Did Dr. Ross Fudge The Facts?

[Gman]

Classical mechanics, spontaneous generation, etc.

And how does this does not prove the existence of God or intelligent design?

I'm very sorry to hear that. Which country do you live in, and to which law are you referring? It appears to be a gross violation of your fundamental human rights.

You are right... It is called the United States of America...

I cannot. But since no one's claimed that such events have occurred, I don't see your point.

Oh... You can't huh? Hmmm sounds like your belief system is based on faith then not on solid facts.

The obvious exception is speciation: we've documented the evolution of a great many new species, both in the wild and in the lab.

Ok, show us the appearance of a new phyla of animals then...

Information? There's no such thing as 'information' in evolution.

Then you cannot produce any new biological information... Thanks for the confirmation.

But we have seen the evolution of complex, specific traits in the past 150 years since Darwin's original publication (a population of E. coli evolved to ingest and metabolise citrus, for instance, without any human interference).

Evolve to ingest something already in existence. What a barn burner of evidence...

Darwinism? There is no such thing, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence for the common ancestry of life (which is what I assume you meant by 'Darwinism').

You have never heard of Darwinism??? I'm sorry to hear that... Perhaps this dictionary source will help..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=darwinism

[cslewislover]

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence

If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.

[DD_8630]

Classical mechanics, spontaneous generation, etc.

And how does this does not prove the existence of God?

They have nothing to do with the existence of God. They're scientific theories that have been refuted, as you asked for (or, at least, I thought you asked for).

I'm very sorry to hear that. Which country do you live in, and to which law are you referring? It appears to be a gross violation of your fundamental human rights.

You are right... It is called the United States of America...

And to which law were you referring?

I cannot. But since no one's claimed that such events have occurred, I don't see your point.

Oh... You can't huh? Hmmm sounds like your belief system is based on faith then.

Not at all: I, nor anyone else, claims to be able to do those things. They have nothing to do with my beliefs.

The obvious exception is speciation: we've documented the evolution of a great many new species, both in the wild and in the lab.

Ok, show us the appearance of a new phyla of animals then...

I already said that I can't. we have not seen the evolution of new phyla in the past 150 years that we've been looking, nor do we expect to: it takes many thousands of years for such an event to occur.

Information? There's no such thing as 'information' in evolution.

Then you cannot produce any new biological information... Thanks for the confirmation.

Well, ostensibly, yes. But only because the phrase 'biological information' makes no sense. It is no indictment on evolutionary theory.

But we have seen the evolution of complex, specific traits in the past 150 years since Darwin's original publication (a population of E. coli evolved to ingest and metabolise citrus, for instance, without any human interference).

Evolve to ingest something already in existence. What a barn burner of evidence...

Indeed. It shows that specific and complex traits can evolve. This is something that has been contested by opponents of evolution for a long time: they say that nothing new can evolve, it only leads to detrimental affects, etc. As the E. coli example succinctly shows, this is simply not the case.

Darwinism? There is no such thing, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence for the common ancestry of life (which is what I assume you meant by 'Darwinism').

You have never heard of Darwinism??? I'm sorry to hear that... Perhaps this dictionary source will help..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=darwinism

I've heard of it. I was simply pointing out that it is misleading: 'Darwinism' is the theories and ideas espoused by Charles Darwin, whilst 'the theory of common descent' refers to the modern theory. We've developed greatly upon Darwin's initial ideas.

[DD_8630]

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence

If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.

I disagree: not everyone is an expert in evolutionary biology. That said, most people don't have doubts about it, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.

And it should noted that a theory's popularity is no measure of its veracity.

[cslewislover]

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence

If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.

I disagree: not everyone is an expert in evolutionary biology. That said, most people don't have doubts about it, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.

And it should noted that a theory's popularity is no measure of its veracity.

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.

[Kurieuo]

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence

If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.

I disagree: not everyone is an expert in evolutionary biology. That said, most people don't have doubts about it, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.

And it should noted that a theory's popularity is no measure of its veracity.

Quite a statement to make. I do wonder what "scientific community" encompasses. Particularly since as I see it a large portion of the "scientific community" is made to be silent due to the immersive inundation of metaphysical naturalist philosophies within western societies and cultures today.

[DD_8630]

Quite a statement to make. I do wonder what "scientific community" encompasses.

Scientists. That's like asking who's encompassed by the phrase "gay community".

Particularly since as I see it a large portion of the "scientific community" is made to be silent due to the immersive inundation of metaphysical naturalist philosophies within western societies and cultures today.

No one is 'made to be silent'. Genuine scientific inquiry, no matter how controversial the conclusions, is welcome. The problem comes when people attempt to shove religion into the science classroom under the guise of science.

