How Have Young Earth Creationists Responded to Feathered Dinosaurs?

The fossilized remains of feathers attached to a bony tail preserved in a 99 million year old amber fossil has recently captured international attention. This isn’t the first time that feathers have been found in amber but earlier feather finds were found in isolation. This time they are attached to a structure which has been identified as the tail of a small dinosaur.  These are clearly feathers by any general definition, however, they are morphologically distinct from any feather of birds alive today and they certainly are not flight feathers.


It’s a wonderful discovery and probably just the beginning of many future discoveries. Feathers are very scarce in the fossil record. They decay easily and even when preserved they are preserved without enough detail to tell us much about them.  For many years is was assumed that all dinosaurs had skin much like reptiles alive today. But it seems this view is partially due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record, a lack of attention paid to possible feathers, and technological constraints.  Some fossils found long ago have recently been re-examined and found to contain evidence of preservation of feather remains in part because we have far better tools for examining fossils and because scientists now realized it might be worth looking for them. But it is the discovery of exceptionally preserved fossils in one region of China since 2000 that has done the most to change our view of dinosaurs.

A microscopic look at the dinosaur tail feathers. (Royal Saskatchewan Museum (RSM/ R.C. McKellar)

A microscopic look at the dinosaur tail feathers. (Royal Saskatchewan Museum (RSM/ R.C. McKellar)

The Young-earth creationist’ (YEC) response to feathered dinosaurs

Over the past decade a flood of new fossils and continued studies of old fossils has built a stronger and stronger case that many dinosaurs – particularly the theropods – had at least some form of feathery plumage not related to the ability to fly. The first response of YECs was denial.  Fossils were either fakes or the feathers weren’t really feathers.  But the onslaught of fossils has forced them to respond over and over and come up with new arguments.  As you will see below they have softened on some points and greatly expanded their definition of what constitutes a bird to accommodate the new feathered fossils.

But let’s allow the YECs to respond with their own words.  What I have done is copied the last summary paragraph of many articles over the past 10 years.   Yes, the context is missing in some cases but the general flavor of their conclusions should be apparent and I have provided links to the original articles if you want to know the full context.  Below all of these quotes I will summarize their responses and speculate about what I believe their response to this latest feathered dinosaur find will be.

Fossil Fibers Befuddle Dinosaur Evolution.  Brian Thomas 2009 M.S. (Institute for Creation Research)

There is no such thing in the real world as a feathered dinosaur. The news that this non-theropod dinosaur had fibers just adds more scientific evidence to corroborate the historical evidence that dinosaurs were created, not evolved.

What if dinosaurs really had feathers?  Elizabeth Mitchell (M.D.)  2015. (Answers in Genesis)

Zhenyuanlong was a big bird, now extinct but preserved in the geologic record of the global Flood, a catastrophe that buried it and countless other animals under tons of sediment. Zhenyuanlong is not a blow to biblical belief but a testimony to the avian diversity of the pre-Flood world.

Feathered Raptors: Not the Birds (AiG, no author) 2007

It would be reading far too much into this story to say that evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been discovered; all we have here are six questionable indentations in a fossil bone allegedly from a velociraptor (not that we’re casting doubt on the researchers’ integrity; we simply recognize the role presuppositions and evolutionary dogma play in classifying and extrapolating on fossils, as well as the desire for many media outlets to trumpet evolutionary “proofs” long before they’re given a chance to be thoroughly studied). We eagerly await further research into the find.

Another feathered dinosaur?  News to Note (no author), 2007

The problem is, with the bones unlikely to be examined by a creationist paleontologist anytime soon, Gigantoraptor will no doubt be added to the list of “missing links” between dinosaurs and birds. Scant fossils are increasingly being shoehorned into evolutionary roles, with fanciful extrapolations trumping careful analysis of actual unearthed bones; this treatment yields what are often little more than modern-day “Nebraska men.”

Is Jurassic World Wrong for Portraying Dinosaurs without Feathers? Avery Foley 2015 (M.S. biblical studies) AiG.  I have written about this article before: The Dangers of Poor Scholarship: A Creationist’s take on Feathered Dinosaurs.

Did dinosaurs have feathers? In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs. Currently the evidence does not support the idea that dinosaurs were covered in feathers. Now while we may not know for sure what dinosaurs looked like, what we do know is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. They—like dinosaurs—were specially created by God in the beginning to reproduce according to their kind.

Was Tiny Feathered Creature Dinosaur or Bird?  Elizabeth Mitchell,  2013

The fossil record does not reveal an evolutionary progression in feather development, nor does it reveal transitional animals that are part bird and part dinosaur. The order of fossils in the fossil record is largely a record of the order various creatures were buried when their habitats were overcome by the rising waters of the biblical global Flood. This happened in the space of a few weeks, not millions of years. The presumed millions of years are based on unverifiable assumptions. Thus the fossil record does not demonstrate that birds evolved from dinosaurs, just as in the history of biology, no scientific observations have ever shown a way that dinosaurs could acquire the genetic information to make the dramatic changes that would have been necessary to evolve into birds.

Feathered Dinosaurs Found in Canada? Elizabeth Mitchell, 2012

Given the lack of visible feathers, the data about these ornithomimids remains inconclusive. Without definitive feathers, they may just be dinosaurs. Or they may be extinct birds, descendants of the birds God made in the beginning. God made all kinds of birds on the 5th day of Creation week and land animals such as dinosaurs on the 6th. And nothing about this study demonstrates the evolution of feathers or the evolution of birds.

A Feathered Dinosaur? “Kids Answers” Page (AiG), 2008

 Although no actual feathers were found with the velociraptor fossil (or any other dinosaur fossil, for that matter), it may be that some dinosaurs had feathers. But this group of animals would merely be a kind of feathered reptile—descendants of the animals that God created in the beginning. Feathers on reptiles have nothing to do with proving that one kind of animal changed into another kind. They just show the creativity and diversity of our wonderful Creator God!

One-Ton ‘Feathered’ Dinosaur? 2012  Brian Thomas M.S.  (Institute for Creation Research)

The famous Chinese dinosaurs probably began rotting as they were transported in Noah’s Floodwaters only 4,500 or so years ago, even as modern carcasses rot. The soluble flesh rotted first, leaving behind more resistant fibers that were then fossilized.
As is the case with other famous claims of Chinese fossil dinosaur “feathers,” these are more straightforwardly interpreted as being the fossilized fragments of partly decayed skin. Researchers compared the fossil fibers to skin filaments from decaying carcasses, and found an excellent match.
Why would so many headlines report that fossil feathers are present? Scientists themselves are not certain that the filaments are actually feathers. And a better explanation fits.

Dinosaurs Designed without Feathers   Tim Clarey Ph.D (Geology) ICR  2016

While a “feathered” dinosaur would fit the evolutionary worldview, this theory is not supported by data-driven science. Like Scansoriopteryx, the true feathers and unusual body dimensions of Z. suni do not add up to a dinosaur but rather a bird. Again and again, fossils support that birds were birds and dinosaurs were dinosaurs from the moment of creation, just as Genesis says.

Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?  Frank Sherwin M.A. and Brian Thomas M.S.

A feathered dinosaur may someday be discovered. But even then, feathers on a dinosaur would not solve evolution’s biophysical impasse of converting a reptile skeleton into that of a bird. And so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is much better interpreted as decayed skin fibers. Overall, fossils show that dinosaurs and birds have always been separate creatures.12 And this is exactly what one would expect if dinosaurs and birds were created separately, each to reproduce “after their kind.”

Four-winged Dinosaur Definition Doesn’t Fly  Brian Thomas M.S. 2014

Perhaps like the recent author who reverted back to calling a long-time bird a dinosaur after a second look at the evidence,2 these evolutionary researchers may one day regret having referred to Changyuraptor as a “four-winged dinosaur.” Changyuraptor had none of the transitional features required to morph a real dinosaur into a bird. True, it was unlike any of today’s familiar birds, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. In this case, bird wings and feathers don’t make a dinosaur, but rather an exquisitely well-fashioned four-winged flying bird.

A summary of responses: 

There are three themes in YEC responses:  1) The dinosaurs are really birds, 2) The feathers are just filaments of decaying skin/scales, and 3) fossils are possibly fakes or hybrids of birds and dinosaurs.   Sometimes they appeal to all three in these articles these quotes come from.

But the weight of evidence that many dinosaurs had a minimum some kind of downy plumage is becoming overwhelming in recent years.  What I am seeing is a fourth caveat thrown into many articles which states that the Bible doesn’t say that dinosaurs couldn’t have feathers and so if they are found this would just show dinosaurs were more diverse than we thought.  I can’t help but wonder though, if they really believe that fuzzy or feathered dinosaurs aren’t a problem then why have they put up such strong resistance to every new fossil find that seems to display feathers.

With regards to this new fossil find, I predict that it will be pronounced as nothing more than the remains of a bird and therefore the feathers should not be news at all. But the caveat will be added that dinosaurs could have had feathers thus covering themselves against any future discovery that is even more clear than this one.  My advice to Elizabeth Mitchell – who will probably be tasked with crafting the Answers in Genesis response – is that she should decide it is time to make a break from YECs in the past and pronounce that God did create some dinosaurs with feathers.  The longer they hold out the harder it become to make the transition to a new paradigm of understanding dinosaurs.  Of course to come to such a conclusion she will have to – ironically – infer this from historical evidence.  But they have been inferring from historical evidence all along that dinosaurs didn’t have feathers.  Since the Bible is silent on this topic shouldn’t we and AiG be free to draw conclusions based on where the evidence takes us?

But we don’t have to wait for the first YEC response to this new fossil because one YEC has already responded.  Todd Wood (Core Academy of Science) has responded with wonder and amazement and a recognition of what this fossil probably represents: a dinosaur with feathers.  Here is part of what he had to say yesterday (God made dinosaurs with beautiful feathers):

My first impression was that it was a beautiful fossil, but how do we know it’s a dinosaur?  First of all, it’s not a bird, at least not a modern bird.  Modern birds don’t have long tails like this.  Could it be one of those weird fossil birds with long tails like Archaeopteryx?  The tail bones (visible in scans of the fossil) aren’t the right shape, and there seems to be more flexibility to this tail (because it’s bent) than to tails of fossil birds with tails.  That means that it’s probably a dinosaur of some kind, since they’re the only other critters we know of that had feathers like this.  Am I 100% sure it’s a dinosaur?  No, nobody is, but it sure does look like one based on what we know about dinosaurs and birds.

Unfortunately, Todd Wood open approach to the data is not shared by most YECs and he has little influence with the large YEC organizations that dominate the creationist’ world and I don’t think they will follow in his footsteps – at least not yet.

The slippery slope of bird-dinosaur determination for YECs

The bird question has been a long slippery slope for YECs for some time. With each new discovery they have had to redefine what a bird is to maintain their insistence that birds and reptiles are distinct kinds with no common ancestry with reptiles.  For example, in the past, the presence of a bony flexible tail, true teeth, and claws on the “hands” of birds would not have been traits of birds but exclusively of dinosaurs.  But, while YECs might say that it is possible dinosaurs could have had feathers they don’t seem to believe this.  They seem to associate feathers as a unique trait of birds. They are the feature that anyone can use to distinguish these two groups and so it is hard to give that character up.  So the presence of feathers has caused them to reinterpret all other characters.  When feathers are found on fossils with a bony tail, they are suddenly a bird. When that fossil has claws at the end of an arm that has feather than it must have been a bird even if it clearly could not have flown.  If the fossil had teeth instead of a beak it is a dinosaur but then if feathers are found it becomes a bird.  This is why they will be so tempted to call this newest find a bird.

When AiG or ICR eventually responds to this new feathery dinosaur tail find I will put an addendum to this post here and we will see if I am right.


Update #1:  Brian Thomas (ICR science writer) has responded on Facebook. No surprise. He says it is just a bird.

Brian Thomas
Four details about the feathered “dinosaur” tail in amber suggest it was actually a bird. Did you know…

1. The tail tip with feathers in amber does not include the rest of the body.
2. The study authors admitted it could be a bird.
3. Not one single fossil has ever yet shown bird feathers like these on a classic dinosaur. They only occur on “dinosaur” fossils where evolutionists bend the word “dinosaur” to include extinct birds.
4. So far, all flight feathers like these in amber have been attached to actual birds, whether extant or extinct.

I’m not sure he knows or can define what a “classic” dinosaur is? And to point #4, no one thinks these are flight feathers.  His argument is basically one of absence of evidence dictates this must be a bird but he doesn’t address the bony tail which would not fit his previous understanding of what a bird kinds is.

Here are a few FB responses to Thomas’ thoughts about the fossil.  These illustrate the deep skepticism in science that ICR has trained its followers to have.


Update #2 (about 3 hours later).  Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis has weighed in. This fossil is nothing but another bird.  I expect their fuller response in a few days to be a repetition of all the same arguments they have made about other fossils. From AiG “Dinosaur” in Amber: Evolutionists Spin Another Tail:

Check back Monday for a more comprehensive analysis from our anatomist, Dr. David Menton (who is calling fowl). At this time, we see no reason to consider this anything but a bird.

