[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.

[orionblamblam]

> your premise is that evolution happened in a Darwinian fashion. Therefore, all your conclusions must support your premise.

Obviously you know nothing of science. Name a scientist who *wouldn't* be thrilled to overturn current undersatnading and win the Nobel.

> Any argument which calls into question your basic premise is then thrown out as "silly."

No. Only the silly ones. And IC turns out to be silly, since it does not present a serious issue... but is repeatedly touted as some sort of proof.

> If it happened, then the odds must be pretty low?

The odds *against,* yes, when stacked up to the imaginary "one chance in 10R164" statistics that Creationists dream up.

Now, if you're done with the lame attempts at tarrign the arguement by tarring the personailty, try to re-focus. How does IC preclude the utility of feathers and arms?