Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 48    Average: 2.9/5]
84 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12463
Rating: 2.9
Category: Science
Date: 01/07/05 02:33 PM

84 Responses to Evolving Genesis

  1. Profile photo of buddy
    buddy Male 30-39
    10116 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 2:32 pm
    Link: Evolving Genesis - If life arose spontaneously, random letters should eventually be able to create the very first line of The Bible.

    I actually spent a while watching this to see how close it would get.

  2. Profile photo of eigenvector
    eigenvector Male 18-29
    1 post
    January 7, 2005 at 2:50 pm
    It would be nice if the author of this site had something to back this claim up? I can`t even tell if he designed this site to prove that god must exist, or he believes in evolution.
  3. Profile photo of buddy
    buddy Male 30-39
    10116 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 2:55 pm
    Click on the ? and the guy explains what he`s doing.
  4. Profile photo of Elnheir
    Elnheir Male 18-29
    2 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 2:59 pm
    I thought this was neat. I decided to do the math behind his claim. It is possible, however very improbable. The odds of the sentance appearring is 1 in 1.4*10^78. That`s a 1 with 78 zeros behind it. I just thought someone might like to know. Also I feel like a geek, so I`ll just stop typing now.
  5. Profile photo of Stutz
    Stutz Male 30-39
    9 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:07 pm
    If you preay REAL HARD, you can get the letters to complete the sentence much faster.
  6. Profile photo of Alpha_Omega
    Alpha_Omega Male 13-17
    578 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:11 pm
    Wow, that kinda makes you think.
  7. Profile photo of Stutz
    Stutz Male 30-39
    9 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:13 pm
    my prayer: Dear God (the regular God) Please give me the strength to make a post with no typos. Aman
  8. Profile photo of Jopari
    Jopari Male 18-29
    103 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:27 pm
    Makes me think how stupid a claim is like the big bang.
    Elnheir...he only uses 15 characters; the letters from the sentence, a space and a period. So it actually isn`t that. But even with 15 it still gives a stupid number.
  9. Profile photo of Elnheir
    Elnheir Male 18-29
    2 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:51 pm
    I didn`t know he just used letters from the sentence. It`s still a large number. The big bang is actually a pretty good theory, but I won`t get into that now.
  10. Profile photo of JG_Pliskin
    JG_Pliskin Male 13-17
    7 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 3:57 pm
    The whole sentence came up for me. The possibility of you believing me is probably more than the chance of the sentence itself showing up. Have a little faith people....
  11. Profile photo of Wildcat07070
    Wildcat07070 Female 13-17
    2035 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 4:08 pm
    Hmmmmmmm thats pretty interesting.
  12. Profile photo of smigbaafm
    smigbaafm Male 18-29
    648 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 4:21 pm
    "regular god", eh slutz.....
    and to point out the irony, you spelled "Amen" wrong
  13. Profile photo of Dengarm
    Dengarm Male 13-17
    6 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 4:35 pm
    Oh my gosh! An incredibly random event didn`t happen within 10 minuites. Jesus is my saviour!
  14. Profile photo of Jiriki
    Jiriki Male 18-29
    34 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 5:10 pm
    Exactly.
  15. Profile photo of smigbaafm
    smigbaafm Male 18-29
    648 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 5:11 pm
    Buddy, i think it may be wise to not let religious stuff like this show up anymore, people tend to become snippy, sarcastic, and confused
  16. Profile photo of fpac
    fpac Male 18-29
    25 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 5:25 pm
    i went to the musical pi and i let it go all the way, only 10000 digits though
  17. Profile photo of eRiCaBot
    eRiCaBot Female 18-29
    1004 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:07 pm
    quite interesting. it is kind of useless, but the guy makes a good point about appreciating the slim odds of us being here right now.
  18. Profile photo of greenknight
    greenknight Male 30-39
    72 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:36 pm
    Dengarm has it right. If you waited long enough, yeah, the sentence would appear. But so what either way?
  19. Profile photo of Tanfeller
    Tanfeller Male 18-29
    216 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:41 pm
    choose the musical pi one and select the F major scale. it sounds pretty neat.
  20. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:55 pm
    Holy poo you guys, I saw it. I don`t know how long i was waiting. I took a screen so you`d believe me.

  21. Profile photo of wolf_boy
    wolf_boy Male 18-29
    136 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:57 pm
    Where`s the bars?
  22. Profile photo of sweetpeas
    sweetpeas Female 18-29
    52 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 6:58 pm
    When your timescale is infinity all probabilities go to one.
  23. Profile photo of JG_Pliskin
    JG_Pliskin Male 13-17
    20 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 7:29 pm
    "When your timescale is infinity all probabilities go to one."

    What a crock of....

  24. Profile photo of Hyena
    Hyena Male 18-29
    1 post
    January 7, 2005 at 7:47 pm
    crock of geese? crock of jam? crock of tunafish? crock of turtles? crock of monkey spittle? crock of money? I`m sure if I guess long enough I`ll come across it eventually...
  25. Profile photo of Jiriki
    Jiriki Male 18-29
    34 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 7:48 pm
    Well, he`s right.
  26. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:12 pm
    I *JUST* WROTE A THESIS ON THIS!!! What a coincidence!

    To appreciate the size of 10^50, consider that if the big bang occurred 15 billion years ago, only 10^18 seconds have occurred in all of time. The number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be only 10^80. Physicist Paul Davies has equated the odds of one chance in 10^60 as equal to the odds against hitting a one-inch target with the random, unaimed shot of a rifle bullet from a distance of 20 billion light years. One chance in 10^40,000 is far beyond mathematical probability….Chance had no chance to form life...


  27. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:13 pm
    even further...anything with a probability smaller than one out of 10^15 is dubbed impossible by probability experts.
  28. Profile photo of milkenacow
    milkenacow Male 13-17
    152 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:33 pm
    i can play linus and lucy on the musical pie thing

    A flat E flat A flat x2
    Ab E flat F x2

    hahahaaha thats how it goes though...

  29. Profile photo of greenknight
    greenknight Male 30-39
    72 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:34 pm
    Sorry, hobyandy, but I don`t see how that follows. Even according to your summary (which is pretty interesting), chance did have a chance, just a very very very very small one. But one is all that`s needed.
  30. Profile photo of greenknight
    greenknight Male 30-39
    72 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:38 pm
    Also, does anyone really argue that chance is *totally* random anyway when it comes to the development of complex systems? The laws of physics do constrain the way particles behave, after all, which would seem to eliminate a lot of random mathematical possibilities all on its own (you would never have two protons sticking together, for example).
  31. Profile photo of JG_Pliskin
    JG_Pliskin Male 13-17
    20 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:41 pm
    Damn...I really DO hate maths.
  32. Profile photo of Akito
    Akito Female 18-29
    344 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:48 pm
    ...I hate math so bad.

    The little bar things on mine made a smiley face, though. :)

  33. Profile photo of bexstar
    bexstar Female 18-29
    65 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:54 pm
    ok does anyone want to explain this thing to me?! in simple terms though! i suck at maths :P
  34. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 9:55 pm
    greenknight---i understand where you are coming from. i was confused when i first studied this, as well...theoretically- yes...it is possible. but it simply doesn`t happen. if you`d like- i can recommend some books on the subject: Powers of Ten, written by Eames and Morrison...and Creationism Vs. Evolutionism, edited by Bruno J. Leone. I know they can explain this more accuartely than I can.
  35. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 10:02 pm
    bexter- this is an argument used by Creationists (fundamental Christians who support the theory that God created the earth and galaxy). the theory states that the probability of the world randomly being created is just too astronomical. the fact that everything worked out so well can`t be explained by anything other than by God.
  36. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 10:08 pm
    greenknight--in your lastpost, you ask if chance is 100% random. it gets FAR more in depth than that. for example...if life DID happen by means of purely of science, evolution, and randomness, life MUST have developed in a pre-biotic "soup"...the chances of this alone happening are astronomical...the you need water, heat, light, a rotational planet (you don`t need this---but it is a great conveniance), a balanced strong and weak nuclear force, fine-tuned gravity, and, finally, nutrients to help life survive. the chances of all of this coming together without "divine assisstance" is merely beyond human comprehension.
  37. Profile photo of Ragdrazi
    Ragdrazi Male 18-29
    490 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 10:17 pm
    Every atom in existence attracts every other atom. The chances of ending up with a nebulae (a cloud of atoms) is very high and can be simulated with mathematical models. The chances of those nebulae spinning due to angular momentum is high.
    The chances of friction producing heat is high. The chances of stars being formed due to how hot the atoms get is high. The chances of water being formed due to fusion is high, the chances of everything life needs to survive being produced over the 14 trillion year period is incredibly high. Focusing only on mathematical chances does not take into account to forces enacting on the atoms that cause them to form nebulae. It`s a loosing argument made by crackpots.
  38. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 10:47 pm
    first of all, ragdrazi, nebulae is plural (you did use it correctly the second time). secondly, this is my field of study. Every atom does have a pull...that`s true (as are the other facts you just said)...but look at it this way...let`s start with water, shall we? yes. fusion can creat the water. now...we need LOTS OF IT!!! and don`t think that it`s a common thing to have water (we are the only known planet that does). Now...we need a planet to form in a solar system with a star. check. but it can`t be too close!!!..oh...and it also can`t be too far away. Now...you pointed out your own "Earth rotation" theory. good for you. you are using the nebular theory- not the big bang theory. but of the nine planets, only three (it might be four...but i`m pretty sure it`s three) have a favorable rotation pattern about its axis. and once you have a planet formed (that`s the easy part)...you still need life...which MUST come from a pre-biotic soup of amino acids....
  39. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 10:52 pm
    ....which if (by some amazing odds) joins correctly, forms deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)...which over BILLIONS of years evolves through various primitive stages until...finally...human comes into play. However- life only had a window of about 130 million years to form. (That’s not a lot of time when it’s put in perspective). The Earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old. However, until 3.98 billion years ago, Earth was too torrid to support life. Fossil records found in Greenland show that life was in existence 3.85 billion years ago, leaving just that small gap for life to come into creation.

    ...even evolutionist are stumped to this...because thorough research shows that for a complex organ to form from nothing (perticularly the eyeball)....would take about 50 billion years.

  40. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:00 pm
    (last argument and i`m done---i`m the only one using this forum) The second law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING is in a constant state of decay. nothing is becoming more ordered. so how can evolution cause organisms to become more sophisticated? this goes against all principals of physics.

    personally, i DO believe in evolution. however, i also associate God and a non-literal interpretation of the Bible with evolution (making it thiestic evolution). i`ve always loved this kind of controversy. i`ll probably come back here sooner or later and add more comments...but i`m done for now.

  41. Profile photo of Pseudonymous
    Pseudonymous Female 13-17
    11 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:02 pm
    Whose thorough research? The 50-billion-year estimate is based on assumptions made about the speed of evolutionary change that certainly aren`t infallible. Neither side of this debate should rely on assumptions.
  42. Profile photo of um3k
    um3k Male 13-17
    30 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:04 pm
    Evolution isn`t random. The mutations are random, but only the good mutations are passed on to the next generation. If it were random, then bad mutations would be passed on just as often as the good.
    This animation is not "evolving genesis." In order to evolve genesis, it would need to select the random sets that were nearest to the target, and then recombine them and mutate them, as well as generate new random sets. This process would be repeated until the goal was reached, which would happen nearly every time you ran the program.
    Of course, natural selection does not have a "target," but it is otherwise a very similar concept to what I have outlined here.
  43. Profile photo of Pseudonymous
    Pseudonymous Female 13-17
    11 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:04 pm
    And there`s a very good thread out there about the thermodynamics question.
  44. Profile photo of greenknight
    greenknight Male 30-39
    72 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:11 pm
    Thanks, hobyandy, for a very interesting thread. :-)
  45. Profile photo of Pseudonymous
    Pseudonymous Female 13-17
    11 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:13 pm
    ...^^good point....the results of natural selection tend to become the `targets` retrospectively. Our world and our species are the products of a process, so we assume that the process was *meant* to produce us. If we`d ended up as self-aware inorganic crystalline structures (unlikely example, but just to make a point) we`d assume the same.
  46. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 7, 2005 at 11:27 pm
    crap...i told myself i wasn`t posting anything else...oh, well...i disagree with the last thing you posted, pseudonymous...however...while on the natural selection subject....you know that parade of apes in science textbooks demonstrating evolution? it isn`t true! it just explains a concept. in reality, evolution over great periods of time produces "dead-end" species...species that evolve uniquely, but aren`t competitive enough and die off...

    and as for the assumtions of scientists that you brought up...well..you`d be surprised what a room full of einsteins can come up with- it`s more of a logically based estimation than an assumption. (we`ll just leave it with that).

