I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask



Not Healthy

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Funny Stuff

Funny Games

Viva La Games

Crazy Games

Quiz Stop

Insane Pictures

Funny Pictures

123 Games


Back to Listing

Evolving Genesis

Hits: 12458 | Rating: (2.3) | Category: Science | Added by: buddy
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 13-17, Western US
 89 Posts
Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:20:14 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.

Lou Two
Male, 18-29, Europe
 17574 Posts
Thursday, December 29, 2005 6:05:48 PM
someone should have told mason the pieces in his jar had to be moving

Female, 13-17, Western US
 6204 Posts
Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:56:44 PM
I have a question, what happens if you're watching it and it does make the line, would anyone believe you?

Female, 13-17, Western US
 6204 Posts
Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:54:02 PM
Wow, this is weird.

Male, 13-17, Midwest US
 390 Posts
Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:51:55 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.

Male, 13-17, Midwest US
 390 Posts
Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:51:45 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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3073 Posts
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:33:27 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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3073 Posts
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:28:08 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)...

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:29:13 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:27:55 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?

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:26:57 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:24:59 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:24:12 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."

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:22:49 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:20:22 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 284 Posts
Friday, April 22, 2005 12:18:37 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.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 4315 Posts
Monday, February 28, 2005 5:57:50 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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3073 Posts
Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:12:25 PM
^^^^^that's theistic evolution.

Male, 18-29, Canada
 193 Posts
Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:03:25 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.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 149 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:06:21 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. :)

Male, 13-17, Midwest US
 16 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:50:43 PM
msieg007 is a fake, there is no way that that actually happened.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 653 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 2:41:07 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.

Female, 18-29, Southern US
 93 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:34:33 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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3073 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:00:48 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

Male, 30-39, Canada
 73 Posts
Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:25:22 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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |