PhD Paleontologist: They’ve Been Lying to You About Dinosaurs for Years

Summary

Podcast Summary – The Creation Podcast Episode Title: PhD Paleontologist: They’ve Been Lying to You About Dinosaurs for Years
Host: Mary Claire (A)
Guest: Dr. Gabriela Haynes, PhD, Paleontologist, Institute for Creation Research (B)
Date: May 5, 2026

---

Overview

This episode delves into the controversial topic of feathered dinosaurs and the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dr. Gabriela Haynes, a PhD paleontologist, critiques mainstream paleontological interpretations from a creationist perspective, arguing that much of what the public hears about feathered dinosaurs is based on assumptions and redefined terms rather than direct fossil evidence. The conversation explores the distinction between observation and interpretation, the influence of worldview on scientific conclusions, historical context, the fossil sites (particularly in China), and the meaning and significance of “feathers” in the fossil record.

---

Dr. Gabriela Haynes’ Background

[01:19 – 02:35]

• Nearly 20 years of experience in paleontology, with undergraduate and graduate studies in Brazil, one of the world’s richest regions for dinosaur fossils.
• Received a master’s and Ph.D. focusing on geology and paleontology, with particular expertise in the feathered dinosaur debate.
• Deeply involved in literature review, fossil analysis, and collaborative scientific study for several years.

---

Observation vs. Interpretation in Paleontology

[02:50 – 04:58]

• Dr. Haynes highlights that everyone approaches data through a particular worldview—there is no true neutrality in science.
• Quote: "We can have the same data, we can have the same information, but have very different interpretation. Not only different, opposite." (B) [04:17]
• Examples: Creationists might see fossils as a result of Noah's flood, while others interpret them as millions of years old.

---

Historical Development of the Feathered Dinosaur Narrative

[05:18 – 13:02]

• The feathered dinosaur theory traces back to Darwin's era (1859), shortly after the discovery of Archaeopteryx.
• Huxley used Archaeopteryx to support Darwin’s theory as a “transitional fossil.”
• In the 1960s, John Ostrom collected disparate bones (from separate expeditions, locations, and strata) and claimed they represented the dinosaur Deinonychus—a key figure in reviving the dino-to-bird idea.
  • Quote: “What he does is in his paper, he says, ‘I believe… I have no proof, but I have no doubt.’ So it's a lot about the idea that it's faith.” (B) [09:33]
• Terminology changes:
  • Dinosauria was redefined to include birds.
  • The term "theropod" was expanded to include birds (from Marsh 1881 to Gauthier 1986).
  • Cladistics and evolutionary classifications further cemented these groupings.

---

The Role of Worldview and Re-Defining Scientific Terms

[13:02 – 13:29], [17:48 – 20:10], [32:07 – 33:53]

• Scientific terms like “feather,” “theropod,” and “dinosauria” have been redefined over time through an evolutionary lens to fit the dino-to-bird narrative.
  • Quote: “They have changed the terms, they have changed the definitions.” (B) [33:07]
• Dr. Haynes warns listeners to always ask for the definitions behind scientific labels, as their meaning may have changed.

---

Chinese Fossil Sites and the Prevalence of Feathered Dinosaur Claims

[13:29 – 15:00]

• China’s fossil wealth is partly due to local economic incentives—farmers dig and sell fossils.
• Well-preserved Lagerstätten (exceptional fossil sites) are common worldwide, but more work and resources are invested in China.
• The prevalence of Chinese feathered dinosaur fossils is tied to resource allocation, not unique preservation conditions.

---

Physical Fossil Evidence: What’s Really There?

[15:03 – 19:24]

• Dr. Haynes distinguishes between two main fossil findings:
  1. True bird fossils with clear, modern-like feathers.
  2. Dinosaur fossils with filamentous structures that could be biofilms, collagen, keratin, or decomposed skin.
• These filaments are often labeled as "feathers" due to evolutionary assumptions—not direct observation.
  • Quote: "Filament is now seen as a feather because a change in the definition." (B) [17:49]

---

What Counts as a Feather? Biological and Chemical Distinctions

[19:24 – 22:13]

• A true feather is defined by branching structure and hierarchical anatomy. Both feathers and scales contain types of keratin, so presence of keratin is not distinguishing.
• Feathers are complex structures, crucial for flight and insulation, and require specialized maintenance behaviors—as seen in birds, but not in dinosaurs.