  47. Profile photo of SarahColleen
    SarahColleen Female 18-29
    1071 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 12:05 am
    fake screen shot, but thanx for playing.
  48. Profile photo of SuperMcCgirl
    SuperMcCgirl Female 13-17
    331 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 12:21 am
    You all are obviously smarter than so many old schoolers. This is like the smartest thing I have seen discussed on i-am-bored.
  49. Profile photo of Nneri
    Nneri Female 13-17
    992 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 1:29 am
    Whoa!!!!!!! This is fricking awesome!!!!
  50. Profile photo of jinexile
    jinexile Male 18-29
    141 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 1:37 am
    Also as mentioned above evolution discards unuseful mutations. Consider if the iteration kept letters that were "useful" (aka correct) a computer could rewrite the bible in a matter of days or weeks.
  51. Profile photo of sweetpeas
    sweetpeas Female 18-29
    52 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 2:32 am
    Wow, I am so glad I got dissed by an illiterate bumf*ck teenager like jg_pliskin. It`s a _quotation_, it`s also a mathematical fact. And when you feel the need to insult someone: 1) get an education before you make a fool of yourself, again, and 2)want to try finishing your insults bucky? I`d really like to learn exactly what kind of crock you think my quote was. But first, why don`t you go look it up, and then try using complete sentences. I have a dictionary here if you need some help.
  52. Profile photo of JG_Pliskin
    JG_Pliskin Male 13-17
    7 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 9:00 am
    Just because its a quote, doesn`t make it true. Here`s a quote from me: "Im going to live until I am five thousand years old." Obviously not true. And on antother note, how can you say I made a fool of myself? I didn`t. Theres nothing illiterate about my sentence, I have an education, and if you pulled your head out of your a** for just one minute you just might realise how stupid that little "_quote_" of yours is.
  53. Profile photo of leenukuh
    leenukuh Female 18-29
    20 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 10:55 am
    well, i do think hobyandy`s arguments prove there is something extraordinary that made life possible (sort of despite the odds) but i wouldn`t call it god. there is still a lot to be discovered and comprehended so i think it`s possible that we dicover a sort of force that made life possible and that that force isn`t god but something "natural" (something like gravity you know) of course this is just my opninion and i don`t know anything about science or maths or...
  54. Profile photo of Clamwacker
    Clamwacker Male 18-29
    49 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:09 am
    Regarding chance, it`s very interesting to note that only mathematicians and people who have done psychedelic drugs seem to be capable of truly understanding the near-infinite. That`s probably not a coincidence.
  55. Profile photo of Clamwacker
    Clamwacker Male 18-29
    49 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:15 am
    Mr. Pliskin, for being 13-17 y/o, you`re not showing the full capacity of your modern education here.

    Infinity is just that. In-freakin-finity. It doesn`t end. With that in mind, if you shoot out a random sequence of numbers, not only will the first few sentences of the bible occur, but the entire, perfectly sequenced DNA codes of every single human on Earth, in every possible combination, and all other possibilities, must also occur. And they will occur infinitely, not just once. All possible combinations of information would be constructed, but there would certainly be vast distances of gibberish in between.

  56. Profile photo of greenday15
    greenday15 Male 13-17
    1 post
    January 8, 2005 at 11:16 am
    for people like me who rnt geniuses on the subject, my science teacher put it this way.

    If this theory was true, you could shake an empty box, and if you did it long enough, you would get a watch.

  57. Profile photo of Clamwacker
    Clamwacker Male 18-29
    49 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:18 am
    You could even continue this to say that every piece of information would be repeated infinitely, which would require that infinitely complex pattern to be further repeated... By the time you do this a few times, the entire text of the bible is but a drop in the ocean of other undiscovered possibilities.

    That is not to say that infinity truly works in the real universe, or anywhere else outside of mathematics and fantasy. There could be a finite end to life, the universe and everything. It could really be 42 units of "something."

    Ok, now I`m done. :)

  58. Profile photo of Clamwacker
    Clamwacker Male 18-29
    49 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:23 am
    No wait I have one more thing. :)

    Notice that in the "generator" this thing links to, the sequences are presented at a painstakingly slow result, relative to what the computer could actually be generating, if it were really trying to randomly sequence the bible. The obvious deeper point in this little flash is that time itself prevents us from ever doing anything an infinite number of times.

    I like that analogy about the box, though. That`s why infinity doesn`t apply in reality, but only in the human mind and its machinations.

  59. Profile photo of AyEcHiHuAhUa
    AyEcHiHuAhUa Female 18-29
    91 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:23 am
    Wow, this really brought the atheists out of the woodwork! *snicker*
  60. Profile photo of greenknight
    greenknight Male 30-39
    72 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 12:25 pm
    Sorry, greenday15, but your "science" teacher is all wet. The reason you don`t get a watch by shaking a box is that watch parts are not naturally occuring elements that must interact in specific ways according to their natural properties.

    Atoms, on the other hand, combine to form molecules according to specific patterns whether somebody`s there to make them do so or not. It`s a crappy analogy.

    Incidentally, sounds in language work the same way: this sentence generator keeps producing strings of consonants, which no natural language would do without some vowels to separate them in order to form syllables. For a more accurate simulation, the programmer should put some limits on the strings of letters that correspond with the way language actually works in real life.

  61. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 1:00 pm
    ^^^well, technically, the analogy he used was half right. however, the box wouldn`t be empty. it would have all of the watch parts in it. a very popular analogy in MANY of the books that i have read is "a random creation of the universe-blah, blah, blah- is about equal to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard, and by picking up pieces of scrap metal and fitting them together perfectly, makes a perfect Boeing 747".

    as for the infinit universe theory, it carries about the same clout as Fundamentalist Christians saying "Hey! It`s in the Bible--It MUST be true!"...this is because the amount of matter in the cosmos is NOT infinite. See the big bang theory for an explanation as to why...so you have all of time to create life-- but you have limited resources....and once you combine some of those atoms, it is doubtful that they will seperate again (particularly with larger bodies)....if an asteroid collided with Earth, very little matter would be sent back

  62. Profile photo of AyEcHiHuAhUa
    AyEcHiHuAhUa Female 18-29
    91 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 1:34 pm
    I love it when people start spouting evolution because it just reaffirms my faith. No one not believing in a higher power can explain where that first matter that we all evolved from came from in the first place, even if all of those other "improbable odds" were overcome. To me evolution is the gift of scientific theory backing up that not only did a higher power orchestrate evolution but explains (theoretically) the manner in which He created everything as well. :-)
  63. Profile photo of smigbaafm
    smigbaafm Male 18-29
    648 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 2:41 pm
    ok, people, not that i dont appreciate people defending their beliefs, but this did all start from a stupid progarm that trys to recreate the first line of the bible randomly, which, no matter how complex that algarithm was, it was not random, eventually it would repeat and probably make that line over and over.
  64. Profile photo of ROSE2-07
    ROSE2-07 Male 13-17
    16 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 8:50 pm
    msieg007 is a fake, there is no way that that actually happened.
  65. Profile photo of Clamwacker
    Clamwacker Male 18-29
    49 posts
    January 8, 2005 at 11:06 pm
    smigbaafm, you have a good point. Notice it never generates any letters or characters that aren`t in the line itself? Hardly random.

    Sure, it was only trying to make a point, but sometimes any point becomes a little deeper once people have hashed out the intricacies of it, such as we have here. :)

  66. Profile photo of jinexile
    jinexile Male 18-29
    141 posts
    January 9, 2005 at 8:03 pm
    Scientists are trying to determine how things happen, rather than laying down and quitting saying that god must have done it and leave it at that. I`m not an atheist nor am I a christian, I beleive in a higher power but I also beleive his/her/its actions can be explained scientifically.

    Why would god create laws of physics, gravity, etc if everything could just be explained as "god did it".

    AyEcHiHuAhUa has the right idea, I don`t know why so many religious people feel science is killing god when to me and her it`s proving the existance more than ever.

  67. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    January 9, 2005 at 10:12 pm
    ^^^^^that`s theistic evolution.
  68. Profile photo of shabufala
    shabufala Male 13-17
    254 posts
    February 28, 2005 at 5:57 pm
    Hmmm... Look in the history of the Catholic church it`s in their nature to be wrong. I personally beleive in Science more then God. However keep in mind that their are some thing inexplicable like the origens of the universe(or multiverse if you`re really into science).But honestly a bunch of random letters is not going to convince me, you could eventually get My dad gathers berrys from the hidden cave.
  69. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:18 pm
    Fact - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.
    Fact - there is no evidence proving evolution.
    Fact - there is evidence against evolution.
    This is where the text gets a little scientific, so bear with me. The crux of the evolutionary argument is that the DNA of living organisms is constantly changing to improve the species. This is the whole argument of evolution, that DNA changes from generation to generation to allow beings to adapt to their surroundings so that only the strongest survive. Evolution says that 600 million years ago man began as a fish, evolved into an ape and then a man (having started out as a chain of amino acids). Evolution can only be correct if DNA can be proved to be constantly changing. If it isn`t changing man could not have evolved, as our DNA determines our physical structure. Here then are some examples that prove DNA is not changing, that it is very stable and can not change fast enough to turn fish into apes and then men.
  70. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:20 pm
    Science tells us that the Nautilus, a deep sea creature (not Captain Nemo`s submarine), existed 600 million years ago (the early Cambrian period).

    This creature is the same today as those that became fossils 600 million years ago - their DNA did not change, they did not evolve.

    The horseshoe crab has remained unchanged for, according to science, 500 million years - its DNA remains the same.

    The king crab, according to science, has remained the same for 225 million years - the crustacean Triops cancriformis for 170 million years. In the Acapulco trench of Central America a live mollusk was found, though they were thought to have become extinct over 350 million years ago.
    Five documented, scientifally accepted, proofs that DNA is extrememly stable. Five cases against evolution, yet no cases for evolution that show DNA is not stable nor that it is unstable enough to cause progressive changes. But this is just the start of the case.

  71. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:22 pm
    We all know the Sun provides natures way of sustaining life, it provides us with light and warmth, and it enables photosynthesis.
    So let`s, for the benefit of the evolutionist, say that despite the stability of DNA that evolution can still occur. For DNA to change requires living beings with DNA to be alive and to breed. So, if they could not have been doing this 600 million years ago then evolution is impossible. Around 1850 Herman Von Helmholtz, and later the equally respected Lord Kelvin, proposed that the energy for the suns brightness was caused by its very slow gravitational contraction (shrinkage) - in other words the sun was shrinking due to its own weight. George Abell calculated that since the suns present brightness is 4 times 10^33 ergs per second (about 10^41 ergs per year), its shrinkage can have kept it shining at its present rate for 100 million years. It is the suns present rate of brightness that supports life. Any less and life would be unsupportable.
  72. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:24 pm
    The measurements were based on precise physical measurements that needed few assumptions, and were even widely accepted by geologists.

    Darwins suporters could not accept such a young sun, and by consequence young earth, as it negated Darwins theory of evolution by not giving enough time for the process of evolution.

    Darwin himself admitted that Lord Kelvins data was a formidable (Darwins words) objection to natural selection.

    Darwin also said:

    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

  73. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:24 pm
    After the late 1890`s, following the discovery of radioactivity, geologists began to date the earth - radioactivity suggested the earth was billions of years old (4.5 billion) so surely the sun must also be as old.

    This meant that the suns energy source would have to allow the sun to shine constantly for around 4.5 billion years. They came up with the suns energy source - hydrogen fusion.

    When two hydrogen atoms fuse together they form helium and they give off a subatomic particle called a nutrino.
    The number of nutrinos detected is about four per month, this is one tenth of the number expected if the suns interior is fuelled by hydrogen (nuclear) fusion.

    This means the suns energy isn`t coming from nuclear fusion.

  74. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:26 pm
    In 1979 J.A.Eddy and A.A.Boornazian reported that the sun had been shrinking for at least the past four hundred years, their evidence supports the conclusions of Helmholtz and Kelvin.

    So science itself shows the Sun has been shining for about 100 million years and that DNA is extremely stable, both very damaging to the theory of evolution - a theory that, if you doubt it, gets you labelled a crackpot despite the fact it has NEVER been proved.

  75. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:27 pm
    Of course the existence of scientific `laws`, not theories but proven `laws` such as the law of gravity, prove the existence of God.

    How can their existence prove Gods existence?

    Science postulates that the universe is RANDOM, that the world was created by a RANDOM process of events, that life was a RANDOM process of evolution.

    Yet they support their arguments for these random events by using scientific `laws` as corroboration - they want it both ways. If the universe, and particularly earth, is due to RANDOM processes then how can there be regular and dependable events as a result?

    Science says that certain scientific laws explain how random events, such as the big bang or the formation of amino acids, occured.
    Therefore they are admitting that those laws already existed before the random events, that they caused the random events.

    If God does not exist, the universe is random.

    If the universe is random how can there be order in it?

  76. Profile photo of mrcristo
    mrcristo Male 18-29
    281 posts
    April 22, 2005 at 12:29 pm
    If God does not exist then the universe is random and this would mean that scientific `laws` could not exist - a scientific law is one based on the repeatable observation of an event happening.

    For instance the law of Gravity tells us that it is impossible for anything to float upwards (or fall upwards) without assistance (e.g. an engine).

    Science states the world is NOT random, yet it was randomly made.

    Either God does not exist, in which case science cannot exist, or God exists.

    Take your pick.

  77. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    June 8, 2005 at 9:28 pm
    mrcristo: an interesting read. thanks for posting your opinion. though some creatures may not have evolved, there is evidence supporting (though not proving) evolution. an example of this are minute changes in species of birds located in the galapagos islands (darwin`s studies)...
  78. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    June 8, 2005 at 9:33 pm
    also...here`s something very interesting (though i can`t quite apply it to the debate at this point)...the entropy of the universe is constantly increase...and at the beginning of the universe, it is likely that the universe was extremely ordered....which can allow many more arguments to be included...

    anyway...if theistic evolution is used, the whole argument of science vs. god evens out quite well....and i`m satisfied with that.

  79. Profile photo of snake712
    snake712 Male 13-17
    48 posts
    November 6, 2005 at 11:51 am
    Mrcristo, I can refute the slow dna thing, because you`re picking things that have adapted as far as is possible. Bacteria have/will soon evolve immunitys to antibiotics, and they logically must have done this within the time antibiotics have existed, which is short.
    Secondly, the last part of your argument is faulty logic. One can assume that all the laws of physics existed since the beggining of the universe, which would blow a whole in your argument. Scientists don`t say that the whole universe and all the laws that govern it were random processes. Some have just existed since the earliest possible time they could exist, because it`s how this universe works.
    Thirdly, the only reason evolution hasn`t been proven is that humans haven`t been around long enough to see other species evolve, and we certainly haven`t been looking for this for any length of time.
  80. Profile photo of snake712
    snake712 Male 13-17
    48 posts
    November 6, 2005 at 11:51 am
    Fourthly, I should remind you that theory in scientific terms is the highest level of proof besides fact. The theory of general relativity is also "just a theory" but nobody doubts that.
  81. Profile photo of botan_870
    botan_870 Female 13-17
    104 posts
    December 29, 2005 at 5:54 pm
    Wow, this is weird.
  82. Profile photo of botan_870
    botan_870 Female 13-17
    104 posts
    December 29, 2005 at 5:56 pm
    I have a question, what happens if you`re watching it and it does make the line, would anyone believe you?
  83. Profile photo of Lou Two
    Lou Two Male 18-29
    1033 posts
    December 29, 2005 at 6:05 pm
    someone should have told mason the pieces in his jar had to be moving
  84. Profile photo of wolfinstinct
    wolfinstinct Male 13-17
    92 posts
    January 8, 2006 at 10:20 pm
    I don`t see how complex organs such as the eye could have evolved. Evolution is just were unneeded or hindering genes die out because whoever they belong to is more likely to die, and the genes that help survival keep it`s holder alive longer. The eye needs multiple peices to work. How would the brain even know what to do with the simple eye once it is formed? By the time the brain does figure out how to work it, the gene for the eye would most likely be lost... It wasn`t helping any.
    But I do believe in evolution AFTER the bases were laid down.

Leave a Reply