Thursday, 27 January 2011

Possibly creationism's best ever attempt to explain feathered dinosaurs

Almost every creationist argument is based on the assumption that Genesis is an account of actual events, and that the bible is the word of God and therefore the only truth. This is one of the main reasons why all their attempts at science have failed, because they only look for 'evidence' which is remotely compatible with their own assumptions. Alternatively they look for 'evidence' (a term we should use very loosely in this case) that contradicts their own grotesque caricature of the theory of evolution, often based on misunderstanding, deliberate misinformation, and complete ignorance of reality.

The idea of dinosaurs with plumage has often ruffled the feathers of the creationist movement. They've never really tried to explain why dinosaurs have feathers at all. All previous attempts by creationists to explain can be summarised by at least one of these points :
  • In Genesis- birds were made on the 5th day, but God filled the land with animals on the 6th so birds must have come before dinosaurs. Look, it's in the Bible - which is the word of God because it says so in the Bible- therefore it's true.
  • When I don't inspect it closely, it looks more like a bird than a dinosaur. It's a bird.
  • Evolution is only a theory.
  • I don't know much about the natural world at all.

 However, after searching through I finally found an attempt at an explanation that tickled me.
Dinosaurs ate Birds. Birds have feathers. Dinosaurs therefore ate feathers. If you completely ignore every piece of scientific evidence which suggests that dinosaurs had feathers and completely ignore the context in which these these sort of observations should be made- it makes perfect sense.

If you want to know more about evolution, two books I'd highly recommend are Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters and Why Evolution Is True.


  1. I love asking cretards to give me a scientific alternative to evolution.. they're always going on about how evolution isn't scientific so it's funny when they say a magic wizard done it with a spell. LOL!

  2. If "atheists" want themselves to be taken seriously they shouldn't dogmatically adhere to every single ridiculous theory making the rounds unless they want themselves to be compared with creationists and Abrahamists in general. There is far more evidence that dinosaurs did not have feathers than there is evidence that they did. In fact, the "dinosaurs" whose (almost universally East Asian) fossils show what MAY be evidence of feathers are a bit on the bird side to begin with.

    As for the "main" dinosaurs like T-Rex and company, nope. Take Carnotaurus for example. We have fossilized evidence that he had reptilian skin and crocodile-like scales. But this is too much for atheists, they WANT TO BELIEVE just like the morons who believe in UFOs and again the creations who believe "god" made the world in 7 days and all that nonsense. You atheists and creationists are one in the same. So ironic.

    1. Couldn't the idea of dinosaurs with feathers line up with the Biblical account in stead of conflicting with it. Fish, birds (dinosaurs with feathers), then mammals that crawled on the earth?

    2. Damn, it takes a special kind of magical though process to insult paleontology by calling them dogmatic, when doing so from a christian perspective.

      When we talk about 'Dinosaur feathers' it's important to understand we are talking about progenitors to the modern feather, the reptilian-like scales are a part of this.
      The feathers root appears to have developed from protrusions from the scale-plating, that then expanded with recessive hair-like follicles producing multiple hair-tendrils - that in turn fused to form a stem with a 'tree like' pattern.
      The type four and five feathers used by modern avian are a much more highly refined example.

      It's like comparing a human hand to a marsupial Paw - there are common similarities but ours is a much more refined variation.

      None the less, the common ancestor between species with 'proto-feathers' is much further back than initially thought - unless it's a case of convergent evolutionary process (which is unlikely given the evidence), it seems possible these where grown in a similar fashion to hairs on modern animals.

      None the less, there's some evidence the common ancestors where early ornisaurs, but very little towards saurians.

      Scientific evaluation isn't based on dogma, it's based on evidence - If we find evidence all dinsaurs have feathers, we have to examine everything we have every done based on the assumption they didn't. We have to re-evaluate all our proof to ensure that we didn't make a mistake.

      Stupidity is based on never questioning existing proofs, believing something true because someone said it was.
      In short, if you show me evidence that gravity is made of peanuts, I will take apart every last one of Newtons Laws, Einsteins Equations, and everything else I have to see if peanuts fit into gravity.
      If the sum total of all my evidence shows peanuts don't fit - I'll ask you to show more evidence.
      If you can, It will instantly disprove everything I've ever believed about gravity.

      This is what paleontology is doing, consulting all the evidence available to figure out what creatures had feathers and what didn't.

    3. dogmaticor dogmatical
      [dawg-mat-ik, dog-]
      Spell Syllables
      Synonyms Examples Word Origin
      relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal:

      Dogmatic? Oh you mean "faith"?

      You theists keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

  3. Can they the YEC at least say that God help dinosaurs reach evolution?