My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

Nope, that doesn't follow.

If you'd never seen or heard of a robot you wouldn't have any definition (i.e. criteria, or meaning) for one, so you wouldn't be able to say what is or isn't a robot.
.

correct. i talking about a situation when wealready know about definition of robot.

 

[xianghua]

If the object is capable of reproducing and yet bicycles can't reproduce, then obviously it is NOT identical to a bicycle!

but i already said that its not capable of reproducing. so why are you talking again about object that is able to reproduce?

 

[Speedwell]

but i already said that its not capable of reproducing. so why are you talking again about object that is able to reproduce?

Because only objects which are capable of reproduction (with heritable variation) are able to evolve.

 

[Kylie]

but i already said that its not capable of reproducing. so why are you talking again about object that is able to reproduce?

If it can't reproduce, how does it evolve?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If it can't reproduce, how does it evolve?

As best I can tell, robot penguins ride around in self-reproducing cars until they find bicycles mating and then a beam from their biological watches teleports the bicycles into another world where they evolve into motorcycles. And they all live happily ever after.

Or something like that.

 

[Ancient of Days]

If it can't reproduce, how does it evolve?

Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over? You have reached the pinnacle of you existence.

 

[Speedwell]

Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over? You have reached the pinnacle of you existence.

It seems like a reasonable question to ask under the circumstances. As commonly understood, evolution requires reproduction with heritable variation.

 

[Kylie]

Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over? You have reached the pinnacle of you existence.

Can't you answer the question?

If you don't know enough about evolution to answer the question, what makes you think you can join in a discussion about it?

Or do you just plan on resorting to name calling whenever you see something you don't like?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over? You have reached the pinnacle of you existence.

Didn't you mean to aim that accusation at xianghua?

 

[Archie Dupont]

The word choice of creationists is telling a lot about the claims they made:

"Because A is 1, B must be 2"

Why the "must be"

If you are sure of something you say:

"Because A is 1, B is 2, and here is the evidence on which I support that statement

 

[Bungle_Bear]

correct. i talking about a situation when wealready know about definition of robot.

So what is the definition of a robot? Your usual reply is that you don't have one. But in this instance you're intimating that you do. So what is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are sure of something you say:

"Because A is 1, B is 2, and here is the evidence on which I support that statement

All the evidence they need ... and more ... is forthcoming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i talking about a situation when wealready know about definition of robot.

But you've been saying that definitions are problematic and we don't need them

Make up your mind. Better still, just make your argument directly, without all this juvenile semantic posturing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over?

Your question is better addressed to xianghua, whose nonsense it is.

 

[Archie Dupont]

All the evidence they need ... and more ... is forthcoming.

Where? Please give it to me

 

[AV1611VET]

Where? Please give it to me

Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.

So he'll literally be dying to know...

 

[Archie Dupont]

Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.

So we can never really know until we die?

 

[AV1611VET]

So he'll literally be dying to know...

That is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

So we can never really know until we die?

I thought we were talking about evidence?