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

Friday, March 29, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle- Bald Assertions fom Her Ass

Elizabeth Liddle is a typical evoTARD. She spews bald assertions and false accusations as if they mean something.

Her favorite bald assertion is that darwinian processes can produce CSI. Of course she never produces any evidence to support her claims- that's why they are bald assertions from her ass.

And she does it on a daily basis. I bet it makes her feel good.

So is that it, Lizzie? Does spewing your bald assertions and false accusations make you feel good?

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Kevin McCarthy- Still Ignorant about Information AND Intelligent Design

Kevin, just give up, you are a moron, period, end of story.

Kevin sez:

Information, in the technical sense of being calculable, is not meaning.
AGAIN, DUMBASS, WE DO NOT CALCULATE THE MEANING. You are just an ignorant asshole.

The FUNCTION of a protein is an OBSERVATION. You know, the very thing that science relies on- making observations and then explaining what you observed/ are observing.

Biological information is all about function. And IDists have made this abundantly clear. And yes, we can and have calculated the information in functional sequences.

So AGAIN- Function/ meaning is an OBSERVATION. We can then use Shannon's methodology to see how much information is present.

As I said and have been saying (C)SI is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.

Dipshit McCarthy is too much of a willfully ignorant punk to understand that fact.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Is There a Theory of Evolution?

OK Einstein had his theories published in a peer-reviewed journal. The same cannot be said of evolutionism. There isn't a theory of evolution to be found in any peer-reviewed journal!

The strange part is if you ask someone they are sure that it exists. Unfortunately they won't be able to tell you where to find it. They may make suggestions but they will never be specific.

And if you think about it there shouldn't be a theory of evolution because there aren't any testable hypotheses pertaining to blind and undirected chemical processes.

All natural selection says is there will be differential reproduction given heritable chance variation that either helps or hinders an organism's chance of surviving and reproducing. Having more, or fewer, offspring doesn't do anything beyond just that.

If you google it you get Darwin's theory- more of a rambling idea- but not much more. You definitely won't be led to "Nature" or "Science".

So is there a "theory of evolution"? And if so can you provide a link or some valid reference?

Saturday, March 23, 2013

DNA Melting

In 1953 Watson and Crick published their famous paper elucidating the double-helix structure of DNA. The two sides are held together via a series of hydrogen bonds. A to T has two hydrogen bonds and C to G has three.

Normally an enzyme is used to break these bonds. However the bonds can also be broken with heat. The temperature at which this occurs is the DNA's melting temperature.

Got that? A DNA's melting temperature is not the temperature in which it melts into a liquid, Kevin.

DNA Melting Temperature:

Note that ‘melting’ in this sense is not a change of aggregate state, but simply the dissociation of the two molecules of the DNA double helix.
Even wikipedia agrees- Melting Temperature:

DNA melting temperature, the temperature at which a DNA double helix dissociates into single strands.
Kevin McCarthy sez:

Here's one in which they 'melt' a single molecule of DNA:
How can that be Joe, since a single molecule can't be liquid according to you.
Nice job Kevin. You work in an education-focused company? Do they know how stupid you are? BTW I never said a single molecule couldn't be a liquid.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Richie "I said cupcake first" Hughes

OK so we are getting to the point. Richie is upset because he said, rather thinks he said, cupcake to me before I ever heard of the word being used for a nickname- or some such nonsense. Hard to tell with a pathetic shit-eater like Richie. Whatever his point, it is clear he is nothing but a five-year-old brat- "I said it FIRST! wah wah wah"

What bothers Richie, though, is that when I call him a cupcake it actually works.

Not only that his original complaint against me was that I was not original and copied him. Yet, as I have said, it is clear that Richie copied someone else.

Poor pathetic Richie The cupcake Hughes- clueless until the end.

I guess I went and altered the follow page also:

Richie's Cupcake

Insults are always best when you take someting a moron thought was his and use it very effectively against him.

Richie T (for The cupcake) Hughes

OK Richie admits that he didn't invent the word "cupcake" nor its use as a nickname. Which is strange because the only reasons why he would take issue for my using it is if he did invent it or thinks that I have never given it to someone else as a nickname.

The reason I say he thinks he invented its usage is because after I called him a cupcake he called me an unoriginal copycat. Unless he invented it that would mean that Richie The cupcake Hughes is an unoriginal copycat.

Pot, meet kettle. LoL!

What's the point? All of this has Richie The cupcake Hughes in a nuclear (or nuculer) meltdown.

And that brings us to a new nickname for Richie- The Cupcake Syndrome. Richie cupcakes has reached critical mass and has had yet another meltdown. And I did it!

Yeah baby..........


Kevin McCarthy- Confused about Information

Earlier I posted about Kevin McCarthy saying that information is not meaning. Today I am posting because Kevin is now using the word information to equal meaning.

In his most recent blog entry standardized testing, Kevin sez:

2. Provide information as to the students areas of strength and weakness.
How are you defining information in that sentence, Kevin? Does it have meaning? If yes, why?

He goes on to say:

 We can make tests that are really good and provide a lot of really useful information. But if that information is ignored or a careful, deep analysis is too expensive, then we can’t do much with it.
Two more uses of the word "information" and it seems he is using it to equal meaning.

But wait, in Information and Intelligent Design , Kevin makes it clear that to him and scientists information does not equal meaning.

This asshole can't keep his story straight.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle- Still Overselling (Lying about) Evolutionism

Lizzie Liddle is back and repeating her same unsupported tripe that she spewed months earlier. Different day, same shit:

And second, it’s important to be clear what you are asking for evidence for – there is a vast amount of fossil and genetic evidence to support the idea that all living things are descended from a population of far simpler ancestors.
And yet there are geneticists who disagree that there is vast amount of genetic evidence to support idea that all living things are descended from a population of far simpler ancestors. So wat is that alleged evidence Lizzie speaks of? She doesn't say but most likely it is the similarities observed throughout the diversity of life. The same similarities that are evidence for a common design.

Not only that, neither the fossil nor gentic evidence she points to tells us about the mechanism. IOW evidence for the idea that all living things are descended from a population of far simpler ancestors is NOT evidence for Darwinism nor the modern synthesis.

Therea’s also a vast amount of genetic, observational (lab and field) and computational evidence that once you have a population of self-replicating critters, that population evolves to fit its environment, and, if that environment is rich enough, diversify into different lineages with different adaptation. Again, this has been directly observed, and that it happened over deep time can also be inferred from the fossil and genetic evidence.
Not only is she overselling, but she is also equivocating. "Evolved" how, Liz? By accident or by design? What is your methodology for making the determination?

1- There isn't any computational evidence that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can do anything. AVIDA proves that when given realistic parameters those "critters" deteriorate. So stuff it already. And when someone designs a program to produce something, and it does, it did so BY DESIGN, duh. Evolutionary and genetic algorithms are evidence for Intelligent Design Evolution

2- There isn't any genetic evidence that supports the observable differences- For example similar genes producing similar proteins that perform similar functions do not explain the DIFFERENCES between chimps and humans.

3- The DNA test that would show that I am related to my father and mother would say that we are not related to chimps.

And later on Fat Joe Felsenstein chimes in:
A similar thing happens when they drag us off to discussing the Origin Of Life when we are busy pulverizing their arguments against evolution.
LoL! Joe, you haven't "pulverized" anything but your strawmen. You couldn't support evolutionism if your life depended on it.

And the origin of life matters because blind watchmaker evolution is only relevant if blind watchmaker processes created life. If living organisms were designed, ie the OoL was a design event, then the inference would be they were designed to evolve and evolved by design.

Go have another donut, Joe.

RichTARD Hughes- aka Captain Coward- the Al Gore of "cupcake"

Yes folks, RichTARD Hughes is not only the inventor of "BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA", but this amazing tard is also the inventor of calling someone "cupcake"!

No one has ever used either of those before Richie Hughes came along and enlightened us!

Ain't that special...

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

John Grove- Ignorant Blowhard EvoTARD

Over on Amazon discussions I am having a back-and-forth with a few assholes- John Grove, Richie "cupcake" Hughes and Ray O'Keefe Cruit, they of the little pee-pee.

Richie is spewing its usual cowardly bullshit. John is spewing more cowardly bullshit and Ray is their cheerleader. Well Richie is a cheerleader too.

John Grove is a total freak. He doesn't seem to understand anything. And he equivocates just like all evoTARD cowards. All genetic change is evidence for the blind watchmaker. And we "determined" that just by looking up his ass- he never does say.

So I asked John and the other morons to link to the alleged "theory" of evolution so we can read it. Did he do that? Nope. All he did was whine, cry and spew more false accusations. I also asked him to provide a testable hypothsis for unguided evolution. He didn't do that either. But he did link to an old article by Nick matzke about the bacterial flagellum. Unfortunately the article didn't have anything to do with unguided evolution and its claims are untestable. IOW it doesn't show that any bacterial flagellum can evove via darwinian processes.

Next we move on to natural selection- John chokes on that too- well all evoTARDs choke on NS- they think it actually does something. Having more offspring doesn't equal a designer mimic. And not all offspring are going to inherit the beneficial genetic change.

John Grove, just another cowardly shit-eating evoTARD.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Things that EvoTARDs Do NOT Understand- ID is NOT a Negative Argument for Design

KeithS is a clueless tard. Back on Dec 7, 2012 keiths sed:

Intelligent design proponents make a negative argument for design.
No, we don't. Every design inference needs to eliminate necessity and chance first. That is how it goes in archaeology, forensic science and SETI. The four rules of scientific investigation mandate tat approach. IOW keiths is ignorant of science.

keiths goes on to spew:

According to them, the complexity and diversity of life cannot be accounted for by unguided evolution (henceforth referred to simply as ‘evolution’) or any other mindless natural process.  
Wrong again- according to the EVIDENCE unguided evolution doesn't do anything but break and deteriorate. Don't blame us.

And more spewage:

 If it can’t be accounted for by evolution, they say, then we must invoke design.
Strike three, you are out! We say that if blind and undirected processes cannot account for it AND it meets our criteria, we infer design. And guess what? that is exactly how it works in archaeology, forensic science and SETI. As I said keiths is just ignorant of science.

So keiths strikes out and has a tantrum:

(Design, after all, can explain anything. That makes it easy to invoke, but hard to invoke persuasively.)
I don't know of any IDists, nor any legit scientist, who says that. Heck IDists say the opposite.

keiths goes on to spew more lies and bullshit but he never posts any evidence that demonstrates unguided evolution can actually do what he claims.

Ignorance and cowardice seem to be evoTARD traits that they are proud of. Strange...

Evolution is Not a Blind Search?

OlegT sez that:

But evolution, like crystal growth, is not a blind search.
Natural selection is blind, mindless and without purpose. So either blind watchmaker evolution is a blind search or it isn't even a search at all. Whatever happens, happens and whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce.

If something is found along the way then it’s “oh joy” and then carry on.

Is tat what olegt was trying to say? Hard to tell because he rarely makes his case and instead tries to "argue" via innuendo and false accusation.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Zack Kopplin- Ignorant and Confused

OK, OK, I know, I shouldn't pick on ignorant and confused school-kids. But Zack Kopplin just won't shut-up and just doesn't know his place.

Earth to Zack- if you really want Intelligent Design and Creation to go away then the only way to do so is to provide positive evidence for your position- whatever that is.

Do some science, Zack, and then get back to us. Until then all you have is your ignorance and the confusion it causes.

Information and Intelligent Design- Easily Refuting Kevin R McCarthy

Poor little clueless Kevin. He can't post positive evidence for his position so he is forced to attack ID with his ignorance. Bad move Kevin.

This time Kevin tries to take on Information and Intelligent Design. Unfortunately for Kevin, he fails miserably.

First information and meaning go hand-in-hand at least 99% of the time for everyone on this planet. Even scientists at one time of the day or another, use information to = meaning. Their peer-reviewed papers are full of information that has meaning.

Call 411, ie information, and you expect to get a response that has meaning.

Encyclopedias are full of information that has meaning. Dictionaries are also full of information that has meaning. Textbooks are another example of information having meaning. It is difficult to find examples in which information does not have any meaning.

But Kevin thinks he is so smart, smater than all of us, because he read something about Claude Shannon. I doubt he read the paper or the book, he doesn't need to- he is smart. Just ask him.

