“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”

See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’

DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”

As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at

Watch it on video:

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too!

Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):

“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:


“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:


Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:


Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

2,215 Responses

  1. Vivian says:

    Hello there Mr Marshall:

    First let me assure you that I do not contact you in a curmudgeonly or aggressive spirit. I was intrigued by your arguments as posted on https://evo2.org/, and – in part while prevaricating from rather less stimulating chores of my own, if I’m honest – have given me pause. I am an interested, open thinker.

    Firstly, let me see if I have your Athiest’s Riddle right: You ask to be shown where in ‘nature’ there is a process that has evolved a language spontaneously, outside of living organisms. Is that right? You want to be pointed to a non-life process with language in it – and hope in remaining unanswered to demonstrate that the fundamentally language-based processes of life require that a mind initially invoked them?

    What I’d like to ask is this: Do you only desire to demonstrate, then, that living things have a creator? Are you happy to accept that nonliving things exist de-facto, and that a thinking being simply chose to populate this habitat? Or is it simply that this matter is beyond the purposes of your syllogism and you prefer to leave it to other thinking?


    • Vivian,

      That’s right, I only desire to demonstrate that living things have a creator. I’m leaving matter to other people and other debates.

      Comment about Matter itself – since we know entropy is in effect and we still have “spend-able” energy left, we know the universe and matter as we know it also have a finite life. They have not existed “forever.” So the logical conclusion is that there was some kind of initial singularity event. Which is generally taken to be the big bang. Which does suggest an act of creation.

      The only problem with that is we have no access to that event. It’s impossible to make any observations about what “before” was like.

      Information, however, is a different story.

      No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process.

      ALL of us have observed the creation of information and communication systems by intelligent beings making conscious choices. We see it every day.

      The creation of information is something we all have MUCH experience with.

      Since information, codes and communication are at the core of DNA and living things, we have 100% inference to an intelligent creator. With no current scientific evidence that suggests otherwise.


      • Bill Morrison says:

        Perry, what do you suppose would be the minimum necessary for such a creation event? That is, would setting up DNA suffice, or would some intelligence have to also include the other elements of the system?

        Do you envision a creation that would require not just DNA, but also a complete organism and an environment to live in? I guess I’m asking how you envision the establishment of the code and the context in which the code has purpose and meaning. Is an entire biosphere necessary and sufficient?

        The root idea is if this has been done, as you suggest, how might we do it ourselves?


        • I just posted an article that answers this question:


          Also see http://evo2.org/new-theory-of-evolution/

          • maxine says:

            I have a question. Even if god isn’t real I would think it would bee better for someone to at least have hope for someone to be love in so.thing even if it is not true for someone to have such passion for something . It would be better than to just not believe in anything . I am not saying he is real but don’t you think it is amazing for a gruop of people to ant to at least make our lives better ? Doesn’t it just stun you once you really think about it that these people could change the world baby what there saying is true but will we ever really know ? It is at least better to have pasion and hope than to be n the dirt with nothing to hold you up.

            . Maxine

            • St. Paul said, “If the dead are not raised, then we are above all people most to be pitied.”

              In other words his take was, if faith is not real, then we truly are suckers.

              But I think you can discover that God is real. I suggest you subscribe to my email series at http://www.perrymarshall.com/spirituality.

              • Abdul Basit Khakwany says:

                God said in Quran revealed to Prophet Muhammad 1400 years before: “Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?” chapter 21; verse 30 This refers to Big Bang theory?

                • Ekim says:

                  Fascinating; Does the “We” indicate “God’s of creation”? Or that “We” Humans are creators?

                • Valerie O'Brien says:

                  The Quoran is a book of blasphemous lies from Satan, you people deny Christ as Saviour and need to repent of your wicked beliefs

                  • Jerry Gonzales says:

                    Your much needed sense of humor is appreciated on this otherwise serious topic.

                  • Abdu ... says:

                    I don’t think you read the Quran nor you can spell it correctly. Zoom out of prejudice and try to seek the truth, compare all main religions scriptures and see. Your comment shows that you judge without reasoning… Is it because you were born Christian means all others are wrong?! The truth is so many Christians and other religions followers are converting to Islam, Islam is the fastest-growing religion. You’re likely to immediately assume because all these people are dumb and you’re right. Be truthful to yourself.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Hey, man. The truth is that God didn’t author any other religious books. Nor did any of His chosen authors. So, seems like we got a problem, and the correct spelling won’t change that, either. So, what’s the solution beyond degrading any Christian who’s not you?

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      All religions are fabricated, Islam just one of the more recent ones – although all the current ones are very new in terms of tens and hundreds of thousands of years of human history.
                      A logical approach to understanding reality isn’t new, we’ve been at it since we invented fire, tools, observed seasons etc.
                      All these competing gods throughout history, and maybe more yet to come, none of them have even come close to a correct explanation of how the universe and life got here, despite people like Perry bashing their hopelessly misshapen pegs into round holes.
                      Humanity needs to move on. Religion causes too much conflict and death, divides races and genders, creates inequality, provides excuses for the inexcusable, distracts us from real challenges facing humanity, denies education and slows progress in eradicating poverty, disease etc – just look at Trump’s administration, which is too heavily influenced by evangelical lunatics, or the barbaric ‘Islamic State’ that’s have us all living back in the Middle Ages.
                      We can do better, thankfully it’s dying a slow but certain death in most of the civilised world.
                      The only heavens and hells are the ones we make here on earth, the only hands guiding us are our own and the only judgements are passed by ourselves.

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      Jose, no ‘god’ authored any holy books, they are all the works of humans and entirely reflective of the time, geography and culture they were written in.

                      Many of the writings are recycled stories from earlier religions, including shamanic teachings often developed under the influence of various psycho active plants.

                      Religion is humanities early attempts to make sense of the world around them, to create social structures and to control and influence people and their behaviour.

                      Christianity is no more right than Islam. Both are very new religions too. Both are heavily influenced by other older religions too.

                      Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Odin, Buddha, Yahweh, Allah are all equally irrelevant. So are Mohammed, Jesus and all the other profits – just men, or a mashing together of multiple historical and fantastical figures.

                      Unicorns, Fairies, Dragons and Mermaids etc are not real either.

                      Miracles are not the act of various gods. They are now explained by science (e.g. thunder and eclipses), will be explained at some point or were simply fabricated by people with overactive imaginations, suffering extreme stress, with personal/political motives or under the influence of various substances.

                      Flooding is caused by excess water and poor land management, not angry gods. Volcanic eruptions, asteroids, earthquakes etc all have natural explanations too.

                      Prayer won’t solve so much as an I growing toenail, while a set of nail clippers might. Sure, prayer might help ease mental health issues and stress, but only in the same way meditation and mindfulness does.

                      Power to solve problems and improve the world resides within us, not up a set of magical invisible stairs and through a set of gates kept by a 2000 year old dead man from the vicinity of Israel, who is also reincarnated as various popes. There is no heavily bearded, middle aged, white western male god sitting on a cloud/throne sipping ambrosia and setting earthly bushes alight in order to communicate.

                      If I’m struck down dead, it’s not because of the above blasphemy, it’ll be due to any one of faulty DNA, lack of excessive, poor diet, being run over by a bus or killed by a volcano, asteroid, earthquake, flood etc.

                  • Bill Gamelson says:

                    Is this a blasphemous lie from Satan?

                    1. In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.

                    2. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.

                    3. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

                    4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

                    5. It is You we worship, and upon You we call for help.

                    6. Guide us to the straight path.

                    7. The path of those You have blessed, not of those against whom there is anger, nor of those who are misguided.

                    • Veljko Blagojević says:

                      It’s not a ‘blasphemous lie from Satan’ but a belief of ancient goat-herders which is used by people to manipulate other people to fill their pockets and fight their battles. Satan doesn’t exist. 🙂

              • Becky Valentine says:

                joy Robin
                I am here to share this testimony on how me and my husband was able to be become parents. we tried for so many years to get a child of ours but there was no success of child bearing. We went to different hospitals but they keep saying the same thing that i was the problem and my husband was perfectly okay. One day i decided to try traditional and spiritual help, i contacted a woman who i came across on the internet called Iya Basira i ask her for help and she told me that i was the cause of me inability to bear a child. I became more confuse and worried and at this time my husband was making moves for a divorce. I told the woman everything and she decided to help me, she told me she is going to help me by praying for and given me traditional medicine to drink, that i will be blessed with a child. At the end of the day i followed her instructions, because i wanted my husband to see it as a miracle because he was a strong christian. I did all she ask me to do and i got all the results i needed without my husband knowing and today am a mother. Thanks to mother Iya Basira i will forever be grateful. i will drop her contact here anybody needs her help also [email protected]

              • Johan Dominguez says:

                Do you have a specific type of god you think is real or just that there has to be a god but we don’t know whom it is. I notice you quoted the bible and was pretty interested on what you thought about the bible, is the bible true or just some fake stuff? If there is a video or article on why the bible is fare or real ill be interested in reading it.

                • Johan,

                  Various articles and thoughts about the Bible:


                  I think the Genesis accounts can be reconciled with science if you make some very simple assumptions (see my Genesis 1 article) and if you understand that Genesis 2 is metanarrative, not strict historical narrative.

                  Richard Fischer has a great book called “Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham” that connects Sumerian and Ancient Near Eastern history to the Genesis account.

                  I think the first parts of Genesis are part history part mythical; Karl Barth used the term “Saga.” I don’t think the ancient writers were at all interested in the kinds of questions modern people ask. I’m not even sure a “concordist” reading of Genesis 1-2 is correct (where you try to line it up with science); all I can do is observe that with a few simple assumptions the Genesis 1 story matches science remarkably well.

                  I suggest you read the Bible and let it speak to you. Among the most useful books are Psalms, Proverbs and John.

                  • Johan Dominguez says:

                    I myself am a believer and was just wondering what you tought about it

                  • Valerie O'Brien says:

                    I don’t have to ” reconcile ” anything with science, the Bible says we must ” Cast down STRONGHOLDS and every HIGH THING which exhsults itself ABOVE the knowledge of God.”

                    • That’s fine as long as you don’t use the term “creation science” to refer to assertions of a 6,000 year old earth.

                      I personally do not believe there is a conflict between faith and science.

                    • Lance Schwerdfager says:

                      It’s true that we don’t have to reconcile anything with science. Truth is truth. Should science not be compatible with Scripture then it’s up to scientists to discover where the error in their work is. Hypotheses exist until they are proven to be false or are supplanted with better explanations.

                  • Breanna Litts says:

                    You should not judge lest you be judged the same

                    Christianity has murder millions of innocent people
                    Think before you speak for you dont have the place not authority >

                    • Wendy Jones says:

                      Christianity has murdered millions of innocent people? Are you referring to Catholicism because if you are then I wouldn’t call it Christian!

                    • M A says:

                      Firstly, I think ALL opinions matter and that we all have the right to express our own opinions, beliefs and thoughts and agree or politely disagree. I know this article and comments were from a while ago but I am interested in the comments and opinions. We all have our own opinions and think about them a lot as we are all passionate about what we believe in or do not believe in. But what about all the other Christians and/or Catholics who were not involved in these terrible events? I have never heard of this before so I am very curious and will do my research. Just because a group (large or small) did a few or many wrongdoings (maybe even murder, as stated) does not mean that every single person in that religion does that or believes that is right and that it is what God really wants us all to do. Just curious, but is that what you believe Breanna Litts? (And I have thought VERY long and hard about this).

                    • Please use your full first and last name. No anonymity.

                    • Mikayla Amaryllis says:

                      Sorry Perry Marshall, usually secretive about my name as I am young. Bob Barker, 6 year old Christian children do not kill people as far as I’ve heard. Yes there are people who have stuffed up BIG time. NO not everyone does this. My family among others certainly DO NOT believe in killing, torturing etc. Please understand not everyone is like that. Please read the Bible and at least read what I’ve put below. I know a lot of people who follow these daily. A lot of people, even Christians, have a conscience. I am a very strong Christian and have been my whole life. It has taught me so many things. I want to and I am learning more about most cultures and religions to open my eyes to different perspectives and beliefs. It does wonders, just by thinking about others feelings.

                      10 Commandments:
                      1. I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me
                      2. You shall not worship false gods
                      3. You shall never take my name in vain
                      4. You shall keep the Sabbath Day Holy
                      5. Honor your Father and Mother
                      6. YOU SHALL NOT MURDER
                      7. You shall not commit adultery
                      8. You shall not steal
                      9. You shall not lie
                      10. You shall never want what belongs to others

                    • Bob Barker says:

                      Christianity has killed more humans than any other religeion ever. Thanks be to god. Worst bunch in human history

                    • Let’s get our facts straight for a moment.

                      30 million people have died in all religious wars in all centuries combined.

                      100 million people died under atheist regimes in the 20th century alone. See “The Black Book of Communism” https://amzn.to/39JIfxO

                    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                      Religion, like any other ideology, is a tool in power struggles. Of course people are going to die because of it – it is what it’s use is. Whether it is a dictator killing opposition and rebels to secure his power, or a religious leader calling for death of non-believers to secure his power, it makes no difference. So it is not valid to compare ”which killed the least people” – if it killed only 10 people, it is still horrible. No one should by default be killed under any system/regime/ideology, if we are to call it just and fair.

              • Vincent Alayo says:

                Your wrong in your interpretation. If the dead are not raised, they go to hell. They goto hell, because their life ended up being a manifestation of negativity, the devil. We are pitied, because nobody realizes, that we must believe in, and see the positivity around us.
                You can see it if you believe, but people fail to do so and continually spread the negativity. And with the generations it just keeps on growing, because nobody believes in the good. Therefore they won’t get raised to heaven.

                • Jack Ellis says:

                  Perry, the 100m you quote were ww1 and ww2, among others. Wars waged by Christian countries, most of whom certainly prayed for victory. There are still not many ‘atheist’ countries, certainly fewer last century too.
                  If we decided not to attribute non religious cause wars fought by religious and atheist people to either group, we’d be left with plenty of genocides, purely religious wars, inquisition, conquest of Americas etc etc.

                  • “Atheism is a necessary component of our propaganda.” -Vladimir Lenin

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      I’m not sure what your point is? Atheism may have been part of what Lenin was involved in, but it wasn’t the driver. He was post ww1 and pre ww2, in fact he advocated that Russia should have list ww1 to hasten the departure of the existing regime. The revolution was to get rid of that ‘oppressive’ regime. One could argue he removed an elitist system and tried to replace it with a fairer one, which became communism – and failed? He was only in power for a few years 1922 – 1924, then Stalin came in. Of course his revolution was a bloody one…

                    • Atheism was not merely “a part of what Lenin was involved in.” (Your words.) It was “a necessary component.” (His words.)

                      Historian Victoria Smolkin wrote this exhaustive study of the history of atheism in the Soviet Union

                      I interviewed her last year

                      She documents exhaustively the fact that enforcing an atheist worldview was the only means by which the Soviet Union was able to effectively strip people of the “metaphysical baggage” that would otherwise confer intrinsic dignity to human beings. She provides extensive memos and state documents from government officials regarding their efforts to incorporate atheist doctrines into their policies.

                      This was done so that soldiers, policemen, people who ran the gulags would carry out the atrocities required to enforce the will of the state.

                      Is it merely a coincidence that more people were murdered by atheist governments in the 20th century alone, than by all religious wars in all centuries combined?

                      Is it merely a coincidence that you and Veljko are consistently some of the most poorly mannered people who regularly comment on my blog?

                      You decide.

                    • Veljko Blagojević says:

                      …yet, atheists are not known for killing people – dictators and zealous leaders are. 🙂

                    • Vishnu Swaminathan says:

                      What the above commentators have left out is the 17 million people brutally murdered in WWII – not to mention how many tortured, raped, mutilated (etc.), who didn’t die — all under an ostensibly “Christian” regime: the Nazi party. People tend to forget (or ignore) that Hitler himself claimed to be Christian (and still, to this day, has never been excommunicated by the Church), and that the SS soldiers wore belt buckles proclaiming “God with us.” They believed (wholeheartedly, most of them) that God had called them to “purify” the earth, removing those of lesser value.

