Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

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.

ok you say " organic chemistry just works that way " chemicals react in a certain well defined way do you believe these chemicals designed themselves to react in that well defined way , each unthinking chemical developed its own laws of self government then ? and you say " operate under the laws of physics " which is well defined and limited

[The Grand Nudger]

If everyone you've already asked that question of...multiple times...hadn't already answered that question....multiple times, you'd be less transparent. Just trying to help you work on your routine, for that glorious day when you decide to go somewhere else to troll.

[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.

ok you say " organic chemistry just works that way " chemicals react in a certain well defined way do you believe these chemicals designed themselves to react in that well defined way , each unthinking chemical developed its own laws of self government then ? and you say " operate under the laws of physics " which is well defined and limited

I went back and re-bolded some of what I said, since you seem to have missed it.

Why, then, having read those things, would you POSSIBLY HAVE GROUNDS to ask me "do you believe these chemicals designed themselves"?

Seriously... why? Did you not read, or not understand, what I said?

[jenny1972]

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.

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 ?

[The Grand Nudger]

As always, I don't believe in any of those things, you've straw-manned me yet again.  As soon as you can muster up the courage to acknowledge your well demonstrated habit...I'll have a discussion with you that doesn't revolve around pointing out how inept you are.

[GrandizerII]

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.

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 ?

Intelligence is not necessary to yield certain patterns which you are then evolved billions of years later to perceive "as well organized".

[Esquilax]

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.

[robvalue]

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

[jenny1972]

As always, I don't believe in any of those things, you've straw-manned me yet again.  As soon as you can muster up the courage to acknowledge your well demonstrated habit...I'll have a discussion with you that doesn't revolve around pointing out how inept you are.

if intelligent design did not create the laws of physics what created the laws of physics ? you dont believe intelligence created it so how do you believe they came to exist ?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm neither required nor inclined to explain anything to you which has already been explained at length, multiple times, throughout this thread.  It didn't help the first time, or the second time...or the next time..or......

Here you are, still shitposting...why would that change? You have yet to respond to -my- position...after having asked for it. Why did you ask in the first place? Can't you have this conversation with yourself? Is my participation required, is anyone else in this thread required? What would the difference be, do you think...between asking these questions of yours, about these positions of yours, to a wall....and what you've been doing in this thread?