Flowering Plants Further Disrupt Darwinism

People who study origins and evolution have heard of Darwin's Abominable Mystery. Like the irreducibly complex eye was a serious problem for Darwin (yet he still believed in gradual evolution anyway), the fact that flowering plants appear in the fossil record too soon was another problem for him. Neither was resolved.

Evolutionists are prone to lying to con people to accept evolution, and they did so a spell back about DAM. This time, however, they are honest about the inescapable conclusion (based on their systems) that flowering plants existed millions of years sooner than they previously thought.

Darwin was frustrated by flowering plants, a problem that was never resolved. Now the date of a flower in amber makes things worse for evolutionists.
Phylica pubescens, WikiComm  Marco Schmidt (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Something that adds to their problem is that a flower found in amber is a Phylicia, which is basically identical to its living counterparts. It did not see fit to evolve after being subjected to "evolutionary pressures" through all those alleged millions of years. In addition, there should be a chain reaction in evolutionary documentation with information being outdated, rescuing devices employed — and the credibility of secularists takes another hit. Sure would be great if this shook some of them awake and they realized that the evidence constantly points to recent creation, wouldn't it?
The origin of flowering plants was already a huge embarrassment to evolutionists. It has long been called “Darwin’s Abominable Mystery” since King Charley himself was baffled by their sudden appearance in the fossil record. Up to now, evolutionists with their Deep Time mythical diagram put the explosive origin of flowering plants—classified as angiosperms—at 100 million Darwin Years ago, in the Cretaceous age of dinosaurs, although some stret-t-c-h-h-h-ed that estimate back to 145 million Darwin Years. Would you believe they were 200% off? How about 300% off? And the old ones look just as modern as living ones?

A better question is whether any of the evolutionary time estimates has credibility. If the new claim is not retracted quickly, evolutionists will find themselves in a whole new thicket of thorny questions.

To read the rest, follow the link to "Flower Explosion Blows Evo Cred."