Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

And More Ignorance from TSZ

-
The evoTARDs at TSZ are so fucking clueless that they don't understand that by using goal-oriented processes to simulate evolution the evolution being simulated cannot be evolution by blind and mindless processes. It has NOTHING to do with the fact the simulation was intelligently designed. One clueless loser sed:
 In this brilliant insight, Dembski, Marks, Ewert and Humble have discovered that all simulations of evolution that were programmed on computers, were intentionally programmed to be simulations of evolution.
No, moron, but thanks for proving that you have an inability to think. All models of evolution use goal-oriented processes that are full of the information required for them to do what they are designed to do.

And these are the assholes who think they know more about ID than IDists and yet they cannot grasp the simple fact that ID is not anti-evolution. And that is AFTER it has been explained to them ad nauseum.

The moron even says:
It should be needless to say, but what matters is of course the actual process that takes place in the simulation, not the fact that the simulation was programmed (all simulation are, that’s unavoidably the case with simulations, otherwise they wouldn’tbe simulations).
No DUH! The processes that take place are not blind and mindless. Even AVIDA, which isn't goal-oriented has information snuck in. For one reproduction is just granted. For another when realistic mutation parameters are used nothing happens- no new functions evolved.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Joshua Swamidass is still Confused

-
And he throws in a straw man too- Joshua sez:

It appears we do disagree with science ability to detect purpose. He seems to think Divine purpose is detectable with science. I do not.
Science can and does detect purpose- see archaeology and forensic science for two such scientific venues that detect purpose. The straw man is "Divine" purpose as ID is not about the Divine. As Arthur Clarke once said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
So how could we tell?

That's the problem with theistic evolutionists. Just because they think God didit but God cannot be detected for whatever reason, they think ID is also about detecting God. And yet IDists have made it very clear that Paley went too far to infer God didit when looking at design. Even Dr Behe makes it clear that it is his faith and not the evidence for Intelligent Design that leads him to God as the Designer.

So yes we can use science to detect purpose and no ID is not about detecting the divine. The authors of "The Privileged Planet" claim that the evidence points to a purpose- that our place in the universe was designed for discovery.

Only a dipshit would try to limit science, Joshua

keiths is Proudly Full of Shit

-
keiths is an ignorant ass who thinks his ignorant opinion means something. Now the asshole vomits:
What’s even stranger is that a good number of the skeptics here understand intelligent design better than the IDists do.
Total unsupportable bullshit. And also demonstrably false. Just go to TSZ and search on CSI or any posts about Intelligent Design. Not one TSZ "skeptic" has shown any knowledge of ID. Not one has shown any knowledge of science. And most appear ignorant of their own position. Alan Fox, Patrick, Robin and the rest didn't understand that his position posited blind and mindless processes. They thought blind watchmaker evolution was a strawman that I invented even though Richard Dawkins is the one who used the phrase to describe evolution.,

So keiths is not only wrong,  the sentence should read:
What’s even stranger is that a good number of the IDists here understand evolution better than the evos do.
keiths is one of the most willfully ignorant people evah




Sunday, March 12, 2017

TSZ'z keiths is Still a Clueless Ass

-
keiths loves to spew his ignorant opinions as actual evidence. Now he has something he thinks goes against ID and Creation. Too bad his position cannot explain the phenomena as it can't explain sexual reproduction nor wombs.

keiths and his ignorance

Yes an embryo is akin to a parasite as it lives off of its host. Yes it is alive, wants to stay that way and does what it can to do so.

And yes, what we are observing now is after many generations of genetic entropy.

I don't know how the alleged theory of evolution explains this because as I said it doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms involved nor sexual reproduction involving meiosis.

Thursday, March 09, 2017

TSZ's Allan Miller is still Confused

-
Allan Miller is the joke who thinks that genetic code isn't a real code despite the fact that it fits the definition of a real code and meets the same criteria as Morse code. Now the moron says something just as ignorant:
I occasionally had fun (we live in a rural area; we have to make our own fun) ragging Joe G about that. Evolution isn’t testable; ID is. Step 1 in ‘testing ID’: test evolution.
No, dumbass. For one ID is not anti-evolution. You have been told this and yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant. For another if we cannot test the claims of evolutionism then we can just eliminate by invoking the Hitchens- "That which can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Step 1 in testing ID is to see if law/ regularity can account for what we are investigating. Step 2 is to add chance to that. And again if no one can figure out how to test those then we can just eliminate them.

