Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Dinosaur feather hype-another Nebraska man style example of scanty evidence over interpreted

An item about the latest dinosaur to bird evolution hype on the Answers in Genesis website offers quite a good analysis of the way evolutionist propaganda works. The methods have changed very little since Charles Darwin published ‘Origin of Species’ a book in which he refused to define what a species was and failed to demonstrate the origin of even a single one. This masterpiece of sophistry set the standard for the sustained assault on science and reason that was to follow, establishing a range of strategies-straw man, circular and self-referential reasoning, obfuscation, bait and switch tactics and the massive non sequitur which has been followed to this day by the deniers of the works of God in creation. They do not follow science, they follow their materialistic philosophy.
Read the full item here.

The attempt to persuade the public that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a good example of evolutionary scamming. Looking at birds and reptiles today, they are clearly very distinct forms. Neither shows the slightest tendency to turn into the other, but rather the evidence of our eyes is that they are distinct and always have been. The oldest human art indicates that it was always so. However, if evolution of all life forms by direct descent with gradual modification from a common ancestor is true, as the Darwin mythos insists, then there must have been ‘numerous intermediate forms’. These don’t exist, so since evolution must be true (or else there would be a Creator, therefore a Lawgiver and Judge, which is unacceptable) if there is no evidence, then the public musts be persuaded that there is evidence. Hence the dino-feather strategy. In a nutshell, this consists of continual repetition of the assertion that dinosaur fossils with feathers are abundant and constitute intermediate forms, supporting evidence for the descent of birds from dinosaurs.

Archaeopteryx has given rise to much speculation, but is perfectly consistent with being an extinct bird. OK, its a somewhat odd bird, but many extinct creatures differ from living forms. Extinction does not explain origin. Now we keep getting these dino-feather stories, endlessly repeated despite the lack of evidence just like the 'evidence of ancient water therefore life' on Mars propaganda. I am no geologist let alone palaeontologist, but it is interesting to note the steady drip, drip, drip of stories about feathered dinosaurs, including many artists’ impressions and high budget CGI. The BBC loves to produce animations of feathered dinosaurs which create very persuasive impressions, just like their predecessors the grunting ape like sub humans such as Nebraska man. The latter appeared at a very convenient time for evolutionary propaganda (The Scopes trial which the ACL staged for propaganda purposes) and was based on the evidence of a single tooth, later proved to be from a pig. Its a classic strategy.

I have a colour chart of dinosaurs which came with a Sunday newspaper colour supplement which shows a velociraptor dinosaur fully clothed in feathers, complete with bright plumage patterns. Even if there were fossil evidence of feathers (which is denied) how on earth could the artist know what colours they were? Repeat the lie often enough, and they will believe it.

The linked Answers in Genesis article demonstrates just how the evolutionist establishment builds a case on an evolutionist interpretation of extremely limited evidence, fitting the evidence to the theory rather than letting the theory follow the evidence. The strategy then pronounces the theory as fact, supported by ‘mountains of overwhelming evidence’ then goes on to persuade a gullible public by endless repetition, while any criticism is denied access to the public media and education system, allowing no inconvenient questions. The most obvious of these include

1)      Why do we not see feathers arising in modern lizards?

2)      What use is a half formed feather? Darwin wrote that useless structures would be ‘ruthlessly exterminated’ by natural selection.

3)      What about the other changes, coded for by entirely different DNA, for the many other features that differ between birds and reptiles? These include bone, heart, lung, nervous system designed for flight, homing, warm bloodedness and many other particular features which differ radically between birds and reptiles. If birds descended from reptiles all of these features would have had to change independently. Why would this happen? Evolution has no mind or foresight.

4)      How did the specific encoded DNA information for feathers (and other features) come into being by random mutations? Such a thing has never been observed nor is there any credible mechanism to explain it. New features will not arise because they would be useful, only because specific DNA arises by random mutations, in exactly the way that science shows it does not except in the imagination of an evolutionist.

The evolutionist has no credible answers to any of the above questions, they side step them and use the gross over interpretation of a few bits of ‘dino fuzz’ to obfuscate.

God is not mocked. It remains true that when we see birds in flight or carefully raising their young we see them testifying to the glory, power and wisdom of the Creator, before whom we will all stand to give account.




No comments:

Post a Comment

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.