permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/2904723
SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 20:36
the ark found !!!!

yes the ark of the covernant found near jerusalem in israel by ron wyatt. well so he reckons might interest some.
when the end times are here before the return of the messiah the temple will be rebuild according to some interpretations of revelation. the only way that will be rebuilt is if the ark is found. thats why i thought it was interesting.

just for all the people on here who might think by end times i mean just before the end of the world. i dont! the end times are the last days before lucifer is trapped in the abyss for 1000 years. basically the end of his reign as ruler. then 1000 years of peace before he escapes again then destroyed forever.


Link: the ark

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:38
the ark found !!!!

is it the ark, or a few bits of old wood hes just assumed are the ark



considerign it held one of each of the species of all life on the planet, the last scientific evidence shows it must have been at least 300 miles long

XXXXXXign massive boat

Space_Face Posted on 17/10/2011 20:39
the ark found !!!!

Not Noah's Ark.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 20:40
the ark found !!!!

Everyone knows that what is believed to be the Ark is in Northern Ethiopia, stolen from the Temple by Menelak.


SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 20:40
the ark found !!!!

dude did you just get confused between the ark of the covernant and noahs ark[:o)]


the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:41
the ark found !!!!

is there more arks like

XXXXXXing ell, this god lark is deeper than you realise

red_shamrock Posted on 17/10/2011 20:41
the ark found !!!!

[:D] Is the the one like a Telephone table seat thing

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:42
the ark found !!!!

are you asking me if there is a distinction between 2 seperate pieces of fiction that never have or did exist in the first place?


i think the notion of confusion is correct, but you have the main protaganist wrong to be fair

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 20:43
the ark found !!!!

I think this is a classic case of not knowing one's Arks from one's elbow

red_shamrock Posted on 17/10/2011 20:43
the ark found !!!!

[:D[:D][:D]

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 20:44
the ark found !!!!

due your my second fav poster after plaz of course[:D]

axel1974 Posted on 17/10/2011 20:44
the ark found !!!!

I thought The Arc was in stockton

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:44
the ark found !!!!

if the noahs ark had all the giraffes on, what did the other one have on it if it was so small moses could carry it

all bacteria in the world

i dont believe it, even if it had all the micro organisms on it, it would have sunk straight away, it was made out of a stone

the pope must think were all XXXXXXign idiots

red_shamrock Posted on 17/10/2011 20:45
the ark found !!!!

Well who made it all then...and what are cubits and gopher wood?

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 20:45
the ark found !!!!

A_M is posts like that that make me love this board[:D][:D][:D]

Space_Face Posted on 17/10/2011 20:46
the ark found !!!!

The captain of this little ark was fleeing Chester after shooting a Welshman with his arrow.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 17/10/2011 20:46
the ark found !!!!

Dude you daft bugger....it's the Indiana Jones ark, not the "the animals, they went in in two-zee woo-zee's, elephants and kangaroosies-roosies" ark.

FFS.

Space_Face Posted on 17/10/2011 20:46
the ark found !!!!

A.M [:D][:D]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:49
the ark found !!!!

so who went on the other ark if all the animals went onto the boat ark

Space_Face Posted on 17/10/2011 20:52
the ark found !!!!

The ten musketeers.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 17/10/2011 20:54
the ark found !!!!

Lord Lucan, Glenn Miller, Shergar and Fabio.

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 20:55
the ark found !!!!

on indiana jones it was full of sand, then loads of ghost monsters come out and sucked the life from everyone who had their eyes open.
i like the bible version better anyone who touched it that was a sinner was killed instantly.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 20:55
the ark found !!!!

Jason and the Arkonauts of course...cleaned out the ostrich and gnu dung and went seeking the Golden Fleece.

It's ok, we all get the wrong end of the stick sometimes....

Tyrone_Shoelaces Posted on 17/10/2011 20:55
the ark found !!!!

Apparently inside were details of the last NUFC cup winning side.

bill_door Posted on 17/10/2011 20:55
the ark found !!!!

Ron Wyatt died in 1999, do they not know yet if it IS the covenant or not?

Interesting wiki, my favourite bit is this:

"His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church" [:D]

As for the creepy guy in the video:

"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist famous for his creation science seminars that aim to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative as found in the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research. Some of his ideas have also been criticized by Young Earth creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis."

