You said and I quote: "
Ever heard of entropy? Things slow down. Apparently even light."
This strongly implies that light was slowed down because of entropy. If that wasn't what you were implying then why mention entropy at all?
It would be just as silly as if I stated: "
Ever hear of combustion? Things are fired. Even employees."
The last sentence has nothing to do with the first sentence, but a connection is implied.
Rather we have no reason to believe that he did. The President could have ordered the creation of an agency of bikini-clad assassins, but we have no reason to believe he did. Simply because something
could have happened, does not mean it is rational to believe that it did.
I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics."
You apparently, else why suggest it at all?
And you think flooding did this?
No, you are right. However it is not rational to believe in something merely because it is "possible". The universe is filled with many possibilities and only a few a actualities. It is possible that Abraham Lincoln was a shape-shifting alien, however it is not rational to believe that he was, just as it is not rational to believe that Yahweh suspended aqueous salt diffusion, sped-up speciation, or moved the continents from Pangaea to their current locations via a flood.
Lots of sane people think illogically. I'm sure we all know people that fit this category.
Anything that we believe for any reason other than how probably true it is, is an expression of illogical thinking.
You did:
DS: And how does 35 sub-species (breeds) of a single species arising in 200 years with human assistance, in any way prove that 2,000 actual species can arise in 4,000 without any human assistance, at a rate of 1 species every 2 years for 4,000 consecutive years without a single extinction?
LH: Divine assistance. |
Breeding alone does not cause speciation. You need genetic variation, selection, and time for those genetic variances to accumulate.
Sure, but there is no reason to believe that is how it happened. As I stated earlier simply because something
could have happened, does not mean it is rational to believe that it did.
How is that a cop out? I'm explaining why having more animals on the ark is more implausible.
Anyone can present
possibilities, I'm not concerned about possibilities, I'm concerned about
probabilities. You might as well be telling me that you're going to win the lottery seven times in a row. Sure it's possible, but it's illogical to believe that you will, and no one will take you seriously by claiming such a thing.
Debate is about showing which of two positions is probably true. And so far that would be mine.