---

Cultural Saturation and the Bird=Living Dinosaur Claim

[25:24 – 29:23]

• The “birds are living dinosaurs” idea is now mainstream, seen in museums, documentaries, and even within some Christian circles.
  • Quote: "It's just absolutely saturated in mainstream culture right now." (A) [25:54]
• The narrative’s popularity arises from evolutionary assumptions and repeated visual representations.
• Dr. Haynes emphasizes that similarities between birds and dinosaurs can be explained by a “shared designer” rather than common ancestry.

---

The Creationist Perspective on the Fossil Record

[29:34 – 30:06]

• Fossils of birds and dinosaurs appear fully formed and simultaneously in the fossil record—challenging the evolutionary narrative of gradual transition.
• If a fossil has true feathers, it's a bird, regardless of other features.

---

The Importance of Distinguishing Fact from Interpretation

[30:06 – 31:27]

• Christians are exhorted to cultivate a “sober mind” and critical thinking, being aware of their own and others’ worldviews when interpreting scientific evidence.
  • Quote: "We have to honor God with our mind, with our heart, with everything. And that's why Christians, we need to understand what is a fact, what is interpretation..." (B) [30:21]

---

Three Key Takeaways

[32:07 – 33:53]

1. Context and Worldview: Feathered dinosaur claims stem from an evolutionary framework developed to explain the world without God.
2. Changed and Invented Terms: Scientific terms have been redefined or newly created to fit evolutionary narratives (e.g., feather, theropod, miniraptora).
3. Scripture as Authority: Christians should ultimately trust the Bible’s account as their interpretive foundation, even amidst unresolved scientific questions.

---

Listener Q&A: Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark

[35:19 – 38:03]

• According to Genesis and the biblical classification of reptiles, dinosaurs would have been counted among the animals on Noah’s Ark.
• Dr. Haynes suggests that God likely sent eggs or juveniles, and that numerous ancient “dragon” legends and even 19th-century newspaper reports suggest human encounters with post-flood dinosaurs.
  • Quote: "We have so many legends all around the world talking about the encounters of people, humans, with dinosaurs... the names that were called were dragons." (B) [36:33]

---

Memorable Quotes

• "There's no neutrality. We all have a background of information based on what we study, what we have been influenced by..." (B) [03:29]
• "When someone says, oh, this is a theropod, you have to ask what definition of the term theropod are you using?" (B) [11:44]
• "Filament is now seen as a feather because a change in the definition." (B) [17:49]
• “It's not just about having feathers; it's about taking care of feathers.” (B) [23:48]
• "We all come from somewhere and we bring some information to the table and to interpret... backgrounds, yes, to interpret everything." (B) [30:22]
• "Every time that you hear the word feather, you need to understand what type of definition they're using for feather..." (B) [33:07]

---

Conclusion

[31:44 – end]

• The episode emphasizes the necessity of discerning observation from interpretation in scientific study, the pervasive role of worldviews, and the importance of biblical authority for Christian listeners.
• Dr. Haynes encourages critical thinking and faith-based discernment as vital tools for understanding the ongoing debate about dinosaurs, feathers, and evolution.

---

End of podcast content.

Transcript

[A]

Were dinosaurs really covered in feathers, or is that claim built more on interpretation than observation? Over the last few decades, feathered dinosaurs have gone from a fringe idea to a cultural assumption. Museum displays, documentaries, and textbooks often present them as an established fact. But when we slow down and examine the fossil evidence itself, an important question emerges. Do the fossils actually show feathers, or are those conclusions being layered on afterwards? Welcome to the Creation Podcast, where we explain how science confirms scripture. I'm your host, Mary Claire, and today we're tackling one of the most debated topics in paleontology, the claim that dinosaurs had feathers and evolved into birds. To help us navigate both the fossil evidence and the interpretation surrounding it, we're joined by ICR paleontologist Dr. Gabriela Haynes. Thank you so much for being here today. Dr. Haynes.

