Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

I am not sure you've shown the existence of the Creator in a way that doesn't require us to first assume that Creator's existence; take the following: There seems no reason to conclude that there must be a 'why' (i.e., an intentfull Creator's will) given the fact that a simple 'how' is perfectly adequate for explaining the phenomena we observe. Doesn't assuming otherwise force you to posit the existence of the very thing you wish to prove: the Creator? Certainly, though, had a computer been designed in the same fashion but for serving the purpose of a cup-holder, it would still be capable of all its present operations. When humans set to design something, they often have a purpose in mind, and create their device to serve this purpose, but this is by no means a necessity; indeed, many inventions come from the happenstance realization that something intended for one purpose can actually function quite well for another. That something performs a task well does not mean it was designed to perform that task; if we assume this, then we are guilty of presupposing the very thing we wish to address: the existence of the Creator. Of course, if we do not assume a Creator (and you've still given no reason why we should), then the evidence tells us that at one time there was no life, today there is life, and so somewhere in between life begani.e, abiogenesis took place. So once again, attempting to reason to your conclusion using your argument requires us to assume the very thing in question: the existence of the Creator. Who is to say that our reasoning isn't simply our brain's way of categorizing and making sense of the world around us? If such is the case, then we would be very likely to see what we call 'reasoning' to fall well in line with the processes of nature, since the latter begets in us the former. To accept that 'reasoning' created nature, however, requires that we once again assume the existence of the very thing in question: the Creator. Of course it can be explained in this way; but compatibility is not corroboration: that your theory is compatible with what we observe does not mean it is proven by what we observe. The only reason to accept your theory at this point is if we assume the very thing we wish to question: the existence of the Creator. Again, this theory requires that we accept 'knowledge' as one of the requirements for bringing about a universe, and thus forces us to assume the very thing you are to prove: the existence of the Creator.Given these circumstances, I must ask: can you show the existence of the Creator in a way that doesn't require us to first assume that Creator's existence?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Hi jay,Neat, I had never thought of trees growing that way I am familiar with several plants and grasses that grow that way. Are you sure about that?Didn't one tree have to grow from the seed?Didn't that tree put out a root system from which all the other trees had their beginning. Which would have occured when a cell in the root system grew upwards instead of horizontal?Would any mutations have occured in the cells in the root system that came from the original seed before the second tree was produced from the root system? etc.So wouldn't that be one tree being produced by the seed and then all the other by mutations in cells along the root system produced all the other trees.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That's what's on a blueprint, a picture of a finished house. When you say that "DNA is a blueprint" you're saying that there's some kind of homology between something in the DNA and the shape of the tree, but that's not true. DNA codes for proteins. There's no DNA code for "put a leaf here." I've looked at many blueprints, because I've worked in construction, and what's characteristic about them is that they specify homology between the diagram on the paper and the finished product. You may have to use some combination of saws, hammers, drills, and other hardware in order to create the finished product and the blueprint has no instructions for the use of saws, hammers, drills, or any other tool. Those are not instructions, those are specifications. Instructions are step-by-step information on how to do something. What you're providing when you provided the specifications of the finished footer is information about what should be done, not how to do it. How to create forms to dimension, how to space rebar, how to mix and pour concrete - those are the instructions on how to create a footer, but those aren't on your blueprint, are they? I don't know any stupider way to explain the difference between instructions and specifications, so I guess you'll just have to take the word of someone smarter than you who's been reading and following blueprints since he was 14. Blueprints don't contain instructions, they contain specifications. DNA doesn't contain specifications for organisms, it contains instructions for making proteins.That's why DNA is not a blueprint, which is a viewpoint shared by every single professional biologist. DNA instruction failure results in misformed proteins, not in misformed trees, because DNA doesn't contain instructions for making trees it contains instructions for making proteins.

