Observing the Cheek Bones of Panoplosaurus mirus

This is the case for Panoplosaurus mirus, in which not only do the dental rows seem strongly inset (they are not) but lateral expansion of the nasopharyngeal sinuses (forming extreme loops; Witmer & Ridgely, 2008) causes the lateral margins of the skull to expand beyond the lateral extend of the mandible at the same part. This has led to a subjective impression that there was a distinctive, broad cheeky overhang. The main culprit is the presence of thin, vertically oriented bones in the “buccal cavity” of the skull, in this species and in others. If there was no “cheek,” what is this thing doing in the skull? What is it attached to? And precisely, what is its relation to extra-oral tissues surrounding the jaw? Interestingly, these ossicles support a full buccal tissue that expands from the skull to the mandible. This homologue tissue exists in mammals and a few (very few) birds, namely parrots (which have a unique muscle, m.pseudomasseter).

Rodhocetus - The Evolutionary Forgery of The Walking Whale

A scientist attached a whale's tail to a four-legged animal to make a "walking whale ". This fossil was considered the best proof of evolution but has turned out to be a "mistake." Now this evidence for evolution has been overturned.

For years, scientists claimed that they had compelling fossil proof of evolution in Rodhocetus, a four-legged animal with a whale's tail. This "missing link" was considered by many evolution experts to be one of the best proofs of evolution. When biologist, physician and television producer Dr. Carl Werner went to check it out, he was in for a big surprise: There were no fossils of the tail of Rodhocetus. They were missing. When he questioned the scientist who had added the whale's tail, the scientist admitted this "best proof" did not have a whale's tail or flippers as he had suggested in museum diagrams.

This was just the first of many fossil improprieties that Dr. Werner found when he set out to evaluate evolution. Other problems included a scientist attaching a dinosaur tail to a bird to make a "flying dinosaur", and another other scientist covering up the fraud. One large metropolitan museum attached feathers to a dinosaur to make a "feathered dinosaur", even though feathers were not found. Another museum attached human hands to Lucy, even though the fossils were not human. There were other problems too: Evolution charts at museums suggested that evolution was true, but these diagrams lacked corroborating evidence.

Cover-ups, name changes, adding scales or feathers compelled Dr. Werner to ask the most basic question: Is evolution even true? He does not answer the question in the documentary "Evolution: The Grand Experiment", rather he presents the problems and allows the audience to decide [Source].

Archaeopteryx - Bird or Reptile?

Archaeopteryx has been claimed to have more in common with reptilian dinosaurs than it does with modern birds, thus being depicted in some drawings with a reptilian face. These are some of its features, according to scientists: jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyper-extensible second toes (“killing claw”), and feathers.

From left to right, top to bottom: Sulcavis geeorum, a small bird with its toothed beak; Pelagornis chilensis with a tooth-like beak; Hoatzin (Stinkbird) chick of the Amazon, with its clawed wings; Archaeopteryx; skeletal structure of a monkey showing a bony tail; Volaticotherium, a flying mammal pre-dating the Archaeopteryx; the killing claws of a predatory falcon.

We see that today's birds mostly lack teeth, but tooth-like serrations can be found in geese and other bird species. However, we see that there are other ancient birds (i.e. Sulcavis geeorum and Pelagornis chilensis) that also had teeth which were designed perfectly for their diet. Does that make them reptiles?

Regarding claws on wings, we can find one type of bird today, the Hoatzin (Stinkbird), in which the young chicks also have claws, being able to grasp onto branches before learning how to fly. The Jeholornis is another ancient bird that had claws on its wings, and also a long-boned tail. Does this make them reptiles? Killing claws are used by many carnivorous predatory birds, but that doesn't make them reptilian either. There are also many mammals which have long bony tails. One such newer fossil remains of a furry squirrel-sized mammal (Volaticotherium) dug in Inner Mongolia (China) suggests that mammals were gliding in ancient forests at least 125 millions ago (130-165 millions years ago). In that case, it would surpass the earliest known flying bird, Archaeopteryx, dated about 150 million years ago [Source].

Jeholornis is a long-tailed Avialian from China. It was 2.5 ft (70cm) and weighed about 20 lbs. One of the most completely known long-tailed Avialian birds. Known to eat both seeds and fish.

Finally, putting aside the controversy of feather forgeries, the feathers on the Archaeopteryx seem to hint that it was a bird. Can you think of any reptiles today that have feathers? Interestingly, we can find Pangolins that are mammals with scale-like structures. We can also find two mammals, such as Platypus and Echidna that lay eggs. Does this make them reptiles? Are they strange, or simply just designed for their environment? With all these varying features, we must consider that perhaps these diverse animals are designed according to their environment. And we must re-question the theory that birds emerged from reptiles--perhaps it was the other way around, or simply just a figment of the imagination, sparked by early religious evolutionists with their Darwinian beliefs.

The Archaeopteryx Evolutionist Forgery

Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries. Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on the mating surfaces (slab and counterslab) of two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus (komp-sog-NAY-thus). Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.

The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought that the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.)

Is Archaeopteryx a forgery? Honest disagreements were possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence. Read more here.

Triceratops - Mammal or Reptile?

We must rethink what we think we know: mammal or reptile? Researchers think the Triceratops had forelimbs with a more mammal-like posture resembling that shown in the top images, versus the more reptile-like forelimb posture shown below. The three-horned animal, Triceratops, may have had a more upright, athletic posture than thought, new anatomical evidence suggests. Researchers say Triceratops' forelimbs may have resembled those of a large mammal, kept closer to its body than the forelimbs of reptiles and amphibians that typically have a lower, more sprawling posture.

The key is in the elbow, according to the researchers, Shin-ichi Fujiwara from the University of Tokyo and John Hutchinson from the Royal Veterinary College of the University of London. [LiveScience]

Furthermore, a study with extant mammals refutes the hypothesis on which the assumption that dinosaurs were reptilian ectotherms. This study analyzes the lines of arrested growth (LAG) in the bones of around a hundred ruminants, representative of the specific and ecological diversity of that group of mammals. The results show that the presence of these lines is not an indicator of an ectothermic physiology (does not generate internal heat), as had previously been thought, since all warm-blooded mammals have them. The study therefore dismantles the key argument of the hypothesis that dinosaurs could have been cold-blooded reptiles. More can be read about this here.

Velociraptors - Birds or Reptiles?

Today I Found Out everything I thought I knew about Velociraptors was a lie. Now to be fair, everything I “knew” about Velociraptors came from the Jurassic Park movies and so I shouldn’t really be surprised it was all wrong. So if, like me, you thought that Velociraptors were slightly bigger than a human; reptilian looking; hunted in packs; were found in what is now the United States; and were ridiculously intelligent. Well, literally none of that is true.

Velociraptors were actually only about the size of a domesticated Turkey, being only about 3 feet tall and 6 feet long, with most of the length coming from the tail and weighing in at around 20-30 pounds full grown. More than that, they also looked somewhat like a Turkey as well, but with a long tail obviously. It turns out, Velociraptors were very similar to birds in a lot of ways. They had hollow bones, feathers, built nests for their eggs, and are thought to have behaved very similar to birds.

Only about a dozen Velociraptor fossils have been found to date.

As Mark Norell, curator of fossil reptiles, amphibians, and birds at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

The more that we learn about these animals, the more we find that there is basically no difference between birds and . . . Velociraptors. Both have wishbones; brooded their nests; possess hollow bones; and were covered in feathers. If animals like Velociraptors were alive today, our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds.

More than that, there has never been one bit of evidence that suggested that Velociraptors hunted in packs. In fact, every fossil found of Velociraptors has seemed to indicate they were solitary creatures. There was even one fossil where the Velociraptor was engaged in a battle against a Protoceratops, which was a pig-sized dinosaur. A sandstorm came up and buried them both while they were battling. If they hunted in packs, there should have been more Velociraptors at that find, particularly given the size of the Protoceratops relative to the Velociraptor.

Above: Deinonychus. Mainstream scientists and religious evolutionist authorities would have us believe that these creatures were reptiles, when they were most likely birds. The above picture is an imaginary depiction of this animal, making it resemble a reptile, with imaginary green-coloured scales.

Next up, the Velociraptors were not found in the United States, as the films suggested: where the palaeontologists in the film dug up the Velociraptor skeleton in Montana. In fact, they have only been found in Central Asia around Mongolia.

It has long been suspected that Velociraptors had feathers, but the evidence proving this has only come very recently. That evidence came from a discovery in September of 2007 of a forelimb fossil of a Velociraptor that had quill knobs, similar to those found on birds. Furthermore, Velociraptors were also probably warm-blooded.  They are thought to have had about the same metabolism as the Kiwi, which is similar in anatomy, feather type, bone structure, and nasal passages; the latter of which is usually a good indicator of metabolism in animals.  Also, cold blooded animals (i.e. reptiles) typically won’t pursue prey; they prefer to lie in wait until the prey comes to them. [Source].

Why can't evolutionists simply admit that Velociraptors were in fact birds all along, instead of portraying them as reptilian species, in order to support the reptilian deception of birds and mammals evolving from reptiles? Perhaps birds' ancestors were always birds, and our ancestors were always mammals.

Did Dinosaurs Live Alongside Humans?

The evidence that dinosaurs lived with man in recent history is staggering and overwhelming due to the countless artefacts, drawings, carvings, statues, mosaics and depictions throughout history of Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Plesiosaur, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, T-rex and more. If man didn't live with these creatures, how did artists throughout ancient history and in cultures all over the world happen to re-create these beasts, thousands of years ago, to “coincidentally” look identical to what we see in the dinosaur books and museums today? Some may say “well, they must have seen dinosaur skeletons back then too”. Not so. Here's why.

Dinosaur skeletons aren't found just lying on the ground intact, so someone walking by can look down and see what the dinosaur looked like. The bones are separated, fragmented and embedded deep within the ground, mountains and rock with most of them missing. Occasionally, you might find a piece of a single bone sticking out of a rock here or there, but that's pretty much all we find today. Logic dictates that's all anyone in ancient history would ever have found as well. They would not have been able to create the image of the entire beast without the entire skeleton, yet the science of Palaeontology did not develop until the early 1800's. The process of digging out and excavating dinosaur bones from rock didn't begin until then. Consequently, the first complete skeleton of a dinosaur was not constructed until the 1800's.

You really need to ask yourself, if dinosaurs died out 65 million years before modern man “evolved”, and the first dinosaur skeleton was not excavated and constructed until the early 1800's, how did human artwork throughout history manage to depict several types of dinosaurs that look identical to the dinosaur depictions we see in the science books today? The answer is simple. They drew what they saw with their own eyes. You can get a lot more information in the "Top Ten Proofs Dinosaurs Lived with Man". The fact is that although we have been conditioned to believe dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, science, history and logic actually shows dinosaurs lived with man.

Tyrannosaurus Rex - More Avian than Reptilian?

Scientists from many disciplines have long debated the connection between dinosaurs and birds. Did birds descend from dinosaurs, or were many dinosaurs just simply birds? Modern birds lack the long bony tail and teeth of ancient prehistoric birds and dinosaurs. The largest Tyrannosaurus Rex ever found is now on display at the Field Museum in Chicago. However, many features of these fearsome prehistoric creatures are amazingly bird-like. Let's take a look at some of the similarities between the T. Rex and a modern bird.

The shoulder blade, wish bone, feet and many other structures resemble striking similarities to birds, as opposed to reptiles. New depictions of dinosaurs are now using feathers, and some mouths which use beaks as opposed to lips. While mainstream science would like to keep lying in its fantasy of reptiles, they continue to ignore the obvious facts:

"We determined that T. rex, in fact, grouped with birds – ostrich and chicken – better than any other organism that we studied," said researcher John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. "We also show that it groups better with birds than [with] modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards." [LiveScience]

The largest animal that ever walked the planet – Tyrannosaurus Rex – is more closely related to the modern chicken than it is to living reptiles such as the alligator or crocodile, a study of the dinosaur's fossilised protein has found. Researchers analysed a tiny shred of 68-million-year-old protein taken from the leg of T. Rex and compared it to the same protein found in 21 modern species. They confirmed that the giant animal is closely related to chickens and ostriches, but only to a lesser extent to reptiles such as alligators and crocodiles, which were thought to be more closely related to dinosaurs than other living creatures [The Independent].

We must re-question the dinosaur depictions and evolutionary assumptions, which also come from re-assembling of skulls and outer features. Much of what we see drawn and coloured is far from reality. Fossilized bones will merely reveal skeletal structure, not the differing muscle tissues, skin, and muscles, leaving us to imagine what these creatures actually looked like on the outside.