Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  46

  THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .

  he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .

  that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Are you arguing that we can't judge some thing being greater than other thing?

  -John_Mann

  I'm not really sure why you're shifting to the term "greater" as the argument in the OP specifically used the term "good" but I'll be happy to address this word as well.

  Once again, just like "good" or "perfect" the term "greater" isn't an intrinsic property. Rather, when we address what is "greater" we compare two or more different things in regards to a specific property and then we make a determination as to which one has a greater quantity of that specific thing or is more likely to produce a desired outcome.
  

  Allow me to explain by way of an analogy: Which is greater - spinach or chocolate cake?

  Well, without defining what I mean by "greater" there's no way to do a value judgment is there? You're very first question is - greater at what?

  Greater in flavor?

  Greater in calories?

  Greater mass?

  Greater acoustical properties?

  Greater terminal velocity?

  Etc.

  Until I explain the properties I'm using to compare spinach and chocolate cake there's no way we can evaluate the "greatness" or either.

  Are you arguing that we can't judge some thing being greater than other thing?

  
  No. Rather, I'm pointing out that without specifically defining the properties or the desirable outcomes with which we are comparing - then there's no way for us to figure out which one is "greater".
  
  
• 
  46

  THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .

  he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .

  that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  If there is no higher consciousness in this universe than our own, then how is it that ours so spontaneously came into existence?

  It didn't. Consciousness is the product of brains. And brains are the product of billions of years of evolution. There's nothing "spontaneous" about it.
  
  
• 
  46

  THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .

  he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .

  that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  "Good" is not an intrinsic property that things have. Rather, it's a label that we apply to desirable states and outcomes. This is why different people can have different opinions on whether or not something is "good" or "not good".

  We can say things are big. But that doesn't mean there's something out there with "ultimate bigness". Likewise, we can say things are good. But that doesn't mean there's something out there with ultimate goodness.

  Jehovah witnesses do this all the time with their label of "perfection". God is going to make a perfect world. God is going to make you perfect. Etc. Without ever defining by what is meant by perfect.
• 
  51

  Why are the evolutionist's so upset?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.

  it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.

  should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Evolution explains the diverse speciation we observe on our planet.

  It says NOTHING about how we should form or interact in our societies.

  Please learn the difference.

  Thank you.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Thanks for the shout out WSCM.
• 
  70

  Apologists saying that the JWs shouldn't be banned, what the hell!??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's been brought to my attention that there are xjw that say they support the witnesses and don't think russia should ban them.

  i would just like to remind all of you that jws are guilty of murder, causing higher rates of suicide, covering up child molestation, and keeping members in prisoned because if they leave they loose family, financial support, possible employment etc.. sure their not strapping bombs to their chests but they easily get members to kill themselves with their blood policies.

  they are an extremist group!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Wow, I have to say I find the whole premise of this OP both disturbing and offensive.

  While I am a vocal atheist, I also believe strongly in freedom of religion. I don't think the State should be telling people what they can believe and what they can't believe.

  People should be allowed to practice their religions however they see fit - so long as they don't trespass upon the rights of others. We will defeat these high control religions by spreading knowledge as far and wide as we can. Not by legislating what religions are and aren't allowed.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  • Stop hiding in the obscure, gray, subjective world of comparative anatomy, and step in to the objective world of mathematics and genetics.
    -TWM

    I think there's something deeply dishonest about you making this claim. Multiple people on this forum - myself included - have attempted to engage you on the mathematics and genetics. I even went so far as to post the actual calculations used and the different methodologies.

    Instead of addressing any of the points raised, you instead copy and pasted this multiple times:

    Let’s talk about chimp to man. Evolutionist say that the difference between man and chimp is 1.5 %. Does not seem much. What we need to find out is how much is much. When we hear that there is a 1 ½ % difference between man and chimp it seems not to be much. But we must take into account what 1 ½% exactly means. If there are three billion base pairs in a human 1 ½% calculates to 45 million base pairs or 15 million codons. It is estimated that it would take 10X10^21 mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order. One and half percent does not look like much but when analyzed, it becomes overwhelming evidence against man ever evolving from a chimp.

    
    
    Let me be as clear as I possibly can
    
  • . . .
    THIS:
    
    
  • . . .
    Is NOT this:
    
    It'd be like if I explained the complexities of a Saturn V Rocket and someone said, "Well I don't think we ever went to the moon because a pogo stick could never jump that high."
    
    Likewise, after I went into the science and mathematics of Mitochondrial DNA, the X Chromosome, Allele Frequencies, and Endogenous Retro Virus' - for you to bring up how much DNA we share with chimps, and then turn around and object to what I said on those grounds - is absolutely bone headed and doesn't come even close to addressing to the very real science I raised.
    
    Once again, let me be clear: Pogo sticks are NOT what we used to get to the moon. And overly simplistic shared DNA stats are NOT how we use genetics to demonstrate common ancestry.
    
    If you want to talk about the mathematics and genetics than let's talk about the mathematics and genetics. But in order for us to do that you're going to have to stop hiding behind this cheap strawman that you've concocted.
    
    Nobody is going to be able to have a meaningful conversation if you don't engage with them honestly.
    
    
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  What you have is a fish with five unique bones . . .
  - TWM

  Except, of course, that their bones aren't "unique" are they? Did you notice the hand bones in Ticktallik are the same bones we see in the hands of every reptile, bird and mammal alive today?

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  . . .
  But it doesn't stop there does it? Prior to the Tiktaalik, we don't see ANY land animals do we? And as we move up through the geological column we see these "unique fish" looking more and more reptilian.

  
  

  . . . and someone's opinion based on comparative anatomy that it is a transitional species.

  Except, of course, that it's not based on "someONEs" opinion is it? Rather, it's based upon evidence, research, peer review, and scientific consensus isn't it?

  
  http://courses.washington.edu/bio354/Paper%203.pdf

  http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060405/full/news060403-7.html

  http://www.academia.edu/407901/Tetrapod_Trackways_From_the_Early_Middle_Devonian_Period_of_Poland

  Comparative anatomy will always be gray and ambiguous.

  Except, or course, that it's neither of those things is it? Instead, far from being "ambiguous" we know that Comparative Anatomy is a scientific field of study - subject to all the rigors and scrutiny imposed by the process' or verification and falsification.

  And isn't it also true that Comparative Anatomy is based upon work done by scientists who are experts in their fields and who have spent decades researching their respective findings? Scientists who understand the difference between Homologuous, Analogous, and Homoplastic Structures - just to start with the basics. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

  And isn't it also true that the findings of Comparative Anatomy are backed up by modern day DNA sequencing? Please tell me, how a whole scientific enterprise - one that's been demonstrated to be a reliable method for making determinations about species - can be called "gray" or "ambiguous"?

  Just a thought, but before you go dismissing the work of an entire field of study - perhaps you should learn something about it first

  We all know you don't have a bone to pick with Comparative Anatomy because you have well researched and informed opinion. Rather, the only reason you're objecting is because it conflicts with you preconceived notions about creationism.
  

  We DON'T see you running around saying "particle physics is just someones opinion". Or, "chemistry will always be gray and nebulous" even though they're based upon the exact same types of inferences and deductions as Comparative Anatomy.

  What you have is hundreds of fossils that demonstrate a common designer.

  
  

  Alright, I'll bite. How do these hundreds of fossils demonstrate a common designer? And what empirically reliable method did you use to make this determination?
  
  

  
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Just out of curiosity, do you think something has to be EXACTLY halfway between two species to be considered "transitional"? Re-reading your last reply I almost get the feeling you think the Archeoptryx can't be considered transitional because it's too avian?

  I hope this isn't your position because - if it is - it's frankly a rather silly one. It'd be like saying your cousin can't be a retaliative of yours because he's not enough like your great-grandfather and is too much like your mother.

  Likewise, transitional species aren't the halfway point of any two groups. Rather, they're a species that are somewhere in the link between two other species.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Well, I'm happy to see that we've once again made some mild progress. We've gone all the way from Archeopteryx being "just a bird" to a "bird with unique features" and now you've reached the threshold of calling it "truly unique".

  Except of course that Archeopteryx isn't "truly unique" is it? In fact, when we look at the Jurassic and Triassic period, there are many other Theropods with with both feathers and reptilian features. There are a huge number of these dinosaurs (or as you call them "birds") such as:

  1. Avimimus portentosus
  2. Sinosauropteryx prima
  3. Protarchaeopteryx robusta
  4. Caudipteryx zoui
  5. Rahonavis ostromi
  6. Shuvuuia deserti
  7. Beipiaosaurus inexpectus
  8. Sinornithosaurus millenii
  9. Caudipteryx dongi
  10. Caudipteryx
  11. Microraptor zhaoianus
  12. Nomingia gobiensis
  13. Psittacosaurus
  14. Scansoriopteryx heilmanni
  15. Yixianosaurus longimanus
  16. Dilong paradoxus
  17. Pedopenna daohugouensis
  18. Jinfengopteryx elegans
  19. Juravenator starki
  20. Sinocalliopteryx gigas
  21. Velociraptor mongoliensis
  22. Epidexipteryx hui
  23. Similicaudipteryx yixianensis
  24. Anchiornis huxleyi
  25. Tianyulong confuciusi
  26. Concavenator corcovatus
  27. Xiaotingia zhengi
  28. Yutyrannus huali
  29. Sciurumimus albersdoerferi
  30. Ornithomimus edmontonicus
  31. Ningyuansaurus wangi
  32. Eosinopteryx brevipenna
  33. Jianchangosaurus yixianensis
  34. Aurornis xui
  35. Changyuraptor yangi
  36. Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus
  37. Citipati osmolskae
  38. Conchoraptor gracilis
  39. Deinocheirus mirificus
  40. Yi qi
  41. Zhenyuanlong suni
  42. Dakotaraptor steini
  43. Apatoraptor pennatus

  . . .

  It's pretty awesome. When we look back to the Triassic and Jurassic periods we don't see ANY modern birds. And all the animals we see that have feathers also have extensive reptilian features. Why is that?

  It's simple. Because some of the dinosaurs were the precursors to modern day birds.

  You correctly pointed out that some of these dinosaurs we're quite likely capable of short flight (like the micro-raptor). But what you left out was that most of these feathered dinosaurs couldn't fly at all. Their arms were still arms. Not wings.

  Some of these animals - like the Sinosauropteryx - were thought to be ordinary dinosaurs . . . until we found imprints of their feathers. That is to say, outside of their feathers, there is nothing avian about them. Would you call Sinosauropteryx a "bird"? And if we call a Sinosauropteryx a bird - than what about other types of Compsognathidae that don't have feathers but are closely related? Are they all "birds" too? And if they are all birds too, should we also call all Coelurosauria "birds" as well? Does this mean that the mighty T-rex is a "bird"?

  
  

  There's a lot more here than you realize. And the Archeopteryx is by no means a one off. It's what birds used to look like - when they were still dinosaurs.

  On a separate note, I'd also like to point out that there is something between scales and feathers. They're called protofeathers. Check it out:

  http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm