Explain the Trilobite

Inspired...part of the time, definitely. At others, just human.

As far as prewriting history...entirely open to interpretation, and there is a full spectrum of interpretations by Christians.

Campbell always has the prophecy card up his sleeve.

 

Ezekiel 36:24 Read it... then read a history book... or better yet... watch the news because it is happening right before your eyes...

 

OK, JDFU...for starters, I will read Campbell's entire webpage, with references, as you suggested in an earlier post, and I will also read an equivalent work that takes a skeptical/critical approach to Biblical prophecy.

If i'm going to discuss and debate this stuff with you guys, I should have more than kneejerk-grade knowledge of the subject matter.

I'm not uninformed. I keep up with the news daily by TV, internet, or printed media. I also have a working knowledge of history, as I completed a BS degree with the standard required history studies as well as relevant electives; now that I'm retired and have time to do a lot of reading and study, it seems that my main interest runs to religion and its historical context.

 

Sorry dont know if this has already been posted but from the spectacular website trueorigin.org (an antidote for the evopropaganda site talkorigins):
http://trueorigin.org/trilobites_eyes.asp

Trilobites and their eyes are downright fascinating but imo that just #228434 why evolutionism is just downright antiscience.

 

"Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat's principle, Abbe's sine law, Snell's laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals..." (Levi-Setti, 1993, p 33). This, of course, is patently absurd, since arthropods know nothing of the laws of optics.

Is that really convincing to you? That's like saying "Apples know all about gravity because they fall from trees" "Or people know all about psychology and neuroscience because they have brains."

 

I see what you want to protest but it really does come down to a question of 'how would they know' to build information for some future needs.
Heres why...

We found out years ago that some of the original presumptions which made up evolutionism faith just cannot be.
The classic example is the belief that the Blacksmiths muscles are then 'inherited' by the Blacksmiths son. (after all, science has proven that the sons of blacksmiths often have big arm muscles right)
Nope.
Everything you are saying about 'physics making it so' would be fine IF it were true that environmental pressure could mold, shape, instigate the new information to be written and incorporated.
But no.

So in our really basic example we have a fish flopping around who would benefit from knees.
(lets pretend evolution made sense and that was the case).
Ok.
Even if your fish is being constantly chased by things, even if it actually was aware that a ball and socket would help it.. even if it tried bending its fins really hard....
.... no matter what, there is absolutely nothign that can happen that causes the fishs DNA to 'respond' by somehow 'creating information' for a 'Ball' or a 'Socket'.

But wait.. it gets even a million times more fucked up when you really start thinking it through.
Its not just that the fishs DNA would have to 'know' it should start making information and plans for a 'ball and socket'.
But,
We are asked to believe it would 'know' to respond to outside influences by making a program for 'bone'.
but,
It would do so 'knowing' that this was for a later series of building for a 'socket',
and that the only purpose in writing 'socket' was because there would be a future 'ball'.
Never mind everything else for hips, spinal columns, and a gazillion other things it would need to 'know' and practically have psychic future predicting abilitites to even start pulling off.

Now let me give you the only way your 'physics dictates' argument could possibly work.
If you are describing DEvolution.
If you are describing REDUCING COMPLEXITY.

The Arctic Rabbit does NOT need to have genetics that 'know' to only select out 'white colour' choices from ALREADY EXISTING POOLS of choices.
In fact, the Wolves in the outside environment do that for the rabbit and in the same way 'an apple falls' it is done for it.
They simply start removing the darker (easier to spot) rabbits until the choices are selected out 'for the rabbit'.
Yes.
If you are making me an argument for the OPPOSITE of Evolutionism and trying to convince me DEvoltion happens then congrats because Im 100% absolutely CONVINCED that is that case.

Dont worry, I know what you can respond with (it the core of evolutionist belief system)
and it goes like this:

"Aha...but if fish occasionally have retarded babies (mutations) and that mutation 'helps' the fish, then mates with another fish with the same retardation.. and this passes on... then in a sense we could 'build upward' by 'outside forces'."

WOW.
Just fucking WOW.

