Quote# 71581

Dan Lietha, Answers in Genesis 64 Comments [3/19/2010 5:49:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 66
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


We can observe the act of "creating" all three of those. For the first two, we can directly watch the artist work. For the third, when we watch the artists work, it's known as pornography. We see no individual creator and never have. Every fetus is made from natural processes, and not magic elves.

3/19/2010 5:52:52 AM


*Yawn*. Watchmaker Argument. Works of art are not alive, they can't reproduce.


3/19/2010 5:54:22 AM


Wait, did you really just compare a fetus to famous works of art?!

3/19/2010 5:56:54 AM


Ah, Dan LIEtha, you never cease to amuse me.

3/19/2010 5:58:55 AM


Pretty much, yeah.

3/19/2010 5:59:30 AM

Doubting Thomas

Well, it's true. Not to say that there's not a certain bit of art in the human body, but it is due to natural processes.

There is a lot of art in a snowflake, too, but there doesn't have to be a creator. It is the result of natural processes. Doesn't mean there has to be a god creating every snowflake.

3/19/2010 6:21:04 AM

David B.

We know the first two did not arise naturally becasue they are so distinct from the products of the natural world (landscapes excluded). If you are saying that we should accept the third as being created because of its "artistry", you have removed the criteria by which we distinguished the works of Davinci and Rodin from the result of a natural process, rendering the argument invalid.

This was pointed out as a flaw in Paley's argument, of which this is just a rehash, decades ago. If a watch in a field is "obviously" designed, then it is equally obviously distinguishable in character from the field it is in. To say the field must also have "obviously" been designed contradicts that argument.

3/19/2010 6:23:06 AM


Uh...looks okay to me.

3/19/2010 6:35:42 AM


If you examine the artwork you'll note that the artist went to great lengths to make their piece as "perfect" as possible given their vision of it. Each is executed with technical precision, hence the reason they're masterpieces.

Now, go to a medical library and take a gander in the medical anomalies works. Or check out God's Greatest Mistakes. You don't get things like that from an omnipotent "designer," pal. Any artist, engineer or "designer" worthy of the title wouldn't let things like that slip into their "creation."

3/19/2010 6:44:50 AM


Why "just" a product of natural processes?

The natural processes are every bit as impressive and beautiful as any human created bit of art - if not more.

That a human being (or any other animal) should be any less wondrous just because there was no designer, is a purely creationist thought.

Projecting again.

3/19/2010 6:53:50 AM


Tell me, when was the last time you went outside and saw the Starry Night growing on the lawn?

Has a Picasso sculpture ever been formed by wind erosion on solid rock?

Did the tide go out one day leaving Damien Hirst's Shark encased in Formaldehyde resting in the silt?

No? In which case you will recognise that these works were all created and designed by somebody looking to make something that does not naturally occur.

Human life, in fact ALL life, is a naturally occuring phenomenon. There is no life on this Earth that didn't come about thanks to various forms of reproduction.

I really can't believe that you see no difference between something that occurs naturally and something which must be artificially made.

The bottom line is that the Watchmaker argument fails because it relies on the assumption that natural and artificial things have the same properties, when we know that artificial things cannot reproduce and therefore cannot evolve.

3/19/2010 6:54:33 AM


Comparing a "human being" to inanimate art pieces? This is worse than that one loon that compared himself to being "God's dog."

These fundies really have been brainwashed in to thinking they're helpless pieces of crap, aren't they?

3/19/2010 7:04:37 AM


@Doubting Thomas: Shhh, don't give them any ideas!

3/19/2010 7:12:54 AM

Mister Spak

Show me a fetal painting. Show me fossilised remains of more primitive paintings. And show me two paintings reproducing a doodle.

3/19/2010 7:14:53 AM


Of course that guy's expression in the last frame is completely wrong. Only a creationist would think that life is trivial and unimportant without a creator. That's a theistic concept.

3/19/2010 7:42:14 AM


Everythings beautiful in it's own context. Men made the first two, the third is a natural product.

I think he's arguing complexity, badly

3/19/2010 7:44:18 AM

Rumpshaker Slim

Why do fundies love fetuses, but hate sex?

3/19/2010 7:44:41 AM

Doubting Thomas


I'm sure they already believe that God is busy making every single snowflake. Which is probably why he doesn't answer the prayers of the poor and needy.

3/19/2010 7:54:14 AM


We have seen painters make paintings, and sculptors make sculptures. We have yet to see a god make life. Paint and stone have not been known to reproduce, but life reproduces and changes over time.

And, "just" natural processes? Anyone who understands evolution fully ought to be amazed at its elegance, it is beautiful in its own right. All-natural beauty, with no strings attached.

3/19/2010 8:16:03 AM


Mona Lisa is over-rated and Le Penseur is half decent.

If you want some serious works of art, you need to look up things like the SR-71 or the Ariel Atom.

3/19/2010 8:18:38 AM


They forgot to add ..."and is nothing but inanimate property" to the last caption. Then it would be even more acurate about the people it parodies.

3/19/2010 8:32:25 AM

David B.

Life cannot be inanimate by the very definition of "animate".

3/19/2010 8:42:10 AM


For the first two, there is a visible creator. For the last, there is no visible creator. Dan's answer of 'invisible creator' is ridiculous if applied to the first two, which demonstrating that his whole analogy doesn't work.

3/19/2010 8:50:52 AM

*sigh* Art and biology are two completely different things. I mean, art tends to convey a message. Living creatures were NOT created to convey a single message or to evoke specific feelings from the viewer.

That's not to say that living things and the natural world aren't beautiful. They're often the inspiration for art, after all. Hell, Classic and Renaissance art was big on "perfecting" the human form. Well, the nude male anyway.

3/19/2010 9:19:03 AM


Ah the fallacy of weak analogy. Good try creationists...but next time you might want to learn a bit about logical debate.

3/19/2010 9:53:03 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page