towerwatchman

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 263 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by towerwatchman

• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  I just assumed that Stephenmyers was a sock puppet!

  Had the same feelings about Darwin being the atheist messiah.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  cofty

  @stephenmyers complaining that natural selection does not explain the origin of DNA is like complaining gravity doesn't explain rainbows.

  In order for natural selection to work, DNA had to be there first.

  DNA proves that all living things evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years

  The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct on is the determining factor[s]. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or dis advantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

  Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual which reproduce the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  cobweb

  There is an umbrella. Google atheism and you get a box defining it as: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism incorporates both ways of thinking. An atheist may make a positive statement about the non existence of a deity.

  True Atheism.

  Personally, I will say that I have a lack of belief in a God

  Stepping from strong atheism to soft atheism; soft espouses “lack of belief” or “absence of belief” which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belive. Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God.

  in the absence of any evidence. It is a rational approach to demand evidence to be provided before accepting something as true. It is up to the believer to produce that evidence before assuming that thing's existence.

  That would lean towards Agnostic.

  My position is that it is more technically accurate to state a lack of belief in God. Just like it is more technically correct to say, I have a lack of belief in Santa Claus. But I have no issue really with saying Santa Claus doesn't exist because without any evidence why should I even consider it?

  There is an interesting thing about life, it is that it does not start with reason and ends with faith. A child’s mind is very limited and does not inform the child for the reason of her trust, but as she runs into her father’s arms she does so because of an unspoken trust that those arms will hold her. A child begins with faith that is then proven by reason. Over time that trust will be tested, and it is the character of the parent that will establish that trust to be wise. One starts life believing in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Zeus, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster but overtime reason proves them wrong. My faith has substance, it is rational, based on the confirmed knowledge that Jesus has proven who He claims to be, God incarnate. Some accept by faith, I by reason. My faith is not orphaned by reason.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  cofty

  In relation to DNA "information" is nothing but a metaphor

  What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  What makes you think that you get to define what atheism means? The reason I am an atheist is because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods, I have not seen or heard anything that makes me think that the claims of theists hold any merit whatsoever. You are welcome to show me some evidence if you think you have something.

  That sounds more Agnostic than Atheist. Agnostics sit on the fence.

  I would also disagree with your statement that atheism is unique, personally as a rational human I accept that theism covers a wide variety of positions from people who claim to speak to god, know that he exists, believe s/he/it exists, think that on the balance of probabilities god does exist all the way through to not sure/ vaguely spiritual, I don't think it is up to me to define the meaning for those people other than a belief in god. So tell me where do you sit in the theism spectrum?

  I am a Christian by science, logic, reason and faith.

  Now you on the other hand don't seem to have read or understand the wide variety of positions that atheists hold, I would say that my position is probably common to most atheists and that my definition would be accepted by most as well.

  Notice you label theist as ‘other than a belief in god.’ What would be the antithesis of that statement? “other than the non-belief in god. ” It does not come with stipulations, such as " because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods,
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Anony Mous

  I am evoking intelligence not deity. What exactly you call it makes no difference. If you invoke an intelligence, you not only have to come up with the established facts of how our Universe came into existence but also how your intelligence came into existence. You now have 2 problems to solve.

  You need to stick to the subject matter, 'what is the known cause that generates or creates information'. And that would be intelligence. I am not discussing the origin of the universe.

  The point is that I've proven to you it doesn't require an intelligence to come up with these things and your only response is:

  If you are referring to things that were done in a lab, yes that was done under the supervision of intelligence.

  I haven't noticed, you're just making a baseless statement, if you're so sure of it, you can prove it. You've failed to prove it ergo you're wrong.

  Failed to prove what?
• 
  99

  2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

  2 pe.

  1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Earnest

  towerwatchman: It is all very well citing Granville Sharp's rule but it should be noted that he stated his rule in a work entitled "Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version". So the purpose of his rule was to establish the divinity of Christ.

  Yes it was, but does the purpose of the work disqualify the work?

  You mention that an exception to the rule is when it applies to proper names. You will note another exception in my previous post in Proverbs 4:21.
  Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."

  Note ‘and do not disobey either of them.’ Identifies more than one person. For you theory to work it should read ‘and do not disobey him.’

  You will also note exceptions in the first and second letters to Timothy which I cite in my previous post where it refers to [the] God and Christ Jesus. I don't think anyone has supported the view that in those verses both "God" and "Christ" should be applied to the same person, Jesus.

  True, to a point. Jesus is the proper name, Christ is a title. When put together what is being communicated is ‘Jesus the Christ.’ Also note there is only on Christ.

  1 Ti 1:11 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,

  1:2 …God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

  1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus

  1:14 … which are in Christ Jesus.

  1:15… that Christ Jesus…

  1:16,2:5, 3:13, 4:6, 5:21, 6:3, 6:13, 2 Timothy 1:1, 1:2, 1:9, 1:10, 1:13, 2:1, 2:3, 2:8,2:10, 3:12, 3:15, 4:1, 4:22.

  In line with this Georg B. Winer maintains in his work on Greek grammar that another exception is the clause in Titus 2:13 [...the great God] and Saviour ... Christ Jesus as there is no ambiguity the two are distinct. The alternative is to suggest that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ as God the Father.

  If Peter is referring to Jesus as the Father that would be modalism, goes against the gospels where Jesus repeatedly distinguishes Himself from the Father. Now if there is any doubt, then follow what Winer wrote, Titus 2:13 has no ambiguity, Paul is affirming the deity of Jesus. Supports 2 Pe 1:1 as proof of deity.
• 
  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. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Anony Mous

  Wow, the stupidity of this guy. To get 5 codons to mutate in the "right order" it can mathematically take no more than 125 mutations. 1.5% of 3B is the same ratio even if there were more base pairs. But that's also not how evolution works and mutations happen all the time, it's how you age and develop cancer. You can make mutations to species in a lab for crying out loud in a matter of hours.

  One thing I learned a long time ago. You cannot fix stupid. So let’s see how stupid this post is. You are arguing against Intelligent Design and for blind evolution. But notice you cite intelligence as proof that intelligence had nothing to do with it. “You can make mutations to species in a lab for crying out loud in a matter of hours.” Notice you doubt not only the institution you denounces but the very thing you denounces it with.

  But let see if it takes only 125 mutations without any guidance.

  "To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2}^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.

  Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.

  Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].

  Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because a there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site is a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195. 1chance in 10^195.

  Taking this into account only causes the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chance or the genetic information to produce them, to balloon beyond comprehension. 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.

  [There are 10^65 atoms in our galaxy]”

  [Stephen C. Meyer]
• 
  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. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Coded logic

  If we really do want to measure evolution we're going to have to be willing to do the math. Not sure how deep you want to get into this but the information is readily available for anyone who wants to take a stab at it.

  Impressive.
  
  
• 
  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. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  You keep on using those figures and still haven't actually stated a source for them, if you had any understanding of basic scientific principles you would understand why they are being dismissed.

  Apologize for the amount of time it took to find it. It is from “Evolution A Theory In Crisis” by Michael Denton. His source is ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function [1972 edition]’.

  However you are looking at one protein, and it is being coded by a ubiquitous gene. What that means is that it is coding for a very basic function, one that is common to all life. Since there are lots of ways of functionally coding for this protein (as I mentioned before) then if life were unrelated then you would expect that there would be a wide variety in how it is coded.

  It is not that simple. It is estimated that it takes 10x10^21 mutations to get five codons to mutate in the right order to fold in the right form to accomplish the function.

  What we actually see is that it is coded in a very similar way and that the small differences reflect how related any two organisms are. The more closely related the the two organisms are then the coding will be increasingly similar.

  They aren't radically different because they are related! Your figures are still incorrect!
  

  But that is not what we see. The difference between a cyclostome and fish [75%], amphibian [81%], bird [78%], marsupial [76%] and mammal [73%]. Notice mammals are closer to cyclostome than a fish. What this leads to is that all living things appeared at the same time.

  All species are transitional in regards to moving along a particular branch of the evolutionary tree. The first part of your sentence shows that you still have no real understanding of how fossilisation works or how evolution works. I'll sum up the key points, fossilisation is rare, fossilisation of rare species is even rarer. The evolution of species happens to groups of organisms not individuals, for a strong selection mechanism to be happening then lots of that group are dieing and a small number are surviving. So we wouldn't expect to see a lot of fossilisation but we do see it.

  Why don’t you see large amounts of fossilization? What happens when a fish or sea creature dies today? We have all seen the results, the body floats on the surface of the water or sinks to the bottom where it is devoured quickly by other fish. Or how does a dead fish lie on the bottom of a lake for hundreds of years until it is fossilized? Of course, that does not happen in real life, only in the fertile and desperate minds of evolutionists. But the fossil fish are often found very well preserved in sedimentary rocks. What we do have are many creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together. They seem to all have died in one cataclysmic event.

  Let's assume your figures for the differences between man and chimp are correct for a moment, so what you are saying is that we need a method to sieve out all the useless mutations that are harmful. Let's then look at the title of Darwin's book On the origin of species by means of natural selection. What does the second part of that title tell you about what happens? That's right, the successful genes are naturally 'selected' (by not being in a dead organism) so there you have your method to sieve out the harmful mutations. Then all you need is a population breeding like rabbits and you have evolution.

  The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct on is the determining factor[s]. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or dis advantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

  Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual which reproduce the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

  No, you are incorrect, modern birds do not show the reptilian features shown in primitive birds like archeopterix and archeopterix shows bird like features not seen in true reptiles. That is not speculation, you can see the fossils for yourself.

  Yes Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a tapestry of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. What is it suited for? A life of crawling on the ground or under rocks? Or suited for a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees? The features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. If it was transitional the feathers would be half way between scales to feathers, but it is not. Just this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.

  ‘… we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown. [Human Destiny (N.Y. 1947)] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy.