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

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Using Richie Hughe's "Logic"

-
Richie Hughes thinks that interest in ID is waning because of internet search trends. How fucking ignorantly desperate is that?

Well I have news for Richie- interest in blind watchmaker evolution is nil:

Blind watchmaker evolution- INSUFFICIENT results- interest in non-existent.

Jeffrey Shallitt- So Cowardly and Ignorant it Hurts

-
Shallitt has become a little whiny baby. Well perhaps he has always been a little whiny baby, I don't know. He attacks ID as if his position has all of the answers and all of the science. However it is obvious that he has neither. He and his puke pal, Elsberry, had issued a "challenge" to IDists. Yet these ignorant assholes cannot even muster the courage to try to support their position!

Rigorous mathematical definitions? Not with materialism and evolutionism- nothing is rigorous.

Providing real evidence that natural selection can produce design? Nothing, ever.

Apply materialistic methodology to biology? There isn't any such methodology.

And no Jeffrey, IDists do NOT say that the opposite of random is design. So Jeffrey cannot produce the science that supports the claims of his position and he is forced to lie and misrepresent ID and IDists.

Nice job, asshole.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Selection vs. Elimination

-
Evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a process of selection and one of elimination.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
The point is evos spew that selecting for A is the same as eliminating everything but A. And this is true, however it is irrelevant with respect to natural selection. With natural selection the eliminated class is very small so it would be like eliminating Q and Z. Eliminating Q and Z is very different than selecting A.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Just Another Stupid Argument Against God

-
The lowlifes just don't get any lower than this-

Why doesn't God give you a roll of toilet paper if you are on the toilet and there isn't any within reach?
Only a fucking childish asshole would ask a question like that and here are the atheists doing just that.

Why aren't people smart enough to check for a roll BEFORE sitting down? What family is sooooo stupid that they don't keep rolls of toilet paper in their bathroom(s)?

See the stupidity for yourselves: keiths, continuing to prove that he is an ignorant asshole

Friday, September 19, 2014

Skeptics Focus on What?

-
Another comedic outburst by Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas):

We focus on things like logic, evidence, and critical thinking. 
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The "skeptics" I know of, including Kevin, focus on lies, equivocation and bullshit. Evidence? There isn't any evidence that supports materialism nor evolutionism. Kevin doesn't understand evidence and is too stupid to assess any.

If only these alleged skeptics would apply their skepticism to their position...

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Some Thoughts on Polar Bears

-
Recently I have been discussing polar bears and their whiteness*. Some people seem to think that their whiteness helps them in catching prey and that is why whiteness won out over some other color, like brown. The point being is that they say polar bears evolved from brown bears.

However if humans were the prey that may make sense, but humans could spot a polar bear unless it was very dark out or there was a blizzard. So the whiteness wouldn't help. Other prey animals are smaller than the bears and that means their perspective is changed, they are looking up with the blue sky as the back-drop. Being white wouldn't help in sneaking up on those prey. Camouflage only works when it is used correctly, meaning it is all about the perspective of that you are trying to hide from.

Being white would protect the bears from attacks from above, though. But just what type of organism could attack and kill a polar bear from above, I don't know. Perhaps eagles could feed on polar bear young, so in that case white could protect them until they grew up.

There is one scenario that would help- polar bears in the water could resemble floating ice and that would allow the bears to sneak up on seals resting on top of floating ice.

OK winter is coming and it looks like that will be a good time to build a snow bear to check it out from different angles to see how it blends in with its surroundings.


* polar bears do not have white fur- it is transparent with a hollow core. the whiteness is an effect of light scatter and reflection. however there are bears that have white fur tat are not albino.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Back to Nested Hierarchies- Why Andy Schueler and Jonathan MS Pearce are Ignorant

-
Amazing even after all the evidence that demonstrated Andy was ignorant of nested hierarchies Jonathan MS Pearce is still going around telling people that I lost the bet. That is total bullshit and here is just another reason:

Andy sez that descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy. However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH. For example the definition of a human includes all of the other definitions in the line of descent above it as well as the definition of a human (Homo sapiens). Pretty simple actually.

The problem is descent with modification is not like that. Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Genetic Algorithms vs. Natural Selection

-
Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Natural selection is a process of elimination. What does that mean?: 

Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}

With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force:
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population.
On the role of chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

So natural selection eliminates the less fit and genetic algorithms select the most fit (based on some arbitrary functions). Only imbeciles and dishonest assholes think that genetic algorithms simulate natural selection.