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

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is Confused or Deluded

Oh my. Now I know why Swamidass started his own forum to bash ID, he would have been chewed up and spit out if he ever took his spewage to any pro-ID forum. He needs to be able to moderate and censor everyone who proves he is clueless and should shut up, for now, when it comes to ID. Now this clown sez:
ID is failing right now because they are making scientifically absurd arguments, not because scientists are intrinsically opposed to considering something like the de novo creation of Adam.
What? The evidence says that you don't even understand ID's arguments. I have seen you hump more straw men with respect to ID than some evolutionists, whose job it is to erect so many straw men no one knows what is what.

Joshua has been called on his cartoon version of ID and yet he persists. And it sucks that he acts so arrogant and condescending while protected. And then he and his minions get all pissy when someone shoves it back at them.

Peaceful Science is just another ignorant, ID-bashing, echo chamber, run by intellectual cowards.

Inquiring minds would love to know what Swamidass is comparing ID's arguments to. It would seem that the argument of "minds from the mindless via blind and mindless processes" is as absurd as it gets, and yet it is a given that is what every version of evolution has posited beginning with Charles Darwin.

It is absurd to think that nature can produce codes. And biological organisms are ruled by them. It isn't just the codes. There needs to be a means to carry them out in a relevant manner.

It is absurd to think this planet/ moon system and solar system arose just because the right type of cloud just happened to collapse on itself and spit out our just-so solar system.

And how is ID failing when every new discovery seems to support it?

ID's arguments are based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. This is in accordance with Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, parsimony and uniformitarian teaching.

What, exactly, is a scientific alternative to Intelligent Design?

Monday, February 25, 2019

Arthur Hunt Chooses Willful Ignorance

Check out this clueless rant:
The research I am referring to deals with the movement of DNA from the chloroplast to the nucleus in higher plants. It turns out that one can assay for this by placing a transgene in the chloroplast genome that has nuclear (eukaryotic) gene expression signals - promoters, poly(A), among other things. If the transgene codes for an enzyme that confers antibiotic resistance, then one can monitor gene flow from the plastid to the nucleus by screening for resistance to the appropriate antibiotic. 
Typically, this sort of study is done by linking the nucleus-enable marker gene with another marker (resistance to a different antibiotic) that is expressed in the chloroplast. This is how one can select for trans-plastomic plants that carry foreign DNA in the plastid genome. This second marker has chloroplast (prokaryotic) gene expression signals, and will not usually be expressed if it finds its way to the nucleus. 
The process that moves the nucleus-enabled marker to the nucleus also will carry along linked DNA, such as the chloroplast marker. So, if one first identifies plants that have had the nuclear marker move to the nucleus, and then ask how frequently the second antibiotic resistance marker is expressed (again, a simple selection on suitable media), then one can get a handle of the frequency with which the second marker captures promoters in the nucleus. Long story short - this happens often enough that it can be detected in the laboratory. Which means that, contrary to what ID proponents claim, this sort of event is not fantastically improbable. 
There are details I won’t elaborate on here, but they speak to mechanisms that are generally in operation in eukaryotes (and not plant-specific). Beyond this, these studies are all very interesting, and have important ramifications for plant biotechnology.
WRONG AGAIN, Art. ID says that it is highly improbable that blind and mindless process produced what you describe. What ID says is that what you have described happens by DESIGN.

How many times do these assholes have to be told that the debate is all about the mechanisms- design vs blind and mindless?

The antifreeze gene- Intelligent Design Evolution in Action

Poor clueless evoTARDs. They think that all evidence for evolution has to be evidence for blind watchmaker evolution. That is because they are willfully ignorant of evolution by means of intelligent design. That is the claim that organisms were not only intelligently designed but that design had the ability to evolve and adapt.

He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108

The antifreeze gene is an excellent example of this.

They can claim it all happened by chance- natural selection is only relevant once the gene is produced- but they will NEVER be able to demonstrate such a thing.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

George Brooks Misrepresents/ Lies about ID, Again

Over on Peaceful Science they have many clowns and others who pretend to be interested in science. George Brooks is one of the clowns. Read what this clueless asshole sez:
This differs from the I.D. community: they think God is real (check!). They think God can be studied scientificially (Nope!).
Wrong on both counts, George. ID doesn't have anything to do with God, even though some or even most IDists accept that God is real. Also ID has NEVER been about the DESIGNER so clearly ID does not even try to study the DESIGNER.

George is lying when he says that we think we can study the designer.

ID is about the DESIGN, George. ID does NOT say anything about the DESIGNER, let alone try to study said DESIGNER.

And guess what, George? The DESIGN can be scientifically studied. And it still remains that any given design inference can be falsified just by demonstrating that natural, as opposed to artificial, processes can produce it.

So ID has the positive case, ie the existence of discrete combinatorial objects, and the means to falsify it.

But George is ignorant of science. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the alleged scientists over there at least tried to educate the fool. Whoops, that's right. Even they have difficulty with the concept.

Everything we know of the alleged designers of the artifacts that have been found is through studying those artifacts and all relevant evidence.

George is a clueless loser.

"Dr." Patrick Trischitta on the US Constitution

The things people say. Christmas isn't a religious holiday and now this:
Note that the US Constitution forbids the NSF and the NIH from funding research in harmonizing science and religion.
That sounded like total bullshit to me, so I downloaded a PDF version of the US Constitution and searched for those two key words. First stop was "science":

Section 8- Powers of Congress we have:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That was the only time the word "science" was used. Delete that word and plug in "religion" (two hits):

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So no, the US Constitution does NOT forbid the NSF and the NIH from funding research in harmonizing science and religion. Now if science said they are harmonized and Congress tried to make a law, for example, because of that finding, there would be a problem

But that is moot anyway as who says the two are not in harmony? Sir Isaac Newton, the Father of Modern Science, saw science as a way to uncover and understand God's handiwork. Many others have, also.

It is only when science is being ruled by the dogma of materialism is there a problem between the two. And it is a contrived problem, borne out of the ignorance of atheistic materialists.

So, if anything, this is a very recent manifestation. It only exists in the minds of the few, anyway. And those few appear to be willfully ignorant and hell bent on some agenda.

I will also note that if what Patrick said were true, then that would be a problem for science in the USA. You see, the US Constitution doesn't apply outside of the USA. That means other countries are free to explore research venues the dogmatic materialists want banned from the USA. Those countries are free to explore and better understand our existence while we have to wallow in the materialistic mud.

I am starting too see many similarities between today's atheistic materialists and North Korea.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Joshua Swamidass, Art Hunt, Nathan Lents and Richard Lenski are PATHETIC

Oh my. The four assholes in the title are totally clueless. When Dr. Behe or anyone else for that matter, says DARWINIAN evolution they read "evolution". They are totally oblivious to the fact that the adjective "Darwinian" comes with specific entailments.

So when Dr. Behe or someone in the ID camp says, for example:
Behe introduces new molecular-level facts that sink the Darwinian view of life once and for all: Darwinian mechanism sometimes helps survival of an organism but always by damaging or breaking genes. The conclusion is clear: life is the product of a mind. - Matt Leisola
They read "evolution". They have their heads so far up their ass they cannot comprehend what they read. So they think that they can provide evidence that "evolution" is nothing like DARWINIAN evolution, they think they have refuted Dr. Behe.

Each one of the people in the title are frauds. They need to retake an English course so they can figure out what they are reading and respond to it rather than what they think it says.

No one says that all mutations damage or break things. That is NOT the argument, you willfully ignorant assholes.

Grow up, already

Whoever said the following is a liar:
In the grand scheme of evolution, mutations serve only to break structures and degrade functions, Behe argues.
You have to be a loser to say that as Dr. Behe has never even suggested it. What Dr. Behe is saying is that genetic accidents, errors and mistakes serve only to damage and degrade.

Again, grow up.

ETA- Mutations that are accidents, errors and mistakes serve only to damage and degrade. Mutations that are not accidents, errors and mistakes, i.e. those "built-in responses to environmental cues" serve to help the organism and population, survive by adapting.

Geneticist Contradicts Joshua Swamidass

Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation. Dr. Sermonti knows the scientific evidence supports limited descent with modification. There isn't any "overwhelming evidence for Common Descent", Joshua. Even the fossil record doesn't help.

All that is left for Joshua or any other evolutionitwit to do is to assert that Dr. Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise. 

Friday, February 22, 2019

Charles Darwin would be Ashamed

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].
That would pertain to any and every specific biological structure. It also means that there is a process that can produce any complex organ via numerous, successive, slight modifications. And in the context of his book, that refers to natural selection or any other blind and mindless process.

What is the point? Today's evolutionists seem to want to abandon the idea that the onus is on them to provide those "numerous, successive, slight modifications". They want a default position of any and all structures become easily obtainable via Darwinian processes. And any objections have to prove otherwise.

That is the coward's and anti-science way of doing it. They don't want to have to test any specific claims. They will talk about how mountain range formation wasn't directly observed but that doesn't stop us from making inferences on how processes that act today, could, over long eons of time, produce them.

How desperate do you have to be to compare geology or gravity to what we observe with respect to biology?

But I digress. The complaint now is to say that Darwin has been superseded all the while ignoring the fact the main concepts remain the same. For example, Ernst Mayr was one of the architects of the modern synthesis. In his book "What Evolution Is", he wrote:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.
Go back, reread Darwin and count the number of times "chance" pops up. Genetics was added by the modern synthesis but the overall thesis remained the same- the appearance of design without an intelligent designer. Spontaneous and stochastic- contingent serendipity. Blind, mindless and absent of purpose.

It was always that variation just happened as a matter of course an sometimes via some environmental mutagen. Then nature sorted it out over time with the elimination of the less fit.

So if you are saying that, for example, some bacterial flagellum evolved via those blind and mindless processes, then yes, the onus is on you to demonstrate such a thing is possible.

You do NOT get to act like the evo-cowards over on Peaceful Science: read what happens when they are asked how to test their claims, Charles Darwin would be ashamed.

However, if you are a proponent of the EES- extended evolutionary synthesis-  then it seems that you are OK with telic processes. One of the EES's main points flows right from Dr. Lee Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis with its "built-in responses to environmental cues":
novel, evolutionarily consequential, phenotypic variants will frequently be environmentally induced in multiple individuals
Any scientist who accepts the EES is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design. If not then they have some serious rewording and explaining to do.

But first it would be better if you actually TRIED to understand what Intelligent Design says. Joshua Swamidass does not. Art Hunt does not. Nathan Lents does not. Jerry Coyne is hopeless. Richard Lenski also refuses to listen.

Joshua Swamidass is Clueless

Joshua Swamidass was on of the stooges who wrote a piss-poor review of Dr. Behe's new book "Darwin Devolves". Dr. Behe rails against what he calls "Darwinian evolution", which is nothing more than what Richard Dawkins calls "blind watchmaker evolution". It all refers to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, but mainly natural selection, which is still the only posited mechanism with the alleged capability of producing the appearance of design.

Swamidass takes exception with being called a Darwinist
Almost comically, they call us “Darwinists” again, even though we are not Darwinists.
Well, then what, exactly, is your issue with Dr. Behe?

Joshua is totally clueless. In the first review they cited an article about Dr. Behe's IC that allegedly destroyed the concept but in reality was just pages of whining, misrepresentation and absolutely zero science.

For the record Joshua has said, wrongly, that modern evolution does not posit blind and mindless processes. Again, he doesn't seem to understand what evolutionary biology actually says because blind and mindless processes still rule.

This is all sad because without realizing it Swamidass, et al., are fighting straw men of their own creation.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

"Devolution"- What is That?

Oh my. Now the uproar is over Dr. Michael Behe's use of the word "devolves" in his new book "Darwin Devolves".

First, a little history check- the 1970's. It was 1973, in Akron, OH, a new wave/ alternative band formed. That band was called Devo. Guess what "Devo" referred to? De-evolution or devolution. It, in turn, was a reference to our alleged decline and "regress, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society" (Wikipedia).

You can google the word and you will see it is defined as "evolutionary degeneration".

Monday, February 18, 2019

What "Random Mutation" means in Evolutionary Biology

I don't know why this is so difficult but the "random" in "random mutations" just means they are strictly a chance, as in happenstance, occurrence. They are accidents, errors and mistakes.
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
That is it. Errors and mistakes happen during copying. Accidents occur when an organism is subjected to some environmental mutagen.

Nothing is planned. It is all spontaneous.

ETA:  Causes of mutations

Friday, February 15, 2019

Why People Reject Universal Common Descent- an Open Letter to Joshua Swamidass

Over on Peaceful Science Joshua Swamidass wrongly accuses ID of rejecting and arguing against Universal Common Descent. But that is false as ID doesn't care. ID says if it happened it happened via intelligent design. So please stop conflating ID with the people who accept it as the best, and still only, scientific explanation for our existence.

That said, PEOPLE do argue against and reject UCD. That is because it is an untestable concept, Joshua. You may disagree but you don't have any science to refute it. No one can test the claim that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. No one can test the claim that fish can evolve into something other than fish.

You would think that with prokaryotes, archaea and eukaryotes some lab or labs would be busy injecting one into the other to see what, if anything, happens. Or even injecting mitochondria into existing proks and archaea to see what, if anything, happens.

Maybe they have and it's just that no one reports on failures of such experiments.

But then again, Joshua thinks the chimp-human ancestry is confirmed by the fact that rats and mice are more genetically different than chimps and humans. I still don't understand that reasoning but that is what he has said and wrote about.

Unfortunately for Joshua no one has ever been able to demonstrate that what makes a chimp a chimp and a human a human is based on genetics or genetics combined with the interactions with the environment. So that would be a problem. It also means that you don't have a mechanism for producing the differences observed. Again, you may disagree but until you show the science, your disagreement is hollow. As Dr. Michael Denton wrote:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.
Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.
Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2 
We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is. That is we do not know what determines form. That alone makes it really difficult to say one form can evolve into another, regardless of the underlying mechanisms. And it squashes the notion that you can say anything about evolutionary relationships via genetic comparisons.

So you see, Joshua, the concept is untestable. And just because some people find it pleasing, that is not a replacement for science. Dr. Neil Shubin thinks that fish evolved into tetrapods. Someone should be using targeted mutagenesis and real selection, to try to test that concept using existing fish embryos. Yes, I know the outcry- "But today's fish ain't those fish that evolved into tetrapods"- to which I respond- thank you for conceding that the claim is untestable.

Before I let you go I also want to say something about the fossil record. The vast bulk of the fossil record, greater than 95%, is of marine invertebrates. Which, given our understanding of how that process works, is very understandable. But yet, in that vast bulk, evidence for universal common descent is absent and slight variations abound.



Thursday, February 14, 2019

"Dr." Patrick Trischitta on Christmas

"Dr." Patrick Trischitta has said that, wait for it, Christmas is NOT a religious holiday! It doesn't matter that the word Christmas actually Means "Christ Mass" or that Santa was first SAINT Nicholas. No, says Patty, Christmas is not a religious holiday cuz Santa has replaced Jesus!

This moron sez that ID is religious and Christmas is not! How deluded can one person be?

This just exposes the sad state of affairs in the USA and perhaps the world. Atheists want their cake and they will eat it all.

How pathetic of an atheist do you have to be to say Christmas is not religious so you can celebrate it?

My bet is he just sez that because he really doesn't want to try to force the government to ban the holiday- Patty is a member of the deluded freedom from religion foundation. And that would not go over well with the USA.

Monday, February 11, 2019

Border Wall

"Heaven has a wall, a gate and a strict immigration policy. Hell has open borders. Let that sink in."

From grocery store flyer

Billboards- we needz to haz billboards with that on it.

Absolutely brilliant!

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Peaceful Science Promotes LIES

Peaceful science may have started off with good intentions, well at least I used to think so. But it has devolved into just another bunch of ignorant assholes bashing ID- for the most part. There are 3, maybe 4, posters there who are not evoTARD assholes.

One lie that peaceful science promotes is that ID is religious. And even though they have been called on it an have totally failed to make their case, they continue to spew that same lie. How cowardly is that? To get called on your lies and try to support them with the same lies is as low as you can get. And yet that behavior is cononed on peaceful science.

Another lie they promote is that ID is not science. And yet when compared to blind watchmaker evolution ID has all of the science and evidence. Their position has nothing but ID bashing cowards.

And now Joshua Swamidass has a review on Dr. Behe's new book an all it does it attack a straw man! Swamidass lacks integrity. He lacks honesty and he definitely cannot think for himself.

The people who run peaceful science should be ashamed of themselves but they are so unaware of reality they don't have a clue.

Saturday, February 09, 2019

Three Stooges "Review" Dr. Behe's New Book

The review of Dr. Behe's new book by Lents, Swamidass, and Lenski, is laughable in that not one of the authors seems to understand what Dr. Behe is saying. The strawman review

No one, not even their references demonstrate that blind and mindless processes did it. Ken Miller's example has been dismantled. And then appearance  of a "progenitor fibrinogen gene" in echinoderms is not evidence for blind and mindless processes, either.

What is wrong with you guys? You are supposed to be scientists and yet tilt against a straw man.

Exaptation? Really? Do tell how you determined that A) blind and mindless produced the parts and then B) configured them, you know, completed the exaptation.

Then they go on to gene duplication. They do not seem to realize what they are asking of blind and mindless processes. For their example the right gene, the opsin gene, building it a new binding site and then altering it in specific ways to get the result observed.

Totally. Clueless.

Dr. Behe argues against blind and mindless processes abilities to produce irreducible complexity:
Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”? 
The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.
See also What is Intelligent Design and what is it challenging

ETA- The paper they say shows:
Behe also ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled
Is 2. M. Boudry, S. Blancke, J. Braeckman, Quart. Rev. Biol. 85, 473 (2010)

And yet that paper is one long semantic quibble with absolutely no evidence that shows blind and mindless processes are capable of producing IC.

Gary Hurd is an Ignorant Coward

Over on Peaceful science a challenge was issued asking for an attempt to support the claim that ID is religious. In response the ignorant coward Gary Hurd posted:
ID creationism is merely religious. There is nothing scientific.

That's it!  No evidence, no reasoning, nothing but Gary's ignorance and cowardice.

Gary knows that he couldn't make a case that ID is as he says. Gary is a loser and proud of it.

Tuesday, February 05, 2019

How to Butcher the Explanatory Filter, by Gary Hurd, evoTARD

Gary Hurd was recently introduced over on Peaceful bullshit for Science. In his introduction he reminded people of his "contribution" to refuting Intelligent Design. You see Gary Hurd wrote a chapter in the lame-brain, strawman humping, concept butchering book "Why Intelligent Design Fails". Gary took on the Explanatory Filter and proved that he is just another demented asshole.

Earth to Gary- the explanatory filter is just to make sure that you do not rush to a design inference without considering other possibilities. And if you know anything about science that is the way to go about it, that is using Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, we do not want to add agencies unnecessarily.

So the first step of the explanatory filter wants you to consider any cause with the least number of agencies by seeing if it, the thing being investigated, was the result of some law- stones falling- or regularity- Old Faithful. We try to explain it in the simplest of probable causes. If we cannot then we start adding agencies until we get to the design inference.

The EF is only a guide. And yes you have to use ALL of the evidence and contexts that you have. The EF isn't the investigation. The EF isn't the investigator. The EF just makes sure that you don't get burned by not considering other options. The EF makes sure the design inference is NOT the default.

Gary thinks it is a problem for the EF if the cause of death cannot be determined. He thinks it is a problem for the EF if the EF cannot tell you an accidental death, from a suicide from a homicide. But the EF is only as good as the investigators and the evidence they have.

Gary also makes the mistake that the EF mandates eliminating 100% of all law and chance explanations. But that is not so. You have to consider the most likely but science isn't about proving so the 100% is Gary's ignorance. He thinks if archaeologists used the EF they would be stuck.

The EF does not prevent anyone from "knowing an artifact when they see it". All the EF does is remind you to just check into some other possible cause too. If someone else does then it's egg all over your face. The EF is there to prevent that.

False positives don't happen because of that. False negatives might because humans can fool humans.

Monday, February 04, 2019

Arthur Hunt is a SHAMELESS Coward and LIAR

Only on Peaceful Science or other equally clueless sites, can Arthur Hunt get away with spewing that TURF 13 falsifies ID.

The problem, of course, is that Art has been refuted so many times and yet he keeps on posting his lies and bullshit.

For example see- The double standards of Art Hunt