Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 36971

You're right! Thanks for waking me up. I really shouldn't have said it that way. I don't know what I was thinking. I really should have said it like this:

Mona Lisa is proof of Leonardo Da Vinci. That's common sense.
The Statue of David is proof of Michelangelo. That's common sense.
Falling Water is proof of Frank Lloyd Wright. That's common sense.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is proof of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. That's common sense.
Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense.

Anyone that says differently (without some sort of solid evidence), in my opinion, is just being stubborn, or foolish, or both.

Have a nice day

MekFelix, Gametrailers 29 Comments [3/31/2008 2:01:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
tehcrzy

So statues, paintings, books, etc., are the same thing as a planet?

Never mind that we actually have evidence that the first were created by the people they're supposed to have been created by, from multiple sources.

Only one unreliable source for Biblical creation - the Bible

4/6/2008 8:35:57 PM

Draconiz

Then the creator also requires a creator, therefore you FAIL

4/6/2008 9:07:36 PM



One of these things is not like the other.....

4/6/2008 9:30:35 PM

Canadiest

We are, so God made it so, is a huuuuge leap.

There's lots of other creation stories, and all have exactly the same amount of proof: NONE.

I or anyone else could make something up right now and no-one could disprove it.

And yet why should they? If you want to prove your belief is real you've got to have some evidence that leads to ONLY that conclusion.

4/6/2008 10:21:58 PM

RandomAnon

This is retarded.

That's all I can really say about this without going on a rant.

4/7/2008 12:12:00 AM

TB Tabby

I remember seeing Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron make this argument in a live debate. They got totally pwned. It's on YouTube somewhere...

4/7/2008 12:23:25 AM

Jimbob

Mona Lisa is proof of the Mona Lisa.
The Statue of David is proof of the Statue of David.
Falling Water is proof of Falling Water
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is proof of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn...

And the Universe is the proof that the Universe exists.

With the previous creations, there is a lot more evidence showing that the artist or author in question existed than just the artwork or book.

With the Universe, there is no other evidence of a 'Creator' other than the 'Creation' itself.

4/7/2008 11:16:06 AM

dirtyape

A Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Creator Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Creator Creator Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Cr... you get the idea.

Common sense does not split an atom. Nor does it resolve your self imposed paradox.

4/7/2008 11:57:55 AM



Thanks for quoting me :)

10/22/2009 3:52:32 PM

Caustic Gnostic

...and a ten-foot turd is proof of a very prolific asshole.

10/22/2009 5:10:10 PM

louislois

Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense.

Anyone that says differently (without some sort of solid evidence), in my opinion, is just being stubborn, or foolish, or both.

Can you show me proof "a creator" is responsible for such creation? It's okay, I know you don't have any. XD

10/22/2009 6:00:12 PM

Nowonmai

You keep equating inanimate objects created by people with DNA. To quote an old SciFi show "That does not compute."

10/22/2009 6:34:58 PM

Rubicon

Yet again, I find myself saying his argument about the creator makes about as much sense as "purple is sideways". Just because you can arrange letters in a way that makes them readable does not equate you speaking a fact.

1/10/2011 1:23:10 PM

jas43

your brain is the proof of ignorance.

1/10/2011 1:40:29 PM

Anon

The Harry Potter books are proof of wizards.
'A Midsummer Night's Dream' is proof of fairies.
Kermit is proof of talking frogs.
The guy in red robes at the mall is proof of Santa Claus.
The Bible is proof of God.

Okay, now seriously: That the world exists only proofs that it came into existence once. Nothing else.

Simply reply "God" with "Big Bang". And I won't "accept the Big Bang as my personal saviour"

1/10/2011 1:41:29 PM

Anon

Carl Sagan, who was an agnostic, did better theology than this. He figured that if the universe was created like a work of art is created, there should be some sign of this fact. Called it "The Artist's Signature".

Find that, and he would have been willing to consider conversion.

1/10/2011 2:20:23 PM

whatever

"Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense."

Creation is proof of a creator. That could mean any creating force, such as the Big Bang, etc...

1/10/2011 4:43:02 PM

Brianisha

After the fundies have destroyed samuel's work, I almost want to tell them to go DIAF. BTW, this creator wouldnt happen to be, say Jesus or Jehova now would it? I hope not.....

1/10/2011 5:07:30 PM

Justanotheratheist

The Mona Lisa is not per se proof of Leonardo We have the historical records to know that it was painted by him, just as we have the historical records to know that Hercule Poirot was created by Agatha Christie.

We have no historical record whatsoever that the universe was "created" in the Christian sense. All we have is a book of absurd and contradictory Bronze Age bullshit, and that is so full of blatant errors abd impossibilities that it doesn't count at all. The Bible is proof of the Bible, and absolutely nothing else.

1/11/2011 1:45:53 AM

Fishape

Things, therefore god? i don't think anyone can present enough evidence to get around that..

Btw, doesn't that mean that an older universe means more evidence for god? Because there's been more time for things?

12/15/2011 9:11:49 AM

Efrain

Who created the creator? Also, props for using his real name.

12/22/2011 5:41:31 AM

ChrisInManc

The physical universe is proof of physics, no?

12/22/2011 6:01:09 AM

Swede

Aren't there several fake Mona Lisa paintings?

12/22/2011 6:54:21 AM

Ebon

"Common sense" is usually neither.

9/15/2012 2:30:38 AM

Canadiest

So when you have NO proof you compare that to cases of lots of proof? You have NOTHING to back up your claim, there are multiple evidences of all you mentioned.

Honestly, get a sense of scale.

9/15/2012 12:39:45 PM
1 2