[:D]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 20:56
the ark found !!!!

as i thought, as soon as you ask a valid question the religuous freaks make an excuse and change the subject

arks my arse, i could accept the boat ark, as long it was 35 miles wide to fit all the animals in, but god making some rules and putting them on a crumbly old stone that must have weighed about 100kg and exppecting an old bloke to carry them on his knackered old back, what a load of XXXXXX

full of XXXXXX as usual the pope

borobadge Posted on 17/10/2011 20:58
the ark found !!!!

'found near jerusalem in israel '

everyone knows Jerusalem is in Palestine...[smi]

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 17/10/2011 21:00
the ark found !!!!

yes bill freaky bloke him like agreed.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 17/10/2011 21:07
the ark found !!!!

Who's a religious freak?

My take on this thread:

You look like a complete uneducated Palestine ([:D]), try to recover through some pointed 'questions' and have the XXXXXX gently taken.....at which you've launched into a typical dudesque diatribe, scattering XXXXXXe more wildly than a cholera epidemic....again.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 21:08
the ark found !!!!

In the bible anyone who came into contact with it had to cover there face afterwards as it made their skin glow, it was kept in the holy of holies behind several curtains as protection.

It's believed to be kept in the Ethiopian city of Axum, interestingly enough the only place on the world where an ark cult exists, taken there by Solomon's son to the queen of Sheba, Menelik after Soloman's death.

Ethiopia has a large black Jewish community and Menelik was the first Rastafari, whom the Rastafarian's follow. Might all be founded on nothing but this all happened approx a 1000 years BC and is still believed by many today.

plazmuh Posted on 17/10/2011 21:13
The Ark

It's threads like this that bring immense joy, your wit is awesome regardless of the topic and your knowledge is vast I bow to the boards superior members..
You fcuking crack me up I love this place..
Regards
Plazmuh
[:D][:D][^]

bill_door Posted on 17/10/2011 21:15
the ark found !!!!

The board has many members whose ark is worse than their bite.[^]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 21:19
The Ark

what about freshwater fish as well


surely they would all have to have been on moses ark as when jesus drown the whole world it mustve been with sea water and they will have all died

if jesus had to seperate them all on the ark, as some species would have to have been to stop eatign each other, where would he have got all the glass from to make loads of aquariums to go in the ark

pope john paul the XXXXXX if you ask me

Adi_Dem Posted on 17/10/2011 21:28
The Ark

Nowhere near as impressive as the future 8 dart finish that we are all looking forward to.

aa365 Posted on 17/10/2011 21:30
The Ark

you know what size timber they used??

Tom_Fun Posted on 17/10/2011 21:32
The Ark

"I think this is a classic case of not knowing one's Arks from one's elbow"

[:D]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 21:38
The Ark

adi dem, a jesus freak whos trying to change the subject cos he knows theres flaws in it

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 21:43
The Ark

i agree with the dude.

as its a completely fictional story and scientists the world over have 'proved' (based on our understanding of things i suppose) that the earth is approx 4.6billion years old and the universe is still expanding amongst other things, and that as long as my 4rse points down some 'being' couldnt knock it up in 6 days and have the 7th off.....


mind it would be bang on if it were true [8)]

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 21:44
The Ark

End of the day boys, I ain't no Jesus freak but something had to create something for any of this to happen, chemical reactions don't create thought and conscience.....if anyone can persuade me otherwise then I'm more than happy to see the proof.

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 21:46
The Ark

"chemical reactions don't create thought and conscience.....if anyone can persuade me otherwise then I'm more than happy to see the proof"


agreed - that would be evolution my friend [;)]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 21:46
The Ark

what relevanced is a day to a god anyway, yeh, every 6 days he needs to chill out in hsi goid palace or wherever the XXXXXX he is cos hes tired etc at having made meteors and made some suns blow up etc

its XXXXXX to me, a super all powerful unlimited energy being neededing a few hours kip every sunday

come of it adi, jesus, noahs arks and gods kids making footstools

XXXXXX

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 21:49
The Ark

for the record, chemical reactions do create thought and concience, the same way electrical impulses do

if you cannot accept we are evolved chimps your free to go down adis route and decide it was fairys and pixies and a bloke who made tables for a living

its up to you

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 21:54
The Ark

Can you give me the chemical formula for these reactions please, then Dude and I'll replicate them in my lab tonight....I understand the science of electrical impulses and I'm not for a second saying that we aren't developed from chimps, but what I am saying is where did that initial spark that created life come from and why can't we replicate it now ????

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 21:56
The Ark

erm...... the conditions of the universe have changed since the initial spark....

scientists the world over are trying to work the answer to your question out - i dont think the collective genius of this board will beat them to it [:D]

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 21:57
The Ark

because we have just started to try and it tookl evolution 3 billion years and we have no idea of the conditions, temperatures, chemical composition of the earth 3 billion years ago


thats why

but we can create amino acids from chemical, the building blocks of life

why like, whats your suggestion, anything we can't prove for a fact, just say pixies and fairys done it instead

i'd rather us pursue the logical and rational concept of understanding life, instead of the usual religious, we dont know so lets just use magic to fill in the gaps

its for nitwits

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 22:02
The Ark

Not the old evolution rubbish again, that explains everything doesn't it?

You can drive a bus through the holes in that theory.

I think I'd like to be able to hear, I'll just evolve an ear....

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:03
The Ark

HC - are you familiar with the concept of evolution?

from your statement above id say not so.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 22:07
The Ark

who said an ear just evolved?

no evolutionist i have ever heard

the same as an eye, its started of as a single celled photon reciever, and over billions, yes billions of years eventually through mutation ended up being mulit celled, as obviously, the organism with more eye cells had a better chance of survival than than one with less so it had more chance to propogate it genes

the problem with evolution is with nitwits, who dont understand the concept of time, billions of years evolution has took to get from single celled life to us thick XXXXXXs, if anything its slower than its given credit for, 3.5 billion mutations and all we have is XXXXXXing humans with all there insecuritys, doubts and egotistical vanity

amen

0/10

JonMc Posted on 17/10/2011 22:10
The Ark

The debate over evolution is really a recent one. When Darwin presented his work it was accepted by many churches without controversy. The evangelicals who rubbish it now are doing do for their own selfish reasons.

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:11
The Ark

dude - nail and head.

when i lived back in england i had some jehovajs come round the house to try and tell me evolution was bollox, as they apparently thought that they should be able to go into space and evelove somehting to help them breathe there.

poor jehovahs [|)][:D]

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 22:13
The Ark

I will give you another one Rod just so you have no doubt -

I'll just evolve a pair of wings I don't actually need because I fancy becoming a bird in a billion years time.

Yes stacks up doesn't it?

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:14
The Ark

Dude I get you totally and I'm all for that, I don't believe in heaven, hell, Jesus, Buddha, Magog, Zues, Harry Secombe or any of the religious gumpf, but I
cannot get my head round the fact that from gases

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:14
The Ark

again HC - you really do not understand the concept of evolution at all.

i suggest readin on the subject so you can grasp the concept of it and how/why it happens.

then present your debate at the table.

bill_door Posted on 17/10/2011 22:16
The Ark

I like HC's approach to this.

'I'm going to evolve, or die trying.'

[^]

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 22:18
The Ark

Rod I've read the god delusion and think it's a load of XXXXXX, are you telling me you believe all that stuff in it's entirety?

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 22:19
The Ark

I've often wondered why a god would create a world where so many creatures have become extinct- It's estimated that 99.9% of species that once lived are now extinct. Is that not a waste? Why not just create the ones he wanted to exist in the first place, or did he get bored with those ones? How do creationists normally answer that one I wonder?

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 17/10/2011 22:21
The Ark

every single cell in a human is an element in the peridoc table, we are predominately carbon based, as is all life on earth


some bacteria are amazing when you look at them, for instance the flagellum, its internal rotor mechanism is driven by the flow of protons believe it or not and can reach speeds of 17000 revs per minute, XXXXXXing unreal

until you look at the timescale involved, which is the biggest , sigle most unfluential factor and the biggest and most overlooked, 3.5 billion years, and it took aboiut the same to create the first amino acids, 3.5 million million years of varying temperatures, pressures, trillions and trillions of chemical reactions, light, energy, compression, electricity, heat, cold

complex life didnt evolve from this, single celled life did, then a billion years later, multi celled life did, then a billion later, bacteria and so on and so on

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:21
The Ark

Genuine evolutionary question. What was the point in dinosaurs and why didn't they evolve ?

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:24
The Ark

HC - no i dont believe it all but it is the mosy plausible explanation there is.

AM - dinosaurs did evelove over hundreds of millions of years. the fact that there whole ecosystem changes overnight meant they died out. evolution doesnt occur that quick - as we all know [;)]

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 22:24
The Ark

CRabstick - you don't necessarily have to believe in god to disagree with many aspects of the theory of evolution.

Some of the natural selection arguments are as ridiculous as some of the things you can read in the bible. The difference is that one is supposed to be a guide to how to live your life while the other is supposed to be a proper scientific theory.

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 22:24
The Ark

I don't think any creature has to have a 'point' to exist. And I guess dinosaurs were least able to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions following the comet impact.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:27
The Ark

So why hasn't single cell life died out....I am genuinely interested to know why certain things have continued to exist in an 'unevolved' state and others have died out once they have been superceded ?

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:27
The Ark

HC - id say theres a few more weak arguements in the bible than that of natural selection to be fair.

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:28
The Ark

AM - do you mean the amoeba? that is a single cell organism.

why hasnt it died out? its suited to its environment i suppose.

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 22:31
The Ark

Yes I appreciate that Holgate. Out of interest which natural selection arguments do you find ridiculous?

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:35
The Ark

Yeah the amobea, if it's suited by it's enviroment why would it need to evolve ???? Also in time will Ostrich's get rid of their vestigial wings ???

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:40
The Ark

it wouldnt if it were suited - theoretically.

if its environment changed then it will either A - have to eveolve, or B) die out lol.

i am sure theyll keep their wings in some form as they use for show when attracting a mate.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:42
The Ark

Rod ok, with you on that but surely the ecosystem changed for all life not just the dinosaurs so why didn't it all cease to exist....if the evolutionary trigger to adapt was present in less evolved creatures why was it selected by nature to be removed from others.

viv_andersons_nana Posted on 17/10/2011 22:44
The Ark

"I'm going to evolve, or die trying."

[:D]

Boromart Posted on 17/10/2011 22:44
The Ark

"I've read the god delusion and think it's a load of XXXXXX" what parts in particular?

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 22:44
The Ark

Tell me how evolution explains the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. That's some natural selection story isn't it?

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:46
The Ark

life never died out when the dinosaurs did.

the large carnivores all but disappeared; the veggies were ok but they actually ecame smaller due to the change in food conditions and climate.

grab a few books on paleontology and read about it - its interesting (to me anyways) as you realise that things happen over 'geological' time - and that is a long time lol

grantus Posted on 17/10/2011 22:47
The Ark

You lot are having a giraffe.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 22:47
The Ark

It's environment didn't change though cos they're still present all over the place billions of years later....by the way don't think for one minute I'm in the Adam and Eve camp, just genuinely interested in if we have evolved the path on which we have evolved has taken.

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:47
The Ark

HC - youre bubbling like a bust rsehole now fella.

read up on the subject before spouting XXXXXX [8)]

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 22:51
The Ark

you have to remember or 'hypothesise' that not every single beneficail environemtn of the amoeba wil have been affected.

it cant have been or it wouldnt be here.

did it actually exist back then when it all happened or did it evolve as a product of the meteor impact?

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 22:56
The Ark

I'm not clever enough to know holgate, but in a way maybe it's just like being the same creature at a different stage of development so to speak. Like when a mammalian embryo develops, metamorphosis/rearrangements occur to some extent all the time. Fingers form webbed, then those cells are selectively removed to form individual digits. Or parts of the body required for embryonic stages are later not required and so lost/change shape at later stages, such as the tail found in human embryos. Caterpillars need to eat to gain energy for metamorphosis/later stages. The main reason for becoming a butterfly is to move away from where you are and find a mate i.e. advantage to have wings.

Boromart Posted on 17/10/2011 22:58
The Ark

"Tell me how evolution explains the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. That's some natural selection story isn't it?" -- WTF, this is the daftest post I have ever seen by anyone ever....and that takes some doing!

"It's environment didn't change though cos they're still present all over the place billions of years later" -- THE environment changed, did the parts of the environment change that would adversely affect single celled organisms?

The point is that single celled organisms existed before plants and multi-celled animals, they are not necessary for the survival of single celled organisms. Vey little is required for thtem.

Maybe some single celled orgamisms died out with the dinosaurs, I don't know, but it should be absolutely no surprise to anyone that they will likely become the last living organism to become extinct on this planet.

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 23:14
The Ark

Disappointing to see insults being thrown around by highly evolved human beings, there's nothing like closed minds is there?

Crabstick - I think my main issue with natural selection is that it assumes that living cells, creatures, animals etc have some kind of incentive to naturally select and improve.

Why does anything have any incentive or desire to live, improve and procreate at all?

I think there can be a lot of commentary on what possibly happens but no explanation of why it happens.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 23:20
The Ark

Where does the know how or intelligence to evolve come from....the water is drying up, I know I'll develop a system that allows me to breathe, remembering that breathing air hadn't been invented, it's a sophisticated asking to evolve quickly enough not to die out....what DNA intelligence was passed down by generation to generation to evolve in the correct way.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 17/10/2011 23:22
The Ark

"I think my main issue with natural selection is that it assumes that living cells, creatures, animals etc have some kind of incentive to naturally select and improve"

pretty much nailed the fact you don't know what you are on about right there.

