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

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is Confused or Deluded

Oh my. Now I know why Swamidass started his own forum to bash ID, he would have been chewed up and spit out if he ever took his spewage to any pro-ID forum. He needs to be able to moderate and censor everyone who proves he is clueless and should shut up, for now, when it comes to ID. Now this clown sez:
ID is failing right now because they are making scientifically absurd arguments, not because scientists are intrinsically opposed to considering something like the de novo creation of Adam.
What? The evidence says that you don't even understand ID's arguments. I have seen you hump more straw men with respect to ID than some evolutionists, whose job it is to erect so many straw men no one knows what is what.

Joshua has been called on his cartoon version of ID and yet he persists. And it sucks that he acts so arrogant and condescending while protected. And then he and his minions get all pissy when someone shoves it back at them.

Peaceful Science is just another ignorant, ID-bashing, echo chamber, run by intellectual cowards.

Inquiring minds would love to know what Swamidass is comparing ID's arguments to. It would seem that the argument of "minds from the mindless via blind and mindless processes" is as absurd as it gets, and yet it is a given that is what every version of evolution has posited beginning with Charles Darwin.

It is absurd to think that nature can produce codes. And biological organisms are ruled by them. It isn't just the codes. There needs to be a means to carry them out in a relevant manner.

It is absurd to think this planet/ moon system and solar system arose just because the right type of cloud just happened to collapse on itself and spit out our just-so solar system.

And how is ID failing when every new discovery seems to support it?

ID's arguments are based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. This is in accordance with Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, parsimony and uniformitarian teaching.

What, exactly, is a scientific alternative to Intelligent Design?


Post a Comment

<< Home