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, June 27, 2018

CO2 and 30 Years of FAILed Predictions

-
CO2 does not cause an increase in temperatures. That is because the earth is NOT a greenhouse and it is not a car with its windows up.

Do weather forecasters have to know the CO2 content before making their forecast? No. Why? Because CO2 does NOT cause an increase in temps. It just causes the heat to stay around a little longer. That alone is enough to skew the average daily temps making it appear warmer.

That is a fact. Only morons think that CO2 causes higher temps. If that were true then every day we should see record highs as we have record highs of atmospheric CO2.

Also it is a fact that there have been 30 years of FAILed climate predictions.



ETA:

CO2 only absorbs and emits the infrared @ 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns (of which 15 is the major part), which is only about 8% of what the Earth radiates. The other 92% is invisible to CO2. And at 410 parts per million it also means every molecule of atmospheric CO2 is surrounded by just over 2400 molecules of non-CO2. Think of a "blanket" with the (single) thread surrounded by that much empty space or a screen with openings 2400x that of the wire. Neither is going to trap anything.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Waiting for Two Mutations

-
In 2008 a paper was published that allegedly refuted some of Dr. Behe's claims made in "Edge of Evolution". The title of the paper is "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution". You can read it HERE

The paper has severe consequences for unguided evolution as it says that if specific mutations are required it may be out of the reach of unguided processes. Three such mutations would take millions, if not billions, of years to produce. So once sexual reproduction hit the scene most evolution would be out of reach via mutations.

So forget about gene duplication as a mechanism. For that you need the duplicated gene, a new binding site and then numerous specific mutations to get a new function from the old sequence. So all that is left is to rely solely on sheer dumb luck or miracles. And that means you don't have any science to support your claims.

Now I have an evoTARD claiming that the paper has been disputed and disregarded. That is actually true. It has been disputed and disregarded by IDists who know it does NOT refute anything ID claims. Meaning it did not do what the authors claimed. I don't know of any evolutionary biologists who have challenged it in peer-review and I am sure that Jerad doesn't either.

There hasn't been any work that refutes this paper's claims. There hasn't been any work that refines it such that it makes unguided evolution more plausible.

It is too funny when evolutionists, trying to refute ID, actually refute their own position.

Monday, June 18, 2018

East Coast Line-Up

-
@ 19:30 look to the WNW horizon to find Mercury, which is following the Sun as it sets.

Following Mercury you will see Venus (look West) in all of her bright Glory.

Our Moon is close behind (SW) with Jupiter visible in the SSE sky.

And in the ENE sky you will see Vega as she starts her journey across our view.

Enjoy

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Yes, Design is a Mechanism- by Definition

-
Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can see that design is a mechanism. For example:

A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

Friday, May 04, 2018

150 parts per million

-
150 parts per million of atmospheric CO2- what's the significance of that number, you may ask?

Plant life shuts down @ 150 ppm. Why is that significant? The animal world, of which we are a part, is in deep shit when the plants die off.

Just think about the pre-industrial levels which were 280 ppm- just 130 ppm above the death threshold. During the glaciation periods it was down to 180 ppm. So close to the annihilation of land animals.

So pardon me if I want to stay away from that level. The planet has had higher levels of atmospheric  CO2 than are currently present and there never was a runaway greenhouse effect.





Thursday, May 03, 2018

keiths is a complete and desperate loser

-
keiths thinks that if you rearrange the sequence of a set like so: {1,3,5,2,7,9,11,4,13,15,17,6,19,21,23,8…}, that it somehow damages my argument. What a total moron you are, keiths. What's the next number after 8, dumbass? The ellipses at the end say keep going as it went before.

And number lines have an accepted sequence.

keiths says that when I compare my sets, for example {1,2,3,4,5,6,...} to {2,4,6,8,10,12,14...} that I am comparing finite sets.

I have already been over that, moron. Yes, every time we check we are checking finite sets. And that will happen for infinity- EVERY time we check one set will always be larger than the other. Always and forever.

Infinity is a journey, keiths. If you don't understand what that means ask OlegT. He will educate you on the subject.

In the same thread keiths appears ignorant of the greenhouse effect (GHE). The GHE says that earth radiates IR/ LWR into the atmosphere which gets absorbed by the greenhouse gasses, re-emitted back to earth, rinse and repeat. Elementary school stuff, keiths. However that only happens when the greenhouse gasses (CO2 in this case) are pointed towards earth. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand

keiths is just upset because I exposed his ignorance about nested hierarchies

Yes keiths, I am laughing at you, you ignorant ass

Some Confusion about the Lederberg Experiment

-
The Lederberg experiment- the one with bacteria and antibiotics- demonstrated that the population already had the resistance before the antibiotic was applied. That means the change was not in direct response to the antibiotic. OK so far.

The problem arises when people say that the change was not driven by the environment. Bacteria communicate- that is a fact borne out by scientific research. That communication is done via chemical signaling. That chemical signaling is part of the environment. That means it is very possible that the change that afforded the antibiotic resistance was in accordance with that communication, ie the environment.

If it is all about survival of the population that would make sense as bacteria just need one to survive to carry on. More than one is always a good thing, too. Variety is the key here.

What is the alternative explanation? It just happened for no reason? Really?

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Ignorant Evos Don't Know what a Scientific Theory is

-
I posted the following challenge over in the swamp AtBC:

There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

If anyone disagrees then it is up them to link to it, tell us who the author was, when it was published and what journal it was published in.

If you cannot do that then it is clear that I am right.

Thank you - still waiting 



To try to prove me wrong one asswipe linked to Scientific American's nonsensical article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, which clearly is NOT a scientific theory. There isn't any science there- no testable hypotheses which are supposed to precede it. There is nothing but evoTARDs claptrap and propaganda.

EvoTARDs are an ignorant and desperate lot- totally clueless and obviously a bunch of losers.