What really gets me is that we continually see T-Rex depicted with feathers when they literally have never found a single feathered T-Rex fossil and have found many scaly skin T-Rex fossils.

When naming systems and definitions change, it means you have to opt-out from a starting position of being in. You see this with race, abortion, LGBT, etc.

TRUE STORY ! When I was in gradeschool I listened to Back To Genesis on the radio. When one of my teachers was seemingly forced to teach Evolution I hated it. During his class I would rebut Evolution with what I was learning from Ken Ham on the radio and my teacher would let me speak against Evolution for most of the class, adding comments like "can't argue with that" etc. Mr. Waddell was a GREAT teacher.

The best thing you did for your audience is the graphics... you really delivered the message home by visually presenting your arguments... Well done🙌

It's cool how changing the skeletal positioning of proven feathered theropods makes such a difference. They look like the birds they likely used to be and it is very interesting to see them that way (anatomically more in favor of bird-knee locomotion as I also learned from this video). Same with the wrist and tail differences, I have seen fossils of dinosaurs like velociraptor and noticed the tail segments were fused, that being a pygostyle as I've learned in this video. Maybe birds used these longer tails for mating rituals and communication similar to a Peacock's beautiful tail or for balancing akin to a roadrunner.

*Science has proven that one species changing into a different species is not only impossible, it's the MOST impossible idea that could ever be considered.*

Yep, as more data comes to light and as theories get more developed, scientists change their minds. And that’s a good thing.

eukaryotes: organisms with a membrane bound nucleus Animalia: organisms that consume organic mater, use oxygen in their metabolism, have muscles, form from a ball of cells, etc Chordate: any animal with a dorsal nerve cord, post anal tail etc Sauropsida: for simplicity sake ill call these the lizards. Thos is the breake from our own ancestry, we are Synapsids marked by differences in the skull Archosauria: simply put this group is everything from crocodiles to birds, but not things like iguanas or other reptiles. Categorized by traits like antorbital fenestra and serrated teeth. Avemetatarsalia: literally everything more closely related to a bird then an alligator. Dinosaurs: Triceratops, birds and everything in between. Theropoda: one of the last major clades to also include things AIG would say are dinosaurs. If you can "pose it to look like a bird. It's also i. This group. Ornithurae: this is the point at which aig would say "thats a bird" basicly anything in the above categories with a reduced bird like tail. However if I'm understanding this right these are still nonavian dinosaurs Lastly Aves: the modern birds. Not that genetics confirms the relationships we can trace from anatomy alone and that each of these levels and more that i didn't cover are all based on shaired features. Everything with a spine has a post anal tail, even if like in the case of humans this is reabsorbed in early development. For exsample birds have scails. They also still have the genetics required to develop teeth, just disabled by mutation.

They had cars, with no floors too

When i read the nature paper of recreating a fossil down to the microscopic exactness of what is found in the ground, but created in 1 day in a lab with just pressure, heat, and clay, that was the first proof that these fossils are perhaps not as old as proposed, since the mechanism for rapid fossilization was shown. The seond nail in the coffin for me was the research paper discussing soft tissue found in many dinosaur bones (6million year old fossils cannot have soft tissue). The paper claimed the red blood cells preserved them and the proof was a year long study of soft tissue in a jar soaked in blood - they only gave qaulitative analysis that after a year the soft tissue was "still present". A very weak result/claim for a preserving mechanism that is suppose to last 6 million years. The third nail in the coffin for me is that secular archeologists never carbon date these fossils because the assunption is that "they are so old that there is no C14, so no point in carbon dating". However, when these fossils are carbon dated, the dates come back usually around 20,000 years ago (so around the time of the last mega fauna die off - these carbon dates were of a large non bird dino, i cant remember the species that was tested, just that the testing laboratory/facility was not told it was a dinosaur - so there was no bias from the lab that did the work). All of this evidence combines to show that the very idea of dinosaurs in evolution is horribly wrong. I could go on with the fact DNA cannot mutate and remain stable, so mutations leading to different species has been proven to be scientifically impossible. And from an energy conservation standpoint, randomness does not create, we have no anti entropy mechanisms as this would violate energy conservation, so a disordered system could noy create order. But i will end this long winded comment here.

