Indeed it does not. My point. It is not a drawing. But let's go back to your response to 460:
Who drew this picture? Somebody looking at a pile of bones and guessing the creature had feathers?
Guessing? Nine minutes after I post, you're inviting people to believe that any feathers in the artist's rendition are a guess.
Now, in the post to which you make your incredibly reasoned and thought-out response, there is a link to the source. Anyone who clicked on that might well have found himself looking at the following pictures among others.
Who drew those? I mean, you could have taken a tiny smidgeon of care to find out if there was a good basis for saying "feathers" if you had the wit and the integrity to want to know. It was clearly more important to get a naysaying response out there fast. "Another funny drawing from the VAST EVOLUTIONIST CONSPIRACY."
Also, in your nine minutes of careful thought and composition it might have occurred to you to realize that the presence or absence of the feathers on the universally agreed taxonomic dromaeosaur don't matter that much, at least not to my point. It's still a dinosaur with practically the same skeleton as something the creationists secular evolution skeptics dismiss as "A bird! Just a bird!"
The first failure reveals a militantly willful level of ignorance. The second, a similar sort of stupidity.
I try to imagine what a truly secular skeptic of evolution would be like in debate. It seems extremely unlikely that such would be an ICR/AiG/(Your favorite YECcie org here) seminar graduate in every way except for not acknowledging his material.