Intelligent Reasoning

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

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Allan Miller- Proud to be a Fucking Idiot

-
Wow, another asinine comment over on TSZ. Allan Miller spews:

Forensics does not hold that certain features of a crime are best explained by an intelligent cause. Cryptography does not hold that certain features of messages are best explained by an intelligent cause. SETI does not hold that certain features of incoming radio frequencies are best explained by an intelligent cause. 
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So criminal activity is not an intelligent cause- are you serious? SETI definitely says that certain radio signals are best explained by intelligent causes. And cryptography does also.

Forensic science looks for signs of criminal activity, ie the actions of an intelligent agency. Archaeology does the same, as does SETI. SETI looks for artificial signals, ie signals that can only be produced by intelligent agencies.

What teh fuck is wrong with our opponents who would rather argue from ignorance rather than face reality?

OMagain wants experimental evidence that supports ID yet it is obvious that its position doesn't have any such thing and the experimental evidence for ID has been presented. Assholes until the end...

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Kevin R McCarthy- Texas- Just Another Cowardly Equivocator

-
Kevin is a pathetic coward. Even after it is explained to him what is being debated he still chooses to deceive people by equivocating. Kevin's new post exposes his cowardly equivocations.

No Kevin, finding peer-reviewed articles for "evolution" does not mean they support unguided evolution.

That means you need to at a minimum produce testable hypotheses for unguided evolution doing what Luskin said it is incapable of doing. You failed.

OMagain- Proud to be Ignorant

-
OM took umbrage to my recent post exposing it as an ignorant asshole. Now it spews:

The thing is Joe, we’re not opponents. You know that saying “not even wrong”? That’s you that is. For you to be an opponent of mine you’d have to have a coherent position. 

LoL! You are right, in a sense. YOU don't have a coherent position so you are not an opponent of ID.

YOU don't have a theory. YOU don't have any methodology. You don't have models nor testable hypotheses. You have nothing but your lies and bullshit.

So you can’t talk about specifics until design is determined, yet it’s my job to falsify ID by showing that undirected processes can produce what ID claims requires and intelligent agency. But if you’ve not determined design, how can I do that? 

We have determined intelligent design is present I have presented evidence here to that effect. You are more than welcome to come here and discuss it but we know you won't because you are a moron who couldn't understand the evidence if its life depended on it. Again your ignorance doesn't mean anything to us. OTOH your position still has nothing. It cannot lead by example. It can only offer promissory notes saying the future will uncover the answers.

Why does omagain and all of our detractors, think their ignorance means something

Friday, February 20, 2015

Alan Fox- Totally Clueless

-
Yup, Alan dumbass Fox is at it again. This time Alan spews:

Nobody in the ID camp has been prepared to formulate any kind of theory or hypothesis with anything approaching the rigor necessary to be able to perform any sort of controlled experiment or test. 
LoL! Nobody in the evoTARD camp can lead by example by showing us how evolutionism does that. There isn't any theory for unguided evolution. There isn't any testable hypotheses either. Rigor? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- all evolutionism has are promissory notes that the future will uncover the secrets.

Intelligent Design posits testable entailments, Alan. That is more than your position has to offer.

And BTW, saying something was intelligently designed is a valid explanation, Alan. Archaeology, forensic science, SETI and other venues use it to determine the path of continuing investigation.

Piotr Gasbag- Still Proudly Clueless

-
Piotr posted the following over on TSZ:

Biniba boncianla den diani yali n den tieni tisiga ni. Bin den diani ke li ta yemma leni yabi n den la leni binuni hali micilima n den wani ti mama gi go twa tipo bimawanggikaba.

He wants to know how ID would handle that. Well Piotr CONTEXT is important. If we saw that on a cave wall we would know that some intelligent agency put it there as mother nature is not capable.

So what was your point, Piotr? Do you think science is conducted in a vacuum?

Read the nonsense for yourselves

More Lies and Delusion from our Opponents

-
Here is a whopper of a lie:

Given we have a model of how the solar system could form without intelligent design, and no model or evidence that it was formed by intelligent design, why don’t you accept the existing non-ID model until you obtain some evidence for yours?
Given that is a big fat lie why should anyone listen to you, om? We do not have a model of how this solar system formed.

omagain also spewedd this bit of crackpottery:
Joe, now that we’ve clarified that everything that does anything is designed could you enlighten me as to why ID is not making new discoveries based on that? 
I don't know how you reached that imbecilic conclusion as it doesn't follow from anything anyone has said. It is not a fact as IDists say there is plenty of things that are not designed. And we have p[ointed many of those things out to you.

OM goes on to spew:
If it were not a fact you could simply point to a discovery that could only have been made under the assumption of design in biology.

That doesn't follow, asshole. Unguided evolution hasn't led to any discoveries. Unguided evolution is devoid of content and scientifically sterile.

And, Joe, If common descent is not true then I guess that means the designer has to intervene every time a branch forms. 

Only an ignoramus on an agenda would say that. Enter OM. Just because universal common descent is nonsense doesn't mean that branching descent is.

Intelligent Design is open to all but purely materialistic processes and what emerges from them for explaining what we observe.
Notice no mention of why that is the case, it just *is*.
LoL! That is ID's position, dumbass. It has only been explained hundreds and perhaps thousands of times.

Why is om such an ignorant fuck? Why does it think its ignorance means something?

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Dick's Choice

-
This post is inspired by Richie "cupcake" Hughes' post over on TSZ

Dick Hughes, is a good, atheist man with his own brand of morality who finds himself in a terrible position: He is in a hospital which has caught fire and he only has time to visit one of two rooms and escape before the whole building comes down, killing all within.
In room A is a beautiful, newborn baby girl. There is time to save only her.
In room B there are 10,000 IVF embryos, each waiting to develop into a wonderful child. There is time to save only them.
Should Dick:
1) Save the Baby
2) Save the IVF embryos
3) Save neither as natural selection knows best
And if (3) Should he even save himself from the fire?

Richie Hughes opines:

Does he *really* believe that NS is a moral system or that we think it is? Everyone knows gravity or electromagnetism have better morals. ;) Not understanding that agent actions are a part of NS probably means you should go away and read about evolution and not opine on it for a decade or two…

LoL! I never said NS is a moral system. If evolutionism is right then there isn't any such thing. Morality would be whatever anyone wanted it to be. And agent actions would only be part of NS if evolutionism is true. Richie needs to shut up for more than two decades as he is totally clueless.

And yes, Allan Miller, it has been proven that I understand natural selection better than at least some evos, li,e Richie. 

Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Reality of Alan Fox

-
I cannot remember when I first encountered Alan Fox but he has never impressed me as one with any knowledge from which to make reasonable inferences with. What I do know about Alan is he has always been full of shit and willfully ignorant. Alan no longer pretends to be interested in reality. He is right up front with spewing whatever he feels like spewing regardless of what the evidence is. He has never been interesting but he is an outspoken evoTARD so I like to highlight his asinine spewage.

Just look at TSZ- no one there has ever supported unguided evolution- keith s tried but was totally shot down by reality. Alan doesn't try because he can't, being limited intellectually does that. However it is funny reading Alan continually saying that ID is dead even though it has been supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Alan will die before ID.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

More EvoTARD Ignorance Exposed

-
Ignorant evoTARDs just don't get it and here is proof: Painting themselves into a corner?

No dumbass, Special Creation has always stipulated that  the universe and our place in it, were Specially Created. The book "The Privileged Planet" goes over the scientific evidence for the design of the universe, solar system and planet in great detail. And there isn't anything else but "sheer dumb luck" to explain our existence. The nebula hypothesis? Sheer dumb luck.

So yes, both IDists and Creationists say the earth was created/ designed for a purpose. Duh

For Creationists Genesis 1 talks about the Creation of the universe and earth

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Nested Hierarchies, Revisited- MS Pearce and Andreas Schueler are Losers!

-
The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really [I]is[/I] the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake [I]Eupodophis[/I] from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses  to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

Jonathon MS Pearce owes me an apology and Andreas Schueler owes me $10,000 USD