UTEOTW said:
"Evolutionists assume naturalism. That assumption governs and predestines their testing to a range of answers consistent with naturalism. Their assumptions have badly distorted their results."
Science must make one basic assumption. That assumption is that empirical data does not lie and accurately reflects the way things work.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with assuming that everything in natural history occurred due to undirected events governed by naturalism alone.
The studies that science makes must by necessity make one additional limitation.
Then evolution should be abandoned since it cannot be tested. You cannot take a supposed ancestor into the lab and
prove that it would be possible for random mutations + natural selection to result in the ascension of new, better species.
You cannot put God in a box and test Him.
Nor can you put evolution in a box and test it.... nor can you put naturalistic cosmology in a box and test it.
You cannot expect supernatural events to be reproducible.
But the proposed solutions of evolution are beyond our ability to reproduce as well... but that seems to be no problem for those who assume naturalism. It is somehow irrational to assume that supernatural/intelligent forces might have been involved in creation since it cannot be reproduced but somehow perfectly rational to assume natural forces... that can't be reproduced either.
So this is where ID enters the picture. If ID were the true answer, then all that empirical data would be expected to show certain things.
Nope. If it is a viable theory then like evolution it should be able to accommodate the empirical data which is all we can reasonably expect from an OOL theory and which it does quite well.
Thus far, there is no empirical data to support ID.
Except for the simple, undeniable, inconvenient fact that information of the complexity we see in the genetics and other pieces of empirical data are far better explained by intelligence than any natural process. In fact, it is ridiculous to assume that complex codes arise from random events governed by natural law.
The empirical data does, however, support what one would expect to see if evolution was the correct answer.
No it doesn't. At the very best, evolution is flexible enough to accommodate the evidence. At the worst, its preachers ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts it.
This is very similar to debates that occasionally arise in archeology. Let's say that you find an oldly shaped stone. Did it get that way naturally or was it shaped by humans? Well, you can investigate and reach a logical conclusion based on the data at hand.
Yes you can. If the shaping is uniform regardless of the relative hard and soft spots in the rock, you can infer that intelligence was involved. If the shape simply reflects the random pattern of hard and soft parts then you can infer that it was a natural occurrence.
Applied to the "empirical data"- when natural forces
never work to yield the necessary mechanisms for abiogenesis, common ascent, creation of new function, etc, etc, etc... then you can infer that natural processes are NOT a reasonable explanation.
"History cannot be tested."
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
Let's say that I assert that there was a particular civil war battle that was fought. I assert that the battle proceded in a particular manner and that the North won. That can be tested. YOu could go search the location to see if a battle might have been fought there. There might even be enough evidence there to tell you something about the battle. You can research official military records. You can look for diaries or letters home from the participants. You can test assertions about history.
Thank
you for playing. Your example assumes some interesting things. First that there were written accounts... like the one God gave for how He created the world and life. Second, you didn't assume naturalism though it would have been every bit as reasonable for the evidence left by this battle as it is for creation.
You might scoff that natural forces could come together to write words... but swallow whole the notion that natural forces can come together to write a code that is far more complex than the diary you mentioned... and no more likely to self-assemble.
Third, absent the intelligent, eyewitness accounts, your assumptions would strongly govern and limit your conclusions. While it might have been an actual battle it could have just as easily been a training ground, battle in a different war, or a battle reenactment from 20 years before.
"Macroevolution itself is still in search of a mechanism that can account for the diversity we see... That mechanism to date has not been tested and proven in a laboratory."
By using the word "proven" you demonstrate that you are talking about something other than science.
Nope... but you have proven that you are willing to talk out of both sides of your mouth to maintain your faith.
Mutation and selection together constitute a fine mechanism.
Except for the fact that it does not work to cause ascension of species. Species have limits that are catastrophic when broached. Microevolution has not been proven to produce macroevolution. In fact, just the opposite. It is proving that it preserves the current genome greatly intact.
We can look into the genomes of extant life and see how the patterns fit this mechanism.
Nope. Assume that they fit it.
"The Big Bang cannot be tested and there are very strong evidences that it simply doesn't work."
Wrong again.
The inflationary cold dark matter lambda theory makes very detailed predictions about what should be observed. You should read up on some of the data coming in from the study of the cosmic microwave background that provide stunning confirmation of the theories.
How wide is the universe in light years?
"[ID], like forensics, assumes that either natural, intelligent, or both may have been involved
."
So, tell us how to spot supernatural causes and where they have been found.
By which best explains the empirical data... something that you are unwilling to consider.
"even when design is so evident that reverse engineering works to do molecular level studies"
Why could an evolutionary process not yield an efficient design?
Because it lacks a reasonably possible mechanism to code.
"That is precisely what evolution does. It starts with the conclusion that naturalism and evolution are true then find ways within the theory to accommodate the evidence..."
Nope. Again.
Evolution only became widely accepted after there was sufficient empricial data to support it. In the intervening time, as more data has been collected, the support for evolution has only grown as details about the mechanisms and history have been elucidated.
You are one of the most incredibly closed minded people I have ever met. You assume along with the atheist naturalism and discard even a punch in the nose such as complex code when it seems to contradict that assumption.