They all need prayer and Jesus

Bro what? You acknowledged that dinosaurs like Microraptor have feathers (and acknowledged that Microraptor was a dromaeosaur) and then said dinosaurs have no feathers.

Draemosurids looks isn't crocodile like.. it's rather bird like. It's Divergent kind. Prehistoric planet dinosaurs are the most best accurate looks currently. And most theropods had lips not the Jurassic Park lipless. Most dinosaurs are warm blooded not like reptile that's cold blooded. The hands should position like a clapping position. It's not like Jurassic Park hand position

Feathers in dinosaurs is not only possible, but it’s proven. I’m a Creationist through and through, but the fossil record shows these animals had feathers. Just not big animals like Tyrannosaurus. But Deinochierus, Yutyrannus, and Beipiasaurus have fossil evidence of feathers. They just didn’t evolve into birds, birds are just a type of dinosaur. Avian dinosaurs.

God bless you all brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ🙏🙌. When I see you 👀 I can see Kevin.

So with this established what about the massive raptorids like Utahraptor, Achillobator, Therizinosaurus, or Oviraptor that could range from horse up to the size of an elephant. Were they somewhere between the mix of birds capable of flight with beaks? Or Un-flying dinosaurs such as Ostriges, Emus, and Penguins? Not to mention why is the difference in these extinct birds the tail is so much longer then the average bird tail? (Despite being thin) and How come we don’t see these long bird tail skeleton structures today? 🤔 what did the birds use long tails for?

9:43 They similarly bungle the concept of clades. Linnean taxonomy and clades are similar ways of thinking about animals. Linnaeus taxonomy focuses on observable features and resembles creatures’ genetics.

My first critique of this video is that the changing of language it accuses scientists of using to fit their world view is exactly what the video here does at the end. You took what was called dinosaurs and changed them to fit into the birds. This was not purposed in a very articulate way that was compelling to be the correct way to categorize these creatures because it isn't exactly far off from what scientists believe anyways. The ways that the video categorizes birds is also very weak. Because you can simply change the pose of any dinosaur or any creature for that matter and paint over the bones in any way you want the creature to look like. The video also fails to try and make the information they are presenting as palatable for everyone. For instance they don't go into full detail as for the reasonings scientists change some definitions. The video presents evolutionists as people who actively go out of their way to change names and definitions to fit a narrative. Which isn't the case. For instance with feathers. The logic of the feather structure is a key feature in what differentiates birds from dinosaurs would also mean that porcupines are less mammal due to having quills (which are modified hairs). We see this in the real world and it is not groundbreaking to suggest that feathers are somehow modified scales. The video also seems to fail at understanding at exactly what science is and i think hurts the point they are trying to make rather than helping it. The video claims that simply because we have not found a in between form of feathers that the process of feathers deriving from dinosaurs is impossible. This seems disingenuous at best and they blatantly show feathered dinosaurs and pass it off as possibly a structure that was under the skin. This is obviously very ignorant to do. I think many issues we have in this world, science being one of them, is the problem of definitions, language, terminology, and the way we perceive. One issue is, back before we discovered the first dinosaur bone, the word dinosaur had not existed. It had no meaning. It was only after we discovered dinosaur fossils was the word created. However had we known of their existence from the beginning they would have been called something else. Some people believe that the word dragon is what dinosaurs were called biblically or even across the world culturally due to them finding fossils on their own and that sparking the myth of dragons. Terminology is the root of all of these problems as well as how and when we perceive them. We could also have an argument over exactly what the Bible means by "kind" because it is so vague and nonspecific because the words we use today to classify animals did not exist back then. We did not have scientists back then learning the details that differentiate animals from one another which is why they relied on obvious attributes. Which is exactly the kind of classification this video is trying to push. Which is equivalent to saying that a gun is not a weapon because its not a spear or sword and doesn't resemble any weapon from the past. And only when there was some other cultural significance was special classification was given. The only way for everything to make sense is to have a complete reset of terminology, and as consequence taxonomy as a whole as well so that everything is on the same page. No more biased naming which has this Telephone effect where words do or don't change despite new knowledge coming up. The truth of our world never changes, we all just must try our best at understanding it. Science is the serious attempt at learning theses truths, and sometimes being humans we get it wrong. But we may never fully know the truth. This is evident from the very process of paleontology. We thought dinosaurs were literal lizards that walked on all fours sprawled. Now we know they stood upright. And there are endless examples of this. This is all to say that I do not believe this video addresses the issue we have with taxonomy in a compelling way and makes hypocrites of themselves by doing the exact same thing they accuse scientists of doing. This is also to say that I myself am a Christian and I have been tirelessly trying to make sense of our world myself and when i find videos like this I feel like we are back tracking and its disheartening. I believe there is a better way at understanding the world from a Christian point of view, but asking everyone to go back to an objectively privative way of classification will only alienate us from the rest of the world even more. And before anyone says we should not try and merge the two views, the way the world sees us when we make these kinds of videos is as if we are telling them to deny the very floor they walk on and we look unintelligent when we do this. Even in this video I could tell that these people did not do any research in the things they are talking about because they did not give any time explaining both sides. Which would have been the more educated thing to do. Do your research, explain both sides, then present evidence to support your view then let everyone else decide for themselves what they want to better believe. Which the video tried to do but then stopped a fifth of the way. Which is disingenuous to do if you truly believe your point of view.

Very interesting and well said. Thank you 😊 And I would like to hear more about it

Awesome video. Love all the hard science and the in depth explanation of the material. Please do more just like this, love y'all

The meaning of words changes over time. So?

I love this format to get the concept across. Thank you

Emu and Ostrich move through large muscles at the hip. Straight wrist. So Emu and Ostrich are not birds? Or are you saying they are Dinos?

More on this subject, please. Thank you!

You guys always bring the receipts. I love you guys! You're doing God's work.

It is refreshing to hear science based on searching for truth. Thanks for your work.

Please look at “Stabilization Theory” by Dr Eugene McCarthy. You both ask some similar questions and make similar observations. Also check out Dr Bob Horners Ted Talk about juvenile dinosaurs.

Thank you. Love this channel! PtL!

Thank you.

GOD bless in JESUS name

Good stuff! I enjoyed learning about the philosophies behind the changes. One thing I know is the truth doesn't change. The biblical account of creation is the same as it was way back when.

Could the "filaments" actually have been hairs?

How do birds like the ostrich or the emu fit into this?

Since no definitive dinosaurs with feathers have appeared in the fossil record-only dinosaurs with fuzzy-looking collagen fibers that do not qualify in any way as transitional feathers-many evolutionists seeking to explain the evolution of feathers would like to find transitional evolutionary forms. Microraptor did not help their case.---Aig

By your criteria, Deinonychus and Velociraptor would qualify as birds, too.

Very interesting! I have been fascinated by Dinosaurs since childhood. I've always been skeptical about Dinos being feathered. Yes, please do more about this subject.

great explanation of the differences between dinos and birds

Great work. Keep em coming

How do these evolutionary scientists explain the cold blooded system of reptiles and the warm blooded circulatory system. Birds don’t necessarily like the cold however they don’t become lethargic in cold weather either.

real gold for all the non believers

You two play well together! Very well done!

I heard hip structure and bone structure (density) are significant differences.

Great Video. It always surprises me the amount of bones they find compared to the bones they assume.

thank you.. great differenciaton

why did you start using ai thumbnails

It's kind of funny to think that people who believe in a talking snake would try to criticize anyone else's ideas about animals.

YES! I for one would love to see more of what you've worked on for three years! God's people must prepare for this battle because we are coming late to the fight in many cases. THANK YOU ALL and may God bless your efforts.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but did these two just confirm that birds once had toothed mouths, clawed hands, and were primarily terrestrial? ...are we sure that evolution doesn't exist? 😅

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, how come there are still monkeys?

I don't think that feathers on Dinosaurs contradicts creation but when they try to claim that anatomical bird are dinosaurs it gets pretty ridiculous

For me , it seems that there is a mental block that occurs in classifying animals , the taxanomic system developed by Carolus Lineaus was a categorization tool used to make it easier to study and classify animals , but it does not mean that the animals grouped together are in any way related , its like a library , you may have a book labeled ducks and it might be right next to a book labeled ducts , just because we group them together for our ease of access and understanding does not make them related outside of the alphabetical order system , it is much the same in taxonomy , evolutionists look at homology and see ancestral relation , young earth creationists look at homolgy and see common solutions to common life problems by a common creator , but the taxonomic classification system has set a bias in most people's minds due to how it has been used , for example , a hummingbird and an eagle are both classified as birds due to homology , feathers beaks , ect.. , but a humming bird is no more related to an eagle ancestraly than it is to an elephant , it was created separately from the eagles and therefore despite being similar in so many aspects , it and the eagle aren't weren't and never will be related accept in homologous classification just as ducks and ducts are in no way related outside of alphabetical order, in order to embrace biblical creation, you must understand that, taxonomic classification is not the same as ancestral classification , just because monitremes lay eggs doesnt make them related to birds , same with reptiles , im going to coin a new term here and call this CONVERGENT CREATION , everyone understands the concept of Ocham's razor simplest explanation, likeliest explanation, marsupial moles and true moles have nearly identical tools for their nearly identical lifestyles, evolutionists call this convergent evolution, their similar but unrelated, creationists need to look past the current taxonomic system if they wish to understand classification correctly , a person in the previous comments pointed out that the "birds " ie archeopteryx ect.. have different anatomical features from birds that are still around ( fyi , clawless birds with no tails or teeth have been found alongside dinosaurs claimed to be their ancestors, so modern birds could also be called prehistiric too ) using the hummingbird/ eagle argument I'd ask is the hummingbird related to archeopteryx ? Not according to creationists, so dont get caught up in defining all encompassing words such as bird or dinosaur , cows arent related to horses , triceratops aren't related to ankylosaurs, eals aren't related to salmon , crickets aren't related to dragonflies,( is starting to make sense ?) Therefore, microraptor may be classified in either dinosaurs or birds , but no matter where you put it , microraptor is uniquely and fearfully and wonderfully made in its own kind, just as the hummingbirds , just as the eagles , just as the tyrranosaurids, just as the canines ect... , the taxonomic classification system is tremendously beneficial in organizing our vast planet into digestable chunks for study and education, but that's it , cows and horses both have hair and hooves but there is no ancestral link , microraptors and eagles have no ancestral link yet they both have feathers, triceratops and t-rex both have scales but they arent ancestraly related , so if we discover a (taxonomicaly classified) dinosaur ( or any other creature) with fur or feathers or milk giving abilities or gills, and this doesn't fit the original taxonomic definition, don't sweat it , God's masterpieces dont give a hoot about your classification system , it's no more earth shattering than finding out that the unrelated eagle and hummingbird both have feathers , it is cooler though, because I'm a huge dino nerd . In conclusion, yes , evolutionists have been jumping through hoops to make definitions work for their theories, but feathered creatures on day six , ie ostriches or feathered/furry dinosaurs ( or feathered frogs ;) is , as far as I can tell , as acceptable as flying creatures without feathers alongside feathered flyers, ie pterosaurs , bats , flying insects . The bible simply states that the flying creatures, ( not emus etc.. ) and fowls of the air were created on day five alongside the aquatic creatures, it never said that the day six creatures didn't have feathers . A feathered dinosaur cannot shake my belief in young earth creationism , in fact it'd be cool , i hope they discover some with fur , that would be epic! Every kind of creature is uniquely created by a common designer to live in a common world , to fulfil common roles and meet their common needs , no wonder so many are similar, like I said at the beginning how you see something determines how you perceive it , im sure an evolutionists will find this note absurd to the highest degree, because, they don't start at the same point ( creator god ) so they cant end at the same point ( special design ) thats ok , don't let anyone tell you whats true , go and find out for yourself, test and prove , absolute truth exists , but only you can convince yourself of that , I'd challenge you to thoroughly research evolution and yung earth creationism on an unbiased footing and draw your own conclusions, i did that and I think this , good luck with your journey

