Fossil Record Mistakes and Why They Don't Hurt Evolution

I've seen the same person say both in consecutive sentences. Here's Jolly F. Griggs, in his pamphlet Evolution 101: So it's a "complete bird" and it's a Compsognathus with feathers stuck on.

One of their weirder things about creationists is their pretense that there were recent (non-avian) dinosaurs. What makes it weirder than most creationist nonsense is that it's entirely pointless, we could find the Lost World of Conan Doyle tomorrow and it wouldn't affect evolution in the slightest. They don't seem to have grasped that there are some true propositions about biology that aren't the theory of evolution; the fact that non-avian dinosaurs are extinct is one of them.This blunder leads them expend their energy on pretending that there are unmineralized dinosaurs in the fossil record. There seem to be two sources for this. The most recent is Mary Schweitzer and her work in extracting soft tissue from inside dinosaur bones. But the soft tissue was mineralized, they had to demineralize it, as Schweitzer states in her paper: The second and earlier source of this nonsense stems from a fossil found in Alaska. It took me some time to track down the origin of the error, because 99.9% of creationists don't give references. But eventually I traced the error to creationists' inability to understand this paper. Here we can see a creationist talking nonsense about it under the title "Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones", which they aren't. An examination of the creationist nonsense reveals the exact source of the error. The creationist writes: That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? She took a guess what "permineralization" means, instead of spending five seconds looking it up on google.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.