This is the bit I stuck on. Why is the evidence of feathered dinosaurs not very good? Would you claim that, e.g., Microraptor and Caudipteryx don’t have feathers or that they aren’t dinosaurs?
This your latest distraction since you ran away from the Flood Evidence thread and ran from the Arches thread? Going to claim again no one ever gives you scientific references after we post another dozen papers refuting your CMI nonsense?
Hey, look! It’s a topic just for you. Maybe you could answer the questions instead of linking to a long video.
This paper submitted to the 8th International Conference on Creationism
Birds could not have evolved from land animal ancestors because Genesis clearly states that birds and land animals were created on separate days. As a result, young-earth creationists have consistently opposed the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
which is unsurprising in a YEC publication. What is less typical are the concluding remarks…
From our survey of feathered dinosaur species and our statistical baraminological analyses, we reached several conclusions. First, many species of dinosaurs were indisputably feathered. The
available fossils have moved us permanently beyond questioning whether some dinosaurs were feathered and onward to interpreting the implications of feathered dinosaurs.
Birds could rightly be viewed as a specialized type of dinosaur without implying birds evolved from dinosaurs
As evidence has been quickly mounting for feathered dinosaurs, creationists are becoming less inclined to go to the mats in opposition, - sort of “maybe they are, maybe they’re not, doesn’t really matter anyways” but this more explicit than the usual concession. Of course, these authors do not speak for all YEC.
Not sure now that sentence can be reconciled with itself.