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

Friday, February 28, 2020

Timothy Horton is a Liar and an Ass

Evos are such a bunch of cowardly liars and sociopaths. Timmy Horton is on the top of the list of evo liars and cowards. Timmy spews:
All we ask is they acknowledge the evidence shown them and be honest enough to admit when they can’t explain it. 
LoL! No one has ever presented any evidence supporting blind watchmaker evolution. It has never happened. Peer-review just points to "evolution". ID is not anti-evolution, so that doesn't help you.

Timmy Horton has NEVER presented any evidence that supports  evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says that most of what is in peer-review is pout of the reach of blind and mindless processes.

What IDists says is:
All we ask is they acknowledge the evidence shown them and be honest enough to admit when they can’t explain it. 
Timmy the pathological liar and cowardly hypocrite will never do that. Timmy is a special kind of lying sociopath.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Peaceful Science- A Classic Case of Evolutionary Equivocation and Cluelessness

The things evolutionists accept as science is mind boggling. The things evolutionists remain willfully ignorant of is entertaining. Enter Dr. Behe and the irreducible complexity of any bacterial flagellum. With that in mind, I give you:

Please List Attempts to Explain Flagellum 

The first comment is from a known cowardly equivocator. The paper referenced is Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. Guess what they do NOT discuss? All this paper did was show  an ancient core set of 24 structural genes that were present in the common ancestor to all Bacteria, exists. They never get to how any flagellum is assembled. 

Next up is Nick Matzke's Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. It wasn't even published in a peer-review bio journal. And reading it, you understand why. Imagination is not evidence and it isn't science. Homology is again just proclaimed. And how the flagellum is assembled. Not only that he relies on another IC structure- Type III secretion systems- to be readily handy. He has no idea if unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution can produce one. He has no idea how that would even come about.

These guys could take every gene needed, place them into bacteria that don't have the structures in question and see what happens. Why haven't they done that?

Are they really so gullible that they think flagella are self-assembling?

Not ONE of the papers referenced refers to blind and mindless processes. So using the criteria of Judge Jones, they FAIL to support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

They all discuss gene duplications. And given "waiting for TWO mutations" there isn't enough time in the universe for the number of specific duplications required. Never mind getting those duplicates under the control of a binding site.

But again, that is all moot because you need to get the proteins properly regulated, to the right location and them configure them properly. And on top of it all the new appendage needs to be controlled.

It's clear that evolutionists are cowardly equivocators and liars.

Joshua Swamidass is Full of Shit

Joshua has become willfully ignorant. In a new post, Why methodological naturalism , Joshua spews:
Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God, His action, or intelligent design.
Total BULLSHIT! Science is limited by REALITY, only. And science requires that the claims being made have the ability to be tested and potentially fgalsified.

If the REALITY is God did it, then science is OK with it. Science does not care if God did it. Science is OK with God doing it. Science used to be seen as a way to understand God's Creation!

The ONLY thing "methodological naturalism" is good for is @ drunk checkpoints. Have them try to say it and then bust them when they can't.

Science only cares about the reality behind whatever is being investigated. Science cannot start out with a basic conclusion, ie nature did it.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Evos are Still Choking on Bacterial Flagella

Evos do not have any science nor evidence that blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection, drift or anything else, to account for any bacterial flagella. Nick Matzke wrote a science-free puff piece some years ago but it was all pure imagination and speculation. He co-authored another paper that showed there were alleged homologous genes in other bacteria. It's as if he thinks that bacteria can go shopping for the genes it needs to produce a flagellum.

The problems with blind and mindless processes producing any bacterial flagellum are many. First, you need the genes and their respective binding cites. Then you need those genes to be expressed at the right time and in the proper quantities. Then you need to get all of the proteins in the right place at the right time. Then you have to get them properly configured. That last part is impossible without chaperones to ferry proteins so they don't interact with the wrong partners.

And then on top of all of that, you need to be able to command and control it. Otherwise it is useless to you.

Evos are such science-free losers that they don't even know how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it. They think it is up to us to prove that it couldn't have happened.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Intelligent Design, The Designer(s) and the Process(es)- Revisited, Again

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski
Yes, they can.

Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.
This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” -Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by
whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”. Also evolutionism is all about the how and when yet it cannot answer those questions scientifically. That must be what pisses them off and causes them to flail away at ID with their ignorance-if they could support their position's claims ID would be refuted.

Intelligent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.

All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
IDists agree with Mike Gene. And no one can find any real fault with what Mike Gene said.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Jerry Coyne is an Imbecile and a Liar!

Jerry Coyne has a blog post about recapitulation. The old discredited view from one Ernst Haeckel and others- see this stupidity on horses. At the end of the article Jerry brings up this image of a dolphin with hind FLIPPERs. Got that?!? Hind FLIPPERs. What does Jerry the ignorant ass have to say about that dolphin:
Similarly, sometimes the dolphin’s hind limbs don’t disappear and we get dolphins with little legs sticking out of its rear, like this one that I show in my “evidence for evolution” talk:
"Little legs"?! Are you a retard, Jerry? How desperate can you be to say that flippers are legs? How desperate do you have to be to rely on the discredited concept of recapitulation?

Of course Jerry never mentions then fact that unguided evolution can't produce eukaryotes, let alone meiosis and developmental biology.

Jerry Coyne, ignorant liar for evolutionism.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Faizal Ali- Proud to be an Ignorant Ass

Peaceful Science is loaded with clueless losers. Faizal Ali is one of the top assholes there. The asshole spews:
That ID is based on nothing more than denial of evoution, with no positive evidence in its favour.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution, you ignorant ass. And ID is driven by positive evidence whereas your position is driven by faith and denial.

The genetic code is positive evidence for ID. That is because 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships says that codes only come from intelligent agencies. We don't have any knowledge of nature producing codes. No one even has a clue as to how to test such a thing.

And, as Rummy said:
If it’s untestable, it’s bad science.
Your side doesn't make testable claims, you ignorant ass. Your side just equivocates, fabricates and tries to intimidate when you are exposed as liars and losers.

The fact that ID is NOT a mechanistic theory seems to also be lost on these morons. You do NOT have to know how something was designed, ie the mechanism, BEFORE you can determine that it was intelligently designed. The how always comes AFTER.

That bit of ignorance always arises when evos have their asses handed to them because they don't have a testable mechanism capable of producing anything but deformities and genetic diseases.

Peaceful Science is full of liars, losers and hypocrites.

"Peaceful Science" is an Echo Chamber for Liars, Cowards and Hypocrites

If you are a liar, coward and hypocrite you are welcome @ "Peaceful Science" as long as you rail against ID and support the unscientific evolutionism. But if you are going to rail against unguided evolution and present evidentiary support for ID, please stay away. They don't have a place for you there.

The point is there isn't any scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. ID is the only current scenario that makes testable claims. It is the only scenario that relies on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Meaning it is the only scenario supported by science.

When "Peaceful Science" first started I posted there saying that there wasn't any scientific theory of evolution. Of course I was attacked for saying that but it was very telling that no one stepped up and referenced a scientific theory of evolution! To this day no one has been able to reference a scientific theory of evolution. Yet evos will always insist one exists. Evos are pathological.

The liars of "Peaceful Science" were asked for evidence that vision systems evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. They lied to say it existed but failed to produce any such evidence. They failed to produce any methodology that could be used to test the claim. Then they claimed victory and moved on. How pathetic is that?

But that is all they have. They try to intimidate people. Those who cannot be intimidated get banned. Those who call them on their bullshit, get banned.

However if you are a liar for unguided evolution and a liar arguing against ID, you are welcome @ "Peaceful Science".

And it is very telling that those same liars will NEVER show up on a site like Uncommon Descent to peddle their bullshit and lies. Joshua Swamidass is too clueless to be ashamed. And he is too much of a coward to show up on UD and make his case.

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Evolutionary* Gaps for Larry Moran

*This refers to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

Larry Moran is such a chump when it comes to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution he really believes the only gap left to fill is @ the origin of life. This post is going to name many more gaps that unguided evolution cannot fill.

1- The gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is real and cannot be bridged by unguided evolutionary processes. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes via blind and mindless processes.

2- The gap between single-celled eukaryotes and metazoans is the next gap that unguided evolution cannot fill. Unguided evolution cannot account for meiosis. And without that you don't get metazoans. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that meiosis evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

3- The gap between metazoans without an skeleton and those with an endoskeleton or exoskeleton. Skeletons require articulated joints. Articulated joints require something like muscle to move them. And muscles need stimulation in the form of electricity to do anything. All out of the reach of unguided evolution. And again they don't have a methodology to test for such a thing.

4- Then there are all the gaps between all the living organisms. And given the peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", unguided evolution doesn't have enough time if it started @ the conception of the universe. Just color vision- a duplicated opsin gene and then specific changes to that new gene- is out of the reach of unguided evolution as it requires more than two specific mutations.

Larry Moran has drank from the tard Kool-Aid and is saying all sorts of unscientific bullshit. And if pressed all he will do is ban you and continue to lie like the fat punk that he is.