this preserved material is
the real morphology that existed in the past. It is equally reasonable to assume that since no transition eggs have been
found at any dinosaur egg site to date, none therefore exist. As scientists, we are compelled to report on and surmise about
what is found in nature and what is observed under our microscopes. The hand waving and conjecture we leave to the nonscientists.It is evident from this limited study, that dinosaur eggs appear to be unique and quite different from avian and
reptile eggs. Dinosaur eggs are dramatically thicker, more crystalline in their construction, and remarkably patterned across
their outer surfaces than either reptile or bird eggs, which are both much thinner, smoother and, in the case of the avian
eggs studied, constructed by a meshwork of collagen or fibrin. Further study is warranted to determine if this pattern is
consistent with a larger sample population.
Big birdosaur blues
New fossil creates problems for dino-to-bird evolution
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 11 July 2007 (GMT+10)
Estimated size of Gigantoraptor in comparison with a man, from Xu et al.3. All that was found of Gigantoraptor by Xu et al.3 is
indicated in white in this diagram. Note that no feathers were found, only a subset of the bones. Click here for larger
view.The media has recently been buzzing with the latest claims of a dino-to-bird missing link, a 1,400-kg so-called bird-like
dinosaur from China dubbed Gigantoraptor erlianensis (meaning giant thief from Erlian [a city in Inner Mongolia in
China]).1,2 However, when you look at the report in Nature,3 you find that Gigantoraptor has done more to confuse
evolutionists than confirm dino-to-bird evolution.First, the sheer size of Gigantoraptor presents a problem for the orthodox
dino-to-bird story, which the researchers themselves admit:3

Interestingly, the comparatively less bird-like species of

most coelurosaurian sub-groups are in general larger in
size than the more bird-like species of each clade, unlike
the
situation

where
the
gigantic Gigantoraptor independently evolved many birdlike features absent in its smaller relatives.4
In most dinosaur lineages that are supposed to be closely
related to birds, its the smaller dinosaurs that are more
birdlike.5 However, Gigantoraptor reverses this trend. It
exhibits more birdlike characteristics than any of its
supposed closest relatives, yet it is 300 times larger than
any of them.6 This is explained by invoking
homoplasy,7which is nothing but a last ditch effort by
evolutionists to keep this fossil under the evolutionary
umbrella when it just doesnt fit.8Gigantoraptor has been
portrayed as a dinosaur with feathers, both by the
researchers3 and the media.1,2 Xu et al.even go so far as to say that their feathers were used for protecting eggs during
brooding.3,7 However, their reasons for believing that Gigantoraptor had feathers are nothing more than speculation because
no feathers were found with the fossil. Note, no feathers were found!
Note, no feathers were found [on this feathered dino]!
They assume Gigantoraptor had feathers because its apparent closest relatives, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx,
appear to have feathers.5However, the status of these two fossils as dinosaurs is disputed. Some believe them to be
flightless birds based on the feathers and other anatomical evidence. 9 Since Gigantoraptor3 appears to have more birdlike
features than even Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, it may in fact be a bird, in which case one would expect it to have
feathers without having to postulate feathered dinosaurs. Therefore, to assume that they are feathered dinosaurs in order to
prove they had feathers is not only begging the question, it also ignores other possible paths to the same
conclusion.However, no amount of speculative reasoning will prove that Gigantoraptor had feathers. Even
though Gigantoraptoris said to be a close relative of Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, it would still have been about 300
times their size, and it possesses many unique features that set it apart from them both. Therefore, unless we actually find
a Gigantoraptor fossil with feathers attached we cannot know if it had feathers and all claims that it did are
speculation.Moreover, Gigantoraptor doesnt fit the evolutionary timeline for dino-to-bird evolution. That meanseven on
their own termsits nothing more than a dead-end branch of the evolutionary tree. Gigantoraptor was found in strata
dated as Upper Cretaceous (8565 million years ago), 3 but Archaeopteryx, which is a recognizable bird, is dated at about
150 million years; and Confuciusornis, a beaked bird, supposedly existed 135 million years ago.
Therefore, Gigantoraptor cant be classed as an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds because the dates are all wrong.
This is a common problem in dino-to-bird theory; the dinosaurs that have the most birdlike features are younger than the
first birds in the evolutionists own scheme.5One thing we can agree on with the evolutionists is that theyve found a unique
creature thats hard to fit into the traditional evolutionary picture. Gigantoraptor seems to be a new creature, which provides
no problems for creationists but creates headaches for evolutionists trying to fit it into their conjectures on how dinosaurs
evolved into birds. While the media have paraded Gigantoraptor as yet another feather in the cap of dino-to-bird evolution,
by the evolutionists own admission the feathers are missing and Gigantoraptor is eating the cap.
Pterosaurs flew like modern aeroplanes
by Jonathan Sarfati
Scientists have long wondered how the extinct flying reptiles, the pterosaurs, could fly. They seemed too ungainly to lift into
the air from the ground, or to land safely without breaking their delicate wings. Quite reasonably, some scientists proposed
that there must have been greater air pressure in the past.
However, we have reported on recent discoveries that pterosaurs
had a complex wing anatomy, with muscles and nerves, and a large
brain region to process the signals. 1 This enabled them to fly more
smoothly and efficiently than fixed-wing aircraft. And fossil
trackways showed they could also land elegantly.2
This unique design speaks of a Master Flight Engineer.
But what about the initial take-off? Earlier calculations had
overlooked a tiny bone called the pteroid. This is unique to
pterosaurs, and was previously thought to bend inwards. But
Matthew Wilkinson and his team in the animal flight group at
Cambridge University, UK, studied pterosaur fossils and showed
that the pteroid pointed forward.3 This evidently supported a front
flap of skin that acted as a movable leading edge on the wing.
Darren Naish, a paleontologist at the University of Portsmouth, UK,
says that fossilized pterosaur soft tissue found in China is strong
evidence for this.4The pteroid and flap enabled the pterosaur to use
aerodynamic tricks like those found in modern aircraft.5 Angling
this flap would increase lift by a huge 30%, so even the largest pterosaurs could take off by simply spreading their wings into
a moderate breeze. And this extra lift would mean their minimum flying speed (i.e. below which they would stall) was
reduced by 15%, allowing a smooth landing. Also, by flexing the pteroid on one wing and extending it on the other, they
would have different lifts on both wings, enabling them to bank during turns.This unique design speaks of a Master Flight
Engineer, who designed flying creatures that could work efficiently in ordinary air pressure.
Chickens with teeth
Carl Wieland
25 July 2006
We have been repeatedly asked to comment on newspaper reports concerning an alleged proof of evolution, namely
mutant chickens with a set of teeth.

Today, of course, neither chickens nor any other birds have teeth. So this is
supposed to be proof that chickens and other birds descended from reptiles
which did. The reports in the popular press refer to an article that appeared
in early 2006 in a reputable journal.1 The authors reported that a mutant
chicken turns out to have had tooth-like structures in its beak. It also had
serious limb defects and died shortly after it was hatched. This particular
mutant was born some 50 years ago; it seems that no-one noticed its
teeth. In addition to that, the scientists concerned have been able to tweak
the genes of chickens today in such a way as to cause the developing chick
This photo of the mutant chicken
to form similar tooth structures. 2 It is important to note that even the most
embryo shows it with its set of toothlike
fanatical evolutionist is not suggesting that this single mutation somehow
structures very similar to that in both
created all the information needed for teeth. The obvious conclusion (which
reptiles and some (now-extinct) birds.
we would support) is that the information for forming teeth is there in all
So were its ancestors reptilesor birds?
chickens, but not normally expressed. Actually, this is neither new nor
This evidence fits both viewpoints. Click
surprising. More than five years previously, in the Focus section of
to view larger. (Photo by John F. Fallon and Matthew P.
our Creationmagazine (21(2):79, March 1999) we reported on a similar
Harris).
announcement. Scientists at the University of Connecticut had been able
to grow a tooth, using tissue from the egg of a chicken. Of course, this was
touted as proof that birds had evolved from reptiles.
What does it show?
Stripped of evolutionary assumptions, it shows that the gene pool of the chickens created kind included the capacity to
generate teeth. In other words, the genetic flexibility (variety) existed in the original gene pool to generate daughter
populations in which some had teeth, some didnt. From that, one would expect that even though no birds today have teeth,
there would have once been such birds. And in fact, extinct birds are known from the fossil record which did have teeth
(while others did not). The same sort of variety exists in both living and extinct reptilessome with teeth, some without. We
also wrote in that same Focus item:
the loss or switching off of genes expressing the development of a tooth, like the loss of wings in some birds, or of
eyes on fish in caves, is not an indication of how the information for such structures arose by natural means. Devolution
would
be
a
better
term.
Creationists have written and spoken about this phenomenon of information-losing mutations, some of them even
beneficial,
for
years
(e.g. Beetle
Bloopers, Creation 19(3):30).

In the same way, todays toothless platypus is the more specialized (thus genetically depleted) descendant of a much more
robust ancestor, whose gene pool included teeth. (Platypus teeth are known from the fossil record, but no platypus
populations
alive
today
have
them.)
Of course, evolutionists will try to say that these chickens inherited this switched-on-again tooth information from their
reptile ancestors. The cone-like embryonic teeth of these mutant chickens (which, the researchers say, would likely be
reabsorbed anyway if the chickens survived to maturity) certainly resemble those of the archosaurs, a group of reptiles
which includes crocodiles. But in reality, toothed birds in the fossil record also have the same type of teeth, which fits
creationist expectations just as well.
Summary and conclusion
All are agreed that these mutant chickens developed their teeth because they carry the genetic information for toothmaking originally present in their ancestors, but which later became switched off. Evolutionists interpret these
observations as consistent with their belief that reptiles evolved into birds. Creationists interpret it as consistent with their
belief that the ancestral created kind from which the chicken is descended contained the information to generate teeth. To
support this, we point to similar types of teeth in extinct birds. This discovery has enabled a fascinating glimpse of the
greater genetic potential of the original kinds.
Dinos breathed like birds?
by Carl Wieland

From Nature 436:7048, 253-256 (14 July 2005)

Comparisons between a bird (a, b) and theropod dinosaur (c, d) in
caudal (a, c) and right lateral (b, d) views, illustrating the topological
similarity of pneumatic features. a, b, Cranial thoracic vertebra of a sarus
crane (Grus antigone, SBU AV104063).c, d, Mid-cervical (c) and
cervicothoracic (d) vertebra of an abelisauroid theropod (Majungatholus
atopus, UA 8678). Scale bar, 1 cm (a, b) and 3 cm in (c, d). CeP, central
pneumatic foramen; NaP, neural arch pneumatic foramen; Nc, neural
canal; Ns, neural spine; Pp, parapophysis.

The internet in mid-July 2005 was abuzz with headlines which implied to the
layperson that it has now been proven beyond doubt that dinosaurs breathed like
birds. All this has come from a new study dealing with the fossil remains of a
very beautifully preserved theropod dinosaur,Majungatholus atopusi, just
published in the prestigious British science journal Nature.1 The fact that theropod
dinosaurs (that group believed by many evolutionists to have given rise to birds)
have pneumatization (special hollow air spaces) in some of their bones is not
new, nor that birds do, too. In particular, the lungs of birds interact with a system
of air sacs which invade sections of the skeleton, particularly the vertebral bodies. Those vertebral bodies which are
present in this dinosaur show in remarkable detail (see diagram, from the Naturearticle, reproduced under the fair use
provisions of copyright) air cavities within the bone (pneumatizations). These are so strongly analogous with ones in a
modern bird that I think one can reasonably inferthat the dinosaur possessed the following:A cervical air sac similar to
modern birds;
A lung which itself invaded some of the thoracic vertebrae, pneumatizing them in the same way as modern bird lungs do;An
abdominal air sac similar to modern birds. This is the aspect of the study that appears to be most encouraging to

evolutionists, as being caudal2 to the lung, it allows for the possibility of a flow-through lung as in birds (see later).Note that
the sacs themselves are not preserved, nor available to study, so the above cannot be known for certain, just that, as stated,
it is very reasonable to infer it.
Stretching the point
In another diagram associated with the article, the dinosaur skeleton is drawn with not just the above three features but, in
addition, (4) a clavicular air sac and (5) a thoracic air sac as modern birds have. However, there appears to beno fossil
evidence of (4) and (5). The caption states that these are tertiary-level inferences emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding
the reconstruction of soft tissues not constrained by osteological evidence. In other words, there is no evidence from fossil
bones from which one can even infer the existence of these soft tissue air sacs. Rather, they are believed to be present by
way of tertiary inferencepresumably as follows: if (1) (3), all known to be features of bird respiration, are (secondarily)
inferred to be present, then its an educated guess that probably (4) (5) are present as well. However, this guess is heavily
influenced by the presumption that theropods are the evolutionary ancestors of birds. But this is hotly disputed by some
evolutionist experts themselves, and it is just as reasonable to presume that theropods did not have those last two
sacs.Further, even if it were to turn out that theropods did have all five pneumatic features, it is again very much a tertiary
inference (an indirect assumption, more than one step from the evidence) that this theropod therefore had the same flowthrough ventilation system as birds. It is this flow-through aspect, where the air keeps moving in the same direction, that
makes the avian lung so special (and as far as is known for certain, unique), compared to the bellows (in and out) lung of
mammals or reptiles. At present, all one can say is that the presence of a flow-through lung in this theropod may have been
the case (mildly supported by certain aspects of spine and ribcage anatomy), but for all anyone knows, theropods may in
fact have had a unique combination of a bellows lung (unlike birds) and a system of (some) air sacs and pneumatized
vertebrae (like birds). The air sacs may have served to enhance oxygen efficiency during running.
Lightening the load
In fact, pneumatizations of bone are already known to have existed in non-theropod dinosaurs, such as the large sauropods,
and in the flying reptiles (pterosaurs). Neither of these are believed to be the ancestors of birds, so evolutionary speculations
about these pneumatizations have been much more circumspect, and related more straightforwardly to their obvious design
function of lightening the bones. Such lightening is important, not just for flight, but obviously also to make locomotion easier
for the big lumbering sauropod earth-shakers. Theropods (at least the smaller ones) are believed to have been speedy
runners, so lighter bones would seem to be an important design feature for them, too. There is no reason, though, why they
may not also have shared with birds all or some of the same design features for efficient use of oxygen, as already stated.
What if they really did breathe like birds?
Finally, lets assume for the sake of argument that theropod dinosaurs indeed had the same flow-through lung type as
birds. It would bring evolutionists not a single step closer to being able to conceive of the inconceivablehow such a lung
could have evolved step by step from the bellows lung of its assumed evolutionary forebears. It would only shift the name of
the problem from the origin of the avian lung to the origin of the theropod-avian lung.How could any creature breathe while
the in-between stages were evolving, while air was not yet flowing through but no longer going in and out? What
conceivable selection pressure could act on an already efficient system of breathing, especially one that would have had to
get worse before it got better in efficiency terms? (The Nature article, generally conservatively written, speculates cautiously
but lamely about how somehow the development of an air sac behind the lung might facilitate the evolution of flow-through
ventilation, without touching upon the logistic in principle barriers. For this and still more problems, see Bird evolution?)
Actually, the above has really been excessively kind to evolutionists. We need to remember the discovery of the
theropod Scipionyx samniticus, with traces of internal organs suggesting to several researchers that it did not breathe like
birds, but rather more like the liver-pump system in crocodiles. Then there is the evidence from ostrich embryos that
the thumb development in theropods is all wrong for them to have been the ancestors of birds. (See also Which came first,
the dino or the bird?)
Summary points
Several lines of evidence are already known to suggest a number of aspects in which theropod dinosaurs are more similar
to birds than to reptiles.This is not in any way inconsistent with the creation of separate kinds. All creatures share similarities
to greater and lesser degrees; in the evolution model these are either derived from a common ancestor, or by chance
parallel evolution. In the creation model, they are either derived from a common ancestral kind (not applicable in the case
of birds and theropods, definitely not the same kind) or from shared design features applied by a common Designer.The
bony pneumatizations in a theropod dinosaur described in the recent Nature article are remarkably similar to those in birds.
It cannot be known for certain that theropod dinosaurs had any air sacs at all as modern birds do, although it is not an
unreasonable inference that they had at least some, including an abdominal air sac.If they did not have air sacs, then the
pneumatizations discovered in the vertebrae presumably only served the function of lightening the bones for running. (The
bones of large, heavy dinos, and of the flying reptiles, also had pneumatizations which are believed to be for lightening.)If
they did have air sacs as birds do, there is no way of knowing whether they also had a flow-through lung like birds. An
abdominal (caudal) air sac is necessary for a flow-through lung, but it does not therefore follow that having such a sac
means one has a flow-through lung. (That would be like saying a circulatory system is necessary to support the human
brain. Therefore any creature with a circulatory system has a human brain.) The Nature authors believe theropods likely did
have a flow-through lung, and cite certain features of the skeleton in support. But there have been other detailed studies
suggesting theropods had a crocodile-like liver-pumping mechanism for ventilation. 3Those evolutionists in the faction that
believes dinosaurs (specifically theropods) gave rise to birds would be understandably encouraged by this paper, but it has
not even begun to address the huge difficulties (including embryonic development paradoxes) pointed out by the opposing
evolutionary faction.If it turned out (say from some remarkable soft-tissue preservation as in the recent T. rex squishosaur)
that theropods did indeed have the same type of flow-through lung as birds, that would be an even bigger encouragement
for the dino-bird faction, but it also fits perfectly comfortably within a creation framework; it would be a very reasonable
design feature for fast-running small dinosaurs. However:Evolutionists would still be stuck with exactly the same massive
problem of explaining the seemingly impossible transition from bellows to flow-through ventilation.
Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics?
by Mark Robertson
13 July 2004

