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

Wednesday, May 08, 2019

John Harshman is an Imbecile

-
John Harshman may be good at creating trees but that is about it. He definitely doesn't understand evidence. Gould is wrong:
Common descent is a well-supported explanation for nested hierarchy, biogeographic patterns, etc.
Bullshit. Common descent doesn't explain a nested hierarchy. It cannot because it posits transitional forms, which would ruin any attempt to form distinct groups. Biogeographic patterns do not support Common Descent, either. That only supports variation and phenotypic plasticity.

Harshman is ignorant of nested hierarchies.

You lack a mechanism that can produce eukaryotes. And given single-celled eukaryotes you lack a mechanism for producing metazoans. Given metazoans you lack a mechanism that can produce different, viable body plans.
It’s a theory. It’s a fact too, because a fact is nothing more than a theory with overwhelming support.
It is neither. It is still remains untestable, wishful thinking.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

Peaceful Science- Still Choking on Polar Bears

-
Joshua Swamidass, Nathan Lents and Arthur Hunt are totally clueless. If they had a testable mechanism capable of producing polar bears then they would just present it and that would be that. But they don't so they can't.

If they had a testable mechanism capable of producing the APOB gene then they would just present it and that would be that. But they don't so they can't.

They don't have any evidence at all of blind and mindless processes actually creating something useful and not by damaging existing useful structures.

Polar Bears again

Patrick Trischitta is a Pathetic Liar

-
Patrick Trischitta is a pathetic liar. The lie:
Don’t blame us. ID came directly from the Christian Fundamentalist Right and is still sustained financially by them. Without funding they would crumble.
Fuck you, liar. ID came directly from the telic thoughts of the ancient Greeks. And seeing that ID has the evidence and the science- something your position lacks- it isn't going to crumble.

But then again you are too stupid to understand science.

Monday, May 06, 2019

Chris Falter, Liar, or Just Full of Shit?

-
OK, moar bullshit on Peaceful Science. This time Chris Falter spews:
If you’re talking about the community of Ph.D. biologists, the agreement (as far as I can tell) is overwhelming that the identified mechanisms account for complex adaptations such as an eye.
Then why isn't it in peer-review? Why hasn't anyone actually tested it? Methinks you are a liar or a fool.

Look, Chris, you don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. And you had to be GIVEN starting populations of bacteria.

Falter is ignorant of the fact that ID says the variations are not all random, as in chance, occurrences.

Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- stop arguing from your immense ignorance.

And by the way, there still isn't any scientific theory of evolution...

Earth to Swamidass- Put Up or Shut Up- You are Pathetic

-
Joshua Swamidass is a pathetically clueless loser. He oversells the evoTARD claims without even looking at them. Now he is lying, again.
They do not actually engage the scientific point that Orr offered, or that Muller is making, and the immense amount of scientific data supporting this mechanism.
Neither Orr nor Muller made a scientific point, dipshit. All they did was speculate.

To date NO ONE knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce irreducibly complex structures like any bacterial flagellum. You have nothing.

Joshua, you are such a willfully ignorant punk that you don't even understand ID. You definitely have mental issues regarding science and you have no clue how to test the claim that non-telic processes produced any claimed IC structure.

You are a coward.

Thursday, May 02, 2019

Answering Swamidass- Why Removing Methodological Naturalism will not Break Science

-
In Swamidass on Methodological Naturalism, we read:
In a genuine effort for dialogue, I ask for the ID community, if they still care to remove MN from science, to help me understand why removing MN will not break science.
Sir Isaac Newton didn't need it. And if that was all there was to it, that alone would be enough.

The problem is as Swamidass said:
So, rather than ruling out intelligence in general, MN rules out divine intelligence as a causal factor.
How the fuck do you know until it's too late? He goes on to spew:
However, I cannot think of any cases where science considers “design” or “intelligence” while sharply avoiding talk of the nature of the designer or mind behind it. 
It isn't that ID avoids talking about the designer. It's that you do NOT need to know anything about the designer before you can determine deign exists or if nature did it, without any help.

Everything we know about it says that FIRST intelligent design is detected and it, along with all other relevant evidence is gathered and studied. THAT is Intelligent Design's purpose. You really can't say anything, scientifically, about the designer until you do that.
And the ID limitation on considering the designer seems arbitrary and is without a parallel in modern science.
LoL! It isn't arbitrary and it is the way science mandates. Evolution avoids the origin of life, even though how life originated, by intelligent design or spontaneously, dictates how it subsequently evolved, by intelligent design or spontaneously.

He goes on to spew:
There are fundamental problems with modeling God’s mind.
And yet we are unable to model nature's ability to produce life and its diversity. But that is OK.

Loser. We don't even know what determines the final form of any given organism. The point is you are unable to show us how methodological naturalism has produced any relevant models.

In a world in which the questions pertain to artificial/ telic versus natural/ non-telic, methodological naturalism is useless. You cannot limit scientific inquiry just because you feel the answer may invoke divine intelligence. I wonder if there is some detector that tells you if you are straying too close to the border- "Could be Q, could be God, I'm not sure, therefore nature". What the fuck?

Sir Isaac Newton would be ashamed. Charles Darwin would be ashamed.

One more thing to dispense with:
Even leaving the rule of MN aside,  most scientists do not find design arguments compelling.
Fine. Let them produce a valid scientific explanation and ID would go away. It is exactly because of their total FAILure that has allowed the design arguments back into the room. The way to falsify the design arguments is exactly how Isaac Newton described- show that an intelligent designer isn't required by showing nature is capable. Or shut up.

Science is about finding out the reality behind whatever is being investigated. Part of that reality being how it came to be the way it is. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help us. That is knowledge of what nature is capable of coupled with the knowledge of what a designing agency can do with nature.

Saying nature produced nature or nature produced life, is worse than meaningless It is harmful bullshit lies.

Minds from the mindless is another bullshit lie and yet that is what MN would have us accept as science.

Science is about OPEN inquiries, people. Methinks Swamidass is a fool

 
 
 

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Joshua Swamidass does the Dance

-
Christian that Affirm the Science of Evolution (CASE)- What a sad CASE it is:
I, personally, am a Christian who affirms evolutionary science.
What does that mean? There isn't any science behind 99% of the claims evolution makes.
I affirm evolution because it looks like life evolved, and there is no conflict between evolution and a faith grounded in Jesus.
The questions are from what did the diversity evolve from and what is the extent evolutionary processes can change a populations?

Dumbass Joshua is ignorant of the fact that Creationists accept that organisms evolved from the originally Created Kinds.

Methinks Joshua doesn't know what science entails. He will definitely NEVER say anything about science and the (alleged) evolution of vision systems. Because he can't. Science still has no idea how or even if vision systems evolved.

Joshua Swamidass- all mouth and no substance.
 

Is Joshua Swamidass out of touch with reality?

-
I swear Joshua Swamidass has honesty issues. Now he says:
Moreover your definition of evolution is as archaic as that of an ID proponent. You might be out of touch with evolutionary science in particular.
And yet he NEVER provides that "proper" definition! That's because he has no idea what he is talking about.

Then asshole liar Mikkel Rumraket chimes in with:
Theism has no particular predictions, and therefore zero explanatory power. 
LoL! Your side has no particular predictions and therefore ZERO explanatory powers. Your side doesn't even have a methodology to test its claims, asshole.


Peaceful Science is overrun by liars and story-tellers
 

Monday, April 22, 2019

Easily Refuting Patrick Trischitta

-
Trischitta spews:
This is so silly, just like evolutionary science isn’t the study of God-guided evolution, it isn’t the study of Godless evolution either. Evolutionary science is neutral on whether evolution is God-guided or Godless. Is this so hard to accept?
Richard Dawkins disagrees with you. Will Provine wrote the following:
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1
The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3
--------------
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4
---------
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5
1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Peaceful Science Promotes Lies and Protects Liars

-
Peaceful Science is a joke, evoTARD echo chamber. It promotes lies and protects the liars. Not one of the pathetic anti-ID minions would last a day on an pro-ID forum without being corrected and proven to be an imbecile. Not one.

Peaceful Science is a sham. They don't even understand what science entails.

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Faizel Ali is Confused or Just another Liar

-
What?:
Evolutionary theory is driven 100% by science.
1- There isn't any scientific theory of evolution
2- There isn't any science behind the claim that blind and mindless produced eukaryotes from the given starting populations of bacteria.
3- There isn't any science behind the claim that nature invented the biological codes, such as the genetic code
4- There isn't any science behind the claim that nature invented the parts to carry out those codes in a biologically relevant manner

Thanks to your alleged "evolutionary theory" we don't even know what makes a human a human.