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

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.


Post a Comment

<< Home