Видео

After years of conservatives going "the woke SJWs are crazy for calling the AI racist because it doesn't have a brain!!" I was not expecting AIG of all people to acknowledge that AI is trained on human biases

I doubt they will really have an AI 'trained' on their idiot theories. I don't think they have the petabytes of material needed. I imagine this will be a RAG application that uses a general purpose trained model, then picks bits from their documents to add context to a question, then answers that.

What is your point? Are you saying that AiG shouldn't provide a structured product for their audience that is based on their world view of Scripture? If that is so, then the same can be said for the large majority of AI presented by secular AI models. Most people don't have the time or knowledge to do this for themselves so why wouldn't AiG provide this service? It looks like you want to restricted AI use just to provide secular world view. Why wouldn't they provide a medium that uses the Bible as the governing document? If they feel the Bible is a true historical record, then any "historical" science must fit the Biblical record. Neither creationist nor evolutionist can prove "historical" science, it is just a guess or theory. It relies on the information provided by observational science and in the case of AiG must also agree with the Bible. So it just appears you would like to suppress the views of others, which is dangerous. If they are wrong they have a right to be wrong and if you are wrong then you have the right to be wrong. The difference is, if they are wrong and try to live by the Bible and teaching of Jesus, (which we all fail at some points) then they will most likely try to live a peaceful life, die, and that will be it. If you are wrong unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will spend eternity in complete darkness, in eternal agony as your own god "all alone". Your choice.

I didn't know you were at U of Akron! Right down the street from me haha

I'm not overly worried about something like "CreationistGPT" because I suspect that it simply won't work very well. I would imagine that if you were to speak to an A.I. designed to defend young earth creationism for any length of time, it will inevitably begin to contradict itself and say things that make absolutely no sense, just like real creationists do. This is not really an issue with the coding or the design of the software so much as it is a problem that is inherent to young earth creationism itself. The fundamental problem is that the position that they are trying to get the chat bot to defend is nonsense to begin with. This means that any A.I. they create, will inevitably run headlong into that same issues that ordinary creationists do when they try and make their case - the fact that it's all hogwash. It seems to me that any A.I. that is trained only on creationist sources is getting nothing but inconsistent trash for its inputs, so it's not going to produce anything but inconsistent trash as its output. It's the same reason that when you talk to an actual creationist, whose actual brain was trained on creationist junk, they tend to make idiotic, nonsensical arguments that collapse under even the smallest amount of critical scrutiny. If the training data that goes into the system is inconsistent, self-contradictory crap, then the output will be like that as well. Garbage in, garbage out.

Old universe theory? Theistic Evolution? Death before sin? No, that route is just too wrong to go.

AIG is following the truths of the Bible. You are not.

Creationism is a man made story about make believe for those who don't like reality.

Thx alot gd info !!! we have thousands in our yard now !!! In connecticut

I'm sure the "Flat Earthers" could create a similar AI program for answering questions, based on their doctrine. That's the next step! And the Biden/Harris, etc. Demon-Rats could do the same....WAIT! They already HAVE something like that...It's called the "Mainstream Media"!

Answers in Genesis rejected the Bible and Nature. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” referring to the whole time of the six days, The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

Sidebar: Sorry for the bandwidth, but I wanted to share this FB posting I made this morning."The Creationist Mindset and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" The following three statements are an illustration: BMW makes vehicles. BMW is making a retro "old style" station wagon... Now the first statement doesn't say that BMW makes station wagons, but it says it makes "vehicles". A station wagon is a "vehicle". Therefore the second statement is a "fact" and "true" because the original statement does not explicitly say that they don't make station wagons. Oh, by the way, they also make fire engines, and they're painted "BLUE". The first statement doesn't say anything about the 2nd or the 3rd statement, but it doesn't preclude it. BINGO! They're not "lying" if you just look at the text. Of course, they aren't telling the "truth" either.

Noah, where did all the heat go? Noah, what's the deal with the speed of light? Noah, what's a kind? Noah, how do I tell the difference between a dinosaur and a bird? Noah, do chimpanzees have eye whites?

Joel understands the logical implications of a Young Earth paradigm better than Ken Hamm.

I wonder if AI Noah can tell us who his sons married. Maybe we can implode the AI with logic questions like in a Star Trek episode.

Ken Ham will do whatever it takes to continue to fleece his rubes.

I wonder of you can break it, if you give it full quotes from the sources they quotemine? Like could you convince it of the opposite?

We can call AiG's version of AI, "Artificial Indoctrination".

