Explain the Trilobite

Sorry nope.
Thats just not gonna fly.
God might have made elements like earth, water and air and then filled them with everything from worms to sharks to flying eagles,
And,
An absolutely astonishing array of genetic information (just billions and billions of pages of complex code),
and,
Worked these together in an environment in so many mindboggling combinations yet still working together in a circle of life.....

.... But your 'counter' to the economy of design is that God 'could have made even more different organisms.
Like something made of pure fire juice that can eat 'space food' living with a pure carbon animal that eats lasers and all these with their own individually set laws of gravitational pull.
Wow.

Please. dont use that 'argument' against design theory ever again.
For your own good.

 

As Creationists must, you continue to misrepresent, and yes, LIE.

Creationists LIE. Let's be clear on this. The uneducated fundy congregation member doesn't know any better, but Creationist authors and preachers read anthropological material and then lie about it. I have seen this countless times. Their arguments all start with some TWISTING of fact or theory, and then they build an "argument" based on this falsity. Naturally the congregation doesn't notice the falsity, since they know nothing of the facts or theory to begin with.

If another creature unrelated to humans evolved and looked like a chimp, its DNA would NOT be that close to that of Homo sapiens. This is convergent evolution. Reaching the same results via a different path. The classic example: ichthyosaur and dolphin. Their DNA is not similar.

The two species with DNA most like that of humans are chimp and bonobo. And lo and behold, they are the most likely near relatives given morphological analysis and the fossil record. Watch Creationists trip over this as they pretend (LIE) that we are somehow as close to mushrooms as to chimps.

Creationists cannot deal with the fossil record which CONFIRMS that evolution is true, and so they must detour into obscure philosophical arguments about the Laws of Thermodynamics....arguments they poorly understand full of unsubstantiated claims. It is all rhetoric.

If Creationist arguments against Evolutionary Science were leveled against any other branch of science, they would produce the same results: a body of "argument" debunking all evidence, all confirmed hypotheses, with recourse to the imaginary "creation event(s)" glaringly lacking in explanation or evidence.

We have a fossil record for humans which shows numerous transitional types, and clearly proves the connections between a number of different species. The DNA evidence confirms this for neandertals, for whom DNA has been extracted and analyzed. They are more similar to us than are chimps. Is anyone surprised? I wasn't.

Where we are missing the connection, notably between the common ancestor and Ardipithecus, and again between Australopithecus and Homo, it is due to lack of evidence, not contradictory evidence. Creationists will even mock nature for producing so few fossils...but then the fossils which ARE found they dismiss. It is intellectually untenable.

We have strong evidence of evolution of Homo heidelbergensis into Homo sapiens, as well as for the prior evolution of Homo erectus into Homo heidelbergensis. Similarly there is strong evidence for the evolution of Homo neandertalensis from Homo heidelbergensis, up to 200,000 years earlier than the evolution of Homo sapiens. There is also clearly an evolutionary sequence Ardipithecus-Australopithecus afarensis, as well as from early to late Australopithecus species, both gracile and robust.

The fossil record had already proven Creationism to be bankrupt, and now genome analysis digs the pit deeper. They're already dead, in fact, any continued rambling you hear from Creationists is the rattling of ghosts. As with all ghosts, they simply need to be firmly informed, "You are dead. Now go away."

 

Ok, I just wrote out a response and then accidentaly closed the window, so I'm not going to write it again. My point was, though, that there were only 3 sentences in ik's post that MIGHT be true. Those are the percent similarities, and I couldn't find it in a search, so that could be a lie, too. But the rest of your post was pure, unadulturated crap. And what the hell, I'll toss this in there, just to show you how stupid your arguments are:

Here is the truth - ID 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.
Creationism is dead for example.
Totally dead.
Earth built in 7 days is also dead.
Well it was last week.
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 - 'Creationism' is not an actual thing.
It was made up by primative people, and it changes, morphs and 'evolves' to try and work into the public system, depending on what group, what places and what week it is..
Ironic aint it.

 

I would say there is always room for conjecture, arguments and changing opinions in Creationism (as for anything incl evolutionism).
However,
The difference would be generalised this way:

Creationists really have one original story to stick to.
Its rather specific in many areas.
The same story that repeatedly informs that 'Kinds only reproduce the same kind' stays the same century after century.
A flood preceeded the rebuilding of human civilisation.
This stays the same.

