Tis is getting tiresome, but it probably thrills the droolers who eagerly absorb whatever they read at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. And it’s another example of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:
ICR’s article is titled Stunning Bird Fossil Has Bone Tissue. It was written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his new article, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Recently, Chinese researchers described their discovery of the “earliest” bird fossil with fused pelvic bones, just like modern birds.
Brian is referring to this paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Insight into the growth pattern and bone fusion of basal birds from an Early Cretaceous enantiornithine bird. All you can read without a subscription is the abstract, but PhysOrg wrote about it ten days ago — see: Fossil find pushes back date of earliest fused bones in birds by 40 million years. They say:
A trio of researchers with the Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences has found evidence that pushes back the earliest example of fused bones in birds by approximately 40 million years. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Min Wang, Zhiheng Li and Zhonghe Zhou describe their study of the fossilized remains of a bird dated to approximately 120 million years ago.
Until now, the consensus among scientists has been that such changes [fused bones] did not occur until just before land-based dinosaurs became extinct. But now, new evidence by the team in China suggests that the time frame will have to be pushed back approximately 40 million years — the bird now represents the oldest known example of fossilized remains showing bone fusion of its major parts.
Let’s find out what Brian makes of this fossil find. He says:
Also like modern birds, this fossil appears to be made of original bone, not mineralized bone (which would be rock). Could any process preserve actual bones for 120 million years?
“Original” bone? We don’t see any mention of that in PNAS or PhysOrg. They refer only to fossil bones. Brian tells us:
The fossil, named Pterygornis dapingfangensis, came from Jehol Biota in northeastern China, and more specifically from a sedimentary rock horizon deemed 120 to 131 million years old. All the other bird fossils with fused hips and arm bones came from later-deposited Cretaceous layers thought to be some 40 million years younger. Thus, the study authors’ main point with this fossil’s description was to reshape the evolutionary origin of birds in a way that would accommodate this 40-million-years out-of-place fossil. But in the process of describing these modern-looking fused bones that challenge tales of flight evolution, these researchers found normal, fresh-looking bird bone.
They found “normal, fresh-looking bird bone”? Brian doesn’t quote anything specifically saying so from the original paper. Instead, he summarizes the researchers’ findings and then says:
Why, after at least 120 million years, do these finely detailed structures still exist? Why haven’t the lacunae, or especially the canals, been filled in with sediment or mineral precipitates after millions of years of Earth’s water cycle? Incessant erosion, deposition, dissolution, temperature change, and precipitation should have devastated these fossils after so much time. The study authors did not ask or answer any questions like these.
Maybe those questions weren’t raised because the research paper makes it clear that they were discussing the structure of fossilized bones? Brian concludes his post with this:
If Noah’s Flood buried this bird in the widespread Jehol sediments alongside thousands of other animals — a catastrophic process that does not happen today — then the mystery of how this bone fossil could look so fresh quickly resolves.
So once again, dear reader, we see how the Creationist Scientific Method, with perhaps a bit of creative exaggeration (a/k/a wishful thinking), proves that the bible is true and evolution is nonsense.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.