Bird or Dino? Fossilized Feathered Tail Ignites Debate Between Evolutionists, Creationists

MYANMAR – Evolutionists are heralding the discovery of a well-preserved feathered tail in Asia as evidence that dinosaurs once had plumage, while creationists maintain that the specimen likely came from a bird.

Last week, a team of researchers consisting primarily of scientists from Canada and China published a journal article in “Current Biology.” The article, titled “A Feathered Dinosaur Tail with Primitive Plumage Trapped in Mid-Cretaceous Amber,” describes a piece of amber, approximately the size of an apricot, that was found at an amber market in Myanmar.

Several objects are encased in the amber, including ants, beetles, and plant fragments. But the most prominent and interesting object in the amber is a feathered tail measuring 1.45 inches in length. The journal article’s authors believe the tail belonged to a baby dinosaur that got stuck in tree resin nearly 100 million years ago and never escaped.

“Here we describe the feathered tail of a non-avialan theropod preserved in mid-Cretaceous (~99 Ma) amber from Kachin State, Myanmar, with plumage structure that directly informs the evolutionary developmental pathway of feathers,” the scientists wrote. “This specimen provides an opportunity to document pristine feathers in direct association with a putative juvenile coelurosaur, preserving fine morphological details, including the spatial arrangement of follicles and feathers on the body, and micrometer-scale features of the plumage.”

The scientists described the preserved tail as an “astonishing” specimen that highlights “the unique preservation potential of amber.”

“The tail … is visible to the naked eye as an elongate and gently curved structure (length = 36.73 mm),” the researchers observed. “A dense covering of feathers protrudes from the tail. … Soft tissues—presumably muscles, ligaments, and skin—are visible sporadically through the plumage.”

Ryan McKellar, one of the journal article’s co-authors, said the apricot-sized piece of amber, known as DIP-V-15103, is “a once in a lifetime find” that may change the way people think of dinosaurs.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The more we see these feathered dinosaurs and how widespread the feathers are, things like a scaly velociraptor seem less and less likely and they’ve become a lot more bird like in the overall view,” he told reporters. “They’re not quite the Godzilla-style scaly monsters we once thought.”

“It really underlines the importance of amber as an anchor for future study,” he added. “We’re picking up features we couldn’t see in compressed sedimentary fossils.”

Although the scientists acknowledged that “the preserved segment is only a small mid to distal portion of what was likely a relatively long tail,” they are confident that the tail came from a feathered dinosaur—specifically, a non-avialan theropod. They also say the discovery sheds light on the evolution of feathers.

However, other scientists have expressed skepticism over DIP-V-15103. Frank Sherwin, writing for the Institute for Creation Research, said the scientific community’s celebration over the specimen is “premature” and dismissed the discovery as “another feathered dinosaur tale.” Similarly, Dr. David Menton with Answers in Genesis said the feathers likely came from a bird—not a baby dinosaur.

“It is obviously not very exciting for an evolutionist to report unambiguous feathers on an avian dinosaur such as a robin,” Menton wrote in an online article published on Monday, “but it is career making, with the help of National Geographic, for an evolutionist to claim that such feathers occur in a non-avian dinosaur like a theropod dinosaur.”

“We conclude that DIP-V-15103 is a bird, and not a 99-million-year-old theropod dinosaur,” Menton wrote.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Trilemma

    Everyone sees what they want to see. The evolutionist sees a 99 million year old non-avian dinosaur with feathers. The creationist sees a 5000 year old bird.

    • Nofun

      Except scientists have hard evidence and creationist make up nonsense based on nothing. They are not equals.

  • Jimpithecus

    Given how incompetently David Menton has written on the human fossil record, I am not sure I would believe anything he writes.

  • Tangent002

    Except there are no modern bird species that sport a long tail like that. Long tail feathers, yes.

    • Oboehner

      Except there are many extinct species that very well could have.

      • Tangent002

        The creationist researchers did not name a species, however. They just said it was ‘a bird’.

        • Oboehner

          Neither did the evolutionists.

          • Tangent002

            Likely because it is too early to tell.

          • Oboehner

            Yet they could tell exactly which “period” it came from even though it was found at a flea market.

          • Tangent002

            Well, yes. Amber is easier to date because the source mine can usually be discovered. Depending on how far down the mine had to dig, a rough date can be determined.

          • Oboehner

            Sounds heavy on the speculation and light on the facts.

          • Nofun

            Are you qualified to make that judgement?

          • Oboehner

            *judgment*

          • Nofun

            Both spellings are valid in the English language …my text checking is based on an Australian dictionary.

            Anything of actual value to add?

          • Oboehner

            You?

          • Ken Campbell

            You sound a bit skeptical about this find. What do you think it is?

          • Oboehner

            A feather, what else?

          • Nofun

            How do you make that evaluation and why is it superior to the scientists involved in the study?

          • Oboehner

            I have eyes.

          • Nofun

            So you have examined the amber then?

            Its possible you are not qualified to have a scientific assessment of the the sample. Remember beliefs and opinions don’t count.

          • Oboehner

            So YOU have examined the amber then?
            Its possible you are not qualified to have a scientific assessment of the the sample. Remember beliefs and opinions don’t count.

          • Nofun

            No. I accept the peer reviewed work, I understand the scientific process and I can read and understand a scientific paper that outlines the evidence.

            You on the other hand have to believe lies about radiometric dating, this scientific work and all scientists all because you think jesus wants you to. You risk far more than me by believing these lies and dragging your religion through them.

          • Oboehner

            Peer reviewed, “10 out of 10 pedophiles agree…”
            Lies? You do have the documentation then, or are you the one lying?

          • Nofun

            So you prefer not having peer review then? Deep.

            You have a computer in front of you …look up radiometric dating techniques.

            The fact you don’t have knowledge of it suggests you should not be making judgements on this work.

          • Oboehner

            So what you’re telling me is you have nothing, ok got it. Enjoy your blind faith.

          • Nofun

            So you hate blind faith then?

            You seem to be angry and full of hate ……..try believing in jesus more and Creationism less ..it will make your life far happier.

          • Oboehner

            It’s an all or nothing proposition.

          • Ken Campbell

            That’s a good start. We have a feather encased in amber. Do you think it can be dated? The folks that studied it think it is 100 million years old

          • Oboehner

            100 million years, based on what?

          • Ken Campbell

            I’m assuming some sort of radioactive isotope study. Its too old for Carbon 14 and I’m not sure what other half life materials are used.

          • Oboehner

            Did they take into account the starting radioactivity levels and anything that may have influenced those levels over the course of their millions of years? I would really like to see the documentation on that – or do I have to take THAT on faith as well?

