"Is this a 'mangrove-like' plant or a true mangrove? If the latter, it sounds like a big out-of-order problem for evolution, because mangroves were not supposed to appear till the late Cretaceous (source) and these forests are Carboniferous, over 200 million years earlier. That would be a bigger problem than finding a living dinosaur...We’ll have to see if more of the details come to light...This story also illustrates, as seen so often before, that wherever evolutionists look, they find more complexity farther back in time than they expect."
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070423a
Must have been one hell of an earthquake!
ping
don’t underestimate the evolutionist’s ability to change the theory to avoid falsification.
How is this possible, we all know there is no Rain Forest in Illinois. And after all it is scientific consensus that the Earth’s climate has never changed. I smell a Bush trick.
Title smells of bait.
And more complexity in the distant past is no problem; evolution works from simple to complex or from complex to simple. It is only the strawman version creationists peddle that says everything always has to increase in complexity.
All in all, another science article that supports evolution being pushed by creationists for some reason.
Nothing there that is a problem for evolution.
Woo Hoo! Darwinists are “deeply saddened!”
I don’t see any problem here. Current theories posit periods of explosive diversification when conditions are favorable, in between periods of mass extinctions when conditions get harsh. The survivors of those periods then go on to be the basis for the next big burst of diversity. In fact, we’re in a rather dormant period of development, I believe, because we’re just emerging from an Ice Age. When it gets warmer (as it inevitably does) we’ll see another period of rapid diversification.
I’m totally confused here......the Creationists are revelling in the fact that this find throws a “monkey-wrench” into the complexities of Evolutionist theory YET at the same time they’re acknowledging that this fossilized forest is millions of years old. I always thought diehard creationists would only admit that the Earth is 7,000 years old and thats it (or something like that). It seems to me that it’s just one more piece to a impossible puzzle that no one can totally figure out.
I’m totally confused here......the Creationists are revelling in the fact that this find throws a “monkey-wrench” into the complexities of Evolutionist theory YET at the same time they’re acknowledging that this fossilized forest is millions of years old. I always thought diehard creationists would only admit that the Earth is 7,000 years old and thats it (or something like that). It seems to me that it’s just one more piece to a impossible puzzle that no one can totally figure out.
This isn’t a problem for evolution. I’m not sure what warrants the bait title.
Dinosaur fossils are often found in coal mines. If, as creationists contend, humans coexisted with dinosaurs then why aren’t human fossils ever found in coal mines?
This mangrove discovery isn’t a big problem for evolution. Its one plant fossil of something that resembles a mangrove. Thats hardly enough to destroy evolution.
Posting stuff from April?
fyi...
My dad is a retired coal miner, and he likes to tell stories about him and his co-workers finding whole stands of fossilized trees embedded in coal and rock deep underground. He used to bring home a lot of cool fossils of things like small palm-tree looking logs for me to collect.
>> This story also illustrates, as seen so often before, that wherever evolutionists look, they find more complexity farther back in time than they expect. <<
This statement is absolutely true, but hardly surprising. Person A finds a first-ever fossilized widgetosaurus, about 100 million years ago, and proclaims that widgetosaurus appeared at least 100 million years ago. Now what are the odds that that widgetosaurus truly represents the oldest widgetosaurus? About zero. So when someone else finds another widgetosaurus 30 million years older, it’s stirring news, and slightly humbling but hardly shatters evolution.
No problemo.
Just reclassify it as a living fossil and move on.
As a geology student and a creationsit I find this very interesting. I hold that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, but we take great liberties in interpting data and make extrapolations based upon very little evidence.