It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

page: 16
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
How could non-sentience come up with the necessities to produce sentience?

Always curious about that one.


Looks like you know where distinction lies between sentience and non-sentience ... please do tell, I would like to know


To admit to yourself that you do NOT know something (and some things we will never know) is a very noble thing.

To claim to know the purpose of life (and have answers to the other big questions), just to make yourself feel better, is not.

Some of us just cannot sacrifice this self-honesty (and free thought in general) about really not knowing for the "free" gift of eternal life




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


My good man, I've waded through 15 pages of your sermon and I remain unconverted. You've used your bully pulpit for a personal rant while avoiding answering any questions.

I think even Socrates would be done with this thread. Forgive me for trespassing in your church of logical fallacies and straw man arguments. I just dropped in to say "hi" to a few friends. Good evening to you.


Another one runs away. And all I have to do is ask questions about their bald assertions. Questions they can't answer. Questions about bad science and religious dogma.

Conspiracies such as "Intelligent Design" will always fail, because the "cause" they put to the public is not their real mission. In this case, "Intelligent Design" is irrelevant. They want everyone to kow-tow to their particular vision of "God". They want to lead us boldly into the 17th Century.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
How could non-sentience come up with the necessities to produce sentience?

Always curious about that one.


As noted above, define "sentience". I think you're trying to say "how could slime mold produce that crown of creation, "ME"." As there is a range of "sentience" visible today I think we can say that there is no sharp dividing line. You will agree that the slime mold is non-sentient? And that a human is? (In most cases, Dubya excepted obviously.) So how about a gorilla? A horse? A cat?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0Do you believe that common decent rules out design and therefore a designer?
In other words, is mutation and natural selection the only possible conclusion for common decent?

It is a better working hypothesis than "In step two a miracle occurs".

Again, you're talking abiogensis, not evolution. Good luck with that, and let me know what you find.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Just wanted to give a big public shout out to my Ma for whom I owe my existence. Thanks ma n pa too, for the whole blissful co-mingling moment that has permitted me to enjoy time on the Planet. It's sometimes a fun place and often exciting. Ahhhhh, today I will have sex and go fishing.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FeedingTheRat
 


FeedTheRat,

This is deep. Incredibly deep. You are to be congratulated on your acumen here. The rest of us will be hard pressed to keep up with you.


"Science will never lead to a theory including non-science."


Quantum Theory

Theory of Relativity.

Theory of Evolution

Yada Yada Yada.

The problem with many your postings here is that you have your head so far up the backside of Gawdzilla...that you cannot seem to see straight.

You are attempting to use science to poo poo a writing which never was or is science and then heralding your accolades and merits ...thus making you look very silly. Quite a feather in yours and Godzilla's hat. Congratulations.

You to don't seem to be able to analyze this for yourselves. You are so deep in self promotion.

Science...real science...and its various disciplines ..engineering et al..does not need you to to promote these diciplines. If you two are the prime examples of champions for science....science is in real trouble.

Neither I nor the other readers out here need to know much about anything including science to sense and or see this clearly in you two.

Most of the week...I am to be found here at this location..

www.nn.northropgrumman.com...

Here where disciplines of science and engineering are put to use. Hydraulic principles. pneumatic principles...metallurgy ..nuclear principles are all brought to use and full theory and on the cutting edge.
You will find me often in the reactors of these submarines and aircraft carriers..although I am also familiar with the non nuclear side of these ships and boats.

This is how I know of what caliber you two are. Does this make me better or more sophisticated than you two....absolutely not. What it makes me is different. Not just me but the thousands of others employed here who also know a couple of lightweights when we see them.

You two have amply demonstrated that the reasons for knowing about the origins or earth and mans place in this scheme of things is political..not scientific.

And this is further and easily demonstrated by some simple common sense in that the body politic pays for public education. A political public education. This same body politic which pays for much of scientific work by grants et al..etc etc.
In case you have not noticed the pattern..politics is also deep into self promotion and backslapping. The very pattern under which you two operate. You two are the epitome carried to extremes of pubic education.
Outside of your backslapping ...slapstick...this seems to go over the heads of you two. No problem here with this. I once again make note of this to the other readers of this thread.