                      This isn’t counting the nearly 2 million killed in the Crusades, or around 100 million killed during the Spanish Inquisition – all done in the name of the church.

                      Finally, there are untold numbers of deaths in the name of the church in South America and North America, where the “convert or die” mentality was practiced by the Spanish Conquistadores against the native peoples of the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans — and Native Americans.

                      The death toll from Islam is far less; they’re a newer religion, so if we give them time, they’ll catch up. There isn’t one good thing about religion, and plenty of bad. Religion causes people to deny reality – i.e., thinking that the earth is flat (with a dome over it), thinking that the earth only began a few thousand years ago (it was 4.5 billion years ago), thinking that a deity “poofed” humanity into existence (we evolved over the past million plus years), thinking that UFO’s have visited, seeing faces in stone, thinking giants existed, that Atlantis was a real place, that ‘the Government’ is out to enslave us all, and other such debunked nonsense. Get with reality, people.

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      Oh I don’t know, but thankyou, we just tell you that you won’t go to heaven, because it’s fictional. And that’s rude? AND you say that to all the people who disagree with you, then ban them. There is a guy on here, Jose I think, tells people they’ll go to hell etc, a real firebrand and rather angry chap all round. That’s rude, being told you are going to hell for having a contradictory opinion based on the absence of any evidence for sky gods who set bushes alight, pregnant virgins, men with wings and halos and weeping statues etc?
                      It’s not rude to point out the flaws in someone’s fantasy, it’s necessary if we are to grow up as a species.
                      If it’s any consolation, I do worse with flat earthers and anti-vax parents, you have to root out stupid and confront it.

                    • Veljko Blagojević says:

                      You will have to pardon my manners, Perry, but I think it’s better having some poor manners manifest than harming anyone by condemnation or violence, wouldn’t you agree? Anyway, your quandry can be resolved easily:
                      1. In a communist regime, would the victim survive if they “converted” to atheist? The answer is – no. They didn’t die due to religious belief, they died due to political disagreements.
                      2. In a religious conflict, would the victim survive by converting to it’s killers religion beforehand? Answer – most probably. The difference in religious beliefs was the primary motive for violence there.

                      So, there, no matter how much you quote Lenin or any other “atheist”, this is how you determine how much atheism/religion factors in the bad things people do. Not one murder in the history of murder was ever commited in the name of atheism – actions require a positive belief, and atheism is doubt. See, Christians may have 10 commandments, but I have one, basically – do onto others as you would like done to yourself. So, you see, I wouldn’t care if you displayed some rude manners to me online – it doesn’t bother me in the least. I also wouldn’t attack you in any way, since I wouldn’t like being attacked. And it seemed that my one commandment trumps 10 of them for most people. 🙂

                    • You need to read up on your history, Veljko. This is from page 173 in “The Black Book of Communism” by Courtois et al, Harvard Press, 1999


                    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                      Actually, Perry, if you read even superficially, you can clearly see the words ”…for destabilizing the state” – meaning, if you use religion to attack the government in any way (undermining it’s authority, most likely). Also, communist tried to secure power by removing the church, which was held in high regard up to that point, and installing themselves as new ‘religious’ leaders, messiahs, or whatnot. People weren’t killed simply for being believers, and plenty of atheists similarly died at the hands of the state, so your argument doesn’t hold much weight. You do know that just because you can quote something someone wrote in a book doesn’t make that thing an immutable truth that supports whatever claim you make?
                      Besides, it clearly says – anti-religious. Atheists are not all anti-religious, so that again fails as an argument against atheism. And it certainly isn’t an argument that orthodox Christianity is true/beneficial (because that’s what Russians are – orthodox Christians).
                      No atheist ever said ”there is no god, so we must kill all believers”. That is not how it works, that’s not how the human mind works, and there is no argument there that can back up that line of reasoning. I am an atheist, Perry, and I do not wish to harm anyone, regardless of their beliefs or ideas. And I don’t know and haven’t heard any atheists that does wish harm upon others. So, just like in practice communists misused their rules for gaining power, in practice you can’t find an evildoing atheists whose sole motivation is his…lack of religious belief. Even if you could possibly find a handful, they would still be a vast minority not representative of the group. 🙂

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      Veljko is of course correct. Atheism is an absence of belief in ‘gods’ and not an opposition to belief or religion. I’ve no issue with you believing in Santa, the tooth fairy or god – I just don’t like the twisting of science, filling gaps with god, holier than though attitude and belief you’ve got to make everyone share your delusions. Keep them to yourself and we’ll get along fine. There is also a difference between building and running a state on a foundation of religion and building and running one on other foundations. A country full of atheists isn’t an ‘atheist state’, it’s just not a religious one – it might be united and defined by other philosophies. Communism isn’t atheism, you can be communist/capitalist and religious or atheist.

                    • I’d like everyone to know that since Jack and Veljko cannot seem to stop themselves from making insulting and derisive comments even as they tell everyone they are not being insulting and derisive, they have been banned from this forum.

                      I try to give people some leeway on this, but at some point one gets sick and tired of the incessant put-downs, the contempt and utter lack of self-awareness.

              • Jarrod Briley says:

                I am thrilled to have stumbled onto this website. I am absolutely an atheist. The “why” is irrelevant, but I certainly didn’t reach my conclusions haphazardly, and without any research or thought.

                That being said, I absolutely love…LOVE…having these type of discussions. Unfortunately, most theists never really understand why they are a theist. They believe a god, creator, diety, what have you exists, but they have never explored the “why” of this belief. Typically, they are either incapable, or unwilling, to explore the extremely abstract….and, let’s face it, completely weird LOL…of why and how something exists, why things work one way and not another.

                That gets frustrating at times. It’s not that I fault someone for believing a certain proposition, but it drives me nuts when, basically, their justification is “because,” and they have absolutely no understanding of opposing views.

                I will definitely be exploring this site, your ideas. You are providing explanations and examples (that I don’t necessarily agree with…LOL) clearly defining why you believe what you believe, and the logic behind it.

                That is a challenge. That is something I deeply respect.


                • I always try to get to the absolute “bottom of the swamp” with these questions. WELCOME and thank you for your kind remarks. I encourage you to read Evolution 2.0 as well.

                • Also, you should read this:


                • Thomas Pryor says:

                  I am very much like you Jarrod, I love these types of discussions. I would like to add that, by definition, God and creator are different although One could embody the other. When we (humans) label something we don’t understand, we have defined It’s limitations; thereby excluding all other possibilities.

                • Peter Ham says:

                  I think it’s perfectly fine to be an atheist as long as you are absolutely sure you will not find yourself standing before Christ when He asks you the question – “Why should I welcome you into my Kingdom?”.
                  Good luck with your bet, because when you’re dead there’s no hedging bets.
                  But then again, if there is no God, you will never know anyway. In which case, it’s a losing bet either way.

                  • Veljko Blagojević says:

                    No one can be absolutely sure of anything, really, but if I am asked a question by someone claiming to be an ultimate moral authority, saying “why should I welcome you into my kingdom?”, AND if he doesn’t accept “I was always trying to be good to my fellow man” as an answer – is he really a moral authority? 🙂

                    If there is no God, the losing bet would be wasting your life. 🙂

                    • Wendy Jones says:

                      It’s not a matter of trying to be good to anybody. It’s a matter of does God really exist and if He does, do you believe in Him? Do you love Him? Do you speak to Him? I can tell you categorically that He does exist because He has spoken to me twice in my lifetime in an audible voice. And I know that I’m not the only one He has spoken to. Just recently I was watching a man on one of the TV shows saying that God had spoken to him directly into his left ear! Well, I nearly fell off my chair because that’s exactly what happened to me a few years ago. God spoke into my left ear! Why the left ear – I do not know!

                    • Wendy, along similar lines, I had a profound encounter that utterly changed my career:


                    • Veljko Blagojević says:

                      Wendy Jones
                      “It’s not a matter of trying to be good to anybody.”

                      It is, actually. It is the whole point. Who is without sin shall enter heaven – in other words, unless you are a 6-year old child who takes everything at face value, the message is clear – be as good as you can to everyone around you. The definition of “sin” has changed, of course, but the message is the same.

                      “It’s a matter of does God really exist and if He does, do you believe in Him? Do you love Him? ”
                      Why would this even be a requirement? Who threatens with eternal torture unless you worship them? If someone wants to make himself known to me, don’t you think he would do that? This way, it would be like me torturing a girl that doesn’t even know me for not being with me. 😀

                      “Do you speak to Him? ”
                      Do you speak to Zeus or Allah?

                      ” I can tell you categorically that He does exist because He has spoken to me twice in my lifetime in an audible voice.”
                      And I can tell you categorically that you can’t ascribe hallucinations and feelings to transdimensional beings. These are known symptoms and you should seek medical aid, not asking people to support your fall into mental illness.

                      “And I know that I’m not the only one He has spoken to. ”
                      Of course you aren’t! He spoke also to Hitler and told him to kill Jews. He spoke to a guy and told him to capture and rape women in order to repopulate the Earth. Many people claim to be direct messengers of your god, Wendy. Which ones do we trust, because they all seem to be bringing conflicting messages.

                      “God spoke into my left ear! Why the left ear – I do not know!”
                      Because the nerves in charge of your hearing on that side, or auditory centers in your brain which interpret them have gone faulty.

                      I’m not bashing on you or anything, Wendy, but the explanations to your claims are so easy and commonplace now it is honestly jarring seeing how little effort you put in bothering to explain them. Just going “meh, it’s probably God” doesn’t help you one bit.
                      I’m serious, if you are hearing voices, get checked at a medical professional – because hearing voices is just the first step to something much much darker and troublesome for both you and your family and loved ones.

                  • Ryan Lynch says:

                    How are you so sure you wont find yourself standing before Odin at the entrance to Valhalla or Zeus on Mount Olympus? Have you considered how improbable your gamble on the god of the bible is, considering the thousands of alternative gods throughout history.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Zeus? Is that a joke?

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      In response to Jose, why not Zeus? He’s just as valid as the Hebrew God. Or Odin. The stories really are not any less believable. It’s just that we’ve moved on from Zeus, who later became Jupiter under Roman religion and some myth in the bible is Greek influenced.
                      Now it’s pretty clear we are moving away from the Hebrew god, in a few hundred years a guy called Jose night even say ‘god, are you joking?’.
                      As an Atheist, your god is no more valid than any of the other 1000’s of current or previous ones.
                      Why not Zeus, Odin, Ra etc? Tell me? Why the Christian god over the Indian one, isn’t who you worship pretty much down to geography, ethnic background etc?

                    • Wendy Jones says:

                      The Bible has been there since the beginning of Christianity. Sure there are plenty of gods but the Bible states:
                      In the beginning was the Word,
                      And the Word was with God,
                      And the Word was God,
                      He was with God in the beginning,
                      And the Word became flesh, human, and made His dwelling among us – His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God! He is the One True God and He will return to this earth soon!

              • ROB COWLEY says:

                As the author of a new book published in 2019, – and titled –
                ‘Why Anything – Why Not Nothing’ – I enjoyed very much your logical logic. Some people simply cannot and/or refuse to accept, that ‘All Life is from life. In other words, without a bio-contaminant, ‘Spontaneous Generation of Life’ is a chemical nonsense. I would love to receive your emails Perry

                • Jack Ellis says:

                  I’ve read plenty of papers showing that simple life could be created from chemistry, no ‘bio-contaminant’ required. Biology IS reliant on physics and chemistry, not ‘magic’. Sure, we’ve a long way to go to understand how it actually got going, Historically, we might never know for sure – but we will, in the near future, be able to present some well researched and evidence based theories and show it can be done.
                  Looking at the book, you studied theology at a biblical university? What scientific education do you have and what solid evidence to you present for the need for a bio-contaminant or the existence of a supernatural being? If that being existed, what bio-contaminant created that life form, and it’s predecessor etc etc? What you propose is even more improbable, and suggesting god is a life form that wasn’t created requires introduction of a special case argument, defeating your proposal that a bio-contaminant is required?
                  If voices talk in your head on the beach, see a doctor.
                  There is zero evidence of a big bearded man in the sky, angels, demons, talking bushes, magic trumpets etc etc. It’s also all unnecessary, humanity managed millions of years of evolution without it all, and the universe (and life) billions.

            • Jacob Marshal says:

              It would not be better, why should you have a passion in something false. Would it not be better to have passion in something real, solid, and confirm-able. Religion is a corruption. Religion causes people to do immoral things and lack the ability to allow things. Religion/god has not made homosexual peoples lives better, it causes them hardships. Belief in gods haves given people false hope that people can function without. Religion is unnecessary, it is irrational. Why is the Christian god that has a bible that is the basis that allows slavery correct when the Islamic god that makes women second class citizens wrong.

        • Bill Morrison says:

          I’ve commented here on and off and followed the discussion with interest for about a month. I think I have the issues clearly in mind and have my own opinion. What I would like to know now is this — What do you think is the strongest criticism of the ideas you have presented and defended here?


          • Bill,

            I think the strongest criticism of the ideas I have presented would be a person who says, “Very well then, you posit a designer but as a scientist I am not allowed to stop there. A scientist’s job is to search for a NATURAL explanation. So yes there is no natural explanation for the origin of DNA but it’s my job to find one. I’m going to continue to do my job and look for one just like Newton looked for a natural explanation for why apples fall out of trees.”

            And I think that’s a very fair response. If there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of information then yes, we should look for it.

            I would argue that the only way we could ever find such an explanation is to admit that the current laws of physics do not explain the origin of information or consciousness, thus acknowledge we are searching for a new law of physics.

            Again, all that is fair enough.

            But note that some people accuse me of throwing up my hands and saying “GodDidIt” and giving up the search for scientific answers. I am NOT doing that. Any more than a mechanic who works on Toyota Camrys throws up his hands and says “ToyotaDidIt” when he has a question about how the engine works.

            Recognizing the existence of a designer is not anti-scientific at all. It just acknowledges that there are some things that are not reducible to mere physical laws. Case in point, you cannot reduce the rules of any computer program to mere physical laws. They obey physical laws but they also follow additional rules set by the programmer. To pretend there’s no programmer is not just unscientific, it’s stupid.

            That’s where we’re at with DNA. You clearly cannot derive the genetic code from physical laws; it has every indication of being designed; and living things are better studied in the same manner that we study car engines, than in the manner that we study apples falling out of trees.


            • GM says:

              I believe language meets all your criteria for a designed code without one designer.

              • Every human language I know of is spoken by a conscious being. I have yet to see one that emerged from a rock.

                • Jose says:

                  This is good stuff, Perry. May I just say that, at this point in time, the evidence for the Biblical God is way beyond just DNA, as you spoke about many years ago in your presentation. My point is the evidence for the Biblical God as our designer is ridiculous, and I have to laugh everytime that I hear Richard Dawkins, or any other non-believer argue for something else.

                  • David Altman says:

                    There has never been evidence presented for the Biblical God which has not been thoroughly debunked / refuted. Actually, there can BE no evidence for God; either God is supernatural, which precludes any evidence for Him would have to be natural; or God is natural, and we can study Him, but evidence precludes faith (and without faith it’s impossible to please God, cf. Heb. 11:1).

                    DNA is not now, nor ever has been a “code.” We see a pattern and think “designer.” A rock that looks sort of like a bear or an eagle wasn’t “designed” to look like a bear or an eagle; we just see pattern. This pattern seeking has helped us evolve over billions of years – the grass moving may be a lion waiting to pounce.

                    DNA does indeed contain INSTRUCTIONS, but that’s not the same thing as a CODE. Knowledge is something you learn; faith is something you believe. You can learn what people BELIEVE about a particular god, but you can either believe it or not.

                    Facts, on the other hand, don’t care whether we believe them or not. If the bridge up ahead is out, then that’s a fact. If I don’t believe the posted sign, I will fall right into the chasm. Even if I believe the sign and keep going, I’ll still fall into the chasm. Only if I pay attention to the facts will I save my life.

                    The fact is this: The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is over 13 billion years old. Life evolved over billions of years, and humankind over the past million years. We share DNA with other primates; they are our cousins. These are facts. There are mountains of empirical evidence proving these facts. To stick one’s head in the sand and say, otherwise is stupid, on a par with believing the earth is flat because “the Bible says so.”

                    If your particular translation of the Bible says that our bones are made of butter, does that make it so? If it said that God was a potato, would that make it so? Of course not; the Bible was penned by fallible human beings. Even if you believe that God INSPIRED the Bible (which is what it says He did), then you still have to take into account the ignorance of the writers, most of whom lived in a remote desert during the Bronze Age, and who had formerly worshipped a volcano god before converting to El worship, and then converting to Yahweh worship – and still trying to hold onto the concept of the wife of God.

                    The history of religion is clear. The facts regarding science are clear. Get over yourself, and just believe in God – but accept science at the same time. It’s ok; you can do it.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Empirical evidence? Let’s have it.

                    • Lilly says:

                      Yes, the bible was written by humans, 40 unrelated humans, over 2000 years. If God wasn’t “inspiring or telling” them what to write, it is proven to be impossible multiple times.
                      And if you bother to look you can find it.

                    • Ekim says:

                      Shallow really rocks through my mind right now…. Proof is in the creation that surrounds all living things. I understand you mean more then what we all can clearly see… and Faith, really? What big while you were alive like Moses you met God almighty? OH I know what you’d say… How do we know it’s God? Even though you’d be in God’s presence and there would be no doubt because it’s friggin God and you could see it with your eyes, but no your type would want an DNA sample right? It’s ignorance like that that keeps you from meeting our God. Would God make you have faith if you met God and knew God is Real? What’s Real Right? Just 1 reality and all others are simulations but did you ever think you could link all your “You’s” in all those other dimensions and become the “I am” hive mind and then maybe just maybe you would have ascend like Jesus? Maybe we can all come back… well except for the shallow ones that never make it…. Peace

                    • Please use your full first and last name.

                    • Frank Cory says:

                      The bible isn’t needed at all to know a Creator is responsible for all that is. Just believe in God? Of course. Just believe in science? of Course….why not? God obviously loves science…He created it and made it available to us. What’s the problem? You need to get over the false idea that science and God are in conflict.

                    • Lance Woodcock says:

                      Wow, this is so wrong, firstly. Faith is out of context, our faith is sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. But it also says that we gain faith through hearing the word, and then the word is also proclaimed as Jesus, who is alive today and who is God. So if we didn’t hear it from God, it isn’t faith, if we aren’t certain and sure that we heard if from God it is not faith. FAITH IS NOT A GUESS. Your facts were taught by man, and our facts were in essence taught by the Holy Spirit, who is God. Ours is drawn from a long line of historical culture of the Jews, who spoke a few of the broadest oldest languages around then. Honestly if any man was to right the bible, it would be the biggest hypocrisy ever, we as people love sin and doing our evil desire full things, which are noted in the bible for us not to do. There is nothing we get out of doing good on earth, apart from consequences for our actions. But these consequences aren’t even what are focused on in the bible; everything we do on earth is referred to as a relational consequence with God or with our salvation. WHO WOULD WRITE SOMETHING, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE BY, FOR NO REASON. WITH IT BEING PAST DOWN AS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, WITH LESS YEARS GAP BETWEEN THAN OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER SO CALLED HISTORY, WHICH YOU BELIEVE, THAT YOU HAVEN’T SEEN, BUT JUST BEEN ASSUMED.

                    • Sam Sam says:

                      Those facts that you mentioned are facts that are not accepted by every scientist and they have a tendency to change. What did life and the universe evolve from? How can something evolve into a system that works quite well without specific instruction to do so? Do you not wonder at all how there’s life and human beings only on planet Earth and not somewhere else? What are the chances of that even happening randomly?
                      We share DNA with bananas, that does not make you a banana. Doesn’t make you wonder why we didn’t evolve into 3 arms or legs or eyes behind the back, or with a better sense of smell or hearing than the animals we supposedly evolved from? It would sure seem helpful at times.
                      The Bible does not say the earth is flat. Prove it or else you’re just posting bogus information.
                      Also, the Bible does not say our bones are made of butter or that God was a potato, so I am not sure what you’re argument is there. The Bible does describe the God as exactly the being He would have to be in order to be able to create what has been created.
                      As ignorant as you want to make the writers, they wrote of things that could not have been observed with the naked eye or quite impossible for those days. They described things in the skies and provided details on geography (climate, geology, topography, etc) that they could simply not have discovered themselves at that time.
                      Apparently they were not that ignorant since Biblical historical writings have been widely used by all sorts of groups that have done studies in that area of our planet.

                    • Use your full first and last name or your posts will be deleted.

                  • Krishnaparik says:

                    You believe that god exist on earth.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Do you mean is Jesus God? Absolutely.

                    • Breanna Litts says:

                      The Creator Created our world and all of us with it by using its knowledge aka information that information is perceived and defined as science by the human race
                      How can something so obvious be so complex for so many …..stop arguing about it and think about it ….you believe in your smart phone and your Honda as much as you do a God…..I think that means we all already subconsciously are aware that this is how the world works

                  • Stuart Norey says:

                    Can I ask what evidence there is for a biblical God?

                    The Bible certainly cannot be held up as such. It contains some historical truths but is a collection of narratives written often hundreds of years after events (humans don’t make accurate first hand witnesses, let alone generations later) and the version put together the Romans (essentially) selected what went in based on social and political motivations.

                    What about other current religions with differing gods? What about previous ones? They can all point to books, visions and miracles to back up their cases.

                    I am not denying your right to believe, religion served humanity well and much of what we created to replace it has done a worse job for society.

                    If we say all information we know of up to DNA is designed, so DNA must be too, we must say all intelligence we know of follows instructions/algorithms so you cannot have intelligence without such code? Current studies on consciousness only find ‘algorithms’ driving our behaviours so far. So god, as an intelligent entity, must also be code based?

                    So where did he come from?

                    Also, I get the argument posted about statistics and the infinitely small probability of information evolving in DNA. But that’s not taking into account the fact there are billions of galaxies, stars, planets and 14 billion years representing near infinite ‘laboratories’ for nature to experiment in. Life seems almost invetiable?

                    As I said, not trying to upset anyone, just have a debate.

                    Believe the bible but please don’t use the bible as evidence! It’s not a reliable witness.

                    • Jarrod Briley says:

                      You’re trying to use logic and common sense with people that condemn murder, whose god says quite plainly that murder is a sin, then the same god repeatedly orders babies to be murdered. My personal favorite is when he tells Jewish soldiers, who had just conquered a town, to CUT BABIES OUT OF THEIR MOTHERS’ WOMB, THEN SMASH THEM TO DEATH AGINST ROCKS.

                      So, when you’re dealing with people who will read that passage, and look you square in the eye and say that wasn’t immoral or evil, using logic and common sense…….nah……completely pointless.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Jarrod Briley, that same Biblical God also sent Jesus to be murdered on a cross.

                    • Sammael Aellinsar says:

                      Furthermore, why would an all powerful being rely on a book that has been translated and was written thousands of years ago to convey his messages/words. Would it not be better to convey it in a more sure manner. He has the power, he has the knowledge how to. If god is real then he knows the way to ensure that all people know he is real and he is good.

                  • Stuart Norey says:

                    For the purposes of debate, there are some interesting articles here that offer a potential explanation of (a) evolution of DNA and (b) why the low probability argument is flawed?



                    Both would seem to be based on what we know about chemistry, biology etc.

                    Be interested to see the counter arguments? And not ‘you can’t prove it happened that way because you weren’t there when it happened’

                    This would also seem to offer some good arguments for evolution in action, although I know many religious people now accept evolution in terms of being a click that started ticking after creation of a fully formed organism e.g. Human but not before.

                  • Hasnain mohammed says:

                    Let alone you and your “……….”!
                    How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

                    Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving*, is his creator and that of all beings?

                    Some people regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it. But how can they **believe** that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

                    What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

                    All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.


                    • kurt says:

                      Hasnain, if Allah is true, how is it he does not know what Christians believe about Jesus and the Trinity?

                    • Ekim says:

                      Have you met G* or g* or God, or Allah or Satan or Gene or Atom, or Adam or El or All or Ki or Buddha or BAAL or Gabrielle or Gabriel or Ekim or Ariel or Kain…. Have you met a ghost, spirit, demon, Damon, cheer up, Genie, Jen? I just wanted to know who or what you are?

                    • Saed says:

                      Quran is the most corrupted book. Full with contradicting surahs. Islam is full of bogus claimed. Surahs were copied then heavily edited from Ancient Sumerian text, Torahs , Genesis/Bible then claimed that they were revealed through Mohamed.

                • Ekim says:

                  A rocks language comes from frequency, all things have frequency which would come from a design a creator…. The “God or Creator” uses the vibration of sounds frequency to shake matter into existence. Everything that exists has a code, and/or design through creation.

                  • Ekim says:

                    So do you need faith if you know God truly esist? I mean if you met God and physically seen and spoke with God? Yet the skeptic would say “you ate a poisonous mushroom and hallucinated the experience” even though God being Almighty bestowed it in you and knowledge and experience that he exists, the skeptic would still deny. For it is in the Skeptics nature to be in denial and to deny others. Everything again has design, has code, has instruction, is from knowledge. There is intelligent design from the most smallest particles to the entire Cosmos, every sentient being is from something. The shallow mind body and soul of skeptic is that of a lost person in a forest starred in half-crazed tearing through the woods lost. I refuse to be that I’ll sit down talk to God and find my way. It’s much more comfortable to be with a god then to be lonely obtuse and lost. Peace to everybody God save you all and God bless

                    • Ekim says:

                      I just have to add one more thing God is great come God is so great X offended t x Cosmos X forever plus so much more than you could ever imagine. Why do we have to limit so much about God? Why are we so limited in our thinking? It’s time that we take a very much deeper look into everything. It’s time that we explore our true Natures the true stories but that we keep one very small and large simple fact at heart and that is God exists God is a Creator and no matter how many times the story changes he is at the base the route the beginning of everything.

                    • Please use your full name.

                    • Valerie O'Brien says:

                      I don’t have to ” reconcile ” anything with science, the Bible says we must ” Cast down STRONGHOLDS and every HIGH THING which exhsults itself ABOVE the knowledge of God.” God manifested himself in Jesus Paul the apostle says Jesus is the Fullness of the Godhead dwelling Bodily. Either you believe God’s Word THE SCRIPTURES which is also Jesus or you go your own way.

                • Anton says:

                  I believe that sentience is overrated and you are so arrogant to believe that you are better than a rock to this world than your speech about God. We dont need a ruler but the means to rule ourselves. That way is a hard way rather that expect that a God or God fix everything or hope for an afterlife. That means than nothing we do matters and we just need to believe and stay in line like cattle. So no more creation, no more improvement, no future just mindless obedience. You cant say you are scientific more than you can say than you are a hipocrite. Dont believe that I am insulting you I just think that you pretty much gave up of this world because you are lazy with the prospect of salvation. And that to the generations to come is disappointing because ultimately we need to transcend this world not because you care for salvation it is rather for disregarding reality which is to me the only thing we can improve.

                • Peter Ham says:


              • GMEstes1 says:

                Can’t say I’ve ever heard a rock talk. Rocks must be space junk minus carbon. I’ve never considered intelligent design for the universe, unintelligent design is more precise for our planet. Our life span for example exceed our bodies capabilities, vital organs were not designed to live as long as the entire body. We live to the 70s and to 100s today lingering until death finally arrives and releaves suffering. Just because the unintelligent designer made horrendeous
                mistakes doesn’t mean the designer didn’t exist. Humanity has created their own perfect designer in the Bible with nothing but mythic stories and fables from lunatics.

                • allanregistos says:

                  I love those mythic stories and fables, they made my life safe. However, you did not substantiate that claims, unless you defined things differently.

                  • GMEstes1 says:

                    No, I think we agree on the same definitons.
                    The recorded history in the Bible is all we have to account for God’s dealing with His creation.
                    God will only intervene as we humans allow Him.
                    Mr. Marshall makes excellent points for intelligent design. All DNA and RDNA cells have their own language to create our body parts. Bacteria seems to be the catalist that gets everything started. Watch Bonnie Bassler on TED.com.
                    I read somewhere that we the creation are God’s members today to carry on His work. Unfortunately we don’t always get things correct.
                    The Bible is an excellent roadmap, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at mans creation.Jesus’ intent wasn’t to explain creation but to be slain for humanities sin nature. It’s called atonement. The Holy Spirit has a roll in everything today. Read the Bible and you will find answers, unfortunately we can’t inspect with chemical reaction everything in the Bible and proof its authenticity. The Bible is written on a 6 to 7 grade level and therefore its easy to understand. It is no scientific book that offers proof. It offers an answer to communicate with God.

                    • Lenin says:

                      “God will only intervene as we humans allow Him”../// Thats absolutely right but for some people that ‘Intervention’ is known as “hallucination”. Both are are right I guess.

                    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                      ”Mr. Marshall makes excellent points for intelligent design. All DNA and RDNA cells have their own language to create our body parts.”
                      It’s no more a language then the ”language” that HCl and NaOH use to create kitchen salt (NaCl) and water (H2O). Seriously.

                      ” Bacteria seems to be the catalist that gets everything started. ”
                      What does this sentence even mean?

                  • Paradise Holding says:

                    To sustain my position, recently a rift in the Atlantic Ocean is a recorded fact. Some people have erroneously made a statement that God caused the rift. They apparently never studied geology. Earth floods in different regions of planet earth aren’t a result of God. The Dead Sea is a result of Asia separating from Africa, rift. A natural occurence.

                  • Jack Ellis says:

                    It’s YOU who needs to substantiate the claim that god exists and created anything. There is not a shred of evidence thus far. The Bible isn’t evidence, it’s was made up by men – some of whom were in the Middle East version of shaming drugs in all likelihood, they are known to have used psychedelics etc.

                    Studies show prayer has no impact, other than a placebo effect.

                    Biology and more importantly evolutionary and genetic study reveals no ‘magic’ going on, just chemical reactions right down at the DNA level. Despite claims god made male and female, we even see fish change gender due to environmental inputs and humans born as both.

                    There’s ‘not god’ evidence, contradicting all religions holy books, wherever we look.

                    Stories don’t make life safe, knowledge does. Sure, fables were a good way to impart knowledge, but they don’t come from ‘god’.

                    We ought to be well past all this. God doesn’t work your computer or phone now any more than he made thunder way back then.

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      Sorry, my phone causes some silly typos! I meant shamanic drugs, but hopefully you could figure that out.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Jack, you really think fish change genders? Don’t know which is funnier, the Russian hoax or the evolution hoax.

                • Gilbert Lay says:

                  I suppose even rocks talk, that is the electrons, protons and photons that interact are in motion and therefore subject to laws of sound in very hard for us to hear frequency.

                  • Owen Prince says:

                    Gilbert Lay:Crystals vibrate at a frequency that can be used to run a very accurate watch. There is a natural frequency to everything. We do not have the tester that will test everything but if we had one it would prove that even rocks have a frequency

                • Mr G G Francis says:

                  Of course our bodies run out before we do but you fail to understand we out grow our bodies and hence we leave it behind.
                  Now you need to find out why rather than using unproven myths as means of proving something is untrue and try and find the truth.
                  If you don’t find the answer then what the hell (excuse the pun) what denotes a myth? How does a myth become a myth? Are all myths untrue ? Are myths an exaggeration of the truth ? What is the truth? Actually you must start with being true to yourself first otherwise it really would be a pointless quest.

                • Jose says:

                  Who’s the unintelligent designer you’re speaking of?

                  • Jack Ellis says:

                    NATURE. Natural forces, physics, geology, chemical and biological processes.

                    There is NO designer, NO design, NO creator and NO purpose. RNA, DNA, biology, life is ultimately driven by predictable chemical reactions/bonds etc. Ultimately, water is just two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Not ‘magic’. Add carbon dioxide and it’s fizzy water, again not ‘magic’.

                    Things change. We call that evolution in the biological world. It can be Darwinian (by natural selection, the passing on of beneficial traits) or other methods such as horizontal gene transfer and selective breeding.

                    There are current examples everywhere.

                    Populations of light moths, over a few generations, turn dark if left on darker tree bark due to environmental changes. It’s been observed. The darker ones have an advantage, they don’t get eaten by predators, and survive to breed. They pass on dark colouring.

                    Man breeds dogs. You want a fast runner to catch rabbits, mate two fast and slim dogs and keep doing it each generation and you finally get a whippet/greyhound. Want a guard dog? Breed based on aggression, size etc.

                    Bacteria have been shown to swap DNA by several methods, resulting in antibiotic resistance spreading globally very quickly.

                    It’s really not that hard to grasp.

                    Explain how and why god did, and still does, all that?

                    If things don’t change, why do species go extinct? Why no dinosaurs in the bible? Why are fossil records different depending on what layer (loosely, with layers of sedimentary rock representing periods in time) they are found in? Do you even believe rocks were layer down by that process, among others?

                • Hasnain mohammed says:

                  Absurdity of Atheism
                  If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

                  Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.


                  • Jack Ellis says:

                    Who said anything was random and disordered? Chemistry, the driver of biology, certainly isnt either. Neither is physics. They are both predictable but just complex, with so many influences, so goat herding nomads and the like invented gods – lots of them, all claiming their brand is best and in fact the only right one.

                    The universe is full of order without some giant bearded man keeping it all in motion, it’s got a set of what we call ‘laws’ that govern how everything turns out. That’s why we can slingshot Spacecraft around planets by calculating their positions and gravitational pull etc years in advance or from millions of miles away.

                    The alternatives to creation and evolution, for example, are laughably silly. A biblical flat earth around which the sun orbits? Mud statues? Using ribs from man to make woman? Talking snakes? Magic apples? Talking burning bushes? Please!

                  • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                    ”If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.”

                    Purposeful creation is very fast (compared to natural processes on the same scale). The Great Wall of China was built for about a millenia – and look at what the end result is. Abiogenesis lasted for millions of years, and its end result is a mix of simple organic elements capable of reproducing with errors and engulfing elements needed for reproducing. Compare those two, and you get a pretty good idea how the former is impossible to do with the latter.

                    ”Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator.”
                    Why? You fall in the same trap every proponent of ID falls – you claim that abiogenesis is impossible because it produces ”order” (whatever that means), but fail that your religion doesn’t claim that only life was created by your deity – but EVERYTHING. So your argument about ”order” being the key trait of ”design” falls flat on it’s face.

                    ” He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. ”
                    What is ”exact and proportioned” about living organisms? Do children with 12 fingers not get born? Do children without a head not get born? Do people with one leg shorter then the other not get born? Are we not all different from one another in some small or great way? What exact proportions do you see in life?

            • Mr G G Francis says:

              You used a good prognosis of the computer and the programmer.
              But let’s say we do have a programmer or designer which programs in us things like fear and taste. Now how do we know the difference between sweet and bitter good and bad ?
              Today man has developed more power computers which can process things far faster than us yet we still have ultimate control over them.
              If they get a virus they tend to crash.
              We also try to stop the virus but sometimes we just have to replace the hard drive and start again.
              No suppose we have been designed in a similar way for example we can be corrupted we can contract a virus and ultimately when we stop working out creator can retrieve our memory and brings us back to life with a new body faster memory faster processors and more intelligence.
              A computer ? Does it know it has a maker
              Can it choose to decide and follow the makers inputs.?
              Can it corrupt it’s perfect program in a sense that it does what it was designed for.
              How can you say something is not true because it is not scientifically proven?
              How many times have the scientists books been rewritten because of new discoveries and new scientific development.
              How many people thought the world was flat and assumed the end of the (flat) world was the sea which stretched out forever.
              Man decide I can cross that sea or I can attempt to fly like that bird.
              Man has not yet grown his own wings and flown with then yet.
              Can science prove this can be done?
              Why do birds have wings?
              Will man evolve into being able to fly ?
              We can choose to accept we have a creator who has ultimate control or not. I won’t say who this creator is but religion majority has it as one creator that is living and not of this world. Religious has there are others in the form of angels however we depict what they look like.
              What if Instructions have been left for us to live and develop.
              What if how we choose to process these instructions has been left entirely up to us as individuals.
              Let’s say the designer has all the codes and computers can crack many codes. Once the code is cracked do you think the designer will sit back or will he be alerted of this ?
              We know why computers have updates . To prevent viruses and fix bugs as well as improve usage efficiency which in prevents over heating and over use.
              Owner’s of computers always want the best from them and will update and rebuild so they can work with and without their human counterpart in harmony.
              Suppose this is what our creator wants (if we were to have one)
              I have not even touched on things like sleep , time domains , male and female,
              Science has proven that science alone does not hold all the answers

            • daniel pate says:

              isint the fact that we have the knowledge to conduct scientific eveidence and studies in the first place some form of creation?

              or the fact that were able to naturally able to process and speak the said implemented information?

              do any of you have some explanation for such simple behaviors that are made up with such complexity?

              • daniel pate says:

                Basically what i am saying is why does talking and moving and seeing and everything else in between feel so natural if there is a very complex design behind it? because it was created to be that way. if it was all accident or chance shouldn’t there be alot more bones in one person than another? shouldn’t there be a lot more cases of random vegetables due to the mind not even being able to process the dna instructions… so on and so forth. there are millions of examples of what could and would be different if it were all accident and or chance

                • Sam Martin says:

                  Um. The mind doesn’t process DNA instructions. The biological processes of cellular reproduction are completely independent from mental processes. Learning more about biology will let you make more persuasive arguments about it. =)

                  • Julia says:

                    To add to that, yes cells and DNA transmit information in some form, but the argument is that a “mind” always transmits information, and a mind is defined as:
                    “the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.”
                    In the world of biology, cells are not a sentient being, and it is argued that they are NOT EVEN LIVING BEINGS.

            • Jack says:

              Actually DNA or deoxyribonucluic acid was potentially created when the earth rained from the atmosphere creating water to fall upon the earth to settle the magma and turn it into molten rock, the earth then made lakes by the century’s of rainfall. H2O particles created a strand of DNA while combining with different elements. Why do u think we survive on water today and how we absorb water molecules. A human can go a week and a half without drinking water. Proving that u will die without water and the fact that DNA thrives on water as the moleculic structure is absorbed.

            • Thomas says:

              And let’s not forget about the physical laws themselves. Where did they come from and how are they constant?

            • Danny Fortune says:


              Great website! Very stimulating information. In regards to, “I would argue that the only way we could ever find such an explanation is to admit that the current laws of physics do not explain the origin of information or consciousness, thus acknowledge we are searching for a new law of physics.”

              My question is… Does the double slit experiment prove [through quantum physics] that the universe didn’t give rise to consciousness, as Newtonian physics taught, but that consciousness gave rise to the universe?

              For anyone who may not know about the “double slit experiment” I’m referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc



            • Kelly says:

              Perry ponder this; What scienfic evidence do you have for the perfect Axis tilt? Cosmic collision?

              Einstein Law r being Disproved as we speak, bouyancy weight. Engineer disputes the Law, look it up. Not metion CERN by miliasecond speed of light, etc.

              Is it magic too that two of our planets spin in opposite directions? How does that affect laws of space and time?

              The Earth is not A Perfect Sphere eaither.

            • Gordon says:

              I think evolution is the answer and the modern day mistake is to assume we’ve stopped evolving.

            • Graendal Maradim says:

              When a person does not know the answer, the correct answer is I don’t know. It is not GodDidIt. Why must there be a designer. I don’t know your claims, but if it is the watchmakers(designer because of complexity) “theory” then it is a fallacy. If information is complex/inexplicable and must be created by a greater being, then god who complex/inexplicable then he must have a creator. Then is he really all powerful.

          • Great question – I answer that on this page: http://evo2.org/faq

        • Jack Ellis says:

          It has zero to do with any magic sky kingdom for dead people. It’s how theists tend to see the world, full of ‘woo woo’ rather than facts. Sure, some religious people made scientific advances, but this has been despite religion NOT because of it. In most cases throughout history it’s restricted knowledge and freedom. Excommunicated astronomers and the like. Burnt women knowledgeable about herbal remedies.

          How does heaven even work anyway? Do Crusaders get to go for killing Turks AND Turks for killing Crusaders? Equally valid (or not) gods as far as I can see.

          What about the millions of South American natives killed by Christians, who were happily worshipping their particular jaguar gods etc? Who goes to heaven/hell? Them or you?

          Will You get there and Allah say “I’d rather your been atheist son, than worship that Jewish twit”?

          Do most of the worlds population miss out because they backed the wrong gods?

          What about people throughout a million or so years of probable human and human ancestor religious worship? Animism for example (the worship of eg mountains).

          Im just fine. My ‘soul’ is my conscience and it’s rewards earthly, the smiles on my kids, families and strangers faces.

          I’ll leave you to your fantasies…

        • Glenn Calfee says:

          I like the analogy of a simple seed, plant or animal. All the knowledge we obtained regarding life, chemicals, dna or whatever, the simple seed contains knowledge that I maintain will forever be out of reach of a mind. Therefore, for me, it’s a God thing. God didn’t give us all knowledge, certainly not the missing ingredient of what it takes to create a reproducible simple seed. If it’s a bean or an oak tree we will forever fall short of the mental ability to create a seed that will grow much less reproduce. Dare I say it, only God can make a seed. God has to exist.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Because you need a flower to make a seed and a seed to make a flower, just like chickens and eggs, clearly neither were created. The fact that flowers are genetically related to one another, and other plants etc, shows a common ancestor. Just as in animals. DNA/RNA analysis does allow us to understand this somewhat. Way way back in the ‘tree of life’ are simple life forms from which all others came, that’s why life on earth shares so many ‘building blocks’ and so much DNA.
            God certainly never made a seed, even a theist scientist would tell you that.
            What science probably needs to do to hammer the nail into gods coffin is prove beyond reasonable doubt that eg simple rna based life can arise from natural processes, it is doing a good job of that, many of us can see the logic in it and pretty much accept it – the seed of thought was down and is flowering. Religion on the other hand, gets further away from having answers the more time progresses and science advances.

      • Spencer says:


        You have stated that matter cannot have existed for forever. Will you also acknowledge the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed? If so this does seem to purport the universe to be God designed, as there must have been a first un-caused cause. However, why is it no more valid to suggest that matter has always been in existence than it is to suppose a God has always been in existence? Why couldn’t the universe in some form or another have always existed? This hypothesis would be entirely consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

        The singularity, as it has been stated many times, was all matter condensed into something smaller than an eighth of an atom, and not as you assume to be the beginning of all matter.

        (Here is an article that you may want to read, regarding misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions).

        Therefore there really is no need to jump to the conclusion that God started the Big Bang, because your assumption that the big bang was the point in which all matter began is false. Now on to your information theory.

        Simply because there is a lack of an understanding of the information given does not mean that God is inferred. No knowledge of one thing does not prove the other. So here is my issue with your argument. You are stating that because information is not material, it can only be created by the mind. Firstly you are assuming that labeling DNA as information is completely correct. In fact the use of this word comes from our own biases as human beings. It is not as though, that DNA passes on thoughts and feelings. DNA passes “information” of one being on to another. This information perfectly reflects the person physically. Essentially it could be looked as like a photograph of a person, but with such immense detail that it covers all aspects of the person perfectly. Photographs do contain information, but in a different way than what is being written on this page.

        However even if you do look at it this way your argument still does not stand to reason. Simply because “No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process” does not mean it could never happen. It does not mean that it isn’t happening as we speak. Most importantly however, it does not mean that it is proof of creation. Simply because we cannot explain the mind, or how DNA originally came to be does not make the lack of knowledge evidence of a creator. Essentially what you are arguing is this:
        Person 1: I do not believe in the Easter bunny.
        Person 2: How do you explain the decorated eggs hidden around the house?
        Person 1: I don’t know. We were both asleep last night.
        Person 2: Well if you cannot provide me with the answer then the Easter bunny must exist.

        It could be very well that there is an alternative explanation, which would make more sense than a large rabbit hiding eggs around the house. The majority of the population knows that the Easter bunny is in fact a fictitious character. Not having knowledge of how the eggs were placed around the house when both people were sleeping does not prove the Easter bunny’s existence.

        I do realize that the example above is slightly juvenile however the comparison remains correct.



        • Spencer,

          Is the Big Bang the beginning of time? I don’t see how it can’t be.

          If you want to argue that there was something physical before that, that’s fine…. but now you have a problem with entropy. Because somewhere you have to have a finite starting point otherwise the energy of the universe is completely spent once you get to now.

          String theory does not solve that problem.

          Finally you will get no respect from me talking about Easter bunnies, or bringing in any argument that is by your own admission “juvenile.” You cannot sweep important arguments under the rug that way.

          You can posit alternative explanations all you want, but what I am asking for is evidence. What I have provided is 100% inference:

          1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

          2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

          3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

          Perry Marshall

          • spencer says:


            All that you argue against my response can be argued against you as well.

            I assume that when you say eventually you have to find a finite starting point, you are saying this because you believe that an infinite regression of causes is impossible. So you posit a creator in order to solve this.

            First let me ask you who created the creator? I would suspect you would reply with something along the lines of the following:
            “He didn’t, He had no need for a creator. He is the first un-caused cause.”

            So then I ask, if God can be thought to be un-caused then why can we not think of the big bang to be un-caused?

            In regards to my rather insensitive statement above, illustrating it in such a way may not have been appropriate; however, I feel as though any less juvenile illustration would still fail to avoid the inevitable act of “[sweeping] important arguments under the rug.” Presumably, in your eyes nothing is more important than the existence of God, so any example at all might harbour the same negative sentiments.

            That does not mean that I retract the idea I was trying to convey. You are arguing fallaciously from ignorance. You state that because we do not have any evidence to the contrary, this lack of evidence proves the existence of your claim. Let me formalize a similar argument to yours.

            If God does not exist then we should have evidence that He does not exist. We do not have evidence that He does not exist. Therefore God exists.

            1. If God does not exist then we should have evidence to support that He does not exist
            2. We have no evidence to support that He does not exist
            ∴3. God exists. (1,2)


            Let God not existing be represented by the annotation N.
            Let evidence to support that God does not exist be represented by the annotation E.

            N ⊃ E; ~E; Therefore N

            This is illogical because you cannot infer N from no E or ~E.

            Similarly you say,

            1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

            2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

            3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

            You cannot argue that we have 100% inference that DNA is designed because you do not have 100% knowledge of ALL codes. Simply because you state that all the codes we KNOW ABOUT are designed does not mean that they all ARE.

            Your argument is not cogent, therefore not correct.

            • We cannot think of the big bang as un-caused because of entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, it would be burned out by now. If the universe is not infinitely old then it has a cause. Which brings us back to the necessity of an uncaused cause.

              The uncaused cause has to be metaphysical. See http://evo2.org/incompleteness

              We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.

              Yes there is always room for doubt. But I am arguing based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method – which uses inference and induction – we have every reason to believe DNA is designed. There is some room to doubt it is designed but there is vastly more room to doubt that it is not designed.

              If you reject my inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.

              My inference to design is therefore as reliable as the current theory of gravitation.

              • go2mark says:

                hello perry, i have nothing significant to add here only to say that i praise you for your outstanding clarity and evenhandedness in dealing with all the irrelevant and misguided posts on here. a job well done sir and i support you and your cause. i do hope to contribute as soon as i feel i can offer something useful.

                • Debbie says:

                  When teaching my children about the evidence for origins, my goal is not to prove or disprove anything. My goal is to show them that the evidence we have is inconclusive ambiguous so what ever they choose to believe, based on the available evidence will require them to believe in something unseen.

