Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Tiberius]

"Yeah I can see how its possible that it could somehow happen with a robot or computer"

Evidence vs Faith has written this jsut above. Your post then is contradicted straight away.

I don't care what EvF thinks, he is not me. How is my post contradicted? I haven't said anything that contradicts my post, and if someone says "they can see how it is possible" it doesn't mean it has happened.

I have said too it is a small post.
"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."

And I believe one day Humans can design things more sophisticated than the human body.

I ask you to present evidence for this other than mindless speculation. You evidently have no idea about robotics if you think we are even close to making robots think like us, and that is the most complex thing of all.

At least one other posters have agreed with me and you too that it is not impossible. case closed.

You really have no idea how discussions and debates work do you? You don't have the right to say "case closed", none of us do. Perhaps when we all agree then we can say "Well there is no point discussing this anymore", but none of us can ever close the discussion. This isn't a competition to see how many people can agree with you though, or how often you can misconstrue what people say to meet your own ends. This is about you making a massive claim and then weaselling out of presenting evidence that isn't just speculation.

Stop being immature and admit that your debunking of a "fallacy" is not valid since it relies on speculation and your own admitted "beliefs".