My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

I referred you to about 8 or 9 papers originally. Apparently you only bothered to look at one of them.

Like I said, I can't force-feed you scientific literature. But I would suggest doing a wee bit more research. At this point you are arguing from a position of ignorance, which isn't doing anyone any good.

so can you gave only one paper that showing us how many amino acid changes are needed to make the first eyespot from a non-eyespot? it's very simple and important question and if you cant give me an answer then it's only means that non of your papers can do that. am i right?

Cars are not living things, therefore the analogy is irrelevant.

it's actually very relevant because it's all about ic systems. if it's so matter then we can talk about a self replicating molecule. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a car?if your answer is no then it should be no different from a living things.

 

[pitabread]

so can you gave only one paper that showing us how many amino acid changes are needed to make the first eyespot from a non-eyespot?

We already discussed this. Go back about 100 or so posts and re-read my response to that.

t's actually very relevant because it's all about ic systems. if it's so matter then we can talk about a self replicating molecule. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a car?if your answer is no then it should be no different from a living things.

This is just nonsensical gibberish.

When you come up with a logical, well though out argument, then we can have a discussion. Until that time, I consider our discussion closed.

 

[quatona]

so an artificial human can be consider as robot because it's artificial?




so if they did you will not call them robots anymore?

In the same way I won´t call a glass of milk "a glass of milk" any more once it contains whisky or starts playing chess.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so an artificial human can be consider as robot because it's artificial?

What, exactly, do you mean by an 'artificial human' ?

...so if they did you will not call them robots anymore?

I don't see how they could, using conventional definitions of 'robot', 'evolve', and 'natural'.

If you provide the definitions you're using for these terms, and suggest a hypothetical example, I'll tell you what I think would be an appropriate descriptor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so can you gave only one paper that showing us how many amino acid changes are needed to make the first eyespot from a non-eyespot? it's very simple and important question and if you cant give me an answer then it's only means that non of your papers can do that. am i right?

So can you gave only one paper showing us how many amino acids are in each cell in your body? It's a very simple and important question and if you cant give me an answer then it's only means that non of your papers can do that. Am i right?

So since you have failed to provide a single paper documenting all of the cells in your body, by your logic, we should assume that you do not exist, yes?

Just because we do not know every single detail does not prove something does not exist.

if it's so matter then we can talk about a self replicating molecule. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a car?if your answer is no then it should be no different from a living things.

Metal and plastic components cannot grow in place as animal body components can. Thus, it is impossible to have a baby car that grows up to be an adult car. And it is impossible for a single cell to grow into a car.

But with people it is different. A single cell can grow into an adult.

Without this function. Biological evolution is impossible.

 

[xianghua]

When you come up with a logical, well though out argument, then we can have a discussion. Until that time, I consider our discussion closed.

you know what? lets play in your way. first: here is another point: we know for instance that a sonar system is evidence for design. we know that a sonar system exist in nature. theorefore a sonar system cant evolve by a natural process. so here is one problem you need to deal with if you dont believe in id.

 

[lesliedellow]

you know what? lets play in your way. first: here is another point: we know for instance that a sonar system is evidence for design. we know that a sonar system exist in nature. theorefore a sonar system cant evolve by a natural process. so here is one problem you need to deal with if you dont believe in id.

We know that storm clouds carrying enormous electrical charges exist in nature. We know they weren't designed. Therefore we know that Van de Graff generators cannot be designed.

If you think there is a huge failure in logic there, you are dead right, but it is no larger than the one you commited.

 

[pitabread]

you know what? lets play in your way. first: here is another point: we know for instance that a sonar system is evidence for design. we know that a sonar system exist in nature. theorefore a sonar system cant evolve by a natural process. so here is one problem you need to deal with if you dont believe in id.

This is just the exact same argument with the exact same faulty logic and equivocation of artificial and biological systems. You're not saying anything new here.

Try coming up with a new line of argumentation. Repeating the same failed nonsense over and over is pointless.

 

[xianghua]

In the same way I won´t call a glass of milk "a glass of milk" any more once it contains whisky or starts playing chess.

but you said that by definion a robot is artificial. so by this criteria an artificial human can be consider as robot.

 

[xianghua]

What, exactly, do you mean by an 'artificial human' ?

a human that was made by a designer.

 

[xianghua]

Metal and plastic components cannot grow in place as animal body components can. Thus, it is impossible to have a baby car that grows up to be an adult car. And it is impossible for a single cell to grow into a car.

but i talking about a self replicating molecule that made from organic components. so in this case you belive that such a molecule can evolve into a car or not?

But with people it is different. A single cell can grow into an adult.

 

[lesliedellow]

but i talking about a self replicating molecule that made from organic components. so in this case you belive that such a molecule can evolve into a car or not?

But with people it is different. A single cell can grow into an adult.

Cars are not made of anything which self replicates.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

a human that was made by a designer.

Describe how you think that might occur; what processes would be involved?

For example, humans took an already-existing species of wolf and designed varieties with widely differing attributes, by purposeful selective breeding, for specific purposes. They are living creatures. We don't call such dogs robots.

Humans also designed and manufactured a variety of general-purpose programmable manipulating machines using metals, plastics, and electronics. They are not living creatures. We call them robots.

On the other hand, if we consider evolution to be a designer, evolution designed creatures with widely differing attributes, that fit a wide variety of environmental niches, by non-purposeful selective breeding with survival as the only criterion. They are living creatures. We don't call such creatures robots.

Does that give you a feel for what is likely to be called a robot and what isn't?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but you said that by definion a robot is artificial. so by this criteria an artificial human can be consider as robot.

Your logic is appalling. By definition a television is artificial - this doesn't imply that a robot can be considered a television.

Just make your argument so we can refute it and move on.

 

[Speedwell]

we know for instance that a sonar system is evidence for design.

No, we don't know any such thing. This is where all of your arguments fail.

When you say "sonar system" you are describing a function. Function is never evidence of design.

 

[quatona]

but you said that by definion a robot is artificial. so by this criteria an artificial human can be consider as robot.

You really have to brush up your logic skills. Seriously.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i talking about a self replicating molecule that made from organic components. so in this case you belive that such a molecule can evolve into a car or not?

Again, I do not think it would be possible to make wheels and gears of living organic materials. To do that you would need blood flow to the components. I don't know if that is even possible with spinning components. And somehow you would need to attach muscles to the wheels to make them move. Again, I don't know if that is even possible.

The best I could think of is something like an organism that makes parts like gear shaped kidney stones that all fall into place to make a watch. That might be possible if somebody figured out the genetic code to do that, but it would be an extremely complex code with little or no benefit. Surely, if the code to make wristwatches out of kidney stones existed on a monkey's wrist, the design would quickly atrophy away through the generations, for it is not worth the biological effort it takes to do that.

 

[Chriliman]

No, we don't know any such thing. This is where all of your arguments fail.

When you say "sonar system" you are describing a function. Function is never evidence of design.

I wouldn't say never. Function more often than not, implies a purpose for what the function is performing. You can't have purpose without a purpose giver.

 

[Chriliman]

You really have to brush up your logic skills. Seriously.

Why can't we call an artificial human a robot?

 

[Chriliman]

Your logic is appalling. By definition a television is artificial - this doesn't imply that a robot can be considered a television.

Agreed, but he wasn't implying that either.

Just make your argument so we can refute it and move on.

He's simply arguing that an artificial human could be considered a robot, which is obviously true.