Watchmaker Argument

I was thinking about intelligent design theory last night. I started to think about the watchmaker argument and remembered a video refuting it in one of the threads. It was refuted because a watch could not reproduce.

It got me thinking. I wanted to create a thread about it on ATS but I don't want to come across looking stupid. I wanted to ask you all first then I'll maybe post a thread about it on ATS.

Basically, the debunker stated that the watch and living organisms are different because of the reproductive ability.

I was thinking last night. Watches do reproduce. I hear you say what????? LOL.

Think of the watchmakers as genes. The watchmaker will make inferior watch at first, then his skill improves while still retaining the same information. Then he continue to make better watches over time. The information will be passed on to the next watchmaker.

I am going to hold the rest of my thought until a few of you post your comments or opinions.

It's hard for humans finite mind to wrap around a concept such as God anyway who is outside of linear time and space.

Where did God come from? If he has always existed how? It's impossible for us to process that.

Deism is the 'watch maker God' concept that you mentioned. He created it and set it in motion and doesn't interfere with it. I guess you could say it teaches God placed the matter for the Big Bang and let it go from there.

Even with science we run into the problem with where did the matter and energy come from for the Big Bang.

No answer is satisfactory because we can't know.

reply to post by TinFoilHatMan55

Deism is the 'watch maker God' concept that you mentioned. He created it and set it in motion and doesn't interfere with it. I guess you could say it teaches God placed the matter for the Big Bang and let it go from there.

Even with science we run into the problem with where did the matter and energy come from for the Big Bang.

Yes it is a very difficult question.

Where did God come from? Where did all the matter and energy come from?


In my OP, I think I debunked the debunker's assertion that watches are not like organisms that can reproduce.

The definition of the term reproduction may have to be stretched but still it makes you think.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


What really debunks the 'Watchmaker analogy' is the question, "Who created the Watchmaker?" Since the Watchmaker is far more complex than the watch he/she created, then someone or something surely created the Watchmaker himself/herself!!!!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

What really debunks the 'Watchmaker analogy' is the question, "Who created the Watchmaker?" Since the Watchmaker is far more complex than the watch he/she created, then someone or something surely created the Watchmaker himself/herself!!!!

I understand that. But I am not focusing on that. I am focusing on the video I saw in other thread on ATS.

Basically the creator of the video attempt to debunk the argument by asserting that the watches can not reproduce. I can simply state that the watchmakers act like genes, passing on the information from generation to generation.

Thanks for your comment.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
What really debunks the 'Watchmaker analogy' is the question, "Who created the Watchmaker?" Since the Watchmaker is far more complex than the watch he/she created, then someone or something surely created the Watchmaker himself/herself!!!!

not really. just a different paradigm.

you think its absurd that complex comes first and then comes simple and chaotic. i find the opposite absurd, that simple becomes complex.

entropy agrees. drop an egg and you go from a complex to a simple from.

glass falls and nature will break it down into generic components, not a more complex form with more uses.

the watchmaker analogy is used because of one simple point: noone looks at watch and assumes that it assembled itself randomly. its created nature is obvious

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Basically, the debunker stated that the watch and living organisms are different because of the reproductive ability.

i semi see why he went down that route. dawkins likes to use natural selection to prove that animals can become more complex. so in a way, breeding provides an out for the complexity problem.

however im not sure what this has to do with the watchmaker analogy.

Originally posted by miriam0566
...that simple becomes complex.

That is known as the Theory of Evolution!!! WELCOME ABOARD THE LOGIC TRAIN!!!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by miriam0566
...that simple becomes complex.

That is known as the Theory of Evolution!!! WELCOME ABOARD THE LOGIC TRAIN!!!

yes, im familiar with the "theory" of evolution

Originally posted by miriam0566
entropy agrees. drop an egg and you go from a complex to a simple from.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to thermodynamically closed systems, e.g., systems which do not interact at all with the environment they are embedded in. The Earth is not such a system.

"One of the most common criticisms of evolutionary theory is that it supposedly violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that in a closed system, disorder grows and less energy is available for work. A good example of this is a battery; it breaks down as it works, and, in fact, breaks down even when it is not working.

Evolution, on the other hand, appears to be doing the exact opposite: life is evolving from the simple to the complex, and everywhere we look we see increasing order, not disorder. The key to the creationist's confusion here is the forgotten phrase in a closed system. A closed system is one that receives no fresh inputs of energy from an outside source. An open system does. "

www.huppi.com...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

What really debunks the 'Watchmaker analogy' is the question, "Who created the Watchmaker?" Since the Watchmaker is far more complex than the watch he/she created, then someone or something surely created the Watchmaker himself/herself!!!!

Explanation: There is NO debunking if the answer [based in QM] is OBSERVATION by what? An OBSERVER!

Do you NOT Observe Yourself?

If you don't observe yourself AT ALL, then where are you?

Transcendant God [i.e. the watchmaker before the Big Bang] is simply the Noumena [non local SIMPLE eigen state beyond the COMPLEX ground state] observing its internal state and finding it lacking and because there were/are no rules in that simple state inhibiting getting something for nothing the entire existential reality that we are [Big Bang Phenonenal existence] was bootstrapped out of virtual existence for free to satisy the only rule operating internally to that simple state which was as simple as an electronic Not Gate logic[metaphorically ].

The noumena made an observation upon itself and got a Zero result and being a non-local Not Gate it converted that NOTHING into EVERYTHING!

Personal Disclosure: Its that freaking crass and petty! :shk: No wonder it starts arguments! :bnghd:

Self assembly [wiki]

Supporting BBC news article. [news.bbc.co.uk]

Self Organization [wiki]

Self Organized Criticality [wiki]

Inverter [logic NOT gate] [wiki]

Edited to change an and into an an. soz me a total

[edit on 18-1-2010 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Transcendant God [i.e. the watchmaker before the Big Bang] is simply the Noumena [non local SIMPLE eigen state beyond the COMPLEX ground state] observing its internal state and finding it lacking and because there were/are no rules in that simple state inhibiting getting something for nothing the entire existential reality that we are [Big Bang Phenonenal existence] was bootstrapped out of virtual existence for free to satisy the only rule operating internally to that simple state which was as simple as an electronic Not Gate logic[metaphorically ].

I had to rub my eyes and read that paragraph many times over.

Eventually I got what you meant.

Would you mind if I quote you in my possible future ATS thread on the same subject and include your links? This is the reason why I post this thread on BTS to get all your ideas and opinions. I was afraid to post on ATS because it may seem silly and people may accuse me of being stupid.


I understand the debunker's arguments against the watchmaker analogy. My intuition tells me that there is an intelligent force behind the whole thing and no, it's not any of the gods humans invented.

There are several arguments against the watchmaker argument and I understand them all. However, this particular argument (the reproductive ability) falls short because as I have explained the watchmakers act as genes passing on from generation to generation.

I believe I debunked that particular argument. The other arguments I will have to work on later.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Explanation: Yes you absolutely may quote me and use those links!

Personal Disclosure:

Edited to add P.S.

P.S. ATS T&C's already allow you to freely quote me etc. and you really didn't need to ask but that you did shows so much respect that I flagged and edited both my replies for clarity!

[edit on 18-1-2010 by OmegaLogos]