Are you conceding our discussion, DrTesla? Or is it starting to get too busy in this topic? I would appreciate a response at some point, though.
I don't think you can deny that irreducible complexity exists. It makes sense that complicated things would need the parts to be assembled at once in such a way that they work for it to have any functionality. A partially formed structure would have been of no use. Evolution by natural selection working on random mutations could not have assembled all the parts at once. It isn't logical that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to achieve something even intelligent people could not design, like an eye for vision.
Didn't you read my and Deus ex's posts? We both covered some of the problems with irreducible complexity. But here, I'll cover another one. Irreducible complexity is basically a Lego block argument - that you have to put together the pieces a complex organ (like the eye or the flagellum) all at once, and if you take pieces (Lego blocks) out, it won't function. The problem is, that's based on a faulty understanding of how organs develop and work, and on the false premise that organs have pieces that can be taken out or put together in the first place.
Irreducible complexity is the same as the bad argument that states that if you blew apart an E.coli bacterium into its component molecules, those molecules will have such a ludicrously small chance of coming back together to form an E.coli bacterium that it must have been put together by a designer to begin with. Except that the only thing demonstrated by this is entropy; it has nothing to do with how the bacterium developed. Both arguments are made to look logical, but only to people who are not actually knowledgeable about the subject. In actual point of fact, they're both arguments from incredulity.
Evolution can't explain how the first lifeform was created and evolutionist have not proven their theory that life originated on its own in some kind of chemical reaction. This is actually a key aspect of evolution, that the first lifeform just came to be due to natural processes. So to think the first lifeform could have been created, given we have no evidence life can originate from some kind of random event, is a legit theory. And if the first lifeform was created, why not many more?
Evolution is about how lifeforms differentiate, not about how life came to be. Claiming that "evolution doesn't explain where life came from" is like claiming that "germ theory doesn't explain where bacteria came from". To put it bluntly, even if someone did design the very first lifeform on Earth, evolution would still accurately describe how that lifeform differentiated itself and ultimately propagated into the life-forms we observe every day. If you want theories about where life came from, you need to look outside of evolution, not buy into propagandistic arguments that "evolution requires that life just came to be due to natural processes". Because it doesn't, it never has, and it never will.
I realize you're not knowledgeable about this subject, and that you want to learn. That's fine. But you need to stop assuming you can substitute logic for knowledge. That's just a form of ignorance, because logic is no better than the premise used to form it. If you don't have sufficient knowledge about a subject to make an accurate premise, then any logic you develop from your inaccurate premise will also be inaccurate.
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:
This website is a good example of how it's possible to be logical and blatantly wrong. For one thing, it claims "Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved." Except that what it means by supernatural is "something we don't understand and that goes beyond nature". In other words, they're just saying, "we don't know what could have caused it, so it must have been supernatural". Furthermore, they're also claiming that since scientists have not found a natural process for developing life for more than 50 years, then there's no point in continuing to look, and thus evolution is a dead theory. This is a horrible approach to science, and it clearly demonstrates that this group isn't interested in scientific discovery.
Their goal is to try to kill evolution, rather than to advance science. They aren't actually contributing anything in terms of scientific understanding - they're trying to disprove things they personally disagree with by using logic. Except that doesn't work, and never has; reality always trumps logic and it always will. That's why scientists do experiments and formulate their theories based on what actually is. They also use logic, but it's logic paired with knowledge. If they just did the logic, and didn't have the experiments and observations to back it up, they would be wrong more often than they were right. Far, far more often.
As for you, DrTesla, instead of looking for websites which seem to support what you already think to be true, you should take the time to learn about what evolution actually is and the evidence that supports it. Then you can judge the subject for yourself rather than relying on other people's arguments.