E-Watchman vs. Tim Kilgore Resurrection/Recreation Smackdown!

by Tuesday 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  garyneal

  bohm:

  Yes, yes, now it is coming back to me. Keep in mind that it was around 1999 when I talked about that popular mechanics article. I did two presentations, one on teleportation and another on nanotechnology. Of course, the magazine probably added its own ideas to the potential because I do remember it speaking of matter being disassembled (destroyed) at the source and being recreated at the destination. I think what it was saying was that it did indeed 'record' the state of the matter at the source before destroying it. Obviously this would mean that the telepods are taking apart the matter somehow too (perhaps with nanotechnology). It did mention the property of spin on an electron as something that was being measured. It got me interested in quantum mechanics for a while but now I am back into computers.

  They did an article later on nanotechnology itself and talked about the potential for it to make food and water for people living in areas with high poverty. I guess you can basically call this our version of the 'Star Trek replication technology.'

  I did another presentation for that college course on LCD monitors after that as I figured I had 'fried' the class's brains enough for that semester thinking about the previous articles.

  Now I got to search and see if I can find those articles.
• 

  garyneal

  I just a quick search and all I was able to find was a popular mechanics article 'Science Does the Impossible.' In it the article speaks of only teleporting a beam of light. This was not the article I remember but I am afraid I am too busy at the moment to search further.

  Click here for the article.
• 

  Tuesday

  My reaction after Tim's first video: This sounds like a purely semantic argument. Unimportant.

  My reaction after Robert's response: Yup, this is a purely worthless semantic argument.

  My reaction after Tim's final response: AHA! So THAT is what makes this argument important. Well played, Tim.

  Conclusion: If you watch the first or first two videos and feel like you're wasting your time, don't quit. It all comes together in the third one. Or maybe I'm just dense and didn't "get it" until the third one. Either way, I recommend watching them all.

  This made me laugh, alot of people do that with my videos. "Eh, that's just a question of semantics" but I specifically worded them to come up with the automatic response which leads to a larger question and finally a conclusion of "Faith", just like I say in my introduction video. Or even a final conclusion of "That's wrong". I'm glad finally someone made a video response to that which lead me to my conclusion finally after a year of having it posted (more than that actually). I've been leading people down this same path of logic the whole time the video's been up, but to finally get it on video is fantastic. I'm hoping to get a response, but I have a feeling that I won't. He seems like a nice guy though, sincere, polite, couldn't ask for much more in a video opponent. What I remember reading on his site years ago though was quite crazy.
• 

  Tuesday

  By the way Tuesday - i am really looking forward to seing these videos, after i saw you destroy biblethumber. But i think there is a huge problem here about the soul : Its really not very well defined (ei. no scientific theory of the brain, so IMHO even from a scientific standpoint, the soul is not 100% ruled out, at least not if we allow for a wide definition), and i am afraid nothing more than semantics can come out of it - did he choose the topic?

  Besides that - i think its really cool of you to take him on. I hope you get to touch more difficult topics.

  Oh yes, my old friend BibleThumper, he actually challenged me again but this time on his channel. I'm uploading a video responding to him. Basically my argument is that if God recreates a body and a mind but implants a soul there is something the same about a person and it makes perfect sense to me how someone could have every physical and conceptual part of them recreated yet still remain the same. The usual next argument is that your own body is constantly creating new cells to replace decayed and dead cells and your memories are constantly being lost and replaced with new memories and therefore you are not the same person than you were 5 years ago, however I simply argue that the cell recreation and memory replacement is staggered and at anytime you will have remaining cells since the last point of completed cell/memory regeneration.

  My personal favorite thing to do is Michael being Jesus, he asked if he could make response videos to my videos so I'm at the mercy of whatever video he decides to make a response on. I'm hoping for more interesting topics, but bear in mind I've been getting something like 20 messages a day along with comments on my videos with all the essential apologist answers, I'm well versed in what people answer these with and with what to use to counter them. The reason this one didn't seem to difficult is because I already had a basic response, the question being answered lended itself to a quick response to any answer given (like all of them are structured), it's really not to difficult to counter their apologetics and dismantle them....but oh they'll keep trying LOL.