Grave News for Dino-Bird Fossil Report

There was a character put forward to show how clever scum-to-speech pathologist evolutionists can be, and that was known as Nebraska Man. That bad boy, his family, surroundings — everything was built from a single tooth. And that belonged to a pig. The fake science dino-bird paper reminded me of that.

Mostly made at Vukki Tombstone Maker (be careful poking around that site, possible malware)

What we have is a rush to publish without due diligence in research. Once again, a fossil is found in amber. After consulting their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings® and blowing on the whistle, scientists decided that it was of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Gotta keep the narrative going, don'tcha know. What did they really find? A skull, some beak, and a bit of tongue, so the researchers worked from skimpy data and massive naturalistic presuppositions. But artists' conceptions prove evolution, right? They violated their artistic licenses.

The paper was published but had not been through the peer-review process. After other scientists said, "Whoa there, Hoss!", and points were made, the paper was retracted. (It is interesting that you can still see the embarrassing Nebraska Man paper.) Most likely, this was nothing more than the skull of an unusual lizard, especially because of the eye placement. Next time, fellas, slow down and do more complete research before denying the Creator and lighting prayer candles to Darwin. And stop guessing, it's not becoming of scientists. You savvy, pilgrims?

The story begins with all the science news outlets announcing a spectacular discovery: a 99-million-year-old bird-like skull entombed in amber. The fossil even had preserved soft tissue associated with the skull and the remains of the animal’s long tongue.

Amber entombs mostly insects, but occasionally small animals—and even the bones of larger animals—are preserved by the sticky tree resin. The find revealed a new body plan that was first claimed to be part of a tiny new dinosaur species. (How they determined it was a dinosaur was not clear from the write-up, but a later evaluation of the fossil forced the article’s formal retraction; see below.) The supplied artwork gave it a very bird-like appearance, with feathers and all, but everyone called it a dinosaur.

You can read the whole the article at "Scientists Retract Dino-Bird Paper".