Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Recognizing Providence in the History of Life Is a Hint About Our Own Lives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An arena of fine-tuning we can all appreciate, not quantitatively but qualitatively, is how in most events of our lives, things go right, when there are so many more ways that they could go wrong. Just consider how most of the time we arrive safely to where we’re going when we take a trip by car, even in rush-hour traffic. Or, how electricity keeps flowing to our homes, without which we’d be pushed quickly into survival mode. Or how our sense of balance facilitates efficient movement of our physical bodies throughout the day.

David Klinghoffer gives his perspective on this topic, reaching a different conclusion than Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser.

Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser, writing at Big Think, asks, “Does life on Earth have a purpose?” Obviously, this is more than just a scientific question. It’s a very personal one for each of us. Given the venue, Gleiser’s answer of course is going to be no.

Gleiser’s own case rests on the part played by chance in life’s history. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs:

If we changed one or more of the dramatic events in Earth’s history — say, the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid that helped eliminate the dinosaurs 66 million years ago — life’s history on Earth would also change. We probably would not be here asking about life’s purpose. The lesson from life is simple: In Nature, creation and destruction dance together. But there is no choreographer.

His argument: The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction cleared the field for mammals, allowing ultimately for the rise of “intelligent, technology-savvy humans.” No asteroid –> no humans. The asteroid was a chance, unchoreographed event. Therefore, says Dr. Gleiser, no “choreographer” intended our existence.

The Role of Providence

This is a remarkably shallow conclusion. As luck would have it (if you want to put it that way), I’ve been thinking about the role of providence, as I see it, in my own path of life. Any of us can point to certain pivotal events in our past — a seemingly chance meeting, a piece of advice received, an idea that came to us unbidden — that need not have occurred, but did. And because they did, we found the path to our current place (marriage, relationships, friendships, work, the whole thing) laid out before us.

Gleiser’s argument about the history of life is just a separate application of the depressing view that denies anything in our life paths could have been intended for us. That the view is depressing doesn’t mean that it is mistaken. That it can be asserted doesn’t mean that it is correct.

Purposeful Information

To decide about providence in the rise of complex life, you would have to look at a much wider suite of evidences than the fact that an asteroid doomed the dinosaurs. Scientific proponents of intelligent design have done this, noting vast evidence of extraordinarily careful tuning in physics, chemistry, and biology, from the Big Bang itself, to the origin of life, to the series of biological “big bangs” through which bursts of purposeful information infused the biosphere. 

The most recent treatments of this theme include biologist Michael Denton’s The Miracle of Man and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis. Meyer’s book points to three scientific discoveries that demand a conclusion of purpose behind the cosmos (that the universe has a beginning, that it was fine-tuned for life from the start, that life is a form of information-processing technology). On the radical discontinuities in evolution that bespeak purpose and creativity, see Meyer and paleontologist Günter Bechly’s chapter (“The Fossil Record and Universal Common Ancestry”) in the volume Theistic Evolution.

“The Wheel Has Turned”

From a different perspective, Denton explains this beautifully and profoundly. What Gleiser terms “intelligent, technology-savvy humans” are exactly what almost countless coincidences in nature have been set just so in order to permit. As Dr. Denton has written here about this “prior fitness” for human beings, creatures capable of manipulating fire, and therefore of engaging in technological invention:

Even though many mysteries remain, we can now, in these first decades of the 21st century, at last answer with confidence Thomas Huxley’s question of questions as to “the place which mankind occupies in nature and of his relations to the universe of things.” As matters stand, the evidence increasingly points to a natural order uniquely fit for life on Earth and for beings of a biology close to that of humans, a view which does not prove but is entirely consistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian framework….

“Mysteries remain,” as Denton acknowledges. Yet, “The wheel has turned.” Modern science calls us to recognize the role of providence in the history of the cosmos, of our planet, and of life. If that is true in cosmology and biology, it’s a hint that it might be true, too, on the far smaller scale of our individual biographies.

