Monday, December 29, 2014

Yes you do need to prove Jackie's story, or at least support it.

A commentary on "We Don’t Need to Prove “Jackie’s” Story "

” When I heard that Jackie’s story was being questioned, though, my reaction was slightly different from that of my peers: My first thought was, “So what?” ”
So they already attacked the reputation of an entire frat and by extension everyone in it. They already shut down fraternity activities on the basis of this report. So it’s kinda important if it might not be true.

” but a larger part of me knows that the real devil is the rape culture that pervades college campuses.”
Then you should be looking at whether there is any evidence of said “rape culture” instead of claiming it doesn’t matter if an accuser told the truth. When Jackie’s word was undoubted, it mattered, it was evidence of both horrendous evil and official negligence of that evil. Now that it seems like her story isn’t true it’s irrelevant. Well which is it? Either accusations her case matters or it doesn’t. 

“it doesn’t matter if Jackie’s story is discrepant in some areas.”
Nor does it matter if those discrepancies prove it’s a load of codswallop. And that’s the point. You don’t care about the truth, so why should we listen to you?

“What matters is that I have lost count of the number of friends who have been assaulted in my three-and-a-half years on campus.”
Then why not write about their cases rather than one of the most inconsistent accounts of criminal activity I’ve heard since the Hilton Hotel bombing?

“nothing will change how her story rang true for too many college women. I know it rang true for me.”
Then it rang true despite obvious and serious contradictions. Which means we can’t take your word for it that any of the other cases that “ring true” for you are true.

“When I told this story to my friends recently, the men looked at me in disbelief. But the women nodded their heads in agreement, as every one of them had experienced something similar.”
Really? Every single women in your social group was sexually assaulted? Even assuming that we take feminist numbers seriously (and God knows that’s a stretch) how likely is it that everyone had that experience? Even if you told only 4 friends at 1 in 4 that’s a 1 in 64 chance that they were all assaulted. On the other hand how likely is it that they all heard stories like yours, maybe about a
“friend of a friend”? Quite likely. 

“Look up the pages upon pages of similar stories that women shared ”
Well the first one is similar in that it’s completely non-credible. She says that she decided to pursue it through the university because of privacy concerns, but “The police discouraged me from pursuing it criminally, saying that I didn’t have enough evidence to win.”. So which is it? Did the police tell you you had no chance or were you worried about the privacy?
The woman continues: “(I didn’t want future employers to Google me and see that I brought forward rape charges), ”
Really? That’s what she didn’t want employers to know? Is there any evidence that employers discriminate on that basis? Or did she not want them to know that she had made FALSE allegations? She claims she has all this evidence, yet nobody seemed to agree. She also claims that “Nicole Eramo … later told me she didn’t believe the studies that showed rapists, in particular, were repeat offenders of this heinous crime. “. Is that likely? Is it likely that someone would dispute a well-known statistic that isn’t disputed by anyone I know of, even MRAs who dispute almost everything feminists say is true. Look kindly stop taking anonymous reports as gospel and we’ll all be better off.

“One questionable account does not change the fact that the problem with rape cases isn’t false reporting; it’s underreporting. ”
Right because there can only be one problem with rape cases. Tell that to Brian Banks you ludicrous “reporter”.

“This is what we should take from Jackie’s story, whether it’s fully accurate or not:”
Or indeed accurate at all or not.

“Being a woman on a college campus today means feeling, at times, threatened, abandoned and scared. ”
No that’s not what you can take from this story. What you can take from it is that women can get their accusations taken seriously despite massive holes in their story, and whole fraternities of men can get punished unjustly and people like you don’t even apologize.
If you want to take the another lesson from a story, find another story. Or make one up, AGAIN. And yes I’m implying that you made up the story of your sexual assault.

Saturday, December 06, 2014

The vacuity of "Biology Of Intelligent Design " by Edgar A. Postrado

I have viewed the free kindle portion of the book mentioned in the title.  It is shit beyond all belief.
P1When Richard Dawkins and his colleagues had cut the neck of the dead giraffe to study its laryngeal nerve, Dawkins said, “No engineer would ever make a mistake like that”. (playing time, 0:41 ∼ 0:43)
P2In addition, at the end of the video [entitled “Richard Dawkins Explains The Imperfection of the Giraffe”], Richard Dawkins said, “Remember that a

designer, an engineer can go back to the drawing board, throw away the old design, start fresh that looks more sensible. A designer has foresight, evolution

can’t go back to drawing board. Evolution has no foresight.” (playing time, 3:50 ∼ 4:04) . Engineer! Engineering in biology! Thus, a person who has an

engineering degree like me could solve or scientifically explain “structural problems” in biology since an engineer was quoted as a reasonable or reliable

person in the design of any structures. Thank you, Richard Dawkins!"
Well no you've misunderstood the quote, which isn't that hard to understand. What the engineer would have to explain is why things like the giraffe's laryngeal nerve grow as they do. Engineering doesn't help you there since anyone with any training in engineering or the intelligence to figure things out for themselves would realise that it's a bad design. What helps is knowing about the theory of evolution and why it explains how a structure could be preserved even if it isn't the structure an engineer would pick for it's task. That you misunderstood something so basic doesn't bode well.

“It is true that an engineer is both a scientist and an engineer since an engineer uses science and mathematics to construct, in my case, any structures for human’s usage.”
Using science doesn't make you a scientist. Using the scientific method to discover things does.

“thus, I think that I am the most qualified person on earth in science so far to discuss biological structures in biology.”
And yet you failed to understand the significance of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve and what knowledge you need to understand it's significance.

"P5In Chapter 1. Focusing Science. “This chapter will show you how our real scientists conduct science – real science. The same technique that I used in dethroning the Theory of Evolution (ToE).
This chapter will tell you how Intelligent Design could replace an erroneously reigning theory by the discovery of the categorization process (or universal boundary line, UBL) of all X in the entire natural realm.”
A categorisation process will have no effect on the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter what categories you put things into, they either have the qualities they have or they don't. These qualities either conform to the ToE and no other or they don't. You simply don't understand even the basics of how science is done.

“The figure was posted in the online discussion forum since many people believed that the Theory of Evolution was poised to be replaced by religious leaders in the opposing camps. That means, there are really a fierce debate between the proponents of ToE and the other camps in biology.”
There is no such “fierce debate”. There is believers in Darwinian Evolution and fringe nutters.

“For example, Einstein had assumed that the speed of light was constant in the universe (in a vacuum) and used this assumption to calculate his general relativity, GR.”
No he showed that the physics only works if the speed of light is constant. He did the absolute opposite of assuming something.

P1/P66 The Theory of Evolution (ToE) was really very, very, very hard to be falsified. ToE was grounded and was hidden in a camouflaged hiding place – 'insulated place'. Our scientists had camouflaged ToE unknowingly for the span of 160 years! “
No you lying piece of shit they have not done anything of the kind. They've openly declared what ToE is and what it means, and published the explanation in book after book.

“P2 Science has made a lot of many assumptions and initial conditions for any hypotheses or explanations.”
Such as what? What was assumed in the formulation of the ToE?

“The first assumption was started by Darwin and was replaced and upgraded by the new generation scientists many times to conform to the “camouflaged” evidences.”
What assumption you lying shit?

“The original name for Darwin’s theory was “Darwinian Evolution. The changes that they had made were sometimes named as “Neutral Darwinism”, “Social Darwinism”, “Universal Darwinism”, and “Neo-Darwinian Evolution”. “
The fact that you have not idea what “social Darwinism" is and therefore included it among names for the ToE shows how ignorant you are. But none of these names were used to disguise the ToE.

“P3 Nevertheless, I will show you how the Intelligent Design had discovered that those assumptions of ToE were partly, if not all, wrong (thus falsified) and must be replaced with another, new scientific assumptions for our scientific knowledge of the natural world. “
What assumptions you massive dickhead?

“P5 By scientific definition, as being used by science and ToE’s scientists, “evolution” is simply defined as “change over time”. That is how ToE’s scientists define “evolution” in a simplest and easiest way. But in biology, the word “evolution”, as one “word”, refers to “biological evolution”. However, when scientists used that in general topics in science, the meaning is always mostly the same – biological evolution. “
Right so stop wasting our time and tell us what the definition of “biological evolution is, since that's what we're talking about.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 [06]
Great you could have just led off with that.

“P7 Biologists in our current naturalistic science”
Which is to say in our current science because science by definition is naturalistic.

