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

Monday, February 28, 2011

Art Hunt, T-URF 13 and Irreducible Complexity

Art Hunt thinks he found a "Behe buster" in T-URF 13, but has he?

Well if you read Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution" and "Darwin's Black Box" it is obvious Dr Hunt didn't bust Dr Behe.

First Dr Hunt says the system is irreducibly complex- yet it only has three components- the T-URF 13 protein, the membrane and the foreign molecule that gets transported through the channel. Also it is a destructive system, meaning it is the cause of not so good things. Dr Behe goes over this in "The Edge of Evolution" saying that 1- his work doesn't consider/ pertain to foreign material such as foreign proteins and molecules and 2- Blind processes ca break things much easier then they can can construct useful systems.

So we have this alleged IC system tat doesn't even measure up to Dr Behe's mousetrap- IOW it doesn't applt (IC wise) to anything Dr Behe has claimed about IC. Not only that it is a harmful system, ie not a useful system.

Dr Hunt also claims that this resulting system is a triple CCC, thereby shattering Dr Behe's edge. However on page 148 of "The Edge of Evolution" Dr Behe deals with that bit of misconception- the edge refers to the cell's proteins, not foreign molecules/ toxins. And guess what, Dr Hunt's example contains the binding of a foreign toxin. So the triple becomes a humble double and a destructive one at that, something Dr Behe readily admits blind watchmaker processes can achieve.

So Dr Hunt really smooched the pooch on this one. Unfortunately he will never admit it because he will ignore everything I and others have been telling him.

Now the evotards retreat to "Well it's a new gene, new information, so you are busted anyway"- well it is a destructive gene and it doesn't add anything, meaning it is not an increase in information.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

RichTard Hughes- Still as Clueless as Ever

RichTard Hughes is at it again, this time making the easily refuted claim:

Geocentrism. Clearly spawned from creationist views ...

What an ignorant puke. Geocentrism was the SCIENTIFIC point of view-

Geocentric Model:
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the superseded theory, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it. This geocentric model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, most Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.

RichTard Hughes is so freaking ignorant he is trying to rewrite history. RichTard Hughes is the result of "education" via evotard propaganda.

Pathetically clueless...

Looking for an Earth-like Planet?

If you want to look for an Earth-like planet the place to start is finding a Sun-like star.

Finally it looks like someone is starting to agree with "The Privileged Planet"- dwarf stars don't get it done when it comes to finding habitable planets.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

George Gershman's Apple Cider Vinegar- a Replacement

I used to drink George Gershman's drink- apple cider vinegar with honey, but the health food store stopped carrying it for whatever reason.

However they had a replacement-Bragg Organic Apple Cider Vinegar (raw unfiltered) with the 'mother'. You have to add your own honey! But this stuff seems to work better than Gershman's drink- it is like it is more concentrated.

If you have heart-burn or acid indigestion then either will work for you. But if you can't find Gershman's then try Bragg's. Even though you also have to buy the honey Bragg's may still be cheaper for you.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Soot Experiment

Global warming alarmists want us to believe that CO2 concentrations are rising, the rising CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm and the warming atmosphere is causing glaciers and ice caps to melt.

However there is another mechanism that can melt snow, ice, glaciers and ice caps- soot. Get the reflective stuff dirty and that dirt traps the heat from the sun's rays.

There was a show on the Discovery Channel about global warming- a pro AGW show. One scientist was in the Arctic demonstrating the albedo effect. Below freezing temps and nice white snow. He then laid down two 2'x2' pieces of cardboard- one was white and the other was black. The white one stayed the same as the ambient and the black one rose to over 90 degrees within a couple minutes.

He wanted to demonstrate that having no Arctic ice cap to reflect the sun's rays then that will add to the over all global temperature.

What he demonstrted was that dirty snow gets warm and warm snow melts.

So this is what I did. I took the ash from my pellett stoves and spread it over my unshoveled back walkway- over two feet deep. I did it half way down, leaving the other half pristine white. That was a few weeks ago.

Now the sooted half is melted down to the walkway and there is almost 2 feet of snow left on the other half.

Exposed to the same temperatures, exposed to the same amount of sunlight, the sooted half melted so much faster it is easy to conclude the cause and effect relationship.

The point being it isn't the CO2 and by focusing on CO2 we are missing the root cause.

Take a close look at glaciers. Find one that is pristine white and melting. Good luck finding one that white.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Mycoplasma genitalium and Complex Specified Information

First read this-

Mycoplasma genitalium- an organism all evotards should be personally familiar with and complex specified information, the concept evotards remain willfully ignorant of.

CSI has a lower threshold of 500 bits of specified information. Biological function is a specification.

Mycoplasma genitalium has 580076 base pairs, which equals 1,160,152 (d'oh) bits of information carrying capacity. Out of that 529477 bp code for proteins, ie functionality. That equals 1,058,954 bits of specified information, which is well above the 500 bit threshold.

Heck just looking at the number of protein coding genes it is obvious that the 500 bit threshold would be easily surpassed.

No need to get a perfect number for the organism, the threshold is set.

Monday, February 21, 2011

IBM's Watson vs SuperHuman Scott Flansburg- the Human Calculator

OK so IBM's Watson has demonstrated the computer's ability to access information very rapidly. I think we all knew computers could do that but Watson does it via voice input. A big, bad powerful information accessing machine.

I am sure Watson can also do some math.

Well humans have people who can also do some math, and do it very quickly. Ladies and gentlemen- evotards too- meet SuperHuman Scott Flansburg- the Human Calculator

Sounds like a 21st century "Paul Bunyan" type challenge- man vs technology.

Yeah I know what happened on "Jeopardy", but that was to be expected given computer speeds and the ability to (over)load it with information.

How EvoTards Measure Information

EvoTards are having such a difficult time with information I hd to find out why. So I disguised myself by going to a local library and setting up an account from which I could start posting on forums as an die-hard atheistic evolutionist.

I have been doing this for just over a year- started around Darwin's birthday 2010.

Finally I have been let in on the secret technology they use to measure information and I managed to smuggle out some pictures:

evotard information measuring technology

They also have a more complex IMT

And finally, the one I have been waiting to uncover this yellow thingy.

So that is the problem. Dealing with evotards is like dealing with someone who cannot speak nor understand the language. It doesn't matter how many times or how loud you tell them. Might as well talk to a wall.

Fire Investigation for the Willfully Ignorant

Oops this won't help the willfully ignorant because, well they are WILLFULLY ignorant. But for all those others who may be interested there is a wealth of information on fire investigations on the interwebs ;)-

For example wikipedia:
Fire investigation, sometimes referred to as origin and cause investigation, is the analysis of fire-related incidents. After firefighters extinguish a fire, an investigation is launched to determine the origin and cause of the fire or explosion. Investigations of such incidents require a systematic approach and knowledge of basic fire science.

The explanatory filter is a systematic approach.

Then we have How to Become a Fire Investigator:
Part detective, scientist, engineer, and law enforcer, the fire investigator represents the collusion of multiple careers rolled into one. It is the fire investigator who must explore, determine, and document the origin and cause of the fire, establish what human actions were responsible for it, then bring authoritative testimony to the courtroom to win a conviction in cases of arson

There is more to be found- just search on "fire investigation" and start reading.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

RichTard Hughes, Still Choking on his Ignorance

RichTard Hughes is in true form once again. This time he is mangling fire investigations.

RichTard links to Fire and Arson Investigations- then he babbles something about them not ruling out chance.

Yet they say that
All fires fall into one of three categories: Accidental, Incendiary or Providential.

If the fire is accidental then that would be chance. Providential- well surely they are not talking about an act of God, meaning chance and/ or necessity.

The point is before you can say an arson took place you have to rule out accidents and providence.

These evotards are so stupid they just say shit as if it means something.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Burning Books, Information and Energy

Some chump who goes by "Negative Entropy" has said that information is energy.

That would mean if we burned a book filled with information it would release more energy than the same-sized book void of information.

I say all the energy released will be due to the material used.

Information is energy is bullshit.

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

The Design Inference- How It Works

So much confusion over such a simple concept- determining design in a natural world. This is all about answering one of science's three basic questions- "How did it come to be this way?".

Intelligent Design 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.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

That said we have the explanatory filter to help us determine the cause of the effect we are investigating.

On to the Explanatory Filter:

The (design) explanatory filter is a standard operating procedure used for detecting basic origins of cause. It or some reasonable facsimile is used when a dead body turns up or a fire is reported. With the dead body we want to determine if it was a natural death, an accident, a suicide or a homicide (what caused the death?) and in with the fire, the investigator wants to know how it started- arson, negligence, accident or natural causes, i.e. lightning, lava, meteorite, etc. Only through investigation can those not present hope to know about it.

When investigating/ researching/ studying an object/ event/ structure, we need to know one of three things in order to determine how it happened:

1. Did it have to happen?
2. Did it happen by accident?
3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen?

A fire is investigated before an arson is.

First we must make this clarification by Wm. Dembski:

”When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter.
This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.”

This is why further investigation is always a good thing. Initial inferences can either be confirmed or falsified by further research.
Intelligent causes always entail intent. Natural causes never do.

(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)

The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination.


CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)

COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance

↓ yes


The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.

By getting to the final decision node where we separate that which is merely complex from intentional design (an event/ object that has a small probability of occurring by chance and fits a specified pattern), means we have looked into the possibility of X to have occurred by other means. May we have dismissed/ eliminated some too soon? In the realm of anything is possible, possibly. However not only is it impractical to attempt every possible, but by doing so we would no longer have a design inference. By eliminating every possible other cause design would be a given. What we are looking for is a reasonable inference, not proof. IOW we only have to eliminate every possible scenario if we want absolute proof. We already understand that people who ask that of the EF are not interested in science.

It took our current understanding in order to make it to that, the final decision node and it takes our current understanding to make the inference. Future knowledge will either confirm or falsify the inference. The research does not and was never meant to stop at the last node. Just knowing something was the result of intentional design offers no more about it. IOW design detection is the first step in the two step process- detection and understanding of the design. Just because the answer is 42* that doesn’t tell us what was on the left-hand side of the equal sign.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

IOW the design inference is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

We do not infer that every death is a homicide nor every rock an artifct. Parsimony- no need to add entities and the design inference is all about requirements, as in is agency involvement required or not?

Threfor to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it.

Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives.

(*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference)

Addled Tards Behaving Cowardly- (After The Bar Closes)

Finally I found the right combination of words to describe the cretins who post on an (allegedly) anti-evolution forum- Addled Tards Behaving Cowardly.

These assholes are not only clueless and ignorant but are just a bunch of gossips. The saying "lagre minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds talk about other people applies directly to them- all they do is gossip about other people.

Well they don't really have a choice. ya see their position doesn't have any positive evidence to support it so all they can do is attack any and every one who exposes their position for the bullshit it is.

And that is why they are Addled Tards Behaving Cowardly- they need the group as they cannot survive without it.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Henry J- Another Liar or just Ignorant?

Here we go again- Now we have Henry J claiming:
now try to explain it to the ID leaders and followers; they're the ones equating evolution with atheism.

Wrong again asshole. Will Provine, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett (just to name a few) have done just that and not one is affiliated with ID in any way.

Ogre MKV with a long literature bluff

No wonder evos think they have scientific support for their position- they think the shit Ogre listed actually supports their claims:

Ogre's latest literature bluff- It starts out with the "nylon bug"! What a fucking loser.

Ya see there still isn't any evidence this capability arose via genetic accidents/ error/ mistake, there wasn't any new machinery constructed! IOW it fits in fine with YEC variation within a Kind.

Then he gets into the papers for anti-freeze- same thing- tghere isn't any evidence this arose via genetic accident and it didn't construct any new machinery. Right in line with the YEC variation within a Kind.

The problem is this stupid mother fucker of an Ogre doesn't have a clue as to what is being debated. Not only that he doesn't have a clue as to what the theory of evolution is all about.

The proof is what he sez next- speciation- YECs don't doubt speciatrion even with its ambiguous definitions.

Fruit flies are still fruit flies, bacteria remain bacteria. No new body parts. No new body plans and still no new protein machinery.

Then the ogre lists papers about abiogenesis research.

I wonder if it read any of these papers? Nothing about living organisms arising from non-living matter.

Yeah sure a bunch of speculations, but that is about it.

But this is what passes for science to those wed to the materialistic PoV.

Oh well...