It is all about the notion of ignorant chance being validated, which it is not... The rest is smoke and mirrors... Oh, and math does have a measure for infinity: <img src=http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/ap/img/infinity.gif> That which is not finite, is infinite... Doh! Just because we were not able to measure something in the past, does not mean it was not measurable. Doh! More arguments from incompleteness, ignorance, and hubris from the "scientists." It doesn't matter, because you have no measurement of ignorant chance, but ignorance of design...
The simple explanation is that the cause of past events mirrors present causes. If Lenski can evolve new traits in his bacteria by subjecting them to environmental stress, then it's reasonable to conclude that past environmental stress caused past evolutionary changes. It is not reasonable to conclude that the past environmental stress was created by an external designer, because unlike with the current environmental stress, which we know is designed by Lenski, there is no such evidence demonstrating that some external designer was involved in ancient evolutionary changes. So, if you believe that some ancient Lenski was involved in making major changes to DNA, then get some proof for your hypothesis, and then you will have a scientific discovery. Until then, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer is not science -- it's just speculation.
A symbol of infinity is not a measurement. It's just a symbol. There is no scientific means of measuring infinity.
Ahem, yes. You've mentioned your opinion on this point, without interruption. Nevertheless, your opinion is not scientific. Science measures as much randomness as can be measured. You declare that it's not science unless the measurement can be made to infinity. This cannot be done. But, within the bounds of what science can measure, it finds randomness, so that's what it reports. It doesn't measure randomness and report design, because no design is measured.
Infinity is measured when we reach a limit. Is the universe finite or infinte? Since our instrumentation is limited, can we claim the universe is also limited? LOL! More measurements from ignorance, just like the claim of ignorant chance with no means to verify it as so...but ignorance.
Tell me exactly what would be the proof of design? What is the test? What is the measurement? What is the instrumentation? You are ruling something out without an ability to even measure it? LOL! You can conclude ignorant chance based on nothing but ignorance, so what would verify design?
The "young earth creationist" theories have been substantially ruled out via scientific tests. Now, can you propose a test to prove design?
I am not a young earth creationist, and don't care. Design is in evidence, requires no proof. Now, rule out that statement, show how it is false. See, your foundation of ignorant chance is just a guess too...
Infinity is definitionally limitless, so stating that it is measured when we reach a limit, is no different than stating that an apple is measured when we reach an orange, because an apple is not an orange. Silly comparison.