Now you take evolutionism.
Its not the same sort of thing here.
It has no story to stick to, not even basic agreed upon rules, no way to hold it to anything.
100 years ago it could be that natural selection was the mechanism.
Then its not.
Slow incremental changes was the story 50 years ago.. but not anymore, now Punc-eek is the story.
Well... it was but now nobody really knows.

Some people like internet atheist hero Dawkins would actually say this is a 'good thing' about Evolutionism.
That its a story that can easily change, morph, divide, add along as it goes.
Ok.
But at least know what it 'is' that you are dealing with.

..

Just to give you an idea how Evolutonism is not a real static state of affairs... look at one of the previous posters who actually believes the Fossil Record is:
a) Evidence for evolutions story in the first place
b) Has 'transitional fossils'
c) somehow 'disproves' or works against creationists unchanging story.
This poster actually believes this represents some imagined 'thing' called 'evolution' and that these are agreed upon by some imaginary board of 'evolutionists'.
nope.
Not at all!

Never mind that the fossil record (which is animals rapidly buried in sediment/mud) is about all the massive hard evidence you need to prove that a worldwide 'creationist' flood did happen,
but,
The Fossil Record and huge overwhelming lack of any 'transitional' fossils (which are only imagined as 'transitional anyways) is one of the MAIN REASONS EVOLUTIONISTS called 'Neo-Darwinists' NOW REJECT SLOW INCREMENTAL CHANGE.
Yes.
In fact the fossil record disproving such things is one of the few things Darwin and Gould actually would agree on.
Darwin made it clear that his theory of slow incremental change would be DISPROVEN and dead IF the Fossil Record did not reveal such.
GOULD AGREED.
The Fossil Record did as much as 'prove outright' that it could not have happened that way.
Gould then declared 'Darwinism' dead and redubbed the new story 'Punc-eek' and themselves 'Neo-Darwinists'.

Again, 'Evolutionism' is not an actual 'science' to itself or some sort of 'thing' that you can look at and see some agreed upon concensus that stays that way for any real purpose or time.
It changes to suit the facts as they come.

Again, Creationism (certainly the Genesis kind we know best) has a much higher standard.
It has to stick to its story.
It doesnt get to rewrite itself over and over whenever pesky facts get in its way.

So theres the two different concepts going on.

 

Maybe I evolved and you didn't.

 

It was Darwin who said that IF HIS THEORY WAS TRUE, there would be an abundance of trans-species found in the fossil record. Could you tell me where this abundance is? It appears just on this one point alone, Darwin was wrong. Just as believers in Evolution have told us for years, that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaurs bones. Why, because we were told soft tissue would only last for 100,000 years. NOW THAT THEY ARE FINDING IT IN DINOSAURS BONES, GUESS WHAT? Now we are being told it can last for 70 million years. GIVE ME A BREAK. Is it any wonder why most Americans donot believe in the Theory of Evolution.

 

There are literally millions and millions of fossils that have been collected. There is no shortage of transitional fossils organisms. If it really is true that most Americans don't think evolution is correct, I think that says more about the sorry state of the education system there than anything else. In all the other first-world countries, creationism is very much a fringe minority.

 

Yes, that lines up perfectly with Genesis account of a global flood drowning life on earth.
Remember what a Fossil is - its a critter that was rapidly buried in sediments.

There are no such things as 'transitional' fossils but you are perfectly welcome to line up all the animals in order of 'looks' and then just imagine that 'somewhere, sometime' they must have morphed into one another.
Thats called 'Imagination'.
In fact.. by that standard EVERY ANIMAL EVER FOUND IS AN 'IN-BETWEEN'.
If you use that imagination that is.

Seriously though, putting aside that anyone can just imagine that a rock badger fossil turned into the fossil of a horse...

...Its actualy the Evolutioneers themselves who changed the theory when they just simply didnt find millions and millions of 'in-betweeners'.

Think of it this way: If a lizard morphed into a chicken thru slow incremental change then obviously almost ALL FOSSILS would be some sort of lizard with chicken parts... lizard-chickens.. chicken-lizards.. chickens with lizardy parts and so on.
Instead,
The Evos themselves only ever find fully formed, fully functional animals.

So the theory of evolution was pretty much destroyed by the cold hard facts literally written in stone.
AHA BUT,
Since Evolutionism cannot be wrong and must be a fact... then the only possible explanation must be that 'sudden bursts' or mutation occured.
A Lizard had a retarded baby and BLAMMO>.. It was a fully functioning developed stage right from the get go.

I hear this bit of propaganda getting heavily promoted lately.
Another one is to portray Creationists as being these sort of racist stupid redneck types.

Canada and New Zealand also have strong 'Creationist' percentages and Scotland is another.
However,
According to a 2002 poll of adult Europeans conducted by a professional institute, only 40% of the respondents agreed with the statement that the universe, the earth, and all organisms of the biosphere are entirely the product of a natural evolutionary process. Twenty-one percent were adherents of theistic evolution, 20% believed that God created all organisms at one time within the last 10 000 years, and 19% answered “don’t know/ other opinion”

You know, I have to tell you that for a belief system that is so dominant, holds all the power positions, Universities, Courtroom and has a virtual 'lockdown' on the media...
... It really DOES say something that 20-40% of the public thinks its bullshit.
The theory really is that bad.

 

Well lets see some of those transpecies fossils.

 

No, really it has more to do with the sorry state of the Theory of Evolution. Can you show me a transitional fossil of a BIRD? Now that should be easy to do.

 

Ignoarance of something doesn't make the opposite true.
Fossils don't match up with the story of flood at all. Nice how you redefine what fossils are. Not all fossils are found in the same geologic strata. They are found in diverse conditions, from tar pits, to ice, to sedimentary deposits(fast and slow), volcanic ash deposition, etc.

Here is a fossil of a winged dinosaur with feathers.
It has features that are both lizard and bird like. If you are really interested, you should go to a museum or some place with a large collection.

 

Fossils have been made outside of the flood, and as far as your winged dinosaur, could you give us a little more than a picture? Like perhaps the web site and the name of this discovery. And as you know, most of the winged dinosaurs have been exposed as fakes. So yes, I am interested in it's orgin.

 

Most christians in the world believe in Evolution. It's just a few nutjobs in the USA that give the rest of us a bad name.

Of course trilobytes existed, and of course genesis is metaphor.

This is official doctrine in many churches, and the fundies will catch on, or they'll die.

When your denomination has to start tricking people into believing in it's skewed logic, it doesn't deserve to exist anymore.

 

Uh, I dont know how to tell you this but fossils pretty much ARE exactly what you would expect from the flood story.

No need to redefine anything, fossils like the one you posted are found in sedimentary layers.
Buried so rapidly and encased in mud so firmly that even the finest details are preserved.

No and they wouldnt be after the hydrodynamics of 40 days and 40 nights.
They are in many different layers.

Yes they are.
Im not sure why you are telling me things about Fossils which I suspect up until now you didnt even realise were rapidly buried animals.
Like say some sort of massive global flood and cataclysm happened or something.

I dont know that specific fossil but it 'appears' to be that of a bird.
Its a good opportunity for me to explain once again why according to your belief system (which is based on your imagination) this and EVERY OTHER FOSSIL IS A 'TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL'.

Again, the problem is that all these alleged 'transitional' fossils are always fully functioning animals.
Evos themselves use terms like 'completed phases' etc.
Anything on the animal has some sort of 'purpose'.

If the 'mutation+selection' theory could ever work and wasnt as sheer science-defying as it is in the first place,
then almost everthing should be 'partly evolved' into something else.

Listen to what Im telling you: EVOLUTIONISTS are the ones who KNOW THIS and have had to change their theory to accomodate these facts of life.
They ARE happy to let you believe in slow incremental changes because they think Evolutionism is real and want you to believe in it - no matter what.

Here is a much much better one.
Way better.
And, if you start with the belief that evolution 'must' have happened then this is ALSO a 'transitional' animal. (everything is by that standard anyways)

Please do not bother trying to pretend like you are so obviously familiar with some large collections of 'feathered dino' fossils which 'everyone would know about'.

Evolutionists themselves are highly excited and highly divided on a few recently discovered and highly controversial fossils of raptors (possibly baby ones) who 'may' have what appears to be some sort of 'down' on their skin.
Many are still reeling from the last hoax:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/dinofooltrans.shtml

Again, an Ostrich is an Ostrich. thats a fact.
Someone just looking at it, seeing it 'looks closest to a reptile' is great.
but,
That doesnt mean it happened. Its just the observer 'imagining' that somewhere else,
in some other time,
where nobody saw it,
for some magical reason we dont know,
It 'must' have happened.
Thats called 'imagination'.

 

Well I hate to upset you Ollie, but the latest poll indicates that 55% of Americans don't even believe in Evolution. Now if you put that question to Christians I can assure you it would be even higher. Evolution cannot find the missing links, they cannot find the transpecies in the fossil record, they now are saying soft tissue can last 70 million years when from the beginning they told us it can only last 100,000 years, ect, ect, ect. The nutjobs are the ones
who believe in Evolution because of blind faith, and not evidence. I'm a Christian, and my faith is based on strong evidence. What is your Evolution faith built on?

 

Perhaps it is built on sand : )

 

I'm not about to read this whole thread, but has anyone ever stopped and said "Hey, it never said how long Adam and Eve were in the garden?" because up to original sin they were basically immortal beings correct? We have no idea what went on outside of Eden...the earth could be 1000000000000000000000000000000 years old, we don't know...we only know that from Adam - Now is what 6007yrs or so? So what if a Trilobite is real, it doesn't disprove any religion...Just proves that stuff was going on outside or inside the garden that we don't know about...It goes back to the original question "How long *were* they in the garden?"....Anything else is built of speculation...

 

I could careless about Evolution being true or not, it dosen't effect what I belive one little bit...But the apotryoptrx(?) fossile always had me wondering what that peice I circled was, it just dosen't line up right for me or something...Looks more like it died on a bird IMHO lol! Just wanted to see if anyone had any input on what I circled.

 

PoeticRomance The length of time that Adam and Eve spent in the garden is an excellent point that should be researched. And I believe most Christians do believe in Trilobites.

 

What we are looking at is an extremely controversial fossil of whats being called a: Microraptor.

Even the name was a controversy as explained by one Evolutionist:

"It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!

I got a kick from the one Evo who is probably at his wits-end over the unprecedented hype the 'birds-to-dino' people were getting a couple years ago:
Pissed off about the near instantaneous legitimacy of your Microraptors..

"How is an animal going to have flight feathers on its thighs that are half the length of its tail? How could it run or do anything with flight feathers sticking out of the back side of its leg?" said John Ruben, a zoologist at Oregon State University. "It is borderline ridiculous."

Again as a Creationist - I have NO PROBLEM showing your all sorts of animals that share characteristics with other species of animals.
Ostrich.
How about our old buddy the Platypus.
The common Bat.

You have to understand something.. to an Evolutionist, the very point is that ANY fossils are 'transitional'.
Why?
Because they believe that everything evolved... therefore.. any fossil of anything is something that is in the transition of evolving.
Therefore,
Its a 'transitional' fossil.
So,
Yes, by starting off with that belief then it would follow you would 'find' millions of 'transitional' fossils.
Because they all are.

Now even take our 'Microraptor' for example - lets even go crazy and say it really was a four-winged 'glider' and buy into all the claims for it working as such.
Ok.
Do you understand that once again its a 'completed stage' of animal.
Its a working product.
All its parts have a fully realised function and purpose.
AMAZING WHATS THE CHANCES!!!!

I mean, if slow mutation plus selection incremental changes caused this.. its a fucking 1inaBILLION that we just happened to find the completed stage.
Not the ones with useless half-formed feathers.
Not the ones with useless (and problematic) 88% formed feathers.... but LOW AND BEHOLD we just happened to find (yet again) the 'evolved creature' at exactly the precise microsecond in time where it was fully functioning all over.
WOW!!

No of course thats not the case.
Evolutionists cant believe that either because even they are not 100% totally retarded.
The only explanation (besides creation) is that they 'must' have 'jumped' from fully-functioning 'complete stages' to another.

Great story... feel free to believe it but please dont get confused and think that is based on anything ever actually observed, recored, tested or even something that 'theoretically' could happen.
We dont even have a possible clue how any such mechanism to do such a thing could even exist in any 'conceptual' way.