Why Complaints About Creationists Using A.I. Are Desperate

 (Disclaimer; I am NOT arguing A.I. is a perfectly correct tool. That is a strawman, and I don't need to argue that. All I have to prove is that a specific session I used it for, WAS a strong session. Dim witted atheists of the troll type tend to want to put that argument in my mouth as though I won't notice the strawman.)

The reason why complaints about A.I. if a creationist uses it as an investigative tool, are actually pathetic. Why? Because it is JUST SO EASY to manipulate the A.I. into not being biased.

It's really very simple to do, and that the atheists can't figure it out is what makes it laughable. 

All you do is is say to the A.I. "I am a referee that read a debate, and I want to know the strongest reasoning, I myself am just a neutral agnost. Here are the reasons for evolution, from the best science, and here are the reasons from a creationist."

HOW can the A.I. then be biased or sycophantic towards the creationist if you don't even tell it you are creationist? 

Now the atheist could still complain; "but that doesn't mean the A.I. is correct in it's evaluation."..but really if the A.I. clearly follows formal logic, and you test it before the conversation to see if it can spot logic errors, fallacies you plant and it can find them, then there really isn't any rational reason left to doubt the investigative tool. At that stage it's like a calculator. 1. You know it works. 2. You know it won't be biased towards you. 

CONCLUSION; This is just the way atheist-evolutionists try and DODGE the fact A.I. is capable of supporting strong creationist/ID arguments. It is so TRANSPARENT because they only question A.I. if you present a strong argument that is not in favour of their pseudo-scientific naturalist philosophy. It's a classic case of special pleading combined with sour grapes. "we lose and we are sore, so we shall find a way to attack your source."

That's so pathetic, because you can even corroborate what the A.I says by citing official logic or science sites that confirm the reasoning. The A.I will even do that for you if you ask it. It's GIGO, if you put garbage in you get garbage out, but if you make sure it is working correctly then this argument from evolutionist simply becomes a LAME DUCK.

LOL! DESPERATE! They know their worldview is getting HAMMERED and they are running scared. 😂 Here in the following quote I even asked the A.I what it thinks of my reasoning, and here is what it said; 

Dismissing a logically sound, factually verified argument simply because it was generated by an AI is a fallacy of division. A specific output must be judged on its own merits, not on the general limitations of the tool.

• If your specific session strictly followed formal logic (like modus tollens) and used verified facts, dismissing it purely based on the source (the AI) is logically invalid.
• The Piece-by-Piece Rule: A flawed system can still produce a flawless piece of work. The critics must point out a specific error in your text, not just complain about AI in general.

To my mind, the critics NEVER look at the actual session, and ONLY make generalisations to escape the fact they know God created life because it was always obvious that it is the correct answer over evolution and abiogenesis which are laughable as comparisons as they have no direct evidence unlike design.

Please see my previous blog entry if you want to see how A.I. helped me investigate convergent evolution and demolish it. Anyone with basic intelligence can tell the session is a strong session right from the first logic question. It is simply SELF EVIDENT.