Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
As is often the case, the tree watchers are unable to see the forest.
Still waiting for proof of chance.
Heck, how about describing how to falsify chance?
Quote from john dough:
Three possible falsifications of chance: (1) simultaneously measure the position and momentum of an electron; (2) find a repeating pattern ithat accounts for the entire spectrum of atmospheric background radiation; (3) measure PI with certainty.
OK, your turn. Show us how to falsify design.
Quote from john dough:
Evidently the lack of a physicist among the article's authors is somehow significant, as you've chosen to bold it in your response.
But, wait. Two of the four cited articles are co-authored by physicists.
So, I guess your failure to see the work of physicists is your failure, and your failure alone.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You can falsify design by proving chance.
Oh wait, you can't do that with certainty...because you have no certainty.
My bad...
Hmmm, let's see. You can say you can't find a designer, so design is impossible...
Wait, that begs the question that you wouldn't even necessarily know the designer if they were standing right in front of you...
Nope, sure looks like we don't have any test to falsify design or non design, so let's throw them both out, and teach what we know...
Quote from john dough:
Pretty weak logic. Proving chance doesn't disprove design. Design is reality Humans breed dogs, plants, etc.
The issue is scientific proof of ID, which requires confirmation by verifiable experiment.
The lazy man's way out is to construct logical proofs with unprovable falsifications as a means of avoiding actual experimentation.
The ID community is lazy. If you want to prove that a designer exists, then go find the evidence.
But, if your goal is to find a supernatural designer, that is a waste of time, because it cannot be proven by any scientific means.
You fall into your own trap by trying to logically prove the unprovable.