Don't misunderstand me here...I have no beef with education per se. I wish I had a better education..but I am also aware that this is a lifetime goal. One never stops learning until ones last breath.

If I want to know more about certain scientific principles and workings I go to the floor where the engineers work, have thier offices, and ask for some background and direction to doing a lot of this research myself. They are glad to help me.
I will not be coming to you two.

Keep up the good work you two..science will be hard pressed to keep up with your merits.

Thanks to all for their posts.

Orangetom




[edit on 10-5-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
"Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation" And that's my point.

Your point was that sedimentation can be rapid?



"supposed Darwin quote"

I'm not sure if that's real or not, but it really doesn't matter when modern synthesis is considered, now does it?



You implied something completely different. You implied it was correct. Nice drawing or not.

I did no such thing. I said: .."those drawings are in fact really accurate. Feel free to compare them to MRI scans of different embryos."



Not needed. It's simple. You detect the ammount of c14 in a plant. Then you check the number against the number you can measure in the air. And then you can calculate the half-time.
And if c14 levels where stable over that period, had the same ammount as we have today then you have an accurate reading.
You only have to assume that the levels are at equilibrium and have been that way for a couple of million years.

Carbon dating is not used for objects that old.



That it is still alive. That it didn't evolve, not even after millions of years. Same fish. That is a problem.

How is it a problem? How do you know it didn't evolve?



excuse me for my mistake. And you didn;t prove my point wrong. The little critters didnt get arms and legs turned into male and female, invented fire and does experiments on other lifeforms after thousands of lifes.

Do you understand the magnitude of your mistake?



If the average life of a humanoid is 30 years, then that experiment covered the evolution period of 600,000 years. We didn't even exist back then, so a new species was the least i expected.

I bet a larger percentage of their genome changed in those 20000 generations than ours has from our ancestors that lived 20000 generations ago.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by R13sg0Do you believe that common decent rules out design and therefore a designer?
In other words, is mutation and natural selection the only possible conclusion for common decent?

It is a better working hypothesis than "In step two a miracle occurs".

Again, you're talking abiogensis, not evolution. Good luck with that, and let me know what you find.


I just asked you a question. And you know that i'm talking design and you are not. We already established that understanding.
I asked: Is it the only possible conclusion for common decent.
I didn't asked which one you prefer. We already know that. And so indirectly you answered the question by yes. Perhaps unconsciousnessly, but you did by showing preference.
You show faith in a system. But you know that the only fact of evolution is phylogenetics. And the question of 'how' is in debate, the question of 'why' and 'by who'. So let me rephrase the question.
How did phylogenetics told anyone how it accomplished itself?

In my opinion the only one who (accepted by science) got closest to crack its modus operandi is morphogenesis, it is also considered a pillar of developmental biology. And that is what we are talking about isn't it, development. The rest is based on the assumption that random mutations plus natural selection is the m.o. This alone shows there may be more then one explanation. And i already told what i found considering abiogenesis, you ignored it so why would you pay attention now all of a sudden. Just read back.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by R13sg0
 


I see you struggling to make sense out of what you say, and you have the advantage on me there, because you're probably the only one that could understand what you're trying to say.

As for common descent, when the mechanism is deemed a "law" I'll say that mechanism is the only one that works. Until then I'll go with the one that requires the least "magic men" to work miracles.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Orangutang your problem is your weak foundation. For me I was raised on a river by the ocean under fir trees. No one in my circle ever talked about a god. There was no bible or church. We experienced life without it. To this day it's unnecessary. Natural curiosity lead to science classes in high school and college. My favorite aspect of science is that it takes no prisoners. The bad ideas die hard e.g. intelligent design aka creationism. To me it's comforting to know that scientists are annd will always be exploring and testing and drawing conclusions and re-testing and eliminating bad conclusions and adding new understanding to the sum of our knowledge. People who choose to ignore true science to prop up some unsupported superstition/miracle based cockamamy story about how this that or the other thing happened are just fooling themselves and anyone else they influence. That's why the lead line of this thread is "intelligent design" is a conspiracy.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Feedingtherat. Please stay on topic and refrain from abusing members names.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Oh hey man. It's Mother's Day. I'm a man of my word. So I admit unless something crazy happens today to Obama, then my prediction was wrong.

There is a recurring theme here though. That is that Obama will die no matter what.

That code was one of many possible futures.

"http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/12"

There is no doubt that there are codes though. God would know every possible outcome to every possible choice we could make. Don't tell me these odds are chance. You're mistaken as I was about the prediction. It' still only like 11:37 so we'll see I guess.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Oh and moderators I am sorry to go off topic on this forum again, but I had to answer to Gawdzilla on something.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by R13sg0
"Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation" And that's my point.

Your point was that sedimentation can be rapid?


Yes. And is the only evidence we find for rapid sedimentation upright trees? I guess it's the case for every fossil. I believe it's a requirement for fossilisation. Not it can be rapid, but it must be rapid.




"supposed Darwin quote"

I'm not sure if that's real or not, but it really doesn't matter when modern synthesis is considered, now does it?


It's real and you asked me, so i delivered. I even gave the source earlier. And it matters because you uphold his general theory and conclusions, that he based almost solely on those facts.




You implied something completely different. You implied it was correct. Nice drawing or not.

I did no such thing. I said: .."those drawings are in fact really accurate. Feel free to compare them to MRI scans of different embryos."


i127.photobucket.com...

Nice drawings, and i see some resemblance. I wouldn't use the phrase "really accurate" though. I could be mislead by the drawings, i could not by the pictures.




Not needed. It's simple. You detect the ammount of c14 in a plant. Then you check the number against the number you can measure in the air. And then you can calculate the half-time.
And if c14 levels where stable over that period, had the same ammount as we have today then you have an accurate reading.
You only have to assume that the levels are at equilibrium and have been that way for a couple of million years.

Carbon dating is not used for objects that old.


Be more precise in your answers. And it is the case for every radio isotope dating method. You can only come to a date if you compare your results with the current levels.




That it is still alive. That it didn't evolve, not even after millions of years. Same fish. That is a problem.

How is it a problem? How do you know it didn't evolve?


It's not a problem for me, personally, i believe it's a problem for evolution-theory. And we can tell by the fossils we found that it didn't evolve. Please, tell me what u think the explanation is for this fish not changing, with your view of the evolution theory.




excuse me for my mistake. And you didn;t prove my point wrong. The little critters didnt get arms and legs turned into male and female, invented fire and does experiments on other lifeforms after thousands of lifes.

Do you understand the magnitude of your mistake?


Yes. I was tired man, give me a break.




If the average life of a humanoid is 30 years, then that experiment covered the evolution period of 600,000 years. We didn't even exist back then, so a new species was the least i expected.

I bet a larger percentage of their genome changed in those 20000 generations than ours has from our ancestors that lived 20000 generations ago.


Then again: a new species was the least i expected.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by R13sg0]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Are you one of the 2012 apocalypse people? Where do you get your information? How does it relate to so-called intelligent design?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by R13sg0
 


I see you struggling to make sense out of what you say, and you have the advantage on me there, because you're probably the only one that could understand what you're trying to say.

As for common descent, when the mechanism is deemed a "law" I'll say that mechanism is the only one that works. Until then I'll go with the one that requires the least "magic men" to work miracles.


Okay, i understand. When do you think we will be able to make it law? It would make things easier for you against guys like me and the bible-nuts.
What proof do you need and where can you find it in your opinion? Can you expand a little on your views about this 'law'?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FeedingTheRat
 


Because the answers are all in there locked away in a code only to be revealed during the last days. Because there are matrices about Neanderthal and Darwin.

The link I gave you provides evidence of these codes and that they cannot be there by chance with no pro-God bias other than the subject of the matrix. Also control texts are used to determine statistical odds of such findings in a "monkey text" or non-encoded text. The results might startle you. Its not really for the feint of heart if you never really believed.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237984774&sr=8-1

Also check out this book on Darwin's rejection of experiences with God that led him to believe found evolution. If you can't find it, then its a $15.00 buy depending on where you go.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join