• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Hovind series ep21

AronRa

AronRa

Administrator
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Hovind said:
Bible says if you offend one of these little ones, you’d be better off with a mill stone around your neck and go swimming. These folks teaching evolution are in serious trouble when they stand before God.

Look, just because it’s smaller doesn’t mean it’s simpler. Then they tell ‘em we come from a simple, primitive unicellular organism. A paramecium is more complicated than a space shuttle, and you can put thousands of those into one drop of water. Smaller is not simpler. That’s one of the lies in the textbooks. I’ll show you. Here’s a microchip inside a paper clip. Pretty small; not simple. This microchip is being held in the mouth of an ant. And that little microchip can process every letter of the Bible two hundred times per second. Smaller is not simpler.

I’ll show you. Let’s compare the brain of a honey bee to NASA’s Cray computer, at one time the world’s fastest computer. I think they have a faster one now. The brain of a honey bee is pretty small. They Cray computer is huge. We would all agree there’s a size difference, right? OK. Now, the Cray computer can do six billion calculations per second. It was estimated that the honey bee’s brain is doing about a trillion calculations per second, a thousand billion. So that little honey bee brain is about a hundred and thirty three times faster than a Cray computer.

The Cray uses many megawatts. It’s power hungry. The honey bee uses ten microwatts. Did you know honey bees not only make honey, they fly on honey. That’s their energy source, and a honey bee can fly a million miles on one gallon of honey. How would you like a machine that gets a million miles per gallon? Especially at today’s price of gas, right? Fill up once and you’re done for the rest of your life.

The Cray costs forty eight million dollars, the honey bee’s brain is pretty cheap. You splat ‘em on your windshield all the time, right. Many people scramble when the Cray breaks down. Nobody heals the honey bee, a self-healing computer. Steve, you work on computers. How would you like one of them? Something crashes, zzhhrrtt reconfigures itself, fixes it all up, no problem.

Cray weighed twenty three hundred pounds. The honey bee’s brain doesn’t weigh too much. So what should we conclude? Let’s see, the supercomputer is huge, it is slow, it is very inefficient, it is power hungry, and it had to be designed. We all know that, right? But yet they turn around, look at the honey bee and say well, that happened by chance.

And the brain of a human is a whole lot more complex than a honey bee, for Heaven’s sake. Your brain can hold more information than the entire British library. The human brain is phenomenal, OK. You have more computational power in bits per second than the entire national telephone system.

One brain surgeon estimated that there are more connections in your, in just one person’s brain, there are more connections than the entire electrical system of the United States. How many wires have been connected together in the United States would you guess inside every computer and inside every machine and inside every building? Like, zillions of ‘em? One brain has more than that.
Click to expand...
You guys were very helpful with a previous video script. For this next one I'm working on, I think I need to hear from some nerds who know something about computers and how to measure comparative complexity.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
The problem comparing computer vs animals is that the brain is something completely different than a CPU. The CPU is made and has instructions sets build in that software can use. The CPU without software can’t do anything it need something to instruct the CPU. That said you know that comparing human to machines was in the 70, 80 and 90ties a daily event. Saying living animals have better power to process everything than PC’s. Today you only hear this from believers because you can’t be comparing it. The eye does around 10 million bits per second my pc a 9900K Intel does 412,090 MIPS at 4.7 GHz so my PC does 41000 times more calculations then an eye. The new AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X does 2,356,230 MIPS at 4.35 GHz there great numbers and if you get quantum computers involved you get even more ridiculous numbers but like i said nice to be nerdy but no real application. Its like lets give large numbers and there baffled worked before the year 2000 now its well not done.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

The term "simpler", as used in the context of size, refers to the fact that a single-celled organism is - quantitatively and qualitatively - "simpler" than a multi-celled organism in terms of organisational complexity - as he accidentally admits when he says:
And the brain of a human is a whole lot more complex than a honey bee, for Heaven’s sake.
Click to expand...
Or, to put it another way, the bee's brain is "simpler" than a human's.

He then goes on to compound his error by comparing apples and oranges in comparing biological and technological systems.

The microchip is the result of technological development, which he's either forgotten or is sliding over.

As technology has improved, computers have diminished in size, from ones that took up whole football field-sized rooms in the 50's and 60's to something that fits on the tip of a finger (with the same or greater processing power), and will continue to shrink as new materials and technologies (quantum computing, for example) are developed beyond silicon.

For all their speed, there's more to intelligence than processing power - not to mention consciousness.

Computers are still not able to learn, unless they're programmed to do so. AI, using neural nets, are beginning to be able to learn by being fed ideal data sets/scenarios so they can discern patterns from data or recognise "healthy" from "unhealthy" systems.

This still requires human intervention, unlike with our neurological system - our brain.

Even the brains of smaller species can outperform computers and AIs in pattern-recognition because they can then use that information to react to and/or interact with the environment, and everything in it.

The key point is that the microprocessor is "simpler" in organisational complexity and what it can do compared with a biological brain, whether human or not.

And, as you'll have noted, he's using the usual canard of "chance" referring to the origin of the bee's brain.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
Look, just because it’s smaller doesn’t mean it’s simpler. Then they tell ‘em we come from a simple, primitive unicellular organism. A paramecium is more complicated than a space shuttle, and you can put thousands of those into one drop of water. Smaller is not simpler. That’s one of the lies in the textbooks. I’ll show you. Here’s a microchip inside a paper clip. Pretty small; not simple. This microchip is being held in the mouth of an ant. And that little microchip can process every letter of the Bible two hundred times per second. Smaller is not simpler.
Click to expand...
I never seen in any textbook that smaller is necessarily simpler in all situations. It's relative when it comes to cellular life. Often single celled life forms are generally regarded as simpler compared to the multi-cellular life forms. That certainly doesn't mean that the single celled life form is "simple". Also, even though he did not say this directly, though it's implied, we did not come from paramecium.
I’ll show you. Let’s compare the brain of a honey bee to NASA’s Cray computer, at one time the world’s fastest computer. I think they have a faster one now. The brain of a honey bee is pretty small. They Cray computer is huge. We would all agree there’s a size difference, right? OK. Now, the Cray computer can do six billion calculations per second. It was estimated that the honey bee’s brain is doing about a trillion calculations per second, a thousand billion. So that little honey bee brain is about a hundred and thirty three times faster than a Cray computer.
Click to expand...
Others have already commented on why the comparison between computers and brains is flawed in this respects. I must say that I am not a very well-versed in computer technology so please take this with a grain of salt and someone please correct if I am wrong.

The way a computer process units of information is by transistors, which work by electronic circuits that switching transistors on and off thereby manipulating the voltages within those circuits. Most transistors are made of the semiconductor silicon, it's semiconductor property allows for easy manipulation of the currents, but it also means that it is not an efficient carrier of electrons, hence some is lost as heat.

Neurons aren't made of the same materials, nor do they conduct signals in the same way electrical circuits do. The cell doesn't conduct electricity like a conducting metal wire. The signal is conducted by a voltage fluctuation caused by differences in concentrations of charged ions across the cell membrane. Most notably sodium and potassium, some of the electrolytes which plants crave...I am told. I suspect that this uses way less energy than electricity conducted by silicon [can anyone confirm?].

It's also the case that many signals transmitted in the nervous system is different than the discreet ON/OFF states of transistors. Like neurons are indeed either in a state of firing or not firing at any time, but unlike transistors, the information that neurons propagate is the RATE of firing. At any give period of time all of your neurons likely have some rate of activity, firing random action potentials at least some times. This mainly because the signals that activate neurons are chemical in nature and does act scholastically. So the nervous system works by "rates" instead of the clearly defined ON or OFF states in order to mask the noise (hence why you are not constantly in agonizing pain despite many of your pain nerves having at least some rate of activity). Conversely, since computer transistors have discrete on or off states, they can process information based on well-defined logical rules...as opposed to the fuzzyness in the way nerve cells work.
The Cray uses many megawatts. It’s power hungry. The honey bee uses ten microwatts. Did you know honey bees not only make honey, they fly on honey. That’s their energy source, and a honey bee can fly a million miles on one gallon of honey. How would you like a machine that gets a million miles per gallon? Especially at today’s price of gas, right? Fill up once and you’re done for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...
Again, this may be another example of comparing two things that aren't comparable. He is comparing two things that are on different scales. How far can a car travel that has the same mass as a single honey bey on a single gallon?
Cray weighed twenty three hundred pounds. The honey bee’s brain doesn’t weigh too much. So what should we conclude? Let’s see, the supercomputer is huge, it is slow, it is very inefficient, it is power hungry, and it had to be designed. We all know that, right? But yet they turn around, look at the honey bee and say well, that happened by chance.
Click to expand...
Going to take "by chance" to mean "by natural processes" for now.

