To the ASA group:
See my comments below.
David Bowman wrote on Friday, February 11, 2000 7:34 AM,
> Regarding Glenn's comments:
>
> >Yes I am advocating a sort of Turing test for the image of God. If
someone
> >who doesn't look like me, acts human, prays, speaks, uses tools, and
other
> >things like this, then he is human regardless of how differenly he
looks.
> >If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then
for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >goodness sakes it is a DUCK!!!
>
> So looking like a duck is part of the duck test. How does this square
> with your preference for a Turing test then?
I hadn't thought of comparing the Turing test with examining fossils and
the behavior of the living beings they represent. But it's a good
comparison, and I'm glad a few on this listserv have interjected it into
the thread. Isn't the Turing test a typical example of a secular approach
to creation?
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 15:34:06 EST