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

Thursday, January 19, 2017

How NOT to Understand a Book

Over on TSZ I am having a discussion with a clueless moron that goes by Robin. Robin actually said that he/ she didn't have to read a book to review it, he/she just had to read the (negative) reviews of it in order to understand what the book was about and if it had any merit. Read it here-

I said- You never read the book so your opinion is meaningless.
Enter Robin- This would be an example of KF’s favorite attack: an oil of adhominem soaked strawman.
Whether I’ve read the book does not invalidate any opinion and knowledge I gain from reading reviews of a book and criticisms of author. And since my argument is based on the fact that the book is not actually science, isn’t presented as peer-reviewed research in a scientific publication, and isn’t accepted by the scientific community as science, the actual content of the book is irrelevant to the point.
Plain and simple: it isn’t science; it’s special pleading by question begging.
 1- It is a fact that if you haven't read the book and only the negative reviews then your opinion of the book is meaningless. It's just desperation to try to argue otherwise
2- Reading only the negative reviews- negative reviews which have been totally rebutted- and using them to review a book is intellectual cowardice and yet Robin seems to be proud of it.
3- Everything in the book is based on science, including the original research of Gonzalez. Everything they wrote is based on scientific discoveries
4- The book did something that you said didn't exist- it argued for ID and against blind and mindless processes producing the earth/ moon and solar system
5- Anyone who thinks it is science saying our system is just the result of cosmic collisions being somehow just-so sorted out by gravity, is on a materialistic/ dogmatic agenda

Point 4, in case you didn't know, was why Robin could dismiss arguments against blind watchmaker evolution- after all we didn't argue against blind and mindless processes producing the earth/ moon and solar system. That's right- arguments against evolutionism are moot because we don't argue against any other aspect of methodological naturalism. That is not only wrong but another example of intellectual cowardice. And this butt-plug is proud of it.

It is sad when people won't even take the time to actually learn about the position they are arguing against.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Laurence A. Moran, Univ. of Toronto, is a liar and a coward

Laurence A. "Larry" Moran is an embarrassment to humans. His method of debate is to try to intimidate, censor, lie, bluff and bluster. In a recent blog post about Axe and Meyer Larry spews the bullshit:
All of these "problems" have been addressed and refuted by many scientists over the past twenty years ...
If that was true then why did the evolutionists at the Kitzmiller trial have to lie, misrepresent and bluff their way through it? If they really had the evidence they would have presented it. Larry Moran is a fat liar.

Larry won't have anything to do with reality, though. In his little bitty mind I am sure blind watchmaker evolution is perfectly testable. However the real world says otherwise. I would love to get into a debate with Larry and have it at his university. That way all there can see what a lying loser and coward this ass-face really is.

Larry Moran- couldn't support blind watchmaker evolution if his life depended on it

added: James Shapiro calls Moran closed-minded- Shapiro skewers Moran

Too funny- not even evolutionists like Larry Moran

Thursday, January 05, 2017

Joe Felsenstein and Patrick May- Very stupid or willfully ignorant

Here we go again, this time evos want to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that functional sequence complexity and complex specified information (biology) are the same exact things. They get confused because the metrics for each are different. It's as if they think that two different phrases cannot be talking about the same thing and that because there are two slightly different metrics then they must be different things.

Dembski/ Meyer CSI (biology) is supposed to be a mathematical measure of functional information of the functional sequence complexity observed in protein family biosequences as well as their RNA and DNA antecedents
Durston et al posit their own mathematical measure of functional information, in units of Fits, of the functional sequence complexity observed in protein family biosequences has been designed and evaluated.
They are both measuring the same thing. If you have CSI (biology) it is because you have functional sequence complexity. And if you are measuring the FSC then you are measuring the CSI.
Neither Joe Felsenstein nor Patrick May can grasp that simple explanation. The stupid runs deep...

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

What makes a theory a scientific theory

The TSZ denizens are totally confused. They throw around the word "theory" as if that alone adds weight to the argument. They will say that Darwin had a theory of evolution but when pressed they admit he didn't say how to test his claims scientifically. And that brings us to the title of this post- What makes a theory a scientific theory? Wikipedia has an agreed upon answer:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
A scientific theory must make testable claims and to a lesser degree there should be a way to falsify the claim.

Darwin said how to falsify his claims:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].
And by doing so he said how to test them
If it could be demonstrated that all complex organs that ever existed,  could have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would be absolutely confirmed.
But that isn't the whole of it. Those slight modifications have to come about via happenstance genetic changes and then preserved. Chance is at the beating heart of Darwin's concept.

The point is even though Darwin said, in an off-hand way, how to, in a general sense, test his claims, he never provided the detail required by science. Darwin thought the evidence for the evolution of the eye was different complexities of eyes that existed. That isn't even for the evolution of the eye let alone evolution by natural selection.

The point is that no one since Darwin has figured out how vision systems could have arisen and evolved and been able to pack it down at the genetic level. And that is the whole problem with people trying to say that there is a scientific theory of evolution- if there is it sure as hell doesn't include the evolution of vision systems and macroevolution in general.

ID is falsifiable as one of ID's claims is:
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
And that means to falsify ID all one has to do is show that naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

Basically it is saying that if evolutionists actually find a way to test their claims, test and confirm them, in a way that can be repeated, ID is falsified.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
It can also be found in the first two premises of the design hypothesis:
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
ATP synthase falls into the IC category. Anyone and everyone is welcome to test that claim.

And there is the difference. ID makes testable claims whereas evolutionism does not

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Alan Fox contradicts Jonathan Burke

Whoopsie - Alan Fox finally admitted that Darwin's is not a scientific theory as it does not contain any method of testing its claims. Then Alan went mental and said  the goalposts moved to "scientific" theory. Alan was proven wrong in that regard and hasn't posted since.

OK so Darwin's isn't a scientific theory and no one else has posited one. That means I am correct in saying that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

Biologos is full of shit and the skeptical zone is run by ignorant assholes.

Friday, December 23, 2016

An Evolutionary Tale- The Power of Accumulating Mistakes

Evolutionists, like Dawkins, would have us believe the following is not only possible but inevitable given the starting point and the mechanism. Well at least we know what makes each novel what it is- a specific ordering of words that achieves a desired result. 

On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote
I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.
His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."
I raise my eyebrows.
Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.
"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." 
Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.
"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."
I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.
"Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."
I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"
"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."

The above is from David Berlinski's the Deniable Darwin - an oldie but goodie that I can't help thinking about every time someone spews universal common descent is a fact.

The question is do evolutionists really think the above scenario is possible? It seems to me the answer would be yes. But don't forget these people think "The Island of Dr Moreau" is a documentary showing what changing DNA can do to forms.

Richard Dawkins and The Greatest Lies on Earth- Chapters 1 & 2

UK Jerad said I should read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth". But having already read several of his books I know that dawkins' is nothing more than a pathological liar who doesn't even seem to understand science. This book is no different. The first two chapters are full of lies and bullshit. Dawkins proves he doesn't understand natural selection- he thinks there is actual selecting going on and he sez that artificial selection, which is an actual selection process, is the same as natural selection, which is a process of elimination (chapter 2). Unfortunately for Dawkins Ernst Mayr set the record straight in "What Evolution Is":

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

Dawkins tries to conflate the two and fool his readers. Too bad reality demonstrates he is the fool.

Dawkins also sez that evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, but yet he never cites the theory- never. And he never says how to test its claims, scientifically. And to top it off he makes the same mistake Darwin did- he thinks Creationists accept the fixity of species- he calls it the immutability of species. But this is far from true as Creationists since Linne have accepted that speciation exists. Creationists accept the fixity of Kinds, which Linne put at the level of Genus. The mistake was OK for Darwin but it shows Dawkins doesn't care about facts.

One of Dawkins' thought experiments has us starting with rabbits and going back in time- one generation at a time. He sez that by going back far enough we will reach the common ancestor of mammals which he thinks is a type of shrew. And once we get to the shrew from the rabbit we can then go from that shrew to say a leopard- small steps at a time. Unfortunately for Dawkins there isn't any science behind his thought experiment and imagination isn't evidence.

He thinks that such macroevolution is possible due to the amazing amount of phenotypic plasticity exhibited by dogs. Little does he realize that said amount of phenotypic plasticity means we cannot tell if a fossil is a transitional or still the same species.

So with the first two chapters Dawkins spews lies and bullshit in order to try to confuse the readers and support his position. Typical but still sad.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Jonathon Burke, Ignorant asshole

Jonathan Burke is a regular poster on Biologos. However from his posts he is an ignorant asshole. For example natural selection is blind and mindless which is why Dawkins called it the blind watchmaker. And every scenario that says NS is the prime evolutionary mechanism is also saying the blind watchmaker didit. And yet when I said that to Jonny boy he claims that I have been corrected many times! What a fucking lowlife loser! This fuckhead doesn't have a clue.

Jonathan also lies when he said Darwin said how to test his claims and he provided detail- Darwin diodn't know the details and he never said how to test his claims.

Jonathan Burke, Biologos, is one sad loser.

UK Jerad Chokes, as usual

No Jerad, you do not get to post on my blog seeing that you cannot support your claims and can only hurl bullshit around. You are a total loser for failing to link to the alleged theory of evolution. You are totally ignorant of science and you are too fucking stupid to understand simple explanations.

And to top it off you are a pathological liar and coward. Those are your best points.

And one more thing:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

Buy a dictionary, loser.

Biologos- Home for Cowardly Liars and Losers calling themselves "christian"

Well that was fun. I went to Biologos to see what theistic evolutionists have to say and all they can say are lies and bullshit. Those people are as bad as evoTARDs when it comes to having an honest and open discussion.

Out of one side of their mouths they say that blind watchmaker evolution isn't science and then turn around and say the scientific theory of evolution is the blind watchmaker thesis! Then they lie about Darwin having ways to test his claims. And when I call them on their lies I get booted- well I also said they weren't christians which hurt their little non-christian hearts.

When I said ID is not anti-evolution one moron said I was being disingenuous even though he hadn't read my essay that I linked to. Then another chimed in saying evolution is defined as universal common descent and because there are IDists who argue against it that means ID does too. Total dipshit.

I can only conclude that theistic evolutionists are a clueless lot. They say that God didit but they also say that we cannot make that determination. It is pathetic to limit yourself like that but they seem to relish it.

Theistic evolutionists, dipshits without a clue. "christians" like that are one of the reasons I no longer consider myself to be a christian.