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, October 30, 2012

Has Global Warming Stopped?

No Global Warming for the Past 16 Years- That's right, according to the data the global temperature for the past 16 years has shown no discernable increase. So much for CO2, which has steadily increased, being the cause of global warming.

Even NASA acknowledges the sun is responsible for climate cycles.

But hey, that does not mean we are free to destroy and pollute- those are the real problems we are causing.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Allan Miller Continues to Prove that He is a Clueless Dolt

Yup good ole Allan Miller never ceases to amuse with his cluelessness.

Lately Uncommon Decent and the skeptical zone have had a back-and-forth "discussion" in which the evoTARD colors have come shining through. After many days of evoTARDgasms misrepresenting both ID and their position, I said:

Are we having fun yet?
Does anyone really think that any amount of explanation will ever help the anti-ID ilk understand ID?
And after dealing with these losers does anyone here think that my actions over on TSZ were uncalled for? (ie posting a link to tunie because that is what they all are)
I said that because it is obvious the the TSZ ilk are just a bunch of lying cowardly pussies.

To which Allan Miller cluelessly spewed:

What a bizarre question. Does he really think anyone is going to pipe up and say “Yes, Joe, posting pictures of genitals is an entirely appropriate action for a grown-up to take when they can’t persuade people of the validity of their arguments”.
No Allan, I  expected them to say "Yes Joe, you are correct. Those assholes are a bunch of lying cowards. Nice job", or at least, "Yes, you were right."

Ya see Allen, it has nothing to do with convincing you morons of the valisity of ID. There is nothing beyond a meeting with the designer that could do that because you faggots are ignorant of science.

But by Allen's "logic" is is OK for grown-ups to post mangled pictures of their opponents because they have nothing else to support their position with so they are forced to attack their attackers.

YOU are a clueless mental midget Allan.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Lenski's Long Term Evolutionary Experiment- Supporting My Claims

Once again I find evolutionists who support my claims. With Lenski the claim I made that is supported is an experiment can be "let's do this and see what happens". Richie Hughes sed that ain't the way to do an experiment. Enter Lenski, et al. What did they do? Took a specific strain of E. coli- 12 identical populations- and tracked their gentic changes. IOW "let's do this and see what happens".

Cowardly Kevin R. McCarthy, STILL Lying Like a Little Bitch

Yup I have once again exposed Kevin's lies and ignorance and he bans me for that. In his post Lenski’s Lab: The Gift that Keeps on Giving, Kevin lies:
One reason that it is so stunning is that is completely blows an entire massive chunk of the Intelligent Design argument into the trash bin. The IDists (I’m to polite to use IDiot here), keep saying that the changes that Lenski’s group describes can’t happen. Evolution can’t develop multiple mutations that don’t do anything, but eventually turn into something useful. Evolution can’t develop an entirely new multiple protein pathway. Evolution can’t… can’t… can’t…
Except Intelligent Design NEVER says that. This experiment doesn't even reute YEC's baraminology, nevermind anything ID claims. And ID NEVER says "evolution can't do something" as ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker only.

But that isn't all. Kevin also proved he does not understand natural selection. And Richie Hughes chimed in to say that there is selection taking place- even though evolutionary biologists say otherwise.

OK so Kevin never suppoorts any of his claims. No big deal he never does. So what does he do? Turn the onus on me. So what do I do? Support my claims about ID and watch him choke.

Kevin asks me how to measure information. So I tell him. He chokes. Kevin asks me to see if an organism has CSI. I show him. He chokes and bans me. He sez I won't support ID in the same thread that I support ID. That more than proves that Kevin is a clueless coward. But then again we have known that for years.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

keiths also Prefers Male Genitalia over Female's

It must be so, keiths, along with Richard T Hughes, prefers male genitalia over female genitalia. In his latest post keiths spouts off about only one commenter has ever been banned (for posting a photo of female genitalia). However Lizzie, the owner of the blog, posted male genitalia and all are OK with that. That can only mean that male genitalia is what they like.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Lederberg Experiment- Again

Decades ago the Lederbergs conducted an experiment using bacteria.

This experiment demonstrated that the resitance to anti-biotics was already in the population when the anti-biotics were introduced (put on the plate).

IOW the resistance did not come in response to the exposure.

This was supposed to demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

However that "conclusion" was reached before we knew that bacteria communicate:

Communicating bacteria

More communicating bacteria

Quorum sensing

The point is the Lederbergs didn't know about this communication.

IOW as far as they knew the bacteria were communicating with each other and that communication sparked the variation that afforded the anti-biotic resistance.

That woudl mean the mutations are not genetic accidents but part of some "built-in response to environmental cues".

However Zachriel and OMTWO cannot grasp that and instead blather on and on about "random with respect to fitness", which is a total cowardly cop out. Ya see the point is NOT whether or not mutations are random wrt fitness. The point is whether or not the mutations were directed in any way.

Homeopathy That Works?

Homeopathy gets a lot of crap from conventional doctors. However it appears that they use some of it priciples. Vaccinationis one such example, as is a way to alleviate allergies.

With a vaccination we give the body a dose of an impotent form of the virus. With allergies we give the patient small doses of the food he/ she is allergic to.

Homeopathy basically says that the thing that cures you is the thing that ails you.

What's the point? Out of one side of our mouths we bash homeopathy and out of the other we swear by homeopathic remedies.

I just find that kind of stuff funny as hell...

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Why Design is a Mechanism- For Still Clueless evoTARDs

Unbelieveable. In this day and age in which a dictionary is at your fingertips if you have access to the internet, and evoTARDs STILL choke on the meanings of words.

As with most words mecahnsim has several meanings. In the context of the ID vs. anti-ID debate, "mechanism" refers to a method or process for getting something done within a system or organization.

For example, in biology the anti-ID mechanism is "culled genetic accidents/ accumulations of random mutations". In contrast the ID position which posits there was a plan, a structure, a purpose, an intention- IOW some grand (or not so grand)  design.

Meaning organisms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.
This is similar to the way GAs are used to solve problems. The GAs are DESIGNED to do so. So when someone needs an antenna to perform a specific task, writes a GA to do so, and it does it, that means it was done by design. The program was not just chugging along doing nothing but chughing along and then BOOM here's an antenna for a specific purpose.

Many of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet used science as a way to understand that design. IOW for those who embrace ID they can only be as scientifically literate as those great scientists. Which is something I would wish on everyone.

OK mechanisms are a way of doing things. We can do things by design or we can do things willy-nilly. Both are mechanisms in this sense- the sense that the word is being used in this debate.

So why is it that evoTARDs have such difficulty with words?

Oleg Tchernyshyov, Still a Cowardly Prick

Oleg should just learn to shut up. Taht way people won't see just how fucking clueless the jerk really is. Case in point:

To reconstruct an objective nested hierarchy, you need both traits that are stable and traits that are changing.
Hey, that is what I said- the traits have to be immutable (stable) and additive (changing). I guess I know more about these things than what has been said about me.
oleg chimes in with 
LOL. Additive in a mathematical context means compatible with the operation of addition. (See additive function or additive group.) It has nothing to do with being subject to change.
Yes oleg, additive means in addition to, just as I used it. And when you add something to something else you have changed it, dumbass.

Next he exposes more ignorance

Me to Zachriel:

Also you are having an issue defining your alleged nested hierarchy, ie the superset.
Joe apparently thinks that the term superset means something like an entire hierarchy, the union of all sets. Or somethin'. (The use of a definite article is a give-away.)
That is correct oleg. There is only one superset in a nested hierarchy, ie only one set that consists of and contains ALL other sets.

Now you may take issue to that usage but that is your problem, not mine.

That's actually wrong. Every set within a hierarchy is also a superset – with respect to its subsets. There is no such thing as the superset in a hierarchy.
The fact remains in a nested hierarchy there is only one set that consists of and conatins ALL of the other (sub)sets. So that would be "the" superset. Duh.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Kevin R. McCarthy with a New Set of Lies

Kevin starts his new post with total nonsense and bullshit:

Creationists are forever trying to change how we view evolution.

They are? Mostly Creationists want people to understand their view, ie their model of evolution.

Michael Behe has tried to redefine science to mean everything from voodoo to astrology.

No. Behe was saying that the way science is defined astrology was be considered science.

 Other creationists try to tell us that Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution and just is another layer on top of it.
What? ID is not frosting. ID says organiosms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.

Yet, they all fail. Why?
Too many assholes, like you, who just won't listen and insist on lying and misrepresenting ID and Creation.

Because there simply isn’t any positive supporting evidence for their positions (any of the thousands that I have heard). 
And yet we have presented plenty. OTOH Kevin and his ilk can only equivocate and any change at all is evidence for blind watchmaker evolution.

I continually ask creationists two questions. The first is simple.
Do you understand that even if you completely and totally discredit evolution right here, right now, it doesn’t mean that your notions of creationism are correct?
And I always tell Kevin that 1- we are not trying to discredit "evolution". Rather we are just pointing out the obvious flaws in the blind watchmaker thesis. 2- In order to reach a design inference we must first dispense with the blind watchmaker thesis. ya see Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, and the explanatory filter, mandate that approach. If you actually knew something about science you would have known that.

The other question I routinely ask is
OK, you win. Evolution (or other science) is wrong. Now what? How does ID/creationism/etc. describe phenomenon x?

It all depends on what it is. Science is context specific there Kevin. Again that is something you would have known had you any understanding of science.

Take Stonehenge. Obviously maother nature can produce rocks and rock formations. However there is something about Stonehenge that makes us infer mother nature didn't do it. IOW the investigation is different than any purely geological survey. The design inference adds something, ie designers, a purpose, ie a new can of worms. Studying it as a purely geological formation wouldn't have any of those questions. And it would be a waste of time.

Science today is used to make predictions.
OK was does your position predict?

The principles of evolution are used in thousands of businesses to create new drugs, help people, save lifes, generate new processes, streamline processes and products, even play the stock market.  
Yup the little faggot can equivocate with the best. No, Kevin, blind watchmaker prnciples are not used for anything. You are full of shit.

There are dozens of evolutionary algorithms all over the world being used to create things that humans have never dreamed of. Evolutionary algorithms have been used to play checkers, determine diesel engine parameters, design spacecraft and optics, streamline product construction in dozens of factories and find new drugs.
Yes, Kevin, that is because evolutionary algorithms are DESIGN mechanisms you ignorant asshole.

I work in an office with no less than 10 mathematicians. Most of whom have masters degrees. I can pick up the phone and call 5 or 6 psychometricians who all have Ph.Ds in statistics. And I still can’t get one IDist to walk me through ANY calculation for anything in ID.
Great, you coward- have them calculate the number of mutations it would take to get a fish-a-pod from a fish, or a eukaryote from a prokaryote. Have them calculate the odds of getting a replicator capable of darwinian evolution from a pond of amino acids, nucleotides, water, and contaminents.

What a pile of rubbish. Earth to Kevin- no one is conducting any research under the blind watchmaker framewrok. It is a useless heuristic. Deal with it.

Friday, October 12, 2012

More of McCarthy's Lying Nonsense

In his bullshit article on "Darwininian Evolution on a Chip", Kevin spews:
Michael Behe, in his book Edge of Evolution states that it is impossible for four mutations to happen in a gene to result in a improvement in the resulting protein. He uses the example of resistant malaria, where there are two mutations and states that this is the edge of evolution because there’s probability that these two mutations can’t happen in the same gene at the same time.

1- In a GENE, that means in a complete organism

2- In an organism the target space is much larger than this example

3- This example the thing that requires changing gets mutated every time it is placed in the error-prone PCR

4- With an organism mutations would occur in other parts of the genome and the target gene may not get mutated again

5- Two, or more mutations occurring in one gene at the same time is just relying on pure luck, which is NOT scientific

6- I cannot find where Behe says states it is impossible for four mutations to happen in a gene to result in an improvement in the resulting protein- what page/ pages is that on
Also Behe puts the edge of evolution at two new protein-to-protein binding sites. Who cares about how many muations- you need to have those mutations construct new protein machinery.
Then there is the peer-reviewed paper about waiting for two mutations, that supports what Behe says about that. Kevin just ignores that though.
o there you have it- Kevin the bullshit spewer exposed again...

Darwinian Evolution on a Chip?

Well the RNA changed but only bald declaration sez it was Darwinian:

Darwinian Evolution on a Chip

It should also be noted that no new functionality arose:

The final evolved enzyme contained a set of 11 mutations that conferred a 90-fold improvement in substrate utilization, coinciding with the applied selective pressure.
Darwinian evolution requires NEW functions to arise. It also requires the mutations to be chance events- random.

What's the point? Little faggot Kevin R McCarthy is  spouting off that this experiment refutes Dr Behe somehow. Unfortunately for Kevin he qupote-mines Behe and then totally misrepresents the quote-mine:

Dr Behe:
The Darwinian magic works well only when intermediate steps are each better (“more fit”) than preceding steps, so that the mutant gene increases in number I the population as natural selection favors the offspring…Yet its usefulness quickly declines when intermediate steps are worse than earlier steps and is pretty much worthless if several required intervening steps aren’t improvements).
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, pg. 112, (Free Press, 2007).
What does Kevin translate that into:

Basically, Behe is saying that if something bad happens, then it’s more likely that the gene is forever broken than it could improve. 

Really? Undfortunately for Kevin Behe does NOT say what Kevin sez. Basically what Behe is saying is the same thing that Darwin said- slight SUCCESSFUL steps.

OK back to the paper- they used "BILLIONs of RNA enzymes with RNA-joining activity", all with a fast reproduction and they used artificial selection and an artificial selection pressure. Oh and the RNAs did not reproduce themselves, the scientists employed PCR- standard and error-prone.

That leaves darwinian evolution out as it requires at least self-replication.

Is this paper an issue for ID? No. Does it refute anything Dr Behe said? No. Is Kevin R. McCarthy a lying little punk? Yes.

Thursday, October 11, 2012


In this month's SciAm there is an article titled "The Wisdom of Psychopaths". Within that article is a blurb titled "Trolleyology" about a "conundrum first proposed by the late Philippa Foot:"

A railway trolley is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people trapped on the line and cannot escape. Fortunately, you can flip a switch that will divert the trolley down a fork in the track away from the five people- but at a price. There is another person trapped down that fork, and the trolley will kill him or her instead. Should you hit the switch.
I would have to make a decision as to whether or not the 5 were worth saving. So they may not have a chance. I would definitely save one good person and let five rotten bastards die. If only it were that easy. However the point is the one life you save could be greater than the other 5 combined.

There is a "variation proposed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson:"

As before the railway trolley is speeding out of control down a track toward five people. But this time you are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Question: Should you push him?
Most likely, but it still all depends on the five. But there is bound to be a rail and if I have to lift the guy then it ain't worth the effort, nor the risk of going over with him. And if there wasn't a rail I wouldn't be up there with some fat stranger who could push me into the pathway just to kill six people. A footbridge, over a railroad track, that doesn't have rails/ or a fence?

Now a subway platform, that's a different story.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Information and Meaning

EvoTARDs are such a clueless lot-  I blame it on Shannon and others for causing confusion over the word "information". Now evoTARDs have taken that confusion to a new level by saying IDists confuse information with meaning.

Hellooooo!!! Information and meaning go hand in hand 99% of the time. Only physicists and Shannonites don't get what information means. For example:

The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
That means Shannon was the one who "redefined" information and IDists use the word in its normal/ regular/ ordinary sense.

Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).

Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with.

And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information.

And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum.

Pathetic little losers can't grasp the concept of information even though without it communication would be impossible and information technology wouldn't exist.

What does wikipedia have to say about information:

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system. Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. The meaning of this concept varies in different contexts.[1] Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, understanding, mental stimuli, pattern, perception, representation, and entropy
Ooops, they use the "m" word in realtion to information.

And in an article on Data

For data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning.
Oh no, who would have thought!

Monday, October 08, 2012

Fat Joe Felsenstein Choking on Common Design


Well it is obvious that Joe Felsenstein has never worked in construction, nor designed anything that needed to be able to plug-n-play with something else.

Common design is observed throughout the design/ engineering world. Houses are built to design standards, ie building codes. Most houses will have a great deal in common, as in the framing will be the same- studs 16" apart on center. Cars also have a great deal in common with each other.

Another issue that we can dispose of quickly is the issue of common design, which was mentioned in the post by keiths. Common design does explain all the data. It proposes that the patterns that appear to be common descent are just there because that’s the way the Designer wanted the species to be. It certainly cannot be rejected by any evidence. It explains everything we see. Alas, it also explains everything we don’t see as well. It explains why elephants are large and gray and lumber across the plains, but it also explains why elephants are small, pink, and flit around singing as they pollinate flowers.

Which is an immediate clue to something. In old murder mysteries the detective was always looking for Motive, Means, and Opportunity. But if the designer is everywhere at all times, has infinite powers, and if her motives are imponderable, then we can’t predict whether she will make elephants big, gray lumbering herbivores or small, pink flying pollinators.

In short Common Design by an designer who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and inscrutable is not a scientific theory, period.
1- Common design does NOT explain all the data. It only explains the similarities

2- Common design would be rejected if we did not observe any similarities

3- Common design does NOT care about the designer's alleged powers

Again common design explains the similarities- why are cars so similar? Because they were designed using the same standards. Why are PC clones so similar? Designed using the same standards. IEEE, people- IEEE sets stands that must be adhered to. And when you have that then a common design follows, regardless of the designer.

Joe F, you are obvioulsy clueless about designing and engineering. Perhaps you should stick to what you are good at- eating.

So the bottom line is common design is something that we have plenty of experience with and when you need different designs to play together you have to employ some standards that will make it so. Standards ensure a common design.

Things that EvoTARDS Will NEVER Understand- Why ID is OK with Evidence for Common Descent

By Common Descent I am referring to universal common descent. This post is in response to keiths' fact-free rant over on TSZ:

The evidence for common descent can be found here. The first thing to note is that it does NOT discuss any mechanism:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Got that? IOW the evidence is NOT for blind watchmaker evolution and is perfectly compatible with evolution by design, ie Intelligent Design. Obvioulsy keiths is too stupid to read the article in its entirety. The point is keiths referred to that site for the best evidence for UCD. Unfortunately for keiths Theobald chokes on netsed hierarchies and his evidence can be used as evidence for a common design.

Yes, that is correct, evidence for common descent can be used as evidence for a common design because it relies on similarities.

In light of what Theobald said keiths sez those who do not accept UCD have a daunting task. However he never says anything about the daunting task in front of those who do accept UCD. What daunting task is that? Well the task of demonstrating that changes to the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical changes required. Ya see we have this Lenski experiment in which for 55,000 generations bacteria have been evolving. Yet only minor changes have been observed. That alone should put a damper on UCD. Why? Because when you add sexual reproduction then UCD is going to grind to a halt. That is because of meiosis, which means only 1/2 of the parent's genome gets passed down and it gets paired with the other parent's compliment. That means even the most beneficial mutation could be lost before it has a chance to get passed on. Then when you add sexual selection, well the norm is kept and the population wobbles around that norm.

OK, nested hierarchies- in order to have a nested hierarchy via common descent based on traits is the traits have to immutable and additive. However evolution is NOT like that. Not only that you need to have DISTINCT sets of organisms with no blending of traits. Yet with UCD and gradual evolution we would expect a smooth blending of traits. And taht is OK for a Venn diagram but unaccepotable for nested hierarchies.

But anyway it is obvious that keiths is nothing but an ignorant blowhole, clueless of his position's total failure at explaining anything.

The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it.

Earth to keiths- I challenge you to provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution, along with supporting evidence.

I say you cannot do it and that would prove my point that you are an ignorant blowhole.

So the "evidence" keiths uses for UCD does NOT include a mechanism which means design is OK. Also that same "evidence" can be used to support a common design:

 evidence for common design 1

evidence for common design 2

So no, the "evidence" for common descent does nothing to ID because 1- the evidence is sans mechanism, 2- the evidence is subjective and cannot be verified that common descent is the only possibility and 3- the same evidence can be used as evidence ofr a common design.

As a matter of fact the nested hierarchy of Linnean taxonomy- Linne was a Creationist- was first used as evidence for a common design. Evos came along, stole it and switched it to a common ancestor.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Kevin R McCarthy Has His Lies Exposed - Won't Allow My Posts


Kevin spews:

Let me ask, when did the designer last act? How do you know? What did the designer do in this act? How do you know? How did the designer do this act? How do you know?
With SETI, archeology, and forensics, we can answer all of those questions. ID can’t answer any of them. I’ll happily post my challenge to all ID proponents that visit. They will all fail. Just like in the Steiner Challenge.
My response of:

We don’t know when the designer(s) of Stonehenge last acted. Nor do we know how Stonehenge was constructed.

We don’t know when the designers of the Antikythera mechanism last acted, nor do we know how the mechanism was constructed.

is still in moderation. Geez, I wonder why?

Skeptic Ink Network- Where Cowards Go to Stroke Each Other

Well that didn't take long- I demonstrate that Kevin R. McCarthy is conflating what IDists believe with Intelligent Design and he puts me in moderation, which means most likely my comments will not see the light of day.

Kevin R McCarthy is a lying coward, period. He doesn't understand science and sure as hell could not produce a testable hypothesis for his position- actually he seems quite confused about what his position is.

But anyway the Skeptic Ink Network is where the coward went to spew more of his cowardly lies and equivocations.

Oh well, when you cannot beat 'em, ban 'em...

Why Intelligent Design is NOT Religious

This is in response to Kevin R, McCarthy's fact-free loser rant titled- Why Intelligent Design Must Be Religious.

He starts out with a big fat lie:
Forget the science, Intelligent Design (ID) proponents don’t do actual science anyway.

Nice projection asshole. Your position doesn't have anything to do with science, Kevboy.

Kevin spews:
The notion[1] of Intelligent Design is that something in the known universe is so complex that it requires a designer.

That is a big fat strawman, Kevin. geez, 5 sentences into your rant and already you have lied at least three times! No, Kevin, ID does NOT say anything about mere complexity. IDists have always agreed that mere complexity can arise without a designer. You are either ignorant of a fucking liar.

Let's look at Kevin's footnote:
1] I use ‘notion’ because ID hasn’t developed any testable hypothesis and cannot (as I will show) be used to describe anything about how the world works, so it cannot be called a theory..

More projection as Kevin's position cannot produce a testable hypothesis based on its proposed mechanisms. And it definitely cannot be used to describe anything about how the world works- how it breaks, maybe, but not how it works.

According to ID proponents, the designer is unknown and perhaps unknowable[2].

More like we do NOT need to know who the designer is BEFORE reaching a design inference.

That said reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

Next Kevin asks:
Who is the Designer?

Covered that already Kevin. Also ID is about the DESIGN for the very reason I just mentioned.

Evolution and cosmology do not, in their definitions or methods or mechanisms, posit any philosophical premise. 

Yes they do, ie naturalism.

Unfortunately, if we don’t know the designer, then we don’t know the limits of what the designer can do and we can’t investigate the existence or non-existence of the designer. 

So much for archaeology. Ya see we know the limits of ancient people by studying what they left behind. We know they could construct Stonehenge, well because we have Stonehenge.

Unfortunately, it also gets ID into trouble with the First Amendment of the US Constitution because you can’t establish one deity over another in the US.

We don't posit nor do we require, a deity. However seeing that your position pushes atheism, that goes against the US Constitution.

It gets worse:

These are the only possible designer actions:
  1. The designer does everything.
  2. The designer started the universe and now does nothing.
  3. The designer is a meddler.
Nope. How about the designer designed what needed to be designed, set it and hands off? ID is perfectly OK with random processes, accidents and chance events occurring in a designed universe.

Unfortunately, this designer isn’t a deity. This designer is physical/natural law.

And where did those laws come from asshole? Nice that IDists have to explain the designer but you don't have to explain anything. Pathetic coward.

Both the fossil record and genetics support that whales and hippos have a common ancestor.

More like a common design. Ya see you don't have a testable hypothesis for accumulations of random mutations doing anything, so, according to you, you don't have any science to support your claim.

It should be obvious that humans and chimpanzees are not very closely related. But the human Chromosome 2 provides evidence otherwise.

LoL! Unfortunately HC2 does not do what Kevin sez. Ya see evos say the fusion occurred in the HUMAN LINEAGE ONLY.

ID proponents say their designer did ‘x’, then later on, when science finds a natural explanation for ‘x’, the ID proponents either drop the claim or alter the claim to only be a subset of ‘x’. 

1- we are STILL waiting for science to do so

2- THAT is how it works with archaeology, forensics and SETI.

The irreducibly complex systems in the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, the bacterial flagella, and anti-freeze proteins in fish have all gotten smaller and smaller as science has discovered more and more about them.

Wishful thinking. The more we know the better ID looks.

When presented with 50+ papers and a dozen textbooks about immune system evolution (one of which titled “Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System”), Behe said, that he had never read them, but they didn’t answer his concerns that the immune system has no natural origin.

It is true- not one of those papers addressed the issue as to how blind and undirected chemical processes can produce an immune system.

There are only two, very tiny groups, which can even see the ‘evidence’ for ID.

Umm the vast majority of people on this planet accept ID. Just look at the polls.

There are no atheist supporters of ID.

Antony Flew- a long time atheist who finally gave in and accepted ID due to the evidence.

I am using this as an example of the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for Intelligent Design.

Sure there is. However you are totally ignorant wrt evidence.

However, as we have seen, ID is based on and only on the concept of a deity. 

Liar. ID does not require a deity and it does not require the supernatural.

The designer made ‘x’ (where ‘x’ is the universe, evolution, our lives, or whatever) to appear like it was natural, when it is not. 

It doesn't appear that way. ya see natural processes can't even account for nature because natural processes only exist in nature.

hope that this article has covered all the possible options for the designer and why those options don’t work.

Nope, not even close. But I am sure that in your little bitty mind you think you have wrecked ID.

By pure logic, we can dismiss the notion of an intelligent designer.

Except Kevin doesn't know what logic is. We exist and there isn't any evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain that existence.

To repeat, if there is a designer, then that designer is evolution (in the case of living systems) and physics/chemistry (in the case of everything else).

What "evolution" are you talking about you equivocating coward? And what is YOUR EVIDENCE to suppoort your claim?

What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing and a non-designed thing? If the ID proponent can’t answer this question then they cannot determine if something is designed or not-designed. Since this is the primary notion of ID, they have nothing.

A designed thing exhibits SPECIFIED complexity whereas a non-designed thing does not. And specified complexity is an indication of work.

How does one measure complexity (values, units, and process)? Since complexity is so important to ID, if the ID proponent can’t answer this (and none can), then there entire notion has no value.

1- Complexity itself is not important to ID

2- We measure it the same way everyone does- complexity is defined and we see if what we are observing matches the definition. then there is Claude Shannon and Kolmogorov, for starters.

What values of complexity indicate design? Why? Being unable to answer this means the same thing as 1 above. Their entire notion is useless.

Strawman. There aren't any values of complexity that indicate design, unless specification is a value.

Can you (or anyone else) tell the difference between a designed system (gene, structure, protein, etc) and a non-designed version of the same thing? This doesn’t really relate to the ‘divinity’ of Intelligent Design, but it is a killer question. If the ID proponent can’t answer this question, then everything they say is just so much hot air. If they cannot do this, then the entire point of ID (as a science) is useless.

Yes. And I would say that you cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce a gene nor protein.

But anyway, after all of Kevin's lies, strawmen and total bullshit, he failed to define religion and demonstrate that ID is religious.

You are a complete piece-of-shit loser Kevin. And IF your position had any answers, or any science, then ID would go away. But you don't and ID is here to stay, based on science and evidence.

So to finish ID is not religious because it does NOT fit any definitions of religion. ID does not say anything about worship nor anything about giving service.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

KeithS- Spewer Extaordinare

In an evo-world where just saying anything means something, keiths sez:

Yes. That’s why IDers are so fearful of actual studies of actual fitness landscapes.

They have already conceded that Darwinian evolution can work, given the right fitness landscape.

  Their only hope is to show that real fitness landscapes don’t have the necessary characteristics.

Studies like Lenski’s and Thornton’s show that this is a vain hope. And it’s only going to get worse for the IDers.

What utter bullshit.

1- We love actual studies as they have supported us each and every time

2- We NEVER denied that darwinian evolution can work, given the right scenario

3- Neither Lenski nor Thornton's experiments demonstrate anything that challenges baraminology, nevermind challenging ID. As far as Lenski knows his was the result of built-in responses to environmental cues and Thornton, his latest has one part being substituted for another part. IOW nothing either one of them has accomplished supports blind watchmaker evolution. And they sure as hell don't support universal common ancestry.

keiths is just another willfully ignorant evoTARD- pathetic to the end...

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

EvoTARDS, Still Choking on Natural Selection

Those dumbass evoTARDS still cannot get it through their thick skulls that natural selection is the RESULT of three process- variation, heredity and fecundity. And it is the blind and undirected nature of these processes that makes natural selection blind and mindless.

What's the point? If the variation is guided/ directed then the blind and mindless part is gone, as is the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. Ya see designer mimics do not have designers as their causal agency. And if mutations are guided/ directed then that would be the hand of the designer (just as computer programs are the hand of their designers).

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Mermaids? Really???

Great, now I have mermaids to explain-> thanks Animal Planet & the Discovery Channel.

NOAA Denies Existence of Mermaids

The show was pretty good but you have to let any kids know beforehand that it is not real, otherwise you will be answering many, many questions.

Monday, October 01, 2012

RichTARD Hughes, Choking on Geography

- - OK so we have established that Richie Hughes is ignorant of science. He is also ignorant on how to make a case for something. And now, just earlier today, he proved doesn't know anythiong about geography. Earth to Richie- Antarctica is the southernmost place on this planet and the Arctic is the nothernmost place on this planet. That means when I post about the record sea ice extent observed in ANTARCTICA I am NOT talking about the ARCTIC! And when YOU come along and post something about the ARCTIC in response to my post about the ANTARCTIC, it proves that you are a dishonest moron.