For those of you who don't know Shannon, he provided us with a way to measure information. He did not care about meaning. So Kevin thinks that he said that information doesn't have any meaning. However when Kevin chose a definition for "information", he posted one that is all about meaning. He is too stupid to know what he did.

No Kevin, Shannon just didn't care- his measuremnet system doesn't care about meaning. That is why most scientists who use his concept refer to it as "information carrying capacity"- as in this "message" is 100 bits in length , which means it has the information carrying capacity of 100 bits. We don't know if there is actually any information in it.

We cannot meaure meaning. And no, IDists do not try to measure meaning/ functionality- Kevin is lying, again, when he says that.

As I told Kevin, meaning/ functionality is OBSERVED, and then we can measure the amount of information by counting the bits.

All of that said, to avoid confusion, IDists use the terms Specified Information and Complex Specifed Information to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has meaning/ functionality. Does kevin ever mention that? No, because he is an ignorant punk on an agenda.

OK so Kevin provides a definition of "information" that contradicts his post, he lies about IDists trying to measure meaning and he clearly doesn't understand evolutionism.

Kevin also lies about IDists when he says:

Finally, is that the ID proponent assumes, one and only one, valid protein/DNA sequence.
Nope, we never have. And it is very telling that Kevin never references any of his claims about us. He thinks that he can just make shit up and post it because no one reads his trope.

Next Kevin sez that IDists do not understand Shannon.

Whenever you hear an ID proponent talking about Shannon information, they don’t understand the concept.
Well Chapter 4 of "Signature in the Cell" goes over Shannon Information in some detail. Perhaps Kevin can tell us what Meyer got wrong. Then there is Werner Gitt, who wrote "Inthe Beginning was Information" (1997), he too discusses Shannon and his work. Perhaps Kevin can tel us what Dr Gitt got wrong.

In the end only a moron would think that IDists try to calculate meaning. And kevin's post is all about us allegedly trying to do so- again without examples or references.

Monday, March 04, 2013

Evidence? For What?

On on the septic zone Robin asks about evidence
So genetic sharing across species is not evidence to you? All vertebrates having five fingers and toes is not evidence to you? Nested hierarchies are not evidence to you?
Genetic sharing across species is evidence for a common design. All vertebrates do not have five fingers and toes. However the pentadactyl limb is evidence for a common design. And nested hierarchy is also evidence for a common design.

BTW ERVs cannot be evidence for common ancestry across species because it cannot be tested.

One more thing- notice that not one of Robin's evidences supports blind watchmaker evolution. It just allegedly supports universal common descent.

So Robin, nice job. You post evidence, but for what?

Sunday, March 03, 2013

Intelligent Design and Evolution

Intelligent Design is the premise that organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. For an example see the weasel by Richard Dawkins. It is a targeted, ie goal-oriented, search. Take away the target from the program and it would never create the sentence desired.

In 1997 Dr. Spetner's book Not By Chance was published. In it he talked about cells having "built-in responses to environemntal cues", meaning the genetic changes were NOT all accidents/ chance/ happenstance events.

Now in the 21st century we have an evolutionist, James Shapiro, writing about "natuarl genetic engineering" (Evolution: A View From the 21st Century- he thinks it evolved)  and it reads as if Dr Spetner were updating his thoughts using the latest data. All of the changes that Shapiro says are non-random, ie not accidents/ chance events, are what Spetner, not an evolutionist, talked about 15 years ago.

And what I predict is that someone, maybe Shapiro, will find that this "natural genetic engineering" is actually what Spetner described. Meaning most genetic changes are not random, but they are guided by the cell, by design-> actual real-live software, ie the vital ingredient.

Intelligent Design says that we are not reducible to matter and energy, nor did we just emerge once the right stuff came together. There is something else. And at least part of that something else is software.

Peer-Review- Still No Evidence for Bilnd Watchmaker Evolution

150+ years after Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..." was published and there still isn't a "theory" of evolutin to be found in any peer-reviewed journal. We can find Einstein's relativity in peer-review, but not any theory of evolution.

That said, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles pertaining to "evolution" but not one supports blind watchmaker evolution. Heck no one knows how to test blind watchmaker evolution- it can't even muster a testable hypothesis.

OK so there isn't any positive evidence for blind watchmaker evolution. There isn't even a way to test its claims. So why are we teaching it in schools?