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

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Richard T Hughes Blows a Load Over the Foot Hood Shooting

Richard T Numb-balls is at it again. This time trying to use the Foot Hood shooting as a case for the "more guns don't solve nuthin'" tard.

The problem is that the Foot Hood shooting took place in a GUN-FREE ZONE on the military base. Had everyone in that zone been packing the outcome would have been very, very different.

The asshole in Colorado movie theater shootings went to other theaters first but didn't go in because those theaters allowed people to come in carrying firearms. The theater he attacked didn't allow that.

Fight fire with fire- we can't change the world, but we can deal with it.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Most Prevalent Misconception About Evolution

With evolution there are two parts to consider:

1- Evolution, the thing. As in the change in allele frequencies over time within a population; natural selection; genetic drift; descent with modification

2- Evolution, the theory-> that which attempts to explain evolution, the thing
In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Evolutionists equivocate by using the facts of evolution, ie observed changes, to support their claims of unguided, ie blind watchmaker, evolution.

However unguided evolution doesn't have any laws, and as for tested hypotheses, it can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Not only that the facts say it can't do what evolutionists need it to do.

So perhaps the most prevalent misconception about evolution is that unguided evolution is a theory. To call it a theory is to do a terrible disservice to science and all theories that actually fit the definition.

OTOH Intelligent Design Evolution is used by tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis. Intelligent Design Evolutionary theory is used to develop new products (much more quickly and with better specifications than human engineers). The theory is used to build better production schedules, produce better medicines, predict patterns in everything from fishing to farming.

HT smilodon's retreat

Friday, December 21, 2012

SouthStar's Request

Over on Kevin's skeptic blog, he has put up a request thread and sstar (aka southstar) requested:

Okay I have one, regarding chromosome 2. At a particular point in time there must have been one and one only single ancestor that was born with the fused chromosome.
He/she was the only one of his species with this particular mutation. Now we know that species with different chromosome count can't interbreed. So how is it possible for this mutation to have be passed and how is it possible for the mutation to have become totally dominant through natural selection as it seems to be neutral. I have read some of the articles on pandas thumb but they do not seem to be very convincing (or more likely I didn't quite understand them).
1- Kevin doesn't think it's a problem because he doesn't think there was ever any mismatch. Ya see I have brought this up to him before, that a fusion would have one gamete with 23 chromosomes which would have to pair with a gamete with 24 (for a total of 47). And he rejected that and prattled ignorantly about how meiosis would prevent 47. Even after I explained why the 47 is mandatory, that is outside the highly improbable chance of the gamete with 23 finding a mate with 23, he refused to have any of it.

So I don't think he will respond to your request. Or, if he does, he will give you the same refuted tripe he tried to sell me.

2- Within the same species gametes with different chromosome numbers can come together and form a viable organism.

3- Natural selection isn't the only player

4- Your entire scenario is wrong and the fused chromosome is a design feature

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Richard T Hughes says NOT to Protect Our Children!

Wow! Only a little impotent faggot loser would start inventing costs in order to stop us from having police stationed at our schools to protect and serve the community's most valuable assets. And on this very blog I have Richard T Hughes doing exactly that. How low can a person be?

What is it that you have against children Richie? Did one (or more) rat you out when you tried to molest him (them)?

A room with a two-way radio, telephone and a computer. Maybe a fax machine. I'm just not seeing the extra costs Richie the molester is inventing.

What If Intelligent Design Were True- Then What?

Neil Rickert asks- what if ID were true, then what?

Well Neil, we would be investigating biology in that light. And that means we wouldn't infer all mutations were random/ chance events- or as Dawkins said, we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology.

Ya see Neil, reality demonstrates that it matters to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by design or by nature operating freely. Artifacts are examined differently than natural formations. Murders are investigated differently than natural deaths. It matters, Neil. And it changes the whole investigation.

ID being true would mean we would be looking for software that controls the hardware, ie it would mean there is more to life than what we can see under the microscope.

It would also mean that there is a purpose, ie meaning to our lives- a real purpose. And it would also mean that we know what to look for to find other civilizations.

So the bottom line is ID would be a complete game changer.


Neil Rickert "answers"
Well, no, knowing that ID were true would not change the evidence that the mutations are random.
LoL! In the first place there isn't any evidence that all mutations are random, ie chance/ happenstance events. And given ID then we would infer most are the product of design- as in organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. Meaning chance has very little to do with it. Then we would look for what is directing the mutations to occur.

Neil continues:
I already assume that there is more to life than we see under the microscope. And there probably isn’t any hidden software.
The evidence says there is software. What do you think drives the ribosome, which is a genetic compiler? What set the genetic code? Did it just happen? Do you think if you just put all of a cell's components together that they would work? Then why doesn't a fully artificial ribosome work? HINT- It is lacking software

Neil, on finding habitable planets:
Why don’t all of those brilliant ID scientists start using that knowledge right now?
They already told us what to look for. And it appears that the "mainstream" is starting to catch on.

So now Neil upset that he has been thoroughly dismanteled, whines:
Well, maybe we would be able to infer that the Intelligent Designer is a doufus.
Was that supposed to be a refutation? And what does that say of you seeing that you couldn't design anything like this?

Tragedy In Connecticut

Yesterday any parents' worst nightmare came true- Can anthing be done to prevent this from happening again? Yes- my solution is to have every school also hold a police department satellite office, staffed with 2-3 officers, minimum. If one is needed for a call, the other two stay behind. There will always be one officer left at the school, patrolling it, with the police cars parked right in front.

Or hire armed guards, but seeing we taxpayers already pay the police to protect and serve us they should be doing that.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Why I am an Intellgent Design Supporter

Why am I an ID supporter? Easy-

1- There isn't any supporting evidence for materialism nor evolutionism

2- There isn't even a way to test materialism nor evolutionism

3- There is plenty of evidence for design starting with the fact there isn't any suppoting evidence for materialism and evolutionism- ya see all design inferences mandate the elimination of materialistic processes before reaching a design inference- see Newton's four rules of scientific investigation

4- Other than #3, the same techniques that allow us to infer design wrt archaeology, SETI and forensics, are used to determine design in biology and the universe.

5- And we see design in living organisms and their subsystems- ie we see that which fits the criteria of design, ie no materialistic explanation along with "the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" (Behe 1996)

So yeah, until materialists can come up with a way to test their position along with positive evidence, the REAL question is why would anyone support materialism and evolutionism?

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Thorton the EvoTARD Argues FOR Baraminology

EvoTARDS are so clueless I now have one arguing FOR baraminology:

Thorton said:

A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.
A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.
LoL! Thanks thorton I always knew that you hated evolutionism.

The argument was about evotards saying that a dog couldn't evolve into a cat. One moron tried to tell me that a dog genome didn't have the information to be a cat- I guess he forgot that evolution changes genomes. Not only that he couldn't provide any evidence that the alleged common ancestor of dogs and cats had the required information.

Ritchie chimed in with:

The cat genome is an extrmely specific and masively imporbable code. The chances that the dog genome will evolve into it by random chance is phantasically improbable.

You do reauize that you are now arguing AGAINST the UCA as ALL genomes are specific and massively improbable codes. And therefor they all have that fantastic improbability.

Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch.

If not then everything you have said about evolution is total bullshit.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Last Man on the Moon Says There is a Creator!

On Fox News last night Nick Cavuto was interviewing Eugene Cernan. For those of you who didn't know, Eugene Cernan was the last man on the Moon.

The part of the interview I didn't expect was Eugene saying that his experiences and observations say there is a creator of the universe.

Wow! I was wondering how many materialists heard that and had a conniption fit. LoL!

Friday, December 07, 2012

STILL No Nobel Prizes for Anything Dealing with Evolutionism

EvoTARDS are up in arms over the fcat that no one has ever won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism, ie the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

When I stated that over on Dr Hunter's blog Jeffrey Shallit, thorton the thong, jimpithecus and oleg suchajerkoff all chimed in with their ignorant equivocating spewage. They think that any and every time the word "evolution" appears it automatically means evolutionism. Pathetic, uneducated evoTARDs.

So I told them:

Please tell us that has to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes?Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution so those prizes could be Intelligent Design prizes. Even YEC's baraminology accepts your definition of evolution so those prizes could be baraminology prizes.
Don't you guys ever get tired of equivocating? "Evolution" does not = blind and undirected processes. Only evolutionISM sez evolution proceeds via blind and undirected chemical processes and not one of those prizes had anything to do with that.

For example wrt Watson and Crick, I said:

They did not elucidate the structure of DNA saying "If all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to blind and undirected chemical processes the structure of DNA should be a triple helix, wait, wait, we mean a double helix."

The sad part is even after all of this was explained, that is explained to the point where high scool students understand it, the evoTARDgasms didn't stop. And that is beyond pathetic.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Ohs Noes! An Anonymous Cowardly Liar Called Me a Loser

That's right- an anonymous piece-of-shit cowardly pathological liar (aka thorton), called me a loser- not only a loser, but a loser's loser.

What am I going to do? And Richie "pom-poms" Hughes just had to post it here as if that means something.

No Richie, bullshit lies from a proven pathological lying coward, don't mean a thing. But yes, I know, in your little-bitty child molesting mind, you think you just scored big time. I bet you ejaculated all over your keyboard when you were posting that here.

Nice job ace...

Kevin R. McCarthy, Wind Him Up and Watch Him Cry

This is too funny. After Kevin's hyprocrisy and ignorance were exposed, what does he do?

A little whine and cheese

Besides, Behe has also stated (in the same trial) that he is demanding an unreasonable level of evidence. He stated the he "demands" a "step-by-step" description of how the immune system evolved. That's an unreasonable level of evidence by any measure. Behe (and Joe, if you are referring to JoeG) certainly don't require that same level of evidence for their own chosen notions.
Hey coward-boy, YOUR position is the one claiming there was a step-by-step process starting with prokaryotes and leading to metazoans and the immune systems in question. So all we are doing is aking YOU to support the claims of your position. Is that really asking too much?

And seeing we ain't sayin' anything about no step-by-step process, then no, we don't have that level of detail to match. IOW our choosen notion isn't like your chosen notion.

 Come on Kevin- is that really the best you can in the face of a resounding refutation of spewage?


Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Kevin R. McCarthy, Equivocator Extraordinaire

Kevin just can't help himself. Even though I have been correcting him for years he still refuses to get it. Kevin's latest folly is found in his article titled Hypocrisy- which is strange because he is one of the biggest hypocrites around. In that piece of diatribe Kevin sez:
There’s one more example and I’m not sure if it’s hypocrisy or just stupidity. That is, the creationists. Even in trials, they keep declaring that they are just following the evidence. Yet, they have no idea what the actual evidence is. I’m referring here to Michael Behe’s famous claim that he hadn’t read those 50 or so books and papers on the “evolution of the immune system”, but it doesn’t matter because he knows that they don’t describe the evolution of the immune system.
No, moron. There isn't anything in those papers pertaining to the evolution of the immune system via BLIND and UNDIRECTED CHEMICAL PROCESSES. There wasn't at the time of the trial and there still isn't. The following is what Dr Behe said about that:
(11) In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).

Several points: 1) Although the opinion’s phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being “not good enough” was the cross-examining attorney’s, not mine.

2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.

3) The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection — if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).

4) This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the “fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system” and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them? In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony.
Bring that same shit to the next trial and the evos will be eating it in front of everyone. The issue here is that evoTARDS, like Kevin, are equivocating and bluffing cowards that can only fight against strawmen of their own creation.

This is why the next ID trial, if anyone in my school district even challenges me, will be about the fact that Darwin argued against a strawman and that neither Intelligent Design, nor the creation model of biological evolution, ie baraminology, are anti-evolution, as both accept a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution, that natural selection occurs, ie evolution and that there is descent with modification, ie evolution.

So equivocating cowards beware- the public will soon be onto your cowardly antics.

Whether Intelligent Design is Science A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District By Dr. Michael J. Behe

Archaeology, Forensics, SETI and Intelligent Design- Revisited

For years I have been saying that Intelligent Design is as scientific an enterprise as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. All rely on our ability to understand cause and effect relationships in order to differentiate between what nature, operating freely can do and what takes agency involvement to accomplish.

Easy to understand yet some people, re evotards, just refuse to grasp the concept. They will say that archaeology and forensics we already know who the designer is, which is total bullshit, or that those enterprises strive to identify the designer whereas ID does not. More bullshit as the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do that is by studying the evidence- as I tell them-there evotards:

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

But being scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's, evotards cannot grasp that. Sad, really.

OR they will want to know what we have found out about the designer so far as if that will somehow refute ID. *shrug, sigh*

So the bottom-line is Intelligent Design is based on our knowledge and experiences of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

BTW just because Intelligent Design is not about the designer, that does not prevent anyone from trying to figure out who the designer was nor how the designer operated. Those are merely separate questions from wheter or not it was designed. EvoTARDS are also too clueless to grasp tat fact.

Saturday, December 01, 2012

Kevin R. McCarthy- Still Chocking on Complex Specified Information

Cowardly Kevin is at it again. This time misrepresenting Complex Specified Information, again, and also exposing his ignorance wrt natural selection:

Complex Specified Information and Intelligent Design

Kevin says:

So, here’s the concept of CSI, in a nutshell. If the probability of something happening is greater than 1:10150 then it’s too improbable for it to come about by chance and therefore it was designed. 
Bad start. Complex Specified Information is just complex Shannon Information with meaning/ function. The complexity level is set to 500 bits, even though the evidence says it, the amount of specified information blind and undirected processes can produce, is much lower.

What that means wrt biology is there are 4 nucleotides, 2^2 = 4, therefor each nucleotide has 2 bits of information. (Take the lower case alphabet plus six other characters, for a total of 32, then each character would have 5 bits (2^5 = 32)).

OK so each nucleotide is 2 bits, which means each codon is 6 bits. And that maps directly to amino acids, each which has 6 bits (64 codons = 2^6). Given that, a protein of 100 amino acids has the information carrying capacity of 600 bits.

But anyway, back to Kevin:

Anyway, it should be pretty obvious that there are a number of major problems with this notion of CSI.
 The first is that the ID proponents are saying that either something (protein, organism, rock, whatever) is randomly constructed or it is designed.
 Not quite. Either it arose via blind and undirected processes, ie necessity and chance, or, if not AND it meets the criteria, it is designed.

Kevin continues:

This, however, is wrong, there is another possible answer. That is random mutation, natural selection, and descent with modification.
That has been considered and it has failed, miserably. For one no one seems to be able to tell anyone how to test it to see if it can produce CSI. For another if you have natural selection it is a good bet that you already have CSI, ie the very thing that you need to explain. And finally even given living organisms natural selction, a result, doesn't do anything.

On a roll with his spewage, Kevin sez:

 I bet if one really thought about it, one could come up with a few more notions like this. So, that right there destroys the entire premise of CSI.
LoL! Really?!

 No Kevin, it takes actual EVIDENCE, not imagination to destroy the premise of CSI. But unfortunately for you all you have is imagination and absolutely no evidence to support it.

The moron goes on to say:

The ID proponents claim that this whole enterprise is ONLY about detecting design.
Nope. We claim the whole enterprise is about the detection and study of design in nature.

However, when presented with a sequence of random proteins and an actual protein sequence, they refuse to try and determine which is which. Then they claim that my request has nothing to do with actual CSI.
It doesn't have anything to do with actual CSI. Obviously kevin is totally ignorant of how science is done. We observe functionality, Kevin. We observe proteins and enzymes actually doing something. And then we investigate and try to figure it out.

Also, as I have told the asshole many times, archaeology and forensic science are also in the design detection business. Therefor by Kevin's "logic" they should be up for Kevin's "challenge".

Second, the ID proponents are assuming that all possible amino acids are equally likely to combine with each other in a sequence.
Back up moron- NUCLEOTIDES, and yes they are equally likely to combine with each other in a sequence. Ya see kevbo, can't get proteins without first having the nucleotide representation and a compiler to make the changeover.

Third, and most importantly, the IDist is assuming that all modern proteins and the living things that they are made from all appeared randomly from a great pile of amino acids.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Notice he doesn't provide any references for his tripe.

How do modern proteins form? By the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which is that DNA contains the codes for proteins, which is translated into mRNA and transported through the nuclear membrane to a ribosome, which reads the mRNA strand and uses tRNA to construct a chain of amino acids to form the protein.
Earth to Kevin- Your lame-ass position cannot account for that central dogma, which BTW needs to be edited to include prions- heredity by contact.

So to sum up we have Kevin's inability to grasp a concept, coupled with delusions of science proceeding by imagination rather than actual evidence, smothered with lies and misreprentations and topped with an ending his position cannot account for.

But in his little-bitty mind he has destroyed ID....

LoL! Kevin posted a comment. In it he spews:

 I've had a ID proponent use a dictionary definition of aardvark, calculate the probability of those letters combining randomly (in binary), and claim that it's an example of CSI.
What a complete dipshit! No Kevin, a dictionary definition is an example of Specified Information- ALL dictionary definitions are examples of SPECIFIED INFORMATION, you moron. All I did was figure out how many bits were in the definition of aardvark- ya know via Shannon's methodology- and determined CSI was present.

It was an EXAMPLE of how to calculate/ measure CSI. And nice to see that you are too fucking stupid to grasp that simple example.

Oleg Tchernyshyov, Ignorant of Religion

Oleg Tchernyshyov should learn his limitations. He may know things pertaining to physics but he doesn't seem to know anything else. He has choked on information. He has choked on cladistics. And he has choked on nested hierarchies. Now he is choking on religion. When I asked oleg if he knew what religion is, he choked:
Oh, yes, I understand what a religion is. It is belief in a superhuman controlling power such as a personal God. That's how a dictionary defines it. What is your definition? And according to my definition, someone who accepts the One and True God is a religious person. In fact, I can even determine that this person adheres to a particular, monotheistic type of religion.
Only a simpleton would use a simple dictionary definition to try to define something so complex. So I referenced a better site and yup, he ignored it as if his ignorance means something. The site I linked to is What is Religion?. You can see why oleg ignored it-> it exposed his ignorance on the subject:
Belief in Supernatural Beings: Belief in the supernatural, especially gods, is one of the most obvious characteristics of religion. It’s so common, in fact, that some people mistake mere theism for religion itself; yet that is incorrect. Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic. Despite this, supernatural beliefs are a common and fundamental aspect to most religions, while the existence of supernatural beings is almost never stipulated in non-religious belief systems.
See belief in a God does not make it a religion. And a religion does not require any Gods at all. And the article tells you why simplistic definitions just don't cut it. Oleg didn't grasp any of that and prattled on as if his ignorance trumps reality. So oleg wants a simplistic definition of religion because he is a simpleton. OK, I then procided a couple of dictionary definitions that say his position is a religion. What did oleg say? That I was looking at the wrong definition! Only a loser piece-of-shit coward would say such a thing and here is oleg.

definition 1: a set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe, usu. involving belief in a supernatural creator and offering guidance in ethics and morals.