Upside-down Day

I can show based on science. There is no rationale reason for hippos and dinosuars and other mammals to not be buried together.And why not human fossils as well?We don't see them buried together, and without having to go on a long tirade showing you why scientists DO accept radiometric dating, the fact we don't see the fossils buried together is all we need to discount YEC.

Uh, what do rocks have to do with it? The natural bridge is an irreducibly complex system. Remove part of the natural bridge, and it is no longer a bridge.Furthermore, arched bridges whether built from steel or rocks are built to work as one unit, not separate parts. So the natural bridge is the perfect example of an irreducibly complex system that arose as a whole via natural means.

You said that the IC "natural bridges" were formed from piles of rocks. If your bridge is NOT a pile of rocks we are back to the question of where are the parts. A one-piece arch is NOT a Roman Arch. A Roman Arch, built from dressed stones, designed to fit together could be seen as IC - the stones are the parts and they are well-matched by design.A system that is not composed of parts CAN'T be IC because IC requires multiple parts, all of which are essential for the system to work.

I think this one has gone as far as is sensible. The YEC arguments are in trouble but you don't have conclusive proof. (Your point about humans isn't very good, because there are no good numbers on YEC ideas of the human population before the Flood - going by Genesis it might be only a few hundred or a few thousand living in a relatively small geographical area) I suppose your reluctance to get into radiometric dating in this sub-thread is reasonable - it is a different issue.But if i were to start another sub-thread I've got something I'd rather introduce instead - an unusual argument but above average for creationism (and one I've discussed at length some years ago).

Well, I agree. Really, this thread has been disappointing...a dud really. I sort of hoped that some different arguments would be put forth by evos here, maybe more in areas I had focussed on, or another creationist/IDer/anti-evo could jump in, or arguments like the one you allude to.Why did you not start off with that?You obviously think it has the best merit and so it should have been the one you led off with.But this thread is done now.

I started off with IC because it is a more common argument and one of the less bad creationist arguments. It's also one you have used. The other thread we've been taking on is largely dictated by your insistence on focussing on the Flood (which isn't even an agument for Evolution and so a very bad choice for this thread).

I really have no problem with IC as a starting point. I just haven't read Behe's flagellum example that much, and I responded with the arch example via natural bridges because that's what evos have responded to me.But your post wasn't the only one, and it overall, the thread didn't seem to be as interesting as I hoped.Are you going to start a thread posting your creationist ID?

If your opponents made as bad a mess of it as you did then you must have known that it was a bad argument. And you certainly claimed that you knew of better arguments in the comments thread.And given your admission that you've not seen the flagellum used as an example I'd have to say that you aren't even really familiar with the creationist/ID arguments using IC.I was considering using the other creationist argument within this thead. I don't think that it's worth a new thread (it's above average but still has some serious problems) and I've already hashed it out enough on other groups. And as it isn't commonly used I'm not interested in starting a thread to refute it, either.