[DD_8630]

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence

If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.

I disagree: not everyone is an expert in evolutionary biology. That said, most people don't have doubts about it, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.

And it should noted that a theory's popularity is no measure of its veracity.

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.

I could just as easily say the same thing about Creationism.

[Kurieuo]

Quite a statement to make. I do wonder what "scientific community" encompasses.

Scientists. That's like asking who's encompassed by the phrase "gay community".

So that would include many of these scientists?

Particularly since as I see it a large portion of the "scientific community" is made to be silent due to the immersive inundation of metaphysical naturalist philosophies within western societies and cultures today.

No one is 'made to be silent'.

No one, like Richard Sternberg who innocently published a paper by Stephen Meyer?

Genuine scientific inquiry, no matter how controversial the conclusions, is welcome.

As long as the conclusions agree with the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism.

The problem comes when people attempt to shove religion into the science classroom under the guise of science.

I could take a few stabs in the dark, but I do not know what you are referring to here. People with ideologies dangerous to genuine scientific inquiry come in many guises, not just people holding Theistic or "religious" ones.

[cslewislover]

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.

I could just as easily say the same thing about Creationism.

Now I know you're not thinking about this, since creationism isn't taught in schools (except some private ones). And as it relates more to your response to Kurieuo - there isn't just one interpretation about creation among Christians. You don't seem to be aware of this. If you want to read more regarding science and faith, here's another site: http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/

[Gman]

They have nothing to do with the existence of God. They're scientific theories that have been refuted, as you asked for (or, at least, I thought you asked for).

Incorrect... It has not been refuted. Naturalism insists that one is most logical, most scientific, if one pretends such an empirical possibility is logically impossible. The fact is, you have a beginning theory that is "fixed", therefore the outcome is "fixed".

And to which law were you referring?

You have never heard of the separation between church and state??? In fact the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that Intelligent Design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.

Not at all: I, nor anyone else, claims to be able to do those things. They have nothing to do with my beliefs.

Right.. They very much have to do with your beliefs. In fact you stated before, we have not seen the evolution of new phyla in the past 150 years that we've been looking, nor do we expect to: it takes many thousands of years for such an event to occur.

Why would you be defending the evolution of new phyla and then say it doesn't matter?

I already said that I can't. we have not seen the evolution of new phyla in the past 150 years that we've been looking, nor do we expect to: it takes many thousands of years for such an event to occur.

Ok, just add many thousands of years to the equation and call it a fact.

Well, ostensibly, yes. But only because the phrase 'biological information' makes no sense. It is no indictment on evolutionary theory.

You don't think "biological information" exists? Apparently you are wrong.. There appears to be a home for "Biological Information" on the web...

http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt

This crazy author seems to think that Biological Information can even be visualized...

Indeed. It shows that specific and complex traits can evolve. This is something that has been contested by opponents of evolution for a long time: they say that nothing new can evolve, it only leads to detrimental affects, etc. As the E. coli example succinctly shows, this is simply not the case.

So according to your evidence E. coli evolved into something else? What exactly? I thought you said earlier you needed a lot of time to achieve it...

I've heard of it. I was simply pointing out that it is misleading: 'Darwinism' is the theories and ideas espoused by Charles Darwin, whilst 'the theory of common descent' refers to the modern theory. We've developed greatly upon Darwin's initial ideas.

??? Have you read Darwin's "Origin of Species" yet? He clearly established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. How is that misleading?

[DD_8630]

Quite a statement to make. I do wonder what "scientific community" encompasses.

Scientists. That's like asking who's encompassed by the phrase "gay community".

So that would include many of these scientists?

Yep.

Particularly since as I see it a large portion of the "scientific community" is made to be silent due to the immersive inundation of metaphysical naturalist philosophies within western societies and cultures today.

No one is 'made to be silent'.

No one, like Richard Sternberg who innocently published a paper by Stephen Meyer?

'Innocently'? He circumvented normal editorial channels in an effort to push his views. That is indicative of personal bias, not a noble attempt at breaching the censor.

Genuine scientific inquiry, no matter how controversial the conclusions, is welcome.

As long as the conclusions agree with the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism.

The problem comes when people attempt to shove religion into the science classroom under the guise of science.

I could take a few stabs in the dark, but I do not know what you are referring to here. Ideologies dangerous to genuine scientific inquiry come in many guises, not just that of Theism.

Indeed. I was simply commenting on the recent trend for various groups to insert their religious beliefs into the scientific curriculum of schools in Europe and North America. Theism itself is no threat to science or anything pertaining thereof. Rather, it is theistic groups attempting to undermine the scientific process that are the rather obvious threat.

[DD_8630]

They have nothing to do with the existence of God. They're scientific theories that have been refuted, as you asked for (or, at least, I thought you asked for).

Incorrect... It has not been refuted. Naturalism insists that one is most logical, most scientific, if one pretends such an empirical possibility is logically impossible. The fact is, you have a beginning theory that is "fixed", therefore the outcome is "fixed".

You misunderstand. While the scientific consensus does indeed hold the most probable theory, this doesn't bely the fact that some theories have failed falsification tests. There are numerous experiments whose outcomes blow Classical Mechanics out of the water (subatomic spin, anyone?). While we can never prove a theory, the very definition of a 'falsifiable theory' ensures that we could, potentially, disprove it.

And to which law were you referring?

You have never heard of the separation between church and state??? In fact the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that Intelleigent Design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.

Perhaps, but that doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". Neither the First Amendment to the United State's Constitution ("Separation of Church and State"), nor Edwards v. Aguillard, nor Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, nor any other court ruling that I am aware of, have anything to do with one's viewing of "naturalism based on chance".

More importantly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures your freedom of thought. You can hold whatever beliefs you want. Indeed, even Jesus noted the futility of any attempt to control another person's thoughts (Matthew 11:16-17).

Not at all: I, nor anyone else, claims to be able to do those things. They have nothing to do with my beliefs.

Right.. They very much have to do with your beliefs. In fact you stated before, we have not seen the evolution of new phyla in the past 150 years that we've been looking, nor do we expect to: it takes many thousands of years for such an event to occur.

Why would you be defending the evolution of new phyla and then say it doesn't matter?

I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.

I already said that I can't. we have not seen the evolution of new phyla in the past 150 years that we've been looking, nor do we expect to: it takes many thousands of years for such an event to occur.

Ok, just add many thousands of years to the equation and call it a fact.

I call it a fact because the evidence is sufficiently convincing. I say it takes thousands of years because that is what the evidence shows. You're letting your presumptions get in the way.

Well, ostensibly, yes. But only because the phrase 'biological information' makes no sense. It is no indictment on evolutionary theory.

You don't think "biological information" exists? Apparently you are wrong.. There appears to be a home for "Biological Information" on the web...

http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt

Have a closer look at that website. They "provide increased access to data and information on the [USA]'s biological resources." There is no mention of 'biological information' in the sense that you were using the phrase.

This crazy author seems to think that Biological Information can even be visualized...

Again, take a closer look. The 'biological information' is nothing more than a codon sequence, and the cell's expression thereof.

Indeed. It shows that specific and complex traits can evolve. This is something that has been contested by opponents of evolution for a long time: they say that nothing new can evolve, it only leads to detrimental affects, etc. As the E. coli example succinctly shows, this is simply not the case.

So according to your evidence E. coli evolved into something else? What exactly? I thought you said earlier you needed a lot of time to achieve it...

1) An isolated strain of E. coli evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise the citrus in its environment. Its kin in other, identical environments did no such thing. E. coli didn't evolve into anything: it simply evolved a new ability.

2) I said that the evolution of a new phylum takes a long time to occur. Phyla are groups like chrodates, molluscs, etc. The E. coli strain has not evolved nearly enough to have its own phylum.

I've heard of it. I was simply pointing out that it is misleading: 'Darwinism' is the theories and ideas espoused by Charles Darwin, whilst 'the theory of common descent' refers to the modern theory. We've developed greatly upon Darwin's initial ideas.

??? Have you read Darwin's "Origin of Species" yet? He clearly established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. How is that misleading?

Because while Darwin's initial ideas are indeed the roots of modern evolutionary theory, the fact remains that the theory we have today is much, much better than anything Darwin could have imagined. He had no idea about cellular anatomy, DNA, ERVs, etc.

You may as well say that Harry Potter is an example of Victorian literature, simply because modern literature has its roots in the latter.

[DD_8630]

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.

I could just as easily say the same thing about Creationism.

Now I know you're not thinking about this, since creationism isn't taught in schools (except some private ones).

I was talking about your "I meant educated people that really look into have doubts" comment, since that was what we were originally talking about.

And as it relates more to your response to Kurieuo - there isn't just one interpretation about creation among Christians. You don't seem to be aware of this.

No, I'm well aware of the nuances in Creationist circles. Nevertheless, regardless of flavour, they're all still Creationists.

[cslewislover]

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.

I could just as easily say the same thing about Creationism.

Now I know you're not thinking about this, since creationism isn't taught in schools (except some private ones).

I was talking about your "I meant educated people that really look into have doubts" comment, since that was what we were originally talking about.

It's amazing how you pick and choose what you want to talk about, taking things out of context. You certainly can't accuse of Christians of doing that, since you yourself do it. There's no point in debating with you since you are not being sincere in trying to understand the points being made.