You may not be but then why would you quote Ken Ham?
Anyway even if you are that is none of my business. If it makes sense to you keep it.
Please note that I don't need to be a Young Earther to understand inconsistency of policy when it is pointed out.
You are being scammed, intellectually scammed. Ham is using an equivocation of the word language, to peddle fallacy. (you like talking about logical fallacies, right?) Creationists twisting science to support debunked Bible versions of what they want the world to be, goes back to their meddling with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Their misinterpretations are most likely intentional and then passed on to the flock. Or maybe they really don't understand. I think it's deceit. They need science to sound official, but then they present their creationist spin that twists what science shows to support their Biblical beliefs. If Ham asks you to send him money, don't do it, or send him money. I don't care.
...or educated enough to cleverly fashion his own quackery for his internet following. Here's a video that debunks Ham's DNA nonsense:
It's more complicated than it needs to be, but there are too many of these out there for me to review all of them to find the one that's the most easily understood. One thing it does early on is to create a simple syllogism to test the validity of Ham's DNA language argument. Spoiler alert: the flaw in his argument is not a non sequitur or so they claim that the syllogism does follow logically. (you like talking about logical fallacies, right?)The flaw is in the equivocated premise, but that isn't explained until near the end of the video. Personally, I see a non sequitur:
DNA is a language
Intelligent entities use language
<-
Therefore, DNA is intelligently designed
But the video may parse Ham's argument more accurately than I do, and their syllogism is different. Garbage in, garbage out.
Fallacy of numbers: Wiki
First, about your claim that I am appealing to numbers, that is once more a straw man since I am not using the preponderance of numbers to validate the existence of a creator. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the existence of DNA itself that offer the compelling evidence not the mere number of those who believe in creator. So once again you create a straw man. The only reason I mentioned numbers is because I was accused of only speaking for myself and not on behalf of others. Please pay attention to what I am really saying. Thanks!
Furthermore, the video is irrelevant to the issues that Ham mentions about inconsistent claims that these scientists are making. In short, you are evading the issue that Ken mentioned once again. In the video, I posted, Ken is logically pointing out the blatant inconsistency of policy in the claims of these atheists concerning their ability to prove abiogenesis. Are you saying that they are not contradicting themselves repeatedly?
https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Logical_Reasoning_(Dowden)/09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.01:_Recognizing_Inconsistency_and_Contradiction
As yet, you have not proven that he is wrong in those claims. Instead you are now once again moving the goalpost to evade the issue just as you did by previously providing an ad hominem response.
https://www.snopes.com/articles/464308/logical-fallacies-and-moving-goalposts/
You also claim a non sequiter. Yet you fail to provide any explanation for seeing a non sequiter. In short, anyone can claim to see a non sequiter about anything whatsoever. Proving the non sequiter is the hard part. Isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Furthermore, the video you offer doesn't refute the DNA as a language proceeding from a mind conclusion. Neither was that what was referred to in the video I posted. So again, your response is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is once again the moving of the goalpost fallacy. Also, there are biologists who do acknowledge DNA as a language and who believe that it proves creator. So this isn't merely an educated vs the uneducated or undereducated issue.
Additionally, it isn't merely complexity that we claim indicates a mind, as the narrator is cunningly saying. Instead, it is the manner in which the complexity is arranged that is compelling. So the narrator is once more glibly misrepresenting the issue.
Furthermore, the narrator mentions that atheist scientists are in the majority. That is a fallacy of appeal numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
He also brings Jesus into the issue, when Jesus has nothing to do with this subject.
That is resorting to mockery. Yet another fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
He claims that the material involved in the DNA code disqualifies the evidence, which of course it doesn't since material is irrelevant to the arrangement that indicates language. Neither do signals disqualify themselves from being arranged into a coded language simply because they are signals as the narrator once again nonsensically claims.
The narrator also assumes that evolution can produce language, when evolution itself is described as being dependent on DNA language to come into existence. This is the chicken vs. the Egg conundrum.
In short, the narrator keeps making very serious illogical mistakes in a desperate effort to justify his illogical conclusions which strongly indicates that he is motivated by theophobia.
BTW Here is the correct way:
DNA is a language
Language arises only from a mind
DNA is the product of a mind.
Would you elaborate on your accusation please.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Just for believing.
. So make no mistake about me mentioning God's creations as evidence in numerous past posts and on many biblically based subjects.
