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

  to unsure

  There is no evidence of a multiverse. Ask anyone who promotes it ‘How many universes can you point to?” It is an unsupported hypothesis. But for argument’s sake let’s say there is a multiverse, it still does not answer the issue of the origin of the universe. All one has done is move the goal post back. The question now becomes ‘What is the origin of the multiverse?”

  Since my opinion is considered bias, allow me to submit what Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject.

  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.

  Where the laws of physics would have broken down. = The beginning nonphysical.
• 
  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

  Simon

  towerwatchman: please consider your tone and attitude. You are wearing out your welcome. This site isn't here to host your sermons and we'll only tolerate your preaching for so long.

  I will consider it when the others [which you seem to not address] show common respect.
• 
  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

  Jeffro

  The word "towerwatchman" literally means 'a man who watches from a tower'. Can't mean any other thing. Doesn't mean you're just some doofus making up things on the Internet. You're literally on a tower watching stuff. Because words.
  But thanks for telling us what all atheists believe.

  In a debate the last position ignorance takes is insulting the character of the opposition vs addressing the subject at hand.
• 
  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

  To Cofty

  Post insults, and I will post insults back. Come back when you want to discuss science. That is if you can.
• 
  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

  punkofnice

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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.