[B]

Thanks so very much for inviting me to come.

[A]

Yes. Well, we have a lot to unpack today, and I would actually like to start with you. Can you tell us a little bit about your background in paleontology and what qualifies you to speak on the feathered dinosaur debate?

[B]

Well, I have been working in paleontology the last almost 20 years because of college, you know, studying undergrad biology and then learning about dinosaurs. The area where I'm from in Brazil, it's one of the five best places in the whole world for dinosaurs and pterosaurs and any other types of fossils. And I have been involved with other scientists that have been studying about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and some other types of fossils for many years. That's one of the things that it helps me to kind of have an understanding of the whole picture, a little bit of the context that is behind all that. So I study. I got my master's and PhD on geology, paleontology, and I have been studying deeply this part of feather dinosaurs for the last five years, reading a lot of the literature, checking a lot of the papers, analyzing some of the species, and checking their description and all of the details behind the claims. So that's one of the things that I have done the last five years. Wow.

[A]

Well, it sounds like you have a very extensive background in paleontology. And personally, paleontology is one of the branches of science that I am most fascinated by. And so I am incredibly eager to have this conversation with you today.

[B]

I'm excited about it. Let's go.

[A]

So before we jump into specifics, I want to start with a foundational concept that will guide this entire conversation. So, in paleontology, there's a difference between what we observe and how we interpret what we observe. I know you've talked extensively about lenses and the different lenses that people have when observing this kind of evidence. So from your perspective as a paleontologist, why is that distinction so important? Especially in discussions about dinosaur feathers in particular?

[B]

Again, we all have a worldview. We all have a way of approaching to things, approaching to the data and assuming some points about the data. There's no neutrality. We all have a background of information based on what we study, what we have been influenced by, what we have lived in our life, experienced in our lives. School, college, all of that church, all of those knowledge, they kind of put together like a suitcase, and you carry them around in your mind, and then it's almost like glasses that you're gonna go and see things through. So when you see a dinosaur, as a creation scientist, you see a dinosaur and you see, as the result of Noah's flood, a global catastrophic flood. A scientist that is not a creation scientist, they're gonna see the same fossil, the same data, the same fact as a result of millions of years. There is no global catastrophic flood. And there is no way of knowing that it's only 4300 years. So that's one of the points that we have to see, is we can have the same data, we can have the same information, but have very different interpretation. Not only different, opposite. And that's why we have to be aware that we all have a worldview and be aware of what type of worldview I'm applying to the data, to the fact that I'm seeing the same thing is with the supposedly feathered dinosaurs. You're going to see those dinosaurs, you're going to see features in those dinosaurs. And now you're going to have to read those features through the lenses that you have.

[A]

Yeah, it really depends on the person and their background and their belief system. So now that we've laid that groundwork, let's talk about where the idea of feathered dinosaurs, where does that actually come from? When did the concept of feathered dinosaurs begin gaining that mainstream attention? And what discoveries pushed it into the spotlight?

[B]

It's very good when we can learn the history, the background, the context of a topic. So when we talk about feathered dinosaurs, that's not a new thing. It doesn't come in 1990s, the late 1990s? No. It comes way back to Darwin, 1859. So Darwin, he wrote his book talking about the theory of evolution. What he believed that how he can explain things around in the world without God. So he was doing that two years After Archaeopteryx was found, Huxley was a big defender of Darwin. So he just embraced the idea of Archaeopteryx as it was a dinosaur with feathers, which just show me a transition from reptiles to bird. And then Archaeopteryx became turned into the stark witness of Darwin's theory. So that's when it start after around 100 years later, all the idea of dinosaurs and birds being related, it was kind of not so strong. But then around after hundred years, someone found. John Ostron found some bones. He found some bones and he described them as Deinonychus. It's very important for us to understand what Deinonychus is. Deinonychus has a very important role in this whole story. So because Huxley wanted to find something to prove Darwin's theory, he was pushing this idea of a transition. And then they found Archaeopteryx that had some features that it was very weird, different for what they believe that birds would have, because they were comparing, oh, yeah, it has feathers like modern birds. However, it has some other features that birds don't have. So he was pushing, okay, we found the best transitional fossil to prove the theory. But Huxley is gone. He dies. And after 100 years, John. John Ostron finds Deinonychus. John Ostron found bones that came from different expeditions. And one expedition was in 1930s, and the other one was 1960s. So we had 30 years apart from one expedition to the other, and then those bones were gathered. Those bones also come from two different areas. They're kind of around 35 miles away from each other. They also come from different layers. Even in the secular worldview, those layers, they represent millions of years between them. So even in their worldview, it should not be possible. Even if you say, okay, not millions of years, thousands of years, it wouldn't be possible. But they put them all together.

