Re: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com Perry Marshall DNA is language

backspace wrote:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/thanks.htm
"....The element that is common to both watches and life is language,
life is preceded by DNA and a watch is preceded by a plan or blueprint
or at least an idea in somebody's mind that preceded the building of a
watch.

Now, y'see, I always thought that communication worked better when words
had actual meanings. If he's going to start out by implying that
"language" means the same thing as "plan" or "idea", it's hard to come
up with any sense in what he writes. Impenetrability, that's what I say.

That is true about all things that are designed. The
distinction between patterns and designs is language. Patterns don't
have language, designs do. The fundamental property of all designs is
that an idea preceds the implemenation of the idea. The idea exists in
a symbolic form before its physically built. An idea in order to exist
has to be presented by a language. Ideas always precede
implementation, no exceptions. All languages come from a mind, there
are no exceptions. Therefore a mind designed DNA, therefore God
exists. "

I would be more impressed if he had first established that DNA was a
language, and that God is the only possible intelligence.

Perry Marshall defines the Atheist Riddle: Show me a language that
does not come from a mind.

I sure can't. But DNA isn't a language. It's a molecule. There's a
difference.

And what Marshall are you premises with that question? Are you
assuming that this "evolve" thing whatever we have been told about for
the last 150 years is "random". What if it is directed by the Nature
Selection Force? You see the riddle is solved by simply invoking
nature as a cause that "selected" for stuff by naturaling it into
existance.

Again, if words have meanings, a portion of those meanings involves
parts of speech, i.e. a function within English grammar. "Evolve" is a
verb, not a noun. "Natural" is an adjective, not a verb. Try to deal
with that.

Nature as some sort of pantheistic force selected for stuff in the
same way that God would select for something.

It also helps if you understand what you're trying to criticize. There's
nothing magic about natural selection, any more than there is about the
ability of waves to sort sand grains by size on a beach. We all
understand that.

Evolutionists are worshiping a God the Nature Selection Force. And Ken
Ham "believes" in two Gods Jesus Christ and the Selection Force
because he stated: "We believe in Natural Selection". I am at a loss
as to why he is then still arguing with the Evolutionists. And there
are pantheists who site Natural Selection as believing that the
universe,flees and trees made itself.

Please learn how to spell "flea". I don't generally do spelling flames,
but this is not only a consistent problem of yours, but you have failed
to correct it after being told many times. Natural selection, by the
way, has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, though it has
plenty to do with the origins of fleas and trees.

It is an interesting observation
that die hard materialists and earthy-give-the-trees-a-hug pantheists
both site the Natural Selection or Nature Selection force as the
concrete base for their beliefs.

Ah, here's another. The word is "cite".

Even Berlinksi noted:".... once NS as
a concept is destroyed, absolutely nothing remains of evolution."

That's not true either. Even if NS was destroyed, much of evolution
would in fact remain. There are other evolutionary mechanisms, and there
would remain the patterns of common descent. What we would lack would be
a mechanism for adaptation.

Our
whole society have been brainwashed by this mind numbing repetitve
chanting of Natural Selection. And the concept of NS is established
only by sheer force of repetition.

No, it's really very simple if you would only take the trouble to
understand it.

1. Organisms within a population vary in their characteristics.

2. Some of this variation is heritable.

3. Variations differ in their expected reproduction in a given environment.

4. Variations that have greater expected reproductive success tend to
reproduce more than those with lesser expected reproductive success.

5. Variations that reproduce more will increase in frequency in a
population.

What's wrong with any of that?

Once you understand this you will understand why evolutionists hold
Paley's watch argument in such contempt. They simply have another
"selection" agent than the Christian God - nature itself, nature
selected for the "watch" if you will.

Now that's actually true. Natural selection can count for order and
adaptation. That's been shown experimentally and observationally
literally thousands of times. You have been given examples. You ignore them.

And until Dembski, Ham, Behe
grasps this they will entertain us with another 100 meaningless posts
on Uncommondescent.com trying to refute the "evolution is random"
view. Evolution is "selected" and not random governed by Dawkins
"Principle of Selection" depending on which ad-hoc arbitrarily defined
version of evolution you are listening to.

Actually, wouldn't that be Darwin's principle of selection? Now of
course much of evolution *is* random. That's drift. It's adaptive
evolution that we need an explanation for, and selection does fine. You
have done nothing to discredit the validity of natural selection. In
fact your main technique seems to be the fingers in the ears, "la la la,
I can't hear you" approach.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... misconstrued as the fittest surviving? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
    ... water was involved with the selection of language. ... voluntary breathing, ... Biological evolution is based on evolutionary theory the central ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... language had any meaning at all. ... Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where ... evolution for example are used so inter-changeably that nobody even ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... I will first note that you have confused common descent with natural selection. ... The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading