Posts by towerwatchman

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

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.

towerwatchman

Caedes

I'm not sitting on the fence, I view belief in god in the way I view belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
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.

Unless you are waiting for evidence that Santa or the Tooth Fairy exist, you are taking the position of a hard Atheist.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

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.

towerwatchman

cofty

Information in DNA is nothing but a metaphor.

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, written in 0 and 1. DNA is a code written with four nucleotides A,T,C,G. Just like CAD-CAM which is computer software that is used to both design and manufacture of products, DNA is software written in DNA format then transcribed to RNA format and is used by the cell in the manufacture of proteins. Just like CAD CAM software is written in ‘alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects’ = the production of X, DNA is written in “alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects’ = the production of proteins.

Now the question moves from ‘what is the origination of life’, to ‘what is the origination of the information that created first life’. Using the same ‘ cause and effect’ principle used by Darwin, we can only conclude that the only known cause of information is intelligence.

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.

towerwatchman

bohm

It is estimated that it would take 10X10^21 mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order.
1) Just for my own sake, how do you compute this number?

The calculations for chimp to human I do not have at this time.

Below is the probability of producing a 150 amino acid molecule. That is 50 codons. The numbers below surpass the probability of 10^21

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.

2) How does this number disprove evolution? (what is the full argument as to why this computation shows Humans and Chimps do not have a shared ancestor)

Following the computations. If the difference between a chimp and a human is 15 million codons, and it takes 10^21 to mutate 5 codons, what is the total probability when we include the other 14,999,995 codons. It is an impossibility. When applying comparative anatomy we do see similarities, but on the genetic level there is a huge gap, that makes evolution an impossibility.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

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.

towerwatchman

Finkelstien

Answer = Finkelstein is a proper representation of intellectual honesty positioned from acquired knowledge from applying and supporting the scientific method through examination of physical evidence.

And your post are proof of this. Better yet your avatar is a better representative of your social, and intellectual level.

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.

towerwatchman

To Finklestien

Correction not a diagnosis but a confirmation. You definitely suffer from fecal encephalopathy

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.

towerwatchman

GrreatTeacher

Once you start playing the cut-n-paste game with the same information over and over again, you've lost the argument.

The reason it is the same information over and over again is because no one has addressed it. Maybe someone can address it cognitively and we get on with a discussion. Dismissing without any support is bogus. I have an idea. Pick something I posted and post a rebuttal with substance. Not being sarcastic at all. I welcome a good exchange of ideas.

99

2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman in

2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

2 pe.

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

towerwatchman

Earnst.

That is exactly the reason this verse is another exception to Granville Sharp's rule: "when you have two nouns [the God and king] ... and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person". In this verse it is absolutely clear that the two nouns do not refer to the same person. Hence an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*.

"My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."

If God and king are not proper names, who are they referring to?

Psalm the God and King ????

2 Peter the God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply.

Exactly. When [the] God is used without qualification it refers to God the Father (as in John 1:1), so 2 Peter 1:1 cannot be referring to the same person regardless of Granville Sharp and his rule.

Wrong Theos with or without the definite article can refer to God the Father. It all depends on the text.

n Tit. ii. 13 considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that Saviour is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with God, - Christ being first called the great God and then Saviour. The article is omitted before Saviour, because this word is defined by the genitive of us, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Similarly in 2 P. i 1, where there is not even a pronoun with Saviour.

I would stay away from anything that starts with “considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe” you are reading opinion.

Note the genitive of us is not Savoir but God and Savior.

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.

towerwatchman

Finkelstein

Creationists like to postulate about where are the intermediate fossils if evolution does occur?
Here end of discussion.

Based on Finkelstein’s behavior, I can confidently diagnose him with fecal encephalopathy and leave it at that. But for the reader.

Notice the evolutionist retreats to the ambiguous world of comparative anatomy. Reminds me of that Sesame song ‘Two of these things belong together, two of these things are kind of the same…” At the end comparative anatomy is subjective. Since Finkelstein wants to present the evolution of man, and man closest relative is a chimp, based on DNA compatibility of 98.5%.

And I will repeat myself.

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.

So much for your skull collection.

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.

towerwatchman

Caedes

That book isn't peer reviewed science and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who cares about the veracity of their statements.

So what? Does no peer review equate to false? Notice the issue anyone has with the author is his interpretation of the figures, no one is questioning the figures. Why?

I have already explained the basics of how evolution actually works and why it works to eliminate harmful mutations, if you are going to keep on stating the same things and ignoring the replies then the other posters who are calling you a troll are right.

How does evolution work? By Natural selection? The all- purpose answer.

I am only interested in hard scientific data not creationist flim flam.

The data is from ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function. In the critiques that have been posted or linked no one is doubting the atlas. Now apply the same to the evolutionist who when he finds a bone creates a whole creature and environment from it. Who is flim flamming.

Unfortunately for you I studied geology and you couldn't be more wrong, I live not far from the jurassic coast, fossils are very common there. Perhaps you could come and point out those fossil rabbits because I (and everyone else who has ever actually studied fossils) have never found one.

For anything to have been fossilized to the extent that we have the feathers of a bird, or the scales of a fish, or a fish eating a fish the fossils had to have been buried right away. This does not happen every day. They were buried quickly most likely during a cataclysmic event. Note Karoo Formation of South Africa that contains 800 billion vertebrates such as reptiles. And many of those creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together.

You should do yourself a favour and actually read some proper reference books on geology and fossils because you clearly know nothing about the subject. Do you really think that scientists just make up things, do you know how the scientific method works and how peer review works? Do you know what I mean by empirical data, falsifiability or reproducability? Do you know what scientists mean by hypothesis and theory?

I have read books on both subjects. As to “scientist” making things up. Let’s see.

Pakicetus Inachus

When found in 1983 by PD Gingerich it was immediately declared to be a primitive whale based on fragments of one skull. Nothing below the skull was found at that moment to support the idea that it was a sea creature. The assumptions were based totally on skull fragments.

Based on fragments, it was described as having a semi aquatic life style and illustrated on the front cover of the prestigious journal ‘Science’ as an aquatic mammal absent of hind legs.

When additional fossils were found Pakicetus has a four footed skeletal structure similar to that of wolves or mesonychids.

Rodhocetus.

There is discrepancy between the reconstructive description of Rodhocetus and the fossil evidence. The reconstruction had a whale fluke but there was no fossil evidence to confirm this.

When PD Gingerich was asked about the fluke discrepancy he said, “Well we don’t have the tail for Rodhocetus so we don’t know for sure it had a ball vertebrae indicating a fluke so I speculated it had a fluke.”

Also the flippers were drawn on.

When asked about the flippers, Gingerich said, “Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands and the arms of Rodhocetus and we understand that it does not have the kind of hands that can be spread out like a whale, and if you don’t have flippers I don’t think you can have a fluke and really power swimming, I doubt that Rodhocetus had a fluke tail.”

But it is still drawn with a fluke and flippers.

Really? What makes you think you are remotely qualified to make that statement?

Really? I need qualifications to question? Tell me what is the determining factor[s] that favors one species over another for survival? And if so, is there any evidence for it? No one knows. Since Natural Selection became the answer for everything, it is the answer for nothing.

Feathers didn't evolve from scales, do some research.

Let’ reword that for you. We do not have the creature with both scales and feathers.

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.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

When it comes to the issue of creation vs evolution any publication favoring either side will be heavily contested by the opposing side. It would be better to pick a point from the opposing publication and discuss it.
Flag Link Edit