An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[PLAYER57832]

Originally posted in the forum thread below and reposted here because it pertains to this topic of the theory of evoloution not being factual but a myth of science.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&p=4182949#p4182949



I would add to Universalchiro's statement that the Geological Sedimentary Column is NOT Science fact but presented as truth that Evolution of life did happen on this planet when in fact it is only proof that heavier sediments drop faster than lighter sediments in a world wide flood like situation. That is all that it proves. Why Scientist and Teachers continue to lie to us and to small school children (innocent trusting minds) must be out of pride and unwilling to say that they are wrong. Or probably for fear of losing their employments if they did teach the truth, as has happened repeatedly when Teachers do teach the truth to children, they simply get fired.

The above is just plain false, on several fronts, and goes a long way to explain why creationism is not just "another idea", but a real and true THREAT to science and, ultimately, to our way of life which is very much heavily based upon science. More importantly, solving the world's problems depends on understanding science.

.... or pretending that God teaches us to just pray for miracles whenever things get rough, which is a very serious distortion of the Bible, but very much what many who are behind the proliferation of creationism seem to think. That is, they are fine with humans continuing to destroy the earth and not understand its processes, because to them, that just means God will return more quickly. Its NOT a biblical theology, its a pretended biblical theology.

Anyway, first, the "column" presented uses dates that have little to do with modern understanding of Earth's time scale and development. Second, that this is just not how the geologic column is used. Its why so many of us have more or less let your claims about the "geologic column" go, because nothing you are talking about is anything scientists really say or use. What you are putting forward is a false idea, misunderstandings and intentional distortions which anti-science folks then dispute as some kind of "proof" that science is just wrong. The column is not, as claimed used to prove evolution, nor was it developed as stated above.

The fact is that the Geo. Column only exist in text books and not in real life. If the sedimentary Column was in fact real it would reach down 150 miles into the earth. Also for some reason, you can't find some layers in some parts of the world where they do appear in others??? What happened there for those millions of years? In some columns certain creatures are found in a certain layer while in other columns in other parts of the world, the same creatures are found in completely different layers of those columns. Can anyone explain how that could happen over millions of Years of sediments? No because it's a bullshit lie that they tell us in school.

LOL

to begin, as noted, there is not one, uniform, "geologic column", not really. Instead, we have many, many series of columns and records. Some are quite visible to the naked eye along stream canyons or road cuts. Others records have been obtained through core samples.. some into the ocean or lakes, some on currently dry land. BUT, left alone, they give only very limited information.

What is missed is how thoroughly all of this has been tied together and how.

I will go simple, because going into all of it is more than any one person can do in several volumes, never mind a relatively short internet post.

Anyway, take the most modern examples. Science always works from the known to the unknown, usually forward back because we tend to know more about modern and less about more ancient times (with a few exceptions). Anyway, look at the most recent Icelandic volcanic eruption. It spread ash over a very, very wide area, probably all the Earth, but for simplicity sake, say just a "wide area". Anyway, we know exactly when that eruption happened, and we have instruments to identify the ash very precisely.
Similar events have happened all over the world at various times. Mt St Helens.... even Mt Vesuvious (the one associated with Pompeii). These happened in recorded human history and are therefore very, very verifiable through multiple sources. We can readily see exactly what happens to that sediment int he times between eruptions. Now, the above sentences try to claim that no such markers happen, that the sediments just filter down, depending on how heavy they are.

Its not just volcanoes, though. Floods, even massive windstorms... ALL leave known traces and markers that are identifiable. The sites you look to wish to claim none of that data exists, that no one bothered to verify or really study it. Why would they offer such a flat out lie? If they have real information that refutes what these thousands of geologists have found over many decades, in some cases over centuries, then why do they insist on pretending that the data and research just never happened, that all geology is essentially just some invention of a group of folks with an agenda? And what agenda? To refute Christianity is one they often put forward, but the REAL truth is that many, many of those scientists are actually believing Christians!!! Why the lies by young earthers? Why the heavy distortion and denial of evidence if they are truly representing Christ and truth and reality?

Again, I have kept it simple and direct, but make no mistake EVERYTHING I have put forward is fully verifiable by not just a few select pretended "Christian" sites (no one who puts forward flat lies can claim to represent Christ truly!), but by multiple evidence-based sites.

The fact is that the sedimentary column did not take millions of years to form but happened rather quickly in a world wide flood. That is the only explanation that answer these questions. The G. Column was created by believers of the Bible to explain a world wide flood and then later it was perverted by so called, "men of science" to show how evolution happened when there is really no proof what so ever that evolution of life ever happen on this or any other world what so ever!!!

More distortions. In fact, that the entire "geologic column" happened just from Noah's flood very much IS proven false.. not just disputed, but flat out false. See, we DO know what happens with floods, even very large floods. Floods are not that uncommon an occurance. Certainly, a flood the size of Noah's flood is unique, but nothing in such an event would show the multiple layers of wide evidence that exists to show how old the Earth is.. and note, the age of the Earth and whether evolution happened are two very different questions.

That is yet another falsehood in the above. See, the whole claim that the "geologic column" is proof of evolution is just wrong. Layers of sediment are used to date strata, to date various layers and, ultimately, to date the Earth. Evolution is based on fossils. But, there are many, many areas and strata that don't have fossils and that still can be dated, that provide evidence of Earth's history or landform processes. Fossils only happen in very specific circumstances. Where they occur, they can be used, in conjunction with information about various layers to establish a relative time frame. However, to find what the fossils are requires looking at other data, comparing to other fossils, and establishing any kind of date, even a relative time frame, requires comparison to other data. To place a relative set of strata in an absolute time frame requires far more evidence and proof.

That is, if I say that Johnny is ten years older than his brother and 20 years younger than his dad, then I know that his brother is also 30 years younger than their dad. That is a relative time frame. it is accurate, but that relative frame would be accurate whether Johnny were born 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 500 years ago. If I take a core sample from a lake bottom, I can see that the top layer is younger than the next layer and so forth, but to actually date it, or place the location, I would have to either know where the sample was from or have some other way of verifying/tying the sample into real time data. All the above paragraphs are really saying is that we have many disjointed samples and many places that don't tie together well or at all. HOWEVER, what they don't say is that there are places where we have a pretty complete record. Omitting that type of information is not just a minor glitch. Its pretty major. In fact, it flat out makes the article you posted a lie.

Check out this quote...


Misconception No. 1.
The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

Even if this opinion were true, no evidence has been presented... and, no, the following is not evidence

The Truth:
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.

Whether these guys were or were not creationist hardly matters. It was 1860. Most of the information we have was utterly unknown, a lot of the technology used to make modern determinations were not even invented. Personally, if these guys were Christian and scientists, then I think they would be dismayed to find their names tied to a pack of flat out liars and science disputers. In fact, I suspect they would consider it blasphemy.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm

[PLAYER57832]

2. And FYI viruses do change, look at how new diseases rise every now and then. These are due to mutations in these creatures.

But they are still viruses and not birds or turtles.

Mutation is not the evolution of a species. Otherwise people with cancer are not dying but simply evolving because of mutation. Cancer cells are a form of mutated cells in the body. Not some type of new cells but old cells that can reproduce themselves the way that they used to so the reproduce themselves as Cancerous (Mutated) cells.

LOL

Cancer cells can be said to be mutated cells, but the fact that people die from it pretty much goes against the idea of evolution. See, evolution requires passing on the genes to progeny.

BUT... the truth is what you propose is actually possible, (its just not what is happening in cancers we see right now). IF the cancer were to somehow provide some kind of benefit, even a temporary one, AND if it were carried into progeny, then it could be potentially some kind of evolution. The false part is that this is not happening with cancer. Cancer is killing, not providing a benefit and generally not being passed on. (though there might be a genetic component to many cancers, they also tend to require environmental impetus).

Actually, we HAVE seen these kinds of evolution changes. For example, there is a tribe of isolated individuals, very inbred, who all have "ostrich"-like feet. (feet that are divided and that look a lot like ostriches) Its a result of heavy inbreeding. In fact, any isolated group will tend to have its own unique "look", though generally not as distinct as ostrich feet. If you go to a town in Sweden, people will generally look different than people in a small town in Germany, and certainly different than in China. That IS evolution. However, bringing in human evolution complicates things, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that genetics and biology can only explain so much... mostly form, not "spirit", not how we actually think and the things that make us truly human.

[Viceroy63]

As to the question about Organs that apparently do not have a purpose...

Just because we can't figure out what that purpose is does not mean that it does not have a purpose. The human appendix was though to never have a purpose. A vestigial organ that man could live without. A throw back from man's earlier evolutionary stage of development. Today we know that the Appendix serves a great purpose in helping to fight disease because it is a part of the human immunity system. All those surgeries were unnecessary and harmful in the long run. Those people got sick easier and died sooner than expected.

On that topic I found this video if you care to watch...

You are right that just because we can't figure out a purpose, that it doesn't have any. But that same statement can be somewhat turned upside down. It's not because other organs have purposes that all of them do. I'd still like to see you explain male nipples or wisdom teeth.
Or look at this video for an example of inefficiency:



Also I just want to say that if a virus mutates, the difference is a lot more significant than if a human would mutate. This is purely because a virus is a lot smaller. It has a lot less building blocks.

"Evolution can't go back to the drawing board, evolution has no foresight." Those were the last words spoken by Dawkins at the end of the video.

If we assume that evolution is the cause of this then why is evolution so precise in the removal of other assumed articles of our bodies? If we once had tails and now we do not because evolution had found that unnecessary then why is it that now we have an unnecessary nerve that goes through so long a route just to do a simple job? Why has evolution not done something about that by now? Supposedly we do not have eyes like Dogs or lower life forms that only see in Black and white but more developed eyes. Yet This three foot long nerve continues with us as evidence of evolution??? It just doesn't make sense.

Many parts of our bodies have multiple features that do a variety of work. The same mouth that we speak with, we also eat with and even make love with. I am talking about a kiss on the lips. lol. The same ear that provides us with the sense of hearing and participates in our communications also serve to help us maintain our balance while walking or standing upright. The same hand that can provide a loving and kind caress can also be balled into a fist in anger and hit some one hard. So it is with many of God's creations through the planet and the animal kingdom. They often serve multiple purposes.

