the pocket watch argument against evolution is flawed

Theta-pinch I think you missed the point the pocket watch may not be biological but it was created we know how it was created and we know why and possibly where it was created. Everything we know so far has a beginning and a end human animals cells atoms matter and even the Big Bang(I'm not saying I think the Big Bang happened by the way) are whole universe had a beginning the rules of nature says that everything must have a beginning and a end. So my point is that the cells let say of a lizard to evolve the cells have to be their in the first place. We know that cells split apart from each other so there must of been a original cell and a original atom that caused the Big Bang. We know how cells multiply so it couldn't of just existed because because we know.that a cell has a beginning and a end. So for the Big Bang to have happened it would of had to been outside of our laws of natures many it would of have to not have a beginning. The Big Bang now must be outside our laws of nature because nothing can come fro. Nothing unless it does not play by our rules.This is irrelevant. You are arguing something different So tell me which is more plausible that a random explosion that breaks all of our laws of nature creates earth the universe plants animals and humanw or supreme being that created us and whole universe with intent and plan. The former because before the big bang there ARE no laws of physics. Also this an appeal to probability fallacy argument. Anyways this is irrelevant to the pocket watch argument.Also how long would it take if you took building materials (atoms) and flew up in a helicopter and randomly drop the building supplies of a squares what is the chance that that building supplies bacome a life sized. Replica of the Empire State Building screws in the right place working elevators windows in the exact place. So how long would it take for a cells to mix together and make a human being or even something close to it.The problem with this argument is that atoms spontaneously interact with each other while those building materials don't. For example if you set sodium and chlorine in a beaker they would automatically react to form NaCl without any external intervention. Also your argument fails because evolution is NOT random as is commonly believed but those building materials in your example ARE random.Here's the pocket watch argument and it's meaning: The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as: The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer. In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design. In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined--http://en.wikipedia.org... So basically it's saying that life is too complex to have been formed by nature and uses the complex workings of a pocket watch as an analogy. You've been arguing that the universe couldn't have created itself which is a completely different argument.