Explain the Trilobite

You dont seem to be responding to anything I reply with or about dd3 but still this deserves a reply....

Please dont think for a split second any Creationists are 'agreeing mutations happen'.
As mentioned before everyone has always known mutations happen and we see it occasionally since the dawn of time.
Mental retardation, missing or malformed body parts, diseases etc.

People have always known mutations were 'bad' for living things too.
Not Evolutionists though.
In their word they 'reason' that since mutations are 'bad' then somehow they must have been good.
And more good than bad too.

No there are no 'new genes' that havent already come from some already existing information somewhere.

And its something that is 'bad' for the organism.
If not kept alive by 'artificial means'.
Let that thing enter nature and I assure you the mutation will not last very long.
But its not 'new information' anyways. Not at all in the sense you need for evolutionism.

[/quote]There is new information in people's genetics, all the time, most of it is very minor. Every time DNA/RNA copies, when cells divide, there are some errors. A benefiticial mutation in humans that comes to mind is CCR5-delta 32 mutation. This gene is only found in about 10% of white people of European anscestry and 2% of central Asians, it alters the white blood cell in a way they makes them very resistant or immune to both the black plague and HIV/AIDS. No Native Americans, Chinese, African, Indian, etc. people have EVER had this mutation. Without this gene mutation its posible that just about ever person in Europe would have died when the black plague sweep through.[/QUOTE]First off Id ask you to not use terms like 'comes to mind' when in fact there are just several examples (some pretty dodgy) that anyone can ever come up with.
'Comes to mind' makes it wrongly sound like there are 'so many to choose from' heh.
Lets be clear.
There is no example of 'new information'.
As you notifed you get errors.
An error is not 'new information'.
There is only existing information that sometimes we see get cut short, redundant, smushed, folded, wacked.. pick whatever words you like.

Now here has to be one of the sure signs your theory is in trouble when the very best example of 'beneficial mutations' is an error that might also happen to impede the progress of a certain disease.

What other good examples could we find.. its like being born with mutated fingers and having no nails.
But,
We see this 'benefits' the mutatee for being immune to nail fungus.
You know seriously this is a comparison.

And the point still stands - there is no 'new' information being 'added' to anyone or anything.
This is what you want to find and need to find.
This is what Evolutionism is all about and its just not real.
Worse yet for Evolutionism is that the very best examples of 'good' mutations are... a mutation that impeded the progress of a certain disease?
Meanwhile (and this kills evoluton dead) we DO KNOW and constantly observe information DROPPING.
Evolutionism needs to be ADDING new information (which never happens) at at rate faster and more than we see LOSING (which actually does happen).

 

theres no such thing as 11 year old rock...rocks take millions of years to become rocks

ok, there were diamonds created by mt st hellens and were blasted out the top..these diamonds technicaly were only diamonds 11 years..but, what are they made of? what are you testing, the age of the material, or the age of the form?
ofcoourse a rock thsts been formed by an explosion 11 years ago will test as 11 million years old, because it IS 11 million years old...it was a rock when it was in the ground, it was a rock when it was found..its been a rock millions of years
how could it have just become a rock unlesd u believe in majic?

oh..wait..thats right..you do


as for the stars and galaxies question..
yes clouds of gas had a force that propelled them to form stars and galaxies and that force is called gravity, particals have mass and weight, and heavy particles attract lighter 1's nearby, making even a hevier mass, and as that mass attracts even more it gets heavier and attracts more...
simple...
i think i learned that in what 5th grade?

but i guess if u went to catholic school all they taught ya was that some dude just said let there be stars..lol

if you deny that science has the answers..then youve gotta explain how god created both mass and energy out of nothingness with just a word, when we know that matter and energy cant be created or destroyed but only change form..i learned that in 5th grade too

damn what do they teach u?
the christian agenda in todays schools would lead us into the dark ages of ignorance

 

one more time
since u dont get this
lava, is what you get when you heat rock deep in the earth...rock thats millions of years old
you then take that super hot, million year old rock and shoot it out a volcano. 11 years later u have a cooled down version of a rock thats been very hot howr millions of years...
its not an 11 year old rock at all..its only been cool enough to be solid for 11 years
get it?
carbon dating is accurate. that rock is millionbs of years old as youd expect from rock that was deep in the earth

