Dishonest Darwinists Dodge Living Fossils
There are creatures in the fossil record that show no appreciable difference between supposed millions of years to their modern descendants. Charles Darwin was displeased with this additional evidence against his conjectures. He called them living fossils.
If a handful of them existed, they might be waved away as odd quirks. But there are many living fossils. Evolutionists change mystical hats, trading the one where evolution is an undeniable force with the other where stasis occurred. That is, they did not have to evolve. These owlhoots get downright dishonest as well.
,%20MorgueFile%20%20xpistwv.jpg) |
| Horseshoe crab (which is not really a crab) is a living fossil, MorgueFile / xpistwv |
People know this, but when dishonest evolutionists change the definitions with the ol' bait 'n' switch by calling every little change "evolution, they say, "Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" Convenient but dirty rescuing device (the fallacy of equivocation) to escape the implications of living fossils — creation is real, evolution is false. Deal with it, hippies.
Numerous plants and animals look identical to fossil counterparts said to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. How can the Darwinians explain this? Charles Darwin himself, who coined the term “living fossils,” wrestled with the phenomenon. The amount of extreme stasis in the fossil record was so obvious, it led Gould and Eldredge to conjure up their theory of punctuated equilibria in the 1970s, suggesting that evolution occurs in rapid bursts that leave no fossils. Many saw that as a trick to support a belief in spite of lack of evidence. Now, 50 years later, Darwin Party apologists at Imperial College London are trying another excuse, calling it “evolutionary heritage.” But are they just playing word games?
You can keep reading at "Evolutionists Try to Explain Away Living Fossils."