Lets just take a quick look at the astonishing fuckedupedness of this belief system
We are asked to believe that a one in a billion fish is born with a deformity.
A gene retarded and the fish is born with this flipper that has a chunk of sockety shaped bone.
And somehow in at least two flippers i guess.
For some incredible reason this actually makes it MORE SUCCESSFUL and can flip away faster.
Amazingly, it actually manages to mate with another retarded fish which coincidently has the same problem. (their offspring also only mate with other retard fish babies).
Wow.
Ok, now again you still have the same principle of amazing 'precognition' but now even more fucking wacked is the belief that this would happen by 'chance precognition'.
Look... you still need to have this crazy bent-flipper fish just back into the wildest jackpot of 'bad luck' and now its born with ANOTHER MUTATION that just happens to be a chunck of bone in a 'ball' shape.
WOW!
It actually fits the socket!
And wow amazing it also mates with a matching retarded ball-chunk flipper fish.
Wilder yet this just happens to work for the fish who can now run away even faster and strangely is not the WORST FUCKING FISH EVER but will keep 'coincidently' receiving complimentary mutations.
Wierdly it also has a retarded gene that causes 'hip bones' and wierdly retarded lengths and thicknesses that also happen to 'fit' the other 'random mutations'.
GOOD GAD... never in the history of Las Vegas has ANYTHING or ANYONE ever even dreamt of the astonishing series of 'Jackpot' coincidences that it would take to have retarded genes just keep falling and falling into happy coincidences.... and this is just to make ANYTHING even coming close to a ball and socket knee.
I mean its beyond every known outrageous concept of probablity that not even a billion years could explain.

And that is exactly one of the main reasons Evolutionist High Priest Stephen J Gould refered to it as a 'Miracle'.
Not only that but because the Fossil Record eliminates that outrageous notion anyways,
Gould not only declared it entirely dismissed but pretty much served notice that any evolutionist who promoted that idea anymore was all but 'blacklisted' and teaching pure fantasy.

Problem is that Goulds only other possible explanation (and for any Evo) is 'Punctuated Equalibrium'.
Somehow, the only thing that could possibly explain it was that there was our fish.
Our fish one day gives birth (JACKPOT!) to a fish that has ALL the 'Irreduceable Complextity' and a fully functional 'Knee' system as well as the needed hips and ligaments, size and shape etc all needed for any of it to 'do' or mean anything.
Ok.
Now WTF because you are right back to the organism somehow 'knowing' to build all those parts.
How did the DNA 'come up with the idea' and 'try it' in the first place.

Again, (and this is just one of a hundred other major problems) you still have the outrageous improbably ideas that the 'miracle baby' also met, mated and SEPARATED from the gene pool, went off outside the pool to breed off into some sort of successful new race.

Absolutely WOW!
And you think Im requiring 'faith' to believe that a witting designer made life in just one week?
You are managing to believe that 'miraculous creations' happened by amazing coincidences MILLIONS OF TIMES over and over and over for MILLIONS OF YEARS!
And did so by luck and flaw!?

You require a billion times a billion time a billion more 'blind faith' that I will ever require!

 

Lamarck was before darwin. He obviously knew little about evolution.

Nobody is asking you to believe that. Dna doesn't respond to outside influence.

Are you sure this is the case? Are you sure arctic rabbits don't change color depending on the surrounding temperature? Are you sure they don't actually change color twice a year? 'Cause actually, that's the case, and that doesn't sound like reducing complexity to me.

You just made that up.

Actually, it can mate with the normal fish and still pass on the gene. Then those offspring, once prevalent enough, can mate and make a homozygous fish. It's really pretty easy.

Indeed.

Who said anything about cognition of any kind?

I'm sure it doesn't happen quite like that. I'm also sure that the transition to land vertebrates took a helluva long time. Given however many hundreds of millions of years resulting in however many hundreds of quadrillions (or more) of fish, it's not that out landish for a couple of them to have an advantage over others resulting from more advanced fin appendages.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060403/full/060403-7.html

Did you know that there are fish that can live on land for day? There are also fish that can climb trees, shoot bugs that are out of water into the water, swim up a stream of urine and lodge itself in your penis, and glide for decent distances. Nature comes up with some outlandish ways for the freaks to fit in. Think of how easy it would be with a mutation like this.

Again, I'm pretty sure it was a bit more gradual than that.

Again, it doesn't need to.

Once you're on land, there's a whole new set of conditions, and many species that wouldn't survive once the land is overrun with specialized organisms can do quite well and give rise to others.

Yes. Everything is retarted. Grow up.

Yes, you are the expert on the odds of everything. You who are so wise in the ways of biology and geologic time. Keep in mind, there was all the time in the world. Evolution is a biochemical certainty, and natural selection increases as the number of organisms fighting for the same resources increases.

You're misrepresenting punctuated equilibrium, but I think you know that.

What about all the mutations that resulted in a dead egg, a stillbirth, a sterile fish, a fish that is at a disadvantage, etc... Are you going to say the organism had to "know" how to do all that?

