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

[Edx]

Reread the thread.

I was simply referring to a post someone else had made

I did read the thread, what people are asking you to do is tell us who said it, because as far as anyone can tell the only person that did is you. All you have to do is find the post.

 

[pittguy579]

I did read the thread, what people are asking you to do is tell us who said it, because as far as anyone can tell the only person that did is you. All you have to do is find the post.

It is clear I was responding to someone
I am not going to page back through this thread.

 

[Edx]

It is clear I was responding to someone
I am not going to page back through this thread.

Are you sure you arent James? You are acting excactly like him.

You arent going to find this supposed post because it doesnt exist, because you make a mistake and dont want to admit.

 

[pittguy579]

Are you sure you arent James? You are acting excactly like him.

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James

You arent going to find this supposed post because it doesnt exist, because you make a mistake and dont want to admit

No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.

 

[Edx]

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James

You should both get together, Im sure you'd like each other. And according to your profiles you both live in pittsburgh, both do basically the same thing, and are both Catholic.

No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.

Fine then. You are showing everyone what you are like. How about you respond to the other posts now?

 

[pittguy579]

You should both get together, Im sure you'd like each other. And according to your profiles you both live in pittsburgh, both do basically the same thing, and are both Catholic.

Well maybe we could get together and maybe go out on a date lol. No, I don't know him and at least from what he read, he is an underwriter. I am a full time engineering student/TA/Researcher.

 

[Edx]

Well maybe we could get together and maybe go out on a date lol.

You would probably agree with everything each other said. Wheres the fun in that?

 

[Tomk80]

I am not James, but that is besides the points

Reread the thread.

I was simply referring to a post someone else had made

And again, which post? Come on, it shouldn't be hard to come up with it if almost every participant on this thread has asked you multiple times to show this post. Why do you keep ignoring that request? It doesn't lend you any credibility.

 

[Tomk80]

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James

Then you must be his carbon copy.

No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.

Then why can't you show it. Why can't you show that you are correct and everyone else here is wrong? I can only think up one reason, and that is that you know you're wrong but don't want to admit it, none else. I've gone back, I have no idea what post you would be referring to. It shouldn't take you long to find it, at the most 5 minutes.

 

[caravelair]

Analogy is not valid for the reasons I have stated before
You are comparing apples and oranges.

oh, you mean the reasons i already addressed right here:

I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems.

yes, he was doing it by using an analogy to something that was not a biological system, mousetraps. how is that any different from what we are doing with the arch example?

You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.

neither is a mousetrap equivalent to biological organisms. so how is that any different?

why did you ignore that post?

Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?

i never said anything like that. evolution can go either way, producing greater or lesser complexity over a given period of time, or staying the same in terms of overall complexity.

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.

which is why i never said that, or anything like that, nor did anyone else on this thread, except you.

note that i also stated a way that IC can arise without removing parts:

evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.

why did you ignore that part? why do you ignore everything that contradicts you?

The arch is not a v alid analogy

it is, for the many reasons people have given on this thread that you have failed to address over and over.

 

[pittguy579]

why did you ignore that post?

It was not ignored. It was addressed already
I am not going to repeat myself

i never said anything like that. evolution can go either way, producing greater or lesser complexity over a given period of time, or staying the same in terms of overall complexity.

And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity

Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example

which is why i never said that, or anything like that, nor did anyone else on this thread, except you.

Nope, someone else said it

why did you ignore that part? why do you ignore everything that contradicts you?

Nothing has contradicted my assertions

it is, for the many reasons people have given on this thread that you have failed to address over and over.

[/QUOTE]

It is not for the reasons I have said over and over
It is not my fault people are too dense or too blind to see that the arch proves nothing

 

[Edx]

It was not ignored. It was addressed already
I am not going to repeat myself

See, you say that, but then you say this..

Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example

... no an arch cannot evolve, neither however, can a mousetrap.

Now are you ever going to address the fact that Behe and Dembski do in fact use non-living examples like mousetraps to illustrate points about ID?

Ed

 

[Baggins]

I think what we are seeing here with Pittguy, I'm guessing to an extent because I have him on ignore but I doubt he has got anywhere near apologising for his mis-statements yet, is the arrogance we often see associated with religious engineers. They see everything in terms of engineering and can only explain natural complexity through the eyes of some sort of super engineer.

They are well educated and so have the usual amount of intellectual arrogance, but they fail to see that their experience of engineering is not directly correlatable to natural examples.

They get called on their ignorance of biological systems, but because they are engineers and therefore clever men some of them will not admit to being capable of making errors. Ring any bells pittguy?

Pittguy seems to be like this. We know he's wrong, the lurkers know he's wrong, he may or may not know he is wrong depending on his own level of self awareness. In fact it is obvious to everyone who reads through the thread that he has dug himself into hole and is now sitting at the bottom of it declaring resolutely that there is no hole.

You often see engineers at the forefront of the creationist movement declaring that they can see design in everything, they should learn a little humility and learn a little biology, it wouldn't take much to realise that they are often making fools of themselves as in the case of the eye, the banana, the flagellum etc etc etc

 

[random_guy]

And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity

Really? Why is the main biodiversity of this planet things such as bacteria? If it's towards complexity, why do so many parasitic organisms exist, organisms that lost many of original functions? Why don't you back this up with some evidence, or is it because you're just making stuff up and you really don't have any way to back this up?

 

[steen]

And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity

Which remains a "just because I claim so" postulation with no foundation in reality.

Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example

But then, claims about "reverse" evolution are utter nonsense as well.

Nope, someone else said it

Not in this tread. If that is your claim, then you are bearing false witness.

 

[pittguy579]

I think what we are seeing here with Pittguy, I'm guessing to an extent because I have him on ignore but I doubt he has got anywhere near apologising for his mis-statements yet, is the arrogance we often see associated with religious engineers. They see everything in terms of engineering and can only explain natural complexity through the eyes of some sort of super engineer.

You really know nothing about me. It's not arrgoance.
It's pointing out the errors others are making

They are well educated and so have the usual amount of intellectual arrogance, but they fail to see that their experience of engineering is not directly correlatable to natural examples.

Yes it is. And what we are debating has nothing to do with my engineering experience. I am using simple logic.

They get called on their ignorance of biological systems, but because they are engineers and therefore clever men some of them will not admit to being capable of making errors. Ring any bells pittguy?

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

Pittguy seems to be like this. We know he's wrong, the lurkers know he's wrong, he may or may not know he is wrong depending on his own level of self awareness. In fact it is obvious to everyone who reads through the thread that he has dug himself into hole and is now sitting at the bottom of it declaring resolutely that there is no hole.

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.

 

[pittguy579]

]Which remains a "just because I claim so" postulation with no foundation in reality.

Actually if you don't think the claim is in reality, then you may want to come back to reality

But then, claims about "reverse" evolution are utter nonsense as well.

I was COMMENTING about another posted

 

[steen]

Actually if you don't think the claim is in reality, then you may want to come back to reality

Ah, ANOTHER "just because I say so" postulation.

I was COMMENTING about another posted

Really? In what post?

 

[pittguy579]

Ah, ANOTHER "just because I say so" postulation.

Nope, already addressed

Really? In what post?[

In previous post.

 

[steen]

Nope, already addressed

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.

In previous post.

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.