Wow. Just wow. Scientists have less "practical applicable knowledge" than most of humanity.
Do you enjoy air conditioning in your car? Do you enjoy being able to dive to locations instead of walking to them or riding a cart? Those are the result of "practical applicable knowledge" provided by scientists.
Please tell me what creationists have done to improve your life to compared to that. You should probably stop using science's gifts to you and use and rely only on what creationists have given you. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do given your opinions about science and scientists?
) an expletive? See what happens when you make too much of the "missing" links? BTW - I know he says it isn't a dinosaur (I read his paper, not just the popular news bytes) - he claims the creature predates the dinosaur and that it, rather than the many feathered and otherwise bird-like theropod dinosaurs, might be the ancestor of birds. Well it might be, but in that case, where did the other bird-like dinosaur fossils come from? If he's right, either bird-like features such as feathers, wings and perching claws have evolved twice (that could true, certainly flight has evolved at least three other times) or they were possessed by the ancestors of the dinosaurs. It may that our current classification of birds being dinosaurs is wrong and that from an evolutionary point of view, dinosaurs were actually (mostly, but not all, flightless) birds. This idea has been proposed a long time ago and may turn out to be right. None of it is evidence against evolution or in favour of ID.