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 23:24
The Ark

Can I ask another question without meaning to offend any Christians? The Bible appears very symbolic and open to interpretation but my impression when hearing about the original sin etc where eve took from the tree of knowlege -this implies to me that one of the messages of Christianity is that man should not try to learn/understand too much as this goes against what god wanted. Although people say that the Bible is a guide of how to live, the implication that man should stay ignorant and believe whatever he is told seems to support the idea that it was written at least in part to 'control' the people of the time. Any thoughts? It's late and my ramblings sound very simplistic but I'm interested nonetheless.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 17/10/2011 23:25
The Ark

"there's nothing like closed minds is there?"

Opening your mind too much allows a load of XXXXXXe in. By your own logic you have to accept evolution or you're closed minded.

You haven't managed to drive a bus through the holes in evolution;, you've not even been able to get the bus started.

Boromart Posted on 17/10/2011 23:27
The Ark

"Why does anything have any incentive or desire to live, improve and procreate at all?"

But we do don't we, you see this behaviour in humans and animals. It is a fact that animals show self-preservation. They also show an at times uncontrollable urge to procreate.

Neither of these backup evolution or destroy creationism. They are simply facts in the 'puzzle'.

Boromart Posted on 17/10/2011 23:30
The Ark

"the water is drying up, I know I'll develop a system that allows me to breathe, remembering that breathing air hadn't been invented, it's a sophisticated asking to evolve quickly enough not to die out....what DNA intelligence was passed down by generation to generation to evolve in the correct way." -- that is simply attempting t ridicule by (over-)simplification. Do you really think there is some internal conscience deciding what will be 'invented' next? That isn't what any theory of evolution claims.

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 23:32
The Ark

Two banks - can you evolve that statement by putting some flesh on it?

Crabstick - I think where there is religion there is political control without a doubt, not sure it is down to the bible though it seems a strange collection of writings to me.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 23:33
The Ark

Crabstick: I don't believe the bible is the word of God at all it's the words of men trying to control the thoughts and actions of other men through fear.

Creation is a different subject, ok if we accept that natural selection and evolution are correct at what point did gas become life with the intelligence to evolve to survive and how did that happen.....I know people will talk about billions of years but there has to be that eureka moment when existence initially happened, In theory I could put together all the elements that make up a human being but I wouldn't have a person.

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 23:39
The Ark

'Where does the know how or intelligence to evolve come from....the water is drying up, I know I'll develop a system that allows me to breathe, remembering that breathing air hadn't been invented, it's a sophisticated asking to evolve quickly enough not to die out....'
AM can you imagine a simplistic scenario, where a fish is at the edge of the water near land and sees a tasty bit of vegetation or insect on the land, manages to jump onto the land, get the tasty treat, jump back into water. Do this many times, a bit longer each time, those fish that grab the food survive better, by chance one has a mutation that allows it to survive a bit longer on land and munch more treats over a few million years of doing this the gills adapt gradually to the change in environment etc....

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 23:41
The Ark

So what is evolution if it's not development of DNA to be able to survive.....if that's not the whole point of evolution what is ?

100Rod100 Posted on 17/10/2011 23:41
The Ark

"Crabstick - I think my main issue with natural selection is that it assumes that living cells, creatures, animals etc have some kind of incentive to naturally select and improve"

HC - that isnt natural selection. natural selection is to do with benefical and detrimental mutations. that is the basis of evolution in lay mans terms. animals dont just decide to improve [8)]

now i understand the nonsense in your posts about evolution as you do not understand what it is.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 17/10/2011 23:43
The Ark

no as I can't be bothered debating this again with people who don't even know the basics.

go and read wikipedia or even better a book, 'seek and though shalt find'.

HolgateCorner Posted on 17/10/2011 23:46
The Ark

But as evolutionists trying to explain how we have human beings, fish, dinosaurs, insects, spiders complete with webs, you can't just settle on accidental mutations, survival of the fittest, incremental improvements etc you have to explain the motivation, the reproduction urge and the underlying reason why it has possibly happened.

You are only scratching the surface by not answering or attempting to answer those questions however uncomfortable you find them.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 23:46
The Ark

No I get that Crabstick and that makes sense, it's the genius of the mutation, that development to know that by design that is how you need to mutate, and why aren't fish still doing that now ?

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 23:49
The Ark

Exactly Rod, those chance mutations that allowed the creature to survive a given situation were able to be passed down to offspring whereas those without the mutation may have died out. Chance mutations happen all the time, they are sometimes advantageous and sometimes disadvantageous, a good example of one being both depending on the circumstances is the mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia -this can actually give resistance to malaria.

American_Mary Posted on 17/10/2011 23:50
The Ark

I better go to bed, early mass, couple of bottles of communion wine and then I'll await the rapture.

Good night and God bless and remember Jesus loves you

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 23:53
The Ark

AM the point is there is no genius, there is a beauty to nature but I think that it's just random changes making all the difference. you can't pass down a dodgy mutation only one that either doesn't harm you (there's loads of examples) or one that gives an advantage.

crabstick-annie Posted on 17/10/2011 23:56
The Ark

Holgate, I think people should try to answer your questions rather than being dismissive. But it's getting late and my brain might explode which would not be good for my potential offspring ;)

JonMc Posted on 17/10/2011 23:56
The Ark

Annie.

I get what you're saying and in part you're right. The Bible is really an unfinished work - the romans decided what was going to go into it and they left lots out. This unfinished work has been used as a TOOL to keep the powers that be at the top and the rest of us in the crap. Same as now really.

It's a bit of a misconception though to say that the bible is anti women.
Yes it is - 'original sin/woman asks for John Baptist head/woman cuts Samson's hair? It stinks.'

On the other hand women were very important to Jesus and his ministary. Even according to the bible they're on the front line and historians are suggesting that the role of women were equal to men. The whole thing got tuned around. Christianity is full of ideas of martydom but Jesus forgave Peter for not martyring himself. The message was supposed to be 'Stay alive'.

As far as science goes the vatican is guilty there too but in theory religion is no brake on science. Muslims had science that was lost for 500yrs.*

in the 18th century Emanuel Swedenborg hypothesised that the solar system was created from nebula.
Nicole Oresme (c.13231382) - discovered why rainows are rainbows.
Louis Pasteur - if it was about disease he discovered it, helped found microbiology and remained a very spiritual man all of his life.



*and don't even think about thinking ' Aha! Crusades!'.

American_Mary Posted on 18/10/2011 00:00
The Ark

Mutation by luck rather than evolving than...right that makes more sense, just my very limited knowledge of the subject lead me to believe that creatures evolved to adapt to their surroundings rather than mutated and got lucky....so not survival of the fittest but the one with lucky mutation would be apt.

gravyboat Posted on 18/10/2011 00:03
The Ark

'i think I'll just grow some wings in case I need them in a billion years time'

Are you for real? [:D] Surely, NOBODY is this stupid?

ron_manager Posted on 18/10/2011 00:06
The Ark

Wow I missed a lot[:X]

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 18/10/2011 00:10
The Ark

cant believe that post got a tonne lol

crabstick-annie Posted on 18/10/2011 00:11
The Ark

I think people are more willing to listen and try to understand if others don't just take the p1ss and actually try to explain in a clear way -there are probably people a lot better at that than me though.

100Rod100 Posted on 18/10/2011 00:12
The Ark

AM - almost got it. the one's that had some sort of benefical mutation will then procreate and these will have ahigher chance of survival as they are more adapted to their environment - it is evolution as it is the evolution of a species [;)]

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 18/10/2011 01:03
The Ark

so if what you say is true then we will never evolve because we adapt our enviroment to suit us.
if we are most closely related to chimps why is our tissue more similar to a pigs?
did we evole from a pig?
why do we have white eyes and other species dont? is there an advantage to it? if not then why did we evole different to every other ape and mammals?
if we have only be around for a short period why did we become so much smarter than other animals?
we are unique! we did not evolve from apes if we did they would of found evidence by now, the missing links? but they have nothing but a few pieces of old skeletons that are a million years old.
and a few ape skeletons that were around the same time as us.




Scrote Posted on 18/10/2011 01:32
The Ark

Boromart - if asking how evolution explains the metamorphosis of butterflies is really "the daftest post I have ever seen by anyone ever..." i'm sure you'd be happy to explain it all in relatively simple english

no rush...

100Rod100 Posted on 18/10/2011 01:32
The Ark

SGATE_NOSE_BEST are you on drugs lol

north_east_invader Posted on 18/10/2011 07:10
The Ark

" Crabstick - I think my main issue with natural selection is that it assumes that living cells, creatures, animals etc have some kind of incentive to naturally select and improve.

Why does anything have any incentive or desire to live, improve and procreate at all?"

You clearly don't understand evolution. There is no need for and incentive, mutations that lead to an advantage increase chances of successfully passing on that mutation to the next generation ... And repeat.

As for missing links Sgate, they are /all/ "missing links", every 'stage' is part of the chain that changes minutely each time.

Boromart Posted on 18/10/2011 08:00
The Ark

"why do we have white eyes and other species dont?"
what do you mean? Other mammals do have white parts to their eyes, my dog does.

"Is there an advantage to it?"
Not every trait has to have an advantage to survive, it's the disadvantageous ones that are lost and the advantages ones that don't. Ginger hair doesnt provide any advantage/disadvantage, but it exists.

"if not then why did we evole different to every other ape and mammals?
if we have only be around for a short period why did we become so much smarter than other animals?"
because we have a far bigger brain in proportion to our bodies, 'short period of time' is a subjective term, it depends in teh context you use it. approx 300,000 years may be a short time in the history of the earth, but it is a long time to develop culture, society and learn to manipulate our environment for our benefit. It's only really the last 3-4 thousand years that we have reached some tipping point and accelerated our intelligence, probably related to the ability to read and write therefore allowing the learnings of one man to be passed to a whole generation. This gives an advantage to the next generation, which they can build on and pass down to the next generation again.....and so on. Accelerated learning.

"we are unique! we did not evolve from apes if we did they would of found evidence by now, the missing links?"
there is plenty of evidence in DNA records for example being 98.5% the same as modern chimps.

there are also skeletal and fossil records of many variant mammals in the homo lineage, again DNA evidence shows a tight link.

The thing with "missing link" is that someone expects some kind of smoking gun. Some one individual species that directly relates homo sapien to chimp. It simply doesn't work like that. There were many changes over millions of years before we got to where we are, and chimps are more cousins than grandparents anyway.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/10/2011 08:04
The Ark

"and chimps are more cousins than grandparents anyway."

[^]

I always like the old "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" question.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 18/10/2011 08:10
The Ark

we didnt evolve different to apes and other animals

they have there own evolutionary history, we didnt evolve from apes, we evolved from a mammal similiar to an ape but with a difference

an ape didnt evolve from a fish, a fish has its own evoltionary history

single celled life is the proof of evolution anyway, it shows how some organisms evolve different to others depending on circumstances, and chance mutation

we are 95% the same as a banana, all carbon based life had the same original fingerprint

there is no missing link as far as i am concerned in the context people are implying, and even if there was,what do we do, just dream up a story that a bloke in the sky fannied about with bacteria and flaggelum for 3.5 billion years before deciding he would make adam and eve

come on people, get a XXXXXXing grip ffs

Boromart Posted on 18/10/2011 08:11
The Ark

north_east_invader, I don't know about you, but I do think that many religious groups purposely misconstrue evolutionary theory because they know how damaging it is to their belief systems. The comment about why do we still have monkeys being a great example [^]

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 08:13
The Ark

of course we evolved from a type of ape, and as our spinal structure changed and we became more up right and then adaptable from that we evolved much quicker.

ron_manager Posted on 18/10/2011 08:25
The Ark

We evolved from a primate that does not exsist today.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 18/10/2011 08:28
The Ark

we didnt evolve from an ape that exists now, thats the context i was implying, they have there own evolutionary history


we evolved from a creature similiar, in the same context that a shark evolved from a creature that may have been similiar to the one a tuna fish evolved from

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 08:32
The Ark

this so called creature was identical until evolution kicked in and the spinal structure changed all that.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/10/2011 08:33
The Ark

In one regard, taxonomy has a lot to answer for by confusing people over evolutionary theory.

Boromart Posted on 18/10/2011 08:34
The Ark

it still amazes me that people don't believe it.

We have bread dogs and horses and forced an artificial selection process on them, it is particularly obvious in dogs which we have only truly been breeding for 500 years, yet we have a massive variety of animals that have just tiny DNA differences. We haven't got them to cross the line where they are no longer the same species, but give it a few thousand more years and that could happen.
WE have created this diversity very quickly in evolutionary terms.

We see evidence that our DNA is passed on, ginger parents with ginger kids for example. So the same DNA rules apply to us.

Now rewind a few millions years and the logical conclusion is that our DNA mutated enough for us to have an ancestral species.

No one denies that DNA is passed on in humans, and the only conclusion is that over millions of years that massive differences in the dominancae of some genes would have a great affect on the species. Only those who think humans and the earth are less than 6,000 year old would deny this.....despite their being a wealth of evidence that in fact this planet and our species is a LOT older.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/10/2011 08:37
The Ark

"it still amazes me that people don't believe it."

