ZZZzzzzzzz
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 5272
03-03-05 04:34 PM
Your cited experiment proves nothing. It recorded change, that's it. There there is a speculative conclusion as to why things change. Typical theory stuff, but no fact or proof of ignorant chance at work. They theory could be wrong. Until they can prove that the theory could not possibly be wrong, it is not really a proof of a theory.
________________________________________
Only 3 possibilities?
Wrong of course.
1. The published record is a fraud.
2. The published record included innocent mistakes, thus the conclusion is flawed but not an intention to deceive, thus not a fraud.
3. The published record doesn't prove evolution as there are other possible explanations. The record doesn't explain how and why, it simply records change & effect and speculates to causality. No proof of causality is provide. Proof would exclude any and all other possible causes order to to qualify as a proof of suggested causality.
4. The public record proves evolutionary theory.
5. The public record proves ID theory.
6. The published record doesn't disprove ID, as a creator may in fact by promoting the changes in species, or have designed the system to change over time in a fully random manner. If computers can be programmed to generate a list of random numbers, certainly God could program DNA to change or modify randomly over time. Or God could simply be pushing a button when God wanted to to promote a change. Simply labeling an unknown with a scientific term, doesn't suddenly make an unknown a known.
We never, ever measure evolution. We measure changes in physical bodies and biological bodies. The changes are measurable and recordable, but this so called force of evolution has not been measured at all. It is a speculated cause of change.
We simply cannot measure a force, as it is not possible to isolate these forces with our current instrumentation. What we measure are the effects of something unknown. We know something is going on, we see the effects, but we can't measure the force itself...only its impact on physical and biological bodies.
So do we know if the force is by design or by random chance?
We know neither, we simply have the fact of change, but no fact of how or why the change is being activated.
Gravity is an unknown, what is known is the impact this unknown force termed gravity (we could call it he hand of God and the measurements of its impact would not change in the least) has on bodies at rest or in motion.
That's why we can believe we know everything about the impact of a force, but yet know nothing about the force itself.
These forces remain a mystery for the scientist, as they are not able to isolate these forces independent of the effects to truly understand the nature of the forces.
Scientists have not been able to isolate the force of gravity in a field where physical bodies do not exist, so how can they say they know what gravity is?
Exactly same with this theory of evolution. How does anyone know that this change that we observe is not being produced by the design of a Creator or some programming by design?
Since we don't know, we cannot state for a fact that ID is not true. Admission of ignorance of something is hardly the same as a claim of knowledge.
To state something is a true fact, we have to be able to falsify its opposite or contradictory value that would negate the status as fact.
When it comes to the guesswork of causality, until such time that ID theory is proved false, it stands just as true as any other theory.
Whether or not some scientific community takes one side or another with their opinions is immaterial to the actual facts of ID or evolutionary theory being a truth.
_______________________________
"The scientists who conducted the experiment, and the publisher of the Evolution periodical, believe that their experiment proves #2 above. If you believe #1 is the correct answer, and that the experiment is a fraud, then you must prove it."
Science is by nature skeptical, placing the burden of proof on the person making a claim. There is a claim, and a belief that the claim is true, but no proof of the claim being true that doesn't require belief to keep the claim true.
Yes, these scientists are men of faith with their power of belief being exercised around their speculative conclusions.
So they are true believers in evolutionary theory, that's nice.
Doesn't make their belief true though.....
Quote from kjkent1:
Your response speaks for itself. I would love to have you as a witness for any case where intelligent design was being promoted as a serious theory to be taught in a public school. Your comments above would end the controversy in the courtroom. I have never encountered anyone like you anywhere other than in a mental institution.
Thanks for the chat.
lmao
!