Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[huckelberry]

And... Full Circle back to the OP

Wow! What a word wall! The thing is, a word wall does not prove anything 100%. A.I. isn't allowed here. I think that is because critics have found that it provides useful (well, not to them) information that counteracts other information which may be flawed. In this instance using A.I. I was able to find multiple (well A.I. was) issues contained within the word wall of information.

I would simply suggest others do some more research ON YOUR OWN!! Do not, I repeat, do not let random folks on a board dedicated to tearing down Mormonism and all that is good within the church, influence you to the point that you feel like you've reached a dead end. These folks HAVE reached a dead end.

It took me less than five minutes to find information that causes me some consternation with the word wall that was placed on our screens at the beginning of this thread and now recently.

Recently in this thread I suggested that it would be wonderful if Simon Southerton could do a debate presentation with the five representatives (who were instantly ridiculed) that I mentioned earlier. As it is we are reading what one geneticist has said and he is saying it inside a silo of sorts without any 'in your face' feedback.

You're only going to hear one side.

That's unfortunate. That's it for me on this thread.

Regards,
MG

MG.

If AI helped you find important information about the DNA question do you not feel you have an obligation to present it? The AI rule says you would have to understand the finding well enough to present the information or ideas in your own sentences. That may be a touch of bother but you are happy to post quite a few sentences here so you do have the time to do this if it is worth much.

[drumdude]

MG is operating on the assumption that Mormonism being true is equally as likely as Mormonism being false. And that by doing some research, one can reasonably find themselves on either side of the issue, since it's such a knife edge split.

The problem is it's not 50/50. Mormon apologists have to climb mount Everest just to reach 50/50.

And they are still down at base camp farting around.

[malkie]

MG is operating on the assumption that Mormonism being true is equally as likely as Mormonism being false. And that by doing some research, one can reasonably find themselves on either side of the issue, since it's such a knife edge split.

The problem is it's not 50/50. Mormon apologists have to climb mount Everest just to reach 50/50.

And they are still down at base camp farting around.

He's also setting up conditions that he knows are extremely unlikely to be met. Not because Southerton holds unjustified views - more that it's not worth Southerton's time to pander to MG's ideas, just because MG has suggested that it would be "wonderful". He would have to be prepared to spend the rest of his life in futile "debates". He has published his work - enough!

What would happen if, every time MG makes a claim that (for example) Prof. Peterson supports, the critics demand that Peterson should do a debate presentation with five critics of MG's choosing? Perhaps not quite equivalent, but still ain't gonna happen.

[drumdude]

MG is operating on the assumption that Mormonism being true is equally as likely as Mormonism being false. And that by doing some research, one can reasonably find themselves on either side of the issue, since it's such a knife edge split.

The problem is it's not 50/50. Mormon apologists have to climb mount Everest just to reach 50/50.

And they are still down at base camp farting around.

He's also setting up conditions that he knows are extremely unlikely to be met. Not because Southerton holds unjustified views - more that it's not worth Southerton's time to pander to MG's ideas, just because MG has suggested that it would be "wonderful". He would have to be prepared to spend the rest of his life in futile "debates". He has published his work - enough!

What would happen if, every time MG makes a claim that (for example) Prof. Peterson supports, the critics demand that Peterson should do a debate presentation with five critics of MG's choosing? Perhaps not quite equivalent, but still ain't gonna happen.

The null hypothesis doesn't need to be defended unless adequate evidence is found to challenge it.

No one except the faithful take Mormon truth claims seriously. Because the evidence just isn't there. DCP and MG2.0 don't spend days worried if they're wrong about Scientology, it's not worth their time. Thus it is with Mormonism, too.

[Dr. Shades]

The AI rule says you would have to understand the finding well enough to present the information or ideas in your own sentences.

NO, GODDAMN IT, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AI RULE SAYS.

THE AI RULE IS THAT MG 2.0 MAY NOT USE AI, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL OF HIS HOLY ANGELS, EVERYONE, PLEASE STOP TELLING MG 2.0 THAT THERE ARE ANY SITUATIONS WHEREIN HE MAY USE AI. THERE ARE NOT ANY.

[huckelberry]

The AI rule says you would have to understand the finding well enough to present the information or ideas in your own sentences.

NO, GODDAMN IT, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AI RULE SAYS.

THE AI RULE IS THAT MG 2.0 MAY NOT USE AI, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL OF HIS HOLY ANGELS, EVERYONE, PLEASE STOP TELLING MG 2.0 THAT THERE ARE ANY SITUATIONS WHEREIN HE MAY USE AI. THERE ARE NOT ANY.

No I am sure the rule was do not post AI material. How can you prevent a person from using AI? How would you know if they used AI? Why would you want to stop a person from using it if you had some secret method of knowing what search a person used in considering a response?

I looked again at the posted rule and it says do not post any AI generated text. It says nothing about using AI to research available information a perfectly reasonable human activity.

[MG 2.0]

Why would you want to stop a person from using it if you had some secret method of knowing what search a person used in considering a response.

I've commented on this earlier. I think the reasons are rather clear.

