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

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.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Intelligent Design is Alive, Well and Still Going Strong

-
Ignorant evoTARDs are sure that ID is either dead or dying. However the only thing that will kill ID is for someone to actually step up and demonstrate that blind watchmaker-type processes can produce living organisms and the diversity of life observed- yet no one has come close to doing so. Quite the opposite has been occurring- meaning ID is better supported now than at any time in our history.

All of the following still stands:

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.


And that alone means that the demise of Intelligent Design exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Well that plus the fact that the opposition doesn't have any entailments!

Sure evoTARDs can baldly declare that ID is dead but that is all they do- baldly declare shit. That is the cowardly way...

Monday, December 01, 2014

No Global Warming for 17 Years!

-
That's right, besides the blip in 1998 due to a strong El Niño, global warming has stopped even though CO2 has been steadily increasing. Just take a looksie at the NOAA Global temps from 1880-now. We are only .74 degrees C above some arbitrary norm and if you look from 1997 until 2014 there isn't any indication of any thermal runaway and the trend is flat. Using 1997 as a bench mark there were only 5 years that were warmer, with the warmest being 0.1 degree C. 12 years were cooler.

Heck look back to 1977 and 2014 is only .66 degrees C warmer than 27 years ago and 1992 is the same as 1977! The difference between 1997 and 2014 is a mere 0.1 degree C. 

Greenhouse gases do not warm the earth they just keep the atmosphere warmer longer- think the desert effect in which it is hot during the day yet very cool at night because there isn't enough water vapor to help keep the atmosphere warm. IOW it seems that greenhouse gases just allow for warmer nights, which is a good thing for agriculture.

Greenhouse gases do not amplify the heat they absorb. That means they do not heat the earth. They just allow the heat to not escape as fast as it would without them so that the earth says warmer during the night.

Friday, November 28, 2014

"The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory"

-
I have been reading "About Face! Why the World Needs More Carbon Dioxide" and found a reference to the above titled article. The article exposes the global warming alarmists' fraud. It appears that the so-called greenhouse gases are not the only atmospheric gases that can be heated up and then emit infrared (light). It is true that only those so-called greenhouse gases can absorb infrared but they are not the only gases that can emit infrared, as both nitrogen and oxygen can also do that. And yes both nitrogen and oxygen can also be heated and then emit infrared. "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas."


Read it for yourself:

The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory


Whoopsie

Friday, November 21, 2014

Clueless Liberals- Guns vs Abortions

-
Liberals continue to cry for a change in gun laws.However abortions dwarf the deaths by guns 1.2 million to 12,000 per year in the USA.

Talk about having one's priorities mixed up.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

So How Is CSI Defined?

-
EvoTARDs are all in a blather saying CSI (Complex Specified Information) is defined to exclude production via necessity and chance. They are confusing the proof that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI with the definition of CSI and they are too stupid to realize it.

CSI is simply defined as information that is specified, ie used in the standard sense of meaning and function, and also complex, ie also pertaining to the standard use.

There you have it and there isn't anything in the definition that supports the evoTARDgasms. Go figure.


ETA- "Complexity measures arise whenever we assign  numbers to degrees of complication. A reference class of possibilities will often admit varying degrees of complication, ranging from extremely simple to extremely complicated." Wm. Dembski, "No Free Lunch", page 141

"It follows that information can be complex, specified or both. Information that is both complex and specified will be called complex specified information, or CSI for short." Ibid 141-42

Joe Felsenstein- Still Confused

-
Now Joe sez:

But Dembski did define CSI as only present when the specified complexity could not be produced by “chance” (normal evolutionary processes).

Where and when, Joe? In "No Free Lunch" he doesn't say that. He says that he has proven that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI. That means if someone can demonstrate necessity and chance producing CSI Dembski's proof fails.

There isn't anything in the definition of CSI that says what Felsenstein claims. And it is very telling that neither he, nor anyone else can support that claim with a reference from Dembski making it. Saying he has proven that CSI cannot arise from necessity and chance is very different from defining CSI as such.

CSI exists regardless of how it was produced. Only evoTARDs cannot get that through their thick skulls.