The "limits" person asserts a negative: Nature cannot account for it. Why?
Because it is "perverse" NOT to hold this position in view of the fact that
NO (nada) scientific paper has ever been published to give any support to the
natural development of complex biochemical structures.<<
Jim, I think you better look again at your definition of what is and is not a
negative in science. Consider the following sentences.
There is no limit to morphological change.
There is no Kuiper belt surrounding the solar system
There is not sufficient dark matter in the universe to close it.
The second statement is one which of interest to the young-earth
creationists. They use calculations of the average lifetime of a comet to
show that all comets are young. And if there were no source of comets then
the solar system must be young.
Scott M. Huse writes:
"Based on the fact that there are still numerous comets orbiting the sun with
no source of new comets known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system
can not be much older than 10,000 years." _The Collapse of Evolution_, Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, p. 28.
The last statement above concerns the amount of matter necessary for the
closing of the universe which would aid the big bang theories and orbital
dynamics,
"The obvious conclusion seems to be that the 'missin mass' is not really
missing since probably it was not there to start with... This means that the
clusters, since they have not been destroyed, are young, as well as the
galaxies that form them." Harold S. Slusher, _Age of the Cosmos_, ICR, 1980,
p. 13-14
In these latter two cases on whom does the burden lie. It does not lie with
the creationists. They have no way to prove that there is no matter, or no
comet source. To require them to prove no mass or no cometary source is to
require the proof of a negative. But the astronomers can prove the existence
of the Kuiper Belt and the missing mass by observing them.
By the way, the Hubble telescope about two weeks ago took a picture of the
Kuiper belt which is believed to be one of two sources for new short-period
comets. The existence of objects there would prove that those sources exist
and the astronomers have destroyed the YEC argument.
In the case of the missing dark matter, astronomers have been finding
extremely low luminosity galaxies which appear to be very, very numerous in
the universe. Plus there is some evidence that the neutrino has mass which
would be enough to hold the galactic clusters together and close the
universe.They may be on the verge of observing the missing matter. But the
burden is on them.
In the case of evolutionists, they believe that there is NO limit like the
creationists believed that there was no Kuiper belt and no dark matter. Thus
to ask the evolutionist to prove there is no limit is the same as asking the
creationist to prove there was no Kuiper belt - an impossibility.,
The burden is upon those who beleive that there is a limit to change.
glenn
In the case