I am a Christian as well, but I think something people tend to forget, or perhaps don’t realize, is that while the idea of relationships of species with each other has no contradiction with the Bible, the problem is the origin of species. Admitting an animal is an ancestor (or in this case just a cousin) to modern animals gets in the way of creation for many sects of Christianity. So the existence of Australopithecus or Pakicetus as they are isn’t an issue, the idea that they are ancestors doesn’t mesh nicely with an earth in which everything was made instantly, especially in the case of the origin of man. This “new discovery” is more of a “ok we admit it had feathers but that’s only because it’s a bird, not because it’s any sort of ancestor clade”.
I personally think they could still allow it to be a dinosaur and still keep the idea of non-relation rather than this sort of mental gymnastics. Just name it as a feathered dinosaur and call it a day lol
I get wanting to clown the whole group, but one has to look at it outside of their own mindset, which is harder for the average paleo fan than it sounds lol. Not going to speak for it and say it’s great, but posts like these can be abused to say things without even bothering to actually look into what they believe. I do think the idea of Velociraptor as a bird is unsupported, and we have its snout proving it had no beak.
On the plus side, the art is actually well done. That is something they often do good with things like these, unlike art like that of David Peters which is both unsupported and iffy in quality.
TLDR: yes it kinda can meddle with biblical interpretation, but the way AiG went about it still was pretty weird. Don’t use it as an excuse to make fun of all young earth creationists as many don’t bother with this kind of thinking plz. Theological arguments are already prohibited anyway but just saying just in case you didn’t see it in the post or our guidelines.
