Does a Watch Prove Design?

great. so its also true for a watch with DNA. now, why you conclude non-design when it comes to a motor? we know that humans also makes spinning motors. so by your own criteria its suppose to be true also for a flalgellum.

there is at least one problem. if you want to change the watch into other complex system you cant do that stepwise. for instance say that we want to change the watch into a cell-phone. it cnat be done by small steps.

The default position for the origin of any object is “I don’t know”.

Complexity and design are two different things. You are falsely conflating them.

The rocks aren’t replicating.

You are changing the meaning of “watch” and expecting me to answer questions relative to that new meaning. But I would have to first find out what is that new meaning.

I prefer to base my conclusions on evidence, not on someone’s imaginative ideas.

No, because we know the flagellum was not built by humans. We know motors are.

There is sign of manufacture, because we know rocks are highly unlikely, just short of the point of impossibility, to be spontaneously arranged in a way to spell out words.

That may be true. And it also might be true that we cannot turn a cheetah into a fig tree by small steps. That might be why it never happened.

But the most recent common ancestor of all mammals can be turned into a cheetah by small steps. We know that for a fact, because it happened.

I mean, really, what point are you trying to make? What is demonstrated by claiming that something that never happened (watches turning into cell phones by small steps) could not happen? Who said it could?

Part of the reason we know evolution to be true is that we only see the life forms that could have been derived from earlier life forms, in small steps.

including your pc?

so? you said that evidence of manufacture is the main criteria to detect design. but thhese stones have no such evidence.

and what will be a good evidence that the watch evolved by a natural process?

but you said that a self replicating watch need design. although we never seen that humans build a self replicating watch. so again: why you conclude design in a self replicating watch but not in a self replicating motor?

I have never seen a a human build a watch that was pink and green. But if I saw a pink and green watch, I would know it had been built by humans because it has enough characteristics in common with watches and other artifacts that we know to have been built by humans.

Bacteria and all their constituent parts (including flagella) have never been built by humans, so we know when we see one, it was not built by humans.

Again, what are you finding so complicated about this?

Who is insisting that there are watches that evolved by a natural process? No one, as far as I can see.

1 Like

@scd,

If I found a watch on Mars… and I saw the watch replicate itself into two watches … my immediate reaction would not be that God made that watch.

Can you stick with the self-replicating robots? This watch example isn’t even credible!

1 Like

Robots are, by definition, things that have been designed. If we know something is a robot, we know it was designed.

These sort of creationist arguments are incoherent and self-refuting. But any port in a storm, I guess.

1 Like

Including my pc.

That is one of the pieces of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the lack of replication.

sure. but it will be designed.

you never heard about synthetic genome?:

but if you only see something that looks like a walking robot, on a far planet. you will conclude design or not? note that in this case you never seen the creator of the robot. so you dont know if its a robot by definition or not. its just looks like a robot.

“design” is not the same as “God did it”.