ID is Dead (Again)

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.

451 thoughts on “ID is Dead (Again)

  1. Frankie: As for the Creationists they say the diversity today evolved from the originally created kinds

    Presumably those created kinds were not created all that long ago? What do those Creationists say about that?

    And are you not disproving your case by referencing that? After all, the diversity evolved, you did not say designed! It evolved? And if such diversity can evolve and even creationists can see it then, well, you know any ex-creationists at all?

    After all, who can deny the evidence that it all evolved, even if you then wrap that up in “kinds” created directly to soften the blow?

    So don’t throw the baby out Frankie! Creationists say the diversity evolved? Then no need for your intelligent designer at all then! God created the world and the ‘kinds’ and then the rest happened on it’s own. No need for any ‘Intelligent Designer’. Sorta leaves you out in the cold!

  2. Frankie: Only one way- put us in the same room and give us the same test

    Why is same room a requirement? Many tests are administered at multiple locations.

  3. Frankie: Only one way- put us in the same room and give us the same test

    There are online tests that can be taken. The confidence you have in your abilities is directly proportional to the restrictions you place on any test of them!

  4. Frankie: Your problem is you think you can bluff your way through a discussion.

    I don’t have to bluff, Joe. The article is in English and is understandable to anyone who understands a bit of science.

    That you cannot make your case says it all.

    I have made my case. You’ve yet to offer any rebuttal. All you say is, ” that article in no way, shape or form tested any hypothesis wrt natural selection being able to produce a BF”, but that’s just a strawman and does not address the actual research.

    The link you provided inno way addresses a hypothesis of NS wrt to any BF.

    …and there it is again…

  5. Frankie: I know what the current thinking is.

    Not according to what you’ve written.

    And no, I did not say that tertapods arose from fish.

    Right…fishapods. That’s still wrong.

  6. Frankie: A common design explains the similarities.

    Any testing for that? Oh…what am I saying. ID doesn’t do any research…

    Nice assertion though, Joe.

    There is no way to validate the claims of those papers. They all assume common descent.

    LOL! You’re funny Joe. You should present that at a science symposium sometime. I doubt the room would be able to get control of their laughter for a good half hour or more.

    I take it by your humorous response that you have no rebuttal or valid comment against any of those studies. Figures. So I provide actual research testing the concept and you think your assertion that “There is no way to validate the claims of those papers” is somehow supposed to…what…make the evidence somehow nonexistent?

    I feel for you Joe; windmills are really tough to tilt against…

  7. Robin: I don’t have to bluff, Joe. The article is in English and is understandable to anyone who understands a bit of science.

    I have made my case. You’ve yet to offer any rebuttal. All you say is, ” that article in no way, shape or form tested any hypothesis wrt natural selection being able to produce a BF”, but that’s just a strawman and does not address the actual research.

    …and there it is again…

    You have never made a case, Robin. The research just shows conservation, ie similarity, between different flagella. That doesn’t support NS. And what I posted is not a strawman nor can you make the case that it is.

  8. Frankie: And according to Neil Shubin, fish-a-pods is right.

    There are two search results for Neil Shubin and fish-a-pods, and one of them is to UD! So support your claim.

  9. Robin:

    Umm common design is observed throughout the design world. We have actual experience with it. And anyone who laughed at what I said would get the chance to rebut or get a foot in the mouth. And when they were unable to rebut everyone would be laughing at them.

  10. Robin: Any testing for that? Oh…what am I saying. ID doesn’t do any research…

    Nice assertion though, Joe.

    LOL! You’re funny Joe. You should present that at a science symposium sometime. I doubt the room would be able to get control of their laughter for a good half hour or more.

    I take it by your humorous response that you have no rebuttal or valid comment against any of those studies. Figures. So I provide actual research testing the concept and you think your assertion that “There is no way to validate the claims of those papers” is somehow supposed to…what…make the evidence somehow nonexistent?

    I feel for you Joe; windmills are really tough to tilt against…

    The studies assume common descent and try to find evidence that supports it. There is no way to validate the claims of the studies.

    I feel for you- too gullible to not see the obvious

  11. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Read it. There isn’t anything that supports your claim

    Unsubstantiated assertion. Try again Joe.

    I bet I know more than you

    Maybe about Caek, toasters, and ticks and watermelon, but on biology…your posts on doing much to support such a claim there Joe.

  12. Frankie: Umm common design is observed throughout the design world.

    Where is design world to be found?

    We have actual experience with it.

    Who is “we”?

    And anyone who laughed at what I said would get the chance to rebut or get a foot in the mouth. And when they were unable to rebut everyone would be laughing at them.

    M’kay. That sounds like a threat. I hope I’m misreading. Would Joe like to clarify what he means by “get a foot in the mouth”.

  13. Alan Fox,

    Where is design world to be found?

    You are living in it. Cars, computers, houses built to the same code, anything following IEEE standards- just everything I have already told you about.

    Who is “we”?

    Humans who are not imbeciles

  14. Frankie: How can someone threaten in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario?

    Yes, because a meeting of two or more people could never happen…

  15. Frankie: You are living in it. Cars, computers, houses built to the same code, anything following IEEE standards- just everything I have already told you about.

    Yet here you provide this quote to argue the opposite:

    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

    So we are living in design world where things are designed to IEEE codes, and at the same time biology is evidence for design despite it being too complex to represent with simple hierarchical models (wot like design presumably would be able to be represented by).

  16. Frankie:
    Robin,

    LoL! All bluff and bluster, robin, gets flustered when exposed.

    Fuck you and your false accusations.

    You were saying something about “flustered”? Hmmm…

  17. Frankie: Umm [human] common design is observed throughout the [human] design world. We have actual experience with [human design].

    FTFY.

  18. Robin:
    You were saying something about “flustered”? Hmmm…

    Hmmm, yes your continued false accusations has that effect. I bet it will work on you, too. From now on I will just start accusing you of shit as opposed to actually responding to you

  19. Frankie: From now on I will just start accusing you of shit as opposed to actually responding to you

    Could you make sure you label what you are doing, otherwise it may be hard to tell you’ve changed over.

  20. Earlier I had said that ID adds intention and purpose, to which Robin disagreed. However intention and purpose are synonyms of “design” which means they are inherent with ID.

  21. Function and purpose are inherent in all living organisms. Any biology that denies this is a joke.

  22. Mung:
    Function and purpose are inherent in all living organisms. Any biology that denies this is a joke.

    What is the function and purpose of Vibro Vulnificus, also called the flesh-eating bacteria? Besides making copies of itself which is the “purpose” of all living things?

  23. Frankie:
    Earlier I had said that ID adds intention and purpose, to which Robin disagreed. However intention and purpose are synonyms of “design” which means they are inherent with ID.

    Exactly Joe! And ID doesn’t add intention or purpose as a characteristics of the world; it just assumes they’re there! So ID doesn’t actually add anything to our knowledge of the world; it just assumes the world is as it describes it. Woooo…hooo..

  24. Mung:
    Function and purpose are inherent in all living organisms. Any biology that denies this is a joke.

    Great! So ID doesn’t add anything to our understanding of living organisms then Mung! Couldn’t agree more! Thanks Mung!

  25. Robin: Exactly Joe! And ID doesn’t add intention or purpose as a characteristics of the world; it just assumes they’re there! So ID doesn’t actually add anything to our knowledge of the world; it just assumes the world is as it describes it. Woooo…hooo..

    Wrong- ID adds it, it doesn’t assume it. It is inherent to the concept.

  26. Robin: Great! So ID doesn’t add anything to our understanding of living organisms then Mung! Couldn’t agree more! Thanks Mung!

    What does blind watchmaker evolution add? Do tell

  27. Mung:
    Function and purpose are inherent in all living organisms. Any biology that denies this is a joke.

    Sure, but that tells us nothing at all about whether intelligent design is a good explanation of function and purpose.

  28. Kantian Naturalist: Sure, but that tells us nothing at all about whether intelligent design is a good explanation of function and purpose.

    You don’t have anything that can explain it.

  29. Frankie: Wrong- ID adds it, it doesn’t assume it. It is inherent to the concept.

    *Sigh*

    If it’s an inherent to the concept of ID, then ID doesn’t add it to any understanding of our world Joe. It’s just part of the ID definition.

    Geez Joe…can’t you get your own arguments consistent?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.