You should re read my first post. I stated that I could see no connection at all between irreducible complexity and scientific discipline's including F1.dumrick wrote:You believe that people believe in what's cool. This is an example. I see NOTHING in your post BUT your beliefs. The question was about "the possibility for designing things that are easier to work on for motors in cars", not the existance of an Irreducible Complexity in the Universe, which, as you state, would make the question about motors absurd, since motors are made by humans.autogyro wrote:There was no mention of my beliefs in mine.
So, in my point of view, either you admit the question was about reducibility in the mathematical sense (a simpler system performing the same tasks, like Tissot did on watches, which later made the Swatch possible), or you think the question was dumb.
I also said that people should not use their conclusions on things like Dawkins mumblings to be fashionable and cool, not for them to construct a belief system from them.
I did not evangelize any belief structure, I simply pointed out that it is impossible for human beings to discount the existence of an over all creator of some sort, so therefore atheism cannot exist in reality. It is a statement of irrelevance and laziness.
The original poster used 'irreducible complexity' to stir up debate. If the intent was to be engineering debate he would have used 'reducible complexity', which exists everywhere in reality.
