Really Bizarre Anti-Evolution(?) Dinosaur vs Bird Poster

@Chlidonias my high school's environmental science/marine biology/field biology teacher told us that penguins weren't birds because they swim and that sharks aren't fish, they're their own thing. He also said the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that carbon-dating isn't real because, "how could they know?" He also yet me get made fun of in class for stating that moose are deer (which they obviously aren't, they're too big).

High school science teachers are fun.

~Thylo

@ThylacineAlive Where was this?? I thought stuff like this only happened in the most rural places or in the 50s.

@WalkingAgnatha In America? Hardly. There is still fierce debate and controversy in many states about teaching evolution - whether to, how to, alone or in conjunction with other explanations like intelligent design and creationism. Beliefs like that can be found everywhere, despite being the minority.

@Coelacanth18 a very stubborn, loud minority at that!

~Thylo

This is made all the more bizarre because you will never find a creationist sign arguing that bats or whales aren’t mammals! I suspect that the fact that they are mammals is far more well known, the idea being a couple hundred years old at least, whereas people are still adapting to the idea of dinosaurs being birds, it being popularised only some 30 or so years ago. Really, this is one of the things that annoys me most about creationists: that they will pick on esoteric facts that the public won’t know about and twist them, rather than picking up well known ones and refuting them. For the same reason, there aren’t many creationists that will claim the earth is flat: it would be too much of an insult to the intelligence of the believer, whereas said viewer will concede to their claims about carbon dating because they probably don’t know what that even is or how it works.

I can count the following inaccuracies:
1. Some definitely non-avian dinosaurs laid hard-shelled eggs.
2. Birds do have reticulate scutes on their feet, which any average person would consider scales.
3. There are definitely flightless birds; and flightlessness is not a characteristic of (non-avian) reptiles (see pterosaurs and non-avian avialans).
4. Lack of beaks is not a characteristic of (non-avian) reptiles or (non-avian) dinosaurs (see turtles and literally any ornithischian).
5. Lower geological layers formed earlier, not later as this sign seems to imply, and definite Aves (“true” or modern birds), as well as non-avian avialans (which would be considered birds in the broad sense, and the maker of this sign would probably consider many of them to be birds) have existed with definite non-avian dinosaurs. Also note that the linear, progressive model of evolution (orthogenesis) that is implied here is not the evolutionary theory scientists accept today.
6. Any reasonable person can probably agree that the feather fossils are too complex and well, feather-like to be merely coincidental geological artifacts.
7. Analogies involving similarities between human-designed, non-living objects (which by definition cannot be biologically related in the first place) are patently non-applicable to living, reproducing organisms, where evolution is unanimously agreed (at least among biologists) to apply, instead of intelligent design or some other form of creationism.

Bonus: The Charles Darwin quote is completely irrelevant.