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

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Definitive Evidence that ATP Synthase was Intelligently Designed

If you take a look at ATP synthase you can see it consists of two major subunits (F0 & F1) that are connected together by an external tether. This tether doesn't have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it no ATP synthase. The problem for evolution by blind and mindless processes is exacerbated. Not only does it need to produce the two subunits but one has to be embedded in some membrane so that a gradient can be formed. And the other has to to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away. The tether looks like the membrane subunit F0 somehow formed an external docking site the proper length with F1 forming an external mating site.

Again these two different protein subunits, the tether and mate, have nothing to do with the function of the protein complexes they are attached to and tether together. And without them there is no way to get the two working subunits together to produce ATP.

There you have it- A simple external tether that stably holds the major F1 subunit/ rotary motor the proper distance away from its F0 motor force is evidence for the Intelligent Design of ATP synthase. The two major subunits and how it works is just icing on the cake.

ATP synthase

Saturday, February 18, 2017

What Does ID Offer?

Over on TSZ "scientist" Robin asked :
What does ID offer?
Well Robin, ID offers basically the same thing as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. It offers up the chance that what we are observing may be the result of Intelligent Design.  And if ID is right that means living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry which means there is something else to living organisms. That means we would seek out and find it. And that is something that will never happen under the current unscientific paradigm. I think it would be very exciting to determine what makes living organisms work. From there we should be able to determine what makes an organism what it is because the genome isn't the determining factor. Yes genomes control and influence development but no one has shown genomes determine the type of organism that develops.

ID also offers up that there is a real purpose to our existence. A reason for us to be here. That is something else that we wouldn't be looking for under the current lame and unscientific paradigm.

And all of those other questions become different venues for exploration- the who's, how's, why's, when's. Exciting stuff.

So the real question is what the fuck does evolutionism and materialism offer? I doubt we'll ever get a well reasoned and logical answer to that question.

Did you notice the mass equivocation:
Think of all the activities that science has had a hand in either creating outright or improving: medicine, flight (well…transportation in general), communication, air quality, water quality, athletics, longevity, food preparation and quality, food production (agriculture), breeding and animal husbandry, manufacturing, etc, etc, etc, and etc…
And what part of that has anything to do with the claim living organisms arose and evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? What part of that has to do with the claim the earth/ moon and solar system was the result of unplanned cosmic collisions and the laws of nature?

Yes Robin, actual science works. Evolutionism isn't actual science, dumbass. But then again Robin thinks science is done via definition. dee-d-dee

Does Neil Rickert Even Know what Science Entails?

Neil Rickert, one of my dickheaded detractors said the following:
Personally, I have no objections at all to “Intelligent Design” as a philosophical idea. But the problem with ID, is that the ID proponents insist that it is science. My main objections to ID, are to the claim that it is science.
Well Neil, compared to evolutionism, when is considered to be science, ID is far superior. As opposed to evolutionism ID makes testable claims. For example IC can be tested. The claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce IC is not testable.

And when compared to materialism, again ID comes out on top as materialism is nothing but sheer dumb luck. So one has to wonder how Neil is defining science and why he thinks ID doesn't qualify.

 He won't say.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Earth to Patrick May, et al.- You Forgot Something

Patrick May posted:
Alan Fox, Neil Rickert, and I, acting as admins of The Skeptical Zone, have unanimously concluded that Frankie’s behavior over the past several weeks constitutes spam. 
That's it, no evidence, just their say-so. The reason there wasn't any evidence is because if provided in context it would show that they post spam. And by they I mean the moderators and regular evo-babblers.

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of "The Christian omni-God doesn't exist because there is too much evil and suffering", is just one example. Why is it sheer ignorance and stupidity? We don't know the plan, we don't know the rules, and said God is not beholden to our limiting definitions and limited understanding.

Alan Fox went off of the rails recently just because he was ignorant of what SETI is looking for. Because of his ignorance Alan challenged my claim they are searching for an artificial signal. This was to rebut the claim that only man-made things qualified as artificial. When dealing with an ignoramus of that magnitude many facts and inferences would look like spam.

Patrick May is another story. He is proud to be willfully ignorant of what ID says and what evolutionism* has. And he thinks that his ignorance is a position of power.

Neil Rickert firmly refuses to give any clue as to what he accepts and why. He just loves to falsely accuse me of doing something.

And Allan Miller is just totally clueless- sorry Allan couldn't resist. This guy denies the fact that the genetic code is a real code. He should be taken with all the seriousness of a YEC. He also ignorantly sez that men just want to "win". If by winning he means that the truth comes out and we finally get to openly figure out how we got here, then I am all for it. I don't care about points. I care about people supporting their claims or shutting the fuck up about it.

As Michael Shermer said if you want to say that living organisms arose via blind and mindless processes (physics and chemistry) then you first must assume that premise is false until demonstrated otherwise. And if you want to say that vision systems arose via natural selection, drift, neutral construction or any other blind and mindless process, then once again you have to assume that it is false until demonstrated otherwise. Evolutionists do not do that. They just say it, assume it and call it a day.

And yet I am accused of posting spam for pointing all of that out.

Guys, please hold your breath while waiting for me to send Patrick an email asking for reinstatement.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Sad but True- Biological Processes are Natural Cuz Someone Defined them that way

Seriously, I have an alleged scientist telling me that cuz biological processes are defined as natural that means all biological processes are blind and mindless. No research or science required to make that determination. Just a bald declaration from someone.

As if we needed more evidence that evolutionists are intellectual cowards and shit-eating ass-munchers.

Anything but have to support the claims of their unscientific position.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Joshua Swamidass Conflates Methodological Naturalism with Metaphysical Naturalism

Biologos' Joshua Swamidass has a blog post titled Why Methodological Naturalism? He says:
Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause,”without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN).
That's metaphysical naturalism that says that, not methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is dogma and as such cannot govern science. Science must be open and free.

Methodological naturalism just requires your claims to be physically testable. And seeing the design ID is talking about is physical and testable it meets the criteria.

Irreducible complexity can be observed, tested and that test can be repeated ad nauseum and it can be verified. That meets the standards of methodological naturalism.

Joshua Swamidass is just confused

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

A Molecular Code Turns Water into Ice?

In a discussion about the genetic code being a real code, that included nature's inability to produce such codes I was told there is a molecular code that turns water into ice @ zero C.

And here I thought it was all just physics. The surreal event starts here with the question:
Is H2O a code?
I responded by saying that H2O is the symbol for the chemical formula of a water molecule. So yes, writing H2O is a code for a water molecule.  Turns out that wasn't what she was talking about:
I was talking about the molecule itself, not the symbol.
After checking several times to see if I read that correctly I said- The molecule is not a code. It doesn't fit the definition. Earlier I had linked to the wikipedia entry on codes so at least my dimwitted opponent would understand the context and to show the genetic code is a code in the same sense as human codes. She didn't read it.

Brace yourselves for the next part. The response to my saying the molecule is not a code was:
Really? So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?

Physics be damned- it is either magic or a molecular code. Well, to this dolt physics is magic.

A molecular code kicks in @ zero C? What are the symbols and what do they represent? If only my ignorant opponent would have read the Wikipedia entry on codes. That would have amounted to its total education in the subject and she wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake.

Why Histone Octamers are a Problem for Junk DNA Enthusiaists

Junk DNA is bein g discussed over on the skeptical zone. In the discussion Larry Moran made the claim that 90% of the human genome is junk and he could get a human to develop using just hos chosen 10%. He says the junk has accumulated over the illions of generations since eukaryotes arose.

However there is a problem with that. The problem are the histone octamers used as spools which DNA is wound around to package it in the nucleus. Without the added 90% junk they wouldn't be required. But with all of that junk it wouldn't be possible to package it within the nucleus with the histone octamer spools.

So how did blind and mindless processes figure this out and create the spools to solve the problem? Whoops, the problem isn't just the spools, the spools are active as the DNA moves around them to get exposed and align with other sequences on other histone spools. How did blind and mindless processes pull that off?

Unfortunately Larry went away and didn't answer to this. What the hell was he going to say, anayway?

Monday, January 23, 2017

Challenge Issued- No One Accepts- Cowardice? You decide

Back on January 17 a challenge was issued over on the skeptical zone:

I have a challenge for those who want me banned:
A debate on the merits of ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- see Coyne's description
For example my opponent will have to say how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of those blind and mindless processes and I will have to say how we determined vision systems were intelligently designed.
If I lose or cannot support ID I will leave. If you lose or cannot support your position, you leave
No one has taken up the challenge. I say it's due to cowardice because they know they cannot come close to meeting the challenge. And yet they insist they are the defenders of science.

I used to wonder how they can sleep at night but then I remembered that ignorance is bliss.