This isn't contradictory since complexity isn't a hallmark of design. There are plenty of things that are rather simple and yet clearly designed and there are very complicated things that occur naturally. My favorite go to examples are paperclips and snowflakes respectively.

On the contrary, simplicity is actually a better indicator of design compared to complexity.
Bear in mind, this is not saying that all things that are designed are simple. It means to say that, as a general rule, design tends to operate on the KISS principle.
1628541147002.png
And the brain of a human is a whole lot more complex than a honey bee, for Heaven’s sake. Your brain can hold more information than the entire British library. The human brain is phenomenal, OK. You have more computational power in bits per second than the entire national telephone system. One brain surgeon estimated that there are more connections in your, in just one person’s brain, there are more connections than the entire electrical system of the United States. How many wires have been connected together in the United States would you guess inside every computer and inside every machine and inside every building? Like, zillions of ‘em? One brain has more than that.
Click to expand...
Yet for all our potential processing power, our brains are highly flawed in many aspects. We can't comprehend the vastness of the universe in both time and scale...some are even unwilling to acknowledge the vastness of the former, and some even the latter as well. Can your mind conceive how an atom relates to the scale of your body, and how your scale relates that to the solar system and in turn the galaxy and finally the whole universe. We can put those in numbers, but we don't comprehend that in the say way we can comprehend the scale differences between ordinary objects we often interact with.

It gets even worse. It's actually the case that most humans cannot conceive more than 3 to 6 distinct objects at a given moment in time. That is actually why it is so difficult to immediately recall a phone number the first time around. We are also really bad at solving rather simple math problems, something our calculators can calculate in matters of nanoseconds. And in matters of statistics, its gets even worse. Why are people often more persuaded by anecdotal evidence that are subject to recall, reporting, confirmation and many other biases rather than actual statistical analyses? It's because the former is dead easy, and many cannot do the latter without the needed education. Our minds rely on intuition and heuristics to make quick and easy guesses...which we often refer to as our "common sense". This allows us to function in most instances of our daily lives....it's "good enough"...but it very easily leads us to the wrong conclusions. Good video by c0nc0rdance btw.



And that's not to say how incredibly bad our memory is. Sure, you can recall moments of your life to some degrees of accuracy, but the way you "vividly" remember some event about your life is likely very off in many details. Our minds This is also why eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate. The inadequacies of our minds is exactly why humans have invented computers and storage devices that perform these tasks better than we can. Recall from what I said about how transistors works in by well-defined logic? This allows computers to not only be better calculators, but also beat us at every game with well-defined rules like chess, even the best players in the world. But what we are better at than computers (at least so far) is...apart from being self-aware and conscious...is the heuristics. Making good guesses within fuzzy context, pattern seeking to distinguish relevant information from irrelevant ones, although this is also an area were we frequently make errors, see pareidolia. Our minds seem to sacrifice accuracy for versatility.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Nesslig20 said:
Yet for all our potential processing power, our brains are highly flawed in many aspects. We can't comprehend the vastness of the universe in both time and scale...some are even unwilling to acknowledge the vastness of the former, and some even the latter as well. Can your mind conceive how an atom relates to the scale of your body, and how your scale relates that to the solar system and in turn the galaxy and finally the whole universe.
Click to expand...

I know how vast the universe is that’s not an issue for me, the reason is that I’m interested in the subject and I follow many topics on it. This way my knowledge grows and how get accustomed to the fast numbers. The atoms on a universal scale is something that i can’t do because I never learned about it so i have no reference of scale.

But take a stack of 52 cards and you all ready have an incredible number in your hands 52! (Reads as 52 factorial), now watch this video and you will be blown away how big this number is.

 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
AronRa said:
You guys were very helpful with a previous video script. For this next one I'm working on, I think I need to hear from some nerds who know something about computers and how to measure comparative complexity.
Click to expand...
You can't compare biological complexity with technological complexity. One reason is because we can build computers but we cant build bees. Anything that is unnecessarily complex is absurd. If we could build bees, we might discover a better, less complex way for them to perform all of the same functions that they could normally perform but with less moving parts or with less power for example. But these things are beyond the limits of our understanding.
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Thanks again for your help, guys. This is what I came up with. It will go public tomorrow morning.
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
I'm moving onto Episode 22 now. Here is what Hovind said there.

Hovind said:
One professor told me, that he believed in evolution. And I said, well sir, do you believe your brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance? He said yeah. I said then how can you trust your thoughts and the conclusions you come to? Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards? He did, by the way. Several actually, but…. Then they tell the kids that DNA is pretty tiny, but that proves evolution. That’s what this textbook says: “We have evidence of evolution from molecular biology.” Darwin speculated all forms of life are related. This speculation has been verified. They are lying to your kids. Nothing about DNA has helped with the evolution theory at all.

DNA, which stands Deoxyribonucleic acid, is the most complex molecule in the universe, unbelievably complicated molecule. That little DNA molecule, average person has 50 trillion cells in their body, with 46 of those little molecules in each cell; 46 chromosome strands in each cell of your body. If you extracted all of it, it would only fill about two tablespoons. But if you took those DNA strands and unwound them, lggg, stretched them out, tied them together, one person’s DNA would reach from earth to the moon and back over a half million times, round trips to the moon.

They say the DNA holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man combined.

IBM models the newest computers after DNA. The quantity of information is so vast that we have to invent new numbers to measure it; not terabytes, petabytes, or exabytes, yodabytes and zetabytes. All the words uttered by everyone who ever lived would amount to five exabytes. And your DNA in your chromosome holds more information than that?

It is so unbelievably complex, if you typed out the code found in your DNA, when you got done typing, you’d have enough books to fill Grand Canyon 78 times. That’s the instructions to make you. I’d say you’re pretty special. Quite a list of instructions to make you. David said I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. And he didn’t have a microscope, and he could figure that out. Hm-mm, yep.

You know from conception to birth, the baby adds fifteen thousand cells per minute to its body. Each one is more complicated than a space shuttle. How would you like to be in charge of the supply end of supplying a factory that is producing fifteen thousand space shuttles a minute? And it’s your job to make sure they have all the nuts and bolts and screws and everything they need to put that thing together? Some of you women are saying, boy I did it, and it’s hard too. Sometimes they want pickles in the middle of the night, you know? What are you building down there anyway? The probability of one DNA happening by chance has been calculated to be one in ten to the hundred and nineteenth thousandth power. That’s a big number when you figure that the entire visible universe is about ten to the twenty-eighth inches in diameter.

DNA has not proven anything that would help the evolution theory.

It’s made the problem much much much worse, but let’s just assume that the chromosome number means something, and that it could evolve. OK. Well then I did some research on this. I discovered penicillin has two chromosomes. That one had to evolve first. And then slowly, over millions of years, they got some more chromosomes, because they’re complicated you know, and it turned into a fruit fly. You can see the similarity there. It’s only got eight chromosomes. And then very slowly, it evolved some more chromosomes, and became either a tomato or a house fly. Very tough to tell the difference. They’re identical twins, you know. And then very slowly over millions of years, it evolved into either a pea or a bee, You can see the similarity there, you know. Pea? Bee? Very similar. Slowly it became lettuce, then a carrot and finally, when we got to twenty two chromosomes, triplets, the oppossum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean, all have twenty-two chromosomes. Average scientist cannot tell ‘em apart. Let’s see, which one is which here? OK. Let’s see, tree, opossum, bean, um. And we have forty-six, folks. And if we can just get two more, the next step of human evolution, we’re gonna become a tobacco plant. I know some already smell like it. Sometimes I’ll get on the elvevator and I’ll say (sniff) man you’re evolving. You’re way ahead of me. And it probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but we might get enough chromosomes someday to be either a dog or a chicken. They’re twins too, you know. And then way down the road, you know, we’re gonna become a carp. They got double the chromosomes we do. And some day, stardate thirty-four ninety-five, seventy-two, we’re gonna become a fern. I was at a church one time, and this lady walked up to me afterwards, and she said, Mister Hovind, I’m Fern. I shook hands with that hand right there. I’ll never wash it again.

Hey, how come the evolutionists are always comparing things that fit their theory, why don’t they show us the things that don’t fit their theory?

Like let’s just say, we’re gonna examine how things evolve based upon how long they live? Oh we could arrange animals by how long they live, and we’ll find out the hamster evolved first, slowly turned into a cat, and then a canary, and then a dog and a chimpanzee, and an alligator, elephant, horse, turtle, human. We made it folks. We made it.

Let’s arrange the animals by how long they’re pregnant, their gestation period. Well, in that case, the opposum, only thirteen days. How do you like that, ladies? Only be pregnant for thirteen days. Not bad, Yeah, have a bunch of kids then. Slowly evolved into a hamster, then a rat, then a rabbit, kangaroo, on down the list, and the elephant, six hundred and forty days. They are the winner, the most evolved creature on earth. Or maybe, you can see here, the cat and the dog are identical twins, you know.

Maybe we should arrange them on how much they weigh in their adult form. Well, the shrew only weighs four grams. Slowly became a mouse, and slowly, very slowly, over billions of years, became a whale. The whale’s the most evolved now. Why don’t they show us these charts, huh?

And why is it that amphibians have five times more DNA than mammals, and some amoeba have a thousand times more DNA? They don’t tell us these things. Because it doesn’t fit their theory.
Click to expand...
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

As the "Reply/Quote" functions don't seem to be working properly for me - it's leaving out Hovind's text - I'll just copy/paste relevant bits a piece at a time.

One professor told me, that he believed in evolution. And I said, well sir, do you believe your brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance? He said yeah.
Click to expand...
This is clearly a misrepresentation.

At what point in Kent Hovind's life did a bunch of chemicals come together - by chance! - and - *POOF!* - Hovind suddenly had a brain?

Does he expect that anyone - not to mention "a professor" - really believes that this is what happens?

Brains had evolved long before our species inherited the genes for them.

I said then how can you trust your thoughts and the conclusions you come to? Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards? He did, by the way. Several actually, but….
Click to expand...
Is Hovind claiming that the "professor" had several chemicals that were backward in his brain? How does he know? Or is this just an attempt at humour?

Then they tell the kids that DNA is pretty tiny, but that proves evolution. That’s what this textbook says: “We have evidence of evolution from molecular biology.” Darwin speculated all forms of life are related. This speculation has been verified. They are lying to your kids. Nothing about DNA has helped with the evolution theory at all.
Click to expand...
Clearly wrong,

Evolution is supported by empiric evidence that has been corroborated across all the Earth sciences. Molecular biology is just one of the sciences that has provided that evidence. And DNA, through genetic studies since "genetics" became another branch of science, has provided yet more evidence supporting evolution.

You know from conception to birth, the baby adds fifteen thousand cells per minute to its body.
Click to expand...
Er, no. It's about 5,000 per minute - 5,144 and change if you calculate it.

IF you average it out.

From conception (1 cell) to birth (approximately 2 trillion cells) the rate of growth is going to change markedly - it apparently only takes 41 divisions. [2]

Then he goes into his penchant for comparing numbers - as if this disproves evolution.

In comparing the size of the genome and the number of chromosomes, he fails to discern any patterns.

Size tends to reflect the number of genes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the size of the genome tends to indicate it's evolutionary path - not necessarily its chronological age but effectively how old it is: amoebae have larger genomes than amphibians, which have larger genomes than mammals. [And the amoeba's genome is only 200 times larger than a human's. [2]]

Two species that evolved at the same time may have different sized genomes because one had a more convoluted path through the genomic landscape, as it were. A more recent species might have the same size genome because its path is more convoluted - stretched out, it's the same size.

The number of chromosomes reflects the development of "packaging" of genes over evolutionary time.

But that's speculation on my part.

It would be worth exploring/explaining the "C-value paradox" and comparative genomics in relation to this at this point in your video, Aron.

And his usual fallback of "chance" appears again,

Hey, how come the evolutionists are always comparing things that fit their theory, why don’t they show us the things that don’t fit their theory?
Click to expand...

His implication that organising species by life-span, gestation period, weight at adulthood or size of DNA doesn't disprove evolution.

After all, evolution/speciation is unlikely to result in everything living as long, having the same gestation periods, being the same weight at adulthood or having the same DNA size - is it?

These are different ways of looking at species but they're not necessarily relevant or useful.

Whether we look at species from the anatomical, morphological or genetic perspective, whilst these may result in different arrangements of species relationships, they don't disprove evolution because the genetic one takes precedence.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
AronRa said:
Thanks again for your help, guys. This is what I came up with. It will go public tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...

The point you made about evolution being a good idea, was really great. It's seems like a good idea for a creator god to design creatures that can evolve into different types of animals. I think Creationists have become a bit too arrogant. They act like people who affirm macro-evolution are the most stupid people in the world. It looked like Jackson didn't even bother too know what the topic even was, in your debate with him.
 
arg-fallbackName="Desertphile"/>
"Bible says if you offend one of these little ones, you’d be better off with a mill stone around your neck and go swimming. These folks teaching evolution are in serious trouble when they stand before god."

I presume the convicted felon means "teaching evolutionary theory," not "teaching evolution." I would *LOVE* to see any teacher "teach evolution." But the, Prison Inmate #06452-017 gets damn near everything wrong: even basic high school science.

Is he saying that teaching evolutionary theory makes his gods hurt? Or is he saying evolution hurts his gods? If Hovind's gods objected to evolution then I am fairly certain they could stop it if and when they want to.

As for standing before one or more of his gods, I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT! I would kick it in whatever passes for it's testicles. There are thousands of crime I would satan them for. If Prison Inmate #06452-017's gods are as evil as Kent Hovind claims they are, the things need to be punished after facing trial and convictions.

For a jury of Hovind's gods peers, we can include Castro; tRump; Pol Pot; Hitler; Stalin; Himmler; Saddam Hussein; Idi Amin--- there are many hundreds of his peers in the past and in the present.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Desertphile said:
"Bible says if you offend one of these little ones, you’d be better off with a mill stone around your neck and go swimming. These folks teaching evolution are in serious trouble when they stand before god."

I presume the convicted felon means "teaching evolutionary theory," not "teaching evolution." I would *LOVE* to see any teacher "teach evolution." But the, Prison Inmate #06452-017 gets damn near everything wrong: even basic high school science.

Is he saying that teaching evolutionary theory makes his gods hurt? Or is he saying evolution hurts his gods? If Hovind's gods objected to evolution then I am fairly certain they could stop it if and when they want to.

As for standing before one or more of his gods, I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT! I would kick it in whatever passes for it's testicles. There are thousands of crime I would satan them for. If Prison Inmate #06452-017's gods are as evil as Kent Hovind claims they are, the things need to be punished after facing trial and convictions.

For a jury of Hovind's gods peers, we can include Castro; tRump; Pol Pot; Hitler; Stalin; Himmler; Saddam Hussein; Idi Amin--- there are many hundreds of his peers in the past and in the present.
Click to expand...
Why exactly do you say if there is a God, you would kick him in the balls?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
We are Borg said:
That is the same that i say if there is a God its our duty to kill it by any means. The God of the bible is a prick.
Click to expand...
If you can't even determine the sum of all your own words and actions, then what foundation do you have to stand on to judge God's? How do you, Borg, determine what is right and what is wrong?
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
If you can't even determine the sum of all your own words and actions, then what foundation do you have to stand on to judge God's? How do you, Borg, determine what is right and what is wrong?
Click to expand...
Who is God to judge us that’s a better question and to kill all does people. Is it right to kill no but in some cases you need to take action to make sure it never happens again. Here in our little corner we have rules and laws so if you kill you will be dealt with by your peers. Right or wrong is a strange concept what is wrong or right can differ with each person because of upbringing.
 
arg-fallbackName="Desertphile"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
If you can't even determine the sum of all your own words and actions, then what foundation do you have to stand on to judge God's?
Click to expand...

What gods? We know that humans exist; where are your gods hiding? Please give examples of gods doing something, then we can judge if your gods are evil or not. You skipped the first step.

Led Zeppelin said:
How do you, Borg, determine what is right and what is wrong?
Click to expand...

Good bloody gods. Someone walks up to you and shoots you in the ass. Was that right or wrong, and how do you know? Do your gods say it was right? Do your gods say it was wrong? Why do you need to believe in your gods to know if you being shot in the ass was right or wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top