The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

I didn't need to look them up.  Physics has demonstrated their existence.  It hasn't demonstrated they have no structure.  Until it does, you can't assert them as elementary particles.  For someone who talks shit about other people's knowledge of physics, you seem to know dick about it.

Meanwhile, in all your shitposting, the point still has not been addressed.  Let me remind you of what it is:

You are incredibly dishonest. You said, specifically, that two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity is absurd. I replied that hydrogen is demonstrably not simple because there are simpler components of it, namely the elementary particles, do you agree with this particular reply? No? Are they the simplest that we will ever discover ? we don't know, their very existence still proves, irrefutably, that hydrogen is complex, and thus your silly objection evaporates into thin air.

I'm dishonest? I said two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity, treating hydrogen atoms as atomic as they were at one time and still are today to many. Upon your pointing out the technical flaw, I rephrased it as two elementary particles, no matter how you care to define them, and that is what you have been replying to for several posts. For you to pretend that I hadn't clarified my point and was still defending hydrogen as an elementary particle just makes you a dishonest twat. You have been focusing on the question of elementary particlehood as if that were the point and as if you didn't know it wasn't the point because of my explicitly pointing it out. Now, for you to accuse me of dishonesty after you've repeatedly tried to pretend I hadn't is the utmost in bullshit and lies.

Answer the point or concede the point. This "hydrogen being an elementary particle is essential to your point" is a bunch of crap. I've already said otherwise.

Once again, it's not I who asserted them as elementary particles. This is the term employed in modern physics, you can take it up with all these theoretical physicists who use the same terminology to describe the simplest known existent items, maybe you will be surprised when you realise they are a bit smarter than you thought when they picked the terminology. And Wtf does any of that require proving a negative assertion like "they have no structure" which is an infinite regress, because we can grasp the idea of the infinitesimal. we simply deal with we know. It's known that sand is really not a simple particle because it contains lots of molecules, which in turn contain these newly discovered elementary particles, THEREFORE sand is really incredibly complex, so much so that there is ongoing research to unravel more of the mysteries of subatomic particles.

Whether scientists think they are elementary particles or not is irrelevant. You defined complex as anything which is an aggregate of simple elementary particles, and cited Wikipedia which stated that an elementary particle is one without substructure. That becomes your chosen definition and yours to defend, not that of scientists. If you can't show that there actually are elementary particles, i.e. no infinite regress, then your definition of complexity is vacuous as there are no simple, elementary particles. I never mentioned sand and indeed have not, as my entire point was a retort to your claim that your interlocutor could not scientifically define simple, to which I replied that I could, i.e. simple is defined as not complex, pointing out that if you've got a scientific definition for complex, my definition of simple is valid. Since then it's been nothing but you running around the mulberry bush throwing red herrings with wild abandon to avoid facing the problem with a) your definition of complex, and b) your argument that complexity under that definition indicates design. As I recall, the last time we argued you did the same exact thing before you tucked your tail between your legs and fled.

Answer the objections given or fuck off. Telling me so-and-so uses the word the way you do and obsessing about ground already ceded just makes you an ass.

That's all I need to reject OP's silly description of sand as simple, in comparison to watches. As if he is some omnipotent agent capable of grasping quantum field theory in the blink of an eye.

I could give a rat's ass. I wasn't defending the OP.