Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  Uplift, please stop intentionally misinterpreting what I say. I have no problem with you asking me if I might not have considered a different point of view, or if I realise that something I said may make my message unclear. But instead of asking, you continually misrepresent what I say (not to mention doing the same to what Dan said). Though we almost always disagree I have tried to be civil with you ever since you were banned. I don't appreciate your antagonistic approach.
Ok. Dan and his comments about robots. Firstly there seem to be two separate issues. (1) What did Dan mean when he said we're made up of robots? And (2) does the fact that robots are designed allow us to conclude we were designed?
(1) He used the comparison between cells and robots in the context of consciousness to highlight the point that cells, like robots, don't have individual consciousnesses, yet somehow once trillions of them come together to form an individual, that individual has a consciousness. If you disagree with my understanding of what he said that's ok, it's really not relevant to (2), which is the main point. Hence my suggestion that we agree to disagree. It doesn't matter which of us is right.
(2) The difference between the evolution of humans and the evolution of robots is that the former can be explained without the intervention of an external agent. The processes of natural selection and random mutation (and the other processes involved in evolution) account for everything that we see in nature related to natural evolution. However with robots, evolution is always the result of human intervention. I don't know of any examples of evolution of man-made constructs which resembles natural evolution.
I agree that looking inside a robot for a designer would be fruitless. I didn't say we could find a designer by dismantling robots. However, comparing different models of robots would raise heaps of questions about how they could have changed designs on their own. Looking as dismantled robots would show that they were dismantled by something other than themselves. And finally, looking at designs of robots would close the case. That's not the case with humans. We can plot our evolutionary progress, and account for the changes involved, without needing to include a designer to explain any part. And there's no extra evidence for a designer.
But I do concede that there might be a designer who created the universe in a way that let us evolve apparently unaided. But if that's the case the designer's existence is irrelevant. He's obviously not actively involved in the evolutionary process in a way that we need to take into account, so there seems to be no point in doing so.
So back to the topic of proof. Even if no proof has been requested, it exists, accounts for what is observed, and does not leave anything unaccounted for which is better explained through the invocation of an undefined designer. |
Okay, where did Danny say that. That it is an analogy. Or use words that infer it. I can show you where he says we
are robots. That,
all we are is robots, nothing else. Pointedly.
Exact statements. The statement you obviously and understandably don't want to, or cant see,
the statement that you claim isn't there. You actually provided it.
Its in writing and on tape. So where have I changed and misrepresented his words. You are the one misrepresenting them and changing them, by claiming, to know the hidden, true meaning, which conveniently just happens to suit your constant, antagonistic arguing with anyone mentioning a Spiritual outlook. His only use of analogy is his reference to bacteria.
Like I said, show examples. You know, this is what I belief, this is what I do, this is my result. Rather than constantly, antagonistically arguing with everyone else, about their results, and beliefs, claiming they are deluded or wrong, and that you know the real truth behind their results. Which is always the easy, non accountable thing to do.
Again, a quick look through your posts will show exactly that.
As for Danny, a broke, physical wreck, claiming to be the expert on me and everyone else, that we all know nothing, and debunking others for misrepresentation, (what a sales pitch) and then, having the gumption to ask the ignorant ones for handouts...
Likewise, when analogy suits your constant, antagonistic badgering, its a great thing... when it doesn't suit your constant, antagonistic arguing it isn't, its useless.
And you demand consistency from others.