[DC Bound]

I reviewed our conversation so far. It started with you responding to a post I made to another Freeper regarding IC. You posted a link that supposedly debunks IC. I responded that it doesn't, and presented an article that does a good job of explaining why. At that point, you begin posting links that have nothing to do with IC, but instead show progressions of fossils. Who changed the argument? And then, without responding to the article I referred you to that shows why IC is still a key argument, you start making personal comments about ignorance, character, etc. And then, when I bow out because speaking to a person with no manners becomes tedious and useless, you call it the ultimate dodge. I'm all into learning, and more than willing to admit when a line of thinking reaches a dead end. The fact is, though, that you seem incapable arguing without invective, and still, in all your links, have yet to defeat IC.

Keep spouting patent falsehoods on these threads and I expose them.

Irreducible complexity has yet to be answered. Have at it.

[VadeRetro]

I reviewed our conversation so far. It started with you responding to a post I made to another Freeper regarding IC. You posted a link that supposedly debunks IC. I responded that it doesn't, and presented an article that does a good job of explaining why.

I presented Miller debunking the flagellum as IC specifically, then Lindsay compiling various critiques of Behe and IC. You have presented no articles to me, nor do I see where anything you've presented to anybody responds to what I've posted to you, which is by now a wealth of material. But please feel free to explain where and how you have done anything but shreik about personal attacks.

At that point, you begin posting links that have nothing to do with IC, but instead show progressions of fossils. Who changed the argument?

You characterized evolution as saying "It evolved" and nothing more. Evolution has outlined both a mechanism and history by which life on Earth has diversified. There is evidence for both. I have shown this. There's quite a bit of evidence for it. Again, you bludgeon with your failure to understand and remember, even down to what has happened on this thread for all to see.

Irreducible complexity has yet to be answered.

Where have you established this?

Have at it.

You have not answered the answers provided already on this thread. Have at that.