Hi Kelly,
You're not thinking this through. You say:
Kelly writes:
And Creation Science does a very good job at proving why it is impossible. It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.
But your logic contains a contradiction, as illustrated here:
- Creation science accepts microevolution within "types or species". Microevolution is consistent with 2LOT.
- Creation science rejects macroevolution between "types or species". Macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT.
- Macroevolution is the sum of many microevolutionary events.
- But macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT, so microevolution must also be ruled out by 2LOT, otherwise many consecutive microevolutionary events would cause macroevolution.
I was trying to get you to recognize the contradiction so we could go to the next step, which is where you assert that microevolution does not violate 2LOT (the creation science version of 2LOT) because microevolution always occurs through an increase in entropy and a decrease in information.
But we know this isn't true because we've observed mutations occurring both in the laboratory and in the field that result in increased complexity and information. Let me know if you'd like some examples.
Even if you were correct about microevolution always being associated with an increase in entropy, macroevolution would still be possible, it would just be the accumulation of many microevolutionary events that increase entropy. In other words, whether you're right or wrong about microevolution and entropy, your logic is still bad.
This thread is picking up posts at a rapid rate because you keep issuing poorly thought through messages that just beg to be rebutted. You're going to burn yourself out. There's no hurry, take a step back and think things through a bit.
--Percy