Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, your argument about the computer program generating cards with unique information really makes my point.  Did the computer itself create the program that allowed the generation of those cards?  No, there were intelligent programmers behind it that allowed for that generation to be possible.

The computer code and and computer material are separate.  Does the computer create the code itself?  You even stated that the code is put on there.  Great, by who??  It requires an intelligence to conceive it, create it and deploy it.

I also pointed out that arguing from analogy is fallacious, and explained why. So why are you insisting on doing so?

So now you are claiming that little old me has proven that the definition of language is even wider than we originally thought?

No, because I don't think DNA is a language. I told you what I think it is. What I'm saying is that, even under the premises of your own argument, the conclusion would not be that DNA therefore has a designer, without the addition of another premise of the argument that you have not demonstrated. The flaw in your argument is that it relies upon a completely unjustified presupposition, that all things within the analogy are exactly the same, that you don't even seem to recognize exists.

 I think you give me too much credit.  We as humans when we see language assume a mind.  You cannot look at a menu item at a restaurant and not assume that someone wrote it.  

And that's really the entirety of your argument, isn't it? "I assume that language requires a mind... now disprove that." There's really not a lot there to address, is there? Your assumptions are not an argument.

The hidden premise in my analogy is NOT that all languages are the same, but more so that all languages assume a mind behind them, but I didn't feel a need to state that premise as I assumed that was an innate human understanding.  Semiotics requires both a mind to create it and a mind to interpret it.

Fine, then let me be clearer: your hidden premise is that languages are all exactly alike in this singular quality, and you still haven't demonstrated that.

You do realize it's entirely possible to "see" language in natural things, right? To, for example, see letters in rock faces. This idea that if you perceive language, you're automatically perceiving deliberate, intentional communication is simply wrong.