Creationists And Feathered Dinosaurs

Some creation scientists at the ICC have presented an interesting paper investigating the phenomenon of feathered dinosaurs. Below is a PDF of the paper if anyone would be interested in examining it.

Here is a link to what Todd Wood has written about this interesting development on his blog:

Now, I am (and have been) open to the idea of feathered dinosaurs, but I have not had a chance to fully investigate the paper yet (sadly, some of it may prove to be rather above my level in technicality) and thus I cannot provide an opinion/verdict on it (at least at the moment) :wink: .

Happy reading!

1 Like

Making birds part of the dinosaur ‘kind’ would solve at lot…

1 Like

Thanks for the interesting links, @J.E.S.

Once again, Dr. Todd Wood is a voice of reason. (And he always looks so cheerful and upbeat in his photos!) I disagree with him on various things but I’ve always had great respect for him. It appears to me that he always cares about evidence and reality.


This ICC paper does just what I have proposed YECs position on feathered dinosaurs should have been from the very beginning. The authors have concluded that that there are at least four created “kinds” of animals that are extinct today but have characteristics similar to living birds and dinosaurs. In other words, each of them is their own group just like mammals are different from synapsids. Since all “kinds” are separate creations in the YEC way of thinking then all classifications above the kinds are simply artificial devices for convenience. The authors astutely point out that in the YEC point-of-view bats can fly and thus were created on the fifth day with the flying creatures whereas other organism we classify as mammals were created on the 6th day. But they are separate kinds so why should a YEC get upset about organisms we call mammals being created on two separate days when the Bible doesn’t say “mammals were created on the 6th day.” Modern taxonomy and biblical taxonomy are apples and oranges. The authors are right that it has been silly for Ken Ham and others to offer knee-jerk responses to every fossil find as if they have to be thrown into some sort of taxonomy that was not even biblical to begin with. Todd Wood has recognized this for a long time and now other independent YEC scholars are also calling out the mainline organizations for perpetuating the myths that feathered dinosaurs have to be either 100% dinosaurs or 100% birds.

Now, I would take it a bit further and ask the authors, so yes, your believe each kind is separately created with no common ancestry but there is still a intuitive and quantifiable pattern of multiple “kinds” that consistently share enormous numbers of traits. I mean when we look at a group of kinds that share a bunch of traits that all things we call mammals we don’t find one kind of “mammal” that has feathers. But following the logic of these authors there is no a-priori reason to believe that God could not and would not create a kind of mammal that would also have a trait we usually associate with another large group of kinds. Why not have whales with scales but we group them with mammals because they have 100 characters that align them with other mammals? Scales for a whale would have been a great design trait that was left underutilized.




To me, and I think to most of us here, this sounds just as if you had said you were open to the idea of antlered moose or anything else we already know exists. What did you mean by it?

I looked through the paper. The lengthy introduction is a mostly unobjectionable review of feathered theropods. The rest is cargo cult science, with all the trappings but none of the justification of real scientific methodology. ANOPA is a nonsensical method, and arbitrary, completely unjustified parameters abound. Feh. There is no reason to believe that there are separate kinds, and no reason to believe that if there were the methods used would discover them.

I think feathered dinos is a issue for fellow yec creationists. I love it.
This because it should suggest, persuade, there are no such creatures as dinosaurs. They are just kinds of creatures. In theropod dinos etc we simply, simply, find they look like birds because they are flightless ground birds in a spectrum of diversity.
A t Rex is just a giant toothy Moa.
As better research was done the likeness of theropod dinos to birds was proven BUT they once again went the wrong way. They turned birds inot dinosaurs. So they now miust say birds are reptiles. A problem and now in small circles they suggest reptiles is a false group. FINALLY.
A line of reasoning tripped them up.
yEC needs to be open to the option that dinosaurs never existed anymore then reptiles or mammals or marsupials or creodonts existed.
instead there are just a limited number of kinds and everyone can squeeze into the kinds.

I suppose elephants are just flightless bats.

They also turned bats into mammals, and for the same reasons.



You really need to read a book or article about why archaeologists concluded Dinosaurs were reptiles… OR concluded that there was a branch of reptiles we could treat separately under the label of “Dinosaurs”.

You don’t seem to know anything on the matter…

Say what now?

John, @scd is a crazy maker … and he was making me a little crazy. I have gone back to add the better way of looking at the situation, which I neglected to include in the post above:

"OR concluded that there was a branch of reptiles we could treat separately under the label of ‘Dinosaurs’."

Say what now, again? You are talking to Robert Byers, not scd. And the weird part of your post was the claim that archaeologists have anything to say about dinosaurs. As for your “correction”, it isn’t clear what you mean by it. Now, Byers spouts all manner of gibberish; the solution is not to take any of the clueless things he says seriously.

Yep… right. I had no idea that I had equated Byers with SCD’s screeds.

John, I give you this thread and all my worldly goods in this thread … to you. Declare what you want to declare. Fix what you think needs fixing!

Simple enough. What needs fixing is the belief that it’s worth arguing with Robert Byers. He is best ignored.

Why? What are you angry about? I am completly confident in my conclusions. I never see good answers in reply. I think i represent, enough, YEC here or the future.
The whole point of origin discussions is disagreement.
Just make a case and prove your point as far as you can.
if you follow the reasoning my ideas of dinos is not far off the track of what they all talk about.
In fact I think you recommended to me a author who questioned things remember?
he also, in wiki, is called names but is a professional and media outlets ask for his opinion.

I’m not angry at all. It’s just that nothing you say needs a response, though you may deserve an explanation. So here it is: your posts are so nonsensical that anyone capable of understanding why they are (which doesn’t include you) will not need any assistance.

EWell saying it out loud is still anger. nobody who thought that would really say it. Your angry because I don’t agree with your evolutionism and I offer innovative, imaginative, ideas that make excellent sense based on the data. Even if they were wrong they make a workable hypothesis. Yet they are right.
i’m as confident in my opinions merit as you are in their demerit.
i don’t comment on you. I am not angry. i have no problem with disagreement in anything where humans are allowed to disagree.
I don’t say IGNORE PEOPLE as they are stupid.
Its offensive and not true. Nobody in these contentions is stupid because its a demanding intellectual subject(s) above the average peoples willingness to be intellectually involved.
Why do YOU say feathered , wisboned, egglaying, anatomicallly bird like theropods are REPTILES??
What is your top three reptilian features of a theropod dinosaur?T-rex or anybody?
I bet you got nothing or not much.

Bless your heart, as they say in the South.


As a native Alabamian, @Robert_Byers, that dog just won’t hunt. Bless your heart. Some of the things you say just really dills my pickles.