Dorothy Sayers on the Disconnect between Natural Selection and Atheism

5wize

Well-known member
Oooooh, snappy comeback! What next? "So's your old man?"
Just exchange unseen "leprechauns" pulling material out of their arse with an unseen God and presto, you've got the complete anatomy of your creation belief. Why can't leprechauns do it? We control the narrative of what they can and cannot do via our own imaginations and no one can prove us wrong until you catch one.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Hey, atheist friends of 5wize: Please tell this guy WHY leprechauns cannot create aardvarks from scratch. He thinks they can and I doubt he will believe my explanation as to why they can't.
Who is in charge of coming up with the limitations of leprechauns? Not just atheists i would assume.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Well, they can't dunk and they can't reach the Lucky Charms cereal box on the top shelf. But you think they can create aardvarks from scratch.
If I'm on the leprechaun licensing committee they can. Like you are on the God licensing committee. Look at all the ridiculous stuff you give him license for.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Actually there is an argument for a creator...as shown in this thread cows give birth to cows and not chickens. We now understand genetic information can't increase to the point that one member of a particular Genus can evolve into a member of a new Genera as a new species. Thus the requirement for a creator who has created many different "kinds".
This is false. Even if evolution is proven wrong, that isn't evidence that there is a creator. You need evidence for a creator, evidence that another explanation is false is not evidence for your creator.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Like a creature. Both create and creature come from the Latin creare, to create. So creatures are the evidence for a Creator, and there are trillions of creatures on this earth. There is simple logic in grammar.
Hmm, how to respond to this? To respond in your style I would say how stupid that you would say that there is a creator based on the definition of the word creature rather than upon hard evidence. You obviously don't understand what constitutes good evidence.

So far what you've given is poor evidence.
 
Top