Do you know any birds that have teeth or a bony tail like Archaeopteryx? No? Gee, it’s like a transitory phase between non-avian and avian dinosaurs!

So I'd dinosaurs and bird both can't have feathers well being different kinds explain why cats and moles have fur are you suggesting mammals are all one kind.

I can think of a modern exsample of "changing kinds." Look at the mudskipper. It's a fish that spends most of it's time out of water and can and will climb trees to stay out of the water. It's clearly not just a fish. It's like what you would expect if the first terrestrial vertabrates had been ray finned fish instead of lobe finned. Life style wise it is clearly much more like an amphibian then a fish.

Thank you for your hard work. All of you at Answers In Genesis always provide such great resources to defend our faith and hope in God Almighty.😊

Oh geez, scientific nomenclature has changed? News flash: that’s the way science works. Experts in the field devote their life to study esoteric subjects then occasionally get together to discuss findings and attempt to find consensus. Religion on the other hand holds on to beliefs in many cases of ideas put forth by people thousands of years ago and clings to that.

Comment to feed the algorithm.

11:00 WOW! I appreciate this clarification. Keep up the good work! HalleluYAH!!!

There was a KJV biblical animal called a Cockatrice. A Lizard chicken type species.

Wow this is great! I have been following you guys for years. But I haven't seen any of your published work in peer reviewed papers or journals. Where is your nobel peace prize for this discovery? Why would everyone but you be in on this conspiracy 🤔

thank you so much for this video! ive needed it for a while, im a creative writing a fantasy setting very much based off of the biblical explanation for history, research has been difficult on this specific topic for revitalizing extinct animals, and designing unique ones when it comes to dinosaurs, so thank you

This great! Could you do a video on Jack Horners Chickenosaurus project?

Good job pointing out the linguistic malfeasance. It's an easy trick to miss if you're not on the look out.

That's as blatant of a misrepresentation of their theories and animal description. You downplay the amount of feather evidence and then downplay the fact those dinosaurs do still have tails, so you're already wrong. Unless you can show me birds with tails. But the amount wrong with this outcome is too large to debate online. Would be an interesting debate. Though I always find it annoying that both sides have to misrepresent each other and always bad faith arguments.

Great video! Thank you for this content! I would love to see a roundtable discussion with Creationists like Matt McLain or Marcus Ross who believe that some dinosaurs had feathers. I believe that would be very informative. Thanks again AiG for all of the work you do! God Bless 🙏

And also, the term Dinosaur just came into existence, before that they were always Dragons. Yes Dragons that they said never existed.

Phylogenetic is literally based on how similar the dna between two animals is. With a hand full of exceptions where the new evidence has moved a few species over a branch or two it lines up with the relationships we where able to draw from morphology alone. Birds fit comfortably in the category of theropods. These aren't arbitrary classifications like "fish" but diagnostic.

