The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[R00tKiT]

For the record, since I know it's confusing, the watchmaker argument defines simple and complex by appealing to our knowledge of the differences between the watch found and the sand of the beach it was found on. 

First of all, there is no such thing as the "watchmaker argument", it's an analogy meant to help you understand the teleological argument. Those who call it an argument, like you, are merely attempting a strawman to excuse themselves from dealing with the actual argument, which you didn't address. Secondly, your knowledge of both the watch and the sand approaches zero when we take the recent findings in particle physics into account, which established the existence of a lot of fundamental particles we simply had no idea that they existed.

So, maybe you should be less assertive regarding sand.

Compared to the sand, the watch is clearly designed by an intelligent being and this is illustrated by its complexity of construction compared to sand.

And why do you consider the sand not complex? Can you answer this question, please? Or, even better, give us clear criteria to distinguish between simple and complex constructions. A word of warning: if you define complex objects as human designed objects, then you are begging the question of whether sand is designed, you already excluded sand from your definition to reach the conclusion you want.

So, by saying "nuh-uh! Sand is complex!" you're proving the flaw of the argument.

Yes. Sand is complex. Disagree? Pick a textbook on particle physics, randomly choose a chapter, do you encounter some difficulty understanding the content? Congratulations, you finally got it, sand is complex.