“P8  Scientists from ToE’s camp normally use the term “evolution” with some combinations like,
“micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. “
Who “normally uses the term evolution with combinations like “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” besides creationist frauds?

“P10 Let me show you why ToE must be replaced through series of falsifications.”
And if you can let me nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

“Falsification and Collapse of ToE 1:
ToE’s false assumption about “intelligence” and its application.
P11These are the primary reasons why the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not scientifically correct and must be replaced. To camouflage ToE unknowingly, the topic of intelligence was deliberately neglected and separated in biological sciences or related fields. ToE had “erroneously assumed” the followings:
P121. “Intelligence” postdates evolution –ToE scientists implied indirectly and assumed scientifically that intelligence has nothing to do in biology.”
The ToE does not assume that intelligence postdates evolution. They simply don't need intelligence to explain evolution and see no evidence for it before life evolved intelligent beings. That's not the same as assuming there was no intelligence before life evolved it. If there was intelligence before there was life that would not affect the evidence for evolution or the validity of the theory.
Secondly you claim that it “falsely” assumes that intelligence postdates evolution, but where is the evidence of intelligence before evolution? There is none you lying fraud.

“ToE assumed that before intelligence or its principles were formed, or even before the living organisms were formed on the face of the planet earth, intelligence - as an idea, a principle, and a concept - did not exist.”
No it simply didn't find any evidence that they did because there is none.
“ That is the reason why ToE ignored “intelligence” in all of its explanation in biological science. “
No they ignored it because it's not necessary for the theory. If there was something in biological
science that required intelligence to explain it you'd just mention that instead of this long smear of bullshit about what the ToE assumes.

“In addition, the second reason was the difficulties of knowing “intelligence”. Scientists who endorse ToE deliberately ignored the topic of “intelligence” due to ignorance of intelligence. “
No the ignored it because it was irrelevant. There was no need to think about the presence of intelligence before evolution of intelligent living beings because there is no evidence of it.

“P13 However, when simple scientific experiment of raw egg and tissue papers in Intelligent Design was made (as shown in the book “The New Intelligent Design , Turning The Scientific World Upside Down”), this assumption of ToE was found to be incorrect.”
Ok I'm calling bullshit on this claim, because if someone had found evidence of intelligence existing before life they'd again, get the Nobel prize. Again you're a lying piece of shit.

“Before complete life forms existed, DNA and cell must exist first.”
Nope, there is no evidence that the first life had either DNA or a cell, now fuck off until you've done basic research.

“And they both follow this pattern X + X’, a pattern for any intelligently designed objects (intellen) of Intelligent Design . “
And a pattern which you haven't defined in this book, conveniently leaving it in a book I can't read without paying for it. Needless to say nothing about these supposed patterns was subject to peer review or any other method of sorting out bullshit from truth.

“P14 The correct scientific assumption and explanation is, "Intelligence predates evolution since Intelligent Design had detected that intelligence, as principle of creating universe and life, was used in the origin of both universe and life." “
You're stating the conclusion as an argument you shitty, shitty person.

“P15 By how? Life has a defense mechanism, cell has a defense mechanism,”
So what? They evolved AFTER life already existed.

“and the universe had the ratio of matter to anti-matter that both denote as the
product of asymmetrical phenomena (X + X’),”
A term which you've made up which means nothing. Yet again you're hoping people will buy your other shitty book to learn what this actually means. Spoiler alert, it's still bullshit.

“which falls into the category of intelligence (intellen), and not purely natural process (PNP) or naturen.”
HOW DO YOU KNOW? You seem to be saying that when something has more of something than something else that proves that there is intelligence. That's obvious bunkum and only a really deluded creep like you would know that.

“Therefore, ToE is incorrect and is falsified.”
Non sequitor and a half.

“ToE assumed that intelligence did not exist or if it existed, could not be accounted for the appearance of new species i.e. speciation.”
Again it does not assume that. It simply observes that it's completely unnecessary to explain the observed phenomena.

“Since intelligence was very hard to be defined and the understanding of intelligence was still obscure, ToE’s scientists or scientists in the field of biology and its related fields, deliberately neglected “intelligence”, assuming that intelligence, as principle, had no role in speciation.”
You know retard if you would stop repeating your moronic lies there would be room in this book for the definitions of the shit you use to try to disprove evolution and I wouldn't have to guess what you meant.

“ ToE’s scientists could not even differentiate “natural” to “supernatural” scientifically. “
By definition “supernatural” isn't scientific you moron.

“P17The correct scientific assumption and explanation is: intelligence is not the product of evolution since before “life” could evolve and living organism could produce intelligence, the defense mechanism of DNA,”
What “defence mechanicism are you talking about you fucking retard? Are you talking about some sort of immune system? Or a DNA error-checking system? Because there's no evidence of either existing before evolution worked to create them.

Again, you're assuming the first life had cells for which you have no evidence.

“or life was already existing – a typical asymmetrical phenomenon (X + X’) that falls into
the category of intelligence.”
No it doesn't. You can't just say “asymmetrical phenomenon” and then claim intelligence you fucktard.

“In addition, defense mechanism too of all species is part of intelligence since it follows this pattern (X + X’).”
What defence mechanisms, you lying little shit? And where is the evidence they did not evolve?

“Thus in speciation, intelligence is being used.”
No you lying little shit not “thus” you haven't even talked about speciation.

“P183. Intelligence has no role in making X, for whatever X is subject for study in science. “
Again, not an assumption.

“Since our current science did not yet discover the real intelligence and its definition,”
What real intelligence? So far you haven't shown any evidence of intelligence.

“then, categorizing or classifying an X event, phenomenon, or process was very difficult since there would be no basis for this classification.”
And there still isn't you lying little toad.

“ Carl Linnaeus did not yet discover Eventonomy, or the real Intelligent Design, together with Taxonomy,”
And nobody else has either because it's shit like everything else that you've bullshitted on about.

“thus, every time ToE’s scientists explained a process or event, it would always have one categorization, natural process or natural event - without intelligence.”
And that always worked fine. If there was any event or process that couldn't be explained without intelligence you'd mention it, but you don't because you're LYING.

“Because of this dilemma, all X events (or processes) were all non-intelligent events since there were no criteria for intelligence.”
You don't need a criteria for intelligence to distinguish events requiring it from events that don't. It's quite clear that EbyNS isn't intelligent, if there was anything that wasn't explained by it you haven't shown it.

“There were also no criteria to differentiate non-intelligence from intelligence. “
Other than of course people who realise you're talking shit and people who don't.

“P19That assumption (listed as P18 No. 3) in naturalistic science is not correct since intelligence had already been defined and detected by Intelligent Design .”
No it hasn't, you can't just claim you've discovered something and expect us to believe it you useless waste of shit.

“Intelligence too was detected prior to the existence of all living organisms and prior to the origin of universe since this pattern (X + X’) was detected.”
What fucking pattern you lying piece of filth?

“P20 Thus, ToE had been falsified and collapsed since ToE’s explanation in naturalistic science was incorrect by using incorrect assumptions. “
Repeating this doesn't make it true.

“Falsification and Collapse of ToE 2:
The false assumption of the non-existence of Intelligent Agent (IA) or if Intelligent exist, IA does not use intelligence’s principle.
P21Naturalistic science had not yet “proven” or “shown” that “God or Intelligent Agent” exist or not (by searching the entire universe).”
They don't need to. All they need to do is show there is no evidence for it, and they have.

“Naturalistic science had no way of testing the existence of those deities because no method of categorizing of things (like using intelligence, as one method) had been used.”
Well if there's no way of testing it then it's unverifiable bullshit. So fuck off. But science can categorise intelligence, and could detect it if there was any evidence. The problem is you're insane and think that categories prove things. They do not, they only DESCRIBE things already known or suspected to exist.

“Therefore, the current science has no power or no knowledge to either denounce or renounce those God, deities, or the likes, as real or unreal.”
They can however point out that none of the claims about God, deities etc. have any evidence for them, and they have. Of course you don't care because you're a lying shit.

“In addition, naturalistic science did not yet find, did not yet discover, or did not yet disclose intelligence. Thus, it had no categorization method at all.”
Oh fuck off with your categories.

“P22 Intelligence was too elusive and too hard for our science and scientists to know. Therefore, the easiest way was to assume that intelligence and “God” or “Intelligent Agent” did not exist based on ignorance.”
No it's not that the easiest thing was to assume that, it's just that there is no evidence of it and those claiming something exists have to provide evidence.
And that brings me to the end of the free bullshit.  God I hate this man and the asshole who made me look him up.