According to evolution, dinosaurs evolved into birds. But according to the Bible, God created birds before dinosaurs. So which is it? Can we objectively know for sure? Let’s consider.

Back in 1841- 1842 the anatomist Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosauria, meaning “Terrible Lizard.” This term was based on the large bones and teeth he studied from the likes of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus. Then in 1859 Charles Darwin proposed his theory on evolution, and soon after, the evolutionary biologist, Thomas Huxley speculated that dinosaurs evolved into birds. But the debate has lasted over a hundred years.

The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds seems crazy because we have a good idea of what dinosaurs look like from their fossils and the impressions they left behind, but evolutionists needed to explain where birds came from. And what they needed were feathers. Thus today, if a paleontologist finds something like a quill or fibers associated with a dinosaur fossil, they immediately announce that the dinosaur (ex. Velociraptor) was covered in feathers- even though that’s not true. By controlling the language, referring to nonfeathers as feathers and birds as dinosaurs, evolutionists found it easier to popularize the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

However, there are still many obstacles to this theory, which brings us to this article from Science Daily, which states, “Unknown animals were leaving bird-like footprints in Late Triassic Southern Africa.”

From a creationist perspective, we do know what kind of animal left these bird-like footprints… it was a bird. All the evidence suggests it was a bird. But that’s a problem for evolution because, if it was a bird, then the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is challenged. And that’s because the bird footprints were dated at 210 million years ago, which is 60 million years older than evolutionists date true birds.

This is a true conundrum for evolutionist. How could birds exist before they evolved? And how do evolutionists get around this dilema? Easy, just change the language. Just as they changed the definition of a feather to include quills and fibers, now they refer to these bird footprints as “bird-like” footprints and conclude that the footprints were made by some unknown animal with bird-like feet. Voila!

This is how evolutionists deal with evidence falsifying evolution. Evolution is so elastic that evolutionists can explain away the evidence with a clever story. Problem solved. No evidence, no problem. Just say evolution did it.

But what can we do about it? We can challenge them and propose better models, and hopefully that’s a helpful step in the right direction in refuting evolution and promoting creation. If God’s creation was a historical event, like many people believe, then evidence like this supports the Bible while refuting evolution (which denies God).

The researchers admit that the footprints are similar in size and shape to a bird. Further they admit that the tracks don’t match any known animals from that geologic time. Still, all they can do is suggest that the footprints “could have” belonged to early dinosaurs, reptiles or cousins of dinosaurs. Speculation is all that rescues them. But speculation doesn’t turn a dinosaur into a bird.

Researchers state, “The shape of the tracks is consistent with modern and more recent fossil bird tracks, but it is likely a dinosaur with a bird-like foot produced Trisauropodiscus.” See the sleight of hand?

Why do they dismiss the evidence that these are bird tracks? For one, they can’t admit it because their reputation is on the line. Two, their adherence to an evolutionary worldview won’t allow it. Thus they must invent a new animal with bird-like feet in order to maintain their worldview, and they call it Trisauropodiscus.

Now evolutionists can claim they’ve discovered a new transitional creature that proves evolution is true. Never mind that they made it up in order to convince the general public that evolution is true. Most people won’t see through the deception.

Thus evolution is not evidence-based, but worldview-based. This is the key to understanding the entire issue behind evolution and creation. Creation is science-based, recognizing that these bird-like tracks belong to a bird, while evolution is denying the science, suggesting it couldn’t be a bird because their worldview says otherwise. Which makes more sense? I’ll side with creation.

Both of these are the same velociraptor from the Munster Museum of Natural History in Germany. The velociraptor on the left is a hypothetical feathered velociraptor, while the one on the right is the typical non-feathered velociraptor we’re familiar with.