Full article at Evolution News.
Comments
Seversky at 180, What the hell does that mean? You get your common sense from voices in your head? You worship the words of men. You are being lazy.relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Seversky at 179, Abortion is pagan baby killing. Period. Radical so-called feminists convinced some women that 'it's OK to kill your baby.' And that message has been reinforced for decades. The choice you talk about is death. THAT is the CHOICE. DEATH. "...are we entitled to compel one individual against their will to save the life of another at the risk of their own health or life? Because that is what is happening now." What the hell are you talking about? I want SPECIFIC examples. "We don’t have the means to detect the fertilized egg but, in principle, the right should be presumed to apply to the earliest form that is detectable in practice, be it gamete, zygote, embryo or fetus." LIAR. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html "A baby is usually taken to be a newborn or very recently born human child that is not yet capable of walking or speaking. Nobody here is advocating killing babies." LIAR. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/partial-birth-abortionrelatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
BA77: "Are you trying to claim that you derived your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality?" Sev: "Since there is no objective morality then that must have been the case. We have to work out morality for ourselves rather than being lazy and relying on somebody else to tell us." HUH??? We have to work out something which, you claim, does not exist for ourselves??? You do realize that your statement makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever do you not??? It is equivalent to you saying "leprechauns don't exist but hey let's work out their existence for ourselves" But alas, such self-refuting logical nonsense is par for the course with Darwinian materialists. As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly."
From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And 'deep in the mire of folly' logical nonsense is exactly what we get from Darwinian materialists, time and time again, in their repeated denial of the 'non-physical', i.e. metaphysical, realm. If something is not physical, and/or material, like, for instance, God and/or objective morality, Darwinists, because of their Atheistic materialism, simply claim that it does not exist, and/or that it is an 'illusion'. Yet there are many immaterial things that we take for granted as existing and as being undeniably real. In fact, science itself is crucially dependent upon mathematics and logic which we all take for granted as being undeniably real. Yet mathematics and logic themselves are profoundly immaterial in their foundational essence.
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Moreover, if God Himself does not really exist as a real person, but is merely an illusion as Darwinists claim, then Darwinists themselves do not really exist as real persons, but are instead merely ‘neuronal illusions’. (In short, God is needed to ground the reality of, and entire concept of, 'personhood').
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
Denying that you really exist as a real person, as Darwinists are forced to do because of their materialistic metaphysics, should literally be the definition of 'self-refuting nonsense'. And on and on such "deep in the mire of folly" claims go from Darwinists,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Moreover, to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of 'realism' by Leggett's inequality, that material particles themselves, (which Darwinist materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation for all of reality), are not 'real'.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
In short, and as far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, materialism is dead,
“hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit - UD
Thus in conclusion, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic/materialistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), yet the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/178
Are you trying to claim that you derived your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality?
Since there is no objective morality then that must have been the case. We have to work out morality for ourselves rather than being lazy and relying on somebody else to tell us.
FYI, you did not derive your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, since there are, in fact, no such moral principles to be found within Darwinian atheism,
There are no moral prescriptions in the theory of evolution any more than there are in relativity or quantum theory. They do not give moral guidance because they are not about morals in the first place.
Well JVL, America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and certainly was not founded upon the atheistic principles of Darwinism
No, it wasn't. In fact, in many cases, the Ten Commandments are clearly in conflict with many of the Rights in the US Constitution. That is why the movement to place displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses is highly problematic. As the article I linked to points out:
No rational Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic--each of whom's beliefs are equally and fully constitutionally protected--could rationally expect justice in those halls. As Madison warned, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"
Seversky
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Relatd/177
We could both be wrong? Hahahahahahahahahaha…
We are all human. We are all fallible. We are all capable of being wrong. The trouble arises when people forget that, when they believe they are in possession of some Absolute Truth, a Truth which justifies any action in its furtherance, such as this attack on the author Salman Rushdie or 9/11 or the Albigensian Crusade.
Look up a few posts. We’re talking about babies dying in abortions. Look up!
No, we are not. A baby is usually taken to be a newborn or very recently born human child that is not yet capable of walking or speaking. Nobody here is advocating killing babies. Since a human being is not just a three-dimensional object extended in space but a life extended through time, my belief is that life is entitled to the presumption of the right to live from the moment it exists as an individual. We don't have the means to detect the fertilized egg but, in principle, the right should be presumed to apply to the earliest form that is detectable in practice, be it gamete, zygote, embryo or fetus. That said, there are two individuals involved in a pregnancy, the other being the mother who is also entitled to human rights, including the right to bodily privacy and autonomy, a right this Supreme Court does not apparently recognize. If she chooses to have sex, that is her choice, no one else's. That should be of no concern to the government, SCOTUS, God or the church. If she did not have a choice, if the woman or even young girl was the victim of incest or rape then there is a difficult choice to make. The unborn child obviously had no choice as to the manner in which it was conceived so it should not be penalized in any way. That said, the government was presumably not around to prevent the crime and your God, who is held to be omnipresent, obviously chose to do nothing about it for reasons best known to Himself. The question then becomes, is the government entitled to compound the trauma of the offense and violate the rights of the mother in the interest of saving the life of the unborn? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a friend or relative develops a life-threatening illness which will require a continuous blood transfusion from you for several months without which they will die. You may well choose to do it because you feel an overriding moral obligation to do so and many others would agree. But you are not under any legal obligation to do it and the courts and the government have no right to compel you to do it against your will or punish you for not doing it if that is your choice. The same principle can be argued to apply to pregnancy. Of course, the vast majority of mothers will be happy to carry the unborn to term without question but in those cases where, for various reasons, the mother is not willing then that shouldn't that also be her choice? I should also point out that this is not my original argument. It comes from a paper titled A Defense of Abortion by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. The question is, while we can presume that every individual human being has the right to life in principle, while many would choose to do so voluntarily, are we entitled to compel one individual against their will to save the life of another at the risk of their own health or life? Because that is what is happening now.Seversky
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
BA77: "I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the ‘common sense’ restrictions you listed to the side for now" JVL: "Have you got a better way to run a country? I’m all ears." HUH? Again, exactly what are you trying to say here? Are you trying to claim that you derived your 'common sense' restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality? FYI, you did not derive your 'common sense' restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, since there are, in fact, no such moral principles to be found within Darwinian atheism,
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life - pg. 133
In fact, trying to base a society on the amorality inherent within Darwinian Atheism has been tried and has failed spectacularly.
Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html
No JVL, you did not, and can not, derive your 'common sense' restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, (since there are none), but in fact you based your 'common sense' restrictions on abortion on the blatantly obvious, and intuitive, objective moral truth, a truth that you yourself have perceived, that one ought not kill one's own children on such a massive scale, and especially in such a barbaric manner as 'dismemberment' obortion. As to 'you got a better way to run a country?' Well JVL, America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and certainly was not founded upon the atheistic principles of Darwinism
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers (of America) on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible Excerpt: "In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."8 - John Quincy Adams https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/ Words & Dirt - Quotes 10-21-2015 - by Miles Raymer Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,, So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure. http://www.words-and-dirt.com/words/quotes-10-21-2015/ Only the Christian Worldview Can Consistently Argue that Lives Matter - June 12, 2020 - Mark Farnham https://apolotheo.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/only-the-christian-worldview-can-consistently-argue-that-lives-matter/
bornagain77
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Seversky at 176, We could both be wrong? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Look up a few posts. We're talking about babies dying in abortions. Look up!relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Relatd/175
Guess what? You AND I can’t both be right. Get it?
But you could both be wrong and neither of you are lying.
To all reading: There is no such thing as different “opinions” or “views” when it comes to killing babies. I hope those reading understand.
Who's talking about killing babies?Seversky
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
JVL at 173, "... assumes any reply you give which doesn’t agree with their view is a lie." Guess what? You AND I can't both be right. Get it? YOU can say a lie and I CAN point that out. That all I'm doing. To all reading: There is no such thing as different "opinions" or "views" when it comes to killing babies. I hope those reading understand.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the ‘common sense’ restrictions you listed to the side for now Have you got a better way to run a country? I'm all ears.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Relatd: No, YOU think your opinion matters. There is no point in having a conversation with someone who asks you questions and assumes any reply you give which doesn't agree with their view is a lie. So I'm going to quit now. You don't want a dialogue. You want agreement only.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
