Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Birds Of A Feather Flock Together, Dinosaurs Excluded!

When it comes to reading recent articles on dinosaur studies, some mental gymnastics are involved to try to discover whether the author is writing about actual dinosaur fossils or just bird fossils. After all, evolutionists believe that birds are dinosaurs (as biblical creationists, we reject that assertion), so it can get confusing! So what should we make of a headline like this: “Dinosaur feathers may have been more birdlike than previously thought”?

Fossilized feathers look like feathers, research suggests.

Or maybe:

Fossilization may have altered feathers, research suggests.

But I suppose neither of those titles is as attention-grabbing as starting off with “dinosaur feathers.” But the original title is misleading. The researchers didn’t study fossilized dinosaur feathers and compare them with fossilized bird feathers—they compared fossilized bird feathers and fossilized bird feathers. In other words, they studied feathers!

You see, most of the so-called “feathered dinosaurs” were actually just . . . birds! And that likely includes Sinornithosaurus, the “feathered dinosaur” used in this study. Now, here’s a little background before we look at the popular summary of the study. A 2019 analysis of fossil feathers (supposedly from dinosaurs) found that

feathers from a flightless dinosaur mostly contained a different, more flexible form of the keratin protein that makes up modern bird beaks, scales and feathers. Researchers suggested then that feathers had evolved molecularly over time to become stiffer as birds — the last living dinosaurs — took to the skies.

Starting with God’s Word, we know that feathers didn’t evolve over time. They were created by God on day five of creation week when he created the various bird kinds. But evolutionists have to believe that feathers evolved, and this initial study seemed to suggest that some “dinosaur feathers” supposedly had a different molecular makeup than the feathers of birds.

But a new study attempted to mimic the fossilization process in the lab, and this team discovered that “fossilization can change feather proteins” making them appear to have a different molecular makeup when, in fact, these so-called “dinosaur feathers” were composed of the same keratin proteins as (other) bird feathers. This, of course, “raise[s] new questions about feather evolution.”

The researchers next examined a roughly 50-million-year-old bird feather and a 125-million-year-old feather from the nonavian dinosaur Sinornithosaurus. To their surprise, the bird feather seemed to consist mainly of alpha-keratins. Since it should have been rich in the beta variety, the team suspects that the proteins transformed during fossilization. The dinosaur feather, by contrast, contained mainly beta-keratins, suggesting it wasn’t exposed to enough heat to morph its proteins.

The simplest interpretation is that the distorting effects of fossilization led previous researchers astray in thinking dinosaur and bird feathers were so different molecularly.

While other researchers disagree with the conclusions of this study, I’m not surprised that feathers in the fossil record appear like feathers today! After all, these feathers didn’t evolve, and the creatures who wore them weren’t buried millions of years ago—they were buried during the global flood of Noah’s day just a few thousand years ago.

by Ken Ham on November 2, 2023
Answers in Genesis
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
It was the shape of the dinosaurs pelvis and their bone structuring that likened them to birds. Not feathers.

Keep trying Ken.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn [quote]It was the shape of the dinosaurs pelvis and their bone structuring that likened them to birds. Not feathers.
[/quote]

So? That doesn't mean anything. Dinosaurs are Dinosaurs and birds are birds. No evolution there. Keep trying, Ceinwyn.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 You’re not qualified to know. You have only your opinion.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn [quote] You’re not qualified to know. You have only your opinion.[/quote]

I know God's Truth on the subject and my opinion lines up with His Word.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 Just because you’ve read only one book, it doesn’t make you knowledgeable. Your posts attest to that.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn [quote]Just because you’ve read only one book, it doesn’t make you knowledgeable. Your posts attest to that.[/quote]

Those 66 books are the only solid Truth we have in this fallen world.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 Written and edited by people sometimes up to 300 years after the supposed events.

The Bible is as unreliable as Wikipedia.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn [quote]The Bible is as unreliable as Wikipedia.[/quote]

Without the Spirit of God, no man can interpret His Word. Regardless of what you may think of it, His Word remains the Truth.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 All lies. 🙂
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Without the Spirit of God, no man can interpret His Word. Regardless of what you may think of it, His Word remains the Truth.[/quote]

Have you overooked the passages that say that the God character is a deceiver and a liar? So, how can he be trusted?

[b][i][c=BF0000]From the river to the sea.[/c][/i][/b]
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn @Diotrephes [quote]All lies.[/quote]

Prove it, if you can.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 You want me to prove that you can read the Bible without being Christian?

I did that when I was 15.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Ceinwyn [quote]I did that when I was 15.[/quote]

You may have read His Word but you've never understood His message.
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 It’s bilge. Don’t need it.