the self replicating watch argument

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why not? If it has the properties of a car otherwise, why would it become not-a-car if you give it an extra property?

Because cars don't do that. Can you point to a car that does that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why not? If it has the properties of a car otherwise, why would it become not-a-car if you give it an extra property?

Sigh.

Once again see Could cars reproduce?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why not? If it has the properties of a car otherwise, why would it become not-a-car if you give it an extra property?

If the object below has the property that he is totally human, would he be eligible to vote?

You can't just mix and match properties at will.

 

[xianghua]

When biological organisms evolve, the changes occur in their DNA. It's the variation that occurs during DNA copying during reproduction which provides the variation to an organism's phenotype (i.e. the organism's physical structure) on which natural selection can act.

sure. what make you think i dont know that? i just saying that even if we had an object with DNA like a living thing it will not evolve into a car. do you agree or disagree?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Because cars don't do that. Can you point to a car that does that?

My Apple watch does a lot of things that people could say "a watch doesn't do that" about. Is it not a watch?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Sigh.

Once again see Could cars reproduce?

Yeah, I saw that. Your argument amounted to asserting it couldn't happen because it would be (and I quote) "difficult and expensive". Heh, I must congratulate you on one of the most pathetic arguments I have seen in the first post of a thread.

 

[xianghua]

If it has a self replicating system then it isn't a car.

so this isnt a car if it has a self replicating system?:

(image from wiki)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

My Apple watch does a lot of things that people could say "a watch doesn't do that" about. Is it not a watch?

from your description, it seems like a watch to me... even the maker of the watch, Apple (and not another pair of watches with too much spare time together unsupervised) call it a smartwatch.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads ever.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so this isnt a car if it has a self replicating system?:

(image from wiki)

well, it doesn't have one, so no.

 

[xianghua]

well, it doesn't have one, so no.

but i said it has one in this case. so its a car or not under this situation?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

but i said it has one in this case. so its a car or not under this situation?

No, not a car because it's imaginary in this situation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

but i said it has one in this case. so its a car or not under this situation?

Why don't you talk about a Horse, that's a form of transport that reproduces... we can use that because everyone will understand what you're talking about then.

 

[xianghua]

No, not a car because it's imaginary in this situation.

so the image above isnt a car. ok.

 

[pitabread]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads ever.

It's a great example of how *not* to argue for Intelligent Design.

 

[pitabread]

so the image above isnt a car. ok.

That's a car without the capability of self replication.

If you want to post a picture of a car that is capable of self replication, then you need to post a picture of a car capable of self replication. Which is impossible because such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you want to post a picture of a car that is capable of self replication, then you need to post a picture of a car capable of self replication. Which is impossible because such a thing doesn't exist.

Let's be fair. He may have thought the 2006 Pixar amimated film, Cars was a documentary.

 

[xianghua]

That's a car without the capability of self replication.

If you want to post a picture of a car that is capable of self replication, then you need to post a picture of a car capable of self replication. Which is impossible because such a thing doesn't exist.

but i said that in this theoretical case this car is able to self replicate. so in this case it will be a car or not?

 

[VirOptimus]

but i said that in this theoretical case this car is able to self replicate. so in this case it will be a car or not?

What point do you imagine you are making?

 

[pitabread]

but i said that in this theoretical case this car is able to self replicate. so in this case it will be a car or not?

But that car you posted isn't a car capable of self replication.

You keep wanting to equate things when it's convenient then at the same time claim they are functionally different. This is why this is such a terrible line of argumentation. It's completely inconsistent and fundamentally illogical.

You need a new argument. This one is dumb and it's not getting any less dumb the more you keep repeating it.