Re: Neural networks
>You do not say, but seem to suggest, that there is in life a law of
>evolution that allows random combinations to produce superior organisms. I
>do not see this program as proof of that. The variables that are
>minipulated in this program are obviously geared toward success. Random is
>random. It leads to nothing more than randomness. A true scientist would
>tell you that there is no proof for evolution. There has never been
>transitional forms of species found. A true scientist would tell you that
>is takes more faith to believe in evolution that to believe we were created
>by God.
>We were, you know!
*puke* *puke* you sound like a commercial for cleaning-stuff.
And as to this is a rational list, there are only two things we can rationally
conclude:
- religious opinions are IRRELEVANT to this discussion.
- any person claiming to know wether (a/the) God DOES or DOES NOT exists is
pretentieus, speculative and problely
self-manipulative.
A qoute I found somewhere: (some quoutes site, I can lookup the url if anyone
wants it, its a pretty funny site)
" Trust those who seek the truth. Doubt those who claim to have found it "
Ralf
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
