Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:15 AM
331 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,266 Year: 23,872/21,208 Month: 1,837/2,468 Week: 346/822 Day: 6/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
91NextFF
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 316 of 1352 (805714)
04-20-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:14 AM


Wrong agin
Biblically and geologically is the exact same thing.

Not quite.

One is a collection of old folk tales while the other is a rock-solid field of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:14 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:56 AM Coyote has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 317 of 1352 (805716)
04-20-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Coyote
04-20-2017 9:50 AM


Re: Denial is not science... Continental Drift Hyper
The only thing consistent about evolutionists writing is that they can only deny.

Now back to the splitting of the Earth after the Flood

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/ForeFathersGraphic.html

As the Days of Peleg, were about 130 some years after the flood

Bringing on Continental Drift, I mean Continental Separation

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/EarthDividedindaysofPeleg.html

After the Worldwide Flood of Noah, the Earth was divided...

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and
his brother's name was Joktan. 1Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg;
because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

O.K. therefore we can from the addition of literal years as specified in Genesis, figure out when this time frame was in
the geological record of the Earth. And because the Bible and Genesis have been proven to be exact from the findings of
modern science,archeology, and geology, then we can surely trust in these passages as well. This giving us, a timeline
from the Creation to the Flood of approximately 2348 years.....and afterwards to the birth of Peleg of 129 years. (SEE
Timeline to the Flood and After)

Aha .... so if Peleg was born 129 years after the Flood, and he was around in the same time as Nimrod who helped
build the Tower of Babel, then we may have a probable cause and connection as to why the Lord of the whole Earth,
divided mankind even further apart with the separation of land masses.

So what was the Tower of Babel all about. Well, its ruins remain today as a reminder of the foolishness of man to
reach unto the heavens or 'become gods' and yet that is exactly what they thought they were illustrating by their
construction of their Tower.

Gen 11:4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us
a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of
the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the
city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and
they have all one language; and this they begin to do:
and now nothing will be restrained from them, which
they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their
language, that they may not understand one another's
speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon
the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Therefore is the name of it called Babel

Notice any similarities today, as man still hasn't learned his lesson, even though reuniting under a new one world
language through translations on line. Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous and so way back
then, the Lord divided their languages so that they could no longer communicate to each other, and therefore had to leave
off building their proud work of the flesh. So the Lord brought them back down to Earth, and divided them into
linguistic groups and separated them into the four corners of the earth .... and then it seems at the very same time era
divided the Earth into new continents, so as to further keep them apart.

The Lord commanded the animals and people after the Flood, to breed abundantly and they obviously did as well as
redistributing themselves over the face of the remaining dry land. But after this redistribution, expansion and biological
explosion, then came the Tower of babel and the language separation.

So maybe at the same time, there was a shifting of the geological plates, some raising and lowering as the waters
receeded downwards. And so surely after these great land mass had drained and dried out, there could have been a
dividing of the Earth. It can't be absolutely be proven, but the very real possibility remains.

For is this not what 'Continental Drift' is all about? The continents were together surely at one time according to their
shapes that fit together perfectly, so why could NOT have the Lord divided them into what we see today. It didn't take
millions and billions of years of them inching themselves apart which is evolutionary madness , but by the Lord of the
whole Earth quickly floating them into new positions on the liquid below through the Lord's absolute POWER.

For together the Worldwide Flood and the Earth's division can solve the some of the mysteries of geography and
biology f even though we don't know all the details.

Therefore in my opinion, the 'Earth was Divided in the Days of Peleg'

IHGS (In His Geological Service)

David Jay Jordan


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 9:50 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:11 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 319 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 10:26 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2017 11:53 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 318 of 1352 (805720)
04-20-2017 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Denial is not science... Continental Drift Hyper

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:56 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 319 of 1352 (805728)
04-20-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Denial is not science... Continental Drift Hyper
Even when you post the actual text from the Bible it seems you are incapable of being honest about what it says and in fact continue to pervert the Bible.

You quotemine taking verses out of context (but of course the men writing the New Testament did that all the time) and add crap in that is simply not there at all.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:56 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 320 of 1352 (805741)
04-20-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Denial is not science... Continental Drift Hyper
Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous ...

Quite so: a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God was worried that they might build a tower that reached the sky. There was a biiiiig danger of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:56 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13636
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 321 of 1352 (805742)
04-20-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Faith
04-19-2017 6:51 PM


Re: more just plain not true assertions
Faith writes:

I have two millennia of the best Bible exegetes behind me.


For at least a millennium of that, they were Catholics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 6:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 2:19 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1373
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 322 of 1352 (805744)
04-20-2017 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:09 AM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:

What's intuitive and unwarranted is your throwing out the whole Flood explanation based on your ridiculous impression of how long it would take to form limestone caves, acquired from spelunking. You come along with that ignorant idea and lay it on me as if it gives you some sort of scientific authority over Flood creationists.


I raised spelunking just as a simple anecdote that others could possibly relate to. My objections to "flood geology" are much deeper and evidence-based. They are in part based on a college geology course that I took at a leading Christian college, in part due to graduate and post-doctoral work in radioisotope dating, and in part due to discussions with numerous friends who are Christian professional geologists.

Here are two facts to consider:
1) "Flood geology" advocates are in the minority, even among Evangelical Christian geologists.
2) "Flood geology" is an extra-biblical recent invention, only about 100 years old.

Even if you are convinced of YEC, it is very dangerous to hitch your wagon to "flood geology". Numerous extra-biblical quasi-scientific YEC arguments have been abandoned over the years (see lists from CMI and AIG); hopefully "flood geology" will eventually join them.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 1:59 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26300
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 323 of 1352 (805746)
04-20-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by kbertsche
04-20-2017 1:40 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Here are two facts to consider:
1) "Flood geology" advocates are in the minority, even among Evangelical Christian geologists.
2) "Flood geology" is an extra-biblical recent invention, only about 100 years old.

Could not care less about such incidentals. You have said absolutely nothing, not one thing, zip, about any of my actual arguments.

Even if you are convinced of YEC, it is very dangerous to hitch your wagon to "flood geology". Numerous extra-biblical quasi-scientific YEC arguments have been abandoned over the years (see lists from CMI and AIG); hopefully "flood geology" will eventually join them.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't normally talk "flood geology." That is something you are imposing on me. I argue from my own observations about how the Flood would have caused certain effects. As long as you are talking in generalities, arguing from authority, and ignoring all the arguments I've made, I consider your remarks on this subject to be irrelevant and insulting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2017 1:40 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2017 5:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26300
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 324 of 1352 (805747)
04-20-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by ringo
04-20-2017 11:55 AM


digression on RCC
Faith writes:
I have two millennia of the best Bible exegetes behind me.

For at least a millennium of that, they were Catholics.

That is RCC false history. May I recommend the books History of Romanism by John Dowling, and History of Protestantism by J A Wylie, to bring you up to speed on the true history. I think both of them are readable online.

The RCC is a deviation from the true Church, starting with the declaration of the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop (Pope/Antichrist) in 606 AD. There is enough true Christianity mixed in with the pagan superstitious nonsense and totalitarian worldly ambitions to confuse people, and of course the Reformers had true Christian instincts despite being originally Romanists, but the institution itself is not Christian and I don't trace my theology through it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by ringo, posted 04-20-2017 11:55 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 2:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 370 by ringo, posted 04-21-2017 11:40 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 325 of 1352 (805751)
04-20-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Faith
04-20-2017 2:19 PM


Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
Faith writes:

The RCC is a deviation from the true Church, starting with the declaration of the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop (Pope/Antichrist) in 606 AD.

Please present the Declaration from 606AD that proclaimed the Pope as Antichrist.

Faith, you really need to stop posting really silly falsehoods.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 2:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:28 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26300
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 326 of 1352 (805759)
04-20-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by jar
04-20-2017 2:55 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
Please present the Declaration from 606AD that proclaimed the Pope as Antichrist.

Emperor Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop in 606 AD. The idea of a Universal Bishop is completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity by introducing an autocratic authority. It was the Reformers reviewing that history of the papacy who came to the conclusion that he (each Pope who accepts that title from then on) is the Antichrist, through evidence gathered down the centuries of his antichristian edicts among other things.

Edited by Faith, : correct quote code

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 2:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 4:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 329 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 4:27 PM Faith has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 327 of 1352 (805768)
04-20-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
04-20-2017 6:50 AM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
That led me to coelacanths which also show up in fossil form over quite a long period in the Geo Time Scale, from Devonian through Tertiary, and then surprised everybody by also turning up living in this world, all of them varying only very slightly from one to another, the same kind of situation as the trilobites. There are probably other similar examples, of fossils that appear in a large range of "time periods" showing hardly any morphological/genetic changes. Those called "living fossils" seem to follow the same pattern.

