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, September 16, 2016

How to Challenge Evolutionism in US Courts

-
First step in challenging evolutionism in US Courts would be to challenge any and all teachers of evolutionism to show you how to test the claims it makes. Start with the letter 'A' and ATP synthase. Ask the teachers how to test the claim that natural selection, drift or any other stochastic process produced it. Then move down the alphabet with every other complex protein system, subsystem, organ or organism. Then once you find they don't have any idea how to do so you have proven evolutionism is not science as its claims cannot be tested and you attempt to have it thrown out of the science curriculum. That is when the US Courts may have to get involved unless the schools relent and realize they have a problem.

Challenge all teachers to show you how evolutionism is science and you will see that they cannot. And all teachers with any integrity should then stand with you in getting it out of the science classrooms. If they don't then take it to the Courts.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Hands from Fins? More EvoTARD Nonsense

-
Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor. Too bad t6hat Shubin cannot tell us how those HOX genes evolved in the first place and also too bad he completely neglects the most probable cause of HOX similarity- a Common Design.

Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it isn't* the type that evoTARDs think.

Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.

But anyway perhaps the evos will try to actually test this latest grand claim by manipulating the gar genome to find out if hands will develop. I doubt it as they never actually try to test their claims.

*HT Jerad

Monday, April 25, 2016

Deflategate and Science Ignorance

-
When it comes to science judges are the worst people to ask to make decisions about its implications. Take deflategate and the alleged tampering of footballs by the Patriots. The science says nothing was tampered with and all was within the limits of what was to be expected. Also the evidence says that the Patriots did not have any advantage as the footballs were inflated at halftime and the Patriots stomped the Colts in the second half.

1- No evidence of tampering
2- No evidence for any advantage gained

So what was Brady guilty of besides winning?

Even a middle school student proved there wasn't any tampering. So why are judges so fucking stupid and ignorant? Clearly the judges had their minds made up before hearing the appeal.

It is a sad day for the American judicial system. Judges Barrington D. Parker and Denny Chin choked and proved they are ignorant and possibly corrupt. Chin is especially one ignorant asshole who definitely had his mind made up before the case was even heard.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Jerry Coyne's Strange Faith

-
Jerry Coyne's strange faith has all living organisms as just bags of molecules. That also means that scientists are not very smart as they cannot produce life from non-life when it should be easy given Coyne's assessment.

It is so funny watching atheists bash religion all the while all but admitting their position rests on nothing but faith.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Information, Probability and DNA- Responding to Smilodon's Retreat

-
Smilodon's Retreat has a recent post titled Information, Probability, and DNA. In it the author attempts to poke holes in the argument from probabilities wrt DNA sequences. The author's first mistake was pointing to the genetic code as his position doesn't have anything to explain its existence. That isn't the entire problem. In order to function the genetic code requires several macromolecular machines. But I digress...

And that’s interesting, because you can make some pretty massive changes to that DNA sequence and still get the exact same protein.
Actually you can get the same amino acid sequence but we already know that so-called silent mutations, mutations that change the codon sequence but not the represented amino acid,  can change the protein, ie the folded shape that allows for functionality.

The author babbles on about that proteins are able to withstand variation and still perform the same function. Does this moron not understand that his position requires variation that leads to new functions and forms? But that isn't even the point.

The point is the only reason probability arguments exist is due to the fact that the author's position doesn't have any way to scientifically test its claims. And if you ask me his position doesn't even deserve a seat at probability discussions.

Friday, February 19, 2016

RichardTHughes is an Ignorant Asshole and Proud of it

-
Yup, he is at it again. Read the ignorant spewage:

 CSI (the S part) is defined as existing if natural explanations are ruled out.
That is incorrect and proves Richie is a willfully ignorant asshole. CSI exists regardless of what caused it- See Dembski, "No Free Lunch" 2004. It is just that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via an intelligent agency. Add to that the fact that no one even knows how to test the claim that mother nature can produce CSI and we get a design inference.

Not even in Dembski's 2005 paper on "Specification" is there anything that says what Richie spews. The point of that paper was to see if specification alone can be used to warrant a design inference. And that is where what Richie says comes into play. Specification only warrants a design inference once stochastic processes have been ruled out for its existence.

However Richie is way too stupid to understand that.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Kevin McCarthy- Clueless Pinhead

-
In a new blog post Kevin spews:
I’m over 70,000 words in and basically finished explaining how genetics actually works. 
Earth to Kevin- you are too stupid to explain how genetics actually work. You are not a geneticist. You are not a biologist. The best that you can do wrt to genetics is parrot what the experts have already written. And it is a given that you don't grasp much of that. Heck just a few years ago Kevin was too stupid to grasp the genetics pertaining to the alleged transition to humans. Humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48. One chromosome allegedly fused and upon mating with a like organism without the fusion the offspring would have had 47. Kevin fought and fought against that until someone he trusted corrected him.

Heck it is a given that Kevin doesn't understand why gene binding sites has to be hundreds to thousands of nucleotides away from the gene in eukaryotes. It has to do with the way the DNA is coiled. Once coiled the binding site actually ends up next to the gene. The alleged junk DNA helps make that so.

Kevin is also a psychic as further down he spews:
In the US, when a legislator says “students should be allowed to make up their own mind”, what they really mean is “students should be taught that evolution is wrong and the Bible is correct”.
Kevin knows bullshit. That is about it. Kevin is too stupid to grasp that ID is not anti-evolution. He is too stupid to grasp the fact that being anti blind watchmaker evolution (a term he thinks is a strawman even though Dawkins, someone who understands evolution more than Kevin ever will, coined the term and its meaning) does not make it anti-evolution. Kevin is the worst type of enemy of science- the type that refuses to listen to the facts and doesn't give a shit about evidence. And Kevin refuses to examine his chosen belief with the same scrutiny that he examines the material he disagrees with

I agree with Kevin in that students should not be able to make up their minds as to what they want to be taught. However I urge all students to challenge their teachers who spew the gospel of evolutionism. Ask your teachers how to test the claims of evolutionism. Ask them how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction. And then tell the teachers if it cannot be tested it isn't science and does not belong in a science classroom.