Skip to comments.No Evolution in 58 Million Years
Posted on 10/31/2009 4:39:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 30, 2009 Plant fossils give first real picture of earliest Neotropical rainforests, announced a press release from University of Florida. The fossils from Colombia show that many of the dominant plant families existing in todays Neotropical rainforests including legumes, palms, avocado and banana have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South Americas climate and geological structure.
The team found 2,000 megafossil specimens from the Paleocene, said to be 58 million years old. This is only 5 to 8 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs according to conventional dating. The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests. The press release says that the fossil record from neotropical rain forests has been almost nonexistent but now, it is evident that modern plant families existed then. We have the fossils to prove this, one said. The foundations of the Neotropical rainforests were there 58 million years ago.
The only difference between modern rainforests and the fossil record is more diversity now. But since identification of species can only be made to the genus level, there may be some subjectivity in that judgment. An earlier team also found the skeleton of a giant snake at the open coal pit mine Titanoboa. Like Titanoboa, which is clearly related to living boas and anacondas, the ancient forest of northern Colombia had similar families of plants as we see today in that ecosystem.
In a related story, Live Science pushed the oldest known spider web back another 4 million years (cf. 06/23/2006). The web material, encased in amber, not only proves that spiders had the web-making equipment as far back as the fossil record shows, but that it has continued with little change for 140 million years according to the consensus dating scheme.
All right, Darwinists: you say evolution is a fact, and fossils are the evidence. Where is the evolution? 58 million years have gone by in your scheme, and we have the exact same families of plants today. There isnt enough difference to concern the most fervent young-earth creationists (notice that ICR celebrated this find as confirming of a young earth and global flood). Surely if natural selection was acting for such a huge amount of time, we should expect to see some evolution. Remember, you believe that a cow turned into a whale in less than half that time. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your storytelling scheme seriously.
I am glad that you are finally acknowledging that the earth is at least 58 million years old : )
Wow, I thought even you would pick up on the fact that the author is calling into question evo-religious dating schemes.
No Creationism in 6000 years...
Most biblical creationists allow for 6-10,000 years.
im with you.
The term ‘evolution’ is more flexible than ‘budget cut’ in a political campaign. It can mean change, no change, backward forward, sideways, so anything, everything, and nothing demonstrates evolution.
Ah yes, the obligatory Saturday night discussion on evolution v creationism ho hum.
you mean evolutionism and creationism.
Sorry I don’t buy the young earth Feldergarb... People like you who believe in the young earth theory tend to be simple minded dolts.. Use your mind.. God gave us one..
Always fun to watch the echo chamber in action as they throw pinpricks of little or no value and proceed to misanalyze their own data.
Wow, who knew a single theory could explain everything and nothing at all...LOL!
Yea, that too.
I saw that ‘cow turning into a whale’ thing last year at the county circus. And the girl with three breasts.
And yet never a mind gets changed. LOL!
That must be why our scientists routinely destroy your scientists in debate. Indeed, the evo-atheists have been so utterly humiliated in debate after debate that the high priests of the Temple of Darwin have issued an all points bullitin for their fellow darwin-drones masquarading as scientists to stear clear of debates in public or in print, lest the Creation and ID scientists continue shredding darwood’s evo-religious creation myth, and otherwise continue to make fools out of the darwinist priesthood.
Here is a typical example of what happens when a Temple of Darwin fanatic masquarading as a scientist makes the mistake of accepting a debate challenge from a Creationist or ID scientist:
Explain bacterial resistance to the Sulfonamides which was zero in the 1930's and is about 99% now.
Explain bacterial resistance to the Penicilloic Acid derivatives which was zero in the 1940's and is about 59% now.
You could argue that it is God intervening on a daily basis, but that seems a bit extreme, and He has bigger fish to fry.
Let science be science, let faith be faith.
The more I have studied science (three college degrees now) the more I see God's face.
ALL this did not just happen, or maybe it did, but God's subtle hand is involve either way.
I believe that people that try to use science to justify their faith, don't have faith, and are doubting themselves. Embrace your faith, embrace science, they both pay homage to the Creator.