Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

quote:

---

Maybee this is an argument from incredulity but to me it's the most common sense way to show the faulty logic of darwinian evolution.

---

The "Argument from Incredulity" is, in itself, a logical fallacy. A "fallacy" in an invalid argument, in other words.Therefore, one cannot use a logical fallacy to show a logical error.In addition, the so-called "common sense" of humans isn't actually very useful in scientific or logical matters.Humans are not logical, by nature.After all, it was considered "common sense" that the Earth was flat, not a sphere, for thousands of years.It was "common sense" that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around the Earth.It was considered "common sense" that heavy things dropped faster than light things.etc.

quote:

---

Note from a pedant:

​

Technically, it's the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' that is a logical fallacy. In other words where the argument simply consists of 'that sounds absurd to me', there is a logically valid from of the 'Argument from Incredulity' where one supports the argument with evidence for the event(s) in question being fantastically unlikely.

---

Of course, of course.Thanks for the correction.

quote:

---

If you want to hide behind your text books, that is your prerogative but please don't think that your untenable position is made more defendable by attacking my use of simple logic.

---

The thing is, you aren't using "simple logic".You are using the "Argument from Personal Incredulity."Oh, and "hiding behind textbooks" might also be restated as "being educated in the subject at hand."