I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by JAG*, Sep 1, 2020.

  1. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Feel sorry for you.. this is just one argument for the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for the existence of God the Creator... you'll be sorry with your absolutely ridiculous "skyfairy" BS. I am done with this thread... seems these threads only attract those who claim and spend a lot of time trying to prove that God does not exist, seems odd to me, I wouldn't spend two seconds explaining away something I didn't believe in..
     
  2. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I remember when I was at school that some kids would threaten to get their "big brover on to me" I laughed at it then and I laugh at it even more when it comes from an adult!


    LGBT Rights
    9/11
    Creationism in the classroom.


    Just three good reasons to spend an enjoyable day debating those who cannot prove their sky fairy exists. (oh and the english summer)
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  3. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your point is An Intelligent Designer must have an Intelligent Designer
    and this to be followed out to infinity.

    Sell it if you can.
    You can sell it to people of your Ideological Tribe.
    I do not think you can sell it to the world's growing numbers
    of Theists but you can give it your best shot -- some 5 billion
    Theists now and projected to hit 5.7 billion by 2050.

    Meanwhile for the average human being the following cries out
    to be explained , , ,

    JAG Writes:
    You go into a Super Walmart Store and you go into a Super Mall,
    like The Mall Of America, and you look at what is on the shelves.

    You pause and reflect upon the numerous varieties of raw materials
    used to make the hundreds of thousands of material objects found
    in those stores and in the world at large --- from paper clips to huge
    ocean going cruise ships and aircraft carriers and Boeing 747's.

    You pause and think about the almost unfathomable number of
    material objects humans have made from the raw materials (eg.
    steel, copper, iron) that go into the construction of all the
    infrastructure that makes up all the buildings and skyscrapers
    in all the cities of the entire world. New York City, London, Atlanta,
    Paris, Brussels, and many thousands of other cities and towns
    worldwide. .

    You stop and reflect upon the millions of different kinds of material
    objects that have existed and do now exist throughout the
    world --- objects that allow us to both do the world's work and
    to relax and enjoy life.

    Do you believe that all that above was produced by non-intelligent
    natural processes? Many millions of human beings find that to be
    incredible.

    Here are some raw materials and some objects that man made from raw
    materials. Do you believe that non-intelligent natural processes produced
    or made possible all of this?

    Lead, tin, copper, bauxite, iron ore, raw latex, crude oil, coal, cotton,
    trees, granite, gems, mercury, zinc, glass, paper clips, rubies, chemicals,
    potassium, topaz, diamonds, titanium, nickel, plastics, paper, jasper,
    lumber, natural gas, minerals, steel, corn, grain, gasoline, milk,
    vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, fruit, sapphires, cell phones,
    computers, refrigerators, concrete, etc
    `
    The world of untold millions of different kinds of raw materials and physical
    objects made by humans from those raw materials, and the way they
    co-exist together allowing humans to build the modern world as it exists
    today --displays a staggering amount of Intelligent Design.
    `
    It is unreasonable to believe that all that up there was produced by
    natural processes and not produced by an Intelligent Mind, an
    Intelligent Designer, God.

    ________


    And in my view, ,the vast huge overwhelming majority of human beings
    will explain it by reference to some type of Supreme Being. who Himself
    did not need an Intelligent Designer.

    ________

    By the way , , ,

    It does not take any more Faith to believe that the Intelligent Designer
    did Himself NOT need an Intelligent Designer, than it takes to believe
    that on the Religion Of Evolution and on the 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. It takes a HUGE amount of
    pure Religious Faith to believe that.

    JAG


    ``
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  4. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Spin it however you want to Spin it.
    I am standing on this , , ,

    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 the Religion Of Evolution and on the 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 , ,

    And it takes a HUGE amount of pure Faith to believe that.

    I don't have a theory. I have what I have posted in the OP and
    in my many follow-up posts in this thread and you have not
    refuted a single word of it.
    Btw, I am not impressed any at all. None.
    YOU are not the authority on who is, or is not, a kook.
    Speaking about the public schools, just for the record I have
    not said a word about the public schools and have no interest
    in what is taught in the public schools.
    It does not matter what YOU claim science can't touch.
    here below is what matters much more than that , , ,

    “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

    “There is a coherent plan to the universe, though I don't know
    what it's a plan for.”__Fred hoyle

    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  5. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Feel free to "go over" it all you want to.
    And while you are at it, "go over" the following also , , ,

    Regarding the Highly Complex Human Eye and the
    Highly Complex Human Brain , , , ,

    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 the Religion Of Evolution and on the 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 , ,
    So?
    So it takes a HUGE amount of pure Faith to believe that

    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  6. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The probability would be a 10 followed by 164 zeros, is it not?

    This is where the Religion Of Evolution and the Religion Of Atheism
    can be seen clearly. You really have to be a Man Of Faith to believe
    anything that has a probability based on 10 followed by 164 zeros.

    Maybe Fred Hoyle saw something similar to that up there when he
    said this:

    “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
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  7. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was addressed in post # 43 and #48.
    In fact that stale argument was put to bed years ago.
     
  8. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yes Brother,... a statistical impossibility that life spontaneously arose,,

    I am shaking the dust from my shoes in regards to this bunch.. they certainly show a lot of interest in a Being they don't believe in.. don't they?
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a profoundly stupid argument.

    Obviously, science progresses. But, suggesting that we HAVE TO ignore everything that is an argument for purposeful stupidity.

    And, let's remember that YOUR argment applies not just to science, but to ALL human learning of any kind. In fact, it applies to knowledge outside of science FAR more significantly, because within science there is a huge emphasis on testing and casting out that which does not hold up - something that doesn't happen in any other walk of life. It doesn't even happen in RELIGION!
    Yet, you haven't specified even ONE fault with what I've said about these cases, nor have you tried to defend these ridiculously stupid ideas you chose to cite.
    You quote someone who agrees with you. But, that doesn't make it a defensible argument. An argument has to hae WAY more to it that THAT, regardless of who said it. NOBODY believes Einstein on the grounds that he said it! Why should I believe this quote by Hoyle?

    Are you aware that Hoyle was a staunch believer in panspermia?

    Do YOU believe in panspermia on the grounds of what Hoyle has said about that?

    My bet is that you would absolutely reject what Hoyle said about panspermia, just as I would. So, the ONLY reason you quoted him on evolution is because THIS time you agree with him - NOT because of any logic or evidence, of which he supplied ZERO.

    We see evolution at work all around us. Humans have USED evolution as a tool for thousands of years. How the HELL do you think we got all our food crops? How do you think we got dogs of a size and disposition that would allow them to be in the purses of the rich and stupid? How do you think we got cows?

    Then, YOU come along and suggest evolution can't work!!!

    Good Lord, JAG. Why don't you see evolution as one of the things that is truely great about this universe of ours?

    Why do you instead choose to see something this amazing as an ATTACK on your preconceived notions concerning religion?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abiogenesis is not a form of spontaneous generation, as it does not say that fully-formed lifeforms arose from inorganic materials;it simply states that the precursors to modern life arose from self-replicating organic molecules.
     
  11. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Some atheists spend their entire lives regularly talking about
    The-God-Who-Does-Not-Exist --- and there is a reason why
    they do this.

    {1) They KNOW there is a God.
    Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to
    them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
    world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
    been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
    people are without excuse."

    Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
    {1) There is information that can be known about God.
    {2} This information is plain to men.
    {3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
    {4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
    {5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
    {6} All this in understood from what God created.
    {7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

    Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
    for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
    of the Earth and the Universe.

    {2} They suppress this certain knowledge , , ,
    Romans 1:18 says that humans "suppress the truth." Atheists are part
    of humanity, so Romans 1:18 applies to them also.


    {3} Romans 2:15 says that the requirements of the law of God is
    "written on their hearts" , , , {of all men also}

    , , , so its impossible for them {or any of us} to actually "get away" from God.

    JAG

    ``
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abiogenesis is a very different issue from evolution of life forms. They are entirely different topics.

    I have no interest in questioning people's various religions.

    But, the denial of science IS a serious issue. It is an assault on everything we have ever learned. And, it is an assault on the very best method mankind has designed for exploring how this universe works.

    So, I'll defend that. And, I'll point out that there is NO justification for you thinking that is an assault on your religion.
     
    Cosmo and Ronald Hillman like this.
  13. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    False.
    Wrong again.
    Wrong again.
    I have not suggested that.
    False.
    Wrong again.
    I don't take your posts seriously.
    Repeated comments such as that is why I do not take your
    posts seriously.
    You can believe whatever you want to believe.
    Are you becoming emotional?
    Are you mildly cursing?
    You didn't read the thread.
    I have posted the following at least 2 times in this thread --- maybe
    3 times.
    Theistic Evolution might be true?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

    I can ask you a question too.
    Why do you not believe the following to be true, when the
    following IS true?

    My 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 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 created and
    assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human
    brain."

    JAG


    ``
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is just nonsense.

    Whether evolution is POPULAR is irrelevant to the question of whether it is correct.

    Intelligent Design is not science. It is religion. There is no possibility of science studying god or involving god in any examination of how this universe works. Humans can't test god. So, ID isn't science.

    Any topic (such as ID, String Theory, multiverse, the existence of heaven, etc.) is outside of science if it can't be tested. Such topics might be part of "theoretical physics" or they might be part of someone's religion. But, they aren't part of science.
     
    FreshAir and Cosmo like this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Humans ALWAYS see those things we don't understand as impossibly complex or surely the result of miracles.

    The thing about evolution is that you have rejected ALL evolution - not just the evolution of humans.

    And there is hugely concrete evidence of evolution. Scientists watch speciation happen under laboratory conditions - it isn't even necessary to look outside the lab to see what's happening around us.

    ALL our food crops, incluing almost all our meat crops were made by humans using evolution. Only very recently have biochemical corporations figured out how to make improvements without using evolution.

    So, then YOU come along and deny this incredible history of evolution, what the HELL am I supposed to think?

    You can not deny that evolution works. It is working all around us TODAY and has even been used by humans for thousands of years. Our standard of living has depended on biological evolution.

    You want to make evolution all about human beings. But, it is about ALL life forms.

    So, here's the deal. You have absolutely NO basis for denying the constant and highly important evolution that has been active for millenia.

    After understanding that, the next step might be for you to start understanding how evolution actually works.

    After that, one can move on to issues of complexity - as in, understanding how much evolution can accomplish, how much time there is, what concrete evidence of life forms on Earth shows, etc.
     
    FreshAir and Cosmo like this.
  16. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    intraspecies evolution .. yes.. extraspeices evolution.. no proof.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Biologists have documented several methods of speciation, along with examples.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When one thinks about it, and it doesn’t require all that much thought, the creationists’ claim that “micro can never become macro” is nothing more than rejecting the entire theory of evolution by arbitrarily asserting: “It ain’t so!”

    Actually, it’s worse than that, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

    That denial is a an extreme form of Subjectivism. Or maybe it’s just an example of pre-scientific thinking, the kind that led our ancestors to conjecture that the visible sun was hauled across the sky by Apollo’s chariot, and then, when no one was looking, it was taken back to the barn or somewhere, from which the next day’s journey would commence.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great points.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just out of curiosity ...

    So, let's say we have intraspecies evolution cranking away.

    What's to STOP evolution from what you call "extraspecies evolution"??

    Where is the blockage that you seem to think exists?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You do not speak for humans.
    You do not know what humans "ALWAYS" do.
    Here is a human that did not line up with your expectations.

    "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." — Fred Hoyle[19]
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle
    You do not speak for me.
    You can speak for yourself.
    You can speak for your Religion Of Evolution and for your
    Religion Of Atheism -- but you do not speak for me.
    My view is that 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 , , ,

    , , and that this your belief is illogical and irrational.

    And also that takes a HUGE amount of pure Faith to believe that
    and this is one reason why my view is that you are a Man Of Faith
    as you practice your Religion Of Evolution.
    YOU asserting that, does not mean that it is correct.
    It means no more than you personally asserted it.
    I do not take your posts seriously because you often write rude
    discourteous posts and you generally ignore all points that do
    not harmonize with your Religion Of Atheism.
    You do not speak for scientists.
    I have no confidence in what you tell me about scientists.
    You can draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.
    You do not tell me what I will believe.
    You believe whatever you want to believe.
    You have not refuted any of my posts in this thread.
    It is no concern of mind what you think.
    I will deny whatever I want to deny.
    You can think whatever you want to think.
    Are you getting emotional again?
    Are you mildly cursing?
    You do not speak for me.
    You do not tell me what I am trying to do.
    You can speak for yourself.
    You do not tell me what the deal is.
    I do NOT take your posts seriously.
    I have explained why I do not take your posts seriously.
    For one thing your posts are often rude and discourteous.
    For another thing you ignore ALL points that do not harmonize
    with what you believe and with your Religion Of Atheism and
    you write responses as if those points had never been made.

    Thought For Today:

    “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.”___Fred Hoyle
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle
    JAG


    ``
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  22. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    False.
    Wrong again.
    See my posts up-thread where you were told where
    your serious errors and incorrectness was located.

    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, let's take a specific.

    What caused this change:


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    FreshAir and Cosmo like this.
  24. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only faith needed is that the process works, which we can see with our own eyes.

    No offense, but while you can believe anything you want, you are way out of your depth where science is concerned.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about this watchmaker logic?

    A watch is complex.
    A watch is man made.

    The universe is complex.
    Therefore, the universe is man made.
     

Share This Page