One of the most famous of all dinosaurs is the vicious Velociraptor, the "swift plunder." Velociraptor is a small dinosaur compare to the more familiar, fictional version of the dinosaur made for the blockbuster hit film Jurassic Park. In the film, Velociraptor is portrayed as a 12 ft tall Deinonychus look-a-like covered with lizard scales. But in reality, it is now known and confirmed that this 6 ft long, 3 ft tall dinosaur had feathers on its body just like many other dinosaurs such as Meilong, Dilong, Sinosauropteryx, Mononychus, Sinornithosaurus, and Confuciusornis has according to the news report put out by BBC NEWS.
Fictional Scaly Velociraptor
Real Feathered Velociraptor (From Wikipedia)
Now how do creationists from Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International deal with Velociraptor now known and confirmed to be covered in feathers, just like Sinosauropteryx, Oviraptor, Dilong, and many others? The answer is in their articles in which each gives out an idiot response the latest report on the findings of a Velociraptor fossil that has quill knobs on it, indicating that the dinosaur, unlike what is depicted in Jurassic park, has feathers on its body like many Chinese dinosaurs that have been unearthed in recent years. According to AiG's September 29th News to Nuts article,
"The report does not explain, however, why the knobs do not extend farther along the bone, nor are we aware of whether other bones of this fossil were available for similar examination. Thus, the issue of whether the indentations are undoubtedly quill knobs is certainly not a closed case."
Only one Velociraptor forearm was found and unearthed in Mongolia in 1998. Still, the specimen contains enough evidence to confirm that Velociraptor did had feathers on its body. It's obvious the remark above is all made up out of sheer ignorance of the fact that non-flying birds having the same narrow quill knobs as Velociraptor. Those who are only strong fliers have deep quill knobs. Velociraptor was not a flier, but we do know that the feathers were probably used to control body temperature, regulate egg temperatures, maintaining balance while running, and as courtship displays to attract mates and to intimidate rivals.
This could be enough to finally get it into the creationists' stubborn heads that there are such things as feathered dinosaurs and they're not "just a bird" after all. But, out of the mouths of those who still give out tripe about dinosaurs like Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx being "just a bird"…,
"Furthermore, other fossil finds considered to be dinosaur precursors to birds have turned out to be flightless birds similar to ostriches, such as Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui."
Sure, never mind the fact that these so-called "flightless birds similar to ostriches" have anatomy that has the word "dinosaur" written all over them, including a saurischian hip, and never mind the fact that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx are both primitive Oviraptorosaurians who are among the ancestors of Oviraptor and Rhinchenia, the two dinosaurs that lived millions of years after them.
The next phrase still claims they do not know if they found more materials other than the ulna enough to know whether that's a Velociraptor or not (What do they expect? All fossils to be found complete?). This is no doubt all made up out of ignorance of the fact that the ulna is the only fossil they have found and that the scientists who studied the fossil clearly identified it as a Velociraptor ulna simply by comparing the fossil with other Velociraptor specimens that have been found and unearthed over the years.
In the CMI article entitled Jurassic Park Feathers?, Creationists Shaun Doyle just couldn't believe that what Paleontologists have found is evidence of Velociraptor bearing feathers on its body. Surely the photo shown in the article is distorted (just like the photos creationists paraded around to convince their followers of their idiot views that the notion of dinosaurs living with humans at one point in time is true.), or so he assumes. Here in the CMI article, Doyle despite his claims that he's not casting doubt on the find, he sure is doing a heck of a job casting doubt on the reader saying, "That can't be a Velociraptor fossil with quill knobs, can it?" which is just what the article is implying here.
In the article, Doyle claims,
"The specimen these claims are based on, IGM (Geological Institute of Mongolia) 100/981, appears to be nothing more than a single ulna bone. Turner et al. say that it ‘possesses several characteristics’ normally found in Velociraptor mongoliensis and that it was found in rocks that have produced other Velociraptor specimens. However, their whole case rests on this one bone. Taxonomic misidentification is always a possibility when all that was found was one bone."
Yes it is a possibility, but this is not the case here. Scientists have identified the bone to be a Velociraptor bone just by comparing it with the complete specimens of Velociraptor such as the one found alongside Protoceratops in 1971. The only time when Taxonomic misidentifications occur is when there is only one bone found and no complete specimens that can be compare with are known. When that happens, scientists will have to make a guess and find out what kind of extinct animal the bone belongs to. When it comes to Velociraptor's ulna, however, this is not the case. Scientists, over the years, have found complete specimens along with single and fragmentary remains of the sickle clawed dinosaur. Compare the ulna with the complete specimens and scientists got a match. There is no doubt that what scientists have studied and found the quill knobs in is the ulna of Velociraptor, thanks to complete specimens the single ulna is compared to.
Next Doyle claims,
"Another important point is that quill knobs are usually evidence of secondary feathers used for flight. However, nobody believes that velociraptors could fly. This suggests the bumps may have a different function than anchoring feathers."
Isn't he neglecting the fact that flightless birds have quill knobs, too along with the fliers? And that the feathers are uses for a lot of things other than flight as mention in the beginning of this article of mine (i.e courtship displays, regulating body temperatures, etc.)? Apparently he is.
In the next paragraph, Doyle explains what he claims to be problems dating the fossil.
"This Velociraptor fossil is ‘dated’ to 80 million years old. However, recognizable birds like Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are ‘dated’ by evolutionists to 153 and 135 million years old respectively. Thus Velociraptor was alive, by evolutionary reckoning, over 70 million years after the earliest birds. This mismatch of dates is a regular feature fossils touted as the closest relatives of modern birds."
It's plain stupid to group them all together in one, just call them "birds", and say that they are dating problems associating with the [sic] "evolutionists’ own dating scheme" out of ignorance of the fact that these dinosaurs all belong to 3 separate groups. Doyle never gets it in his head that Velociraptor (a dromaeosaur that lived 80 million years ago) is a member of the Dromaeosauridae, a group entirely separate from Archaeopterygidae (in which the 150 million year old Archaeopteryx is a part of), a group entirely separate from Confuciusornidae (in which the c120 million year old Confuciusonis is a part of). Putting them all in one group and say there are problems dating these 3 maniraptorians just won't cut it.
Back in the AiG's article, the creationists cast doubts of their own by claiming,
"Finally, what if these are undoubtedly quill knobs on an unquestionable velociraptor fossil arm bone? In other words, what if—though no feathers were found with the fossil—this did prove that velociraptor was a feathered dinosaur?"
They're no "what ifs" to it. They are undoubtedly quill knobs on an unquestionable Velociraptor fossil arm bone.
"Although the evidence for “feathered dinosaurs” has been wanting in the past,.."
Until the mid 1990s'.
"and though we’re nowhere near convinced of this study’s findings,.."
Due to blind faith, ignorance, and denial plaguing your little heads.
"..nothing in the Bible precludes the erstwhile existence of feathered dinosaurs. What the Bible does indicate is that if feathered dinosaurs were to have existed, they would have been created with feathers; they did not evolve from reptilian scales, which are quite different."
Feathered Dinosaurs did exist. Nothing stopped God from making feathered dinosaurs and modifying them to have feathers develop from scutes.
Even CMI acknowledge this when they said,
"If we assume this bone did have quill knobs and feathers, and it was a Velociraptor, what’s stopping it being a flightless bird?"
The fact that Velociraptor is a flightless dromaeosaur and not a flightless bird.
"Even if it were a true feathered dinosaur, what’s to stop God from having created feathered dinosaurs as separate creatures?"
Nothing. There's nothing valid in the world that says He didn't.
Still creationists are in denial as CMI concludes stupidly,
"This raises perhaps the biggest problem in paleontology—the scarcity of the evidence. In the light of such a small amount of evidence one can hardly be expected to hold to any interpretation with any sort of certainty. This has not stopped evolutionists from announcing the evidence with all boldness and claiming it as another grand triumph for orthodox dino-to-bird evolution. And all this on the ‘rock solid’ basis of one arm bone with a few bumps?"
Try ‘rock solid’ basis of huge truckloads of dinosaur fossils with feathered imprints along with their bone structures such as beaks, hollow bones, wishbones, bird-like feet and legs, saurischian hips with the pubis tuned backwards to make it more Ornithschian than Saurschian hips, so much more.
And AiG stating,
"And the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds faces numerous problems, as presented by both creationists and evolutionist bird experts, such as University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill researcher Alan Feduccia."
Yeah. Numerous problems, all flawed, made up, and easily debunked and overshadowed by scores of valid physical evidence such as what is mentioned above. Plus, Alan, who scoffs at the idea of birds evolving from dinosaurs and believe that birds evolve from a reptilian ancestor other than dinosaurs, is in fact a victim of the creationists' shenanigans. Creationists, always finding fault with mainstream science, would go about misquoting and misrepresenting anyone who questions the prominent ideas in mainstream science and even make up quotes one especially Feduccia never really said to begin with.
But despite what Feduccia claims and what AiG falsely assume about the fossil being trumpeted as "proof of evolution" without being thoroughly studied in the conclusion of their article, there is mounds and mounds of valid evidence (including the Velociraptor forearm), thoroughly researched before being published in scientific journals and mainstream news, that points to the true notion of feathered dinosaurs being 100% real, thus making people everywhere change the way they think of dinosaurs forever.