I knew birds were not dinosaurs but didn't know why so I love how you broke it down so simply! I also loved your graphics and showing the skeletons posed differently. That was really cool and powerful to show how scientists can distort facts to push their assumptions.

Thank you for the video. Valuable information. I had a bit of trouble understanding Dr. Gabriela's accent.

By the way, where did Gabriela Haynes get her PhD for Paleontology and Geology? All I’ve found about her is that she is a researcher at AiG. Which is an insurance company.

If you don't think birds are related to dinosaurs then you've never seen a Cassowary. 😂

Wow absolutely one of the best videos on this topic. Thank you

Regional University of Cariri, the school of Dr. Gabriela Haynes country rank 129 world rank 5442

Yes. Science changes its model when the evidence changes.

Great information!

Have the evolutionists ever considered that the similarities they see between different types of animals like the claws on birds and reptiles and the similarities between apes and humans are there because we all have the same creator?

I like this a lot. I didn't realize the evolution myth they perpetrate could be made to look so real just by posing skeletons differently. don't archeologists put work into understanding rest positions and range of motion based on bone structure?

My chickens are clearly little dinosaurs. They act like the creatures in the movies, which clearly means they act like dinosaurs did, not that movies base dinosaurs behavior on hunting birds. And I know a chicken is not a raptor, but a lot of bugs and small rodents have also "known" that right before falling to a spur.

Great analysis

Thank you for all the work you do. I often save your videos for when I need to reference them during conversations with non-believers.

First, יוֹם “Yom” is not “Day” a 24hr, Earth spin, as it is in modern Hebrew. I recommend reading it in modern English as “Age”. It is a finite time you use ‘day’ in this sense when you say “in my day” or “in that day”. So, although when KJV translated to ‘Yom’ to ‘day’ it was not a bad translation it was one that has become archaic. Feel free to blame the Enemy; I do. Second, if the the current evolutionary model is correct, the animals of the modern age do appear on the timeline chart in the order of the Genesis, because it doesn’t say the _fish_ of the sea and the _birds_ of the air, then the _reptiles_ and _mammals_. It says let the waters abound/teem with swarming life (not fish) and let the ‘עוֹף’ “ophs” “flyers” swarm the air, then in the next _day_ / yom / *age* comes the ‘בְּהֵמָה’ “behemaw” “beast”, and the ‘רֶמֶשׂ⁠’ “remes” “swift things” (this word has been used for sea creatures and land creatures). Third, they didn’t change dinosaur from a reptile that walks up right, the earliest reconstructions was for the large quadruped; the early iguanodons, being reconstructed right in the middle of ‘dinosaur’ becoming a term of art was a quadruped. Fourth, you’re redefining ‘bird’ throughout the time when ‘bird’ even was a word in English separate from scientific jargon, it meant feathered, egg laying, scaled footed, *beaked* creatures, here you tossed out a key anatomical feature to pull in all these fossils that bird-like, but with dinosaur heads. Fifth, the avians have been found pin feather holes in the bones of dromaeosaurs, which is why they have guessed the feathers existed, but have not been preserved as impressions. Sixth, your feather is a pin feather, found on flying birds, the feathers that are found on large non flying birds are much more like those theorizes to have existed on the large non flying avian dinosaurs. Seventh, you use a number of logical fallacies like the _ad hominem_ in phrases like “…you guys are smart; you can probably….” you undermine your ability to appeal to anyone not already believing what you have to say.

