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.
If it looks like a penguin, walks like a penguin and self-replicates like a penguin but isn't actually a penguin..... it's a robot.Because "very similar" is NOT the same as "identical to."
Two species of seagull can be very similar, but that doesn't mean they're the same species after all, does it?
In any case, how do you know it's similar to a walking robot? How do you recognise a robot?
why a penguin cant be consider as a robot?A robot shaped like a penguin is a robot - but it's not a penguin.
Something identical to a penguin is a penguin - but it's not a robot.
Does this help?
lets start with why its not a robot by your perspectvie.I'm afraid "similar" doesn't cut it. It really is that simple!
Once you take this on board we can forward - until then we are going to go round and round in circles getting precisely nowhere.
so you agree that a robot can evolve naturally if you dont believe in a designer.I agree it's a robot. What's your point?
Here's one reason: penguins are living biological creatures and robots aren't.why a penguin cant be consider as a robot?
why a penguin cant be consider as a robot?
No, we should agree with him in every particular. Let him spring the rhetorical "trap" he has been laboring so hard to build all these months. This business has gone on long enough.Because a robot is not a penguin.
You need to actually DEFINE the terms you are using. Define what a robot is! You have consistently refused to do this, and your attempt to show why definitions aren't very good has fallen flat.
No, we should agree with him in every particular. Let him spring the rhetorical "trap" he has been laboring so hard to build all these months. This business has gone on long enough.
ID only has one argument: That functional complexity is evidence of design. All of his sleight-of-hand with robots, penguins, naturally produced bicycles, evolved wooden watches and so on is to force us into a situation where we have to admit that we have concluded design based on functional complexity. He's not doing it very well, perhaps because of the language difficulty, but that's what he's trying to do. Different IDers handle it in a variety of ways. You'll remember that we had here for a while an IDist poster who accused us of always using functional complexity to conclude design except in situations where it might lead to the further conclusion that God exists, when we hypocritically substitute another method.I suspect that the payoff will be something like, "You agree with me, therefore I am right," but very well.
xianghua, I agree that penguins are robots. Please continue.
Leave it to scientists today to blur the lines between life and tissue, life and artificial intelligence, good and bad, morals and ethics, apes and humans, etc.Now we know that a cell can evolve into a fully functioning penguin, how deep does the rabbit hole go? If cells can construct themselves into such intricate designed designs with blueprints that were written by the intricate design that wrote it and so on.. Where is God needed in this process?
To conceive of the process in the first place and to infuse it with divine purpose as it proceeds.Of course a real penguin is designed, just like the robotic one.
The robotic one is designed and built (probably) by humans in one go. As much as the penguin robot may look like a penguin, it is still made of unchanging unevolving static parts that are joined together to form a whole.
The real penguin is designed by it's previous version. The reproduction process adds the blueprints in the form of dna (yes this is a very simplistic explanation but it works) and after that the cell reproduces and reproduces, reprinting itself and copying the dna on to the next cell. Up to the point a fully functioning penguin has formed.
So even if we assume that God created the original penguin and imprinted every cell of that penguin with dna, God was only the creator of the original penguin. All the other versions are self made by that particular first penguin cell.
Now we know that a cell can evolve into a fully functioning penguin, how deep does the rabbit hole go? If cells can construct themselves into such intricate designed designs with blueprints that were written by the intricate design that wrote it and so on.. Where is God needed in this process?
It's entropy that makes it all possible in the first place. Complexity emerges as a result of increasing entropy providing useful energy gradients in a mixed entropy state. That's why the universe has become full of complex structures (including us) at this stage of its development.... they wonder why the world is going to entropy in a hand basket.
Sounds like you believe in evolution.It's entropy that makes it all possible in the first place. Complexity emerges as a result of increasing entropy providing useful energy gradients in a mixed entropy state. That's why the universe has become full of complex structures (including us) at this stage of its development.
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?