Debate Series Excerpt
You know, this kinda “appears” to be designed to me.
In fact, could you even DRAW it without significant effort and intelligence, let alone create it?
Are you talking about a picture on my screen or the animal itself? If you’re talking about the actual animal, to me, it “appears” to not be something that was designed, but something that occurred naturally, because every example we have of a living butterfly has occurred naturally. To answer your other question, no I couldn’t draw it and I couldn’t create it either.
In my earlier analogy the computer on the distant planet Appears to be designed therefore according to the “watchmaker debunkers” it is NOT designed. Huh?
Doh, maybe it appears to be designed because it IS designed? Maybe?
In your earlier analogy, you don’t have a frame of reference to declare the computer as appearing to be designed, because the computer on the distant planet wouldn’t appear to be any more designed than a speck of dirt next to the computer on a distant planet because you believe that everything is designed. (well, beempty did, and you agreed with him)
I can say that the computer appears to be designed, because I know what computers are, I know that every computer I’ve ever experienced has been designed, and I don’t have any evidence that computers are naturally occurring. I can make the comparison between something that is naturally occurring, vs something that is not naturally occurring. I have a frame of reference for it, and you don’t! That is how I can reason that this computer appears to have an intelligent designer rather than coming to be by natural means. Still couldn’t say it with absolute certainty, but would have a good reason to think so.
This is what you are not understanding:
The grain of sand and the ocean are not (for the sake of this discussion) things which we “know” to be designed. However, the watch is.
The watch is our frame of reference, because we know – with certainty – that the watch absolutely was designed.
We are taking the micro example and comparing it to the macro example. We are extrapolating the similarities in the design mechanics to the universe itself, which is infinitely more complex, and thus requires infinitely more intricate design. The same principles apply.
We did not arrive at the conclusion that the watch was designed because of the molecules, but the other way around.
We do not need a “non-designed” frame of reference. It isn’t required, because the designed watch is the frame of reference, and it matches. “Non-design” is just a non-observable concept, like “infinity.”
But the reason why you know with certainty that the watch was designed is because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. NOT because of the complexity of the watch or by contrasting it with surrounding nature. That’s the point I’m making.
Also, you’ve claimed everything is designed. God(who must be ridiculously complex to have created all these complex things) included? If you say no then you’ve essentially invalidated the entire premise of your argument.(that complex things must have designers)
OK, be, you’re using a watch that you know is designed as your frame of reference. You’re going to determine things that are not designed vs things that are designed by comparing them to this watch. You pick up a grain of sand. Since complexity is the method you’re choosing to use to determine design vs non-design, the grain of sand is far less complex than a watch is, even on a molecular level. You’d come to the conclusion that the sand is not designed, like the watch is, right?
If it’s not complexity, because it couldn’t be, then on what basis would you compare the watch to a sand grain to determine that the sand grain was also designed like the watch is?