best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

PsychoSarah · Mar 13, 2017

Speedwell said:
I was being ironic. I thought I had done a better job of making clear my position on ID.

I'm bad with names, and didn't even read the poster name when I made my post. You probably have made it clear.

Speedwell · Apr 13, 2017

The OP is still touting this thread as "proof" that evolution is false. Maybe he should come back here and clean up some of the loose ends he left behind when he abandoned it.

archer75 · Apr 13, 2017

Speedwell said:
The OP is still touting this thread as "proof" that evolution is false. Maybe he should come back here and clean up some of the loose ends he left behind when he abandoned it.

I'd be interested to see this thread continued.

bhsmte · Apr 13, 2017

Speedwell said:
The OP is still touting this thread as "proof" that evolution is false. Maybe he should come back here and clean up some of the loose ends he left behind when he abandoned it.

Good luck with that.

Greg Merrill · Apr 23, 2017

xianghua said:
hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

Good point. Good illustration!!!

archer75 · Apr 23, 2017

I still would like to see this thread continued.

All this argument does is re-skin something in a poorly defined way, proclaim agreement about the re-skinning, and then apply that agreement to the original thing. I still find it not convincing in the least. In fact, I don't even find it to be an argument.

Speedwell · Apr 23, 2017

Greg Merrill said:
Good point. Good illustration!!!

If it looks like it was manufactured by human (or other intelligent) ingenuity--that is, if it has tool marks, machined surfaces, refined and processed materials, etc.--then intelligent design may be reasonably concluded. If not, if it resembles in all respects of its structure a natural organic living creature, then no conclusion may be drawn about design, one way or the other.

JingshenBianxi · Apr 24, 2017

xianghua said:
hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

I had to read this question a few times to actually understand what you were asking. I believe this question is in fact trying to denounce evolution by using a self replicating robot as an example to then say..aren't Humans the same thing?

Yes.

Only with Humans....GOD Himself...is the " scientist " and humans are the " robots. "

The evidence that the self replicating robot was a product of design and not evolution is the fact that you would still see scientists walking around. Anything that is created needs to be maintained. If there is a malfunction, who will fix it? The scientists. Sure the robot can replicate itself but it never created itself thus it has no real ability to..

sustain itself.

In replicating itself it's only carrying out the very thing that it's creator gave them. It wasn't the robots idea nor talent nor genius to come up with the idea of replicating. It was clearly the work and design of it's creator. Thus, it only functions in what it was created to do.

Evolution is basically giving all things the ability to be God Himself. To be able to sustain itself via adaptation and re-creating itself to be more adaptable to it's surroundings. Various changes in habitat would dictate such metamorphosis.

We are not a result of evolution simply on the fact that we are not able to adapt in such a way that we could live forever in these mortal bodies. It is to say that if our world turned into a huge fish tank, all humans would literally drown. No Human would survive via some how growing gills like a fish to then be able to survive a new habitat of strictly water.

The talks of Global Warming could be another example. If for some reason our overall climate became substantially hotter than usual, the human will not adapt to such climate to be able to tolerate it. Instead, it would die..burn..or whatever the result would be from extreme heat.

Various ways to clearly denounce evolution. My weapon of choice for arguing against it?

Common Sense.

xianghua · Apr 24, 2017

yep. its true that human have soul and robot dont. i only speaking about the materialistic prespective. the fact is that a walking robot from any kind need a designer.

xianghua · Apr 24, 2017

hengesthorsa said:
I still would like to see this thread continued.

All this argument does is re-skin something in a poorly defined way, proclaim agreement about the re-skinning, and then apply that agreement to the original thing. I still find it not convincing in the least. In fact, I don't even find it to be an argument.

let me ask you yhis: do you think that from a materialistic prespective human is a kind of an organic robot?

Speedwell · Apr 24, 2017

xianghua said:
let me ask you yhis: do you think that from a materialistic prespective human is a kind of an organic robot?

From any perspective, materialist or otherwise, we are "kind of an organic robot."

Greg Merrill · Apr 24, 2017

Speedwell said:
If it looks like it was manufactured by human (or other intelligent) ingenuity--that is, if it has tool marks, machined surfaces, refined and processed materials, etc.--then intelligent design may be reasonably concluded. If not, if it resembles in all respects of its structure a natural organic living creature, then no conclusion may be drawn about design, one way or the other.

So in your opinion, which is it?

driewerf · Apr 24, 2017

Loudmouth said:
We don't find genes for feather development in mammals, which is supported by the fact that mammals don't develop feathers.

The absence of a visible treat is no evidence for the absence of the gene. The gene(se) can remain deactivated.
Scientists have been able to activate the genes for teeth in chickens:
Surprise: Chickens Can Grow Teeth

Speedwell · Apr 24, 2017

Greg Merrill said:
So in your opinion, which is it?

This is the hardest part for ID supporters, so pay attention and re-read if necessary.

I said, "...If it looks like it was manufactured by human (or other intelligent) ingenuity--that is, if it has tool marks, machined surfaces, refined and processed materials, etc.--then intelligent design may be reasonably concluded. If not, if it resembles in all respects of its structure a natural organic living creature, then no conclusion may be drawn about design, one way or the other."

What that means, is that if there are no evidences of human manufacture, if it looks just like a natural object, then I will not be able to tell if it was designed or not.

Notice, that I am not rejecting the possibility of a designer--and if you accuse me of doing so I will report you.

My belief is that God so ordered the world that it will appear to be a completely self-consistent system of natural causes, that there will be no "gotchas" which the ID boosters can use to push biblical creationism up our noses.

pitabread · Apr 24, 2017

JingshenBianxi said:
We are not a result of evolution simply on the fact that we are not able to adapt in such a way that we could live forever in these mortal bodies.

What is this... I don't even...

JingshenBianxi · Apr 24, 2017

pitabread said:
What is this... I don't even...

Sure I'll explain it in more depth for you. I was simply saying that humans are for a fact not a product of evolution if Global Warming is something many " worry " about seeing that evolution involves the species to adapt via changing for it's new environment.

Obviously all species die so perhaps I worded that incorrectly. But, as I stated in my initial response, if we were to suddenly dwell under water and land was to cease to exist then no, humans would not grow gills. So in that regard, the " human " would not " live forever "..but it would eventually become extinct and those organisms left would obviously be creatures of water like fish and other aquatic organisms.

pitabread · Apr 24, 2017

JingshenBianxi said:
Sure I'll explain it in more depth for you. I was simply saying that humans are for a fact not a product of evolution if Global Warming is something many " worry " about seeing that evolution involves the species to adapt via changing for it's new environment.

I still don't understand what you're trying to argue. Do you know why global warming is considered such a concern? (Hint: It's not about humans burning to a crisp.)

Obviously all species die so perhaps I worded that incorrectly. But, as I stated in my initial response, if we were to suddenly dwell under water and land was to cease to exist then no, humans would not grow gills. So in that regard, the " human " would not " live forever "..but it would eventually become extinct and those organisms left would obviously be creatures of water like fish and other aquatic organisms.

Humans going extinct has no bearing on evolution being true or not. Species have gone extinct in the past and will continue to go extinct in the future.

JingshenBianxi · Apr 24, 2017

pitabread said:
I still don't understand what you're trying to argue. Do you know why global warming is considered such a concern? (Hint: It's not about humans burning to a crisp.)

I can admit that my level of nerd doesn't allow me to be educated on the reality of what Global Warming is. My remedial level of geek in this regard also has me to say " I don't really care ".

Point I made was made in reference to the fact that humans are not a product of evolution.

archer75 · Apr 24, 2017

JingshenBianxi said:
Sure I'll explain it in more depth for you. I was simply saying that humans are for a fact not a product of evolution if Global Warming is something many " worry " about seeing that evolution involves the species to adapt via changing for it's new environment.

Obviously all species die so perhaps I worded that incorrectly. But, as I stated in my initial response, if we were to suddenly dwell under water and land was to cease to exist then no, humans would not grow gills. So in that regard, the " human " would not " live forever "..but it would eventually become extinct and those organisms left would obviously be creatures of water like fish and other aquatic organisms.

I can't understand the thoughts here or what they have to do with the thread.

JingshenBianxi · Apr 24, 2017

hengesthorsa said:
I can't understand the thoughts here or what they have to do with the thread.

I apologize. English is my first language yet still could use some improvement.

best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

So Cool

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

So Cool

Well-Known Member

So Cool

Well-Known Member

So Cool

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency