Articles

The transitional fossil that wasn't!

Evolutionists like to point to the evolution of mammals as a well evidenced series of steps from creatures called therapsids (which were a subgroup of non-mammalian synapsids) living about 200 million years ago.  One key fossil which is said to be transitional is Morganucodon.

Close examination of the evidence shows that it is not as strong as evolutionists believe.  Have a look at my blog posts on this over at paradigmshift.org.uk.

Whales' teeth

Some have suggested that the fact that baleen whales develop teeth buds as embryos is evidence that they evolved from toothed whales.  However, when the evidence is examined it seems to be less clear.

Is it a Bird?

The discovery of small theropod fossils in China with “dino fuzz” during the 1990s and more recently other similar creatures with feathers is now presented as confirmation that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

But is this the only way to interpret these fossils?  Follow this link to find out!

How easy is it to make a cell?

One of the biggest challenges to the naturalistic explanation for living things comes from the complexity of the cell.

Have a look at this link showing the inner workings of the cell.

Lucy fell out of a tree

A paper published in Nature presents evidence that Lucy died from a fall out of a tall tree, and suggests that the evolution of bipedalism is rather difficult.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy of Christian Heritage Edinburgh

This privacy policy sets out how Edinburgh Creation Group uses and protects any information that you give Edinburgh Creation Group ...

When is a triceratops not a triceratops?

The answer is not when it is a Torosaurus! It was once thought that triceratops and torosaurs were different creatures, but research published last year (2010) is causing a re-think.

Creation and the Church Fathers

Recently I was rather shocked to read the following words from two leading British evangelical Christians:

“There is, unfortunately, a common misconception that Christians all used to take it [Creation] fairly literally, and that in a post-Copernican and Darwinian age some of us are now trying to cobble together some kind of non-literal understanding. This is simply not true. At no stage in the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis 1 – 3 has there been a ‘purely literal’ understanding.”

According to these two scholars the traditional and orthodox understanding throughout church history has been that the days of Creation are symbolic. But is this really true?

Creation and Orthodox Jewish Tradition

After years of agonising over the literal days of Creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem in the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers?

What the Pagans said about Creation

Whilst studying ancient history at university I came across the pagan beliefs about creation. It was this study that caused me first to question evolution and the vast ages given for the universe.

Filters