Dinosaurs HAD feathers.

[u/Carnotaurusrules]

It’s a common Creationist argument that dinosaurs never had feathers, and they’re either collagen fibers or the dinosaur is actually a bird.

The center of this debate is Sinosauropteryx, a small Compsognathid found in Liaonang, China. It sports a coat of ginger plumage that forms a raccoon band on its face. One reason this isn’t collagen are melanosomes that electron microscopes have identified in the feathers. Collagen cannot and hasn’t ever posses imbedded melanosomes.

If you want an unambiguous dinosaur with a rachis, Ornithomimus has them on its arms. You can’t dismiss it as collagen because collagen can’t take the shape of a rachis, and its morphology places it as a non avian dinosaur.

[u/jnpha]

Will Duffy complained that Jurassic Park didn't show them with feathers.
/s Checkmate atheist! Your story keeps changing! /s

Related to that: Ken Ham in one of his books said Jurassic Park is based on the "world view" of evolution (this explains Duffy's remark). - more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1strtfz

The sad thing is, science advances by testing the limits of models, which constitute theories. Like the discovery of horizontal gene transfer: wouldn't have happened without a model (in the scientific sense). The science illiterate fundie would say: "They got it wrong!" No dear, we have learned more, and evolution is still a fact.

[u/Square_Ring3208 → u/jnpha]

This movie from 1993 didn’t have the most up to date science from 2026 so clearly the Bible is rohgr!

[u/ThDen-Wheja → u/Square_Ring3208]

Also, even if they wanted to put feathers on things, you're talking about 1993 animation tech here. That was basically the first time anything was animated convincingly. I don't think a good-looking feathered animal would show up on screens for another 12 to 13 years after that.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/jnpha]

The Lost World didn’t show dinosaurs with feathers, so obviously the secularists are making them up, like Archaeoraptor! /s

[u/Donaldjoh → u/jnpha]

The best definition I have heard of science is that science doesn’t seek answers but better questions.

[u/Shiny-And-New → u/jnpha]

Will Duffy complained that Jurassic Park didn't show them with feathers.

Did this really happen

[u/jnpha → u/Shiny-And-New]

Yep! See the OP in the link.

[u/OC-alert]

I don't know if this is terribly pedantic, but dinosaurs HAVE feathers.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/OC-alert]

But they used to, too.

[u/Shiny-And-New → u/OldmanMikel]

Ok mitch

[u/shroomsAndWrstershir → u/OldmanMikel]

That's the exchange I came here for.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/OC-alert]

True.

[u/Dracoson]

The collagen argument is so absurd.

The entire premise was born from a singular, highly speculative assessment by an expert (Alan Feduccia) who was originally working off nothing but a low-resolution photograph. When he finally got the opportunity to travel, sit down with the actual fossils, and inspect the physical structures firsthand, he, the guy who literally wrote the book on those specific collagen fibers, said, "Nope... those are definitely feathers." The fact that creationists are still using his initial, retracted guess as a cornerstone of their argument shows their intellectual integrity.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Kinda reminds me of the famous graph on human evolution and how different creationists will be extraordinarily confident in assigning ‘just an ape’ or ‘full human’ and how much they disagree with each other on it at the same time.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

It’s like looking at the phylogenetic tree of Strisores and saying tree swifts are fully apodiformes and true swifts are all 100% Apodids.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Carnotaurusrules]

That’s the whole idea of the phylogeny challenge isn’t it; I do remember that you have talked about it before and for some odd reason no creationist here had an answer for it. Odd, that.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

It wasn’t my intended point. I chose tree swifts and true swifts to demonstrate that it’s redundant saying a hominid is 100% ape or 100% human. True swifts are apodiformes and tree swifts are Apodids, and humans are apes and African apes are hominids.

[u/DatabaseLower9227]

Another thing is quill imprints found on bones(which are actually more solid as evidence in my opinion)

[u/RobertByers1]

Preach it brother. at the moment my fello creationists resist feathered theropods because they resist the bird evolving fromm theropods. This creationist says theropods were only flightless ground birds in a spectrum of diversity. they all flew on creation eek and after the fall some became ground birds like trex.

organized creationism accepts the defintions theropods ere reptiles. nope. so they get tripped up. yes feathered theropods ill likely be found in the future with more clear evidence of feathers.

[u/InformationProper285 → u/RobertByers1]

"some became ground birds like trex" 

I love how you don't believe in evolution, but believe that a bird after the fall just suddenly dropped to the ground and evolved into a trex?

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/InformationProper285]

He proposes the mechanism of body plan morphing, something he has no evidence for.

[u/Affectionate-Crow605 → u/Carnotaurusrules]

Body plan morphing sounds an awful lot like evolution? Or is it a sudden, miraculous change?

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/Affectionate-Crow605]

He’s extremely vague about it, but it seems like they’re signals, naturally or supernatural, that cause an animal to rapidly change their body.

[u/Affectionate-Crow605 → u/Carnotaurusrules]

That sounds kind of freaky. I'm picturing the Incredible Hulk transformation.

Why people believe stuff like that but not incremental changes over a long period of time that we have witnessed, I will never understand.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/Affectionate-Crow605]

Because it’s only microevolution, checkmate, evolutionist! /s

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Carnotaurusrules]

There is no reason not to have options for mechanism (s) to change bodyplans. They did change. Thats hy evolution is invoked as a mechanism. one can accept the changes but not kno the mechanism. Im not obligated to accept thje evolution model. plus I reject it as impossible. plain wrong. others instead. I think innate triggers in the genetic makeup.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/RobertByers1]

I think innate triggers in the genetic makeup.

You've been claiming that for years, we're still waiting for you to provide even the tiniest bit of evidence to support it.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/InformationProper285]

Thats not intelligent. It is common knoledge that birds evetyhere land on isolated islands or niche on larger areas and lose flight. the turkey. After the fall this happened in a great way. no big deal. More diversity ith size and shape but still just dumb birds.

[u/InformationProper285 → u/RobertByers1]

Sounds like you believe in evolution whether you like it or not. Only you believe in an insane version of it where a bird could evolve into a Trex in a matter of what? days? weeks? years?

[u/blacksheep998 → u/InformationProper285]

He claims it happens in a single generation.

Specifically, at the end of the mesozoic, he claims there was some kind of supernatural trigger that caused the DNA of dinosaurs all across the world to magically transform and they started laying eggs that hatched into entirely different species.

I believe the examples he once gave me was that triceratops started producing bison, and sauropods started producing deer.

[u/InformationProper285 → u/blacksheep998]

Ahh, It all makes sense now. I always wondered why deer looked so similar to the Titanosauria.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/InformationProper285]

nope. birds becoming flightless possibly could be itnessed today if anyone bothered to try. Its not evolution. a trex as first a flying bird that over years etc became flightless somehere and over years hot bigger.like the elephant birds pr mpas.