No. Who said that the Universe is the same thing as HTML... The comparison was only made about a 'creator'... A picture created by a 1000 people is still created, in that they are the 'same'. Natural beings are a result of the universal laws... The beings may be imperfect, but we can use the code to create something more 'perfect'.. Which is part of the application of science? You using the same code, you don't create a new one doing it (unlike HTML). Great argument. That the universal laws can be seen as a coded language. Well quoting 'be and it is' and the natural process is really talking about the mechanism of creation, which is 'how it works'.. And the relevance is that from a perspective that the universal laws are a code, it can be assumed that a creator exists.. You may not agree with the assumption, but there is nothing illogical about the assumption. The specifics and similarities of HTML and DNA are not the point of the analogy... You're trying to pinpoint differences when the main point is that HTML has been created, and that creation of HTML ie the bolded text or anything that 'results' from HTML were given conciousness that they could not identify their creator- they could only look at the code to their existence. Again you are trying to point out things that are actually irrelevant. Its true that it is a 'way to look at things'. It doesn't matter if HTML was created by a single intelligence or it borrowed things from other intelligence or what not. Those specifics don't matter. If HTML has many creators it does not mean that therefore everything must have multiple creators or multiple intelligences contributing to the code. That is why the specifics of this are irrelevant. The point is that HTML has creator/creators. The universe can too... how many 'creators' does it have is not the point of the analogy. For I care it could be Diego and Dora the Explorer. The numbers of creator is irrelevant. 2+2 =4 is a human thinking method- its a code to describe reality. Obviously you can create your own system to describe it. one cookie could be presented through a symbol instead of the numeral 1. But it is still describing an actual thing. Also I'm not talking about the 'law of DNA'- but the laws of the physical world, the very fundamental things. Or you could say the 'laws that started everything else'. Sure you are imagining that this 'creator' is God... but an argument for the existence of a creator is still an argument. What you take that creator to be is your own choice. Because once an argument for a creator can be made... The further 'imagination' is justified under the assumption of a creator. Assumptions are assumptions for a reason.... The assumption that everything follows physical laws and can be described by a system- something that physics pursue is also an a priori assumption. But it is a logical assumption from their point of view. Did the OP specify a god for the discussion? I am presenting an 'argument for' the existence of a creator. And that creator very may well be God. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!