HiEv
Active Member
- Oct 1, 2017
- 32
- 53
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Penguins are far more complicated than the most complex human-made robot. Ignored that part.
Nope, totally didn't ignore that part. He asked about robots in the part I was replying to there. The penguins stuff only came up later, and when it did, I dealt with it.
Cherry picking and missing the obvious.
Yes, that indeed is a good description of what you just did.
Having a false tooth or a replaced knee does not make one an android.
Of course not. It makes you a cyborg.
There are spiders web, bee hives, beaver dams.
None of which are robots, which is what we were actually talking about. More missing the point, I see.
So there are non-human intelligently designed things made for a purpose. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Of course not. I never claimed otherwise.
However, none of that disputes my point that robots are man-made by definition.
Do try to keep up.
Now, did what I said there make me look like an arrogant prick? Yup! So if it isn't good when I do it, maybe you shouldn't do it either, eh? I'll try to stop now. Hopefully you will too.
Self-replicating bacteria is designed given its alternative of exclusive non-intelligent causes. Like chemical reactions. If it is one or the other, then the best explanation given all the facts is an intelligent source. If you wish to argue the other, then go ahead. Make your evidence-based case.
Hmmm.... Where exactly is your evidence-based case? You merely assumed one of two conclusions from a false dichotomy based upon nothing more than personal incredulity.
That's not evidence.
Whereas I base my argument in the evidence from DNA and homologous structures found in related bacteria, and the utter absence of any mechanism whereby an "intelligent designer" could, or would even need to, make such genetic changes. I posit an explanation founded upon proven naturalistic means, while your explanation is largely supernatural and unfounded in objective evidence which is not better explained by evolution.
They are not dissimilar. You are cherry picking.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Robots have functions; organisms have functions. They both have operational systems dependent on other operating systems working in conjunction. And on and on.
So you've picked some particular irrelevant similarities, while ignoring the very relevant differences which I brought up to make a particular point.
Remind me, which of us is cherry picking again?
Self-replication means complication beyond human capacity.
No, it doesn't. It just means that it replicates itself.
Prions, for example, like the ones that cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), are not "complications beyond human capacity." They're just self-replicating molecules. Here's an image of a CJD prion:
It may be a bit complex, but clearly not "beyond human capacity."
Human reproduces sexually, and bacteria is non-sexual reproduction. That means bacteria is 100% duplication. In sexual reproduction, each partner forfeits 50%.
Not exactly, since replication isn't 100% accurate. There are also epigenetic factors which may or may not be transmitted in asexual reproduction (such as plasmids), and only come from the mother in sexual reproduction.
That said, I was explaining that organisms aren't robots, and you responded with this. I fail to see the relevance of this point.
HiEv said:Organisms aren't robots. By definition. Even if humans made an organism from scratch, nobody would call it a robot.
Even if it fits the definition? If they made a bio- molecule it would rot unless refrigerated.
If it fit the definition of a robot, then it wouldn't fit the definition of an organism, and vice-versa. They're mutually exclusive if you're being literal.
Whether "bio-molecules" would rot is irrelevant. Also, not that it really matters, but if it's a fairly stable molecule, then one could prevent this "rot" simply by keeping it in an antiseptic environment. Refrigeration isn't the only solution.
And you're not?
No, I'm not. Pointing out actual definitions and their usage isn't "playing with definitions", it's describing them.
Inferred as the best explanation given your blind faith-based alternative with zero precedent or evidence.
You seem to be describing your own position, not mine.
The theory of evolution was arrived at independently by two different people based on lots of objective evidence, which has only grown tremendously over time, and for which we have numerous precedents for. If it's a conclusion which is founded upon objective evidence which can be tested and has been verified, which it demonstrably is, then it's not "faith-based". Are you actually this oblivious to all of the scientific evidence for evolution?
And seriously, what part of your explanation isn't founded upon blind faith? Where is the evidence or precedent for your claims? There isn't any in the scientific literature which has withstood scientific criticism or independent replication that I've ever heard of.
What you said isn't even the pot calling the kettle black here, unless it's an amazingly shiny kettle, and the pot is merely seeing its own reflection in it.
Something complicated and for a purpose is intelligently designed given the alternative.HiEv said:But, even worse, you're assuming that if something could be the product of a mind, then it has to be the product of a mind.
No, you don't just get to assume "purpose", nor do you get to just assume that something is intelligently designed because of some false dichotomy you have in your head. There are lots of things which are complicated, could appear to have some purpose, and which didn't evolve, such as the structures of crystals or snowflakes. That doesn't mean that you get to assume that little pixies carved them.
If they find the Starship Enterprise on the Moon, then its source is obviously intelligence as opposed to natural processes on the moon.
Agreed, however that's because there are no natural processes by which the Starship Enterprise could have formed on the moon. So this point is completely irrelevant when discussing things which could have formed through natural processes, such as evolution in organisms with a mechanism of heredity. These are apples and oranges here.
If we have self-replicating organism like bacteria, then its source is obviously intelligent
But the source is not "obviously intelligent". That's the whole point of this discussion!
You can't merely assume your conclusion, and then try to use that as evidence of your conclusion. That's circular logic at it's silliest extreme.
which presupposes living as opposed to your alternative. You can twist it up any way you want.
I have no idea what this part was intended to mean. You'll have to clarify here.
We aren't talking about rocks here.HiEv said:But, even worse, you're assuming that if something could be the product of a mind, then it has to be the product of a mind. This is obviously false. Just because I could make a rock, doesn't mean that all rocks are made by intelligent processes.
Obviously he wasn't talking about rocks specifically, but he made a general claim, and my point was to show that the claim doesn't work universally. If someone makes a general claim, and the claim breaks down in a specific case, then you can demonstrate the fallacy of the claim by pointing to that specific case.
Does it make sense why I brought up rocks now?
Penguins are made sexually by other Penguins with brains which presuppose minds unless you are asserting Penguins do not have brains.
Are you trying to be obtuse here? Because it should be obvious that that's not my point.
I'm arguing against a single intelligent designer of penguins, not that penguins don't have brains. I'd have thought that would be obvious. I'd really rather not play silly games if you're just trying to insult me by misconstruing my arguments.
The analogy worked. You only butchered it up in a vain attempt you justify your blind faith.
No, the analogy didn't work, because penguins aren't man-made robots. You can't assume your conclusion in your premise, especially when it's demonstrably untrue.
But feel free to continue insulting me, as though that's an argument for your side. It only makes your side look worse.
Not the argument.
Actually, essentially that was the argument. Xianghua said, "from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components" (emphasis in original). And, as I explained earlier, robots are "generally defined as man-made machines." So he was trying to build in an assumption of an "intelligent designer" by arguing that penguins are equivalent to robots, when they're not.
In any case, he's most certainly trying to argue that something intelligent created penguins. The elves were merely a humorous flourish to drive the point home.
Blind faith absent precedent since all we know about life is that it requires living sources.
Actually, we don't know that. All we know is that all examples of life are from living sources.
Those are two very different things.
But feel free to keep banging on about "blind faith" in the presence of the abundant scientific evidence for evolution. It just makes it clear to everyone else that you don't know what you're talking about.
What evidence? Did a rock give birth to you?
LOL. You sound like Kent Hovind. No, you're thinking of your religion and how Adam was supposedly created from dust.
Science makes no such claim.
No, you have to explain (evidenced and precedent based) how the first cause of life here is exclusive nonliving nonintelligent and good luck with that. Because based on all we know if it is living then its source is living.
No, I actually don't have to explain abiogenesis in order to accept evolution. Those are two different things.
Are you unable to tell the two apart, or are you purposefully conflating the two? Either way, it doesn't make you look good.
Have a nice day!
Last edited:
Upvote
0