The Watchmaker

[KingMerv00]

Where did the singularity come from?

What part of "no one knows for sure" do you have trouble understanding?

 

[Lothian]

Where did the singularity come from?

Don’t know. But what we can say is that the chances that everything started when an incredibly complex being popped out of thin air and lit the fuse causeing a big bang, is such a silly idea that we can reasonably discount it. Whatever caused the big bang it was not god.

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually you said I was wrong, yet you didn’t bother to actually specify.

Got any evidence for that? I’m thinking not.

Ossai

Ok. Let's go back to what you said.

Meadmaker
Damn, but you’re ignorant, oh wait, you’re a creationist so that goes without saying.

We do have experimental evidence. In fact we’ve had experimental evidence since at least the 1960s.

Ossai

Your first assertion: "you're ignorant". Ignorance is relative. I'm quite confident I know more about the subject than darned near anyone who hasn't studied it at the college level. I thought about it, and I've only read five books I can think of on the specific subject of evolution. That's no great quantity, but it's five more than most Americans.

Your second assertion: "you're a creationist". No, I am not. I'm not even an ID advocate. I have said, repeatedly in other threads, that ID is wrong, but not stupid. Not everyone agrees with that last part.

Your third assertion: "We do have experimental evidence." If you can point to the experimental evidence we have of cell formation from a mixture of chemicals, I would love to see it. We have the Miller-Urey(sp?) experiment, and a few slight variations on it. If I recall from "Spark of Life", someone actually managed to get a peptide out of a test tube, but I could be mistaken about that.

So, it seems you are 0 for 3. Of course, if you could cough up some experimental evidence, you could raise it to 2 for 3, because you would also demonstrate that I was indeed ignorant about the subject, but I'm guessing you can't do that.

 

[tdn]

You know, just the HARDEST QUESTION EVER. I'll tell you this very simple answer. I don't know. More importantly, neither do the religious.

And neither do I. But I once heard an explanation that I thought sounded pretty cool.

Particles are blinking in and out of existance all the, um, "time." Normally a matter particle and an anti-matter particle will arrive at the same time, and mutually anihilate. But suppose that in a universe of zero dimensions, zero matter, and zero time, a particle appeared. Tiny as it is, it would have infinite mass and energy, as compared to the null universe it inhabits. Something of infinite mass and energy would have no choice but to expand rapidly.

I don't know how true that is, but I think it's mighty rad that all the glory and wonder of the universe may be due to a divide by zero error.

 

[tdn]

T'ai Chi
?!? Please explain.

I'll take a guess here that he means that a cell is far more complex than a watch. Being that I'm neither a biologist nor a watchmaker...

Actually, I once built a clock from a kit. The damn thing never did work, but that was due to my own incompetence. But it was fairly simple in its workings. A weight pulls a wheel that moves a gear which moves a gear which moves a gear which moves a hand. And a pendulum moves a cam that regulates the timing of it all.

A cell holds DNA which holds information rivalling most encyclopedias, has the ability to split itself and copy all of that data, and do a bunch more nifty stuff. I'd agree that a cell is more complex by orders of magnitude.

That doesn't, of course, mean that a cellmaker is necessary.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So some of these bibles would vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or...

Hmm, you know there's something very familiar about all this.

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

Disagreed. Presumably grayman's brother lives in the US, where the number of atheist representatives in government is equal to zero and Evangelicals are a powerful block vote. Furthermore, the current policies which are secular in nature which have offended him are in the vast minority.

He then says that many who contributed their thoughts would side with Elton John when Sir Elton said that he would ban religion. As it turns out, there is a thread on that very subject, and no one seems to be rushing to condemn Sir Elton, although one or two have suggested that perhaps he shouldn't have gone quite so far. Oh, he also used a derogatory term in his description of Elton John, but again, that's rather subjective. Some are disgusted by the use of such terms, calling them "hate speech". I agree. However, in this particular case, it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone as a victim of hate speech, after he called for banning religion. For him to be the target of hate speech seems in this case more like "Karma" than anything else.

No. A clean statement showing dislike of an abstract concept such as organized religion is not equal to a vulgar filled rant spewing defamatory slurs about an individual and a group of individuals.

He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?

The burden of evidence is on him, or you, as you seem to be supporting his assertions. However, did all of the individuals who responded in this thread also respond with an "anti-religion" attitude in the threads specified? No. He was referring to the individuals who posted in this thread, not the general consensus of the Forum, whatever it may be.

 

[grayman]

Disagreed. Presumably grayman's brother lives in the US, where the number of atheist representatives in government is equal to zero and Evangelicals are a powerful block vote. Furthermore, the current policies which are secular in nature which have offended him are in the vast minority.

Vermont

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Vermont

Ah, figured it would be out East. But Vermont... Blaming the atheist activist judges for ruling in favor of fag marriage and destroying society, perhaps?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah, figured it would be out East. But Vermont... Blaming the atheist activist judges for ruling in favor of fag marriage and destroying society, perhaps?

Why the smiley? It seems a reasonable hypothesis. Of course, the destruction of society has gone largely unnoticed by most citizens of Vermont, but grayman's brother brings a perception, evidenced by his words, that is unique.

I don't want to be in a position of defending the guy. I must admit, posts that begin "Damn but you're ignorant" put me in a frame of mind that even extremists on the opposition start to look good.

And that brings me to what I actually find interesting about the topic. Why are so many arguments against ID so unpersuasive? Some will object to that characterization, but it's simply a definition. Many Americans are unpersuaded. The arguments aren't persuading. They are unpersuasive.

You could blame the audience, but I think that's inaccurate. I do not believe that the problem is that people are too stupid or too uneducated to grasp the arguments. I think there is a flaw either in the arguments themselves, or the presentation of the arguments.

Let me end on a related note. Please don't make a mistake that has been made by Ossai and by a few others on JREF when I say that there is a problem with the arguments. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I think ID is true. I don't. As anyone who claims to understand logic must understand, an invalid argument can nevertheless have a true conclusion.

The reason that this is related to why the arguments are so unpersuasive is that it's clear that so many people advancing the arguments want to clearly draw a line between US and THEM. US are logical, rational, people who believe in evolution, and THEM are ignorant, superstitious people who who are creationists. The reality is that there is lots of middle ground there, but the people drawing the line draw it so close to US that they end up classifying everyone else as THEM, and end up saying that everyone who doesn't agree with their arguments must be a creationist. They're wrong, and when they say it, it distracts from any other argument they might make. They also misread their opposition badly.

Grayman began by asking how to counter "The Watchmaker". As we have learned since then, his brother has unique qualities that might make it difficult to create understanding. However, his brother isn't representative of most ID supporters. If this topic interests you, it would by wise to take up the challenge that grayman set, and honestly critique the proposed arguments, and really ask yourself which ones might actually work.

I hope to contribute to that conversation. You have something to look forward to.

Or, you could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why the smiley? It seems a reasonable hypothesis. Of course, the destruction of society has gone largely unnoticed by most citizens of Vermont, but grayman's brother brings a perception, evidenced by his words, that is unique.

I was merely making sure that people do not misunderstand and think that those words reflect upon my opinions.

And that brings me to what I actually find interesting about the topic. Why are so many arguments against ID so unpersuasive? Some will object to that characterization, but it's simply a definition. Many Americans are unpersuaded. The arguments aren't persuading. They are unpersuasive.

You could blame the audience, but I think that's inaccurate. I do not believe that the problem is that people are too stupid or too uneducated to grasp the arguments. I think there is a flaw either in the arguments themselves, or the presentation of the arguments.

One could reach either conclusion, as neither has support. I would disagree with the assertion that since nearly half of Americans are creationists, the arguments refuting ID are unpersuasive. The most likely conclusion, in my opinion, is that many are simply ignorant. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying these people are stupid, I am saying that they have been introduced to strawmen of evolution and nothing more than that (Which was the conclusion gathered from my ID project). Schools do not spend time on the issue in basic Biology classes (At least, not here) and so the parents are typically the source for information. Given this, it would be easy to see why many find ID to be reasonable. Not everyone takes time to research the issues. However, this is merely hypothesizing, and your conclusion may be true as well.

But, in this particular case, the extreme response received would lead one to the conclusion that it is the fault of the brother more so than any argument here.

The reason that this is related to why the arguments are so unpersuasive is that it's clear that so many people advancing the arguments want to clearly draw a line between US and THEM. US are logical, rational, people who believe in evolution, and THEM are ignorant, superstitious people who who are creationists. The reality is that there is lots of middle ground there, but the people drawing the line draw it so close to US that they end up classifying everyone else as THEM, and end up saying that everyone who doesn't agree with their arguments must be a creationist. They're wrong, and when they say it, it distracts from any other argument they might make. They also misread their opposition badly.

My outlook is ME against THE WORLD and it has worked well.

Grayman began by asking how to counter "The Watchmaker". As we have learned since then, his brother has unique qualities that might make it difficult to create understanding. However, his brother isn't representative of most ID supporters. If this topic interests you, it would by wise to take up the challenge that grayman set, and honestly critique the proposed arguments, and really ask yourself which ones might actually work.

There is only one argument, and it has been shown to be invalid and the source has lost all possible honor in the matter. The brother did not reply to anything said in the thread, so it is impossible to go further.

In conclusion, us c@ck sucking fags are much more intelligent that you stupid creationists .

 

[jmercer]

...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

I doubt it.

Really? Very well then. Here's a brief history of clocks for you to peruse; perhaps then you can begin to grasp just how much in the way of physics, metullurgy and other sciences had to be developed before anything resembling a "watch" could be constructed.

A watch is far from simple when you consider what had to be learned and developed before one could be created.

 

[jmercer]

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

Ah, you want a definitive answer. None are available at this time, although there are a number of scientific theories. Pick any one that suits you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A watch is far from simple when you consider what had to be learned and developed before one could be created.

It is far from simple. It is not, however, more complex than what is involved with biology, as you are begging it to be.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ah, you want a definitive answer. None are available at this time, although there are a number of scientific theories. Pick any one that suits you.

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

It is hard to see with eyes wide shut. If the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time, then there was nothing before it.

 

[Apathia]

I remember when the Watchmaker Argument was persuasive to me. Of course I'm loath to say I was stupid then. It was simply that I hadn't seen beyond certain either-ors yet. This one being it was either designed by a conscious intelligence or it could not be. I didn't understand yet that natural processes are more subtle and smarter in a sense than the "tornado in a junk yard" comparison Creationists make.

And lets face it, at the level of education and understanding most people have, the Watchmaker Analogy has intuitive merit. You have to work with them, educate them about concepts such as Emergence, Smart Systems, and even a dash of Chaos Theory, before they can grasp there is an alternative to the anthropomorphic designer. Add to that the other concerns and values people have around believing in a Theistic God, and it's a challenge. Everyday people find confirmation for their Theistic world view in Jack Chick and Watchtower sound bytes.

They reach them where they are, while we need to somehow take them by the hand and lead them to a new way of seeing. An Us vrs. Them doesn't help. I personally resist anyone trying to convert me to anything.

Yeah, I know, since i don't have any answers I should shut up. The best I can say is that we need to listen to individuals in a non judgmental way, understand why they believe what they do, and share our own understanding.

Show them the process. Show how eyes evolved. And if we don't have a robust enough theory of the evolutionary process yet, show them the overwhelming physical evidence that it has and is taking place.

My own Creationism was dependent on ignorance. When I began reading about the fossil record, I had to make some big adjustments to my thinking. Creationists make claims about the fossil record, but if they actually paid attention to it, they would have no argument.

It cones to paying attention again. that's a virtue our society is fast losing.

 

[RandFan]

I remember when the Watchmaker Argument was persuasive to me. Of course I'm loath to say I was stupid then. It was simply that I hadn't seen beyond certain either-ors yet. This one being it was either designed by a conscious intelligence or it could not be. I didn't understand yet that natural processes are more subtle and smarter in a sense than the "tornado in a junk yard" comparison Creationists make.

And lets face it, at the level of education and understanding most people have, the Watchmaker Analogy has intuitive merit. You have to work with them, educate them about concepts such as Emergence, Smart Systems, and even a dash of Chaos Theory, before they can grasp there is an alternative to the anthropomorphic designer. Add to that the other concerns and values people have around believing in a Theistic God, and it's a challenge. Everyday people find confirmation for their Theistic world view in Jack Chick and Watchtower sound bytes.

They reach them where they are, while we need to somehow take them by the hand and lead them to a new way of seeing. An Us vrs. Them doesn't help. I personally resist anyone trying to convert me to anything.

Yeah, I know, since i don't have any answers I should shut up. The best I can say is that we need to listen to individuals in a non judgmental way, understand why they believe what they do, and share our own understanding.

Show them the process. Show how eyes evolved. And if we don't have a robust enough theory of the evolutionary process yet, show them the overwhelming physical evidence that it has and is taking place.

My own Creationism was dependent on ignorance. When I began reading about the fossil record, I had to make some big adjustments to my thinking. Creationists make claims about the fossil record, but if they actually paid attention to it, they would have no argument.

It cones to paying attention again. that's a virtue our society is fast losing.

I used to be an ID proponent. One of the things that contributed to my becoming an atheist and Darwinist was a meeting I had with a very decent chap who also happened to be an atheist. He was very smart and listened, really listened to what I had to say and then gave me some things to think about. I was receptive because he wasn't arrogant and rude.

I wish I was more like that.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I used to be an ID proponent. One of the things that contributed to my becoming an atheist and Darwinist was a meeting I had with a very decent chap who also happened to be an atheist. He was very smart and listened, really listened to what I had to say and then gave me some things to think about. I was receptive because he wasn't arrogant and rude.

I wish I was more like that.

That's cool. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with accepting that we're not all good teachers. You don't need to beat yourself up over that.

AS

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker

Your first assertion: "you're ignorant". Ignorance is relative. I'm quite confident I know more about the subject than darned near anyone who hasn't studied it at the college level. I thought about it, and I've only read five books I can think of on the specific subject of evolution. That's no great quantity, but it's five more than most Americans.

You do realize that biology at the high school and casual reading level doesn’t really qualify as ‘knowledgeable’. I’m not saying your not more familiar with it that the average person on the street. But, when your appeal to authority is to yourself, it’s only as good as a WAG.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point for me. You are ignorant of biology.

Your second assertion: "you're a creationist". No, I am not. I'm not even an ID advocate. I have said, repeatedly in other threads, that ID is wrong, but not stupid. Not everyone agrees with that last part.

Funny that, your earlier posts and a number of your later posts indicate that you’re a Christian fundamentalist, at least to an large extent. If you’ve changed since then, it hasn’t been apparent.

Your third assertion: "We do have experimental evidence." If you can point to the experimental evidence we have of cell formation from a mixture of chemicals, I would love to see it. We have the Miller-Urey(sp?) experiment, and a few slight variations on it. If I recall from "Spark of Life", someone actually managed to get a peptide out of a test tube, but I could be mistaken about that.

So the only experimental information you have is four decades old. And you say you’re up on biology?

I also noticed you’ve still avoided responding to, what I take, as the primary response to you in my last post.

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

Based on what?
The vast political power atheists hold.
The fact that a politician can not be elected in the US without declaring their atheism.
The atheist only business directories.
The large number of businesses that promote based on a person’s lack of faith.
The atheists outposts (churches) that dot the American landscape.
The door to door atheist campaigns.
The exclusive atheists clubs.
The atheist after school programs, that may or may not be publicly funded.
The Boy Scouts of America forcibly removing anyone that proclaims a religious belief.

tdn

I'll take a guess here that he means that a cell is far more complex than a watch. Being that I'm neither a biologist nor a watchmaker...

Probably, but then that is just a strawman, because what jmercer actually wrote was

...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

Ossai

 

[Foster Zygote]

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

How does 'God' not beg the same question? What came before God?