Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,15:41) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 03 2015,12:32) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 02 2015,21:25) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,20:22) | | Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02) | | At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work. |
Gary, from Sandwalk | Quote |
Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.
At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that. |
The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.
Another lie to add to Gary's long list. |
Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist. |
Why did you capitalize "created"? |
Capitalization makes "Creator" the name a living thing goes by like "Jim" or "Tony". This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too. Other than being biological instead of digital it's like the name "Watson" for the IBM machine intelligence system.
I do not make it a habit to use the word "Creator" but it is possible where the logical framework of a scientific theory provides the required scientific context. In a historical context scientific progress has for centuries been better explaining how our Creator works and is expected to keep on doing so, without religious faith and its celebrations of everlasting life ever going away... |
The capitalized word was "created" not "creator," so to no one's surprise your answer makes no sense. But while we're on the subject, you've claimed in this thread that your program creates actual intelligence, not simulated intelligence. This makes you a Creator, no? We can assume then that the Creator would have needed only moderate programming skills in an outmoded computer language to have produced all the life we see today. Or is it me who's confused? |
I was making sure to cover the reason why I said "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator" instead of "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our creator". Either way works, but the first is more of a personal name.
The reason for capitalizing "Created" was simply to stay in theme with the word "Creator" that was first quoted.
I'm not interested in a semantics argument over the common use of the word "Creator" or "creator" that is often used in reference to human creators. |
You said that your program creates actual intelligence. That's your ( stupid) assertion. If it's that easy, just about anyone can do it. Why do we need a capital-c Creator?
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
