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, January 30, 2015

Richie Hughes- Still Choking on the EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

Poor Richie, he still doesn't understand that his position needs to provide the "H" even though it is Dembski's equation. Einstein didn't provide all the "E"'s and "M"'s for his E=MC^2. Pythagoras also used variables for a reason.

 P(T|H)- This is a conditional probability equation with the "H" referring to any and all known necessity and chance hypotheses, which includes Richie's position. If Richie's position had something more, like actual evidence as opposed to throwing father time around to solve all woes, the equation would be moot. However our opponents have nothing but a change in allele frequency so Dembski produced a formula to help flesh out the probability of our opponents' claims.

In case you have forgotten "H" includes natural selection (which includes random, as in happenstance, mutations). And if someone could model natural selection producing something like ATP synthase, we wouldn't need the formula. If someone could produce testable hypotheses for natural selection producing ATP synthase we would  perhaps only need the formula to see if it checks out.

However our opponents don't have any of that so Dembski's formula is front and center. However just because it is Dembski's formula they mistakenly think that he/ we have to provide all of the numbers- as if we have to cover their ass.

And then they whine about no one calculating CSI AFTER we provide a peer-reviewed paper that dos that with respect to biology.

Never in the history of this planet has there been a more ignorant and dishonest group of self-promoting people than the opponents of ID.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Of CSI and Ignorant EvoTARDs

Intelligent Design's opponents are so pathetically ignorant they don't seem to understand that they don't need to worry about CSI nor ID as all they have to do is actually step up and find some way to support unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution and ID would fade away.

So why do they harp on CSI? Because they don't have any idea how to find support for their position!

ID's opponents are pathetic little imps

Saturday, January 03, 2015

On The NON-Circularity of CSI

Intelligent Design's opponents are so willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate it is pathetic. Now they are saying that CSI (Complex Specified Information) is a circular argument. However reality refutes that claim as CSI exists REGARDLESS of what caused it.

The argument for intelligent design via CSI is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some intelligent agency- ALWAYS. And there has never been an observed instance of nature, operating freely, producing CSI- NEVER. Enter science- science takes that as whenever we observe CSI and don't know the cause we can safely scientifically infer it was via some intelligent agency.

So where is this alleged circularity? Obviously it is only in the minds of our willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate opposition.

ETA: ID's opponents are so lame they don't even understand what "nature, operating freely" means. Wow, just wow.

Friday, January 02, 2015

The "Arrival of the Fittest" has Arrived

OK it looks like the "Arrival of the Fittest" will be my first book I read this year that allegedly supports evolutionism. However it isn't starting out so good with the author talking about the "power" of natural selection- NS has proven to be impotent and then also saying that natural selection means only the best adapted get through its filter- we know anything that is good enough gets through. Hopefully he was just paraphrasing Darwin but we will find out as I am only in the first chapter.

The author does refute keith s's contention that unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy- and yes, that also means Andreas Schueler owes me $10,000 (US).

The book makes a big promise and we will see if it delivers.