mike the wiz

TRUE STATISTICS/PROBABLITY, HAVE TO BE PROVEN BASED ON TRUE FACTS (seems I understand stats better than the alien-statistician And;

ALIENS VISITING EARTH. This article also alludes to "UAP"s implying the statistician that wrote the article is swayed by them. There are some stats people never seem to consider about aliens historically visiting earth, and you are free to look it up if you don't believe me. STAT 1; It has been shown that alien technology since the 1800s, has mirrored our own. If you look at the alien crash in "Aurora", in the 1800s, you will laugh because it apparently was a dirigible, blimp-like UFO that done about 15 mph. The alien used paper to write heiroglyphs pn. Later one when Roswell came along, it was flying saucers, which matched with Hollywood's concept of UFOs. Later on it was triangles in accordance with the stealth bomber and other fighter jets, then finally it was the tic-tac style UFO, unexplainable lights and performances. STAT 2; There is a global map of UFO sightings and the hot spots are all where people rage most about aliens and believe in UFOs. Mostly the west. STAT /fact 3; The physics of space travel are well known physics. If you travel fast enough a particle can explode your space-ship no matter how far advanced your technology is. Technology cannot reach a point where magic can circumvent physics. Just as an example of good critical thinking, I watched a show where the "rubber duck" UFO which didn't have a heat signature was determined to be "unexplained", so I want to A.I. and gave it a theory that it was a balloon and that they were simply wrong about the wind-direction that day where the balloon was located. Sure enough that was the explanation. Because I knew it was far more likely they got the wind direction wrong than it being E.T in his favourite duck-mobile. Grow a brain people, YOU ARE A MIRACLE, whether you like it or not.

I read an article by a statistician, here are the key points, then I shall show how they are logically flawed. I do this because most people fall for these types of basic critical thinking errors when it comes to aliens. https://uk.yahoo.com/news/opinion-space-aliens-real-visited-110000412.html LOL. (For a "statistician", I just have to laugh at that one) Gee, let me think, could they possibly have anything to do with abiogenesis and evolutionism assumptions? "Comes from assuming" is the biggest problem. "what happened on earth" is loaded, and question-begged. Statistically according to formal rules, and true epistemological limits the only thing we know is that life exists on earth. Most people make his error with calculating that it is a matter of sharing conditions, and because there is an awful lot of space out there, somewhere the conditions of life will be met. But according to logical rules that doesn't give you the conclusion life is there, it gives you the conclusion that there will also be conditions suitable for life. It CIRCUMVENTS the fact that statistically, the chances of getting even one protein are still 1 in 10 to the power of 164. (More than known atoms in the universe) THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON. One thing people never look at with this issue is how unfounded the abiogenesis assumption is because like with the error of equating habitable conditions with life existing, most people being average IQ, also tend to conflate another two things, without realising it is circular reasoning. They treat earth as one example of abiogenesis because life exists. which is circular as shown by absurdum, if you just replace "abiogenesis" with anything else, since anything else will have the same amount of evidence, thus; "earth is one example of abiogenesis because life exists." OR; "earth is one example of phlogiston because life exists." (because the same amount of evidence for phlogiston or spaghetti monsters, exists for abiogenesis.) But life exists mike! Exactly, and that is the point, the statistic is that life exists not that it was abiogenesised so it can't be regarded as a factual part of the statistic. what the true conclusion is according to deductive rules, is the non-circular conclusion that DOES follow from life existing; "Earth is one example of life having a cause, because life exists." (think about it, they are still trying to find a way how abiogenesis could have happened.) But the cause, whatever it is (if I am to be totally neutral), has to have a SUFFICIENT REASON to occur. They have never found any except design because life even if you reduce it almost to nothing, is still riddled with design. Design counts as a sufficient reason in real life when we find designed things, but a natural cause would have to be so convoluted, and a chain so fantastical, that to assume it happened is worst and weakest sophistry possible. CONCLUSION; Such statistics only "work" if you assume evolution and abiogenesis is a dogmatic fact. There is nothing as further from the truth as assuming those things are factual. Even the scientists would likely agree with me because they would say, "proof is not the function of science". people say, "space is so big life just has to be there" but this hides an implicit incredulity fallacy; "I can't believe with all that space it is empty therefore it isn't." But it is. God only made life here as far as we know. In terms of trying to make life seem like a matter of probability, the statitician and the public, are wrong to focus on the incorrect stats. You have to calculate DIRECTLY, the chances of abiogenesis assembling designer cells, which carries a number so far into fiction is can't be entertained by intelligent people unless you invoke the multiverse fiction. Gemini; Any complaints about A.i will mean a deleted post and immediate suspension. I have addressed that this is desperate propaganda where evolutionists want to avoid any validity coming from this tool in case it supports things they don't like.

Mambo I am not being hard on you, and if you are honest enough to take a look at some of these issues with introspection, I would like to share why your chatGPT wasn't the same; (note the terms, "retrieval" and, "generation") You see your session was generative, you were asking chatgpt to generate something that would find flaws so it hallucinated them because there were no flaws. You introduced a command prompt that fed it a bias. You should have worded it in a way that would introduce a strict formal reasoning that would evaluate not just what I said but what Dawkins said. I actually asked for a test recently with ten mistakes from atheists, and I got all ten, so I actually do test myself using the A.I. I would have accepted it had I only found 4 or 5 errors.

The most stupid thing about atheists like Dawkins and those that listen to him, is that they do so with optimally functioning eyes. I mean seriously just think (for once), what side do you think wins, in a world where we were discussing this with a clunky, make-do eye we could barely see out of? Naturally it wouldn't matter what the creationist said in that world. WAKE UP. In the real world our technology still can't match the eye. Every single eye design is viable and a masterclass in engineering, AND with no evolutionary history. Now if we lived in a world where there were clunky, poor eyes and all you found was a history of evolution, THEN you could compare us to flat-earthers. But in this world? Take a long look in the mirror because there you see the flat-earther. Dawkins argued this not because it's factual and if you pretend it is you are LIAR and continue to spread LIES. He argued it because he doesn't want God to exist, because he isn't some perfect scientist, he is just a human sinner with a qualification.

Apparently what happened to Mambo's chatgpt session was an A.I. hallucination, where it fills in gaps with false information.

Morale of the story; Don't use "chatGPT" for an intellectual appraisal without first plugging it with the strict rules of formal logic, then accuse someone else of not doing a proper A.I. session when that is actually what you done to the point chatGPT stated there is no evidence for scientific facts like photic retinopathy.

Mambo your chatGPT got things factually wrong unlike gemini as predicted; it said things about scientific knowledge which are wrong and are widely known by scientists and didn't give any sources because it didn't need to by just saying, "there is no accepted evidence" of the heat issue. Perhaps it took the words, "burn out" literally? (note also the cited sources) ANd; Ironically, YOU WERE the one relying on a biased facile A.I. session, whereas I brought my scientific knowledge to the table, Mambo.

ANd; I asked the A.I to evaluate in accordance with formally correct logic. As you can see Mambo, I have out-thought Dawkins.

Your session stated factually wrong things. Here are Dawkins' actual words, note the highlights in red; "The same mistake" is loaded language as he has not established it is a mistake in design to begin with, which is poor critical thinking. Also terming it a "mistake" does imply bad design. The point is, his setup would not work because if you put the camera eye from cephalods into a human they would burn up. Essentially he is doing what Dawkins does best; impose his own limited subjective thinking onto the facts. CONCLUSION; Your chatgpt was wrong factually, because as you can see from the language he used, he calls the design a "mistake" and famously has argued that God would have designed things another way. Here is another quote from him; There you see it. A bungle is a non-sequitur which does not follow BECAUSE OUR EYES FUNCTION VIABLY PROVING THE DESIGN WORKS but his would not work. That is why he is not God, but instead just an arrogant atheist with limited intelligence, as I have shown. And he is also wrong, an engineer wouldn't call it a bungle because like my explanation shown, the mueller cells NEGATE forest of cells, and we can see clearly. What this actually achieves is several things, the choroid can refresh the cells for energy and acts as a liquid coolant. His set up would demonstrably not work. Your chatGPT session is a good example of how not to use A.I. unless you have great intellectual skills and abilities so that it can mirror your standard. I don't use A.I. because I need it, it firstly needs me. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. Dawkins' rhetoric is riddled with logical errors greased by his atheism, not an objective appraisal. Think about it, who is he to speak for engineers if they don't say the things he says? Here is what they actually say jambo; The following is NOT A.I. it is a quote from engineers, who have said the same thing as my original argument, that it is a one dimensional argument;

It seems Gemini thinks my argument is the fuller explanation and Dawkins' complaint about the human eye is one dimensional, and a poor critical analysis because he didn't take all of the factors into play. As you can see, my science was more sophisticated, it's ironic that my science it seems, was better than his; (don't just dismiss this because it's A.I., actually read it, it is unavoidable that his argument was wrong) Here was it's evaluation of my argument;

How I designed the heuristic; (it seems simple, but I knew it would guarantee the answers I wanted because each question is designed based on logic and engineering knowledge, though admittedly I was nervous when I designed it, in case there were examples that broke the heuristic and proven me wrong.) Now for the TRULY intelligent people reading this (lurkers and people that don't join the forum), their minds will be racing and they will be going through cognitive dissonance trying to find some, "OUT". Take it from someone that finished first place in a logic test taken by 40 thousand people; there is no way out of this. You didn't evolve. God created you all along. (which can't be proven technically but it's irrelevant, if you find design and not evolution then there's a designer, and faith can get you the rest of the way.)

If readers are wondering why this is more of an "explanation" than a topic open for debate; what debate? What argument? There was no argument, I asked two questions, and I always got the same results. That is not something that should be up for dispute unless you also think we should debate the following; Question 1; Pick any human being, did they have a vertebrate bodyplan? Question 2. Did the same human contain any reptilian features such as scales or being cold blooded? See my point? What argument? What debate? These are FACTS, and they shown design, not evolution. It's that simple. A person of high critical thinking ability only makes one statement about these facts; you either accept facts or you don't. If you do, you accept the reality of the world you live in, if you don't you can lie to people and pretend the facts don't have significance and use other rhetorical excuses so that you can go on pretending the picture of facts actually support evolution.

Well I say, "proving", you may argue the technicality, but the nature of the heuristic is by analogy, that of having a double trial, where two people are accused of murder, and one man shows consistently which each line of evidence he is innocent, and the other with each line of evidence he is guilty. That is what I would call, "reasonably proven". My heuristic is designed from two questions; Question 1; CHOOSE ANY specialised organism. Search; does it excel in engineering brilliance in any area of that specialisation? The answer is always "yes" be it fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, optics, whatever. Whatever the area is, not only will you find optimal design, you will find the design is predicated on a deep understanding of that field. Question 2; For the very same specialised organism, are there any intermediates ever found for those specialisations? The answer is always no. Here are some examples A.I. helped me with to show this; CONCLUSION; It really doesn't matter what the specialised form is, we could list every one that mankind knows about, the archer fish for example, has to calculate the mathematics of a parabolic water jet trajectory, the trilobyte's eye was predicated on an understanding of Abbes sines laws, Fermat's principle and the law of bifringement crystals. That knowledge of optics was required for the design of the eye. Again, no evolutionary history in any you choose. If we had a list of 457, there would be 457 viable designs in all areas of engineering, and 457 examples of no evolutionary intermediates. CASE CLOSED really. The ONLY reason to continue with evolution is if you are simply a liar.

Sorry I missed your post Hawkins. My only view is that an omniscient mind is going to know everything and compared to that level of thinking human thinking is almost useless, not only have we collectively got a miniscule IQ compared to God, but also our ignorance and our guesswork from clues are usually absurd in the highest degree. Abiogenesis for example, is quite frankly a pathetic attempt to pretend a lifeform could create itself. That is about as scientific as flying spaghetti monkeys.