I would be perfectly satisfied with natural selection as an explanation for intraspecies variation. The whole problem is that Darwinists claim far more than that, including it being a theory of origin of all species. That's where it collapses.
How so? Where do you see some point of biology in which you can prove your negative and say, "Natural selection is not
responsible for that?"
Look, when a guy testifies at a trial and tells the truth 99% of the time, and is caught in one lie, they throw his testimony out. That's the issue for me: credibility.
And the lie in this case would be...?
As for truth, Truth is a realm, not a set of objective facts. It is a realm that we enter into, in faith. It's something that we live. When we talk about proclaiming the truth, we mean the fruit of our labor that we experience -- communion with God and all that goes with that.
When we proclaim the kind of truth you're talking about, we are proclaiming things that have happened to us, correct? And the truth of our statements lies in the fact that these things did happen
to us, correct? I mean, if you told me that becoming Orthodox caused you to quit smoking, that would be a great testimony -- if
it were true. But perhaps you've never smoked a cigarette in your life -- that would mean you were lying, because what you said had happened didn't really happen. You would be giving witness, yes, but giving witness to a lie, not to the truth. The truth is what really happened. More generally, to tell the truth is to say what really is
. And I'm telling you that the NANOG pseudogene problem really is
. It's there, and there's no use denying it. What we have to do is explain it, and I'm asking you to tell me your version of what really happened
. I've already heard one version that fits the facts, and it's the theory of common ancestry. Find me another version -- one that fits the facts -- and we can discuss it.
Data is not Truth. Data and facts, in and of themselves, have no meaning.
Facts can indeed mean something. For example, the fact that I'm sitting down right now means that I'm not standing up. Facts can also imply certain things by way of probabilities. For example, I wear my watch on my left wrist, and this implies a high probability that I am right-handed. It also implies that I can tell time and read Arabic numerals. It also implies that I there exist certain constraints on my time such that I would need a watch to keep track of time's passage.
The only way a fact can have no meaning is if you deliberately shut your mind to the possibility of its having one.
It is the meaning that Darwinists attach to the data that is problematic.
Well, find me another meaning that fits the NANOG pseudogene problem.
By the way, I was explaining the NANOG pseudogene problem to a friend of mine, and in reviewing my notes I came across a particular point that I've been forgetting, which is sad, because it's the last nail in the coffin of special creation, so far as I can see.
I've already mentioned several times that there are 9 retropseudogenes shared by humans and chimps, all of which are located in the exact same places in their respective genomes, but that's not all: one of these 9 retropseudogenes is broken
. It's incomplete and missing its poly-(A) tail. And guess what? It's broken in both genomes.
So, even if you were to pose the highly improbable scenario that the same nine copying events happened in two entirely independent genomes, you are now also having to pose the scenario that the exact same copying event botched up in both genomes in exactly the same way.
Surely you can see, can't you, that the only way two different species can possess the genetic record of these same copying events (including the botched copying event) is if these two species shared a common ancestor species in whom these copying events originally took place, and that the genetic record of these events was passed down to all their descendants (which happen to include both chimps and humans)?