the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

so you cant detect design just by looking at this image? :

In THAT image, sure.

But THAT isn't an image of a living thing that reproduces.

If you wish to know what I would think of a living animal that "looks like a watch", then you're going to have to show me one first. I have no idea what that would look like.

 

[xianghua]

In THAT image, sure.

but why you call it a watch if i said that in this case it has living traits? according to your criteria its not a watch but a creature.

 

[Speedwell]

but why you call it a watch if i said that in this case it has living traits? according to your criteria its not a watch but a creature.

You can't tell by just looking at a picture and "imagining" that it has the traits of a living creature. What are you going to do in future when it becomes possible to genetically engineer living creatures? How are you going to tell a designed creature from a naturally ocurring one?

 

[DogmaHunter]

but why you call it a watch if i said that in this case it has living traits?

The watch depicted in the picture you posted, is just a watch like any other. Not a living thing.

Here's what you said in that post:
so you cant detect design just by looking at this image?

You didn't say anything in that post about it having any living traits. You just posted a picture of a watch and asked if I could detect design in THAT specific picture.

I answered your question. What is the problem?

according to your criteria its not a watch but a creature.

The watch depicted in the picture you posted, is not alive or a creature. It's just a mechanical device of human manufacturing which is called a watch. It tells time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't tell by just looking at a picture and "imagining" that it has the traits of a living creature. What are you going to do in future when it becomes possible to genetically engineer living creatures? How are you going to tell a designed creature from a naturally ocurring one?

Don't you get it?
In his bubble universe, there are no "naturally occuring" things.

 

[xianghua]

You can't tell by just looking at a picture and "imagining" that it has the traits of a living creature. What are you going to do in future when it becomes possible to genetically engineer living creatures? How are you going to tell a designed creature from a naturally ocurring one?

since no one can prove that a creature can eolve naturally there is no such a thing as naturally ocurring creature.

 

[Speedwell]

since no one can prove that a creature can eolve naturally there is no such a thing as naturally ocurring creature.

OK, now what? There is no God and no nature--all creatures are manufactured in a big factory someplace?

 

[xianghua]

The watch depicted in the picture you posted, is just a watch like any other. Not a living thing.

Here's what you said in that post:
so you cant detect design just by looking at this image?

You didn't say anything in that post about it having any living traits. You just posted a picture of a watch and asked if I could detect design in THAT specific picture.

I answered your question. What is the problem?

.

i actually asked you before: "so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?"

and you said "I don't know"

so if you missed it let me ask you again. do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had living traits?:

 

[doubtingmerle]

yep. why not? its a theoretical question. so this is a watch or not if it has living traits?

Please answer our question first. If the watch has the trait of free will, is it a person?

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, now what? There is no God and no nature--all creatures are manufactured in a big factory someplace?

In the factory of Eden, I guess.

 

[doubtingmerle]

yep. why not? its a theoretical question.

Cool, this is a thread where we ask theoretical questions about nonsense. Here is my theoretical question: If a dog dropping had free will, would it be a person?

 

[pitabread]

yep. why not? its a theoretical question

A theoretical question needs a theoretical basis. What theory are you basing this on?

 

[Speedwell]

and you said "I don't know"

"I don't know" is a conclusion one must often come to when trying to detect the presence of design. The only way to tell for sure that an object is designed is to find evidence of human manufacture. Otherwise "I don't know" is the only possible conclusion.

 

[Kylie]

actually i said that in this case there is no selection pressure in this case since there is no advantage to a single part without the other one. so this is indeed a random event or very close to.

And there is your second mistake - you assume that the different parts evolve in isolation. They do not.

 

[Phred]

Back before creationists hijacked the intelligent design movement the idea behind it was simply how do we tell whether something was manmade or not? Look at the two images below. One is Mt. Rushmore. One is the Old man in the Mountain from New Hampshire. How can we tell whether one is designed vs. natural? If aliens landed on the earth years after mankind had gone extinct would they know that one was designed and the other was not?

Then how can we tell in biology that something is designed vs. natural? Are any of those signs present today and can we use them to find that there is a designer out there? Could we prove that God exists this way?

That's what design is all about.

 

[Meowzltov]

but it doesnt fit well with the order in the fossil record.

So what? Life is messy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

since no one can prove that a creature can eolve naturally there is no such a thing as naturally ocurring creature.

I can't prove that you are obtuse and not listening to what others are telling you. But the preponderance of evidence supports that conclusion.

If you understand what I just wrote, you will recognise the error of your post. If you don't understand, you are just providing more evidence in support of my conclusion. But it would still not be proven.

 

[xianghua]

So what? Life is messy.

so what? so the evidence doesnt fit well with evolution. also: what about the analogy i talked about? this analogy prove that we cant prove the evolution of whale by order in their fossils. and i have many other evidence against it.

 

[Meowzltov]

so what? so the evidence doesnt fit well with evolution.

It is completely irrelevant to evolution. As I already stated, evolution has NO GOAL. What is more adaptive procreates more. That's it.

also: what about the analogy i talked about? this analogy prove that we cant prove the evolution of whale by order in their fossils. and i have many other evidence against it.

The evolution of whales is one of the best documented in the fossil record. If you can't see the progression of transitional forms, I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i actually asked you before: "so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?"
and you said "I don't know"

Indeed, I don't know. I'm unfamiliar with such an object with such traits.
Show me one, and I'll happily answer your question.

so if you missed it let me ask you again. do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had living traits?:

I don't know. THAT object is not a living thing. THAT object, is a human manufactured device.

Show me a "living reproducing watch" and I'll tell you what I think of it.