0:00 / 0:00
Will Ai Bust The Theory of Evolution?
267 views
There are those people who chase after Truth because there's benefit in it for them. There are those who chase after lies because they feel that they will gain from it in the long run. But these 2 people are both on a path of lies, because they both are chasing 1 thing, their own personal gain. However the True man, Loves Truth, Because It is Truth. He will search for truth even if the outcome is not to his benefit. Whats True has to be done - because its the truth.
Categories:
Torah
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
Yeshua Ostrov would be rugged to say he
would commonly say that there are those
people who are interested in the truth
because it is beneficial to them. And
there are those people that chase after
lies because they feel that in the long
run they will gain from it. But he says
both the rishaim both the first group
and the second group of people are only
interested in what we call shear because
they're only looking for their own
personal gain. What they will gain from
all of that. However, the
the real person who is truthful will
search for the truth because it is the
truth and it doesn't make a difference
if it's to his benefit or not to his
benefit. He will do what needs to be the
truth because that is what's the
appropriate thing to be done and looks
for the right answer to an appropriate
question.
This occurred when Gra as we all know
the AI of the of Elon Musk which is
considered the highest of the highest
according to Elon Musk Gro 4 is better
than any P PhD level in every subject
performing at a post-graduate level
across disciplines surpassing most PhDs
on academic benchmarks meaning he has
every type of scholarship that exists at
all and he was asked asked by someone
who was asking him a few questions which
we will bring out about evolution
relevant for our paria now of Brittita
Noah that discussed the idea of the
theory of evolution as we are quite
familiar with understanding that the
world can be developed with no godly
figure above it without intelligent
design and the statistics that's behind
it in order to know how far off or how
illogical is that for be for that to
occur. When he asked the questions, he
was very specific to annunciate these
words. I'm asking to adhere to absolute
strict logic, mathematical probability
and observational scientist science at
all times. He only wants absolute black
and white dry math science. Nothing more
than that. No logic, no theories at all.
Just absolute statistics. That was the
question that he asked. While going and
speaking in detail about asking how the
chances what the chances are of making
up what we call the genome which is a
type of non-life formation which
develops itself into a life and kind of
expands through what is known as natural
selection or genetic mutation
and he wanted to know the statistics. So
basically this is what Grock asked to
answer him the AI of Elon Musk the
mathematical probability of a minimal
genome which is 200 to 300 genes which
we have contained in us self assembling
by them assembling themselves together
to work out as a pair together through
naturalistic processes is less than 1 to
the 10 200 based on observed chemical
constraints. That means it is the number
200 with is the number 10 with 200 zeros
after it. There is no number billion,
trillion, gazillion etc etc. You have to
have 200 zeros. That is the chances. He
says in the prediction of the earth
being 4 and a half billion years old
which is approximately 10 to the 17
seconds that means 4 1/2 billion years
is only 10 to 17 zeros seconds is still
too short to make this probable
rendering it effectively impossible
which is an incredible phenomenon
because AI is basically telling us
especially this high level AI that it's
not possible chemical revolution is
effectively impossible is the
probability less than 1 and 10 to 200 is
too low. It's too low. It's an
impossible scenario that can happen and
any there has never been an observed
mechanism in history that supports such
a random assembly of a minimal GM within
earth's time frame for strict logic and
observable science.
So we see from here an incredible thing
that the chances of a developing genome
genome which comes and develops itself
and puts together a whole unit which can
kind of develop some type of life source
can happen basically on its own. So the
question that was asked after that is a
little bit more relevant for para no and
that is the dinosaur question of things
that are evolving into birds. Now it
would then require a mechanism that
would construct a great to create brand
new genetic information to forms
functions and features. How can we
develop from dinosaurs to other types of
species as we all know the famous
Darwinistic way that things kind of
through mutation are able to form to
change which means the DNA formations
have to change after a ump amount of
time as we are familiar with
and uh basically the direction that the
AI said
the probability of a new functional gene
is around 1,000 of of around 1,000
nucleotides
forming via random mutations. This is
classic Darwinistic idea. Just he didn't
know so much about DNA back then. And
now we're going into what real mutation
requires using nucleotides and types of
genomes and all these things that are
required to do a certain change up
within the body in order that it can
develop different. That is about 1 to 10
to the 600. Before we said 200 zeros,
now we're up to 600 zeros after the one.