                  I want them to know that contrary to what they may be told, If they choose to have faith in the unseen God they are no more foolish than if they choose to have faith in the “yet to be seen” (ie. unseen) proof for evolution. Both positions require making assumptions that go beyond the scope of the available evidence. Science will never prove or disprove the existance of God, that is one of its limitations, but to use that lack of proof to deny that there is any compelling evidence that points in the direction of a creator or to deny that scientists also have faith in somehing when evidence is lacking (ie. natural processes) is foolish and hypocritical: the very same thing they claim makes them more enlightened than creationists. What people choose to have faith in after examining the evidence will have much more to do with what they want the evidence to show than what it actually shows and what they choose will ultimately be less of a reflection on their inteligence, and more of a reflection on the kind of life they want to live.

              • Solo74 says:

                Hello, I just wanted to throw this into the mix after “stumbling” onto your website, have fun with it:


            • franpar says:

              We could be nothing but bacteria on an atom, these bacterias kill one another, could we not be the results of an experiment by somebody very very big, could we ourselves have killed off many many planets galaxies and universes when we split the atom!!! When we look through a microscope we see living organisms, on those organisms there are more organisms and on and on its infinite. What has religion got to do with it, i believe that religion was invented by man after cosmic beings visited the earth and tried to impose some kind of order, when we crucified one of them they gave up and left after coming to the conclusion that we were too violent. we then made him part of that religion

            • Max Somerset says:

              Perry Marshall is correct, the what if on the other side of the universe gravity just doesn’t work is the same as what if a code just happens to exist without a mind. The inference to the best explanation is this is the product of intelligence, yes it might not be the right explanation but it is for all we know right now the best explanation, are you willing to concede that much, if not, why not, what epidemic paradigm do you hold to that stops you freely making such a basic logical inference?

              Now the Bunny and the eggs. We know that eggs can be placed around the house a variety of ways, I have them in my fridge, however if I woke up and there were rabbit droppings everywhere, I would infer that someone’s rabbit had gotten into my house.

            • Mr G G Francis says:

              I have always thought the very same question but rarely asked who created the creator.
              Suppose the creator has no knowledge of how he came into existence but was left instructions of what to do. Let’s say he was told he was created to be the most powerful and just being that ever existed and that there was no one one like him before and never will be after he is created. Let’s say all had to be destroyed in order for him to be created but could never know how was created for his own good and security.
              Would it be acceptable to if this were true ?

              • Sam Martin says:

                According to traditional beliefs, God was never created; he has always existed. Always. Without limit. So, no, I don’t think this idea would be acceptable.

                • Mr G G Francis says:

                  Hi Sam ,
                  I agree that we must accept God’s own words. My reasoning are for sceptics not necessarily non believers. The point is there are many scenarios which would give good reason for justification. We can either accept his word or not. The fact is his words are true because he says they are. Now who believes that you and I do as many others.
                  The point is for those who do not accept this there can be endless reasons to make assumptions on whether God was created or not. This is where faith plays an important role.
                  If your Father says don’t drive his car you may or may not do so. Does this mean he must tell you the brakes are not working in order for you not to drive it ? Just as our Islamic friends state we do not have or can comprehend the higher state of our Creator so how can you explain something that your mind can not cope with.
                  Can a new born baby walk or carry out the complexity of mathematical sums.
                  If we do not accept we or limited mentally, physically as well constraint within the human body for a time then we will continue not to accept that this is how things will be until we return. Patience and time are great tests.

                  • Sam Martin says:

                    “Does this mean he must tell you the brakes are not working in order for you not to drive it ?”
                    If he cares more about your welfare than about your blind obedience, I would say absolutely yes. It would be irresponsible of him not to mention it. But that has nothing to do with your overall point.

            • john says:


              first of all i say this not for the aim of attacking you or underestimating your intelligence and knowledge of things in any way. and forgive me for my poor english; its not my native language,
              let me make some suggestions wich i feel that one should take into consideration. and please correct me if you feel that any of these suggestions seem wrong or illogic or ….
              lets start:

              1-its easier to believe that god didn’t have a cause to exist than to believe that the big bang was uncaused.actually the idea of god being causless is much easier to cope than the idea of anything just popping into existance just like that…lol.i mean creating anything from nothing seems really hard for our humble human minds to understand (even for the the so called intellectuals of society aka: scientists,philosophers….
              and btw ur easter bunny example is out of place (again not being offensive). you state that someone who saw the eggs and believes in the easter bunny is in a way the same as believing in god. well this logic is simply wrong because someone who believes in god should in your example believe that someone put these eggs,but not nessecarily the easter bunny.and the other person in your story who disagrees with the “believer” should believe that these eggs just popped into existance. this was just an additional point.

              2-Mr marshall was very clear about why dna is a code(or information wich independant from matter and energy) and used the scientific approach to prove that dna was designed and didn’t exist by accident. and he did that by referring that all known codes or information or messages had to have an intelligent designer/creator. so based on our/mankind experience and scientifically speaking, dna had an intelligent source behind it ( and mr Perry marshall explained that perfectly…Hands down!!!)

            • Jose Lopez says:

              Spencer, the Biblical God is eternal. My position is He created our universe. Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s a reference to what the scientific disciplines call the Big Bang. So, the Biblical God created time, matter and space. His Word also says that He created the laws that govern our universe, which is a reference to the laws of physics. You throw the anthropic principle into the mix and now you have a problem: who’s been doing this. My response is the Biblical God.

          • atorrnce says:

            Here’s my calculation of the probabilities of successful random mutation. I’m not a specialist in statistics, just a mechanical engineer, so I would welcome corrections to my assumptions or my maths.
            It has been shown, using Google © that certain advertisements attract more hits than others. Here is an example of two forms of wording, the second of which is about twice as successful as the first:
            1. Easy Personal Protection Training
            2. Fast Personal Protection Training
            Suppose we were to write a programme to change characters at random in the first phrase with the following constraints:
            1. Any letter can change. The probability of a letter changing is p.
            2. If the change does not produce the desired result, (ie phrase 2.) it is rejected by “natural selection” since it will lose its meaning and become less effective than the original phrase.
            3. The programme runs fast enough to attempt one mutation every microsecond.
            4. The number of letters in the alphabet is z =26.
            The probability p1 that the first and third letters will mutate correctly is given by:
            The probability p2 that none of the other 28 letters will mutate is given by:
            p2 = ((1-p)/(z-1))^28
            The probability P of successfully mutating the phrase in a single operation is then:
            P=p1p1=(p/(z-1))^2 . ((1-p)/(z-1))^28
            If the operation is repeated x times, the probability that a successful mutation will occur is xP
            The time, T needed for xP=1/2 is given by:
            T = (10^-6)/(2P)

            T depends on the value of p selected. The minimum occurs when p~0.07 and is about 2.14×10^31 years, or 10^21 times the age of the Universe !
            A shorter time results if we consider a sequence of 30 amino acids and consider changing just one of them in a defined way. The quantity z is 4 and all else remains the same. The minimum time now occurs when p~0.035 and is about 262 years. If, however, we were to assume a more realistic mutation rate of one attempt per second, we would arrive at a time of 262 million years to achieve a 50% chance of this one simple change: the length of a whole geological era.
            Finally, it is interesting to note that, since the total number of characters/amino acids N in the mutating sequence is the exponent of a probability, raising N to the values found in living organisms makes the probability of successful random mutation vanish for even the simplest mutation of the simplest organism.
            As Einstein is supposed to have said: “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.”

            • Mr G G Francis says:

              These designs are complex .
              We still can not determine what direction light will go when it hits a prism based on identical condition each time the light hits the dispersion can not be pre determined.
              If science could calculations prove all outcomes then many of our scientists would be successful wealthy professional gamblers.

          • Joshua Hults says:

            Well done. Agreed that specified complex information is always the result of intelligence without exception. Within the context of English every reply here is specified complex. Likewise within the context of life every protein and enzyme is specified complex.
            In order to disprove this well established well documented fact, the naturalist has to PROVE that nature is capable of reproducing specified complex information absent of intelligence with an example we know the origins of. The naturalist can’t do it, so instead they focus on the argument itself and disproving the argument itself.
            After a million tries with 0 success it turns into worldview bias rather than truth seeking.

          • nigel smith says:

            Spencer’s point remains valid. His Easter bunny is correct. To believe that unanswered questions are proof of God’s existence is just that. Belief, not proof. To which you are entirely welcome.

          • rich says:

            right on , check and mate 🙂

          • David Altman says:

            DNA is not a “code” within the meaning of the word. It is an amalgamation of amino acids, which have evolved over billions of years.

          • David Carlson says:

            What about the creation of the metals in stars? All stars of a given mass evolve and create metals in the same way and with increasing complexity giving rise to all the elements on the periodic table. There is no known code for this yet it happens uniformly in an inevitable cascade. Similarly there is a similar inevitability from interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere where the cascade path of least resistance leads inevitably toward life. It is explained in this lecture: https://youtu.be/0cwvj0XBKlE
            Your argument is dependent entirely on selfreplication as an imposed (by a creator) state and is thus invalid if there is a naturalistic causation for abiogenesis. That it took microbial organisms at least 2.5billion years to create the first multicellular organism is pretty strongly suggesting that the code was not created to an end but took time to evolve by chance as evolutionary biologists almost to the person agree on. I can see how those that want to believe in a creator, have a limited education or do not understand the principles of evolutionary biology may be taken in by your argument but in reality it is a simple straw man argument and proves nothing.

            • If you can show how to get a code without designing one we’ve got $5 million for you. http://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

              I am entirely enthusiastic about the possibility of someone solving this problem. But to date, nobody has solve the design problem in biology. Not David Hume, not Charles Darwin, not Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or anybody else.

              If someone can solve the Evolution 2.0 Prize, it is likely that they will have legitimately solved the design problem in biology – as well as discovered true AI – and made one of the landmark discoveries of the 21st century.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Perry, your code argument has been shown to be flawed by better minds than mine.
            You just refuse to acknowledge that, typical theist stance.

        • GM says:

          Nice post.

        • leo says:

          Actually matter can be destroyed but energy cant

        • Mr G G Francis says:

          Yes matter can not be destroyed but who said the big Bang was the the start of creation.
          I ask you also how did matter start. Was it just here ?

          • Mr G G Francis says:

            Can water be destroyed or is it converted ?
            If wood is burned it turns to ash.
            What matter can be destroyed ?
            This is a question not a statement

          • Hasnain mohammed says:

            matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.

            Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

            How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?

        • John says:

          The Easter Bunny analogy actually DOES work for Perry.
          The question “How do you explain the decorated eggs hidden around the house?” is quite valid….No matter the name, SOMEONE must have hidden the Easter eggs. They did not suddenly accidentally show up. They did not evolve into position. The point is that Easter eggs were not the result of a cosmic accident… but deliberately placed by an intelligent force. You can call that entity anything you want. (You have taken advantage of the fact that people dismiss the Easter Bunny as ridiculous which directs attention away from the fact that you still have not explained how the eggs got there….. Perry posits that it was not accidental….whoever hid the eggs is indeed the “Easter Bunny”…

          • John,

            No further posts will be approved by you unless you use your real full identity, first & last name.

          • David Altman says:

            Yes, but no “one” hid DNA in our cells. The DNA has evolved over billions of years. It looks like a code to us, because we’ve evolved to be pattern seekers… but SEEING a pattern doesn’t mean it’s a pattern. The rock that looks like an eagle was “carved” by nature, not by an intelligent designer. It simply looks like an eagle to us, because we want it to.

        • Hasnain mohammed says:

          “Will you also acknowledge the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed?”
          Matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

          How do you, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?

      • Johan Crist says:

        Just let me tell you that you Intelligent Design is just a disguise of the same old imagination named creationism. Stop pretending, it is NOT a fact, and you know it. There´s no reply, since 150 years ago was (and continues to be) proven the evolution law. Stop faking, most of the people knows the truth and want to be enlightened by real facts, still few, but only science has given them

        • You sound as though you think I made some kind of statement against evolution.

          • Andrew says:

            Mr. Marshall,

            First let me complement you on your argument. It really strikes at the core of the question of the existence of a creator/designer and the question of evolution. Let me explain:

            Evolution is the random creation of useful biological structures which are sorted by natural selection. Evolution is simply the creation and destruction of information in the form of DNA and RNA. If the DNA can preserve itself, it is passed to the next generation. Therefore, the origin of biological information is the same as cause of evolution. If you try to tell me that information must have an intelligent “typist” then evolution must have a designer.

            So all that is would be required to throw doubt on the information based explanation of a creator/designer is to point out some randomly generated information. So,

            1) Clouds. Lie on your back and look up. Do you see any shapes in the clouds? Can you name them? Unless you believe that God is talking to you through the clouds (at which point I will walk away from this discussion), then you have just witnessed randomly generated information. Maybe you can’t get the completed works of Shakespeare out of the clouds, but they definitely conveyed information that was in no way tied to the medium (water vapor).

            2) Stars. For years before modern navigation, sailors used the stars to find their way around the world. Again, those of you who think that God engineered messages into the stars for you should stop reading now. If you take it as given that the stars are random, then they are an example of non-designed information.

            This would suggest that you do not need an intelligent typist. You only need a reader that is primed to interpret information and able to do something with it.

            • A cloud is a cloud, an electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Contrast this with DNA where three Guanines in a row are instructions to make Glycine. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine.

              Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos. It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next. It is possible to predict what a creature will look like, given sufficient knowledge of its DNA.

              • Andrew says:

                You misunderstand. I am not using clouds to model creatures, I am using them to model DNA. You say:

                “It’s very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
                information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
                agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and
                sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and

                The point is that clouds are a randomly generated form of information. The cloud is in fact created from chaos and water droplets as you say and humans can interpret them as shapes that do not have to do with the medium. The same is true of the stars which move in predictable and navigationally informative patterns. In other words, coded information does not have to come from a mind.

                • Andrew,

                  None of these things can be properly labeled as communication systems. Why things like sunlight, hydrogen atoms, electrons, layers of sediment and snowflakes are not codes:

                  A proper encoding/decoding system has these components – see Basic definitions of information theory: http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/


                  • BlindSight says:

                    Hi there,

                    I just responded to another one of your posts, but I have no idea which of my comments you will read first, so I’ll introduce myself here, too. I’m a Christian who believes in a still-active and personal creator-God as described in the Bible, but I’m also an advocate of solid reasoning, so please allow me to quickly debunk this idea here haha. No offense meant. I will try to redirect your thoughts, as I think you’re stumbling into an area with real merit, even though you’re not aware of it.

                    The idea of Information Entropy and any appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is inherently flawed. No, information cannot become more complex through random mutation, but evolution is not STRICTLY random mutation. It’s also integration of new information. We call this process eating/digestion. These things fuel all the processes of both our cellular and sexual reproduction. We constantly expose ourselves to new information when we eat steak. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy goes up, information is lost, etc., but in a localized, open system, things have the ability to tend toward local order.

                    The second problem here is that, at least from a Naturalist’s perspective, the mind (or perhaps more accurately “the brain”) is a product of a code to begin with, so these codes you’re interpreting are products of a more complex code/structure. The process is code -> brain -> code. There is no contradiction that implies anything further.

                    What I think you’re discovering, though, is an entirely different philosophical problem. We are not only aware of information on a processing level, but there is a second, redundant awareness that many in the philosophical world call “qualia,” which are most accurately described as “how things seem.”

                    This is classically illustrated by thinking of a person who is trapped in an entirely in a black and white room. He/she is constantly fed information about colors, but they are otherwise completely cut off from the outside world. As they grow older, they become an expert in the field of color, even though they have never seen it. One day, though, someone tosses an apple into the room, and suddenly their understanding of color transcends anything they had previously known. In this lies qualia.

                    There is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. From this we deduce merely that there is another substance beyond what we traditionally think of as the material world. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it obeys abstract laws or is evidence of God, but it DOES fit into the model of the soul as depicted by Christianity (and other religions for that matter).