I don't know what the reason for this long nerve to go through our chest from our brains to our vocal chords is for? but I know that a nerve is like a telegraph or telephone line used for communication. Just like a high way of information that makes several stops along the way so do Telephone and telegraph lines for different reasons. Of course now we live in a wireless environment but before now, when telephone lines ruled the world, it was not unheard of that a telephone call from New York to Boston would have to be routed through Chicago. For what ever the reason. And I am sure that just as myself, You have discovered routes home that while they may not be the shortest way home are the quickest. Or routes that permitted you to do something else on the way home?

Now all the communications are routed through satellites perhaps hundreds of miles away in the opposite direction but still get the call through to where you want it to go. One may argue, Why not just built a line that goes directly to where you need to get through and not realize that the satellite is actually doing more than just one job. Perhaps that same satellite transferring your call to Grandma's house in the USA is also spying on Communist Red Russia while helping to guide nuclear missiles to Yellow North Korea? Who knows? But if that is how your phone call needs to be made then that's the way that the phone call needs to be made.

We don't yet know why that long nerve goes through the chest instead of a more direct route. One day we will! But until then, we can't be as narrow minded as Dawkins to presume that this one long nerve is only doing just one job from our brains to our vocal chords. It is not a question of a design flaw in evolution, but a question of what else is this nerve doing that we still have not yet figured out. I am sure that even when this is figured out People like dawkins will still charge God with being stupid and uncaring and even evil, as he has stated many times in his career. Perhaps not with those exact words though but with that very same spirit.

[PLAYER57832]

According to the theory, the Geological Sedimentary Column represents hundreds of millions of years of earth's history. Some 600 million years in total actually.

Currently, its believed the earth is about 4.5 BILLION years old, not a mere 600 million... quite an error for an article claiming to be putting forward the real truth!

The Cambrian Explosion is supposedly to have happen some 600 million years ago when according to the theory, life began on the earth. Before then, there is absolutely nothing and it is assumed that single cell organisms existed in the pre-mordial soups of hydrogen/methane rich gas and oceans of our world.

Not even close to true. The first fossils appeared 3.5 million years ago, well before the "Cambrian explosion". MORE falsehoods!

This article talks about even earlier evidence, though more tentative. That is, the evidence is real, the conclusions given are real and based on evidence, but the conclusions might well be wrong. http://garvandwane.com/evolution/when.html
THAT is how real science is presented... "here is the evidence"... "here is how we see it and why".. "here is our conclusion". Not, oh, so and so claims this, but they are lying about having this evidence..... never mind its very easily found by even the most basic google search), and the real truth is that they never even bothered to investigate what we are saying (technically perhaps true in that most scientists don't try to reinvent the wheel over and over, but not true in that, again even a basic google search shows that the "new evidence" or "overlooked evidence" really was not overlooked, it was disproven!

Some how these single cell organisms evolved over millions of years till the Cambrian explosion of new life forms. Of course there is no evidence of the in-between, intermediate species between the single cell organisms and the creatures that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion or proliferation of new and completely formed life forms??? Yet the Precambrian period is clearly identified in the sedimentary column.

OOPS, wrong again!... check this out!
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... ossils.htm

and this:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... ossils.htm

The Cambrian Period lasted for over 100 million years and then those creatures supposedly died out giving way to the next step in the assumed evolutionary steps of life. A good study of the theory of evolution reveals that death is the mechanism that drives evolution onward. Those species more apt to survive produce off-springs that are equally more adaptable to their environment evolving into more highly adaptable creatures better suited for survivable. Or so the theory goes.

Hmm... nice twisting of a real truth.
Species that survive do pass on traits.
Mutations and adaptations do tend to give some species advantages, BUT the truth is not such a linear, easy story. The chance of a mutation providing a benefit AND being passed onto progeny is itself pretty small. As long as the environment stays the same, the changes tend to be pretty slow. However, when things change, then a lot of creatures get killed and sometimes even a small advantage can mean the difference between life and death. (think of a sports environment.. .if you live in an area without much heavy competition, you may luck out and have a "star", but the better players can have a hard time excelling, can be held back by a team of not so good players (in evolutionary terms the not so well adapted still reproduce). If, to contrast, you go to an area with a LOT of competition, then you wind up with the poorer players leaving (in evolution, it would be dying off) or forming separate teams. And, you wind up with perhaps a whole team of very good players. The best may well wind up being recruited for the pros, eventually. (yeah, its an imperfect analogy, but perhaps better for its imperfections in a way, because just like success on a sports team is not guaranteed, even with the best of talents, so is success in evolution not guaranteed, no matter how wonderful the traits)

So, anyway, you get more and more specialized creatures, plus a few that have managed to hang on somehow without specializing so much. Then, things change and... guess what happens to all those wonderfully specialized and fully adapted creatures? They DIE OFF! BUT.... whatever survives gets to reproduce and spread, go through the whole process all over, under the new conditions. Evolution is not driven by death, its driven by mutation and adaptation to change. Its the survivors, not those that die that determine evolution..and those that survive are only "best" in a very particular sense, just like a baseball player is only "best" in a particular narrow skill.. not life in general necessarily.

The Cambrian period gave rise to creatures fully capable of survival for at the very least 100 millions years before they gave way to the Ordovician Period with their more highly evolved life forms better suited for survivable than the Cambrian creatures were. Those creatures then lived for another 50 million years before giving rise to those creatures of the Silurian Period, and so on and so on and so on until we eventually get to our modern age where the more highly and most advance creatures live at the top or more recent layer of the Sedimentary Column.

Not even close.
See, its not that the creatures just happened to become better, more evolved and replaced those that came before. Major climatic and other changes forced the adaptations, forced evolution to happen, as noted above. The species "best adapted" to Cambrian times could not always survive later. That is the key part missing in the above, and a part that turns the above from truth into well, a half piece of garbage.

This is supposedly why we do not see Trilobites of the Cambrian Period in the next level of the Sedimentary Column known as the Ordovician period which lasted some 55 millions years. They simply were not apt to survival and died off. In fact you never see any of the creatures from the preceding period in the next level after that. And almost hardly ever see any fossilized vegetation in most of the layers, except perhaps for one or two of the periods.

Again, partially true, but enough wrong to make the whole a falsehood. The claim that "you never see any creatures from the preceding period in the next level" is just wrong. We have horseshoe crabs, bluegreen algae, nautilus and sea lamprey today. All were seen in earlier time periods. However, nautilus were very common once and are now pretty rare. Different species have dominated in different time periods, but traces still very much DO remain.

And,we do have plants from many of those time periods. The thing is, a lot of fossils formed in deep waters, because the sedimentary process within such environments are more likely to produce fossils. Its "harder" for a creature to become a fossil on land than in the water, essentially, and most higher level plants do and have live on land, not so much in the oceans, particularly deeper water oceans. (whether fresh or salty)

Surprisingly however there are found fossilized trees that actually cut through several layers of the sedimentary column. In other words, these trees must have lived for hundreds of millions of years before being completely buried by hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary deposits??? Or is there another explanation?

This claim is often made. I dug up the reality a ways back, but since its unlikely you will bother to even answer this post, I am not going to bother to go back again, I will just go from memory.

Some of the claims about protrusions were just plain wrong, that is, it was not a tree, it was another rock deposit, either magma (melted rock, basically .. "lava") or sediments that fell, were pushed up into a crack, etc.

In other cases the sediments around the "tree" were just not as old as claimed, etc, etc, etc. IN other words, none of these supposed mysteries really are, but they make nice creationist tales and so get perpetuated, never mind the truth.

In order for anything to be fossilized it has to be immersed in mud or earth. And as far an anyone knows, Trees simply do not live for millions of years as they are gradually buried under the earth by dirt deposits. If that's the case then even today we should see half buried trees from millions of years ago still alive and waiting to be fossilized under the earth eventually. But we don't.

No one is making the above claim except creationists. These trees were not gradually buried over millions of years. (but trees can live for thousands of years)

There is one possible explanation but it is not taught in any school or even mentioned. Is it possible that a world wide diluvial flood, buried those trees as the earthly sediments dropped and buried them, the heavier sediments forming the first layers followed by the not so heavier layers of sedimentary sand and then the lighter ones. The sea life that lived at the bottom of the ocean would be the first ones to be buried and fossilized follow by fish and then other classifications of life forms. That's all that the Sedimentary Column is, a classification of life forms and not evolution.

No, this is not taught because its absolutely not possible, not the truth. You just don't see that pattern, though a lot of creationist websites spend a lot of time trying to claim they do. The truth is that the patterns left by floods are well understood and that the layers we see all around us are not all from floods, particularly not from one big flood.

Sediments do fall out in a particular pattern, but not the way this author tries to claim. We just don't see a layer of fines followed by larger and larger sediments, as you do pretty much see in floods. We see multiple mixed layers with a variety of patterns, including many, many individual floods, but also volcanic eruptions, windstorms, and erosion events.

The reptiles could have floated for a while, their dead bodies decomposing until they finally dropped. Mammals are creatures full of all kinds of bacteria and viruses causing the bodies to bloat up and float for ever, finally being the last of the classifications of animals to sink to the newly forming layer of sediments to be fossilized and in the end be compounded in some mythical theory of evolution?

No, not at all possible.

Many fossils, for example, are not found within hydrologically based sediments at all. We have things encased in volcanic layers, in clearly wind-driven layers. Even those that are found within riparian or oceanic sediments are found in sediments far too varied to even remotely suggest a single flood.

This would definitely explain how trees could cover several layers of sediments in the Geological Strata Column. The official word for the Column is the Geological Sedimentary Column. And if you look up the word "Sediments" it refers to...

Again, an attempt to insert some truth... definition of sediment... to make it seem as if the above absolute garbage were based somehow on fact. Its not. Having the correct definition of a few words doesn't undo a myriad of distortions such as we see above.

Sediments:
1. Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid; lees.
2. Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sediments

... So water has to do with Sediment build up. Perhaps a lot of water as in a world wide flood?

Not even fully correct. Some sediments are born by water, but they can also be wind-born, etc.

An easy experiment to test this hypothesis would be to just get a mammal like a rat and a reptile like a salamander and drop them into a big water bottle and just drown them. What you would see is that the iguana or salamander would drop first every single time. The rat would bloat and float for a very long time before the gases explode and sink the rat to the bottom where the Iguana would be decomposing away.

And that proves that all the sediments seen are from a big flood?

Set aside the idiocy of the idea that because a salamander (not even a reptile, by-the-way) might drop first that means that all mammals would sink later... I mean, this "experiment" proves nothing but whether a salamander or iguana (which IS a reptile, by-the way, unlike the salamander) is denser than a rat.