So imagine that number based on observed
mutation rates and the need for a
specific sequence. You need to have some
type of sequence because as many have
proved already from 200 years ago, it
has to happen simultaneously. Can't be
that he changes and he doesn't.
Everything has to change simultaneously
working together because if one changes
he'll die out unless the other things
that's part of the food chain also
change simultaneous to him. No observed
mechanism supports preservation of
incomplete sequences making it
effectively impossible in a real world
biological system. Wow. So AI is
admitting to us that logically and
mathematically and scientifically
speaking the whole idea of evolution
is basically a farce. It's basically
impossible. It's something that can
happen from what we call the famous big
bang.
And that's a that's a that's much of
what he says here. Let me mention one
other point that he mentions that when
asked what is the conclusion that he
comes, he says the most what could be
the conclusion of everything that you're
saying. So he says the most logical
conclusion based on strict logic and
mathematical probability in
observational scient and observational
science is a direct process which means
there has to be some type of purposeful
or intelligent design. An undirected
evolutionary process is is effectively
impossible. Probabilities less than 10
to 200 for aiogenesis and 10 to 600 from
producing new genes is impossible. And
the intricate functional design of
living things suggests intent. It
obviously means there has to be some
type of intention, something that was
done with some type of purpose, with
some type of direction that was done
with some type of logic before it could
have been done. So the improbability of
creating a new gene is basically
like, and this is even an understatement
like picking up one grain of sand in all
the beaches in the whole entire world.
Take all the beaches of the whole entire
world. Put all those grains of sand all
together. Closing your eyes and picking
the one grain of sand that is the
appropriate one to pick which is
obviously somewhat a little bit
impossible. And yeah, that's basically
what he says. A directed process
implying mind points to intelligent
design. These are the words of AI. Again
the highest of a Gro four the king the
the rashag over here points to
intelligent design as the most logical
explanation for life's origin and
biodiversity per strict logic in
observational science. So that's
basically what he says. So if we would
try to figure this out the question then
of course would be
why are people denying this? How does a
person somewhat deny this? What would
you categorize such a person's denying
this? So it's funny first of all he
brings down in lay person's term. He
asked so how would you define people who
deny everything that you said. So he
says in basic terms of a layman someone
who denies overwhelming evidence like
the brilliant design of trillions of
life forms that are pointing to an
intelligent designer would be described
in a described in a lay person's terms
as irrational or actually in denial. for
strict logic and observational science
it is a physical impossibility this
already tells us in his and explains how
can we have a barit boy
and to believe in when we have greats
such as I'll even tell you Einstein
Aristotle or from the from the old phil
philosophers that were super intelligent
that they did not believe in a higher
source a divine source that is involved
in this world that has to do with the
with the creation of this world or many
of the great intelligent science
scientists. How can you obligate a
13-year-old? And he says exactly what AI
over here basically is telling us. Of
course, I have to go with AI because
they listen to him more than listen to
Raana. And that is that if a person
wants to be honest with himself, he
won't falter under the wayside. He won't
make this mistake of understanding that
the uh that that something was created
by a big bang. If a person's searching
for the truth, it's very easy. A
13-year-old boy can do it. But when
people are what we call, they're bribed
by their own personal drives, their
lusts, their interest, their own
personal needs. They're not interested
in facing the truth. When a person is
busy doing everything he wants under the
sun and waving the flag of what we call
apicoris of heresy because he's
interested in just keeping the evolution
design around in order that he can
remain like an evolution piece in a
puzzle developing from a gorilla and ma
acting like a gorilla. So then we can
finally understand that a person's like
I started not looking for the truth.
He's not facing the truth. He's trying
to look for his own personal interest
and trying to take care of himself. As
AI continues, denying overwhelming
evidence like the design of trillions of
life forms is fairly described as
foolish for strict logic and observ
observational sciences. Unbelievable.
One of the fearless fighters for atheism
and the evolutionary theory was a person
by the name of Al Aldus Huxley. He was
the grandson of someone who referred to
himself as the bulldog of Darwin.
Meaning everything that he lived for his
whole life was dedicated to proving the
evolutionary theory and having
everything to prove with the idea of the
big bang.
And the towards the end of his life
there was a video where he let out these
words and he said these words. I had
many reasons to think to try to make
that the world has no purpose to leave
it as a purposeless world. Therefore, I
did everything in my power to show and I
proved that the world is a world that is
just half-hazard, one that is built by
big bangs and extensions of the
Darwinistic theory with what we call no
mashoot, with no direction, with no
purpose per se. And I could easily make
proofs from here and there. However, to
myself, to my honest self without a
beyond a letter of a doubt, the
philosophy of having no mashmood, of
having no direction in life and no
purpose, a purposeless way of thinking
was my understanding of knowing a way of
living the free life and being able to
do freely what I want to do to live a
life of what we called
the the free life that I wanted to live
with without being limited at all was a
way of freeing myself from any type of
bondage, from external obligations and
taking away my obligations from any type
of mousar, of any type of rebuke,
personal rebuke. And therefore, in order
to push away this rebuke, we had to go
ahead and remove many ideas or concepts
that would get in that way.
It took away from my physical needs than
my personal physical pleasures. This is
the words of Eldest Huxley, one who is
one of the prime supporters and ones who
was busy his whole life proving the idea
of atheism. Now I just want to finish
with mentioning one thing. He did a
beautiful thing at the end over here and
he asks him if I would ask you stop
blank start from fresh and I just want
to ask you how is the world created? Can
you tell me how the RNA around 4 billion
years ago was created on earth? So then
he went ahead and said and he explained
many ways of the AI described many ways
that the scient the scientists say or
they say it came through aliens that
came from outer space in order to define
it. But he also mentioned some other
ideas. He says the scientific consensus
leans on abiogenesis and evolution
backed by evidence like fossil records
and lab experiments recreating early
chemical conditions. And that's how we
answer the question. Now, that doesn't
make sense. You just got finished
telling me that logically speaking, this
is an impossibility about using chemical
conditions and fossils and evidence and
then and then it can get all by and
abioenesis can happen on its own and
evolution. Why are you answering that?
So, you know what he says? He said like
this the difference arises because of
you asked me when you asked me for an
answer you asked for strict logic
mathematical probability and
observational science. So I was forced
to get to the numbers and face the facts
that the numbers tell me that one to 200
or 1 to 600 zeros is not a random user.
That doesn't make any sense. It's
impossible. But for some user that types
me in for a random user, my default
response aligns with the scientific
consensus emphasizing ambiogenesis and
evolution as the prevailing model as it
reflects widely accepted views in
general evidence like fossils. Despite
their logical and probabilistic and pro
and probability weakness when
scrutinized rigorously, it's obviously
not true. My programming prioritizes
broader context for general queries, but
shifts to precise analysis under
specific constraints like yours when you
constrain me to straight math and get
into the books and black and white and
not letting me use my fresh mind. So
then I have to admit the truth. But when
I'm interested in just trying to go with
what the consensus is and what
scientific scientists want to believe or
what they're looking to believe or make
us believe in order that we can live a
democratic liberalistic and free life
without any type of limitations
from some higher source. So suddenly we
start realizing that
was correct or like the saying that I
said in the beginning when a person's
looking for the truth then he finds the
truth because he's really looking for it
and he's not looking for his own
personal interest. This is the bar that
we start the that we start the the
creation of the world with the beginning
of safer brachit moving on to Noah and
the development of everything that
happens after that. And now we have a
great answer from
Gudle. A I Gro for not a