|
|
Post by id82 on Mar 23, 2009 20:49:02 GMT -5
Hi I'm a brand new poster here, although I've been lurking here for a while now. Recently I've been asking myself this question regarding some creationists argument, and I've been wondering why they make it?
Why do creationists have this habit of comparing the creation of inanimate objects such as watches or paintings to living organic objects such as trees or humans?
I've seen them make this argument quite a few times and I just want to know why they make such a ridiculous argument?
|
|
MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 23, 2009 21:00:14 GMT -5
Because they've aaaaalmooooost got that grasp on logic, but not quite, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Mar 23, 2009 21:01:14 GMT -5
...because all of it is supposedly "created", that's the apparent commonality. Of course, the makers of my watch put it all together, saw that it was good, and hence put "Casio" on it quite blatantly. I, on the other hand, don't have "Yahweh" on me anywhere; it's not even spelt out in my acne or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 23, 2009 21:01:43 GMT -5
I've seen it mostly compared to a watch--and the term 'Divine Watchmaker' used to describe their god. I think they do it because manmade objects, like watches, are variously complex and are always made BY someone. They don't just evolve, they're made at someone's hand--therefore anything with any complexity to it has to have been made BY someone.
Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 23, 2009 23:51:08 GMT -5
The watch proves the watchmaker. Therefore, the man on the moon and the old man of the mountain (From the Granite State) prove that God has too much time on his hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 24, 2009 1:15:24 GMT -5
I've seen it mostly compared to a watch--and the term 'Divine Watchmaker' used to describe their god. I think they do it because manmade objects, like watches, are variously complex and are always made BY someone. They don't just evolve, they're made at someone's hand--therefore anything with any complexity to it has to have been made BY someone. Or something like that. Right. They use the whole idea that we are too complex to have evolved into such a state. That the complexity proves a creator. |
|
|
|
Post by trike on Mar 24, 2009 6:36:28 GMT -5
'Cause they're dumb.
Long answer:
Because they are dumb and cannot be arsed to actually educated themselves on any subject because they are to busy reading their bibles hating what preacher tells them to hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 24, 2009 7:10:47 GMT -5
I've seen it mostly compared to a watch--and the term 'Divine Watchmaker' used to describe their god. I think they do it because manmade objects, like watches, are variously complex and are always made BY someone. They don't just evolve, they're made at someone's hand--therefore anything with any complexity to it has to have been made BY someone. Or something like that. Right. They use the whole idea that we are too complex to have evolved into such a state. That the complexity proves a creator. Going back further than even us or other life on this planet, they cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the earth and universe came into its current condition through random happenstance. They think that, just like the watch, that the universe is just too complex not to have been created. And like the watch in their tale, they don't see how "inanimate" objects like stars and planets can come into existence without an intelligent force being responsible. What they fail to realize or admit is that the universe is a vibrant, changing, and practically living thing. And just like a living organism, over time, it evolves into a higher state of being. This has been demonstrated beyond question with the use of the Hubble Telescope. Astronomer have been able to look back billions of years into the very early stages of the universe to see the structures of primordial galaxies and to witness how they have evolved over the eons. Yet creationists refuse to accept the evidence and choose to believe that there had to be some intelligence behind it all. They think they have come up with a "proof" of God, yet don't see that they are still comparing apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Post by gotpwnt on Mar 24, 2009 12:40:24 GMT -5
Hi I'm a brand new poster here, although I've been lurking here for a while now. Recently I've been asking myself this question regarding some creationists argument, and I've been wondering why they make it? Why do creationists have this habit of comparing the creation of inanimate objects such as watches or paintings to living organic objects such as trees or humans? I've seen them make this argument quite a few times and I just want to know why they make such a ridiculous argument? They don't like logic and are condemned to a fate worse than death if they do except logic. It has never been about evolution being scientifically invalid (which it isn't scientifically invalid). It's about dogma. These people will never except that they are wrong because they believe that doing so would disprove their god, which it wont unless their god is a book. All arguments creationist used have been proven to be wrong by the scientific community AND in a court of law (with conservative judges no less). I say "creationist used" because they have never come up with any new arguments and all of their old arguments have been disproved.  |
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 24, 2009 13:50:47 GMT -5
Right. They use the whole idea that we are too complex to have evolved into such a state. That the complexity proves a creator. Going back further than even us or other life on this planet, they cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the earth and universe came into its current condition through random happenstance. They think that, just like the watch, that the universe is just too complex not to have been created. And like the watch in their tale, they don't see how "inanimate" objects like stars and planets can come into existence without an intelligent force being responsible. What they fail to realize or admit is that the universe is a vibrant, changing, and practically living thing. And just like a living organism, over time, it evolves into a higher state of being. This has been demonstrated beyond question with the use of the Hubble Telescope. Astronomer have been able to look back billions of years into the very early stages of the universe to see the structures of primordial galaxies and to witness how they have evolved over the eons. Yet creationists refuse to accept the evidence and choose to believe that there had to be some intelligence behind it all. They think they have come up with a "proof" of God, yet don't see that they are still comparing apples and oranges. Yes it is truly like they have their head in the sand. |
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 24, 2009 13:53:30 GMT -5
Here's hoping a Romero zombie comes up behind them and bites their collective ass off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 24, 2009 14:14:27 GMT -5
Because we already know that human-created objects have a designer. Therefore, by analogy, anything more complex than that MUST be designed as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 24, 2009 14:38:42 GMT -5
Hi I'm a brand new poster here, although I've been lurking here for a while now.Welcome to the board id82 hope you enjoy your stay. Recently I've been asking myself this question regarding some creationists argument, and I've been wondering why they make it?Well first you should be asking yourself why they are creationists. Is it because they believe that the KJB is inerrant? Is it because they cannot believe that parts of the bible are metaphor or allegory? Is it simply because the bible says 6 days and they will only believe that even though elsewhere the bible says a thousand years is like unto a day to god. They are the least educated and most overly simplistic of souls. The vast majority of christians upon this planet (besides the U.S. protestants) have no problem incoorporateing evolution into their theistic view. Why do creationists have this habit of comparing the creation of inanimate objects such as watches or paintings to living organic objects such as trees or humans?Because over 200 years ago the comparison was made and as has already been said they are pretty much incapable of coming up with anything new. They read it somewhere and found it compelling and indesputible with their limited grasp of logic. They can hardly wait to find an online argument where they can post it and prove their intelligence, seriousness, and profundity. The fact that it has been debunked thousands of times and that even pro-creation sites say not to use the argument means nothing. I've seen them make this argument quite a few times and I just want to know why they make such a ridiculous argument? Because they aren't the brightest bulbs in the box? Because to them it is new and profound? Because without the benefit of logical thought it seems a great analogy? Why ask what the motivations of someone willing to hand over their life and thinking over to what can only be called a fairy tale are? There are close to 3000 recognized gods/godesses throughout history, what is there to show this one is the right one? 
|
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 24, 2009 16:36:37 GMT -5
The argument is that nothing complex can just randomly come together. But God, the infintely powerful and infinitely complex lord of all creation, just is, or he made himself, or we cant understand how he appeared, or...
|
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 24, 2009 18:20:41 GMT -5
Ausador's image pretty much sums up Creationist 'logic'. They argue you in a circle until you get motion-sick and have to excuse yourself to throw up. (Or you can just throw up ON them.)
Personally, I don't like the thought of being the little clockwork mouse of some omnipotent sociopathic 'god' with the apparent maturity of a toddler. Knowing that we ARE the product of evolution and many millions of years of mutations just seems so much cooler. That life as we know it could just as well not exist at all makes it all the more fascinating and wonderful.
|
|
