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

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Active Information is Complex Specified Information

-
Complex specified information is a general classification. Active information is a more specific class of CSI. It's a nested hierarchy thing- {CSI{active information}}. Perhaps that is what confuses evoTARDs who say that active information has replaced CSI.

The specification paper (Dembski 2005) was a supplement to CSI, and does not supersede it. Algorithmic specified complexity is a way to quantify any given specification. In that sense it seems to supersede or at least supplement that 2005 paper which used only probabilities to try to quantify specification.

Friday, May 22, 2015

SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting EvoTards

-
In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:

In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria

An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak

Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -

Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

 SETI, ID, archaeology and forensic science all use the same processes to determine if intelligent design exists or not.

The New EvoTARD War Cry

-
Yes, it is desperation time for evoTARDs as they roll out a new war cry- "Living organisms do not look designed!" One moron even sed that the fact living organisms reproduce distinguishes it from other designs. What a dumbass as reproduction is the very thing evoTARDs can't explain!

What a bunch of desperate cowards. Too bad for them they don't have a viable alternative than Intelligent Design to explain living organisms and their systems and subsystems. So of course they need to try Jedi mind tricks.

Strange that Darwin, the only person to attempt a theory of evolution, devised natural selection as a process to produce design without a designer. There are articles about it too- see "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer" by Francisco J. Ayala.

The desperation is obvious and pathetic. But it is all they have.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Joe Felsenstein- Still Clueless about Complex Specified Information

-
This fatass may be good at population genetics but that would be his limit. Joe Felsenstein sed:
With Dembski’s previous (pre-2006) definition of CSI (what Sal once called CSI1), CSI was intended as showing that the degree of adaptation was out of reach of “chance” processes such as pure mutation, unaided by natural selection. The Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was then supposed to guarantee that CSI could not be achieved by other evolutionary forces, such as natural selection.
That is incorrect. CSI is about origins. Once natural selection kicks in we already have what needs to be explained.
The LCCSI turned out not to prove any such thing, so there was no guarantee that CSI1 could not be put into the genome by natural selection.
There isn't any evidence for it, either.
Enter CSI2. It has the additional condition that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it. At which point CSI became, not a way to show that natural processes could not achieve the adaptation, but an after-the-fact designation that you could only use if you had some other method of proving that natural processes could not do the job. From a central tool, CSI became an after-the-fact add-on of no importance.
That is just Joe's ignorance talking as CSI does not have any such quality. It does not matter how it arose, it is just that no one has ever observed unguided processes producing CSI. We don't have any experience with such a thing. It would be like saying nature can build cars, produce artifacts, and everything else normally left to solely to intelligent agencies.

CSI exists REGARDLESS of how it came to be. There isn't any criteria that says CSI only exists if an intelligent agency did it. Joe Felsenstein is blissfully ignorant of CSI, ID and all ID concepts.

Felsenstein is confusing the fact that there isn't any known processes other than intelligent design that can produce CSI with "that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it." That's an elementary school mistake from a university professor.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The Explanatory Filter (EF) in Action

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless they don't understand how archaeology, forensic science and SETI go about making a design inference. They don't seem to be able to grasp Newton's four rules of scientific investigation:

Sir Isaac Newton was a significant contributor to the Scientific Revolution. Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigorous experimentation, and he published four rules of scientific reasoning in Principia Mathematica (1686) that form part of modern approaches to science:
  1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
  2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
  3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
  4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.
Newton’s rules of scientific reasoning have proved remarkably enduring. His first rule is now commonly called the principle of parsimony, and states that the simplest explanation is generally the most likely. The second rule essentially means that special interpretations of data should not be used if a reasonable explanation already exists. The third rule suggests that explanations of phenomena determined through scientific investigation should apply to all instances of that phenomenon. Finally, the fourth rule lays the philosophical foundation of modern scientific theories, which are held to be true unless demonstrated otherwise. This is not to say that theories are accepted without evidence, nor that they can’t change – theories are built upon long lines of evidence, often from multiple pieces of research, and they are subject to change as that evidence grows.

That means if necessity and chance can account for something then we don't infer a designer was required as that would be admitting a cause that is not required.

What's the point? The point is all design inferences use the EF or some reasonable facsimile thereof. That means archaeology uses it. Forensic science uses it. SETI uses it. Insurance investigators use it. If they don't then they have a high risk of having their design inference overturned. That's because all someone else has to do is demonstrate that nature could do it and that design inference is shit.

So the next time someone sez that no one uses the EF just call that person an ignoramus and be thankful they are not an investigator.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

-
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.”

He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

Friday, May 15, 2015

Salvador Cordova is a Moron

-
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse I see that Sal has a post on TSZ titled There is no positive case for ID or special creation. However reading it it becomes clear that Sal doesn't have a clue.

Earth to Sal, a positive case can be made from circumstantial evidence. A positive case can be and has been made for ID as ID has testable entailments.

Sal is so lost he thinks that because science works via inferences that no positive case can be made- Sal ALL science is by inference. He thinks the design inference isn't a positive case!

Sal if you have an inference one way or the other it is because there is a case for one or the other.

The positive case for ID is simple:

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.”

He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

So fuck off, Sal, we can make a positive case for ID just as archaeology and forensic science make positive cases for intelligent design.

Evolutionists LIE- No Theory of Evolution

-
In 1859 Darwin's book "On the Origins of Species..." was published. In it he offered ideas on evolution. It wasn't really a theory as it didn't offer up what theories require, namely testable entailments, hypotheses and quantification. Darwin also had no clue how traits were passed on and he thought bears evolved into whales.

Fast forward to today and although Darwin's idea has been expanded upon there still isn't any theory of evolution. If we want to read about gravity we have Newton's work and Einstein's works. Both are complete with equations we can use to check the premise of their ideas. That is how theories are- clear and concise with equations to back them up. Evolution doesn't have any of that. It isn't a theory. It can't even muster testable entailments nor hypotheses. It cannot be modelled. It is useless as a research heuristic. No one uses it for anything.

Evolutionists will lie and tell you there is a theory of evolution. But they will NEVER link to it nor reference it. They just "know" it exists yet they cannot say what it entails.

Evolutionists are pathetic cowardly liars.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Elizabeth Liddle's Mistake

-
Elizabeth Liddle needs to just shut up or she risks proving to everyone that she is a old fat moron. I have corrected her on her appallingly bad post about Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" but she is dredging up her diatribe to try to show that Meyer was stupid. Lizzie proves she is clueless in attack on Meyer. She is so stupid that she doesn't even read Meyer's references that support his claims. She doesn't read Darwin who Meyer quotes. Pathetic.

Lizzie spews:
All branching events, in Darwin’s proposal, whether the resulting lineages end up as different phyla or merely different species, start in the same way, with two populations where there once was one, and a short morphological distance between them.  It is perfectly true that the longer both lineages persist for, the greater the morphological distance will become.  But that isn’t because they started different, or because the phyla come later.  It’s because what we call phyla are groups of organisms with an early common ancestor,  whose later descendents have evolved to form a group that has a large morphological distance from contemporary populations who descended from adifferent early common ancestor.
No, dumbass, phyla require a whole new set of definitions. Phyla do come later, they have to. Read Darwin and buy a vowel.

In "One the Origins of Species..." Darwin says what Meyer claims he said- that you start with a species and then from there you can get genera and from that you get families and so on. Meyer also quotes Roger Lewin from a peer-reviewed article to support his claim. And paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine and Jack Sepkoski are also quoted in support of that premise.

Phyla come later, Lizzie. Phyla come after there is a great deal of diversity between populations. It starts off slow and accumulates- that is the whole premise of evolutionism.

Lizzie attacks one of Meyer's drawings and calls it "appalling". Yet it is only "appalling" to the ignorant as it portrays exactly what Darwin states in "On The Origins of Species...", chapter 4. Read it and buy a vowel, Lizzie. Your ignorance is really tiring.

To read why Meyer is right and Liddle is wrong, just read Cambrian Explosion

ETA:
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12