BBC Science News reported the discovery of the oldest known land plants to date. Found in sediments from the Rio Capillas in the Sierras Subandinas in the Central Basin of northwestern Argentina, fossilized spores of five different types of liverworts. The spores were dated from 471 to 473 million years old and surpassed the previous record holders by 10 million years.
Based on their findings, the team of researchers from the Department of Palaeontology at the Argentine Institute of Snow, Ice and Environmental Research, estimated that plants as primitive as the liverworts first made their presence on land in the early Ordovician period (472-488 millions years ago) to the late Cambrian period (488 – 499 million years ago).
According to the article, the emergence of land plants was one of the most important evolutionary breakthroughs in the Earth’s history and was largely responsible for changing the global climate. Land plants were also responsible for changing the soil composition which made it more favorable for the development of multi-cellular plants. This then set the stage for the emergence of the first land animals about 45 million years later or approximately 428 millions years ago.
The most obvious problem with this report is the underlying presuppositional belief in millions and billions of years. Based on their faith in an old earth and evolution, they interpret the evidence accordingly and consequently end up with an entirely wrong set of conclusions.
Had they started with the only history of the earth that is 100% reliable, they would have ended up with more accurate conclusions. First of all, we know that according to Genesis 1:10-13 that God created plants on Day 3 of creation about 6000 years ago. The creation of plants included all plants from liverworts to algae to grasses to bushes to the tallest trees. Then the world was destroyed in a world-wide flood which deposited layers and layers of sediment over the face of the globe and buried most of the plant life within those layers. It is generally accepted by creation geologists that the late Cambrian and early Ordovician layers were early Flood deposits which would put the date of the liverwort fossils at around 4500 years old, a far cry from the 473 million years.
The second and less obvious problem is the evolution of plants in general. The article states, “… liverworts are likely to be the ancestors of all land plants… As land plants matured, they evolved from liverworts into mosses, and then into plants known as hornworts and lycopods. Then ferns appeared before seed plants, of which there are many species today, finally evolved.”
But where is the evidence for any evolution of plants?
Dr. Jerry Bergman discusses this problem in his paper, The Evolution of Plants: a Major Problem for Darwinism. He points out that there is an abundance of plants in the fossil record, but even with that abundance, there is a complete lack of plant transitional forms. The extent of that lack of evidence is summed by Dr. Bergman when he states, “Given about 375,000 kinds of plants, and an average of ‘only’ 1,000 transitional forms for each one (most likely many more would be necessary), then 375 million transitional forms would be required. Not one clear example has ever been found in the abundant plant fossil record.”
If plant evolution had taken place, then one would expect to find drastic differences between what evolutionists call the oldest plant fossils and modern living plants, but they don’t. Even the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California state, “The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. …Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years.” At one time the museum had a sign posted that read, “Blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) ‘Oldest Living Fossils’ – Scientists have found from microscopic examination of these fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.” I suspect that sign has since been removed because of how creationists have used their own words against them.
In fact, many of the so-called oldest plant fossils, marine or land, are easily identifiable because of their similarity to nearly identical plants living today. To many evolutionists, this has been a bane of which they have yet to recover from, however, it does not deter them from continued speculation of what plant group evolved into the next plant group and so on.
If any biblical creationist presented such a theory based entirely against the scientific evidence, we would be the subject of academic attacks the likes of which one would not want to experience. Yet highly esteemed members of the evolutionary community regularly publish just-so stories with no evidence of support and are highly acclaimed for their work.
And they call Christianity a blind faith?