Prophecy? I am sure there are people over there who watch your videos and decide how to respond to them. In this case, perhaps they heard your prediction, liked it, and acted on that. This is always a problem with prophets; the risk someone will consciously try to bring it about. Please don't make any prophecies on how to bring about the end times! ;)

I've had a hypothesis that I haven't really tried to test but it's been in my mind that most supposedly scientific YEC arguments can be debunked even if you're only allowed to reference other supposedly scientific YEC arguments/approved positions. I wonder if this could become evident with their chatbots?

That was very funny, actually! - Please, more on this topic, when time reveals more! - Especially, I am looking forward to the algorithm pitifully stumbling over the numerous contradictions in AIG's brittle worldbuilding, for example, if you ask the poor thing: "What is a kind? - Please, define without just giving examples!"

AIG can't even bother to finish their own 'scientific papers' . Their paper Mammalian Ark Kinds is awesome since it has lengthy descriptions of what they think are the kinds are until you get to the bovids and the website version doesn't have any descriptions. The pdf of the same has a tiny blurb about the group. Uncorrected since 2012. They still used higher order taxonomy to organize the thing. What is a data scrapping ai going to cough up about cows when it has no info?

The ironic thing is that by trying to further isolate people (especially children) from any facts and ideas which contradicts AiG's dogma will probably ultimately backfire. People raised surrounded by such lies might not appreciate it when they realize the scope of the deception and manipulation pushed on them.

I literally have no idea what "technical literature" can argue that their post-flood model is not literally hyperevolution. Speciation is how evolution proceeds (each step). There are no greater single step jumps in evolution, even though AiG probably just lies that evolution is a family turning into another family. I have no idea how genetics can possibly work to give a bottlenecked pair of a "kind" the necessary genetic variation to be able to even be selected on. And if the Ark kind has the maximum adaptability of their kind, why would they need to speciate at all? Why wouldn't we just have single polymorphic species for each kind on Earth today that descended from that one Ark kind's offspring? If their technical literature is wrong, then claiming you are misunderstanding it would be their problem and not yours. Saying "this doesn't make a lick of sense" is not the same as lack of understanding.

It would be entertaining to play with a YEC ChatGPT. Usually these allow follow up questions to provide more clarity. Run it into unsolvable problems and logical inconsistencies, or just getting it to become the "God-did-it" bot for all the problems the creation model has.

I just now used an AI to produce all of the discussion below (copied verbatim), using the following prompt: "What relevant facts about the Andromeda galaxy falsify the religious claims made by the organization called 'Answers in Genesis'? [Two notes: (1) This came from the AI used at the "getliner" website. (2) I didn't take the time to copy the several citations to science information that the AI also provided in connection with the discussion it produced here.] -------------------------------- Conclusion The scientific understanding of the Andromeda Galaxy provides numerous facts that contradict the claims of young earth creationism, particularly those propagated by the organization "Answers in Genesis." Key aspects, such as the galaxy's distance and age, illustrate a universe much older than the 6,000 years suggested by this organization. 1. Distance from Earth The Andromeda Galaxy is located approximately 2.5 million light-years away from Earth, meaning the light we observe from it has taken 2.5 million years to reach us. This observation presents a significant challenge to young earth creationists, who argue for a much shorter timeframe for the age of the universe. 2. Age of the Galaxy Estimates suggest that the Andromeda Galaxy is between 5 and 10 billion years old. This vastly exceeds the young earth creationist claim of a universe that is only around 6,000 years old, indicating that Andromeda has existed for a time frame that conflicts directly with their beliefs. 3. Light Travel Time The light from the Andromeda Galaxy has been traveling for approximately 2.5 million years before it reaches Earth. This emphasizes that the observable universe includes objects that are not only ancient but also far removed in time, highlighting a discrepancy with young earth creationist views that posit a simultaneous creation of all celestial bodies. 4. Formation History The formation of the Andromeda Galaxy is believed to have occurred around 10 billion years ago through the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, followed by collisions with smaller galaxies. This process of galaxy formation involves timelines that align with a cosmological view of an evolving universe, unlike the static model often cited by young earth believers. 5. Observational Evidence Scientific research has shown clear evidence of the galaxy's dynamic processes, including its approach towards the Milky Way at a rate of approximately 110 kilometers per second. Such movements can only be understood through astronomical principles, which further contradict the creationist perspective that dismisses established scientific findings. 6. Existence of Companion Galaxies Andromeda has a number of smaller companion galaxies, like M32 and M110, that indicate a history of mergers and interactions over billions of years. This complexity in celestial structure calls into question the simplistic view of galaxy creation suggested by young earth proponents. 7. Cosmological Implications The observations regarding distant galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy, serve to reinforce the idea of an expanding universe, with age estimates that far exceed the claims of young earth creationism. The evidence collected through various astronomical studies collectively supports a scientific narrative that is inconsistent with fundamentalist interpretations of cosmology. These various facets of the Andromeda Galaxy underscore a substantial body of scientific evidence that conflicts with the claims of young earth creationism, particularly as articulated by organizations like "Answers in Genesis."

The Answers in Genesis group is a fundamentalist Christian organization that employs all kinds of false pseudoscience claims to pretend that their factually wrong religious doctrine of young earth creationism is "scientific." So, yes, whatever tools they use are tools they're using for evil purposes. This particular example (use of a chatbot engine relying solely on AiG pseudoscience misinformation) brings to mind the phrase "the blind leading the blind." Of course, one of the standard operating procedures of young earth creationism pseudoscience promoters has been to deliberately ignore all of the scientific facts that contradict them - and this is just another example of this.

Dr. Duff, you could have called this vid "How to use 'Garbage in, garbage out' technologies to make money, AiG way."

This is a total abuse of the Hebrew text of the scriptures! The word מִין‎ (min) is not a scientific term, and should not be pulled out of context and used as one.

Im a creationist. I saw Randy at the New England conference where he presented this idea. He used great current scientific studies as examples, but his model doesn't quite hold up. It doesnt explain how speciation occurs. It also doesnt rule out selection on its own, since organisns that sense and adapt will reproduce and those thag dont die off. He has a good idea but it doesnt do what he needs it to do.

Brilliant??? Can I use the trouble with tribbles reference on my IG? I will share your lecture. Lmk.

Joel, Further to the comments below apart from Wilma. I do believe that Brian is the real deal, the rest are charlatans. Ken Ham showed the way re the con. He is currently worth $50M. The reason I think 101 is genuine is because Brian is thick enough to be genuine. He parrots pseudo science using a bit of copy and paste. When actually composing text on his own, it is quite telling that his educational background is quite poor. I would not waste much time going ping pong with him, although I understand the exasperation. If you think their connivances re the fossil record are bad, follow what the do with distant starlight, the flood, radioactive decay, tectonic movement etc. Why I try to call them out, apart from the fact that they con poor souls out of money, is the fact that they abuse science to get their perverted views adopted into the education system. They want a theocratic fundamentalist society. Protect free speech and democracy, call these people out at every opportunity.

Calvin is just a con man, making lots of money. AIG want people to leave their estates to these charlatans.

Joel, I've had quite a bit of to and fro with Brian of 101. He does not even accept that he's a mamal! It's like an astronomer trying to have a conversation with an astrologist!

Wilma Flintstone had a ginger beaver. Fact.

I wonder how this idea is supposed to account for changes among Homo Sapiens? White Europeans exist because their ancestors left warmer climes and adapted over a very long period of time to the colder, darker climate of Europe. Under Randy Guliuzza's model, presumably the ancestors of white Europeans just started changing in response to their environment, producing white European features within only a few generations of the flood. But African Americans have inhabited similar environments for over 400 years now, and they haven't spontaneously changed, and likewise neither have White South Africans exhibited any "responsive" adaptation to their environment.

"He argues that Darwinian selectionisn is saturated with mysticism, and relies on unobservable and unquantifiable concepts" - layer upon layer of irony in this statement alone.

I would accept giraffes being a different ‘kind’ if they had far more neck vertebrae than okapi (or us). But they have 7: just bigger ones. All vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not about to debate any YEC diehard here, as it is a waste of my limited time and resources.

I have always wondered about the logic of ‘clean’ animals. The first mention is in Genesis 7:2, and the word ‘clean’ (Tahor in Hebrew) doesn’t appear before that. So what does ‘clean animal’ mean. There were no divine prohibitions about what could and could not be eaten until the book of Leviticus, which according to even YEC chronology is at least 2,000 after Noah. The only only other concern about clean animals was in connection with ‘sacrifices’ made to ‘God’ in the desert or the first Temple built in the time of Solomon (at least 500 years after Moses). None of it is true pf course, but even within the fundamentalist world view it falls apart.

ruclips.net/video/4hhE6tzJR_c/видео.htmlsi=YAIr__J18dU8cLjI

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Evolution has exponentially more to account for than any proposed young earth theory. If you must know, Dr Walt Brown who spent years studying heat transfer solved the problem in his proposed Hydroplate theory.

The answer seems obvious to me: God is so awesome, he made organisms who can evolve new traits. Problem solved.

You are making excuses. There is no evolution even if there is variation.

Dr. Duff your so incredibly obtuse when it comes to common sense, yet you want to criticise YEC for asking good questions. Just because it ruins most of the stories you lie about and call evidence. Yet you're bad examples shaded with colors from ignorance to deceptive. He is another perfect example when little men get a little power.

The how did they know how to care for their young question he asks at the end is something I wonder about YEC views of humans. In their opinion did Adam and Eve have this same parenting instinct/knowlege just dropped on them at creation also to care for their young? If so, why didn't that instinct stay with humans the same way it does with the birds and other animals? Or did they get explicit child care instructions from God that first 24-hour day along with everything else they had going on? Or is keeping small human children alive less complex even than small birds in their eyes?

Sexual Selection A.K.A. "This bird just thinks that that's hot."

This guy clearly doesn't actually understand what is actually meant by irreducible complexity. Neither do most of the commenters here. It has to do with cellular machinery. See Behe's works on the subject. He also sets up the usual straw man/equivocal argument suggesting that creationists actually argue FOR evolution by pointing out examples of adaptation. Adaptation is NOT evolution. Adaptation merely selects for traits that ALREADY EXIST in the genome. I grow weary of the small-brained comments on videos like these. Creationists understand the evolutionist's arguments much better than most evolutionists do. But I don't think evolutionists bother to really dig any deeper than the surface.

for people like this Dr. Duff or "professor" Dave Farina is nothing too complex. So why don't you people go and create this Weaver bird from scratch ... go to lab and create this bird from scratch ... Or, feel free to create any other bird ... or an ant ... or a carrot ... But you have to create it from scratch, not using an existing technology (a cell). Go biologists, and finally show us -- engineers -- how things are done ... Ohh... I forgot, you can't create the simplest cell from scratch, let alone something multicellular ... _

How do YECers explain the multitude of bugs? Or do they even bother?

Yes, you got much of our views correct. For an atheist you gave a fair review. Some of your critique could even be right. We believe more in the adaptability of animals within the kinds more than the billions of years evolutionists do in the species. We believe they all adapted from the kinds in a mere few thousands of years. And yes we believe and science is proving us correct that all of this is preprogrammed into the genome. Little DNA mutation required. Darwin was wrong, Lamarck was more correct. Even Darwin's own finches are now shown by science to be epigenetic changes and not the result of DNA mutations. The genome and all 21st century science has discovered about the cell is what 100% convinces me we are not and could not have been of purely natural causes. Evolution went from Darwin thinking the cell was nothing more than a mush of several compounds to “DNA must be 98% junk in order for evolution to be true because natural selection is messy, incomplete, and inefficient" (are you not old enough to remember that prediction?) to now 21st century discovering the cell has amazing order and complexity beyond our wildest previous imagination. 21st century science discovered the cell has a 4 dimensional genome that is folded different ways and read different ways with DNA that is an actual Turing machine and is fully functional with no junk and highly orderly with amazing layers of complexity using a bidirectional transport system where Kinesin and Dynein motors move along Microtubules constructed of interlocking proteins, in opposite directions, stepping around each other and avoiding obstacles while carrying payloads, burning 1 ATP energy for each step, 125,000 steps per millimeter, using energy created by a completely separate ATP engine. Remove any single function and there is no life. What an amazing miracle life is. If a cell were blown up to the size of the world's largest most advanced city on the planet, the cell would contain more machinery and manufacturing and computational abilities on scale than that city. There is no openly honest logic that justifies believing this is of purely natural causes. Surely these advances in science are explained by evolution in detail and why one would conclude this all evolved. Where is this science explaining this logic to make the conclusions evolution is still a valid science after it’s failed predictions? Biology of the cell has discovered such glaringly obvious design that it requires completely deluding yourself to cling to any idea of purely natural causes. Trillions of years is not enough for life to have started that 1st cell. It is as obvious as looking at a building and knowing it had a builder w/o any other confirmation other than just seeing the building standing there. How can you possibly not see this? EDIT: This was the first video I watched from you and know little about your beliefs. I just watched another and obviously I was completely wrong calling you an atheist. Forgive me please. Much of your reasoning seems pretty sound, I still believe YEC, but I will be glad to watch more of your videos. Maybe even subscribe.