@SPAUZPiMP @scarabic Oh wow, did he literally say âirreducible complexity?â That is SO blatant lol.
Not sure if he used the actual words but he was definitely making the point that it is extremely complex and any less complex version of it could not function. Which is exactly the concept of irreducible complexity
Edit: see @scarabic 's comment for a transcript of that part of the video
He asked if the complexity could be reduced or not, so he raised the topic. But he didnât imply that the thing is too complex and canât be reduced therefore god. He stopped short of that.
And it is a fair topic for anyone to think about. Iâm an âatoms bouncing aroundâ guy and I too want to know if the complexity can be reduced because if not, that means we must have waited a long long time for some of these assemblies to appear.
Maybe I am too paranoid from people âjust asking questionsâ all the time but actually pushing something they are too afraid to say out loud, but to me it seemed like exactly that behaviour. If he was actually interested in providing information on that âdebateâ he could have talked about it with the actual experts in his video but he just leaves it as an open question. To my understanding this openness is a strong misrepresentation of the scientific consensus because this exact motor has been used by creationist for a while and their arguments have been debunked by scientist for years.
