Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

what are your arguments or proof if you have any  that unintelligent particles in existence
define and govern their own behavior ? why do you believe in unintelligent programming of the well defined organized laws of physics and chemistry ?

Particles don't have behavior, they have interactions. Any two things in the universe will do something when they're put together, even if that's just a lack of reaction. There's literally no possible way that they won't do a thing, there will be an effect that happens; physics and chemistry are simply human efforts to chart what those effects will be, what variables influence them, and from there to predict why that might be happening. They are "well defined," because it is in our best interest to construct an effective framework of knowledge by defining them well.

Thus, there is no "programming," that particles obey, just the inescapable fact that, by definition, objects will do something, because even inertness is an observable phenomena. What would it even mean for a particle to produce no effect that can be observed? There's no need for a programmer, because there's no programming, just a series of causes and effects that we observe.

You're arguing from analogy here, and that's just fallacious.

isnt science based on nature ; chemistry , biology and physics behaving in a certain predictable way ? theories of nature have been tested repeatedly and scientists have determined that these laws of nature do exist and are well defined and predictable . are you suggesting that natural laws dont really exist and instead are completely random and unpredictable ?

---

I've never heard any sane person claim the laws of nature "created themselves", and certainly not within this thread.

yet they exist right ? if not intelligently created or self created what is the alternative theory of why they exist? and then why do you believe in this theory what supports it ?