Explain the Trilobite

Dr. James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University, Virginia, accepts the "big bang" model, but admits that there are fundamental problems:
There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are.
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces amoung scientists.
Cosmologist, Dr. John Rankin, also showed mathematically in his Ph.d. thesis that galaxies would not form from the "big bang". The formation of stars after the alleged "big bang" is also a huge problem. The astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, pointed out: Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud). This is the old chicken and egg problem: it can't account for the origin of stars in the first place.

 

Maybe I have missed something, but I don't recall makeing any such claim about an 11 year old fossil. I do recall that 11 year old rock was taken from Mt. Saint Helens and tested for age and it was show to be millions of years old. Now that test was not a mistake made by me, but by the one's who did the test.

 

Over 200 different cultures scattered around the world share the same basic story: a great flood covered the earth. I will try to supply more on this topic.

http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained10.htm

No the Ceramic figurines are not a product of imagination, even though believers in Evolution want them to be. They were discovered in 1944. Site below.

http://www.bennerwc.com/ancientman/04_figurines.html

 

SORRY ABOUT THAT SECOND LINK ON THE DINOSAUR FIGURINES, LETS TRY IT A SECOND TIME.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks-acambaro.htm#initial

 

I'm even more sorry about this link. Three Strikes and your out, but you might try doing a Yahoo search and type in The Dinosaur Figurines of Acambaro, Mexico. Hope that one works for you.

 

JD4U - The flood doesn't answer my question, because if a worldwide flood caused fossilization, there would still be modern animals fossilized alongside the ones that are there. But that's not the case.

Also, most young-earthers will tell you that the pangea existed within the last 6000-4000 years. How do you feel about this?

 

11 year old rock????????????/ are you serius? no such thing
the dome was created 11 years ago from what? yea rock that was already there for millions of years
the dome was created 11 years agop true..but the material of the dome..the rock..already existed

thinkabout it ...are you dating the dome that was 11 years old..or are you dating the rock that makes the dome which existed underground for milliopns of years



also u claim eve was made from adams rib...a rib weighs about 1 ounce..and is about 1 foot long...
was eve small enough to fit in adams pocket?

also..galopago tortuises...(spelling?) live to be about 400... some trees live over 1000 years
these long lived species..are you trying to claim theyve only been around 3-10 generations?

if the world was simply wished into existance..why would there be layer after layer after layer of sediment showing a complete record of millions of years? wouldnt you expect a created world to be more uniform? wouldnt the center or core be exactly the same as just below the surface?

the very nature of the earth and the universe indicates a universe thats taken billions aqnd billions of years to develop.;..
and even at billions of years this worlds very young

the whole notion that someone was bored enough to snap theyre fingers, create a universe that will only last a blink of the eye (in the cosmic sence) then be destroyed momments after its created, just for the entertainment of some freaky superbeing is laughable at best

ok heres a question for the cambells ofthe world

if god created the universe and everything only a few thousand years ago..what existed before that? where was god at that time? ok if you say heaven..fine..whatever..so..where is heaven if its not in the universe?

how many light years away is heaven?
ok, assumming that souls are light..and as light move at the speed of light..so your dead now..you leave your body..woohooo your headed to heaven..which must have existedbefore the universe so must not be inside the universe..the universe is millions of lightyears across..or even if heavens the center of the universe, still hundreds of thousands of lightyears from here..so, adam and eve were created a few thousand years ago and died..theyre still thousands of years away from reaching this heaven? seems like an empty promice to say you'll be in heaven with god and all your freinds after u die if the very 1st people still havent gotten there right? how can we possibly say it even exists if nopbody has ever been there?

ok so establishing that heaven cannot be inside a created universe and would take an eternity to reach...lets assume for a momment that thats true and heaven exists..then to me hell would be the trip to heaven..can u just imagine sitting in a car for millions of years with 10000000000000 cambells all in unison sayin "are we there yet" billions and billions of times? god that would be pure hellll
please just let me rot ..i'd preffer that rather then listenb to all the cambells of the world over and over in theyre self ritious style sayin you'll see when we get there ..you'll see we were right...just another few more forevers and i'll prove to you we were right...


i just figured something out..hell exists..because christians create it..every day they create hell right here on this big old beautiful and infinately wize old world..that could be heaven if you let it

hell christians have been doin nuthin but "are we there yet" since the dawn of christianity...we're all on this ride together, why do ya gotta make it such an annoying ride when the scenery is so beautiful?
the destination is meanningless if you just enjoy the ride..but all the "are we there yet's" are making it hard for everyone to enjoy the journey

wouldnt it be cool if we could just shut em up by sayin.."dont make me turn this car around" (reverse time..uncreate) if you cant behave we'll skip goin to heaven and just cease to exist..hmm but i guess even that wouldnt stop the self rituos out there...


if a rock is millions of years old it doesnt just become a year old cause u claim its a year old cause u found it a year ago...\
even the most self rituos out there cant claiom a rock didnt exist untill they knew it existed

 

I think you have some problems here.
You are asking us to suppose for a moment that the worldwide flood did happen.
Ok,
Can we also suppose this is according to the Genesis account (which seems to be the premise here).

So, if we are supposing that Noah took on these 'parent kinds' of animals and from their they dispersed into a new environment(s) and were given 4,000 years of natural selection then.. we actually would not find that many 'modern' variations.
We should find 'parent types' though, thats for sure.

This does get a bit speculative for everyone because for example we always say how the Wolf is the 'parent' of all the different dogs.
Ok, that is true for modern times.
We 'think' though that the Wolf is itself a 'breed' of a previously existing type of 'Kind'.
A 'parent kind' of animal called a Borophagine.
So where are these 'Prime Dogs'?
The only ones we have found and the only reason we know about them is from fossilised remains.
Borophagines who were rapidly buried in some sediment. (mud).

So you see the pattern here.
A 'prime kind' of animal existed before.
the only ones we know of now are buried in a flood.
we have loads of 'subspecies' and breeds of this kind today.

Ok.
So that squares up pretty good but I guess the question is about whether or not there would be 'kinds' of animals that didn't need to 'breed out' and we could find today.
Now you have said

Oh yes it definately is the case.
No better example would be the 'living dinosaur' the Crocodile.
We find these anywhere we find any other Dinos from 'Eleventeen Million' years ago.

Whats really amazing is not just finding modern animals that are fossilised right along side the others but ones that are absolutely identical in every detail.
Short list:
Mice,
Beavers,
Ceolocanths (btw... baffled evos trying to explain a fish that didnt change for millions of years point out that the Ceolos they found were different.. they are buried in SALT water mud. Hmmmm like say the kind of salt water mud you would expect from a global flood?)
Crabs,
Wasps,
Frogs.

and dont even get started on insects found in Amber,
or,
Plants that are identical to the very detail to any modern versions.

These are easy to explain if you see it from a global flood in which a few 'parent kinds' were kept.
Crocodiles for example are a pretty durable 'all purpose' critter as long as they have the right temperature around for 4,000 years.

Try and figure this from a multimillion year thoery and good freaking luck.
Im asked to believe some sort of fish (but not a Ceolo anymore) turned into some sort of cow, which then morphed back into a whale and all this happening millions and millions of times,
but meanwhile,
A Ceolocanth just kept on mutation free to where not a single tiny detail on a the finest scale or fin has changed a single bit.

The better question might be - how do YOU feel about Pangea.

How do I feel about it as a 'young earther'?
I feel like that should have been all it took to kill evolutionism dead.
Nobody was more suprised when continental drift was discovered than Evolutionists.
Probably one of the most embarrassing moments for them until the big wild story was quickly remade to accomodate it.
I still laugh when I think of Evolutionists trying to explain how the fuck we are supposed to believe that evolution happened on continents separated for 'millions of years' and yet a bear is a bear in california just as it is in russia.
Well!
You see what happened is that everything on earth travelled by 'land bridges'
or
my personal favourite... floating across oceans on trees or branches!

Consider this;
If you could walk off certain cliffs in Europe and instantly transport over to the matching cliffs in (say) Canadas maritimes... you would not notice the slightest difference at all.
Im talking identical specific types of grass and plantlife beneath your feet, lay of the land, rocks etc.
Identical.
You would think you just took one step in a field.
But amazingly,
We are asked to believe these were separated by millions and millions of years in which time specific blades of grass stayed identical but ape creatures morphed into human beings.

