I remember sitting and watching Jurassic Park for the first time at the movie theater. It was an incredible experience with life-like dinosaurs, intense chase sequences, and the cruel indulgence of one's desire to see real-life dinosaurs confined in a zoo. It stood as my favorite movie for a good number of years. At the closing of the movie, right before the end credits, the protagonists sat on a helicopter, fleeing from the dinosaur infested island, and the main character peered out the window to see what appeared to be a flock of storks flying alongside them. It was symbolic of the beauty of evolution. Dinosaurs had their chance and went extinct; then, came birds (as Dr. Grant explained earlier in the movie), which evolved from dinosaurs.
I do not have access to all of the information and I do not know how to read fossils the way that so-called experts can, but if there is one thing I can conclude about this story, it's this: Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers. I would contest that none of the dinosaurs had feathers. I do not believe in evolution. Nonetheless, I am willing to allow for the possibility that some of these creatures had feathers if that is where the evidence leads. But, Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers.
I did a quick Google search on "Did Tyrannosaurus Rex have feathers?" and the first statement that pops up is "Probably so" (https://www.google.com/search?q=who+developed+the+hypothesis+that+dinosaurs+evolved+from+birds%3F&oq=who+developed+the+hypothesis+that+dinosaurs+evolved+from+birds%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.21026j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=did+tyrannosaurus+rex+have+feathers). From "probably so" stems hordes of artistic depictions of T. Rex covered in feathers, which I must say were very reminiscent of the Snow Beast from Scooby Doo. I don't have a problem with artistic depictions of fictional possibilities, but people have completely bought into the idea that T. Rex and all other theropods had feathers. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this claim!
An attempt to provide evidence posits that "ancestors" of Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers. Immediately, the question ought to be, did T. Rex evolve from these other species that supposedly had feathers? Instead of humoring critical thinkers with such obvious questions, evolutionary scientists immediately jump to the conclusions and make remarkably unscientific statements. "While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists now consider it likely that T. rex had feathers on at least parts of its body" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus). As a creationist, you must understand that statements like this are infuriating to me. It's akin to someone asking me for evidence that God exists and my answer being, "My evidence that God exists is that we're here. And we wouldn't be here if he didn't exist."
Evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers would have to come directly from Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, bones, or skin samples. The reality is that there is no evidence that any dinosaur evolved into a bird. Many of the supposed transitional creatures ended up being 0% reptile and 100% bird. Some creatures that were not considered to be birds had proto-feathers, which means that there was a fuzzy substance on the fossil that could have been a prehistoric version of feathers. This idea, however, was debunked by evolutionary scientists and creationists alike. (https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/feathered-raptors-not-the-birds/).
Feathers are linked to fossils by pure speculation. Many of the science books for kids show pictures of dinosaurs and other species with feathers, simply because evolutionists believe they evolved into birds. Evolutionary scientists have committed their hearts to this belief, and it has led to an inaccurate depiction of history. If it is pure speculation, it should be noted as such. But, it should not be considered a fact. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, and a representation of facts. Science is not supposed to construct well-crafted narratives despite contradictory evidence. The narratives make great kids stories, but the science fails to remain science. The story becomes a mere fairy tale.
Can we begin to tell the story based on real history through scientific findings? Can we stop claiming that such fairy tales are facts and start teaching our youth the truth? There is plenty of fiction on the book shelves in libraries for your entertainment. How about we remove fictional stories from our children's nonfiction books so that they might be properly educated? I believe they would enjoy the truth, even more so than the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment