Does a Watch Prove Design?

Conversation Side Conversation
21

@scd You have repeatedly made your point regarding a watch, ergo designer. This does not make for stimulating dialog. Please move on to another topic and refrain from repeating yourself again and again.

6 Likes
22

The default position is “I don’t know”. It isn’t logical or reasonable to say “God does it” simply because we are ignorant of how something works or comes about.

We don’t see a watch on a far planet. We also see biological reproduction, which is a natural process. We don’t need to invoke a deity to explain where babies come from.

1 Like
23

If I see a self-replicating watch, I will want to examine it before jumping to conclusions.

1 Like
24

I’m sorry but that just doesn’t follow. Even if a self-replicating watch could not evolve, it would not follow that a living organism could not evolve.

We know this is what you believe, but you’ve yet to give a sound argument that effect. It just doesn’t follow.

1 Like
25

the default position for a self replicating watch is “i dont know”?

true. we do see things that are more complex then such a watch, including the abillity to reproduce:

[​IMG]
(image from Close-Up of the First Mechanical Gear Ever Found in Nature)

27

There is no self replicating watch.

But they aren’t watches. We don’t think watches are made by humans because they are complex. Simple stone tools are not complex, yet they are evidence for human design. You are falsely conflating complexity with design.

1 Like
28

ok. i just want to be clear about that since its not the regular watch argument. we are talking about a self replicating watch. not a regular one that cant reproduce. its very important to add this feature to the argument since its take the burdon of proof on atheists.

29

so say that i will made a theory to how that watch was formed by a natural process. you will believe my theory in this case or conclude design in any case?

30

And we know it evolved, and is still evolving.

31

i want to show you that it does follow. so first: do you think that such a watch can evolve naturally or not? why not actually?

no. you just assume it.

32

ok so what is your criteria to detect design?

33

We compare the unknown object to other already known to be designed (almost always by humans) objects. That includes collecting external evidence which provides additional information on the object’s history. With a sufficient quality and quantity of matching evidence we deduce “design”.

That’s how all design detection works, from anthropology identifying early stone tools to detectives investigating unexplained deaths.

1 Like
34

Evidence of manufacture would be the main piece of evidence.

1 Like
35

@scd

If you can invent a watch that self-replicates, then naturally a part of self-replication is imperfect replication!

Over millions of years, little imperfections in replication will create divergent lines of watch design.

I hope you get that.

36

My current inclination is to not automatically believe anything that you say.

2 Likes
37

Um, no. That’s not how logic works.

38

“Self-replicating” makes no difference. It’s a watch. Watches require designers regardless of whether they are digital or analog, whether they run by springs or battery, and whether or not they are self-replicating. This is because we know how watches come into existence, and it’s because someone designed and built it.

Living things don’t come about because someone designed and built it.

This is not complicated.

39

I question your claim that an even somewhat informed person is unaware that living things are complex. If that is the whole point of the Watchmaker argument, it’s a waste of time.

40

so we cant conclude design by looking at this image since there is no sign of manufacture?

(image from Alive stone word in the sand Stock Photo | Adobe Stock)

41

so you may conclude that the watch just evolved by a natural process?