If you add different kinds of dirt to the water bottle (Sand, dirt, clay, what ever you can find) and then mix it all up like one of those "Christmas snowy globes" you would then see the same formation of sedimentary layers as there are in real life geologic strata.

Essentially true.

The heavier sediments would sink to the bottom first followed by the next heaviest types of dirt/sand. And if you put enough dirt so that the dead creatures could be buried in those strata and just let it sit for a few years, you would see the petrification process of the bones. It does not take long for something to turn into rock. Certainly not millions of years.

Wow! amazing how much utter misinformation can be squeezed into a couple of sentences!!!!!
Most importantly, yes, heavier sediments do fall out before lighter sediments, but that is not the pattern we see all across the Earth. It is instead the patter we see in individual floods. Rather ironic that they take a process understood so well and try to claim that what we see all over the earth is that. Just about every place on Earth is prone to flooding, so yes, you do see that kind of pattern frequently. What you don't see is a single, uniform layer or pattern covering the entire globe. Not saying the flood did not happen, but that we don't have evidence that it did, never mind that the flood could possibly explain all the geologic layers. We plain know they did not come about that way. Anyone saying there is such evidence is just plain lying. Flat, "no holds barred" LYING!!!!

Then we get into the whole "you would see the petrification process". Most likely, the bones would just disintegrate. That is what most commonly happens. If that did not happen, then you might see them bleach or go through some other chemical changes. The possibilities are numerous. Way down the chain of possibilities is that the bones might become fossils.

And no one claims it takes millions of years to form a fossil. The claim is that fossils have LASTED for millions of years.

If we were just only talking about one or two trees then I could understand the oddity of the possibility of a great world wide flood being the cause of this "Polystrate Fossils." But we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of trees found like this all over the world and at the same time with the same age range. That makes me wonder, "Hmmmm, World Wide Flood!"

More like "world wide liar", because it just is not true.

But what really makes me wonder a lot is why is not any of this taught in the schools to those little children? But man, is that theory of evolution and dinosaurs shoved down their throats till they believe it?! Almost like brain washing the innocent little children (minds) and training them, what to think rather than how to think.

hmm, yeah.. as opposed to the idea that every scientist on Earth is a misguided unbelieving liar.... yeah, teaching kids that is not anything like brain washing

Another thing that is hardly mention is that while we do not see any of those trilobites creatures from the Cambrian period in any other layers of sediments, those creatures still exist today. Many of them are referred to as "Living Fossils." But how can that be? Are we not taught in schools that they died out millions of years ago?

LOL First make this claim, a false claim, as "evidence", and now turn around and say that the "evidence" that this author used is itself false!!!!
TRUTH:
http://www.trilobites.info/lasttrilos.htm

Although the Trilobita went entirely extinct at the end of the Permian (251 million years ago [mya]), when >90% of all species on the planet were extinguished, the pattern of decline for trilobites had been significant since the end of the Ordovocian. By the end of the Devonian (359 mya), the last of the Phacopidae went extinct, ending the order Phacopida. All of the orders of trilobites had gone extinct, except for one: the Proetida. This order persisted into the Carboniferous (with two superfamilies represented: Aulacopleuroidea and Proetoidea. There was even a major adaptive radiation among the family Phillipsiidae (especially various subfamilies such as Phillipsiinae and Ditomopyginae) in the early Carboniferous, as changes in the world's continents created expanding habitat opportunities. But the number of taxa fell dramatically after the Mid-Carboniferous, and by the start of the Permian (299 mya), only the families Brachymetopidae, Phillipsiidae, and Proetidae remained. The table below lists all of the trilobite genera that existed in the Permian, and indicates when these genera became extinct.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_trilobites_exist_today?
Answer:
Answer: yes they do! 2 years ago while swimming with my faamily at the beach, we saw them. like a 100 times we see them. they're so creepy with black eyes and coated in sand.
Wrong Answer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Answer: No, Trilobites do not live today, they went extinct at the end of the permian,over 250million years ago. There are however many species of crustacean alive today that weakly bare resemblance to trilobites however.
Most notable of these, and what Mr or Mrs Wrong above probably saw, were either tadpole shrimp or serolid isopod.
But with that said, most Brachiopoda share some resemblance. I cant believe this answer has been up or so long without ^^^ that being corrected.
crazy. Hope this helps ease any confusion or madness.

Just because a creature looks like a trilobite does not mean it is one! Why would someone claiming to promote truth bother with such a big lie?

Further, even if trilobites DID still exist, would that disprove anything about evolutionary ideas? Only the bit about trilobites dying off! The whole idea that former species have to die for new species to come about is just fundamentally wrong, no matter how often creationists try to put that argument forward. As I said above, we have plenty of "living fossils" from the Ceolocanth to Sea Lamprey to horseshoe crabs to horsetail ferns to ferns themselves, to redwood trees.... etc, etc, etc.

So how can they still be alive and why don't we see them in any other of the layers especially right there where Man is or where the dinosaurs are?

They are not and were not alive. They died off well before humans. Also, most trilobites were ocean going species and humans don't do well under water.