After hearing paleontologist Paul Willis debate Carl Wieland in August 2003,1 it
was with great interest that I visited the travelling display of dinosaur fossils from
China. In the debate, we were told that Dr Willis had said, God created Liaoning
[the area of China, where the so-called feathered dinosaur fossils were found]
because He hated creationists. Of course such statements are meant to mock,
because Paul Willis does not believe God created anything. Yet, he was keen to
tell the audience that they could believe in God and in millions of years. We
would expect, however, that, as Australian Skeptic of the Year, belief in the God
of the Bible would receive the same amount of scorn in a different venue.
Figure 1. The colourful model of Caudipteryx zouidwarfed by the tailbones of its
supposed
ancestorYangchuanosaurus
huopingensis.
View more information and resources on Chinese Dinosaurs
So finding out what Paul has put his faith in was a question in the back of my
mind as we entered the display at the Queensland Museum.
The exhibit
After being overwhelmed by the size of the large sauropod and theropod
dinosaurs, my attention was captured by the incredibly colourful models of the
feathered dinosaurs.These were at the feet of their supposed ancestor, a large
theropod namedYangchuanosaurus huopingensis, said to be 160 Ma (million
years) old.2The creativity of the models sculptors was evident. The faces and
colours they produced showed a strong Chinese influence, similar to the stylized
dragons often seen in Chinese art. However, I was struck by the likeness of
several of the models to modern ground-dwelling birds, such as the roadrunner and cassowary, though much more colourful
(figure 1). Given the authoritative presentation and visually understandable evidence, it was clear that the exhibit would
convince most people that dinosaurs evolved into birds hundreds of millions of years ago.
The fossils
The real bones of the exhibition, the fossils, were
displayed opposite the models. They were under
further interpretative drawings presumably showing,
via a line of arrows, the lineage of evolution from
dinosaurs to birds (figures 2 and 3). Unfortunately
not all the specimens were on display at the
Queensland Museum but one would expect that the
fossils presented some of the best examples of the
available fossil data.
Figures 2.
Figures3.
The interpretive sequence of drawings above the
fossil slabs. Note the line of arrows implying an
evolutionary relationship.
The fossil slabs showed a progression:
Sinosauropteryx prima (date not given in the
display but others have placed it at 125 to 135 Ma),
Caudipteryx zoui (125 Ma),
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (125 Ma),
Velociraptor mongoliensus (80 Ma),
Sinornithosaurus milleni (125 Ma) and
Archaeopteryx lithographica (150 Ma).
The
only
bird
in
this
sequence
is Archaeopteryx from
Germany,
while
the
feathered dinosaurs are all from China. Three
smaller Chinese bird fossils Sinornis santensis,
Changchengornis
hengdaoziensis and Confuciusornis sanctus (all 125 Ma) were shown after Archaeopteryx, and were described as lacking
the long bony tail of their [supposed] ancestors and having larger keeled breastbones.
The feathers?
The first obvious inconsistency came to mind while looking at the evidence for feathers.Sinosauropterxy prima had what
appears to be a dark fuzzy outline surrounding the bones, apparently interpreted as the trace of hair-like filaments. I must
confess that it looked much like the shading artists will often do around pencil drawings to emphasize the outline of an
important object. The guidebook describes these proto-feathers as feather-like structures. 3It explains that they appear as
impressions in the fine-grained matrix or as a halo of darker, fibrous-like areas, usually at right angles to the bones, although
not always contacting them. Certainly this evidence is vague. Did some dinosaur have a furry coating, or is this fuzz just an
artefact of the preservation or recovery process?Caudipteryx (Caudi, as Dr Willis affectionately nicknamed it) showed some
long fibrous-looking traces in the area of the tail, similar to fossils of thin reed-like plants. To claim that they are feathers is
clearly a statement of faith in a worldview, not a scientific observation.

Figure 4. The fossil slab

Click here for larger view
Figure 5. The interpretative key for Protarchaeopteryx robusta. Note indication for feathers in top left of slab.
The information displayed below Protarchaeopteryx robusta indicated that detached feathers could be seen in the top left of
the slab, but no matter how closely I looked, I could see no markings in that area consistent with the claim (compare figures
4 and 5).The only evidence presented for the feathered dinosaur, Velociraptor mongoliensus was a skull. The evolutionary
just-so story beneath was amazing. Velociraptor has not yet been found in the Liaoning deposits and its feathers are not
preserved in the Mongolian and Chinese deposits where it occurs. However, because all its close relatives had feathers, it is
most likely that Velociraptor did too.Finally, the reproduction of Sinornithosaurus milleni again left me wondering how
anyone could conclude that the linear scratched traces surrounding the bones were feathers.
Family trees
The exhibition displayed a family tree alongside each of the models and alongside the larger dinosaur fossils. These trees
showed that the closest relative to the supposed ancestor of both birds and theropods was the 5-metretall Yangchuanosaurus huopingensis. All the so-called feathered dinosaurs were further along the same branch of the tree
(later) away from this supposed family split. So, in this scenario, feathers must evolve twice, once for the birds and once for
the feathered dinosaurs, not once as implied by the sequence from Sinosauropterxy to Archaeopteryx. This sequence also
completely ignores the dating of the fossils. Not only is Archaeopteryx 25 million years older than the oldest of its supposed
ancestors, but evidence for birds from footprints dates back to 225 Ma, according to their own evolutionary dating.In the
debate,1 Dr Willis quickly passed off the obvious discrepancy of dating as an issue of relation, but not direct lineage. Dr
Willis argued that man and modern apes both evolved from ape-like creatures, and there are still apes today. However,
there are no living examples of these supposed ape-like ancestors, and evolutionists cant decide if it looked more like an
orangutan or a chimpanzee. But even further, the explanation of relation and lack of fossils does not wash with all
evolutionists:
Cladograms which depict birds diverging from theropod stock just in the nick of time to show Archaeopteryx on a separate
lineage (I am thinking of a recent Scientific American article) are mischevious [sic]. Archaeopteryx is a highly specialised,
and therefore highly derived, creature possessing, apparently, a fully developed flight plumage. Any explicit or implied
suggestion that it arose overnight is simply ridiculous. Archaeopteryx had avian history and I, for one, cannot imagine it
being any shorter than 20 million years or more. the real problem here is not that dromaeosaurid fossils appear so late; it
is the temporal coincidence of a stem group [bottom of the family tree] organism, Compsognathus, [found in the same
geological formation as Archaeopteryx and very similar to Sinosauropterxy prima]with a highly derived crown member [top
of the family tree] of the same lineage, Archaeopteryx. This problem requires more than a glib appeal to sampling
inadequacies.4
Regarding the claims of birds evolving from dinosaurs, this anti-creationist goes on to say:
Presumably this kind of over-zealous interpretation is being advanced by lay people [its not lay people, but professional
palaeontologists]; one sincerely hopes that the professional researchers graduating from our universities today would not
make such elementary errors of logic. the evidence is complex and appears, in light of the present state of our
knowledge, contradictory. The point to draw is not that the popular hypothesis is wrong, but that the jury is still out. Claims
that birds arose from the Maniraptora [dinosaur classification including theropods, defined by the closeness of the fossil to
modern birds5] are just Bad Science: we simply do not know.4
So who are the real skeptics? Obviously not the Australian Skeptics who sponsored the guidebook published by the
Australian Museum.3 One suspects that their anti-creationist agenda is clouding their objectivity.

SOFT TISSUE
Original Animal Protein in Fossils?
Yes! Dinosaurs, marine reptiles pterodactyls, birds, insects lizards, frogs, salamanders ,mammals, squid, fish
by Brian Thomas
Skin structures, including mineralized skin, twoand three-dimensional impressions of skin scales,
and original dark colored skin scale biomaterial, all
from a fossil mosasaur from Kansas. Scale bars
defined in Lindgren et al., 2010I first learned about
original soft tissue fossils fromCreation magazine
in 1997.1 What looked like red blood cells and
blood vessels from insideTyrannosaurus bone did
not fit what I had been told about how fossils are
millions of years old. I immediately understood that
the fossil, and therefore the rock layer that held it,
could be no older than thousands of years.At that
time, wise scientists warned that further
investigations could either invalidate or validate
the outrageous find. Now, many discoveries in
special pockets around the world have validated
many
such
original
animal
tissue
fossils.Sometimes soft tissue fossils refer to
impressions in rock that preserve an animal body
outline, like squid, algae, or worm bodies, or of
dinosaur skin or footprints. Scientists may also
refer to tissue replacement by minerals like
phosphate, pyrite, or carbon as soft tissue
preservation. Stable substances like rocks and
minerals can last a very long time, but not so the
animals original biochemicals.Reliable techniques
have detected chitin, chitin-associated protein,
elastin, fibrin, osteocalcin, keratin, hemoglobin,
DNA, and collagen, and many other such proteins
in various fossils. Comparing the degree of
wholeness of the fossil biochemicals to the same
biochemicals from modern animal tissue reveals
that the fossil material has only partly decayed.
Those
biochemicals
should
have completely decayed over any claimed period
of millions of years into tiny molecules like carbon
dioxide, water, or ammonia. But paleontologists
keep finding original biochemistrylike finding
mummified remainsencased in rock.Take
collagen, for example. It is a resilient, strand-like
protein molecule that strengthens hard mineral in
bones and sea (mollusc) shells, and strengthens
skin and connective tissue. Collagens toughness explains why skin, and thus parchment, is long-lasting. But parchment
does not last for even half of a million years. We know this from examining the Dead Sea Scroll parchments. After two
millennia, they are quickly turning to dust.In fact, we know from calculations based on straightforward scientific principles
that collagen could last hundreds of thousands of years, and we know that itcould not last multiple millions of years. In 2011,
UK archaeologists and experts on bone collagen decay wrote that it will take between 0.2 and 0.7 Ma [million years] at
10C for levels of collagen to fall to 1% in an optimal burial environment. 2 So, collagen could last 450,000 or so years on
average. If kept below freezing, it might be imagined to last one or two million years at the very most. But evolutionists agree
that dinosaurs lived in a very warm climate, so in their scenario, this would vastly shrink the timesat 20C, collagen would
have decomposed below the detection limit in about 15,000 years. 3,4However, I have found many reports of collagencontaining fossils designated astens of millions of years old. Some fossils even have skin or cartilage collagen, which is not
encased in protective bone or shell mineral. A number of these reports are listed on a chart published online at the Institute
for Creation Research website.5 But I am always finding more.In the chart, I listed a T. rex collagen protein sequence
described in 2005. Collagen fibres from a Psittacosaurusdinosaur were published in 2008. The most thoroughly analyzed
original soft tissue fossil so far is the 2009 hadrosaur femur. It was from Hell Creek Formation in Montana, the same
formation as the T. rex found in 2005. The hadrosaurs blood vessels had plenty of original collagen. I even found a report of
original
dinosaur
bone collagen that
was found in the
Gobi
desert
in
1966.6
We have a fine
fossil
fish
with
original
collagen
fibres featured on
an office wall at ICR
(see photo above).
It is from the Green
River Formation in
Wyoming. How do
we know it is

actually original fish collagen? First, it is a different colour, hardness, and texture from the surrounding rock. One visitor said
that it looks like beef jerky. Second, the paleontologists who prepared it wrote that it was collagen. To dispel any doubt,
scientists used four independent techniques to directly test fossil lizard skin from the same formation as our fish. 7 They
wrote,
Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the
lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon lm, but contains a partial
remnant of the living organisms original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.8
Although collagen cannot last longer than hundreds of thousands of years at realistic temperatures, it is right there in a
supposedly 50 million-year-old lizard leg, and a supposedly 50 million-year-old fossil fish. And the dinosaur collagen fossils
are supposed to be even older! Clearly, their age assignments are not correct (see box below). Original soft tissue fossils
appear to be thousands of years old because that is their actual age range.
Does other evidence confirm thousands of years?
Those who insist that dinosaur and other fossils are millions of years old often cite radioisotope dates. Although
radioisotopes appear to have undergone millions of years worth of decay at todays slow rates, other data shows that those
rates were dramatically accelerated in the past. First, rocks of known historical age always yield vastly inflated radioisotope
ages.1 Also, the helium leakage age of granites is only six thousand years. 2,3 Third, all carbon-containing Earth materials so
far tested, including diamond, contain abundant radiocarbon, a tell-tale signature of material that is no more than about 50
thousand years old.4 So their radioisotope ages are all wrong.
Using natural processes such as these for age-dating always requires assumptions.
Scientists plan to obtain radiocarbon ages of dinosaur bone. In the meantime, a 2011 study reported a radiocarbon age for a
fossil mosasaur [marine reptile] bone of 24,600 years. 5 Of course, the fossil could be even younger. Age estimates based on
radiocarbon decay and based on tissue decay agree on a maximum age range of thousands of years.Using natural
processes such as these for age-dating always requires assumptions. Most of the fossils with original soft tissues were
deposited by the waters of that same Flood retreating off of continents about 4300 years ago, consistent with the
observation that the tissues have not yet completely decayed.
Double-decade dinosaur disquiet
For twenty years now, dino bones have progressively divulged their contents to researchers who did not expect to find the
likes of DNA and radiocarbon millions of years after dinosaur extinction.
by David Catchpoole
Many dinosaur fossils include real bone
they are not completely mineralized, i.e.
are not yet rock. And what is
found inside those dinosaur bones is a
huge surprise to many people. A series of
discoveries since the early 1990s has
revealed dino bones with blood cells,
hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft
tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood
vessels.
And
of
special
note: DNA and radiocarbon.This
is
enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the
researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:
If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there
be anything left in dinosaurs?1
Why indeed? Unless of course they havent been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly
under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary
paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results
published. I had one reviewer tell me that he didnt care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasnt
possible, says Schweitzer. I wrote back and said, Well, what data would convince you? And he said, None.
Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour.
When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell. But so
ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the smell of death
didnt even register with themdespite the evidence being right under their noses. 3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able
or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries. Note the timeline of
these findings across two decadespointed and regular reminders that something is very wrong with dinosaur-millions-ofyears ideas:
In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells give Mary Schweitzer goosebumps.4,5
In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone.6,7,8
In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin.9
In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels.10,11,12
In 2007, collagen (an important structural protein in bone) in T. rex bone.13,14
In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagenin a duck-billed dinosaur. 15,16(If the
dinosaur fossils really were as old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present.)
In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and DNA(!) were reported. 17,18 (Measured rates of
decomposition of these proteins, and especially DNA, show that they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million
years since dinosaur extinction. This is more in keeping with the creation timeframe of thousands of years.)
In 2012, radiocarbon was reported.19,20 (But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old,
none should be detectable!)
Note that the attempts by evolutionists to explain away many of these findings as contamination, and also their unconcealed
moves to stifle reporting of the radiocarbon result in particular, 19,20 testify to an unwillingness to face up to evidence that
challenges the long-age paradigm. A truly open-minded observer must surely ask, Why?

