Here's why Creatards might be right

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

That's dope as fuck
I wonder how those particles knew how to "This is how particles interact with each other, period." They certainly wouldn't have gone like "POOF! NOW I KNOW HOW TO INTERACT WITH OTHER PARTICLES"

[jenny1972]

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?

let me grace you with a well known fact about debating , when your debating partner has no intelligent rebuttal to the argument he is reduced to personal insults

[The Grand Nudger]

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 .

Who are you responding to?  Really.  I included my quote so you can take another look.  Do you see me, anywhere, claiming that plants decide to follow the sun?  No, you do not, because I didn't.  Respond to me...when you are responding to me..please.

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?

let me grace you with a well known fact about debating , when your debating partner has no intelligent rebuttal to the argument he is reduced to personal insults

Look at this, and look up above.  Stating that you are strawmanning me, and showing where you are strawmanning me (and frankly, every one of your posts thusfar has been an example of that) is not resorting to personal insults.  I'm stating a fact.  You are strawmanning me, you are strawmanning chemistry, you are strawmanning physics, you are strawmanning all of the other posters you respond to.  It's been brought to your attention multiple times and you continue.  Either you don't know what it means, or you intend to do it.  


I did lay out my position...didn't I...and you didn't have anything to say about -that-...you decided, instead...to straw man me, yet again...and then bitch about how I was being a meanie..calling you names.  Cry me a river, shitposter.

[Alex K]

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

That's dope as fuck
I wonder how those particles knew how to "This is how particles interact with each other, period." They certainly wouldn't have gone like "POOF! NOW I KNOW HOW TO INTERACT WITH OTHER PARTICLES"

Nobody knows. So far we assume that these laws were more or less there in some form. Whether one can say that they "came from" anywhere in a sensible fashion is debatable. There are scientific hypotheses such as the String Landscape, in which the actual properties of particles and the types of forces are randomly chosen due to quantum fluctuations after the universe cools down.

[robvalue]

It's rather a big assumption that particles think about what they are going to do.

[jenny1972]

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?

hypothesis : neither chemistry nor physics requires a god , the laws of both created themselves . also there is no evidence that intelligent design created these laws . unintelligent Modern Synthesis created itself and is the reason for everything that exists not intelligent design

my argument is that as is well known intelligence created complex systems and puts these systems in motion . we dont require a time machine to observe this fact of reality daily . natural laws are complex , well defined , and have specific rules that govern them this is what leads me to believe intelligence set up natural laws

[The Grand Nudger]

Look at your response...and look directly above at what you quoted.  You have straw manned me again.  You keep inserting the same fucking sentence in every response anyone makes to you about anything.  You're a goddamned imbecile.  You don't even appear to know what an argument is....since you listed your assertions in place of an argument demonstrating their truth.  This is why you're having trouble, it's not your ignorance of physics or chemistry, primarily, that's led you here.  It's your ignorance of basic logic and word usage.

Or....you're being willfully and deliberately deceitful.  Tell me, which of these two best describes your involvement in this discussion.  Are you accidentally doing the same thing over and over, or.....

[jenny1972]

Look at your response...and look directly above at what you quoted.  You have straw manned me again.  You keep inserting the same fucking sentence in every response anyone makes to you about anything.  You're a goddamned imbecile.  You don't even appear to know what an argument is....since you listed your assertions in place of an argument demonstrating their truth.  This is why you're having trouble, it's not your ignorance of physics or chemistry, primarily, that's led you here.  It's your ignorance of basic logic and word usage.

Or....you're being willfully and deliberately deceitful.  Tell me, which of these two best describes your involvement in this discussion.  Are you accidentally doing the same thing over and over, or.....

try not to resort to insult although you dont have much of an argument for your postion that intelligence did not need to create complex laws of physics , thats your position so surely you have an argument supporting that position . why do you believe that complex laws of science design themselves for example you could point to nature where unthinking  organisms design there own laws of government what unthinking organisms do this ? or a computer that programs itself you can mention this as an argument as well

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

try not to resort to insult although you dont have much of an argument for your postion that intelligence did not need to create complex laws of physics , thats your position so surely you have an argument supporting that position . why do you believe that complex laws of science design themselves for example you could point to nature where unthinking  organisms design there own laws of government what unthinking organisms do this ? or a computer that programs itself you can mention this as an argument as well

Straw manned, yet again, shitposter. Have you given me any reason to doubt that you are being willfully and deliberately deceitful? Will you ever? If you don't like being insulted, then perhaps you should stop working so hard to deserve it.