                    I have recently come to the conclusion that, by and large, God intentionally does not reveal himself in scientifically verifiable means. Instead, God operates on a personal level. Science, by its very nature, is impersonal and non-loving (didn’t want to say “unloving” since it’s not hateful). If God truly desires a relationship with us, he would not reveal himself in a bland and dispassionate manner.

                    For example, I have had a very clear and distinct vision from God several years back, for which I thank God and consider myself incredibly blessed. It is this vision which has brought me here, even, as in it I received my purpose in directly combating the New Atheism and baseless moral structure that now plagues our society. But it is not scientifically verifiable. If I tried to prove it to anyone, then they would just counter with, “Well you could have been temporarily delusional,” or, “It was just a dream,” and so on. But if I earn their trust and show them that I have something real and good, then I will be able to minister to their needs.

                    Don’t get me wrong, we need apologists, but I wager that we need them mostly as a defense, not an offense. What we need on offense is good philosophy to expose the poor philosophy inherent in so many modern ideas. I have just picked up a book entitled “The God Who Is There” by Francis Schaeffer, and though I haven’t made it through more than one chapter, it’s pretty astounding so far, and it looks as though it will give you a synopsis of how our current modern philosophies have developed.

                    I was very, very grateful to have found this book, and the circumstances surrounding that are rather extraordinary, as well. I’ve had it for many years, and it’s one of the only books I’ve ever bought (I don’t read very often at all). As I picked it up just yesterday, I discovered that the way had already been prepared in terms of discovering the roots of these modern ideas, and as I read, I could see my own ideas which I had been thinking on for several months — if not years — suddenly unfolding in completion before me. It was truly providence for one of the only books I’ve ever bought (at complete random, by the way) to be so directly relevant to the issues I’m currently discussing.

                    So anyhow, I highly recommend you pick it up. In it, I think you will find the true battleground where we must fight our spiritual battle against modern ideas.

                    • JonathanWagner says:

                      I agree with a lot of what you said except your whole spiel on understanding. To see a color is not to understand it, it is to experience it. Experience does not necessarily equate to knowledge. For instance in the dark room example, if I had another room that was well lit, and all that person had was an apple, and then later the two met, the one who had the apple wouldn’t necessarily have a better understanding of color, instead that person will have a better experience of color. A sensation or experience is only understood through mutual experiences, not knowledge. For instance, someone who has never felt pain, will not be able to share in a the mutual experience when the idea is expressed, instead he will always have an abstract idea of it. So I would have to disagree that it is redundant.

                      Next you said that as far as we are aware there is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. I find this a little confusing because qualia originates from your brain, and your brain is made of atoms. So while an atom independently may not be able to cause qualia, it definitely is responsible indirectly for it.

                    • BlindSight says:


                      First, it’s not letting me reply to you directly. I assume that it doesn’t allow it past a certain level.

                      Anyhow, I think you misunderstand me when I say the person who sees an apple understands color on a deeper level. It is not necessarily KNOWLEDGE, but it is a different kind of understanding.

                      But I hold that atoms cannot produce qualia. Yes, they are responsible for producing the signal that ultimately gets translated into qualia, but qualia transcend physical existence. You don’t have to experience (qualia-level interaction) something to respond to it. Computers store information and churn out responses regularly. Qualia are redundant when compared to mere information, because they don’t really offer anything new from a strictly computing standpoint, but if we’re creatures of choice, then qualia may play into whatever structures govern free will.

                    • Mr G G Francis says:

                      Hi blind sight
                      I just wonder why does man want to recreate.
                      Why do most men or women desire having child.
                      If some people do not believe in afterlife why create life knowing I will have will be gone again forever. Why love someone only to be hurt when you lose them. Ultimately why would you desire to continue living, working, struggling, enjoying what for ? (I say after life because some people believe there is life after death but may not accept God as the reason)
                      What is sciences answer to emotion. We know be bad can lead to self destruction and good can lead to longevity and peace. Why do most prefer the later.

              • Mr G G Francis says:

                Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos. It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next.
                Can you count all the stars or all the sand on the earth.
                You call it chaos because it can not be calculated by man.
                What else do assume is chaos because we can not pre determine the outcome.
                Some things will forever be beyond us while we are here on earth. Would you show the world how to time travel if you ever discovered a way to do it ?

            • Max Somerset says:

              Just got correct you there, Evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense (when they had to modify it) is random mutation followed by natural selection. However a replicating replicator (DNA) has to be in existence before it can mutate and be selected for or against. Evolution has nothing to say about the billions of codons already existent in the first simple cell (if such a simple cell existed). Darwin acknowledged that his theory doesn’t account for arrival of the first life only the survival of the first life

            • Assib says:

              Nice saying

          • GMEstes1 says:

            Read Mr. Marshall’s statements carefully. I believe I discovered he believes as I do, God uses the evolutionary process in creation.

        • Dave says:

          No, Intelligent Design is NOT (underlined and bolded) creationism. That’s like saying the WWE and TNA are the exact same thing. Creationism is explaining our origins through supernatural mythology stories (ie the bible and Quran) and Intelligent Design is “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Of course Intelligent design resorts to the “God of the gaps” argument, but evolution itself has many gaps in it’s theory. Face it, we may never really know our origins.

          • Imran Khan says:

            Yes you are right Dave and intelligent as we humans may seem we are not the most intelligent. We live in a dimension created for us with laws and human limitations, much like a creation we have not been able to built till now. Which serves our causes but does in some manner harm to us too. there is no system devised till now which is flawless no matter what the claim may be.

            Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right !? and far as it may seem we will be one with this world. Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator ? ! A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes. Why!? simply because a creation cannot comprehend completely what or how or Why the creator created it in the first place.

            Now God (creator) has created us humans for some sort of exam. we all know there is no eternal life on earth as we understand it unless you believe in the fairy tales literally. Religion it seems is the only guideline that makes sense. all other guidelines that we humans have created for us are both incomplete in nature and also harmfull to humanity.

            Since God the creator, (Imagine yourself as a creator of a world and with set rules and laws, predictions, timelines etc etc…. ) does tell you how to live the life and how to proceed with life incase incidents occur. and not one thing mentioned in the Quran is in any way harmful to human race.

            It is the destructive nature of man which comes from greed and impatience that can never allow the human race to live in peace. What is nature. ?

            A creator almost never wants its creation to kill itself or to take over the creator. A scientist if not working to kill its specimen will not want any such occrance to occur. Why would any loving creator do that. Is God a loving creator or not?

            God is a loving creator and that he has mentioned in the Quran more so often. not only Quran, look around you. It is the choice that makes the difference. Choice comes from within and not from any outer source. There is no such thing as destiny unless you want it that way.

            Crusades were fought by Muslims for the very peace that they had in their world and they wanted the same for the people under barbaric and currupt rulership.

            unfortunately there is no comparison between a muslim from that time and muslim now.

            Leaving Islam or Religion aside, God has always sent us messages, for those who want to listen to them or want to know the truth and the whole truth. For those who consider that life (as we know it) is everything, and cannot comprehend the existence of God or a Loving Creator can always continue to live as they wish. The only problem in that is they will live a hard harsh life with no rules and no boundaries much like the apemen were living in the past when they didnt believe in anything. Remember that time ?!

            Is it not true that Apemen as we know them or the early people were Athiests and didnt know how to light fire!? and then myths and religion came and societies were established. We as humans will not evolve and have five hands with 10 fingers. No WAY> unless we do some genetic engineering ourselves.

            Evolution & Creation go hand in hand. We as living beings have been given the gift of adapting to our surroundings. If this code was not written we would not be able to survive in this world. unless we use oxygen to breathe we cannot go underwater. Human out of all beings on this earth is the most intelligent so much so that it has been said the universe has been created for us…The question is will we be able to live long enough to see the corners of it.

            God has created perfection, Humans have not been able to do it. maybe possible but a Creator will not let that happen .. So are you gonna side with the Devil and curse the creator or accept and respect (HIM) your god your creator. !!

            Judgment day !! rings any bells….we(creations) are all finite in this dimension except the creator. As soon as he realises its time, he will pull the plug..so heres a hint. Life is a gift….dont waste it…and atleast understand what is best for human race and not for particular club or person..

            life is full of secrets…and possibilities are endless.. that makes life even more beautifull…

            • Forrest Charnock says:

              Dear Imran:

              There never were any apemen. The only “apeman” ever “found” was Piltdown Man who was a childish fake.

              The whole idea of apemen is atheistic. As far as cave men there are people who live in caves today. Some of the Neanderthals who had bigger brains than we do, made super glue , flutes, planted flowers on the graves of their dead, cared for their sick and held religious services lived in caves. They fashioned rooms inside these caves that took above average math skills even by today’s standard. These are well known facts but to explain away God they are portrayed as more animal than human. They were as human as you are and you in fact may be one of their descendants as I may be as well.

              History teaches us the oldest people we have records of worshiped one God, the creator of heaven and earth, they were not atheists. Pantheism and the animism of people such as the Arabs with their jins etc. came later.

              The whole concept of apemen has no basis in fact and neither does your assertion the ancients were atheists.

              • jrunyon says:


                Again, your very bad science is driven by your bad theology – and – not everyone who disagrees with you is ‘atheistic’. While your note about the Piltdown man is accurate, you have ignored a monument of scientific information that address pre-human bipedal primates.

                There clearly have been other ‘bipedal’ primates other than humans. Modern humans are very recent. Scientists refer to their appearance a “Culture Big Bang” where there is an explosion of spiritual express, culture, music, art, etc that took place about 40,000 years ago. (“The Dawn of Human Culture” by Klein & Edgar).

                All the recent DNA findings on the Neanderthal is that they are not ‘modern humans’ with a spiritual expression. Further, the earlier primates were clearly non-human (i.e. very primitative, no spiritual expression, music, art). For instance ‘Homo Erectus’ grew and developed like an ape and not a Modern Human (see http://www.reasons.org/focusing-pelvis). An excellent book that discusses the bipedal primates is “Who Was Adam?” by Dr. Fazale Rana.

                Jim Runyon

                • Forrest Charnock says:

                  No Jim we are not talking about science, science has shown time and
                  “The odd thing about the Toumai cranium is that it looks chimpanzee-like from the back, but from the front it is said by one expert to pass as an advanced australopithecine. ”

                  time again the only “ape-man” was Piltdown Man.
                  Lucy was a knuckle walking ape and the recent nonsense of pushing a lemur as a “human ancestor” has embarrassed even evolutionists, it’s a sick joke.

                  Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature404(6776):382, 2000.

                  No matter what the evidence those that deny God must bend it to their view. Everyione, besides you apparently, knew Lucy was just an unusual ape from day one, when it could not be silenced she was a nuckle waalker with EXTREMELY curved hands and feet and the Lucy Dolls at the Fiels Museum, the St. Louis Zoo and other places were frauds equal to Piltman save the fact there really was an ape we call Lucy the story changed from “proof” “pre-humans” walked upright to we evolved from a knuckle walker. I would find the whole story hysterically funny as well as absurd save so many will be lost over it.

                  Go to the Field Museum, P.T. Barnum would blush at the Lucy doll with her absolutely human figure,hands feet, eyes, nose etc. The people who made the one in St .Louis went so far as to add human genitalia to fool children into believing this side show freak display you call science is true.

                  You can’t date anything 40ka ago anymore than 40 million. Tell me Jim, since you think you are a scientist how any dating beyond what can be cross checked with human historical record can be done without at least 3 assumptions that are pulled straight from the air? Otherwise you are telling me your faith , not science. I already have a faith.
                  I predict you will ignore the question and tell me all scientist believe this and that makes it true.
                  They do not all believe it Jim and even if it was true you could never be sure, you only have the faith, the belief.
                  Even from an evolutionary view to believe monkeys to turn to man in 40ka is absurd.

                  By the way, have you forgotten the whole basis of “dating” of “pre-humans” im Europe was exposed as a total and complete fraud?

                  Remember the “Dating Disaster” or did it slip your mind? Remember Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten who drove a BWM from 97-B.C. and drank 40k year old milk? LOL!

                  Neanderthals were just as human as you are and you may in fact be one. They made superglue, made complex mathematical calculations, held religious services , buried their dead and played music as they put flowers on the graves of those they cared for and could not be saved.

                  If you want to know the truth Jim go read Hugh Ross’s first books. He said that any “human-like” creature more than 40 thousand years old was a souless human , an animal. When the evolutionists decided the Aborigines were at least 60ka old he was forced to change his interpretation of the Bible. You criticize my theology, you mock God’s word and those who believe it, but my theology will never change. Truth never changes,God never changes. Those who base their “truth” on the latest fad in science are doomed to die and never be sure if their “interpretation” was correct.

                  BTW Jim let’s say they did find a bi-pedal ape,so what? I doubt they ever will but the assumption that would prove random events turned monkeys into men is childishly absurd. Have you ever stopped and realized that those who believe in evolution believe in it and then go trying to find evidence to support it? Evolution has nothing to do with science, it is all about God.

                  Why would the existence of a bi-pedal ape convince anyone DNA rewrote its own order to turn a creature that is still vastly different from a human being into one? It seems you should be looking for a monkey who can read ,write and play chess, that Jim would impress me.

                  You are convinced with no evidence and all the evidence against your belief you dismiss.

                  There are a lot of evolutionists who have no real regard for Klein & Edgar

                  Wood, B., Hominid revelations from Chad, Nature 418:134, 2002.

                  I could list 20 others if you like.

                  Apparently you have been brainwashed that all scientist agree, they don’t. The most telling rebuttals of “ape-men” come from evolutionists themselves. It seems the ones who found the fossil have a much different view than their peers as to whether it is a “pre-human”.
                  Not a lot of grant money in finding ape ancestors.

                  If you honestly study the history of “humanoids” you find outright frauds like Piltdown and the Lucy Dolls, highly questionable stories like Java Man , huge mistakes like Homo Habilis which one evolutionist claims evolved into Homo Erectus and another says they were our ancestors and others no , and then you have the sensational HollyWood hype of the lemur and the baby Souther Ape .In the end all we have ever found are people and apes, never an ape-man and we never will.
                  God made apes and He made us. All creatures adapt to their environments but apes will always be apes and people will always be people.

                  Jim I will give you the benefit of being ignorant of any information nor Ross approved but to claim that all biologist agree that Neanderthals were not human is false. To say you can dig up a bone and decide it has a spirit is absurd.

                  Please explain, I have a pretty good layman’s knowledge of biology, please tell me how the DNA tells us that Neanderthals had no souls?

                  These people made music, they were human beings. Some of those 40ka old “pre-humans” proved to be less than 1500 but no adjustment was ever made after the “Dating Disaster” , they waited till the story got cold and swept it under the rug. Ross is the best friend an atheist ever had.

                  Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language.
                  Carles Lalueza-Fox et al., “A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals,” Sciencexpress, October 25, 2007: 1–3
                  Johannes Krause et al., “The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern Humans Was Shared with Neanderthals,” Current Biology 17 (2007):1–5.

                  PLOS Genetics brings these results and others published on the Neanderthal genome
                  effrey D. Wall and Sung K. Kim, “Inconsistencies in Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences,” PLoS Genetics, 3 (2007): 1862–1866.
                  The authors of the article reevaluated work done on sequencing of the Neanderthal genome last year published in the journals Nature and Science and suggest that contamination with modern human DNA may have been a factor for the work published in Nature.

                  Jim most scientist who get published preach atheistic evolution so all their conclusions are tainted by those assumptions. If you start out believing God spoke the truth to us the evidence makes perfect sense
                  It is pure assumption that if a particular sample of DNA does not match another that they could not interbreed. No one would ever mistake Neanderthal DNA with a monkeys. .

                  The idea that ‘modern humans’ and Neandertals interbred (and thus are the same species) is strongly supported by evidence that Neandertals lived side–by–side with modern humans in the Middle East for 100,000 years of evolutionary time, and made virtually identical stone tools.
                  Bower, B., Neandertals and humans each get a grip, Science News 159(6):84, 2001.

                  Fossils combining features of both Neandertals and ‘modern humans’ are known from a number of areas including a recent find of a child in Portugal Several excavation sites include both Neandertal and ‘modern humans’ buried together. It is not difficult to conclude that Neandertal Man was totally human, and that ‘modern humans’ and Neandertals likely amalgamated in Europe.

                  Trinkus, E. and Shipman, P., The Neandertals—changing the image of mankind, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 391, 1993.
                  Bower, B., Fossil may expose humanity’s hybrid roots, Science News 155(19):295, 1999.
                  Lubenow, M., Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation, TJ(12)1:87–97, 1998.

                  The problem with trying to claim historical science and operational hold the same weight is you have to ignore the axioms. Since modern science is controlled by overwhelmingly atheistic people that is the axiom, no God. People like Ross and his ancestors the catastrophists eagerly compromised God’s word to make their theories fit the atheists axiom. They held on to the flood until 1835 when the con-man lawyer Charles Lyell eventually convinced them the Mosaic account was a myth.

                  All of the world’s best geologists, the late Derek Ager, Steven Gould, Niles Ethredge etc. have made it plain Lyell brainwashed secular geology for 150 years. That is why the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium became so popular, gradualism was based on a well known lie.
                  But the axiom of no God remained so all the “science” based on Lyell’s lies remains.
                  Ross thinks if he compromises and agrees with 99.999% of world history the atheists will respect him, they don’t.

                  He knows that a recent study proved that the more children attend Sunday School and Church the less likely they are to remain in church after graduation and he knows why that is. The reason they gave was overwhelming. The church is too faced, it tells them the Bible is true where it talks of morality and salvation and to just ignore what it says about history and science. They reason a liar is a liar, if the first verse is a lie why read the second?

                  But this knowledge means nothing to him because he has decided truth for himself. In the end science is beside the point, we all have to die and we all face our maker Jesus Christ. He said the flood was a real event, that humans and animals were created the same day and how anyone can disagree with God , and that is who Jesus is, and can still convince themselves He will save their souls is beyond me.
                  If He lied about Adam and Eve He is not God.

                  6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

                  7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

                  8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

                  9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

                  The beginning means the beginning or we have no reason to believe .
                  Correcting God seems unwise, if a person truly believes He exists.

                  • Forrest,

                    Soon I will do a blog post about YEC vs OEC and you can continue this there AFTER you have read Snoke’s book. Meanwhile I ask you to refrain from posting.

                    • Forrest Charnock says:

                      I will make you a deal Perry, I will send you a copy of Dr. Safarti’s Refuting Compromise and you send me Snoke’s book and then I will not have to send money to a person I do not wish to support and neither will you.
                      That seems equitible and fair to me.
                      Refuting compromise is the best creationist argument against your view and according to you Snokes is for yours.

                      Perhaps we will both learn something

                    • Deal.

                  • jrunyon says:


                    Well, that was quite a disjointed ramble and a lot of personal accusations. It doesn’t even sound like you or the grammar that you used in your other posts.

                    Both you and I (along with all scientists) agree that the Piltdown Man was a fraud – and – was exposed in the 1950’s. You should complement, rather than condemn, scientists for being honest for rejecting this hoax. This fraud prevented research on other pre-human bipedals (e.g., Australopithecine) discoveries for years (in the 1920’s, over 90 years ago). Science does self-correct itself. Please do the same – and – get on with new scientific discoveries. Living 50 years in the past with Halton Arp/Fred Hoyle – or – 90 years in the past with the Piltdown fraud has ZERO relevance today.

                    Neanderthals are NOT Human. The most recent DNA analysis indicates, not only that they were not human, but that Neanderthals did not contribute to the human genome. Here is a quote from the latest studies: “The mitochondrial DNA of thousands of living humans already has been examined. The Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA examined to date is distinctly different from that of humans… No mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthals have been encountered in modern humans.” Ed Greer, Max Plank Institute, Sept 2009

                    You continue to say that we can’t date anything past human history. You say “you can’t date anything 40ka ago anymore that 40million.” You really should read Roger Wiens discussion on the valid “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html . He not only discusses some of the ‘simple clocks’ and 13 radiometric clocks.

                    It is essential that you use the RIGHT CLOCK for the RIGHT JOB. Having multiple ‘right’ clocks to date things is essential. As I’ve stated before, there hundreds of clocks in nature and NO clock shows that the earth is 6000 years old. Show me one!?

                    In Summary
                    – Tree Rings go back to 8000 years (Bristlecone Pine) while others go back over 12,000 years.
                    – Polar Ice Cores (2.25miles in length) go back 37,000 years with visible volcanic ash confirming the annual layers; with Oxygen-18 dating going back over 100,000 years; and other radiometric dating going back to 720,000 years (each show clear variation of CO2, CH4, O-18, temperature)
                    – Coral Reefs. Modern/active coral reefs also have growth ‘rings’ and can be dated back >100,000 years. Ancient Coral reefs that we find on land around the world go back over 225,000 years.
                    – Light from Stars. Light takes time to travel.
                    + Sun-Earth: 8 sec
                    + Sun-Pluto: 315 sec (5.24 min)
                    + Next-nearest-Star to Earth: 4.2 years (i.e. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away)
                    + Across the Milkyway: 100,000 years (i.e. it takes 100,000 light years for light to transverse the Milkyway)
                    + Adromeda to Milkyway: 2,900,000 years (i.e. 2.9million light years)
                    – Radiometric Clocks (see Roger Wiens document, above)

                    In summary, you claim that most (if not all) scientific findings are all invalid since most scientists are atheists. Also, that the reason for children abandoning the Christian faith is because of science. I would agree with the later if they are exposed to young-earth “Alternate Science” that has little (if any) scientific basis. When I first started my science-faith journey, I was excited about young-earth creationism UNTIL I tried to explain it – an impossible task given the convoluted logic of their various ‘alternate explanations’.

                    I think we, as Christians, should love science because it shows us the amazing design in the universe – and – gives us clear insight into the character of God (Rom 1).

                    Jim Runyon

                    • Forrest Charnock says:


                      sometimes I write things on this forum when I can’t sleep and barely remember doing it . I apologize for the ramble.

                      Your defense of {scientists} I find rude as you always consider only those who agree the Bible is not the word of God and must be reinterpreted to “fit” “modern science” to be such. As far as Piltdown Man Harvard Press still used it as evidence in 1966.
                      All I can say is when I hear that cliche argument, all of your arguments seem to be cliches, that “scientists” protected us by exposing Piltdown I hear kowtow. For 43 years a fraud that would not fool a smart 10 year old was accepted and led many to deny Christ. If you are a Christian then why is that not your great concern and why does it not cause you to question evolution in general? It took 30 years before anyone bothered to check out the “Dating Disaster” yet I am told to be proud “scientists” protected me from error? Please note the creationists you consider idiots were never fooled by that or the even worse error of Uniformitarianism that took 150 years for the secularists to concede and yet many still refuse to..

                      ” Living 50 years in the past with Halton Arp/Fred Hoyle ”

                      Please do some research, Halton Arp is alive and well and researching at this moment. Making it up does not impress me. You are a smart guy but you are brainwashed and “know” that anyone who disagrees with the party line is an idiot whether they be Christian or atheist so you have no need to study opposing views . Arp is right , the Big Bang is a joke. Christian theologians argued against it is the 2nd century . It is an assumption even Hubble “reluctantly” admitted was just one possible interpretation of red shift.

                      The southern apes are just that ,apes! None of them walked upright and Lucy was a knuckle walker with super long digits. The Gibbons are far closer to humans in the way they are designed than southern apes yet since they live today no evolutionists claims they are our ancestor.

                      There are plenty of scientists, secular as well as creationists that interpret Neanderthals as fully human. The fact many disagree means nothing unless you can explain how they could perform complex math , make musical instruments, super glue , have the social structure to bury their dead, perform religious ceremonies etc. If you don’t want to believe the bible you can torture scientific data to sing any tune you want. Claiming all “real” scientist see Neanderthals as non-human is either ignorant or worse. It always amazes me that Christians who compromise the word of God agree with atheists the vast majority of the time and claim those who say that God is the authority and He and Jesus Christ say that scripture is divine are idiots. By that definition being a Christian is an idiot. Those you follow tell you that all the time yet you seek their approval, not God’s.

                      1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
                      Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


                      I have read “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” and there is nothing Christian about it, he gives the same arguments the atheists do .
                      Why don’t you read the R.A.T.E. report. The head scientist on the project wrote the Tara program and NASA sees him as the best geophysicist on earth, as do others. Yet you “know” he is wrong because he believes the book you claim to follow. If there was death before sin the Bible is a lie. Even if the operational science seemed to disagree I would go with God’s view but it does not, only atheistic interpretations you have been taught are facts.

                      Show me from the Bible that there could have been thorns and thistles before Adam or be honest with yourself and admit the Bible is not your authority, man is.

                      There are no “clocks” , a clock can be cross checked and tested in real time. The past is past and all we can do is look at the present and make up stories, or accept God’s version which seems to repulse you.

                      Read what Lilly said about equilibrium and then read the R.A.T.E. Report. The majority of the R.A.T.E report is referenced from secular sciences records. How is it creationists excel at geology while dismissing great ages as the heathen belief it has always been. If you do not believe in God you must accept great ages, does that not for a second make you pause? Is it a coincidence that those who take God at His word all dismiss great ages and all those who hate God promote them?

                      I can show you a “clock” that does scientifically “prove” the 6000 years the Bible teaches, in fact I can give you 2 as well as over 100 other evidences for a young earth but your mind is welded shut on the issue. The atheists would laugh and persecute you and you can see no reason to stand up and claim the Bible as your authority seeing as it is not such.

                      Read the R.A.T.E. Report, you can download the short version for free. It details a scientific test similar to ur-lead , pot str etc that gives a date of 6000 years plus or minus 2000. Also Mitochondrial Eve when the figures are adjusted for new discoveries since the report first came out gives a date of 6000 years. Even though I believe both are correct to use them as “proof” the Bible is true is to say God’s Word does not make it so, ever think of that? Any of man’s ideas, correct or otherwise used to prove, or as in your case, disprove the truth of scripture is blasphemy.


                      “Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago). She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent. The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!

                      Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA (Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emphasis added).

                      And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers. The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:

                      Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).

                      Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!

                      Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.[b]For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added).[/b]

                      Maybe you should try a Christian website, Trueorigins ,rather that the people who gave us :Genesis is a Jokesis” , of course you seem to agree with article and I would assume the flat earth accusation as well.
                      If you can’t beat vilify ’em.

                      2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
                      2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
                      There is nothing , period, on this earth older than the flood. That is the word of God!
                      That being said you are dead wrong about Bristle comb Pines. The scientist responsible for them cut one down and counted the rings, it was around 4500 you can look it up. The figures thrown around of 6- 9000 years are of fossil trees subjected to the incredibly fallible carbon 14 method and is a cheap trick attempt to get Bible believers to accept that “science” has trumped God’s word, it has done no such thing. You are representing an assumption as a fact. I am not so easily brainwashed.

                      An interesting sidebar is the scientist realizing he had killed one of the oldest living things on earth planted some in Arizona to try and make up for it. Quickly he concluded that in wet years more than one growth ring is produced throwing ALL TREE RING DATA into question.
                      You need to do your homework, to present c-14 data as fact without even telling the person it is in fact c-14 data is dishonest, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the atheists without question but you have been warned. If you ever do that again it will be deliberately untrue.

                      A light year is a measurement of distance, not time. The Big Bang has the same problem all cosmologies do, Biblically sound or otherwise.

                      For the temperatures of the background microwave radiation to have equalized would take in excess of 100 billion light years yet the BB claims 12-15 . All “real” cosmologist know this but for simple minded people the starlight proves God is a myth argument is
                      way too effective to worry about silly details like the truth , logic and good science.

                      There are far more scientific arguments against millions or billions of years than for them but please understand, ALL atheists believe in great ages and evolution. That was true centuries before Christ was born, it was true when He was born, it is true now and will be until He returns.
                      No one is insane enough to believe that the world popped into existence quickly for no apparent reason. Sadly there are few who have the faith to believe in the creative power of God, the power Christ used to heal the sick and raise the dead.

                      Here is a deep thought, if it takes billions of years for God to wait around while the New Heaven and the New Earth create themselves where will we be? Or do you even believe that 100 million years from now you will be alive in heaven with Jesus? Please take this question seriously, what you believe about the age of the earth does not affect your salvation unless of course it affects your belief in Jesus Christ and His blood redemption of your soul. If He lied , or was just too stupid to know better about the flood and Adam then how can you believe He is God at all ? If I accepted the secularist world view I would be one. Think ! Live!

                      Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

                      Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
                      Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

                      Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

                      Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                      YEC is good enough for Jesus Christ ,a literal view of Genesis 1-11 was good enough for Jesus Christ the Son of God , why are you so violently opposed?

                      It is essential that you use the RIGHT CLOCK for the RIGHT JOB. Having multiple ‘right’ clocks to date things is essential. As I’ve stated before, there hundreds of clocks in nature and NO clock shows that the earth is 6000 years old. Show me one!?


                    • jrunyon says:

                      Forrest –

                      This sounds like another late-night ramble. I might suggest that you capture your response in a text file and edit/review it the next day before submitting your response.

                      I do not find any of the Young Earth ‘scientific’ arguments convincing. They are easily refutable. One Christian web site that does this systematically is ‘Answers in Creation’ at http://www.answersincreation.org

                      I am familiar with the R.A.T.E. experiment by Young Earth Creationists and, from a positive perspective, they attempted to conduct a valid scientific experiment in spite of the pre-experiment bias that the results had to show a timeframe consistent with their young earth views. The R.A.T.E. study focused only 1 of the ~50 radiometric dating mechanisms (i.e. ‘clocks’), namely Heilum diffusion rate in Zircron (note: this is a challenging experiment since, as a gas, Helium is very difficult to retain in rocks and get accurate results). I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R.A.T.E. folks since 2007. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists. For a good summary of the objections, see the American Scientific Association (a Christian organization) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm In summary, the many objections to the R.A.T.E. study and its methodologies have been raised to nullify any significance in their findings. Also, if you look at all the other ~50 radiometric ‘clocks’ that have more accurate methodologies (i.e. not slippery Helium), they all point overwhelmingly to a very ancient earth.

                      Halton Arp: Yes he is still alive, and he’s still objects to the Big Bang. His 1966 book on “Atas of Peculiar Galaxies” documented 338 galaxies that, in 1966, did not fall into any classic categories of galaxy shapes. However, with the advent of the Hubble Telescope/etc. his objections have been sufficiently addressed. On the other hand, evidence for the Big Bang has increased by orders of magnitude such that it is the most tested & proved theory of all time – while Halton Arp’s objections are systematically discarded. So, you have the Big Bang proven to 99.9999999999999% +/- 0.0000000000001 while Halton Arp’s theory has a confidence of 1% +/- 1%. You may hold onto the 1% confidence if you wish, but I think you are ‘wishing’ upon a dream.

                      I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me (and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science) as an atheist. I see this universe as God’s handiwork and that a study of this handiwork (i.e. science) reveals his character to both Christians and non-Christians that are studying his handiwork.

                      Jim Runyon

                    • jrunyon says:

                      Forrest –

                      This sounds like another late-night ramble. I might suggest that you capture your response in a text file and edit/review it the next day before submitting your response.

