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

On May 16, 6:17 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/thanks.htm
"....The element that is common to both watches and life is language,

what language does my watch speak?

life is preceded by DNA

Well, RNA probably.

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. That is true about all things that are designed.

Which doesn't prove anything about things which we don't know to have
been 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. "

Note the bloody great non-sequitur here.


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

Well no. Demonstrate that DNA is a language.


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".

No. Evolution is not random. The word "selection" in natural selection
is a bit of a clue.

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.


What riddle? This is nothing but unfounded assertion!

Nature as some sort of pantheistic force selected for stuff in the
same way that God would select for something.
Evolutionists are worshiping a God the Nature Selection Force.

If you want to believe that it's up to you. But it's a complete and
utter load of bollocks.

And Ken
Ham "believes" in two Gods Jesus Christ and the Selection Force
because he stated: "We believe in Natural Selection".

Why should anyone care what Ken Ham "believes in". I don't "believe
in" natural selection. I accept natural selection as the best proposed
mechanism for evolution.

I am at a loss
as to why he is then still arguing with the Evolutionists.

It's because most of what he says is untrue, either through ignorance
or design.

And there
are pantheists who site Natural Selection as believing that the
universe,flees and trees made itself. 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.

My beliefs are irrelevant to science.

Even Berlinksi noted:".... once NS as
a concept is destroyed, absolutely nothing remains of evolution." Our
whole society have been brainwashed by this mind numbing repetitve
chanting of Natural Selection.

Funnny, but I've studied evolution, and attended many scientific
conference, and never come across any repetitive chanting of any kind.
Why do you insist on making things up as you go along? It makes you
look very dishonest.

And the concept of NS is established
only by sheer force of repetition.

It's a very well-reasoned hypothesis soundly based on a lot of
evidence. Do you have a better explanation?


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.

Evolutionary scientists don't hold Paley's watch argument in contempt.
They rarely think about it, as it made no contribution whatsoever to
science. This is because it is an untestable assertion.


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.

So now you resort to repeating your baseless assertion which have been
thoroughly demolished on other threads.

Why do you think that such a demonstration of fundamental dishonesty
adds weight to your argument? I don't care how dishonest you are -
after all, I post here to expose the dishonesty of creationists. What
I don't fully understand is why creationists persist in such
dishonesty when it is exposed as such. Do you have such contempt for
your fellow creationists that you think that they are incapable of
coherent thought?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Darwins Dangerous Idea
    ... For a flat fish, having no way of keeping an eye on what's below - in order ... Chomsky, he claims, says that language cannot be ... advantageous feature which could be a product of selection, ... of "Twin Earth" and the evolution of meaning, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolutions real problems
    ... is a list of real problems dealing with evolution. ... How and when did human language evolve? ... under selection in humans, and that selection may have had something ... The strongest evidence is the nonsynonymous ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com Perry Marshall DNA is language
    ... "....The element that is common to both watches and life is language, ... Selection Force? ... "We believe in Natural Selection". ... much of evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Solution to Creation vs Evolution
    ... Once, not so long ago, evolution had a different ... Ofcourse the allele frequencies must change, ... A human language is low in KC. ... "selection" over 300 times in Origin of Species. ...
    (talk.origins)