Blitzking: I guess that I misunderstood what you meant by this.."Technically Popoi is right BK"
I only meant that he is right that if you state that an organism can't exist without certain organs and one does exist without them, then on a technicality that is proof that there can exist an organism without those organs.
Theoretically all this means is that one can make a case that if simpler forms exist, or more "primitive" might be a better epithet, then hypothetically you can argue that there could have been a previous state in the past, that didn't involve a morphology that had those organs.
So it gives logical permission for one to at least argue that theoretically it is possible to have an organism without those organs and one of those types of organisms is what evolutionists claim existed as an ancestor.
This doesn't mean that such an organism did or could evolve into a "higher" organism, it just means that you can't say that it's impossible for a creature to exist without those organs, if evolution says that certain creatures without those organs, were what existed in the past as ancestors.
This is the problem - evolution says that certain organisms like trilobites, which have less vital organs than men, because they aren't vital to it, existed BEFORE those other organs became vital.
If you're still confused perhaps a quote from Columbo will help when he says this to the person he knows is the murderer, when the murderer thanks Columbo for sticking up for her; "that's okay, no problem...after all I can't have you arrested on the wrong evidence."
So when it seems I am supporting evolution, all I am doing is sacrificing a pawn. "mike, what the hell, you gave that pawn to him, are you wanting him to have the checkmate by agreeing with evolutionary hypothetics?"
Not really, we can be objective and fair and just and knowledgeable and studious and not misrepresent evolution and evolutionists, WHILE arguing against the ToE.
"I only meant that he is right that if you state that an organism can't exist without certain organs and one does exist without them, then on a technicality that is proof that there can exist an organism without those organs."
I understand, but I made it very clear in the OP that I was specifically referring to Man and his 10 Interdependent Vital Organs and it is a Non Sequitur to point to OTHER irreducibly complex animals that are already designed to live with less organs As they are very much inferior to humans in virtually every conceivable way... Unless they can provide a pathway (Which they wont even attempt) for such creatures to start evolving other organs and then somehow slowly interlinking them with existing organs over millions of years and become Man! I even mentioned specific examples of such creatures.. Lungfish and Nematodes... It would be like finding a cheap timex watch by the seashore and then asserting that the Ocean also spits out Gold Rolex Watches as a result of your finding!
Let's take your example of a trilobyte that has a brain, heart, stomach, and gut.. It is Irreducibly complex.. But let us just ASSUME that a trilobyte popped out if the primordial ooze fully dressed up and ready to go... Now we have 600 Million Years for the Trilobyte to turn into Man.. Does it start evolving lungs, liver, pancreas, skin, upper and lower intestines right away because it knows it will eventually need them half a billion years into the future? What would be the order and why? And this is the dagger in the heart of the myth.. Critical Thinking and Logic must not be allowed in the classroom.. We are supposed to blindly believe by faith that all of this incredible stuff happened when we KNOW very well it is preposterous beyond words..
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",