[_ Old Earth _] Remember the watch story?

[reznwerks]

No doubt at some point you have heard the analogy given which is supposed to some how show the logic of a supreme being. It goes something like this. If you were wandering in a desert and found a watch you would come to reason that the watch did not just make itself but had to have a creator . Since man is so much more complicated then surly he must have a creator also.
So lets hold logics feet to the fire.Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here? Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.

 

[Vanaka]

No doubt at some point you have heard the analogy given which is supposed to some how show the logic of a supreme being. It goes something like this. If you were wandering in a desert and found a watch you would come to reason that the watch did not just make itself but had to have a creator . Since man is so much more complicated then surly he must have a creator also.
So lets hold logics feet to the fire.Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here? Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.

one big problem:the watch was still obviously made :roll:
and the watch,is still a watch,might I also mention that watches have very little to do with Evolution,for instance:
a watch maker that knows how to make a modern day watch does not need to go through all the steps of the diffrent watches until he reaches the modern one as he has knowlege,and in Gods case,he knows everything(including what you did yesterday :-D ) so creating a watch..much less an amazing biological body with a mind and a will is a piece of cake.

Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.

really?then whats it about?

 

[unred typo]

No doubt at some point you have heard the analogy given which is supposed to some how show the logic of a supreme being. It goes something like this. If you were wandering in a desert and found a watch you would come to reason that the watch did not just make itself but had to have a creator . Since man is so much more complicated then surly he must have a creator also.
So lets hold logics feet to the fire.Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here? Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.

Your story illustrates the whole point which you have missed. You look at the evolving series of clocks and watches and you ignore the fact that in each phase of the evolution, an intelligent designer was there, making the improvements necessary to keep up with the advancing requirements of a changing environment. The watch didn’t just keep getting better and sleeker by itself. Evolutionists do the exact same thing with the creation. They regard the changes as proof of the animal’s ability to change from one form to another without realizing that the animal is the product of intelligent design and the creator is the compelling force behind every improvement to update his creatures to survive as needed.

 

[unred typo]

Rez sed: “Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.â€Â

Sorry but you can’t separate the two. Without the cause behind it, the watch is still going to be sitting in the desert, not as a watch but as a chunk of unrefined metals waiting patiently for it’s creator(s) to unearth it’s potential.

Without God, you would still be floating in the primordial goop as lifeless proteins for another billion zazillion years… if you even made it that far.

The only thing evolving in the evolutionary theory is the ToE .

 

[unred typo]

Unred sed:

The only thing evolving in the evolutionary theory is the ToE .

Let me correct something else since the board here is pretty dead this morning. I do believe that animals have evolved but not as they are portrayed in the ToE. This would take two forevers without a designer. Either the changes were pre programmed in to surface as needed or God himself causes changes when he deems it necessary or it is a combination of both.

There is another cause for the changes that are evident in extinct animals, possibly even people, with features seldom if ever found among living specimens. In Jasher, Enoch, and even slightly in Genesis, it is recorded that some sort of genetic tampering was done that angered God. Also Jasher reports that as punishment for the tower building, God caused 1/3 of those involved to be morphed into ‘elephants and apes.’ While this sounds like a bit of myth, and it could be, there is a condition known as elephantitus that causes features that would fit this description.

I know that it’s these ideas that put me off into the lunatic fringe but, guess what? I don’t care. A search for the truth will do that. So while I disdain the ToE, I rather commend the evolutionists for their evolving thoughts. If they truly search for the truth and not just excuses to harbor a pet sin without the creator’s disapproving eyes upon them, eventually they will find truth. He who seeks, finds.

 

[Jimbob]

Also, there are these two points:

1. Gears and other watch parts do not spontaneously react in predictable ways with each other like organic chemicals do.

2. Extreme complexity is actually evidence AGAINST intelligent design, because, as any engineer knows, a good designer never makes anything unnecessarily complex, it is far more efficient to make it as simple as possible as long as it can still adequately perform its function. This reduces the chance and severity of breakdown or other error. So, therefore, the immense complexity of life is actually evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

Also, there are these two points:

1. Gears and other watch parts do not spontaneously react in predictable ways with each other like organic chemicals do.

2. Extreme complexity is actually evidence AGAINST intelligent design, because, as any engineer knows, a good designer never makes anything unnecessarily complex, it is far more efficient to make it as simple as possible as long as it can still adequately perform its function. This reduces the chance and severity of breakdown or other error. So, therefore, the immense complexity of life is actually evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

That makes sense. So ‘play dough’ is a product of intelligent design and video games evolved? Or back to the timeless example of the watch, the sundial was created and the watch evolved? No... you say, "Gears and other watch parts do not spontaneously react in predictable ways with each other like organic chemicals do."
Exactly what are you saying?

 

[reznwerks]

god

Rez sed: “Lets not forget that the issue is really about evolving not necessarily the cause behind it.â€Â

Sorry but you can’t separate the two. Without the cause behind it, the watch is still going to be sitting in the desert, not as a watch but as a chunk of unrefined metals waiting patiently for it’s creator(s) to unearth it’s potential.
A watch is only valuable to a creature who has a concept of time. Animals other than humans have no use for it. It is only man and the fact his brain is superior to other animals that the watch is valuable.Its our brain which has evolved that makes us different than the rest of the animals. Our value as such is a HUMAN understanding .As to the cause for evolution we still don't have evidence for a creator and this is the first problem. However I have listed much evidence that evolution is still occurring and is a necessity of the continuing saga of life itself. Evolution occurs in all levels of life and appears to be instigated by change in environment. I don't think anyone can deny that unless their head is truly in the sand. Secondly if a creator is determined to exist then you have to determine what his motives are or were and if in fact he(she or it) was the Christian god. Not being able to prove there is no God does not default to the assumption that one exists. Not having the answer to everything does not mean God exists or that the Christian god exists.

Without God, you would still be floating in the primordial goop as lifeless proteins for another billion zazillion years… if you even made it that far.
If you could show some evidence for the claim that would be nice.

.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

A watch is only valuable to a creature who has a concept of time. Animals other than humans have no use for it. It is only man and the fact his brain is superior to other animals that the watch is valuable.Its our brain which has evolved that makes us different than the rest of the animals. Our value as such is a HUMAN understanding .As to the cause for evolution we still don't have evidence for a creator and this is the first problem. However I have listed much evidence that evolution is still occurring and is a necessity of the continuing saga of life itself. Evolution occurs in all levels of life and appears to be instigated by change in environment. I don't think anyone can deny that unless their head is truly in the sand.

You have still failed to show that the watch or any timepiece has evolved without it’s creator, yet you persist in using this as an example to prove your point. The logic of this is indeed mind boggling. Is the purpose of your reasoning designed to boggle the minds of rational people and cause them to not respond out of frustration? If so, though it may have been effective in the past, it‘s not working with me.



Reznwerks wrote:

Secondly if a creator is determined to exist then you have to determine what his motives are or were and if in fact he(she or it) was the Christian god. Not being able to prove there is no God does not default to the assumption that one exists. Not having the answer to everything does not mean God exists or that the Christian god exists.

I think I answered this in another thread where it was not really suitable for the subject of the original topic: : http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... highlight=
Not the first post but at the bottom titled; Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. The first one on that page actually is more a display of frustration before I identified that irrational replies were actually being used as a tactic to discourage productive discussion.



Reznwerks wrote:

If you could show some evidence for the claim that would be nice.

If you would show a little respect for the evidence I have presented, it would be even nicer.

 

[reznwerks]

correction

You have still failed to show that the watch or any timepiece has evolved without it’s creator, yet you persist in using this as an example to prove your point. The logic of this is indeed mind boggling. Is the purpose of your reasoning designed to boggle the minds of rational people and cause them to not respond out of frustration? If so, though it may have been effective in the past, it‘s not working with me.
No, you simply have not shown a creator as the cause. You have just assumed one because as you so often point out the human brain cannot fathom the possibility. What is mind boggling is the incapability of you to argue the case of a being who "always existed " "had no beginning" but has no evidence but is totally opposed to the possibility that their is probably another answer.You use the term logic yet you throw all the arguements one needs in order to use logic. Deep down you know it is illogical for a God to create himself. There has to be something greater to create something.



Reznwerks wrote:

If you could show some evidence for the claim that would be nice.

If you would show a little respect for the evidence I have presented, it would be even nicer.

You have shown no evidence for a God. All you have done is appeal to the fact you refuse to admit that there may be other possibilities for the origination of life. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that is why it is overwhelmingly accepted as fact. The entire process may not be fully understood but that reality exists in other disiplines of science as well. We don't fully understand electricity but understand it's workings and how to use it but no one claims it doesn't exist.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

No, you simply have not shown a creator as the cause. You have just assumed one because as you so often point out the human brain cannot fathom the possibility. What is mind boggling is the incapability of you to argue the case of a being who "always existed " "had no beginning" but has no evidence but is totally opposed to the possibility that their is probably another answer.You use the term logic yet you throw all the arguements one needs in order to use logic. Deep down you know it is illogical for a God to create himself. There has to be something greater to create something.

Actually, I don’t “so often point out the human brain cannot fathom the possibility†a creator isn’t the cause. I did recently propose the hypothesis that the very denial you exhibit is an emotional defense against the realization of such a being. There is plenty of evidence that points to an intelligent designer of the creation.


Reznwerks wrote:

You have shown no evidence for a God. All you have done is appeal to the fact you refuse to admit that there may be other possibilities for the origination of life. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that is why it is overwhelmingly accepted as fact. The entire process may not be fully understood but that reality exists in other disiplines of science as well. We don't fully understand electricity but understand it's workings and how to use it but no one claims it doesn't exist.

