My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[Nithavela]

And you ask why this subforum is dying?

 

[MasonP]

America is paying a heavy price because of the ignorance of a lot of it's people.

 

[HitchSlap]

For those of you who think Irreducible Complexity is a joke, let's see the expression on your face when you order a pizza and it comes with a piece missing.

"Deep Thoughts, with Jack Handy."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I remember correctly, the argument against Irreducible Complexity says that Irreducible Complexity is a poor argument because you can remove a piece from a mousetrap and use it as a tie clip.

No. It is a poor argument because it boils down to nothing but an argument from ignorance. All argument concerning "complexity" of that style are essentially arguments from ignorance (or incredulity).

It simply boils down to "i don't get it, so therefor it can't happen".

 

[Kylie]

If I remember correctly, the argument against Irreducible Complexity says that Irreducible Complexity is a poor argument because you can remove a piece from a mousetrap and use it as a tie clip.

Well ... if that's so ... let's see the expression on the faces of those who argue against Irreducible Complexity if they see a piece of a 747 removed from a plane they are on.

I'll bet they'd scramble for the exits if the plane stopped.

I shall remove the engines from a 747 and use it as a paper weight.

And it shall be a very effective one too.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It is a poor argument because it boils down to nothing but an argument from ignorance.

An argument against Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[AV1611VET]

I shall remove the engines from a 747 and use it as a paper weight.

Not with respect to the OP, you won't.

You'd look funny trying to remove even one engine from a 747 flying down the runway at about 150 mph.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems to me that the arguments against Irreducible Complexity involve acts of sabotage ... not acts of nature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An argument against Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance?

Is that what you're saying?

I don't know how you could possibly misunderstand what I stated, unless you are doing it on purpose in an ill-disguised attempt at trolling.

AV: "...says IC is a poor argument because...."
TM: "... no. It (=IC) is a poor argument because..."

Seems fairly clear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to me that the arguments against Irreducible Complexity involve acts of sabotage ... not acts of nature.

IC doesn't need any arguments "against it", because there is nothing there to argue against (or for).

IC is fallacious nonsense and all it requires is having it pointed out.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV: "...says IC is a poor argument because...."

Show me where I said that, please.

Maybe you need to read the OP again, eh?

This thread is for those who argue against IC.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me where I said that, please.

Ok:

If I remember correctly, the argument against Irreducible Complexity says that Irreducible Complexity is a poor argument because .....(snip).....

You have a really short memory span....

Maybe you need to read the OP again, eh?

Maybe you need to read your own posts.

This thread is for those who argue against IC.

And the subject that is called "a poor argument" in your own sentence is IC itself, not arguments against IC.

Try being honest for once

 

[HitchSlap]

This thread is for those who argue against IC.

In that case, IC fails to meet even the basic requirements to be considered anything other than an ad hoc and dishonest attempt to get religious dogma into public schools.

//argument over//

Next.

 

[Kylie]

Not with respect to the OP, you won't.

You'd look funny trying to remove even one engine from a 747 flying down the runway at about 150 mph.

Explosive bolts would do it. Or maybe something like this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/passenger-captures-terrifying-moment-plane-6638186

Besides, planes do have brakes and can abort take offs, y'know...

(also points at husband, who is airplane mechanic.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Seems that we have got some people all in a tither.

Not really, but its always tragic when people are beliving creationist lies and propaganda and not looking at the real science.

Science has no agenda, its just a description of physical reality. Not accepting science is a very poor place to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has no agenda,

I disagree.

... its just a description och physical reality.

And a myopic one at that.

Not accepting science is a very poor place to be.

I accept science, only insofar as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree.

And what would that agenda be (aprt from seeking the truth about reality)?

And a myopic one at that.

In what way? In that it does not reference things that are not observable in reality?

I accept science, only insofar as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

If reality contradicts your beliefs, then you had better change your beliefs, because you sure can't change reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what would that agenda be (aprt from seeking the truth about reality)?

To sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

In what way? In that it does not reference things that are not observable in reality?

Not only that, but its version of reality excludes the spiritual realm.

If reality contradicts your beliefs, then you had better change your beliefs, because you sure can't change reality.

I know Someone who can though.

 

[florida2]

To sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

Science is about observable reality not stories in books.

Do you think that when they are setting up experiments and investigations think 'what part of the bible are we sterilising this time?'

What about scientists from, say, Muslim or Hindu backgrounds - why would they care about the bible?

 

[mnorian]

Science has no agenda, its just a description och physical reality. Not accepting science is a very poor place to be.

Not accepting eternity and He who has it in His hand; is a very poor place to be.