actually it is. when we see a watch on a far planet the default position is design and not a natural process. or as prof dawkins put it: " I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at anytime before 1859, when Darwin’s Origin of Species was published."
Sorry, could swear I deleted that comment. When this showed up under “Latest”, I thought it was a new topic. As you were.
But we would not think “God did it.” Or, at least, we shouldn’t.
If I see a watch or a tractor, I will probably conclude that it was designed.
If I see a mouse or a butterfly or a flower, I will probably conclude that it arose from nature (evolved).
By using a watch as your go-to example, you are failing to take into account the enormous difference between mechanical things and biological organisms.
why? what if the watch was able to replicate itself? in that case you will still conclude design or not?
We have all been down this road before.
Your example is useless… its like saying:
What if we met a pink unicorn who says he met Jesus?
Pick a man-made object that can replicate itself.
we can ask theoretical questions in science. actually scientists already made something similar:
You are not just asking theoretical questions… you are asking metaphysical questions.
As for Cornell University’s robot … if it is actually able to do this replicating chore, then I would conclude that humans designed it. But I wouldn’t conclude that God designed the robot.
but you will conclude design in any case. this is my main point.
But I am pro-Design in creation, and I still wouldn’t assume that God made the self-replicating robot. I would never reach that conclusion.
If you see a watch lying on the ground amongst the grass, you will conclude it was designed.
From this you conclude the grass was designed.
Why, then, do you need to introduce the watch? Why not just say “If you were walking along, and found some grass growing on the ground. you would believe it had been designed”?
because some people arent aware about nature complexity. this is why we need to use a watch.
You start with a watch because it is already an object known to be designed.
And then you make it a useless exemplar because you ask: Okay, now imagine the watch can replicate itself…
… It is no longer a watch, has none of the properties of a watch, is bendy and leaky and full of fluids, grows by cell division, and needs to eat and breathe.
But it has many parts like a watch does, though all the parts are wholly unlike the parts of a watch, are bendy and leaky, tend to clump up into a gelatinous goo if they become too warm or mixed with too much salt, and eventually dries out.
Therefore it must have been designed because the watch was.
I doubt that is true. Do you think someone like, say, Richard Dawkins is unaware that biology is complex?
Or how about @Rumraket just above? Does he need a little story about a watch to inform him that “nature is complex”?
Mannnn… that’s pretty convincing !!!
That’s not what we normally mean by a watch.
im sure he does. but other arent. bottom line- if a self replicating watch need design then also a living creature.
so? its a theoretical question. so if you will see such a watch you will conclude design or a natural process?
so a self replicating watch need design or not?