Evolutionists: How do you respond to irreducible complexity?

Question

There are several things in this world that are so irreducibly complex that they could not have been made by anything except an intelligent designer. For example, suppose you're walking around and see a watch lying on the ground. Could such a complex thing have come into being without divine intervention?

According to evolutionasticism, a watch does not need a designer because it evoluted from earlier watches. But this is absurd! According to the theory of evolution, genetic mutations in the DNA of offspring impel evolution. However, watches don't have offspring, or DNA. This proves that the watch must have been designed.

Creation scientist Em Adjineri has proven that watches are too complex to have been designed by humans. She took apart a watch and couldn't put it back together, thus proving that watches are irreducibly complex. Since humans can't design watches, God must have created them.

Therefore, watches were all created by God so that humans could tell time.

Answer 1

Well, you certainly have us all dead to rights. And to think, I spent three year preparing my thesis on mutations in the genome of wild Casio watches. Em Adjineri's work on native populations of Rolex in northern Kentucky has clearly evidenced just how flawed my hypothesis was. What a waste. How could I have ever thought that the Casio evoluted from a sub population of Timex?

Answer 2

"For example, suppose you're walking around and see a watch lying on the ground. Could such a complex thing have come into being without divine intervention?"

Yes. There is nothing divine about a watch.


"According to evolutionasticism..."

What? Are we making things up now? Oh wait... I forgot where I was for a moment....

"Creation scientist Em Adjineri..."

.... Is an idiot.

"... has proven that watches are too complex to have been designed by humans. She took apart a watch and couldn't put it back together, thus proving that watches are irreducibly complex. Since humans can't design watches, God must have created them."

Just because a task is beyond the capabilities of one idiot does not mean that god did it.

The problem is that creationist lack the kind of perspective it takes to seriously analyze evolution. For one, you are looking at what you presume to be a finished product. Humans can't phathom the amount of specific mutations had to occur to make a human.

This is the wrong question to consider because evolutuionary mutations are random. The eye was pretty much created with one random mutation over one generation... This gave organisms that could see an advantage over non seeing oprganisms and all the non seeing organisms died off in very short order while the seeing one's flourished. Evolution mostly creeps along at a slow pace but sometimes, a random mutation can cause a leaps and bounds in progress. And they don't have to be one advance in one genration.

Secondly, Most creationist believe the world to be only 6,000 years old or so. This is false. The Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old. That's 45 with 8 zeros behind it. Life arose after only 500,000 years or so... so nature has had a considerable headstart on your so called god.

Answer 3

I see your point, except watches are designed and created by man, therefore Em Adjineri is wrong and not much of a scientist. Anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge should be able to determine that watches don't reproduce and are manufactured. They would also see that the watches don't have vestigial gears, or parts that are not designed for a watch.

I'm rather confused by what you're trying to use the word "irreducibly complex", generally this term means that the person doesn't want to put the time and effort into understanding the system and it's subsystems that they are studying.

The watch argument is an interesting one, as it clearly can be determined to be designed yet it is not as complex as a human, however the illustration breaks down when you start comparing the tests on a watch to organisms, i.e. the inclusion of useless or no-longer needed parts, etc.

Edit: Why are you citing an imaginary scientist, and one that is clearly an idot? If you want credability you will need hard facts and real references.

Answer 4

I couldn't have said it better myself! Thank you, Windom Earle. What a glorious recitation! Evolvilutionists never take inanimate objects into account because such a thing would automatically disprove their theory. They just interpret the evidence willy-nilly and, because they are students of Satan, attempt to twist their supposed findings as a way to disprove God and demoralize our countries.

The watch example is a great one and Em Adjineri is a gentlewoman and a scholar. Think about the Dorito if you would for a moment. An evolutionary would say "Oh, this Dorito doesn't have a designer, it evoluted from previous recipes of the perfect chip." Then they'd insist that means inanimate objects don't have to have DNA when they are evolved in the mind of the baker. We as creationaryists know that the Dorito is so obviously irreducibly complex that it must have been created by an intelligent designer. Sure, the baker baked it, but what incredible force of light and omniscience gave him the very idea? Who put the tasty ingredients on earth so that one day the Dorito could be created? GOD, that's who! And when He made the herbs and corn that the Dorito eventually evolved from. I'm sure He hoped that the man who wound up baking them thanked him for creating the necessary ingredients but it is FAR more likely that the Dorito inventor (as our LORD is the creator) pretended that it was his own and became thoroughly greedy, narcissistic, immoral and then, obviously, athiest. What a sad, sad world.

Thank you for pointing this out. Isn't it just one of those things that make you look at evolvinists and go "Duh!"?

Answer 5

The flagellum has been shown to be the evolution of a extra primitive shape, that of a protein injection spike which could be utilized to wish on different unmarried celled organisms. i do no longer remember seeing any argument approximately how echo area could become irreducibly complicated. certainly, being waiting to pay attention and to emit sound have value in themselves, and linking them the two in an echo-area means isn't an extremely impossible to think of subject. Irreducible complexity arguments are dealt with in a case by employing case foundation, with the help of employing exhibiting how they at the instant are not irreducibly complicated. and that's finished by employing looking examples of a extra basic and appropriate shape that still fulfills a purpose.

Answer 6

A watch is a man made object engineered to accommodate a specific clock. Circadian rhythm is described as a biological clock since it behaves with clock like aspects. Billions of years of evolution have resulted in this complexity. By the way, the things that you see that evolved survived because their evolution gave them an advantage. There have been species that died out because their evolution gave them a disadvantage.

I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!

Answer 7

Try studying evolution before claiming to have proof that it is impossible. Your pastor's lesson on the evils of evolution will not suffice.

Answer 8

Aww come-on, you haven't heard of watch-evolution yet? Sundial begets sextant begets pocketwatch begets coocooclock begets grandfather clock begets wrist watch begets big plastic wall watch begets digital watch begets cellphone. there, all better? LOL

Answer 9

Heh heh heh...good one.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1360,Inferior-Design-Richard-Dawkins-reviews-Behes-lastest-book,Richard-Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxtJit95xHM


atheist

Answer 10

Nice try.