Your group: "This arrived here over trillions [sic] of years of natural processes. The lessor art works were not able to survive, here you have the survival of the Van Gogh -- appearing before us in all its intricate detail by mere chance [sic].
My Group: "It's a nice painting. Must have had a painter."
Other than the time frame being off by four or five orders of magnitude, and that nobody believes that complex life-forms arose by mere chance (and Rob has already been called on this lie), a scientist might say something similar... but only if we had actually observed:
- paintings reproduce
- new paintings having similar traits to their parent paintings
- a physical mechanism by which these similarities had been communicated from parent to offspring
- evidence that paintings had been around for at least some hundreds of millions — if not billions — of years
- gradual changes in these hundred million year old paintings being correlated with age (and resemblance to modern paintings inversely correlated with age)
I hope Rob is not quite so casual about insulting his parishioners' intelligence as he is about insulting my readers' intelligence.
Update: I prefer to reserve for myself the privilege of abusing my commenters. One of the reasons I blog instead of posting on message boards is because I find the swarm of condemnation that follows comments as mendacious and egregiously stupid as Rob's to be mostly boring and counterproductive.
If you have a substantive comment to make, please make it, and if you spot lies and bullshit that I've missed you most definitely may call it lies and bullshit (with substantiation, please). (And of course it's none of my business what anyone writes on their own blog.) But let's hold back on gratuitous abuse in comments here, however well-deserved. I can handle this guy with one hemisphere tied behind my cerebellum.
Besides, Rob is a sensitive soul, and he sees conspiracies and "group think" whenever two people agree with each other (unless, of course, they agree with him).