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, August 21, 2014

Are All Anti-Life People Unaware of How Babies Come to Be? Jonathan MS Pearce is Clueless

Anti-lifers love to call themselves "pro-choice" yet that obviously only applies to birth. They are anti- gun rights. They are anti-capital punishment. They don't want you to be able to choose if you want healthcare or not.

Back to the title- the anti-life mob doesn't seem to be able to grasp the fact that humans develop over time. And that 6-9 months of that time is spent in the womb where the eventual humans are the most defense-less. They even actually use the bullshit that there are so-called natural abortions to support their call that it is OK to destroy over 1 million eventual humans a year (that number is much higher as in the USA there are 1.2 million abortions a year). The anti-life losers blame God for those natural abortions- talk about cry-baby losers.

The anti-life mob who wants to be called pro-choice doesn't really want people to be able to choose. When a person murders another person the choice for capital punishment has already been made. Owning guns? That is our RIGHT. Going to war? Only when we are attacked.

Jonny Pearce wants people to think that Pro-life people (anti-abortion) are for war, capital punishment and guns and against universal healthcare. No Jonny, we want people to be able to choose healthcare. Not everyone owns a gun but it is our RIGHT to do so. Capital punishment is justice and due to the many assholes wars have become necessary- unfortunately. But I will take war over someone trying to force me to be like them.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Jonathan MS Pearce is a Confused Imbecile

Skeptic Ink member Jonathon MS Pearce has denounced free will at just about every chance he gets. That is OK, he is free to do so. However he turns around and calls himself and other alleged skeptics, free thinkers.


Jonathon is obviously too dim to grasp the fact that in order to be a free thinker one must have free will. Jonathon MS Pearce is indeed a confused imbecile.

Dembski Undresses Evolutionists at the University of Chicago

Too bad Coyne was too much of a coward to attend, but yes Dembski undressed evolutionists. Ya see Dembski compared evolutionism to a search. That caused an uproar with evolutionists who say that it isn't a search.

Dembski then asked for a model so it can be tested and nothing was ever offered.

So there you have it- evolutionism cannot be modeled and according to Lizzie Liddle and others that means it isn't science.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Responding to Joe Felsenstein

Full quote:
But the whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred in evolving systems. There the “meaning” would be biological function which leads to adaptedness, hence highish fitness. It would not be a matter of whether we can see the meaning, as long as the bird could fly or the fish could swim.
The inference of Design would have to made by finding some pattern that could only be from Design, or finding that this high a fitness could not be achieved by non-Design forces.- Joe Felsenstein
 Starting with the first sentence:
But the whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred in evolving systems. 
No. The whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred given the evidence and the known options. Intelligent Design is OK with evolution by design. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms, ie goal-oriented search algorithms (natural selection isn't a search, neither is genetic drift. natural selection doesn't have any goals and neither does drift) are examples of evolution by design. So one point would be to see if Design is a better explanation for evolving systems than, for example, the blind watchmaker thesis.

There the “meaning” would be biological function which leads to adaptedness, hence highish fitness. 
If one defines "adaptedness" as survival and "fitness" as differential reproduction, then that all seems meaningless, Joe. "What organisms are better adapted to their environment?" - The organisms that weren't eliminated. And what about fitness? The organisms that didn't get eliminated that had the most offspring were the fittest. So it's all an after-the-fact assessment then?

 It would not be a matter of whether we can see the meaning, as long as the bird could fly or the fish could swim.

Well the meaning comes from Crick's definition of biological information and the debate is about what process can explain its existence-> design, emergence, sheer dumb luck, destiny, whatever else.

The inference of Design would have to made by finding some pattern that could only be from Design, or finding that this high a fitness could not be achieved by non-Design forces.

And we have found that which can only be from Design, Joe. And no one even knows what non-design forces could produce a living organism. Even given a starting point of populations of prokaryotes there aren't any known non-design forces that can get beyond that.

