Gman wrote:DD_8630 wrote: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.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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).
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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.
Gman wrote:
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.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote: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.