Dan Lietha #fundie

Dan Lietha #fundie answersingenesis.org

64 comments

old comment by 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.

old comment by Atheissimo

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.

old comment by shockmeshockmeshockmewiththatdeviantbehavior

#1135040
Slater

"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. "

BUT a baby being concieved and formed IS a human's beautiful creative bit of art. Two people were present during the making and having sex.... not two people and GOD. (shudder).

These people are still trying to say and point out that a baby being made and born is GOD'S magnificient beautiful creative bit of art. And therein lies the problem and flaw with this comics implication... if God wasnt present physically during the making... then God didnt plant the seed inside her... and God was NOT directly responsible for the forming of the baby. Did he make the humans that are making the baby from the beginning? Sure its possible... anything is possible if you try to understand that God might be a scientist... but was he present while the baby was being made physically? NO. So he did NOT have a DIRECT hand in making the child... the couple did. If we were made a long time ago and since then had "multiplied" as he asked us to.. then yeah in time this is possible.. but it still doesnt explain how he has a hand in this replicating process TO THIS DAY and age.

old comment by Marc

@The Jamo

Am I missing something? That cartoon is pretty much spot on. I mean I know the creationists will find it amusing, but there is nothing false, dishonest or even funny in it... maybe apart from the "gift from god" reference wedged in edgewise.

Two things.

1) The strawman "evolutionist" in the final panel. He, like all evolutionists (supposedly) take no pleasure in life. It's all "just" through natural processes with no grand meaning. Because, of course, with no god (specifically, the Christian one), life has no meaning. As others have pointed out, this is a fallacy.

2) The belief that the evolutionist is somehow not seeing the "obvious" design in the fetus, even though he can plainly see the obvious design in the other works of art.

old comment by The Jamo

Marc wrote

Two things.

Life has no inherent meaning, and the only thing that can be ascertained about that character is that he does not believe in creator. Saying "just a natural process" is a factual statement. No one is saying that it's any less important or awe-inspiring, but in that context it is what it is. They may pain the guy to look like a bitter ass, but that's not really part of a proper argument, now is it?

2) The belief that the evolutionist is somehow not seeing the "obvious" design in the fetus, even though he can plainly see the obvious design in the other works of art.

Yes, my point exactly. The other two were designed by intelligent people whereas the fetus was not. This, again, is a fact. I'm not saying that this isn't fundie... what I AM saying is that even though it tries to engage in a smear campaign, it fails because it presents absolutely no argument. It's not even funny.

old comment by NoriMori

@Slater

"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."

Yeah, that's what I've always thought. I'm taking grade twelve biology, and I'm amazed and entranced by the complex machinery that's running at all times just to keep us going. It really is incredible all the more incredible because it's a result of natural selection. I think that says a lot more about the creative power of nature than all of us popping up fully formed through the will of a magical sky daddy. To me, that story makes life seem LESS amazing, not MORE.

@Telamon

"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."

Again, I totally agree. I think creationists fail to see the spectacular beauty of evolutionary processes. The very fact that it APPEARS to be designed but is NOT is what makes it so amazing. Attributing nature to a creator severely devalues it.

We value works of art not simply because they're beautiful, but because they're created not by a god, but by humans. THAT'S what's amazing.

We'd be ten times more amazed if they arose naturally, the way babies do.

On the other hand, we don't go ape-shit over babies because in the context of the natural world they are nothing new. Any two people of the opposite sex with healthy gene pools can do it without making a particular amount of artistic effort. But paintings and sculptures take SKILL.

When it comes to works of art, it's not merely the brilliance of the creation we're concerned with, but the SKILL behind it.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Use of bad analogy. Your argument is invalid.

Unless, of course, you'd like to prove we pro-Choicers wrong, by all you 'pro-Lifers' out there agreeing - via signing a worldwide legally binding contract (prior to your wish for a worldwide ban on abortion coming into being) to look after all the unwanted babies in the world. Which are distributed equally (with additions as & when they appear), with you & your ilk looking after such with no help from anyone else, least of all external financial help.

...oh, and a couple more provisos included in the agreement (which all 'pro-Lifers' including you, Dan, must sign before your wish - to make abortion illegal worldwide - is fulfilled):

1- If just one 'pro-Lifer' complains about their care burden, then that's it; the whole thing is scrapped. Abortion is made legal worldwide in perpetuity, with abortions made compulsory for all fundies like you - including mandatory sterilisations for the likes of you, Dan.

2- If just one woman made pregnant according to this agreement/contract (but doesn't want this baby, but is forced to go full term according to this worldwide 'pro-Life' law) goes into labour, and complications arise in which she would die if the baby wasn't aborted (but of course, according to your wishes Dan, the life of the child takes priority over that of the mother), and she dies giving birth, then ten 'pro-Lifers' are chosen at random, and - on worldwide TV (with viewing of such being compulsory for 'pro-Lifers') - publicly tortured to death. And you would be among those chosen first.

Them's the terms, they're not up for negotiation. It's the only possible alternative for abortion that exists, if we take your own 'pro-Life' logic to it's ultimate extreme.

But then, why should you and your ilk care about aborted fetuses? After all (and as you in particular are so fond of cartoons)...:

image

...amirite, 'pro-Lifers'?!

Dan Lietha #fundie answersingenesis.org

64 comments

Confused?