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, May 19, 2018

Yes, Design is a Mechanism- by Definition

Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can see that design is a mechanism. For example:

A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

Friday, May 04, 2018

150 parts per million

150 parts per million of atmospheric CO2- what's the significance of that number, you may ask?

Plant life shuts down @ 150 ppm. Why is that significant? The animal world, of which we are a part, is in deep shit when the plants die off.

Just think about the pre-industrial levels which were 280 ppm- just 130 ppm above the death threshold. During the glaciation periods it was down to 180 ppm. So close to the annihilation of land animals.

So pardon me if I want to stay away from that level. The planet has had higher levels of atmospheric  CO2 than are currently present and there never was a runaway greenhouse effect.

Thursday, May 03, 2018

keiths is a complete and desperate loser

keiths thinks that if you rearrange the sequence of a set like so: {1,3,5,2,7,9,11,4,13,15,17,6,19,21,23,8…}, that it somehow damages my argument. What a total moron you are, keiths. What's the next number after 8, dumbass? The ellipses at the end say keep going as it went before.

And number lines have an accepted sequence.

keiths says that when I compare my sets, for example {1,2,3,4,5,6,...} to {2,4,6,8,10,12,14...} that I am comparing finite sets.

I have already been over that, moron. Yes, every time we check we are checking finite sets. And that will happen for infinity- EVERY time we check one set will always be larger than the other. Always and forever.

Infinity is a journey, keiths. If you don't understand what that means ask OlegT. He will educate you on the subject.

In the same thread keiths appears ignorant of the greenhouse effect (GHE). The GHE says that earth radiates IR/ LWR into the atmosphere which gets absorbed by the greenhouse gasses, re-emitted back to earth, rinse and repeat. Elementary school stuff, keiths. However that only happens when the greenhouse gasses (CO2 in this case) are pointed towards earth. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand

keiths is just upset because I exposed his ignorance about nested hierarchies

Yes keiths, I am laughing at you, you ignorant ass

Some Confusion about the Lederberg Experiment

The Lederberg experiment- the one with bacteria and antibiotics- demonstrated that the population already had the resistance before the antibiotic was applied. That means the change was not in direct response to the antibiotic. OK so far.

The problem arises when people say that the change was not driven by the environment. Bacteria communicate- that is a fact borne out by scientific research. That communication is done via chemical signaling. That chemical signaling is part of the environment. That means it is very possible that the change that afforded the antibiotic resistance was in accordance with that communication, ie the environment.

If it is all about survival of the population that would make sense as bacteria just need one to survive to carry on. More than one is always a good thing, too. Variety is the key here.

What is the alternative explanation? It just happened for no reason? Really?

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Ignorant Evos Don't Know what a Scientific Theory is

I posted the following challenge over in the swamp AtBC:

There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

If anyone disagrees then it is up them to link to it, tell us who the author was, when it was published and what journal it was published in.

If you cannot do that then it is clear that I am right.

Thank you - still waiting 

To try to prove me wrong one asswipe linked to Scientific American's nonsensical article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, which clearly is NOT a scientific theory. There isn't any science there- no testable hypotheses which are supposed to precede it. There is nothing but evoTARDs claptrap and propaganda.

EvoTARDs are an ignorant and desperate lot- totally clueless and obviously a bunch of losers.