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, June 25, 2020

Joshua Swamidass- Choking on the Explanatory Filter

Unbelievable. The explanatory filter is nothing more than standard operating procedure for anyone trying to determine then root cause of something. Joshua fucks it up from the get go:
The EF’s logic takes these questions in order.

  1. Is it known natural processes alone? If yes, then conclude not designed.
  2. Is it chance alone? If yes, then conclude not designed.
  3. Conclude design.
Just put it down as Dembski wrote it, Joshua. You fucked it up. Step 2 is NOT just chance alone. Dembski goes over that in his writings. Step 3 requires a SPECIFICATION in order to INFER design.

Steps 1 and 2 do exhaust all blind and mindless processes, i.e. nature operating freely.

For some reason Joshua thinks it's a problem for the EF because it doesn't consider UNKNOWN processes. Earth to Joshua- the science of TODAY does not and canNOT wait for what the science of tomorrow may or may not discover. I mean seriously? That is exactly what makes ID potentially falsifiable. Does Joshua grasp that? Nope.

Next Joshua thinks the EF doesn't consider chance and law at the second box. That is WRONG! The toss of the dice relies on GRAVITY, MOTION and INERTIA, for example. Erosion patterns also depend on water speed, which is driven by gravity. The EF is like a snowball. You keep adding natural processes to try to find out what happened.

Further down Joshua says:
However, it [failing to combine chance and necessity] does justify excluding any realistic model of random mutations (chance) + natural selection (natural process).
Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity. There isn't any realistic model- whatever is good enough to survive and reproduce, does so. Natural selection eliminates the less fit, within a population, over time. It's not creative and it isn't magical. The pandemic is a great example of NS. The best that can come of it is a fitter population because the less fit have been culled. Still very much human. 

So no, the EF doesn't exclude NS. No one has shown NS has any power to produce the appearance of design.

But anyway, the explanatory filter. The way it is set up is a flow chart consisting of the start, followed by 3 decision boxes. Wm. Dembski explains it here.

You start with whatever it is you are investigating. You are investigating because you want to know how something came to be the way it is, what it is and what it does.

You start out looking for natural, ie non ARTIFICIAL, processes that can account for it. This is also per Sir Isaac Newton's 4 Rules of Scientific Reasoning. Note that Newton's "natural" was contrasted against God's supernatural. Meaning artificial, to Newton, would still be under the natural umbrella.

Joshua says
I infer that Mt. Everest is designed, because God created all things.
The issue is was God's intervention required or not? Just because the earth was intelligently designed doesn't mean every existing feature was. Things change, naturally.

So no, God didn't Create all things the way they are now.

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

T.J. Runyon is Lying

Peaceful science is a place for evoTARd liars and losers. Now TJ Runyon spews:
You can describe a natural process that explains the CSI but then it’s proponent can just say that process was designed.
Liar. First off no one can describe a natural process that explains CSI. That has NEVER happened in the history of then earth, anyway.

But that is minor compared to Swamidass choking on then EF. Saving that for tomorrow.

CSI- Why CSI is Evidence for Intelligent Design

CSI = complex specified information. It is defined as 500 bits of specified information. Specified information is just information in the normally used way- a sequence that produces specific effects.

CSI is evidence for Intelligent Design because all of our knowledge, observations and experiences demonstrate that CSI always come from an intelligent agency, ie a mind. No one has ever observed nature producing CSI. No one has ever observed nature coming close. We don't have any knowledge or experience with nature doing so.

So when we observe CSI and did not observe how it came to be, we infer intelligent design thank to Science 101- knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.

And to refute that inference all it takes is for someone to step up and demonstrate nature, ie blind and mindless processes, can produce CSI. Also, science 101

Monday, June 22, 2020

More Proof that Joshua Swamidass is Totally Clueless about CSI

CSI is complex specified information. It is defined as 500 bits or more of specified information. The 500 bit limit is alleged to be beyond the probability bound. That limit was set in "No Free Lunch"- Wm. Dembski. How does this relate to Joshua Swamidass? In his clueless CSI bullshit challenge, Joshua states:
1. Each sequence has a different CSI, either 5, 10, 100, 150 or 200 bits of CSI to be precise.
What. The. Fuck?

500 bits of specified information to get to CSI.

500 bits, Joshua. 500.

Not only is Joshua's CSI challenge just a parlor game of which sequence has an encrypted message. But his bit count doesn't add up.

Joshua lies when he says he understands ID's arguments.

Sunday, June 21, 2020

Proof that Joshua Swamidass is Clueless

Moar Proof that Joshua Swamidass is helplessly clueless::

Good luck, and share this widely in your networks.
DUMBASS! First off science is not a parlor game. You must be an infant, Joshua.

Secondly, the thing about CSI is to determine is an intelligent agency produced it or did nature do it? That said, if someone saw those sequences carved into a cave wall they would rightly infer an intelligent agency did it. No one would ever think nature could carve any of those sequences via erosion or what have you.

With DNA we OBSERVE functionality via the formation of functioning proteins. That functionality has a sequence specificity. Meaning not just any sequence will produce that functioning protein. So we have an observation of functionality. Next we want to know how it came to be that way. That is where ID comes in.

And it still remains that to refute any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what ID says was intelligently designed.

This challenge has nothing to do with calculating CSI.

This challenge is about guessing which sequence has an encrypted message.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Why Science Can Consider Design Without Considering a Designer

Joshua Swamidass doesn't think this is possible, to consider design without considering a designer. However, without direct observation or designer input, that is how it has to be done.

We don't even consider a designer until AFTER design has been determined. And then all we have is the designed objects, structures and events to go by (and all relevant evidence).

How do we know the designer's capabilities? By what was left behind.

We would never have thought that the ancient peoples were capable of designing and producing the Antikythera mechanism if we hadn't found one. And no one would have believed the Mayans were capable of building their cities if we hadn't had the cities to examine.

Guess what? We still don't know who designed and made the Antikythera mechanism!

So yes, science not only can, but does, consider deign without considering the designer.

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Arthur Hunt- Still Clueless or Willfully Ignorant

Arthur Hunt, equivocator. Clearly Hunt doesn't understand what is being debated. You can have evolution even if it happens by design.
Basically, Darwin’s theory holds that 1. All life shares a common ancestry; and 2. All the different forms of life we see on earth arose via descent with modification, with natural selection acting on heritable variation. That’s really it in a nutshell.
Natural selection doesn't act on anything. And Darwin was OK with several starting populations which means "universal common descent" is not part of what Darwin wrote.

Darwin posited design without a designer.  To this day that premise remains untestable.

The point is when someone says they are not a Darwinist it simply means they do not agree that blind and mindless processes did it.

Arthur Hunt is willfully ignorant of the FACT that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Tuesday, June 09, 2020

Joshua Swamidass is Scientifically Illiterate

Joshua Swamidass is either a liar, very stupid or just plain ignorant. Joshua posted the following bit of ignorance:
The innovation of ID, however, is to consider design without considering a designer, but that doesn’t work in science. That’s the problem in the end.
Wow. We don't even consider the designer until AFTER intelligent design has been determined to exist. So clearly it works in science as that is how it is done, 100% of then time.

Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

Cleary Joshua has never ran an investigation to the root cause of something.

Joshua sez he knows all about ID. And yet he is totally ignorant of the following:
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
And it still remains that if you do not like the Design Inference you have all the power to refute it. All one has to do is step up and demonstrate that what ID says was intelligently designed can be produced by nature, i.e. blind and mindless processes. It isn't our fault that no one can do such a thing.

Monday, June 08, 2020

Earth to Timothy Horton- Dumbass Extraordinaire

Timothy Horton is the worst type of human- willfully ignorant and very proud of it. Timmy Spews:
The only codes requiring intelligence are ones where arbitrary symbols are used as agreed upon abstractions to pass messages between a sender and receiver. Examples are Morse code and computer code. DNA does not meet such criteria. 
The genetic code does match that criteria, Timmy: The Real Genetic Code:
This is the genetic code. It shows the relationship between a sequence of nucleotides in messenger RNA (mRNA), or DNA, and the amino acids that are inserted into a growing polypeptide chain.

Each codon consists of three nucleotides and you read them from 5ʹ ("five prime") to 3ʹ ("three prime"). The first one is one the left of the box, the second one is at the top, and the third one is along the right-hand edge. The genetic code tells you that codon CUU encodes leucine (Leu), and so do codons CUC, CUA, and CUG. (The Genetic Code is redundant.)

The three STOP codons tell the protein synthesis machine to stop making protein. The methionine (Met) codon (AUG) is usually the start codon that tells the machinery to start making a protein. There are a few unusual variants of the genetic code that aren't shown in the figure.
The Genetic Code was cracked in the early 1960's when the meaning of each codon was worked out. Since then it has become routine to decode any message in the coding regions of DNA and RNA by simply referring to the genetic code shown above. For example, you can decode the following sequence of RNA if you know that it starts on the left at the initiation codon AUG. 
This is the same procedure that we use to translate a string of dots and dashes sent over a telegraph line. The string of dots and dashes is the message, the Morse Code is the lookup table that we use to decode the message. We do not say that the string of dots and dashes is the Morse Code. We say that it's a message encrypted using the Morse Code. Similarly, we do not say that a string of nucleotides is the genetic code. It's the message that's translated using the Genetic Code.  
So the genetic code is the same type of code as Morse code. mRNA codons REPRESENT specific amino acids. There isn't any law that determines the pairings. That means the code is arbitrary.

There is no evidence that nature can produce codes. Joshua Swamidass lied when he said otherwise. The anti-ID mob is as clueless as ever. Chickenshit to admit reality beat them.

Joshua Swamidass is Lying Again. Or Just Plain Stupid.

Oh my. Joshua Swamidass has lost all grip with reality. Someone said, rightfully:
fact that the only known cause of coded information in our experience is intelligence
Joshua Spews:
That isn’t a fact. It is a false. Very commonly apparently non-intelligent causes produce coded information. One such example is the evolution of cancer

You moron, Joshua! Cancer came from already coded information. Nature did create coded information with cancer. You are obviously just an ignorant ass.

Then moron Timothy Horton chimes in with tree rings! That dumbass doesn't realize that trees are living things that have the very coded information that requires an explanation! And by Timmy's logic urine and shit are also codes.

The losers over on Peaceful Science are so fucking clueless and so fucking ignorant, it's hilarious.