Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

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.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K." - TWM

There is nothing simple about a 1 celled organism. It is this type of misunderstanding that is leading you down the garden path to the shed of absolute nonsense.

When people have worked these figures out, as in this case, the assumption to the calculations has been what is the likelihood of the sequences appearing, fully formed and all together in 1 neat package. That, of course, is what happens in creation accounts and is not what science teaches on these subjects. Another assumption is that amino acid sequences are randomly joined with no preference for order. This is wrong...yet again...

Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to these calculations that is being revealed in your posts...

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

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.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Please note, on the topic of evolution vs creation, every book written on the subject has been criticized" - TWM

Have they? Who cares, I was referring to the critique of the particular book that contains the basis for the argument that you used in your OP. What I gave you was sufficient for you to question the basis for your argument. What I gave you explained what your author actually wrote and why what he found was to be expected using evolutionary Theory. In other words it removes the premise for your OP.

Your beliefs are based on straw men.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

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.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Thanks for all that information on dating rocks, Please note, we are not discussing geology, but Cytochrome c. In this discussion the age of rocks is irrelevant" - TWM

It is very relevant to this discussion because you said:

"What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time."

You suggest that Cytochrome c infers all living creatures appeared at the same time (I assume in an attempt to justify a belief in the genesis creation account) yet the geology conclusively shows this is wrong. So yes, showing you how other branches of science contradict this thought of yours is relevant.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

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.

WhatshallIcallmyself

TWM

To be fair, considering you are posting ideas that were debunked those 30 odd years ago when they were first asserted, you should be thankful of any attention and not dismissive of it as you are with Simon's contribution.

Also, you keep alluding that faith is needed to accept evolution. That statement tells me all I need to know about the level of your understanding of the work involved in the natural sciences...

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Fisherman,

Cofty has answered your questions to a level any reasonable person would be satisfied with. I really cannot understand why you think he hasn't answered your questions fully. You are just restating your assertions and ignoring the obvious. Either you are wrong and the Bible doesn't contradicts itself with regards to eating animals that are found already dead or your are right and the Bible contradicts itself. I could care less either way but based on the explanations given by Cofty I think you are wrong. Context of scripture is crucial in these discussions and I feel you are not taking note of that.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

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.

WhatshallIcallmyself

I think TWM is referring to a book called 'Evolution: A theory in crisis' written in 1985 by M.J. Denton. In this book this biochemist (I think) makes the same suggestions as TWM is now doing some 30 years later.

As usual we see this type of evolutionary critic releasing books for those who most likely share this viewpoint already.

This critique from talkorigins.org explains why M.J Denton is wrong; there is also a second review of his book linked on that page that makes for good reading to those interested.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"As an example, this one will do. Talking about diversionary tactics would just be another diversion."

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"And a self appearing universe from nothing is distinguishable from a miracle how?

This is another example of the inconsistency of atheism." - Perry

No this is just another example of your profound ignorance. You are decades behind with those ideas Perry.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry -

Once again you demonstrate why reading an article written by conservative Christians that is critiquing a scientific study isn't a good use of your limited amount of free time. The actual study makes a good case against the what it is you are suggesting the study states.

JW's rely on 'spiritual food' from the FDS and we see where that gets the average JW with regards to a basic understanding of science (for 1 example). You, yet again, are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as the JWs by relying on these 3rd parties to 'feed' you your knowledge...

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Although there is no evidence of actual offences occurring in the context you present it is certainly reasonable to suggest with a reasonable level of certainty that there have been unreported abuse based on the rate of disclosed offenses over a similar period previously. Unless, of course, we should think that it is reasonable to assume that all abuse is being reported.