Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You still don't understand that verse.Yet we have this scripture that can't be ignored:
Ah, now we're getting somewhere - you're saying you can infer whether something is intelligently designed by observing what it does (the results of its function). So what must something do for us to justifiably infer intelligent design? what are the criteria that can distinguish what a designed object does from what an undesigned object does ?Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function.
Are you suggesting that a mind makes the brain (which then generates its own mind) ? That the processes that transcribe and interact with DNA can think?Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.
That's nice, but I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that computers are manmade. What does it have to do with DNA?Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function. Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.
That's nice, but I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that computers are manmade. What does it have to do with DNA?
One of these is man made, the other is natural. Based solely on your observation of the results of its function you should have no problem telling me which is which.Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function. Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.
It is actually not supported by any available evidence. If you have any that you think supports it, by all means present it.It's true that it's an assumption that life started simple and became more complex over time; but it's also an assumption that is reasonable, and is supported by all the available evidence. If you have evidence that contradicts it, by all means present it.
It is actually not supported by any available evidence. If you have any that you think supports it, by all means present it.
Talk is cheap. The fact remains that there is no such evidence whatsoever. Only your faith, and desperate wishing.dad, you have been shown the evidence countless times. The fact is that you simply do not know what evidence is.
Of what Christian denomination do you claim to be a member may I ask?Talk is cheap. The fact remains that there is no such evidence whatsoever. Only your faith, and desperate wishing.
Where did I claim to be a member may I ask?Of what Christian denomination do you claim to be a member may I ask?
The point I've made twice now and you still can't seem to comprehend (or is it willful dishonesty?)is that similarity =/= "equal to". You still insist that just because something has been named a language that makes it equal to, say, English, Hindi or Chichewa and therefore indicates the presence of intelligence.
Linguistics and semiotics are not your forte, are they?
Like I said, it's a description of its functional analogies not its origins.
As for functioning as a language, it doesn't satisfy the primary functional definitions of language, not being a method or system of human communication, but there's a superficial similarity with computer languages (although a fundamental difference is that computer languages are convenient high-level abstractions, for human use, of low-level logic operations).
If some scientists think they can identify syntax and semantics that give it some family resemblance (in the Wittgensteinian sense) to languages in general, it is sufficiently different from any other language type to justify its own subdefinition, much as programming languages have.
Nevertheless, the main point is that labeling or typing it either as a code or a language points to its structural or functional characteristics, not its origins.
Because you are not using the terms in quite the same way they are and you are doing it on purpose to grind your theological axe.Do you really believe those scientists didn't know the dictionary definition of language? Or the scientists who reviewed it, or the 60 citatations it has. I'm sure they knew the dictionary definition when they said it was more than a metaphor and named it.
Of course they didn't say anything about origins. They merely established it is literally a language. Why is that so hard to admit?
Because you are not using the terms in quite the same way they are and you are doing it on purpose to grind your theological axe.
Well, you are claiming membership in the Christian religion-correct?Where did I claim to be a member may I ask?
I have not said it is not a language, I have said it is not a language in the sense that you insist on using. As I pointed out earlier, linguistics and semiotics are not your area of expertise.Are you saying it isn't a language?
Don't you mean Project Eve?I've seen it argued in this thread that there are many scientists who do not accept evolution as true. This is accurate. However, it's worth pointing towards Project Steve, which demonstrates that there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolution than there are scientists with any name who do not.
Don't you mean Project Eve?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?