Evolutionists contend that evolution is an established fact supported by every field of science and accepted by every scientist. However, all such statements are bluster and based on circular reasoning. The evidence, as we shall see, tells a different story.

Even when the evidence contradicts evolution, the evolutionist’s belief in evolution allows them to force the evidence to fit their belief system. Since they believe evolution is true, then there must be a way to explain the evidence in a way that supports evolution, and this case study from a Discover Magazine article is a perfect example.

The headline proclaims, “Newly Identified Norellraptor Could Reshape What We Know About Feathered Dinosaur Flight Evolution”.  So then, it’s reasonable to ask what it means to “know” something. What is knowledge? I often think of knowledge as being related to truth, or an understanding of reality and the way things are.

Webster’s dictionary defines knowledge as “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.”

So, what do evolutionists know about feathered dinosaur flight evolution? The assumption is that evolution is a real thing and they know something about it. However, if evolution is not a real thing, then what evolutionists know about evolution becomes a farce.

The subheading of the article states, “Learn about Norellraptor barsboldi, a dinosaur species found in China that is providing new information on how dinosaurs and birds started to fly.” But again, this assumes evolution. There’s no acknowledgement that perhaps the universe and life were created by God. No. It assumes God doesn’t exist and tries to explain how natural processes did it… even if it’s not true.

The author of the article does make one accurate claim, and it is that evolution is a “puzzle”, acknowledging that their understanding of evolution is not as certain as they project. The author asks some pertinent questions: “How did dinosaurs acquire the equipment to take to the air, and did their different lineages follow the same evolutionary route?” If evolution is a real thing, and if dinosaurs evolved into birds, then there must be a reasonable answer.

Based upon evolutionary theory, at some point in the distant past, before birds existed, the earliest dinosaurs did not have feathers, wings, or any avian features. Supposedly, all these complex features evolved, leading to flight.

But the problem is that evolutionary theory states that evolution has no goals or purpose. Evolution doesn’t have to happen at all, and it doesn’t plan for greater complexity. Still, assuming evolution, this must have happened, despite the contradiction.

In the case of Norellraptor barsboldi, we’re told that evolution “had more than one way of assembling the pieces.” Is that so? Evolution is so clever!

Evolutionists claim that Norellraptor, which is part of the genus Microraptor, is not a bird, but a “feathered dinosaur” closely related to birds. Confused yet? Interestingly, images of this “feathered dinosaur” look like a bird and not a dinosaur. Of course all this is intentional, blurring the line between birds and dinosaurs to establish the idea that birds are dinosaurs.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Researchers compared Norellraptor across an evolutionary tree (which is assumed to be accurate). And based upon evolutionary assumptions, the wrist, hand bones and breastbones evolved differently from birds. This means that each lineage must have taken different, independent paths to flight.

Evolutionists explain, therefore, that similar anatomical solutions were acquired through different selective pressures and evolutionary demands.

But wait a minute… if evolution isn’t goal-oriented, purposeful, directional or demanded, and if it doesn’t progress towards greater complexity, then why is it evolving at all, and why is it going in the same, complex direction in two different organisms at nearly the same time? If evolution is true, it sure appears to be directional, progressive, purposeful, predictable, inevitable, and guided by pressures leading to complexity.

This appears to be a clear violation of evolutionary theory. If evolution is real, then complex changes are being coordinated within separate lineages, both progressing in the same direction toward flight. But how did these organisms succeed without knowing what complex, flight-related adaptations were needed? How did they know when to build them and coordinate the energy required to transform a successful terrestrial creature into an air machine? We don’t observe such transformations happening today, do we?

If selective pressures and evolutionary demands can lead to flight in separate lineages, then it’s reasonable to expect to see other animals progressing towards flight under those same conditions, right? But we don’t. And all evolutionists can do is resort to talking points.

If we can identify those selective pressures that led to complex, innovative evolutionary changes in the past, then, theoretically, introducing such pressures should trigger these kinds of changes today, and evolution would be validated.

Thus, it’s fair to suggest that evolutionists are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they say that evolution doesn’t work like this, and if you think it does, then you don’t understand evolution. But then they produce studies demonstrating the opposite.

What they want is for everyone to accept this as coincidence and not draw any conclusions contrary to evolution. But why should we surrender reality to evolutionists? The evidence presents a solid refutation of evolution, and, therefore, it is reasonable to accept an alternative- that God created all kinds of birds on the fifth day of creation, prior to land animals on the sixth day.