          • Ken Campbell

            No…you don’t need to take that on faith. I’m just trying to make a starting point here. I’m making the assumption that the age is relatively accurate within a few million years

          • Oboehner

            Assumptions aren’t very scientific, besides a million here or a million there, what’s the difference right?

          • Ken Campbell

            I suppose you could look at the journal articles on this find and determine its authenticity. I’m just trying to get a starting point for the discussion. If we can’t even determine that this is a very old item, we are not able to explore its implications at all.

            Perhaps it was a ‘My Little Pony’ toy.

          • Oboehner

            I Guess without any documentation, we can’t even determine that this is a very old item, we’ll just have to take it on faith.
            You might want to keep your little pony out of it.

          • Ken Campbell

            This is what I understand. They found a piece of amber with the butt end of a feathered critter stuck in it. They dated it at 100 million years. The question is whether this is a modern bird that coexisted with dinosaurs or if modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

          • Oboehner

            You had me until the “They dated it at 100 million years.” part, my faith in evolution isn’t that strong.
            I would have to say that unless there is documented cases of something evolving into a completely different species, I would have to go with the coexisted thing.

          • Ken Campbell

            So how old could it be then?

          • Oboehner

            Apparently as old as you want it.

          • Ken Campbell

            Ah….my question was badly worded. You had an issue with the 100 million years. Is there a maximum number of years that you would accept?

          • Oboehner

            A number that wouldn’t require assumption or speculation.

          • Ken Campbell

            OK…..

          • Charles

            ha.. ha.. ha.. So true…

          • Trilemma

            Do you think it’s less than 6400 years old?

          • Oboehner

            Do you think it’s more than that?

          • Trilemma

            Yes, I think it’s more than 6400 years old. Do you think it’s less than 6400 years old?

          • Oboehner

            Relevance?

          • Nofun

            So attack radiometric dating hey ….. sorry it works ….. the problem for you is you are required to attack it as it nullifies every creationist tenant.

          • Oboehner

            It only nullifies sensibilities since it is purely based on assumption and speculation – basically useless.

          • Nofun

            So you think the decay pf radio active compounds is not real and is just an assumption. You would be wrong.

            You see, once you believe a lie you have to believe in a whole lot more lies, almost daily ….it never stops. Dragging jesus through those lies is really doing him no favors.

            The biblical creation story does not pretend to be science, Creationism does…… they are nothing alike.

            Creationism states lies, exaggerations and cherry picked evidence to supposedly support biblical beliefs but no Christian requires lies to accept and believe in Christianity.

          • Oboehner

            Decay of radioactive compounds huh? Well do show documentation of the beginning levels and any outside influences, atmospheric conditions, etc. otherwise you have nothing.
            You can save the accusations of lying, they are just as ridiculous as your dating story.

          • Nofun

            You want a education in palaeontology methods in a blog?

            Its good you are interested in such things so try reading up on the subject yourself. But do it from actual science texts and not “what to say to people when they say Creationism is lies” websites.

          • Oboehner

            The actual texts taught me all about the speculation and assumption, or do you have the documentation? If not YOU are the one lying, so which is it?

          • Nofun

            You have made out you don’t understand radiometric dating techniques …. why not find ….radio active compounds can be found anywhere ….they require no assumptions or speculation.

          • Oboehner

            As expected you are completely missing the point, yes I know there are radio-active compounds everywhere, that is not in question. One cannot determine the age by the rate of decay unless one knows the starting point and any outside influences along the way. That is as ridiculous as you asking me how many M&M’s you ate without knowing how many were in the bag to start with.

          • Richard Forrest

            Not all dating methods are based on radioactive elements and not all radiometric technique require a knowledge of the starting point. Numerous different methods correlate well with each other, and no single method is taken in isolation to establish geological dates.

            I suggest that if you wish to dismiss centuries of scientific research as unsound, a good starting point would be to educate yourself in the subject. If you have an overwhelming need to preserve your ignorance because such knowledge would challenge your religious beliefs, it tells us more about the vacuous nature of your beliefs than the science you so ignorantly attack.

          • Nofun

            You can’t reason people out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. The guy is a brick wall of ignorance.

          • Ellabulldog

            Nothing worse than someone being wrong and doubling down on their own ignorance. Must be from Kentucky:)

          • Oboehner

            ALL dating methods are based in assumption, they need the magical “billions of years” to work, even then they are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.
            I’ll give you a shot, tell me (using the dating formula that doesn’t require a starting level) and answer a simple math equation : A car goes by at 60 MPH, how long has it been traveling?

          • Nofun

            So you think radio active decay of a given isotope is imaginary.

            Again you have to believe this otherwise every unchristian tenant of Creationism dies.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, but do share just how much has decayed by showing documentation of the starting level and all outside influences, or let that argument rest in piece like every other aspect of evolution – it’s dead.

          • Nofun

            What outside influences effect radioactive decay?

            Denying the accuracy of radiometric dating is lying …Jesus hates lies …. either choose Jesus and the creation story or Creationism and its lies ….. you just can’t choose both.

          • Nofun

            There are no evolutionists …Evolution is the science theory of speciation.

            Creationists are not doing anything that is close to science.

            Creationism is nothing like the biblical story and no Christian is required to believe phony science.

          • Oboehner

            “There are no evolutionists …Evolution is the science theory of speciation.” Rife with speculation, assumption, and religious belief.

            “Creationists are not doing anything that is close to science.” Are you qualified to make that judgment?

          • Nofun

            Yes. I am a Biochemist and thoroughly understand the subject

            Every Creationist assertion is unscientific and a lie. It brings shame to Christianity to associate your bible with a pack of lies.

          • Oboehner

            Back at ya, I’m a greeter at Wal-Mart and I can see right through your BS.

          • Nofun

            Maybe you shouldn’t comment on subjects you know nothing about.

            Stick to pointing out spellings errors which aren’t spelling errors.

          • Oboehner

            Ok, no evidence just a sad little rabbit-trail.

      • Nofun

        Name one?

        • Oboehner

          Funny.

          • Nofun

            So you have nothing …big surprise.

          • Oboehner

            So I’m supposed to name every unknown extinct species now, is that it?

    • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan

      Viewing porn all day does not make you an expert on bird life.

  • Toby Mueller

    It is hard to make the leap to dinosaurs become birds from one small section of feathers. How does anyone know what the rest of the individual looks like? Could it be a small bird? Or a baby bird? Or a dinosaur with feathers? No one knows. I would also be leary of any fossil that is found in China. Many fakes are made there.

    • Tangent002

      The dino-to-bird theory has been around for decades. This is merely another piece of corroborating evidence.

      BTW, Myanmar is in Burma, not China.

      • Oboehner

        Corroborating how? It’s a feather.

        • Tangent002

          No, it’s a feathered tail.

          • Oboehner

            Oooohh…

          • Richard Forrest

            It’s a tail with bones in it, and feathered.
            No modern bird has a bony tail. Early birds did. Dinosaurs did.
            It’s pretty well irrefutable evidence that modern birds are descendants of non-avian dinosaurs.
            Get a freakin’ education.

          • Oboehner

            You were there and personally witnessed this, or are you just starting with a feathered tail and making crap up like the pig’s tooth and Nebraska Man?

          • Richard Forrest

            I suggest that rather than regurgitating uncritically garbage you read in creationist sources you educate yourself.

            Making a public display of profound ignorance mixed with the arrogant belief that your religious dogma trumps centuries of scientific research only makes you look a fool.

          • Oboehner

            I suggest that rather than regurgitating uncritically garbage you read in evolutionist sources you educate yourself.

            Making a public display of profound ignorance mixed with the arrogant belief that your religious dogma trumps common sense and attempting to disguise it as “centuries of scientific research” only makes you look a fool. If you actually had anything you’d post it instead of that drivel.

          • Nofun

            Richard is being calm, reasonable and trying to help you and all you do is throw hate and derision his way…… are all christians this full of hate?

          • Nofun

            You seem angry and full of hate …jesus is making you miserable …try reality

          • Oboehner

            You seem desperate to try and get under my skin, at least make an attempt (albeit a feeble one no doubt) to post some substance worth discussing.

          • Nofun

            You first.

          • Oboehner

            Another cop out, I’m not the one claiming “scientific fact”, you are so let’s have some.

          • Nofun

            You don’t have the education to understand the context of the facts, nor the willingness to even try and educate yourself on the theory.

            Richard Forrest has infinitely more patience than I and he seems to getting no where with you ….. its like you are not worth the trouble …you just deny reality and attack the messenger.

            In short, you are not unworthy.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz…. Still nothing?

          • Nofun

            Exhibit A.

          • Oboehner

            Still nothing.

          • Oboehner

            Any Idea on the modern day ant also included in the amber?

            I find it quite fascinating how evolutionists bail like rats when asked about that, You’re different though, you must have a freakin’ education
            so you’ll be rolling out the lame excuses.

        • Tangent002

          No, it’s a feathered tail.

      • Toby Mueller

        The dino to bird is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It is not a well accepted idea that bird come from dinosaurs. There has not been a complete example of a transitional organism.

        BTW, Myanmar neighbors China. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the fossil was found by Chinese researchers in a market that shares a border with a known fossil falsifier?

        • Nofun

          Never heard of archaeopteryx then?

          Birds evolving from dinosaurs is a scientific theory since it is backed by fossil and genetic evidence.

          The god zapping things into existence theory hasn’t got any evidence for it yet.

          • Oboehner

            Ah, the archaeopteryx, an extinct species that has come to be heralded as some kind of magical transitional creature. But alas there is no evidence it is anything more than a dead, extinct creature.

          • Nofun

            All fossils are transitional as Evolution is an on-going process.

          • Oboehner

            On going BS is more accurate, nothing ever has or ever will do anything more than minor adaptations which like Darwin’s finch beaks aren’t permanent. Not transitional.

          • Nofun

            Sorry, that is just a lie.

            Every time you throw your lot in with Creationism you have to lie, lie and keep on lying which also takes you far away from Jesus and Christianity.

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, that is just a lie.
            Every time you throw your lot in with evolutionism you have to lie, lie and keep on lying which also takes you far away from Darwin and his mythological speciation.

          • Nofun

            Yet you can’t explain why and have no evidence that contradicts the 150+ years of science and evidence which support Evolution.

            Maybe science isn’t your thing.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz.. No, BS isn’t my thing.

          • Nofun

            I beg to disagree.

          • Toby Mueller

            Yep, I heard of that bird fossil. It looks like a bird, then its a bird. Archaeopteryx is and was a bird. Not a dinosaur. No evidence that it was anything other than a bird.

            Belief in creation or evolution take faith. Both sides have the same fossils. The difference is that belief in evolution takes more faith.

          • Richard Forrest

            Birds are dinosaurs. That is a conclusion formed by studying numerous lines of evidence over a couple of centuries of research by biologists and palaeontologists. If you have a better, testable explanation for the evidence, feel free to offer it.Mind you, that would require that you study the evidence is great depth – something which is no doubt such a challenge to your religious dogma that you prefer to remain in your little bubble of ignorance.
            Humans are primates, placentals, mammals.
            Whales are mammals.

            Is the concept of nested hierarchies to complex for you to understand?

            It takes no faith whatsoever to “believe in” evolution. Contrary to the blatant lies promoted by creationists, it is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory.

            Far from “having the same fossils”, creationists are at best profoundly ignorant of the fossil record, at worst prepared to lie about it.

          • Nofun

            You sure you are qualified to make that assessment?

            Evolution is science and thus requires zero faith. It has 150+ years of science and evidence behind it.

            Religionists always try and make out everything is a choice of beliefs ….sorry no … its a choice between reality and fantasy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh yeah, something came from nothing and order came from disorder. Perfectly sound reasoning and completely logical there. No faith required at all for that.

            Thank you! Always appreciated with the Evolution religious fanatics expose themselves and completely discredit anything they have to say.

          • Nofun

            No one says something came from nothing except when Christians lie about atheists.

            Also Cosmology is nothing to do with Evolution …still your god came from nothing.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once again completely discrediting yourself and your community. Here’s a bit of wisdom you should ponder and exercise:

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Nofun

            You seem to have a lot to say though …seems I have plenty of company in my foolery.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, you most definitely do! ALL those of you who are stubborn, disobedient & rebellious God-haters who openly show your close-minded bias, pious contempt, and outright bigotry toward anyone who doesn’t think like you.

            Yup, you most definitely do. Which goes, once again, to prove God’s Word true:

            “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

          • Nofun

            My mind is always open to real world evidence.

            Its also impossible to hate imaginary faith constructs …try hating Santa … its very hard.

            So you biblical passage is saying you should be narrow minded because an open mind is all too scary and will lead to destruction. Just another bible passage that frowns upon free thinking and intellect ……big surprise.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you once again! You’re batting a 1000. Oh yeah, we call all see very well how open you are.

            Just keep diggin’…

          • Amos Moses

            feathers do not make a bird ….. nor does flight ….. got any evidence it flew ….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            It’s not backed by ANY evidence. At least not to those who think with rational logically thought.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          This is exactly like their textbook pics, museum models, and such where they come up with complete “representations” of things like Lucy, Neanderthal Man, Peking Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, etc etc.

          From a half dozen bone fragments from different parts of the body they make a complete reconstruction including facial features, body hair, height, weight, and even eye color!!

