(March 20, 2021 at 6:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 20, 2021 at 6:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: A poorly worded article. Apparently they are as inept as you are. Got that cite for me yet?
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol.
Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design.
So...
Just to bring me up to date, please list the biological systems, that have been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex?
Because as far as I can tell, whenever a biological system, that was claimed to be irreducibly complex, is actually been explained, there has not been the need to stick a deity in the process. Nature always seems to explain it the best.
Those biological systems, with as yet explained origins... seems to me, the best option is to say, "that hasn't been explained yet". Instead of relying on a god of the gaps argument, which is all that irreducible complexity is.
Creationist's track record is not very good on this.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
