the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

I was pointing out that they are completely different things.

Science is the pursuit of how the world works and how creation works. Theism is about getting to the reason for its existence, and for one's own existence. Why are we here?

If one believes there is no creator, they accept that there is no "why" at all, since "why" directly requires intelligence to be behind our existence in the first place. And if an intelligent person holds to that viewpoint, they can clearly see that what follows is that since life has no "why", it has no purpose or value other than what that life tries to give itself. If enough intelligent members of a society rooted in that belief are able to follow that concept through, the culture becomes extremely hostile to human - or any other kind of life. Narcissism will rule the day.

Right. But what has that to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?

 

[Mr Darcy]

Right. But what has that to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?

The title of the thread is "The self replicating watch argument". This thread has gone all over the place. I'm just taking it somewhere important. I'm taking it to its logical conclusion and pointing out why it matters so much, philosophically and theologically speaking. And since this IS a Christian site...

But feel free to ignore.

 

[Speedwell]

The title of the thread is "The self replicating watch argument". This thread has gone all over the place. I'm just taking it somewhere important. I'm taking it to its logical conclusion and pointing out why it matters so much, philosophically and theologically speaking. And since this IS a Christian site...

But feel free to ignore.

The theory of evolution does not "logically conclude" in atheism. That is my point.

 

[Mr Darcy]

The theory of evolution does not "logically conclude" in atheism. That is my point.

No. It is just important to atheists that it be the explanation for the existence of human beings. Critical, actually, for obvious reasons. And bias can affect one's judgement.

 

[Speedwell]

No. It is just important to atheists that it be the explanation for the existence of human beings. Critical, actually, for obvious reasons. And bias can affect one's judgement.

I'm not sure why you think it is important to atheists. "The" explanation as opposed to some other? I don't seem to be following your point. It almost seems like you meant that atheists were trying to use evolution to deny the existence of God.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I'm not sure why you think it is important to atheists. "The" explanation as opposed to some other? I don't seem to be following your point.

There are only two explanations (so far): Evolution and ID.

Since an atheist does not believe in a designer, they are left with Evolution in one form or another as the only possible explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

There are only two explanations (so far): Evolution and ID.

Since an atheist does not believe in a designer, they are left with Evolution in one form or another as the only possible explanation.

ID doesn't rise to the level of an explanation. It had its origin as a propaganda hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists in Seattle and hasn't made much scientific progress since, so it is not a realistic alternative for anyone. All we (theist or atheist regardless) are left with by way of a scientific explanation is the current theory of evolution.

 

[Mr Darcy]

ID doesn't rise to the level of an explanation.

Two things:
1. It's just a pairing of words that mean an intelligent personality designed it. Christianity's teaching is based partly on that.
2. It does rise to the level of an explanation. It just doesn't meet the criteria of a "scientific" explanation. But that's ok. It doesn't meet the criteria of a musical explanation either. It's not trying to in either case.

As with evolution, one can believe it or not. And one can make the argument that the proof of it is overwhelming. Just look around you.

 

[Speedwell]

Two things:
1. It's just a pairing of words that mean an intelligent personality designed it. Christianity's teaching is based partly on that.

Not when you capitalize the I and the D.

2. It does rise to the level of an explanation. It just doesn't meet the criteria of a "scientific" explanation. But that's ok. It doesn't meet the criteria of a musical explanation either. It's not trying to in either case.

Those boys in Seattle put a whole lot of Dominionist money and manpower into it. That looks like "trying" to me.

As with evolution, one can believe it or not. And one can make the argument that the proof of it is overwhelming. Just look around you.

Yes, the heavens declare the glory of God and one of those glories is evolution.

 

[dad]

The theory of evolution does not "logically conclude" in atheism. That is my point.

Rather than conclude in unbelief, it stems from it. Naturally all it's little conclusions will be from the same source.

 

[DogmaHunter]

,

so what is your criteria to detect design?

Signs of manufacturing.

Like the use of not-naturally occuring elements (plastic, for instance).
Like the use of bolts and screws.
Like markings of names or logo's or alike ("nike", "made in taiwan",...)
...

If none of such things are present, then it is indistinguishable from natural things.
If on top of that, you actually HAVE a well-tested and confirmed explanation of a natural process that can produce the thing under investigation (like evolution theory)... why would you assume that it is artificial anyway?

 

[xianghua]

I'd rather start by explaining what the false equivalence fallacy is. Let's try this example:

1) I own a car. My car is red.
2) My neighbor owns a car. Therefore, my neighbor's car is also red.

Can you spot the logical flaw in the second statement?

since a car can be in many colors this is a wrong conclusion. now, how it has any relevance to the watch argument?

 

[xianghua]

Math. Specifically, these formulas:

Number of unrooted trees for n taxa Nu=(2n-5)*(2n-7)*...*3*1=(2n-5)!/[2^(n-3)*(n-3)!]

Number of rooted trees for n taxa Nr=(2n-3)*(2n-5)*(2n-7)*...*3*1=(2n-3)!/[2^(n-2)*(n-2)!]
​

Rooted vs Unrooted Trees

The more taxa you add to the mix, the number of possible trees grows exponentially.

if we have only about 3 species the number of possible trees is 6. for instance: lets call those species a, b and c. there are only 6 possible combinations: abc\acb\bca\bac\cba\cab.

 

[xianghua]

Signs of manufacturing.

Like the use of not-naturally occuring elements (plastic, for instance).
Like the use of bolts and screws.
Like markings of names or logo's or alike ("nike", "made in taiwan",...)

so this structure suppose to be natural?:

image from MISS YOU Words Written In The Sand Stock Image - Image of outdoor, nobody: 42141965

 

[Speedwell]

so this structure suppose to be natural?:

image from MISS YOU Words Written In The Sand Stock Image - Image of outdoor, nobody: 42141965

Don't know..

There are only two possible answers to the question, "Is this designed?"

Man-made (designed)

or

Don't know..

 

[Astrophile]

Signs of manufacturing.

Like the use of not-naturally occuring elements (plastic, for instance).
Like the use of bolts and screws.
Like markings of names or logo's or alike ("nike", "made in taiwan",...)

If none of such things are present, then it is indistinguishable from natural things.

I think that it's a bit more complicated than that; for example, this is made out of natural material, doesn't use bolts, screws, etc., and hasn't got a brand name or logo on it (the letters seen in the right-hand picture were clearly written after it was made), and yet it is clearly designed. You need some other criterion, some other sign of manufacturing, to identify design in it.

If on top of that, you actually HAVE a well-tested and confirmed explanation of a natural process that can produce the thing under investigation (like evolution theory)... why would you assume that it is artificial anyway?

Here I entirely agree with you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

first: how do you get to trillion trillion trillion possible trees?

There is a formula for the number of possible trees given the number of taxa. There is also a chart and calculator for it at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1.

30 taxa has 8 trillion trillion trillion combinations.

I believe the underlying mathematics is described in the links at that page.

 

[Heissonear]

Signs of manufacturing.

Like the use of not-naturally occuring elements (plastic, for instance).
Like the use of bolts and screws.
Like markings of names or logo's or alike ("nike", "made in taiwan",...)
...

If none of such things are present, then it is indistinguishable from natural things.
If on top of that, you actually HAVE a well-tested and confirmed explanation of a natural process that can produce the thing under investigation (like evolution theory)... why would you assume that it is artificial anyway?

Not so.

Look again at this "makes more complex objects" pathway of natural ecosystem processes.

Nature around us presently does not make more complex biological objects from present lifeforms.

Rather, second law of thermodynamics. Like cancer of once good lifeform.

We see decay.

Nature does not show evidence of making complex objects like man through Intelligence does.

 

[Heissonear]

since a car can be in many colors this is a wrong conclusion. now, how it has any relevance to the watch argument?

The OP topic cannot be over turned. Nature does not have intelligence. Nor as you illustrate nature does not make trucks and farm tractors from cars and motorcycles.

Within old pastors I see rusted up cars, tractors, etc. Decay.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think that it's a bit more complicated than that; for example, this is made out of natural material, doesn't use bolts, screws, etc., and hasn't got a brand name or logo on it (the letters seen in the right-hand picture were clearly written after it was made), and yet it is clearly designed. You need some other criterion, some other sign of manufacturing, to identify design in it.

Sure. Those would be signs of carving etc.
I included it in thought, but ommitted it explicitly for clarity.

Because I just know that some creationist will jump on it and make some invalid point.