• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Watchmaker

Meadmaker said:
All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the perfect approach. The approach does fail at proving how cells came to be, but that is not what it is intended to do in the first place. The argument from design herein couched in Paley's watchmaker terms is an assertion that cells could not have formed without a designer. As such, any (plausible) argument which shows cells could form without a designer is a valid counter-example to the claim.

It proves nothing, true, but it puts the burden of proof right back where it belongs--on the design proponent.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.
Click to expand...

Errr...

I think they say that the laws of Physics break down, because the universe may have come from a singularity. At that stage you'd have to have things like infinite density and other bizarre concepts... physics would be broken. :boggled:

It's a damned sight different than 'nothing.'
 
T'ai Chi said:
Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Reminds me of this... :)

I am fairly sure that is not how it goes.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Actually tihs is an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.
Click to expand...

Not hardly, as compared to a watch. What you're missing is the underlying complexity of non-natural elements required to create a mechanism: i.e., metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

In other words, a watch is complex not only because of it's mechanism, but because of all the supporting factors (natural and artificial) that have to be exist in order to manufacture one. The oldest cells may have been subtle in terms of molecular interaction, but they were *not* complex in the same sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Something was around. And it's entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that quantum physics was in effect. In fact, that may have been the only physics capable of being in effect then.

And that's a rather transparent effort to mystify things by even humorously citing "magic" as the starting event of the Big Bang.

Woefully weak argument.
 
Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.

Also, yes, the rhyme and meter were mind-numbingly terrible.
 
RandFan said:
Seems reasonable, so long as Dawkins doesn't come across as an upper-class "Pommy twat" (whatever the hell that means) to grayman's brother.
Click to expand...

RandFan:
Pommy: Derived from the designation on the shirts of convicts sent to Australia I believe. P.O.M.E. stood for Prisoner Of Mother England. Australians then reversed that by claiming that the ones still in England were the true prisoners, therefore the true P.O.M.E, which was pronounced pommy.
Twat: Vagina.
Hope this helps.
 
Ausmerican said:
RandFan:
Pommy: Derived from the designation on the shirts of convicts sent to Australia I believe. P.O.M.E. stood for Prisoner Of Mother England. Australians then reversed that by claiming that the ones still in England were the true prisoners, therefore the true P.O.M.E, which was pronounced pommy.
Twat: Vagina.
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
:D Yes that helps. I got the twat part but I asked for it so that's fine.

So is it intended to be derisive of any and all people from England or is it reserved for a particular class? I had taken it as derisive of the upper class but that was just a guess.
 
Generally any derisivness has been lost. For most Aussies it's no different referring to the English as pommies than it is referring to New Zealanders as Kiwis or Americans as Seppos.
 
Ausmerican said:
Generally any derisivness has been lost. For most Aussies it's no different referring to the English as pommies than it is referring to New Zealanders as Kiwis or Americans as Seppos.
Click to expand...
Got it. Thanks.

"Seppos"?
 
Australian rhyming slang is weird in that once the rhyming phrase has been invented it is shortened usually by getting rid of the part that actually rhymed in the first place. Thus "me old mate" = "me old china plate" but then is generally shortened to "me old china." Similarly Yank = Septic Tank which was then shortened to seppo.
 
Ausmerican said:
Australian rhyming slang is weird in that once the rhyming phrase has been invented it is shortened usually by getting rid of the part that actually rhymed in the first place. Thus "me old mate" = "me old china plate" but then is generally shortened to "me old china." Similarly Yank = Septic Tank which was then shortened to seppo.
Click to expand...
:D It's all that Vegimite I'm sure.
 
Glen.Nogami said:
Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Remember that the modal organism on Earth is still (and always will be) the bacteria. We are a side-show of evolution, not it's pinnacle.
 
Meadmaker
Ok. You can't really do that, because we don't have experimental evidence. All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either.
Click to expand...
Damn, but you’re ignorant, oh wait, you’re a creationist so that goes without saying.

We do have experimental evidence. In fact we’ve had experimental evidence since at least the 1960s.

Ossai
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom