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 23, 2017

Jeffrey Shallit is a Moron

Jeffrey Shallit is a moron because he is unable to understand that everything a computer does traces back to the programmer who wrote the program(s). And yes that means it does so even if the programmer is dead and the program continues to gather data.

Jeff doesn't understand that without programmers there wouldn't be any programs and computers would be useless. They would gather dust and not data. scroll down and read our exchanges.

Jeff said that it is foolish to say that information requires a mind because computer programs can produce information and they don't have minds. I stepped in and told him that the mind is that of the programmer. That is because computers do what we program them to do. Computers just take the place of humans. This is all basic knowledge and yet Jeffrey steadfastly refuses to get it.

Willful ignorance it is, then, Jeff. Nice job

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

NASA's Big Announcement

NASA announced the detection of four earth-sized rocky planets orbiting a red dwarf star. The planets don't have any hope of harbouring intelligent life as they orbit much too close to their parent star whose output is too dim to sustain intelligent life. And most likely all of those planets are locked in- no rotation. One side is always facing the sun. That means only around the edges is there any chance of liquid water at the surface

NASA Announces Major Exoplanet Discovery

Sunday, February 19, 2017

More TSZ Ignorance

An ignoramus named faded_glory spews:
You guys are ignoring the hugely important distinction between artefacts and living things.
Artefacts are manufactured and require design. Living things are born, or spawn, or germinate…whatever the details, these things happen through biology, all by themselves when the conditions are right. Unless someone wants to claim that there is a designer somewhere, doing something, every time an egg hatches or an acorn sprouts.
Sheer question-begging drivel. How did biological reproduction originate, fg? Don't know? Can't test the claim that nature didit? Then shut the fuck up you ignorant asshole.

Basic biological reproduction is irreducibly complex. More so than any bacterial flagellum. So no, faded dickhead, you are ignoring the fact that yours has nothing to account for biological reproduction, loser.

(sarcasm alert)
I just can't get over the quantity of evolutionary biology discussed over on TSZ- well done  you've finally cracked it (/sarcasm)

Definitive Evidence that ATP Synthase was Intelligently Designed

If you take a look at ATP synthase you can see it consists of two major subunits (F0 & F1) that are connected together by an external tether. This tether doesn't have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it no ATP synthase. The problem for evolution by blind and mindless processes is exacerbated. Not only does it need to produce the two subunits but one has to be embedded in some membrane so that a gradient can be formed. And the other has to to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away. The tether looks like the membrane subunit F0 somehow formed an external docking site the proper length with F1 forming an external mating site.

Again these two different protein subunits, the tether and mate, have nothing to do with the function of the protein complexes they are attached to and tether together. And without them there is no way to get the two working subunits together to produce ATP.

There you have it- A simple external tether that stably holds the major F1 subunit/ rotary motor the proper distance away from its F0 motor force is evidence for the Intelligent Design of ATP synthase. The two major subunits and how it works is just icing on the cake.

ATP synthase

Saturday, February 18, 2017

What Does ID Offer?

Over on TSZ "scientist" Robin asked :
What does ID offer?
Well Robin, ID offers basically the same thing as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. It offers up the chance that what we are observing may be the result of Intelligent Design.  And if ID is right that means living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry which means there is something else to living organisms. That means we would seek out and find it. And that is something that will never happen under the current unscientific paradigm. I think it would be very exciting to determine what makes living organisms work. From there we should be able to determine what makes an organism what it is because the genome isn't the determining factor. Yes genomes control and influence development but no one has shown genomes determine the type of organism that develops.

ID also offers up that there is a real purpose to our existence. A reason for us to be here. That is something else that we wouldn't be looking for under the current lame and unscientific paradigm.

And all of those other questions become different venues for exploration- the who's, how's, why's, when's. Exciting stuff.

So the real question is what the fuck does evolutionism and materialism offer? I doubt we'll ever get a well reasoned and logical answer to that question.

Did you notice the mass equivocation:
Think of all the activities that science has had a hand in either creating outright or improving: medicine, flight (well…transportation in general), communication, air quality, water quality, athletics, longevity, food preparation and quality, food production (agriculture), breeding and animal husbandry, manufacturing, etc, etc, etc, and etc…
And what part of that has anything to do with the claim living organisms arose and evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? What part of that has to do with the claim the earth/ moon and solar system was the result of unplanned cosmic collisions and the laws of nature?

Yes Robin, actual science works. Evolutionism isn't actual science, dumbass. But then again Robin thinks science is done via definition. dee-d-dee

Does Neil Rickert Even Know what Science Entails?

Neil Rickert, one of my dickheaded detractors said the following:
Personally, I have no objections at all to “Intelligent Design” as a philosophical idea. But the problem with ID, is that the ID proponents insist that it is science. My main objections to ID, are to the claim that it is science.
Well Neil, compared to evolutionism, when is considered to be science, ID is far superior. As opposed to evolutionism ID makes testable claims. For example IC can be tested. The claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce IC is not testable.

And when compared to materialism, again ID comes out on top as materialism is nothing but sheer dumb luck. So one has to wonder how Neil is defining science and why he thinks ID doesn't qualify.

 He won't say.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Earth to Patrick May, et al.- You Forgot Something

Patrick May posted:
Alan Fox, Neil Rickert, and I, acting as admins of The Skeptical Zone, have unanimously concluded that Frankie’s behavior over the past several weeks constitutes spam. 
That's it, no evidence, just their say-so. The reason there wasn't any evidence is because if provided in context it would show that they post spam. And by they I mean the moderators and regular evo-babblers.

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of "The Christian omni-God doesn't exist because there is too much evil and suffering", is just one example. Why is it sheer ignorance and stupidity? We don't know the plan, we don't know the rules, and said God is not beholden to our limiting definitions and limited understanding.

Alan Fox went off of the rails recently just because he was ignorant of what SETI is looking for. Because of his ignorance Alan challenged my claim they are searching for an artificial signal. This was to rebut the claim that only man-made things qualified as artificial. When dealing with an ignoramus of that magnitude many facts and inferences would look like spam.

Patrick May is another story. He is proud to be willfully ignorant of what ID says and what evolutionism* has. And he thinks that his ignorance is a position of power.

Neil Rickert firmly refuses to give any clue as to what he accepts and why. He just loves to falsely accuse me of doing something.

And Allan Miller is just totally clueless- sorry Allan couldn't resist. This guy denies the fact that the genetic code is a real code. He should be taken with all the seriousness of a YEC. He also ignorantly sez that men just want to "win". If by winning he means that the truth comes out and we finally get to openly figure out how we got here, then I am all for it. I don't care about points. I care about people supporting their claims or shutting the fuck up about it.

As Michael Shermer said if you want to say that living organisms arose via blind and mindless processes (physics and chemistry) then you first must assume that premise is false until demonstrated otherwise. And if you want to say that vision systems arose via natural selection, drift, neutral construction or any other blind and mindless process, then once again you have to assume that it is false until demonstrated otherwise. Evolutionists do not do that. They just say it, assume it and call it a day.

And yet I am accused of posting spam for pointing all of that out.

Guys, please hold your breath while waiting for me to send Patrick an email asking for reinstatement.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Sad but True- Biological Processes are Natural Cuz Someone Defined them that way

Seriously, I have an alleged scientist telling me that cuz biological processes are defined as natural that means all biological processes are blind and mindless. No research or science required to make that determination. Just a bald declaration from someone.

As if we needed more evidence that evolutionists are intellectual cowards and shit-eating ass-munchers.

Anything but have to support the claims of their unscientific position.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Joshua Swamidass Conflates Methodological Naturalism with Metaphysical Naturalism

Biologos' Joshua Swamidass has a blog post titled Why Methodological Naturalism? He says:
Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause,”without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN).
That's metaphysical naturalism that says that, not methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is dogma and as such cannot govern science. Science must be open and free.

Methodological naturalism just requires your claims to be physically testable. And seeing the design ID is talking about is physical and testable it meets the criteria.

Irreducible complexity can be observed, tested and that test can be repeated ad nauseum and it can be verified. That meets the standards of methodological naturalism.

Joshua Swamidass is just confused