New Fossil Bats, Still No Evolution

In the Southwestern United States, there is a place popular with geologists and paleontologists called the Green River Formation. There are several rivers and tributaries called Green River, and this area is a tributary of the Colorado River. The formation and basins include several states.

Since so much research is done in the formation, it is not surprising to get news from there. What may have been surprising to secular scientists is how the new bat fossils they discovered gave no clues to an alleged evolutionary ancestor of bats.

Since secularists don't play the hand they're dealt, they reshuffle and deal from the bottom of the deck. In this case, the unevolving bat fossils did not fit their paradigm, so they tacked on two million years to bad origins. Sure, why not? If it helps keep the story going and avoid the fact of recent creation by the God of the Bible, they'll find ways.

The Green River Formation is also interesting because of varves (thin layers of sediment). Supposedly, they show annual layers over millions of years. Not hardly! For one thing, more than one varve can be formed in a year. Worse for supporters of deep time is that the geologic evidence fits nicely into creation science Genesis Flood models.

There’s nothing more fascinating in the evening sky than the erratic flight of what looks like a bird but is actually a ravenous, feeding bat. Using their amazing sonar, they effortlessly capture their fill of insects in the dark.

The evolutionary explanation for bat origins is nonexistent. The fossil record contains no fossils documenting a non-bat ancestor becoming a bat. Paleontologists find only complete and fully-formed bats in the sedimentary rocks.

Sacha Pare writing in Live Science describes the discovery of two new fossil bats in the Green River Formation in Wyoming.

To dig into the rest of the article, visit "Recent Green River Bat Fossils." You may also be interested in "Evolutionists go Batty about Echolocation,"