Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Evolution of Life and the Evolution of Technology

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The first part of the video below, which is essentially my invited talk at a recent meeting in Erzurum, Turkey, is based on my 2013 BioComplexity article “Entropy and Evolution.” However, I want to focus here on the second part, beginning at the 19:40 mark, which discusses the remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology. The primary argument of Darwinists, from Darwin on down, has never been “natural selection of random variations is a reasonable explanation for evolution,” it has always been “evolution doesn’t look like the way God would have done things, therefore it must have been due to natural causes, and all other natural theories are even more far-fetched than ours.”

[youtube iG7KI7I7XDo]

The assumption underlying this argument is that God would have created with a magic wand, and new species would have appeared out of nowhere, with no connection to previous species, and we don’t see this in the fossil record (except possibly at the beginning of the Cambrian era!). What we do see, as explored in the second part of this video, are remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology, as seen in the patterns in the fossil record, and in a phenomenon known as “convergence.”

After my talk in Erzurum, a young man approached me and said (approximately) “do you, as a scientist, really not believe in evolution? Do you think life was due to supernatural causes?” If I had had more time to prepare a reply, I would have said, “The development of the automobile, from primitive to current forms: would you call that ‘evolution’? If so, then I believe in the evolution of life. But like the development of life, the development of the automobile was primarily due to intelligent causes; would you call those causes ‘supernatural’?”

Some people do not like the comparison, because (1) it may seem to bring God’s design down to the level of human design, and (2) they may say that Genesis 1 does paint a picture of creation by magic wand. With regard to (1), I would say that it does not bring God down to our level, because the things God has designed are so much more advanced than the things we design, but a designer must always get involved in the details of his design, no matter how intelligent he may be. And with regard to (2), although of course Genesis 1 is not an accurate scientific account of creation, even here we see a God who created one type of animal, “saw that it was good,” and proceeded to improve on it; that sounds a lot like the way we create things, though testing and improvements. And if all God had to do to create species was to wave a wand, why does the Bible say that on the seventh day, God “rested from all the work of creating that he had done”?

Comments
IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING, WHY WOULD HE USE NATURAL DISASTERS, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO CREATE OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS RATHER THAN DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS?
Natural disasters are a necessary condition for a meaningful life and as such one would expect a creator to make sure they would happen. The laws of nature are such that these events must happen. Unfortunate occurrences for anyone are distributed like a bell curve. They range in severity from a minor pinch of the finger to a horrible death through intense prolonged torture. I am sure we can find examples that are more extreme at either end. I read recently what Shaka did to those who displeased him. They died quite gruesome deaths. Then there is the person who would complain because the temperature was only 68 yesterday and not 70. But none are more than finite hardships. In other words all the so called nasty stuff is finite in nature and even though judged horrible by our standards, they pale versus the alternative offered by the Christian God. If all anyone had was this life, then the unfortunate end of the spectrum would be unbelievably harsh and seemingly unfair for those that experienced them. But Christians do not have that as an issue since the reward is infinite. It is like comparing a stubbing of the toe to all the riches that the world can provide for everyone forever. Now, non Christians do not believe this but Christians do. As such the so-called suffering is not an issue. Also these sufferings are looked at as necessary, maybe for reasons we can not understand. Andre above provided a very good one, free will to choose. If everything was always incredibly pleasant, of what value would a belief in God then be. Leibniz once said this is the "best of all possible worlds" but the problem is we can never know just what "best" is. (For this belief, Leibniz was mocked by Voltaire in Candide) At least while in this world. That should not stop anyone from exploring these questions and many have and will continue to do so. People's objection to the Christian God is not the suffering that goes on in various degrees in this world for everyone. After all, we all have things go wrong to some degree. Their objection lies elsewhere and the suffering is just an excuse not a reason. Look elsewhere for the reason.jerry
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
What is a "literal interpretation"? Isn't something either taken literally or it is interpreted, ie explained with bias? Just askin' I will say this about the Bible- it predicted the universe had a beginning and science has confirmed it. It predicted reproductive isolation and science has confirmed that too.Joe
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
A lot of people try to focus on the use of "Day" in the original hebrew as elsewhere used to define a period of time. However there is also the issue of the statement of "evening and morning" that comes along with the definition of that day. Again, you could take that poetically (e.g. a defined time known to God?). I think the biggest problem that YEC's have is not necessarily to do with that specific text. It is not that they must hold to complete literal interpretation. In some cases yes, but not all. I think most YEC's have issue with the implications of a non-literal time period with a non-literal Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden given the references made elsewhere in the Bible to this, and the implications rooted in this for the Fall. I.e. "death entered the world through the sin of one man" becomes more difficult to rationalise if you hold to a TE position. Even if you argue spiritual death alone, it is difficult along with many other passages. So I suppose the driver behind many YEC's is not an inherent need to accept Gen 1-3 as literal in as much of an issue with Biblical Doctrine as a whole. A lot of people say that some ancient Jews rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis but then again if a Christian says that they have to also admit that ancient Jews rejected who they [Christians] view as the Messiah. The ancient Jews also did a lot of things contrary to what God asked of them, time after time. I think it is difficult to establish any good evidence what those who received the Torah originally believed about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3. From a personal point of view, one of the most modern day striking events that lends support to a more literal interpretation of the Bible occurred in 1948 and 1967. 1878 years is a very long time for that prediction to come true, and I find quite underrated as a predicted historical event. That might upset some Preterists and amillenialists though.Dr JDD
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart- As far as I know the day-age position is old and is part of some Hebrews' traditions. Also St Augustine said that the Creation days could not have been literal 24 hour days. The only people that I know of who insist on 24 hours days for the Creation week are some Christians. Do a google search on day-age Creation or day-age Genesis- there is plenty to readJoe
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
@Joe 41: "However, as I said above, there are many who do accept the Creation week was not made of ordinary 24 hour days. They say the Earth is less than 6,000 years old plus the creation week, which could have been millions of years." This is a serious question, because I don't know the answer. What is the oldest serious reference to people (presumably bible scholars or the clergy) suggesting that the seven days referred to in Genesis may not have been 24 hour days? Surely these records exist as bible scholars and the church are known for excellent record keeping. Or is this a more recent dissembling to try to explain away convincing facts?Acartia_bogart
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
AB cont:
But far be it from me to suggest that determining the age of the earth by counting the number of begats in an old book is based on untested assumptions.
I agree. The Bible does not say how old the earth is. And the OT could very well have been altered by the time we had a look at it. However, as I said above, there are many who do accept the Creation week was not made of ordinary 24 hour days. They say the Earth is less than 6,000 years old plus the creation week, which could have been millions of years.Joe
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart:
Are you referring to untested assumptions like the speed of light, nuclear physics and other “untested” assumptions?
No. I am referring to the untestable assumption that the proto-earth was so hot that no crystal containing uranium and other isotopes melted, ie did not survive. Ya see rad decay can start when the isotopes are formed and they were formed well before they reached earth(in the materialistic scenario). The crystals were formed in meteors, comets and asteroids. By the time earth was formed billions upon billions of years could have passed and if the crystals stayed intact when they came here then the age is skewed. A designer could use old material. A desk can be made from a very old tree. Also a designer could speed up rad decay, take that heat and make the core molten and create the organisms from the energy released.Joe
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
@Joe 24: "So throw out your billions of years nonsense as that relies on untestable assumptions." Are you referring to untested assumptions like the speed of light, nuclear physics and other "untested" assumptions? But far be it from me to suggest that determining the age of the earth by counting the number of begats in an old book is based on untested assumptions.Acartia_bogart
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
JFLAN I will anser your question This is a cause and effect universe, a place where agents can make free moral choices, where we can love freely, hate freely. It's your choice. The new creation will not be like this one as there will not be any choices for you to make because it will not be a cause and effect creation. You are here now to choose; God (life) no God (no life) Now if this was a choice-less universe what would the point be of being here? If you where God what type of subjects would you want? Those that serve mindlessly or those that choose you freely? And just in case you want to say but what about all those cripples and natural disasters.... Did you know that God takes complete and full responsibility for a less than perfect world. Exodus 4:11 "The LORD said to him, "Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" A God that takes responsibility for a less than perfect world has my support!Andre
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
As I pointed out in another thread and will do so again here, the literalism that has God creating for six literal 24 hour periods also has God resting for only a single literal 24 hour period.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
Mung
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
UB, a fitting video? Man or Rabbit? by CS Lewis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQbornagain77
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
The OoL problem will be shown to be natural in time.
Statements such as this, the way you use it, are generally interpreted to mean 'regardless of the evidence'. It's really not often you meet someone like you. And when you do, you generally associate it with someone who's very very religious. You can see that they don't even allow the question. Isn't life funny. That you are here to attack that person. It's also a little funny how mistaken you are. An ID forum is typically populated by people who have very much investigated such questions, or are in the process of investigating such questions. How out of place you are, your actions.Upright BiPed
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Bravo JLAfan! The courage of your nihlism does you proud. We must seek out the truth no matter how unpleasant. And when we find the truth we must cling to it even if it burns us. I am not a nihilist, but I think that if I were a materialist, I would be one. Your question about why God would use suffering to create life strikes a chord with me. Indeed, it is one of the strongest reasons that I hold to a Young Earth position. If you wish to show me why this position is an impossible one, please do so. I value knowing the truth more than I do simply winning arguments. I do however ask one thing in return. I would ask that you show your own courage and dedication to the truth and seriously consider any evidence or arguments that I may present for my current belief. If I seem to say that you are an evil creature in danger of eternal damnation, do not simply react out of anger or fear. Seek the truth no matter how it burns.StephenA
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
JLAfan, your "Nature Given Job" is not necessarily over. You could donate to a sperm/egg bank. You could get a job at McDonalds and have an epigenetic impact on future generations. You could bully little kids in an attempt to make them fitter grrr. Lots of option available for you.ppolish
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Your faith in naturalism is greater than mine. I confess that I don't see how the meager evidence for only amino acids in a meteorite can be extrapolated to the idea that a feasible pathway from non-life to life, without intelligent intervention, must exist, or even does exist. YEC not being the mainstream position does not mean conspiracy necessarily. People do not have to gather in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms in order to suppress some idea. All they have to do is to have a bias, that is reinforced. That such a bias can exist in a dominant scientific community can be proved by the genetics of Lysenko. That such a bias exists against YLC's can be demonstrated by your own views. You assume, presumably based on some combination of evidence, trust in authority, and personal desire, that, as you put it, "You are a YEC which means your science is automatically wrong." No need to argue the case. You may protest that your statement is true and therefore can't be biased. But the issue of bias is separate from the question of truth. One can be biased toward a conclusion that later turns out to be true. Take the case of Galileo, who believed that the earth rotated on its axis and moved around the sun, and accepted the tides a proof of this concept, even though more thoughtful observers have noted that the tides did not prove what Galileo said they did. Galileo was biased enough to make a scientific mistake, even though his bias was toward what eventually has come to be (nearly) universally accepted as truth. The only remaining question is whether your bias is sufficient to cause you to make a mistake, and whether it is shared enough by other observers to cause them to make similar mistakes. That, it would seem, is the province of evidence, and appropriate deduction from that evidence. YLC is Young Life Creationism, the belief that life on this earth was created a few thousand years ago in a scenario appropriately described in Genesis 1 and 2, using the ordinary meanings of words and phrases. It makes no statement about whether the material of the earth, the rest of the solar system, or the universe was pre-existing, or for how long. Some YLCs are YECs (and YUCs), and some are not. It is sort of a "mere short-age creation" position.Paul Giem
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
JLAfan:
The OoL problem will be shown to be natural in time.
You gotta love science via promissory notes. There is a better chance that Stonehenge will be shown to be natural in time. That is a promissory not. :)Joe
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001 continues,
No one has even attempted a reasonable answer.
A reasonable answer to what, exactly?
Quit the damn BS and answer the question: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING, WHY WOULD HE USE NATURAL DISASTERS, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO CREATE OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS RATHER THAN DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS?
Wait a minute. You are seriously conflating natural disasters with the creation of the Earth? This is a non sequitur of the highest order; one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. And even if some of what we term natural disasters (volcanic eruptions, for example) occurred during the Earth’s creation, nobody—no humans or animals—were around to be affected by it. Your question, while honest, is also profoundly stupid. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the truth. You actually believe that God used pain to create humans? How? He used suffering to create animals or plants? How? Where on Earth—pardon the pun—are you getting this information? Seriously, you are the first atheist/nihilist I’ve met who’s tried to argue this point.
If he needed monsoons and earthquakes to create this earth then what can he do with the new earth that is supposedly coming?
We’ve established already that he didn’t need monsoons (as far as I know) to create the Earth; maybe earthquakes were involved, given what we know of plate tectonics. The bottom line is that if He can control the physical laws of nature, then He can do whatever he wants. If He wants to control the weather, He can. If He wants to make it so that no earthquakes ever occur again, He can. You know, all-powerful and all that. If He can use monsoons, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes—which we all know are destructive forces of nature—in a controlled fashion to accomplish whatever he wanted to accomplish (creation, as you see it), then he certainly is capable of rendering the Earth unassailable from natural disasters.
Is this new earth going to be filled with natural disasters too?
This is actually a very good question. The short answer is no. The long answer involves knowing the difference between an “act of God” in the Bible and a true natural disaster. Pat Robertson has famously gone on record stating that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for the nation. Other religious leaders may feel similarly. Still others do not know what to believe. One professor of religious studies stated: “Most religious traditions acknowledge that no one can speak authoritatively about divine will in natural disasters.” You will see that in Bible history when God used natural forces to execute his judgments, he always provided (1) a warning, (2) a reason, and (3) protection for obedient worshippers. Examples of the following include the Noachian flood and the drought in Israel. You could also include the ten plagues on Egypt if you like, as natural forces were involved there as well. Today there is no evidence that natural disasters are part of a master plan to punish mankind. As a God of justice, Jehovah has never ‘swept away the righteous with the wicked.’ (Genesis 18:23, 25) He made provision for those who were obedient to him. Today natural disasters afflict men, women, and children indiscriminately. Clearly, current natural disasters do not fit the pattern of divine intervention found in the Scriptures. What is more, these random events are out of harmony with God’s personality. James 1:13 states that God does not try people with evil things, and 1 John 4:8 sums up God’s character in these words: “God is love.” He could never be responsible for the misery inflicted on innocent people by random storms, earthquakes, and similar tragedies.
If not then why didn’t he do it the first time? Of course, christians have different beliefs about the “truth” of the new earth but I will leave it up to you brothers and sisters to fight over that one.
I’m going to repeat what I stated earlier: where on Earth are you getting your information from? Where are you being told authoritatively that God used natural disasters to create the Earth? And how is this a problem, considering that the Earth was “formless and waste” according to the Bible and NO LIVING THINGS WERE AFFECTED. I’m not seeing the issue here.
Barb, My arguments have not been refuted.
Yes, they have. Repeatedly. I responded to a personal email you sent me in July 2013 that has thus far gone unanswered. The problem is that you don’t want the answers. You don’t want anything to be true but your own nihilistic belief system. Because otherwise, you’d have to admit that you were wrong.
Just because you give me an answer doesn’t mean it’s a good one.
But if it’s a truthful answer, then you need to learn to deal with it and accept it. Whether you like it or not.
BTW, I realized the quote was from a movie. I’ve probably seen that movie a hell of alot more times than you have.
Umm…good for you?
I don’t believe in Humanism.
But humanism and atheism are inter-related.
The laws of nature have evolved me to spread my genes and propogate the species which I’ve done. My nature given job is over. What it does from there is not my business.
Are you admitting that you’ve reproduced? Because that is a scary thought.
Some humans have randomly evolved to believe that humans are too important and should be helped and flourish. We are not more important than other species that have gone extinct. We are no more than cockroaches in the grand scheme of things.
And cockroaches scatter when the lights go on. Much like you do when someone responds intelligently to one of your posts. Your post contradicts evolutionary theory, though; altruism (selfless giving), we’re told, is a by-product of evolution. The fittest survive, but to do so often requires cooperation amongst individuals and groups. Are you, an evolutionist, now arguing that this portion of evolution is wrong? Explain.
If natural selection selects against us, so be it. We go extinct. Humans are not important in anyway shape or form. The earth will continue on after we are gone. I spread my genes and nature does what nature does.
So, then, natural disasters aren’t God’s fault at all. It’s just natural selection randomly selecting people, plants, and other things to eliminate. Why are you angry at God at all, then?
I haven’t evolved to spend time in taking care of inferior races, species or handicapped pople. That is all from the lies of religion. The fit survive until the fickle bitch of natural selection is done with us.
Based on the utter selfishness in these statements, I’m willing to bet that you’re just some average teenager/young adult, no more than 20-25, whose belief in God was shattered when Mommy and Daddy didn’t get you an X-Box last Christmas. And to that I say: grow up.Barb
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
F/N: On the problem of evils i/l/o Plantinga's Free Will Defense, cf here for a 101. The context will help on wider worldview foundation issues. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Paul The OoL problem will be shown to be natural in time. No god will be required for it. We have found amino acids in metorites which shows that nature did it . We just hve to put the pieces of the puzzle togther and then ID will finally be dead. You are a YEC which means your science is automatically wrong. If wasn't, it would be mainstream science unless you think there is an atheist scientist conspiracy out there. What the heck is a YLC? Is this an offshoot to YEC?JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001, In #5 you said to Dr JDD,
You state that our genes are degenerative as well as creation as a whole because of the fall. Only one problem with that. There was never a fall or a prime couple. No origibnal sin either. Population genetics and the fossil record is clear that Adam & Eve didn’t exist. The “evil” that we see all around is nothing but nature acting in accordance to what nature does. It’s not good or bad, it just is. If your god did create using these methods that we see then he is either stupid or just doesn’t care. YEC is a crock and we all know it. Therefore this “intelligent design” that we see was in existence before Homo Sapiens and it is his doing. Care to explain why your god would use such a painful and wasteful process that would use natural disasters and evolution to bring about his “very good” creation?
If I understand your argument correctly, you eliminate YEC, then go on to criticize long age theistic scenarios by charging them with being wasteful and cruel, and that wastefulness and cruelty are incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, good God. So now you can reject the concept of God. You reiterate the point (#9, #20):
IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING, WHY WOULD HE USE NATURAL DISASTERS, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO CREATE OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS RATHER THAN DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS?
You then go on to argue for nihilism in #15. What you may not realize is that the argument you give cuts both ways. If we start with eliminating YLC, then you can argue for the wastefulness and cruelty of nature, including nature as displayed by the fossil record, argue for the absence of God, then argue for the absence of any designer, then argue that humanism is artificial and argue that nihilism is the only honest philosophy. But we could just as well argue for design (for example at the OOL), then for a designer, then for a designer from beyond nature as conceived of as mere impersonal physics, then have the question of time decided theologically by your repeated (all caps) question. Then we should all be YLC's and those theological problems will disappear. I suspect that you would then protest that the fossil record can't possibly be compressed into such a short time. But there is some evidence that it must be thus compressed. Some of that evidence comes from carbon-14 dating. I am quite familiar with the evidence, and prepared to discuss it. Are you interested?Paul Giem
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
@JLAfan2001 For your question on the problem of evil and suffering: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-problem-of-suffering-and-evil-aalborg-universityVunderGuy
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Vunderguy I don't believe in Humanism. The laws of nature have evolved me to spread my genes and propogate the species which I've done. My nature given job is over. What it does from there is not my business. Some humans have randomly evolved to believe that humans are too important and should be helped and flourish. We are not more important than other species that have gone extinct. We are no more than cockroaches in the grand scheme of things. If natural selection selects against us, so be it. We go extinct. Humans are not important in anyway shape or form. The earth will continue on after we are gone. I spread my genes and nature does what nature does. I haven't evolved to spend time in taking care of inferior races, species or handicapped people. That is all from the lies of religion. The fit survive until the fickle bitch of natural selection is done with us.JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING, WHY WOULD HE USE NATURAL DISASTERS, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO CREATE OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS RATHER THAN DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS?
Why are you asking us why God did what He did? Isn't that a bit juvenile? But anyway, here goes: The Bible doesn't say how long it took to Create the heavens and earth. There are many who hold to a day-age position wrt the creation week. Meaning each creation week day was longer than 24 hours. Also the age of the earth can only be determined when one knows how it was formed. So throw out your billions of years nonsense as that relies on untestable assumptions. Pain and suffering were of our making- according to the Bible. Monsoons and earthquakes help us understand the earth and nature- they are learning devices. Just because we are apparently too stupid to learn from them isn't God's fault. BTW JLAfan- if you had some evidence for your position people would listen.Joe
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Nor has Denyse called me, 'Honey'. I'm not being promiscuous. Just making a fair point. In the hope that you both might remedy it sometime.Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Th answer is a very simple one, JLA, but, alas, not along the lines you could even imagine. It's transcendental. How could you, with we, with our desperately limited, human intelligence, presume to question such a transcendental God, our Creator from nihil? Compared to God, we are infinitely lower than ants are compared to us, and in every regard. Well, except, in 'milligram for milligram' physical strength. But I mean ants compared to us, in absolute terms.Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Well, it's all knock-about stuff to us, Vunderguy. It's a real effort to pretend to take atheist's thought-processes seriously for protracted periods. Some are better than others at it. I admit I'm a duffer in that regard. Yet another. Don't we get as good as we give? Or do we defenestrate them, if they get too lippy?Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
No one has even attempted a reasonable answer. Quit the damn BS and answer the question: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING, WHY WOULD HE USE NATURAL DISASTERS, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO CREATE OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS RATHER THAN DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS? If he needed monsoons and earthquakes to create this earth then what can he do with the new earth that is supposedly coming? Is this new earth going to be filled with natural disasters too? If not then why didn't he do it the first time? Of course, christians have different beliefs about the "truth" of the new earth but I will leave it up to you brothers and sisters to fight over that one. Barb, My arguments have not been refuted. Just because you give me an answer doesn't mean it's a good one. BTW, I realized the quote was from a movie. I've probably seen that movie a hell of alot more times than you have.JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
@Axel Being a bit mean, aren't we? @JLAfan2001 Hrmmm... interesting. It's nice to meet an Atheist that honest, unlike a Secular Humanist, and for your honesty good sir, I must say that I commend you... for however much that's worth given your affirmation of Nihilism. However, having rarely, if ever, having encountered an Atheist who was a Nihilist rather than a Secular Humanist, I do desire to hear it 'from the horse's mouth,' as it were (not that I am calling you a horse, since you are very clearly a human being and I do not wish to insult you by comparing you to an animal) on your thoughts as to what Nihilism is and Secular Humanism.VunderGuy
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
I'm envious of JLA, Barb. You've never called me, 'Honey'. I wouldn't care if it was facetious.Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
It's easier if you think of it as MOTHER Nature, isn't it JLA? Mother Nature is very, very fertile. (Remember, boys and girls, as in 'tile', not 'myrtle'. 'Fertiiiyyyyeeeel'.Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply