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

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

RichardTHughes- Proud to be an Ignorant Ass

This is too funny. I asked Richie what, if not mass, makes our universe the size that it is?

Richie answered by posting a link as to how we measure distances in the universe!

Seriously, take a look for yourselves

Richie is a cupcake who is a total failure in life.

Why Unguided Evolution Does NOT Explain Anything Beyond Disease and Deformities

This is another response to keiths' ignorant and lie-filled post Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 1 — Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent.

Notice that keiths never even attempts to model unguided evolution. That is because no one can which places unguided evolution outside the realm of science. That means it doesn't have any explanatory power beyond explaining disease and deformities.

The lack of a feasible model for unguided evolution proves that it doesn't have any explanatory power at all. This also means that keiths is a lowlife liar or completely ignorant of reality.

The funny part, in a sad way, is that keiths references Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" yet even Theobald says it does not support any mechanism! As I said, keiths is a lowlife without a clue.

keiths also posts another huge lie:

And because gradual common descent predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature

LoL! All knowledgeable evos I have encountered know that gradual evolution produces a smooth blending of defining characteristics which would ruin all attempts to create a nested hierarchy. Only an intelligent design could produce a nested hierarchy. Linnean taxonomy- ie the observed nested hierarchy, even by Theobald's article, is based on a Common Design and has absolutely nothing to do with unguided evolution nor Common Descent.

As I said keiths is a lowlife and obviously proud of it.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Evolutionists, Too Cowardly to Lead by Example

Evos love to say that ID isn't science and that IDists don't do any science. This is strange because it is obvious that evolutionism isn't based on science and evolutionists don't do any science that supports evolutionism!

Time to grow up and lead by example- or shut the fuck up.

Is keiths Ignorant of Baseball Too?

keiths is an ignorant ass who loves to spew nonsense as if it is meaningful. When it was pointed out that fitness wrt biology is a tautology- fitness is based on reproductive success*- keiths brings up baseball and chokes:

The best hitters are the best hitters. That’s a tautology. Does that mean that batting averages are meaningless? Of course not.
Batting averages are not meaningless but they are only part of the equation. The best hitters are the ones with the highest on base percentage (OBP). That means the best hitters are patient.

Teams would rather have a guy with a batting average of .275 and an OBP of  .450, than to have a guy with a batting average of .325 and an OBP of .350.

* The fittest leave the most offspring and fitness is based on reproductive success.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

RichardTHughes, Failure at Science, Tries Comedy

When it comes to not knowing one's place, Richie takes the cupcake. See for yourself. It starts off bad and gets worse:

I’m still trying to push ID forward as science.
LoL! ID is all set as far as science is concerned and Richie has proven that he doesn't know what science entails. Add that to the fact that Richie's position requires quite a bit of work to be pushed forward as science and you see the problem.

 I previously suggest Bendford’s Law might be a fruitful avenue for ID research, but there were no takers I know of. 
Given your poor track record why would anyone listen to  your advice, especially when it comes to subjects that you are totally ignorant of? Of his new discovery Richie sez:
It seems to be able to recreate structured datasets with surprisingly high fidelity from very low samples. Could it be used to find a hallmark of design?
Who cares? We have plenty of methods to do just that. OTOH your position is lacking any methodology, well unless you call bald declarations a methodology. So perhaps you should start with that as ID is all set, especially when compared to what your position has to offer.

So, Barry@UD – time to stop the apologetics wagon and do some science.
Barry is a lawyer. However IDists have done some science. Unfortunately you are too ignorant to grasp any of it.

 Unfortunately you’ve banned the brightest minds at UD but a couple of the regulars might want to have a crack at this?
And Richie finishes off his bloviating with his usual unscientific spewage and stroking of his buddies. Richie is always good for stroking...

Thursday, October 16, 2014

"The Evolution Revolution" by Dr Lee Spetner

"The Evolution Revolution" by Dr Lee Spetner

"The Evolution Revolution" is a masterful follow-up to "Not By Chance" First, any book that exposes evolutionism and universal common descent as unscientific materialistic dogma deserves 3 stars. Dr Lee Spetner did that with "Not By Chance" and does so again with "The Evolution Revolution". Now he takes it further by saying that the "theory of evolution" doesn't come close to meeting the status of a theory. He is not alone when it comes to saying that. Add to that the fact that Dr Spetner does that along with exposing the equivocations, strawman arguments (the fixity of species nonsense) and defending his own evolutionary hypothesis- the non-random evolutionary hypothesis- and he gets 5 stars (out of 5) for this effort. And just for effect he takes on the always colorful theological arguments- "No Creator would have done that!"