This SHOULD raise the question why it is assumed that of two entirely different creatures appearing in the Geo Column one on top of the other that the upper evolved from the lower, no matter how much morphological difference would have to evolve for that to be true, such as mammals from reptiles, of course with nary a transitional to further the case (of course you'd need dozens of transitionals but I digress). And yet there go the trilobites and the coelacanths up the column from time period to time period remaining recognizably themselves without a hint of becoming anything other than a trilobite or a coelacanth.

Yes I know this is rationalized, it's just a "slow evolving" animal. Sure, with the ToE you can just define away any obvious problems. The fact that some creatures are thought to have made gigantic evolutionary jumps based only on their brief appearance in the geologic record should reasonably raise the question why others stay the same through time period after time period for hundreds of millions of years, with only the minor changes we see all the time in nature, otherwise known as microevolution.

One of the problems with this line of thinking is that trilobites are remarkably diverse. They most emphatically did not stay the same during their evolution. They remained trilobites, yes, but they also remained animals. The only reason why the first statement seems significant to you but the second does not, is that you're familiar with the diversity of animals in general, but not with that of trilobites.

The smallest known trilobite is a fraction of a centimetre long; the largest a metre. The majority look like bottom dwellers, but some have the stream-lined bodies of long-range swimmers. They have different types of eyes - some have none at all. Of those that have them, some have them on stalks, some close to the skull, some in weird cylindrical forms that appear to offer stereoscopic division. Some have 1 lens, some have tens of thousands. In some, the lenses are all covered by one big cornea; in others there is a seperate cornea for each eye. The difference between some trilobite eyes is much greater than the difference between yours and that of a salmon.

It's also important to bear in mind that the known diversity of trilobites, large as it is, is not the whole story. And I say this not only because of all the types we have presumably not discovered, but because our image of a trilobite is really the image of its hard shell - not the whole animal - since this is what fossilises. The below is a trilobite from the Burgess Shale - the very famous Cambrian fossil bed which preserves a lot of soft parts.

The most remarkable thing about this fossil is that it clearly has legs. Most reconstructions of trilobites you see do not ave visible legs. This might partly be due to the fairly sensible idea that if legs weren't armoured they would be small and hidden beneath the shell - for reasons of defence - but the main reason is simply because they're usually not noticeable in fossils.

Incidentally, the same website where I found the above picture has a nice image of hypostome variation in trilobites. The hypostome is the sheild by (presumably) the mouth on the underside of trilobites, so is not something you normally see depicted. Note that they are rather different from one another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 6:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:32 PM caffeine has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 328 of 1352 (805771)
04-20-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
It was the Reformers reviewing that history of the papacy who came to the conclusion that he (each Pope who accepts that title from then on) is the Antichrist, through evidence gathered down the centuries of his antichristian edicts among other things.

I believe it was actually Gregory the Great (a pope) who is first known to have equated the claim to be universal bishop with the antichrist. Which is ironic, given that he is known for doing more than anyone else to lay the ground for the Bishop of Rome to assume that title.

Either way, I am sympathetic to your claim that it's silly to describe Christians who lived centuries before the Reformation as Catholic or Protestant in the modern sense. But the version of history you present, which seems to be popular on the internet, is equally silly. Phocas' recognition of the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church should be understood in terms of the struggle for dominance between the Roman Bishop and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The establishment of a formal church hierarchy was already long complete by this point - now they were just fighting over who was in charge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 9:23 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 329 of 1352 (805773)
04-20-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
Faith writes:

jar writes:

Please present the Declaration from 606AD that proclaimed the Pope as Antichrist.

Emperor Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop in 606 AD. The idea of a Universal Bishop is completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity by introducing an autocratic authority. It was the Reformers reviewing that history of the papacy who came to the conclusion that he (each Pope who accepts that title from then on) is the Antichrist, through evidence gathered down the centuries of his antichristian edicts among other things.

So once again you admit you are simply lying. There was no declaration of the Pope as Antichrist in 606AD and in fact it is only some modern Christian Cults that make such silly claims.

And it was some guy named Jesus who created the Apostolic Succession which is followed by much of Christianity today whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

And you also again show your ignorance claiming Christianity itself is not and has not always been autocratic. You can't get more autocratic than claiming authority from God. Kinda the same thing King James tried to market as the Divine Right of Kings. You know, the guy that authorized the King James Version of the Bible.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:34 PM jar has responded
 Message 333 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 4:41 PM jar has responded
 Message 358 by Admin, posted 04-21-2017 7:48 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26300
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 330 of 1352 (805777)
04-20-2017 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by caffeine
04-20-2017 3:58 PM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that trilobites are remarkably diverse. They most emphatically did not stay the same during their evolution.

And here I was SO careful not to say anything that would imply I think they "stayed the same." Sigh. I said they varied. Now maybe you think I should have said they varied a LOT? They look to me like they varied about as much as any creature does through microevolution. Perhaps somewhat more, which I would explain as their being antediluvian, when there was more genetic diversity in all creatures.

The main point I'm trying to make is that they span hundreds of millions of years with a normal degree of microevolution or variation and show NO signs of evolving beyond their Kind. NONE. Whereas reptiles show up in the geologic record for a lot less time and although they are far more complex creatures than a trilobite they are assumed to have evolved in gigantic leaps utterly transforming all their organs and their basic structure into those of mammals. WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE of such a transformation, nothing to prove that a reptile is anything but a reptile and a mammal a mammal without any genetic relation between them. Just an assumption.

AGAIN I KNOW THIS CAN BE RATIONALIZED AWAY, but NOT reasonably. It's the creatures in the fossil record that persist the longest that also evolve the least. That is a highly significant fact that gets ignored. By contrast we have huge leaps in evolution ASSUMED between reptile and mammal, though the reptile shows up only a fraction of the time trilobites do. Not a hint of trilobite transformation beyond its essential trilobite-ness, which is clearly EVIDENT in the fossil record itself, but a HUGE leap in transformation from reptile to mammal? Not evidenced but assumed. COME ON! You are just getting lost in the irrelevant details.

They remained trilobites, yes, but they also remained animals. The only reason why the first statement seems significant to you but the second does not, is that you're familiar with the diversity of animals in general, but not with that of trilobites.

Eh? Huh? Wot? I made my point above. They are SHOWN in a whole series of time periods with changes consistent with ordinary variation through all that time, and those that do NOT persist through any great length of time, that also have no evidence whatever for any transformation at all, are assumed to be the ancestors of an antirely different kind of animal. COME ON!

The smallest known trilobite is a fraction of a centimetre long; the largest a metre. The majority look like bottom dwellers, but some have the stream-lined bodies of long-range swimmers. They have different types of eyes - some have none at all. Of those that have them, some have them on stalks, some close to the skull, some in weird cylindrical forms that appear to offer stereoscopic division. Some have 1 lens, some have tens of thousands. In some, the lenses are all covered by one big cornea; in others there is a seperate cornea for each eye. The difference between some trilobite eyes is much greater than the difference between yours and that of a salmon.

I grant that is a lot of variation, but I would put all of it into the built-in trilobite genome assuming the much greater genetic diversity in ancient creatures that has been severely decreased since the Flood. All those variations do not appear to be gradations over generations, but complete systems in themselves. I would also point out that the BASIC STRUCTURE of the trilobite remains unchanged and that is what defines the Kind, not its various faculties and organs.

The reptile, however, has to change its essential structure to become a mammal.

It's also important to bear in mind that the known diversity of trilobites, large as it is, is not the whole story. And I say this not only because of all the types we have presumably not discovered, but because our image of a trilobite is really the image of its hard shell - not the whole animal - since this is what fossilises. The below is a trilobite from the Burgess Shale - the very famous Cambrian fossil bed which preserves a lot of soft parts.

It's nice to find out you know so much about trilobites. I grant the enormous variation, but it doesn't change my point. None of that variation even given ten times the time to evolve that the reptile supposedly had (I'm guessing because I don't want to go look it up right now) REMAINED CLEARLY A TRILOBITE, all of them, all those great variations are still trilobites.

But the fossil record is supposed to show us actual evolution from one species to another, which cannot be shown any other way. Living animals don't have time to evolve that much though many of them do show a lot of variation. You would think that given that enormous amount of time we'd see something that is becoming something other than a trilobite since we're told that the mammal which is SO different from the reptile is the result of far less evolutionary time.

I'm sure you get my point. I do have reasoning behind it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 3:58 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 4:49 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 336 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 4:55 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
91NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017