Something tells me that, although you'll end up with a number of very good answers from atheists, you'll give the best answer to a creationist that simply posts something like 'I agree'.
2007-12-12 15:55:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Honestly... I think there's a cultural difference at work... shreiky guys in parks spouting unfounded pseudoscience and weird logic, are considered crazy where I come from. Maybe you see it differently.
I pretty much know the basic arguments, we've been sparring with the christians over the same arguments for a decade now. You've got no chance. Just ask about which particular argument you want debunked and I'm glad to help, don't expect me to listen to some nutcase for hours just to answer you.
How about this... you read this site, and tell me what you think. Honest opinion, and do try to read it before judging it.
2007-12-12 23:59:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
That guy needs to play Hitler in a movie or something.
Anyway, who made the watchmaker? Or did he always exist? You and your religious buddies believe that your gods formed by themselves, don't you?
"Why does your eyes not hear?"
Wtf point was this even supposed to make? I would advise the gentleman to learn to speak English properly before yelling this nonsense at us.
Are you giving best answer to a Christian who agrees with you like you did last time, mate?
2007-12-12 23:56:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Keyring 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately for his argument, none of his analogies make sense. Not only did he contradict himself on at least four occasions, his analogized explanations do not apply. His watch analogy, for instance. He claims that it would have to arise from chance. That is not so. Nothing about evolution acts on chance. Mutations over time are so subtle that what caused them are nearly indiscernible. Also, his argument says that there is ONE watch that steadily formed over time. That only argues against my body steadily forming on its own out in the middle of the ocean, not my body being the product of evolution over countless generations. He, sadly, has no understanding at all of what evolution actually is.
2007-12-13 00:14:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Duke Paul-Muad'Dib Atreides 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm not wasting ten minutes listening to a watchmaker fallacy. Sorry.
Suffice it to say that the watch forming 'by itself' is not what anyone is suggesting, and consequently the whole argument is irrelevant.
2007-12-12 23:56:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Now, who made the watchmaker and who is the creator for your watchmaker creator and the creator for that .... until the power of infinity.
Now, if you tell me the original creator was already there and was timeless, you had just defeated the argument this video has proposed.
2007-12-13 00:16:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Got through about one minute of that...sorry, didn't make it to the watch bit.
I always find this analogy of the "watchmaker" funny, because we don't find watches randomly scattered throughout nature. matter and even orgamisms that are explainable by cosmology, geology and evolution, yes, but not watches.
2007-12-12 23:54:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Awwww, cute. The watchmaker analogy! Haven't seen that one in over 2 days on here!
Now, who made the watchmaker? Or did he just come from nothing? Oh wait, he always existed, right? Riiight.
2007-12-12 23:53:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
9⤊
0⤋
I heard enough of that watch in philosophy class! I'd like to bash that stupid watch! Even a Timex couldn't survive that!!!
2007-12-12 23:54:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by i luv teh fishes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
O Lord please preserve me and protect me from *DEATH BY BOREDOM* at hearing the millionth asking of the watchmaker fallacy!
A couple of links below for ya in response. There's lots more where those came from.
2007-12-13 00:02:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pfistulated Cow 5
·
1⤊
0⤋