Atheists, wanna try an exercise in logic?

Question

First... its an observed fact that all known languages/codes/softwares spring from a pre-existing intelligent mind?

Second..do you know that scientists (even evolutionary scientists) consider the genetic code as a language because of its obvious parallels with human language?

So given the consistency of fact 1... isnt it logical to accept the the genetic code, being a language also sprang from a pre-existing mind...

The only way you can disprove this, is to give me an example of a written language... that came into existence on its own without being developed by anyone. If you can present me one such language I will accept defeat.

And sorry, redefining the meaning of 'language' just because you dont want to accept the logical answer wont really help to disprove anything.

Awaiting responses.

Answer 1

Actually, you are the party who has redefined the meaning of "language."  In fact, genetic code does not communicate to any message to anyone.  The sequence of proteins that comprise DNA merely sets up the biological structure of our bodies, in much the same way that molecular structure dictates the properties of inanimate matter.  There is no evidence that molecular structure is developed by a "pre-existing intelligent mind." Since DNA is not used as any means of communication, it is not a "language," in spite of your claims.

Answer 2

Why would it have to be written. Genetic code is not written. There are many other languages that do not come from an "intelligent mind" such as bees and ants.  

Answer 3

You are missing an important fact. Language, just like genetics, are constantly evolving systems. Language started from a quick "ga" or a loud roar and eventually lead to today's 7000 languages or so. Not to mention all the dead ones. Including all the genetic mutations that after having been created, eventually died out for not being successful or useful enough.

EDIT: dg, I get that you cannot imagine DNA or language to come from any other source than God, but in the case of language, you are undoubtedly wrong. I think you are also wrong in the case of DNA, but that is a more uncertain matter. As for language, if you put 1000 human beings with no linguistic ability whatsoever together alone on a island and had lost of time available, these people would eventually come up with codes or ways of communicating ideas, opinions or desires and needs to eachother. This will inevitably lead to complicated language systems and as the population increases, these systems will inevitably fracture and become separate entities, just as today's languages are. Moreover, these systems will influence eachother to some extent and some of these systems will die and disappear. Not only is this an exact account of the evolution of languages, but this is actually inevitable. You can wish to deny it, but it remains UNDENIABLE. Even if you think God created language, you cannot deny that languages evolve, mutate, change, split, die out, merge, etc. Incidentally, the exact same is true of DNA. And that is a fact you must contend with.

Answer 4

"And sorry, redefining the meaning of 'language' just because you don't want to accept the logical answer wont really help to disprove anything."

Actually . . . that's what YOU just did.

I agree with footy. This argument is a steaming pile of sh*t.

Answer 5

Don't expect an actual answer to these brilliant points you bring up.

Instead, it'll be a steady flow of

"Wrong!"

"Drink"

"I'm too cool for this"

"I'm a womanizer"

"You are stupider than me!"

Look. This group doesn't want to actually engage in a dialogue about religion. They instead are just looking to make themselves look better. They are horrible in this regard, and I am so sorry that they are taking this question and pushing their wobbly agenda rather than actually doing something crazy and actually ANSWERING a question.  

Answer 6

This is the biggest bul lshit argument yet....congratulations for being original!!

<edit>  DNA is not language and scientists do not believe that.......you think lying really helps your cause?

Answer 7

In other words, you want proof of a language that came to be thru magic so that you can make a logical point?  I think I got it, cool!

Answer 8

You have proven that old saying+++

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance?, baffle them with bull ****!!

Congratulations on the baffling!!!

Answer 9

I see you're not really interested in an answer....so I won't waste my time.

Answer 10

Firstly- your initial premise is incorrect.  It is hardly an observed fact that human language sprung from a pre-existing intelligence.  it more likely evolved slowly.  Many animals use language- most are far simpler than human language.

Secondly, if you've seen a quote that compares the genetic code to a language- it's merely a analogy.

you've demonstrated that your logic abilities still need development, but thanks for playing.

Answer 11

Wrong.

Answer 12

don't expect any answers from atheists when your question their logic, reasoning, or rationale...they usually insult, deflect, or both...

Answer 13

"its an observed fact that all known languages/codes/softwares spring from a pre-existing intelligent mind?"

Well, no, it's not.

DNA is considered a prime example of emergent order.

So your question - which is of course nothing more than a different wording of "Life is too complex to have evolved so God must have done it" - is moot.

Answer 14

You do realize that scientists just use "language" as a metaphor, right?

And so you believe that some deity made us out of mud, then breathed into a guy's nostrils to make him alive?  

Answer 15

Your first premise is off.

If you've ever studied Turing Machine theory, you'll see that any pattern can be interpretted as a language, and there are many such languages that can create complex results.

Apparently, you've never had a course in formal languages.

Answer 16

I bet many of them won't answer this question.

Answer 17

You demand that we substantiate. I make the same demand of you. Show me where any scientist has claimed that the genetic code constitutes a language, by the USUAL definition of that word.

Answer 18

"The only way you can disprove this, is to give me an example of a written language... that came into existence on its own without being developed by anyone."

-- OK. English. It was developed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics originated life, evolved it and dictated what it will do  (free will does not exist). They dictated that language be invented.

Answer 19

Scientists do not consider the genetic code a language.  Your second fact is completely wrong.  When they use that term they are making an analogy to make it easier to understand.  You do understand what an analogy is, right?  If you don't believe this, ask any real scientist and they will tell you that no one means that the code is an actual language in the same sense that English is a language.

Answer 20

So you've defined DNA as language and that means it had to be created just like other languages.  Sorry, your logic suxors.

The "genetic code" is organic matter, not a language.  It is also not spoken by any humans.

The way I can disprove this is by calling your claim that DNA is a language absolute rubbish.

And sorry, redefining the meaning of 'language' just because you want it to work in an argument for you won't really help prove anything.

Answer 21

Simply, you have made an invalid assumption in the second part.  The genetic code (even if it is *considered* a language) is not a language.  Simply stating that it is and thus must be designed is not a valid argument.  

In order to be logical, your postulates have to be true, while the fist one is correct, the second one is simply a unsupported assertion.  Thus you have not made a logical argument.

Answer 22

Of course language is developed by those before us, then it carries on and develops from grunts and sounds to spoken words. If I write a computer language, can I be God?

Answer 23

Sorry but I can't see how Deoxyribonucleic acid can be equated to any language. Is the questioner trying to make something out of nothing?

Answer 24

The language of life is that of survival instinct due to climate changes

Answer 25

You must not be confused concerning succession of events because of these parallels. Not genetic was made following language, but language is determined by structure of genes. We have such a language, because we have such a genetic. Of course, language sprang from mind, but it doesn’t mean, that mind, what we call this word, also sprang from mind.

You can imagine such a discourse (simplified, of course)  - inert matter → life → mind → language...

From what sprang gene and how it was developed, is described well in evolution theory and genetics.

Answer 26

it isn't a language, try asking for a coke with your fries in DNA

Answer 27

since when is the genetic code a language?

the fact that it is labeled by scientists using letters and sequences is to make it easy to understand.

Answer 28

You're truly desperate, aren't you?

Answer 29

lol! really? That is the only way to disprove this?  And you have a degree in what exactly?  Don't tell me Journalism too? Oy Vey

Answer 30

When DNA  was discovered linguistics was a new and popular academic discipline. Geneticist used the terminology from linguistics to describe the newly discovered processes in DNA. In other words it was a kind of analogy and your argument thus boils down to a kind of reasoning by analogy. DNA is not a language, it is a molecule.

Furthermore, this is just another example of argument from design to "prove" God's existence. Such arguments are fatally flawed in there conception: If you argue that complexity can only originate from a designer than the designer of the universe (God) must be very complex indeed. The next inevitable question is where did God come from? Thus to argue from design is to shoot yourself in the rhetorical foot. Moreover, complex patterns do arrive as a result of natural processes. stalactite formations in the limestone caves for example.

Peace.

Answer 31

Simple: Where did the author of the genetic code come from?

Now written is not the same as genetic language as one is for communcation and the other is for instructions to the cells.

If you say that there has to be a designer, a beginning, then there always has to be a beginning. You get an infinite loop of regression.

The only LOGICAL way out of that is to simply say that the universe (and the genetic codes of life, DNA just being one) has always been around and the process has always happened.