Search results

its not a game. if you are saying that a penguin isnt a robot then you should tell me why.

but they still used design. right?

what do you think?

so what is your definition?

i think a robot is a complex system with moving parts.

so who was the designer?

lets go by your definition. so what is your definition of a robot?

so why do you think a penguin isnt a robot?

do you agree that if we will find such a watch with DNA it will be evidence for design?

so artificial penguin is a robot by that definition. right?

so a robot with DNA is evidence for design?

definitions are problematic. say that you will find something that looks like a robot. but instead of plastic its made of organic components like living thing. will you conclude design or not?

a robot cant looks like a penguin?

maybe because it works?

what if its made of organic components? you will conclude design in such a case?

so what is the starting point?

i never said it is. im just asking about robot that is able to reproduce and has DNA. do you think such a robot is evidence for design?

actually it start with a pendulum, which contain about 3 parts.

so will you conclude design if you will see a robot that is able to reproduce?

because its a robot you know...