Posts by Jeffro

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze’s position, a position common among uneducated or deliberately ignorant creationists, is that ‘Information is non material’. This kind of thinking is required for their superstitions about things like ‘prayer’ supposedly conveying information to (or in) an imaginary ‘spirit realm’ with no actual means of transmission. Back in reality, information is never independent of a physical medium.

Sea Breeze rather inelegantly offered ‘the number 3’ as an example of ‘information’ and then clumsily offered that inanimate objects could never ‘encode information’. I should not have to explain the quite obvious contradiction …

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

So again, can you please explain how complex coded information appears from chemicals?

I already told you that was a false equivalence! Here’s a more detailed explanation from ChatGPT because I’m done trying to explain simple things that you could look up for yourself if you were honest.

One of the fallacies that some creationists use is the argument that "information" is independent of chemicals. This argument often arises in discussions related to the origin and development of life, where creationists attempt to undermine scientific explanations and promote the idea of intelligent design. However, it is important to note that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and the nature of biological systems.
In the context of biology, "information" refers to the complex arrangements of molecules, particularly nucleic acids such as DNA, that encode the instructions for building and maintaining living organisms. These molecules are made up of chemical building blocks, and their arrangement and interaction determine the genetic information that is passed from one generation to the next.
Creationists who argue that information is independent of chemicals often claim that information cannot arise from purely natural processes and therefore requires an intelligent designer. They often assert that the complexity and specificity of biological information, such as the genetic code, cannot be explained by random chemical processes alone.
However, this argument overlooks the fact that the laws of chemistry and physics govern the interactions of molecules and can give rise to complex and ordered systems. Natural processes, such as chemical reactions and natural selection, can produce the patterns and structures that we recognize as "information" in biological systems.
Furthermore, information theory, a branch of mathematics and computer science, demonstrates that information is fundamentally tied to physical systems. In information theory, information is quantified as the reduction of uncertainty or the increase in knowledge gained from receiving a message. The representation and transmission of information always rely on physical carriers, whether it be electromagnetic waves, ink on paper, or the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. Therefore, the claim that information can exist independently of physical substrates or chemicals is not supported by the scientific understanding of information theory.
In summary, the argument that "information" is independent of chemicals, as used by some creationists, is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and the nature of biological systems. It fails to consider the role of natural processes and the laws of chemistry in the emergence and organization of information in living organisms.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

You really need to stop relying on your creationist go-to sites for this stuff. And your response bears no resemblance to the method used in the article I linked to.

Back in reality, scientists have determined that self replicating molecules can develop without direction, and biological evolution is an established fact, whereas there is still no evidence whatsoever for the existence of deities, let alone your preferred one.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

But, isn't that just kicking the can down the road?

Says the person who believes that an infinitely complex being just always existed…

Can you provide any examples of complex information arising from a natural process?

Argument from ignorance. I am not a biologist. Also, your use of the term ‘information’ in this context is a false equivalence. Aside from that, the amino acids necessary for life form spontaneously even in space, and more primitive cells would only require a sufficient combination of amino acids, water, and a lipid membrane. For more detail, ask a biologist. A real one, not just cherry picked quotes from one of your creationist go-to sites.

A quick search shows that spontaneous development of replicating molecules is certainly possible. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796 Of course, this is never good enough for creationists, because they will always demand to know what did happen rather than what could happen—an entirely hypocritical approach compared to their ‘god can do anything’ responses to problems with the irrational tales in Genesis.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Not aware of anyone who refers to themself as an evolutionist. Also pretty ironic a demand from someone who pretends their magical sky friend (that can’t be demonstrated to exist at all) just always existed forever without needing any beginning or creator.

The most recent common ancestor got the information from its ancestors.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Notice how the creationist continues to erroneously equate the terms ‘descended from’ with ‘single microbe became’, and also continues to falsely claim that a ‘most recent common ancestor’ is the same as ‘simplest form of life’. This is what happens when your main sources are Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis. 🙄 Stay in school, kids.

And the cherry picked quotes are lifted from ‘Intelligent Design’ websites such as Uncommon Descent. Never trust a creationist using a quote that contains an ellipsis… 😉

And no one has a job title of ‘evolutionist’.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT to analyse Sea Breezes tedious question:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?

And yes, Chat GPT evil, leftist, yadda yadda… I don’t care. Anyway…

The question "How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?" seems to imply that a single microbe transformed into all the diverse forms of life on Earth. This idea is not supported by scientific evidence and is inconsistent with our understanding of evolution.
There are several errors and misconceptions in this question:
1. Fallacy of single origin: The question assumes that all life on Earth originated from a single microbe. However, the diversity of life is the result of billions of years of evolution through natural selection, genetic mutation, and other processes. Life on Earth is thought to have originated from a common ancestor, but it was not a single microbe that transformed into everything we see today.
2. Ignoring complexity: The question overlooks the vast complexity of life forms and the gradual process of evolution. Evolution occurs through incremental changes over long periods of time, with new species emerging through the accumulation of small genetic variations. It is not a sudden transformation of a single microbe into every living thing.
3. Misunderstanding of mutations: The question implies that the microbe changed itself into every living thing. However, individual organisms do not change themselves through willpower or intention. Mutations, which are random changes in genetic material, occur naturally and can lead to variations within a population. Over time, these variations can accumulate and lead to the emergence of new species.
4. Lack of scientific evidence: The question does not provide any scientific evidence or references to support the claim that a microbe transformed into all living things. Our understanding of the origin and diversity of life on Earth is based on extensive scientific research and evidence from various fields, such as paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy.
In summary, the question contains fallacies, misconceptions, and unsupported claims. It is important to rely on scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community when discussing topics like the origin and diversity of life on Earth.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

And it still isn’t the same thing as ‘a microbe changing itself into every living thing on earth’.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

The creationist either doesn’t understand that a most recent common ancestor isn’t the same thing as the first simple form of life, or is continuing to deliberately misrepresent the process.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Now you’re just attempting to shift the goal posts. If you don’t understand the difference between ‘something being descended from something else’, and ‘a microbe changing itself to become every other living thing’, there’s no hope for you. And creationists really should stop referring to ‘evolutionists’ as if that is an actual job description. Go away.