Posts by towerwatchman

Forget the word 'atheist' and what ever semantics you want to use around its meaning. I simply do not believe in god or gods. This is for no other reason than I see no evidence to believe. I've waded through the religious mumbo jumbo and made my own mind up. That's all there is to it for me.

Thanks for being honest. Your worldview is 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

John-man

Evolutionism is a philosophical position but the theory of evolution is science.
Evolution is an empirical fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact.

Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientist to solve problems, in which a recognized problem is subjected to thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. No theory of origins can be proved scientifically because the essence of the scientific method is observation and experimentation. One does not have to be a scientist to know that the origin of the universe and man cannot be observed or put to experiment since it is not happening in the present.

At the most evolution falls under historical science. Empirical facts no.

The theory of evolution and atheism are completely unrelated.

To a point. There are theist who believe in evolution. But there are no atheist that believe in creation. Evolution is the handmaiden of atheistism.

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

I spent most of my life immersed in creationism before I began to study evolution. Difference is I was humble enough to admit my mistake. You on the other hand...I normally debate creationists in the forum but you are too ignorant and arrogant to waste time on. Evolution is a fact. It does not require the consent of the superstitious and wilfully ignorant.

You can be immersed in anything up to your eyebrows, and it does not matter if you do not absorb or process anything. The one wasting time here is you. You keep ignoring the main point of my rebuttal and grab on to the most insignificant topic and post on it. We call those red herrings. But you are not the first evolutionist to do it. Seems more the norm that exception.

In fact on the philosophical scene evolution is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical. Evolution is an abstract, speculative philosophy. Evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a fairytale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless and we have no absolute proof of it. Evolution rather than being a fact, is a faith, since it cannot meet the test of science.

Notice the similarities, Christianity has a triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Evolutionist also has a Trinity, Lady Luck, Father Time, and Mother Nature.

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

In “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, Darwin did not try to explain the origin of the first life. Instead, he sought to explain the origin of new forms of live from simpler preexisting forms, forms that already possessed the ability to reproduce. His theory assumed rather than explained the origin of the first living thing. His masterpiece contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research. He developed his theory by drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.

Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time. In that sense, natural selection was ‘casually adequate’.

Yes Finkelstein I accept micro evolution, I profess by belief that the finches beaks did change but strongly disbelieve that a whale evolved from a mammal. [macro-evolution].

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

Copying and pasting for the lord!

I get penalized for being prepared. Yes I copy and paste. Both my work and other. When other’s it is cited. Don’t you do the same by posting links. Does copy and paste equate to being wrong? Let's stop with the distractions and address the subject matter.

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 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?

It is just a bird with unique features, it has been classified as a bird. It disappears as it appears on the fossil record. No evidence of transition, it is just implied. Ever wonder, if fish evolved into amphibians [animals that live in sea and on land] as evolutionist teach, then there would be millions of fossils showing the gradual transition from fins into feet and legs. But we do not have any. How about Precambrian fossils, ‘why are there no transitional fossils in the geologic column. If life has been slowly evolving, there should be billions of fossils in the in between stages, there are none.

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.

But we are all the same species. Your argument should be me looking more like a chimp than my cousin.

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.

I agree.

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

To Cofty

You can keep repeating your self over and over again, does not make you right. Bottom line DNA is information. It was identified as information by Francis Crick who discovered it. Any person who writes computer programs sees the similarities. I have read many pro evolutionary books, and my conclusion to this day is the same. Should start with 'once upon a time.' The problem seems to be that the only thing you have every read is pro evolutionary propaganda.

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

To Earnst

Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply [to Proverbs 24:21 LXX]

Why not?

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.

In Titus and 2 Pe God and Savior are describing Jesus. What is God and king describing in Proverbs? It is missing.

Again you misunderstand the point G.B. Winer is making. He is saying that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 can be read in both ways, that God and Saviour can be understood as referring to one person or that God is referring to one and Saviour to another. Whoever reads those verses has an opinion as to the correct understanding. Winer is saying that considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead him to believe that those verses are referring to both God and Jesus Christ. I concur.

Context rules note the question if Titus 2:13 is referring to one or two persons is answered by vs 14. = One person.

Let’s look at Paul’s doctrine.

Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Notice equal translates from ‘isos’. Isos means ‘equal in quantity and quality. Paul’s doctrine supports the deity of Christ.

Equal = 2470 ἴσος [isos /ee•sos/] adj. Probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT 3:343; TDNTA 370; GK 2698; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “equal” four times, “agree together + 2258” twice, “as much” once, and “like” once. 1 equal, in quantity or quality. [Strongs]

I'm not quite sure what point you were making regarding the genitive of us, but perhaps you could comment on the significance of the difference in these two verses.

In response to

In 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 Savi

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

To Anony mous

You need to stick to the subject matter, the origin of the universe and the question on the origin of life is one and the same. You're trying to separate the origin of life with the origin of chemistry in a feeble attempt to make a point while I've already reasoned you through why you can't do such things.

Read back in the thread and the subject matter is the origin of biological information. You keep attempting to change it to the origin of the universe.

You are just repeating the wrong question until someone agrees with your non-scientific viewpoint. I've already explained to you that there is no such thing as the generation or creation of new information in our known Universe, life is merely the arrangement of existing "information" in a particular sense, specific arrangements of things spontaneously happen in nature when entropy changes and will keep happening until the point all matter has reached equilibrium, that is true whether you accept it or not, the Universe doesn't care about your viewpoint.

Programmers write code. Students ask questions. My wife leaves me a message about whom to pick up on the way home from work. Intelligent agents produce, generate, and transmit information all the time. Experience teaches this obvious truth.

Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’

Sequence Hypothesis = Francis Crick = suggested that the nucleotide bases in DNA functioned just like alphabetic letters in an English text or binary digits in software or a machine code. According to Crick’s hypothesis, it is the precise arrangement or sequence of these bases that determines the arrangement of amino acids which, in turn, determines protein folding and structure. In other words, the sequence specificity of amino acids in proteins derives from a prior specificity of arrangement in the nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule. Similar to CAD CAM

Ask yourself - what is the most abstract definition of 'alive' you can come up with. Then see if you can find things in nature that don't truly match your definition but could still be considered alive. There is a range of grey area between what's classically alive (such as multi-celled organisms) and not-alive (viruses and single-celled organisms that are missing key parts of their cells) that the question stops making sense when you're trying to make the divide.

What is the point?

My question to you again: when does your intelligence (or deity) come into play between the Universe and the origin of life. What has 'he/she/it' created? Prove a clear separation between life and non-life chemistry before you make the argument of an interceder.

Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the subject matter. The origin of biological information.