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, June 09, 2017

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Process(es)- Revisited, Again

-
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
Yes, they can.

Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”. Also evolutionism is all about the how and when yet it cannot answer those questions scientifically. That must be what pisses them off and causes them to flail away at ID with their ignorance-> if they could support their position's claims ID would be refuted.

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.


All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.


Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

OMagain, Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it

-
OMagain is a special case of evoTARD. You can explain things to it but it never understands any of it. For example in a recent ignorant post OMagain sed:
ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.
That still has NOTHING to do with ID which is about the detection and study of intelligent/ intentional designs in nature. That has been explained to OMagain many, many times. We can and do detect intentional design without knowing nor asking those questions. And, as a matter of science, those questions are asked AFTER intentional design has been detected and is being studied.

OTOH OMagain's position is supposed to be all about those questions yet it cannot answer any of them. Go figure.

Then OMagain demonstrates more ignorance by saying that "It was just designed that way" doesn't add anything to our understanding. Saying something was designed eliminates entire classes of possible causes and focuses on one. It tells you there was intent, ie a purpose, behind the design. Does OMagain think that Stonehenge would be studied the same way if it was found to be a natural rock formation as it is now? Perhaps because OMagain is an ignorant ass.
ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. 
WRONG- ID is not anti-evolution. That said science mandates all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations before a design inference can be considered. This too has been explained to OMagain but its willful ignorance gets in the way every time.

And again, if these alleged skeptics applied their skepticism to their own position they would see it is nothing but untestable bullshit. If they actually had something they would just present it and that would refute ID. But they can't do that so they are forced to flail away like a bunch of ass-munching cowards.

The science of ID is the detection and study of intentional design in nature. Those other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end venue.
 

Sunday, June 04, 2017

Global Temps Spike as Liberals Blow Hot Air and Steam

-
Just when you thought global warming alarmism couldn't get any worse it does. After the POTUS rightfully pulled the US out of the Paris Climate accord liberals exploded sending global temperatures soaring and causing ice shelves to split off. LoL!

Too funny that we can't even properly predict the weather from week to week but morons think we can predict the climate years from now. And yes climate is driven by the weather. The alleged temperature increases are driven by the weather. Those daily weather temps are what provide the alleged global temps, which are then averaged to get the alleged yearly global temps used to compare against historical records.

Not only that we see daily changes in temperature of up to 50 degrees F and yet alarmists are worried about a 1.5 degree F increase in over 100 years. You want to see climate change in real time? Move to New England where the climate changes weekly. We have had spring temps in the winter and winter temps in the spring and fall. This past May we had a heat wave and well below average temps too. And guess what? The CO2 remained constant or increased during that period.

Blaming CO2 for global warming is short-sighted and demonstrates ignorance. Calling CO2 a pollutant is just plain ignorant. By that logic water vapor is also a pollutant yet we don't see anyone going there even though water vapor overpowers CO2 when it comes to greenhouse gasses.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Ignorant EvoTARDs- Still asking for Barriers to Macroevolution

-
EvoTARDs are so scientifically illiterate they are a pathetic lot. They still think that macroevolution is just accumulated microevolutionary events, albeit without evidence. Not only do they lack evidence for such an accumulation evolutionary biology has already demonstrated the two processes involve different genes and because of that macro-evolution is NOT the result of accumulations of micro-evolution:
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 (bold added)
Also it isn't up to anyone to show there is a barrier. That isn't how science works.  It is up to the people saying macroevolution is true to demonstrate it scientifically. But then again evolutionists are scientifically illiterate.

Microevolution involves the change in skin/ fur/ feather; hair color; eye color changes; detached earlobes; cleft chins; height; length- things that add variation to an existing population- ie traits (being human is not a trait). And varying traits does not lead to new body plans that require new body parts.

And pointing to Theobald for evidence of macroevolution just demonstrates desperation as he has been refuted time and again. Not only that he doesn't have any idea what pattern evolutionary processes would produce and his claims depend on patterns. Theobald wrongly claims that only branching processes can produce nested hierarchies and yet both Linnean taxonomy and the US Army are nested hierarchies that don't have anything to do with branching processes. EvoTARDs are too stupid to understand that


Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993
And yet evoTARDs use these simple models as evidence for Common Descent. Go figure...

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

keiths Finally Admits He is NOT a Rational Person

-
Yup, keiths said:
Rational people are motivated to align their beliefs with reason and evidence.
keiths' position doesn't have any evidence nor a testable methodology- meaning only irrational people would accept it and keiths accepts it.

There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase. There isn't any such evidence for the origin of life. Yet both life and ATP synthase exit and no amount of materialistic reasoning- itself an oxymoron- will ever change that fact.

keiths and science will never mix as keiths is hopelessly stuck on misrepresenting the Bible.

Patrick John May- Ignorant of Software

-
Software is immaterial. Like information it is neither matter nor energy all through it takes energy and matter to produce and store software. The point?Patrick John May sed:
How exactly does something “immaterial” cause material behaviors?
Software is something immaterial that causes material behaviours. Strange that Patty has a website called "software matters" and he didn't know that.

Patty is confused about the mind. He thinks that mind and brain are the same thing.
 

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Allan Miller is Confused

-
Common Descent remains an untestable concept. OTOH Common Design is an observation- observed many times over in our designing world. Common Design is a real thing whereas Common Descent only exists in the minds of the true believers. They think that an alleged theory of change can be confirmed by similarities. Total nonsensical bullshit.

The problem is no one knows what to expect from Common Descent. Given recombination and illions of generations almost any genetic pattern is possible. That is not so with a Common Design.

With Common Descent you need to account for the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed and to date no one can. And if you can't do that then you do not have a testable concept. And if you don't have a testable concept then you don't have science. Allan Miller ignores that and prattles on as if he knows what Common Descent expects.

see Allan Miller's unsupportable diatribe

The Firebirds of today did NOT evolve from the Firebirds of yester-years via natural selection, drift nor any other blind and mindless process. It was all accomplished via intentional design. All cars share a common design not just the same cars from different years. All houses built to the same building code will also have some degree of similarity as do all PC clones.

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Evolution is NOT Blind? Does Neil Rickert Support ID?

-
Neil Rickert said something that resonates with IDists:
I would not say “blind evolution was responsible.” And that’s because evolution is not blind. It cannot forsee[sic] the future, but it is adaptive to the present.
That isn't how evolution is promoted by evolutionary biologists. All mechanisms of evolution are both blind and mindless according to the experts. Only ID posits evolutionary mechanisms that are not blind and not mindless.

Neil is simply wrong but he will never admit it. Evolution is what you get when there is a change in allele frequency- it is a result just like natural selection. Evolution is the result of descent with modification.

The way evolution is being taught mutations just happen, they are blind to the needs of the organism (present and future needs). If a mutation or mutations just happen to produce some adaptive advantage then so be it. It wasn't trying to do so, it just happened. Contingent serendipity.

As Jerry Coyne wrote: 
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

Neil Rickert doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to science and evolution. But that is par for the course over on TSZ.