[A]

Put them together too, completely.

[B]

Yes, it was around 1,000 bones. And then you can say, well, but those bones were articulated. They were connected somehow. They were joined. No, they were not. They're only pieces of those bones that were articulated, mainly the tail. The rest was just associated, which means close to each other. They were not connected. They were not joined. They were just around each other. So he gathered all of this, and then he wrote two papers, one in February of 1969, and the other one in June, July of the same year. And he was describing and talking about this very special fossil that he found, described and studied and named. What he does is in his paper, he says, I believe he uses the word I believe. I believe that those bones have three specimens. I have no proof, but I have no doubt. So it's a lot about the idea that it's faith. You're just putting bones that comes from two different expeditions, from different places, from different layers and still putting them together. It was the same thing. So he comes with Deinonychus, which has some odd features like some like birds, some like dinosaurs, reptiles. So he has those information and he was like, great. So Huxley was correct when he was thinking about this transitional, this type of animal that has the same features, like reptilian features and then bird like features together. So he brought up that topic to the surface again. And now he was one of the biggest promoter of that type of idea. His student Baker, he goes, he studied under John Ostron and then he's the one that now is pushing the same idea. And then when around the 80s, they change the definition of the word dinosauria. Because before dinosauria was just dinosaurs. Like when I say dinosaur, you understand what it is, what it is.

[A]

I can't envision it in my brain.

[B]

Yes, you can envision in your brain what is a dinosaur. So dinosauria went from that type of dinosaur to include birds. So now when you talk about dinosauria in the secular literature, you're going to find that it's birds and dinosaurs together. So they change the definition of that term. So they go, they keep going. And then it comes in 1950s cladistics, which is an evolutionary method of classification that it's based on ancestry and shared ancestor. So they're going to go. And they're going to support that idea. Yeah, this is correct. And then the biggest work was done in 1985 and 86 by Gauthier, when he actually goes. And he create some other terms and change some other terms to include dinosaurs and birds altogether.

[A]

It's amazing that they just have this authority to just change these terms the exact way that they say.

[B]

One example is theropod. Theropod. The first term was invented, created in 1881, that was just theropod, dinosaurs. And then in 1986, Galthier changed therop theropod to include birds. So when someone says, oh, this is a theropod, you have to ask what definition of the term theropod are you using? From Marsh 1881 or Goth Year 1986? Because there are different definitions for the same term. And that's very problematic in a scientific field to be talking about one term that has very different definition. So now we're talking about, we Think that we're talking about the same thing, but we're actually talking about different definitions. And that's one of the problems. So it comes Darwin, Huxley, Archaeopteryx, John Ostrund, with Deinonychus and Baker pushing the idea, and then Gaultier changing the terms for all of that. So feather, dinosaur, it's not a new thing. It goes all back to Darwin. And it's presenting the whole idea of evolution from one created kind to a different created kind, from reptiles to birds.

[A]

It all goes back to that lens, that worldview, and the way that you're looking at it and how you're constructing this timeline to fit what it is that you believe. That's so interesting. I want to talk too about certain fossil sites, as when I was doing research, it said certain fossil sites, especially in China, come up repeatedly during these discussions about fossil birds. What is it about China and those fossil sites that all of these fossil feathers have emerged?

[B]

Well, China is an interesting place because fossils there, it's a financial thing. So farmers, they can find fossils and they can sell those fossils so they can get some money. So they have people that actually work in the field getting fossils so they can sell the fossils. So of course, if you have some financial reason to do it, you're going to do it, you're going to do more. And that's what happens in China. Just people are working a lot in this field. They're finding a lot of those material. That's one of the things the second it's a very well preserved area. But you're going to have what they call lanstatten. It's a term in Germany that they use for places that are very well preserved, preserve. But you have that place that is preserved everywhere in the continent, Every single continent that you go, you're going to find the same thing. For example, I'm from Brazil. They have one 40 minutes away from my mom's backyard. We have one Lanstatten also. So it's very important for us to understand that it's not that we haven't found more in the United States. So for example, in South America, when in Europe, it's just because there are not a lot of paleontologists. Yeah. And there are not also a lot of people working to find those fossils and to study them.

[A]

So China essentially just has a lot of people who are digging and like purposefully looking for these fossils. And that's why a lot of them are there.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And that's within the fossil record.

[B]

That's correct.

[A]

Very interesting. Well, headlines and illustrations tend to jump ahead of the data, so let's slow things down and focus on the physical evidence itself. When paleontologists actually examine these fossils closely, what do they actually observe in the rock?

[B]

There are two things. One is it could be a dinosaur that has the anatomical features of a dinosaur, of a reptile. And you can see some filaments, some kind of hair strand.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Feature right there. And then you have the other option, which is a bird, because you're going to see a feather just like the modern feathers that we see today, and a creature that it has some of the reptilian features. Why am I saying reptilian like this? It's because they have features that the scientists were not expecting to find in those. Okay, so the first point is the one that is a dinosaur, you can see it has the whole anatomy of a dinosaur. However, it has those filaments.

[A]

Okay, what are those. What are those filaments?

[B]

If they're not a feather, Those filaments, they're just kind of hair strand, a thin hair strand. What has been coming from literature, from studies, from analysis, what those filaments are? Well, they could be collagen, they could be keratin, they could be some skin just being decomposed skin. And they also could be biofilm. What is a biofilm? Biofilm. It's kind of a mat of bacteria. Yeah. The way that they behave, those bacterias, the way that they spread, the way that they're packed together, it looks like melanosomes. So that's why when the people look at some of those material in the microscope, they see it and they're like, oh, this looks like melanosome. So if it's melanosome, so it has feathers. So they call those filaments, as they see melanosomes and those filaments, and they're like, oh, yeah, that's great. So this is feathers. It looks like melanosome, but it's not melanosome. What's the problem with that? There's a technique called tem t e m that it's a chemical test that you can do. You can go and test it, and then you can see chemically if it's melanosome or not melanosome. What's the problem? Nobody does that.

[A]

Oh, why?

[B]

Good question. Because there are a lot of machines. Those scientists, they can find money to go through it. But because they assume already that if you see a filament and if you see in a microscopic structure that looks like melanosome, that's A feather. So that's one of the problems. However, we have to see that filament is now seen as a feather because a change in the definition. In 1999, they changed the definition of feather also. The same way that they changed for dinosauria, the same way that they invented, created new terms like miniraptura, the same way that they added birds in the term theropod, changing from 1881 meaning of the word theropod. So what happened now in 1999 and 2009, our two main papers, a book about this topic, they change the idea of what a feather is and why they change that. If you go and you read the paper, you're going to see that they're assuming, they are hypothesizing that evolution happened, and for you to have a feather today, it had to come from something, and it came from filaments. So this is an evolutionary worldview being applied to the data. And they're assuming that because you see a filament, the next stage, the following stage, is going to be a feather.

[A]

I see.

[B]

So they call it proto feather, they call filaments. So it's basically the same idea. It's because of evolution, they are renaming, rebranding. Now, when we talk about feathers and we've seen papers, it's really interesting because we've seen papers published, something about this gigantic feather dinosaur. And you go to the paper and you look for the word feather. Nothing. You look for the word filament. It has many of them. Why? Because they are seeing. They're interpreting. Any time that you see a filament, that's a feather, that's a proto feather. So that dinosaur that has the filament, it's a feathered dinosaur.

[A]

This is just an insane topic. Just so many intricacies. But like we've said so many times throughout the podcast so far, it all comes back to assumptions. So what assumptions are required to interpret these structures as early feathers rather than something else?

[B]

Evolutionary assumptions that things needed to evolve, and for them to evolve, they have to come from something more basal, more primitive. We don't really use this word primitive, but we use basal initial to develop into a feather. So for you to see a branching feather today, it had to go back to a filament. That's just about assumption, that's just about worldview. It's not about the data. The data is the same. That's why so many other scientists, they're coming and saying, no, this is collagen. Oh, no, this is just decompose. The skin no, this is just biofilm. This is keratin also. And they're trying to do that, but however, they're not accepting that possibility because they want to keep pushing the idea of feather dinosaurs.

[A]

So what makes a feather a feather biologically?

[B]

That's a good question. First thing, the branching. It has to have branching. It has to have also anatomical components in it that shows hierarchy. That's two things that you're going to find. And then you can say, well, what about proteins in that? Well, the point is feather and scales, they have the same protein component of keratin. They have the type A and B carotene scales and feathers, they have both. So you cannot really go and see if you find carotene. Oh, this is. If you find a carotene, this is one thing. If you find B carotene is this, it's something else. Because both has A and beta carotene.

[A]

So it could be scales or a feather is essentially what you're saying. Why are these feathers considered highly complex and functional structures?

[B]

Well, because of the branching structure, how they work together to support flight and insulation. Yeah. So they need to work in a way that it's going to help the bird to fly or to be protected. And those structures, they're very little, and they're still working together and working together with the beak of the bird. So the bird knows exactly what to do with the feather to make it, to clean it, to preen it, to make it ready for what the bird needs. So the whole structure of a feather, it's to support the flight, it's to support the anatomical feature is to support. The physiological feature, is to support the purpose that a feather was created. And then one thing that I have to point out is that even though a lot has been said about dinosaurs and filaments, dinosaurs having feathers, nothing has been said about dinosaurs having the way of taking care of those feathers. Yeah, because it's not about just having feathers, it's about taking care of feathers. The reason why birds have feathers is because they take care of feathers. I don't know if you have seen, but so many times you see a bird, they're taking care of the feathers. They're working.

[A]

Specifically ducks.

[B]

Yes, they're taking care of the feathers all the time. And there's nothing being said, there's nothing being analyzed about how dinosaurs would be taking care of those feathers. And that's a point that is very important.

[A]

Yeah, it definitely is. How are these feathers that we've been talking about, how are they actually found in the Fossil record.

[B]

Well, they're found in many places in different types of rocks, limestones mainly. They have been found. And it's just beautifully exhibit of a feather. When you see a feather, like modern feathers, and I have seen many of them, even like with bands like black and white bands, which is, it's very interesting because some scientists, they believe that, oh, that's how feathers were. They were just that color, kind of gray, kind of black, kind of brown, kind of white. So you don't see color in them, but you need to see if God is so creative. Now, if we go, if we go to the field and we see animals, we're going to see them with all sorts of colors.

[A]

Yeah, all the colors of the rainbow.

[B]

Yes. So just beautiful like that. So I am, I don't believe that that was the color of those animals represented right there. It's just a way of the taphonomic, the type of preservation of the fossil that is displaying that. But you can see the bands and the difference between those colors right there in the fossil record.

[A]

Wow, that's so amazing. You know, one of the like most odd theories that we have heard about today is that birds today are living dinosaurs. And just the other day I went and I heard Dr. Hebert speak in the discovery cent and he was talking about dinosaurs. And this little kid raised his hand and he was like, did you know that birds are actually dinosaurs? So it's just absolutely saturated in mainstream culture right now.

[B]

It is.

[A]

So how do evolutionary scientists argue that birds evolved from these dinosaurs? And where does that data actually come from?

[B]

Well, first, it comes from an evolutionary worldview that everything needs to evolve.

[A]

Yep, we're back to that. Those lenses once again, and assumptions, that's the first thing.

[B]

Second, they see now dinosaurs with this structure which they call filaments. But because they changed the definition of the term feather, now they fit filament as a feather. And it's interesting because when you go and you check the papers in 1999 and 2009, they talk about a story and they use a lot the words we believe, we believe, we believe. It's basically assumptions relying on their evolutionary worldview. So that's why they keep pushing this idea and they keep using papers and claims like the one that I just mentioned to you. A gigantic feather dinosaur is found. And when you go to the paper, there's nothing about feathers but about filaments. So when you go to a museum, you're going to see dinosaurs with feathers. Now if you go to secular museums, you're going to See dinosaurs with feathers. And even in the Christian community, you know, I was talking to some people and Christians, they have been hearing a lot of that in the Christian community. So it's not just coming from a secular point of view, but a lot of Christians are also believing, believing that this is true. Not knowing the background, not knowing the context that carries this idea, the assumptions for feather dinosaurs.

[A]

Yeah, it's in all sorts of, like, cultural mainstream, like television shows recently. I don't know if you watch Netflix, but there's this new, like, documentary series on there called Dinosaurs, and it's all about the evolutionary theories. And like there's these basically animations of these Florida dinosaurs with feathers. Yes, it's everywhere right now. So, yeah, that is just absolutely saturating our culture currently. But there has to be some sort of similarities, though, right, between birds and dinosaurs in order for these people, these evolutionists, some scientists, to think that they are related.

[B]

Correct. There are some similarities in them and that we can explain some of those because of the. Share designer. Yeah. So, for example, I was reading a book and I liked that author, and I kept buying books from the same author. After some time, I got tired because I kind of could see the design, how he develops the story. And then you just can see a pattern and you see a pattern in author of a book, a writer, you can see a pattern in people that writes paper, you can see a pattern. People that draw things and paint things. That's normal. It's just a common design that is there because it comes from the same designer. As creationists, we believe that God was the designer. So of course he's going to put. He's going to have a pattern, he's going to have information that's going to be important because also some of them are developing the same functions. So it's not about a common ancestor, a shared ancestor, but a shared designer.

[A]

Exactly. Which brings us back to that creationist perspective. So how do we understand these fossils without invoking dinosaur to bird evolution?

[B]

When you see a dinosaur and you have. And it has features of a reptile and filament, that is a dinosaur. If you see a fossil that has feathers, just the way that they look today, modern birds, that's a bird, even though it might have some features that birds today do not present. However, if it has feathers, it's a bird.

[A]

So do these birds, do they appear fully formed in the fossil record?

[B]

Correct. Yes. And they appear also together with some dinosaurs.

[A]

Hmm. Well, why is this important for people, especially Christians, to understand the difference between observation and interpretation when evaluating scientific claims.

[B]

The Bible calls us to have a sober mind.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

We have to think correctly. God gave logic. He puts logic in our mind because he wants us to understand his creation, because his creation reflects some of his attributes. Psalms talks about that and some other verses in the Bible talk about the general revelation. And we have to have this mind working in a way that honor God, because we have to honor God with our mind, with our heart, with everything. And that's why Christians, we need to understand what is a fact, what is interpretation, what that we all have a worldview. We have to understand that we all come from somewhere and we bring some information to the table and to interpret backgrounds, yes, to interpret everything. So to search truth for truth, for finding truth, because the truth will set us free. It would set our mind free. It would set our eyes free. And we're going to see reality just how it is, the way that God created.

[A]

I just absolutely love that so much, and I'm really glad that we got to have this conversation today. This has been a really fun one to dive into. So thank you so much for your time and all of your wise words. And I believe that our viewers are going to get something super special out of this.

[B]

I hope so.

[A]

Fossils give us data, but interpretation gives that data meaning. When we learn to distinguish between the two, we're better equipped to think critically, engage graciously, and remain confident in God's word. Dr. Haynes, as we wrap up, what are three key takeaways that you would like listeners to really get from this episode? Concerning the feathered dinosaur claim.

[B]

We have to look at feathered dinosaurs as it has a background, it has a context. It doesn't come from 1990s. It's just not a new thing. It comes from a background, it comes from a worldview that has been pushing to try to explain the world without God. That's the first thing. So you look at the fact that Darnley Solars think this is coming from a context of people, that they don't want God to be involved. They don't want to submit their mind to God's truth, to the scripture. They don't want to understand that God created those groups in different days. Reptiles were created actually after birds. It was the opposite order. And even if you want to mix those, it's not going to work. Because when you see the order in evolution and the order in Genesis, they're not only different, they're the opposite. So in the scientific world, the evolutionary world, you're going to go and See dinosaurs and birds. In the Bible, you're going to see birds and then dinosaurs. So that's the first thing. The second one is they have changed the terms, they have changed the definitions. So every time that you hear the word feather, you need to understand what type of definition they're using for feather. Every time you hear the word theropod, you have to understand what type of definition they're using for theropod. Every time that you use that, you hear the word minirapture, you have to think, hey, this word manu rapture. This grouping was created because of evolutionary ideas. So you have to understand that they have changed the terms, they have created new terms, they have changed the definitions. And the third one is we always go back to the scripture. The scripture is the authority over our mind. And that's what we have to think if the Bible is saying this, And I will trust even though sometimes we don't know how to explain some things. But there's going to have a day that we're all going to be able to have our questions answered in heaven. So those three takeaways that I want you all to have it, that's something

[A]

just to look forward to because there's so many questions here on Earth that we all have questions about. Just so that's something that I am looking forward to for sure. But thank you so much for all of those key takeaways. They're incredibly fascinating and I've just enjoyed this so much.

[B]

Thank you so very much and thank

[A]

you viewers for watching. If you enjoyed today's episode, be sure to, like subscribe and share this with someone who loves learning about dinosaurs. You'll also see our members and patrons names scrolling on the screen right here. If you'd like to join that community, just click the link in the description. And one of our viewers actually sent in a question for you, Dr. Haynes. So Pastor Robert McLennan said, as a pastor, the number one question that I get is how do we know that any dinosaurs were actually on the ark? So could you share some of the evidence that we have that confirms that there were dinos on Noah's Ark?

[B]

Genesis 6, 19 and 20. It talks about which groups of animals Noah should have inside of the ark. That's the first thing. The second thing is God told Noah that he was going to send those animals to the ark and Noah had to put those animals inside of the ark. And the group of animals, they have reptiles. Which dinosaur is part of reptiles? So God gave an order to Noah. You're going to have to put all those animals that I'm going to bring to you, and they're going to be belonging to those groups of animals, reptiles, birds, mammals. They would have to be inside of the ark. And reptiles, dinosaurs, it's in reptiles. So right there we can see that there is an order to put all those animals inside of the ark. And of course we have to think about how big they were inside of the ark. And then we have to think that God was the one sending those animals. God is way more wiser than we are. And we know that if you bring adult, they're going to probably die out. They're not going to be able to reproduce as much. So probably what's happening was God was sending eggs and also juveniles to go to the ark. That's one of the things. The second thing is we have so many legends all around the world talking about the encounters of people, humans, with dinosaurs, with creatures that we can describe as dinosaurs, but their names were not dinosaurs. The names that were called were dragons. So we have many legends, many information from different continents for people that didn't have access to each other talking about the same thing. We have classic literature talking about also those encounters. So it's very important for us to understand that they were inside of the ark. The ones that were not inside of the ark, they died during the flood. And then after those dinosaurs, they left the ark. Now they're going to have encounters with some other people. There actually a newspaper here in the United States from 1890, just not a long time ago, not long ago, talking about encounter of someone where a therasaur.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

It's not a dinosaur, but it's a pterosaur. It's a reptile that flies. So we have a lot of information from literature, from culture that point that yes, dinosaurs, they were inside of the ark and that's why humans had access to them after the flood.

[A]

Well, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you so much for sharing that. I bet that answered his question for very well. And thank you viewers for watching. We'll see you next time on the Creation Podcast.