Changes

Creationary scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:  

Creationary scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:  

{{QuoteBox|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}

{{QuoteBox|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American], Creation Ministries International</ref>}}

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

''“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."'' <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>

{{QuoteBox|It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>}}

Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of [[Scientific American]] which stated:

Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of [[Scientific American]] which stated: