Comments on: No Solitary Creator

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:24:54 +0000

Well, your watch idea is sort of flawed. Because technically, someone could by themselves, make a watch, including your Casio, granted he had enough knowledge to do so. And to Christians, he does have that knowledge, and that power to do so.

BUT, yes, you’re correct. The watch analogy is very flawed. I’ve seen the one where they take it apart, put it in a bag and shake it, and they say it’ll never come back together.

TECHNICALLY. If it were given an INFINITE amount of time, then at that point, anything is possible. And under infinite time, the watch will eventually put itself back together. People underestimate how long infinity is and what can happen given that much time.

By: Stone

Stone — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:00:14 +0000

It only took us two hundred seven years to come up with a complete answer to this simpleminded little argument. No I don’t agree that Paley was brilliant, as Mr. Bernardin put it: “Conjure up with a single, invisible agent, like a booming-voiced Mighty OZ, and voilá, your work is done.” The less understand there is, the easier the misdirection is to make.

This is perfect answer and one I will be adding to my repertoire. Thank you and keep the epiphanies coming.

By: RP) No Solitary Creator | the evolving mind

RP) No Solitary Creator | the evolving mind — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:02:56 +0000

[...] the past post, No Solitary Creator, I argued that the Paley’s Watch argument is bogus. In fact, the analogy that biological life [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:49:15 +0000

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

By: AxisofJared

AxisofJared — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:37:30 +0000

Absolutely brilliant! I never thought of it that way. The same thing applies to software, what with its many version changes. Even if a intelligence is behind it, it still requires evolution.

By: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:51:17 +0000

First, I have to say that I think that Paley’s argument was far more brilliant than the creatonists/ID’ers give credit. He was working with the knowledge of biology that existed at the time. It was 1802, and Chambers had yet to write, Blythe had yet to write and of course Darwin and Wallace were 66 years from the presentation to the Linnean Society.

Given all that, I was thinking that The Watchmaker argument could also serve as a great case for paganism with its multiple gods and goddesses. Hanging on to the watchmaker will lead creationists to disprove their “One God” case, if followed to the conclusion that they want to take it and as illustrated in your argument here.

Of course, a natural explanation is the parsimonious one.

By: Carnival of the Godless #95 - The Atheist Blogger

Carnival of the Godless #95 - The Atheist Blogger — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:58:56 +0000

[...] Bernardin at The Evolving Mind comes forward with a very interesting twist on the old Paley’s watch argument used by IDiots to disprove Evolution. Whilst trying to prove that some things have a grand [...]

By: podcast directory

podcast directory — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:21:04 +0000

podcast directory…

Couldn’t have said it any better…