Replies

300 million years -- sounds like another nail in the coffin of young earth creationism.

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.

==300 million years — sounds like another nail in the coffin of young earth creationism.

Of course creationists don’t accept the old-age assumptions propogated by the Church of Darwin. The creationist is merely commenting on the fact that the Darwinists can’t even nail down their own sequence because very often new discoveries, such as the one above, forces the Church of Darwin to alter their own sequence and dating assumptions, sometimes up to hundreds of millions of years. And, as was pointed out above, “This story also illustrates, as seen so often before, that wherever evolutionists look, they find more complexity farther back in time than they expect.”

"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."

I think you may be unfamiliar with creation theory. Almost all creationists believe in rapid degradation (movement from complexity to simplicity). The latter involves no new DNA, no new information, merely a single negative mutation. It can happen in a single generation. This does not conflict with creation theory, indeed to the extent that most creationists come from a christian world-view, information reduction harmonizes well with the christian understanding that all creation is "fallen" from it's ideal state and in a process of ongoing corruption.

One of the reasons I find the evolutionary establishment difficult to trust, is that it is rare to find an evolutionist capable of comprehending that adding information is of necessity a very different process from losing information. If producing a novel the same as stomping on a novel and tearing out some pages? No. They are two utterly different processes and cannot be substituted the one for the other. Most well-known arguments for evolution fail to make this distinction.

BTAIM. we know damned little about past events, and evolutionists have been too quick to connect all the dots. The result has been like those very early maps of the western hemisphere. Take the advise of Pascal and wait until the evidence itself shows us the truth.