What equivocations? That because we observe anti-biotic resistance, the change in beak lengths, the change in coloration, that means that it is evidence for universal common descent via natural selection. He exposes the canard that macroevolution is just microevolution upon microevolution. He just points out that there aren't any known microevolutionary events that have a chance at being part of macroevolution. And it is also a Bozo no-no to use microevolution to refute a position no one adheres to, ie the fixity of species.

Dr. Spetner approaches the topic of evolution by way of information and probabilities. Information in this sense is Dr Crick's version, ie the functional sequence specificity of nucleotides to form proteins, along with the information required to build organisms, which, for whatever reason, it seems he is willing to grant is also in the genome (along with epigenetic factors). Perhaps he does so just to show that even given evolutionary premises, evolutionism fails.

As for probabilities he states the obvious- that it is up to evolutionists to provide them and they have failed. Why is it up to the evolutionists? Because it is their premise that culled random changes/ differing accumulations of genetic accidents produced the diversity of life (extant and extinct). And seeing that they say it takes too long to actually test they need to provide the probabilities of random changes' ability to do such a thing. Until they do theirs is outside of science and hence not a theory.

Dr Spetner also observes that it is easier for populations to change their behavior- move or hunt differently-than it is to wait for some accidental change to come about and provide some advantage. However if organisms had some built-in capability to change when change is needed, that would be much better than waiting for some genetic accident. With such a mechanism many individuals would change and facilitate the spread of the advantageous trait. Enter epigenetics. We have observed instances of organisms being placed into a new environment and having substantial change occur within a few generations. This is evidence for something faster than natural selection and that something is "built-in responses to environmental cues" (Spetner 1997).

Both "Not By Chance" and "The Evolution Revolution" are required reading for people interested in the evolution debate for the very reasons presented above, namely that "evolution" in a broad sense is not being debated, the blind watchmaker isn't the only option to explain the observed variations within populations and those observed variations are not indicative of the type of change required by macroevolution, ie universal common descent.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

OMagain, Continues to Amuse

Arrogance and ignorance all in one:
The thing I don’t get is this. If they are right, and we are wrong about (insert your own topic here) then how come they are obsessing on us being wrong and not out there doing whatever it is they are right about in a superior way to how we could do it, being wrong and all?
You’d think that doing it right would be more in demand then in actually seems to be.
You don't seem to get anything. For one the obsession is due to the fact that your bullshit is being forced onto kids under the guise of science. Yours is a failed position that is useless for resolving anything. You don't seem to be able to do anything. You cannot tell us what makes an organism what it is nor can you provide us with any probabilities that your position demands.

OTOH IDists have said exactly what to look for if we want to find complex intelligent beings (the Drake equation doesn't come close).

And I bet if you would just hand over the keys to all the research facilities we would uncover more in a decade than you have been able to do since Darwin.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

keiths, Choking on Natural Selection

keiths tries to take Barry Arrington to task over natural selection, but he chokes

1. Even the dimmest of IDers and creationists accepts that “microevolution” occurs.  Insects become pesticide-resistant. Finch beaks change in response to drought conditions.  Microbes acquire antibiotic resistance.  How does this happen?  Through natural selection.  It ain’t a tautology.
No one knows if natural selection didit, keiths. Natural selection requires the mutations to be haphazard, ie accidents, mistakes and errors. And we have no idea if that is what produced the beak variation, pesticide resistance or antibiotic resistance.

2. The tautology mongers miss a basic point about fitness.  Fitness is not defined in terms of the reproductive success of an individual. An unfit individual who gets lucky and reproduces successfully does not get reclassified as fit.  A fit individual who gets hit by a meteorite isn’t reclassified as unfit. To claim that “the fittest” are “those who survive”, as the tautology mongers claim, is ridiculous.

LoL! In biology fitness is all about survival and reproduction. How can one tell if an individual is unfit? keiths never says. How can one tell if an individual is more fit if not by reproductive success? keiths never says.

fitness wrt biology:
Biologists use the word fitness to describe how good a particular genotype is at leaving offspring in the next generation relative to how good other genotypes are at it. So if brown beetles consistently leave more offspring than green beetles because of their color, you’d say that the brown beetles had a higher fitness.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

The Sensuous Curmudgeon, Proudly Ignorant

The cowardly and ignorant asshole who posts as the sensuous curmudgeon has posted the following drivel:

For example, when we speak of mutations operating “by chance,” what we mean is that although we know what mutations are and how they occur according to the laws of chemistry, the variables are so numerous that we can’t predict what mutations will occur or when they will occur.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH- No moron, chance in that context means "happenstance" as in accidental/ not planned.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon, proudly ignorant and too cowardly to allow dissenting and correcting posts.