 

w3hat america do you live in?
most americans do believe in evolution, or no, know its fact..theres nothing that u gotta believe in when u can look at the facts
no, theres no indication there was a flood or anything like that for 1, theres not enough water on in or above the planet to cover the earth..so its impossible
the fossils are found at manty depths..these depths roughly correspond to theyre age..fossils can be created by many things not just a global flood..a mudslide, forrest fire, flood earthquack, anything that causes the rapid burrial of an animal well technicaly a slkeletal remains can be fossilized without rapid burrial nbut i assume u mean fossilization of not only bone matter
hell a dino falls through thin ice on a frozen lake and b ecomes fossilized..theres so m any ways it can happen..and it will happebn to m any of us

u think they found every bone under the wtc? wont they become fossils someday?

now u know..if there was a relion that both stood up to thought and logic and made sence..and encouraged questionimng thopught and scrutiny without just saying you gotta believe the impossible, or else//.. then that would be the only religion worth concidering...


thought..logic...calculate the volume of water needed to cover the earth, keep in mind that the ocean would need to be over 2 miles deeper...now..explain to me, where all that water is now? where it came from? where did it go after?

 

I think you are way off on this and probably mean to describe Radiometric dating methods.
The problem is one of 'Clocks'.
You might have a 'clock' if you are sure you have made all the right assumption about the clock, its speed and that nothing could interfere with it.
How could I drive this point home to you?
What if I told you that Radiometric dating 'proves' the earth is about 6,000 years old?
Yep.. its a fact that rock is dated about 6,000 years just as you would expect.
Surprised?
When we make certain assumptions we have results that come right about exactly coinciding with Genesis account.
If you make other assumptions you can get 1.5 billion years.

Here is an explanation: http://www.icr.org/article/3131/

Very interesting to note: When Humphries says that Radiometric dating of rocks 'proves' a young earth,
Notice,
Notice how that is refuted - the 'old earther' will protest by pointing out that this 'would be true IF the assumptions were correct'.
Ahhh.
Exactly.

 

If something wasn't there before and the it is, then it is new (by the very definition of "new"). A change in encoding/decoding DNA, creates new information, if that same information wasn't there before. It doesn't matter how it happened. You are imposing your beliefs onto them, as to whether its good or bad. It's just a fact that DNA changes occur and new genes occur, in my previous example, delta 32, it didn't come from anywhere else, because it isn't found anywhere else.

"And the point still stands - there is no 'new' information being 'added' to anyone or anything." -Ikdenkhetniet

I couldn't disagree more. Change is the only constant. Your beliefs preclude you from taking in new information so that it is completely pointless to discuss this.

-end of line

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
I can't actually think of a more absurd idea than that 'there is no new information'. It only shows just how blindfolded these people are.

 

The only way you can pull off this 'new information' claim is to do a sort of 'talkorigins' game of 'holding the meaning' so it means something different when you want it to.

Example: You could be said to have 'new information' as you were born.
or maybe; If I spell a word wronng. I could say 'wronng' has 'new information'.

In the sense that Evolutionists (not me) NEED and want 'new information' to exist is the sense you are avoiding.
The best way to put this is to say you have:
ABCDEFGH.
What you need and want is:
ABSDEFGHI

Sorry to inform you but that doesnt happen.
Not in reality.

The fact you think Im being 'blind' just goes to show me you are playing word games and got mad when I didnt fall for it or what?

 

I am using "new" in the context of the common lexicon of the English language. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/new

I'm not playing games, but you are ignoring, provable, real, measurable things that do occur. The ingression of novelty(newness) into the universe fluctuates but is always there. I have no vesting interest in what you believe, I am only interested in the truth. Why couldn't an omnipotent god, like yours, have created a dynamic system of change, which is much more complex and interesting. A static system (as you describe) would seem unimaginative and boring by comparison, where everything can only get worse(descend). Evolution, by itself, does not rule out that a god does or doesn't exist. It would seem that it would be a elequent way to change things as god sees fit, try different things, creativity involved with the things through movement of time.

While evolution is a theory, in that, how it works out over a eons of time are not completely understood. The genetic mechanical foundation of it are provable, repeatable, documented facts of biology.

 

Time to volunteer some thoughts...

1) The concept of "new" information is a tricky one. I personally feel like
the ABCD vs. ABCDE analogy is flawed because of the way that mutations occur. Mutations are essentially "flaws" in the coding sequence that produce a gene that isn't normally coded for. This is a NEW gene. However, it is important to remember that genetic code is not an infinite pool of resources. If ABC and DE code for trait X then when, due to mutation AB and CDE, trait Y is created, trait X is missing. So, while you might have "new" information, you do not have any fundamental increase in the genetic capabilities of the organism. You do not have any increase in complexity at a genetic level.

2) I prefer the increasing complexity argument. It can be demonstrated that systems do not move naturally from less complex to more complex. Even observable cases of cellular and population evolution do not see a variation in the level of complexity. Evolutionary thought must provide an explanation for increasing complexity that is predictive, testable, and observable. To date, I am not aware of any theory that meets those criteria.

3) Evolutionary theory also does not account for the fundamental principles in information theory. Information does not exist in a vaccuum, nor does it come from nothing. We can talk about DNA and genetics all day long, but we at least all agree that DNA is a code. Try describing the genetic sequence without using the word or concept of "code" or "coding". It gets difficult. DNA is organized, complex information. How did this information come to exist? Most evolutionists prefer to stick to the biological side (the *hardware*) but don't touch the problems from an informational side (the *software*). This does speak more to the "origins" aspect of evolution than the "observable" aspects.

4) Hate to say it but if God exists, then evolution fundamentally cannot be true. Evolution is, primarily, "Natural selection via random mutation." If God is truly sovereign, then there is no such thing as a "random" mutation. Further, those organisms that survive do so not due to any adaptations, but by God's will, so God might use a process similar to natural selection, true natural selection doesn't exist. So, if God exists, the core principles of evolution are undermined, if not destroyed.


Thoughts?

 

First we accept that God exists, neutral in regard to any particular religion or scripture. We could then propose a God that is a universal binding force and intelligence through which the universe operates automatically in an order which is veiled from our understanding.

This God is also a separate supreme person who exists in the transcendental dimension, aloof from the material universe, yet is the knower of all things spiritual and material.

Under such a proposal, there could be no reason to automatically bar evolution as the way by which God accomplishes creation. He is the supreme energetic initiator and essence of all creative processes, but can maintain a passive role as these proceed.

 

In the 1930's it galaxies were discovered. As far as the human race goes, that is new information. In the 1960's DNA was discovered, new information again. Perhaps you imagine that in the 1st century this knowledge was available?
I suggest you go back to sleep.

 

It appears to me this is one lesson they did not teach you in 5th grade, but LAVA ROCK does not take millions of years to form, and because the lava is molten it nolonger remains the same as the orginal starting rock. It in effect becomes A NEW PRODUCT, much like the materials of a new car. Even though the materials to make a car came out of the ground, your car is not considered 300 million years old. Lava is made up of crystals, volcanic glass, volcanic gases, ect., and these materials are often made up of totally different concentrations than the starting rock. Also, the very elements necessary to test this rock for age can also change. If you think molten rock after it hardens is the same as it's source rock, then you understand little of science, and the mechanics behind it. This is not the Christian agenda, this is basic science, and it appears you don't understand this yet. AND YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS AN 11 YEAR OLD ROCK.

 

Sorry soaringeagle, you must believe your own press. According to one of the latest CBS News Polls taken April of 2006, and once again, most Americans or 53% believe that God created humans beings in their present form.

The orginal earths crust was fragile, and if you read the story in the Bible it was not the rain that covered the earth alone. The Bible tells us that the fountains of the deep were opened up which means the earth crust would of collapsed on itself. I believe the earth may of had a much greater land mass before the flood, yet after the flood the land area was reduced to what we have today. The south and north polls have taken much of that water along with glaciers. also the land mass has continued to be built up from the earths shifting plates which has formed various mountain ranges, and not to forget the effects that volcanos have had in the creation of new islands. Also the mountains of the past may not of been as tall as they are presently.

Fully developed fossils requires that the fossil to be becomes fully encapsulated with mud within days of the death of any large beast. How many elephants die and are fully covered in mud and are now becoming fossils today. Most likely, none. Most large beast are soon ripped apart by other animals so the fossil process never really gets started. Yet we have large beast being found all over the earth that had to of been quickly encapsulated in mud and left untouched so they could become fossils. This is not a common occurance. And for them to be finding so many of them today, something on a global scale would of had to of happened, and much of this at the same time. Yes there are other ways for fossils to occure, yet the great numbers of fully intact fossils being found today across the world should tells us that something out of the normal took place a long time ago.

