The debate "Can you give me the ingredients to make a rose The answer is no. God Created us" was started by
April 1, 2015, 6:24 am.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 37 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
debunkmyths posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 3 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, teebee7 posted 1 argument, tr posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
debunkmyths, Dictator, Hollister_boy, ufufugh, magda32, fdnisyou, ArsonLarson, teebee7, ABDO, action007man and 12 visitors agree.
Bodaciouslady16, Sosocratese, BRG1102478, PsychDave, stormshy, Cormi98, keepscrolling, sickboyblonde, Bailz, Hjkp98, tr, Jimmy_123, I_Voyager, pie_goddess499, Mastermind, daddyfantastic, transfanboy, JMP9940, sighnomore99, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken and 16 visitors disagree.
The premise isn't strong enough to jump to that conclusion.
some sort of rose seeeeds water soil and hmmmm sunlight
You should really learn how to use Google if you don't understand the criticism presented against your argument. The terms I used are pretty universal and you could easily have figured out what the terms meant. Psychdave explained the criticism well enough, so I won't have to repeat it. I'd like to add that the "ingredients" of a rose are very well known. I don't know why you would even contest that we don't know the "ingredients". Also, ingredients is a rather vague term, I'm assuming you mean anatomy, cellular biology, and chemistry all at once. Not only do we know all of those "ingredients", we also have a fairly good idea of how they evolved. The better argument would be irreducible complexity, however you're not really making that argument explicitly. However, I'm attacking your poor logic rather than your premise, since your premise is too absurd to even address. I'm accusing you of intentionally disregarding alternative theories based on nothing but bias in order to come to your conclusion. That's what we call an error in logic.
Google is your friend if you don't know something. A watchmaker is someone who makes watches. Basically the argument in favor of intelligent design is that when you look at a watch, you can tell that there has to have been a watchmaker since it is so well put together and there is no way something that complex could have come about otherwise. By analogy, the claim is that by looking at humans, you can tell that there must have been an intelligent creator because otherwise there is no way we could have been build so well.
The criticism of this argument is that, rather than arguing from a position of knowledge, it is arguing from a position of disbelief. Essentially saying "I can't imagine any other way, so it must be this way." The problem is that there are other ways to explain it that have fewer assumptions and do not rely on supernatural or divine intervention. This means that by Occam's Razor, evolution is more likely correct. This is without going into any other proofs or arguments for either side.
The answer that you seemed to miss is that yes, we do know what is in a rose, and we even know which parts do what. That is how we can make artificial rose scents. We know the cellular structure that allows the rose to perform photosynthesis, and we know every step from seed to bloom and back to seed. Just because you don't know what a rose is made of doesn't mean no one does.
This doesn't prove there is no God, but to argue that your ignorance of the components of a rose is proof of God is a very flawed argument, and seems insulting to religious people who do not depend on ignorance for their faith.
you fool. I have no idea what watch taker is. What is that, the place where you and your friends read and believe the lies in science? This is a simple question. And obviously your answer is no.
It's silly because it's just another form of the watchmaker argument which is in itself a bad argument. You just worded it even more poorly than the original.
It's an argument from incredulity, another form of the classic argument from ignorance fallacy. You're basically claiming that because a rose looks complex it must have a creator. It ignores any natural explanation simply because you can't imagine there to be. You're relying on an error in logic to come to your conclusion. That's why I called it a silly argument.
We can use determine the elements that make up a rose, yes. A flame test let's us record the wavelength of light given off and use that to determine which elements are present. Therefore, yes, we can determine the elements of a rose. By your logic of relating completely separate thoughts, does that mean God didn't make us or should we stick to things that can logically be determined from the first statement?
So silly that you just couldn't pass it on by? Wake up.
So that's a silly argument