In Darwinian mythology, flowering plants don’t come along until well toward the end of the Age of Dinosaurs. That age, the Mesozoic Era, is divided into three parts: the Triassic Period, when dinosaurs first appear (along with mammals); the Jurassic, famous for its terrifically huge dinosaurs; and the Cretaceous, at the end of which the dinos go extinct.
Because no fossils of flowering plants were found in rocks said to be older than the Cretaceous, Darwinists concluded that flowering plants did not “evolve” until then. They also told us grass didn’t exist until the Age of Mammals, which was “a fact” until a dinosaur’s fossilized stomach contents showed… a lot of grass.
The Triassic flowers–the fossils are pollen grains–came from Switzerland and from the floor of the Barents Sea ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/24331982 ). So again the Darwinists’ stately flow of “evolution” is knocked all out of whack. Flowers are not supposed to be in the Triassic!
Their theories are so much better off without the fossil record. Remember being taught that “birds evolved from dinosaurs”? Kiss that one goodbye. Now we’ve got Triassic birds that were flying just as the first dinosaurs were supposed to be coming on stage. ( http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/06/16/did_birds_fly_in_the_late_triassic )
For a real laugh, do an Internet search for “dinosaur soft tissue.” How can soft tissue still be around, after millions and millions of years inside a dead dinosaur? By now they’ve discovered too many examples of it to laugh off.
Scientists would be better off without science. That pesky self-correcting process inherent in real science, those inconvenient discoveries, play the devil with their theories.
Darwinists should take a hint from their colleagues in the “climate science” racket, and brand those who make such discoveries “deniers,” attack them in the media, lobby to cut off their funding, and loudly demand that “evolution denial” be made a crime.
Betcha they will.
P.S.–Any Creation scientist worth his salt would have predicted the eventual discovery of Triassic birds and flowers.
Just had a talk with a friend who keeps up on all this stuff and learned something. All those enormous dinosaurs are the least of the herd; the greater number (and they are still around!) are not as tall as a man! Can anyone verify these “findings”?
I think what they mean is “birds are dinosaurs”–which now, apparently, they aren’t, after all. Or is he talking about David Icke’s “reptile people”?
Sure. What about fiery feathered serpents and chimeras?! lol
When it comes to evolution, among other theories, the organized religion called “Science” seems to take very little information, stretch it to cover a vast area, and then declare it to be fact. From that point on, fealty to the belief system is all that matters.
I’m thinking about getting a yard sign printed that says, “Science is bunk.”
Superb post, Lee. You hit my hot buttons!
Already, you can’t be a college professor in most schools if you don’t believe in macro-evolution and the old earth theory that goes along with it.
Evolution is such a good word in that a species does evolve within itself – it is scientifically observable. We do want to evolve (become more sanctified, for instance), but if we use the word evolution it is interpreted to mean Darwinism. So sad.
Objectively, it is truly amazing how modern scientists have come up with so many ways to explain what did not really happen.