As I said...Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
AF at 170, Women need to reject the LIES being fed to them. 'The GOVERNMENT is FORCING you to have this baby.' Was the Government there when they got pregnant? When they had sex? NO.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
And that women in the US need to get out and vote in the numbers they did in Kansas.Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
I'll just note I'm very thankful that the beginning and end of Relatd's power and influence rests in posting comments on this blog.Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
The abortion supporters here cannot for one second connect the death of a baby to abortion. They can't do it, first, because it appeals to them. To convenience. To 'saving my figure from pregnancy.' Instead, all they can do is exploit the poor, just as the same kind of people did right before abortion became legal in the U.S. 'Poor women need access to this.' This meaning baby killing.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
JVL states, "However, since you seem to be stalking me in order to get my personal opinion (which is a bit creepy) I would propose to start with abortions being legal for the first trimester (probably below the English Common Law standard since ‘the quickening’ is estimated to be about four to six months in) and put that up to a vote of the public or at least a wide-spread general discussion and see what kind of response you get." Well, (I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the 'common sense' restrictions you listed to the side for now), and I will simply agree with you that some 'common sense' restrictions on abortion, (especially the prohibition of dismemberment abortions and other such gruesome procedures), would certainly be a welcome change compared to what we have now. Which is basically open season on unborn babies, As one person noted, the most dangerous place to be in America right now is, by far, in a mother's womb. At least we are in agreement that some 'common sense' restrictions on the abortion industry is called for. Unfortunately, the abortion industry fights tooth and nail, via very misleading propaganda, against even those 'common sense' restrictions on abortion that you, an atheist, are in favor of.
Debunking 5 myths about the pro-life movement spread by abortion advocates Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion kills a child every single time. Inflicting death is the exact opposite of healthcare. - August 11, 2022 https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/debunking-5-myths-about-the-pro-life-movement-spread-by-abortion-advocates/
bornagain77
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
JVL at 165, No, YOU think your opinion matters.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Relatd: Still lying? I should refer you to Liars Anonymous and break you from the habit. Well, you think my opinion matters. Why is that?JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
JVL at 163, "Whether or not you think I’m sincere my opinion does not matter." Still lying? I should refer you to Liars Anonymous and break you from the habit.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Relatd: Liar. To all reading: JVL doesn’t matter until he wants you to read what he writes and believe it. Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright. Whether or not you think I'm sincere my opinion does not matter.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
"...attacking people whose opinion doesn’t matter. " Liar. To all reading: JVL doesn't matter until he wants you to read what he writes and believe it.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Relatd: But you point to the 1800s. You point to anything to make YOUR point while, at the same time, claiming you can’t answer other questions. My historical references are true. I could say more but, again, my own opinion isn't that important so why you treat it with such reverence and respect (you seem to want to know desperately) I can't understand. You mention ‘Christian countries’ only as a weapon you think will confuse people. The 1800s are not today. I think a lot of people in the early 1800s were quite devote and religious. They didn't question creation or the Bible. Why are you so angry? That must just eat you up. To spend so much time and effort attacking people whose opinion doesn't matter. I guess you have to ask: why is 10% of the population (the atheists) dictating so much public opinion? What's the reason for the influence, according to you? Why aren't people like you able to argue successfully against what you consider blasphemous? Is that a failing on your part or them just being better at persuasion?JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
JVL at 159, You've got the Library of Atheist Answers right in front of you, don't you? I'm not trying to get you to say anything. You are good at saying what you want and then dodging out of the way. I get that. That's what happens when promoters are met with indefensible questions. When the lies are exposed as lies. That's how to get the numbers up. Lie to people. Confuse them. Say 'it's complicated' to confuse them some more. This is all crystal clear. This is pagan baby killing. But you point to the 1800s. You point to anything to make YOUR point while, at the same time, claiming you can't answer other questions. This is not over. You mention 'Christian countries' only as a weapon you think will confuse people. The 1800s are not today. The level of communications today is global and instant, but the propaganda techniques are 100% the same. To all reading: Women were lied to for decades in the U.S. until this moment. Right now, women are being told the GOVERNMENT is FORCING them to have a baby. That's a lie. The government did NOT force them to have sex.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Relatd: Let’s get this over with, OK? Perhaps you'd like to read all my responses before you vented your righteous anger just in case I am actually saying something you didn't think I was saying. Because I'm not sure you will actually consider everything I have written on this thread: I am in approval of the public, as a whole, deciding on what kind of abortions are allowed and under what circumstances fully realising that my own opinion or view might lose. That's my opinion. When you live in a democracy sometimes you 'win', sometimes you 'lose'. You and Bornagain77 want me to say something you think is hideous so you have another data point you can use to accuse atheists of being less than human: insane or deluded or somehow not worth considering. If you really think that way then I guess you'd better find someplace to live where dogma over-rules majority rules. In this case, legal does not mean OK What's your better system of government? Do you think women were not brainwashed after decades of hearing ‘abortion is OK’? I also pointed out that under British Common Law (established centuries ago) abortion before 'the quickening' was concerned fine. AND I pointed out that a couple of Popes agreed with that. I saw photos of people going door to door in the U.S. in support of same sex so-called marriage. To lie to people. To gain their trust. To tell them certain things and in the end, the goal was to con them. To get the numbers up so you, and others, can say: See! Christians! What was the lie in that case? pagan baby killing is OK. As opposed to when most Christian countries thought early term abortions were okay? Like before the 1800s and, in American, well into the 1800s.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
JVL at 149, "not illegal"? That's your criteria? In this case, legal does not mean OK. In this case, radicals around the world are telling women 'It's OK to kill that baby.' They are telling women 'the government is making you have that baby.' Is that true? Was the GOVERNMENT there when they got pregnant? Did the GOVERNMENT force them to have sex? If the answer is no to both, then they are promoting lies. And I don't believe your CRAP about widespread support. Do you think women were not brainwashed after decades of hearing 'abortion is OK'? The same with Homosexuality. More Americans support it. Support what? Gay sex? Or leaving homosexuals alone? You just dodge and weave and select the facts or join other atheists in 'getting the numbers up' so you can proudly proclaim: SEE, SEE!! They SuPpOrT it. Whatever IT happens to be. You try to come off as some innocent party. 'Oh, see, it's Christians." NO. Quit lying. I saw photos of people going door to door in the U.S. in support of same sex so-called marriage. To lie to people. To gain their trust. To tell them certain things and in the end, the goal was to con them. To get the numbers up so you, and others, can say: See! Christians! LIAR. Wake up - all reading - WAKE UP. You have been lied to. The campaign to promote all this was led by dedicated, committed PROMOTERS for decades. The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws had a plan - like a military plan - to conquer you. To tell you: It's just a blob of tissue. That's why the WEST is in decline. When skillful liars convince you that pagan baby killing is OK.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
LtComData: Retarded fox before entering hen’s house:” I’ve seen farmer killing the chickens so I’m entitled to do the same. “ Not sure what you mean. As far as I know, based on medical records, it is true that something like one-quarter to one-third of all human conceptions end in a spontaneous abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. It could be argued that that is an under-estimate since a lot of women will just think they had a late but heavy period. I'm not 'entitled' to do anything. I proposed that the public should decide what terminations are allowed and under what circumstances. That's what living in a democracy means, in the purest sense. Of course all real governments are more complicated than that. I would live with the majority decision even if it was markedly different than my own. Or I would move someplace else. Unless you think a minority should be able to browbeat enough people who disagree with them to vote their way. Or giving authority to a dictator or small group of people who interpret things for you. That doesn't really work for the Taliban as far as running a modern state is concerned so I assumed you would not be in favour of that.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
JVL at 147, 'I live in a foreign country and can't answer the question.' So WHAT? Woop de doo. So WHAT? You think living in a foreign country disqualifies you? That's stupid. 'Get your house in order so atheists can do what they want.' Quit insulting people. Quit dodging blame. Quit telling others to clean up their own house - just ANSWER the question. Or are you a coward who runs off and hides instead of facing the FACT that abortion kills a human being, right up to and including birth? Allow me: "I can't answer that because I agree with it and it makes me complicit in death." Let's get this over with, OK?relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
one-quarter to one-third of all human conceptions are naturally aborted in the first trimester (someone designed a very wasteful system!).
:lol: Retarded fox before entering hen's house:" I've seen farmer killing the chickens so I'm entitled to do the same. "Lieutenant Commander Data
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 146, Some atheists will lie to you. They are NOT stupid. They are not ignorant. They WILL lie to you. They know EXACTLY what you are saying but they WILL lie to you. And keep right on lying. Sure, they might make a few comments to draw you in and THEN lie. Or claim they don't understand, which is ALSO a lie. Now Christians can't take the position when dealing with anonymous people that they are AUTOMATICALLY lying but by their fruit you will know them. From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. They will deny God. They will deny who He actually is and present Him as some bad man. They know they prefer themselves. God is just getting in the way of what they want. And so are you - and me.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply