AuldSoul, my fine and gentle Sir, ;-)
Don't get too hung up on the word "law" here. I only use it because the folks I'd like to reason with do. Here is their argument:
"The universe is guided by natural laws, so dependable and precise that astronomers can predict the positions of planets decades in advance. The existence of these laws implies a law-giver, does it not?"
The purpose of this thread is to answer that argument. No, the presence of an observable property about a system -- even if we call it a "law" -- doesn't mean that the property was placed there by an intelligence. As examples that I hope creationists could relate to, I offered the "law" of supply and demand. It is a "law" in the same sense that natural properties of the universe are "laws". (Or is NOT a law, in the same sense. Either way, they are the same idea.)
And I don't think I buy that if God created matter, he must also have created gravity. Perhaps he did, but he may have JUST created matter, with gravity being what happens when the matter clumped together. I write computer programs that are meant to do one thing, but in doing it also manage to do something else. (Usually something dreadful, but I digress...) I didn't design it that way, it's just a property of a system that does what it does. (A lightbulb also generates heat, for instance)
(And of course, it's possible God didn't create anything at all. Except beer, which is clearly of divine origin. I don't think anyone here would dispute that.)
Another "law": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
>>I believe your argument is extremely valid. I like it, and I'll probably use it.
May you have more success than me, my friend. I like it too, but it's not found its mark on anyone I've used it with.