          And folks swallow the Kool-Aid without even tasting it first. And we’re the one’s who walk by blind faith! LOL

      • Oboehner

        Hoe about the modern-day ant in the amber, it just decided not to “evolve” anymore?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It didn’t decide anything, it got trapped in tree sap which hardened into amber. What relevance does it have to disproving evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Well mister troll, if the feathered tail is millions of years old and is transitional, why is the ant not more like a cave ant or whatever you people BELIEVE they were bazillions of years ago?

            So how about the modern-day ant in the amber, it just decided not to “evolve” anymore? Or is evolution yet again shown to be a false religion?

    • Amos Moses

      maybe it is dino armpit hair ….. er … feathers ….. forgot to shave that morning ………

  • Nofun

    There are no scientists at the Institute for Creation Research …. nor any science.

    • Tangent002

      They have a handful of credentialed scientists, but not anything any serious thinker would consider legitimate.

      • Oboehner

        Serious thinker, right…

  • Tangent002

    Well, Answers in Genesis has it in their Statement of Faith that any evidence contrary to scripture is necessarily false. I doubt their authority in this matter.

    • Oboehner

      How does that differ from the average evolutionist?

      • Nofun

        You can’t do science if you have apriori magical beliefs ….science is based on evidence, reality and objectivity.

        • Oboehner

          Right, exploding dots and all. So you have real evidence that points exclusively to evolution, or must I take it on faith – like always?

          • Ken Campbell

            What do you mean ‘exclusively’? What theory do you have to offer instead?

          • Oboehner

            I’m not asking about another theory, you claim evidence, reality and objectivity – I’m asking about that.

          • Ken Campbell

            OK…but you seem skeptical about the theory of evolution. Do you have another theory for the diversity of life on earth?

          • Oboehner

            No exclusive evidence, check.

          • GalapagosPete

            You are free to falsify evolution and collect your Nobel Prize.

            Seriously, you are.

          • Oboehner

            The evolutionists have that covered already.

          • GalapagosPete

            You don’t actually know what “falsify” means, do you?

          • Oboehner

            I do.

          • GalapagosPete

            Then clearly you are claiming that evolutionists have covered winning Nobel Prizes, rather than that they have falsified evolution. Very kind of you to say.

          • Oboehner

            Typical evolutionist, making things fit no matter how much you have to twist.

          • Tangent002

            Special pleading can always find ‘rationale’ for any bit of evidence.

          • Oboehner

            No need when there is no exclusive evidence at all.

          • Nofun

            Jesus hates your lies.

          • Oboehner

            More asinine, baseless accusations from someone who wastes time pretending to know a miniscule fragment of science, yet can’t seem to post any.

          • Nofun

            No one can give you a science education in a blog …its up to you to get an education.

          • Oboehner

            The old “I can’t educate you” cop out, lame. I you had anything at all you would post it, therefore the complete lack of anything of substance clearly demonstrates your evolutionary void.

          • Nofun

            You are extremely lazy expecting others to educate you …especially since, if they do, you just deny everything and scream abuse.

          • Oboehner

            Other’s are extremely lacking in in ability to educate anyone.

          • Nofun

            Top word salad.

        • Amos Moses

          you cant do science if you A Priori deny God ………. that is part of the evidence ………..

      • Richard Forrest

        “Evolutionists” -or any scientists for that matter – don’t insist a propri that dogma must not be challenged.
        Science advances precisely because existing theories are constantly challenged.
        Creationism survives because some people prefer to remain in their little bubble of ignorance and dishonesty rather than opening their minds to the wider world.

        • Oboehner

          Science advances precisely because existing theories are constantly challenged, but if the “official” line isn’t towed, funding is lost and blacklisting is commenced.

          Evolutionism survives because some people prefer to remain in their little bubble of ignorance and dishonesty rather than opening their minds to the wider world, or critically thinking for themselves.

          • Nofun

            More lies and hate about scientists …tsk, tsk ..its all you have really isn’t it.

            Jesus is very disappointed in you.

          • Oboehner

            More lies and hate about everyone …tsk, tsk ..its all you have really isn’t it.

            Darwin is very disappointed in you.

          • Nofun

            Parroting, hey.

            One problem with that …Darwin was real and isn’t so needy he wants worship.

          • Ken Campbell

            Darwin is dead. I’m not sure if you heard.

          • Oboehner

            Quite.

          • Ken Campbell

            phew. I didn’t want another resurrection story to be started

          • Oboehner

            Yet mythological “transformation” stories don’t bother you.

          • Ken Campbell

            They have a rational basis. Resurrection stories tend to be more in the area of fantasy. The Game of Thrones has a resurrection story for example

          • Oboehner

            No, they have a basis in your belief system. Exploding dots and magically poofing life is most definitely in the area of fantasy, right next to common ancestors.

          • Ken Campbell

            I will give you an example of critical thinking: What would it take for you to abandon the notion of creationism?

          • Oboehner

            An act of God. What would it take to cause me to believe in evolutionism? Nothing, it’s as fictitious as santa.

          • Ken Campbell

            I didn’t suggest you would ‘believe in evolution’. I asked what would make you abandon belief in the Creation story. The next question is ‘what would it take to abandon belief in God’?

          • Oboehner

            More than you got.

          • Ken Campbell

            I suspect we would need to know what it would take before we could determine if its something I have. Could you present your criteria for abandoning your belief in the Creation theory

          • Oboehner

            The ant and everyone’s inability to plainly answer the questions that arise only strengthens it. No criteria exists, but if you are feeling froggy by all means jump.

          • Oboehner

            Since you seem to believe the feather/tail thing is so old and is evidence of your evolution religion, how do you explain the modern day ant that is also in the amber?

          • Ken Campbell

            I didn’t hear that there was a modern day ant in the amber.

          • Oboehner

            Scroll up to the top of the page and look at the picture, perhaps that will help.

  • Nofun

    I love how the Creationists did what they always do …deny the evidence and then attack the scientists personally …..anything but so actual science.

    • Amos Moses

      the problem is not the evidence … we all have the exact same evidence …… the problem is “scientists” telling us what the evidence MEANS …… and they are wrong …….. just because a scientist says something ….. does not make it science …………..

      • Nofun

        They aren’t talking football ……. they are talking science …… who else knows science better.

        You can’t call something evidence unless you know what it means.

        • Amos Moses

          “You can’t call something evidence unless you know what it means.”

          you can make up a story to fit an accepted narrative …….. and they do …….. so it is not science ….. it is pseudo-science ……….

          • Nofun

            So every Biological scientist on earth is lying as part of a huge 150+ year worldwide conspiracy? Really?

            You don’t know science better than scientists …have some Christian humility.

          • Amos Moses

            they have been lied to and they accept the lie as ….. well truth i guess ….. they accept “authority” as a source of truth when it is not … and then they spread the lies they have been told ………

            “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
            ― Mark Twain

            may be a misattribution but no less true ………..

  • Scott Davenport

    Satan loves to make fools of people…hopefully you’ll be smiling like us when the real answers are revealed… 🙂

    • Nofun

      If there were a Satan we would at the Institute for Creation Research.

      • Nidalap

        There is and he is.
        You don’t have his FULL attention…

        • Nofun

          Any evidence of devils ….or gods?

          • Amos Moses

            there is no evidence ………. when you ignore the evidence ………

          • Nofun

            Well where is it? What am I Ignoring?

          • Amos Moses

            everything you see points to a creation …… but when we choose blindness to it …….. therefore our observations are in error ….. and it is no longer science ….. it is an agenda ….

          • Nofun

            Everything around us has rational real world explanations backed by evidence.

            At best that would be evidence of a magic god’s creation, not him. You claim to be having a personal relationship with god the entity not his creation, so evidence should be thick on the ground …where is it?

          • Amos Moses

            “Everything around us has rational real world explanations backed by evidence.”

            sorry …. let me fix that for you …….. Everything around us has rational real world explanations that misinterpret evidence ……….. there you go …..

            “You claim to be having a personal relationship with god the entity not his creation, so evidence should be thick on the ground …where is it?”

            the evidence IS the ground and everything on it ….. and as i said ….. you ignore the evidence and therefore the observations are in error ……. all of them ….

  • GalapagosPete

    “…creationists maintain that the specimen likely came from a bird.”

    Were there birds 100 mya?

    • Steven Thompson

      Confuciusornis is a bit older than that; Ichthyornis and Hesperornis a bit younger. Archaeopteryx is considerably older, but may be on the Velociraptor side of the dromeosaur-bird split. Opinions differ.

      • GalapagosPete

        I suppose it could be a bird, then. We’ll have to wait and see.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    100 million years? They determine the date out of pure fantasies. Secularists do not seek the truth but only desire to deny the existence of God.

    • Nofun

      Funny how many Christian scientists have no problem with the findings.

      Find out about radiometric dating techniques.

      • Oboehner

        Funny how popular opinion has any value.

        • Nofun

          Again, science is not an opinion …and if you don’t understand the science involved you don’t get an opinion. Science is not a Democracy.

          • Nidalap

            Tell THAT to the Global Warming consensus…

          • Nofun

            Consensus is not a dirty word in science as many pretend it is.

            All science is first peer reviewed to be published, then, must be reproduced or reexamined by many others before it becomes accepted high value science.

            Man made greenhouse is a ridiculous obvious reality with a ton of evidence for it.

            Even the most ardent science deniers have moved on to the position that’s it happening but the worse thing in the world to do would be to do something about it.

          • Amos Moses

            “Consensus is not a dirty word in science”

            but that is a “democracy” ……….. and you just said …… “Science is not a Democracy.” ……..

          • Nofun

            Its not a democracy its a judgement like in court …a court is definitely not a democracy.

            It also has to be backed up by actual work …so again nothing like voting in an election.

          • Amos Moses

            when you ignore the evidence ….. it is not a court …. it is an agenda ….. it is a predetermined outcome ….. A Priori ………..

          • Nofun

            Again what evidence is anyone ignoring?

            You don’t seem to able to answer that one, hey?

          • Amos Moses

            “You claim to be having a personal relationship with god the entity not his creation, so evidence should be thick on the ground …where is it?”

            the evidence IS the ground and everything on it ….. and as i said ….. you ignore the evidence and therefore the observations are in error ……. all of them …. hey?

          • Ken Campbell

            Science can be very political. Look at the studies on smoking to see how that works. However, reality is not political

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I guess that means you don’t get an opinion. Funny how that doesn’t seem to stop you from spewing them though. And btw, you might wanna do a little research and study on Dr. Larry Vardiman and his “RATE Project”.

          • Nofun

            Dr. Larry Vardiman is a creationist liar like all the rest.

            Why believe him when 1000s of other scientists say the opposite ….. because he is telling you want you want to hear.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once again completely discrediting yourself. Oh, and I’ll consider your evaluation of Dr. Vardiman’s qualifications under the same standard by which you judge. LOL

            Thank you for putting on display the evidence for not only yourself but a vast number of “scientists”. Your claim that there isn’t even the slightest bit of controversy over Evolution in Science is absolutely false to the utmost and not only borders on insanity but shines a spotlight on your inability to be rational and the total bias that you and your ilk have. Which goes to prove the point…

            Why believe Vardiman, the rest of his team, the results of his TWO-YEAR Multi-Million dollar study, all the other Scientists who were at the symposium that heard his presentation and then went back to disprove it and couldn’t, and all the rest who were there who say the opposite to you?

            Answer: Because as your close-minded, stubborn, and rebellious post shows, you simply have a bias that you are not going to let-go of. Just as God has said!

            18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT o them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18-22)

          • Nofun

            Whatever the voices in your head are telling you there is no controversy on Evolution in the science world.

            There is plenty of religious and political controversy.

            Creationism is bankrolled by right wing billionaires everywhere trying to buy a stairway to heaven. Its far more lucrative than actual Science.

            If I had no integrity I would roll over too and start fleecing naive Christians looking to science to bolster their weak faith. The question you should really ask yourself is why you need science to agree with your faith.

            Its a shortcut to a life of misery as science is never going to able to tell you 1 + 1 = Jesus …. well not with a straight face anyway.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Whatever the voices in your head are telling you there IS controversy on Evolution in the science world.

            As to the rest of your incoherent ramblings, i’ll just again say thank you for continuing to show anyone who can read that you’re delusional.

            Much appreciated.

          • Nofun

            Sorry that is a lie. As I explained to another here, once you go with Creationist lies you have to keep on lying to support the other lies.

            Creationism is just phony science ….its nothing like the biblical story which does not claim to be science. No Christian is required to believe phony science.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sorry that is a lie. As I explained to another here, once you go with Evolutionists lies you have to keep on lying to support the other lies.

            Evolution is just phony science ….its no different than the biblical story which does not claim to be science. No Christian is required to believe phony science and neither is an Evolutionist.

          • Nofun

            More parroting. Deep.

          • Ken Campbell

            Ah….I see you have engaged in a “that’s what you are but what am I” conversation with a creationist. Can I watch?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            More parroting jibberish. Deep.

          • Nofun

            Silly Christian troll has surrendered …I accept your surrender.

          • Richard Forrest

            I have read widely about the RATE project, both from the creationists who carried out the “research” and the scientists who have commented on it.