 

You certainly can't interpret every word written in the Bible as literal. If you did that you would have to believe insects have only 4 legs and bats are a type of bird. According to a literal interpretation its ok to allow your virgin daugters to be raped by all the men in your town. You would also have to accept both creation stories in the Bible. This would seem to be impossible but Jerry Falwell and co. sure have proved that with IGNORANCE all things are possible. At least in the little schizo bubble they live in.

 

I would hardly consider the CBS poll to be a valid survey of the whole U.S. since in only questioned 885 people. That isn't a large enough sampling of the population to get any kind of accuracy. And besides popular belief has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.


Increasing complexity does happen, when you look at long term evolution from single single organisms to large multicellular ones. Even in human society and culture, look how human culture was a few hundred years ago compared to today, it has drastically increased in complexity, as well as technological complexity. Only increasing.

Space is not a true vacuum, it is not empty, atoms and molecules are just farther apart.

DNA is a molecular structure, simply described as a complex molecule. An organic chemist could describe it chemically, as well as how it functions in organic lifeforms in terms of chemical interactions.

The bible is large enough body of work that anyone could prove anything, based on it.

 

And it does not matter what poll you believe, the results are pretty much the same, and have remained so for years.

Increasing complexity?
Are you even aware that some of the earliest life forms are far more complex that some of the life forms we have today. So are we seeing evolution going backwards?

The bible is a very exacting Book. The only people who can make it read any differently than it's intended meaning, are the one's who would go out of thier way to purposely distort it.

 

Hard to say... statistical principles indicate that the randomness has more to do with the accuracy than size (though larger size reduces the margin of error). That said, it has been shown statistically that a sample size of only 1001 entities is enough to accurately represent a population of any size, so long as the sampling was meaningfully random.

Not on a cellular level. Even the simplest cell is as incredibly complex. Several cellular organisms are even more complex than some multi-cellular organisms' cells.

Also, you are putting the cart before the horse when you say that we can look at long-term evolution as a support for the possibility of naturally increasing complexity which is, itself, a support for evolution.

Bad analogy. Even if culture evolves, it isn't the same structure as biological evolution nor does the theory have any predictive powers regarding cultural values or reactions to external stimulus.

And to say that feudal Japanese cultures were less complex than ours today is simple arrogance at best and pure ignorance at worst. The same goes for other ancient socially complex cultures (ancient Rome and Greece, etc.).

Space would be the nothingness between the atoms, etc. And by definition, space is a vaccuum. If you mean "outer space" I might agree with you on a technicality, but the fact remains that for all intents and purposes, space is a vaccuum.

And...?

I like broad generalizations too! They are hard to refute, put the other guy on the defensive and require very little actual thought. So, are you going to back up that statement, or just leave that broad generalization out there for some poor Christian to attempt to refute, when, really, you need to indicate how you were able to draw this conclusion outside of anecdotal experience.

Thanks!

 

Christians tend to use circular reason. Argument a is true because the bible says it. The bible is the word of god therefore it is true.

Why is the bible the word of god?

Because the bible says it is the word of God.

This makes no sense to anyone who engages their mind.



What makes the bible 100% true??? Please tell me. And please do not say because "it is the word of god". Because how is it the word of god? and please do not give me some story that comes from within the bible. There is no outside evidence that the bible is true whatsoever. Science on the other hand can be observed. I can go outside right now and look at rock formations. I can go right now and observe different characteristics similar birds have evolved so they can better adapt to their local environments. There is no god.

 

Your question is almost funny. You ask how is the Word of God true, and then tell us not to go to the Bible to prove it. WOW. We Christians can observe to, and the Bible gives stories that are being proven today by those who have sought out that evidence. Yet, that is evidence you donot want to hear, and that's why you have stated you don't want to hear any stories from the Bible. You have not come here to look for truth, you have come here to close your ears to the truth. AND I'M SORRY, BUT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF OUTSIDE EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE. Yet, you would have to be open and willing to hear that evidence.