"Glenn actually has the temerity to argue with a lawyer! Doesn't he know that
way lies madness?"
Then YOU must be totally mad. If I am not mistaken, lawyers daily go into
little rooms and stand before another lawyer they call the Judge, and argue
incessantly with each other.I will try to be nicer too you now that I
understand what kind of life you lead and your disabilities (of the mental
kind).
I on the other hand only have to argue with lawyers when I visit my
father-in-law or brother-in-law. You have taught me today that after one of
those visits I can (with a clear conscience) do anything I want and validly
claim temporary insanity from having argued with those two lawyers in my life.
It is amazing what you learn on this reflector. :-)
Jim wrote:
"Glenn, no one is asking you to prove a negative. All we are asking is that
you carry the burden of your assertion beyond mere opinion. You have this
opinion that there is virtually no limit to natural, genetic change. Why?"
Nice change of subject there Jim. I have learned one thing from watching
lawyers. When they can't answer the question posed, then by all means
redirect the focus of attention by changing the topic or the responsibility.
The point of the two creationist arguments about the lack of a source for
short period comets and the lack of observed matter in the universe to sustain
the orbital features we observe is to show that the only way the lack of
something can be disproven is to prove the existence of its opposite. Yes, I
beleive that there is virtually no limit to change, and the ONLY way to
disprove it is to PROVE the EXISTENCE of a limitation. Human nature being
what it is, the evolutionists are quite unlikely to do YOUR work for YOU.They
are generally not interested in disproving a theory which explains so many
disparate observations. Thus I would contend that for both logical reasons, as
well as strategic reasons (which would most assuredly advance your
hypothesis) the burden of proof for the existence of a limitation to
morphological change lies with the anti-evolutionists.
Jim wrote:
"So that's the question, again: what scientific paper explains, in testable
detail, that complex biochemical structures arise by purely natural means."
No, Jim, the question we are dealing with here is who has the burden to prove
the existence of limitations. This question is your lawyerly attempt to
divert the topic from one you don't want to answer.This new question is better
handled in a thread with a different title.
Now, why would you not want to have the burden for proving a limit to
morphological change? Are you afraid that there isn't one and as long as you
claim that the evolutionist has not proven NO limit you can continue to claim
that evolution is unproven?This is the question which must be answered.
glenn