I looked again at the posted rule and it says do not post any AI generated text . It says nothing about using AI to research available information a perfectly reasonable human activity.

You would think, right? Not here. It would...and has...upset the apple cart.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

NO, GODDAMN IT, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AI RULE SAYS.

THE AI RULE IS THAT MG 2.0 MAY NOT USE AI, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL OF HIS HOLY ANGELS, EVERYONE, PLEASE STOP TELLING MG 2.0 THAT THERE ARE ANY SITUATIONS WHEREIN HE MAY USE AI. THERE ARE NOT ANY.

No I am sure the rule was do not post AI material. How can you prevent a person from using AI? How would you know if they used AI? Why would you want to stop a person from using it if you had some secret method of knowing what search a person used in considering a response?

I looked again at the posted rule and it says do not post any AI generated text. It says nothing about using AI to research available information a perfectly reasonable human activity.

If I recall correctly, this was a specific instruction to/about MG from Dr Shades, out of frustration, because of MG's constant abuse of the several iterations of the AI rule that Shades wrote to try to cover potential future abuses. You can find the original at viewtopic.php?p=2901416#p2901416

Of course, MG is playing the innocent now, pretending that he never saw the original ...

However, a few comments later,

I have disagreed and pushed back, but am willing to abide by final rulings. I only pushed back, well, for all the reasons I mentioned...to no avail.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Wow! What a word wall! The thing is, a word wall does not prove anything 100%. A.I. isn't allowed here. I think that is because critics have found that it provides useful (well, not to them) information that counteracts other information which may be flawed. In this instance using A.I. I was able to find multiple (well A.I. was) issues contained within the word wall of information.

I would simply suggest others do some more research ON YOUR OWN!! Do not, I repeat, do not let random folks on a board dedicated to tearing down Mormonism and all that is good within the church, influence you to the point that you feel like you've reached a dead end. These folks HAVE reached a dead end.

It took me less than five minutes to find information that causes me some consternation with the word wall that was placed on our screens at the beginning of this thread and now recently.

Recently in this thread I suggested that it would be wonderful if Simon Southerton could do a debate presentation with the five representatives (who were instantly ridiculed) that I mentioned earlier. As it is we are reading what one geneticist has said and he is saying it inside a silo of sorts without any 'in your face' feedback.

You're only going to hear one side.

That's unfortunate. That's it for me on this thread.

Regards,
MG

MG.

If AI helped you find important information about the DNA question do you not feel you have an obligation to present it? The AI rule says you would have to understand the finding well enough to present the information or ideas in your own sentences. That may be a touch of bother but you are happy to post quite a few sentences here so you do have the time to do this if it is worth much.

The only reason MG 2.0 wants to utilise A.I. Is because he’s lazy. MG 2.0 could use the internet for himself. Find quotes from some of those geneticists that he’s mentioned that he thinks offers a rebuttal to the points that Southerton makes, quote them on here, with proper links, and an explanation of why he thinks the rebuttals are valid. He hasn’t done that because he’s too damn lazy to bother.

[Marcus]

No I am sure the rule was do not post AI material. How can you prevent a person from using AI? How would you know if they used AI? Why would you want to stop a person from using it if you had some secret method of knowing what search a person used in considering a response?

I looked again at the posted rule and it says do not post any AI generated text. It says nothing about using AI to research available information a perfectly reasonable human activity.

If I recall correctly, this was a specific instruction to/about MG from Dr Shades, out of frustration, because of MG's constant abuse of the several iterations of the AI rule that Shades wrote to try to cover potential future abuses. You can find the original at viewtopic.php?p=2901416#p2901416

Of course, MG is playing the innocent now, pretending that he never saw the original ...

This is what MG does, huckelberry. in my opinion, he's pleased to have 'upset the apple cart' because that's just another one of his folksy euphemisms for his obnoxious activity of trolling a discussion board. He tried many, many times to cheat the rule, even though it was very clearly explained, repeatedly. It defies logic that he now pretends not to understand, and that he now gives a new 'explanation' that is not true at all. The only way, in my opinion, to understand what he is doing is to recognize that he takes some sort of perverted pleasure in attempting to disrupt, to provoke, and to derail conversations.

Malkie's link above is worth looking at, Shades is extremely clear about why he uses the language he does:

NO.

Although everyone else would be able to work with that, MG 2.0 has proven himself unable. Therefore, Malkie, for the love of God and all of His holy angels, DO NOT LEAD MG 2.0 INTO TEMPTATION.

To wit, From this point forward, DO NOT COME UP WITH WAYS FOR MG 2.0 TO USE A.I. LEGITIMATELY.

Let this be your eternal rule of thumb: As far as MG 2.0 is concerned, A.I. does not exist and never did exist. He has never heard of it in his life, nor will he ever. Not from you, not from anyone.

It is extremely dishonest for MG 2.0 to now make the statements that you responded to, when he knows full well he is not accurately stating the problem. You're a nice and sincere person, and he took advantage of that and suckered you with his trolling. It always surprises me at how casually he lies given the religious beliefs he regularly touts, but he uses these lies exactly like a classic troll who is trying to provoke and disrupt.