Here's why Creatards might be right

[LostLocke]

Some sort of particles are needed for any sort of explosion
For the BB to occur particles would've needed

Except the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
No particles needed.
Particles, as we know them in our universe, formed after the BB.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Jen, I don't believe that at all. Let me grace you with another fact. It is a fact that pitching straw is an idiotic way to object to someones statements.  Let me ask you this plainly.  Do you understand what we're all referring to...when we say that you're pitching straw?

[Thumpalumpacus]

why do you assume that the laws of physics and chemistry itself are not intelligently designed ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So, the big bang is nothing like the firecrackers upon which your observations are centered.....but you're gonna run with it anyway..because it sounds cooler...or are you done?

You think I'm wrong because I said that "This is how particles interact, period." rule existed for particles before the BB.

Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density......

I understand that BB happened from the rapid expansion of a singularity.
Now read the bolded part.
Now do you understand? Why I said what I said? Because you seem to be telling me that a singularity doesn't involve any sort of particles

Edit:
If your point is that you have a better understanding of BBT then you're probably right otherwise I see no point in your posts rather than test what I know about BBT

Some sort of particles are needed for any sort of explosion
For the BB to occur particles would've needed

Except the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
No particles needed.
Particles, as we know them in our universe, formed after the BB.

Read the quote above
And I'm sorry for using explosion

[robvalue]

I don't assume that the laws of nature are or aren't intelligently designed. I say it's impossible for us to tell as we have no frame of reference. All attempts to decide that they are or aren't by staring at the contents fall foul of the fallacy of composition.

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

[Thumpalumpacus]

ok what evidence do you have that intelligent beings do not create complex things i have tons of evidence that intelligent beings are responsible for creating complex creations .

What makes you think I believe that? Clearly you not only don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what I'm talking about either.

Of course intelligent beings design complex objects. My disagreement with you has nothing to do with that. I'm not going to repeat myself to you, especially when all you're intent on doing is stuffing words into the mouths of others.

Go educate yourself about the topics under discussion and then we can talk. Until then, I have no interest in you deliberately misrepresenting my views.

my fan doesnt create anything . it does create movement but only because its creator , a human a thinking being , set it up to create movement . my fan doesnt do anything more or less than what a thinking human designed it to do .

While you're trying to get up to speed, I'd suggest you read up on chaos theory, too. You're clearly ignorant of it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking you.  Again, if you would be so kind, please share with us how you could -possibly- know what you've claimed...and..if it's not too much to ask, after explaining how you could know..demonstrate that you do?

I know it because I know that some kind of particles are required for any kind of explosion. I know this from everyday observation

The Big Bang was an expansion of spacetime itself. Particles didn't exist for a long time after the initial hyperexpansion.

[jenny1972]

yes right if the DNA had a different structure it would be different .

-and so the machine language would be different.  All of your comparisons to code...out the window, right there.  Understand that, acknowledge that.  

but it was created to have a certain distinct structure a certain DNA .

This is precisely what must be demonstrated.....you are assuming your conclusion, which is not valid logic.  You have no reason to trust your conclusion.

chemicals and atoms also are made up of complex structures , you are assuming that chemistry and atoms just created themselves without intelligence .

Nope..and you've been corrected on this..at length, you even apologized a few pages ago for doing precisely this.  Was your apology as insincere as your reasons for belief?

does our computers , an unthinking entity , do this write its own code decide for itself what it will be ?

Yet more straw.  Respond to me...when you respond to me...for change.  I understand that you're having difficulty figuring out how to do that...but there -are- people trying to help you.  How long will you persist in this, btw....how many times will you repeat the same error?  Is your entire belief in ID founded upon this error?  Is there no way for you to argue ID without making this error?  Doesn't that concern you?

ok lets start over so i can be clear about what your hypothesis

your hypothesis : an intelligent being did not set up the laws of physics and did not set up the laws governming chemistry such laws created themselves is that correct ? if not edit

[The Grand Nudger]

ok lets start over so i can be clear about what your hypothesis 

your hypothesis : an intelligent being did not set up the laws of physics and did not set up the laws governming chemistry such laws created themselves is that correct ? if not edit

My position is simple, neither chemistry nor physics requires a god as explanation..nor is there any evidence that a god had a hand in either.  That the things which you refer to, as evidence or reason for a creator god...are, more accurately, evidence/reason for Modern Synthesis, for example. This isn't the first time I've said this.....it won't be the last.

Now, do you have anything to say, to me...about -my- position?

[jenny1972]

All the time..look around you.  How is it, do you think...that plants can follow the sun as it moves overhead?  I'm sensing another argument from incredulity in your future.  Surely you don't think that the same fairies that paint dew on the petals are hauling the leaves around with chains?

its designed in their DNA to do that the plants dont decide to follow the sun .