Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Tiberius]

I wont waste much more time in this meaningless debate. Many Many people will agree with me the scenario I have quoted is conceivable.

None of us here do, so I think the debate still has meaning. The fact that you have labelled your own debate as meaningless just seems to me like you are backing away from your quickly sinking ship. Your arguments have been refuted and you are too arrogant to admit failure.

Good. You are not even opposing me but agreeing with me. Cased closed then. Remember, I do not need to prove it WILL happen, I need merely to prove it CAN happen. And you agree that it can happen here.

Technically speaking, I'm not saying a god "couldn't exist" either. I just haven't seen any evidence or a reason for a god to exist. The same applies here. Yes, you need to prove it CAN happen, and you haven't done so.

As to how to define complex, it seems a very human form of perception.

But a robot, with more 'body parts', which does everything better than humans, which can even do certain aspects humans cannot will be more complex (Such as flying, night vision, hibernation and natural immortality)wont it?

So you are defining complexity as being able to do more stuff? If that is so, then we have no argument, but I wouldn't define complexity in that way. I would define it in how intricate the design is. For example, humans bodies have more wiring of neurons than any robot, and have the ability to regenerate damaged tissue automatically. We are living things and so I automatically put that above the level of non-living complexity.