It's like that with the watch argument; if you happen upon a watch lying on the ground and didn't see how it got there, it'd be foolish to think it was formed through the random-chance occurrence of wind, gravity, earthquake, and fire jostling the various parts together. The usual argument against that is that we humans have experience with watch-making so of course we'd not assume it was random chance. But then, with something much more complex, like a red blood cell (which we cannot make ), suddenly it's possible for such a thing to form by chance. The only difference between the two is the experience humans have with making watches. In other words, if a human can't do it, then it must be the result of random chance no matter how much more complex the thing is than what humans can make. That is the arrogance people should be taking note of and not that God put the earth at the center of his creation.
Sorry mate, there's a few problems with the watchmaker argument:
1. Comparing two very different things (bad analogy) e.g. a cat and lion are similar but a cat doesn't necessarily roar because a lion roars
2. Recognizing that one complex object has a designer does not prove that all complex objects have a designer
3. Pitting deliberate design and random chance against each other is incorrect because it pretends evolution is random in its consequence (i.e. dismisses natural selection)
4. If the argument is correct, it proves God was designed
5. If the argument is correct, it proves many gods (one person designs a watch, another a bike etc)
As you can see on my profile, I am a believing christian. But bad arguments are bad arguments even if they are attempting to promote the good.
Upvote
0