Please more on the Dino and birds

TL;DR You bring up many misunderstood functions of science, most notably it's frequency to change, and try to use these as a discredit to the evolutionary theory. you pose the idea that despite masses of information, some of which you even use, that it somehow doesn't equate to a single book which has also endured edits in response to cultural stimulus. you frequently use terms that are not of an evolutionist diction but are from a creationists vocabulary, such as "kinds". I do not wish to be unkind, as such things are not needed, but it might serve you to better understand the information from both sides of this discussion before you attempt to half use science as a means to disprove it. below are some of my notes from this video. 2 mins in and we've already arrived at the first argument. I'll say this, at least it's direct to the point. your first argument is, evolutionists (let's ignore the mountains of supporting material on this for now) birds came from dinosaurs, but our one book says the opposite, so clearly evolutionists must be wrong. without getting offensive here, this seems like an unbalanced statement, why is one argument better or worse than another if both provide the same written (i use this term very lightly here) evidence. Right on cue, argument number 2 - evolutionists change definitions. Unlike doctrine which is a finality, an exact and unquestionable position, science changes in support of new information. consider this option, start with a question and work your way backwards to an answer rather than starting with an answer and fabricating the information to fit. for example, you find yourself on a dessert island, in front of you is a scrunched up piece of paper with the word "help". would you deduce from this, that some supernatural power had washed that letter to your shore or that it had probably been there due to some natural process and if so what and how. straight into issue 3, as i said earlier, you guys are quick. "Kinds" is not an evolutionary statement, creationists use this to differentiate between dogs and cats for example, where every breed of dog is a different form of the same "kind". evolutionists acknowledge this as a more granular pace, smaller changes within one population changing their traits over generations until variations within the population arise and eventually split the population. think of this a gradient that goes from black to white, it's easy to say where black or white is as they sit at both ends, but it's not possible to define the exact point in which black stops being black and white starts. any segment you pull form that line is arbitrary, which is also one of the reasons why evolutionists conflict and overlap with each other as to what counts as a species. the house of cards is required - sadly not true, if you toppled all of it, the terms and the talk, there is still mountains of information to distinguish the development of this track, this also comes back to how science changes over time as only a few decades ago it wasn't the general agreement that birds and dinosaurs were that closely related, but new information prompts better understanding. there seems to be quite the hold on this last point, that science changes over time, so let me give you a for instance. the bible states (depending on which version you read) that those of a black skin color are that way due to their inherent sin. as a result, culture saw no issue with slavery as they were demonized away from humans. since the abolishment of slavery, many bibles have been reprinted to omit this portion of the book. in much the same way, one stimulus gives rise to a need for change, leading to a better understanding overall. hopefully you can follow that and understand that science is not too different from this, old information is changed and replaced by better and newer information. I'll not speak for the feather evolution graphic as without cited reference for the source, i can't say what or where that information came from but a basic principal of evolution is that no structure is ever a half formed purpose, there are no partially formed eyes or legs or wings, each structure has to have a function and a use in it's entirety. you use the dinosaur bones as a great example here actually, the differences in structure in the early stages would make both bones difficult to distinguish but as the structures change over time this difference becomes more and more pronounced. you then start to use homology to acknowledge the difference between birds and dinosaurs, (one bone, two bones, little bones, long bones) If you have read this far, thank you. please feel free to correct any information i may have misconstrued or misinterpreted in a reply.

Answers in Genesis. Please make a video about which creatures that are classified as Dromaeosaurid are either TRUE Dromaeosaurid Dinosaurs or are actually birds. Especially with that whole arm/hand thing.

The skeletal drawings and pose comparisons were interesting and persuasive. There’s also an alternative (or potentially adjunct) hypothesis. Consider the book of Enoch as referred to in Jude and 2 Peter as well as the Genesis 6 discussion (including the implication some genetic games might have been being played before the flood and that the destruction of those genetic mutants might have been part of the judgment - ie ‘kinds’ that were not ‘perfect’ in their generation). I’m not saying it’s necessarily right, but it’s worth considering or at least accepting that alternate hypotheses exist. In saying this, I’m aware of the Job references, which seem to suggest that God did create at least one large land animal and sea animal that we would call a dinosaur. That doesn’t mean, however, that there weren’t also genetic games played with the created animals to come up with hybrids.

Thank you for explaining the 17:13 difference between cladistics and naming based on anatomy. It makes all the difference. These days there is science and then there is 'science' pretending to be science. No wonder people are confused.

10:41 without knowing what species this is, If you can use the same skeleton in different poses & not tell if its a bird or a therapod, wouldn't that suggest that they are in fact related?

I found a study from 2020 where they describe a stage 3 feather from the late cretaceous of Myanmar.

You should do one on Crocodilians and archosaurs.

The only way to make a missing link is with imagination.

Awesome!!!

And you all believe that everything was created in seven days, and all we see is only six thousand years old. Wow! Nuff said

Where can a Believer find that and drawing of the repositioned 'feathered dinos' into birds?

Aiya... where to begin? The first argument presented - that we can't trust evolutionary science because our understanding of how the world works has changed over time, is a problematic one. The fact is, all sciences are constantly revising as new feedback and information become available, and rejecting one particular field because it doesn't fit a cherished worldview shows more about the presenter's bias than it does anything else. The presenters then move on to list some very arbitrary qualifiers for dinosaurs and birds, as well as glossing over the fact that different feather types exist, even in modern birds. But, when it comes to their criteria for what is a dinosaur and what is a bird, why not make clawed hands or toothless beaks a defining feature? Because then suddenly all of their "birds" would become dinosaurs again. Saying "Look! There are differences, therefore these aren't dinosaurs!" doesn't make sense. Of course there are differences between maniraptoria and therapods, just like there are differences between therapods and ceratopsians - that doesn't suddenly mean that ceratopsians aren't dinosaurs anymore. As for a couple of their other points: "Dinosaurs have scales" - so do birds, just take a look at their feet. "Feathers would get in the way of the animal catching things with it's hands" - most dinosaurs did not use their hands to catch things, they used their mouth (much like many modern birds). I genuinely can't tell if these presenters are being dishonest, or if they are so indoctrinated that they are unable to see anything other than what they want to. Sorry guys, but this was wrong on so many levels...

Why does bird DNA still have the unexpressed genes for making teeth?

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs but you believe they lived 6000 years ago?

What about the beak though?

You two are fantastic teachers! Thank you ❤

Of course, saw an iguana turn into a condor last Monday. 🤪☘️

This is actually quite humorous, as on another one of your videos, David Menton acknowledges that velociraptors, deinonychus, caudipteryx, sinornithosaurus, etc., etc., not only have feathers, but that they are in fact birds! He even makes a bit of a Freudian slip, saying, "if a dinosaur has feathers, it's a bird." Luckily he realized what he had just said, and saved himself brilliantly by saying, "and of course dinosaurs are not birds." Lol. I also find it odd that apparently Menton cannot tell the difference between an early bird skeleton, and a non-avian dinosaur skeleton such as a dromeosaur, unless there are remnants of feathers. He also quite dishonestly kept comparing _modern_ birds to non-avian dinosaurs, instead of comparing _early_ birds, such as archaeopteryx(if that's still considered a bird, I can't remember) and derived theropod like troodontids and dromeosaurs. Then you've got another article, written by(I think?) Todd Wood, saying not only that some dinosaurs had feathers, but also saying that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that squirrels or elephants are a subset of mammals. To suggest that these derived theropods did not have feathers is just completely dishonest/disengenuous, and is on no way at all based on the science/evidence, but instead(like everything else AIG puts out), is based entirely on their bedrock assumption that (their particular interpretation of) the Bible is perfect, inerrant, and infallible. I highly encourage anyone here who thinks Ken Ham and AIG are right to look into the science/evidence themselves(as opposed to having it filtered through YECist "God Glasses" by the apologists at places like AIG) and objectively examine the evidence and arguments of YECist, as compared to that of the actual scientists who are doing this research, and have studied the fossils themselves, and went to school for 8+ years, and thus know things that you and I don't, instead of reading an online article by an astronomer or something, claiming to disprove the entire scientific consensus on a given subject.