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 today’s Neotropical rainforests – including legumes, palms, avocado and banana – have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s 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 isn’t 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.
It pays to read the first line of the posts. It usually sets the tone for the rest of the post.
It is helpful in the avoidance of confusion.
<blockquote>They are NOT my statements.</blockquote>
It's tedious to spell it out, and there are no shortcuts, but it is useful.
"This is an example of the sick data creationists are putting on the web. This is sort of like the old line where the sun couldn’t be older than 6000 years because it would burn out in only a few thousand years. I think the YECers have finally dropped that one. Don’t you agree that the below is really OTTT and totally discounted by present observations and theories?"
wow...just saw your rants.
Sure am glad I went out to the pool and relaxed, rather than tarnish a good sunny 85 degree Sunday sitting inside for THAT banter.
However the geochronometers I was speaking of had nothing to do with sun temps.
The nice thing about freedom of religion is you can worship as you please. I wish you the very best with your evolutionsist faith system. You’re in good company with the rest of the mere 13% of the US who believe as you do.
p.s. tag line...read it please and laugh along!
Exactly, which is why it begs the question why so many liberals demand people that have faith in God be kept silent on the subject of His creation and intelligent design of the world and universe around us, scientifically speaking.
The more I have studied science (three college degrees now) the more I see God's face.
Which also begs the question, who gave liberals and the NEA/ACLU the keys to science to silence all those who dissent with materialistic/natural godless versions of science?
ALL this did not just happen, or maybe it did, but God's subtle hand is involve either way.
Exactly, so again, why give into the liberal demands to squash your very own views from the public realm and public education?
I believe that people that try to use science to justify their faith, don't have faith, and are doubting themselves.
Precisely...so again, it takes an enormous amount of faith to demand that all people see or view science without God, somehow sterilizing Him from His own creation (see my tagline).
Embrace your faith, embrace science, they both pay homage to the Creator.
Why must they be kept separate as if science somehow is off limits to God or vice-versa? I always have and I'm not about to stop now just because liberals find it "offensive". Liberals want conservatives to keep quiet about the design and intelligence they see...or the face of God as you put it, and that would not only do a disservice to the science, but also sadden God that He would be seen as "offensive" just because liberals don't want to recognize Him scientifically.
Not at all. It merely proves people live longer because they eat better, don't work as hard, grow stronger and taller and heavier, not to mention food is increasingly easy to obtain and is often laden with steroids, anti-biotics and other additives.
Which poll are you referring to since you don't know what I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.