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

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Faizal Ali- Proud to be an Ignorant Ass

-
Peaceful Science is loaded with clueless losers. Faizal Ali is one of the top assholes there. The asshole spews:
That ID is based on nothing more than denial of evoution, with no positive evidence in its favour.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution, you ignorant ass. And ID is driven by positive evidence whereas your position is driven by faith and denial.

The genetic code is positive evidence for ID. That is because 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships says that codes only come from intelligent agencies. We don't have any knowledge of nature producing codes. No one even has a clue as to how to test such a thing.

And, as Rummy said:
If it’s untestable, it’s bad science.
Your side doesn't make testable claims, you ignorant ass. Your side just equivocates, fabricates and tries to intimidate when you are exposed as liars and losers.

The fact that ID is NOT a mechanistic theory seems to also be lost on these morons. You do NOT have to know how something was designed, ie the mechanism, BEFORE you can determine that it was intelligently designed. The how always comes AFTER.

That bit of ignorance always arises when evos have their asses handed to them because they don't have a testable mechanism capable of producing anything but deformities and genetic diseases.

Peaceful Science is full of liars, losers and hypocrites.

posted by Joe G @ 4:24 PM  

19 Comments:

  • At 1:42 AM, Blogger JV said…

    The how always comes AFTER.

    And no one is trying to determine the how or when. And no one has any plans to do either of those things. There is no ID research agenda aside from trying to prove unguided processes are too improbable.

    If you can show that anyone is working on the how or when then I'd be very interested in seeing that effort.

     

  • At 6:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! You are an ignorant hypocrite, Jerad. YOUR position is supposed to be all about the when and how and yet NO ONE is trying to do any of that. YOU don't even have a methodology to test your claims, asshole.

    ID has the POSITIVE evidence, you lowlife loser.

    No one is going to work on things outside the realm of ID until after you losers give up your loser cause and hand over the resources to the people who can use them.

     

  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger JV said…

    No one is going to work on things outside the realm of ID until after you losers give up your loser cause and hand over the resources to the people who can use them.

    The Discovery Institute (and some others) have the money and facilities but they are not trying to figure out how and when. No one is. No one is going to. No one is even proposing it. They're not interested. That is clear.

     

  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your cowardly hypocrisy is duly noted. No one in ID is going to work on something outside of ID until ID is the accepted paradigm. And AGAIN, archaeologists have a very difficult time understanding how artifacts were made. And those are things we can replicate.

    YOUR position is supposed to be all about the when and how and yet NO ONE is trying to do any of that. YOU don't even have a methodology to test your claims, asshole.

     

  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evos have all of the resources and yet aren't doing any of the work. The hypocrisy is clear.

    The work for IDists is to identify and study design in nature. And that is being done.

     

  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Evos have all of the resources and yet aren't doing any of the work. The hypocrisy is clear.

    1000s if not 1000000s of publications per year aside I guess. Unless you mean they aren't doing any of the work you should be doing.

    The work for IDists is to identify and study design in nature. And that is being done.

    Not really. When was the last time an IDist came up with the discovery of a new designed structure? And what does 'study design in nature' mean exactly? What are you trying to discern? Clearly not how and when and who.

    Why is there not a monthly or bi-monthly or even quarterly ID journal? 'Cause there's nothing to report or publish?

    Your cowardly hypocrisy is duly noted. No one in ID is going to work on something outside of ID until ID is the accepted paradigm.

    So, because the vast majority of working scientists in the world disagree with you you're going to do nothing? Really?

    And AGAIN, archaeologists have a very difficult time understanding how artifacts were made. And those are things we can replicate.

    Aside from Stonehenge (for which there are some very credible theories of how it was made and for what purpose) what artefacts are you referring to?

    YOUR position is supposed to be all about the when and how and yet NO ONE is trying to do any of that.

    Clearly people are working on those issues. You can see it in literally hundreds if not thousands of papers published every year. You just think it's all guided evolution so you say no one is working on unguided systems.

    YOU don't even have a methodology to test your claims, asshole.

    Unguided processes which we can observe and measure and study. What have you got? Design? What does that mean? By who? When? How? For what purpose? Oh, I forget, no one cares to answer those questions. So they do nothing excpet complain.

     

  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not one paper supports the claims of unguided evolution. Not one.

    Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a scientific alternative to ID.

    No one is working on the issues of how something evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. And the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says you don't have a mechanism capable.

    And again, you don't have a testable methodology. If you and yours had something then ID would be a non-starter.

     

  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Not one paper supports the claims of unguided evolution. Not one.

    I agree. It's not one. It's thousands and thousands. Because no one has been able to establish any kind of system or method of guidance.

    Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a scientific alternative to ID.

    Unguided processes which can be observed, measured, tested AND defined.

    No one is working on the issues of how something evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. And the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says you don't have a mechanism capable.

    Clearly they obviously are. And the paper doesn't say that. You just want it to say that.

    And again, you don't have a testable methodology. If you and yours had something then ID would be a non-starter.

    At this point ID is a non-starter because it cannot address causation: who, when, where, how.

    And, you clearly avoided some of the questions I asked. I'd repeat them but you'd just ignore them again. I guess that's how you do 'science'.

     

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look, dipshit, if there was any papers that supported unguided evolution the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" would never have had to be written. Evos would have just had to point to those papers.

    Unguided processes which can be observed, measured, tested AND defined.

    Not with respect to biology.

    And no one is on the evo issues. You can't point to any labs and show what they are doing.

    At this point ID is a non-starter because it cannot address causation: who, when, where, how.

    Those have NOTHING to do with ID, you ignorant ass.

    And don't talk about science because you clearly have no idea what that is.

     

  • At 12:25 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Look, dipshit, if there was any papers that supported unguided evolution the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" would never have had to be written. Evos would have just had to point to those papers.

    You just deny what they say. You claim to be doing science but you refuse to accept any contrary evidence. That's not science.

    And no one is on the evo issues. You can't point to any labs and show what they are doing.

    Dr Lenski is a famous case. But you'll deny that no doubt. It's easier than actually confronting the data.

    Those have NOTHING to do with ID, you ignorant ass.

    They have everything to do with ID. Without a designer and the proper equipment operating at sometime somewhere you don't have design. Which means your design inference is wrong. And besides, if I thought there was a designer I would desperately want to know the answer to those questions. You don't give a toss. That's weird.

     

  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow, what an ignorant ass you are, Jerad. The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" argues against unguided evolution. Just to get color vision requires more than two mutations.

    Dr Lenski? He is proving that evolutionary processes are VERY limited.

    They have everything to do with ID.

    Nope. ID is about the DESIGN, only.

    Just like evos don't have to answer the OoL question or the origin of the planet and solar system questions, ID is also limited in scope.

    The existence of the DESIGN is evidence for an intelligent designer.

    And again- your side can't answer anything and it is supposed to be all about the how.

    Your cowardice and hypocrisy are duly noted.

     

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Nope. ID is about the DESIGN, only.

    Well, have fun running around pointing at things and saying: that looks designed! And that over there! Here's another.

    Just like evos don't have to answer the OoL question or the origin of the planet and solar system questions, ID is also limited in scope.

    I guess ID is done now then. You inferred design, job done. No wonder no one is publishing anything. That makes sense actually.

    The existence of the DESIGN is evidence for an intelligent designer.

    IF the design inference is correct. I'd be looking for more evidence.

    And again- your side can't answer anything and it is supposed to be all about the how.

    You just don't agree with the answers; that's not the same thing.

     

  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, have fun running around pointing at things and saying: that looks designed! And that over there! Here's another.

    Only an ignorant ass would think that is what is happening. And here you are.

    I guess ID is done now then.

    Spoken like an ignorant ass. Nicely done

    IF the design inference is correct.

    No one else has anything to explain it- anything tat can be tested, anyway.

    You just don't agree with the answers; that's not the same thing.

    Your side doesn't have any answers. If it did then they would publish them.

     

  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Only an ignorant ass would think that is what is happening. And here you are.

    Well, no one is doing any further research or publishing. No textbooks. Not even a research agenda. I guess you guys ran out of science.

     

  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, your side is doing nothing to find out the how. No research, no publications and no textbooks. You are a world-class hypocrite.

     

  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Again, your side is doing nothing to find out the how. No research, no publications and no textbooks. You are a world-class hypocrite.

    So, how do you interpret all the evolutionary publications? It's all about design?

    How would you study unguided evolutionary processes then? According to you? Just curious. I'm trying to figure out what you want.

     

  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, how do you interpret all the evolutionary publications?

    They don't support unguided evolution's ability to create proteins or protein complexes.

    How would you study unguided evolutionary processes then?

    Look for genetic diseases and deformities. That is all it is capable of.

    What I want???? A scientific theory for unguided evolution, including predictions and testable hypotheses.

    Again, the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says that color vision is well beyond the scope of unguided evolution. And the ONLY reason for probability arguments is due to the fact that you don't have anything else.

     

  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Look for genetic diseases and deformities. That is all it is capable of.

    We've found those. The question is: how do you know that is all they are capable of? What evidence would change your mind? Would any evidence change your mind?

    A scientific theory for unguided evolution, including predictions and testable hypotheses.

    Which has been show to you many times. So, again: what do you want? Specifically.

    Again, the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says that color vision is well beyond the scope of unguided evolution.

    Where in the paper is that conclusion drawn?

    And the ONLY reason for probability arguments is due to the fact that you don't have anything else.

    The only reason you depend on probability arguments is because your opponents haven't got anything else? Really?

    Maybe you should be looking for some more evidence then. Something aside from reading into other people's research. Something physical and tangible.

     

  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The question is: how do you know that is all they are capable of?

    There isn't anything published that shows it can do more.

    What evidence would change your mind?

    Refute the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations". Good luck with that

    Which has been show to you many times.

    LIAR. You are just a piece-of-shit, Jerad.

    Where in the paper is that conclusion drawn?

    In the opening and the conclusion.

    The only reason you depend on probability arguments is because your opponents haven't got anything else? Really?

    Dumbass. I do not depend on probability arguments. You side doesn't even deserve a seat at that table.

    Maybe you should be looking for some more evidence then.

    We already have way more than your side will ever have.

    Something aside from reading into other people's research.

    So you are ignorant. The point is to take SCIENTIFIC research and be able to come to a design inference if warranted.

    And you don't have anything physical and tangible to support your position.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home