Posts by towerwatchman

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, .

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*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.

Again in Proverbs who is God and king describing? No one. They have to be describing someone for the rule to apply.

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

Great teacher

What you have is a fish with 5 bones, that someone through comparative anatomy concluded was an early hand.

Comparative anatomy is gray and ambiguous. Bottom line all you have is a fish with five bones. As for your students the only emotion is 'pity'.

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 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

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

Whatshallicallmyself

So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.

I believe you can do that.

I don't believe a chimp can take 1 step and when he is done walking across town he somehow becomes a man

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 unsure

We do not have proof of any parallel universe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.