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.
It becomes a false analogy when we point out that pocket watches do not reproduce on their own.
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.
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).
That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.It becomes a false analogy when we point out that pocket watches do not reproduce on their own.
There is no evidence for unicorns.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.
Unless you have an example of a watch that evolved through well observed biological means, I'm afraid it absolutely effects the criteria.That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.
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.
There is no evidenceScience 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.
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.
Science ceases to be science if the scientist becomes purposefully illogical.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.
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.
Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.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.
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.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.
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.That's why scientists stay objective and don't use the God of the Gaps fallacy like creationists do.
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.
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.
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.
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.What machines would those be?
Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?