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.
Originally posted by whitewave
How could non-sentience come up with the necessities to produce sentience?
Always curious about that one.
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.
Originally posted by whitewave
How could non-sentience come up with the necessities to produce sentience?
Always curious about that one.
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?
"Science will never lead to a theory including non-science."
Originally posted by R13sg0
"Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation" And that's my point.
"supposed Darwin quote"
You implied something completely different. You implied it was correct. Nice drawing or not.
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.
That it is still alive. That it didn't evolve, not even after millions of years. Same fish. That is a problem.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.