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

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Kevin R. McCarthy on How NOT to Use a Dictionary

Design is a mechanism, by definition. Does that mean that all definitions of "design" and "mechanism" will match? No, but that is what Kevin R McCarthy aka Ogre MKV aka Smilodon's Retreat, has to say. He said that I was cherry picking by finding the definitions that fit my claim of "design is a mechanism"!

Seriously folks, that one is an imbecile. How can someone be so stupid as to not understand that words with several meanings it all depends on the context as to which definition(s) apply? He even used that as his defense, ie that he found a definition that doesn't fit so I am wrong!

How pathetic and desperate our opponents have become...

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Richie TARDBOY Hughes- So Ignorant and Proud of it

Richie TARDBOY Hughes is so fucking ignorant that it thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer. Seriously, see for yourselves- I had posted:

Concerning life on earth it is very possible to have an ET designer. And SOP requires that we take it one step at a time- proximate as opposed to ultimate.
That means only an imbecile would give a rat's ass about the origin of our designer(s). Enter Carpathian and Richie the Cupcake.
And ignoramus Richie responded with:
Some guy called Dembski, 2001: "Appendix: Design-Theoretic Research Problems....
15. Identity Problem -- Who is the designer?" 
Who to take seriously. Hmmmmm. 

What a total fucking jackass Richard T Hughes is! It thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer.

Thank you Richie, my father's day got off to a great start. And that cupcake tried to tell me that I don't understand the ID fundamentals when it is obvious that it doesn't understand anything.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Elizabeth Liddle- Spewer Extraordinaire

Yes Lizzie is at it again- misrepresenting and overselling. Recently she spewed:
Evolution can only produce things that self-replicate;
No, dumbass, evolution starts with things that self-replicate.
Human Intelligence, in contrast finds it hard to produce self-replicating things, 
Computer viruses self-replicate and they are not too difficult to produce.
Evolution cannot produce an iPhone. Human designers cannot produce a giraffe.
There isn't any evidence that evolution cannot produce a giraffe.

She then has more evidence-free spewage:
Evolution can produce the brain and dexterity that allows designers to design and build things for their own purposes.
That is pure propaganda, Lizzie. You oversell evolution at every turn. You also misrepresent ID at every turn. You are a scientifically illiterate old hag.

And finally:
Please TRY to assume I am posting in good faith. 
If you are posting in good faith then you are ignorant as only an ignoramus can post the shit you do.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

How to have a good debate OR why Richie TARD Hughes is an Asshole

Richie's new thread in which he tries to goad kairosfocus into a "debate" demonstrates that Richie doesn't know his place. The skeptical zone is not a good place for a debate for the simple reason is that not one of the regulars can produce any evidence nor models nor testable hypotheses for unguided evolution. All you chumps do, Richie, is pontificate and equivocate. If you assholes had something then you wouldn't have to even discuss ID as the evidence for your position would be evidence against ID's claims*.

Show us that the environment can produce biological design. Show us a model of unguided evolution producing something of note. Show us how to test the claim that unguided evolution can produce ATP synthase.

I think many people find massive holes in his FSCO/I concept
So what? Those people cannot provide a scientifically viable explanation for unguided evolution producing what KF says has FSCO/I. You have NOTHING but a massive hole where your hypotheses and models should be.

Your criticisms of ID would be listened to if you could just lead by example. But you can't and that is why there isn't any good debate with you and your ilk. You are just a bunch of sore losers.

Also it is very telling that you assholes say that FSCO/I or CSI has never been calculated for anything and when KF does so for objects known to be designed all you do is have a hissy fit. And then when we show you a peer-reviewed paper that calculates it wrt biology you throw another hissy fit.

You have never demonstrated any understanding of ID's concepts, Richie. You choke on CSI. You choke on Specification. You think active information replaced CSI. You think algorithmic specified complexity is something other than a way of measuring specified complexity. You are a fucking moron who has to hide behind others. Not one of you could stand alone against either me or KF. Without a mob all you do is cower- all of you. So why would KF engage you at TSZ?

*1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Ignorant Philosopher Fooled by Sciencey Headline

Jonathan MS Pearce is a moron who thinks he is a grade A philosopher. His new post exposes his ignorance. The post is about the newly discovered bacteria that are alleged to have been a missing link between other bacteria and eukaryotes. The moron doesn't seem to understand that the Loki of today are just as evolved as every other organism today, meaning it cannot be used as a missing link of an alleged event of hundreds of millions to billions of years ago.

Evos are such fucking TARDS.

Also this newly discovered organism is only alleged to have been the engulfing organism of the alleged endosymbiotic chain.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Elizabeth Liddle Proves She is Scientifically Illiterate

We didn't need any more evidence for this but Lizzie provided it- she is ignorant of science. Read it for yourselves. She is so stupid she doesn't understand that we detect design before trying to figure out how it was designed. Earth to Lizzie- we don't know how many of the artifacts we found were constructed and we have the capability to reproduce those.

If the ID case is that if we can reject Law and Chance as the explanation for a complex object, we must accept Design (this is the Explanatory Filter version of the argument, but others are similar), then the Design must be operating outside the Laws of Nature.
That is not how the EF works, moron. We have to not only eliminate necessity and chance but there also has to be a pattern, a specification, before we infer design. And no, dumbass, that doesn't mean the Design is operating outside the laws of nature. My car doesn't operate outside of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are incapable of producing cars. You, Lizzie, are one retarded loser.

She sez:
Human designers, I suggest, do not operate outside the Law of Nature, so that is one problem with the EF.
How the fuck is that a problem for the EF?

And finally:
What I’m asking is where the energy comes from when that force is applied to mass in a manner that results in additional kinetic energy being imparted to the mass.
Where did the energy for materialism come from, Lizzie? Yours can't even explain the laws of nature, dumbass. The DESIGNED universe is full of energy, Lizzie. The Designer just needed to tap into that, just as we do- duh. Matter, energy and information- all designed, Lizzie.

And guess what? We don't have to know the answer to your question before we can determine whether or not something is intelligently designed. We don't even ask the who or how until we first determine intelligent design is present.

And the sad part is if Lizzie could find some positive evidence for her lame position she wouldn't have to worry about ID.