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

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming II

-
In Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming: Reversing the trend , I mused about using technology to clean the air. That was January 4, 2007.

Fast forward 13 years:

London’s New Artificial Trees Guzzle As Much Pollution As 275 Regular Trees

I knew we could do it!

Friday, December 20, 2019

Impeaching President Trump

-
Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment because she fears that the Senate will be as fair, impartial and unbiased as the House. Nancy Pelosi is the poster child for term limits.

Look, you moron liberals, Joe Biden set the precedent back when he was Vice President. Joe Biden threatened the Ukraine with the withholding of financial aid unless they got rid of the prosecutor who was going after his son. All President Trump wanted was information about all of that. Because it does seem fishy. And now the President is the bad guy? Really? This isn't about the fact that the democrats wanted him out ever since the election results were in? Really? 

Total. Henhouse. Bullshit.

Evolution is a Mechanism of Evolution and Other evoTARD Cowardice

-
Over AtBC, one Timothy Horton, ignorant coward extraordinaire, told me that evolution is a mechanism of evolution. And that giraffes evolved from non-giraffes via evolution! From there the moron moved to "evolution by common descent" as the alleged mechanism that can produce giraffes from non-giraffes.

And yet "evolution by common descent" can only produce more voles starting with populations of voles! It can only produce more bacteria starting with populations of bacteria!

Not only that, the mechanism of "evolution by common descent" is too vague and as such it is a coward's choice. It definitely isn't science. "Descent with modification" is also useless unless you can specify what gets modified. Merely saying "the genome is what gets modified" just proves that you don't know. Descent with modification gave us the voles. All voles have the same body plan. And yet the genomes have evolved "60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species". 

Natural selection was Darwin's choice of an evolutionary mechanism that he alleged to have creative powers. It has FAILed, miserably, in that regard. And that brings us to my point- there isn't an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes starting with populations of bacteria (prokaryotes and archaea). Given single-celled eukaryotes there isn't a mechanism capable of producing metazoans. That list goes on and on.

So how do evos "test" their claims of universal common descent? Phylogenetics, which only looks at similarities. and the alleged divergence, ie range of differences. Similarities that are easily accounted for via a Common Design, and of course convergent evolution.  From a Common Design point of view, the differences are due to different requirements of the organisms.

The main problem with phylogenetics is mechanisms dictate patterns. So without a mechanism any alleged evolutionary pattern generated by phylogenetics is bound to be incorrect, or not even wrong. And taking a look at the differences in genes that still produce the same protein will NEVER say anything about the obvious anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two species that are alleged to share a common ancestor. Phylogenetics assumes there is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of bacteria. That means it assumes the very thing that requires a scientific explanation. And that is putting the horse before the cart.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Frequency = Wavelength?

-
Years ago I had a post on GHG's. Throughout the discussion oleg and I were trading pee-reviewed papers to support our claims. Sometimes the papers talked about GHG's emission spectra in frequencies and others talked about the SAME emissions in terms of wavelength. You see, you can talk about said spectra in either terms, frequency or wavelength and you are talking about the SAME thing. Meaning each emission frequency has an equivalent corresponding wavelength. From Wikipedia:
The 630 meter (or 600 meter) amateur radio band is a frequency band allocated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to amateur radio operators, and it ranges from 472 to 479 kHz, or equivalently 625.9 to 635.1 meters wavelength.
Frequency or equivalently wavelength.

Educated people can grasp that simple fact. EvoTARDs cannot. Even though it has been thoroughly explained to them they still side with their willful ignorance. And as with science they think their willful ignorance is meaningful discourse.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Evo Cluelessness- The Genetic Code is a Metaphor

-
Evos are such a desperate and clueless lot they have to rely on their ignorance in an attempt to refute the facts. Case in point clueless stevestory from the swamp:
They also do this with the metaphor of genetic ‘code’.
What a dumbass!

Why the genetic code is a REAL code-

mRNA codons REPRESENT specific amino acids. mRNA codons do NOT become their respective amino acids via some chemical process. The coding is arbitrary in that it is NOT determined by a physio-chemical process. Again the mRNA codons REPRESENT, but do NOT become, their respective amino acids.

And to top it off the ribosome is a genetic compiler that takes the source code of mRNA codons and produces the object code of a protein. 

Even Larry Moran agrees: the Real Genetic Code- Larry compares it to Morse code.

Larry knows the genetic code is a real code but he thinks, absent evidence or a way to test it, that it arose via blind and mindless processes.

The evoTARDs from the swamp are just clueless dolts

Saturday, December 07, 2019

Joe Felsenstein- Clueless Cowardly Equivocator

-
Is Algorithmic Specified Complexity Useless for Analyzing Evolution? Is a new article written by one Joe Felsenstein. JF has NEVER demonstrated an understanding of what Intelligent Design says.

But to answer JF's question:

There isn't any methodology to analyze evolution via blind and mindless processes. That's the whole problem. At least they are trying, which is more than can be said of evolutionists- well with the exception of "Waiting for TWO Mutations" which pretty much destroyed blind watchmaker evolution, so it was ignored. 

First, JF and his minions need to understand that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution . And that ID's only beef is with the untestable claim that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes starting from prokaryotes and/ or archaea.  It is a very specific argument that evos refuse to understand. They are fond of humping the fixity of species strawman. Total cowards.

JF thinks it is lunacy to think evolution proceeds by design but he is not a lunatic for saying minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. What? Differential accumulations of copying errors and damaged DNA, did it all. And nature can write codes! Don't forget that. Those copying errors and damaged DNA produced codes, from the bottom up, no less.

And I'm the lunatic...
 

Mikkel "Rumraket" Rasmussen is a willfully ignorant coward and liar

-
Mikkel "Rumraket" Rasmussen is your typical lying and willfully ignorant, cowardly evoTARD. He refuses to understand what is being debated. He refuses to understand what ID says. And he is ignorant of the fact that blind watchmaker evolution is untestable bullshit.

He will NEVER present any evidence to support his spewage. He will always lie like a little ignorant bitch because that is all he can do.

This asshole sez that because there isn't any evidence in support of blind watchmaker evolution that I deny evolution. How much of a desperate asshole can one person be?

Thursday, December 05, 2019

Quid. Pro. Joe

-
In a desperate attempt to demonstrate quid pro quo, Democrats are seeking designs for a quid go pro. (cue maniacal laughter)

This has been quid pro Joe. Have a most enjoyable day (all non-liberals) or be determined not to (liberals).

How does evolution account for new body parts?

-
Another clueless post from Peaceful; Science is How does evolution account for new body parts?

The simple answer is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for new body parts because it cannot account for bodies. Given starting populations of prokaryotes it can't even produce eukaryotes.

One clueless loser thinks the alleged evolution of the mammalian middle ear is such an example. Too bad the paper it linked to is just speculation based on the assumption. The paper didn't describe the genetic changes that produced the anatomical transformations required. That means the paper did NOT discus a mechanism.

The imbeciles on Peaceful Science are still ignorant of then fact that ID is not anti-evolution.

Monday, December 02, 2019

Faizal Ali is a Clueless and Ignorant Ass

-
It doesn't get any more question-begging than this How does design theory deal with camo:
When one looks at the above insect, it is easy to understand why the evolutionary process would produce such a phenomenon: The insect’s camouflage allows it to more readily evade predators, and therefore increases its likelihood of successfully reproducing.
Except for the fact that you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, let alone insects. And the fact that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

You have to be a special type of ignorant asshole to post what Faizal does. You have to be oblivious of science and ignorant of ID.

That said, ID explains it in terms of evolution by means of intelligent design. That is organisms were intelligently designed with the information required to allow them to adapt and evolve.