I think I may not be allowed to comment on a fellow's blog anymore. I'll save this here and try again later. If it's not a technical issue it would be odd for a fellow that talks of how much he values reason to refuse to try to reason things out.
Really... you come to sit at my feet and absorb my wisdom?
I'm merely accepting your argument about all that I do not know.
I don't think there is a thing in the world you can learn from me. But you already knew that.
Your original argument was based on all that I do not know which I should know and so on, so I would think that you had some knowledge in mind that I do not know.
The old argument from incredulity revisited.
I didn't say that the use of language was necessarily all that incredible. After all, marginally intelligent people can use language in incredibly credulous ways in order to cite their own gullible credulity as evidence as many Darwinists do. On the other hand one ought to admit that some uses of codes, like DNA, are rather incredible.
You can't understand how science could say language and genetic codes could evolve without at sentient force so you don't accept it.
There is no reason to deny that codes and languages evolve, many can be observed to do so. There is reason to deny that change is the reason for reason or that meaning is some type of illusion which emerges from meaninglessness. There is reason in Aristole's philosophy when it logically leads to some type of unmoved Mover but we have no reason to try to trace cause and effect back to an imaginary oblivion.