(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

[pittguy579]

]How sad that you now seek to bear false witness. You begin to not look like worth dealing with, if you can't be honest.

You aren't being honest. You are bearing false witness by accusing me of something I haven't done.

Another falsehood. Well, enjoy continuing to spit God in the eye through your false witnessing. I, for one, can only observe with sadness and pity your soul

Nope, no falsehood and no false witnessing
You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks

 

[Dal M.]

You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks

Hi, Pittguy. Are these your quotes?

I am not ignorant of biological systems. You are the one that is ignorant of biological systems and lack logic and debating skills

Actually everyone knows you're wrong. It is clear the arch example is nothing but a bunch of rubbish and is clear to anyone with an IQ of 75, a dolt, that the systems are not equate and that the arch proves nothing.

I don't think you're in any position to complain about the arguments getting personal.

 

[steen]

You aren't being honest. You are bearing false witness by accusing me of something I haven't done.

No, you lied to me, and you don't like that I caught you. here is a news flash. I don't like being lied to. I get rather testy. I would suggest that if you can't be honest in your dealings with me, you avoid replying to my posts.

Nope, no falsehood and no false witnessing
You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks

I documented your falsehood. Your denial stands as a testimony to the level of your honesty. case closed.

 

[Tomk80]

Nope, already addressed

You have not addressed anything yet in this post. The only thing you've done is nay-saying.

In previous post.

Which one?

 

[pittguy579]

]No, you lied to me, and you don't like that I caught you. here is a news flash. I don't like being lied to. I get rather testy. I would suggest that if you can't be honest in your dealings with me, you avoid replying to my posts.

No, I have been truthful and you are the one that is lying and you are bearing false witness

If you can't be honest, avoid replying to my posts

I documented your falsehood. Your denial stands as a testimony to the level of your honesty. case closed.

No you have not. You are lying and are totally desperate and are grasping for straws.

 

[Edx]

Good job pittyguy,

Instead of addressing the fact that Behe and Dembski both use non-biological examples to prove points abvout ID, you have been reduced to ignoring this point totally and are now just replying to everything saying "no Im not, you are!" like some spoilt little kid.

 

[pittguy579]

Good job pittyguy,

Instead of addressing the fact that Behe and Dembski both use non-biological examples to prove points abvout ID, you have been reduced to ignoring this point totally and are now just replying to everything saying "no Im not, you are!" like some spoilt little kid.

Maybe I will send you hooked on phonics and maybe some glasses

Those points were addressed already

I am not going to repeat myself if you can't read

 

[Edx]

Maybe I will send you hooked on phonics and maybe some glasses

Those points were addressed already

I am not going to repeat myself if you can't read

Simply copy and paste where you have addressed it, Ive been asking you the same question for pages and pages, as have everyone else and each and every time you just ignore it totally and completely.

A mousetrap is not a biological organism, neither is a rock. Why is a mousetrap allowed to be evidence for ID?

 

[pittguy579]

Simply copy and paste where you have addressed it, Ive been asking you the same question for pages and pages, as have everyone else and each and every time you just ignore it totally and completely.

I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.

A mousetrap is not a biological organism, neither is a rock. Why is a mousetrap allowed to be evidence for ID?

Go find my previous post. My response is there.

 

[Edx]

I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.

Go find my previous post. My response is there.

Just tell me the post number. I have read all of your posts and cannot see where you have even acknowledged this point.

If thats too difficult for you please tell me how you can spend such a long time replying to posts for pages and pages telling people you cant be bothered to repeat yourself and playing silly "no Im not you are!" kids games, but cant write 2 or 3 sentences about why the mousetrap is allowed to be evidence for ID?

 

[pittguy579]

Just tell me the post number.I have read all of your posts and cannot see where you have even acknowledged this point.

I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?

Why will you spend such a long time replying to posts for pages and pages telling people you cant be bothered to repeat yourself and playing silly "no Im not you are!" kids games, but cant write 2 or 3 sentences about why the mousetrap is allowed to be evidence for ID.

[/QUOTE]

It was in a previous post
I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did

 

[Edx]

I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?

Whats so damn difficult about writing it again?

Whats so damn difficult about finding it?

Why are you so lazy?

You know what I'd do if I were you? I'f I couldnt be bothered to write it out again, I'd find my post and copy and paste it again and again after anyone asks me the same question. Because you know, I'd like to prove them wrong.

I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did

NO IM NOT, YOU ARE!!!

 

[Psudopod]

The first mention of reverse evolution is made by Pittguy579, in post 127

Analogy is not valid for the reasons I have stated before
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?
So man is really at the end of evolution and every creature before was was superior?
Sure evolution could potentially go in reverse in some instances, but to say the primary engine of evolution works by going in reverse is ridiculous.


The arch is not a v alid analogy

It is in response to post 122 by caravelair

the analogy is valid because it demonstrates a flaw in the original argument, which states that you can't build up an IC system by the successive addition of parts.

this is true, take a look at the arch. it could not have been built by the addition of parts, because it would collapse if it wasn't fully complete.

but the arch wasn't built up by the addition of small parts. it was built by removing parts.

the reason this is a valid analogy is because evolution can also work by removing parts, and this is one way it can arrive at an IC system.

IC only works as an argument against a strawman version of evolution, that can only add parts. this is not the case at all. removal of parts can arrive at IC, and that is not the only way evolution can do the job. evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.

Now. Can we carry on with the issue?

 

[Tomk80]

I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?

It was in a previous post
I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did

Then before you reply next, why don't you give us the following to post numbers, so we can stop playing silly buggers:
1: The post where you addressed why using mousetraps as an example is valid or not.
2: The post where someone else told you that evolution only works by taking parts away.

We have been asking you for those two things for several pages now, and you say they're there (although somehow this was apparantly lost on all other debate participants here).

Also, could you maybe start addressing the evolution of the IC-structure of the inner ear? That's one of those other loose ends that is waiting to be addressed.

 

[Edx]

Now. Can we carry on with the issue?

Apparently we cant because we also need pittguy to address or show us where he supposedly addressed the mousetrap argument for ID and how thats so different than using a man-made arch.

 

[Tomk80]

The first mention of reverse evolution is made by Pittguy579, in post 127


It is in response to post 122 by caravelair


Now. Can we carry on with the issue?

To add to that, the first mention that "the natural course of evolution is that creatures become less complex" is Pittguy in post #146.

I don't know. Ask the person who first said the natural course of evolution is that creatures have become less complex. I thought that was a pretty stupid statement myself I simply wanted examples. It appears to me that the natural course of evolution is creatures have become more complex over time. If I am wrong. show me how I am wrong.

But up to that point nobody had made such a statement, neither has such a statement been made after this post, except for Pittguy further claiming that the point had been made and others asking Pittguy where the heck that statement was made.

What others had been saying up to that point is that there is no overall trend in evolution towards more or less complex, but that evolution is directionless. He might have misread several statements that said that creatures can evolve by taking structures away. But that this is one of the options, does not mean it is an overall trend and nobody claimed it to be.

 

[Tomk80]

NO IM NOT, YOU ARE!!!

Really, comedy gold. I do hope Pittguy is making these statements on purpose.

 

[caravelair]

I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.



Go find my previous post. My response is there.

that is what many of us have done already! and guess what? we have found nothing! no post at all where you addressed these points. that is why we keep asking you to show us where the post is where you have addressed these points. the rest of us can't see it at all. you keep claiming it is there, so if you are right, then it should be easy to show us the post in which you addressed these points. go ahead, we're all waiting! until you do so, we will have to assume that you actually just can't or won't address these points, and you are claiming you have already as a desperate tactic to avoid doing so.

of course, you could easily prove us all wrong by going back in the thread and finding the post where you addressed these points. but i won't be the least bit surprised if that doesn't happen!

 

[pittguy579]

]that is what many of us have done already! and guess what? we have found nothing! no post at all where you addressed these points. that is why we keep asking you to show us where the post is where you have addressed these points. the rest of us can't see it at all. you keep claiming it is there, so if you are right, then it should be easy to show us the post in which you addressed these points. go ahead, we're all waiting! until you do so, we will have to assume that you actually just can't or won't address these points, and you are claiming you have already as a desperate tactic to avoid doing so.

I am not doing extra work for anyone. The point was already addressed. No one is avoiding anything.

of course, you could easily prove us all wrong by going back in the thread and finding the post where you addressed these points. but i won't be the least bit surprised if that doesn't happen

I am not working for someone else. Will you send me money if I do it? Then I may have the desire to go back through the multiple pages of the thread.

 

[Baggins]

oops wrong

He is that sad, and not an AEC operative