The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

None of that makes a particle of hydrogen complex.  According to your definition, a particle is elementary or simple if it has no sub-structure.

That's not "my" definition. Pick some textbook on particle physics and read what an elementary particle means, I'm not going to repeat definitions again.

Yes, it is.

More about elementary particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles.

Wikipedia || Elementary particle

  If you don't like hydrogen as an elementary particle

The Standard Model of particle physics summarizes all kinds of elementary particles, which don't include hydrogen. When you use the terms "like", "your" you really leave a bad impression about how much you know about physics.

Only to you, which isn't any loss. I'm using the terms correctly. And this is entirely beside the point.

   The point is that two particles as an example of complexity is absurd.

Hydrogen is not a particle, do you understand? It's a chemical element which contains elementary particles, therefore, it's not an elementary particle i.e. not simple, as defined before.

Again, beside the point. You're just one big galloping case of ignoratio elenchi. In all your smart talk you haven't addressed what I was saying. You're just shitposting.

I'm guessing this gish gallop of irrelevancies is here because you cannot address the point. Pity.

You still haven't answered my earlier challenge to demonstrate the existence of elementary particles, either. Until you do, you got nothing.

(ps. If you're gonna talk shit about other people's language skills, don't go saying hydrogen isn't a particle. It just makes you look stupid.)