Hi crash,If you ever decide to build a building of any kind I would advise you to obtain the services of an architect and contractor to do the work.As you have no idea what you are talking about.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Taq, If the designer did not put the information in the first cell including the instructions of how to replicate itself where did that information come from?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Show me a single blueprint for a foundation that specifies step-by-step instructions on how to operate the excavator to dig the hole, how to mix and pour the concrete, how to use a chop saw to cut lengths of rebar.As usual you've allowed yourself to be the person in this discussion who knows the least about what we're talking about.

Like all other genomic information it evolved by natural selection and random mutation over time.

Hi, ICANT. No. I don't think any new trunk derives from a single cell in the root system, so each trunk should be buffered against any mutations that happen in individual cells.Also, basic plant physiology shows that the growth habit of a plant is flexible. You can change the shape of a plant's body by altering its access to light and water or by altering the nutrients in the soil. Some plants grow bulbs, and you can divide a bulb in half, thus producing two plants with the same DNA, but grow from them two plants that look quite different, even without actively altering its environment. This is because plant growth is flexible. This is not a controversial thing that I'm saying, either: it's common knowledge.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

It's not all that specific. For example, a plant that is receiving more light on one side than the other will grow more leaves on the sunny side. There are many environmental factors that interact with the proteins produced by DNA that result in the leaf distribution we observe. This is true for all of the features on a tree.We can even look at the pattern of annual rings in a tree to decipher what the environment was like in the past. Thinner rings indicate a shorter or dryer growing season while thicker rings indicate a wetter or longer growing season. If you gave a blueprint to someone who had never done any construction whatsoever would they be able to build the house to code based on the blueprint alone? Last I checked, blueprints did not include instructions on how to sweat a joint.Blueprints are an abstract representation of what is to be built. DNA is not abstract. It is the building material itself.

That is what scientists are researching right now.2,000 years ago people could have asked how lightning was produced if it wasn't the creation of Zeus. Just because no one at the time had a valid scientific explanation did this make the Zeus explanation correct? No. So why is the origin of information in the genome of the first life any different?

To help drive this point home an analogy might be useful.Let's say that Frank has been accused of murdering Sally. The case goes to trial. The prosecution presents a very simple case. The most damning evidence, according to the prosecution, is that Sally is dead which is completely consistent with Frank killing her. Even more, no one has offered any other evidence that Phil did it, therefore it had to be Frank.That is all the evidence that the prosecution has put forth. Is that a convincing argument?

Hi, ICANT.An example of instructions:

1. Lay the board on the ground.
2. With a pen, make a mark 1 inch from the end of the board and 1 inch from the edge
3. Place the board against the other board such that the end is flush with the face of the other board.
4. Place the pointy end of a nail against this pen mark and hold the nail firmly between the thumb and forefinger.
5. With a hammer in the other hand, and while still holding the nail between thumb and forefinger, strike the head of the nail several times, until the pointy end is buried solidly into the wood.
6. Let go of the nail and continue to strike the nail with the hammer until the nail is buried to its head in the wood.

Do blueprints contain things like this? No, no they don't. I have never worked construction in my life (beyond home-improvement projects with my father, during which I was never given the opportunity to view any blueprints), but even I know this.This is the kind of thing that DNA codes for: it codes for the materials and the processes that produce the final product, not for the actual final product itself. DNA produces proteins, which are like the boards and nails and shingles, and these proteins interact with other proteins---which are like the construction workers---that regulate where the boards and nails and shingles go and when they go there. Other proteins---also produced by DNA---regulate when and where DNA produces which proteins.You've let the longstanding "blueprint" analogy for DNA lead you to make erroneous conclusions about how DNA functions.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi crash, You are confusing the evelation page with the many pages of information that instructs you what to build that follow that page. Just like there is no DNA codes for put an eye here or put a leg here. You are correct the blueprint has no instructions of how or what tools to use to build the house.The blueprint does contain all the information and specifications to build the house. How you accomplish that is up to you. The process has changed over time. They used to use hatchets and rives to make the boards to build houses out of and before that they used the logs, now we go to Home Depot and purchase them.If you or your contractor do not build the house according to the information contained in the blueprint and approved by the building department. They can order it demolished and if you do not comply they can fine you and get a contractor to demolish the building for you. Specifications are found in the legend.Information on the blueprint instructs what to build.You are not allowed to mix the concrete on the jobsite as it must be the psi concrete in the information provided. If I specify 4400 lb concrete that is what must be used. A sample is to be taken and sent to the lab to make sure the psi is at or above what was specified in the information. If it does not meet the specifications it must be torn out and done over again.So I am not concerned with how you construct the foundation. I am only concerned with what the foundation is when finished. You can do it as many times as you want until you get it like the information instructs you to build it as the blueprint specifies. Definition of specification SourceIn the legend if I specify #6 rebar for foundation steel the steel you use must meet those specifications or be better.If I give information that instructs that you must place chairs in the footer that is 24" wide that carries 3 #6 rebars and that every 3' you must place a 4' verticle #6 rebar that has a 2' lap on the footer steel either tied or welded and you do not follow the instructions contained in that information the building inspector will red tag the footer.Definition of information SourceSo the information on the bluprint gives instructions as to what to build.The information of the legend gives the specifications of the products to be used in the construction of the end product of the blueprint. Definition of blueprint. SourceDefinition of detailed. SourceDefinition of plan. SourceSo a blueprint is a extended treatment or attention to particular items of a method worked out beforehand to accomplish a specific objective.Since DNA is the informatin that has been provided for carring out the instructions to accomplish a specific objective, it is a blueprint for what the DNA produces. Wouldn't that be the failure of the information in the DNA being translated properly which would cause the wrong protein to be manufactured.DNA does contain information which contains instructions for making proteins that will produce the specific tree in which that DNA resides in.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And none of those pages have the instructions for how to create, mix, and pour concrete; operate excavators; or swing a hammer. Those instructions are in construction textbooks, not blueprints. Right, that's what we're getting at. DNA, on the other hand, is nothing but instructions for how to assemble proteins step by step - "first, methionine, then, alanine, then, phenylalanine, then another phenylalanine, then methionine again, then guanine..." etc. There's no place in the DNA of a tree where you can find a data structure homologous to the shape of the tree. That's why identical clonal trees can look incredibly different. Which is why it's important for blueprints to contain homology to the finished product and not be a series of step-by-step instructions on how to use hatchets and rives (or skiploaders and concrete mixers), because then blueprints would be made useless the minute a new technique or tool in construction supplanted an old one. Right, which is why it's the job of the blueprints to be homologous to the finished house, not to detail step-by-step instructions on how to reach that finished product.But that's not how DNA works - DNA is just step-by-step instructions for how to build proteins and ignores, for the most part, homology to the finished product. In many ways, DNA is the exact opposite of a blueprint. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. And what the DNA produces is proteins. So, sure, it's a blueprint for proteins. You asserted that it was a blueprint for trees and stuff, which your own research has now revealed to be a falsehood.So, we agree, at last. The DNA of a tree is not the blueprint for a tree.

But we can. The chemical mechanism which produces DNA is particularly well-understood. The fact that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are not a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design "should behoove us to appreciate" that they are not a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design.Face it, a computer is not such a good analogy for a tree as a tree is. In particular, when it comes to the question of how the computer and the tree came into being, the computer was produced by intelligent beings and the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes.If you wish to fantasize that at some point some tree was produced in a manner like that in which a computer was produced rather than in the manner in which trees are actually produced, then we have observed nothing that would support that hypothesis. Again with the religious dogma.Thre is no reason to suppose that, even if the universe has a Creator, he should be "perfect in knowledge". That is merely a tradition of your religion.If you have any reason to suppose that the creator of what looks to me like a fairly slapdash universe was "perfect in knowledge", please present it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.