Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

Can you tell us which step in the formation of a cell is not a chemical process? The purpose of a computer is determined by how humans use it to perform tasks. So how does this creator use life towards a purpose, and what objective evidence do you have to back this up? Does the same level of evidence apply to the creator as well? Are you proposing a creator because you have observed this creator making life? Why? Humans are able to shape and design machines that produce ice, so does this mean that all ice is likewise produced by some designed freezer? Or could it be that nature is capable of doing what humans are capable of doing? How did you determine that this explanation is true? Based on what evidence?

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?

The very same dogma that you use every second of every day. Do you chain yourself to the floor every night incase gravity becomes a repulsive force in the middle of the night? If not, then you ascribe to the same uniformitarian dogma that we do. Uniformitarianism is the idea that physical laws are the same through space and time. That's it. Therefore, the things we see happening now are guided by the same laws and principles as the same events in the past. This is the assumption that you use every single second of your life. Based on what evidence and what reasoning?

Goldrush has tacitly agreed to these rules, however. Goldrush has stated many times that the conclusion of a creator is a logical conclusion reached through reason. When Goldrush fails to describe this reasoning and spouts logical fallacies we can only deduce that Goldrush has failed to meet his own criteria.

But why does that higher source have to be a creator deity? Why can't it be an unintelligent source, such as the interaction of M-Branes as described by String Theory?

If you are not using the scientific method then you need to spell out the epistemology that you are using. What are the rules of logic that you are using? Are your rules so liberal as to include flights of fancy alongside empirical evidence? Are ideas conceived from fantasy on the same level as evidenced theories? How do we differentiate between false beliefs and true beliefs within the system of logic that you are using?

To be fair, I think goldrush did spell out the arguments. It took on two forms:1. Argument from incredulity: Goldrush can't see how natural mechanisms can produce what he sees, so it has to be supernatural in origin by default.2. Negative Argument/Argument from Ignorance: No one can prove that creator didn't do it, therefore the beginning assumption of a creator is kept.What goldrush failed to do is produce arguments that were not logical fallacies (according to the common rules of logic that we are all used to).

This may very well be a case of "lost in translation". The subtleties of science-talk are not always that obvious to the layperson. Given the success of the theory of evolution it is the best choice for the foundation of their work. It is assumed that there is an evolutionary pathway, and their research is trying to discover this pathway. Evolution is not assumed as a "fact" [i]of absolute truth, but it is assumed as a fact for the purposes of the research.To use an analogy, meteorologists assume that every cloud is the product of condensed water vapor. When they state that a specific cloud is made up of water vapor it is not because they have sent a probe into each and every cloud to make sure that it is water vapor and not magical cotton candy. On top of that, if their assumption of condensed water vapor was wrong then the mountains of previous research within meteorology should have caught it by now, and it hasn't.So to boil it down, scientists are assuming that the last 150 years of solid scientific discovery is correct.

They are assuming that there is an evolutionary pathway to discover given the success of the theory over the last 150 years.

message deleted. Replied to same post twice.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Logic is not a product of evolution any more than geometry is a product of evolution. The sum of the angles in a triangle do add up to 180 degrees whether or not humans exist. There is a very real world out there, and logic is one of the means that we use to model it. We can trust our logic because it works, and we can demonstrate that it works.We can also demonstrate why logical fallacies do not work, such as the fallacies you have used as an argument in this thread. Reality is not confined to what we consider reasonable or "common sense". By applying it and testing it.

I would argue yes, in the same way that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees whether or not humans exist. Does 2+2 equal 4 just because we say so?

Why does it need governing? False. It could be that logic does not work, and therefore is false.