I have told this to Allan too so obviously the moron loves to wallow in his willful ignorance.

Then the moron doubles-down on his ignorance:
IOW, if something is truly not testable, you can’t claim that something that crucially depends on it is [testable].
LoL! If something is truly not testable then it can be eliminated and we move on from there. Tat is all ID requires- the elimination of other, non-telic explanations. But then again Allan is too stupid to grasp that simple point.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)

-
Testability is the main thing a concept needs in order to be considered science. If your claims cannot be tested then science doesn’t care about them. Enter evolutionism, also mistakenly called the theory of evolution, ie the concept that all biological diversity evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction starting from some much simpler biological replicator, which in turn evolved from much simpler molecular replicators.
None of that can be tested. Not only that the sub-claims are also untestable. Biology is full of biological systems, subsystems and structures. These too need to have testability, yet they do not. Evolutionists hide behind father time and think that excuses them from the testability criteria science requires. All that does is prove theirs is not a scientific position.
No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off. Evolutionists are fine failing on their own and don’t need no steenking help from Dembski!
So how can we test your claims, evolutionists? And why, in the absence of testability, do you think your position qualifies as science?
Also, there is a total lack of logical arguments for blind watchmaker evolution. All evos have are lies and bluffs. They are a despicable bunch of cowards.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

petrushka- Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

-
Why do evoTARDs choose to be willfully ignorant of ID? And why do they think their willful ignorance is an argument against ID? Case in point petrushka over on TSZ spews:
I think isolated islands is the only concept that keeps ID alive.
Who cares what you think? Try to make an argument. I dare you.
If genomic word laddering is possible, evolution is possible, and there is no need for “that hypothesis”.
ID isn't anti-evolution you willfully ignorant asshat. And you don't have anything to explain the existence of metabolic and proteomic networks.

In order for blind and mindless processes to produce a walk around the libraries it would take innumerable specific mutations. And we already know there isn't enough time for that- Waiting for TWO mutations . So what is the point?

Evolutionists cannot even get started as they don't have a mechanism capable of producing replicating RNAs. There isn't any evidence for a RNA world. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase and without ATP you don't have living organisms.

You don't even have hypotheses. EvoTARDS gleefully overselling their position and proud to be willfully ignorant

Saturday, February 25, 2017

And More Ignorance from TSZ

-
EvoTARDs love to claim that they are defenders of science but when push comes to shove they prove that they don't understand what science entails. You can tell by how few posts about science they have. And when asked to defend their position they just ban you for doing so. But I digress. Enter well known ignoramus acartia, aka William Spearshake: Acartia spews-
If your alternative to evolution is scientifically based, supported by tons of evidence, and is testable, you will have little difficulty getting permission to teach it in the science class.
Dumbass, ID is not anti-evolution. Also you and yours have proven that there isn't any science behind evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. OTOH ID is testable as it makes testable claims. ID is also potentially falsifiable. Both of those qualities demonstrate that ID is a scientific enterprise.

So seriously only a total asshole, ignorant coward would say what acartia posted

The "Arrival of the Fittest"?

-
The book "Arrival of the Fittest" is supposed to take us where Darwin didn't and it does so but not in the sense the title suggests. The book takes us through metabolism and what it takes to create the chemical reactions that sustain living organisms. It then discusses the metabolic network and how the reactions required to sustain living organisms are all connected.

Then the book moves on to proteins and how proteins that have similar folds that do similar jobs can vary by over 80% of their amino acids. Some don't even share any common amino acids but still have the same shape and do the same job.

All of that is great but he never says how any of that actually arrived. What he does say seems to implicate a great organization of proteins and metabolic reactions. But he never says how all of that arrived.

He does say that RNA pre-dated proteins but he doesn't offer any evidence for that. No one has ever offered any evidence for a RNA world. All anyone has shown is that there is a need for such a world in a non-telic scenario.

The "Arrival of the Fittest" fails to live up to its title. And despite what evolutionists say it does nothing to Intelligent Design as it fails to demonstrate how blind and mindless processes did it.