Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat.
Just a tip. You might give us your sources on this stuff. Otherwise we might start thinking you are a bit looney.
plate tectonics, essential elements for life inc. water coming from asteroids- etc, - not exactly controversial stuff?
Gosh, you sure are confused.
The asteroid thingy: Yep, apparently our water came from elsewhere. Most of it long before life was on the scene. That was what we in the science crowd call "a long time ago", and your statement that I questioned mentioned "renewal". What experience has humans had with meteors in the last 5-6,000 years that qualify as renewal? The windows that had to be replaced in Russia recently?
And plate tectonics? Essential? Shit happens, yes, but that doesn't qualify everything as automatically essential. Earthquakes are a byproduct of plate movement, and of course they were not understood as such until recent times. But understanding something well enough to explain it does not qualify the newly understood phenomenon as "essential" in the process. Were the planet one huge continent that had never drifted, that would not automatically make it uninhabitable by all other standards. Volcanos essential? Are they cool? Yes. Are they sometimes deadly? Of course. There was that one time 70,000 when we humans were down to about 2,000 people because of one, but hey, that was all in fun, right?
Absolutely everything in the past was essential to our existence today. It is quite conceivable (what do they call it when you start a sentence with a pun but you haven't made the yet?) that many of us here at WWGHA are alive because our parents procreated after driving to their place of lovemaking and they had to stop at a red light to get there. And if they had not stopped at that red light, the moment of conception might have been thirty seconds earlier and because a different sperm cell might have gotten there first, a different you or me would have popped out nine months later. So by your definition then, red lights are essential.
Technically, everything on this planet is essential. And while some of it is (oxygen), other bits and pieces are a bit suspect. Like malaria carrying mosquitos and even non-malaria carrying mosquitos.
So the big question is this: at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving atheists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a creator?
Insert glib one sentence response here: ___________________________________________________________________________________
I don't think you are confused, you seem reasonably coherent to me.
meteors of course supplied water, forming the Earth as we know it, supporting and also renewing life (e.g. from the domination of dinosaurs to mammals). There's lots more of course, the entire tectonic system floating on magma allows rotation of the iron core creating the Earth's magnetic shield at the same time. pretty nifty really!
The point was about apparently pointless/bad things as pointed out by atheists as an argument against God... turning out to be inherently good/useful incredible elegant things once science has discovered their role.
Of course there will always be the shadows where science has not shone it's light, where an atheist can still point to 'unexplained badness' but isn't this just the same old atheism of the gaps argument again?
"at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving atheists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a creator?"
The point at which they support theistic predictions versus atheistic ones. e.g. that the universe was in fact created in a specific event as opposed to static/ eternal models, that all we see depended on excruciatingly precise initial parameters, mathematics, information. That tectonic activity isn't pointless destruction after all but the foundation, support and future of life on Earth.
So a better question might be
"at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving theists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a spontaneous purposeless universe creating mechanism?"
You asked for a one-liner;
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo