Instead of exchanging snarks with each other, why not respond to the OP? One easy way to do so would be to describe what ID would predict and the reasoning behind it.
For example, you could tell us what we should be finding in the fossil record according to ID. You could also tell us what predictions ID tells about DNA (in Evo's case, what we would see is a nested hierarchy as an example). You would also need to tell what would falsify it (in Evo's case, finding a monkey with bird wings would falsify it or something else you can't place on the tree of life).
After this we could go from there, but those steps are needed if we are to determine whether the evidence provided fits with ID.
Maybe he is getting confused with bioinformatics, I can see a valid case being made that bioinformatics is the best way to study modern genetics, i.e. whole genome association studies, high throughput transcriptomics such as CAGE, ChIP-Seq, large scale cross species alignments, resequencing of traits in long term evolution experiments.
We have been able to identify many examples of artifacts that are the result of an entity interfering or influencing the world around it. In each case it has been possible to identify both the entity and the methodology that could be used.
For termite mounds we have verified that there are termites, that they live in the mounds and that they construct the mounds by moving, rearranging and cementing grains of sand/dirt/mud to create the mounds.
For Stonehenge we have verified that there are humans, that there were humans at the time of its construction, where the materials came from and ways they could have been shaped and placed. We have also been able to show that the complex itself evolved as earlier structures were built, torn down, rearranged and moved.
We can identify human artifacts such as arrowheads, pottery, even cooking stones and also point to the methods for the creation and use of the artifacts.
Until those marketing the ideas of Special Creation or Intelligent Design can produce similar levels of evidence, produce evidence that the interfering/influencing agent actually exists and the methodology that that agent could use to effect the changes, Special Creation and Intelligent Design will remain relatively worthless and certainly useless sideshows.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Looks like one of the Arleigh Burke but could be an older Kidd. And likely phased array radar?
It's sporting the same number on the bow as the USS Cole, but with the twin antennae towers it doesn't look like it or an Arleigh Burke. I think you must be right that it's a Kidd because it bears a fair resemblance to the picture of one in the Wikipedia article, but probably the US Navy doesn't share numbers between ships, so I wonder if there was a USS Cole predecessor. The Wikipedia article on the Cole hints at one with its lead sentence: "The second USS Cole..."
What looked like a bulbous object to me may have been just me misjudging the perspective. At first I thought it was forward of the front antennae tower, but now I think it's right beneath it.
Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?
Looks like one of the Arleigh Burke but could be an older Kidd. And likely phased array radar?
It is the USS Shiloh...Ticonderoga class cruiser ...built at bath iron works. Commissioned in 92. Was part of pacific fleet and forward deployed in Japan...She is a guided missile cruiser. This info is little old, last year and she may have re-assigned to 5th or another fleet??
see msg 353...warships .com has lots of info...or just google USS Shiloh...Also Cole is a destroyer...DDG. Shiloh is a cruiser..CG
While I am off topic Ill finish this and post no more on it.
USS Shiloh is part of 7th fleet currently. The panel you see on her superstructure are Phased array radar...similar to Cobra Dane radar. With current versions of the standard missile she carries, intercepting an inbound ballistic target is possible. She was used in test doing so in the not to distant past.
Despite not participating much in this thread, I followed it in the hope that ID proponents would show some proofs the same way scientists do for all scientific theories (meaning reasoning, prediction and falsification). What this thread made obvious is that ID is at best an hypothesis and most of its proponents don't want to play by the rules of science. The problem is that as long as ID don't do the work first, debating it feels shallow. I wish instead of using their money putting out books or legal challenges (and other publicity), they would do the work instead or come out and say they don't do science at all.
I think what caught my attention most in this thread was the belief that irreducible complexity has some kind of legitimacy as an idea when it is favored by only a tiny minority among scientists (and I'm being kind), and it is not the focus of active research anywhere, including by Michael Behe, the idea's originator.
I think what caught my attention most in this thread was the belief that irreducible complexity has some kind of legitimacy as an idea when it is favored by only a tiny minority among scientists (and I'm being kind), and it is not the focus of active research anywhere, including by Michael Behe, the idea's originator. --Percy
What should have caught your attention and it obviously still has not, is that IC is a lesser component (a residual) of ID evidence deduced logically by an examination of the actual physical world. Order and purpose are exacally that, order and purpose. No approval on your part or a demonstration of or by a designer is required for evidence to be simply logical evidence. its evidence because its completley logical and testable as evidence, a designer, sight unseen
IC may simply be a complicated way of explaining an otherwise simple logical argument, the likes of which is irrefutable. This is why ID has and will stand any examination or test of time. Its logical, applicable and very demonstratable.
That is if you could only understand what constitues evidence. Tell me plainly dude can you?
Okay, didn't mean to be dismissive, but I can see how that looked now. What I meant by my reply was that I understood what you were saying and I accept that I can't convince you otherwise. The rules in use for what you are seeking are proper and they work. For example you cannot detect the spirit, so for you it does not exist. You really only focus on what you can detect physically, which makes perfect sense. I accept these things and I don't have an issue with them. You and many others choose to infer this or that from the physical evidence which usually appears to disagree with "creation science" if I can call it that. That is not really a thing that I can sink my teeth into either (creation science), because, at this point it doesn't have the foundation it needs yet to be leading the pack. And of course this is troubling because it could have had that foundation had there not been many misteachings in the past (for example, the earth is flat, everything orbits earth, etc.) and all those things aren't even in the scriptures. I can't prove what I have claimed, I know that. I have not given details on these experiences and don't need to, I'm not trying to use personal experience as a model. I was not proselytizing nor trying to insult anyone. I haven't mentioned my religion or a thousand things about myself. If this angers you I am willing to take the blame and you can have one of the controllers "throw me out" that is always an option. I am not worried about that. All these things I am learning (and some of them from this website) have all strengthened what I already believe and I have accepted things I never thought about and some things that I would never have considered. Many of the inferences that are made by you, or by those whose teachings you accept, are unprovable, I will agree that a lot of them are plausible and I actually agree with many of them, however, when you make an inference, whether backed up by evidence or not, when you can't show it happening to me but can only say, basically you think this is what happened, then you are dealing with belief and that makes you as guilty as I, if you want to look at it that way (that I am guilty of something - say, stupidity). The first time I ran into this was in a college class where the professor starting talking about the changes that would have had to happen in the womb of an ape (well maybe it was a chimp I can't remember) so that the head of a human infant could fit through. (This was many years ago). I said, "Sir, this kind of thing makes me feel like it couldn't have happened. I mean the womb had to migrate to a different capacity and then the changes in the fetus (well all the way down to the code) had to take place. It seems pretty farfetched." That guy wouldn't talk to me anymore (on a personal level) and was so offended that I was very sorry I had made the remark. I am sorry if I have offended you, that was not my purpose.
There was one thing in your thread you said that I thought you might want to comment on further you said "You can complain all you like about the alleged lack of evidence for macroevolution (something that you are quite mistaken about I assure you), but none of that amounts to positive evidence in favour of design." I recently read an interesting document by a scientist who has your opinion of things. At a midpoint in his writing he said that whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open. Okay, so the EVIDENCE is there, BUT, it is obviously still open to varying intrepretations. (And yes, I note he did not use the word evidence). Maybe what he was writing was just old stuff (2007). But I get the impression that the jury is still out on this. There are so many bridges that are not built to prove what you believe (and to prove what I believe). The proof just ain't there, some things may be very convincing for you to feel more certain of what you believe, but whenever I get the FACTS in my hands I also always feel very comfortable with them. Now, I am not into the insult side of this website, so you won't see me going there. But if you have a comment on this I would be glad to review it and I will actually be looking for something that I might learn.