Explain the Trilobite

You don't know what the information we have now is, and you've demonstrated that quite well. ID is not science because it can't be observed, and there is no evidence. All it is is a big assumption. And you know what happens when you assume, right?

Evolution is a part of science. There is a scientific consensus that this happened. Deal with it.

You say science is a way to observe god's work. What that means is you are starting with the assumption that there is a god. Consider this: Your religion is a function of where you were born. Americans are mostly christian, Arabs are mostly muslim, Indians are mostly Hindu, Chinese are mostly taoist or buddhist, etc. Your beliefs have NOTHING to do with the truth behind the universe. They are merely a tradition. Each religion will claim that theirs is the right one, and you are no different than the jainists, zoorastrians, stoics, and subscribers to any other mystical dogma around the globe. You only believe in christianity because you were, by chance, born in a certain place to certain people. You have no more evidence for your religion that the taoists. China has the highest average IQ in the world, dontcha know.
Although, I'm beginning to think you're just some tool with too much time on his hands that likes to waste other people's time with stupid arguments.

 

Really?
I think it says something that I can rarely find an Evofundie nowadays that is even aware that slow incremental change had been abandoned and even 'denounced' by Neodarwinists who now insist on Punc-eek. (at least this was their crap last time we checked).

LOL!
I have some bad news and some good news for you.
Intelligent Design is most definately observed, all the time, every day. In fact, its the only thing we see causing complex working information.

Evolutionism however, is never observed. not the kind you need and want to happen thats for sure.

Having said all this, the study of origins is always a 'forensic' science because, (you might have noticed) nobody is old enough or has access to time machines to have observed any of this.

There is lots of forensic evidence.
(See above).

Believe me on one thing - you never want 'truth by concencus'.
Even though 'ID' is quickly on the way to becoming the majority opinion among the scientific community, that is not, in itself a good reason to accept it as 'true'.

What we call 'modern science' is born out of a Christian world view which had the crazy idea that God could be seen through the study of his creation.
Modern Science literally comes out of a Creationist mentality.
Unfortunately, the field has been over-run by far too many people who want to abuse science for antitheist notions.
Good news.. that does now seem to be changing.

If this was the case then why am I not a worshipper of Odin and why are you not a Puritan?

China is now has the fastest growing Christian population on the planet and at the rate they are going are going to be the centre of new Christian thinking and evangelism.
Its very very exciting.

Im beginning to think the new South Park 'two-parter' is tailor made for you.
It just rips the 'internet brand' atheism we see today and makes a mockery out of the completely screwey idea there is something called 'science' that is 'competing' against something called 'religion'.
Nonsense.
If you start with this bizarre and wrong notion there is 'science 'versus' religion' then you will continue finding all sorts of statements and ideas 'really fucked up' and wonder why they 'dont make sense' etc.
Its you.
Its your fundamental preconcieved notions that are the actual problem.
Change them and free yourself.

 

Alsharad, are you thinking of original sin as imputed, or as something else?

 

Campbell

Occam is just an average joe. It seems obvious to occam that
once the lunar surface has been shifted 300 *C up and down for
a while a layer of dust will form.
But once that layer is formed. The rock beneath DOES NOT shift
temperature as much. An equilibrium is reached.. maybe 2 to 3 inches
of dust before the solar heating has no more effect.
[due to the dust above that shields it. The same effect is seen in corrosion of earthly metals in contact with oxygen]

Exactly the amount of dust found

One does not need to be a scientist to see the obvious.
For a scientist is just one trained to see the obvious.
Those who see the obvious were once just like you and me.
Galileo had no 'degree' . no piece of paper saying he was a scientist.
Or michelangelo
Or descartes
Or socrates

Occam still asks what this has to do with trilobites and the explanation for such. That was what he started the thread for.
And not ONE creationist has yet replied with any answer to the lunar craters. There are thousands of them.. if they occurred 'after' the
creation. Why is there no mention of the moon lit like a fire craker
every night?
If god made the craters,, WHY??????
To make the moon look a billion years old?

WHY???? to decieve?

Occam

 

Ikden

Occam never said the following as a statement.
Kindly respect this one enough to at least quote him
accurately..thanks
==================================
Occam HAS NEVER SAID 'nothing did it.'..
Van gogh 'made' the 'mona lisa'...
Occam suggests the universe was arranged from what exists...
without a universe of 'some' law....
HOW?...
[as you quoted in post of 10.45 am jan 20 2007]
==================================

You cut and pasted his posts.. that is what occam expects from one
who NEVER answers a direct question.
And it suggests your ENTIRE position is a lie.
IF you have to LIE in replies to other posters.
Who is to say you dont lie to yourself?
That creationism is but lip service to make you feel 'wise'



Occam

 

I respectfully used this convention: '...'
This indicated to the reader that theses are partial quotes followed by later partial quotes.

Regarding your moon craters.

Its obvious there is disarray in our solar system and this would square up with biblical descriptions of a 'fallen creation'.
Whether or not it appears a planet itself has been destroyed (leaving us an asteroid belt) we are talking about planetary impacts.

What you have done is start with an assumption that all the craters are caused by individual meteors,
and,
That these land like 'clockwork'.
In other words, if you saw one meteor hit the moon in the last 100 years then 'therefore' they must land once per century and always have.
Ok.
Thats some assuming you are doing alright.

The next thing you want to look at is another assumption - that each impact crater indicates another incoming meteor.
nope.
Here:
Surface ages can be derived from the spatial density of craters, but this association presumes that the craters are made by interplanetary impactors, arriving randomly in time and location across the surface. Secondary craters cause confusion because they contaminate the primary cratering record by emplacing large numbers of craters, episodically, in random and non-random locations on the surface. The number and spatial extent of secondary craters generated by a primary impact has been a significant research issue. If many or most small craters on a surface are secondaries, but are mistakenly identified as primaries, derived surface ages or characteristics of the impacting population size-frequency distribution (SFD) will be in error.

Yes, I understand there is also a lot of talk about whether or not the craters are actually 'impact craters' and not the result of something else like volcanic activity.
But,
Sticking with the whole impact theory here and I think Faulkner also has some interensting theories on the Moon:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp
Scroll down to see a critical response which also makes some good points.

All of this keeping in mind we are not making any arguments for evolutionism here.
Excepting that evolutionism does need a multimillion year old earth just to fit into,
but,
That in itself does nothing to start or help the magic story of evolutionism become real heh.

 

Ikden [and anyone who wishes to look at ikden post 10.45 am jan 20 2007]

There are no '..' defining sections of text.. the only ones are occams.
Again, you cut and pasted. Like a cheap spy novel.

'What you have done is start with an assumption that all the craters are caused by individual meteors'

Well of course,how could multiple impact craters be caused by one impactor? Are you suggesting an impactor so large that colateral
cratering is formed from ejecta? Occam suggests you look are pictures of the backside of the moon.. you may be suprised.


'Yes, I understand there is also a lot of talk about whether or not the craters are actually 'impact craters' and not the result of something else like volcanic activity.'

Yes a few 'craters' may be a result of vulcanism. What of the other thousand ?


'That in itself does nothing to start or help the magic story of evolutionism become real heh'

It's a far les 'magic story' than some interventionist god creating a whole world from nothing. We can see cosmic evolution occuring. We has a partial picture of biological evolution. Maybe even a biological evolution 'designed to an end', remember,
occam never said no one made it. he said it look designed. theres a big difference.
And engineer designs a thing, he does not make the mater it is made of.

Occam

 

Open your eyes. they are there.
Not that anyone cares or was confused in the first place.

Im not suggesting it but the latest research most certainly is.
The backside of the Moon is addressed in the last article I linked to up there.
Yes it is surprising and interesting to look at some of the competing theories for that.

What about the other thousand?
A thousand craters that were created within the last 6,000 years?
or,
Or you just saying they happened over 'billions of years' because the Moon is a billion years old, therefore it is a billion years old?

You might be suggesting theistic evolutionism.
Thats most definately the more reasonable explanation than suggesting the Universe created 'itself' by 'unguided forces'.
(aka 'nothing did it').

As for 'Cosmic Evolution' what you see is degeneration, decay and a clock thats winding down.
You see Stars dying.
You see craters and asteroid belts.
You see systems 'winding down'.
You dont see new stars being formed etc.

Same is true for biology on earth.
You DO see 'loss' occuring.
You never see 'gain' occuring. But you are free to believe that in some other time and some place in another earth 'millions of years ago' things 'must' have been different.
The opposite of what we see today.
Thats a belief alright but dont blame it on science.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff? I have pictures of stars forming, lots of them. Astronomers see this process occurring every day with optical telescopes, radio telescopes, infrared telescopes, etc. They also see every range of stellar and intergalactic activity, from star formation to stars dying, galaxies forming, galaxies colliding, star systems forming, etc, etc, etc, and they have photographs of them so anyone else can see it too, or look through your own telescope to see it for yourself, no "belief" involved.

Biology does change, its a fact. People have been make use of it, in agriculture, for millenium. Mutations in genetics have been clearly observed, some of them are beneficial to the organism. The flu virus mutates in the course of every year, that is why they have to change the flu vaccine every year. The mutation is beneficial to the flu virus. There are countless examples, all provable, repeatable and measurable. No magic required.

 

Not really.
You have pictures of 'dark nebulae' which are not forming into stars.
I suppose its possible there could be some stars forming (it would not be a problem to creationists)
but,
In fact, what you see 'every day' is stars dying.
systems slowing down.
or,
In this case some fantastic gas clouds (which are impressive alright).
Stars seen in the out edges are certainly stars but feel free to imagine they are forming into 'new stars'.
Thats a 'belief' based on brand new Hubble images and please dont pretend like its something 'seen every day' or as if its not some brand new highly controversial 'belief' based on recent pictures.

Talkorigins word game alert!!

Please dont pretend like you will be proving out evolutionism to me or yourself if only you can prove out that 'biology changes'.
Come on.

Gonna take this back to the actual problem again and again so we can stop evading it.
What YOU want to believe happens is that new genetic information creates itself.
Dont bother me or you talking about recombinations, losses, retarded genes or gene pool drift etc.

Im taking this directly to what YOU want to believe in and away from the things that are absolutely NOT a problem for creationists or anyone else for that matter.

To bad that has nothing to do with Evolutionism (as YOU want and need it) and quite frankly makes a good argument against magic new information creating itself.
Flu Virus change in the same 'principle' that a breed of white rabbits breeds out in artic tundra.
(not exactly but the principle is there).
Think of it as 'specialising' and it DOES NOT MAKE NEW INFORMATION and it actually has much LIMITED choices now.

In other words, you can argue that the new strain of flu virus is 'better' for that specific environment (in this case one with that particular antibiotic showing up),
but,
Its definately NOT more complex, does NOT have new information and outside that specific environement it will quickly become far far LESS viable than its original 'all-purpose' first cousins.

What you are doing is giving examples of 'DEvolution'.
You most certainly do observe 'countless examples' of DEvolution all the time.
This is why Evolution is a fairie tale and a bizarre antiscientific belief system.
You DO OBSERVE information changing, straining out and in doing so usually experiencing bits of LOSS.
But,
For some weird reason you decide that 'somehow' in another time and place things must have been the OPPOSITE of what you DO see now.

You just gave a great example up there.

 

I find that very amazing that you used your psychic powers to know what pictures that I have. Its not a belief, its based on the 300+ years of observations done by telescopes and combinations of astrophysical + quantum mechanical calculations. You are making many claims, what measurements or observational data or proof do you have to support them.

I was simply replying to you saying, paraphrasing you, that biolgoly always stays the same.

I'm not talking about what I want to "believe" in. I am talking about things that I've seen with my own eyes, that exists, and that are testable, provable, repeatable, measurable,etc.

No, your wrong the flu virus changes, it becomes different. It does have new information. Its genetics have changed from what previously existed. Ask you doctor. That is why, every year a completely new vaccine has to be made, and the old one is ineffective against it. I haven't heard of it becoming any less viable, it still makes lots and lots of people sick, every year.

 

You call them calculations, I call them guesses based on faith which are given respectability because they call it science. Science may employ complicated equations and talk about variables. Yet, what does this have to do with science? Unless they were there four billion years ago, their present observations, conclusions, are based on ALMOST A TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE. The very same thing they accuse Christians of, that is, being blind faith believers, they themselves have become. The Scriptures have an large amount of physical evidence which will point to their truth, yet many in the scientific field will dismiss that evidence and embrace the obscure. And the reason for this is obvious, many in science donot believe the Bible, and have a desire to disprove it.

 

The scientific method is based on reason and logic not faith. If science was done the way you think, their wouldn't be any high technology, materials or computers, etc. Chemists wouldn't able to calculate the systhesis of new medicines or materials, stuff that people use everyday. Physicists would have never been able to do the calculations of the fission of sub atomic particles to make nuclear reactors.

You seem to forget that light takes time to travel, if the Earth was only 10,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see other galaxies, hundreds of thousands of lightyears away. Looking into the night sky is like looking back in time, because the light of the stars takes time to get here.

I might read the bible if I felt like reading a religious/spiritual book, but if I wanted to know how to fix a car I would read a car repair book. You are trying to make the bible the a book about natural history and biology, etc. I don't think it is intended for that purpose. Most of what you say is not literally in the bible either, they are your interperetations of what is says. The bible never directly gives an age to the Earth. Young Earth Creationists are a minority opinion in Christianity worldwide. There is a reason for that.

 

Re previous post:

Sound reasoning gets 100%

Superstition gets 0%

The Bible's not irrelevant, as long as you take it for what it is...a religious and historical text written by human beings.

 

Not quite psychic but just to get back to some of the fascinating 'story changes' with evolutionism I cant help but notice that when 'creationist types' point out we only see dying stars and degeneration... surprise!.. some new pictures will show something which 'leads some experts to believe...' and then the public hears some 'forming star' theory 'as if' its some sort of 'discovery'.
In reality, everyone is looking at the same Hubble photos of a dark nebulae.

Likewise, when the Sagan brand of the copernicum idea was threatened by 'creationist types' who pointed out that only our system has planets... surprise surprise.. suddenly some 'planets' are 'discovered'.
In reality, nobody is really convinced they are planets but the point is to speculate to the favour.

No you are not.
Thats not my claim or the claim you need to address.
Whether or not 'biology changes' is not disputed by evos or creos. not at all.
You are evading the real question - does information create itself. This is THE crux of it all.

You dont see new genetic information create itself (which is to have happened billions and billions of times if evolution was true) and yet you choose to believe in it anyway.

Again, more talkorigins style 'term and meaning' bait and switching.
The virus does not invent/add/magically write new information.
At best,
It has redundant info, copy errors or whatnot.

This is NOT the type of information the evolutionist is looking for, wants and needs.
CATS
SCAT
TACS
Or even for that matter you could have CCATS
or even,
CATTTTTTTT

But this is NOT what you must find and need to find before you can believe in evolutionism.

What you want and need and is the very is a brand new letter.
One that never existed before.
C-A-T-S-'magic new letter'.

Not only does the virus (or anything) need a brand NEW 'letter' but it must do something.
Work.
Not impede or destroy the other information.

SHIT!
That doesnt happen. It just doesnt happen and even worse news for you is that what you DO SEE, RECORD, OBSERVE and so on is the very opposite problem.
Occasionally information is DROPPED.
Occassionaly info is retarded, missing or screws up everything else.

Now I have said this before and let me surprise you by comparing myself to a Virus, bacteria here.
I have a mutation.
It causes me to have LESS 'rods and cones' in my eyes.
Notice that you never find someone who has 'extra colour perception' due to a mutation.
In my case I have LESS colour perception because of this mutation.

But Wait!

A few weeks ago I was driving with some friends and noticed a bright yellow sign before anyone else did.
This is probably because the only colour I can see clearly is Yellow.
All other colours are 'dull' in comparison.
Its like a 'Highlighter' principle.
'In Theory' I might have an 'advantage' to stop at yellow stop signs better and 'theoretically' I might be 'more likely' to survive that intersection than my friends with full colour perception.
In theory I might survive to pass on my genetic mutation to sons while they might not live to do so.

This is explaining why so many people are easily duped into thinking that 'evolution occurs'.
no.
Thats why I make the distinction and call it (rightfully) DEvolution.

Understand this again - I have NO NEW INFORMATION because of my genetic mutation.
Absolutely not.
In fact, I have a loss of information. It might help me in some specific environment (where stop signs are yellow).
But,
I have DEvolved on that front and further more even if I mate with a woman carrying the mutation - I dont create children with EXTRA NEW 'Yellow Perception'.
Thats not how it works.

Nope.
There is no novel information.
Again, the only way you can say that is to take the 'talkorigins' word game where you deliberately say 'new information' knowing full well it means something else.
(i dont think you are doing this but they do).

'Genetics change' is absolutely not, never was and never will be disputed by anyone.
Never has been.
Dont bother spending two seconds worrying about showing anyone 'genetics change'.

What the Evo wants and needs is the 'new letter'.
Not just one.
Many of them, not only creating themselves but somehow adding themselves to its previously 'created' information in some working order and purpose.

Here again, we are talking about antibiotics and resistance (and btw I think the topic meant to be bacterium not so much 'virus' but anyways..).
Here is a good list of how some of these DEvolve and demonstrate just more evidence AGAINST magic stories of 'new genes creating themselves' and this type of unreality.

Actinonin- Loss of enzyme activity
Azithromycin- Loss of a regulatory protein
Imioenem-Reduced formation of a porin
Nalidixic Acid Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein

Losing or retarding genetics is the OPPOSITE of the imaginary belief of Evolutionism where new information ADDS ITSELF and makes new information.

It just cant be any clearer!?
​

This from a rather technical article on bacterial resistance:
http://trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

 

The Bible is a general guide for life. If you want to learn how to live life with TRUE success... read the Bible.

 

Yes the scientific method is based on reason and logic, and often that reason and logic is flawed. And yes, light does take time to travel TODAY, yet, what was the speed of light in the past? You say you might read the Bible if you wanted to read a religious or spiritual book. Yet I would say, why read it at all if you think that information is untrue? And if what I'm reading is not literal, why are the prophecies, and the past history being revealed today as literal?
The Bible does tell us directly that God made the earth in six days, and in the Bible, one day with God equals 1,000 years. And yes, Young Earth Creationist are in the minority, and the Bible tells us why they would be. According to the Scriptures, God tells us that the world would not endure sound doctrine, but would be turned away, and would listen to teachers that did not embrace the truth. And this is why the Bible stated 2,000 years ago to beware of science falsly so called. The Bible knew long ago, that men would come with their human reason an logic and attempt to explain away the Scriptures.

 

Inspired human beings, that wrote history before it happened. As can be seen in the propecies of Jesus Christ, revealed in the Old Testament.

 

ik - I have a challenge for you. Find a reliable source to say that there new DNA is never added to a genome.

Because: You have invented your own genetics theory. Your CATS+magical new letter thing is bull. All dna and genetic information is coded by 4 nitrogenous bases. Only 4. There is no need for a new one to have new information. All you need is additional dna, or activation of previously inactive dna. Either of these can produce a new variable in a species.

So show me a study confirming your views.

 

Its a forum with lots of space for you to contribute ideas and theories. Why dont you start with your DNA-Genome theory for us?

Each letter is not representing one of the four DNA examples you give later.
(sorry if you were confused)
Even if it was the '4 letter genetic alphabet' example, it would still work as an analogy and you would appear to agree with it. (but weirdly you think adding a fifth is 'bull' but had no problem believing 1 thru 4 could get together.)
Anyways,
Its only a bad analogy in that its so outrageously SIMPLISTIC compared to reality.
But even still, the 'letter' comparison is a great way to explain it and hyper-evofundie and 'internet atheist hero' Richard Dawkins uses this type of example as well as your biology teacher and creationists too.

Tetranuclueotide hypothesis?
This one is always a smile though because the only people who are interested in this are your Evos who know how well it works when put to the LayEvo.
It 'sounds like' all you have to do is prove out that four compounds are all that are needed for every combination of life on earth.
Uhhhh....
Putting aside the abso-fucking-phenominal mindbending series of events that would be need just to get to these four parts.... the mindfreaking incredible series of events to go from those to a common grubworm (and then anything and everything else) is beyond all incredulity.
It would make you believe in God if actually thought it happened.

Some good articles on these topics:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf (pdf)
http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

This is well done: http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html