Explain the Trilobite

Ikden

No-one ever said 'nothing did it'
Can you understand that.
Occam HAS NEVER SAID 'nothing did it.'

Van gogh 'made' the 'mona lisa'
But he made it from stuff that already existed.

You are suffering from a conceptual disfunction
Occam suggests the universe was arranged from what exists
and alway has and will exist.
You suggest a 'being' made the universe. But such a being would
require a universe to exits before it could exist.
An organised structure cannot exist without a universe of 'some' law.

Can you follow that?

And thus the universe was not created but HAD to exist before a 'god' could.
HOW?
Because reality and all the facets of reality called universes have always
existed and always will.
Duration is infinite.
There is no beginning or end to time.

CREATION is but another word for 'arranging in new ways' what exists.

Occam

 

Once again, I will thank you to go post in some other threads and please stop interupting this one with your goofiness.

Its not often we get a half-decent run in the Evo-Cre discussions and it would be nice if you didnt derail it anymore.
Thx.

 

First I would point out that most of the Ranger series failed, and were of little aid in helping NASA. The Surveyor series were far more successful yet the first AMERICAN information about surface conditions on the moon did not reach us until June of 1966. Which came to us from the Surveyor 1 probe. The Crew of Apollo 8 became the first to see the far side of the Moon in December 24, 1968. AT THIS LATE DATE, NO MAJOR CHANGES WERE GOING TO BE MADE ON THE LANDING GEAR, and it's design was based on information of an old Moon. The first conformation of the Moons soil composition came from the Russian probe Luna 9 which was the first probe to do a soft land on the Moon, and that was in February 3, 1966. It was then first proven that a lunar lander would not sink into a thick layer of dust, AS HAD BEEN FEARED. Yes, NASA knew about the soil composition before Apollo 11 made the first landing. Yet, they had just learned of this less than two years before it landed. So the lander still went to the Moon with pads that were made to conform with an old belief. And that belief was based on an old universe.


http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Moon

 

Actually, I wouldn't call religion a reality at all.

Yes. There is a possibility that god did it. But to assume that that is the case just because you don't like what modern science thinks of is intellectually lazy. Why do you say god did it instead of aliens that live inside the sun? Maybe the earth just willed it a big chunk into orbit. Without evidence for any of the infinite "possibile" explanations, each one is as unlikely as the next.

As Occam said, nobody said nothing did it. The former is not tangible, real or not. God is not observed and reported. Not in any verifiable (or likely) sense. Maybe if you tried to understand what people say to you instead of putting people who make points you can't argue with on your hate list, you would realize why the scientific community isn't coming to you for advice.

 

And you wouldnt call 'Science' a reality at all either.
That would help you to lose these silly ideas that there are 'things' and they are 'different'.
(btw Southpark just rips this in the last episode heh)

The fact of the matter is that you just have people searching for the truth.
What is true.
Lots of people sought this through 'religion' and many of those people sought the nature of God through his natural world or 'science'.

The phoniest thing you ever can see is any CNN special, book or forum post that puts forward any notion of 'Science' 'versus' 'Religion' because there is no such thing.
Not, as you put it 'actually in reality'.

That would be true but one of the reasons so many scientists will consider that an 'intelligent designer' is an explanation is because they do have evidence for such a thing.

As I was saying, looking at some working mechanism like the Moon-Earth and eliminating possiblities that it was some sort of accident and they really do have a valid option in attributing it to an 'ID'.
Because they just believe in ID for no reason?
No.
Because, from a strictly scientific point of view, they DO observe examples of complex working mechanisms where 'ID's have put them into place on purpose.

This could explain why so many people came to the conclusion there is probably a God THROUGH there study of science.

Oh yes indeed there are still about half the people in the scientific community who believe that 'nothing' created the Universe and in this case the Moon.
Often this is refered to as 'Unguided forces' and despite some pretty ridiculous word games it really is just 'random chance'.

Now 'random chance' and unguided forces' are not tangible in the verifiable (or likely) sense either.
Actually those wishiing to believe in 'unguided forces' are not only putting faith in something as you say 'not observed or reported' but in fact we always see it causing DISorder and LESS working complexity.
Oh oh.

The scientific community is entirely divided as to the original 'causes' behind the Universe.
Depending on what surveys - about half the evolutionist community believes that a 'God' of some sort is behind the Universe.
The other half tends to go with 'unguided forces' or describes themselves as 'Agnostic'.

The most 'unscientific' thing you could do would be to preclude the possibility that some sort of ID had a hand in it.
Especially considering you observe that as the cause of complex working information and mechanisms around you today.

BTW: I would be happy to steer back to more objective evidence and not let this go off topic into a philosophical discourse.
Even thought that is part of it.

 

But where do you get the idea that the Moon should have more dust? and on what is it based?

 

I think we went over this already but the idea that the Moon might be covered in thick layers of dust came from Petterson.

Keep in mind that nobody is using Petterson anymore (obviously).
Its just that this was the case at one time.
IF,
IF you went by Pettersons calculations then the thin layer of dust would work out to about 10,000 years of dust.
Not that anyone does us Petterson anymore.

The man whose work is at the centre of this controversy is Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute. In 1957, Pettersson (who then held the Chair of Geophysics at the University of Hawaii) set up dust-collecting units at 11,000 feet near the summit of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii and at 10,000 feet on Mt Haleakala on the island of Maui. He chose these mountains because

​

‘occasionally winds stir up lava dust from the slopes of these extinct volcanoes, but normally the air is of an almost ideal transparency, remarkably free of contamination by terrestrial dust.’10

​

With his dust-collecting units, Pettersson filtered measured quantities of air and analysed the particles he found. Despite his description of the lack of contamination in the air at his chosen sampling sites, Pettersson was very aware and concerned that terrestrial (atmospheric) dust would still swamp the meteoritic (space) dust he collected, for he says: ‘It was nonetheless apparent that the dust collected in the filters would come preponderantly from terrestrial sources.’11 Consequently he adopted the procedure of having his dust samples analysed for nickel and cobalt, since he reasoned that both nickel and cobalt were rare elements in terrestrial dust compared with the high nickel and cobalt contents of meteorites and therefore by implication of , meteoritic dust also.

Based on the nickel analysis of his collected dust, Pettersson finally estimated that about 14 million tons of dust land on the earth annually.

 

Petterson's article was never published in a major journal and never was peer reviewed by other scientists. Creationist arguments also used the upper limit of Petterson's estimate, not the lower one, which Petterson himself thought was more correct. Even before probes were landed on the Moon very few scientists believed that there was extensive amounts of dust on the surface. If NASA engineers believed the dusty theory, why would they not design space suits air conditioning prepared for lots of dust, ‘snow shoes’ to walk on dust, landing instrumentation to land on soft dust, etc? From interviews with the astronauts, after coming back from the Moon, they talked about the problems with dealing the Moon dust and how it adversely effected their equipment. If anything, they were under prepared for the dust that they encountered.

I am curious as to what you would say, if I told you, that there are fossils on Mars.

 

Let me put it this way. If you were to explode an Atomic bomb and you wanted to measure the accumulation of fallout, would you wait three or four billion years and then go to the top of a mountain to see how much of that fallout was still coming down. And then based on those findings suggest that this is an accurate measurement? Of coarse not. Yet, this is what those who support Evolution have done. You cannot assume that what we see today represents anything even close to what was going on when the earth and moon came into existance. Yet, this is the kind of experiments they push to try to justify their Theory. Science is assumeing that the rate of dust fall is the same today as it was during creation. This I believe is a major error on their part. I believe the rate would of been much greater. And if the moon were as old as they have stated, we would not be looking at a dust layer two inches deep, but something much greater.

 

At the time of the first manned landing approached, much concern and controversy over the moon-dust problem remained. In a recent television interview, Bob Hope asked Neil Armstrong what was his greatest fear when he set that first historic foot on the moon's surface. Without hesitation Armstrong responded, THAT HIS GREATEST FEAR WAS THE MOON-DUST LAYER THAT SCIENTISTS HAD TOLD THE ASTRONAUTS TO EXPECT. Many precautions had been taken. Additional expensive impact probes had been sent to check for safe landing sites, and most important of all, one very crucial addition to the landing vehicle was made. Huge duck-feet landing pods were attached to the legs of the Lunar Lander so that it would safely settle down without sinking into the theorized dust layer.
Evolutionist well tell you that most scientists did not believe there would be much dust and that only a minority fringe group thought otherwise. The evidence indicates that this was not the case, and estimates are that as much as an extra one billion dollars was spent prior to the first Apollo moon mission because of the concern about the dust problem.
The best source of documentation that evolutionists did believe in the deep dust layer is found in textbooks written prior to the rise of the creation-science movement. Evolutionists were much more candid when they did not know that there was significant opposition to the evolutionist world view. Thus, in 1971, astronomer Robert T. Dixon wrote in his textbook Dynamic Astronomy, "The moon was for many years characterized as having a thick layer of dust covering its surface, into which an object would sink if it landed on the moon.

If you have evidence of fossils on Mars, I would love to see it.

 

The point is not wether who believed what, in the past, it is wether the dust layer on the Moon is an accurate indicator of its age. I don't know of any modern studies that would predict that the dust layer should be thicker for its age.

 

Well you were the one who question what they believed in the past, so I responded to your question. And as far as any modern studies, I can tell you, they are like all the studies that believers in Evolution do. As soon as they are proven wrong, they quickly come out with a new study that explains away their mistakes of the past. Just like their soft tissue statement. When they said soft tissue would never be found in Dinosaur bones, because soft tissue cannot remain soft beyond 100,000 years. Well now they are telling us it can remain soft for 70 million years. It appears they can say whatever they want, because the faithful will believe anything they are told.

 

As with Petterson's findings, his measurments were on Earth, and others extraplaloited them for what would be on the Moon. Well since then, measurments have been done in space, in the Earth/Moon region, and not nearly that amount of dust exists there.

I think you misunderstand science because it is not a belief system. It is a process. It is very different in the case of religion, where believers claim it to be the truth and is unchangable, new information is irrelivant. In science, as new and better, more precise information is gathered, new things are learned and old ideas may need to be changed. A theory is based on the observation, measurments and information, etc collected, theories are not claimed to be 100% true (by definition of the word itself). It just explains the information. The vast bulk of information gathered on evolution, points to the conclusion that it is correct. You may find some oddities that are unexplainable, but that doesn't change what the majority of the evidence supports.

 

And this is your belief system.
You claim it to be true?

Seriously though, you keep talking about Evolutionism as if its an interchangeable word for 'Science' and as if that is another word for 'facts'.
Interesting.
Sorry but I gotta agree with Campbell on this because Evolutionism is not science but a belief system within science.
(and so is creationism)
and further more,
Evolutionism is a belief system that is weak compared to the belief system found with Genesis 'creationists'.
And let me tell you why:
A Genesis style Creationist actualy has one basic theory that is stated once and for all.
The fact it is not changed every few years attests to its strength with objective scientific evidence.
As time goes by we find more and more 'facts' and 'hard science' that squares with it.
(some may work against it too).
It is a theory that is verifiable and falsifiable.
Granted there is always room for interpretation or loose-ends but the point remains.

Now compare this to the belief in Evolutionism.
Evolutionism is.. well.. whatever it has to be to fit the facts.
Its 'practically' unfalsifiable.
It can be 'verified' where it wants to change to match some facts.
Its nothing.
Thats what makes it the weaker belief system.

Forget possible Hemoglobin in T-rex bones.... lets talk about the astonishing fossil record.
Most of the public is not even aware that a few years ago Evos and their High Priest Gould basically just announced that the fossil record 'thoroughly disproves' that slow incremental evolution could have ever happened.
Gould all but declared any Evos, who still believe in incremental changes to be along the line of 'flat earthers' and ridiculous.
So,
Evolutionists just admitted that facts and research had disproved Evolutionism right?
Nope.
Because they just made up, modified, changed the story.
Now the new 'story' is that there were dramatic 'mini-creations' and animals basically stayed exactly the same and then BLAMMO.. pow.. Punctuated Equalibrium!
A fish gave birth to a retarded fish hamster!
That stayed the same for eons of time before PUNC-EKK Jackpot BooM.. a retarded fish-hamster baby hairless ape!

This is STUNNING and should have been on the frontpage of every newspaper astonishing the world that Evolutionists have debunked their own theory and replaced it!
Nope.
Instead they carefully chose the new name 'Neo-Darwinists' (which is hilarious because it means 'NOT Darwinists' anyways) and then it just went on unnoticed.

Like Campbell has pointed out, Evolutionism will just change to suit whatever science forces it to do.
It will do anything it is NOT forced to do by science.
So,
If T-Rex bones are discovered with soft-tissues then the story will just change to accomodate that.
Just enough.
In this case it will just be 'discovered' that T-Rexs morphed into birds and also some lived the same for millions of years up until recently.
Or,
That 'scientists have discovered that soft tissue can actually survive for millions of times longer than has previously been believed'
After all,
TRex is millions of years old (belief as fact) *therefore* if soft tissue is in a TRex bone then it must be a 'fact' that its 'millions of years old'.

See how it works?

 

The same statement held true for Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics still "works" for the most part, but the theories behind it are actually not completely accurate. If relativity is correct, then Newton was essentially wrong in how the universe worked.

In regards to the falsifiability, I would like to ask both the creationists and the evolutionists:

"How would one disprove your theory?"

Note: I don't want the evolutionists to disprove creationism or vice versa. I would like to hear from the evolutionist what evidence would be necessary to disprove evolutionary theory and from the creationist what would be necessary to disprove creationist theory.

Any takers?

 

There is so much wrong with everything you said...it's...it's just incredible. You are without a doubt the most ravenously ignorant person I have ever encountered.

Main points: Scientific theories change because they are falsifiable. The best information 100 years ago is different from the best information now. But they both point to general evolution. Creationism is not science because there is no evidence for it. There is nothing in creationism or ID or whatever that would hold up in any court, because it twists facts and claims a conclusion there is no rational support for. Originally, the atom was thought to be like a big ball, with electrons rolling around the outside, but further experimentation showed that that was not the case. Do you really think that it was a disproof of atomic theory? Science and evolution are not belief systems, because they use reason and evidence to make theories that describe our world and universe in the best way possible.

Now here's a clip I think you should watch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bvZjaZrw-Cc

I sure see the resemblance.

 

Of course not nearly that amount of dust exist there, REMEMBER, this is suppose to be four billions years after the fact. And real science should never be guess work. You say religion is a belief system, what do you think this kind of science is based on. A theory is based on observation, fine. Yet if you are telling me that what they are measuring today has remained the same for the last 4 billion years and even during the time of creation, then this is not based on observation or science.
Science will tell you that religion is just a belief system, yet science often pushes a belief system as well. And they often do this without any supporting evidence. What would their measurements of look like when the solar system was coming into existance, and as they have stated four billion years ago. They don't have an answer for you, how could they, science was not there. So now after everything has setteled down, and as they would say billions of years latter now they take their measurements? At the very least, It's not science, and at the very worst, it's a joke.

 

Agree...the Fall concept is what is important to the discussion, no matter what the process of creation was or is.

Agree. 1, 2, and 3 must be true for traditional Christianity to work...but you are moving away from a strictly literal position.

That creates a paradox. Without an "Adam and Eve", those of sinful nature, as your progenitors, you would not have the tendency to separate yourself...there would be no inherent sin gene to have given you the choice in the first place.

Original Sin is essential to any Christianity that more or less follows the traditional pattern.

"All have sinned" should be pretty obvious even to the non-Christian or non-spiritual person of sane mind, if you define sin as the existence of selfishness and consequent poor behavior to ones fellow creatures...it's like the earth is wallowing in it.

But, if you step away from the traditional concept of Adam and Eve's Original Sin, but stick with the existence of a supreme God through whom justice will by some means be dispensed, "all have sinned" and the consequent need for mediation becomes open to more interpretations, some of them not of Christian origin.

You're right, fundamentalist was the wrong choice of wording on my part...it's a term that refers to a certain school of thought, and it has entered into popular general use. Literalist might be better? I'll go with that here.

I'll rephrase my assertion...in an inviolably-literalist Christianity, all events must follow the script, or it doesn't work. And, if you abandon the strictly-inviolable literalist position, then you become open to dialogue with religionists who may not be Christian. That's what the strict literalists don't want...they want to maintain the status quo, without interfaith dialogue and mutual respect.

That's cool.

 

As to the formation of the solar system, with a large enough telescope you could see the same process occurring around other stars, and astronomers do just that. There are calculations that can be done to estimate the accretion of dust over time, as well as computer simulations. There are lots of ways to figure it out, there are many complicated equations that take into account of the variables involved.


Alsharad wrote "Note: I don't want the evolutionists to disprove creationism or vice versa. I would like to hear from the evolutionist what evidence would be necessary to disprove evolutionary theory and from the creationist what would be necessary to disprove creationist theory."

Well simply, if out of all the information, data, measurements, etc available on the subject was mostly on the side of creationism, then most scientists would probably think it was correct. But the opposite is true.

 

Sounds like we have a mutual admiration society.

Not really.
A theory will eventually fail and be abandoned.
That could be called a 'good thing' because at least you eliminate something and move on.
Unfortunately, Science continues to be stunted and repressed by a group of true-believers who replace every debunked version of Evolutionism with a rewritten version each time they fail.

Darwinism for example is entirely disproven by the best information we have now. (or then really).

Uh no.
The best information we have indicates evolutionism (either Darwinism or Punc-Eek) cannot happen.
Either flies in the face of 'what we do know'.

Of course there is evidence for it.
You just dont like it, think its good enough or want to know about it.

Well I have to tell you that courts are not good places to settle a dispute between different scientific theories.
Courts have been used lately by EvoFundies to block ID from being talked about in schools though.
Interestingly, the court stated that ID was a scientific theory with very valid points.
It just determined that students should not be informed that some scientists are studying and concluding for it.

Nice 'insult' assertion lol

This is not a good comparison even though (in your mind) it seems like it should be.

Once again you keep attaching or interchanging 'science' with 'evolution' as if they are the same thing.
And then you make 'science' mean 'truth'.
Knock it off already.

Evolutionism is a belief.
Science is a practice.

There is no 'they'.
'Science' is a way to see Gods work through his natural creation.
Evolutionism impedes that scientific enlightenment.

I absolutely LOVE this episode and do I ever see the resemblance.
EVERYTHING you see there IS Mr(s). Garrison teaching Evolutionism.
Exactly.

If anyone here has not yet seen this episode it is brilliant and you will swear that its based on the exact same 'Evowarriors' and "internet atheists' characters you see here at HipForums.

MrGarrison does teach the kids exactly what evolutionism is.
Its exactly right.
Later 'Internet Atheist hero' Dawkins convinces him that 'Science' is something else.
Then totally takes the piss out of this stupid 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' thing.

The fact you cannot understand why Im LAUGHING out loud and agreeing with that South Park rip says alot about how fucked up you are on this whole subject.
Again: The South Park episode is ripping YOU a new one.
Think about it for a while.