Why do you guys keep anthropomorphizing inanimate objects?
Particles don't "know how to" interact, they just do.
DNA doesn't "know how to" self-replicate, it just does it because of its chemical shape.
It's like saying a snowflake "knows how to" form into a hexagon. No, it does it because the water molecules bond at a 107.5 degree angle, and that causes them to line up as the "corners" of a hexagon when they freeze solid like that, forming snowflakes.
You're basically asking us to tell you how snowflakes "know how to" form. They don't. Neither does DNA. Neither do particles. Because they are inanimate objects and cannot know anything. They just operate according to the laws of physics.
The problem, Jenny, is that you're making two distinct claims/propositions that you're mashing into one claim.
Question 1) How do you know the laws of physics were not set up by an intelligent designer before the Big Bang, so they interact.
(Answer: I don't. But I see no reason to assume this is so.)
Question 2) How do you account for the complexity of the things you see around you, which appear to my eye to be organized by a designer?
(Answer: Organic chemistry just works that way. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but it's not in conflict with proposition 1.)
When you say that life is "too complex" to have formed naturally, you're implying the Intelligent Designer had to come down and "meddle in the pie as it baked" to get the outcome the Designer wanted. That violates the first principle in question 1, where we assume the Designer made the particles so they would naturally interact, in all the ways we now observe, prior to the Big Bang.
Combining them like that is not only self-contradictory, but it lets Irreducible Complexity (a subset of ID) slip into the evolution argument. You cannot make the "too complex to not have a designer" argument at all without claiming that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain all that we see in the living biome. Irreducible Complexity means that the Intelligent Designer got it wrong in the initial creation process, and had to come back to "fix" it with magic in order to make it complex. Think about it.
Particles don't "know how to" interact, they just do.
DNA doesn't "know how to" self-replicate, it just does it because of its chemical shape.
It's like saying a snowflake "knows how to" form into a hexagon. No, it does it because the water molecules bond at a 107.5 degree angle, and that causes them to line up as the "corners" of a hexagon when they freeze solid like that, forming snowflakes.
You're basically asking us to tell you how snowflakes "know how to" form. They don't. Neither does DNA. Neither do particles. Because they are inanimate objects and cannot know anything. They just operate according to the laws of physics.
The problem, Jenny, is that you're making two distinct claims/propositions that you're mashing into one claim.
Question 1) How do you know the laws of physics were not set up by an intelligent designer before the Big Bang, so they interact.
(Answer: I don't. But I see no reason to assume this is so.)
Question 2) How do you account for the complexity of the things you see around you, which appear to my eye to be organized by a designer?
(Answer: Organic chemistry just works that way. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but it's not in conflict with proposition 1.)
When you say that life is "too complex" to have formed naturally, you're implying the Intelligent Designer had to come down and "meddle in the pie as it baked" to get the outcome the Designer wanted. That violates the first principle in question 1, where we assume the Designer made the particles so they would naturally interact, in all the ways we now observe, prior to the Big Bang.
Combining them like that is not only self-contradictory, but it lets Irreducible Complexity (a subset of ID) slip into the evolution argument. You cannot make the "too complex to not have a designer" argument at all without claiming that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain all that we see in the living biome. Irreducible Complexity means that the Intelligent Designer got it wrong in the initial creation process, and had to come back to "fix" it with magic in order to make it complex. Think about it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
