Explain the Trilobite

Go for it.

The existance of trilobites is not even argued in rational human circles.
No religion dares argue that they did not exist.
250 million years back, last existing in the Permian era.

The world is 3 billion years old.

Yet some say it was created in 4004 bc

If it was so created, Why was it created to look like it evolved
over a period of 3 billion years?
Why have ANY fossils?
Of millions of species.
Why intimate dinosaurs existed?
Or anything else but what exists today?

Why?
The god of christianity is depicted as an idiot.
And only an idiot believes that the world was made in 4004 bc
Sorry, cant be bothered being nice any more.
No more arguement. WAKE UP.

If you dont agree then explain the above that is highlighed in red.
If you cant explain why a created world 5000 years old would have 250 million year old fossils.
Then occam will not speak with you.

And none of this science is wrong in its dating process.. crap. Science makes the machines your are looking at right now. IT WORKS.
You think we can make 100 teraflop supercomputers but cant date a rock?.
lol...

Occam

 

Well you are a true believer in mans abilities, I'm sure as a Christian Trilobites existed. It's just how long ago did they exist, or how far back. It's just like the dinsaurs, did they die off seventy million years ago like the believers in Evolution tell us. And as you know, it was these same believers in Evolution who have told us we would never find soft tissue in a dinosur bones because soft tissue only last 10,000 years. Then they start to find these bones from various dinosurs species with soft tissue, and now what are we to believe? That soft tissue now last seventy million years. Now are you going to tell me only an idiot believes that soft tissue only last 10,000 years? Sorry I don't have to wake up, it's you guys who can't get your story right. The soft tissue agrees with the Bibles time line, and not Evolution.

Eva was created from Adams rib, yet when God was finished with her she appeared the same age as Adam. God has the ability to create things with the appearence of age. Yet often we believe things to be older than they are. I believe that all things found in the ground did exist, yet often what we believe about such things, has more to do whith our imagination than science. We use to run a million gallons of water a day where I worked. Over a years time the grates would have to be cleaned because of mineral build up. Some of the mineral deposits were so thick you would have to take a hammer to them, and often you had what looked like a million year old fossile. Yet we all knew that the fossile was only 12 months old, and not a million.

 

There's not much to explain it's an ugly creature which emerged from the cambrian explosion hundreds of millions of years ago, and who's fossilized remains have been found at all corners of the earth (not just on Mount Ararat, ha, ha, ha)


Hotwater

 

And please explain how they came to the conclusion of hundreds of millions of years ago?

 

I thought your god was supposed to be all truth and light, but making the world look older then it is would be deception, or is it satan that plant fossils. From your point of view, an all powerful god could imagine anything into existance at any time or place and could be changing things all the time, it would seem pointless to argue about time or facts at all, since it could be changed and are changing continously, to the point that your god created multiple realities for different people.

I personally have dug up fossil seashells in the mountians. These same mountains have had people living in them for thousands of years.

 

Just like they believe Carbon dating is wrong.

It is just stupid and pointless to waste your time trying to have a rational debate with campbell.

 

You have to remember other people like those in Asia, India and South America...their religions and creation stories arent real. They are all lying when they say that they have been on the land for several thousand years. The Vedas? All bullshit to the Christian mind. Because the middle east is where it was all happening at.

 

All dating theories revolve around certain assumptions. Namely that things like rate of decay are constant and have not been changed notably by any outside influencing. I do not know if that is a correct assumption or not, but it is important to note that it is an assumption. Not a "fact". The dates are only accurate if the assumption is true.

Much of science is based on fundamental assumptions. For example, scientists assume that the world will be rational and follow a reasonable pattern. There is *no* scientific theory or method of experimentation that can support this assumption.

The point of all this is that it doesn't necessarily follow that God is deceiving us, as it is entirely possible that we have made fundamentally wrong assumptions. For everyone that takes the "science vs. religion" dichotomy, I suggest taking a course on the philosophy of science. I think that you will discover that "science" requires as much faith as any religion.

 

I believe God made the world as it is, you are the one who is trying to put an age on it that does not exist. I believe Adams wife was created with the appearence of age, not the world. I believe the world came into existance very quickly and now believers in Evolution in order to make their Theory look right, have to push for an old earth. Just like they have to say Dinosaurs died off 70 million years ago, but now can't explain why they are finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

 

In 1986 Mt. St. Helens lava dome was formed. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subject to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, ALL FROM ELEVEN YEAR OLD ROCK.

So with these results, are you telling me we can believe in the dating given to us by science? What is stupid and pointless, is how you can ignore the findings of other scientist. I'm rational, because I'm considering the evidence, what are you considering?

 

None of this actually helps explain the trilobite's existence.
Are you suggesting Campbell that there were tilobites just 11 years ago? Because if so, I'd seek psychiatric help if I were you.

If you say that trilobites existed during the last 4,000 odd years, then why is there no record of their existence? It seems very odd that there wouldn't be.

 

How about this, for years paleontologists thought the Coelacanth had been extinct for 70 million years, and they did not find any remains in the fossil record either, then in 1938 a fishing trawler captured a living Coelacanth off the eastern coast of South Africa. Before 1938 if I told you I was going to find a living one, you would be telling me I need psychiatric help to. But guess what, you would be wrong. Sometimes things do not show up in the fossil record, just like the Coelacanth.

 

Campbell, there had to have been a fossil record first, then live discovery.

If there hadn't been any previous evidence of the existence of this species, or something closely related to it, how did the scientists come to the prior conclusion that it had been extinct for 70 million years?

 

That is correct, and the Coelacanthus did show up in about 125 other fossils and then vanished, which led scientist to believe that they had gone extinct for 66 million years. The fact is, the fossil record cannot be depended on when dealing with an individual species, or even as an accurate time line. And the reasons for this, is because the conditions that would allow fossils to form can vary from year to year. Because you cannot find Trilobites at a certain time period, is just the same as not being able to find the Coelacanth in 66 million years of the fossil record. The only thing it proves, is even though they were there, they don't appear in the record.

 

OK - so are you saying that even now, there are living tilobites, or that there were within the last couple of decades?

 

Look, I don't know what you want me to say. A recent discovery is the Tadpole Shrimp. Now this is another one of those living fossils. This Shrimp was supposed to be dead for 70 million years. Guess what, they found it swimming in San Francisco Bay. Who's to say what they will discover next. All I know, is these extinct fossils keep showing up. And they appear the same as they did in the fossil record.

 

If there were no living trilobites 11 years before 1997, then it would be hard to see how they could get into rocks formed , presumably, in 1986.
It defeats my logic to see how else they could have got there.
Unless of course we're talking about fossilized trilobites, already millions of years old when these rocks were formed.
I'm also interested to know exactly what type of rocks, newly formed in 1986, these critters were found in.

 

I think a good conclusion for all of this is to recognize that we live on an infinitely complex planet in an inconcivably large universe. New discoveries are made all the time...some of them very baffling anomalies indeed. In the case of the coelocanth, the Tadpole shrimp, and the ever-common cockroach, my inclination is to say that natural selection somehow favored these species over a long period of time, even if only a few living examples of some survive.

Campbell, you're trying to make a logical jump from the facts that a few species that were previously presumed long-extinct are in fact not extinct, and that archaeological and scholarly discoveries have been made that appear to verify some Biblical events, to the conclusion that the Biblical account of creation is literally true, and expect others to take you seriously...it doesn't work.

 

It is indeed a mysterious universe that we inhabit. I think that it is only now that we are even beginning to gain any objective knowledge about it, or about how it actually works.
Many things remain unexplained by science, and some scientists do, no doubt, hold up theory as though it were unshakable dogma. However, that doesn't make the biblical creation account any more believable.

Even if tomorrow, the big bang theory is totally overthrown, that still doesn't mean science is 'wrong', because the scientific method is to theorize, then test the theories to see if they can be verified. Dogma has no place in real science. If a theory is shown to be incorrect, the answer is to come up with a better theory.
Incidentally, no doubt Campbell etc will be pleased to hear me say that I think it likely that within a decade, the big bang theory will have collapsed. Not because science will revert to biblical creationism though, but because new discoveries are constantly making the thing look more and more shakey.

IMO biblical exergetes would do well to consider taking a similar approach to the scientist. If a thing can be shown to be flase, then it either has to be rejected or else re-interpreted along different lines.
Even if the story of the garden of ededn etc isn't a factual account, it may well contain some symbolic truth.
That's as far as I'm prepared to go.
In my view, c/anity had it's day 1,000 years ago, and in to-day's world something less narrow and more deeply spiritual is needed.

No doubt these ideas will earn me more condemnation from our brethren here.....