[lasereye]

There is objective evidence of the Bible being divinely inspired such as numerous fulfilled prophecies that are astronomically unlikely to have occurred by chance. No archaeological discovery has ever disproven anything in the Bible but has confirmed hundreds of things - both old and new testaments.

I've heard every creationist argument you can think of and they all boil down to misrepresenting paleontology, physics, anthropology (both physical and cultural), biology, genetics, history and every other science and academic discipline you can think of.

How does irreducible complexity misrepresent any of those? Be specific.

If you want to see a good scientific argument against Darwinism, here's one:

A Scientific Critique of Evolution.

Also a peer reviewed paper giving evidence for a young earth by Dr. Russell Humphreys who has been published in leading scientific journals:

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

[Ichneumon]

How does irreducible complexity misrepresent any of those? Be specific.

It misrepresents biology. It pretends to know that a particular structure is incapable of any function whatsoever if it is changed in any way. Needless to say, one would actually require complete omniscience to be able to rule out the viability of every conceivable variation. Anyone who claims that they can prove a system of even moderate complexity "Irreducible" is selling you snake oil.

[Bombardier]

A peer reviewed paper from the ICS? That's like having Tomas de Torqemada discuss the finer points of Judaica.....

Try this out. Physical laws are physical laws. Period. No matter what the ICS says.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/cdecay.htm

[Bombardier]

And a bit more that the ICS is ignorant of.....

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

[Bombardier]

And does Genesis square with science? Nope.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/genesis.html