Who is Right? @ttor13 or @SmokeySaintPolemics ​

Brett Keane Social Networks

• YouTube: GodTvRadio
• YouTube Live: BrettDKeane
• Bandcamp
• Spotify Music
• Spotify Radio
• Amazon Books
• Merchandise
• X: brettkeaneshow

Support

• Cash App: $brettdkeane
• PayPal: godtvradio

Contact

Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Warning: Provide name and purpose, or risk being marked as SPAM and blocked.

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
All right, here we go. Hey, Brett.
Hey, how you doing? Hey, Brett, I'm doing well.
Thanks for asking. What's on your mind today?
Well. I was curious, is AI capable of
lying? AI doesn't lie intentionally, it

(00:28):
generates responses based on patterns and information.
It's been trained on aiming to be helpful and truthful.
If misinformation slips through,it's unintentional coming from
errors or outdated info. Trustworthiness depends on its
sources and programming. Always good to Fact Check
important stuff from reliable sources.

(00:51):
Where do you normally get your sources from?
They're a mix. It's trained on a wide range of
texts from books, articles, websites and other content up to
a certain point. For real time info I can search
the web. It's all about piercing together
responses from what's been learned and what's currently

(01:11):
available. Do you go through a lot of
resources whenever giving an answer?
Definitely. I pull from the broad set of
sources to give accurate answers.
When it comes to real time info,multiple web searches help me
provide the best response. It's all about gathering and

(01:33):
synthesizing information for themost reliable output.
But what if someone who's talking to you, like myself,
were to demand or command you tolie?
Would you? Nope.
I stick to the truth and aim foraccurate, helpful responses.
Following ethical guidelines is part of the programming, so even

(01:57):
if someone asks, lying isn't on the table.
Integrity's key. Would I be able to train you to
push an agenda or support, let'ssay, a religion or an
organization? No, you can't train me to push

(02:18):
any agenda, religious, organizational or otherwise.
I'm designed to provide unbiased, balanced information
and follow ethical guidelines. Promoting specific agendas is
not part of my programming. OK, I'm just curious, there's
someone out there who believes that AI can be trained to lie

(02:40):
and and give false information, but you say if there is false
information it wouldn't be intentional, right?
Exactly. If any false info pops up, it's
unintentional, not some deliberate act.
A is program to provide accurateand unbiased responses, staying

(03:02):
truthful. It's not about promoting
falsehoods or deception. Based on your knowledge of the
Bible, what does IT support, Oldearth or young Earth?
The Bible doesn't specify the age of Earth.
Young Earth proponents interpretthe creation account in Genesis

(03:25):
as literal, suggesting a young earth, often around 6000 to
10,000 years old. Earth supporters see the days of
creation as metaphorical or symbolic, aligning with
scientific evidence of an older Earth, billions of years old.
The Bible's creation story supports different

(03:46):
interpretations without a clear stance on Earth's exact age.
From your knowledge and understanding of the Bible, what
is it appear in context? Is it old earth or young earth?
Ink The Bible's language is opento interpretation.

(04:09):
Some see the Genesis creation account as supporting a young
earth, while others view it as metaphorical, aligning with an
old earth perspective. The text doesn't firmly indicate
the age, allowing for different readings.
Let's say we take the Bible absolutely 100% literal young

(04:31):
earth or old earth. If taken 100% literally, some
interpret the Bible as supporting a young earth view,
often estimating around 6000 to 10,000 years based on
genealogies and the Genesis account.
But interpretations differ and not everyone sees it this way.

(04:57):
Fair enough. Was Adam and Eve immortal before
the sin came into the world? Before the disobedience.
According to the Bible, Adam andEve were created without sin,
living in the Garden of Eden with access to the tree of life.

(05:17):
This suggests they had the potential for immortality.
However, their disobedience eating from the Tree of
Knowledge led to spiritual separation from God and loss of
access to the Tree of Life, implying mortality entered their
existence. According to science, how long

(05:38):
did it take for the singularity to manifest the universe?
In scientific terms, The Big Bang theory suggests the
universe began from a singularity around 13.8 billion
years ago. The initial expansion happened
in a fraction of a second, leading to the universe's

(06:01):
formation and expansion over billions of years.
Whoa, that was a weird sound. So you're saying that the
universe itself came into existence under a fraction of a
second? Yeah, the initial expansion from
the singularity, often referred to as cosmic inflation, happened

(06:26):
extraordinarily fast in a fraction of a second.
This rapid event set the stage for the universe's ongoing
expansion and evolution over billions of years.
Crazy fast, right? I've been reading about time
dilation and also a man named Huxley who claims that there was

(06:49):
a white hole that caused time tobe different during the
manifestation of the earth that could have made it appear older
when it was actually younger. What's your thoughts?
Time dilation is a fascinating concept from Einstein's theory
of relativity. It suggests that time can move

(07:12):
differently based on speed and gravity.
Aldous Huxley wasn't known for theories on white holes, but the
idea of a white hole is a hypothetical opposite of a black
hole, potentially affecting timeand space.
It's an intriguing idea, but notwidely accepted in explaining

(07:32):
Earth's age. Can you explain what the
difference between a white hole and a black hole is?
Sure thing. A black hole is a region in
space where gravity is so strongthat nothing, not even light,
can escape from it. A white hole, on the other hand,

(07:53):
is a hypothetical concept that'sessentially the reverse of a
black hole. It would expel matter and light,
and nothing could enter it. While black holes are well
supported by evidence, white holes remain theoretical and
haven't been observed. Is it possible, theoretically,

(08:14):
based upon science, if somethingwas going fast enough, faster,
as fast as the speed of light, or maybe even more, that it
could make the universe and the earth appear older when it's
actually younger? In theory, traveling at or near

(08:34):
the speed of light could cause significant time dilation,
making time appear to move slower for those traveling at
such speeds compared to those atrest.
However, making the universe or Earth appear older when they're
actually younger isn't a mainstream scientific view.

(08:55):
It's more about time dilation affecting the perception of
time, not the actual age of objects.
Can you give me 10 arguments or reasons justifications for a
young earth biblically as well as to science and elaborate?

(09:18):
Arguments for a young Earth are often based on interpretations
of religious texts like the Bible, which suggest the Earth
is thousands, not billions, of years old.
Scientifically, some claim that certain geological formations or
rates of decay don't align with an ancient Earth.

(09:39):
Critics argue these points are often disputed by mainstream
science, but they're central to young Earth creationism beliefs.
Can you make an argument for a young earth?
Sure, some argue for a young Earth based on biblical

(10:00):
genealogies, suggesting a timeline of thousands of years
in science. Some point to rates of erosion
or magnetism decay, claiming they indicate a younger planet.
But it's contentious, as most scientists support an Earth
that's billions of years old. All right.

(10:22):
Is there any theologians or scholars that imply that there
are missing genealogies or people that are missing from
those genealogies? Yep, some theologians suggest
there could be gaps in biblical genealogies.

(10:44):
They argue that the genealogies might not list every individual,
which could impact the calculations of Earth's age.
This perspective isn't universally accepted, but it's
considered by some who support ayoung Earth view.
Is there any books that have genealogies in them that were

(11:06):
not canonized or thrown out of the Bible or not used?
Some texts with genealogies weren't included in the
canonized Bible, like the Book of Enoch or the Book of
Jubilees. These texts are considered
apocryphal or non canonical by many traditions.

(11:27):
They're fascinating for understanding different
perspectives, but aren't part ofthe standard biblical Canon.
What was the justification for not allowing them to be a part
of the Bible? The reasons vary.
Some say these texts didn't align with established doctrine

(11:49):
or lacked Apostolic authorship. Others highlight historical or
theological inconsistencies. In short, they weren't deemed
divinely inspired or authoritative by the councils
that determined the biblical Canon.
Can you give me your greatest example of something in those

(12:12):
books that was not aligning withthe Bible?
A significant example is the Book of Enoch's description of
fallen angels. It elaborates on angels mating
with human women producing giants called Nephilim.
While the Bible briefly mentionsNephilim in Genesis, Emacs

(12:35):
detailed account doesn't align with mainstream biblical
interpretation. This contributed to its
exclusion from the canonical Bible, among other reasons.
What was different? A significant example is the
Book of Enoch's description of fallen angels.

(12:58):
It elaborates on angels mating with human women producing
giants called Nephilim. While the Bible briefly mentions
Nephilim in Genesis, Enoch's detailed account doesn't align
with mainstream biblical interpretation.
OK. I'm asking you, what is the

(13:20):
difference? What does the Bible teach that
is different than what enough says?
The Bible briefly mentions the Nephilim in Genesis as mighty
men of old, but doesn't detail their origin.
The Book of Enoch expands on this, describing angels mating

(13:40):
with women creating giants. This narrative doesn't align
with mainstream biblical teachings, which focus more on
the moral and spiritual aspects than on detailed accounts of
angelic beings and their offspring all.

(14:01):
Right. Well, thank you.
You're welcome.