Explain the Trilobite

Spook

Campbell is saying that ALL THE FOSSILS
were embedded in the last 10 thousand years
OR
God created the earth with the fossils in it.

NOWHERE does he admit the earth is billions of years old
Is'nt that right campbell?

So, going by that.
Tyranosaurs roamed the earth less than 10 thousand years ago.
Or
God placed the fossils of dinosaurs in the crust of earth when he made it.
He wanted the earth to look like it evolved to paleontologists

lol

Occam

 

Occam:

How well I know what Mr.Campbell is saying...that's why I pointed out that he made a blanket-generalization about the whole paleontological record to rationalize fitting its development into a very short geologic period, namely the Biblical Flood and thereafter.

 

Yes that is true of the trilobites, and this condition would of had to occure at the same time and all over the earth.

And when you speak of the earth being billions of years old, is that the conclusion of science, or personal faith? And if science, what do they base that on?

Yes you can say fossilization could of occured locally, yet many of the fossils that are uncovered are found at the same depth level globally.

 

No, I donot believe the earth is billions of years old. Just as most Americans donot believe in the Theory of Evolution. Most Americans, and even after years of brain washing in the public school system, still believe it was the God of the Bible who who created us, and He did this without Evolution. I'm sure fossils exist today that did not come from the flood, but I also believe most of the fossils are related to the flood.

 

Not to long ago clay figures were unearth in Mexico, the tribe that made them nolonger exist. Some of the clay figures were of dinsours, and I believe one of them was of a Tyranosaurs. Tell me, where did this ancient tribe get a Tyranosaurs to model their clay Tyranosaurs after? The age of the fossils and the time it took was in the thousands of years not millions. And the flood really happened, and this is why every culture on earth has the flood story in it's culture. When the Spanish Priest in the 1500s spoke to the Indians of Central America about the Biblical flood, they were shocked to learn that the Indians already knew the story.

 

hang on...not every culture by any means, a few do. And many are older than the xtian version, such as the Babylonian account which is where the ancient Jews probably got it from, along with much of the other mythology contained in the book of genesis.

As to the T.Rex figures - they are very probably a product of imagination - just as accounts of dragons, unicorns, sea serpents, and indeed, talking serpents are. I doubt that the resemblance to T.Rex of the figures you mention is anything more than a slight one. In effect, pics we see today of T.Rex are only artists own imaginative reconstruction.

 

Trip of a discussion going here. I had to actually look up trilobite. never heard of the name before. If there's anybody else that reads this and doesn't know what it is, go to Wikipedia. I don't trust everything they say there but they get close enough. Anyway, there is no stronger believer than me that I know of and I know the earth is really billions of years old. Matter of fact, the only reason most pastors won't admitt it is cause they wouldn't be able to explain things then, in the math they learned growing up. Most of them know it. The Tyranasaurus Rex's is described perfectly in God's Word and science and the bible do not disagree. It's men who decide what things they will learn and what they will ignore. Genesis 1:1 is pretty self explainitory. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Did you notice the period? He doesn't say when. Science has it fairly close and most people know it. Verse 2 is not carried from verse 1 and even if it were, in Hebrew it would read " And the earth BECAME void". Check it out for yourselves. I'm sure that not everyone will get it. They aren't suppose to. So what? Along comes the scoffers. Isn't that what God told us would happen anyway? It's okay, fellow Christians. Oh and by the way, when God says, in the third verse, " Let there be light", He couldn't have been talking about the sunlight since it wasn't till the 4th day, ( a day is to The Lord, as a thousand to man, remember? ). He was talking about The Word! Now then, I won't go into more detail because if you are truly a believer you'll want to know the whole truth and what I just said will set you into starting a search of your own. There are three earth ages. 1 has passed. Another is now. Take it from there. A Strong's concordance will help you a lot if you can't translate the English to the original languages of the Word. If you're not a beliver, well, truth is, I don't give a rat's ass. I don't spend my time arguing about truth. Truth will take care of His own. The only reason I chimed in here is for the benefit of the believer who is obviously feeking bashed right now. Stop trying to defend The Lord. Time's coming close when He will be defending you. He promised. Chill.

