Another reason to accept evolution.....

[Mystic]

Evolutionist books don't survey all design in nature and prove why every design is not irreducibly complex. And in high school, they don't even bring up the issue, let alone prove how evolutionist reflect over this issue. They want us to believe they have properly assessed everything, when you have people like Dawkins who rely on fallacies and are very impatiently hasty, I won't trust the evolutionists to assess this for me.

I have to see for myself, and when I did, and reflected, I realized design is a reality in nature.

[Whateverist]

Evolutionist books don't survey all design in nature and prove why every design is not irreducibly complex. 

You're absolutely right.  Before they looked at morphology, now its the DNA.  But change over time has been well documented in fast living organisms.

[Angrboda]

The main reason to accept evolution: it’s a fact.

Except there is no proof that there is nothing that is irreducibly complex in nature. All it takes is one thing to binary or irreducible complex in nature, and the whole thing crumbles.

You said it's been proven [that there are irreducibly complex systems in nature]. Your complaint that it hasn't been disproven, beyond being an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

You say that it's been proven, well then, show me this proof. If it's just your opinion, that doesn't mean jack shit to me.

[Mystic]

Evolutionist books don't survey all design in nature and prove why every design is not irreducibly complex. 

You're absolutely right.  Before they looked at morphology, now its the DNA.  But change over time has been well documented in fast living organisms.

Change happens. Even big changes through evolution. Still doesn't address the irreducible complex design in nature. And just avoiding the issue as if not an issue, just proves to me they are not reliable and don't understand.

For example when Dawkin's plays with the analogy instead of addressing the reality, and plays games with the analogy, it's almost as if he doesn't want to understand the issue because of the implications it has with so far how this issue has been studied.

---

Except there is no proof that there is nothing that is irreducibly complex in nature. All it takes is one thing to binary or irreducible complex in nature, and the whole thing crumbles.

You said it's been proven [that there are irreducibly complex systems in nature].  Your complaint that it hasn't been disproven, beyond being an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

You say that it's been proven, well then, show me this proof.  If it's just your opinion, that doesn't mean jack shit to me.

Not really, everything in evolution is a side line issue, if this issue is not addressed. Mutations limited things, before people thought all sorts of mechanism could cause change.  The discovery of mutations severely limits what design can come out through forces of nature, and in fact, to me clearly proves design.

The fact they ignore it and run away with it like you guys run away from my arguments, and just make it as if it's a non-issue, just proves they have no real explanations to offer.

[Whateverist]

Perhaps he just isn't as interested in that red herring as you are?

You have an objection based on some amount of information you find missing and needed for you to accept evolution. What you seem to need isn't what anyone who actually knows the field needs or finds relevant. No response to your objection, therefore you want to conclude it is because your objection is killer and undermines the entire field. Go ahead, knock over all the pieces, shit on the board even; if that doesn't prove you won the debate, what will?

[Mystic]

Perhaps he just isn't as interested in that red herring as you are?

You have an objection based on some amount of information you find missing and needed for you to accept evolution.  What you seem to need isn't what anyone who actually knows the field needs or finds relevant.  No responds to your objection, therefore you want to conclude it is because your objection is killer and undermines the entire field.  Go ahead, knock over all the pieces, shit on the board even; if that doesn't prove you win the debate, what will?

You really don't understand. This is the heart of the debate, and so if one side is offering evidence for it, and the other is running away and not addressing it, that speaks volumes where the true proofs and who really has the evidence. All the other stuff for the theory are sideline issues.

[Whateverist]

Perhaps he just isn't as interested in that red herring as you are?

You have an objection based on some amount of information you find missing and needed for you to accept evolution.  What you seem to need isn't what anyone who actually knows the field needs or finds relevant.  No responds to your objection, therefore you want to conclude it is because your objection is killer and undermines the entire field.  Go ahead, knock over all the pieces, shit on the board even; if that doesn't prove you win the debate, what will?

You really don't understand. This is the heart of the debate, and so if one side is offering evidence for it, and the other is running away and not addressing it, that speaks volumes where the true proofs and who really has the evidence. All the other stuff for the theory are sideline issues.

What you call the heart of the debate is what I call a red herring. It is a one-sided, masturbatory debate.  Evolution is already a thing.  People are being paid to do real science with it.  Big boy scientists have better things to do.

[Angrboda]

You said it's been proven [that there are irreducibly complex systems in nature].  Your complaint that it hasn't been disproven, beyond being an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

You say that it's been proven, well then, show me this proof.  If it's just your opinion, that doesn't mean jack shit to me.

Not really, everything in evolution is a side line issue, if this issue is not addressed. Mutations limited things, before people thought all sorts of mechanism could cause change.  The discovery of mutations severely limits what design can come out through forces of nature, and in fact, to me clearly proves design.

The fact they ignore it and run away with it like you guys run away from my arguments, and just make it as if it's a non-issue, just proves they have no real explanations to offer.

Once again, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the matter. If you told me the sky is blue, I'd feel a pressing need to check and see if that was in fact true.

Again, you claimed that it had been proven. Provide this proof or shut your lying trap.

[Mystic]

Not really, everything in evolution is a side line issue, if this issue is not addressed. Mutations limited things, before people thought all sorts of mechanism could cause change.  The discovery of mutations severely limits what design can come out through forces of nature, and in fact, to me clearly proves design.

The fact they ignore it and run away with it like you guys run away from my arguments, and just make it as if it's a non-issue, just proves they have no real explanations to offer.

Once again, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the matter.  If you told me the sky is blue, I'd feel a pressing need to check and see if that was in fact true.

Again, you claimed that it had been proven.  Provide this proof or shut your lying trap.

You don't understand or are playing obtuse. This is the heart of the debate. And if one side is presenting evidence for it while the other side is running away from it, hiding it as much as possible from the masses, and without an iota of addressing the issues, it speaks volumes to who has the stronger case.

[oldpollock]

MysticKnight, are you saying you believe in intelligent design? I have a hard time following your discourse.