Mutations cause the genetic code to change, and yes, sometimes new genetic material is added. Many fish mutated and died in the space that it took for one to mutate and successfully compete, but that only makes it look like the DNA is a supergenius. It's really just an innocent bystander.

Again, a single unique fish still passes on all its genes when it mates within the parent population.

Jesus Christ yeah!

Nothing miraculous about it, my boy. No luck, no flaw, just unintelligent, unaware, and non-divine trial and error. Errors die, successes go on. Keep in mind that fish were not evolving exclusively. When there were two species on the planet, they could both evolve. When there were 100, they could all evolve, and when there were 1 million, they could all evolve as well.

Ha!

Faith requires a lack of evidence. Pick 100 biologists at random and ask them if there's enough evidence for evolution to support it's acceptance. I dast ya.

 

I wish you could hear yourself.
Suppose I have 26 letters in an alphabet (dont even ask how that came make itself by trial and error).
But suppose.

You are actually willing to accept once every 100 copies of this alphabet an error will happen.
Say a letter gets smooshed, blots out, kinda gets ruined or retarded.
Ok.
So it gets dropped. no harm done.
Every once in a while an error happens but it makes a new improved letter that you find helpful.

Im no mathematician but what you just decided to believe in is that 99 steps backwards + 1 step forward = new information towards increased working compexity.

I mean honestly, in any other realm of human inquiry, to actually sit there and pretend like 99 pieces of information lost to ever 1 bit gained is anything but total elimination would be insanity.
But not in evolutionism!
Actual grown men can look each other in the face and pretend that a process (which is all made up and 'hypothetical' btw) could have once happened where:
You LOSE 99% of information but 'just need one' 'good retardation' and this would equal INCREASED information.

Bearfabrique just calls this outrageous ANTIlogic:
[and doesnt even talk about the outrageous problem of losing far far far more information than is hypothetically 'gained']
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God hates IDIOTS, too!

​

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.




Once again, if you want to believe that 99 drops plus 1 'gain' can get you absolutely ANYWHERE then feel free to live with yourself.
You are the one who has to try and sleep at nights and know full well you will accept that.

 

Your, 1 in 99, is just made up. It doesn't represent any real situation. By and large, most of the changes in DNA during replication and reproduction are very small, not having much of any positive or negative impact the organism.

Saying that no one thinks evolution is correct, anymore, is just absurd. Out of over 400,000 scientists polled, less then 1% believed of them thought that creationism were right. The last two Popes have said that they have no conflict with evolution and be not disagree.

 

Oh its ridiculous exaggeration to give a 99'bad' ration to a 1%'good'.
I just have to do something to even begin making this horrific 'mutation plus selection' argument even begin to sound worth talking about.

Again, I just wish you Evos could hear yourselves:

First, lets not even start howling with laughter at the very idea this evolution theory (and its the very core of the belief) actually asks us to PRESUME ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF ALL THE DNA ALREADY HAPPENED.
Ok.
Lets start giving evidence that evolution could have happened but please start where we already have an organism with DNA.
Ok.
Lets just 'do you a solid' and start taking it up where we ALREADY have a fish with working complex information, all the DNA ready to go.
Agreed.

Now you actually can stand there and KNOWINGLY agree that of the genetic information we have - It will LOSE bits of information as it goes along.
You ACTUALLY AGREE this happens and of course we certainly do see that in nature.
Lets even call off the 'benign' mutations as a 'wash' here.
Fair enough.
So we are actually sitting here AGREEING that 99.99 of the other meaningful mutations are (ready for this) BAD.
Not just 'bad' but often LETHAL from the start or give you nothing short of a diseased organism.
The Evo will now (somehow) with a straight face admit outright that these bits of retarded information get dropped.
Will admit it.
[now brace yourself for the mindfuck of the century]
In the same breath,
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT .01 'good mutations' can somehow ADD complex working information in some magical way that OUTRUNS the losses and regular mutations.
Just wow.
Just amazing!

Ready for the even more bizarre twist that will demonstrate the astonishing faith of an Evofundie?
They actually know this, still believe in it and even have the bizarre 'cult-like' ability to blame it on 'Science',
or,
Actually think its 'based on facts'.
Triple my Wow.

To really blow your mind you have to remember we are not even talking about massive jupiter-sized issues you would want to address before you even got to that mathematical impossibility.

Mindboggling additional 'wow factor'.
Again, we start with the Evolutionist asking "Please assume organisms evolved in the first place, complex working information ALREADY exists and a remarkable set of rules, error-checking mechanisms and information principles already have organised themselves"

More 'Wow Factors' before even starting:
Then more fun when we even start trying to look at what would make for a 'good mutation'.
A deformed flipper that hypothetically helped it flip faster if washed up on mud or something?
An redundant fin that amazingly just happened to work.
You almost have to defy all common sense to come up with anything that resembles a 'good mutation'.
My colour-blindness that hypothetically helps me spot yellow stop signs 'relatively better' than duller objects.

Even more mindboggling 'wow factors':
Retarded fish mates with other fish with same genetic mutation.
*btw.. someone mistakenly believed that the mutation can go into the larger genetic pool and multiply into dominance.
Absolutely no.
High Priest Evolutionist Gould would dismiss you from calling yourself an Evo.
You do NOT want the mutated fish to then disperse back into the greater unmutated population.
This is why Evos believe that our magical 'Hopeful monsters' quickly found each other and SEPARATED from the greater population.

More outrageous 'wow' factors;
You dont even begin to explain how 'Changed' information somehow is ever becoming 'new information'.
Once again, we still have no truly new and unique 'letters' unto themselves but are still asking for ALREADY EXISTING information (where we laughably are asked to 'start') being retarded, twisted, mixed-up, half-on, doubled-up and so on.
But no new letters.
That is to say no truly unique 'information' shows up to be ADDED to the animal.
Just twisted, screwed, bent, retarded versions of this already existing info.
(which again, we didnt even begin discussing how THAT got there at all).

I digress.
FORGET ALL THE OTHER 'WOW' Factors.
Even ALLOW those to go unaddressed and you are still absolutely downright screwed on just the math alone.
(even GIVEN everything else which is insane but)

99 step back
1 step forward.
Somehow will eventualy equal 100 steps forward.
Amazing.

Mutation plus Selection destroyed beyond all recognition here:
http://trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

 

Once again, you give no evidence for what you are saying, that article didn't mention any 1/99 rate. Also I have no idea if that one study has been peer reviewed or duplicated by anyone else. Most dna changes very minor, and does effect the organism for better or worse. This is completely provable (as has been) through genetic testing. The genetic similarity between a chimpanzee and a human is about 98%- 99.6%the same. Even if what you are saying was true, over a million or so years, it could produce a small percentage differnce of benificial ones.

The theory of evolution does not address or mention as to what or how or why life got started on Earth. That simply has nothing to do with the it. Abiogensis would not effect evolution one way or the other. Evolution is concerned with changes in lifeforms over time.

Your use of the 2nd law of thermodynics is completely wrong, it only applies to closed systems, of which, life on Earth is not a closed system.

 

It's useless to argue with those whose views are based on 'belief' rather than rationality or free inquiry.

These creationists have made their minds up - I doubt any amount of evidence would convince them. It's called brainwashing.

 

There is no 99 backward. Those that have bad mutations don't do well enough to pass their genes on in any effective manner. The population stays at zero. When a good mutation occurs, genes are reproduced with ease. That's +1. When a letter of the alphabet turns out deformed, the whole damn thing drops out, and all the other alphabets around don't know what happened because they're creationist. When a new letter is added, it's added to the whole alphabet, because all the alphabets out there are whole, or else they'd die.

And no, I'm not talking about information being retarted or messed up. I am indeed talking about new information, new genes, many more base pairs of DNA, all the stuff you say I need, that's exactly what I have. It just doesn't happen all at once like you think it must.

That is all.

 

Looky this:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64005

 

Oh, are you speaking about Evolutionest? It's sad to have to keep showing that their rationality is often based on misinformation, or false evidence, and then they keep looking the other way. Much of what Evolution is supported by is based on belief.

 

You are so cute! Though your wit probably would have been more evident if you hadn't quoted the second part.

 

Of course the creationist have made up their minds regardless of the evidence. the very basis of their belief system puts aside common sense and relies on faith.

Without faith (and no evidence of fact) everything they believe in simply crumbles into dust


Hotwater

 

And so on. This entire post was full of misrepresentation of what is evolutionary thought and demonstrated an utter lack of grasp of evolutionary theory.

In other words, typical Creationism!

 

Gotta hit a few different problems so quickly....

If you stop and think about that for a minute you will realise its not implying what you must think it 'sounds like its implying'.

Actually if you really thought about it you just made not only a good argument for an Intelligent Designer but for a Single Designer too.
After all, economy of design is a hallmark.
A Volkswagen is '99%' Porshe and all.

That brings us to what makes up the similarity.

Think of it this way - the vast majority of 'similar instructions' are for fundamental things like say 'Carbon'.
Or more specifically 'Blood'
or 'Bone matter'.
No surprise that a chimp or any other animal is 'mostly' the same as something else along that line.
But wait,
Then more are 'similar' in terms of instructions like 'Make a Trunk shape body'.
or
'Make five digits'
or,
make a hair follicle.
etc.

Likewise the designed volkswagon has so much similarity to a Porshe because of common basic design instructions like;
Metal,
Oil,
Undercarriage shape.
Rubber wheel.
Headlight,
etc.
Thats 95% of the similarities and in no way will you ever agree to believe that a Porshe evolved from millions of tiny accidents and fender-benders, hail damage and 'good rusting' coincidences a Volkswagen happened to go through millions of times.

You will believe that (and much more) happened to turn a chimp into a human though.
btw.. the 5% difference you think is 'so close'.
Its a gap so widddddddddddddddeeeeeee that not even ten million years of evolutionism (even if it did happen in reality) could account for the differences in that '5%'.

Again back to the 'seemingly good sounding' 'similarity' in DNA.
Ok.
Did you know that you are also 97% of a field mouse!
You think thats good.. you are 52% similar to a Banana!
Last time I checked the latest figure was being 20% similar to Yeast!

Nope, not even close.
It would require zillions of years and this is probably why Neo-Evos changed the theory to one of highly accelerated (practically creationist speed) 'hopeful monsters'.
Sudden superleaps and bounds happening at a time.

Well then Evolutionism can add that to the long and growing list of 'white flags' they are putting up.
Im glad they conceded its impossible to have happened 'naturally' and now we can go onto better theories about the origins of life.

Im not sure what you are responding to but I see you did a good job repeating back something that Talkorigins told you to say.
Your not sure why the Earth or its system is or is not closed.. but talkorigins just told you something.
Ugh.


Freakersoup mistakenly believed:

I want you to brace yourself.
You are going to go through a lot of shock and followed by anger etc.
Just like I did.
Trust me, you do not have 'new information' and let me be clear - when I say 'new information' Im not pouring 'my meaning' into that.
Im talking about the kind of 'new information' that Evolutonist know, need and want.
Brace yourself....

It doesnt happen.
Its not real.

The only sorts of 'new information' you will ever find are recombinations, splits, retards, twisters, duplicates and so on.
Seriously.

The kind you want and need in order to keep believing in Evolutionism... doesnt happen.
Not in reality.
Not even in theory.
In fact there is simply no known way to even image how that could even happen even if it could.
But it doesnt.

Here is a typical response from a few types showing up here:

I hear this all the time.
Its actually a very good sign that people are replying with that ole insult and here is why:
Whats happened is that you are reading (some for the first time ever) ACTUAL beliefs evolutionism holds.
Its 'wierd'.
It 'cannot be right'.
The only explanation (in your mind) is that the writer 'must not know anything about evolutionism'.
After all,
Evolutionism is true facts and they wrote about something that cannot be true,
*therefore*
It must be a 'misrepresentation' of evolutionism.
Right?

Here is the truth - Evolutionism is not a real 'thing'.
Its not like 'Chemistry'.
Its not even like Astronomy,
Its certainly not like Algebra.
Its not really an 'anything' that you can 'see' and 'know'.

And when we say it 'depends on who you talk to' and 'whats new this week' its no exaggeration.
Darwinism is dead for example.
Totally dead.
Mutation plus Selection over millions of years is also dead.
Well it was last week.
Punc-eek replaced old evolutionism but then Gould died and literally there was a strange vacuum.
Do you really know what it is this week.. no you dont.
Nobody does.
This week its a bit more like 'check back because we dont really know what to believe this week.. but it did happen for sure somehow!'

Id just keep putting it back to this - 'Evolutionism' is not an actual thing.
Its made up as it goes, changes, morphs and 'evolves' as it goes, depending on what group, what places and what week it is..
Ironic aint it.

 

An omnipotent creator would not have any problems creating different creatures with total different genetics. Economy would be meaningless to such a creator that has infinite power. With such a power there would be no limits as to what or of how living things could be constructed, ie silicon based organisms, living rocks,etc. That would like saying "god" is not that imaginative and has resorted to cost cutting in the development in genetic designing. That argument doesn't make sense.

You've mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics a couples of times in previous posts in a way that it wasn't meant to be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics