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.
LoL! ID adds it because it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID. That means it is something additional to what is presently proposed.
AGAIN- Dawkins coined blind watchmaker evolution and it is the same as your alleged theory of evolution. There isn’t any actual evolutionary theory.
Robin,
Unfortunately none of that has anything to do with evolutionism, ie your alleged theory of evolution. Antibiotic resistance doesn’t have anything to do with natural selection, drift or neutral changes.
Nice flail job, though
LOL! That’s hysterical Joe!
But do feel free to demonstrate that. Got any links to “research” supporting such a silly assertion? LOL!
You’re a riot Joe! But I guess if all you have is a hammer…
Oh…an no, your assertion that purpose is an addition doesn’t cut it. Do feel free to demonstrate that ID somehow adds it to our understanding of events in the world. In other words, demonstrate the ID concept of purpose adds to our understanding of…say…Piedmont species population dynamics. Got anything on that by chance? Or how ’bout Snowy Owl migratory eruptions during mild boreal winters. Anything? Bee instruction on distance and direction? No?
Do let me know if any ID “scientists” are planning on doing any such research and actually…you know…”adding” anything to our knowledge of the world any time soon.
Robin,
OK so logic and reasoning are beyond you. If it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID and exists in the presence of ID it is an addition. Because of ID IDists have figured out that the universe is designed for scientific discovery- see “The Privileged Planet”.
Feel free to keep moving those goalposts!
And again Joe, I don’t care. It’s not the term used in science so it is irrelevant to me.
False again Joe:
That is a theory, whether you like it or not.
Robin,
Your position cannot explain owls, bees, migration nor Piedmont species
False Joe, as improvements based on Evolutionary Theory demonstrates.
Nice assertion without evidence…
That isn’t a theory, Dick. And your appeal to emotion is meaningless. Baraminology is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.
By your “logic” it is science and should be taught in biology classes.
BTW Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist
LoL! All you have are assertions without evidence.
Just yesterday FrankenJoe told us he’s not attacking evolution and that ID isn’t anti-evolution
Forgetful little Creationist isn’t he?
ROTFL! Project much Joe?
You’re funny Joe…here’s the kicker as I noted before: your assertion doesn’t make this true. You have to demonstrate it. Got anything? Anything at all that shows that without ID, there’s no such thing as purpose? No? Then fail!
See? This is another example of assertion without evidence. “The Privileged Planet” isn’t evidence; it’s just a bunch of assertions Joe. Where’s some actual evidence? You know…real research? Got none? Oh well…
I’m not moving any goalposts Joe. You’re just making wacky claims without substantiation. A classic sign of a crank with a toy microphone…
False Joe. I provided evidence. Nice try though!
You provided evidence but not for natural selection, drift and neutral changes. That means your evidence didn’t support your claims
False Joe. I provided a link:
You told us just yesterday ID had no pre-planned goals and humans weren’t specially created. No one expects your IDiot nonsense to be consistent
Wrong- The Privileged Planet is based on scientific evidence and is fully referenced. Just attacking it with your spewage is meaningless.
The demonstration that ID adds purpose and intention is in the definition of the concept. Don’t blame me because you are unable to follow along
Robin,
There isn’t any theory there. TRY to make your case as opposed to bald links. Bald links are a sure sign that you don’t understand what they say
Quantification- science requires it and evolutionism doesn’t have it
What a delightful example of religious thinking. You want intent and purpose to be where it’s not? Simple, just DEFINE it there! See, wasn’t that easy? Here we have the quintessential notion of “religious evidence”.
Please quantify ID with an actual example
Your statement makes no sense Joe.
Of course you would say that. Thanks for proving my point
You yourself said that intent in purpose are there because these things are in the definition. The definition is what PUT them there. The scientific approach is to FIND them there, through research and experiment. The ID approach is to DEFINE them there, as you did. You think your definition is “evidence”. It’s noise.
Both IC and CSI are quantifiable. IC you can actually count the parts of the IC core. CSI is a measurement of information, which Shannon told us how to do
Please explain how it does not meet the definition of a scientific theory Joe.
LOL! I made no appeal to emotion Joe.
Citation please.
Not unless there’s actual scientific research supporting it. You know…research demonstrating the validity of the hypotheses that underlie the theory.
Yeah, and when he’s working as an evolutionary biologist, he doesn’t refer to anything called “blind watchmaker evolution”.
Lol! The question pertained to what does ID add. By adding intent and purpose we now know to look for signs of such and act on them
False Joe.
False Joe.
OK we are done here. You cannot make a case and you equivocate
False Joe. It’s not a scientific work, did not go through any scientific peer review process, and was not published in any scientific journal. It’s just a piece of opinionated assertion and has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world around us.
Assertion without substantiation. Fail again Joe.
It’s there Joe.
I’ve made my case: Evolutionary Theory is an actual scientific Theory. ID…not so much.
Holy shit! There are at least two papers by one of the authors that did go through peer-review. And then there is all of the supporting science tat was also peer-reviewed.
It isn’t there as it is missing a way to quantify the claims
Then show the quantification that’s been done with them.
Nice assertion. Got anything showing it’s been done?
This is still wrong Joe.
Yes.
You made the claim Joe. You support it.
LOL!
Not in any scientific work he doesn’t
Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this true!
LOL! I’ve made my case and I’ve not used any equivocation.
Citation please.
Citation please.
You mean ID is missing a way to quantify its claims? Yeah…I thought there was something missing there…
You’re lack of evidence is what demonstrates you’re making an assertion Joe.
Link please.
Then you haven’t done what I asked Joe.
It’s not my homework Joe. My area of research is under no obligation to even consider ID unless and until ID can demonstrate some practical quality and how it adds to our understanding of the world. In fact, there isn’t a single area of science or education that is obligated to include any element of ID, because currently ID offers nothing.
Frankie
Rule-breaking comment moved to guano. If you want to be insulting to fellow members, you’ll have to post it in noyau. And having to keep moving your comments is annoying.
…and now we’re done here…
What units are IC measured in?
The number of components in the IC core can be counted
It is all in the book- “Wonderful Eclipses” is one and the other pertains to the galactic habitable zone
CSI and IC are both quantifiable. CSI is measured in bits and IC is measured by the number of components that make up the IC core
Robin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification_(science)
In mathematics and empirical science, quantification (or quantitation) is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.
Yes, robin is done
They must first be calculable. Care to show us the math?
They must first be calculable. Care to show us the math?
Frankie doesn’t understand ID. The number is irrelevant, it is the claim that they could not come about by stepwise natural processes.
From “No Free Lunch”:
IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism ; if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.
And AGAIN, from Behe:
It is all about the number of parts.
CSI:
Shannon’s theory tells us there are 2 bits of information carrying capacity in each nucleotide and Crick tells us what information means wrt biology. Then you just have to do the math.
And then we also have:
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
and
Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).
See also:
Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003)