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, April 27, 2010

Comment Moderation Enabled

Evolutionitwits love to give their opponents shit for enabling comment moderation on their blogs.

Well those same evolutionitwits prove why people do so- evolutionitwits appear to be too stupid to stay on-topic and they definitely are too cowardly to try to support their position.

That means they are forced to badger their opponents with their ignorance.

I have been allowing evolutionitwits to post here despite all of that because they help make my case when presenting ID to high school students.

You chumps not only help me but also provide plenty of laughs.

Thank you.

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed.

Thank you for your understanding...

Monday, April 26, 2010

Still No Positive Evidence for Evolutionism

Evolutionism is the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

IOW as the current theory of evolution is understood is "evolutionism"*.

The problem with evolutionism is that there isn't any positive evidence to support it.

All evolutionitwits have is to ignorantly attack ID and IDists.

Why is that?

*Now if anyone doubts that I will gladly discuss it with you

Of Baseballs, Softballs, Cakes and Specified Information- Revisited

-Reduction is basically the act of reducing complexity.

This debate- that of ID vs. the blind watchmaker- is that of reduction- as in can living organisms, or whatever we are investigating, be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

And if it cannot what was required?

This is where baseballs, softballs and cakes come in.

In order to get a regulation MLB baseball the missing ingredients to the above are agency and specified information.

The same with a regulation fast-pitch softball and cakes.

These things cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

Without agency involvement and specified information they wouldn't exist.

The point ID makes is that living organisms are chock full of specified information and the only way to understand living organisms is to understand that specified information.

This specified information is not sequence specificity. Sequence specification is only to carry out the information specified.

The products of transcription are little functioning information packets.

However only through the lense of ID would scientists even be looking for such a thing.

So the next time you ask "what good is ID?"-

The easy answer is only as good as people let it be.

But if you live your life saying "anything but design!!!", then you are just a pimple on the ass of progress waiting to be lanced.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Evolutionary Unit of Measure- the Darwin

Evolutionists love to nag IDists about the alleged lack of rigor pertaining to ID's measuring sticks- specifically complex specified information and irreducible complexity.

So when I recently asked about measuring evolution, Dave the Thought Provoker dredged up the Darwin:

One Darwin is defined to be an e-fold (about 2.718) change in a trait over one million years.

Rate of evolution

Haldane's paper in which he coined the term.

Unfortunately the differences in the traits that can be measured in this manner can be accounted for by epigenetic factors.

But anyway we also have "the haldane", Philip Gingerich talks about both - Research on Rates of Evolution

One problem is neither deal with genetics, as in how many mutations does it take.

Does anyone think these units of measure are of any use?

If so please explain.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Independent Evidence for the Designer(s)

Another "argument" against Intelligent Design is the so-called "independent evidence for the designer(s)".

My answer to that is the evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.

Yet that doesn't appear to be good enough.

These "critics" want some sort if evidence that the designer(s) exist.

So I tell them the design is that evidence.

The evidence for the designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge.

IOW artifacts are that evidence.

Still not good enough.

They want to observe the designer(s) in action.

IOW those "critics" are not interested in science.

So I tell them that all they have to do is demonstrate that a designer is not required and they would have refuted the design inference.

But therein lies the problem- they cannot do that so they have to make up some "argument" that sounds good - to them I guess- and spew that all over the internet.

Go figure...

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Oleg Tchernyshyov - Intellectual Coward and Crackpot

In the thread Measuring Information/ specified complexity, olegt said:
On the basis of what you have said and by using what little I know about information and statistics I am forced to conclude that the information content of a cake is zero. Others in this thread and at AtBC have hinted at this outcome, but here is my simple proof.

Here are my assumptions. First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe. I further assume that CSI, like Shannon information and entropy, is an additive quantity. The third and final assumption is that CSI, like entropy, is a function of state: if two cakes are the same in size and taste, they contain the same amount of CSI. It does not matter how they were prepared.

It follows from these assumptions that the amount of CSI in a cake X=0. To see why this is so, note that the amount of CSI in 2 cakes of the same size is X+X because CSI is additive. On the other hand, a recipe for preparing two cakes can be obtained from a recipe for one by appending the single-word sentence Repeat. It follows that the amount of CSI in the second cake X is based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat.

While that already is a pretty minimal amount of information, we can shrink it a bit further. 4 cakes can be made by appending another single-word sentence Repeat. The amount of CSI contained in the two new cakes, 2X, is again based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat. Thus 2X = X, which means X = 0. Q.E.D.

So even after I told him that his assumptions are faulty, what does olegt do? Presses on regardless!

Oleg, it is the actions not the words. The word "repeat" does nothing but tell you to repeat the actions.

And the actions of the second cake are in addition to the actions of the first cake.

Therefor the information of a cake is additive, despite oleg's spewage.

It is the actions, not the words, which are important:
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

So why am I bringing this up now?

Well olegt is over on Telic Thoughts running his mouth as if he did something to my premise.

olegt is an intellectual coward and crackpot.