• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

Is it impossible for anyone but graduate geologists to study, learn, debate and reason about issues related to geology?

Given the fact that YEC's absolutely butcher geologic science with their absurd notions, yes apparently it is.
 
I don't know what science says. Does it say atoms developed slowly and formed stars and planets gradually over long periods of time?

So what exactly were you arguing against when you talking about matter suddenly appearing from nowhere other than a strawman of your own creation?"
 
And no archaeological evidence has ever disproved natural elements and details of the Biblical record.

Cool, so we can confirm that certain events in the Bible occurred, but we have no reason to believe that any of the supernatural events did.
 
Does your evidence answer questions about whether or not matter has always existed? Can science prove that?

The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy states that Matter/Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Literally all the evidence in existence confirms this. The only logical conclusion is that matter/energy must have always existed in one form or another.
 
So what exactly were you arguing against when you talking about matter suddenly appearing from nowhere other than a strawman of your own creation?"

I'm trying to get an expert here to tell me what science proves about how planets started forming in the universe.
 
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy states that Matter/Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Literally all the evidence in existence confirms this. The only logical conclusion is that matter/energy must have always existed in one form or another.

Humans looked at the existing order in the universe and saw that matter can neither be created nor destroyed going forward. So the brightest of them concluded it must be true that matter has always existed and never had an origin. What the geniuses may be overlooking is that such a speculation is not proven by science, it is an assumption adopted by scientists who have no other clue as to where matter came from originally.
 
I'm trying to get an expert here to tell me what science proves about how planets started forming in the universe.

Strong gravity, plus matter, plus billions of years. I would ask what is so hard to comprehend about that, but since you are a YEC, the concept of anything older than 6,000 years is a foreign concept to you.
 
Humans looked at the existing order in the universe and saw that matter can neither be created nor destroyed going forward. So the brightest of them concluded it must be true that matter has always existed and never had an origin. What the geniuses may be overlooking is that such a speculation is not proven by science, it is an assumption adopted by scientists who have no other clue as to where matter came from originally.

It is supported by literally all evidence available. Hardly speculation.

You know what is pure speculation: your beliefs in the supernatural.
 
Strong gravity, plus matter, plus billions of years. I would ask what is so hard to comprehend about that, but since you are a YEC, the concept of anything older than 6,000 years is a foreign concept to you.

I appreciate your word salad, but can you put those words into a coherent sentence which explains what science has proven about the origin of matter? Where did matter come from originally? If it has always existed what caused it to form stars and planets? Did stars and planets originate all at the same time or were they formed gradually in bunches over long spans of time? Does science even have a clue how to answer some of the questions?
 
I appreciate your word salad, but can you put those words into a coherent sentence which explains what science has proven about the origin of matter? Where did matter come from originally? If it has always existed what caused it to form stars and planets? Did stars and planets originate all at the same time or were they formed gradually in bunches over long spans of time? Does science even have a clue how to answer some of the questions?

For **** sake, you asked about PLANETS. I answered. Now you change the subject.

You already admitted you have no clue what science actually says and that you are creating strawmen to argument against. Why not actually read a few books and alleviate your ignorance rather than clinging to a tome of bronze age mythology?

And to answers your various questions, yes science can answer all of them. But if you are so ignorance that you don't comprehend basic physics, you aren't going to understand any explanation.
 
It is supported by literally all evidence available. Hardly speculation.

You know what is pure speculation: your beliefs in the supernatural.

"It" is supported? What is supported? That matter never originated at all but has always existed? If so, has science proved that? If matter has always existed does that mean the universe has always existed? If so, does science say that and can science prove that beyond even the slightest of doubts?
 
"It" is supported? What is supported? That matter never originated at all but has always existed? If so, has science proved that? If matter has always existed does that mean the universe has always existed? If so, does science say that and can science prove that beyond even the slightest of doubts?

The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is "it". You know, that thing we've been going back an forth on for several posts. "It" is supported by literally all of evidence available. Nowhere have we seen evidence that matter or energy can be created.

BTW, nothing is science is "proven beyond the slightest of doubts" nor is it ever supposed to be. Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge based on evidence available.

Is your God "proven beyond the slightest of doubts"?
 
For **** sake, you asked about PLANETS. I answered. Now you change the subject.

You already admitted you have no clue what science actually says and that you are creating strawmen to argument against. Why not actually read a few books and alleviate your ignorance rather than clinging to a tome of bronze age mythology?

And to answers your various questions, yes science can answer all of them. But if you are so ignorance that you don't comprehend basic physics, you aren't going to understand any explanation.

How can I better understand basic physics by asking questions if basic physicists cannot answer them?
 
How can I better understand basic physics by asking questions if basic physicists cannot answer them?

Dude, you have google. Get a basic education and come back.
 
Dude, you have google. Get a basic education and come back.


Yeah, he's trolling now.

His circular "argument" is on it's fifth revolution at least.
He deflects any direct questions.
He refuses to answer questions about his positive statements.

In short:

boy-troll-small-ny-form-trolls.jpg
 

When I asked what science proves about the original formation of planets, I was given this article from Wikipedia. But this article, while filled with interesting story tales, lacks any actual proof of any kind. Here are some examples of the wording found in this report:

This model, known as the nebular hypothesis, ...has been both challenged and refined... Fair enough. No proof there except that the hypothesis remains unsettled and debatable today.

One unresolved issue with this model is that it cannot explain... Did we not say at the outset that science has still not answered dozens of pertinent questions about the origin of the universe? This statement harmonizes with my position.

The various planets are thought to have formed...
The planets were originally thought to have formed...
One such collision is thought to have formed the Moon...
At this point in its evolution, the Sun is thought to have been T Tauri star.

None of these "thoughts" are even in the same county as "proven science."

When I asked for scientific proof, I meant proof that was verified by science not proof that was accepted by the majority of gullible rubes.
 
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is "it". You know, that thing we've been going back an forth on for several posts. "It" is supported by literally all of evidence available. Nowhere have we seen evidence that matter or energy can be created.

BTW, nothing is science is "proven beyond the slightest of doubts" nor is it ever supposed to be. Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge based on evidence available.

Is your God "proven beyond the slightest of doubts"?

The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy does not prove matter has always existed. It may be taken to affirm that, once matter originated in the beginning, it has never been destroyed from then until now, as far as we know. But it does not prove matter has always existed, and it certainly does not prove how that could even be possible.
 
Dude, you have google. Get a basic education and come back.

I have already looked. There is not a science report in the world which proves matter has always existed and never had a beginning.
 
There are hundreds of excellent reports of archaeological discoveries which confirm the historical record of the Bible. Here is just one of the hundreds available online:

Abraham didn't exist? Moses a myth? Archeological and historical evidence of Biblical accuracy

Then why don’t you post some credible establishment reporting that....

Something not a Christian conspiracy site or pop culture clickbait site???

You can’t , because that is SO LAUGHABLE that literally science and or universities spent CENTURIES trying to find ANYTHING to back that up. Failed miserably abs had to be drug kicking and screaming conceding the universe obviously had secular origins..


It is not like science did not try Christianities claims!?!

They started there... it failed miserably. So they had to actually figure it out..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have already looked. There is not a science report in the world which proves matter has always existed and never had a beginning.

As you've been told...you won't find that. It's really not a problem either.

You've been told a dozen times at least.

Science can't go back BEFORE the Big Bang. It can't.

Therefore Science won't ever provide definitive proof that matter has existed forever.

Nobody knows what was around before the Big Bang or what form it took.

You've been told this over and over again.

Have you offered any proof at all that "god did it" ???
Just saying "well, where did it come from" isn't proof of "god".
 
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:



That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?

It does not hold water as nature is not a watch. Nature is brutal and simple. Survival of the fittest, those that survive adapt, there are no rules or logic/design to it. If the dinosaurs had not been made extinct about 65 million years ago, there would be no human race to claim design. We would have been wiped out by dinosaurs or their ancestors or maybe not even have existed at all as a species. That is not a design, that is a fluke of nature.
 
It does not hold water as nature is not a watch. Nature is brutal and simple. Survival of the fittest, those that survive adapt, there are no rules or logic/design to it. If the dinosaurs had not been made extinct about 65 million years ago, there would be no human race to claim design. We would have been wiped out by dinosaurs or their ancestors or maybe not even have existed at all as a species. That is not a design, that is a fluke of nature.

Life itself is the watch...
 
Back
Top Bottom