The Watchmaker Argument still Lives On And On , , , It is, in my view, absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled a "highly complex working Rolex watch" , , , If you can believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" , , , , , , Then you can just as easily believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter assembled a "highly complex working Rolex Watch" , , , You are depending on , , , non-intelligent Time , , , non-intelligent Chance , , , non-intelligent Matter , , , , , , to do your creating and assembling . . . This is absurd, irrational, and illogical because non-intelligent entities cannot create and assemble highly complex entities. _____________ "There is no fine-tuning problem"___Ann Evolutionist Ann, My view is your statement is a Faith-based statement. My Faith-based view is that human life is to complex and saturated with obvious Intelligent Design to have arisen from a combination of non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter. My Faith-based view is that the odds of this level of Complexity and Design are so astronomically low that it is unreasonable NOT to conclude that an Intelligent Designer created and designed Human Beings and the World we see all around us -- and when we add in the known Universe, this factor all the more demands an Intelligent Designer. It is, in my view, absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" , , , _________________ The Atheist Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 , , , , https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle My view is that Fred Hoyle's quote that said, in effect, that the notion that human life could have assembled itself through non-intelligent natural processes using non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter "is no greater that the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." That last paragraph deserves to be enhanced . . . lets use color to enhance it , , , My view is that Fred Hoyle's quote that said, in effect, that the notion that human life, could have assembled itself through non-intelligent natural processes using non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter "is no greater that the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." Boeing 747 , , , What do you think are the chances and odds that a hurricane sweeping through a large airplane scrapyard that had all the parts of a Boeing 747 laying here and there --- would assemble a Boeing 747 ? Just think about how complex is the wiring in a Boeing 747 and all the hundreds of screws and other fasteners that would be needed. Just think how complex would be the "dashboard" of that Boeing 747 with all the intricate instruments , , , , , , it is no wonder that many Theists have said that Evolution functions, for all practical purposes, as a Secular Religion that is held tenaciously by Faith. It requires a HUGE amount of Faith to believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" , , , JAG
“I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle https://www.goodreads.com/author/quo...992.Fred_Hoyle "Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." — The Atheist Fred Hoyle Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_H...ucleosynthesis _____________________________________________ “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate ... . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”___ Fred Hoyle https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle JAG ``
There might be some nano-infinitesimal random chance that random chance and tempus fugit could vulcanize the tires, but not enough of a chance to mention.
Is Evolution literature, to some significant extent, "iffy" science? True science is not saturated with "iffy" language, is it? Is Evolution literature packed with "iffy" language? ■ "iffy" language ■ "maybe" language ■ "but" language ■ "probably" language ■ "it is thought" language { that is, thought to be the case and NOT, , , KNOWN to be the case} See bolded red below ■ "may have" language {see bolded red below} Does Evolution literature have many expressions of language that clearly indicates that evolutionists are guessing and do not know what they are saying is factually true? Here below is just one quick sample from the Wikipedia article titled "Evolution:" Note what I bolded red -- is that clear and bold "iffy" language? And note that this below is just 3 short sentences taken from that Wikipedia article titled "Evolution" and I was not even looking for "iffy" language either. If you really "went looking" for "iffy" language in Evolution literature could you find hundreds of instances of "iffy" language? And if you colored each instance with a bright red highlighter, would your Evolution literature look like it was "bleeding to death."? Would it be page after page that was highlighted bright red with constant "iffy" language? Is Evolution a very "iffy" Faith-based Religious Belief? "Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life Is our beloved Evolution literature packed and saturated with clear "iffy" language? Can it be trusted as a reliable source of established scientific facts? It is intellectualized guesswork in a significant number of instances? Have you ever noticed the "iffy" language when you are reading in Evolution literature? , , , , , , "iffy" English constructions like , , , "if" language "maybe" language "but" language {that is, "but this may not be the case" language} "probably" language "it is thought" language "may have" language JAG
Cool comment. Interesting too. Thanks. "tempus fugit" - time flies {I had to google it} "vulcanize the tires" -- Goodyear? or Maybe the Planet Vulcan , , lol , , Lets go with the Planet Vulcan as in Star Trek's Mr. Spock JAG ``
`` “I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle Better version of the Fred Hoyle , , , , , , Boeing 747 Quote , , , , “A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.” ___The Atheist Fred Hoyle https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle JAG ``
These are all totally nonsense arguments. We know exactly how a Rolex was made, and it had nothing at all to do with chance or evolution. We know exactly how a Boeing 747 is made, and again it had nothing to do with chance or evolution. Humans won by gradually developing intelligence. We can't run woth crap, we don't depend on huge numbers of progeny (making it OK to lose significant numbers to predators), we don't have poweful jaws or claws, we didn't lose body weight, etc., so we could fly away when threatened. Our distant relatives succeeded by meeting challenges with increasing smarts. Humans got better and better at learning to use sticks to hunt and defend, putting points on them, creating throwing sticks and bows to extend their range, etc., etc., etc. Those ancestors which got smarter and better in that dimension survived - just like Cheetahs got better and better at running fast and having impressive jaws survived - improving by NOT developing brains, since brains for them are excess weight and would slow them down. We got smart enough that we could create more than sticks with points. We could build shelters, create pottery for storage to last the winter (or whatever), create clothing, build fires, and even to use evolution to create wheat and other crops. In fact, we got smart enough to build watches and airplanes. Suggesting that is somehow wildly impossible is just plain ridiculous. We see evolution working today - both with nature providing the selection and with humans providing the selection needed to drive evolution. Suggesting that is like having a hurricane build an airplane is just too stupid for words.
A few theists who believe in evolution! On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything." Archbishop: stop teaching creationism Williams backs science over Bible https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3 A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1] According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church".[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth Source: Pew Forum[12]Buddhist 81%Hindu 80%Jewish 77%Unaffiliated 72%Catholic 58%Orthodox 54%Mainline Protestant 51%Muslim 45%Hist. Black Protest. 38%Evang. Protestant 24%Mormon 22%Jehovah's Witnesses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups So as we can see many more theists believe in evolution than atheists, but you refuse to accept that fact! Do other theists have two religions?
False. These are all totally logical arguments. By the way, here is a cheerful thought that could be true , , , "In past human history, major scientific revolutions have overturned theories that were at the time considered near-certain. { So? } So current evolutionary theory is likely to undergo such a revolution in the future, on the basis that it is a 'theory in crisis' for one reason or another." __Wikipedia Wikipedia Article Titled "Objections To Evolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object...iable_evidence {The above point was made by people who were arguing against Evolution.} An absurd ridiculous comment that deliberately ignores the crucial point about the Rolex Watch as it relates to the OP. Another absurd ridiculous comment that deliberately ignores the crucial point about the Boeing 747 as it relates to the OP. I'm not "suggesting" anything, I am boldly saying that it is absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have created the "highly complex human eye and the "highly complex human brain" which is the same as believing that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled a "highly complex working Rolex watch." If you can believe any of that, then you can believe all of that --- which means that you can believe pure absurd ridiculous nonsense. And pure absurd ridiculous nonsense is exactly what you do believe. My view is that you believe in the Religion Of Evolution. That you are a Man Of Faith and you hold Faith-beliefs. My view is Evolutionary "biologists" are the High Priests of your personal Religion Of Evolution and your personal Religion Of Atheism. .It appears that most of them reject exercising faith in the God that created them and have turned to one or more of the following 21st century false secular gods known as , , , , ~ Secular Intellectualism ~ Secularized Logic ~ Secularized Empiricism ~ Rationalism ~ Secularized Science ~ Secular Humanism ~ Atheism "And the unbelievers bowed and prayed to the Secular gods they had made." False. Wrong again. The atheist Fred Hoyle made that point. And he did not "suggest" anything. Fred boldly declared it to be true. Said the atheist Fred Hoyle , , , “A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.” ___The Atheist Fred Hoyle https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle JAG.
That is a powerful argument. It is so powerful that I am going to also make that same type argument. Here tis: "The "Watchmaker" is a highly intelligent argument.. JAG
personal incredulity Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Cybred Asserts , , , "there's already proof"___Cybred JAG Asserts , , , "There is NOT any Empirical proof that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain."___JAG Posting a Wikipedia link means no more than posting a Wikipedia link. Maybe Theistic Evolution is true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution _________________ One man's proof is another man's Not-proof. One man's science is another man's Not-science. Christendom has thousands of highly trained scholars that do not agree with what you may claim to be scientifically true. I am not impressed with human proclamations regarding what is, or is not, scientifically true. X may be scientifically true as far as YOU are concerned, but that does not mean X is scientifically true as far as I am concerned and NOT scientifically true as far as the world's some 5 billion Theists are concerned either. Just because somebody plays the S-Card, does not mean they win the argument. The S-Card is, "Hey, I have Science on my side, and you do not have Science on your side, so I win and you lose." People on opposing sides of what is, or is not, scientifically true, both can, and do, play the S-Card --- and they both play the S-Card constantly -- so the arguments continue on and on regarding what is, or is not, scientifically true. My view is that, not all, but a significant amount of what some atheists and Secular Humanists call "scientifically true" in nothing more than their " Religious beliefs" which are based on a huge amount of very "iffy" and "probably true" language --- and NOT based on true science. JAG
This is just plain stupid. There's a lot of evidence for evolution, observation, the fossil record, DNA etc, if you can't understand it then you could try reading some articles about it - it should be possible for anyone to grasp at least the principles, even if the details are too difficult.
Again the rather well known theists the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury say otherwise! On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything." Archbishop: stop teaching creationism Williams backs science over Bible https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3
So how did EMBL researchers finally trace the evolution of the eye? By studying a "living fossil," Platynereis dumerilii, a marine worm that still resembles early ancestors that lived up to 600 million years ago. Arendt had seen pictures of this worm's brain taken by researcher Adriaan Dorresteijn (University of Mainz, Germany). "When I saw these pictures, I noticed that the shape of the cells in the worm's brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye. I was immediately intrigued by the idea that both of these light-sensitive cells may have the same evolutionary origin." To test this hypothesis, Arendt and Wittbrodt used a new tool for today's evolutionary biologists – "molecular fingerprints". Such a fingerprint is a unique combination of molecules that is found in a specific cell. He explains that if cells between species have matching molecular fingerprints, then the cells are very likely to share a common ancestor cell. Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible provided the crucial evidence to support Arendt's hypothesis. With the help of EMBL researcher Heidi Snyman, she determined the molecular fingerprint of the cells in the worm's brain. She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones. "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...aboratories of,initially located in the brain.
