Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
.
If the object is capable of reproducing and yet bicycles can't reproduce, then obviously it is NOT identical to a bicycle!
Because only objects which are capable of reproduction (with heritable variation) are able to evolve.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?
If it can't reproduce, how does it evolve?
It seems like a reasonable question to ask under the circumstances. As commonly understood, evolution requires reproduction with heritable variation.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.
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?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.
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?correct. i talking about a situation when wealready know about definition of robot.
All the evidence they need ... and more ... is forthcoming.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
But you've been saying that definitions are problematic and we don't need themi talking about a situation when wealready know about definition of robot.
Your question is better addressed to xianghua, whose nonsense it is.Is that all you do is talk in circles regurgitating the same childish nonsense over and over?
All the evidence they need ... and more ... is forthcoming.
Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.Where? Please give it to me
So he'll literally be dying to know...Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.
Um ... I'm referring to the afterlife, or the end of this dispensation: whichever comes first.
That is correct.So he'll literally be dying to know...
I thought we were talking about evidence?So we can never really know until we die?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?