Questions on "Random" Mutations

	Reproduces	Mutates	Passes Traits via Heredity	Dies via
Programming Languages	No	No	No	Progressivly newer human innovation
Life Forms	Yes	Yes	Yes	Any number of natually occurring events

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You just don't get the point that comparing such to programming languages is ridiculous. Not only do they not act like life forms we KNOW they were created by humans.Life in no way mimics the "evolution" of technology. Except for the fact that in that case we can ask questions about who the designer is since we know exactly who they are. Something that ID is loathed to do.If you question deeply enough you will find that most intelligent people will agree that ID can possibly be scientific. It is just simply that in its current form it IS NOT science.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Don't worry about the boats dude. The problem is simply that you CANNOT have a valid analogy to evolution if you do not include parts that are equivalently analogous to reproduction, modification, and heredity.If you cannot point to those items in your analogy, then your anaology is false. I don't care who is making it Dawkins or otherwise.The reason we can claim that programming languages are from Intelligent Design is because we know that we designed them. There need not be any "design" principles invoked at all. It is a simple observation.We have no such luxury for nature.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)