Intelligent Reasoning

EvoTARDs' Transparent Lunacy

2012-05-21T08:45:00.001-04:00

-
Elizabeth Liddle has a blog entry in which she tries to argue that a sculptured statue (of David) refutes the claim that merely throwing stuff out created the statue and therefor refutes Gil Dodgen's claim that throwing stuff out isn't creative.

This is all in reference to natural selection, which is a result, basically eliminative and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately none of the evoTARDs making and trying to support that argument will be testifying in any Court case involving the "theory" of evolution.

Just how fucking stupid and dishonest can people be to compare an agency intentionally designing something to a blind and mindless result?

It is obvious that Elizabeth is bitter over being dumped from Uncommon Descent and will just say anything in order to strike back. Too bad she just whiffs and strikes out.

An Obtuse Moron Wants DNA Translated into English

2012-05-21T08:35:00.000-04:00

-
Just when you thought evoTARDs couldn't get any dumber- I give you an obtuse moron asking for DNA to be translated into English:

Exactly this. I’ve asked ID supporters many times to translate some DNA into English for me.

Only a moron would think such a thing is possible, and here we have OMTWO.

It goes on to say:

Languages/codes have the property that they can be translated into other languages and retain their meaning (mostly)

Yes, DNA gets transcibed into RNA and that RNA gets translated into a polypeptide, ie something that is neither DNA nor RNA.

Biology 101 you ignorant wanker.

Elizabeth Liddle, Still Asking the Wrong Question

2012-05-17T07:28:00.000-04:00

-
Yup Elizabeth is still confused. Instead of trying to explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation she asks:

I wonder if Upright thinks that protein synthesis is necessary for self-reproduction i.e. heredity?

No, it isn't but self-reproduction with heredity does not explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation, ie the semiotic state. And as Dr Joyce pointed out self-replication doesn't lead to any new functions, meaning you lose, again, as usual.

Skin Flint- Just Another Ignorant EvoTARD

2012-05-16T18:19:00.001-04:00

-
EvoTARD ignorance knows no bounds. Over on "The Deceitful Zone" Upright Biped is trying to discuss a semiotic theory of ID. The basics are a codon of nucleotides codes for- not produces- an amino acid.

So what does skin flint the evoTARD spew? One atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen produce one molecule of H2O. What a fucking imbecile.

The funniest part of all of this is not one other evoTARD can grasp what is wrong with skin flint's "example.

EvoTARD cluelessness at its finest...

Origin of Life and a RNA World- Only in the Imagination

2012-05-16T07:34:00.000-04:00

-
Ever since RNA was found to be a catalyst the "RNA World" was imagined. In the imagination the "RNA World" grew and prospered. However in the real world it withered and died. The imagination paid no heed.

How/ why did this alleged RNA World wither and die? Well in all cases of any self-sustained replication of RNAs or with self-replicating RNA ligases, the products did NOT undergo Darwinian evolution. That is the products did what the original did, even if the products contained variations:

A self-replicating ligase ribozyme

All of the chemical self-replication systems that have been described, including the ribozyme-based system of the present study, are not capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

That is also true of Joyce's more recent experiment involving a self-sustained replication of RNAs. Nothing new evolved.

Ahh but the materialists do not need no stinking evidence. They have their imagination. And in their imagination RNA does evolve new functions and can even intergrate with amino acids and polypeptides to form ribosomes which can then crank out more polypeptides.

Unfortunately ribosomes do not appear to be reducible to matter and energy. I say that because synthesized ribosomes- made up of the same matter and energy as ribosomes in living organisms, do not function. Even if we just synthesize the RNA component the ribosome refuses to function as the ribosome in living organisms.

Why is that so? I say it is due to programming- as in the ribosomes of living organisms are programmed to crank out certain polypeptides. And the program, as with information, is neither matter nor energy.

So the bottom-line is if any RNA World existed it existed in the designer's lab.

What is Science?

2012-05-14T11:06:00.001-04:00

-

What is science?

It has been said that neither I nor any IDist understands science. With that in mind, the following is my understanding of science. For some reason Lizzie Liddle wouldn't allow this to be posted, oh well-

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence and the existence of whatever is being investigated, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

Science Asks Three Basic Questions:

What’s there?

The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?”

How does it work?

A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?”

How did it come to be this way?

Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

So how do we do that? We use our senses. We make observations. We try to figure things out, i.e. we try to understand what we observe and/ or sense. This “thing” we are trying to understand could be an object, event, structure or phenomena. And we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help guide us.
We formulate an idea as to how it works and we devise a way to test that idea. If successful we have others check our work. If they like it, it gets published. However not getting published is not a falsification nor refutation of the idea or the data.

How do we test an idea? We break it down into something that is measure-able. In industry this is done via Six Sigma’s DMAIC- Define (the customer’s requirements), (Figure out how to) Measure (them); Analyze (the requirements and measuring systems); Improve (the process to reach the goal); Control (the process).

In science we define what it is we are observing.-> rocks, life, populations or individual organisms, planets, stars, motion, falling, abruptly stopping, etc.
Can this observation be measured? If not how can we qualify our inference or conclusion? (This is where we figure out a way to test our inference.)
Analyze all work to date for errors and/ or improvements.
Initiate or improve a process to reach the desired goal. In science the desired goal would be to understand what it is we are observing, i.e. what we had previously defined.

Then, you control that process. Documentation at each step is key throughout the process and will facilitate the controlling of said process.

Once you have completed the above and feel you have an understanding, you have others who are qualified check your work. That is why documentation is key.

More from the NCSE linked to U Berkley website on Evolution:

UC Berkley

“Science is a particular way of understanding the natural world. It extends the intrinsic curiosity with which we are born. It allows us to connect the past with the present,… (references a picture)”

It continues:

“Science is based on the premise that our senses, and extensions of those senses through the use of instruments, can give us accurate information about the Universe. Science follows very specific "rules" and its results are always subject to testing and, if necessary, revision. Even with such constraints science does not exclude, and often benefits from, creativity and imagination (with a good bit of logic thrown in).”

On science & the supernatural:

”It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size.

To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion:

“Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind”.
”-- (Dr. Behe)

The point being is that science cares only about reality and there is only one reality behind our existence.

Agreements? Objections? Corrections? Bloviations?

Patrick May- Just Another Deceitful and Cowardly EvoTARD

2012-05-13T09:05:00.003-04:00

-
Patrick May, AKA MathGrrl, is just another deceitful piece-of-shit evoTARD.

That's right, MathGrrl was a guy who posted as a "girl" to see if that would have something to do with the responses it received. Unfortunately for Patrick its gig was up, ie its agenda was exposed, in the first few of its posts.

Ya see MathGrrl wanted a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI. So I asked it for some mathematically rigorous definitions for its position so we could compare and it couldn't keep moving the goal-posts. In typical cowardly fashion it refused to do so.

When I informed Patrick/ MathGrrl that a computer program is CSI and cannot be expressed via rigorous mathematics, it ignored that. When I provided a definition of CSI that has more mathematical rigor than anything its position has to offer, it refused it without reason.

Why am I bringing up Patrick May now? Well Patrick is one of the proud evoTARDs running lose on "The ~~Deceitful~~ Skeptical Zone", talking about evidence as if his position has some that supports it. Strange that when pressed Patrick just ran and hid behind Lizzie's skirt like the little coward he is.

Good job Patrick...

The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog

2012-05-09T07:31:00.000-04:00

-
The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Congratulations Lizzie- well done...

The Design Inference- Why it matters- revisited, again

2012-05-07T19:22:00.000-04:00

-
Seems like a good time to bring this up again:

In other forums I have been asked to describe/ define intelligence. I have stated that intelligence is that which can create counterflow*. Now I will tell you why that is important. Sorry, very, very important.

ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.

But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions. Which should be enough of a driving force to get people seriously looking.

IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. The first is the detection- that is what gets archaeologists and SETI researchers going. Then we look for more (clues of design) while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42** but we don't know the question. (those darn mice).

I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. IOW the theory of evolution is about what happened after life appeared. But if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, i.e. the only scenario that excludes ID, then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway...

Why isn’t ID interested in those questions? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. SETI- first detect then try to understand; archaeology- first identify artifacts (detect) and then put the pieces together (understand). In the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make a reasonable inference about the designer is by studying the design. The same goes for how, why, when and where.

Can anyone tell me how to get any information about the Wright brothers JUST by studying airplanes? How about how it was designed or manufactured?

The odd part is the people who rail against ID insist we have those answers or ID isn’t science. However if we had the answers then we wouldn’t need science to help us find them, ID would be a given and the point would be moot.

The design inference matters because reality demonstrates we care whether or not something is intentionally designed. We care enough to have the word artifact as part of our defined vocabulary. We care enough to have laboratories set up to help us make the determination (intentional design or not). And we know it does make a difference to any investigation- that is it matters whether the object/ structure/ event in question was intentionally designed, happened by chance/ accident, or happened by necessity. For example when a fire investigation determines arson, the investigation from that point on is different than had the initial investigation determined “accident”. And guess what? We didn’t have to know who the arsonist was to determine arson as the root cause. Nor did we have to know how the arson was initiated. We know that only via rigorous investigation can we hope to determine those answers. And sometimes the person/ people who made the determination of arson aren’t the same. IOW one “team” made the determination of arson and another went about finding the arsonist. With ID scientists have enough to do with the detection and understanding part. And I agree the questions not answered by ID- the who, why, where, how- can and should be a guiding “force” behind extending the design inference- i.e. using the design inference as a foundation from which to ask those questions. Nasca, Peru- the lines and the figures- designed? Yes. The who, why, how were only “answered” via years of investigation, and we are still working on what we do have. The point being that the discovery of design led to the research. And it also disproves the foolish notion that the design inference is a show stopper (held by those who say ID is another way of saying “Goddidit! We give up!”).

Stonehenge- If it were determined to be just another geologic formation the course of investigation would be very different than the current course, ie the design inference.

"The Privileged Planet"- By following the data the authors J. Richards & G. Gonzalez believe they have uncovered part of the mystery that lay beyond ID's scope. Now some can run with that while others can try to refute it. Then time can sort out benefits, if any, from the pitfalls, if any.

The "benefits" of evolutionism are we are afraid if birds and mosquitos. Just because they are carriers of stuff that can kill us. Evolutionism has offered us zero aid in finding solutions to biological issues. Its pitfalls are already mentioned plus leading us away from the reality to our existence which can only lead to more human anguish.

*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science

or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.

** from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific- HT Nick Matzke

2012-05-02T19:38:00.000-04:00

-
Over on Uncommon Descent we have none other than Nick Matzke saying:

So, I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events,...

I agree with that so I won’t be presenting any argument against it.

In the usual course of events agencies, and only agencies, are responsible for complex specified information and irreducibly complex configurations.

Thanks Nick...

RichTARD Hughes- Nothing But a Stroking Cheerleader

2012-04-30T09:49:00.001-04:00

-
As if this needs to be said- Richard T Hughes- evobabbler- is nothing but a stroking cheerleader.

All you have to do is look at its posts. Over on "The Skepticl Zone"-

See this bit of stroking and this bit of cheerleading- and that is just in one post.

And more stroking and cheerleading can be found in this thread

The bottom-line is Richie has nothing so he is relegated to stroking and cheerleading...

Too fucking funny- Richie pom-poms

Genetic Algorithms Have a Goal

2012-04-27T07:22:00.000-04:00

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless and ignorant. I have some telling me that GAs don't have a goal even the the wrod "algorithm" means to solve problems. The point being is that GAs are written to solve problems, which means solving the problem is the goal of the GA.

An article on Talk Origins states:

In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection. (bold added)

What is required is the specification of what you need- what are you trying to solve.

For example a GA was used to design an antenna. The engineers did not know what the antenna would look like. But what they had were the specifications the antenna needed to meet- again from Talk Origins:

Altshuler and Linden 1997 used a genetic algorithm to evolve wire antennas with pre-specified properties. The authors note that the design of such antennas is an imprecise process, starting with the desired properties and then determining the antenna's shape through "guesses.... intuition, experience, approximate equations or empirical studies" (p.50). This technique is time-consuming, often does not produce optimal results, and tends to work well only for relatively simple, symmetric designs. By contrast, in the genetic algorithm approach, the engineer specifies the antenna's electromagnetic properties, and the GA automatically synthesizes a matching configuration.

Solved a problem/ goal.

wikipedia:

In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.

The goal is to solve problems.

OTOH evoTARDs' goal is to spew lies and bullshit...

Oleg Tchernyshyov- Still Ignorant of GAs

2012-04-26T12:02:00.000-04:00

-
Oleg should just give up as he is totally out of his realm when it comes to anything beyond speaking Russian.

Now the moron sez:

That’s actually not true. A genetic algorithm has no goal. Left to its own devices, it keeps working churning out out new genomes. The programmer stops it when he decides that the produced organisms satisfy his goals.

Unfortunately for Oleg, anyone can google "genetic algorithm" and find:

Concisely stated, a genetic algorithm (or GA for short) is a programming technique that mimics biological evolution as a problem-solving strategy.

that is from talk origins- an evo site- GAs solve problems.

So I said to Oleg:

Please reference the genetic algorithm that does this (Left to its own devices, it keeps working churning out out new genomes.). Also please show us that ALL genetic algorithms do that and only that.

He never will because he is nothing but a lying coward...

Natural Selection: What is it and What Does it do?

2012-04-17T15:05:00.001-04:00

-
-

Well let's look at what natural selection is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output. But is it really non-random as Allen said? Nope, whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce. And that can be any number of variations taht exist in a population.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet.

So what does it do?

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will.

Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

Not such a powerful designer mimic after all.

But there is one thing it can do- it can undo what artificial selection has done.

Coppedge vs JPL- Trial Over, Now it is up to the Judge

2012-04-17T09:53:00.000-04:00

-
OK Coppedge vs JPL, the trial, is over. Now the judge has the case and the lawyers still get to file legal briefs.

From the exerpts of the trial it appears as I thought- the anti-IDists have no idea what ID is, but they are sure it is religion. If nothing else it was nice to see their ignorance exposed.

Also there seems to be another contradiction. Coppedge started working for JPL as a contractor. This allows both the employee and employer to see if it is a good fit- that the employee can do the job well and that the employer is a good to work for.

Coppedge passed that test and was hired as a full-time employee. Meaning if he was as bad as they now say that should have been caught in the YEARS he was a contractor and they never would have hired him in the first place.

But OK, now it is a "wait and see" game...

Coppedge vs JPL- My Notes

2012-04-14T10:24:00.000-04:00

-
OK Coppedge vs JPL has been going on for weeks- and I have no idea what is really going on. Sure there are hints, little blurbs and summaries, but that is about it.

My thoughts on this have always hinged on what Coppedge's job performance was. Was he good at what he did, was he one of the best, just adequate, above average, hard worker- because if his performance was better than most, at his position, then he would have a case against JPL pertaining to be laid-off being linked to his religious, political and scientific PoV. Especially if he was better than those they retained.

That said, last week there was something about an employee performance evaluation that had Coppedge ranked below average, but I have no idea about the metric used nor who used it to make the evaluation. Then again JPL said it didn't use that to determine who got laid-off and who was retained.

So that is another question- How did they decide who to let go? I have always assumed it was based on performance, however I know reality says the ass-kissers get to stay and the alleged boat-rockers get the heave-ho.

Any thoughts?

RichTARD Hughes- As Clueless as Ever

2012-04-13T13:40:00.000-04:00

-
LoL! RichTARD really thinks that something's age is directly linked to whether or not is was designed!

Richie sez:

Joe if you can’t give a date range for the age of the universe, you’ve got no business opining on if you think it’s designed.

Only a little faggot moron would say such a thing and here is Richie.

How does that even follow? Is Richie trying to say that no one could say Stonehenge was designed before they figured out how old it is? LoL!

RichTARD, thank you for continuing to prove that you are nothing but a mental midget.

Refuting Robin- The Way TO the Design Inference is THROUGH Materialism

2012-04-13T09:10:00.000-04:00

-
Robin, the clueless "scientist" does not understand that the way to the design inference is through materialism. Well it doesn't seem to understand that materialism is the claim that everything is reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance (no agency required).

That said, a simple look at the (design) explanatory filter proves that the way to the design inference is through necessity and chance!

I point that out to Robin and it choked on it.

See also Newton's Four Rules

The point being is that Robin, an alleged scientist, is ignorant as can be.

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still a Lying Little Bitch

2012-04-12T07:18:00.000-04:00

-
Yup Oleg is at it again. This timne he is saying that our solar system in this universe is actually a universe with only one star and one planet/ moon system:

oleg chokes and lies, again

evoTARDs are pathic excuses for people...

Cancer Science and Evolutionary Science- a Replication Problem

2012-04-11T18:06:00.000-04:00

-
In the article In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up we read that out of 53 "landmark" publications pertaining to cancer studies, only 6 could be replicated.

Enter evolutionary science in which barely anything can be replicated- endosymbiosis and the origin of eukaryotes? Cannot replicate. The evolution of any flagellum? Cannot replicate. Fish to fishapods? Cannot replicate.

Our tax dollars hard at work...

Paging Batman- Robin has Totally Lost It!

2012-04-10T11:45:00.001-04:00

-
I don't know who this dumbass that goes by "Robin" is- it claims to be a scientist- yeah right- but it thinks that scientists would use a simple dictionary definition of words- I guess that is all words except "information"- as oppsed to a more complete definition tat may be offered by a Stanford Encyclopedia article.

Take a look for yourself.

For example the word "artifact". Most people associate that word with human activity. However we also know that other animals can and do intentionally make things to use. The dictionary definitions of "artifact" do not cover that, although they do not disallow such a thing.

However the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on "artifact" says that other animals can and do make artifacts.

"Robin", an alleged scientist, cannot grasp that simple point and thinks the dictionary definitions trump the Stanford article.

evoTARDs, too many evoTARDs...

Trying to Parse RichTARD Hughes' Comment

2012-04-09T07:50:00.000-04:00

-
RichTARD Hughes must use English as a second, third or forth language. Either that or he is just a dumbass- here read what he wrote:

Non of this would be an issue if it wasn't for your shameful behavior with hermagoras and Ogre Mk V. That pic just makes me LOL and want to tickle you till you go "Squeeeeeeee", you're such an innocuous cutie-pie. If that was 5 years ago I probably shouldn't as you're getting on. Is the 5% body fat only in your chins? LOL.

That whole website, along with your batshit crazy YEC stuff was a hoot. Thanks for the LOLs, Grandpa!

Non of this would be an issue

1- None of what would be an issue, RichTARD?

if it wasn't for your shameful behavior with hermagoras and Ogre Mk V

2- What shameful behaviour are you talking about?
3- What about the proven shameful behaviour of David Kellogg (hermagorus), Kevn R McCarthy and all evoTARDs?

That pic just makes me LOL

4- Of course my pic would make evoTARDs laugh- again I wouldn't expect anything less from you and your ilk

If that was 5 years ago

5- That pic is from 8 years ago

Is the 5% body fat only in your chins?

6- Only one chin in the pic, RichTARD FAIL

That whole website

7- What whole webite?

along with your batshit crazy YEC stuff

8- What YEC stuff?

Grandpa

9- Not a grandpa yet and still young enough to put you down

So RichTARD FAIL, you obviously have mental issues along a huge failure to communicate.

But any time you feel froggy and wish to see what I can do, please stop by- that goes for any evoTARD that wants to see natural selection up close and personal.

In Fairness RichTARD Hughes is a Clueless EvoTARD

2012-04-08T18:36:00.000-04:00

-
Life is good, RichTARD Hughes finds an old photo of me and thinks he can deduce what I look like under a 2XL sweatshirt. There is about 200 lbs with about 5% body fat under there Rich.

And yes RichTARD I know I don't scare people, but then again I am the one standing up to the cowardly bullies, not the one trying to be so menacing that I drop ID for materialism. Ya see RichTARD FAIL, I am not afraid of YOU. YOU don't scare me- I will keep telling kids about ID and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me. If anyone tries it will lead to their demise.

But I will feel better knowing that you weren't frightened by me when I am putting you down...

Project "Steve"- 1,200 and Counting but Still No Supporting Evidence...

2012-04-07T20:09:00.000-04:00

-
Yes Project Steve has just collected number 1200 but still not one Steve has brought and supporting evidence along with the signature.

Oh sure there is evidence that the "Steve" is a Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, but those "Steve"s don't have any supporting evidence for their position pertaining to biological evolution. So that would be a problem.

ONE scientist with supporting evidence is worth more than 99 without any. So it doesn't matter how many signatures Project Steve gets, as those signatures are as hollow as the position they are supposed to support.

Coppedge vs JPL- Case Coming to a Close

2012-04-07T20:01:00.000-04:00

-
According to the following the JPL 'intelligent design' trial coming to a close.

It looks like Coppedge pissed some people off by not breaking the rules for them by granting them computer system privileges they were not cleared to have, ie he was "stubborn and uncooperative".

It also looks like JPL's HR person in charge of this, messed up big time.

But anyway, closing arguments next week...