Coelacanth, the 325 million year old fish?
A site dedicated to the coelacanth fish: http://www.dinofish.com/
Here is an account of the first recorded coelacanth find: Nova.
Every so often, evolutionists gets caught up in one of their claims that they really had no evidence for. Evolutionists like to date extinct fossils to be real old. Why? Because as long as no one can find one alive, they can claim all kinds of stuff about it. How it evolved, it's evolution tree, etc... Problem is, when something is found alive that is believed to be extinct. It is never evolved past the point of how they found it fossilized (goes totally against evolution theory). The 325 million year old fish, that has not changed, has left evolutionist trying to figure out an excuse. What is the most common excuse for something that has not changed over 100's of millions of years?
It evolved to the point where it could survive, so it did not need to evolve further. Huh? Evolutionists were just claiming it was extinct, now that it's found they use a lame excuse to explain it away? Here's where it is claimed to be extinct:
 |
| When you take the fossil imprint from a rock, as you see above. And compare it to one that is living, as seen below.... |
 |
 |
 |
| You see here that the 325 million year old rock imprint... |
Is not any different from a living coelacanth. Which means no evolution took place. |
Then I took these two pics and super imposed one over the other to see if they were exactly the same fin. An exact match as seen above. |
In case you are wondering why the super imposed picture looks funny. I had to take the living fin example (the black fin). And turn the pic side ways to align the bone in the middle. Anyone is welcome to copy those two pics and try this yourself. They match exactly, which means no evolution for 325 million years took place.
After 325 million years, this fish did not evolve one bit? Actually, this has left evolutionists scrambling for a answer.
The Coelacanth Would be the second fish from left to right. The scale above is the supposed scale of evolution of fish (water to land evolution). Problem is Coelacanth did not evolve as this scale would suggest. Which leaves the door open to the question: Did Evolution happen at all? The more living fossils that are found, the more it puts into question the evolution hypothesis that Darwin came up with.
But the only thing they can come up with is an excuse, as shown below.
Here's is another living creature that evolutionists make the same claim about when asked: How come this creature did not evolve any further? Their answer? Because it had evolved far enough to survive, it did not need to evolve further. Two totally different situations, both use the same lame excuse.
| Coelacanth |
Extinct but found alive. |
Because it had evolved enough and did not need to evolve further.. |
| Alligator |
Not extinct, but primitive. |
Because it had evolved enough and did not need to evolve further. |
Sounds like more circular reasoning or denial of truth (Or both). For if they have to admit to why things were found this way, they would have to deny evolution and admit to being wrong. But evolutionist are never wrong, so that won't happen. Why? Evolution is another form of humanism. Humanism is self deification. Always being right, allows the humanist to exalt himself above those who he believes is wrong. Self exaltation requires that you lie to keep the position. Because to admit to something they despise to being right. Is like going from king position to peasant position.
Are there other evidences of things like this that defy evolution?
Evolution is about things being small and evolving into something bigger. Creation is about things that were big (before the flood). And reducing in size. But some things revert back to what they were before the flood. I wonder what pound test line did they use to catch that fish? Nah, just skip the fishing line and use a rope with a hook. Looks like some happy red necks to me.
Click next to continue.
Page last updated: Saturday, September 08, 2007