Yes it does. You completely miss the entire point. The point is the Working Rolex Watch is just as highly complex as is the Working Human Eye and the Working Human Brain , , , , , , and that it requires an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble a Working Human Eye and a Working Human Brain, just as it would require an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble a Working Rolex Watch , , , , , , but , , Natural Processes are not intelligent. Natural Processes had no Intelligent Goal. Natural Processes had no Intelligent Plan. And the human eye and human brain is as complex as a Working Rolex Watch. So? So on your Religion Of Evolution and on your Religion Of Atheism , , , Non-intelligent nature and , , , Non-intelligent natural processes , , , , , ,created the complex human eye and complex human brain which is equivalent to creating a "Working Rolex Watch" using non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter with no Intelligent Plan and no Intelligent Goal , , Faith in God? Oh no, I could never do that , , , But you will not have faith in God -- who is an Intelligent Designer and who does have an Intelligent Plan and who does have an Intelligent Goal. But non-intelligent nature with no Intelligent Goal and no Intelligent Plan --- you can believe with the greatest of ease , , , But an Intelligent God with an Intelligent Plan and an Intelligent Goal ,, no you cannot believe that. You realize, do you not, that is irrational? And that you are a man Of Great Faith in your Religion Of Evolution and in your Religion Of Atheism. JAG
That's not an argument. That's an emotional response rooted in the fact that you do not emotionally like the OP and do not emotionally like the points made in the follow up posts. How is this for an argument? "This is NOT just plain stupid."___JAG {1) Theistic Evolution might be true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution {2} Evolution literature contains a lot of "iffy" English constructions like , , , "if" language "maybe" language "but" language {that is, "but this may not be the case" language} "probably" language "it is thought" language "may have" language , , , , , which indicates that the Evolutionists are guessing and speculating rather than stating solid scientific facts based on Empiricism. {3} Just because somebody plays the S-Card, does not mean they are scientifically correct. The S-Card is, "Hey, I have Science on my side, and you do not have Science on your side, so I am correct, and you are not correct." Opposing sides always play the S-Card --- but that don't actually prove anything with Empirical evidence. JAG
Theistic Evolution might be true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution ___________ “I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle “Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”___Fred Hoyle https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle JAG
A few theists who believe in evolution! On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything." Archbishop: stop teaching creationism Williams backs science over Bible https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3 A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1] According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church".[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth Source: Pew Forum[12]Buddhist 81%Hindu 80%Jewish 77%Unaffiliated 72%Catholic 58%Orthodox 54%Mainline Protestant 51%Muslim 45%Hist. Black Protest. 38%Evang. Protestant 24%Mormon 22%Jehovah's Witnesses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups So as we can see many more theists believe in evolution than atheists, but you refuse to accept that fact! Do other theists have two religions?
yep, a God would need a watchmaker anything that amazing and complex could not just pop into existence
Here is a thought for you , , , "Around 97% of all biologists believe in Evolution."___Ann Evolutionist JAG Replies: Huge numbers of human beings have been collectively bad wrong in past human history. Italy, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed the dictator Mussolini to come to power. Japan, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed the military fanatics to come to power. Germany, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed very Bad People to come to power. The ultimate results of all those tens of millions of people being Bad Wrong was disaster for Italy, Japan, and Germany before and after the year 1945. I am not comparing biologists to Japan, Italy, Germany --- I am making only the point that large numbers of humans have been proven to be bad wrong in human history. ___________ "Around 97% of all biologists believe in Evolution."___Ann Evolutionist Also , , , Does "biologists" include High School Biology Teachers? College professors who teach Biology? Anybody with a degree in Biology? Or degrees in related areas? If so, how many Christian High School and College Biology teachers do NOT believe in Evolution or Do believe in Theistic Evolution? Probably many. But they don't count, right? Gotta be on the "front lines" of actual biology-research, right? But , , , Of all the world's "biologists", how many are actually on the "front lines" of actual research? Not very many, I'd bet. And , , , Of these how many are saturated with their atheistic biases and prejudices AGAINST Intelligent Design? Biased and prejudiced to the extent that we can not trust their "scientific" publications to be academically disinterested on the subject at hand. Biased and prejudiced , , , You do not know the answers to those very crucial questions , , , Also there is a lot of "politics" going on within the so-called "scientific community" --- as can be easily demonstrated by the constant bickering among the scientific "experts" regarding so-called "Climate Science." On Science-Politics , , , So called "science" is saturated with politics , , , both externally and internally. {1} External means outside the scientific community as they "hold forth" to outsiders on say Climate Science -- with a lot of politics in play. {2} Internal means inside the scientific community -- where they will eat each other alive via "black-listing" and "ruined-reputations" if one of "their own" refuses to march in "lock-step" with the herd mentality of conformity to their interpretation and application of their views on what is, or is not, true "Science." JAG
One could argue that far from being an atheist, Hoyle was in his own way an ID advocate who believed in a form of classical panentheism.
Evolution is a reality - this is a fact - not a belief. Mutations happen. Claiming that mutations are fiction is preposterous nonsense.