Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,252 Year: 5,509/9,624 Month: 534/323 Week: 31/143 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005

Message 84 of 304 (286035)
02-12-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:42 PM

You have already been provided an instance of IC invention
It seems to me that NosyNed's example below satisfies Behe's description of irreducible complexity:
NosyNed writes:
[T]his is a stone arch. This fits the definition of IC. Remove a stone and bang! down it falls. You can NOT build an arch one stone at a time if that is all you have.
If you pull any single piece of the arch out, it collapses. The arch cannot stand without every existing component remaining in place.
So we have a designer, and a designed structure that cannot function without every bit of the design remaining in place.
Doesn't this satisfy your question about why we haven't invented irreducible complexity? We most certainly have. What this invention of irreducible complexity demonstrates is that a current state of irreducible complexity does not require that the structure be magicked into existence complete.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-12-2006 07:47 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:42 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024