Pangea does fit well into the Genesis account.
Massive global catastrophe (which includes a description of cataclysmic subteranean changes) and for that matter a way to explain why bears are everywhere.
Oh and yes, Australia and Marsupials is also best explained by the young earth/noah genesis theory too.
(think about it before replying please)

 

Oh, let me see, ceramics are made from what? Oh yea that's right clay, and clay has been there for millions of years too. But guess what? As soon as they bake it, they now can have it tested for age, and often old ancient ceramics are stated to be thousands of years old and not millions. And that is just from baking, we are not talking molten here. And you need to understand that when rock becomes molten the very thing that has remained constant that would supposedly give science the chance to determin it's age has now been changed. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? The rock from Mt. Saint Helens was from newly formed lava of 11 years before, which was molten and now was hard like stone. The molten lava is considered by even believers in Evolution to be newly formed rock. The point I was trying to make here is that radiogenic argon or (AR) has much to do with the dating of rock, and in some cases it will escape faster in one rock, where it will not in another rock. The end result is you will have radical swings in the estimated dating of a rock even if they were made at the same time. My question to you is if AR can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why would you believe and trust this same method for rocks of unknown age? The properties used to test for the age of a rock change after it has become molten rock, and you can never say that rock is as it was. And this is because the level of radiogenic argon is now nolonger the same. This is one of the big problems when trying to date something. There are changes that have occured which none of us can be sure of, as a result, our exact science becomes more of a gussing game. Which in the end is not good science at all, but now has become more of a religion to the true believers who worship the God guesses.
The equipment they use is impressive, yet the end result is often based on a guess, rather then a fact. And they call us Christians blind faith believers.

 

I study mythology, folklore, legends, to some extent and accounts of worldwide floods are not that common. I've read most of the major mythological works from throughout the world. Regular type floods due occur in them to some extent, just as they do in many places of the world today. In the link above, on the page it says 200 generations not 200 different cultures. And how do or could you know what the person who made those figurines was thinking at the time? Have you not seen the figurines of airplanes, from an even older time?

 

I have seen a figurine of what appears to be a airplane, yet it was just one. However the figurines found in Mexico were many, and their likenesses were to exacting to be guess work. What the person was thinking at the time seems to be of little importance, it is what I see today that has convinced me that all of this could not of happened by accident. Also this would back up other information out there that has been shoved aside by science in order to allow them to push their pet Theory.

The 200 ancient cultures came from an advertisement of a DVD titled Noah's Ark & The Biblical Flood.
It simply stated Nearly 200 ancient cultures with the capability to keep a written or oral history have records of an encompassing flood. You would find that on DVD Empire.com.

 

Since you study ancient stories you probably know that Dinosaurs are one of the most common characters criss-crossing the world.
Ok, well Dragons was our old name for 'Dino Saur'.
[actually what is Dragon in Greek anyways heheh]

Anyways,
No question about it we have almost endless examples where Dinos of some sort are described as.. well, existing.
And no these are not all in 'mythological legends' either but are often presented along side anything else in 'real descriptions' type works.
Example:
When you look at Job 40 and 41 at Leviathan or Behemoth they are not presented 'inside a story' or some sort of adventure.
The book is just going along using various animals (that Job would know about and could 'look at').
Eagles and whatnot.
Then two are mentioned that well... pretty much describe some sort of Plesiosaur and Bronto type critters.

In other words, the author here certainly seems to believe (at the time) that these are just two of many kinds of animals he can use as examples.
This is different from say something like 'The Revelation' where the author is using wild 'mythic' imagery and legendary type beasts or characters.
There he describes a Dragon too but its in a different sense.

Another good example is the ancient chinese calendars.
You know that one that has 'year of the rat', year of the dog, and then just as if its 'another animals' there is a dinosaur.
Its not a 'mythical' year or something 'different'.. its just included like any other animal you would find.

But yeah,
The one that really does blow me away is the Stegasaur seen here in a Cambodian temple:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

The Mexican Dinos are pretty clear. Its not as if they are just 'creatures' but some are very much specific dinosaurs.
I mean, honestly better than some of the first recreations we did WITH the bones in front of us. (ie Iguanadon which was fucked up bad first try)
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

BUT WAIT!

There actually could be an explanation for alot of this and its might be pretty simple.
We really could assume that its pretty likely, somewhere in any culture, over its history, someone, somewhere came across Dinosaur bones.
I mean, if a girl from our culture found our 'first one' by wandering across it sticking out of a rock face... surely someone in the history of China did?
So,
We wouldnt blame them for finding a giant dino bone and simply assuming that there must be dinos around.
Wouldnt you?

There is a couple of problems though.
You really have to marvel when ancient peoples not only discuss dinosaurs as real living beasts (that they directly deal with sometimes) but often these depictions are wayyyy too informative.
Yes, I could see our Nasca Indian finding a Allosaurus thigh bone stuck in a rock and imagining a giant animal.
It gets a whole LOT harder to believe he would know just about exactly the markings, scales, how it walked and so on:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-fighting-allosaurus.jpg

Im going to drop this link again (evofundies love giving it the lowest rating if nothing else).
Its from wacky Kent Hovind and there is some goofy stuff in it
BUT,
put that aside and he does have some cool stuff in this that at least can make you think..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3MmwttNVvQ&mode=related&search=

 

Many myths are filled with supernatural creatures, events and places and describe them as real. Just because something is in a myth doesn't make it real.
People are not any more or less creative then in the past. Why would someone assume that an artist couldn't carve or paint, etc an object from their imagination. Artists are not all into realism. Like the Nazca lines in Peru, there is a figure in what looks like a space suit. Does that mean they were visted by alien astronauts? The dragon in Chinese culture is more of symbolic represtation really having nothing to do with real dinosaurs. There some odd carvings from Sumeria that look quite similar to what people today call alien Greys.http://www.mars-earth.com/ancient/british_museum/artifacts/image11.html
There are some artifacts that look just like modern airplanes from Egypt and Central and South America, does that mean that they had them? http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page1766.html?theme=light

 

Asking open-ended questions about other possible theories doesnt 'cancel out' the dinosaur dilema.
You dont make it 'equally as valid' just because you put it beside something else.

Again, you are missing the point here by 'explaining' that there are myths and fantastic characters.
Im not confused and asking 'what does a dragon represent in myths'.
Im trying to tell you something:
There are several examples of dragons being refered to in 'literal accounts' and presented in such as 'actual animals'.
The Chinese Calendar is an example where a dragon is presented as part of a larger group of real living animals.

Ok, I realise you dont get this so lets just move on I suppose.
Wow.

 

If you mean scientists occaisionally make mistakes, then that's science.
Perhaps you don't think xtians make mistakes? Like when they had their heyday in europe and went about burning innocent women as witches?
Or the fact that prior to science they believed the earth was flat?

 

all art is a product of imagination - even portraiture.

 

In the oldest Chinese literature such as the I Ching, the dragon is certainly not represented as an actual living (or indeed extinct, creature).
It represents the active side of creative energy.
Generally Chinese dragons have little in common with their western counterparts. In the west more often than not, the dragon is seen as bad - as in the myth of St.George.
But here's a conundrum - this is also true in the story of St. Michael - who fights the dragon, who is identified as the devil or beezebub. So - is the devil a dinosaur?
There's also the 'great dragon having ten heads etc' of ch.12 of revelation. Maybe that's a type of dinosaur that hasn't yet been discovered?

I actually know a person who suffers from schizophrenia - he once told me that god is a whale (yahweh evidently is a contraction of 'jah whale) - and jesus was a tricerotops. Not that mad perhaps given some of the ideas expressed here by persons labelled 'sane'.

 

Big bangers and creationists have a lot in common - the main thing being that they both believe the universe had a beginning in time, or indeed, that time had a beginning. I suppose another similarity is that both sets of ideas are in the process of crumbling and are increasingly un-sustainable.

However - it is a serious possibility that there never was a beginning - the universe has always existed, and will always exist. Energy is recycled, and as forms dissolve so new ones come into being to replace them.

 

Wow.
Clearly I should have been more clear on the 'point i was making' since you seemed to be entirely missing this too.

This is what your reply did:

Something is NOT like something you were getting at.
Some things that ARE the same have some differences.
Also you explained why one something is not an example but Im now using it as an example.

I guess we did agree some insanity runs through this forum.
Looking your way BBB

 

Sorry about the confusion. I'm only trying to point out the obvious inconsistencies in assuming that dragons = dinosaurs.