Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.
UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.
ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15412259_Conserved_machinery_of_the_bacterial_flagellar_motor
You are conflating “evolution” with “evolutionism”. ID is not anti-evolution.
Citation please.
Citation for what? I am the one using the word and that is how I am using it.
Sorry Joe, but actual biologists are not obligated to provide research and analysis on your strawman version of evolution. The link demonstrates quite specifically how we know what makes a human a human from a genetic standpoint.
What strawman version? Do tell or retract. And no, that link does not do as you say. Make your case
If it is all genetics then it should be very easy to manipulate fish embryos with targeted mutagenesis and eventually get a fish-a-pod to develop.
Jesus on a bicycle…research rarely addresses a theory Joe. Research focuses on hypotheses. Do catch up.
BS.
I asked for a link to the alleged theory of evolution. And quantification is the foundation of science. Science requires measurements. That is just a fact of life.
quatification:
I don’t care about evolutionism because there is no such thing in science.
That aside, your comment doesn’t address the fact that ID offers nothing.
You keep attributing it to Dawkins. Show where he uses it as you use it. Since I know he doesn’t, such invalidates your claims.
Address the research Joe. I’m not doing your homework for you.
LoL! Evolutionism refers to blind watchmaker evolution which refers to natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes producing the diversity of life. And you are right- it doesn’t belong in science.
And ID offers exactly what I said. Your denial is meaningless
Make your case – I am not doing your work for you
Dawkins used “blind watchmaker” he even wrote a book about it.
Evolutionism is merely what Dawkins calls blind watchmaker evolution. Period. End of story
Too right! Like when you calculate CSI?
Richardthughes,
What a dumb post. Why don’t you learn something.
phoodoo,
I’m trying!
You are a bit at times! 😉 Take the high ground!
Again, so what? His opinion isn’t based on any current work, so it’s not credible.
Oh the irony Joe! You might want to examine your attack of the messenger…
Please keep discussion of moderation issues in Moderation Issues.
Please also note that there is a rule against spamming.
Please further note that the one of the goals of this site is “to be a place where people could discuss controversial positions about life, the universe and everything with minimal tribal rancor”.
phoodoo,
I’ll enlarge on what is acceptable, here, for your benefit. It is fine to criticize and attack points made by other commenters. It is especially fine to add a justification or explanation for saying so. “Your statement is [insert pejorative of choice] because [insert reasoning]”.
ETA
As Patrick points out – repetition of bald unsupported assertions is spamming.
Cause and effect does not demonstrate the existence of unknown entities. Nice try.
This:
Evolution is a theory Joe. Theories are assessed by the quantification of the hypotheses underlying the theory. Your characterization of it is a strawman and thus your requests concerning evolution are invalid.
The link supports my point perfectly. That you have some cockamamie, non-scientific idea of validation for this “evolutionism” of yours is irrelevant to the actual acceptable validation methods within science. You’re welcome to learn what they are, but to complain that the references I’ve provided don’t support my point is just silly. Either address the elements in the link or stay foolish. I don’t really care which.
Yet another strawman. You might want to actually address what evolution claims can happen rather than some outdated “crocoduck” nonsense.
And I provided a very specific definition of and a link to said Theory of evolution. That you don’t know what a Theory is and how it’s presented is not my problem.
And again, this is a strawman. Hypotheses require quantification. Theories are supported by the hypotheses under them. Do learn the difference sometime Joe.
Fail Joe. If you can’t address the research, you have nothing.
So nothing actually about this “evolutionism”. So you’ve got nothing, huh Joe…oookaay.
Sorry Joe…those are just assertions. Show something that ID actually offers. Nothing? Exactly…
Still don’t care about your immature pedantics Joe. Either talk about actual science or address someone else with your strawmen.
What strawman, batman? I am sick of your false accusations
LoL! If you cannot show how the research supports the claim the BF evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes, YOU have nothing
Yes you are sorry, your opinion is not an argument and all you have is your opinion
LoL! AGAIN- I am telling you that the way I am using the word “evolutionism” is the same as Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker evolution”.
LoL! Please show any current research that refutes what he wrote in 2004. And please show me where I attacked the messenger and not the message
You don’t have any hypotheses with quantification. No one knows how many mutations it takes to get specific adaptations. No one knows how many mutations, nor how many generations it takes to get BF in a population that never had one.
I know what a theory is. You don’t
Already demonstrated. Address the post Joe.
BS- support your claims, batman
Didn’t offer an opinion Joe. I demonstrated by definition. Again you fail.
LoL! All you have is your opinion and all you do is flail
And again, I’m telling you that I don’t care about your immature pedantics Joe. It’s not a valid term and has nothing to do with what anyone in the science of evolution has ever said. So you’re claims about it are irrelevant.
Already did on both counts. Next.
LoL! It is a valid term and your whining is never going to change that. And Mayr used it!
Sorry Joe, but the links I provided demonstrate this claim is false. Try again.
Strawman again Joe. You don’t get to dictate what hypotheses and what quantifications are valid.
Your posts indicate otherwise.
Nope, no false accusation on my part. Your claim about evolution is a strawman as noted. You can either address it or your claims become invalid.
Frankie,
Remember those rules. Accusations of lying are against the rules here.
Robin
I know it’s a pain but as someone else is prone to claim “I already did” without a link, would it be unreasonable to suggest a link to the appropriate comment?
Equivocation Joe. Fail again.
Nope.
Moved a post to guano. Accusing other members of dishonesty is against the rules.