[Last Visible Dog]

Gee, because it doesn't, dumbass? Get a grip.

Golly, how can one argue with an elite scientific mind like that.

Here are some example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella

I assume you are going to pretend they don't exist. My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.

[balrog666]

I assume you are going to pretend they don't exist.

Not at all. Only that they are not "irreducibly complex".

Aw, did you forget the last six threads already? Next time, I'll dumb it down for you.

My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.

Really? And how did you establish any "irreducibly complex" items? Did you use the theory of evolution or a god-filled version of creationism?

Elucidate, please. Establish your (bullsh!t) premise if you can.

I'll tune back in tomorrow to see if you have posted anything worth a sh!t. (Probabilty zero - BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!)

[Ichneumon]

Here are some example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella

Those are not examples of "irreducible complexity", as you claim they are. But you're invited to provide your proofs that they are, if you think you can. Be sure to show your work.

Note: You'd be wise not to rely on previous creationist sources for information on the bombadier beetle, they're flat wrong on several issues, and Behe's discussion of the flagella overlooks several fundamental things which render his argument invalid.

Take a stab at it yourself, if you like.

I assume you are going to pretend they don't exist.

I see that you often make incorrect assumptions.

My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.

You have failed at your goal.