The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Chriliman]

It becomes a false analogy when we point out that pocket watches do not reproduce on their own.

That's beside the point. The point is that a designer is needed to produce the watch in the first place, the analogy does not speak on the watch's ability to reproduce (which would also require a designer).

 

[Chriliman]

Not only atheists, but a majority of real Christian scientists do either. It's a real non-starter.
Sure, the who/what is always fun to discuss over a craft brew or aged whiskey, but at the end of the day, it's all just speculative nonsense.

Meh, if you say so, the problem however, is that the "who" you think it is has gone out of his way to appear as if it doesn't exist at all.

You may be right about that. These types of discussions don't produce much fruit.

Good day.

edit: but at least seeds are planted

 

[Loudmouth]

That's beside the point. The point is that a designer is needed to produce the watch in the first place, the analogy does not speak on the watch's ability to reproduce (which would also require a designer).

A designer is not needed to produce a lifeform in the same way. Biological organisms reproduce, unlike watches. We can watch new lifeforms being produced naturally, without any designer, right in front of us in real time. Not so with watches.

 

[Radrook]

It becomes a false analogy when we point out that pocket watches do not reproduce on their own.

That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.

 

[HitchSlap]

but at least seeds are planted

I hope so.

 

[Radrook]

Science is an activity. Until you can show how scientists can do the investigation using scientific methodology, it is a scientific dead end. You might as well ask cowboys why they don't herd unicorns.

There is no evidence for unicorns.

 

[HitchSlap]

That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.

Unless you have an example of a watch that evolved through well observed biological means, I'm afraid it absolutely effects the criteria.

Creationists are real bad with analogies, if you stick around long enough, you may too, begin to recognize fallacies when you see them.

 

[Chriliman]

A designer is not needed to produce a lifeform in the same way. Biological organisms reproduce, unlike watches. We can watch new lifeforms being produced naturally, without any designer, right in front of us in real time. Not so with watches.

The point of the analogy is to convey the thought that the fact that biological life exists and can reproduce indicates a designer in the same way the fact that a watch exists and ticks to track time indicates a designer. You can see the watch tick right in front of you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to do just that, in the same way you can watch life reproduce right in front of you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to do just that.

 

[Radrook]

Science is an activity. Until you can show how scientists can do the investigation using scientific methodology, it is a scientific dead end. You might as well ask cowboys why they don't herd unicorns.

There is no evidence

A designer is not needed to produce a lifeform in the same way. Biological organisms reproduce, unlike watches. We can watch new lifeforms being produced naturally, without any designer, right in front of us in real time. Not so with watches.

A designer is not needed to produce a lifeform in the same way. Biological organisms reproduce, unlike watches. We can watch new lifeforms being produced naturally, without any designer, right in front of us in real time. Not so with watches.

Machines that reproduce themselves need a designer. Organisms that reproduce themselves need a designer for the same reason that self replicating machines do.

 

[Radrook]

Science is an activity. Until you can show how scientists can do the investigation using scientific methodology, it is a scientific dead end. You might as well ask cowboys why they don't herd unicorns.

Science ceases to be science if the scientist becomes purposefully illogical.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point of the analogy is to convey the thought that the fact that biological life exists and can reproduce indicates a designer in the same way the fact that a watch exists and ticks to track time indicates a designer.

The ability for reproduction with variation is what makes them non-analogous. Watches lack the ability to evolve and create new designs through natural processes. Life has that ability.

You can see the watch tick right in front of you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to do just that, in the same way you can watch life reproduce right in front of you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to do just that.

Where is the evidence that it was designed to do just that? You are now using the logical fallacy called the "burden of proof". It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Machines that reproduce themselves need a designer.

What machines would those be?

 

[Radrook]

Science is only as capable as the scientists who break molds and move things forward and since a scientist is fully capable of asking the question of "who", then science as a tool will support that endeavor. Only the scientists who don't want to ask "who" will object, but are they really scientists if they don't investigate all possible causes of biological life, including "who"? I don't think so.

Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.

That's why scientists stay objective and don't use the God of the Gaps fallacy like creationists do.

 

[Radrook]

On the subject of the origins of biological life on earth, it's always better to ask "who, what, where, when, why" rather than to only ask "what, where, when, why". Leaving out "who" puts a limit on the possible answers one can openly consider that could lead to the truth.

If thinking is limited by an extreme aversion to a concept then that mind is shackled by fanatical bias. That is one reason why I try to avoid debates. It is a complete waste of time.

 

[Radrook]

That's why scientists stay objective and don't use the God of the Gaps fallacy like creationists do.

I see absolutely no objectivity in your methodology. Also, ID need not mention God or gods. So your insistence that it must is a cop-out.

 

[Loudmouth]

If thinking is limited by an extreme aversion to a concept then that mind is shackled by fanatical bias. That is one reason why I try to avoid debates. It is a complete waste of time.

We have an extreme aversion to claims that have no evidence to back them.

The reason that ID/creationism is not accepted by scientists is that there is no evidence to back it. It isn't the fault of science that creationists can't back their claims.

 

[Chriliman]

The ability for reproduction with variation is what makes them non-analogous. Watches lack the ability to evolve and create new designs through natural processes. Life has that ability.

The analogy isn't clicking for you and that's fine, no need to beat it into you.

Where is the evidence that it was designed to do just that?

I'm not trying to prove that at this time, I'm only trying to explain why the analogy is actually analogous.

You are now using the logical fallacy called the "burden of proof". It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them.

No I'm not, you're misrepresenting what I'm trying to explain here. I didn't set out to prove that biological life has a designer, I did set out to explain why the watch analogy is a good analogy that helps explain why people believe that God is responsible for biological life and it's functions. In a similar way that a watch designer is responsible for the watch and it's functions.

 

[Radrook]

What machines would those be?

Machines that theoretically are being planned to reproduce themselves. You are unfamiliar with the concept of the plans being made for self replicating machines to assist is in space colonization? There are also self-replicating machines in the planning stage for medical purposes. Guess you will have to find a way to somehow discredit that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.

Very good! You just admitted that what the people at CSI, answers in Genesis and other such creationists sites, are doing is not science.