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

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Of CSI and Ignorant EvoTARDs

-
Intelligent Design's opponents are so pathetically ignorant they don't seem to understand that they don't need to worry about CSI nor ID as all they have to do is actually step up and find some way to support unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution and ID would fade away.

So why do they harp on CSI? Because they don't have any idea how to find support for their position!

ID's opponents are pathetic little imps

Saturday, January 03, 2015

On The NON-Circularity of CSI

-
Intelligent Design's opponents are so willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate it is pathetic. Now they are saying that CSI (Complex Specified Information) is a circular argument. However reality refutes that claim as CSI exists REGARDLESS of what caused it.

The argument for intelligent design via CSI is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some intelligent agency- ALWAYS. And there has never been an observed instance of nature, operating freely, producing CSI- NEVER. Enter science- science takes that as whenever we observe CSI and don't know the cause we can safely scientifically infer it was via some intelligent agency.

So where is this alleged circularity? Obviously it is only in the minds of our willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate opposition.


ETA: ID's opponents are so lame they don't even understand what "nature, operating freely" means. Wow, just wow.

Friday, January 02, 2015

The "Arrival of the Fittest" has Arrived

-
OK it looks like the "Arrival of the Fittest" will be my first book I read this year that allegedly supports evolutionism. However it isn't starting out so good with the author talking about the "power" of natural selection- NS has proven to be impotent and then also saying that natural selection means only the best adapted get through its filter- we know anything that is good enough gets through. Hopefully he was just paraphrasing Darwin but we will find out as I am only in the first chapter.

The author does refute keith s's contention that unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy- and yes, that also means Andreas Schueler owes me $10,000 (US).

The book makes a big promise and we will see if it delivers.

Friday, December 26, 2014

Free will- To choose or not to choose, is that the question?

-
I have been reading and watching people who say the there isn't any free will and/ or that free will is an illusion. Their argument appears contrived and it doesn't follow from what they say. And to me it's as if someone is making a big fuss out of nothing. So from the beginning we see:

 Wikipedia has:
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has:
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
 If that is what they are talking about then it seems obvious to me that, free will, if you can deny it exists, you have it.


 

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Atheists Celebrating Christmas- How Hypocritical Can One Get?

-
This is a subject that has always bothered me- atheists who celebrate Christmas. What the fuck is that?

"Oh no, Joe, we ain't gonna let a celebration go by!" Well celebrate Chanukah or Ramadan or something else- why just Christmas?

Atheists should be saying "bah humbug" to Christmas. So please stop being hypocritical assholes by celebrating Christmas when the rest of the year you argue against the existence of Jesus.

You are pathetic examples of humanity.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

-
It is unbelievable that ID's opponents are so dim that they don't understand the meaning of P(T|H) in Dembski's "Specification" formula. That is they don't understand that theirs is the position defined by H and that means they have to provide it. The reason ID's claims remain unfalsified is because our opponents have been unable to provide experimental evidence to support the claims of evolutionism so all they have are  probabilities to try to support them and yet cannot provide any.

Again, theirs is the position which claims to have an undirected step-by-step mechanism that produced the diversity of life. That means they have to either produce those steps, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, OR provide the proper probabilities of those steps occurring. Yet they cannot do either and they want to try to put the onus on us.

Hence the real eleP(T|H)ant  in the room is our opponents' total inability to support their claims-> no evidence, no model, no probabilities. Just a prayer to Father Time, Mother Nature and some unknown mechanism.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Where and What Is the Alleged ID-refuting Research?

-
I am being lied to, again. I have been told that there is actual research that refutes ID's concepts but no one has been able to link to it. I am also told that there are labs working on blind watchmaker research and again no one can point to them nor what work is being done in the name of the blind watchmaker.

So here is your chance to point it all out- it would be great if you could start with testable hypotheses for the blind watchmaker thesis. Thanks.