towerwatchman

Joined

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

Posts by towerwatchman

• 
  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

  whatshallicallmyself

  Bottom line, there are no transitional fossils. Why make claims if there is nothing to back it up? We have evidence for micro we have none for macro. From Darwin to now it has been the same.

  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’.

  And the same applies today.

  
  
• 
  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

  unsure

  Again for the record, I'm agnostic. What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God. Why does it have to be this complicated?

  I don’t find if complicated. My suggestion is to follow the truth to wherever it leads you. Something to read.

  Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.

  The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.
• 
  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

  Great teacher.

  If we can funnel all these topics into one subject, what would that be? The answer that puts this question to rest would be the closes to the beginning of life. That would be biological information. And if you read the thread you would notice every time I ask for the source, suddenly 'silence'.

  BTW all you have is a fish with five unique bones.
• 
  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

  Unsure

  I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

  Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it.

  Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

  The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.
• 
  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

  Brainfloss

  My point is, if you want to convince people to believe in god, fine have at it. It just seems counter productive to direct those following the debate to turn their attention to a genius who has studied the origin of the universe for a lifetime, possibly one of the most respected physicists in history in order to back up a claim and then discount his conclusion.

  I am not submitting a lecture from an atheist to support theism, but the leading physicists to support my scientific conclusion. Being atheist or theist has nothing to do with it.

  I'm not sure what your motives are. Are You one of jehovahs witnesses? Otherwise why worry if others believe in god or not.

  I am A Christian, my God died to for all, that none shall be lost. Out of gratitude for what He has done for me, I follow His commandments. My post on this forum is a natural outworking of my worldview. My God valued man so much that He died in man’s place as payment for offending a just God.

  Contrary when the Atheistic worldview is followed to its logical conclusion; = man has no value.
• 
  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

  Cofty

  I have answered all your post with one question that you keep ignoring.

  What is the source of biological information?
• 
  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

  whatshallicallmyself

  We don't know the universe had a beginning... We can only trace the expansion back so far after which there is only speculation. You are suffering from the gigo effect, presumably brought about by reading creationist literature and believing it to be true.

  Let’s have the leading Atheist expert answer this.

  In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

  The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking.
• 
  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

  Brainfloss

  No deceit. It's just that on a few occasions in this topic you have put forward Hawking as an expert, citing his work to prove athieism is wrong. The expert you cite is a self proclaimed Athiest. If he is indeed the expert you say possibly you are misunderstanding his work.

  No, if I am correct we were discussing first cause. And my point was that first cause would have been nonphysical. Supported by Hawking
• 
  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

  Unsure

  If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.

  But the universe is not timeless. Had a beginning and will have an end.

  If the cause is sufficient to produce its effect; then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.

  But we don’t find a cause. We speculate the cause.

  Why must it be personal?

  It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

  The cause is a personal being with freedom of the will, His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.

  It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time.

  Therefore, it must be immaterial and nonphysical.

  It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy.

  Finally it must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the First Clause.

  (William Craig)
• 
  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

  Brainfloss

  probably best not to quote him to prove existance of god.

  What there any deceit in the quote?