Indeed. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 18/10/2011 08:39
The Ark

people need to know that DNA does not alter after birth, as soon as you know that they get a better grip on evolution

thats why most apex predators are the oldest species known in biology, they already have the best chance of survival in there environment and any mutation thats gives them a better chance serves no purpose

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 08:48
The Ark

we have evolved ourselves unlike other animals without relying on just DNA

SGATE_NOSE_BEST Posted on 18/10/2011 08:58
The Ark

boromart you said only the last 3-4k years we have got smarter. i'm sure that we have found huge cities 6000+ years old in iraq.

remember seeing a tv program once that suggested about 60k years ago mankind was down to only a small amout of people they reckoned 1 village in africa. so all of us come from then people, think it was their interpretation of adam and eve from a scientific point of view because our dna has the same markers in it in different races around the world.

maybe this would explain why we have trouble breeding compared to scriptures in the bible think it says adam had 125 grandkids. if he was one of this last human tribe his dna was in alot better nick so to speak.
cheetahs today are suffering the same problem their sperm count is very low they reckon because the species nearly died out so they are all inbred like us.
the story of adam and eve has more to it than any scientist would dare admit.

Adi_Dem Posted on 18/10/2011 09:14
The Ark

This thread is a wind up, surely?

100Rod100 Posted on 18/10/2011 09:15
The Ark

what an absolute crock.

the reason why the DNA can be traced back to africa is because there was only one landmass millions of years ago. this subsequently divided and sub divided as continental drift began. the life forms on these continents then became mutually exclusive but were born from a common ancestor.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 09:19
The Ark

the fact that a humanoid can attached a life like hand to themselves is evolution in the making.

is amazing to see how technology is powering our own evolution in very recent history.

ron_manager Posted on 18/10/2011 09:22
The Ark

I disagree Raz. That is an environmental adaptation which will not be passed down by genetics.
Another example is the westeren world ever growing stature and height and life span. Tha is not evolution but rather the social and economic circumstances.

As soon as food shortage occurs long term (which is the norm) we'll soon be back to pre WW! heights and life expectancy.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 18/10/2011 09:24
The Ark

lifespan is simply pioneering into medicine and knowledge of diet, it has nothing to do with DNA

if anything the purpose of the DNA is to imprint a limited lifespan so the host organism does not compete with its offspring, thats why there are talimeres on the end of a DNA sequence that get progressivley shorter with every cell division

Adi_Dem Posted on 18/10/2011 09:25
The Ark

Raz, technology makes evolution less likely rather than more likely.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 09:27
The Ark

no that is so wrong we have used technology to evolve.

adapting suggest a problem or something we had to get around within our surroundings.

We want to talk to someone the other side of the world, technology has evolved us to allow us to do that now.

once technology integrates with us that is when it will get much more interesting

The suggestion of having a google lookup implanted is a very real concept.

Adi_Dem Posted on 18/10/2011 09:31
The Ark

That is technological evolution not physiological or genetic evolution which is what is being discussed here.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 09:34
The Ark

it is the evolution of the humanoid.

in a dna sense we are similar to apes.

to suggest that the tools we have created and use do not in any way help our evolution as mankind is crazy

JonMc Posted on 18/10/2011 09:37
The Ark

Butis the technological having an impact on the genetic? Those mutationsthat are so important for evolutional diversity - are they being screened out?

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 18/10/2011 10:25
The Ark

razmond thinks his kids will have big strong thumbs cos he uses his phone a lot


that how far off the beatemn track he is with his concept of evolution

humans will evolve probably to be taller, smarter and live longer, but it wont be something that is measurable as it will take millions of years, if indeed it happens, apex predators seldom do evolve as they are already masters of there environment and a mutated version will compete equally with the version of humanoid we are now

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 10:38
The Ark

clearly you havent read my posts if you think its that simple, and if you think thats what i said.

its about the genetic development of the thumbs due to their use, this is predicted to take generations to develop.

Adi_Dem Posted on 18/10/2011 11:36
The Ark

Raz, I think you shouldbe clear in your own mind before you post on this subject. At the moment, you're all over the place, big thumbs or not.

Razmond_HWDR Posted on 18/10/2011 11:40
The Ark

adi no need for the abuse.

the subject of the thread is what should be discussed, rather than your usual abuse [ref]

miltonkeynesaverage Posted on 18/10/2011 12:02
The Ark

All those pairs of animals inside a small stone chest?

Must have been a bit of a crush like


[sad]