• 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

marke said:
Let's start with the big bang and move forward. Does science tell us what caused the big bang and whether or not all the massive planets and stars appeared at one time? Or did it take long periods of time to finish and were the emerging stars and planets originating from one point in the universe or from many? Or did they all just pop into their current places as they suddenly appeared?
Click to expand...

1) no it does not tell us what caused the Big Bang..

2) yes it does tell us how and when all the stars appeared.. again, we get to watch it happen in real time by looking light years into space/the past.

So you can claim god authored the Big Bang, and science can’t really refute it, but science, archeology and history have debunked everything after “let there be light”..

And I’m betting dollars to donuts they poop on the first sentence as well before long..

3) easy...

first an “explosion” of fundamental particles (protons and electrons).. in that “explosion “ some of the particles fused forming hydrogen (1 proton+ 1 electron) and a very small amount of helium.. with no gravity wells (stars/planets) yet there was not the pressure required to make the heavier elements.

Gravity pulls the hydrogen and helium into the first ginormous proto stars..

The proto stars super nova and create the heavier elements that make up planets..

Wash rinse, repeat.




4) I’m guessing you feel more credible by claiming we do not understand the origin of stars and planets when we absolutely do..










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
1) no it does not tell us what caused the Big Bang..

2) yes it does tell us how and when all the stars appeared.. again, we get to watch it happen in real time by looking light years into space/the past.

So you can claim god authored the Big Bang, and science can’t really refute it, but science, archeology and history have debunked everything after “let there be light”..
Click to expand...

The big bang narrative is a humanly constructed story line that is massively lacking in verified facts and details. For example, "It tells us how and when all the stars appeared." Really? And what exactly does science supposedly prove about that? That space was void of stars before stars began miraculously appearing from nowhere? That stars appeared all at once or gradually over time? That stars formed from preexisting matter in some sort of mysterious explosion without a known cause or design? Or what about dozens of other questions that science hasn't got a clue how to answer?

The big bang theory is a kindergarten science story tale filled with speculations derived from myths.

And I’m betting dollars to donuts they poop on the first sentence as well before long..
3) easy...
first an “explosion” of fundamental particles (protons and electrons).. in that “explosion “ some of the particles fused forming hydrogen (1 proton+ 1 electron) and a very small amount of helium.. with no gravity wells (stars/planets) yet there was not the pressure required to make the heavier elements.
Click to expand...

Awesome! Some unknown cause with no known power or intelligence somehow rounded up loose "fundamental particles" from who knows where to create chemical explosions by accident according to chemical laws which got their origin from ignorant luck. The big bang kindergarten story tale takes shape during elementary school science story time.

Gravity pulls the hydrogen and helium into the first ginormous proto stars..
Click to expand...

Fantastic! Now we have the mysterious force of gravity which suddenly also appears from nowhere without explanation.

The proto stars super nova and create the heavier elements that make up planets..
Click to expand...

You gotta hand it to those movie stars, they sure do know how to create elements like nobody's business!

Wash rinse, repeat.
4) I’m guessing you feel more credible by claiming we do not understand the origin of stars and planets when we absolutely do..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I cannot doubt your ability to repeat the tales you have been told by people who have been fooled into trusting nonsense as though it is proven science.
 
marke said:
The big bang narrative is a humanly constructed story line that is massively lacking in verified facts and details. For example, "It tells us how and when all the stars appeared." Really? And what exactly does science supposedly prove about that? That space was void of stars before stars began miraculously appearing from nowhere? That stars appeared all at once or gradually over time? That stars formed from preexisting matter in some sort of unknown explosion without a known cause or design? Or what about dozens of other questions that science hasn't got a clue how to answer?

The big bang theory is a kindergarten science story tale filled with speculations derived from myths.



Awesome! Some unknown cause with no known power or intelligence somehow rounded up loose "fundamental particles" from who knows where to create chemical explosions by accident according to chemical laws which got their origin from ignorant luck. The big bang kindergarten story tale takes shape during elementary school science story time.



Fantastic! Now we have the mysterious force of gravity which suddenly also appears from nowhere without explanation.



You gotta hand it to those movie stars, they sure do know how to create elements like nobody's business!



I cannot doubt your ability to repeat the tales you have been told by people who have been fooled into trusting nonsense as though it is proven science.
Click to expand...

At the very beginning I conceded they cannot prove what originated the Big Bang....

They can prove that every testable claim the Bible makes is laughable..


You might have a leg to stand on if you weee not trying to tie in the most debunked book in history.. but even then you are just pretending your god is hiding in the few places we don’t understand, right after failing miserably every time that was claimed about something we did later come to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you think evolution is nothing but chance, then you don't know anything about it. Gene mutations are random, but natural selection is not random at all, it is anything but random.
Click to expand...
Southern, welcome to the party. I think you're the second person who questioned my understanding of evolution. Whereas I don't pretend to be an expert in the field I'm not without a rudimentary understanding of the theory. Still, if upon closer examination of what you quoted me saying you might discover that I didn't rule out evolution for biological origins. And if I look at what you're saying in response I get the impression that you aren't actually ruling out design. We both simply don't know the force behind that design.

According to Masatoshi Nei:
If you say evolution occurs by natural selection, it looks scientific compared with saying God created everything. Now they say natural selection created everything, but they don’t explain how. If it’s science, you have to explain every step. That’s why I was unhappy. Just a replacement of God with natural selection doesn’t change very much. You have to explain how.
Click to expand...
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution | Discover Magazine

I'm fine with evolution. In fact the "designer" (God if you prefer) could have used it in the process of developing life as we presently know it. Evolution on it's own doesn't disprove the existence of a designer.
 
Elvira said:
I can tell because it is a fleshly tendency I constantly have to fight but don't always win...like Paul...

"For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me. I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body." Romans 7:19-23
Click to expand...

And, how is that more than just an unsupported claim?
 
Elvira said:
It is supported by life experiences...
Click to expand...

Well, you are making the interpretation. Let's see objective evidence your interpretation is accurate.

To me, it looks like a combatination of unsupported claims, and confirmation bias.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, you are making the interpretation. Let's see objective evidence your interpretation is accurate.

To me, it looks like a combatination of unsupported claims, and confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

I gave you valid support, not my problem if you reject that...
 
Elvira said:
I gave you valid support, not my problem if you reject that...
Click to expand...

It's your problem that it's not valid support though.
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

Before asking your first question, I would ask what it is being referred to as design in the universe?
 
Individual said:
Before asking your first question, I would ask what it is being referred to as design in the universe?
Click to expand...

How can you tell anything has been designed?
What's the tell-tail _______ that show's there was design?

To use the watch and the watchmaker analogy, would you ever look at a watch and NOT think it was designed?

So things like:
Combinations of things (materials and/or parts) that appear to be arranged, or put together for a purpose.
A lack of complete randomness.
A sense of order.
Appears to have a purpose.


I'm sure there's plenty more, but generally stuff like that.
 
Dragonfly said:
How can you tell anything has been designed?
What's the tell-tail _______ that show's there was design?

To use the watch and the watchmaker analogy, would you ever look at a watch and NOT think it was designed?

So things like:
Combinations of things (materials and/or parts) that appear to be arranged, or put together for a purpose.
A lack of complete randomness.
A sense of order.
Appears to have a purpose.


I'm sure there's plenty more, but generally stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I agree, the watch truly appears to have been designed.
 
Individual said:
I agree, the watch truly appears to have been designed.
Click to expand...

Then planet Earth could appear to have a design too right?

Keep in mind I'm not saying that appearance of design determines a designer. I'm just trying to answer your question.
 
Dragonfly said:
Then planet Earth could appear to have a design too right?

Keep in mind I'm not saying that appearance of design determines a designer. I'm just trying to answer your question.
Click to expand...

In a word, No.
 
Individual said:
In a word, No.
Click to expand...

So being the "right" distance from the sun?
Having an orbit and rotation?
Having an atmosphere?
Having water?
Having land?
Having an ecosystem?
All the "right" elements to support and nurture many forms of life?

None of that gives off the appearance of design?
 
Dragonfly said:
How can you tell anything has been designed?
What's the tell-tail _______ that show's there was design?

To use the watch and the watchmaker analogy, would you ever look at a watch and NOT think it was designed?

So things like:
Combinations of things (materials and/or parts) that appear to be arranged, or put together for a purpose.
A lack of complete randomness.
A sense of order.
Appears to have a purpose.


I'm sure there's plenty more, but generally stuff like that.
Click to expand...

How does that apply to the earth exactly? The earth originally was just a ball of melted rock, that it solidified does not change the fact that the earth itself is just one huge chunk of rock. Later water and an atmosphere came but that is not a design element either, just gravity I would assume.

The earth is one ball of randomness. The continents were first something entirely different until the rock decided to split and join itself because of the unstable nature of the ball of melted rock below us.

Nature is structured chaos, a sense of order really is just how we humans have dubbed things IMO.

And purpose is also not really that special. Nobody made the earth what it was, we just changed it around a bit to serve our purpose. Only since we have thought up chemistry can we really alter properties of other materials to fit our purpose.

A watch is a very different thing than our planet. A man invented it (earth was not invented), someone sourced the materials (not true for earth), combined them with great skill and precision (definitely not truthful for our planet) and made it work accurately. Then we agreed to create something like hours/minutes/seconds and that makes a watch function.

Earth is what is always has been. We might have some influence on it, but if a giant meteor falls on our planet and wipes out mankind, nature will restore it to the old situation, mankind's "inventions" would go the way of the dinosaur, nowhere special.
 
Peter King said:
How does that apply to the earth exactly? The earth originally was just a ball of melted rock, that it solidified does not change the fact that the earth itself is just one huge chunk of rock. Later water and an atmosphere came but that is not a design element either, just gravity I would assume.

The earth is one ball of randomness. The continents were first something entirely different until the rock decided to split and join itself because of the unstable nature of the ball of melted rock below us.

Nature is structured chaos, a sense of order really is just how we humans have dubbed things IMO.

And purpose is also not really that special. Nobody made the earth what it was, we just changed it around a bit to serve our purpose. Only since we have thought up chemistry can we really alter properties of other materials to fit our purpose.

A watch is a very different thing than our planet. A man invented it (earth was not invented), someone sourced the materials (not true for earth), combined them with great skill and precision (definitely not truthful for our planet) and made it work accurately. Then we agreed to create something like hours/minutes/seconds and that makes a watch function.

Earth is what is always has been. We might have some influence on it, but if a giant meteor falls on our planet and wipes out mankind, nature will restore it to the old situation, mankind's "inventions" would go the way of the dinosaur, nowhere special.
Click to expand...

I have stated repeatedly that I'm aware that the "appearance of design" does not always mean there's a designer.

I can easily see where the Earth has an appearance of having been designed.

I'm not saying it was intelligently designed. Just that there's an appearance of design.
 
Dragonfly said:
So being the "right" distance from the sun?
Having an orbit and rotation?
Having an atmosphere?
Having water?
Having land?
Having an ecosystem?
All the "right" elements to support and nurture many forms of life?

None of that gives off the appearance of design?
Click to expand...

Not to me, does it to you?
 
Dragonfly said:
When compared directly to the other planets in our solar system, yes.
I can see why some people would say it appears to have been designed.
Click to expand...

Father Time and Mother Nature are quite a creative couple,
 
Dragonfly said:
I have stated repeatedly that I'm aware that the "appearance of design" does not always mean there's a designer.

I can easily see where the Earth has an appearance of having been designed.

I'm not saying it was intelligently designed. Just that there's an appearance of design.
Click to expand...

The appearance of design is simply because the earth is too complex for US to make, that does not mean it is too complex in the scope of the universe.


So why don’t you like the standard model???

The ability to look light years into the past let’s us literally watch the progression of the universe step by step..

Scientists are not guessing.. they get to watch it...


Look 13.6 billion light years away and you see proto-stars forming.. look a little closer you see them start to super nova.. exc.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dragonfly said:
So being the "right" distance from the sun?
Having an orbit and rotation?
Having an atmosphere?
Having water?
Having land?
Having an ecosystem?
All the "right" elements to support and nurture many forms of life?

None of that gives off the appearance of design?
Click to expand...

There are AT LEAST 400,000,000 galaxies with each galaxy having 400,000,000 stars with every star having 5-20 planets..


That is just an insane amount of dice rolls...


With a little BC calculating ..

That is 1.6e18....

1.6 and 18 zeros. Lol


1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Dammmmmmnnnnn


Added in edit: I think I left off a zero lol.. should be 400 billion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
marke said:
The big bang narrative is a humanly constructed story line that is massively lacking in verified facts and details. For example, "It tells us how and when all the stars appeared." Really? And what exactly does science supposedly prove about that? That space was void of stars before stars began miraculously appearing from nowhere? That stars appeared all at once or gradually over time? That stars formed from preexisting matter in some sort of mysterious explosion without a known cause or design? Or what about dozens of other questions that science hasn't got a clue how to answer?

The big bang theory is a kindergarten science story tale filled with speculations derived from myths.



Awesome! Some unknown cause with no known power or intelligence somehow rounded up loose "fundamental particles" from who knows where to create chemical explosions by accident according to chemical laws which got their origin from ignorant luck. The big bang kindergarten story tale takes shape during elementary school science story time.



Fantastic! Now we have the mysterious force of gravity which suddenly also appears from nowhere without explanation.



You gotta hand it to those movie stars, they sure do know how to create elements like nobody's business!



I cannot doubt your ability to repeat the tales you have been told by people who have been fooled into trusting nonsense as though it is proven science.
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHA
A) hilarious.. the Big Bang which has mountains of evidence and experimentation to back it up is a fair tale, but the Bible which is LITERALLY full of supernatural tales and countless contradictions is the real truth...




B) yes the cause of the “explosion of fundamental particles is not yet understood...

EVERYTHING else after that is...

Still no room to squeeze in the Christian god l...


B) gravity is the curve of space time around mass.... that is not an ingredient to be added, it is a part of the structure of space time. Which is obvious to any one who knows the definition of gravity..

C) again..

BWAHAHAHAHA

I have science and experimentation on my side.. you have testimonials lmao..






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom