Do you say:
1. Well I first of all I make the case, then I put all the little cogs and wheels in. or
2. Do you launch into a long and technical discussion of the machines you have used, the various sub-processes and the parts you bought in
If (2) and the child, when they grow up, starts to realise the full details of the watch manufacturing process and that, for much of the time you just sat back and let the machines do their stuff, is the now-grown child entitled to say you lied?
2007-02-12 09:41:49 · 11 answers · asked by anthonypaullloyd 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well tell me the flaws then! (I'll be able to sort it out for next time)
2007-02-12 09:46:27 · update #1
I can't believe so many of you can't see the point of this question. Aren't you atheists suppose to be so much smarter than we stupid Christians? Ok, I'll help you. God Used simple terms to tell ancient man how He made the world. He did get down to protein and DNA levels with them because they would have never understood. Because He used such simple language with them doesn't make Him a liar when we start to understand these parts of the nature of life... It makes His a loving Father... Jim
2007-02-12 10:10:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not quite sure what you are talking about. The manufacture of watches has been the same for hundreds of years. Whether now it is automated or not, the process is still the same. That is like stating that a child could call you a liar because we no longer use slot cards for computers. You went nowhere with that question.
2007-02-12 17:47:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, this is an analogy. Second one cannot infer the properties of the whole (general) from relationships between the particulars.(try it with other examples and see the fallacy). Back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid!
btw I would NOT take DNA and its genetic code as an example of optimum or intelligent design.
2007-02-12 19:08:25 · answer #3 · answered by troothskr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A very poor analogy. Both the watch, and the watchmaker are of human manufacture. One is tangible, provable, and functional, the other cannot be shown, measured, or proven to exist beyond the effects of psychosis.
2007-02-12 18:34:12 · answer #4 · answered by ED SNOW 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would choose no.1.
A child will then grow in 'sight' to see the process of how the watch works, just like when Jesus gave sight to the blind man, it was gradual-sight and faith took time.
2007-02-12 18:49:20 · answer #5 · answered by Plato 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a child were to ask me, which I doubt very much, I would have to say that I just don't have the time at the moment.
2007-02-12 18:54:44 · answer #6 · answered by dawleymouse 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you made the parts yourself then you are not lying with number 2.
2007-02-12 17:48:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
2007-02-12 17:48:27 · answer #8 · answered by Angelz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
an interesting analogy but a flawed one.
Your point is well taken though
2007-02-12 17:45:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mmmmm YES at a guess
2007-02-12 17:44:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