The comments below are offered in response to Salamantis at Little Green Footballs. The thread was closed before I could reply.
Responding to my comments with the intellectual equivalent of, “I know you are, but what am I?” indicates an inability or unwillingness to reason.
After what I thought was your honest attempt to present empirical evidence of vertical speciation, you've continued with red herrings, false tu quoques, straw man arguments, and repetitions of the same non-evidence.
I don't mind repeating important facts, but at this point, you've demonstrated a resistance to facts:
I. MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS
You state falsely that I claim Darwin advocated abiogenesis. What I have stated is that Darwinism – the atheistic naturalism underlying Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory -- needs abiogenesis for its creation myth to be complete.II. PERSONFICATION
Rather than be honest and admit you have no evidence for vertical speciation, you accuse me of misrepresenting Evolution.
You claim also that I misrepresent your words regarding personification. How is it "misrepresenting" your statements if you're using personification and I say, "You're using personification"?III. STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST "CREATIONISM" DON'T DEMONSTRATE VERTICAL SPECIATION
Here are some examples of your (apparently) subconscious admission on the nature of Life:"Nonrandom," means, "having a definite plan, order, or purpose.” Blame Dawkins.You use words implying Will and Intellect for blind, impersonal, ignorant, random, natural forces.
"End," means, "goal."
"Exigency," means, "need."
"Impose," means, "to force on another."
"Allow," means, "to permit."
"Build," means, "to construct," or, "to develop according to a plan."
I didn't invent the language. Don't blame me.
You continue to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a 6000 year-old Earth. I've mentioned neither, which reinforces the impression you haven't really read what I've written.IV. DEFINING MACROEVOLUTION, AND THE USE OF "RANDOM"
(By the way, 6000 years is not "the Genesis date." I've read Genesis. So should you. It's a good book.)
In referring to speciation, an essential distinction must be made between the two parts of Macroevolution: Organisms which can no longer reproduce but are the same kind of animal on the one hand and new species possessing newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function on the other.V. DARWINISM'S BAD LOGIC
The former I call, "lateral speciation;" the latter, "vertical speciation."
Lateral speciation is observable. Vertical speciation no one has observed occur.
In fact, you admit we cannot observe it.
To claim as unassailable scientific truth something impossible to observe is convenient for the person making the claim.
Unfortunately, it isn't Science.
With regard to the use of the word, "random," I understand what your buddy Dawkins wants. Since the nature of Life points unavoidably to Intention, he tries to attribute that intent to ignorant, natural processes.
The only problem is, "nonrandom" means "having a plan, goal, or objective." You cannot attribute intent to Nature.
Unless you're an animist, that is.
You wrote of Man showing that arose without a Designer by creating experiments “specifically DESIGNED” to do so.VI. GOOD CHRISTIANS VS. GOOD EVOLUTIONISTS, AND WHY THE TWAIN SHALL NEVER MEET
You infer from the fact of lateral speciation that vertical speciation occurs, though no one has ever observed it. No one has demonstrated that it can occur.
In other words, assuming that all Life arose from your Magic Mud Monsters by only random, natural processes without any empirical (observed) evidence is science fiction, not Science.
Additionally, how is it a "lame, stuffed straw man" to demand empirical evidence of vertical speciation from someone claiming scientific truth? Especially when you admit no one can observe it?
Changing the subject, attacking others' creationist arguments (not mine), and mis-stating what I've written do not constitute empirical evidence of vertical speciation!
Similar genetic code is evidence of . . . similar genetic code. No one's observed vertical speciation occur by only evolutionary processes.
All Darwinists can do is point to random mutations that never result in more than the same kind of animal as proof that random mutations have resulted in more than the same kind of animal.
As I've noted before, similar genetic code is most logically evidence of the same programmer. No one would say that DOS evolved into Mojave by only random, natural processes, right?
A "good" Christian would say what Moses said, that in the beginning (before sin entered the world), God made all Life by His word, and it was "very good."VII. THE LACK OF EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY RANDOM, NATURAL PROCESSES
No sickness, no death, no suffering.
Christ affirmed Moses' work as true.
On the other hand, a good evolutionist says that all Life came about through an accumulation of random, minor genetic mutations in organisms that appeared magically out of the ground.
Since such mutations often kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), Darwinism teaches that Life arose through sickness, death, and suffering.
The two explanations are mutually-exclusive. There is no middle ground.
And I thought you might appreciate this from your buddy Frank:"recognize that there are things outside of nature, namely God, for which the tools of science are not well designed to derive truth. The middle-ground position is that there is more than one way to find truth, and a fully formed effort to try to answer the most important questions would not limit you to the kinds of questions that science can answer . . . ."Where have I heard that before? :)
Admitting that the only way we can observe vertical speciation is by human intellect manipulating the raw materials of Life is not proof that vertical speciation occurs apart from Intellect.VIII. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
If I'm asking you for empirical evidence of vertical speciation, but you don't have any, who's got, "metaphysical predispositions" and "sectarian predilections”?
"Empirical" means "observable." If you can't observe and test, and replicate the observations and testing, it isn't Science, it's Creative Writing.
Have you found any empirical evidence of vertical speciation yet? Posters and E. coli remaining E. coli -- even after tens of thousands of generations -- do not qualify.
Again, similarity of genetic code demonstrates . . . similarity of genetic code. Assuming that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor leads to the belief that their shared program indicates they shared a common ancestor. That is a tautology.IX. FALSE ATTACKS AGAINST SCRIPTURE DO NOT CONSTITUTE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY UNGUIDED, NATURAL PROCESSES
I've never said that "being unable to observe something means it never happened." Those are your words.
Your reference to 1 Kings is spurious. First, it doesn't provide you empirical evidence of vertical speciation.X. STRAW MEN EVOLVED FROM STRAW MONKEYS
Second, how do you think they came up with those numbers? The author thought,
"I don't remember what Pi is, so I'll just use 3"? They were measuring in cubits, and it's the difference between 30 cubits and 31.416.
Is it possible someone rounded? It also seems reasonable that perhaps the measurement was taken on the inside circumference (the text states it was a "handbreadth" thick) of the vessel?
It is an observable fact that human beings are born to their parents.XI. CONCLUSION
You admit it is impossible to observe human beings arise from the first, magical single cells.
I provided Darwin's quote on the eye in a previous post along with a reference to his flawed solar analogy. It is intellectually dishonest of you to imply that I was trying to misrepresent what he wrote.
Arguing that no competing scientific theory of origins exists does not make one claiming Life arose by random, natural processes true.
Human beings creating Life from raw materials is not evidence of Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes.
We know empirically that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.
We know empirically that no program arises apart from a programmer.
We know empirically that no machine arises apart from a designer.
I've asked you for empirical (observable) evidence of random, minor genetic mutations resulting in organisms possessing newer, more complex program, structure, and function.
You've admitted that you have none. All you've offered is proof of microevolution and lateral speciation. You and your experts use words like, “probably,” “might have,” and “circumstantial,” all of which admit you don't really know.
With 20 years, tens of trillions of cells, and tens of thousands of generations of mutating E. coli and with what do you end up?
When you find some empirical evidence for vertical speciation by random, natural processes, let me know.
If you can't, then to persist in a belief not only without support but contrary to all experience would be unscientific, at best.
Assuming that similarity in code, structure, or function indicates common descent is bad logic, not good science.