Didn't you make the point that intelligent design should have been designed to account for the need to repair various things, like human designs? You are just assuming that the human body has no way of repairing itself but I think things like the immune system kind of dispute that, and I think I read that somehow DNA or the RNA (I know very little about DNA so don't cruxify me on this) can repair genes that are out of sequence, or something like that. That sounds like a built in repair process if it is true.
Actually, I brought up the point that we design machines to be taken apart and put back together for, among other things, repair and replacement. Also upgrades and simple maintenance. But really, the basic point was that they could be taken apart because they had to be put together in the first place.
Yes, the human body does have the ability to heal itself to a degree, to maintain itself to a degree, etc. But that isn't the same thing as what I was referring to. Even if we eventually build self-repair and self-maintenance functions into machines of the future (and we will, almost certainly), that won't eliminate the need to be able to take a machine apart and put it back together again. To be able to reduce them to basic components and then put them back together again so they'll function properly. You can't do that with a human body.
I didn't make my observations about the complexity of the human body to prove intelligent design in that comment, but only to point out that intelligent design does not mean there are no errors ever, it is speaking to the complexity of the structures/processes and how mulitiple things have to work together to sustain life. If you think about all the number of processes and systems that must fulfill their function to sustain life, then you begin to be amazed at how there are not more genetic flaws lead to various disorders / diseases.
Naturally, intelligent design doesn't mean that something is without mistakes. See the Ford Pinto for a perfect example of spectacularly bad "intelligent" design. But the mistakes and flaws we see in organisms are those that fit with them having evolved naturally, rather than what we'd expect based on our experience fixing flaws in human designs. That is to say, things that were necessary at an earlier stage of evolution, and thus got conserved (and spread to various descendants), but aren't necessary now, but aren't detrimental enough to wipe themselves out of the gene pool.
Isn't the clotting mechanism after you cut yourself kind of a built in repair process? Your bones fuse bake together after you break them.
Yep, but both are things that would happen in natural evolution, for the simple fact that organisms that did not have them would be much less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
The fact we have brains is the biggest repair mechanism of them all because that is how we discover cures for disease, etc including brain diseases (hopefully, in the future).
Oh, for crying out - the human brain is not a repair mechanism. The human brain is heuristic - it has the ability to learn and improve itself. That does not make it a "repair mechanism". Indeed, the human brain is the one organ in the body which doesn't possess any real capacity for self-repair.
My point isn't to prove intelligent design here, it is to make a logical case that Darwin's theory of natural selection coupled with random mutations could not lead to irreducible complexity. YOu keep trying to grade me on the false premise that I am not proving intelligent design but I am not even trying to. I am trying to disprove Darwinism.
Okay, stop and think about that for a moment. Your goal is to disprove 'Darwinism' (I assume you mean evolutionary theory) with something that you not only haven't proven and that nobody has proven, but that you aren't even interested in trying to prove. Do you not see the basic, fundamental problem with your argument?
Science is about using observations to come up with workable explanations for why things are. Trying to falsify evolutionary theory is one thing (I may not agree with you, but it is your prerogative), but trying to do so with something you aren't sure is accurate and that you aren't willing to take the time and effort to find out whether it is? That doesn't fly; it's neither scientific nor logical to disprove something without evidence that you're sure of, and the way it sounds, you're not only not sure about intelligent design and irreducible complexity (aside from the claim that they're logical, which has nothing to do with whether they're valid or supported by evidence), you don't particularly care if they are either.
Science is about finding things that are supported by reality and then trying to explain why that is. It is not about trying to claim that something isn't supported by reality while using 'evidence' that you aren't even sure is accurate. That is why you're finding such a cold welcome here. What, did you think that just because you thought intelligent design and irreducible complexity made sense to you, that they must be the way things actually happened? What we think is true very often has no bearing on what actually is true.
Why do you think scientists have to spend so much time and effort learning to overcome their own biases? It's because those biases often lead them to make serious mistakes in reasoning. That's the lesson you need to spend some time contemplating, and if the only thing you come away from this whole discussion with is that you can't trust what you think is right unless you check it against reality, then you will have accomplished something very meaningful.