This might help to clear things up. Or possibly it might inspire some to explore their doubts.
YouTube - The Design Delusion
YouTube - The Design Delusion
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Design Delusion
- Thread starter Delphiki
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Then how was David able to correctly ascertain intelligent design in nature?
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Upvote
0
LordTimothytheWise
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You're such a brilliant philosopher. Paley would have nothing on you.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
You're such a brilliant philosopher. Paley would have nothing on you.
That's such a great argument; there's no counter argument to it.
Upvote
0
plindboe
Senior Member
I've always found it amazing that some christians find the watchmaker argument convincing. Not surprisingly it's only convincing to people who already accept the conclusion.
Paley's argument rests on the fact that the watch stands out because it is designed, and we can clearly see that the watch shows design when comparing it to a rock or a bush. But the position he's advocating is that everything is designed, including the rock and the bush, so why would the watch appear designed in comparison?
If the watch didn't stand out in the heath, now that could be an argument for design. The fact that the watch stands out is contrary to the position Paley is arguing for.
Peter
Paley's argument rests on the fact that the watch stands out because it is designed, and we can clearly see that the watch shows design when comparing it to a rock or a bush. But the position he's advocating is that everything is designed, including the rock and the bush, so why would the watch appear designed in comparison?
If the watch didn't stand out in the heath, now that could be an argument for design. The fact that the watch stands out is contrary to the position Paley is arguing for.
Peter
Upvote
0
I first heard it in a religious education lesson in around second year of high school. I found it convincing for a long time until I came across the intelligent design controversy and realised that Paley's watch analogy is no better than modern analogies like the well-beaten 747 argument that Greg loves so much.
Upvote
0
Since supernatural design is much more complicated than what natural man can produce -its obvious that a higher power designed it. Just because people don't know all the answers or do not want to know doesn't mean its a delusion.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Upvote
0
You're such a brilliant philosopher. Paley would have nothing on you.
Yikes. If this looks philosophical to you, then I guess it's not made simple enough enough. I think the video is pretty straight forward.
Also, I didn't make this video, only found it. I think it shows the pretty obvious differences between design and nature. It's no doubt a rebuttal to the argument that life somehow "looks" designed and therefore is.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
The claims isn't sound. It's like saying "Since magical things are much more amazing than what natural man can produce, it's obvious that magical elves designed them."
So, for your claim to start having any semblance of truth, show us something that can be demonstrated to have been supernaturally designed.
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
I've always found it amazing that some christians find the watchmaker argument convincing. Not surprisingly it's only convincing to people who already accept the conclusion.
Paley's argument rests on the fact that the watch stands out because it is designed, and we can clearly see that the watch shows design when comparing it to a rock or a bush. But the position he's advocating is that everything is designed, including the rock and the bush, so why would the watch appear designed in comparison?
If the watch didn't stand out in the heath, now that could be an argument for design. The fact that the watch stands out is contrary to the position Paley is arguing for.
Peter
I'd always found the watchmaker argument to fail on other grounds (It actualy addresses a parody of the TOE) so I'd never thought about it in the way you have.
You present an absolutely devistating argument, but I'll bet most will refuse to understand it.
Upvote
0
. Since man isn't God this can't be done-matter can't be created. Remember the law of thermodynamics?
Well, if you don't believe in creation or intelligent design than you are most likely claiming abiogenesis. Is this correct? Mathematically, I would have more of a chance of winning power ball-then very complicated things coming together at random.
Why Abiogenesis is impossible
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
(various abiogenesis experiments on a chart)
www.creation.com/life-from-lifeor-not
Demonstrated? Not everything can be scientically demonstrated in a lab-
Many people think that if something can't be proved scientifically then is completely false and doesn't exist. But this is a myth. The Scientific method is not the only way to prove the validity of something. It everything was like this then you can't prove that Abraham Lincoln was the president of the U.S because you can't repeat this event that belongs to the past. Also you can't prove scientifically that you had a test last Wednesday at AM, because you can't repeat it again in a controlled manner where you can register observations and data. Once it happens it is history. Anything that can't be proved scientifically can be proved by the historical method or the evidential method, which includes oral testimonies, physical testimonies. This method is used in the courts of the whole world to prove evidence and is the only one that is applied in historical events. The way that was proven that The scientific method is limited and you can't proved the events mentioned before.
If you put intelligent design and compare the evidence of abiogenesis-you will find that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence is intelligent design.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A human body cell is a thousand times more complicated than a nuclear reactor. Take biology sometime.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
I am not saying anything about a lab, abiogenesis, or anything similar. All I asked was if you could show me something that can be shown to have been supernaturally designed. So, can you?
Upvote
0
That would make sense if it were all random. However there are a multitude of factors you're overlooking... Basic chemistry and the polarized nature of some molecules over others. It's not like hydrogen and oxygen just randomly and aimlessly collide to make water, for example.
Abiogenesis is also not a theory. In fact there are multiple models of abiogenesis.
Also don't forget that there are parts of the hypothesis which can be proven possible, some even recreated in labs. What's been done to support the creationist model? Anything? I'd still say that any model for abiogenesis is already far ahead of creationism considering any amount of evidential support is better than a big fat zero.
Upvote
0
Sure, did men create the stars in the heavens? Did men create trees? Did men create human beings and atoms?
Upvote
0
I have heard many of the arguments on this. Creationism has way more evidence. The athiestic and agnostic scientists want abiogenesis to be true and the religious want creation to be true. But what counts is the amount of circumstantial evidence on the subject. Have you seen the movie Expelled?
What will always amaze me is that some people can accept a car was made by a human-but all of a sudden its different when it comes to the universe. The creation creates itself.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
