Here's why Creatards might be right

[robvalue]

http://youtu.be/G2eUopy9sd8

[The Grand Nudger]

they are not intelligent at all and do not decide anything they are all bound by the laws of nature , you say the laws of nature exist and were not created by intelligence and did not create themselves so what is your explanation why these laws of nature exist whats your theory on why the laws on nature exist if  it did not come into existence on its own or come into existence through intelligent design ? what IS your theory how the laws of nature exist ?

Well......gee, all of those things listed seem to be capable of "creating" complex and organized this and that's.  I'm not demanding that you be right, only that you be consistent.  

As ever, you're pitching straw.  There's no reason for me to respond to it, because it doesn't have anything to do with me or my position - which you asked for, which I provided...which you have declined to address.

[Simon Moon]

I know I tried last night several times.

Don't know how I was able to maintain my patience.

And here we are a day later, and the same logical failures, fallacies, misunderstanding of science and the scientific method from Jenny. 

I'm beginning to believe she's a BOT. No one can have their failures pointed out continuously for days, and continue to make them. 

And no, Jenny, this is not a matter of opinion. Your arguments are provably flawed.

im just waiting on the proof actually begging for it here

What are exactly are you waiting on proof of?

That your posts are fallacious? Every time you have made a logically flawed and fallacious post, it has been pointed out to you.

So far you have been guilty of: argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, special pleading, straw man and I'm sure others. 

Have you even taken the time to google "logical fallacies" so you can see your mistakes? It will actually make you a better debater. But I'm sure you are much more content in your willful ignorance.

If you are waiting for proof of something else, name it.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be fair, no debate has occurred in this thread.  For there to be a debate...both sides must present a case......

[robvalue]

Jenny: Here is my beginner's guide to logical fallacies.

It will hopefully help you understand why your points are not being accepted.

I need to add the fallacy of composition in there.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I can't read this thread anymore. Rampant anthropomorphism gives me wind.

Boru

[jenny1972]

I don't have a hypothesis regarding the laws of nature. It isn't necessary for everyone to have one. I have no idea.

It could simply be the case that they have always been the way they are, and that's it. It's our natural obsession with assigning agency to everything that is leading to the assumption that something must have made everything.

It's obviously flawed, because if an intelligence must be behind the laws, then an intelligence must have made that intelligence, and an intelligence must have made that intelligence...

To just arbitrarily say that this stops at some point is to admit the very rule you're using isn't valid.

the belief that all things must have a beginning middle and end is a human concept based on observable reality the concept of infinity could exist since concepts exist despite our inability to comprehend them . if infinity is a concept that does exist.

---

right , so why dont you answer that question now .if not intelligently created or self created what is the alternative theory of why they exist? and why do you believe in this theory what supports it ?

I'm sorry....for clarity, are we now pretending that I didn't -just- answer this question.....and that no one else has previously offered an answer?  I'd hate to have to call you a liar...again.  Okay...you got me, I enjoy it, whats really got me wondering, is why you give me so many opportunities to do so?

im not pretending that you didnt im saying that you have not yet given your theory about how the laws of physics came to exist

---

It's been given to you.  For clarity, are we pretending..that this thread doesn't exist?  That no ones explained the fallacy of composition?  That no ones explained the fallacy of strawmanning.  That no ones explained the fallacy of arguing from incredulity?  That no ones explained the difference between valid and invalid inferences?  That you haven't been corrected on your misunderstandings of both cosmology and biology, or even the simple matter...of the meaning of words?

None of that's happened....this is 41 pages, of none of that happening?

yes all that has been explained im just waiting for a theory about why the laws of nature exist . not the word " laws of nature " not terms that man has developed to define it but the actual laws of physics and nature which are well organized what is the theory about why and how they exist.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Jenny - I've been trying to get some work done before the weekend, so I apologize for my intermittent participation in this.

Perhaps this will help you understand. You keep asking how, if not for an intelligence, the particles can interact as they do.

Turns out, it's what's called an "emergent property", meaning that based on the type of particle and how many of them there are, they interact in various ways. You can see a chart of the various types of sub-particles, here:



It's how we knew there would be a Higgs Boson (the so-called "God Particle") to create the attraction of gravity, even before we found it. The mathematical balance of the sub-particles that make up matter as we know it required that there be one, even though we'd never found it.

You are asking why each particle was assigned the particular values it has, under which values it interacts with the other particles in the ways that they do. Our question is, why must it be assigned?

There is no, repeat no, reason to think that the particle values are anything but random values, and the universe we see anything but the result of those random value-settings as they turned out to be, randomly. Different settings would have made for a different universe, in which the beings in that universe (if any) would be arguing about how "something had to design" the settings to be just-right for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

im not pretending that you didnt im saying that you have not yet given your theory about how the laws of physics came to exist

If you're not pretending that I hadn't already answered the question...then why are you asking again?  You know my answer, I've given it, and you aren't pretending that I haven't.  

yes all that has been explained im just waiting for a theory about why the laws of nature exist . not the word " laws of nature " not terms that man has developed to define it but the actual laws of physics and nature which are well organized what is the theory about why and how they exist.

Okay...so, you understand how poorly you've behaved in this thread, right? Good, moving on.

You're going to need to be -far- more specific.  If I'm not sure what it is you're asking...then I can't possibly answer the question.  Pick one, pick a law of nature...lets see, firstly, what you think a law of nature is, and if we have an explanation for why that came to be.  Eh?

[jenny1972]

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 ?

Consistency doesn't have to be designed though. If you have an identical cause, of course the effect is going to be the same; why are you assuming that it wouldn't be? Why are you assuming that without a designer, two identical causes would produce completely random, diffuse effects?

This is the problem here: you're just inserting completely random assumptions into your argument and then expecting everyone else to clean up your unjustified premises.

right the effect is going to be the same because the laws of nature are the same for both . if you throw two balls into the air one is not going to obey the laws of gravity while the other ball continues upward . there are organized laws that everything must equally exist within , chemicals have structure , DNA is also organized not unorganized at all. intelligent beings organize we see it all the time .