William Paley and the watchmaker

William Paley and the watchmaker

There are 69 comments on the Daily Kos story from Jun 16, 2012, titled William Paley and the watchmaker. In it, Daily Kos reports that:

First, some background: William Paley was a 19th century theologian and philosopher who is best known for using the parable of finding a watch on the ground and wondering about its origin.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Kos.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#61 Jun 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look out, it's Peru with his "How do YOU know, where you THERE?!?" argument! Cosmic Sheep last Thursdayism ad absurdum.
It was a simple question, but obviously even a simple question like that is too difficult to answer.

You see, I wouldn't have minded had the person in question said something like, "According to the best research we have available, we think..." but instead we see blanket pronouncements being made that oxygen was formed once microbes developed photosynthesis and that this resulted in red iron bands in rocks.

While this might be a nice theory and hell it may even be TRUE in order for it to be knowledge it must be a justified true belief (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justif... ). I was merely hoping to hear the empirical findings that warranted said belief considering that the best I was able to do was http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/rib... in which we find that two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA were successfully created under conditions that are classified as "plausible" and it is indicated that these conditions are what one "might imagine took place" (which seems to me to be a far cry from the "we know" statement contained in the post).
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62 Jun 21, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude! I found a use for your expired kittens!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist...
Well duh, who d'ya think gave him the idea?

The cat survived the truck. Just not its first test flight.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63 Jun 21, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question, but obviously even a simple question like that is too difficult to answer.
Not for you fundies it ain't.
Captain Pedantic

Louisville, KY

#64 Jun 21, 2012
ChicBowdrie wrote:
One final comment on the interesting evolution vs. creationist/ID arguments here and elsewhere. I think there is an effort to force proponents of intelligent design into a fundamental creationist YEC box.
The term "intelligent design" was coined as part of an effort by those who believe that the Bible Creation story is literal "Truth" (which includes the YECs) to legitimize teaching their version of creation in school science classes. That is why it carries that association for those who have been active in the "debate".
ChicBowdrie wrote:
I don't think I am the only Christian/Jew/Muslim/theist who, while recognizing that the Holy Books are not scientific accounts, believes they contain evidence of a omnipotent Creator. That said, I would challenge anti-evolutionists to consider the possibility that creation is ongoing and that the Creator has used and continues to use evolution in the process. Why not? Is it any less miraculous than a water molecule or a virgin birth?
That is not "intelligent design". It is "theistic" or "guided evolution". As long as no one tries to pretend that it is in any way a scientific theory, most of us have no issue with you believing that. It is the belief of a very large numbers of working scientists who are also people of faith.

There is nothing miraculous about a water molecule. Virgin birth is quite possible without any miracle, though there is no evidence that the one you have in mind ever happened..
ChicBowdrie wrote:
The challenge for evolutionists is even greater. Assuming life emerged from the premordial soup, where did the soup come from?
Major faux pas there. Evolution started with life. It does not in any way claim to explain the origin of life. This is a common mistake, but it demonstrates your level of ignorance regarding what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
ChicBowdrie wrote:
"It was just there" doesn't cut it. We have a pretty good understanding of gravity, magnetism, photons and other unseen things
Wrong again. We understand the effects of gravity and magnetism, but our understanding of How they do what they do, for gravity in particular, is extremely limited.
ChicBowdrie wrote:
--but what are the equations describing memory, instinct, and sexual desire? How many DNA molecules had to form by chance before one of them figured out how to invent or recognize the value of indigenous membranes and enclose itself therein? How many prokaryotic cells had to form and fail to split before they learned to do it perfectly, instinctively, and repetitively? Or did the first cell last long enough to figure out how to divide itself, remember what it did, and teach its offspring endosymbiosis and an openness to the concept of fertilization and the brave new world of eukaryotic cells and mitosis?
And you are back to anthropomorphism. There is no "figuring out", or "learning" or "remembering" involved in the early development of life. Things happened. If they worked, they happened some more. If they didn't work they didn't.
Captain Pedantic

Louisville, KY

#65 Jun 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You really dropped out of elementary school, huh?
45% of today's oxygen comes from algae, algae lives in ... wait for it ... wait for it ... water! Algae is one of the oldest plant life we have, but it doesn't fossilize well so it may be much older. Roses are land plants, not aquatic plants, land plants evolved after land animals, or flying ones, forget the precise order off hand.
Land animals evolved After land plants, and land plants evolved After aquatic animals (which evolved after aquatic plants).

Woody plants evolved after land animals, and flowering plants were later still.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#66 Jun 22, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for you fundies it ain't.
What would it take for me to convince you that I'm a philosopher and not a fundie? Let's pretend that your theory Peru_Serv = Fundie is a scientific theory. As such, surely it must be falsifiable. What would it take for you to abandon this theory?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67 Jun 22, 2012
Captain Pedantic wrote:
<quoted text>
Land animals evolved After land plants, and land plants evolved After aquatic animals (which evolved after aquatic plants).
Woody plants evolved after land animals, and flowering plants were later still.
Thank you, as I stated, I often forget the specific order. ;)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#68 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
What would it take for me to convince you that I'm a philosopher and not a fundie? Let's pretend that your theory Peru_Serv = Fundie is a scientific theory. As such, surely it must be falsifiable. What would it take for you to abandon this theory?
Oh, you're a philosopher you say? In that case that's enough to convince me.

They're just as bad.(shrug)

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#69 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
What would it take for me to convince you that I'm a philosopher and not a fundie? Let's pretend that your theory Peru_Serv = Fundie is a scientific theory. As such, surely it must be falsifiable. What would it take for you to abandon this theory?
Ah! Well you've convinced me. So now we can just ignore everything you say as mental masturbation (not that that was in any doubt). Thanks for clearing that up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 13 min Zog Has-fallen 46
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 27 min dark chocolate 3,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 33 min lightbeamrider 83,935
Time 4 hr Beagle 3
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Genesis Enigma 164,943
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
More from around the web