I have no qualms with the true evidence of evolution. I think it is a very nice, well planned, design feature. I would even go as far as to say that God’s designs improved and evolved as he created creatures with various exterior forms and inner workings, using a particularly good design over and over in different creatures.

As finite beings, we can never get our brains around a concept of something that always was and always will be. The God of the Bible claims that it is Him. I find that entirely credible and compatible with the evidence around me in the world, both in the physical and the unseen realms. I have come to terms with the terrible judgment that is recorded and can equate it with a merciful God. In other words, I don't fully understand God but understand his workings and how to interact with him even though some claim he doesn't exist.

 

[reznwerks]

more

Reznwerks wrote:

No, you simply have not shown a creator as the cause. You have just assumed one because as you so often point out the human brain cannot fathom the possibility. What is mind boggling is the incapability of you to argue the case of a being who "always existed " "had no beginning" but has no evidence but is totally opposed to the possibility that their is probably another answer.You use the term logic yet you throw all the arguements one needs in order to use logic. Deep down you know it is illogical for a God to create himself. There has to be something greater to create something.

Actually, I don’t “so often point out the human brain cannot fathom the possibility†a creator isn’t the cause. I did recently propose the hypothesis that the very denial you exhibit is an emotional defense against the realization of such a being. There is plenty of evidence that points to an intelligent designer of the creation.
There is no evidence of an intelligent designer. Nature is full of problems which no intelligent designer would create. The designer is incompetant on many areas if one exists.


quote]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

There is no evidence of an intelligent designer. Nature is full of problems which no intelligent designer would create. The designer is incompetant on many areas if one exists.

You know better than this. Now you are being intellectually dishonest. This has been discussed here before that the creation is not in the condition it was created. If you designed a perfect airplane and I never put oil in it and it quit running, would it make sense for me to say it wasn’t intelligently designed or that you were incompetent?

 

[reznwerks]

intel

Reznwerks wrote:

There is no evidence of an intelligent designer. Nature is full of problems which no intelligent designer would create. The designer is incompetant on many areas if one exists.

You know better than this. Now you are being intellectually dishonest. This has been discussed here before that the creation is not in the condition it was created. If you designed a perfect airplane and I never put oil in it and it quit running, would it make sense for me to say it wasn’t intelligently designed or that you were incompetent?

An intelligent designer would design an airplane that would be self lubricating or it wouldn't start unless it had oil in it. I am not God but even I could solve that problem. The same holds true for all the shortcomings of man and other creatures that fall short of achieving the maximum benefit of life. The sad fact is that nothing that exists is perfect and that says volumes when you make the claim of an all intelligent being behind all that is. Perfection can't create imperfection unless it wants too and then if that is the case does not deserve to be worshipped.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

An intelligent designer would design an airplane that would be self lubricating or it wouldn't start unless it had oil in it. I am not God but even I could solve that problem. The same holds true for all the shortcomings of man and other creatures that fall short of achieving the maximum benefit of life. The sad fact is that nothing that exists is perfect and that says volumes when you make the claim of an all intelligent being behind all that is. Perfection can't create imperfection unless it wants too and then if that is the case does not deserve to be worshipped.

That analogy doesn‘t fit the situation. The sad fact is that this present world is not even close to what God originally designed. You fail to acknowledge that this imperfection isn’t what God made but what has happened to it over the last 6000 years worth of sin and judgment.

I’m sure you know all the laws of perfection and I shouldn’t disagree with your perfect opinion but if you want to create a perfect world, you can’t make beings with free will. If you want to design the perfect robot then, yes, you can make a perfect world that has no chance of sin marring it in any way. Obviously, that’s not what God wanted.

 

[reznwerks]

huh

That analogy doesn‘t fit the situation. The sad fact is that this present world is not even close to what God originally designed. You fail to acknowledge that this imperfection isn’t what God made but what has happened to it over the last 6000 years worth of sin and judgment.
What is sad is that you are clinging to solutions that have no evidence for the claim. Why should I acknowledge your claim that what God supposedly did was corrupted when you can provide no evidence that a God even exists.

I’m sure you know all the laws of perfection and I shouldn’t disagree with your perfect opinion but if you want to create a perfect world, you can’t make beings with free will.
We have beings but we don't know how they originated. Not knowing does not mean a God did it.


If you want to design the perfect robot then, yes, you can make a perfect world that has no chance of sin marring it in any way. Obviously, that’s not what God wanted.
Spoken just like a soccer referee when asked what is a hand ball. The answer from the ref: "whatever I say it is " LOL

 

[reznwerks]

epic

I’m sure you know all the laws of perfection and I shouldn’t disagree with your perfect opinion but if you want to create a perfect world, you can’t make beings with free will. If you want to design the perfect robot then, yes, you can make a perfect world that has no chance of sin marring it in any way. Obviously, that’s not what God wanted.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

What is sad is that you are clinging to solutions that have no evidence for the claim. Why should I acknowledge your claim that what God supposedly did was corrupted when you can provide no evidence that a God even exists.

Don’t acknowledge it then. God has provided us with an internal witness that he exists. Maybe you broke yours. Too bad. Doesn’t mean you can mess with mine.

Reznwerks wrote:

We have beings but we don't know how they originated. Not knowing does not mean a God did it.

Of course it doesn’t. No more than it means the big bang or evolution “did it.†If I didn’t have a Bible or the dead sea scrolls or the book of Jasher or Enoch or had the Son of God in human flesh walking on earth showing us how to live, and the witness of those who knew him and did not renounce him in the face of torturous deaths, or the world of evidence around me proving the existence of an intelligent designer or the tons of obvious flood debris, or the many fulfilled prophesies, I would still have Spirit of God speaking to me, assuring me that this is true.

Reznwerks wrote:

Spoken just like a soccer referee when asked what is a hand ball. The answer from the ref: "whatever I say it is " LOL

No doubt that irritates you. Why don’t you create your own world with your own beings and you can make them perfect and always obey your perfect will with no chance of failure. You must obviously be way better and way more intelligent than the God who created this planet.


Reznwerks wrote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

If he wanted to create robots, he could prevent evil. He can not give us freedom to choose good or evil without letting us choose. The fact that some of us choose evil is not his fault.

 

[reznwerks]

more

Reznwerks wrote:

What is sad is that you are clinging to solutions that have no evidence for the claim. Why should I acknowledge your claim that what God supposedly did was corrupted when you can provide no evidence that a God even exists.

Don’t acknowledge it then.
Thank you.

God has provided us with an internal witness that he exists.
When I was a child I thought like a child now that I am an adult I put away childish things. I left my imagination back there somewhere.

Maybe you broke yours. Too bad. Doesn’t mean you can mess with mine.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions not their own facts.[color]

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:f780f] We have beings but we don't know how they originated. Not knowing does not mean a God did it.

Of course it doesn’t. No more than it means the big bang or evolution “did it.â€Â
There is more evidence for the big bang and evolution than "God did it" and unlike your side if its wrong we will acknowledge and correct the error. That is what science does but so far the evidence still backs the big bang and evolution more and more.

If I didn’t have a Bible or the dead sea scrolls or the book of Jasher or Enoch or had the Son of God in human flesh walking on earth showing us how to live, and the witness of those who knew him and did not renounce him in the face of torturous deaths, or the world of evidence around me proving the existence of an intelligent designer or the tons of obvious flood debris, or the many fulfilled prophesies, I would still have Spirit of God speaking to me, assuring me that this is true.
What you are referring to is your imagination since you can't show anyone else who or what may be speaking to you in your head.

Reznwerks wrote:

Spoken just like a soccer referee when asked what is a hand ball. The answer from the ref: "whatever I say it is " LOL

No doubt that irritates you.
That soccer ref irritated me I could tell you that.LOL

Why don’t you create your own world with your own beings and you can make them perfect and always obey your perfect will with no chance of failure. You must obviously be way better and way more intelligent than the God who created this planet.
Why would I want to copy your take on reality?


Reznwerks wrote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

If he wanted to create robots, he could prevent evil. He can not give us freedom to choose good or evil without letting us choose. The fact that some of us choose evil is not his fault.
I guess you don't have a solution to the riddle.

[/quote:f780f]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

When I was a child I thought like a child now that I am an adult I put away childish things. I left my imagination back there somewhere.

I find your tale of the origins of the cosmos and man to be very imaginative.


Reznwerks wrote:

There is more evidence for the big bang and evolution than "God did it" and unlike your side if its wrong we will acknowledge and correct the error. That is what science does but so far the evidence still backs the big bang and evolution more and more.

That trumped up pile of assumptions? Do you have anything at all that actually proves anything? You’re grasping at straws and your biggest debating talent is making straw man arguments.


Reznwerks wrote:

What you are referring to is your imagination since you can't show anyone else who or what may be speaking to you in your head.

Well maybe, if I didn’t already have a Bible or the dead sea scrolls or the book of Jasher or Enoch or had the Son of God in human flesh walking on earth showing us how to live, and the witness of those who knew him and did not renounce him in the face of torturous deaths, or the world of evidence around me proving the existence of an intelligent designer or the archeological findings and the tons of obvious flood debris, or the many fulfilled prophesies.


Reznwerks wrote:

I guess you don't have a solution to the riddle.

I have solutions to satisfy myself. The more riddles you dream up, the more you’ll be required to solve in order to find the truth. Good luck. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.