Update #3.  The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has now published a longer response. The article “Another Feathered Dinosaur Tale” is by Frank Sherwin (M.S. Parisitology).   He uses every argument used in my quotes above to cast doubt on the description of this fossil and then concludes:

In short, all the available evidence about this “feathered dinosaur” tail in amber suggests it was actually a bird.

Update #4  Marcus Ross(Ph.D Geosciences) did his doctoral work on mosasaurs and is a Assistant Professor at Liberty University.  He holds to YEC as does Liberty University.   He has written articles for some of the larger YEC apologetics organizations but is not affiliated with any of them much like Todd Wood.  However, he has much stronger credentials to speak on the topic of dinosaur fossils since he has legitimate training in this area.   On his FB page over the weekend, he talked about teaching paleontology at Liberty University what he is going to be telling his students about this fossil find.

Taken as a whole, I think that there is ample evidence that many dinosaurs had some kind of fluff/fuzz that covered their body, and that several of these dinosaurs also had honest-to-goodness feathers. That puts me in a pretty tiny minority among young-Earth creationists. Not alone, but a minority.

He also talked about previous YEC responses to reports of dinosaurs with feathers noting the same things I have above and then making a very helpful observation:

You can see this in many of the online articles. This is what is said in their DVDs and videos. It’s the case with many of the books and technical papers written by creationists. A bit troubling, though, is that NONE of these videos, books, or papers about dinosaurs and feathers were written by a creationist trained in paleontology.

This is a huge problem for the main YEC organizations.  ICR has had a M.S. in parisitology and ICR will have a M.D. interpreting the paleotonological literature for the young-earth community.  Ross and Wood have far more research experience and both seem to have concluded that there is plenty of evidence that many dinosaurs probably had feathers but ICR and AiG just keep pushing forward in their denial.


  1. My favorite: “In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs.”

    Ah yes. How well I remember “The Feathered Dinosaur Discourse” in Luke.

    Liked by 3 people

    • You beat me to it. I read “Did dinosaurs have feathers? In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs” and I thought, oh great, now there is a “biblical” view about dinosaur feathers. I also thought, wow, if a question about whether dinosaurs had feathers is a threat to their faith and worldview, what a depressing and insecure way to live that must be.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Samuel Rodrigues de Souza says:

    Well, I wonder how they came to the conclusion that this is a dinosaur.

    Since it can be something else, or if it is (dinosaur), nothing prevents from being one of the characteristic of these beings (dinosaurs), does not mean ancestry with Birds.


    • The bones in the tail that the feathers are attached to are the feature that aligns this fossil with dinosaurs. Regarding it being a characteristic of dinosaurs, I would agree. Why couldn’t some dinosaurs have had feathery coverings. There is no rule that says they could not.


      • However, under evolutionary theory, since birds are said to have shared a common ancestor with other theropod dinosaurs, it demands that some theropods must have also had feathers.


  3. This is interesting. Looking at the responses of the YECs, it seems like this whole issue is avoided by invoking semantics. They appear to be arguing mostly about what constitutes a bird and what constitutes a dinosaur rather than tackling directly what the fossils are implying.


    • That and there are the typical YEC replies saying that scientists are just guessing or they are conspiring to make things up. People have really been indoctrinated.


      • ‘People have really been indoctrinated.’

        Oh, how true you are. But that includes both sides of the argument which, incidentally, are religions not science.
        The performance of science is nothing more than observing the repeatable. Which means, if it can’t be observed by repetition it is not science. Any conclusions arrived at by observing evidence (and evidence is not in itself scientific, it is simply evidence) can only be interpreted by the interpreters underlying philosophical view.
        Philosophy is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It is highly theoretical at best and heavily biased toward an underlying system of belief. Therefore, if your underlying belief is evolutionist, then all evidence is interpreted with a heavy bias toward evolution; if your underlying system of belief is creationist, then all evidence is interpreted with a heavily biased toward creationism.
        So, which is the most heavily indoctrinated?
        Both are guilty of ‘making things up’. Both rely on a exceedingly heavy dose of faith; ie believing that which can’t be proven. and no, neither evolution nor creation have been proven.
        So I’d be a bit careful of casting stones when you live in a glass house :-)

        PS – what highly amuses me about evolutionists, well some of them, is they are happy to accept the insane doctrine of an immortal soul. IF live evolved as is suggested, 1) where did an immortal soul come from? and 2) how come it is an attribute of humans only, especially as we are pretty late on the scene?


        • Here is an interesting Catholic take on the issue of evolution and human souls. Even though this is from a Catholic standpoint, I think a lot of other Christians have similar questions. There are some churches that accept evolution as long as the agency of God is assumed. Even conservative popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI acccepted evolution without being dogmatic except about assuming God’s agency and a few other things.


        • datadroid says:

          Charles, you stated that “The performance of science is nothing more than observing the repeatable.”

          That is not true. Scientific observations are those which are repeatably observable, but scientific hypotheses and theories make claims about that which cannot be directly observed and test predictions based on those claims on that which can. In this particular case, while we cannot observe members of each generation of animals from the first dinosaur to the first animal we’d deem a “bird,” we can observe that birds share more unique features in common with coelurosaur theropods than any other group of extant or extinct animals. We can observe that the collagen protein fragments recovered from a T. Rex are more similar in structure to those of extant birds (Ostriches, specifically) than to any other living group. We can observe that only birds today have feathers.

          Using these observations, we can hypothesize that all modern birds are descended from coelurosaur theropods (unobservable) and predict that at least some coelurosaur theropods must have had feathers. This prediction is confirmed with finds such as this amber fossil and many permineralized fossils which show feather imprints.

          In fact, in 1859, Darwin predicted that, based on their features, birds must have shared a common ancestor with reptiles, and that if he were right, fossils should exist which showed a mix of bird and reptilian traits. Two years later, in 1861, a complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was found, displaying traits of birds (pennaceous feathers, fused furculum) and dinosaurs (teeth, fingers, long bony tail), matching such predictions beautifully.

          Thus, hypotheses about the unobserved lead to predictions about what must be observed. That is science, and that is why evolutionary theory is scientific while non-evolutionary creationism is not.


          • Ah, datadroid, you have said it perfectly for me. In fact I couldn’t have said it better.

            Note your reply …
            [quote] – ‘… Scientific observations are those which are repeatably observable ..’ [end quote] ‘Repeatably observable’ is not and never will be the same as observable by repetition. To attempt to equate the two phrases is a major error. And to attempt to extrapolate the

            [quote] – ‘ … we can observe that birds share more unique features … ‘ [end quote] So they share features. So what? To conclude anything other than they share features is simply observing the observable.

            [quote] – ‘… Using these observations, we can hypothesize …’ [end quote] The real clincher. ‘We hypothesize’ – yep, come to a conclusion based on a pre-existing philosophy. To the creationist, they too can hypothesize and come to a conclusion it is intelligent design. But there is no proof! Just conclusions based on observations and a belief system.

            But [quote] – ‘… and predict that at least some coelurosaur theropods must have had feathers …’ [end quote] Yep, I can predict I will win lotto next week, but the chances of that happening are very slim irrespective of how much I want to believe it.

            [quote] – ‘… Archaeopteryx was found, displaying traits of birds (pennaceous feathers, fused furculum) and dinosaurs …’ [end quote] Hmm, again an interesting faith leap. One cannot, and in fact does not attempt, to deny the existence of Archaeopteryx or any other fossil record. But the assumption it is a ‘cross-over’ species is a huge leap of faith. Given nobody was there, and nobody observed it in its total life cycle, why must it be a cross-overt? Only the underlying, non scientific, religionists of evolution could reach that conclusion, not because it is scientific, but because it fits their philosophy. Give the same fossil to an equally biased creationist and, based on their equally unscientific philosophy, they will conclude (here is a prediction for you) God created it that way.

            As for me, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still to decide.


    • I have become a student of the argument between evolution and creation theorists (not the theories themselves) and I have reached a substantial conclusion – both sides of the argument are guilty of ignoring the facts they can’t explain.


      • datadroid says:

        If that is so, please provide an example of an ignored fact that biologists cannot explain using evolutionary theory.


  4. Isiah Sloan says:

    “In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs.”- Answers in Genesis

    “there’s no particular biblical reason for thinking dinosaurs didn’t have feathers”- Answers in Genesis

    Liked by 2 people


  1. […] How Have Young Earth Creationists Responded to Feathered Dinosaurs?– One of the most startling discoveries in paleontology that I’ve ever read about has been reported recently: the discovery of a dinosaur tail with feathers on it in a piece of amber. How have Young Earth Creationists responded to this and similar discoveries? […]


Comments or Questions?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: