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

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Easily Refuting RichTARD Hughes- The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
Intelligent Design makes testable claims. And these claims are tested and can be potentially falsified via Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, AKA Occam’s Razor/ parsimony.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
This tells you not only what to look for- the positive case- but also follows Newton and Occam in that if you can slice off the designer by showing that mother nature, father time and their offspring, emergence are all that is required, the design inference is refuted.
Both IC and CSI are examples of work and counterflow. Neither can exist without the intervention of an intelligent agency.
What is irreducible complexity? Wm. Dembski in No Free Lunch, refined the definition as:
IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Proof that Jerad is an Ignorant Fuck

My months I have been arguing with Jerad about the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. He has failed, miserably, to support the claim that the concept has any use at all. However that has not stopped him from posting references that have nothing to do with that concept and saying that it refutes my claim.

Jerad is such a clueless little-minded fool he actually posted:

You can't even understand Wikipedia articles which clearly state that countability is a core concept of Cantor's work which is foundational to modern mathematics. 
I never claimed anything to the contrary and that has nothing to do with what I am saying. And the sad part is he thinks he has made some winning point.

The concept of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is a useless concept as it does not have any utility. And Jerad is upset because he cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Thursday, November 05, 2015

Why is Richard Tard Hughes so Angry?

It: was another blustery day

Little Richie Hughes finds himself on the pitch, in his school shorts, shirt and tie, with the ball at his feet and twelve meters from the goal. He is wondering what the fuck is happening as no one has ever passed him the ball and he was watching the birds setting off for the south. He is snapped back to reality by overwhelming shouts for him to kick the ball with some yelling for him to kick it in the goal. Little Richie has never had the ball before let alone score a goal! So all at once he turned and with his mightiest of kicks Little Richie scored, only to have his best friend knock him down for kicking the ball past him for an own goal.

From thence on Richie was a cupcake and his friends let him know it every day.

Jonathan MS Pearce is an Ignorant Sack and Proud of it

Jonathan MS Pearce is just another in a long line of clueless evoTARDs. It is clear that he doesn't know jack about science and even more obvious tat he doesn't know jack about the claims of his opponents. Case in point: SCIENTISTS OBSERVE WASPS EVOLVING INTO NEW SPECIES. Pearce is so ignorant that he doesn't understand that Creationists accept that speciation occurs. They call it "variation within a Kind".

Will Pearce ever acknowledge his mistake? No way. He bans people who prove that he is a clueless and dickless punk. The sad part is this is the norm for evoTARDs.

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Yes, the Genetic Code is Evidence for Intelligent Design

EvoTARDs are so predictable. Show them evidence for ID and all they do is whine and deny. However they will never step up and demonstrate physicochemical processes can produce what ID says was designed. Case in point-> the genetic code.

We say the genetic code is evidence for ID for the simple and scientific reasoning as follows:

1- In all of our experiences and observations codes always originate from intelligent agencies. Codes have the attributes of work and counterflow. And those attributes have been used for centuries to detect design.

2- No one would even know how to model nature producing a code. Such a thing would be like saying nature can produce computer codes.

3- Therefor it is safe to infer an intelligent agency produced a code when we do not know the who did it.

Science 101. And that inference can be refuted if someone ever steps up and actually demonstrates that nature can produce it.