The first dinosaur-like creatures emerged up to nine million years earlier than previously thought.

That is the conclusion of a study on footprints found in 250 million-year-old rocks from Poland. The age of and evidence for dinosaurs increases with each of these discoveries.

I have often wondered how dogmatic theists have managed to refute evolution. Dinosaur fossils are obviously at loggerheads with religious faith which preaches that all life was created in its full 'designed' form the way God intended.

But Dinosaur fossils throw up an unavoidable question? Why does the bible not mention them? Did they sail two-by-two on Noah's Ark? How can dinosaurs have existed 250 million-years ago if the earth is only 6,000 years old as the Bible claims?

I know there are many religious followers who have no problem keeping their religious beliefs compatible with scientific fact and view the Bible's messages symbolically.

But to refute evolution categorically, which is extremely common within societies which promote 'intelligent design', is refuting a scientific fact which experts say is as scientifically established as gravity as a theory. This is extremely common in the USA, where polls suggest up to 87 per cent of people refute evolution with no deitistic involvment.

Each person is entitled to their own beliefs.

But some can be dangerous. George W. Bush, president of the richest and most powerful country in the world, famously denied funding for stem-cell research - one of the most promising and ground-breaking medical advances in history - for fear of angering God by destroying the souls of unborn children. Or to most sane people, a group of cells too minute to be seen without a microscope. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

Stem-cell research aside, I wonder how many dogmatic religious fundamentalists let their children watch the blockbuster film Jurassic Park? Would this count as heresy?

It is a work if fiction after all though. Similar to the Bible in many ways then....

And so, the Labour leadership battle is over. Ed Miliband has triumphed over his biggest rival....his older brother David.

I think this has been the problem with this leadership race. Rather than being a focus on who is the best person for the job, giving us an incite into politics and policies, the press have made this all about the sibling rivalry between them. And in many ways it is understandable; two brothers going head-to-head is perhaps a more newsworthy subject.

It is perhaps unavoidable too given that Ed often introduced himself as 'the other Miliband' at meetings when both he and his brother worked in backroom roles for the Labour party.

At a time when economic development is critical, unemployment is at a depressing level and conflict continues abroad, parliamentary opposition need strength, guidance and a boost in the opinion polls through strong leadership. Hopefully the press' focus will now be on the politics of Ed Miliband.

In his first speech as leader Ed Miliband has declared the Labour Party wrong to invade Iraq. He reminded the nation that he never became an M.P until 2005, after the invasion had began.

And while mentioning that the 'special relationship' with the United States is one which is important, he noted: "we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take."

A bold statement which says that Britain must not just jump to any decision that the United States makes to remain in favour with them, like a weaker child in the playground sucking up to the bully to guarantee protection.

Perhaps a new era is what's needed. The once-defined red of the left and blue of the right have merged into a murky brown. Personal attacks and party politics often cloud judgement and make politics about attacking the opposition's weaknesses.

Now the leadership race is over, the new Labour leader can hopefully move out of his brother's shadow, improve on Labour's disasterous election defeat and move them back into challenging the coalition government.