 

I don't understand why you think a flood has anything to do with fossilization of trilobites, they lived underwater in the oceans. Increasing the water level would proably have little effect on them or their fossilization. Fossils are not all found at the same depth, I personally have found trilobite fossils and then found more fossils, 3000-5000 feet vertical of there, in the same region.

 

Read my second paragraph again...Out of my very limited scientific knowledge, I tried to introduce some different plausible scenarios where this wouldn't have to happen.

Both. In my personal opinion, scientific findings and conclusions and faith in God and a transcendental dimension are not mutually exclusive. Science in essence is simply a process of collection of data, experimentation and analysis, the formation of hypotheses and theories and the testing of these. If it produces conclusions that don't agree with the creation stories found in any religious scripture...not just the Bible...that's just the way it works.

You can do as you normally do...completely disregard scientific findings or try to beat them to fit and paint them to match so that they appear to substantiate Genesis and the conclusions of "Creation Science". Or, you can sit back and ask yourself..."does considering the idea that scripture may not be 100% literally accurate in some areas automatically make me an atheist or unbeliever? What in scripture is directly concerned with spiritual truth, and what is more concerned with history as observed by the writers or is an obvious mythical explanation for questions about nature that couldn't be answered in a prescientific world?"

I don't need to explain that...you can look it up.

So? Once again, you're making an unsound leap in reasoning: One set of observed conditions provides you with enough direct evidence to conclude that the scriptural account you accept is absolutely correct.

 

Campbell, you just confirmed the point of the post you answered.

Regarding what "most Americans" believe, please provide some unbiased hard facts. Not that it makes any personal difference to me; if that's what they accept, so be it. I'd just for like you to back up your claim.

Sherry: If you're coming to Campbell's defense because you think he's being ganged up on and bashed, dont worry about it. Mr. Campbell is as capable as anyone here at advancing his positions and arguing for them...as far as I'm concerned, any discussions we have are friendly, and hope he feels the same way.

 

If you don't give a rat's ass that is a shame, as I was taught that xtians are actually supposed to love everyone etc. Clearly that's another xtian 'myth'.

If a person comes on here and makes ridiculous claims such as the existence of 11 year old fossils, why should the rest of us just shut up? If you don't wish to argue about 'truth' then what is the point of going on an internet discussion forum? Some of us do give a rat's ass. It is sad to see people so obviously deluded and yet incapable of moving on.
I have nothing personal against Campbell, or any one else who posts here, it is their mistaken ideas that I find unacceptable.

The derivative account of creation in the bible represents an attempt by very ignorant people long ago to explain the world to themselves. Like all creation myths, it has absolutely no scientific basis or validity. To imagine that the bible tells us about T.Rex or any other dinosaur is utterly ridiculous.

 

BlackBillBlake... I think that you have made an important point. The Creation story is not a scientific dissertation on the method God used to create the world. This means that the events described are not, by necessity, scientifically detailed. This is a good thing because the focus of the passage is on God and His power and His relationship with man.

There are many creation accounts. However, the intriguing thing about flood stories is that they are prevalent, and almost common. They are in ancient China, the middle east and even in South America. They all pre-date historical exploration of the regions and there is no indication of cultural penetration of ideas or myths. Yet still, the basic model of the story is the same... a (or *the*) divine being saves a small family and floods the world, killing everyone else. All people are descended from this family. It's hard to explain parallel legends arising if there is no factual basis to ground the legends.

Another advantage of having the story being less scientifically accurate is that it removes science from the equation. You cannot criticize the Creationists for taking the scripture literally and then turn around and complain that the creation is scientifically unsound. This is not consistent. If it is not literal, then it is figurative and you cannot apply scientific concepts to figurative text.

Further, science and truth are not synonomous. You can have an allegorical statement that is true, but not scientific. So, the creation account and the genisis story can be both true and non-scientific.