            It is presented in sciency-sounding language not because it has any scientific merit – it hasn’t, and certainly doesn’t support the conclusions creationists claim – but because it is a device to fool creationists into believing that their narrow religious dogma is supported by science, I consider this to be dishonest, but evidently creationists have different views on the morality of such deceit. I should add that the claim for scientific support for religious belief is theologically questionable. Science is a system of investigation of the natural world which operates on the basis of doubt. All theories in science are held to be provisional, and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. Unless you are prepared to define observations or measurements which would show that your faith is false, to claim any empirical support is at best ignorant, at worst dishonest.

            I suggest that rather than demanding that others carry out research, you do some of your own in other than the creationist sources. This is not because anyone expects you to accept uncritically everything you read, but because it will open your eyes the fact that creationists lie about science.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Yeah, right. Funny how all those Scientists at the San Francisco world-wide symposium didn’t seem to think so.

            Tell ya what, you go spend MILLIONS of dollars over a couple of years having taken a vow to do the research and report the results however they may fall then come on back and show those results along with your credentials and I’ll give what you consider and your suggestions more weight. LOL

            I suggest you take your high and mighty claims and try to disprove what Vardiman’s SCIENCE shows or just keep your suggestions to yourself. There have been several other SCIENTISTS at that symposium who tried. They couldn’t but maybe in all your pomposity you’ll be able to.

            Or you can just continue to spew your nonsense and denials while offering NOTHING and let everyone see your obvious bias which only goes to reinforce our POV that you don’t know because you don’t wanna know and prefer to intentionally lie and lead others astray.

            This is not because anyone expects you to accept uncritically everything you read, but because it will open your eyes to the fact that Evolutionists lie about science.

          • Nofun

            Vardiman has no relevant qualifications.

            Why would you believe him over a 1000 other scientists who say different?

            I think we both know the answer?

            I spoke to Jesus and he says he hates Creationist lies.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once again completely discrediting yourself and showing everyone where you stand. Coupled that with your comment “I am a scientist” you not only bring discredit to yourself but to the whole scientific community.

            Well done!!

          • Nofun

            I am a Biochemist …I don’t give a damn if you believe it or not.

            That’s the thing about science …only scientists in that particular area of study get a say in the science. Science is not a democracy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once again discrediting yourself. Evidently you don’t wish to reflect any wisdom at all.

            Vardiman’s research, study, and results are available for anyone to see and he DOES get his say. Just as he did at the world-wide symposium.

            But hey, you’ve had your say too and you’ve shown the lies and methodology by which you and your “scientific” ilk work by.

          • Nofun

            His work, like all Creationism rubbish, is not peer reviewed science.

            Nonetheless, how would you, a non-scientist, be able to judge it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once again putting on display for all who can read the obvious bias and lack of objectivity that comes along with you and your ilk. Once again bringing discredit to not only yourself but all those like you.

            Much appreciated. Btw, for one who thinks so highly of himself and his intellect, one would think that you might stop digging your hole anytime now. LOL

          • Nofun

            Saying that over and over again doesn’t make it true little fella.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you once again! Still batting a 1000. LOL Boy howdy, you are one dense person. Or do you honestly just enjoy your self-deprecating, self-defeating comments.

          • Nofun

            …and over and over.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            …and over and over.

          • Richard Forrest

            I suggest that unless you can provide a clear example of “evolutionists” lying about science, you are guilty of bearing false witness – perhaps something you prefer to ignore.

            Just to inform you, a lie is a statement made in the knowledge that it is false and with the intent to deceive. Amongst many creationist lies are

            1. Creationism is a scientific theory. It isn’t as is demonstrated by the fact that on the one hands they claim that it is, and on the other that we should redefine the fundamental nature of science to accommodate the supernatural. I
            2. That those who oppose creationism are atheist. Some of the strongest opponents of creationism are religious believers, and over 13,000 Christian clergy has signed the “Clergy Letter’.
            3. That evolution is “a theory in crisis”- a claim they have been making for well over a century. According to an evolutionary biologist (and incidentally devout Christian) “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.
            4. That evolution is “just a theory”. It’s isn’t: it’s a phenomenon of nature we can observe in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory.
            5. That there is a difference in terms of mechanism between macro- and microevolution. There is no implication of any difference using terms in the sense for which they were coined by the people who coined them, and the attempt to redefine standard scientific terms for no reason other than to deny they they exist is blatantly dishonest.
            6. That the fossil record supports creationist “science”. It doesn’t, as anyone with a decent knowledge and understanding of that record can tell you. It was incidentally the flat and blatant falsehoods with which this claim is promoted which first alerted me to the fundamental dishonesty of creationism several decades ago.

            If you can’t provide any evidence that “evolutionists” lie – and we all know you can’t – I suggest that you withdraw this bearing of false witness or be exposed as a liar yourself.

            Over to you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’ll take your suggestions with as much of a grain of salt as those of Nofun.

            As for providing clear evidence, I ain’t doing your work for you. Don’t be so lazy. Google it. It’s not all that hard to do. If you want to know the truth it’s not to hard to find. In fact, one only need to look in many “Science Textbooks” today to find some. That’s easy to find with a Google search too. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to let anyone who reads this know. Always sticks with folks a lot longer and better when they go find it for themselves.

            Calling me a false witness? Ha! LOL You are guilty of bearing false witness – perhaps something you prefer to ignore.

            Just to inform you, ya might wanna try to read past the first sentence of something when you’re looking for information. Had you kept reading you would’ve found: “an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood” and “the charge or accusation of telling a lie” and “to express what is false; convey a false impression”.

            One either tells the truth or they tell a lie. There’s no inbetween. And, in case you’re wondering, a half truth is a whole lie. Which is exactly what you did with your definition of a lie. Whether or not it was intentional only you and God know but it was a lie nonetheless.

            As for the rest of your blather, it’s all just a bunch of lies that I’m not casting any more of my pearls or time to. But hey, thanks for giving me an example to provide evidence that “evolutionists” lie and exposing yourself as a Liar with the above so I don’t have to.

          • Richard Forrest

            I give several examples of lies promoted by creationists which you ignore.

            You accused “evolutionists” of lying.
            You refuse to provide any evidence to support that claim, but demand that I should provide such evidence!

            It’s up to you to support that claim, or you are exposed as a liar yourself.

            Calling others liars without foundation may be the only way in which you can preserve you crabbed and narrow dogma, but that tells us more about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of creationism than it does about the honest of those against whom you bear false witness.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, you didn’t give any lies promoted by creationists. You gave your opinion of what creationists say and your characterization of what Science is.

            Which exposed YOU as the Liar. The same old regurgitated gruel that is vomited up time after time after time.

            Now run along and find another pig’s tooth that you can turn into the “Missing Link”, go to your art room and create another figure that looks like whatever you imagine it to be and whatever image you wanna create it in and then come on back and talk to me about honesty, my fairy tales, and there being no god.

            Meanwhile I’m preparing for Eternity. Oh btw, so are you!

    • Ken Campbell

      So you don’t accept dating science? I suppose that also applies to all of the Christian artifacts that have been dated

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        A pure fiction. No dating method can detect anything more than a few thousand years back.

  • johndoe

    Here we go again, with the old LIE that Christians hate science.
    Here’s a listed of noted Christian scientists, starting with those still living. Many of them are Nobel Prize winners, as noted.

    David Wilkinson (1963–)
    Jose Gabriel Funes (1963–), priest
    Stephen Barr (1953–)
    Guy Consolmagno (1952–), priest
    Simon Conway Morris (1951–)
    Francis Collins (1950–), director, National Institutes of Health
    William Daniel Phillips (1948–), Nobel Prize
    Richard Smalley (1943-2005), Nobel Prize
    Colin Humphreys (1941–)
    Lorenzo Albacete (1941-2014), priest
    Mariano Artigas (1938-2006), priest
    Gerhard Ertl (1936–), Nobel Prize
    Francisco Ayala (1934–)
    George Coyne (1933–), priest
    Anthony Hewish (1924–), Nobel Prize
    Stanley Jaki (1924-2009), priest/physicist
    Arthur Peacocke (1924-2006), theologian/biochemist
    Ian Barbour (1923-2013)
    Arthur Schawlow (1921-1999), Nobel Prize
    Charles H. Townes (1915-2015), Nobel Prize
    Albert Dou, (1915-2009), priest
    William Vickrey (1914-1996), Nobel Prize
    Wernher von Braun (1912-1977)
    Ernest Walton (1903-1995), Nobel Prize
    Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), Nobel Prize
    Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), Catholic priest, propounded the Big Bang theory
    Arthur Compton (1892-1962), Nobel Prize
    Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)
    Pavel Florensky (1882-1937), priest
    Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), priest
    Max von Laue (1879-1960), Nobel Prize
    Henri Breuil (1877-1961), priest
    Charles Barkla (1877-1944), Nobel Prize
    Dmitri Egorov (1869-1931)
    Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954), priest, anthropologist
    Robert Millikan (1868-1953), Nobel Prize
    George Washington Carver (1860-1943)
    Baron Rayleigh (1842-1919), Nobel Prize
    Emil Kocher (1841-1917), Nobel Prize
    William Dallinger (1839-1909), clergy
    G. F. Wright (1838-1921)
    James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), evangelical
    Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
    Armand David (1826-1900), missionary
    Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
    Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), monk
    John William Dawson (1820-1899)
    George Stokes (1819-1903), clergy
    Angelo Secchi (1818-1878), priest
    James Dwight Dana (1813-1895)
    Asa Gray (1810-1888) (close friend of Darwin)
    James David Forbes (1809-1868)
    Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
    Hugh Miller (1802-1856)
    Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1800-1884)
    Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
    Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
    Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864), clergy
    Samuel Morse (1791-1872)
    Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    John Bachman (1790-1874)
    Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857)
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873)
    William Buckland (1784-1856), clergy
    David Brewster (1781-1868)
    Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848), priest
    Andre-Marie Ampere (1775-1836)
    John Dalton (1766-1844)
    William Gregor (1761-1817), clergy, discovered titanium
    Isaac Milner (1750-1820), clergy
    Samuel Vince (1749-1821), clergy
    Giovannia Pazzi (1746-1826), priest
    Alessandro Volta (1745-1827)
    Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
    Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794)
    William Herschel (1738-1822)
    Gilbert White (1720-1793), clergy
    Ruder Boskovic (1711-1787), clergy
    Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
    Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
    Thomas Bayes (1701-1761), clergy
    Stephen Hales (1677-1761), clergy
    William Derham (1657-1735), clergy
    Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)
    Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (wrote more on religion than on science)
    Nicholas Steno (1638-1686), bishop
    Isaac Barrow (1630-1677), clergy
    John Ray (1627-1705), clergy
    Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
    Francesco Grimaldi (1618-1663), priest
    Seth Ward (1617-1689), bishop
    John Wallis (1616-1703)
    Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680), priest
    Giovanni Riccioli (1598-1671), priest
    Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), clergy
    Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
    Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
    Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)
    Jose de Acots (1539-1600), priest
    Conard Gessner (1516-1565)
    Georgius Agricola (1494-1555)
    Copernicus (1473-1543)
    Nicholas Oresme (d. 1382)
    Roger Bacon (1214-1292), monk
    Isidore of Seville (560-636), bishop

    • Nofun

      Well you must accept evolution then.

      None of the above, or any scientist, had put their religion into their science.

    • Ellabulldog

      and they were all wrong if they believed in the fairy tales of religion….

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Thank you for so clearly and succinctly putting your beliefs and the beliefs of Evolutionists on full display!! Thank you!!!

        “and they were all wrong if they believed in anything different than my own personal religion”

        There, fix it for ya.

        • Ellabulldog

          no religion is not religion
          let me point out the obvious to you…

          evolution is what it is…if you can’t understand the science I can’t help you….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, thank you for pointing out the obvious!! LOL

            Now just leave that as is and don’t edit it! Point it out to everyone! LOL

          • Ellabulldog

            a born again nutter, so much fun to deal with

            so what happened to you? come on. drugs? alcohol? personal tragedy?

            so now you latch on to religion for some kind of identity and feel the need to prove your ignorance to everyone on the internet. good for you. keep it coming. funny yet sad at the same time.

            I can either laugh at or pity you. Time will tell.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for the blessing. Jesus said what comes outta one’s mouth reveals their heart and who they are. I appreciate you doing so and showing the best ya got.

            And, oh yes, time will certainly tell. You’ll have all Eternity in the Lake of Fire for it to tell you something,.

          • Ellabulldog

            anything I can to help you, glad you believe because you are scared of some fairy tale:)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh you are definitely helping, Thank you! Just keep talking.

          • Oboehner

            Evolution IS a religion.

          • Ken Campbell

            Could you provide the definition of ‘religion’ that you use for your statement?

          • Oboehner

            “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” -Merriam-Webster

          • Ken Campbell

            So it does not require any sort of god or gods?

          • Oboehner

            Does it say that?

          • Ellabulldog

            evolution is just science, pretty simple concept for most. not you it seems as it must interfere with your superstition.

          • Oboehner

            So the claims go, yet it is not repeatable, testable, nor observable. Billions of years have to be taken on faith as well as the rest.

          • Ellabulldog

            not sure what you consider evolution to be because it is obvious you have no clue. Most certainly it has held up to scientific scrutiny for quite some time.

            if you are a creationist nut keep showing your ignorance, it humors me:)

          • Oboehner

            Evolution as a whole. Most certainly it has been protected from any real scrutiny as any one who dissents is subject to being called a creationist nut, defunded, fired, and/or blacklisted. So why don’t you show me YOUR ignorance and some “scientific” proof. Start by explaining the ant that hasn’t changed in “millions of years”.

          • Ellabulldog

            An ant would not have to change if it is perfectly suited for it’s environment and is thriving. If you deny evolution you are either ignorant of what it is, need to deny it because it conflicts with your superstition, or have an agenda.

            Science is peer reviewed and Evolution has passed multiple tests and scientists are confident that the Theory is proven.

          • Oboehner

            If the environment was “perfectly suited” for the ant, why not for the feathered thing? Didn’t they have the same amount of time to “evolve”? And why wouldn’t the ant have improved, it is survival of the fittest isn’t it? C’mon now you can do better than that.
            If you deny evolution is a religion you are either ignorant of what it is, need to deny it because it conflicts with your superstition, or have an agenda.
            Peer reviewed = 10 out of 10 pedophiles agree…
            “Scientists” have faith it is true, there is not one shred of proof, unless of course you can (in your own words) post some. If not, MY point is proven.

          • Ellabulldog

            you don’t understand evolution and just keep confirming it with stupid statements and questions.

            look into DNA, fossils, and other studies, of course you will refuse to

            your ignorant “faith” does not mean that when someone “believes” something to be true based on evidence is the same

            you have no point other than to show your ignorance

          • Oboehner

            Do you blindly loyal believers in evolution really think the pathetic copout statement “you don’t understand _____” really has any value? It’s almost laughable how often I hear that asinine statement tossed out to avoid answering simple questions.
            Evidence and proof are two totally different animals, evidence can be deciphered a multitude of different ways while proof but one. So if you are done with the “you don’t understand”, and the “why don’t you look it up yourself” manure piles you people like to hide behind, why don’t you in your own words scare up some proof – after all you are taking the time to argue for evolutionism. Or are you just content to continually prove my point.

          • Ellabulldog

            the statement you don’t understand is proven by your own ignorant rants

            take some classes and read some books, all you need is readily available to you
            if it is over your head get a tutor
            if it is still over your head which it may be seeing how you can’t grasp a simple concept then there may be no help for you

            that’s ok, the world needs ditch diggers too Danny:)

          • Oboehner

            More of same with an ad hominem kicker, how quaint. Why don’t you just admit you cannot defend your blind faith and leave it at that?

          • Ellabulldog

            just because you have “faith” in nonsense “your religion” does not make someone else’s decisions to follow evidence, logic and facts anything similar to your wacky decision or what you call “blind faith”.

          • Oboehner

            Bla bla bla, why don’t you in your own words scare up some proof instead of consistently wasting time thus proving my point even further.

          • Ellabulldog

            why do you want proof when you have none for your faith? hypocritical 🙂

          • Oboehner

            I call mine faith, you fraudulently call your faith “science” – that’s hypocritical.

          • Ellabulldog

            dodge, you want proof of Evolution “which there is quite a bit” while believing nonsense with no proof at all. hilarious if it were not so sad

          • Oboehner

            You keep blathering on about proof but are unable to produce a single shred, it is plain to see that you are believing nonsense with no proof at all. hilarious if it were not so sad.

          • Ellabulldog

            such a child…..in over your head

          • Oboehner

            Ok so you have a big fat zero, no proof – nothing. Got it, troll on.

          • Ellabulldog

            yep no proof of your god, big fat zero, nothing, troll on

          • Oboehner

            Burden of proof is on you, my belief isn’t fraudulently being taught as science at taxpayer expense.

      • johndoe

        Oh, are you smarter than these Nobel Prize winners?

        I suggest you get a second opinion.

        • Ellabulldog

          why the need to appeal to others? can you not think for yourself?

          and maybe I am smarter. maybe not. On this issue I am.

          Einstein called religion nonsense. Do you agree with him?

          • johndoe

            Einstein did not say that.
            You’re a liar as well as braggart.
            You lesbians have mental problems.

          • Ellabulldog

            The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

            Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich

            “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic….

            So Einstein called religious people naive and childlike….He was being diplomatic and polite.

            Of course you have to understand the times he lived in and the times those you quoted before. You also have to look at someone’s environment and personal life to understand why they believed or claimed to believe.

            I’m sure there is a genius today in the Middle East that prays everyday and is an upstanding religious member of society. Only because he knows if he denounces religion nuts will kill him. Christianity used to do the same not so long ago.

            Your lack of an education and ability to debate the subject caused you to lash out. Confidence is not bragging and being correct backs that up.

            I’m sure you may learn something on hear if you open your mind. If it is so brainwashed it may take time.

            The bible is just a book of fable. Religion is cultural brainwashing and indoctrination.
            Nothing more.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Well done! But alas, as you can see, the spiritually-dead God-haters simply choose to live in Denial and Delusion. No amount of “evidence” will ever make a difference because they will just put their hands over their ears and cover their eyes and say, “No No No. I will not, will not, will NOT believe it.”

      It’s really no more complicated than that. They don’t believe because they choose not to.

  • Ken Campbell

    If creationism could make any prediction it would have more credibility.

    • Amos Moses

      science is not about prediction ………. it is about the evidence and what the evidence says ……. and when we ignore God and His place in the evidence …… then it is not science any longer ….. it is junk ……… as part of the evidence is ignored ……….

      • Ken Campbell

        I have two questions for you. What is your definition of evidence? What evidence (by this definition) do you see?

        • Amos Moses

          the evidence is everything we see ……. and we both possess the exact same evidence ….. the evidence is not in question ….. it is the conclusions of the observer that are in question ………

          • Ken Campbell

            OK…so if evidence is what we see then it is our interpretation that needs to have predictive capacity (it must be internally valid). For example, if the evidence is a broken window and a baseball on the ground, the interpretation of the event must have some ‘provability’ (Which way the glass residue lies, how long has the baseball been on the ground, etc)

  • Robert

    I was wondering what happened to my 3rd grade art project .I find out now almost 70 years latter who would have thunk it.

  • Robert

    Or it simply could be its very own species created during the 6 natural days of creation and this species passed out of existence some time after man’s fall into sin and some time before the flood. Ever hear of the platypus.?

  • Robert

    Science is always having to be corrected as it scientists learns New things. It was scientists who said the earth was flat and ships could sail off the edge more recently it was scientist and their studied that said if you have aids there nothing that can be done .they learned New things in both cases and had to change . The bible is for ever always correct in every thing it says because it’s Gods word not some human scientist that can’t even use the brains God Gave them to their full potential but many of them remain dead in their sins and remain slaves to sin and death and the devil. They deliberately forget God made all.