BarackZero writes:
So YOUR definition of "plausible" is when "we know how it works." Otherwise it's not "plausible."
No, plausibility doesn't even apply to what we already know. I said that photosynthesis is
more than plausible because we have a pretty good understanding of the mechanism. Bigfoot is (barely) plausible because we know that there are lifeforms similar to him. A meteorite turning the ocean to blood is not plausible because we know quite a bit about meteorites and quite a bit about blood and nobody has suggested a mechaism for the transformation.
BarackZero writes:
Evidently the fusion of hydrogen atoms inside the sun isn't "plausible" to you, because nobody on earth knows now, nor will they ever know why two particular hydrogen atoms fuse today, while innumerable atoms around them do not fuse.
Again, nuclear fusion is something that
does happen, so plausibility doesn't enter into it. We do know how fusion works even if we don't know why Joe Hydrogen and Becky Hydrogen choose to fuse with each other and no other.
Remember, we're not talking about the why of water turning to blood. We're only talking about the how.
BarackZero writes:
You select out those implausibilities you dislike and reject them for that reason.
No. As I said, I reject as implausible those scenarios that don't have a plausible mechanism. Suggest a mechanism for meteorites turning water to blood and I'll be the first to trumpet the evidence for the Biblical record.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi