basically the creation side points out that the creature is more bird, and points out the reasons why (lighter bones than dinos, scaled feet like birds, ‘feathers’ are not actual feathers (evos claim they are proto feathers- but in reality they are far from being true feathers) and showing that the arms were positioned such that it was birdlike and not dino like- meaning they were in right position for flight- and more- The article on hte scientific american site is just a nasty dig at the creation arguments- the creationists do not say ‘well it can’t be a dino because, well, it just can’t’ The article was an immature dig at creationists- They also leave out the fact that even scientists who are not creationists don’t think they are dinos- The article tries to make out like everyone who isn’t a creationist thinks birds evolved from dinos- but that isn’t so- The din to bird theory has had fierce debate for a long time now in the scientific community- and also between creationists and those that hold to the evo ideology-
I remember the first article I read focused somehow on the skeletal structure and breathing, which indicated to the author that birds were not related to dinosaurs.