The Watchmaker

NOTE: This is a mirror of a video from Dayspring79 to preven

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• watch
• watchmaker
• evolution
• design
• god
• creation
• creationism

[pknvdw]

This is a terrible video because it completely misrepresents the theory of evolution.

The problem with Paley's Watchmaker argument is that a watch bears no resemblance to life. A watchmaker is required to assemble a watch but life makes itself as we can plainly see. I hope you take the time to actually understand what the theory of evolution is really about.

[AaronsBlackBox]

Indeed I wish these people would.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Finally, the most significant difference between a human and a watch is that a watch is much better-designed! A watch does not have extraneous parts, unlike humans, who have many design flaws (high larynx that makes choking easy, appendix, etc.).

Likewise, watches are designed for a clear purpose, to keep time, and they perform that function very well. Humans, on the other hand, are needlessly and inefficiently complex, and are poorly designed for our "purpose"- to worship the god of the bible.

[AaronsBlackBox]

SeenAndNotSeen thank you greatly for your comments and your addition to the reason these videos are being reuploaded. Thank you for your expressive use of your freedom of speech right.

[FOOFlGHTERS]

Watches arn't organic.

[mildogmildogmildog]

No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'

[SeenAndNotSeen]

*come about

[SeenAndNotSeen]

I would also like to point out that Paley himself siad in his argument that we could reasonably assume that a rock on the ground had always been there (because it is simple and does nothing), but that we could not assume that a watch on the ground had always been there (because it is complex and functions). That right there should show that a god could not have always existed, but must have some about by some other means. This wasn't what Paley had in mind, but it's a very telling statement.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Hume didn't propose his own explanation of origins, but he managed to dispose of Paley's watchmaker argument, and the necessity of deliberate design in our universe, nearly a century before Darwin proposed his alternative.

But Hume's arguments do foreshadow Darwin's. If complexity requires design, there would be infinite regress. If complexity could develop gradually and through trial and error, like actual watchmaking knowledge developed, such a logical flaw as infinite regress would disappear.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Furthermore, we only know of one universe, so we have nothing to compare it with. If we knew of other universes that were clearly not "designed," then we could perhaps consider that our universe is the product of design. That's how we can distinguish human design from nature- we can compare Mt. Rushmore to, say, a pile of rocks (if we didn't already know the history of Mt. Rushmore).