Towards the middle of June, another report about evolution and a new fake fossil originating from the Associated Press was excitedly carried in such media organs as Nature, Science Daily, Discovery News, Cosmos, Yahoo News, Guardian Online, BBC News, and Scientific American. The way that a fossil that actually refuted the theory of evolution in many ways was depicted as evidence in favour of evolution was truly astonishing.
These reports suggested that a giant, 5-metre dinosaur fossil discovered in the Erlian Basin in Mongolia and given the name Gigantoraptor erlianensis, was evidence of a transition from dinosaurs to birds. This creature, which Darwinists introduced as “a giant chicken,” was described as “beaked” and “feathered,” for which reason they declared it to be an “intermediate form.”
Looking at the large number of these reports from news stations, someone reading these stories and unaware of the scientific realities, might at first sight form the impression that proof of evolution had been discovered. Yet this is a Darwinist ruse. Readers are being misled and the scientific findings distorted, and the Darwinist scientific world and media are deceiving their own adherents.
The Darwinist publications carrying this report need first to be asked; where are these alleged feathers?
No matter how a deceptive illustration of a giant, feathered chicken is misleadingly placed alongside the text of this report, the original account actually admits that no feathers were found in any part of the creature in question, the only claim made being that it ”might” have had feathers. The report in Nature, for example, stated that it was thought this life form “might” have had feathers, that there was no indication whether it had feathers or not, and that this inference stemmed solely from the fact that “other dinosaurs at the time had feathers”.1 (This claim is utterly untrue. No traces of feathers have been encountered in any of the specimens Darwinists have proposed on the subject. Tyrannosaurus rex, for so long the tool of evolutionist publication speculation, has countless times been proven to be a fully fledged dinosaur with no avian characteristics at all and to be incapable of being regarded as an intermediate form.)
Secondly, this discovery is no evidence for evolution, but rather evidence working against it. The size of the life form in question is comparable to that of Tyrasnnosaurus rex, and it is 35 times longer and 300 times heavier than Caudipterix, which Darwinists maintain shrunk sufficiently to be able to assume a place in the imaginary transition from dinosaurs to birds. The Associated Press described the dubious nature of the state of affairs proposed by Darwinists by saying that “The existence of Gigantoraptor opposes existing theories, the first of which suggests that dinosaurs shrank as they evolved, the second that large dinosaurs had fewer bird-like characteristics”.2
(The following point needs to be clarified here: evolutionists have not one example of a dinosaur in the process of evolution nor of one with bird-like features. These are simply imaginary beings essential to the Darwinist scenario.)
Nature magazine made it clear that this “giant” discovery evidently clashed with the theory that carnivorous dinosaurs shrank in size as they came to resemble birds.
This discovery clearly conflicts with the claim that “dinosaurs must have increasingly shrunk in size” during the theory of evolution’s imaginary transition from dinosaurs to birds. This 85-million-year-old life form, which is suggested to have appeared after carnivorous dinosaurs and which is compatible with Darwinists’ fictitious transition to birds, should, according to the theory of evolution, have been very much smaller. This state of affairs is completely incompatible with evolutionist scenarios.
Therefore, what Darwinists now have in the wake of the discovery of Gigantoraptor is this:
This being the case, the idea that the fossil represents evidence for Darwinism, its being depicted as “chicken-like” by various press and media organisations, is highly dubious. The conclusion is at adds with the evidence, and is merely one arrived at as a requirement of Darwinist ideology. Famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia makes this comment about the dubious attitude of the press:
"It would not be surprising if this creature therefore had feathers, but their paper is PURE speculation -- like most of what is now published in Nature."
In the same way that there is no evidence the creature constitutes proof of evolution, it also makes it clear, with all its characteristics, that evolution never happened at all. Evolutionary scenarios, which are attempted to be adapted to just about every fossil, have been applied to this fossil, too, and the end result is yet again utter failure. These endeavours are a sign of despair. The sudden defeat suffered by Darwinism has unmasked the fictitious and fraudulent nature of evolutiojnary scenarios, and Darwinists are looking for a way out by distorting the evidence.
The theory of evolution is a deception. And like all deceptions it has a short life-span. The deceit of the last 150 years has come to an end, and people have clearly seen the fact of Creation. The depiction of fossils that manifest the fact of creation as evidence for evolution will therefore impress nobody. This is a hollow endeavour. Evolution never took place at any time in natural history, and the fossil record makes this crystal clear. Living things are the works of Almighty God, and were created at the moment of His choosing and at His command.
Our advice to the Darwinist publications in question is to bear this fact in mind when they issue reports incompatible with reality and to accept that Darwinist propaganda techniques no longer have any validity.
You can read more about the profound differences between birds and dinosaurs HERE.
1. Xing Xu et al, “A gigantic bird-like dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of China,” Nature 447, 844-847 (14 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05849
2. Xing Xu et al, “A gigantic bird-like dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of China,” Nature 447, 844-847 (14 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05849