The trilobite eye challenges the conventional “Geologic Time Scale.” Whenever a trilobite eye appears in the fossil record, it is super-complex. Riccardo Levi-Setti was professor of physics and director of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. He was also a research associate at the Field Museum of Natural History. His beautiful book, Trilobites, published by The University of Chicago Press, contains these words: “Among the remains of early life on earth, the fossil record we find buried in ancient sedimentary rocks bears evidence of an extraordinary group of marine creature, the trilobites. The position of these invertebrates in the evolution of the animal kingdom is extraordinary because of their early ascent to a high level of functional complexity, described in fascinating detail by their persistent and ubiquitous fossil remains. Trilobites could see their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes, the first use of optics coupled with sensory perception in nature. As a unique feat in the history of life, their eye lenses were shaped to correct for optical aberrations, with design identical to that proposed (quite independently of any knowledge of trilobites) by Descartes and Huygens. … When we humans construct optical elements, we some­times cement together two lenses that have different refrac­tive indices, as a means of correcting particular lens defects. In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery--that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century--borders on sheer science fiction.”

Continuing, “By comparing the shape of the aspheric lens exit sur­faces constructed by Huygens and Descartes with the two lens structures identified by Clarkson … little doubt remains that trilobites utilized the properties of Cartesian Ovals more than 400 million years before the seventeenth-century masters discovered the principle. ... The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure.”

Some evolutionists probably would say, “That’s okay; trilobites evolved eyes from eyeless trilobites,” but this does not seem to take into account the following. In his book, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill), Donald R. Prothero wrote: "Trilobites as a whole remained constructed on the same archetypal plan defined in the earliest Cambrian, and, especially after the Early Ordovician, changes of real significance remained surprising low." He also wrote, "Another common trend is the reduction and loss of eyes, which happened independently in several clades." Loss of eyes does not account for how the eyes got there to begin with.


It summary, super-complex trilobite eyes existed at the beginning of the so-called evolutionary process. There was “surprisingly low” change (Prothero), and what existed “borders on sheer science fiction” (Levi-Setti).

Here is evidence, therefore, that trilobites, assumed to be among the earliest of known fossils, typically had eyes of such complexity as to beg for an alternative explanation. Did they really evolve? Were they not instead designed by a marvelous Designer?

The geologic layers provide evidence for a global flood and that billions of trilobites, originally created by a wonderful Designer, were buried several thousand years ago in the very same world catastrophe. It came because of man's rebellion against God. Mercy has been extended so that people today can get right with their Creator (through the Gospel), but a future judgment is coming (2 Peter 3). This time it will be by fire.

"I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action (see "loss of eyes" below). Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one. Who would want to worship a god like that? I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief. Ignorance and intolerance damage the benefits of faith. "

- S. M. Gonn III, author ofThe Trilobite Eye

I wrote in my original post that loss-of-eyes is not evolution in the sense people normallty mean. Fish or trilobites that lose eyesight have a diminishment. Diminishment is not advance in the sense of "simple"-one-celled organisms to man. Evolution requires new information, not loss of information.

Trilobite fossils are a test of faith.

Don't let God fool you. There is no Bibically true way trilobite's could have actually existed 400 million years ago. The planet, this Universe didn't even exist then. There was only Nothing.

You wrote, "Don't let God fool you." My response is <Don't let man fool you.> There are 50 sound reasons for believing the earth is only thousands of years old--not billions. If a reader would like to learn more, he/she may send a personal email to me. If you Ezra, would like me to share one at a time, let me know.

I am very curious, what are these 50 reasons that you know of that prove the world is only a couple thousand years old??? I don't need a particular order just curious what they are?

__________________

It's surreal to wake up with a Conga line of rubber duckies lined up across your chest.

I spent a lot of money on booze, women and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

If i had to pick anyone on PB in which to have a 3-way with, it would be towelie and jedi. seriously.

I know you're new here, but depictions of people being plowed in the a$$ belong in the political forum

I was involved in a debate with Brian Richmond of George Washington University’s Anthropology Department.[i] After individual presentations, we sat as panelists responding to questions from the audience. During the video-recorded discussion, Dr. Richmond explained that there would no longer be any carbon or bone in dinosaur fossils; rock mineral would have replaced “all the original bone.”

I responded that dinosaur bones, supposedly 65 million years old, have been found with collagen still remaining. This implies a much younger age, and now, years later, this creationist’s words have been confirmed; the evolutionist’s, refuted.

A Tyrannosaurus rex femur, belonging to the skull displayed, was studied by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University. On June 30, 2005, I wrote to Dr. Schweitzer, referring to his exchange with Dr. Richmond. She graciously responded the same day, writing as follows: “…the definition of fossilization needs a bit of refining for your friend. And, a lot of redefinition now, on everyone’s part, since our current theories do not account for soft tissue and cellular preservation … some dino bone is quite high in carbon, for example. … I have spent most of my career arguing that small epitopes (fragments of protein, often only a few amino acids in length, to which antibodies might bind) may be preserved in bone. Never in my wildest dreams would I have predicted what we found.”

A report from Science Daily on April 12, 2007 does more than hint: “current theories of fossilization held that no original organic material could survive that long.”[ii] Dr. Richmond, therefore, was being true to “current theories,” but the revelation is consistent with a “young-earth” creationary position.

Young earth creationists do not believe the earth is flat; they do, however, question the assumed age of dinosaurs. Moreover, there are additional pieces of the puzzle that fit nicely into this relatively new revelation challenging “current theories.” It also reflects on the supposed great antiquity of dinosaurs.

Let me know if you would like to see reason #2 (of the 50).

[i] The date was November 20, 2003.
[ii] See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/07041 2140942.htm.

A good video on Intelligent design (and a blaphemous response)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc-bPbWHL1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQt...eature=related

There is nothing in that article that refutes the age of the dinosaur or proves anything different , So you and another guy on a panel think differently how is this fact?

__________________

It's surreal to wake up with a Conga line of rubber duckies lined up across your chest.

I spent a lot of money on booze, women and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

If i had to pick anyone on PB in which to have a 3-way with, it would be towelie and jedi. seriously.

I know you're new here, but depictions of people being plowed in the a$$ belong in the political forum

I don't understand where the blasphemy comes in, someone proved the Banana man wrong how is that blasphemous , Is the banana man God? Did he create the Banana? If not then there is no blasphemy just basic agricultural history the same evolution has happened with many items witch people assume has alway been , such as corn. Or is it blasphemous to point out that man has manipulated the plants around him?

__________________

It's surreal to wake up with a Conga line of rubber duckies lined up across your chest.

I spent a lot of money on booze, women and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

If i had to pick anyone on PB in which to have a 3-way with, it would be towelie and jedi. seriously.

I know you're new here, but depictions of people being plowed in the a$$ belong in the political forum