In Reply to: Re: More from 'National Geographic' posted by ethan on March 30, 2005 at 00:06:26:
OK, now I've read it. It clearly states that it is a fossil "seventy million years old"
That's what it states & what you'd expect it to state, coming from an evolutionary viewpoint. That's the figure I've told you all along, 70 million years, only my view is that that's an opinion, not a fact. That it might be 10,000 years old instead is also an opinion, not a fact.
This is very exiting, because it confirms the theory that birds are descended from dinosuars.
It does't 'confirm' that at all. It may seem to indicate that but in the final analysis, it's merely an opinion, liable to be overturned one year from now.
That's what the article says, and it is very interesting, but it hardly discredits th theory of evolution
I didn't say it 'discredited' the theory of evolution, only that evolution would have a hard time explaining this one. In fact, they have such a hard time that they have no explanation as to how this happened. And since they don't know, it's open to discussion.