A Dozen Bird Eggs, Please


Gigantoraptor caused a lot of discussion when it was unearthed in China. According to estimates, this dinosaur weighed 1.5 tons, and scientists believe the skeletons they found may be from a young adult that was not fully grown.

Of course, not a single flying creature in all of history has ever been recorded as weighing even near 1 ton. Actually, the weight of this dinosaur would make it impossible to fly!
New Picture

Of course, as can be seen from the artist’s reconstruction (left) of this dinosaur, evolutionists have put feathers on this creature. However, there have been absolutely zero feathers of any kind found with Gigantoraptor. The following comes straight from the team who found the dinosaur:

“While the dinosaur’s remains didn’t include any feathers, which rarely fossilize, its close link to more primitive feathered oviraptorosaurs suggest it very likely did have a feathered tail and arms,” the team said. [Emphasis mine]

These scientists saw bones that they thought resembled other dinobirds (which don’t exist) so they just naturally assumed that it had feathers.

Sinosauropteryx was a supposed dinobird when they found “feather-like” structures surrounding the creature. These structures are now being identified as collagen (a fibrous protein that is found in skin, bones, etc) that was ruffled up when this dinosaur was buried and fossilized.

Microraptor (one of the most popular “dinobirds”)is a bird that could fly well (feathers are designed like that of strong fliers today).

Sinornithosaurus millenii (found with “down-like” structures) was spoken of by an evolutionist. He said that he believes the “downy feathers” found on this dinosaur were just some more collagen. And that is coming down (no pun intended) from an evolutionist.

Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui were birds that were probably flightless. They were definitely birds though because they even used a “gizzard stone” that many birds use today. Theropods, from which birds supposedly evolved from, did not use this gizzard stone.

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was stark proof for dinosaur-to-bird evolution . . . until it was proven a fraud.

As can be seen from the above examples, any creature that is found with feathers is either a bird or a fraud; not a single dinosaur has been found with feathers!

The Controversial Bird

ArchaeopteryxEver since the discovery of Archaeopteryx in Germany, the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds has been blown up to accept all kinds of ideas that are based on evolutionary thinking.

Supposedly, right from the finding of Archaeopteryx, this creature is a “missing link” in the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.  However, even this has lost its flavor.

Archaeopteryx is quite an amazing creature, but, unfortunately for the evolutionist, it is a complete bird. Granted, it may have some features that we don’t see on every bird, but, nonetheless, it is completely bird.

First of all, Archaeopteryx had fully-developed feathers. These feathers were not halfway between scales and feathers (a scaleather as I like to call it) but feathers that were completely capable of flying.

Evolutionists often try to trip creationists by saying that Archaeopteryx has a bony tail, claws on the wings and teeth in his mouth. They then state that birds don’t have these features.

This can dumbfound some people because they don’t know how to answer it. Truthfully, the answer dumbfounded me because it is so simple. The answer, “so?”

Now, you may be thinking that that is a stupid answer and that the evolutionist would jump all over you, but, that simple word really does make an impact.

When you say “so” about a bird having teeth, claws on wings, etc. you are making a stand that either you don’t care what it is or that you don’t care that it has some unique features. When you say “so” you must be very careful that you let your opponent know you are for the latter.

Why, “so”?

“So”, gives the evolutionists the impression that you don’t care if it has features that may only be found on that one specimen. After saying “so” you should clarify by telling the evolutionist that there are a lot of variations within kinds and that God made them that way so that they could thrive. Who knows, maybe Archaeopteryx’s bony tail saved it from vicious predators that would want him for an entrée?

Actually, some birds have the features that Archaeopteryx had, such as a bony tail, teeth, etc. But, many evolutionists forget to mention that. In fact, only those who have not done their research say Archaeopteryx is a dinobird. Instead, evolutionists are now saying Archaeopteryx is a complete bird!

Today we observe that one creature of the, for example, cow family has long horns, while others only have small ones. Does that mean the longhorn cow evolved to an elk (not of the cow family, mind you) then into a Red Angus cow? No!

Even if Archaeopteryx were to have 25 toes on its left foot, doesn’t mean much except that there are variations within kinds and that it does not point toward the conclusion that one creature completely evolved into a different one.

Taking Wing

461055143_6431ed8351_oEver since the incredible find of Deinonchyus, evolutionists have been proposing the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. This idea has been gaining worldwide attention as more and more evolutionists promote and write books about it.This theory is completely unfounded (see HERE, HERE) in scientific fact but yet, evolutionists swear by it. Many people have started to accept it without even questioning it. Dinosaurs to birds is one of the biggest guns of the evolutionary selection. And it is quickly becoming more in use.

HERE I wrote about a man who was critiquing the director of Jurassic Park 4 for deciding not to put feathers on his dinosaurs. In the comment section, debate started. If you read but a few of those comments you can instantly see that dinosaur-to-bird evolution is naturally assumed.But, let’s say that, by some stroke of chance, that dinosaurs did get perfect feathers, what else would they need to change?

Beside the feather dilemma, evolutionists also have a problem with the organs and structure of birds compared to dinosaurs. In order to truly see if dinosaurs evolved into birds it is important we discuss these structures.


If we were to assume that dinosaurs did evolve feathers they still had the problem of wings. Theropod dinosaurs, the kind birds supposedly evolved from, are famous for their big back legs and small arms.

These arms were not long enough or capable of feeding the theropods (the supposed ancestors of birds) and they do not look strong enough to walk on. It is proposed that theropods may have used their arms to hunt (grasp prey after jumping them). But, what they certainly could not do is flap with them, even if they had feathers; the joints and position of them were just too off to effectively flap.


The lung of the bird is quite an amazing feature known only to its kind. When a bird breathes, air does not go down into its lungs then back up and out like that of humans or mammals but flows in a straight direction, like air through a tube. The sacs on these tubes (or lungs) push the air through and produce a unidirectional flow that gives the bird more oxygen than the reptile or mammal would have.

These sacs keep some depleted air in the lungs so they can be refilled with oxygen. This gives the birds a steady amount of oxygen, which results in the perfect flying ability these creatures have.

The lungs in reptiles, which dinosaurs are a part of, are very unlike birds, more like mammals.


One of the most famous features of the bird is its hollow bones. These bones allow for birds to weigh much less and put less strain on their muscles. The bones of dinosaurs, however, were strong and certainly not hollow. Unless these bones hollowed out and became very fragile, then the theropod couldn’t have evolved hollow bones.

Not only do hollow bones not work with dinosaurs but their tails are also a problem.

In theropod dinosaurs they had to balance their front weight with a long, heavy and well-designed tail. This tail was thick and would never allow for flight. Even though some birds have had bony tails, not one has ever had a tail nearly the size of a theropod’s!

The complete complexity and differences between dinosaurs and birds is beyond what has been described here. Dinosaurs and birds were completely different creatures and one could have never evolved into the other.

The Terror Birds and Worldview


Ever since the incident with my ice article, I have been checking periodically on Joel Duff’s website, Naturalis Historia. He had critiqued my article on ice and had exposed some errors in my study. I gladly accept his scientific explanations over my mistakes. If you want to read more on that then please visit HERE.

Anyway, I ran into a couple of stories that had information I could talk about but, when I ran into his “terror bird” article I just had to focus on that one.

I am utterly fascinated with these gigantic birds and have, many times, considered writing extended articles on them on my website but, as Joel noted, there is not much information to be found on these creatures from a creationist standpoint. As an aside, I couldn’t find much secular information either. Hopefully I’ll be able to expand my information sources soon and find good information of them and tell you, in more detail, about these incredible creatures.

But, in the meanwhile, I would like to discuss Joel’s article.

In the beginning of his article, which you can read HERE, he talks about these birds and their anatomy. However, his article takes a turn when he asks creationists about these amazing birds.

I can’t find any speculation by young earth creationists about these birds but the position of the fossils strongly suggests that they would have to believe that all of these large flightless birds existed after a global flood and thus representatives of them would have to have been on Noah’s ark.

Yes, I wish more creationists would talk about these creatures and, after I’m done with my current series of shadows of Christ, I will delve into these birds and give creationists and evolutionists information about them.

As for the ark, these birds could have been on the ark directly. Nobody has to nail down exactly which animals were on the ark, since none of us were there (inside joke), but only that God knew best in which animals had to be protected. He did create the world, I think He can handle which animals need to be saved.

Just like we saw with ostriches, moa and other flightless birds, the tendency is to want to treat these birds as having flight capable ancestors and so explain their inability to fly as a “mutation disorder.”

Nowhere have I seen a creationist make such a claim. Flightless birds are amazing, especially these terror birds. Why does flightless-ness have to be a disorder? I’m very glad God made flightless birds.

These huge birds seem to have been all over South America at one time. Did they really evolve from an ancestor that could fly and then develop into these massive birds that preyed on other animals in a matter of just a few hundred years.[?]  Where are the intermediate fossils or so-called missing link fossils?

Very good point. There seems to be no intermediate ones. Although, I don’t see how this counters the creationist viewpoint?

If YEC can claim that evolutionists have problems with missing links it seems apparent that in cases like this, creationists have the same problem.

For those who don’t know, “YEC” stands for “Young-Earth Creationists”. Once again, I don’t see any creationists making this claim about these terror birds. It would seem, with science and the geologic layers supporting this, that these birds were made as flightless birds right from the start.

There are very apparent differences in these fossils species; they all have tiny to missing wings, dense bones, massive beaks etc… If God did not create all of these species as they are in the fossil record but “evolved” them from a smaller flight capable ancestor on the ark where are the intermediate fossils and remains?

Again, I haven’t seen any creationist claim that these birds descended from capable fliers. In fact, this goes against the Bible and science. It seems a straw-man has been set-up for this article.

Given that even YECs believe people have been in North and South America for almost 4000 years how could these birds have gotten off the Ark, migrated to South America, evolved into many species, populated the continent and then all gone extinct before man arrived?

Here Joel makes a false statement about creationists. Humans couldn’t have had earth populated 4,000 years ago for the flood itself was 3.669 years ago. Humans very well couldn’t have had it permanently populated before the flood. For correction, I would say the Americas were probably populated some 2,500-3,000 years ago.

Therefore, if the Americas were populated around that time, then it would make sense that humans would have lived alongside these birds, just like they did with dinosaurs. Where in the Bible or operational science does it say that humans did not live with these birds . . .

The young earth timeline here strains credulity at all levels.

The conclusion to the article seems to be based off faulty arguments. Here Joel, whether knowingly or unknowingly, set-up a straw-man argument where he misinterpreted a creationist belief (that Noah took kinds of animals on the ark to preserve them) and then turned that belief around to say that evolution would then have to be happening to these flightless birds. Then he promptly refuted the argument and made the point that creationists could not maintain their beliefs, even though these beliefs are not the beliefs of the creationist.

So, Joel, though his intentions might have been good for the “disproving” of the science of creation, his method was off. But, I do thank him for bringing to my attention, again, that the terror birds of America have been largely ignored by the creation movement! I hope to fill that void with articles on them in general as well as my somewhat-famous features covering each animal specifically. I hope Joel will be a reader for them!

As another note, I find that Joel often discusses topics that are a little more timid. For me, it doesn’t seem like he talks against any major objections to evolutionist belief. If he were interested in tackling the bigger issues (like the faults in evolution) instead of talking about smaller subjects, I, for one, would be much more interested in his articles (that is not to say I’m not interested in his articles now). I would love to see Joel confront the truth of God’s word and see where it will lead him.