Changes

::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally.  But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created.  That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally.  It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally.  But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created.  That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally.  It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, it's not a circular argument at all.  It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things).  That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof.  And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally.  Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, it's not a circular argument at all.  It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things).  That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof.  And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally.  Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)