The photo you referenced was a completely different fossil, _Eoconfuciusornis_. Perhaps you should engage your brain before you post.

How was an old reference relevant to a new find???

Quit the posturing – it’s embarassing! Let real paleontologists and paleoartists do their jobs!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/95096577.html

How does one go from that to what you see all over? Blue tuft and ribbon appendage display “feathers” that have nothing to do with flight.

Get real folks. Here is a more level headed, referenced approach to the topic:

http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp#6

Warning: Engage your brains first before you read.

It’s worth noting that many Mesozoic “feathered dinosaurs” actually did possess flight feathers, it’s just that most of these are considered “birds” and therefore (incorrectly) not “dinosaurs.” This is the kind of dichotomous taxonomy that creationists (and BANDers) love. Among “non-avian dinosaurs” Microraptor at least appears to have used it’s feathers to generate lift.

Likewise, elongate tail-feathers are actually surprisingly common among Mesozoic theropods including Confuciusornis and some Enantiornithines (usually considered “birds”) and to at least a minor degree the non-avian Caudipteryx, though Epidexipteryx puts all of these to shame.