Defense of Irreducible Complexity?

I recently came across a video on YouTube which was a clip from a "documentary" in which an apparent biochemist suggest evolution was trumped due to the Irreducible Complexity of the bacterial flagellum. We've all heard this before, and have heard the rebuttal. This post isn't about that. This is about how, I've noticed, creationists try to avoid reading the arguments and facts. It seems that for those new to Internet debate its a simple mass-denial, where a group all deny it, and congratulate each other on how 'smart' they are. Those of a little more experience get to the accusations quickly. I asked a simple question about the nature of empiricism, and he accused me of preparing to move the goal posts or accusing him of being misinformed, or under-educated on the subject. I will now explain what confuses me.

Firstly, where are the goal posts going to move? On my side of the field, to keep with the metaphor, they are securely set at the position of evolution from simpler stages. Where will they move? To my mind there is nowhere for it to go. I'm not saying anything about their side, so I can't move their goal post.

Second, why do I need to move the goal post? My side is more then adequately presented, theirs is obviously an argument from ignorance. I can even show it. The best example of goal-post moving is when an evolution-denier asks for a certain level of proof, and when it's presented he say that he actually meant a higher level of proof. I am SO confused.

Third, I've sent 1 message, and the guy assumes I'm out to get him. I was just trying to ascertain his level of knowledge of science and the scientific method, and he gets hostile. Seems to me that if a point is strong enough, one shouldn't need to make accusations until something actually happens.

In order to try and either get him to withdraw his accusations, or at least calm down, I replied with a message asking him to explain what he meant, and assured him that I'm sure he educated himself on the subject before posting his video. To not do so would be completely retarded. He hasn't responded yet, but it hasn't been long.

I do hope I can converse with this guy intelligently, although to do so I would need to penetrate his shield of ignorance, an I do not have the patience for that. Chances are, I'll have to debunk every false fact he says and point out any logical fallacies he uses.

If you happen to run across someone of this calibre, be careful, as they have enough experience in debating to make the slightest mishap seem like a enormous hole in your point. 'Tis better to disengage if unprepared, or to proof-read all posts. ALWAYS THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK! Otherwise we may have to re-align your logical compass.

Just me ranting about a guy on the net... Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.

An Argument for God

This post is strange for me. I will actually argue for the existence of God. However, due to the nature of the argument, I must also point out it's problems. I came to this idea not 10 minutes ago, whilst in the shower. I'll return to the post tomorrow, and leave a comment explaining my ideas after some thought.

God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.

I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.

...

OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.

This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,

crites evindentia logica.