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

Friday, November 21, 2014

Clueless Liberals- Guns vs Abortions

-
Liberals continue to cry for a change in gun laws.However abortions dwarf the deaths by guns 1.2 million to 12,000 per year in the USA.

Talk about having one's priorities mixed up.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

So How Is CSI Defined?

-
EvoTARDs are all in a blather saying CSI (Complex Specified Information) is defined to exclude production via necessity and chance. They are confusing the proof that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI with the definition of CSI and they are too stupid to realize it.

CSI is simply defined as information that is specified, ie used in the standard sense of meaning and function, and also complex, ie also pertaining to the standard use.

There you have it and there isn't anything in the definition that supports the evoTARDgasms. Go figure.


ETA- "Complexity measures arise whenever we assign  numbers to degrees of complication. A reference class of possibilities will often admit varying degrees of complication, ranging from extremely simple to extremely complicated." Wm. Dembski, "No Free Lunch", page 141

"It follows that information can be complex, specified or both. Information that is both complex and specified will be called complex specified information, or CSI for short." Ibid 141-42

Joe Felsenstein- Still Confused

-
Now Joe sez:

But Dembski did define CSI as only present when the specified complexity could not be produced by “chance” (normal evolutionary processes).

Where and when, Joe? In "No Free Lunch" he doesn't say that. He says that he has proven that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI. That means if someone can demonstrate necessity and chance producing CSI Dembski's proof fails.

There isn't anything in the definition of CSI that says what Felsenstein claims. And it is very telling that neither he, nor anyone else can support that claim with a reference from Dembski making it. Saying he has proven that CSI cannot arise from necessity and chance is very different from defining CSI as such.

CSI exists regardless of how it was produced. Only evoTARDs cannot get that through their thick skulls.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Joe Felsenstein, Proud to be an Ignorant Lard Butt

-
Joe Felsenstein is supposed to be one of the brighter lights of evolutionism. Unfortunately every time he tries to take on ID he proves to be a complete ignoramus. In a thread Joe F started he adds this bit of ignorance:

(CSI is only present if one has already ruled out chance or mechanical necessity). 
WRONG! CSI exists regardless of how it arose. The point of CSI is that every time we have observed it and knew the cause it has always been via some intelligent agency. ALWAYS, 100% of the time. And we have never observed nature, operating freely producing anything like it. NEVER.

That is why when we observe CSI and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via an intelligent agency.

There isn't anything written by an IDist that says CSI only exists once we have ruled out necessity and chance. Evolutionists are proud to be ignorant assholes.

ETA- The claim of Intelligent Design is that only intelligent agencies can produce CSI.  Wm. Dembski says that he has proven that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI ("No Free Lunch"). That means if someone can demonstrate otherwise a main claim of ID falls.

AGAIN- CSI EXISTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT CAUSED IT

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

CSI Reality Check

-
Reality check-


Sir Francis Crick defined biological information, not ID. Science has determined that biological information is both complex and specified. This isn’t anything IDists have invented.


We are well beyond the age of “a blob of protoplasm”. Deal with it.

Monday, November 10, 2014

RichardTHughes, Proud to be an Ignorant Asshole

-
Richie is so fucking stupid and dishonest it boggles the mind. Richie thinks that just because the design inference- all design inferences- rely on eliminating necessity and chance that means that it is impossible for them to show CSI arising by necessity and chance. What a cowardly moron.

To make his case Richie links to Dembski's 2005 paper on "Specification". A quick look and there isn't any mention of CSI in the paper. Not once. The paper isn't even about calculating to see if CSI is present.


Read Richie's ignorant spewage for yourself

CSI exists regardless of what produced it. It is just that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it was always an intelligent agency that produced it. We have never seen nature producing CSI. That has always been Dembski's point. And there isn't anything in Dembski's writings that tells us what Richie sez:

So Barry wanted a demonstration of CSI being made by natural forces, whilst Dembski defines CSI as only to be ‘counted’ in the absence of them.

Richie only sez that because he is an ignorant whiner who thinks his ignorance and whining mean something.

Richie goes on to spew:
The general trend at UD is for the IDists to tell us what they think evolution can’t do rather than what ID can do.

Not quite but even if so then all you would have to do is demonstrate that unguided evolution can do what ID says it cannot. Yet you can't so you whine and cry.

Richie Hughes is cry-baby loser

Saturday, November 08, 2014

Has Barry Arrington Totally Lost It?

-
Yesterday, November 7th, Barry Arringtom warned me not to attack the person but only attack the argument or else I would be banned. Today Barry banned me for something I had posted on November 5th, two days before he warned me. What did I say to warrant the banning? I told someone who was equivocating to "grow up". Again that was two days before Barry warned me.

What are you smoking, Barry? It must be good shit to put you in a time warp where what happened before seems to happen after. Me wantz some of that...


ETA- Mung has pointed out to Barry the time-line issue and Barry has rescinded my banning

Sunday, November 02, 2014

The "Science" of Macroevolution

-
The science of macroevolution is encompassed in the following question offered by Tiny Timmy Horton:

How can there be 500 million years of evolution without macroevolution?
That's all folks- nothing else to see, please move along...   LoL!