Intelligent Reasoning


Thursday, May 31, 2012

Transcription, Translation and Intelligent Design- a Hint for Elizabeth Liddle

Transcription and translation- what Upright Biped calls a semiotic process because we have one molecule representing another, ie a code- is evidence for Intelligent Design because it requires knowledge to carry out. Knowledge of what, when and how to transcribe as well as what, when and how to translate. And as we already know, synthetic ribosomes just do not function, which means it takes something more than matter and energy to make a functioning ribosome.


… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)





Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!


Transcription and Translation-









Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration. And guess what? Many proteins require chaperones in order to fold correctly- another egg-chicken problem.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process. Again all of this takes knowledge to accomplish.

So the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Why Darwinism is Incompatible with Christianity, Judaism and Islam

This also means that a "Christian Darwinist" is an oxymoron:

As if it had to be said-



Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.



click here for a hint:


Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Evolutionism- Evolution is Directed by the Surviving Reproducers





38 Nobel Laureates say:







Thanks for the honesty Will.

Unfortunately ignorant evoTARDs still think natural selection is some sort of magical ratchet. Pure genius...

Neil Rickert- Ignorant or just Plain Stupid?

Neil Rickert- a person I have come to know on blogs- a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science nor the theory of evolution.

Neil has a blog post in which he sez that Creationsists made-up the part about Darwinism "is intended, more than anything else, to demonstrate that teleology, or purpose, can be eliminated from our theoretical understanding of the living world".

Earth to Neil- read "On the Origins of Species..." by Charles Darwin. The whole purpose of that book was to take teleology out of biology. Natural selection was Darwin's designer-mimic, Neil.

Neil also sez that mechanistic explanations are more useful for the scientist (than teleology).

What does that even mean? Does that mean teleology cannot be mechanistic?

Are non-telic explanations more useful to scientists even when non-telic processes could not account for what we are investigating?

But anyway Neil bloviates about Creationists' strawman version of the toE but he never really says what it is nor does he provide any evidence to support his claim of a strawman- typical for a cowardly evoTARD.

And Neil- scientists do not know if they observe random genetic changes. They just speculate they are random because the scientists are basically ignorant.

Monday, May 21, 2012

EvoTARDs' Transparent Lunacy

Elizabeth Liddle has a blog entry in which she tries to argue that a sculptured statue (of David) refutes the claim that merely throwing stuff out created the statue and therefor refutes Gil Dodgen's claim that throwing stuff out isn't creative.

This is all in reference to natural selection, which is a result, basically eliminative and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately none of the evoTARDs making and trying to support that argument will be testifying in any Court case involving the "theory" of evolution.

Just how fucking stupid and dishonest can people be to compare an agency intentionally designing something to a blind and mindless result?

It is obvious that Elizabeth is bitter over being dumped from Uncommon Descent and will just say anything in order to strike back. Too bad she just whiffs and strikes out.

An Obtuse Moron Wants DNA Translated into English

Just when you thought evoTARDs couldn't get any dumber- I give you an obtuse moron asking for DNA to be translated into English:

Exactly this. I’ve asked ID supporters many times to translate some DNA into English for me.

Only a moron would think such a thing is possible, and here we have OMTWO.

It goes on to say:
Languages/codes have the property that they can be translated into other languages and retain their meaning (mostly)

Yes, DNA gets transcibed into RNA and that RNA gets translated into a polypeptide, ie something that is neither DNA nor RNA.

Biology 101 you ignorant wanker.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Elizabeth Liddle, Still Asking the Wrong Question

Yup Elizabeth is still confused. Instead of trying to explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation she asks:

I wonder if Upright thinks that protein synthesis is necessary for self-reproduction i.e. heredity?

No, it isn't but self-reproduction with heredity does not explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation, ie the semiotic state. And as Dr Joyce pointed out self-replication doesn't lead to any new functions, meaning you lose, again, as usual.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Skin Flint- Just Another Ignorant EvoTARD

EvoTARD ignorance knows no bounds. Over on "The Deceitful Zone" Upright Biped is trying to discuss a semiotic theory of ID. The basics are a codon of nucleotides codes for- not produces- an amino acid.

So what does skin flint the evoTARD spew? One atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen produce one molecule of H2O. What a fucking imbecile.

The funniest part of all of this is not one other evoTARD can grasp what is wrong with skin flint's "example.

EvoTARD cluelessness at its finest...

Origin of Life and a RNA World- Only in the Imagination

Ever since RNA was found to be a catalyst the "RNA World" was imagined. In the imagination the "RNA World" grew and prospered. However in the real world it withered and died. The imagination paid no heed.

How/ why did this alleged RNA World wither and die? Well in all cases of any self-sustained replication of RNAs or with self-replicating RNA ligases, the products did NOT undergo Darwinian evolution. That is the products did what the original did, even if the products contained variations:

A self-replicating ligase ribozyme

All of the chemical self-replication systems that have been described, including the ribozyme-based system of the present study, are not capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

That is also true of Joyce's more recent experiment involving a self-sustained replication of RNAs. Nothing new evolved.

Ahh but the materialists do not need no stinking evidence. They have their imagination. And in their imagination RNA does evolve new functions and can even intergrate with amino acids and polypeptides to form ribosomes which can then crank out more polypeptides.

Unfortunately ribosomes do not appear to be reducible to matter and energy. I say that because synthesized ribosomes- made up of the same matter and energy as ribosomes in living organisms, do not function. Even if we just synthesize the RNA component the ribosome refuses to function as the ribosome in living organisms.

Why is that so? I say it is due to programming- as in the ribosomes of living organisms are programmed to crank out certain polypeptides. And the program, as with information, is neither matter nor energy.

So the bottom-line is if any RNA World existed it existed in the designer's lab.

Monday, May 14, 2012

What is Science?


What is science?

It has been said that neither I nor any IDist understands science. With that in mind, the following is my understanding of science. For some reason Lizzie Liddle wouldn't allow this to be posted, oh well-






As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence and the existence of whatever is being investigated, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

Science asks 3 basic questions:
What’s there?


How does it work?


How did it come to be this way?


So how do we do that? We use our senses. We make observations. We try to figure things out, i.e. we try to understand what we observe and/ or sense. This “thing” we are trying to understand could be an object, event, structure or phenomena. And we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help guide us.
We formulate an idea as to how it works and we devise a way to test that idea. If successful we have others check our work. If they like it, it gets published. However not getting published is not a falsification nor refutation of the idea or the data.

How do we test an idea? We break it down into something that is measure-able. In industry this is done via Six Sigma’s DMAIC- Define (the customer’s requirements), (Figure out how to) Measure (them); Analyze (the requirements and measuring systems); Improve (the process to reach the goal); Control (the process).

In science we define what it is we are observing.-> rocks, life, populations or individual organisms, planets, stars, motion, falling, abruptly stopping, etc.
Analyze all work to date for errors and/ or improvements.



More from the NCSE linked to U Berkley website on Evolution:

Nature of Science:


It continues:


On science and the supernatural:



”-- (Dr. Behe)

The point being is that science cares only about reality and there is only one reality behind our existence.

Agreements? Objections? Corrections? Bloviations?

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Patrick May- Just Another Deceitful and Cowardly EvoTARD

Patrick May, AKA MathGrrl, is just another deceitful piece-of-shit evoTARD.

That's right, MathGrrl was a guy who posted as a "girl" to see if that would have something to do with the responses it received. Unfortunately for Patrick its gig was up, ie its agenda was exposed, in the first few of its posts.

Ya see MathGrrl wanted a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI. So I asked it for some mathematically rigorous definitions for its position so we could compare and it couldn't keep moving the goal-posts. In typical cowardly fashion it refused to do so.

When I informed Patrick/ MathGrrl that a computer program is CSI and cannot be expressed via rigorous mathematics, it ignored that. When I provided a definition of CSI that has more mathematical rigor than anything its position has to offer, it refused it without reason.

Why am I bringing up Patrick May now? Well Patrick is one of the proud evoTARDs running lose on "The Deceitful Skeptical Zone", talking about evidence as if his position has some that supports it. Strange that when pressed Patrick just ran and hid behind Lizzie's skirt like the little coward he is.

Good job Patrick...

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog

The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Congratulations Lizzie- well done...

Monday, May 07, 2012

The Design Inference- Why it matters- revisited, again

Seems like a good time to bring this up again:















** from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific- HT Nick Matzke

Over on Uncommon Descent we have none other than Nick Matzke saying:

So, I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events,...

I agree with that so I won’t be presenting any argument against it.

In the usual course of events agencies, and only agencies, are responsible for complex specified information and irreducibly complex configurations.

Thanks Nick...