2 major fallacies with this guy's watch-human analogy:
1. Watches are not living organisms; they do not reproduce, they are not subject to natural selection.
2. This man's watch has the "designer's" name literally stamped on the backplate. It is an observable fact that ALL watches are designed. We do not presume that his watch is designed because of its apparent complexity, we presume his watch is designed because it is an observable fact that every watch on the face of the earth is designed.
I agree. There's no doubt the watch was created by designers (and automation specialists?). And the reason is obviously because the watch is not a living being and therefore did not have a mother and father watch capable of passing down their genetic material, and therefore did not have millions of other ancestors before them also passing down their own genetic material. Hmmm... just wondering... who created the smallpox virus, and, more importantly, why?
this is absolutely right and reason alone reveals this to be true ..but a question is begged that reason alone cannot answer ..the materials that make up the match the raw materials where did they come from ?..you can assume they were created ultimately out of nothing ..but you can not reasonably infer this from the watch or really from any material thing. ..there comes a point in which you must make a leap of faith ..when that happens it is no longer reason ..and really no longer an argument ..
OK Shreken -- How'd you get your first internal combustion engine for your tremendously superior (and highly logical) analogy? By the way, even if considered "simple" reproductive systems, evolutionary theory needs two creatures with fully-functional versions right from the start.
@reflect7 You're logic here is flawed. Evolution does NOT need two fully functional oganisms to work. Bacteria do not reproduce through sexual interaction, but through dividing their cells. Evolution also works without any living organism at all. Evolution is a principle that can be applied to about anything in the universe.
hahahahahahah. I'm going to throw something out there. No one said the, I can't believe you said this, 'first set of creatures' didn't have a fully functioning reproductive system. Something doesn't have to not work to make it better. I'll do one of your ridiculous analogies to prove my point...the first internal combustion engine worked did it not, but would you not agree that the ones we have today are better. I am talking about your logic.
resulted in the loss of information from a genome, right? However, for evolution to
work, we need hundreds of millions of examples of mutations which result
in the increase of information on a genome, right? As mutations accumulate over time, creatures actually move in the opposite direction, and decrease in complexity.
Great point -- How did rocks become alive? Where did that reproductive system come from? I need a fully-functional reproductive system in the first set of creatures to pass along the first mutations, right?
why can we not argue that it was a creator that designed evolution? evolution doesn't in anyway contradictr an idea of God., it just contradicts what is said in genesis, which is kinda stupid anyway.
@pandstar All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
@5tonyvvvv There is zero evidence of anyone who actually understands organic chemistry being so retarded as to claim that RNA formed by chance, or that there are no processes which can affected the chirality of amino acids.
Ignoring the processes that affect handedness still isn't an argument.
Of course, human beings weren't created in a factory by craftsmen. We are biological systems, and were born from other biological systems. We call them our parents. Since biological systems are born, reproduce, and die, they're not very analogous to something like a watch.
Amino acids and proteins? These chemicals are slightly less complex than cells and DNA, but I thought you were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. I thought you were talking about that because you were talking about your skin and blood vessels and nervous system.
But that's not what you focussed on in your video. You talked about skin, hair, your nervous system, and things that have been explained to a great deal by evolutionary theory.
Fully-functional organic sub-systems such as the nervous system have been explained by evolutionary theory? The reproductive system, respiratory system, digestive tract? For instance, how does evolutionary change get passed along through mutation and selective advantage without a fully functional reproductive system already in place?
You're still talking about origins. When you talk about the very first reproductive system, you're talking about abiogenesis, the first self-replicating molecules. However, evolutionary theory does explain a lot about these systems in humans and other species.
Why do you think that our reproductive system is closer to a chimps than a cats? Why is our nervous system closer to dogs than a lobster? If evolution is false, why does the taxonomy of species follow from morphological and genetic features?
Evolution may seem like a complex way to explain the workings of living things. But when you cop out and say "God must have done it," you are left with the same question about an even MORE unlikely being. What created God? Another even more powerful being? And what created THAT creator? It's an endless chain that doesn't explain anything, and only serves to move the question further away from reality.
Right you are. This guy clearly does not understand evolution and his faith does will not allow him to ever accept anything other than his current view. Don't bother trying to change his mind but spread critical thinking and skepticism to other more open-minded individuals.
The first watch was a stick protruding from the ground in sunlight, why dont you use that insted of your wrist watch?
groovyengineer 9 months ago
2 major fallacies with this guy's watch-human analogy:
1. Watches are not living organisms; they do not reproduce, they are not subject to natural selection.
2. This man's watch has the "designer's" name literally stamped on the backplate. It is an observable fact that ALL watches are designed. We do not presume that his watch is designed because of its apparent complexity, we presume his watch is designed because it is an observable fact that every watch on the face of the earth is designed.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion on the FACE of the Earth? FACE? WATCH-FACE. That was a horrible pun.
turkeypantz 1 year ago
Watches do not reproduce with variation
Watches do not compete over scarce resources
The components of a watch have never been observed to demonstrate natural affinities for each other.
A watch is in no way analogous to an organism.
AwakeAgainstAllOdds 1 year ago
I agree. There's no doubt the watch was created by designers (and automation specialists?). And the reason is obviously because the watch is not a living being and therefore did not have a mother and father watch capable of passing down their genetic material, and therefore did not have millions of other ancestors before them also passing down their own genetic material. Hmmm... just wondering... who created the smallpox virus, and, more importantly, why?
HealthySkeptic 2 years ago
this is absolutely right and reason alone reveals this to be true ..but a question is begged that reason alone cannot answer ..the materials that make up the match the raw materials where did they come from ?..you can assume they were created ultimately out of nothing ..but you can not reasonably infer this from the watch or really from any material thing. ..there comes a point in which you must make a leap of faith ..when that happens it is no longer reason ..and really no longer an argument ..
picassoui 3 years ago
OK Shreken -- How'd you get your first internal combustion engine for your tremendously superior (and highly logical) analogy? By the way, even if considered "simple" reproductive systems, evolutionary theory needs two creatures with fully-functional versions right from the start.
reflect7 4 years ago
@reflect7 You're logic here is flawed. Evolution does NOT need two fully functional oganisms to work. Bacteria do not reproduce through sexual interaction, but through dividing their cells. Evolution also works without any living organism at all. Evolution is a principle that can be applied to about anything in the universe.
psygate 1 year ago
hahahahahahah. I'm going to throw something out there. No one said the, I can't believe you said this, 'first set of creatures' didn't have a fully functioning reproductive system. Something doesn't have to not work to make it better. I'll do one of your ridiculous analogies to prove my point...the first internal combustion engine worked did it not, but would you not agree that the ones we have today are better. I am talking about your logic.
Shreken4 4 years ago
All mutations which have been observed have
resulted in the loss of information from a genome, right? However, for evolution to
work, we need hundreds of millions of examples of mutations which result
in the increase of information on a genome, right? As mutations accumulate over time, creatures actually move in the opposite direction, and decrease in complexity.
reflect7 4 years ago
"All mutations which have been observed have
resulted in the loss of information from a genome, right?"
Wrong, profoundly wrong.
Sweetkittenpie 3 years ago 9
Examples please -- Thanks.
reflect7 3 years ago
The nylon digesting enzyme.
I predict your reply beforehand, too: "Hah! That's not more information! That's Microevolution!"
Sweetkittenpie 3 years ago
@reflect7 Sickle cell disease
BaltoMovie 1 year ago
Watches are not alive. They do not replicate themselves, do not have mutations and don't survive or die due to environmental stress.
This is what's known as a false analogy.
The evidence for evolution keeps piling up and people are still conjuring up Paley!?
Please read a real science book!
pandstar 4 years ago
Great point -- How did rocks become alive? Where did that reproductive system come from? I need a fully-functional reproductive system in the first set of creatures to pass along the first mutations, right?
reflect7 4 years ago
@reflect7
self-replicating RNA molecules that were fairly stable would be sufficient to begin with.
-why filter comments? Whether or not your intentions are pure in doing so, it only looks suspicious to anyone posting.
tylerjac69 9 months ago
why can we not argue that it was a creator that designed evolution? evolution doesn't in anyway contradictr an idea of God., it just contradicts what is said in genesis, which is kinda stupid anyway.
ChipChipBreak 2 years ago
@pandstar All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv There is zero evidence of anyone who actually understands organic chemistry being so retarded as to claim that RNA formed by chance, or that there are no processes which can affected the chirality of amino acids.
Ignoring the processes that affect handedness still isn't an argument.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
According to the Anthropic Principle, if the "watch" is life, wouldn't the cosmos be the watch factory?
reflect7 4 years ago
Of course, human beings weren't created in a factory by craftsmen. We are biological systems, and were born from other biological systems. We call them our parents. Since biological systems are born, reproduce, and die, they're not very analogous to something like a watch.
somecomputergeek 4 years ago 2
Of course -- The watch argument typically focusses on the discreet elements that comprise life -- The cell, DNA code, aminos, proteins, etc.
reflect7 4 years ago
Amino acids and proteins? These chemicals are slightly less complex than cells and DNA, but I thought you were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. I thought you were talking about that because you were talking about your skin and blood vessels and nervous system.
somecomputergeek 4 years ago
But that's not what you focussed on in your video. You talked about skin, hair, your nervous system, and things that have been explained to a great deal by evolutionary theory.
somecomputergeek 4 years ago
Fully-functional organic sub-systems such as the nervous system have been explained by evolutionary theory? The reproductive system, respiratory system, digestive tract? For instance, how does evolutionary change get passed along through mutation and selective advantage without a fully functional reproductive system already in place?
reflect7 4 years ago
You're still talking about origins. When you talk about the very first reproductive system, you're talking about abiogenesis, the first self-replicating molecules. However, evolutionary theory does explain a lot about these systems in humans and other species.
somecomputergeek 4 years ago
Why do you think that our reproductive system is closer to a chimps than a cats? Why is our nervous system closer to dogs than a lobster? If evolution is false, why does the taxonomy of species follow from morphological and genetic features?
somecomputergeek 4 years ago
Evolution may seem like a complex way to explain the workings of living things. But when you cop out and say "God must have done it," you are left with the same question about an even MORE unlikely being. What created God? Another even more powerful being? And what created THAT creator? It's an endless chain that doesn't explain anything, and only serves to move the question further away from reality.
GurzgleGurzgle 4 years ago 2
Right you are. This guy clearly does not understand evolution and his faith does will not allow him to ever accept anything other than his current view. Don't bother trying to change his mind but spread critical thinking and skepticism to other more open-minded individuals.
gfguunfg 4 years ago