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

  What is your point.
• 
  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

  Kepler

  Species do vanish, but they vanish as they appear. There is no transitional species. As to the new variety that appear, they way they are now is how appeared. Again no transitional.
  
• 
  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

  Yes that is from Stephen Myers. Copied from a website wrong. Copied from his book yes. So I am guilty of not citing, As if the pro evolutionist in this discussion cite what they copy and paste. Either way that is a straw man argument. Why not address the topic instead of attacking character. Does something become untrue because it was copied?
  
• 
  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

  brainfloss

  Every heard of a typo?
  
• 
  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

  Stephen myers

  You are correct it is foxes not wolves. Either way at the end you have a domesticated fox. That is microevolution, not macro. Same thing Darwin witness with the finches, the beaks changed but they were still finches. You still have foxes. Also notice that the researchers were picking the most tame, and docile. It was not natural selection but man making intelligent choices. That falls under intelligent design.
  
• 
  99

  2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

  2 pe.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Earnest

  Our and Lord are genitive. God and Father 'belong' to the 'our Lord'
• 
  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

  What is your point.
• 
  99

  2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

  2 pe.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Earnest

  For the rule to apply God and king have to be describing someone. Read the rule.
• 
  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

  Island man

  seems the most Atheist can do is attack character. So much for a science, logic and reason based world view. You act more like an antiquated superstitious religion. Come back when you want to discuss facts.
• 
  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.