Great Web Site - Pity About the Idiot Author
Revised August 2007

Note:     Since this critique of Creation Tips was written the owner of the site has revamped his web site and in the process must have removed the page referred to below.  Fortunately the old page is still available on the Internet Archive. However, the revamped site is still of extremely poor quality and like most creationist sites remains filled with lies, distortions and inaccuracies.  As far as young Earth creationists are concerned, the more things change, the more things stay the same!

It just doesn't make sense that such a well done web site could be put together by someone so stupid. I've seen commercial web sites that aren't as well done (and probably cost big bucks). But the views expressed seem to indicate someone who needs help feeding themselves and putting on their jammies.

Some evolutionists have implied that Archaeopteryx was part-reptile and part-bird, thereby showing evidence that reptiles evolved into birds.

Sloppy statements like that lead to misunderstanding. Perhaps it is intentional. No evolutionist has implied that Archaeopteryx is "part-reptile and part-bird." Archaeopteryx has some characteristics that are reptile-like/dinosaur-like and some that are bird-like. It would also be better to say that birds evolved from reptiles/dinosaurs rather than reptiles evolved into birds. The creationist statement leads the ignorant masses to the question, "why are there still reptiles if they evolved into birds?"

The fact is that Archaeopteryx had feathers, which means it was a bird.

And it is usually classified as a bird in the Linnean system of taxonomy. But that is not really relevant to evolutionary relationships and even Linnean taxonomy does not usually rely on a single characteristic.

It also had three claws on its hindlimbs that were birdlike and, also like a bird, it had an expanded braincase, large eye sockets, and a pronounced beak.

BZZZZZT. I'm sorry. That is incorrect. But thanks for playing. Unless this is a claim that the Ornithopoda (bird-footed dinosaurs) were birds. That's news. Usually they are placed in a completely separate line of descent from the basal dinosaurs, the Ornithischia (bird-hipped dinosaurs), whereas birds are believed to have descended from the Saurischia (lizard-hipped dinosaurs). So it seems that three clawed hindlimbs (actually there are four) is not enough reason to classify something as a bird. Especially since maniraptorians, like Deinonychus and Velociraptor had similar feet. In fact, the first dinosaur trackways discovered were thought to be made by giant birds. So it would seem that the structure of the foot would be better evidence of the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, especially when other structures of the foot and ankle (like the ascending process) are taken into account.

Archaeopteryx's brain is larger than the maniraptors, but it is also quite a bit smaller than a birds. There are other structures that are more similar to the dinosaurs than birds (shape and position of the cerebral hemispheres and the cerebellum.)

Finally, Archaeopteryx didn't have a beak of any kind. Don't creationists check this stuff before they publish it? Never mind. I know the answer. This is either a case of a lie or stupidity.

Because it was well insulated, it is believed almost certainly that it was warmblooded — further evidence that it was a bird.

I'm warmblooded. There is also evidence that other dinosaurs, especially the theropods, were warm blooded.

An unusual character [sic] of Archaeopteryx is that it had teeth. But this is not evidence that it evolved from a reptile, because not all reptiles have teeth (tortoises don't), and some ancient birds did (for example, the fossil aquatic bird Hesperornis).

No currently extant species of bird has teeth. And the Hesperornithiformes, that went extinct about 70 million years ago, didn't have wings either. The much modified humerus is the only bone remaining in the front limb. So it seems that the Hesperornithiformes were a much modified now extinct lineage that had some transitional characteristics, like teeth.

Archaeopteryx also had a long tail. But today's pheasant coucal has a similar tail, and, like the pheasant coucal's tail, Archaeopteryx's tail had feathers.

Really? For those who are not Australian and may not have ever seen a pheasant coucal, here's one:

Our friend is either stupid or deceitful. I'm surprised that he didn't use the peacock as an example. It has a long tail too. But like all extant birds, the tail vertebrae of the pheasant coucal (and the peacock) are fused into a structure called the pygostyle. Long tail feathers is quite a different matter from having a long, theropod-like, bony tail of separate vertebrae. In short, the pheasant coucal's tail isn't even close to being similar to Archaeopteryx.

If reptiles really evolved into birds, as evolutionists believe, there must have been creatures between those two vastly different groups that at least had part-feathers/part-scales, part-wings/part-legs, part-coldbloodedness/part-warmbloodedness, etc. Yet such a creature has never been demonstrated.

Creatures in between? Yes. Archaeopteryx for one. And below the author objects to "feathered dinosaurs" because they seem to have only down, like birds get before they grow feathers. Is that in between? Besides, some theropod fossils with excellent feather impressions have been found. Here's one:

I'm not sure what is meant by "part-wings/part-legs" since bird wings do not develop from their legs. Birds are descended from bi-pedal theropods. And Archaeopteryx has front limbs that are very much like the front limbs of most maniraptors, except they are a bit elongated and they have feathers.

The creature that the author of the article seeks cannot exist, of course. It is a cartoon based on ignorance and a lack of thought about the issue.