ORIGIN OF DINOSAURS
Evolutionary troubles with the origin and demise of dinosaurs
by Michael J. Oard
Figure 1. Skeletal silhouette of the new one-meter
long
theropod Eodromaeus
murphi found
in
northwest Argentina (from Martinez et al., ref. 21).
With so much emphasis on dinosaurs among
scientists and laymen alike, one would think that
they would have a good story about their origin and
demise by now. However, if some of the latest
literature is any indication, evolutionists remain
unable to formulate consistent theories about either
topic.
The origin of dinosaurs unknown
Recent articles in Science indicate that the origin of
dinosaurs is unknown, and that there are many questions about early dinosaurs from the late Triassic. 1,2 Michael Balter
admits:
But paleontologists are equally concerned with puzzling out how these mighty beasts got their start. Who were their
ancestors? Tracing the origins of the earliest dinosaurs has been a major challenge for paleontologists because there are
no uncontested fossils from their earliest days on Earth.1
A new discovery in northwest Argentina, where other late Triassic dinosaurs have been found, suggests weaknesses in
existing theories.2 The new discovery is of a 1-m-long T. rex-like dinosaur named Eodromaeus murphi, which has added
more confusion to the origin of dinosaurs. Another dinosaur previously found in the area, Eoraptor, was considered one of
the earliest theropods, but has now been named as the ancestor of the sauropods! This conclusion is not sitting well with a
lot of evolutionists.This field area is significant. It contains the supposed representatives of all three major lines of dinosaurs:
theropods, sauropods and ornithischians. This new round of reclassification pushes the origin of dinosaurs back as far as
the mid Triassic. Though no fossils of the ancestral dinosaur have been found, paleontologists believe it to have been
bipedal. This would require the evolutionary sequence to move from quadruped reptiles to a biped dinosaur ancestor, and
then back to the later quadruped dinosaurs. There is no explanation for such changes.
Paleontologists simply do not know the origin and early evolution of dinosaurs.
Paleontologists have also found other vertebrates, mainly reptiles, in the rocks of northwest Argentina. Dinosaurs represent
only about 10% of the vertebrate fossils. Furthermore, the dinosaur fossils appear, disappear, and then reappear in
successive stratigraphic layers. Paleontologists explain this by claiming that the dinosaurs did not outcompete the reptiles
but only filled empty niches. This follows the recent idea of cooperative adaptation rather than the old survival of the fittest
imagery of evolution.Fossils in the late Triassic rocks of northwest Argentina are the oldest remains yet found on Pangea.
The dinosaurs became dominant at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary, and reptiles largely disappeared. This suggests that
early dinosaur evolution was geographically restricted for about 15 million years, another problem for paleontologists. Why
did they not migrate sooner to other parts of Pangea? What environmental factor allowed the sudden spread and radiation
of the dinosaurs from Eodromaeus to its more common cousins? If nothing else, this demonstrates that parts of the fossil
record remain undiscovered. Future discoveries could and probably will change the story once again. For these reasons, our
confidence in the evolutionary origin of dinosaurs should be restrained. Paleontologists simply do not know the origin and
early evolution of dinosaurs.
Controversy over dinosaur demise
Evolutionary scientists have basically set the extinction of dinosaurs at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. If dinosaur
remains, including tracks or eggs, are ever found in early Tertiary sedimentary rocks, geologists typically redate the rocks to
Cretaceous.35 This is circular reasoning.6-8 Jepsen admitted:
Geologists themselves must take much of the responsibility for the dissemination of this concept [that the dinosaurs went
extinct quickly] because they have often defined the end of the Age of Reptiles or Mesozoic Era [about 65 million years ago]
as the exact time that dinosaurs became extinct. Ergo, reasoning in a tight circle, dinosaurs became extinct at the end of
Mesozoic time.9
In recent decades, this boundary has become more important. Neocatastrophist views of extinction have typically required
catastrophic events, particularly impacts. The best known is that at Chicxulub in the Yucatn Peninsula of Mexico. However,
there are a number of major problems with this theory, one of which is that the buried impact crater indicates that the
supposed asteroid was not large enough to ensure a worldwide extinction of the dinosaurs.Regardless, a group of 41
scientists, many of them planetary scientists, insisted once more in a review article that the Yucatn impact killed off the
dinosaurs.10 This rather dogmatic pronouncement generated three letters to the editor. One by 29 scientists, mostly
paleontologists, claimed that there is no consensus, that the impact played only a small role in the demise of the dinosaurs,
that the proposed extinction scenario was simplistic, and that there have been many other large impacts on Earth with no
associated extinctions.11Another letter stated that the review article neglected the volcanic extinction hypothesis and that the
Yucatn impact was too small to kill off all the dinosaurs. 12The third letter stated that the review article used selective
evidence, there is no evidence the impact and iridium anomalies are the same age, and that the Yucatn impact happened
before the end of the Cretaceous.13 That assertion was supported by an article in the Journal of the Geological Society,
London and in an article in a recent special paper of the Geological Society of America, which added that there never will be
a consensus on these matters, the impact did not cause any species extinctions, and tying the impact to the K/T boundary is
an ideological argument resulting in circular reasoning.14,15The other side has problems too. The authors of the review noted
that the volcanic hypothesis cannot explain the extinctions because the Deccan lava flows were also too early and extinction
events could not be specifically correlated with other continental flood basalts. 16 They also asserted that new data offered
substantial evidence that the Chicxulub impact was at the K/T boundary, implying that it also caused the dinosaurs to go
extinct.
This heated exchange reveals the lack of consensus for an extinction theory.
Creationist implications
This heated exchange reveals the lack of consensus for an extinction theory. It also questioned the significance of the endCretaceous dinosaur extinction based on the questionable dating of the Chicxulub impact. The Flood demise of those
dinosaurs not on the Ark is looking better all the time.This dispute also illustrates how biases drive conclusions within
historical geology and paleontology, and the role of circular reasoning in analysis. It is certainly evident in the agreement of

dates of rocks and fossils within their paradigm.17 Although this makes evolutionary paleontology appear strong on the
surface, digging deeper reveals problems like the impasse about the dating and speed of the rise of dinosaurs, dinosaur
extinction, the K/T boundary, and the Chicxulub impact. I think this is only the tip of the iceberg. We need to be aware of the
way in which circular reasoning is used in geology and paleontology.
Thunder lizards
by Russell Grigg
Dinosaurs have hit the headlines recently with the finding of the partial remains of what may have been the largest dinosaur
ever to tread the earth.
The Rio Negro Giant
Over the last year, researchers have unearthed, from an area in southern Rio Negro, Argentina, 20 gigantic fossilized bones
that include two neck vertebrae measuring 117cm (3.84ft), plus femurs, ribs and tail bones. These have yet to be
scientifically classified, so in the meantime the source creature has been named the Rio Negro Giant. 1Assuming that 1012
vertebrae made up the neck, the researchers believe that the animal was a sauropod (see aside on sauropods below) that
could have measured about 50m (165ft) from head to tail, towered about 14m (45ft), and weighed in excess of 10
tonnes.2 While this may have been the longest dinosaur ever found, it is not the heaviest; this record is held by the
(estimated) 100-tonne Argentinosaurus, thought to have been some 8m (27ft) shorter than the Rio Negro Giant, but much
bulkier.2Claims of finding larger and yet larger dinosaur specimens are not unexpectedthey are the ones most likely to
make the news and attract research funding.3However, the existence of such large dinosaurs is not contrary to the
expectations of creationists.
Sauropod eggs and embryos
Strange as it may seem, the gigantic sauropods did not lay gigantic eggs. Recently researchers found a site, also in
Argentina, containing thousands of fossilized dinosaur egg fragments. 5 The team recovered over a dozen eggs and 40 egg
fragments that contained tiny teeth, fingernail-sized patches of delicate fossilized baby-dinosaur skin, and tiny collapsed
bones, which have been identified as being from the embryos of sauropods. 6 The eggs are round, 1315cm (56 inches) in
diameter, with an average shell thickness of 1.4mm (1/20th inch).6So why did the gigantic sauropods not lay gigantic eggs?
Dinosaur expert Alan Charig explains: If they had done so, the shell would have been so thick that neither could enough air
have passed through it to supply the baby dinosaur inside, nor could the baby dinosaur, when ready to hatch, have
succeeded in breaking out.7
The best explanation that scientists can give to account for the above sauropod egg and embryo collection involves
catastrophe. Team co-leader Luis Chiappe said, Scientists found so many embryonic remains that it appears catastrophe
struck the nesting ground, keeping many eggs from hatching . Floods may have penetrated the porous shells and
drowned the embryos.8 Early evidence shows that the embryos may have perished in a flood that quickly buried the eggs
in a layer of silt and mud. This made it possible for the soft tissues to fossilize before decaying, an extremely rare
occurrence.9A matter of particular interest to creationists, apart from the fact that the Flood could have provided the material
necessary to bury the eggs and the conditions to do this rapidly, is the size of the eggs. Even though the eggs housed
embryos of the largest land animals ever, the coiled hatchlings would have been only about 38cm (15 inches) long. Like
many modern reptiles, dinosaurs may have kept growing until they died, so the very large ones may also have been very
old. Note also, many dinosaurs were not large even when fully grown, e.g. the hen-sized Compsognathus and mousesized Mussaurus. In fact, all the dinosaur skeletons so far discovered indicate that the average size was that of a sheep.
Dinosaur facts and fiction
Dinosaurs are currently claiming the publics attention for another reason. A new Disney blockbuster film calledDinosaur was
released in May, 2000. It uses even more remarkable special effects than did its predecessors, such as the BBC
series Walking with Dinosaurs and Hollywoods Jurassic Park. However, it, too, is not fact but fiction.The plot concerns a
young iguanodon named Aladar, who survives the asteroid impact which, according to a common belief among
evolutionists, led to the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The film shows no humans, as they had not yet
evolved. Aladar is adopted and raised by a group of kind-hearted lemurs (slender primates 10 with monkey-like bodies), even
though, according to evolutionists, primates did not appear on Earth until after the dinosaurs had become extinct. We
cheated by about 50 million years, says film co-director Eric Leighton, because the filmmakers wanted to convey the idea
that these lemurs (and hence humans as well) have an evolutionary ancestry that goes back to the dinosaurs. 11 To this end,
Aladar is mammalian in appearance. From the side, his head resembles the Przewalskis Horse from Mongolia.A recurring
theme in Dinosaur is that survival depends on being compassionate and cooperative. Aladars compassion for the other
dinosaurs brings him into conflict with Kron, the harsh leader of a herd of dinosaurs that survived the asteroid impact. This
idea seems to fit with the belief of a growing number of New Age evolutionists whose credo is that we are all part of Nature
and should all get along well. The film thus presents a sanitized New Age version of evolutionary dogma.In a press release,
Disney publicists acknowledge that the film intentionally veers from scientific fact in certain aspects.Creationists welcome
the authentic dinosaur facts uncovered by researchers, although not their usual evolutionary interpretation of these facts.
And we are not fazed by the dinosaur fiction that emanates from Hollywood, the BBC, and the media. The creation model
presents a time-line of history which explains the advent and extinction of the dinosaurs, consistent with the evidence, but
totally contrary to evolutionary dogma.
The dinosaurs were made ,along with Man.
The dinosaurs gradually became extinct after the Flood.
There is much evidence for the recent existence of some specimens of dinosaurs.
For example, carvings and paintings of dinosaur-like creatures have been found in several parts of the worldevidence that
man and dinosaur lived at the same time. Unfossilized dinosaur bones in Alaska 12 and a T. rex leg bone containing red blood
cells13 have been discovered. Many nations have stories of dragons, which fit very closely the descriptions of dinosaurs.
Sauropods
Sauropods were the largest creatures known to have trodden the earth. They were the giant four-legged herbivorous (planteating) dinosaurs, with very long necks, small heads and brains, very long tails for counter-balancing their necks, and large
guts for digesting the huge amounts of plant materials they ate. The term sauropod means lizard-footed, and was chosen
because they stood firmly on all four feet.

Brontosaurus
The best known of all sauropods is Brontosaurus, even though Bronty never existed! In the 1870s, Othniel Charles Marsh
discovered some very large dinosaur fossils in Lake Como, Wyoming, USA, and thought that he had discovered a new
genus. He gave them the nameBrontosaurus or thunder lizard, because he thought that the ground must have thundered
when such a huge animal walked by. Unfortunately the head was missing. To remedy this obvious deficiency, he added a
skull found several kilometres away in a different
quarry and in a different layer of strata, but told no
one about this.
In 1974, two scientists convinced the scientific
community that the Brontosaurus skeleton was
really
that
of
a
previously
named
dinosaur,Apatosaurus, and that Marsh had used the
wrong head, that of a different type of sauropod, like
a Camarasaurus. Rather, the correct head was
longer and less round, and almost identical to that of
a Diplodocus. As the rules used for giving scientific
names to animals state that the first name given is
the one to be kept, the name Apatosaurus stayed
and Brontosaurus was dropped. The creature is now
classified in the family Diplodocidae together
with Diplodocus. It is likely that all Diplodocidae are
descended from a single created kind, where the
created genetic information has been separated into
different populations aided by natural selection, producing both Apatosaurus, a relatively short and massive variety, and the
very long and slender Diplodocus.Surprisingly, the non-existent Brontosaurus is depicted and named on several stamps,
including a 1991 North Korean 20 won that shows a single creature, a 1989 United States 25c that shows a pair, and a
Central African Republic 50F that shows a herd.Sauropods are favourites with movie producers. They are the first dinosaurs
to come into full view in Jurassic Park, they appear in various roles in The Flintstones cartoon and movie, including as
Bronto burgers, and they feature prominently in the BBCs Walking with Dinosaurs and Disneys Dinosaur.

Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution

by Michael J. Oard
You have heard it said that the mammals were small and undiversified during the time of the dinosaurs, but then after the
dinosaurs became extinct the mammals blossomed tremendously in an adaptive radiation. Robert Carroll writes: The
extinction of the dinosaurs left vacant a broad range of adaptive zones that were subsequently occupied by therian
mammals.1
Net mammal diversification rate according to the
latest uniformitarian sources. Note little change
through the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary but
diversity rates peak in Mid-Cretaceous and
Miocene. (After Bininda-Emonds et al.,7 p. 510,
figure 2b).The notion of an adaptive radiation is
considered to be based on the fossil record.
However, the age distribution of fossils is partly
based on circular reasoning.2-5 In other words, the
finding of a dinosaur automatically places the rock
containing the fossil into the Mesozoic, and
mammalian fossils are always assumed to be
Cenozoic. Similarly, the end of the Cretaceous is
often defined as the last preserved dinosaur in a
vertical sequence.6A new article in Nature now
claims that this evolutionary belief is a
myth.7 Bininda-Emonds
and
others
have
constructed an evolutionary lineage of nearly all
living mammals using DNA comparisons tied to fossil dates for the beginning of major lineages. They have called their
results supertrees. The authors admit that using molecular data alone or fossil data alone sometimes
gives conflicting results:
Molecular data and the fossil record can give conflicting views of the evolutionary past.8
In the case of mammals, the fossil record favoured (or at least had favoured) an explosive increase in mammal
diversification just after the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary, but the molecular data pushed most origins of the same
orders back into the Late Cretaceous. 8 The authors compiled a huge data set, and from the phylogenies they developed

they were able to estimate diversification rates with time, all within the evolutionary paradigm of course.Because their
analysis is tied to the recent findings of many complex mammals in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, 9,10 their diversity analysis
showed an increase in diversity in the mid Cretaceous, 85 to 100 Ma, and in the early Eocene. In fact, nearly all the living
orders of mammals had originated by 85 Ma. 10However, there was little or no change in diversity through the K/T boundary,
as had been assumed for over 100 years. In fact, the few mammal groups that did diversify after the K/T boundary
subsequently declined or died out.11 The graph leaves the evolutionists with a major question of mammal evolution:
What, then, was delaying the diversification of present-day mammals? Clearly, the priority is to identify why net rates of
diversification remained low for so long after the major lineages became established.11
This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living mammals today, nor has there been in the recent
geological past.
It is interesting that their diversification graphs show the mammal diversification rate increasing to a maximum in the
Miocene and then rapidly dropping to zero today. 11 This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living mammals today,
nor has there been in the recent geological past. Such a change is what we would expect in the post-Flood worldany
changes that do occur are just the shuffling of genes within kinds. Because there is diversification of mammals up until the
very late Cenozoic, the graph implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very late Cenozoic based on this
parameter, since any significant diversification rate in the rock record would likely represent burial characteristics in the
Flood. The Flood interpretation of the diversification graph reinforces other evidence that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is
in the very latest Cenozoic.12-14
Polar dinosaur conundrum
by Michael J. Oard
Dinosaurs are commonly thought to be tropical animalsbut recently their remains have been discovered close to the
inferred Mesozoic poles.1 Such discoveries include dinosaurs unearthed in southeast Australia and New Zealand in areas
assumed to be close to a former South Pole. Many dinosaur remains are not only found near the inferred Mesozoic poles,
but also at polar latitudes today. Dinosaur bones and tracks have been found on Svalbard (north of Norway), the North
Slope of Alaska, northern Canada from the Yukon Territory to the Queen Elizabeth Islands, central Siberia and Antarctica. 2
Pachycephalosaurs, along with other dinosaurs, have been found
at polar latitudes. All those found have also been found at lower
latitudes, so they dont seem to have been adapted just to polar
conditions. This presents a quandary for uniformitarian
explanations of dinosaur life and death.Many types of dinosaurs
have
recently
been
discovered
at
high
latitudes.
Pachycephalosaurs were discovered on the North Slope of
Alaska in 1999.3 A duck-billed dinosaur tooth was recently
discovered on James Ross Island, Antarctica. 4 Eight types of
dinosaursfour herbivores and four carnivoresare now known
from northern Alaska.3,5 Abundant but widely spaced tracks and
trackways have also been found in northern Alaska. 6,7 All
dinosaur fossils found at high latitudes are also found at lower
latitudes; it appears there were no dinosaurs adapted just to
polar locations.8 The North Slope dinosaurs resemble those found in Alberta, Canada and Montana and Wyoming, USA.9
But because of these polar discoveries, the idea that dinosaurs were tropical beasts has been changed, ushering in ideas
about warm-blooded dinosaurs in order to survive the cold. However, the physiology of dinosaurs has been the subject of
much controversy. It is still not known whether or not dinosaurs were warm-blooded (endothermic) 10 as there are many
physiological differences between species. Many paleontologists believe the dinosaurs possessed a unique physiology
between warm-blooded and cold-blooded.
How could dinosaurs live at polar latitudes?
Polar dinosaurs raise the obvious question as to how they could survive the cold and the long period of darkness:
It is difficult to imagine how this community functioned if the temperatures were as low as the physical indicators suggest.
No convincing explanation exists as yet for this apparent anomaly.9
Although the Mesozoic was a relatively warm period in uniformitarian Earth history, there still must have been cold, snowy
winters at high latitudes.11Fiorillo summarizes the postulated environment for northern Alaska:
During the Cretaceous, northern Alaska was even farther north than it is today, and so the dinosaurs that lived there would
have needed mechanisms to cope with both the cold and the dark.12
Others see special adaptations for wintering at high latitudes, such as the large eyes possessed by the small
theropod Trodon.13 Large eyes supposedly help the dinosaur to see in the dark, but could such a small dinosaur really
survive the cold temperatures? One dinosaur is even thought to have hibernated. In order to support living at polar
locations, some scientists have suggested that the dinosaurs were able to feed on low-quality forage in the winter. However,
the diet of herbivores during winter is problematic.14Some paleontologists believe the dinosaurs migrated to lower latitudes
in order to cope with the long winter darkness and cold. However, migration is not likely because very young dinosaurs,
about one year old, have also been found in polar latitudes, and they supposedly could not migrate long
distances.14,15,16Large body size has also been invoked to explain survival in the cold. 17 However, many of the discovered
dinosaur species are relatively small.
Popular extinction hypotheses questioned
The idea of polar dinosaurs has put a damper on those dinosaur extinction hypotheses that rely on a sudden climatic
cooling regime, such as the meteorite and volcanic hypotheses. 18 Buffetaut plainly states the problem for extinction
hypotheses that rely on cold temperatures:
To put it simply, the fact that ectothermic [cold-blooded] reptiles generally survived the [Cretaceous/Tertiary] boundary,
whereas dinosaurs did not, shows that climate deterioration was not a significant extinction factor What can be said,
however, is that cooler climates at the end of the Cretaceous are extremely unlikely to have led to dinosaur extinction
More importantly in view of the above-mentioned discoveries in the polar regions, the predictable results of a cooling trend
are that ectothermic reptiles would have been more affected than dinosaurs. The fossil record shows exactly the reverse.19
The belief that dinosaurs lived in prolonged winter darkness in a relatively cold Mesozoic climate dispels the idea that they
died out from a slow cooling. It also discredits the idea the dinosaurs died from abrupt cooling caused by meteor impact or a
volcanic winter, resulting from dust and very small particles being injected into the stratosphere and blocking out some of
the sunlight.
Other polar warmth indicators

Although uniformitarian scientists are searching for ways to explain polar dinosaurs, there are indications that polar latitudes
were once much warmer than today. Cold-blooded tetrapods, such as crocodiles, turtles, and some amphibians, have been
found in southeast Australia with the dinosaurs. 10 Southeast Australia was assumed to lie within the Arctic Circle at the time.
Based on modern counterparts, these tetrapods cannot live during prolonged cold spells.An extinct type of crocodile found
on Axel Heiberg Island at 80N implies that annual mean temperatures greater than 14C occurred during at least part of the
Cretaceous, but the current mean annual temperature is20C.20 Warm climate trees, such as Swamp Cypress, along with
crocodiles, alligators, flying lemurs, giant land tortoises, varanid or monitor lizards, also indicative of a warm climate, have
been discovered on the same island in rocks of Eocene age. 21Just recently, scientists drilled into the Alpha Ridge in the
Arctic Ocean and made the astonishing discovery that the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 15C during the Late
Cretaceous.22,23 Jenkyns et al. extrapolate this result and suggest that the waters of the warmer middle Cretaceous Arctic
Ocean were greater than 20C. 24 This deduction was based on carbon-rich sediments with abundant diatoms, woody
fragments, leaf cuticles, spores and pollen found in the drill cores. Poulsen exclaims: For a region blanketed in darkness for
half the year, the Arctic Ocean was astoundingly warm.25 Poulsen summarizes:
Analyses of [ocean bottom] sediments retrieved from a drifting ice island suggest that the Arctic Ocean may have been ice
free and as warm as 15C about 70 million years ago. Therein is a challenge for climate models.26
Such a climate would be exceedingly difficult to resolve in a uniformitarian construct given the conditions stated above by
Poulsen.It was also reported that leaves and fruit of a tropical breadfruit were discovered in 1883 in Cretaceous sediments
in western Greenland.27Breadfruit requires a tropical climate with a temperature range from ~1538C! Breadfruit fossils
have also been unearthed in northern Canada.25
Dinosaurs transported to high latitudes during the Flood
Because of the abundant evidence for warm polar latitudes and the lack of support for warmth from paleoclimate
simulations,17,21 it is unlikely that any of these animals or the vegetation actually lived and thrived at polar latitudes. This
again shows the difficulty of seeking to interpret evidence within a uniformitarian paradigm. All these warmth-loving
organisms, including the polar dinosaurs, were more likely transported to polar latitudes during the Flood.28,29
Did dinosaurs really rule the earth?
by Daniel Anderson
Published: 15 May 2007 (GMT+10)
It is often said that dinosaurs ruled the earth. Movies such asJurassic
Park, the media, and educational books constantly promote the
evolutionary claim that dinosaurs dominated planet earth for well over
100 million years. In the evolutionary paradigm, mankind had not yet
evolved, and before the 65-million-year-old extinction mark, mammals
were small rodents who steered clear of the ruling dinosaurs.The
prevailing evolutionary model argues that the coexistence of
dinosaurs, large mammals, and humans is not supported for four
reasons. First, dinosaur and human fossils have never been
discovered together in the fossil record. Second, large mammals have
never been discovered in dinosaur rock. Third, dinosaurs could not
have existed with larger mammals due to intense competition in
similar environments. Fourth, dinosaurs would have overrun human
civilization due to their monolithic size and belligerence. However,
these arguments do not stand up to closer scrutiny and the weight of
the evidence provides far greater support to creation.
Dinosaurs, mammals, and humans in the fossil record
It is true that dinosaur and human fossils have never been discovered
together in the same sedimentary strata. However, this absence of
evidence is easily explainedsee Dinosaurs, humans and the fossil
record. Many creatures have coexisted without leaving fossil evidence
of this coexistence. Man has also coexisted with numerous different
animals without being fossilized with them.Up until recently,
evolutionary scientists proclaimed that only tiny mammals lived with
dinosaurs before the extinction event. Supposedly, these mammals
were chipmunk-sized, shy, and largely nocturnal in order to avoid
being consumed by the predatory reptiles. However, two mammal
fossils completely overturned this deeply entrenched perspective. In
2005, paleontologists discovered the remains of Repenomamus
robustus, the size of a large cat, and Repenomamus giganticus, the
size of a modern dog, both dated at about 130 million years old on the
evolutionary timeline.1 Repenomamus robustus had the skeletal remains of a juvenile dinosaur preserved in its stomach
area. This stunning discovery revealed that mammals were much larger and more advanced about 65 million years earlier
than commonly believed. Apparently, dinosaurs did in fact share the landscape with advanced, predatory mammals.
Dinosaurs in literature, art, and oral tradition
Historical accounts, rock art, and oral tradition also indicate that dinosaurs shared the earth with humans in ancient times.
Herodotus, the highly esteemed 5th century BC Greek historian, and Josephus, the famous 1st century AD Jewish historian,
both wrote of flying reptiles as historical creatures. 2 Multiple petroglyphs and pictographs depict realistic representations of
dinosaurs and flying reptiles on rocks and cave walls in the southwestern United States.2

On the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell (14101496) at Carlisle Cathedral (UK), brass engravings depict creatures that any 21st
century child would innocently identify as well-known sauropod dinosaursthose with long necks and tails. They appear to
be engaged in a fight with their necks (as is also typical of giraffe behaviour) or perhaps courting displays, also familiar
within the animal kingdom. See Bishop Bell's brass behemoths!
These were found well before dinosaur fossils had even been formally discovered, and they are often drawn next to other
historically verified animals. Various Indian groups in North and South America possess oral traditions of massive, flying
reptiles that are eerily similar to modern depictions of pteranodons, pterodactyls, and other pterosaurssee Thunderbirds.
Cultures around the world are littered with dragon legends. Though many of these legends contain mythical hyperbole,
there is often a common core to the global accounts indicative of mankind witnessing or interacting with large, reptilian
beasts in historyDinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends. Ironically, the Hebrew wordtannin or tannimis
translated 21 times as dragon(s) in the Old Testament to describe different kinds of creatures living in ancient times
see Dinosaurswere they masters of the world? The prophet Isaiah appears to describe flying reptiles (Isaiah 30:6), and
Job (chapters 40 and 41) describes a gargantuan land animal and sea creature.Perhaps most telling is the attempt by the
late Carl Sagan, one of evolutions most influential apologists in modern times, to provide a rebuttal to these worldwide
dragon legends. In his book The Dragons of Eden, he proposed that mankind had not actually witnessed dinosaurs of any
kind. Instead, because our brains evolved from a reptilian ancestor, we still carried latent memories of living in the age of
reptilesseeDinosaurswere they masters of the world? There is absolutely no evidence that memories are encoded in
our DNA and subsequently passed on to our offspring. The far more logical explanation is that man has actually seen and
coexisted with dinosaurs.
African plains and the deep blue sea
Many argue that dinosaurs ruled the earth because they were massive and ferocious beasts that dominated all other forms
of life. However, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a sheepsee How did dinosaurs grow so big? Based on fossil
evidence, only a small percentage were gargantuan beasts such as T. rex and Apatosaurus. To put things into perspective,
the largest creature to ever exist on the earth is the blue whale, and it exists today. Also, the estimated weight of T. rex is 6
8 tons. The average African elephant weighs 68 tons. In addition, the most exhaustive biomechanical analysis estimates T.
rex likely ran at around 17 km/hr (11 mph). Elephants have been timed as fast as 24 km/hr (15 mph)seeTitanic terror bird.
Velociraptors are estimated to have been almost 1 metre (3 ft) tall and may have run up to 65 km/hr (40 mph). 3 Ostriches
can be up to 2.7 metres (9 ft) tall, can run at almost 80 km/hr (50 mph), and deliver a kick capable of killing a lion. 4 Although
distinct reptiles, dinosaurs were likely no more spectacular than many of the animals we observe in the wild today.
Massive animals dont rule the earth today. For example, elephants dont rule the African plains. Giraffes, though as tall as
any T-Rex and likely much faster, dont rule the African plains. In the oceans, the blue whale is not king of the sea. In
addition, massive great white sharks and killer whales do not dominate the waters. All of these monolithic creatures coexist
with countless other organisms of various sizes and predatory abilities.
We also witness a number of powerful predators coexisting on the African plains. Lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and
wild dogs all feed on similar prey. Likewise, in the oceans, we see sharks, killer whales, and dolphins often coexisting in the
same waters, hunting similar prey. Therefore, based on observational evidence, we can logically conclude that ancient
dinosaurs would not likely have ruled the earth (in the sense of the popular misunderstanding). They would have coexisted
with many other kinds of animals (and people) and competed for some of the same resources in various regions throughout
the earth.
Conclusion
The creation account of dinosaur and human coexistence is strongly supported by historical, textual, observational, and
logical evidence. Although the ruling evolutionary paradigm continues to perpetuate the myth of dinosaur supremacy during
the so-called age of dinosaurs, it simply does not fit the available datain stark contrast to the creation account of history.