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.
Only one way- put us in the same room and give us the same test
Sorry OM, you don’t make it though the noise filter
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!
Why is same room a requirement? Many tests are administered at multiple locations.
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!
Chuckle. Enjoy it while it lasts.
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…
Not according to what you’ve written.
Right…fishapods. That’s still wrong.
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…
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.
There are two search results for Neil Shubin and fish-a-pods, and one of them is to UD! So support your claim.
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.
Neither does it support ID. Nobody ever seems to do that.
Therefore ID!
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
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com+umm
“Finding Tard ancestry through vocabulary limitations”, Hughes 2016.
Unsubstantiated assertion. Try again Joe.
Maybe about Caek, toasters, and ticks and watermelon, but on biology…your posts on doing much to support such a claim there Joe.
Where is design world to be found?
Who is “we”?
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”.
My prediction is Frankie will go quiet for a bit now….
OMagain,
No, we’re both on ‘ignore’. Honest 😉
Alan Fox,
Alan, grow up. How can someone threaten in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario?
Do tell
Frankie,
That’s not a clarification.
Alan Fox,
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.
Humans who are not imbeciles
Frankie,
Especially in places that don’t really exist!
No need for one in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario.
Robin,
LoL! All bluff and bluster, robin, gets flustered when exposed.
Yes, because a meeting of two or more people could never happen…
Thank you, Mung. I owe you a beer or a bottle of Jack. Your choice
Huh?
Richardthughes,
I think that might have been meant for another venue.
Yet here you provide this quote to argue the opposite:
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).
Perhaps a 2015 double bastard in the rye.
You were saying something about “flustered”? Hmmm…
FTFY.
Another distinction without a difference
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
Could you make sure you label what you are doing, otherwise it may be hard to tell you’ve changed over.
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.
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?
Adapa,
Duh! The fall!
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..
Great! So ID doesn’t add anything to our understanding of living organisms then Mung! Couldn’t agree more! Thanks Mung!
Wrong- ID adds it, it doesn’t assume it. It is inherent to the concept.
What does blind watchmaker evolution add? Do tell
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.
*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?
I don’t know or care what “blind watchmaker evolution” is.
Actual Evolutionary Theory as used in science, however, adds a great deal: