Evolutionists claim that they have found a new "missing link" between land-based and flying dinosaurs (and therefore birds). The discovery by Argentine paleontologists Fernando Novas and Pablo Puerta of a new dinosaur in the sandstone of a river bed, prematurely and inappropriately (in our view) called Unenlagia comahuensi (meaning in Mapuche Indian "half bird of northwest Patagonia"), has caused evolutionists to chorus the discovery of a missing link. The reason: a shoulder structure that would have permitted a forelimb to flap. However, the beast was far too massive by the puny arms it possessed to fly.

That such a structure could (or could not -- one can't tell) "flap" proves nothing because humans can "flap" also. And to then say that "flight did not evolve from the top down, as climbing animals glided to earth from trees, but rather from the bottom up, when one mighty, running leap sent an ancient creature airborne millions of years ago" (Newsweek, June 2, 1997, p.23) is outrageous. Such statements would be comical were it not for the fact that such fantastic nonsense is taught as science in our schools and universities today. Those of you familiar with the opening minutes of the film, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, will understand the temptation to roll around on one's belly in uncontrollable laughter.

Creationists have maintained all along that complex traits requiring multiple stages for their devlopment cannot arise through random mutations. Evolution cannot produce structures as complex as wings, eyes, or ears when the rudimentary forms would not have enabled the creatures that owned them to see, fly or hear, or otherwise become more "fit". To claim that Unenlagia "evolved" a versatile shoulder "pre-adapted for flight" does not resolve the evolutionist's paradox of the evolution of useful rudimentary forms, however clever the wording to make it seem possible. That the forelimb of the beast flapped is, in any case, mere speculation.

Evolution is not only bad science but it isn't science at all. It's philosophy and, arguably, religion, because it is based on faith and not on scientific facts. The "theory" ("hypothesis" would be better) of evolution does not meet the criteria for the scientific method. It cannot be tested; and where attempts have been made to artificially speed up "evolution" by bombarding insects such as Drosophila with gene-mutating rays, the results have always --without exception -- been "devolution", the "creation" of redundant or vestigal organs or structures of no use to it. Most mutations are, in any case, lethal. Those that aren't are debilitating (like stunted wings) or positively harmful (such as diseases).

When I was at school I accepted evolution on faith because it was the only theory of origins taught to me. I still remember having enormous conceptual problems with it because it seemed to defy all logic and common sense. Not until I became a Christian at University was I finally exposed to Scientific Creationism and came to a rational belief in origins.

Evolution is the biggest deception since the mediaeval dogma that the earth was at the centre of the solar system and the universe. Todays creationists, persecuted and vilified by evolutionists, are yesterday's Galileo's persecuted and vilified by the Catholic Church. It is an ironic twist: whereas apostate Christianity once espoused doctrines of irrationality, now it is so-called "rational" humanism which espouses evolutionistic doctrines of irrationality.

Creationism can no more be scientifically proved than evolution but it certainly fits the facts alot better. Nature bears witness of a Sovereign and Omnipotent Creator, the Creator of the Bible, who made all things

This page was created on 16 June 1997 Last updated on 25 February 1998

Copyright © 1987-2008 NCCG - All Rights Reserved