This article from Discover Magazine is ripe with evolutionary indoctrination. But, if we analyze the data objectively, there’s really no need to invoke evolution at all.

In this case, researchers are attempting to learn more about an extinct reptile- called an archosaur, which supposedly evolved into dinosaurs. But the article begins with the statement, “Archosauromorphs walked — across a 10,000-mile hellscape — so dinosaurs could run.”

Really? How do they know? Did they observe these reptiles while they migrated, and did they observe them evolve into dinosaurs? No. In fact one of the researchers admits there are gaps in the fossil record preventing them from seeing this. Further, the author states, “Though we may not have been there to witness exactly how these creatures survived and evolved, this new information is a big next step in better understanding archosauromorph evolution.” Okay, so what evidence do they have?

They used computer models, and the model delivered the desired outcome. The model was programmed with evolutionary theory, literally using an evolutionary tree to be compared “against dispersal routes that were based on landscape connectivity.”

The research is fascinating, and the geological analysis sounds clever. However, the author explains that it was necessary to come up with a clever solution because the evidence didn’t support evolution due to so many gaps.

See what they’re doing to support evolution as a viable theory? Evolutionists insist that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but it’s not. If it were, there’d be no need for clever tricks. The theory is driven by the theory. This amounts to circular reasoning, assuming evolution to affirm evolution.

There are plenty more criticisms worth noting.  In fact, I’d argue that the evidence refutes this dispersion theory because it describes the route as a 10,000-mile-long “dead zone” of “inhospitable” terrain referred to as an unbearably hot “hellscape.” But how bad was it? The authors describe it as part of “the worst climatic event in Earth’s history, where more species died than at any period since.”

Ouch! If it was really as bad as they describe, then why should we believe these reptiles migrated 10,000 miles across it? Because evolution demands it. That’s why. And without it, there’s an evolutionary dead end. So this model- in their worldview- affirms evolution and demonstrates how overwhelming and how powerful the evidence for evolution is. But it’s nothing of the sort. It’s deception. The researchers have not provided empirical evidence for the study. In fact the empirical evidence (i.e. fossils) stands as a refutation.

Nonetheless, the computer model delivered the desired results, and now evolutionists “know” how these reptiles dispersed and then evolved into dinosaurs (wink wink).

The author mentions that the results were “surprising.” Really? Why would they be surprising? Obviously because these creatures somehow survived hellish conditions for more than 10,000 miles, finding enough food to eat along the way. But I don’t find it surprising that evolutionists accept this as evidence. That’s how they make evolution look reasonable.

But in order to make it work, the researchers had to assume the reptiles were “much hardier” than expected so that they could “reach the other side of the world.” According to researcher Joseph Flannery-Sutherland, “It’s likely that this ability to survive the inhospitable tropics may have conferred an advantage that saw them thrive in the Triassic world.”

This statement is filled with evolutionary indoctrination, suggesting that archosaurs already possessed this hardiness prior to their migration but not until after the mass extinction event. But this doesn’t explain how they survived the mass extinction without such hardiness, or what triggered the changes, or how those changes evolved.

Scientists previously believed archosaurs only survived in tropical places around the world, but now it’s believed they lived in the dead zone. This is evidence that scientists aren’t always right. Evolutionists claim that they “know” evolution is a fact, but this idea is predicated upon faulty information. How do they know what life was like if they can’t go back in time and observe it? Evolutionists will say that new data improves evolutionary theory, so, even though they were wrong before, they’re right this time! But aren’t they assuming there are no more unknowns? The truth is, they didn’t know what the earth was like at that time, and they still don’t. They’re just inventing stories to support their theory, no matter how far-fetched.

Now here’s a blunder by Discover Magazine. There’s actually a headline stating, “Extinct Reptile Migration.” Can anyone explain how an extinct reptile can migrate?

Michael Benton, senior author of the study, stated, “The evolution of life has been controlled at times by the environment.” Evolutionists are quick to tell me that evolution is not demanded by anything, including the environment, which is why we don’t see this kind of evolutionary change happening today. We see stasis, where organisms thought to be hundreds of millions of years old (coelacanth, turtles, crocodiles, birds, insects) show no change. So how does the environment control evolution? The only way that happens isn’t through evolution, but by standard genetic changes programed into the organism’s DNA. Therefore, the environment doesn’t control evolution.

Lastly, the article refers to a mass extinction event, which is eerily similar to what a global flood would have done. Such a flood challenges evolutionary theory, as it doesn’t require evolution.