The problem is one of semantics. At what point ought a hominid (a catch-all term for ancient bipedal creatures with sufficient modern humanlike traits so as to be remarkable) be described as human? There was no sharp break. "Ape" is another catch-all term for creatures for anceint creatures with modern apelike traits. At what point is an ancient creature with modern apelike traits be referred to as an ape? Austalopithicines were neither apes nor humans, but resembling both to the extent that either term is casually used.
DID FOSSILS MAKE YOU DOUBT?
There is no reply necessary Greendawn. I had plenty of 'replies' when I was a JW arguing against the findings of all the sciences. If you poke around in the Creationist fog I'm sure you'll emerge with a great many replies. Please don't fall to arguing that the structure of modern feathers looks different from reptilian scales, of course they do. The point is that they are structures produced by the same genetic template indicating the comon origin. The word "protofeathers" implies that feathers adapted for flight were not the result of some giant leap from scales. These hollow protofeathers appear to have served as insulation or possibly sexual ornamentation. It is only later that some of these feathered dinosuar lines adapted these structures to flight. Its clear that even after the evolution of birdlike flight these feathers (or featherlike structures) continued in other genera without this particular adaptation to serve other purposes.
I always like to check out things but being a convinced creationist I am predisposed to thinking that our arguments will win just as you are with the theory of evolution. Civilised debate doesn't do any harm. On the creationist camp there is serious doubt whether the feathered dinosaurs are really feathered (or are they birds wrongly described as dinosaurs?), we suspect this is another firework to impress the public.