And why don't we see birds in layers before the dinosaurs since we now know for a fact that birds existed before Archeopteryx (bird creature) or any of the dinosaurs.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/bird

LOL... because the whole idea is wrong. Birds did not exist prior to dinosaurs. In fact, birds descended from some dinosaurs.

Which begs the question of how could the dinosaurs evolve into birds if the birds already existed before the dinosaurs?

They did not.

If they teach that lie to children then they simply have no shame at all. yet this is what is being taught as facts to little children and not just a theory. They certainly don't teach the facts of Polystrate fossils in school to little children because even little children can figure out what's a lie. Unless you thoroughly brain washed those young innocent minds into believing that evolution is a true fact of life.

Would be funny, except its not. Brainwashing means turning away from truth. So who here is ignoring evidence? Definitely NOT the scientists!

Scientists have made errors, many times. But that makes science grow and move. Only creationists pretend that a single error means all related fields and every piece of information stemming from those fields are false. Only creationists are so capable of pretending that truth doesn't exist and that lies are really truth.

[PLAYER57832]

"Evolution can't go back to the drawing board, evolution has no foresight." Those were the last words spoken by Dawkins at the end of the video.

If we assume that evolution is the cause of this then why is evolution so precise in the removal of other assumed articles of our bodies?

Your assumptions are just wrong on many counts. You begin with an utter misunderstanding of evolution and they try to use that misunderstanding to prove various other misconceptions. Untying the knot of what you call logic requires that you actually consider your basic assumptions AND each step in the process.

Instead, you just jump from one supposed point to another.. .and never bother to answer or justify much of anything.

[Dukasaur]

Player, I really admire your patience.

I may criticize you for a lot of things, but your patience is commendable.

Herculean, even, in this thread.

[chang50]

Player, I really admire your patience.

I may criticize you for a lot of things, but your patience is commendable.

Herculean, even, in this thread.

Perhaps cc should strike a new class of medal for forum users who show extraordinary perserverance in the face of creationist nonesense.Crispy would also qualify in this category.We should salute them..

[TA1LGUNN3R]

This thread pains me so...

-TG

[Viceroy63]

This thread pains me so...

-TG

I had no idea you were a masochist? I am more than happy to hurt you. Please continue to read this thread and don't stop; Ever! I'll be sure to post more in the future just for you.

[tzor]

"Evolution can't go back to the drawing board, evolution has no foresight." Those were the last words spoken by Dawkins at the end of the video.

If we assume that evolution is the cause of this then why is evolution so precise in the removal of other assumed articles of our bodies? If we once had tails and now we do not because evolution had found that unnecessary then why is it that now we have an unnecessary nerve that goes through so long a route just to do a simple job? Why has evolution not done something about that by now? Supposedly we do not have eyes like Dogs or lower life forms that only see in Black and white but more developed eyes. Yet This three foot long nerve continues with us as evidence of evolution??? It just doesn't make sense.

The problem is in the choice of the word "necessary." Having something that is not necessary isn't a problem. Having something that is undesirable is a problem. At one point tails became undesirable. Those with smaller tails had a better chance than those with longer tails given the changes that were made in response to environmental conditions. Then (because we are talking DNA genetics here) something "clicked" and the tail became completely dormant. Thus we have many "unnecessary" things but since they don't cause anything undesirable they continue to exist. Note that for purposes of evolution, undesirable simply means until breeding age. If you have kids it doesn't matter that you self destruct some ten years later and some genetic disorders propagate their way through humanity because of this.

Many parts of our bodies have multiple features that do a variety of work. The same mouth that we speak with, we also eat with and even make love with. I am talking about a kiss on the lips. lol. The same ear that provides us with the sense of hearing and participates in our communications also serve to help us maintain our balance while walking or standing upright. The same hand that can provide a loving and kind caress can also be balled into a fist in anger and hit some one hard. So it is with many of God's creations through the planet and the animal kingdom. They often serve multiple purposes.

I think you are confusing versatility of function with multipurpose. You are also confusing organ proximity with multipurpose. The part of the ear that detects sound is not the same exact part of the ear that maintains balance; they just happen to be next to each other.

We don't yet know why that long nerve goes through the chest instead of a more direct route. One day we will! But until then, we can't be as narrow minded as Dawkins to presume that this one long nerve is only doing just one job from our brains to our vocal chords. It is not a question of a design flaw in evolution, but a question of what else is this nerve doing that we still have not yet figured out. I am sure that even when this is figured out People like dawkins will still charge God with being stupid and uncaring and even evil, as he has stated many times in his career. Perhaps not with those exact words though but with that very same spirit.

Both you and Dawkins are wrong in opposite ways. The Bible says that when everything was created God found it "good." He didn't think it was "perfect," just "good." This is the same problem we find in the time of Galileo when people just assumed that every heavenly body had to be "perfect." So when Dawkins finds non perfect functionality and proclaims that this is proof that God didn't do it; he assumes that it has to be perfect for God to make it so. Likewise when you try to go out of your way to find hidden meaning in those things that are not perfect you also assume that it has to be perfect for God to make us so.

[Viceroy63]

"Evolution can't go back to the drawing board, evolution has no foresight." Those were the last words spoken by Dawkins at the end of the video.

If we assume that evolution is the cause of this then why is evolution so precise in the removal of other assumed articles of our bodies? If we once had tails and now we do not because evolution had found that unnecessary then why is it that now we have an unnecessary nerve that goes through so long a route just to do a simple job? Why has evolution not done something about that by now? Supposedly we do not have eyes like Dogs or lower life forms that only see in Black and white but more developed eyes. Yet This three foot long nerve continues with us as evidence of evolution??? It just doesn't make sense.

The problem is in the choice of the word "necessary." Having something that is not necessary isn't a problem. Having something that is undesirable is a problem. At one point tails became undesirable. Those with smaller tails had a better chance than those with longer tails given the changes that were made in response to environmental conditions. Then (because we are talking DNA genetics here) something "clicked" and the tail became completely dormant. Thus we have many "unnecessary" things but since they don't cause anything undesirable they continue to exist. Note that for purposes of evolution, undesirable simply means until breeding age. If you have kids it doesn't matter that you self destruct some ten years later and some genetic disorders propagate their way through humanity because of this.

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails. In the Video it was shown how such a long nerve could be possible if we evolved from Fish. But sadly that is all speculation because when we look at the Fossil records, especially the Geologic Sedimentary Column, we see no evidence of this what so ever. When we look from on level of the Geologic Sedimentary Column to the next, we don't see a intermediary species from one level to the next. So that is pure speculation of how that nerve came to be 3 feet long and that we evolved from fish. There is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.

The missing link is still missing so how can we talk of this nerve evolving as if it were already a fact? It was dawkins who suggests that this nerve is unnecessary and a evidence of poor design. All I am asking is how does he know this?

[AndyDufresne]

no evidence to support

I agree with this part of your post.


--Andy

[waauw]

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails. In the Video it was shown how such a long nerve could be possible if we evolved from Fish. But sadly that is all speculation because when we look at the Fossil records, especially the Geologic Sedimentary Column, we see no evidence of this what so ever. When we look from on level of the Geologic Sedimentary Column to the next, we don't see a intermediary species from one level to the next. So that is pure speculation of how that nerve came to be 3 feet long and that we evolved from fish. There is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.

The missing link is still missing so how can we talk of this nerve evolving as if it were already a fact? It was dawkins who suggests that this nerve is unnecessary and a evidence of poor design. All I am asking is how does he know this?

Dawkins never said the nerve was unnecessary. He said it was inefficient.
Also to say there is no evidence to support the change from fish to giraffe is not true and exagerating. There is evidence, but not conclusive evidence as of yet(referring to the missing links). So you are right that it does have some degree of speculation, however in science people look at it from a vantage point of probability.

Although I have to tell you that Dawkins his statement that it is a fact, is not an opinion all scientists or all atheists hold. The reason I posted the video here is to ask what you think of it's inefficiency, not whether or not it's due to evolution. Because I do think dawkins makes a good point that an engineer(human) would not have designed a Giraffe this inefficiently.

[tzor]

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails.

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.

My offhand guess is when we left the trees and had to run like mad along the surface of the ground on two and only two legs. At first we were running away, but later we were doing long distance running to locate prey.

[Viceroy63]

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails.

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.

My offhand guess is when we left the trees and had to run like mad along the surface of the ground on two and only two legs. At first we were running away, but later we were doing long distance running to locate prey.

It's a miracle that supposed species survived at all with a tail dragging behind their legs. lol. Why develop a tail then in the first place. =)

[Viceroy63]

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails. In the Video it was shown how such a long nerve could be possible if we evolved from Fish. But sadly that is all speculation because when we look at the Fossil records, especially the Geologic Sedimentary Column, we see no evidence of this what so ever. When we look from on level of the Geologic Sedimentary Column to the next, we don't see a intermediary species from one level to the next. So that is pure speculation of how that nerve came to be 3 feet long and that we evolved from fish. There is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.

The missing link is still missing so how can we talk of this nerve evolving as if it were already a fact? It was dawkins who suggests that this nerve is unnecessary and a evidence of poor design. All I am asking is how does he know this?

Dawkins never said the nerve was unnecessary. He said it was inefficient.
Also to say there is no evidence to support the change from fish to giraffe is not true and exagerating. There is evidence, but not conclusive evidence as of yet(referring to the missing links). So you are right that it does have some degree of speculation, however in science people look at it from a vantage point of probability.

Although I have to tell you that Dawkins his statement that it is a fact, is not an opinion all scientists or all atheists hold. The reason I posted the video here is to ask what you think of it's inefficiency, not whether or not it's due to evolution. Because I do think dawkins makes a good point that an engineer(human) would not have designed a Giraffe this inefficiently.

Unless the nerve serves other purposes that we simply are not yet aware of at this time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

Like dawkins who is only making noise with the long nerve just because no one has discovered the reason for it's length as yet. People like him are only interested in publicity and there may be a deep psychosis in his emotional state of mind that for some reason he hates God and just wants to talk bad about him.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

We have since then discovered many uses for the so called useless vestigial organs. At one time the list was about 150 Vestigial organs. Only one or two from that list have yet to be accounted for.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since vestigial organs as scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is surely being destroyed by enlightened men of science willing to dig deeper into the issue, there is sure to come a time when all the evidence for the theory, and the theory itself will be nothing more than a ridiculous idea that some idiot had about 200 years ago.

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

Read this article in it's entirety at...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

[AndyDufresne]

<some sort of anatomy video>

(I love Futurama.)


--Andy

[universalchiro]

And at just what point does a tail become undesirable? And just how does a species determine that? After all monkeys have very useful and desirable tails. In the Video it was shown how such a long nerve could be possible if we evolved from Fish. But sadly that is all speculation because when we look at the Fossil records, especially the Geologic Sedimentary Column, we see no evidence of this what so ever. When we look from on level of the Geologic Sedimentary Column to the next, we don't see a intermediary species from one level to the next. So that is pure speculation of how that nerve came to be 3 feet long and that we evolved from fish. There is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.

The missing link is still missing so how can we talk of this nerve evolving as if it were already a fact? It was dawkins who suggests that this nerve is unnecessary and a evidence of poor design. All I am asking is how does he know this?

Dawkins never said the nerve was unnecessary. He said it was inefficient.
Also to say there is no evidence to support the change from fish to giraffe is not true and exagerating. There is evidence, but not conclusive evidence as of yet(referring to the missing links). So you are right that it does have some degree of speculation, however in science people look at it from a vantage point of probability.

Although I have to tell you that Dawkins his statement that it is a fact, is not an opinion all scientists or all atheists hold. The reason I posted the video here is to ask what you think of it's inefficiency, not whether or not it's due to evolution. Because I do think dawkins makes a good point that an engineer(human) would not have designed a Giraffe this inefficiently.

Unless the nerve serves other purposes that we simply are not yet aware of at this time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

Like dawkins who is only making noise with the long nerve just because no one has discovered the reason for it's length as yet. People like him are only interested in publicity and there may be a deep psychosis in his emotional state of mind that for some reason he hates God and just wants to talk bad about him.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

We have since then discovered many uses for the so called useless vestigial organs. At one time the list was about 150 Vestigial organs. Only one or two from that list have yet to be accounted for.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since vestigial organs as scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is surely being destroyed by enlightened men of science willing to dig deeper into the issue, there is sure to come a time when all the evidence for the theory, and the theory itself will be nothing more than a ridiculous idea that some idiot had about 200 years ago.

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

Read this article in it's entirety at...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

Richard Dawkins is a philosophical genius. Even though I disagree with his views, I watch/listen to as much as I can about what he says. Thoroughly enjoyable to see his mind work, albeit frustrating that our views are so polar opposites. If you have 6 minutes to spare, watch Ben Stein interview with Richard Dawkins.

Vestigial organs don't prove evolution, yet at first glance it seems too support that an organ had a function at one point, then evolved where it no longer needs that function & removes that organ, leaving a remnant. Vestigial. Until science catches up with theories and reveals there still is a purpose. For example the vestigial tail on humans. Coccyx. I will pay for the surgery of anyone who wants to remove the "vestigial tail". Why? There are many tendons for muscles that use the coccyx as an insertion point for sphincter control. So go ahead and remove this "vestigial tail" & watch how much poop comes out of you. Lol. Pun intended...
Sincerely Dr. Lawrence. (Sent via cell phone, so forgive grammar & spelling)

[Viceroy63]

I'll go one further about the so called Vestigial tail bone. As I understand it there are more muscles and tendons connected with the tail bones then any other part of the body. If we measure the importance of the bones by muscle connections and usage, then the Tailbone win hands down.

All of those muscles serves many purposes as God designs things to be muti-functional and to serve more than just one purpose. One of the purpose that all of those muscle connections serves is to be the floor board of our bottom. If we did not have all of those muscle connection forming the floor of our bottom then it is quite conceivably possible that when we sit down to take a shite, that we could simply push out all of our insides, intestines and organs, right through the opening of our bottom when we pushed.

This was already covered in the video by the way. =)

[jonesthecurl]

Could you evolve a tailbone on your intellect please?

[AndyDufresne]

Could you evolve a tailbone on your intellect please?

Jonesy wins again


--Andy

[waauw]

Could you evolve a tailbone on your intellect please?

Jonesy wins again


--Andy

you should ask 'm the function of a male nipple

[waauw]

I'll go one further about the so called Vestigial tail bone. As I understand it there are more muscles and tendons connected with the tail bones then any other part of the body. If we measure the importance of the bones by muscle connections and usage, then the Tailbone win hands down.

All of those muscles serves many purposes as God designs things to be muti-functional and to serve more than just one purpose. One of the purpose that all of those muscle connections serves is to be the floor board of our bottom. If we did not have all of those muscle connection forming the floor of our bottom then it is quite conceivably possible that when we sit down to take a shite, that we could simply push out all of our insides, intestines and organs, right through the opening of our bottom when we pushed.

This was already covered in the video by the way. =)

Just wondering here, but where in the Bible is it written that your deity designs everything multi-functional?

[SirSebstar]

[
Just wondering here, but where in the Bible is it written that your deity designs everything multi-functional?

You can always fit a theory to the existing evidence if the existing evidence does not fit the theory. It means you are always right

[waauw]

[
Just wondering here, but where in the Bible is it written that your deity designs everything multi-functional?

You can always fit a theory to the existing evidence if the existing evidence does not fit the theory. It means you are always right

You can only fit a theory to existing evidence if the theory is correct or if there is an absence of sufficient evidence.
Anyway, the reason I asked is that I wanted to know what the basis is of his theory.