Do you want to simulate non-design forces? Run Dawkins' "weasel" program without the target phrase and see how long it takes to hit that phrase.

What Does Intelligent Design Claim?

Mike Gene had an essay about Intelligent Design that opened with:
"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena.

For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."
I just love that for an opening when discussing what Intelligent Design claims. Onward to the rest->

What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

ID claims that Complex Specified Information, not Shannon's "mere complexity", is an indicator of agency involvement. Just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. Others have called it "functional sequence complexity". It is all the same and all based on Crick's biological information concept.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

So science asks the question:

"How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required. That means if one can demonstrate nature,operating freely can produce DNA with FSC, ID would be in a seriously compromised, if not fatal, position.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

OMagain Just wants to be Ignorant

Yes, it's hopeless but here goes:

The point rather is, JoeG, that if we replace the input of “random noise” with “radio telescope data” can you use FSCO/I to tell the difference between the two?
1- Who cares?
2- What does that have to do with ID?
3- The input is what we would be investigating. Nothing else matters

And why are you stuck on FSCO/I? It's as if OM is a little simple-minded child.

But anyway the first thing a scientist would do is ask for the source of your sequence(s). If you were unable to say then the scientist would say who the fuck cares? Then you would have some serious explaining to do.

For some reason OM thinks science is a parlor game- "Hey look, if we take nature and do this and this and this, and then take a man-made sequence and do this and this and this, I bet no one can tell one from the other!!!11!!!!111!!!"

 Unfortunately he is so self-unaware that he doesn't realize or doesn't care that materialism cannot even muster a methodology to test its claims. So he has to flail away at ID. Too bad the only people listening are the morons who don't know any better. And BTW, your position claims to be able to determine design from not. I bet you didn't realize that either.

Messages printed out are designed, irrespective of the content of the actual message, so it *must* have had agency involvement to be printed!

No, you ignorant fuck.  Again don't blame us because you are too stupid to figure out a proper example.

Do scientists try to determine if etchings on a cave or rock wall were from possible humans, animals or nature? Yes. The context, OMassface. Messages and character sequences do not exist in isolation. Even if received over the airways it will have a certain signature. Mother nature just blasts away. Intelligent agencies use narrow communication bands.

And you said that they were both obviously designed because they were print outs on paper.
You are misremembering.

Then Richie ReTARDo chimes in with his oft refuted tripe:

also, any experiment shows design because experiments are designed.

No Richie, only ignorant assholes like you say that. If an experiment takes intervention, unreal initial conditions or non-natural conditions, then you cannot say "nature didit!" because obviously it didn't.

Joe Felsenstein asks:
Are these folks claiming that they have some way of telling whether a message is a message (as opposed, say, to random noise)?

Random noise not run through any man-made apparatus. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Leave nature alone and yes, we can use tried and true design detection techniques to determine if an intelligent agency was required or not.

But we understand why you cannot do so- your position can't explain anything except disease and deformities.

OK OM chooses ignorance"

I think I must have missed this step in the EF, the calculation of CSI and FSCO/I. Can you provide a reference to the ID literature where the source of the object under question is considered?

LoL! It's called SCIENCE you ignorant little-minded punk. With SCIENCE we make observations in nature and then try to explain them. Crime labs work at the scene of the crime. Archaeologists work at the site of the dig. Everything is tagged and bagged. Scientists know the context in which the objects were found.

The only way to be sure we can avoid doing “this and this” to the data is to channel it straight into our minds directly. 

Right, and you can do that just by making the observation of nature, duh. Once you run it through a machine it becomes an artifact, duh.

For example, I measured which way the wind was blowing once an hour.
N, E, E, E, N, N, N, E, E, W, E, E, E, N
Good for you. And you just turned it into an artifact. You are just an ignorant asshole, OM. And obviously you don't know anything about science.

As I said above, you seem to have given up on the whole “FSCO > X == Design” idea. 

No, you ignorant fuck. I just know there are other tools beside that one that I can use to determine if agency involvement was required.

Now it’s “is it blasted? Not design. Narrow band = design”. 

One, I did NOT say that "narrow band=design". Obviously you have mental issues. Also Seth from SETI said it::
A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. (a sine wave, is the example he gave)
Consider pulsars - stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn't have much to say. Regular pulses don't convey any information--no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That's bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously moreefficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI. - Seth Shostack


And I know you are misremembering our earlier conversation. If you have evidence to the contrary then post it.

Can you describe an experiment that would not require ‘intervention’?
Miller-Urey; Lenski ; Flemming; Pasteur

The "wow" signal was interesting but unverifiable- that is no one ever found it again. We don't know where it came from except "out there", and that just isn't good enough. What needs to be done is to figure out what can transmit on the wavelength and in a narrow-band. You know- science! Oh you don't know science...

And it's very telling that OM ignored most of my post...

More Ignorance from The Skeptical Zone- OMagain Chokes, Again

OMagain is one of the most ignorant people ever.

`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$”,$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=( $!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)……(.)/,$”),$=++;$.++;$.++; $_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$”.”$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]“,$”&$~,$#,);$,++ ;$,++;$^|=$”;`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$”$^$~$*.>&$=`
OMagain wants to know if that was designed by an intelligent agency. LoL! That makes me wonder how many times OMagain has observed nature,operating freely, producing those symbols.

The anti-IDists are so clueless it is pathetic.

socle chimes in with more ignorance:

Another idea: Start with a 100+ character ‘message’. Encrypt it using the One-time pad scheme with a random key of the same length as the original message.
How will StephenB determine, without access to the pad, whether the original ‘message’ was intelligently designed or just random characters?

Again, morons, intelligent agency involvement is what we are determining. Have you ever observed nature, operating freely, producing any sequence of characters that would be used in an encrypted message?

OMagain posts:
On this very site I provided two strings of equal length that appeared, superficially, very similar. One was designed (by evolution) to be incompressible, the other was simply random.
Not one single PERSON at UD determined which was which, or even that there was any significant difference between them.

No doubt no one even saw it. Also no doubt it was a total strawman- hint ID is not anti-evolution. IF OM again ever posts that alleged challenge and I see it, I will point out the bullshit- yes I know it is bullshit without seeing it because I know how OMagain's M.O.

OMagain whines:

But, of course, it’s context is a web-page, therefore it’s designed. So FSCO/I adds nothing.

Not in this case. Don't blame us because you are unable to provide a proper example.

ID claims that we can determine what nature, operating freely can produce from what requires an intelligent agency to produce. If an intelligent agency creates a machine that generates characters from random noise then those characters are traced back to the intelligent agency that produced the machine. Duh.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Richie Hughes, Too Much of a Coward to Correct Andy Schuler

Well Richie is waving his pom-poms for Andy, because Richie thinks Andy has refuted me, however Andy is claiming that the transitional forms must be gone otherwise he agrees that the nested hierarchy would be ruined. The point? On all the discussions of Tiktaalik, Richie loves the mantra of "your grandfather can live when you are born", meaning transitional forms can live long after they have been replaced by a more evolved form and Andy is saying that evolution somehow predicted a nested hierarchy because we observe one with Linnean taxonomy, which excludes all alleged transitionals.

So does Richie jump in and correct Andy? Of course not. Heck most likely Richie doesn't even understand what Andy is saying and it is a given he doesn't grasp the concept of nested hierarchies.

Andreas "Andy" Schuler- Lying about Dr. Denton

Andy Schuler is a big fat liar. He lied about understanding nested hierarchies and when forced into his corner he lied about Dr. Denton. Well he was forced to lie about Denton because Denton refuted the claim that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.

Andy's lie:
On page 276, Denton states that comparable distances in Cytochrome C similarities between proteins from fishes, frogs, reptiles and mammals demonstrates that fishes are unlikely to be ancestors of frogs (and those ancestors of reptiles and those ancestors of mammals). Which relies on the idiotic misconception that extant fishes are ancestors of extant mammals instead of cousins who diverged from common ancestors for the EXACT SAME amount of time. This misconception would be excusable for a teenager, it isn´t excusable for someone who wants to write a book about the subject, it´s as lazy and moronic as writing a book about Islam while believing that Islam teaches that Jesus was God and not bothering to read up even the most elementary of sources to fact check your claims.
So I re-read chapter 12 and guess what? Dr Denton never made the claim that Andy posted! What Denton said, and was supported by evolutionary biologists, is that the alleged living fossils should have protein sequences very close to their ancestral state, ie their ancestors that lived millions of years ago. However when checked the living fossils'molecules are as derived as any other extant organism. That means there isn't any evolutionary relationships that can be gleaned from the molecular data.

Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of the ancient organisms. In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, the shark and among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago.- Zuckerkandl, E, (1965), "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18 , see p111

For if the ancient representatives of groups such as amphibia, lungfish, cyclostomes, and reptiles manufactured proteins similar to those manufactured by their living relatives today, and if, therefore, the isolation of the main divisions of nature was just the same in the past as it is today, if for example ancient lungfish and ancient amphibia were just as separate from each other as their present day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses." Denton, page 291

And that makes sense. However that is not what we observe. The "living fossils" have the same degree of difference as all other animal groups. There aren't any intermediates. All organisms are just as derived as the other. That means we cannot see any evolutionary relationships, just alleged sister groups. Evolutionary relationships have to be assumed as they are not observed by the data.

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Andreas "Andy" Schuler Proves that He is Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

This assface should just give up, seriously. Andreas Schueler sed that he knows more about nested hierarchies than I do. However he didn't know the difference between a non-nested hierarchy, a semi-nested hierarchy and a nested hierarchy until I pointed it out to him. Also he didn't have any clue about the concept of summativity. Summativity is a key to nested hierarchies. But those are all minor compared to the ignorant spewage he has been laying down recently.

I had reminded Andy that nested hierarchies are completely a man-made/ artificial construct. That is because nested hierarchies require definitions for each level as well as definition for each set on each level. Andy is too stupid to grasp any of that and insists nested hierarchies exist if some pattern exists- total asshole moron, that one. Nested hierarchies do form a pattern but a pattern does not make a nested hierarchy. The fool is too stupid to grasp that fact.

The strange part is Andy agreed with me that if all the alleged transitionals were still alive it would be impossible to make distinct sets. He gets around this by insisting nested hierarchies only need to include extant organisms! As if there is no need to classify all the alleged transitional fossils as they are found. More stupidity.

If that wasn't enough I told him that Linnean Classification, the observed nested hierarchy, doesn't have anything to do with descent with modification and he just drooled. I also reminded him that the US Army forms a nested hierarchy and he drooled some more.

The sad part is when I told him about the definitions he sed he was using what I posted. However I posted the definition of a nested hierarchy, not of the levels and sets. As I said Andy is one ignorant chump.

Nested hierarchies are purely a man-made construct. That is because without those definitions of the levels and sets there cannot be a nested hierarchy. Andreas Schueler is too much of a willfully ignorant punk to grasp that fact. Too bad I will never collect that $10,000 from him.


Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993

The sad part is I gave Andy that reference.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

RichTARD Hughes, Still a Physics FAILure

For whatever reason RichTARD Hughes is still hung up on his huge physics FAIL with respect to, get this, a universe that had only one star and one orbiting planet that also had an orbiting moon. Yes he pulled it from his ass because that is all he had to try to make some retarded point.

Richie thought what I said was wrong-

For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.

That counter-balance is called EXPANSION, without which said universe would collapse on itself. That means the planet/moon system would spiral or even just straight fall right into the star. Even this universe will start collapsing, if it hasn't already, once the expansion stops. And a universe with only one star with a planet moon system in orbit wouldn't have enough stuff to keep it expanding.That is another point-; RichTARD's universe could never exist in the first place.