-14 votes

Brainwashing Kids 4 Christ! Just $39 + S/H

Check out this commercial for a creepy new teddy bear, created by "christian" Pastor John Hagee, that indoctrinates fundamentalist christianity into your unsuspecting child...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNACoftcPg&feature=player_em...

My question is, If christ/god of the bible was really real,then why the constant need to trick and scare people into believing?

http://www.jhm.org/Catalog/Product/KT205/Promises%20To%20Gro...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are you sure you responded to

Are you sure you responded to the right person? You're challenging assertions I never made... you would need to clarify in the first place, because your question is not at all direct.
Have I seen proof that information can arise from non-information?
Are you talking about the perception of information or information itself? If the prior, that happens all the time, if the latter, it's a nonsense proposition because there's no such thing as "non-information" in nature. That doesn't even mean anything.

Do you want to talk about the validity of evolution or did you have something else to say?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Prove it

Otherwise, you're lying.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

GoodSamaritan's picture

You said, "evolution is not myth, it's fact".

I presumed you were speaking of the supposed process that allows change from one kind of creature into another, such as a single-celled organism evolving over millions of years into a mammal.

Such a process would necessitate an increase in the complexity of the instructions that guide the genetic machinery. To see information in the genetic code of a higher organism that was non-existent in the lower organism from which it supposedly evolved is to see information where it once did not exist. Thus my expression, information from non-information.

So, can you cite any research that has uncovered the process by which we can start with zero, or very little, information and arrive at the amount of information required to design a new species?

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Such a process would

"Such a process would necessitate an increase in the complexity of the instructions that guide the genetic machinery."

That's not true however. There is no necessary increase in complexity due to evolution. Even in an increasingly complex system, there is NO requirement that any one system create new information. There could be (and likely are) extremely simple rules of interaction, and that's it.
This is observable in the fact that there are still single-celled organisms present now that existed long before man. Actually, those organisms could be argued to thrive more than multi-celled organisms. As a whole, eukaryotes are less successful creatures than are prokaryotes. They are more numerous, adaptable and varied than the rest of the animal kingdom despite being comparatively very simple structures.

"To see information in the genetic code of a higher organism that was non-existent in the lower organism from which it supposedly evolved is to see information where it once did not exist. Thus my expression, information from non-information."

The complexity is derived from interaction, but the information to enact such change preexists the interactions. It's present in the genome of the species that will evolve/adapt, otherwise a change cannot occur.

All of this is entirely irrelevant though - there are reproducible experiments that will verify evolution, you simply need to use creatures that reproduce fast enough to see the changes.
Bacteria can be evolved to be entirely resistant to a toxin. There's an example of so-called "new information" arising from "non-information" though neither of those titles are accurate.
That's assuming you don't trust DNA data that shows recent changes in the human genome or links between existing and extinct species. New studies come out all the time verifying evolution. The evidence in favor of evolution is one-sided and overwhelming. The evidence against evolution? It's theoretical questions like the one you're posing, about information from non-information, or something from nothing - questions that rely on an assumed lack of information to prove a point, as if that were even possible.

GoodSamaritan's picture

You're confusing micro with macro evolution

The fact that an organism can adapt to a change in its environment merely shows that a favorable genetic trait already existed in the population. Use an antibiotic on a germ and millions might die but any that survive already had the resistance. Adaptation is not evolution. You can breed fruit flies for millions of generations and all you're going to get are various breeds of fruit flies for which the genetic information is already encoded.

But you skirted the question. Where does genetic information come from? Instructions don't write themselves. The molecular machinery of life reads code, and that code contains information that instructs the machinery how to behave. There is no life without code and there is no code without information and information does not arise by itself. Information is non-material and yet it directs the thermodynamics of a biological system to maintain its energy and matter in a state of non-equilibrium.

The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the entropy of an open system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, while this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and directed energy levels. The machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, directed energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a state that is far from equilibrium.

My suggestion would be for you to do a little more research into this issue because evolutionary scientists have absolutely hit the wall on this question of the origin of information. Biological structures contain coded instructions which are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules that carry them. One always needs a machine in place to make use of an influx of new energy and a new machine requires the raising of free energy in precise and directed amounts for it to work. Intelligence is a prerequisite for the design of a machine that can do useful work by carrying out the instructions of its code.

I find the scientific evidence against the general theory of evolution to be one-sided and overwhelmingly in favor of special creation.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Adaptation is not

"Adaptation is not evolution."
That's exactly where you're incorrect.
Evolution is a series of adaptations that occur in a species as their environment creates demands that they are capable of adapting to.

"You can breed fruit flies for millions of generations and all you're going to get are various breeds of fruit flies for which the genetic information is already encoded."

Are you expecting an alligator to pop out?
Some sharks haven't evolved (as indicated by fossil record) for hundreds of millions of years. Though their lifespan is much longer than a fruit fly, that a significant change has not occurred in flies or sharks basically indicates nothing except that their environment did not create such demand that change was necessary and possible, otherwise mutations would create survival superiority among specific flies that might -possibly- have resulted in a new species after an incredibly long period of time. There's no guarantee, because a species might not need to change so drastically that they no longer mate with their ancestry.

My guess is that in a lab setting, where flies are provided food and are without predators or any demanding environmental factor, it is unnecessary that they ever adapt. Even in a simulated environment though, it doesn't matter much because as is the case with some sharks, even in a vast ocean there can be long periods of no change in a species. In the wild, those flies are interacting with many more factors and seem much more likely to demand change though, especially if present during serious geographic demands.

But you've already consented that there is micro evolution, haven't you? If so you know what would happen... you just don't continue applying micro evolution to longer expanses of time for some reason. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is scale - they rely on the EXACT same mechanisms to occur. Don't you know that?

"But you skirted the question. Where does genetic information come from? Instructions don't write themselves."

Who knows? To qualify evolution doesn't demand that I answer that question though. Evolution, or as you put it, adaptation, is a fact. Adaptation writ large is macro evolution. You have no idea whether these particular instructions can or can't write themselves.

When answering the question, "Can small changes result in the emergence of a different species?" It doesn't matter where genetic information comes from as a cosmological question.

"information does not arise by itself."

Where does it arise from?
What about designers? Where do they arise from?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Nonsense

"The only difference between macro and micro evolution is scale - they rely on the EXACT same mechanisms to occur. Don't you know that?"

No, and the reason I don't know that is because it's nonsense. You don't even understand your own general theory of evolution well enough to know the differences between natural selection, speciation and adaptation.

And you also don't seem to understand that every creature has genetic limits that prevent it from ever becoming another kind of creature because doing so would require new information not already present in the gene pool of that creature. New information doesn't magically appear - complex information does not come from less complex information. There are no rules, simple or otherwise, for creating something out of nothing, and information has to be present before molecular machinery can act on it.

Evolution fails the Law of Biogenesis - life only comes from life and no exceptions to that Law have ever been demonstrated.

Evolution fails Information Theory - evolution has no way to get either any initial information, or the information necessary for each increase in complexity.

Evolution fails the Universal Probability Bound by millions of orders of magnitude.

Neither mutations nor natural selection ever increase information.

Cambridge University’s Sir Fred Hoyle (originator of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe) said: "The notion that not only biopolymers but the operation programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

Yep...nonsense.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

In order to believe that the

In order to believe that the human immune system exists, you have to believe that evolution exists.

Evolution deniers are strange.

I didn't deny evolution.

Hell, I believe it probably happened.

The FACT is, however, it is NOT proven fact, nor can it be. It is NOT scientific beyond perhaps being asserted as an unprovable scientific hypothesis.

The FACT is it is no more or less provable or "scientific" as intelligent design or any other creation myth.

I'm sorry, but you cannot get around these facts. Science requires that a certain standard be met to be considered "scientific fact". Evolution does not and cannot meet that standard.

You stated that you want to educate your kids? If you don't educate your kids to the cold, hard logic of science and point out all of the above to them, then you are just behaving like any other religionist would.

Evolution has been verified

Evolution has been verified by experiment countless times.
ID, by definition, cannot even be tested.

Really?

Care to cite one?

You can't because it didn't happen. I know this might blow your worldview. I'm sorry. But, right now you're behaving just like any other "God exists because he does" religionist.

The FACT is is that in a lab they have been able to demonstrate inTRA-specie mutation.

But one spieces turning into another via mutative evolution has NEVER been demonstrated in a lab (or anywhere else) in a repeatable test as required for it to be scientifically proven.

ZERO TIMES. ZILCH. NADA.

I'm sorry, but that's the fact. Again, to not be a hypocrite, if you care so much about teaching your children, you MUST logically teach them that if they are taught evolution as fact in school, the school is wrong and this is why: what scientific method is and what it requires.

I'll by then likely have

I'll by then likely have several books from the perspective of scholars from different professions to broach the exact subject of why macro evolution can't occur at a micro scale and to what extent it matters. I'm not worried about it much. Like I said, I won't be holding back information... that doesn't only pertain to the atrocities and moral corruptness in the bible.

You'll likely be shocked to find...

...very little from "scholars" on the subject. Belief in evolution as conclusive fact, when it is not, is a very powerful thing, akin to any other religion.

Regardless of what you find, the fact is that there is scientifically proven fact and there is undemonsrated conjecture.

Belief in evolution, however likely as it may be to have occurred, is a religious belief, as it cannot be scientifically proven.

If you want to teach reason and logic to your children, understanding the above and the scientific process is indispensible.

Intelligent design is

Intelligent design is undemonstrated conjecture. It's an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this came about... uh, god did it!"

There are MANY proofs of evolution that are of a sufficient degree to draw conclusions from in any other area of science.

There doesn't have to be a conflict between religion and science though. Why don't you just do the smart thing and say your god created the processes of micro and macro evolution instead of designing every little thing individually... it still fits into omnipotence, omniscience, etc. You can even say he made the processes such that the perfect creation (in his view) would result and not even seem created to us stupid humans.

Nice try.

This is a scientifically meaningless statement:

"There are MANY proofs of evolution that are of a sufficient degree to draw conclusions from in any other area of science."

I know you're trying to ease your cognitive dissonance regarding your religious belief by trying to salvage some "science" around it.

But your "many proofs" is nonsensical from a scientific perspective and sounds a lot like what religionists say.

Your reply does not change the fact that evolution cannot be scientifically proven and, hence, believing in it as a scientific "fact" is a religious belief, logically no different than any other religious belief.

Something is either scientifically proven or it isn't.

I'm not easing anything, I'm

I'm not easing anything, I'm referencing the fact that sciences rely on inference the majority of the time. Tested inference may well be regarded as fact as solid as any other fact, at least after it has been verified and up until it is disproved.

Your conflation of belief and religious belief as some sort of insult is pretty hilarious.

Evolution, adaptation, micro evolution, has been proven.
You do not accept the terms of the proofs for macro evolution.
That's fine. I will continue accepting those proofs and continue regarding macro evolution as fact for the same reasons that I regard micro evolution as fact.

Again. What proofs?

There aren't any.

Further, inference is nice when you are dealing with a demonstrable 99.99+% probability.

That doesn't apply here as there is ZERO way to test it.

So, are you relying on fossils? What are you relying on here to make your assessment that it is "scientific."?

With regards to belief, if you believe in something unseen and unprovable, it's no different than any other religious belief.

I didn't say there's anything wrong with that. I'm just illustrating the fact that you are intellectually dishonest about it.

Not just fossils. Fossils,

Not just fossils.
Fossils, genetic information, and the confirmation that the processes which are required for macro evolution do in fact exist and actively cause micro evolution.

Like I said, I'm going to continue correctly stating that evolution is a fact because it is to a functional degree. Its functions have been demonstrated and its existence corroborated, and it has never been disproved or replaced by any means.

Your assessment that, "if you believe in something unseen and unprovable, it's no different than any other religious belief" is false. Religious belief strictly concerns religion, thus its extremely obvious title. Belief not concerned with religion cannot be called religious belief. If my assent to the fact of evolution were truly belief, even if for reasons unseen or unprovable, it would be secular belief because evolution is not concerned with religion whatsoever.

Using religiousness as a pejorative in order to insult is hilarious.

More non-science (religious belief) from you.

"evolution is a fact because it is to a functional degree. Its functions have been demonstrated and its existence corroborated, and it has never been disproved or replaced by any means."

The above statement is scientifically illogical, I'm sorry.

If you want to prove a hypothesis, the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to disprove it, because it is logically impossible to prove that anything does not exist. The logical proof must be that the hypothesis DOES exist, i.e. is true.

Your hypothesis has not been demonstrated.

Being true to a "functional degree" is not scientific proof, sorry.
Functions having been demonstrated and existence corroborated is not scientific proof, sorry.

Only the same repeatable test results from the same test conducted repeatably constitute a scientific proof. There's just no way around it, no matter how hard you try.

The rest is helpful corroborative data, but that helpful corroborative data does not constitute scientific proof according to the scientific method.

As far as your religious beliefs go, you irrationally belief a certain axiom: that evolution is scientific fact. That axiom is undemonstrated and undemonstrable. Hence, it is a religious belief, no different than any other religious belief. Your religion is belief in certain principles and beliefs that are generally accepted, but are not scientifically provable. Hence, it is a faith-based belief system.

"The above statement is

"The above statement is scientifically illogical, I'm sorry."

Not according to a handful of sciences that accept evolution as a fact.
How have so many scientists been duped about the meaning and processes of science? Just curious. I'm not saying, "It's right because they say it's right." (It's right for the many reasons I've already mentioned) What I'm asking is why do you believe they've all gotten it wrong? Surely such a phenomenon - scientists misunderstanding the meaning and function of science - deserves an explanation since you're positing it to be the case.

"Your hypothesis has not been demonstrated."

Sure it has. Several hypotheses have been demonstrated from multiple perspectives, all of which corroborate the theory of evolution.

"Being true to a "functional degree" is not scientific proof, sorry."

Yes it is. Science is -never- concerned with absolute truth. Science is concerned with what is most likely, or 'functionally true.' This is true whether you're testing the observable or unobservable.

"Functions having been demonstrated and existence corroborated is not scientific proof, sorry."

It most certainly is.

You're confusing science with mathematics. The only place where you get literal 'proofs' is mathematics. In science you have a hypothesis which must be tested against, in a manner such that the results might falsify it. If it is not falsified, then it must be tested again. There is no literal threshold for a theory to cross to be considered truth, but a theory that has been tested thousands of times and confirmed in each case will be accepted as the highest functional truth. That's the case with evolution, oh and gravity. Do you see gravity as a fact or is it only an unproven theory?

"As far as your religious beliefs go, you irrationally belief a certain axiom: that evolution is scientific fact. That axiom is undemonstrated and undemonstrable. Hence, it is a religious belief, no different than any other religious belief. Your religion is belief in certain principles and beliefs that are generally accepted, but are not scientifically provable. Hence, it is a faith-based belief system."

Using religion as a pejorative is hilarious.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Also it's funny that you claim that evolution is not demonstrable. Even with your position that it is not demonstrated, why would you conclude that it is not demonstrable? In other words, nothing I've said to you would have met your burden of proof. Good job revealing the bias I've been referencing all along.

Scientifically irrelevant.

This statement is an appeal to authority and, therefore, inherently illogical as proof of anything:
"Not according to a handful of sciences that accept evolution as a fact."

You believe a lot of people are "duped" about God. Many intelligent and accomplished people as well. Either way it's logically irrelevant as it does not and cannot change what the scientific method requires to prove something:
"How have so many scientists been duped about the meaning and processes of science? "

Your BELIEF as to what science is concerned with is irrelevant. There is the scientific method to prove something. Either you have proven something via scientific method or you have not. It's very cut and dry. Your BELIEFS do not change that fact:
"Science is -never- concerned with absolute truth. Science is concerned with what is most likely, or 'functionally true.' This is true whether you're testing the observable or unobservable."

This is correct:
"The only place where you get literal 'proofs' is mathematics. In science you have a hypothesis which must be tested against, in a manner such that the results might falsify it. If it is not falsified, then it must be tested again. "

Where YOU are confused is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to repeatedly test evolution from specie to specie. As a result, it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to prove specie to specie evolution. Similarly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to scientifically prove the big bang.

Is it likely? Sure. I admit that. As I told you previously, I even BELIEVE in both. But I recognize it for what it is, because I am intellectually honest: they are BELIEFS. They are not based in scientifically proven fact.

Your BELIEF in evolution as a scientifically proven FACT is a religious belief because it is NOT scientifically proven FACT nor is it scientifically provable.

It may be "scientifically" probable. But probability is not provability. You need to be as intellectually honest as you claim to be.

"This statement is an appeal

"This statement is an appeal to authority and, therefore, inherently illogical as proof of anything"

Which is exactly why I didn't present it as proof of anything. You're jumping through hoops to avoid my question. I clarified that I wasn't appealing to anything when I asked the question.

"You believe a lot of people are "duped" about God. Many intelligent and accomplished people as well."

When did I say this? Strawman much?

"Either you have proven something via scientific method or you have not."

The scientific method has been used to verify evolution several times from several perspectives. I gave you proof and you deflected it without even really addressing it like creationists usually do.

Repeating that something is a belief does not make it so. Being able to deny a fact does not make it a belief. There is enough evidence that anyone willing to analyze it will come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. Other facts, such as gravity, are also unobservable. The only thing we can observe are its results, but that does not invalidate it as a fact. On the contrary, all tests on its results indicate that it is true.

I don't know why I'm debating anything with you though, you clearly don't even know the meaning of the word religious and you use it pejoratively despite purporting to be religious. You are either incredibly stupid or just a troll on both counts.

You did not provide scientific proof.

"The scientific method has been used to verify evolution several times from several perspectives. I gave you proof and you deflected it without even really addressing it like creationists usually do."

You have failed to provide scientific proof that demonstrates one specie can or has evolved into another.

Not one thing you provided demonstrated this as discussed above. I did not "deflect". I demanded correctly that you provide proof that the theory was proven via the scientific method. You did not demonstrate that it has. Nor did any of the "proof" you provided.

I don't know if you have a problem reading comprehension or something, but I said I believed in evolution. Can you explain how that makes me a "creationist?" Thanks.

You don't accept legitimate

You don't accept legitimate evidence. There's no reasoning with you.

Why do all biological sciences accept evolution as a fact?

I do accept legitimate evidence and...

....if you read back through our two threads i did so several times... on each thread.

"Why do all biological sciences accept evolution as a fact?"
That is a logically irrelevant statement as it is an appeal to authority, by definition, logically irrelevant.

Why did Blaise Paschal believe in God? Is that a proof of anything what his belief was?

Oh, I get it

I just realized what you're doing there.
You're challenging the notion that, "Something came from nothing," as is sometimes purported to be the definition of the big bang by theists.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but evolution (or the big bang) does not purport that something came from nothing, or that information became of non-information. The big bang leaves the inception question open to debate. It does not suppose that nothing existed before the big bang. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite - something MUST HAVE existed prior to the big bang in order for it to occur.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Start anywhere you like

Start with an amphibian and end with a mammal. Your choice of species.

You said that evolution is a fact so I'm asking for the process by which information increased from lower to higher form.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

What?

If people thought for themselves, they would not believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, Jesus Christ, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyan, unicorns, God or any other mythical entities. It would then be more difficult to get them to engage in anti-social behavior and otherwise control them.

Enough of such blasphemy.

Let the bovine excrement continue unabated.

Laugh

Can you do a skit on Santa? Oop, santa.
..
clipped:

"Unfortunately for them, the atheistic nonbelief belief person's mind, doesn't allow that their self-reasoning arguments and their antagonistic knowledge, to reach beyond the atheistic control, caused by from a deep rooted conceit? Within the atheistic nonbelief belief there are certain restrictions, then is this nonbelief belief better than the ones claiming something else?"

Does it matter what other people are doing.. what are you doing?
..
Not so much what you are saying, but its your motive, you're off center of neutral into the negative left.
..
Part of the, "All Along The Watch Tower" series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo-rh9C6K_g