Dorothy Sayers on the Disconnect between Natural Selection and Atheism

CrowCross

Super Member
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.
Have you ever seen what happens inside of a cell? How did all that evolve? Did you know there is a genetic program that instructs the building of a cell?
Have you ever seen a complex code that didn't have a code writer?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Have you ever seen what happens inside of a cell? How did all that evolve? Did you know there is a genetic program that instructs the building of a cell?
Have you ever seen a complex code that didn't have a code writer?
As I said, even if cells didn't evolve, that isn't evidence of a creator. Where is your evidence of a creator?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Like the cell...it should have been obvious to you Mt Rushmore was designed and created by intelligence.
But you help up Mt Rushmore as something obviously designed and created by intelligence. There is nothing in that film that looks created and designed like Mt Rushmore does. We know Mt. Rushmore is designed because we contrast it against nature and see that nothing in nature creates anything like Mt Rushmore, but you hold up an example of nature and say, see, just like Mt Rushmore.

It's nothing like Mt Rushmore.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
But you help up Mt Rushmore as something obviously designed and created by intelligence. There is nothing in that film that looks created and designed like Mt Rushmore does. We know Mt. Rushmore is designed because we contrast it against nature and see that nothing in nature creates anything like Mt Rushmore, but you hold up an example of nature and say, see, just like Mt Rushmore.

It's nothing like Mt Rushmore.
When you can show us how an assembly line of organelle can "evolve" naturally....get back to us.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
When you can show us how an assembly line of organelle can "evolve" naturally....get back to us.
Are you conceding your Mt Rushmore point? I ask because you have now changed the subject to the above.

Your argument now seems to be, I can't see how an assembly line of organelle can "evolve" naturally, therefore it was designed by a creator. If that's so, it's a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

You seem to be declaring the evolution of organelles impossible naturally. Do you understand the current thinking on this subject from the experts, in order to point out what exactly is impossible about all this?
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Are you conceding your Mt Rushmore point? I ask because you have now changed the subject to the above.

Your argument now seems to be, I can't see how an assembly line of organelle can "evolve" naturally, therefore it was designed by a creator. If that's so, it's a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

You seem to be declaring the evolution of organelles impossible naturally. Do you understand the current thinking on this subject from the experts, in order to point out what exactly is impossible about all this?
Concede? Mt Rushmore was designed. It was an example of Intelligent design...just as the organelle in a cell are examples.

Did you not see the interconnected systems that rely on other interconnected systems to work in cordination to produce other interconnected systems?

Then you tell me there are experts who using "currrent thinking" can tell us how a process containing random chance and mutations can create these amazing systems????? Do you understand there is actually a code that is read by one of these systems...and through a complex process actually produces something?
You said "there is nothing in that film that looks created and designed like Mt Rushmore does"....in a sense that may be true as Mt. Rushmore just sits there...but organelle do much mores that sit there.
The organelle were built following a code. 3D printed models of Mt. Rushmore have been written to reproduce small scale versions of the mountain....which also follow a code.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Concede? Mt Rushmore was designed. It was an example of Intelligent design...just as the organelle in a cell are examples.
But the two are very different things in that nothing like Mt Rushmore occurs in nature, so you can't say "just as" in any way that confirms intelligent design in cells.
Did you not see the interconnected systems that rely on other interconnected systems to work in cordination to produce other interconnected systems?

Then you tell me there are experts who using "currrent thinking" can tell us how a process containing random chance and mutations can create these amazing systems????? Do you understand there is actually a code that is read by one of these systems...and through a complex process actually produces something?
You said "there is nothing in that film that looks created and designed like Mt Rushmore does"....in a sense that may be true as Mt. Rushmore just sits there...but organelle do much mores that sit there.
The organelle were built following a code. 3D printed models of Mt. Rushmore have been written to reproduce small scale versions of the mountain....which also follow a code.
This effectively concedes you haven't studied the subject, but you are nevertheless declaring it impossible naturally based on your own incredulity and ignorance.

Do you admit you haven't studied this subject?
 

CrowCross

Super Member
But the two are very different things in that nothing like Mt Rushmore occurs in nature, so you can't say "just as" in any way that confirms intelligent design in cells.

This effectively concedes you haven't studied the subject, but you are nevertheless declaring it impossible naturally based on your own incredulity and ignorance.

Do you admit you haven't studied this subject?
I have studied the subject. I have shown that assembly lines as well as 3D sculptures on the face of mountains...are a product of design.

Are you saying that an assembly line can create itself?
Are you saying Mt. Rushmore was a product of undirected erosion?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I have studied the subject.
What have you read? What qualifications do you have?
I have shown that assembly lines as well as 3D sculptures on the face of mountains...are a product of design.
You certainly haven't done that here, you have inferred by poor comparison rather than shown.
Are you saying that an assembly line can create itself?
No, I think they evolved step by step over great periods of time.
Are you saying Mt. Rushmore was a product of undirected erosion?
What? Of course not.

Who am I to believe, the experts in the field who are not creationists, or some guy on an internet backwater site with a religious agenda who I suspect isn't an expert? Have you taken this to academia? If you could show this false you would win a Nobel prize.

What do you know of the current thinking on how all this works?
 

5wize

Well-known member
....and random chance organized the chaotic pile of materials.
No. Intrinsic characteristics of the elements would either bond or reject other elements. What forms via that bonding or rejecting isn't random at all. That's like saying random chance separates oil from water every time.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
Waiting for evos to conduct a search for a knuckle dragging kinfolk that can invent a piano, write music, play piano and memorize

 
Top