Intelligent Timekeepingism

This is, after all, A Blog Around The Clock, so, I guess I should be a strong and vocal proponent of the Clock Theory aka Specified clockplexity. After all, nobody’s ever seen a clock move! So, I should start fighting against vile, rabid, Atheistic Blindtimekeepingism:

Atheists often level a strawman at Intelligent Timekeepingist (hereafter referred to as IT) views. They force you to stare at a clock for 5 minutes or so and claim vindication when the big hand of the clock moves. But DTists all agree that the big hand moves! This is simply microtimekeeping, and it does not go against ITist views. The problem is that these movements of the big hand are just as likely to give an incorrect movement as they are to give a correct movement. There is no new information about the current time added by these microticks! *Nobody* has ever seen the little hand of a clock move. This is what we refer to when we say macrotimekeeping. It does not really matter if the current minute is 13, 14, or 15, but it *does* matter what the current hour is. Are we to believe that billions of people show up to work on time every day due to chance?

About these ads

7 responses to “Intelligent Timekeepingism

  1. *Nobody* has ever seen the little hand of a clock move.

    Heh, a simple 30x optical microscope puts paid to that claim.

  2. Ingenious. And of course we all know that time progresses forward, which is another sign of design. The seeming reversibility of microphysics is exactly what the microtics illustrates, of course. :-)

  3. Ingenious. And of course we all know that time progresses forward, which is another sign of design. The seeming reversibility of microphysics is exactly what the microtics illustrates, of course. :-)

  4. Ingenious. And of course we all know that time progresses forward, which is another sign of design. The seeming reversibility of microphysics is exactly what the microtics illustrates, of course. :-)

  5. Adrian Clement

    BIG JOKE
    The Flagellum is still too complex: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
    “Miller doesn’t like my number 10^(-1170), which is one improbability that I calculate for the flagellum. Fine. But in pointing out that a third of the proteins in the flagellum are closely related to components of the TTSS, Miller tacitly admits that two-thirds of the proteins in the flagellum are unique. In fact they are (indeed, if they weren’t, Miller would be sure to point us to where the homologues could be found). Applied to those remaining two-third of flagellar proteins, my calculation yields something like 10^(-780), which also falls well below my universal probability bound.” by William Dembski

  6. That is incredibly stupid even for Dembski!

  7. It’s not religion, you must realize. The clocks we see today may have been set and put into motion by alien clocks from outer space, or time-traveling clocks from the future.