Note that this doesn't mean I accept that the earth is billions of years old. I really don't see that as an issue because it really is beside the point, IMHO.

 

I would have less of a problem with those who see the genesis story in allegorical or symbolic terms. I'd assume that if one had such a view, it would be relatively easy to accept the findings of science, at least up to a point.

I can't see how it can be accepted as literal, as the very structure of the story is not logical.

When considering flood stories from different cultures, I think we have to be very careful to note not just the similarities, but the differences too.
Take for example the Hopi flood myth - ok, they believe there was a flood, but that is really the only similarity. The background beliefs and other stories are quite different. Same with the ancient Chinese.

What worries me about belief in genesis etc is that as I've made clear enough I hope, I think it is pure invention. I think it may be that people cling to it because it gives them a feeling of security and comfort. That's understandable, but as I say, I do have some slight interest in truth.
I do not believe that the supreme being, if he exists, would have any of the rather nasty characteristics of the OT god, and I don't accept the ideas of 'original sin' (in either literal or symbolic interpretations). Hence I see no need for a bloody sacrifice. I think quite frankly that all that belongs to the dark past of humanity, to an age of ignorance and thus an age of fear of the unknown.

Anyway, today I've been insulted by an xtian supporter calling me a 'dick-head', simply because they can't respond to my arguments. That is something which has happened only rarely. I just want to make it clear that I am not simply trying to insult people here, or to 'persecute' anyone, as I've been accused.
I may disagree with xtians, but I certainly don't hate anyone.
This is , after all, a discussion forum, and one with a 'hippy' slant. Thus I think that xtains who come here should be ready to be challenged. If I appear rude, then I am sorry, but I don't intend any personal offence - yet perhaps it is inevitable that some will react negatively. Maybe I express myself too forcefully at times...
I think these forums are quite a valuable thing. I have certainly had to modify my own views in the light of some things I've learned here.
If I can be flexible at my age, I don't see why younger people have to be so fixed...like they think they already know everything. That is what I really don't like.

 

Campbell -
Glad to see you've dug deep enough to unearth the sculpture argument for us again. I'm not really going to get into the discussion here, but one question...You argued your point about animals going extinct. Why are there no fossils of modern animals? Why, when you're looking through dinosaur fossil fields, do you not find bones of humans, deer, squirrels, horses, etc? If everything that exists now existed then, and only two of each were saved, there should be as many of those fossils.

 

Campbell

When occam speaks of the world being billions of years old.
Do you think he bases that on evidence related only to the earth?
Such a parochial viewpoint is not equal to the question.

Earth is but a speck of dust in a universe that processes deterministically.
Trillions of man hours have gone into studying this processs.

And one glaring point stands out..

Local stars have planetary systems, scores of them.
So planets orbiting stars is 'normal'
What you dont realise is that planetary systems evolve by strict rules.
Heavy metal planets like mercury in close with less dense bodies working outwards.

ALLWAYS there is a set distribution. No HUGE gaps between bodies.
Our solar system cant have venus in its orbit.. then nothing but mars 3 times further out. An orbiting body must exist close to where earth exists.
And earth does exist

Planetary physics shows that
EARTH WAS NOT CREATED
IT had to be there.
And has been for 3,5 billion years.

Campbell
Go back to the Xian forum
There are no fools here
And you can keep your head above the waterline in the shallow end
of the pool.

Occam

 

The flood.

 

This is the Christian forum

 

JDFU

LOL

Occam eats his words... [well, only the last para]
You see, assumption is a killer.
Its real hard to talk with a foot in your mouth

Occam

 

it's okay... I have had my share of dumb comments : )

 

I don't disregard science if I consider it sound. I find it is science that has disregard science. 90% of the ways you can determin the age of the earth concludes that the earth is very young. Yet it is science that has turned a blind eye to that evidence. I refuse to. Because to do such would be BAD SCIENCE. Yet the believers in Evolution must not, and cannot, consider that evidence.