Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, April 16, 2018

Set- Mathematics

While talking about sets with respect to mathematics on cannot help see the irony between the definition of a set and alleged infinite sets. The problem is even more exacerbated when thinking about the set of all real numbers.
In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. For example, the numbers 2, 4, and 6 are distinct objects when considered separately, but when they are considered collectively they form a single set of size three, written {2,4,6}. The concept of a set is one of the most fundamental in mathematics.
A set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects. 
No one can collect an infinite number of things. And with real numbers, if you are starting with the positive Reals, then you don't even know where it starts. There isn't a well-defined first positive Real number and there will never be a well-defined collection of them.

So perhaps that is why there are issues when it comes to infinity and sets. They were never supposed to go together.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

keiths is an Ignorant and Desperate Ass

keiths- you do NOT get to tell me who my system works. And you prove that you are clueless:

Joe G insists that the leading zeros help him…

Of course those help me, keiths. YOU don’t get to tell me how my system works. You are a desperate loser.

…and then describes a procedure in which the leading zeros don’t help him in the slightest:

Anyone can see that the “3” in one set matches with the “3” in the “3.1” in the other. The “4” in one set matches with the “4” in the “4.1” in the other- and so on.
WRONG. What I described proves that the zero to the left of the decimal point helps. What is 3.1-3?

So besides the leading zeros problem, the elements don’t actually have to match, according to Joe. They merely have to Joematch, meaning that something in one matches something in the other.
No, dumbass. The FIRST number is what matters.

But even the revised Joematching “procedure” fails, by leading to a contradiction. Consider the following four sets:
A = {1,2,3,4,5…}
B = {2,4,6,8,10…}
C = {3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5…}
D = {3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10…}
Wait- look closely at set D. The 5th element is actually 3.1. But if the purpose was to add .2 then it would be 4.0.

Try again, keiths

Set subtraction is only used in cases where it can be. It is an easy way to tell if the cardinalities are different. I never said that is the only method.


Cantor was Wrong

Two trains, A and B, on an infinite journey.

They are on parallel tracks, starting @ the same time and traveling the same speed-> 1 mile / min. Their energy is supplied by "the force" and is unlimited.

Every mile there is a brass ring.

Train A hooks a brass ring every mile. Train A's collection is depicted by the set {1,2,3,4,5,...}

Train B hooks a brass ring every 2 miles. Train B's collection is depicted by the set {2,4,6,8,10,...}

Each train has an accountant and each track also has an accountant.

After a 10 hours each set is counted. If my detractors are correct I would expect to see all four accountants reach the same count.

Train A's set has 600 members in its collection (set)

Train B's has 300

The first ten miles of track A's rings are gone. Nothing in its set

Track B has 300 rings still hanging- 300 members in its set

And this pattern is reproduced throughout the infinite journey.

You are talking about the equivalent of two finite sets:
Infinity is a journey which consists of finite steps. My sets will remain unequal for eternity. After the first minute there will never be a point in time in which the cardinality of the two sets is the same.

keiths has choked up a "response":
There will never be a point in time in which the two sets are infinite, either.
Gibberish. The point is at every point along the journey one set will always have more brass rings. Always. Forever

Your choo-choo math is therefore irrelevant to the problem, which asks about the cardinality of two infinite sets.
 Cardinality refers to a number whereas infinity is not a number. So understanding that infinity is a journey and relativity applies we can determine the relative cardinality between two sets.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

keiths is just ignorant

keiths still doesn't understand infinite sets. It is too stupid to understand that the only thing gained by a one-to-one correspondence is the function that exposes the relative cardinalities- well and that function shows the two sets are countable and infinite.

But Einstein still holds. The set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,...} will always have more members than the set {2,4,6,8,10...}. I can match up every member from the second set to a member of the first set and the first set will have unmatched members. Mere set subtraction proves the first set has more members of the second.

Cantor didn't know about relativity so he can be forgiven. keiths and the rest are just willfully ignorant assholes.

keiths is still struggling with set subtraction. No surprise there

Oh my- keiths is a desperate ass- No, dumbass you have to match the numbers- MATCH. You don't get to arbitrarily place one number from one set with one from the other. SET SUBTRACTION you ignorant twit.

keiths- ignorant of English, math, physics and nested hierarchies. You are a buffoon you old chump

And MOAR desperate ignorance from keiths- you only apply set subtraction when you can- ie when the sets contain matching numbers.

In my system A = {1,2,3,4,5…}
B = {1, 2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1…}  would have the same cardinality.

But I understand that you have to be a dick in order to try to score imaginary interweb points

OK keiths has admitted that he is just being a dick in order to try to score imaginary interweb points.

Yes set subtraction would still work on your two sets. As long as left of the decimal point is 0 you are good to go. Duh

You lose, keiths

keiths proves it is an ignorant ass who couldn't think if its life depended on it.

keiths blows a gasket:

There is no zero “left of the decimal point”, unless you’re talking about the implicit leading zeros, and those won’t help you.
Of course those help me, keiths. YOU don't get to tell me how my system works.  You are a desperate loser.

Anyone can see that the "3" in one set matches with the "3" in the "3.1" in the other. The "4" in one set matches with the "4" in the "4.1" in the other- and so on.

And this dork says that I don't understand math.

Saturday, April 07, 2018

The Genetic Code- Expected Before it was Found- So What?

Glen Davidson is one clueless imp. He has a new post up on TSZ titled The Genetic Code: Expected Before It Was Found- to which I say- so what? That doesn't mean natural selection and drift didit. You still don't have a mechanism capable of producing the genetic code.

IDists say the genetic code is evidence for ID for the simple reason only intelligent agencies can produce codes and nature cannot. If you and yours had any evidence that nature could produce codes you could have a chance to win up to 5.1 MILLION dollars:

Technology Prize for Origin of Information

So stop with your blah, blah. blah and get to work

At this stage, the only thing about (blind watchmaker) evolutionary advocates that interests me is their psychology. They are a demented lot who don't seem to give a damn about reality or science. Yes, looking at your Richard Saunders, aka Kantian Naturalist/ loser

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Futuyma Refutes keiths

In Futuyma's college textbook "Evolution" 3rd edition, he discusses classification schemes. He starts out talking about the nested hierarchies of Linnaean Taxonomy. When he discusses phylogenies he says they are a hierarchal scheme, not a nested hierarchy.

Whoopsie- that also means I am owed $10,000 by Andreas S- loser

Monday, April 02, 2018

keiths- ignorant and incompetent


keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:  

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. 

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:   

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings 

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:     

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. 

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.  

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. 

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper: 

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. 

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:    

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.


*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme. keiths is clearly an ignorant ass

Friday, March 23, 2018

Earth to GlenDavidson: The Genetic Code

The TARD never stops over on TSZ. Now we have the blessed and very special GlenDavidson saying:
Of course it’s not a symbolic code, it’s a chemical code that works by chemical interactions.
That bit of easily refutable nonsense refers to the genetic code. And of course the genetic code is a symbolic code. The mRNA codons represent their respective amino acids and do not become them via ant physico-chemical process. That means the mRNA codons are the symbols for the amino acids. That is why the process of making the proteins is called translation. The mRNA symbols are translated into the working polypeptide. The ribosome is a genetic compiler. It takes the source code in and puts out the protein object code.

It is a symbolic code and although it involves chemical reactions it is not reducible to them. Codes don't just make themselves and then make the machinery to carry it out.