As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Tom 1]

ok. but first i need an answer to my last question: before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

No,

ok. but first i need an answer to my last question: before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

You don't think there are any essential differences between the process of designing and building a robot, and the development of a penguin?

 

[xianghua]

No,

so im the one who need to prove that a robot cant evolve naturally?

You don't think there are any essential differences between the process of designing and building a robot, and the development of a penguin?

you dont think that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot? why not actually?

 

[Tom 1]

so im the one who need to prove that a robot cant evolve naturally?


you dont think that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot? why not actually?

Yes, I would say that if you want to demonstrate that you would need to prove it in some way. It’s not like the ToE just appeared out of nowhere.

If you want to argue that any bird or animal is just a kind of robot you can. Generally speaking though the terms mean different things.

 

[Speedwell]

so im the one who need to prove that a robot cant evolve naturally?


you dont think that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot? why not actually?

No, you are not getting it. You constantly assert that there is either evolution or a designer.

But that is a false dichotomy. Evolution does not rule out a designer.

There are really two questions in play:

1. Is there a designer or is there not?
2. Is evolution the process which explains the diversity of life or is there some other process?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, I would say that if you want to demonstrate that you would need to prove it in some way. It’s not like the ToE just appeared out of nowhere.

If you want to argue that any bird or animal is just a kind of robot you can. Generally speaking though the terms mean different things.

ok. so why do you think that a penguin cant be consider as a robot?

 

[Speedwell]

ok. so why do you think that a penguin cant be consider as a robot?

Respond to my post #1124. I have been raising this issue with you ever since you began to post here. Why are you avoiding it?

 

[pitabread]

ok. so why do you think that a penguin cant be consider as a robot?

This is probably a language issue, but in the English language robots by definition generally refer to artificially manufactured non-living machines.

Calling a living penguin a robot makes no sense. If you keep doing it, you are using the word "robot" incorrectly.

 

[Tom 1]

ok. so why do you think that a penguin cant be consider as a robot?

Why do you think it can be? You can compare dictionary definitions, see what you think the differences are. You might say it's just a biological machine, but that isn't quite the same thing, and has nothing to do with whether or not evolution happens in any case.

 

[Kylie]

because we never seen a motor evolving naturally.

So? Do you think things don't happen unless someone is there to see them?

 

[xianghua]

Respond to my post #1124. I have been raising this issue with you ever since you began to post here. Why are you avoiding it?

because now i discuss with tom?.

 

[xianghua]

Why do you think it can be? You can compare dictionary definitions, see what you think the differences are. You might say it's just a biological machine, but that isn't quite the same thing, and has nothing to do with whether or not evolution happens in any case.

ok. so according to the definition a robot is made by design. so are you saying that we cant call a penguin robot since it may evolved by a natural process and not by design?

 

[xianghua]

This is probably a language issue, but in the English language robots by definition generally refer to artificially manufactured non-living machines.

so if someone will create an artificial penguin it will be a robot by definition?

 

[Tom 1]

so if someone will create an artificial penguin it will be a robot by definition?

I suppose so, yes, a machine that has some mechanical function designed to look like a penguin could be called a robot, or a mechanical penguin, why not? If someone produced an egg, that hatched a chick, that grew into a penguin, then that would be a penguin.

 

[Speedwell]

because now i discuss with tom?.

OK. I was just wondering why you avoid that question every time anybody asks it.

 

[Tom 1]

ok. so according to the definition a robot is made by design. so are you saying that we cant call a penguin robot since it may evolved by a natural process and not by design?

No, you can't call it a robot because it's a penguin, not a robot.

 

[xianghua]

No, you can't call it a robot because it's a penguin, not a robot.

--

 

[xianghua]

I suppose so, yes, a machine that has some mechanical function designed to look like a penguin could be called a robot, or a mechanical penguin, why not? If someone produced an egg, that hatched a chick, that grew into a penguin, then that would be a penguin.

so an artificial penguin is a robot by your criteria? note that im talking about a roobt that is made from organic components and its able to reproduce. like a living thing. do you agree that even such a robot is still evidence for design?

 

[Tom 1]

so an artificial penguin is a robot by your criteria? note that im talking about a roobt that is made from organic components and its able to reproduce. like a living thing. do you agree that even such a robot is still evidence for design?

That isn’t however the whole story of what a penguin is. A penguin is the end result of a very long process from alive but not penguin through sort of like a penguin to what we see now. What reason is there to think that isn’t the case?

 

[xianghua]

That isn’t however the whole story of what a penguin is. A penguin is the end result of a very long process from alive but not penguin through sort of like a penguin to what we see now. What reason is there to think that isn’t the case?

im not sure that i understood your point. do you think that a self replicating robot (that is made from organic components) is evidence for design or not?

 

[Speedwell]

im not sure that i understood your point. do you think that a self replicating robot (that is made from organic components) is evidence for design or not?

It doesn't matter who you ask or how many times you ask it, you will always get the same answer.

What it boils down to is, that similarity of form or function to a designed object is not evidence of design.

Now, are you going to answer my question?