Sentaku..... i don't think you understand the points I make.
"There the first one is a collection of them and the other is a book with over 200 of them with there meanings. Now you guys won't think that everything in the Bible is a figure of speach."
As has been pointed out many many times, just because something is written down does not make it true.
You do understand that most Christians do not believe genesis to be a literal translation right? Some do, some don't. Some believe it is figurative use of language, IE. that its not meant to be taken literally.
Many infact believe genesis should not be taken literally or Noah or most of the old testament, you on the other hand do think that those things should be taken literally, the flat Earthers believe the references to the four corners of the Earth should be taken literally, you do not.
Do you see what i'm getting at here?
The ONLY reason you believe the reference to the four corners of the Earth is NOT meant literally is because you know the Earth is not flat!
"Ok, in 2000 years who will still belive it? and Hillebille said it best"
You know, what you're saying, or what you seem to be implying is the same "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument" AGAIN:
What you seem to be saying is that we should believe that God does exist, because he might do, and if he did and he visited us 2000 years ago then the evidence today would be poor. Its the same argument I and others have refuted a hundred times.
"Remove religion, and science will still be held back"
....... yes..... but not half as much. Which is my point. Its like saying: "remove heart disease, and people will still die" - whats the point?
"Second science it self is constently held back by it's own belifs from places that dont' exist and up doing so, to animals that are belived to be extinced that are not"
What the hell are you talking about?
"Compare it to a computer, were programers not brain surgeons."
Ok.......
"From your reasoning a hummon AI does not seem to complicate"
What? That's not a logical conclusion, do these thoughts just pop into your head? What possible reason do you have for suggesting that I do not think human intelligence is overly complicated? I think understand the human brain fully will probably be one of the LAST things uncovered in humanities search for understanding, because it is THAT complicated, in fact its so complicated that we may NEVER fully understand it.
When an evolutionary approach was takem to electronics (the components were simulated on a PC and some sort of genetic like algorythm was used to to test various set ups in terms of clock function - actually im not sure if it was simulated, they may have used computers to actually build circuits then chosen those with better clock functions), a clock circuit was produced that kept good time but used far less components than your normal circuit. When electronics engineers came to look at the circuit they did not understand how it was working, now that was a while ago, the probably have sussed it by now. BUT that was just a clock circuit! Consiting of maybe a dozen different components, that was probably produced in 50 or so iterations! Compare that to the human brain!
"for the most part it would have to be able to simply mimic what someone else does, and not be able to hit anything, both of these have been done."
What are you talking about now?
"The problem with AI is making a choice witch science seems to be able to show how a choose is made "
*Searches for meaning*................. *finds nothing*.
