My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

'Could a created, organic, self-replicating robot subsequently evolve?'
- Sure. Makes for great science fiction.

'Could an organic, self-replicating robot arise by either creation or evolution?'
- No. Not even if the creator is inept to the point of cruelty. To make a designed organism appear evolved would require a deliberate and massive deception.

im not sure i understand your position. can you agree that if someone will create an artificial human it can be consider as a robot too?

 

[Paleophyte]

im not sure i understand your position. can you agree that if someone will create an artificial human it can be consider as a robot too?

Sure. Sounds like an organic android. Your point?

 

[xianghua]

Sure. Sounds like an organic android. Your point?

if so then according to this human is a robot too. and if so you agree that a robot doesnt need a designer if you accept (nantural )evolution.

 

[Paleophyte]

if so then according to this human is a robot too.

No. I agreed that a created, artificial human could be regarded as a robot. By definition, it is designed. Generalizing that to cover all humans is a fallacy.

"Artificial humans are robots."

does not prove that​

"All humans are robots."

the same that​

"Artificial sweeteners prevent tooth decay."

does not prove that​

"All sweeteners prevent tooth decay."

and if so you agree that a robot doesnt need a designer if you accept (nantural )evolution.

For certain usages of the term "robot" I might agree. Those aren't standard usages so you should begin by defining what you mean by the term.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No. I agreed that a created, artificial human could be regarded as a robot. By definition, it is designed.

An artificial human created with organic components, and that could reproduce, wouldn't fit any normal definition of robot; it would be an artificial life form rather than a machine - IMO.

 

[Paleophyte]

An artificial human created with organic components, and that could reproduce, wouldn't fit any normal definition of robot; it would be an artificial life form rather than a machine - IMO.

Agreed, not the normal definition. The distinction is largely a matter of semantics though. From one perspective we are all just complex protein nanotech. It wouldn't be an issue if xianghua wasn't abusing it in his humans-thus-robots-thus-designer-checkmate-atheists argument. Having failed to demonstrate design he's trying to sneak it in by definition. From dark matter to introns the universe shrieks of messy self-organizing systems rather than design.

I am loving the penguin though. That should be ID's new mascot.

 

[Kylie]

why not actually? if a watch that made from organic components is still a watch, why not a robot that made from organic components?

It seems to me that you are arbitrarily redefining the word "robot" to mean the exact same thing as "lifeform."

Can you tell me how I can tell the difference between an organic, reproducing robot and a lifeform?

 

[bhsmte]

if so then according to this human is a robot too. and if so you agree that a robot doesnt need a designer if you accept (nantural )evolution.

Did you have robots when you were a kid or something?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Agreed, not the normal definition. The distinction is largely a matter of semantics though. From one perspective we are all just complex protein nanotech. It wouldn't be an issue if xianghua wasn't abusing it in his humans-thus-robots-thus-designer-checkmate-atheists argument. Having failed to demonstrate design he's trying to sneak it in by definition. From dark matter to introns the universe shrieks of messy self-organizing systems rather than design.

I am loving the penguin though. That should be ID's new mascot.

Yes; it's just a little tiring that he seems quite unable or unwilling to grasp the vacuousness of his approach.

 

[xianghua]

No. I agreed that a created, artificial human could be regarded as a robot.

thanks. now, do you agree that an object (human)that its identical to a robot (artificial human) is a robot?

 

[Paleophyte]

thanks. now, do you agree that an object (human)that its identical to a robot (artificial human) is a robot?

No. I have already stated that they are not identical and that your attempts to equate them are fallacious.

 

[Kylie]

Don't forget my post!

why not actually? if a watch that made from organic components is still a watch, why not a robot that made from organic components?

It seems to me that you are arbitrarily redefining the word "robot" to mean the exact same thing as "lifeform."

Can you tell me how I can tell the difference between an organic, reproducing robot and a lifeform?

 

[xianghua]

No. I have already stated that they are not identical and that your attempts to equate them are fallacious.

but they are looks (and function) the same. so how you can say they arent identical?

 

[xianghua]

Can you tell me how I can tell the difference between an organic, reproducing robot and a lifeform?

from physical perspective there is no different.

 

[quatona]

but they are looks (and function) the same. so how you can say they arent identical?

So the only difference is that one was designed and the other evolved?

 

[xianghua]

So the only difference is that one was designed and the other evolved?

supposed to evolved. yes.

 

[quatona]

supposed to evolved. yes.

So it´s a distinction that doesn´t help your argument.

 

[Paleophyte]

but they are looks (and function) the same. so how you can say they arent identical?

Look beyond the superficial similarities. Design is easy to spot.

Does the human look designed? No.

Does the android look designed? If yes then we can spot the difference. I not then it's a deliberate act of deception by a cruel and mendacious creator.

 

[Paleophyte]

Xianghua's too busy arguing bots to present actual evidence for what's supposed to be a scientific argument. I've said that design is easy to spot so here's the evidence.

Lady's and gentlemen, I give you

The Penguin!​

The penguin is a fully autonomous, self-replicating submersible robot. Despite the cool tuxedo look, the penguin has no discernable purpose or function whatsoever. These classic hallmarks of design are as absent from the penguin as they are from every other living organism. They're undeniably cute but you're ultimately left wondering what they are for.

But let's look under the hood. Built on a bird chassis, the penguin needs to surface regularly to avoid running out of air. That's right, it's a submarine that can drown. Being a flightless bird, the penguin has to waddle onto land to reproduce. This leaves it extremely vulnerable to predation, a fate that the penguin cleverly avoids by nesting in environments so inhospitable that even the most tenacious predators won't venture there. To prevent the egg or the chick from freezing solid one of the adults incubates it, sitting stoically on a glacier in a blizzard without eating, sometimes for weeks. The penguins that do not drown, freeze or starve typically fall prey to orcas, sharks or leopard seals; fully autonomous, self-replicating penguin grinders.

This quick overview of the penguin should demonstrate a clear lack of either intelligence or design, much less any combination thereof.

 

[Kylie]

from physical perspective there is no different.

Then why not just call them life forms instead of robots if there is no difference?

In this case, your question from post 657 becomes essentially:

"So if someone will create a human-like life form that made from organic components and has a self replicating system. is this kind of life form can also evolve naturally since it has living traits?"
​

Now you are just asking if life forms can evolve, and the answer is yes.

Seems to me that you are just trying to change the definition of words, perhaps in an attempt to muddy the water.