Fossils come in a variety of manifestations – not always bone. They could be leaf imprints, whole animals trapped in amber, footprints, or mineral traces made by once-living organisms. Some recent fossil finds are having trouble fitting into evolutionary theory. But one thing about those Darwinists: they always find a way.
- Graph fight: Evolutionists have used the mineral graphite as a biomarker – a sign of fossilized life. By dating the rocks containing the graphite, they have inferred the age of the fossils. Science Daily has some bad news: the graphite could be much younger. A study of rocks in Canada by a team from four scientific institutions has concluded that “carbonaceous particles are millions of years younger than the rock in which they’re found, pointing to the likelihood that the carbon was mixed in with the metamorphic rock later than the rock’s earliest formation – estimated to be 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago.”
What does this do to evolutionary theory? One team member, Dominic Papineau of Boston College, said, “That can only ring a bell and require us to ask if we need to reconsider earlier studies.” He added, “We can no longer assume that carbon is indigenous in the oldest metamorphosed sedimentary rock.” The article paraphrased his remarks and the impact of this upset on evolutionary theory:
Nearly 4,000-million years old samples from Greenland have been used to develop the dominant time line regarding the emergence of the earliest biosphere. The recent findings suggest the biosphere may have emerged millions of years later, a hypothesis that now demands a rigorous study, said Papineau….
The presence of carbon and the specific characteristics of that carbon’s source material are crucial to understanding the evolution of the early microbial biosphere. The subject of much debate within scientific circles,a new set of assumptions may be required when using the presence of carbon to date milestones in Earth’s evolution….
Continue Reading on creationsafaris.com