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, August 26, 2010

Cladistics and Common Design

Cladistics is a method of catergorizing organisms based on shared characteristics.

Each clade allegedly consists of a common ancestor and all of its descendents.

However we can also say that each clade consists of a common design and all its descendents.

All cars are descended from the originally created cars- descended by design.

All computers are descended, by design, from the originally created computers.

The closer the ancestry the more similarities.

And so it would go for living organisms.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Common Design in a Nutshell

Common design is observed all throughout our technological world.

That is because of standards that allow technology to work together.

For example many different printers will work with one PC- that is due to a common design.

Most PCs are very similar due to a common design.

Most cars are very similar due to a common design.

The list of such things is very long.

There isn't any need to keep re-inventing things, most times there are standards that must be adhered to and those standards drive the common design.

Designers can (and do) also take a part being used for one function in one system and use it for another function in another system.

So that is common design in a nutshell...

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Measuring Biological Information is Impossible?

Yup I have been told that measuring biological information is impossible even though I have produced a process that allows you to do so.

1- Find a biologically functional system.

2- Find out what genes and other DNA sequences are involved to make that system

3- Count their nucleotides

4- Multiply by 2

What is so impossible about it?

Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?


Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?


Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?


Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?


Is it impossible to multiply by 2?


So what is so impossible about it?

And what is even more troubling is all of that is moot if the evotards could just start substantiating the claims of their position.

Then the claims of "CSI requires a designer" are false and that is that.

But the evotards can't support their position and they think their intellectual cowardice and ignorance can refute ID.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

The Problem with Science is lying Scientists, like PZ Myers

PZ Myers has a blog post titled The Problem With Science Is Dumb Non-Scientists.

In that he says:
That's what scientists are supposed to do — demand solid evidence.

Oh the irony!

Too bad for PZ his position doesn't have any solid evidence.

PZ's position is nothing more than "anything but design, no matter what!"

Ya see PZ if you could produce positive evidence for your position non-scientists wouldn't have anything to say. But seeing all you have is bullshit bullying tactics people aren't buying it.

Monday, August 02, 2010

Oleg Tchernyshyov and "Sheikh" say that Homo sapiens are not members, ie elements, of the Animal Kingdom superset!

That is right- according to Oleg Tchernyshyov and "Sheikh, Homo sapiens are not members, ie elements of the Animal Kingdom superset.

Sorry but I can not explain why they say that.

All I can do is point out their "reasoning".

They have presented a set that contains a subset: {1,2,{3,4}}

That set contains 3 elements 1, 2 and {3,4}- (They do not understand that the element {3,4} contains elements 3 and 4 so they say that 3 and 4 are not elements of the larger set.)

Yet when one looks up a subset, we find:
In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B if A is "contained" inside B. A and B may coincide. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion or sometimes containment. Correspondingly, set B is a superset of A since all elements of A are also elements of B.

But anyway Homo sapiens are a subset deep inside of the Animal Kingdom superset.

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, species.

So by their "logic" Homo sapiens are not members of the Animal Kingdom because they are in a subset.

And these assholes are trying to teach me about set theory...