Image from ICR article.
Stratigraphic sketch from original paper - online.
Posted on 10/16/2013 7:50:38 AM PDT by fishtank
Flower Fossils 100,000,000 Years Out of Place?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
European scientists have now discovered flowering plant fossils in rock layers supposedly 100,000,000 years older than expected.1 This new finding challenges conventional evolutionary assumptions as scientists struggle to account for what they interpret as an enormous time gap.
Publishing in the journal Frontiers in Plant Science, Peter Hochuli and Susanne Feist-Burkhardt described fossil-pollen grains recovered from a drill core in the north of Switzerland.1
They wrote, "In this paper we focus on fossil evidence, presenting the so far oldest angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (ca. 243Ma), a record that predates the generally accepted first occurrence of angiosperm pollen by more than 100Ma [million years]."1
The researchers' distinct color photographs show pollen-grain features diagnostic of flowering plants, not gymnosperms like palms or cycads. "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen," according to the Frontiers report.2
And instead of the few primitive-looking pollens that evolutionary scientists were expecting to find in lower rock layers, the researchers discovered many fully-formed pollens of different but well-developed types. The study authors wrote of the "sudden appearance" of angiosperm fossils "on most continents as well as the rapid radiation of numerous clades [which] implies a considerable diversification within approximately 3.5Ma or else it represents a wave of immigration from other areas."1 In other words, they had difficulty explaining how such a wide variety of flowering plants suddenly occur in this Triassic layer.
They encountered an equal challenge in trying to decipher why, after this sudden burst of supposed evolutionary creativity, angiosperms disappeared for 100 million years. The study authors wrote, "If we accepted the monosulcate [e.g., angiosperm] pollen from the Middle and Late Triassic as evidence for a pre-Cretaceous origin of crown group [ancestral] angiosperms the lack of fossil records throughout the Jurassic would remain difficult to explain."1
To account for this difficulty, they invoked speculative "stem relatives," writing, "Considering the hundred million year gap in the record as well as morphological differences to the earliest Cretaceous we suggest that these pollen grains most likely represent stem relatives of the angiosperms."1
Yet, are these conclusions based on scientific observation? It's one thing to assert that these fossils must represent evolutionary ancestors of modern plants because they are millions of years older than the accepted age, but it's entirely circular to then assert that the angiosperm fossils must have formed millions of years before the accepted age simply because conventional evolution tells us plants evolved over long ages.
The Bible's record of all the major phases of world history shows no trace of a Triassic deep-time epoch and offers a better explanation for these fossils.
First, the Bible doesn't rely on circular reasoning or speculations but on "eyewitnesses" who wrote "words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and…the apostles of the Lord and Savior."3,4
Second, Scripture asserts that angiosperms existed alongside all other plants (including gymnosperms) and animals from the very start of creation—reporting instant creation of each plant kind. This exactly fits these fossils' sudden appearance. Third, it describes in detail a worldwide Flood capable of preserving life's traces in fossil forms. And in that context, Triassic flora and fauna do not represent a separate time but distinct ecosystems buried by sediment-laden Flood waters.
Finally, the Bible's timeline shows a creation that is thousands, not billions, of years old, erasing any need to explain why pollen grains buried deep in fossil layers look so similar to living herbs and flowers today.
References
Hochuli, P. A. and S. Feist-Burkhardt. 2013. Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland). Frontiers in Plant Science. 4 (344): 1-14.
See Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt, Frontiers in Plant Science 4 (344): 1-14. The team compared gymnosperm pollen grains found at the same site to show "a distinct contrast to the exine structure of the columellate, angiosperm-like grains." 2 Peter 1:16. 2 Peter 3:2.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on October 11, 2013.
False arguments reaching nonsensical conclusions, yet again.
Creation was NOT thousands of years ago. The Bible is not a historical document.
the trick to these nonsensical ICR fantasies is to have SO many errors that correcting them just isn’t worth the time or effort.
Genius, really.
When I went to college at a Jesuit school, a priest explained it this way in theology class. The bible focuses on the “Who?” and the “Why?” of creation (the two most important questions). When we dwell on the “How?” and try to reconcile it with modern scientific theories of how things have changed over time, we’re missing the point. Scientific textbooks don’t try to answer the “Who?” and “Why?” and the bible isn’t really concerned with a scientific explanation of the “How?”. Therefore, the two sources are not in conflict with one another as some insist.
Oh puuuuuleeeze....quit making we Christians who actually have good scientific training look like fools.
The earth is really older than the bible stories.
Really!
Look at it this way - would those folks a couple of thousand of years ago comprehended the term “billion”....let alone believed it? There was no purpose in giving them a physics course...the purpose of the bible is morals.
I am all for intelligent design, but, the 6000 year old Earth has nothing of reason in it... God did many experiments over the 3.5 billion years of life on Earth. He is just a good gardener tending to one of his gardens... And when He was upset, 67 million years ago, He sent a low inside slider to the Yucatan Peninsula, and the dinosaurs were toast...
I am amazed at the number of FReepers who have such little regard for the truth of Scripture, and who reject evidence that seems to challenge evolutionary theory.
SCIENCE: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The foe of theory of evolution is legitimate science, not the Bible. When Darwinism faces off against real science it always has and always will be knocked out cold.
Of the multitude of gaps, flaws and leaps of faith required to have faith in Darwinism, let’s look at just one tiny aspect of the overall picture. That is, apes turning into man. Where are all the missing links hiding? I say links because the gap between man and his supposed closest evolutionary relative can’t be bridged by a single link.
If the theory is correct, shouldn’t evidence abound? Why have the only missing links presented been man-made hoaxes? If the earth lasts another 2,000 years no “missing links” will be found because none ever existed.
Answer me this.... Do you think the Bible was accurate when it said people lived over 900 hundred years?
Are the people who wrote it reliable?
Is the person of Jesus they wrote about a real person in history?
Which one of these do you prefer to believe?
The beliefs of evolutionists must not be challenged. All religion, philosophy, indeed reality itself must be bent to fit the evolutionary mold.
Off with the heads of non-believers!
Why do you believe this? What would you call 1 and 2 Chronicles? Of course the Bible has historical genre in addition to Law, Wisdom, Poetic and Prophecy. It has 66 books that include Gospels and Epistles. Have you read it? I hope you will.
Let me know when you figure out what I mean by these graphics.
The Bible's record shows no trace of anybody getting eaten by a Tyrannosaurus, either.
Evolution has no relationship with science whatsoever.
They are in fact polar opposites.
Science requires objective evidence, evolution steps in to refute the evidence with hand waving.
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.
