Wesley Elsberry is a Clueless Coward and Scientifically Illiterate Fool

 -

Wesley Elsberry thinks quite a bit of himself. Too bad he is a coward, liar and loser. Wes spews:

that there is an uncommon cohesion to our little assemblage of people who stood up for science education, and those of us who backed them doing so. 

Hey dumbass, if you were standing up for science then why did your side have to lie and bluff their way through the trial? 

Wesley Elsberry is an ignorant coward. Please sue me Wes, so we can have this out in Court.

15 Years since Kitzmiller and Evos are Still Liars and Bluffing Cowards

 -

Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of Ktzmiller vs the Dover school board. A trial in which the sitting judge was fooled by the lies and bluffs of the plaintiffs witnesses and lawyers. The scientifically illiterate judge overstepped his bounds and rules that ID isn't science! As if what is and isn't science can be determined by a judge!

Dr. Behe has responded to the judge's ignorance. 

The literature bluff and other lies are exposed here, too.

15 years later and evos still don't have any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce irreducible complex structures and systems. As Dr. Behe concluded:

The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories. 

But yet the dumbass evos see this as a cause to celebrate. Can anyone explain that to me? They were caught lying and bluffing. An ignorant judge sided with them. What is there to celebrate?

Intelligent Design is still being discussed in some high schools' science classrooms.

Jerry Coyne is a Clueless Ass

 -

Jerry Coyne continues to prove that he is a clueless ass. Yahoo has an article by Coyne titled Yes, there is a war between science and religion. Jerry Coyne is a bullshit artist. His view on science is nothing more than dogma. His position on evolution requires more faith than any religion. And his view on evolution is outside of the realm of science.

Despite what Jerry spews, science an religion are not incompatible and they are not at war. The father of modern science was the very religious Sir Isaac Newton. Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Galileo, et al, all saw science as a way to understand God's Creation. That alone proves that Coyne doesn't know what he is talking about. Jerry spews:

My argument runs like this. I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.

Earth to Jerry Coyne- there aren't any testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The only "predictions" borne from it are genetic diseases and deformities. So obviously you are totally confused. He goes on to spew:

What is not disputable is that today science is practiced as an atheistic discipline – and largely by atheists. 

And THAT is why we don't know what determines biological form. And why evolutionary biology is total bullshit. Those atheistic scientists don't have any answers when it comes to biology. They can't say how nature produced the genetic code. They don't even know how to test the concept. All they have to explain our existence is the antithesis of science, sheer dumb luck.

It's assholes like Coyne that are the problem. THEY, not science, are at war with religion. And they will never be able to understand the universe because of their narrow minds.

Self-assemble under Genetic Control- Seriously

 -

Evolutionists will believe and say anything as long as they think it preserves their need and desire to have an atelic explanation. They think that there is some sort of genetic control for the assembly of proteins. They spew that nonsense even though it it totally lacking evidentiary support. It only exists in the tunnel vision of their limited minds.

I understand why they do this. They NEED that control. And they NEED it to have arisen via blind and mindless processes like natural selection and drift. Because without that control* it means that all of these multiprotein, functional complexes have to just happen to come together each and every time. And no one believes that so they have to conjure up control to save their untenable position. Sad, really.

All DNA does is code for RNAs. With respect to mRNAs, DNA doesn't tell it how to process its transcript. DNA doesn't have any input into how proteins fold. Without the required RNAs and proteins, DNA does nothing but rot. And maybe some useful RNAs will come from that.

The pure raw spewage of "self-assemble under genetic control" just demonstrates these moron's desperation. Just say anything and then attack anyone who questions it. Evos are the most dishonest and cowardly people on the planet.

*Control with respect to Intelligent Design comes from the intelligent design of cellular life and the presence of immaterial information that makes them go. That is why we can't synthesize living organisms. We can't program them.

"The Appearance of Design is Not Proof of Design"- Duh

 -

Words of wisdom from those who just don't get it: The appearance of design is not proof of design. No shit. Charles Darwin's entire thesis was the appearance of design without the need for an intelligent designer. That is design without a designer. But try as he might he couldn't find the evidence for it. 160 years later the claim is still bereft of a supporting cast.

What the appearance of design does is warrant a thorough investigation into what caused it to be that way. That is one of the fundamental questions of scientific inquiry- "How did it come to be the way it is?"

And if we come to find out that it cannot be explained by nature, the appearance of design then warrants the design inference. And we treat it as an artifact.

Mikkel r Rumraket is Delusional or a Liar

 -

Holy shit! These enemies of reason are delusional! Mikkel spews:

Yes, clearly Behe brought up the mousetrap example to explain the principle of irreducibly complexity through a complex arrangement of multiple parts, not to argue that Mousetrap parts had to be moved around by hand. The components of organisms don’t move around by hand, they self-assemble under genetic control.

Wow! Under genetic control!!! Really? What control would that be seeing that the DNA just codes for mRNA sequences? DNA doesn't even control the mRNA processing. It has no influence over the protein folding or assembly. So no, Mikkel, you delusional loser, components of organisms are NOT under genetic control. They do NOT self-assemble. Well, there isn't any evidence for either of those so we can dismiss them, as Hitchens said.

The conversations over on Peaceful Science are pathetic. What aren't lies and bullshit is irrelevant or nonsense.

Timothy Horton Continues to Prove it is an Ignoramus

 -

Timothy Horton is a pathetic waste of skin. Its ignorance knows no bounds. Little Timmy spews:

Do you understand a mousetrap is NOT irreducibly complex since parts can be removed and the remainder still retain a different function?

That has NOTHING to do with it, you ignorant ass! The fact that the parts can have a different function exacerbates the issue of irreducible complexity. Dr. Behe has addressed this in Irreducible Complexity is STILL an obstacle :

The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: “Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function.” In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC.

... 

However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly — who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention.

...

The reason why a separate function for the individual parts does not solve the problem of IC is because IC is concerned with the function of the system:

Timmy is just like the rest of the evoTARDs- proudly ignorant but still a pathological liar and coward.