quote from one of the comments:
Quote: "R. M., United States, 13 November 2012
Dear CMI—
In this article, CMI has essentially dredged up the century-old creationist conundrum which is usually stated as something like “If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” This has been amply answered many times, so I will not try to do it here.
[From a persistent critic—Ed]
Editor responds
Quite so; there is no need to explain, because we advise against this very argument in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Even Richard Dawkins commended the existence of this page, so you should definitely study it
That we are well aware of what you raise is amply shown in an article published a decade ago, New four-winged feathered dinosaur?
Once more, the ‘dating’ is problematic—the researchers ‘date’ their finds at 124–128 Ma (million years) ago. But this is yet another supposed ‘ancestor’ for birds that lived ~25 Ma after the first undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma) and even about 10 Ma after the beaked bird Confuciusornis (135 Ma)!
As Feduccia puts it, you can’t be older than your grandfather! Some of his critics argue that sometimes a grandfather can outlive his grandson. This is correct, but it boggles the mind that such an ‘advanced’ beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its ‘feathered dino ancestors’. More importantly, one of the major ‘evidence’ of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation.
Of course, the above simply grants their evolutionary assumptions for the purpose of the argument, and lays aside their problems (see Q&A pages on Young Earth Evidence and Radiometric Dating?—creationists don’t regard the fossil sequence as a sequence of age but a sequence of burial by the Flood and its after-effects).
"
As to Creationist bias, this is certainly true, the creationists will interpret the facts from a creationist/young earth perspective, while evolutionists will interpret them from the evolutionary/old earth perspective. The funny part is that
both sides think they're being unbiased! But it's really impossible to be unbiased in this sort of matter.
Evolutionists already believe that the earth is old so they interpret the facts* that way
*The facts don't take sides
when scientists find a fossil, it doesn't have a sticker on it saying how old it is, scientists have to figure that out. Creationists believe that the methods used for that (Radiometric dating etc) are inaccurate and therefore interpret the evidence a different way to evolutionists, who decide from dating methods that it's old.
