[orionblamblam]

> Thus we see, in this case, that feathers are an irreducibly complex component for the function of flight.

That's true, but it's also irrelevant. As I *hope* you can understand, the flight function is a *result* of the capability produced by the evolution of long arms and feathers. Irreducible complexity thus shows itself to be a silly arguement

> What are the odds against, not only a complex organism like the bat evolving the way Darwinists say, but a parallel evolution with the same form and function?

The odds against? Pretty low, it seems, as it has happened.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's true, but it's also irrelevant. As I *hope* you can understand, the flight function is a *result* of the capability produced by the evolution of long arms and feathers. Irreducible complexity thus shows itself to be a silly arguement

Ah, but you see, your premise is that evolution happened in a Darwinian fashion. Therefore, all your conclusions must support your premise. Any argument which calls into question your basic premise is then thrown out as "silly."

The odds against? Pretty low, it seems, as it has happened.

This is backwards logic. Your premise has already predetermined your conclusion, therefore any inconvenient facts either don't matter or must be explained away as irrelevant in your world view.

If it happened, then the odds must be pretty low? Really now, using faith to back up a logical argument sounds rather cultish.