I love how blatantly creationists are willing to accept facts when they are (seemingly) not contradictory to their worldview, even when accepting that same fact is contrary to arguments they've already made against evolution. Creationists have been quite adamant in their disputation of feathered dinosaurs. Groups like the multi-million-dollar organization Answers in Genesis have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "Archaeoraptor" incident, despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the question of dinosaurs with feathers. "Archaeoraptor" was a dinosaur rear-end stuck on a bird's upper torso. However, both taxa involved are known to have feathers. What's funny is how much effort they've expended in trying to dispute the feathers and other lame efforts to try to explain them away as plant matter or accidentally associated bird feathers.
Generally speaking, these creationist articles refrain from publishing any pictures of the actual fossils. They prefer instead to lure in unsuspecting children with images of the big, colourful, and goofy-looking dinosaur models and then abuse their minds with the senseless tripe in the articles.
However, AiG has published this twadle about a recently described Jurassic fossil mammal from China, Castorocauda. Here, we see no question of the preservation of integumentary structures (i.e. hair, in this case).
The fossil is in good enough shape to preserve hair
What? What about all those fantastic theories about ginko leaves or wildly improbable chance association of bird feathers and dinosaur bones? Isn't this another prime example of evil-atheist-evolutionist-commie-paleo brainwashing? Oh wait! There's nothing about the presence of hair on a mammal fossil that challenges AiG's preconceived view of the world, so might as well let it slide. Just because we know that mammals have hair, it doesn't mean that we can just go making such wild-ass conclusions about this grubby-looking fuzz around a mammal fossil! C'mon, guys (and they are all guys), you could at least be consistent in your challenges to the preservation of keratinized structures!
How does AiG fit Castorocauda into their worldview? Why, by fitting facts to fairy-tales, of course!
One interesting question in the creation model is where these mammaliaform organisms fit ecologically into the pre-Flood world. Modern groups of placental mammals are not found among the dinosaurs—only mammaliaforms and some marsupials. This suggests that placental mammals may not have lived with dinosaurs [i.e., shared the same habitat] before the Flood—only mammaliaform animals and some marsupials. The destruction of that entire ecosystem might explain why not only the dinosaurs, but also the mammaliaform animals, are not found on the earth today.
Yes, the fact that several thousand species of modern mammal are known from (or around) all continents and that dinosaur fossils are known from all continents (even Antarctica) sure sounds like a good indication that they would not have lived together in the pre-flood world. You mean to say that with dinosaurs roaming the entire planet not one happened to cross into the general neighborhood of a wildebeest, or a buffalo, or a kangaroo, or a cat, or a bear, or a squirrel, or a cow, or a sheep, or a pig, or a...
Too bad creationists are serious. You can't write comedy like this.