                      I do not find any of the Young Earth ‘scientific’ arguments convincing. They are easily refutable. One Christian web site that does this systematically is ‘Answers in Creation’ at http://www.answersincreation.org

                      I am familiar with the R.A.T.E. experiment by Young Earth Creationists and, from a positive perspective, they attempted to conduct a valid scientific experiment in spite of the pre-experiment bias that the results had to show a timeframe consistent with their young earth views. The R.A.T.E. study focused only 1 of the ~50 radiometric dating mechanisms (i.e. ‘clocks’), namely Heilum diffusion rate in Zircron (note: this is a challenging experiment since, as a gas, Helium is very difficult to retain in rocks and get accurate results). I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R.A.T.E. folks since 2007. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists. For a good summary of the objections, see the American Scientific Association (a Christian organization) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm In summary, the many objections to the R.A.T.E. study and its methodologies have been raised to nullify any si!
                      gnificance in their findings. Also, if you look at all the other ~50 radiometric ‘clocks’ that have more accurate methodologies (i.e. not slippery Helium), they all point overwhelmingly to a very ancient earth.

                      Halton Arp: Yes he is still alive, and he’s still objects to the Big Bang. His 1966 book on “Atas of Peculiar Galaxies” documented 338 galaxies that, in 1966, did not fall into any classic categories of galaxy shapes. However, with the advent of the Hubble Telescope/etc. his objections have been sufficiently addressed. On the other hand, evidence for the Big Bang has increased by orders of magnitude such that it is the most tested & proved theory of all time – while Halton Arp’s objections are systematically discarded. So, you have the Big Bang proven to 99.9999999999999% +/- 0.0000000000001 while Halton Arp’s theory has a confidence of 1% +/- 1%. You may hold onto the 1% confidence if you wish, but I think you are ‘wishing’ upon a dream.

                      I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me (and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science) as an atheist. I see this universe as God’s handiwork and that a study of this handiwork (i.e. science) reveals his character to both Christians and non-Christians that are studying his handiwork.

                      Jim Runyon

          • Jorge says:

            It is true, there are unanswered questions, or gaps, in the theory of evolution. Same can be said for the theory of gravitation. However, there’s also tons and tons of evidence supporting them. There is NO evidence, however, that supports the lie of Creationis… I mean, Intelligent Design.

            • I have to disagree, Jorge. I have shown 100% inference to design and my opponents have shown 0% inference to any other explanation.

              • i have a bit of input if it is not to late. stating that a god exist regardless of how it came to be would imply acceptance of said gods malevolence. implying a god exist is the same as implying that it is in itself flawed. implying god exist would be a paradox if viewed from any religious stand point other than the demonic and darker religions. i argue this statement by the question of balance. good and evil , light and dark . both extreme misconceptions, or imperfect subjects authoring existence for one another. if a god exist implications state it would be perfection. would you say your god is good if you knew he created darkness? and how could he exist without being perfect , or if that was the case could you call it a god? would there be one? just one? further more there is language in rocks from their life of weathering and in clouds when they are about to rain. it takes an open mind to realize the word god describes a boon of existence regardless of life or death living or not all things are god. the word is trash. it takes an open mind like yours to see the language in all. information is only perception. relayed perception at best. ultimately the only thing you can be sure exist is your own thought. your perception. ultimately words are grunts hisses and belches coordinated to derive meaning into another whom can comprehend. truly, if such a thing as god exist, it would be your job to overcome. it would be vial and corrupt. a god exist only in the brave hearts of our children , given to them like a santa claus and a boogi man, and for the same reason. to help them over come and become great people that help their world and stamp out evil. this is my argument. my proof is the lack there of.

              • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                Just a counterpoint I think you missed somehow:
                1. Information, unlike matter and energy, is not an objective entity. A sentence in English is information only for those familiar with English, to anyone else it is as nonsensical as a random pile of rocks. An atom is always an atom – an information is only information in context. And context comes from the mind, not the design of information. For example, a cloud can look like a face, and we would recognize it as looking like a face. However, that doesn’t mean that someone designed the cloud to look that way, and if we are blind/shortsighted, we do not perceive the cloud’s shape as anything, hence it carries no information. On the other side holding a rock gives you the information that it is hard – but that doesn’t mean that someone had to program the rock.
                2. Language is merely an arbitrary tool to be used by us, hence it is useless when trying to prove an objective basis of any claim. In this case, calling something “code” doesn’t equate it to any man-made code. In fact, DNA code is nothing like any man-made code. The word “code” is used to describe the functionality of genetic material to a layman. Nothing more, nothing less. The discussion on how it should be named didn’t go like this “oh, this looks designed, kind of like codes – we better name it the DNA code then”, but it was more like this “how should we explain the nature of this to people not familiar with chemistry and biology? Let’s represent it through symbols everyone is familiar with – letters, instead of gigantic formulas, and when it’s written like that, it kinda looks like some made up long word… Do we call it DNA long word, DNA string of characters, or something shorter and more appealing to the ear? “. 😊
                Also, code is consistent – DNA isn’r.

                • This is why the $10M Evolution Prize requires encoder, code and decoder so the system has its own context, just as is the case in a cell.

                  • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                    that Evolution Prize is offered by engineers, not by biologists. There were numerous cash prizes offered for various ”proof” of evolution. This particular one is just an incentive for people to find an practical application for a natural phenomenon (which is, like, what ALL technology is). That doesn’t mean that evolution is poorly understood. DNA code works through chemical bonds, nucleotides bind to each other thanks to their functional groups. Since, as far as I know, not even that is translated to computer code, expecting to translate ”the principle by which DNA code forms” to computer code is impossible. Not to mention that the principle is really ”proximity and natural selection”. I mean, why do prokaryotic organisms have such unstable genetic material, if it is all just these purposefully written consistent code?

                    • Srdan Klikovac says:

                      Good and accurate answer.

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      Just finished a good book on evolution, The Tangled Tree. Darwin wasn’t wrong, as I’ve seen stated on here, he was right – he just didn’t see all the mechanisms at work because he lacked the tools. Clearly life evolved over approx 4bn years, it wasn’t created as the bible describes. That story is written in RNA? And it amazes me just how much of ‘us’ is bacterial and viral DNA that’s been acquired over that 4bn years, some seemingly very recently. This shows we weren’t ‘designed’.
                      But Perry and the other ‘creationists’ here will just retreat to the point of the Big Bang if you keep presenting evidence. There is nothing in their thinking that reflects the bible or other holy books, even though they twist e.g. genesis beyond recognition. The trouble is, the holy books are the only source of the god story!

                • Srdan Klikovac says:

                  In a lot of details, I agree with you. I like the way you think. By the way, are you Dr. Veljko Blagojevic from the Torlak Institute?

            • Forrest Charnock says:

              Dear Jorge:

              Sadly you seem to have confused the difference between evidence and the interpretations of said evidence. The school system brainwashes people into accepting popular opinion among scientists as fact and they misrepresent the number of scientist who do not accept Darwinism by a factor of about 10k to one.

              The evidence used to argue for evolution is the exact same evidence used to argue for creationism or ID . We all live in the same universe, study the same stars , the same living creatures, the same plants ,the same rocks , the same fossils and we all use the exact same science to study these things with. Just in case I missed one perhaps you can give me one single example of a law of nature or major branch of modern science that was founded by an evolutionist? Good luck, there may be one but so far no evolutionist has ever been able to give me an example.

              I brought the fact up that the core of western science is the brainchild of theistic scientists to hopefully get you to realize your bias against Christians in science is unfounded, without Christian’s there would be no modern science to claim was the work of atheists. That being said what one believes has little to do with operational science. You mention gravitation in the same breath with evolution and mocking theist.
              Please learn the difference between ID theorist who may or not be theists and creationists who are all Bible believers. Even atheists like Francis Crick of DNA fame doubted Darwin and believed we were intelligently designed by little green men. Of course he could never answer where the little green men came from.

              Regardless of what you believe about origins water still boils at 212 degrees f. at sea level, airplanes [a creationists invention btw} fly by the same principles , and M.R.I. machines {also a creationist invention} work the same way. Plate tectonics [another creationists idea} is pretty much he same whether you believe we magically and spontaneously generated ourselves for no apparent reason or were created by God. The disagreement is why the plates started moving in the first place and why they even exist.
              The secularist has no clue , the creationist knows why. The whole idea of plate tectonics comes straight out of Genesis. You can laugh all you want but the man N.A.S.A. goes to on this subject and to make earthquake predictions for them and wrote the supercomputer programs used by the vast majority of the world’s major universities did so to explain Noah’s Flood. The idea started with the creationist Antonio Snider , who like the founder of genetics Gregor Mendel had the grave misfortune to publish in 1859 and was ignored for decades. Who knows where we be now if Mendel was not silenced by the Darwinist for half a century? In case you are unaware Darwin printed his novel in 1859. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as the Origin of the species. {Of course he never addressed the subject of origins in the book}

              That is a perfect example of your confusion . The software was created on the assumption the Bible is true but if you choose to not believe that on religious grounds you can tweak the starting assumptions and make it work on an atheistic assumption of millions of years. Of course you will never come up with an explanation for why plate tectonics even exists. The evidence is the same, same plates, same mountains, same everything. The argument has NOTHING to do with evidence, only interpretations.

              What happened in the remote past, whether you believe that is thousands or billions of years ago lies in the realm of historical science.
              The very fact you have been taught to compare gravity with evolution is overwhelming evidence evolution is a bait and switch, that it is without substance, unscientific. We can do experiments to test the effects of gravity so we know the force we call gravity exists . Again, the secularist can never now what caused it.
              As far as believing a dinosaur evolved into a bird there is no experiment to prove that nor a rational, scientific, and logical explanation as to how it could have occurred,much less a shred of evidence it did.
              When we find a dinosaur bone, despite what you are taught at school, it exists in the present. you cannot dig up the past. The dinosaur bone proves one thing and one thing only, it died. They do not come with a date stamp or a genealogy chart. There is no way to calibrate a scale past the time of recorded history and any “dating” method you choose requires you to make at minimum 3 unknowable and unprovable assumptions. You can manufacture any date you choose my changing the assumptions which are based on your world view. You have to have a deep and totally blind religious faith to pick up a T-Rex bone with soft and stretchy meat on it, blood in its blood vessels and reeking of the stench of death and proclaim it is 65ma old! Not to mention it has easily identifiable amounts of c-14 scientifically proving it cannot be 100ka old, much less even one million.

              That bone is better explained in a Biblical chronology , that it is less than 4500 years old, blood cells, DNA, and the stench of death lasting for 65 million years requires a deep and abiding religious faith.

              There are tens of thousands of scientists who believe the Bible, including many of the world’s best. There are many times that many who doubt Darwin. That does not prove anything other than those who claim “All Scientists Agree” have no real argument . Claiming something is true because a majority believes it is called the bandwagon fallacy.
              When you told your mother you should be allowed to do something because the other kids were she asked if you would follow them off a bridge. That my friend is the number one argument for evolution by a huge factor, it is no argument at all.

              Evidence does not speak for itself and without an interpretation is pretty meaningless. When dealing with the past the best evidence is an eyewitness. Only God witnessed His creation, not the evolutionists.

              Can you answer the most basic questions about evolution? Where did the information in the first living organism come from, where did the pattern of the chemicals that formed it come from and where did the information for it to reproduce itself come from? If you cannot answer all that is left is the realization you choose to believe in evolution because you don’t want to believe in God. That is illogical.

              • jrunyon says:


                Sigh! Now you’re an expert on dinosaur bones – and – not surprisingly your theology requires them to be 4500 years old!

                My previous post stated that there are hundreds and hundreds/thousands of clocks in the earth and the universe – and – there are NONE that show the earth or universe to be less than 6000 years old. Even tree rings (e.g. Bristlecone pine) are over 8000 years and other trees are over 12,000 years old. Another ‘clock’ is the layers of earth. I have a whole presentation on these/other simple clocks so I can give more examples if needed.

                As for the ‘layers of earth’ clock, there are over 30 places on earth where the complete geological column is in tact. These layers do tell time plus a lot more about what happened during each time frame. (Note: there are places on earth where, due to plate tectonics, where lower layers in the geological column are exposed to the surface).

                As for dinosaurs, they exist in three distinct layers: the Triassic, Jurassic and the Cretaceous eras, each with clearly delineated boundaries. Each layer has dinosaurs unique to that era and there are clear indications of long periods of time (e.g., footprints, procreation, defecating, insect tracks, termite activity, etc.). More importantly, there are NO MAMMALS buried with the dinosaurs except for a small mouse-like creature. Mammals, especially humans, show up over 1000 feet above the dinosaur layers. So YES!! There is a way of calibrating these times even without resorting to the multitude of radiometric clocks. If anyone says that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed, it is a BOLD LIE that has zero scientific support. To further say that all the dinosaurs swam for many days during the flood, then dying, sinking to the bottom and forming 3 distinct layers is the type of science you get when you are trying to force fit it into your narrow view of theology.

                As for plate tectonics, we know the devastation they caused in Haiti (2010) and the Indian Ocean (2004). The later was just a 33ft lateral and 13-16ft vertical movement of the fault and it caused a 100ft Tsunami that killed over 230,000 people. The energy was 550,000,000 times Hiroshima bomb. The model you reference would have a 2000 MILE movement of the continents during the one-year flood and moved the continents from Pangaea to their current location. If this were to happen, so much energy would be release to vaporize all oceans and melt the surface of the earth.

                Many of the answers to your ‘alternate science’ have already been address by geologists without an agenda. See http://www.answersincreation.org

                Please stop re-stating all this goofy ‘alternate science’ produced by young-earth creationist.

                Jim Runyon

              • FredHahn says:

                Perry –

                We don’t know where it all came from! No one does. I don’t want to believe in anything. I want to know.

                RE: DNA:

                “Here is the problem with the theist argument that DNA is a code. DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend.

                It is a set of chemicals that have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.

                DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.”


                • “It is a set of chemicals that have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.”

                  This is completely incorrect. The genetic code, like any code, is freely chosen. There are billions of possible choices that could have been made but there is one choice that was made. This is the simplest aspect that separates life from non-life. Non-life only obeys laws. But life obeys codes and codes are freely chosen.

                  For example see The genetic code is one in a million:

                  Anyone who tells you DNA is not a code fundamentally misunderstands the very definition of bioinformatics and DNA itself. Search

                  claude shannon genetic code

                  on Google Scholar and start reading the thousands of scientific papers that come up.

                  To argue that DNA is not code is hopeless, and in my experience, only hardened atheists attempt to make this argument, for fairly predictable reasons. Look it up in any biology book. As I have told others, you will get nowhere pursuing this line of argumentation.

              • Jack Ellis says:

                TRex ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’? I think you are confusing and sensationalising the facts of the find. If this is the one you mean, it wasn’t as you say and is explained. https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
                Evolution is a very well evidenced ‘theory’. Darwin wasn’t ‘wrong’. He just didn’t capture the entire mechanics of it. Science is constantly refining explanations/theories, religion isn’t, it’s just fumbling in the dark. Read some real science.

          • Hasnain mohammed says:

            Absurdity of Atheism
            If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

            Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.


      • GM says:

        Good Day

        You imply RNA and DNA don’t disgard molecules that don’t fit the pattern of replication. The helix being the end result.
        You can not prove with imperical evidence that DNA or RNA are a design function of God. It takes an astronomical leap of faith, only, to accept the hypothesis you propose.

        • 1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

          2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

          3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

          That is 100% logical and only requires faith that the observations of science thus far are reasonably reliable.

          • Qqccho says:

            You always give same answers. Is your response so narrow?. Don’t you think that expressing yourself with more data input to your theories will convince or give the readers a more deep insight to your ideas on which I agree; “A Creator must exists and no Gods since are so many as well as religions. You have created a whole sound theory without the need of a cult or a religion or even J.C.”. Quotes are mine. For the Creator just a sign was needed to start all the Creation Process from the very start. If he could create such magnificent Universe then He could also decide how the process would be, wouldn’t Him?
            Is it a possibility that He decided to Ceate everything in one shot and let His Tool- Evolution, to carry on without any other interferences in time?

          • Paradise Holding says:

            We didn’t create DNA or RNA; we gave them definition and observe how they assemble themselves. We are a composite of trillions of cells. That implies nor infers a designer to me. We have to accept God on faith alone…trying to prove God’s existence is futile. How can anyone prove what exist, as God, has no beginning and no end. God seems to be different, He isn’t bound by the laws of the universe. I heard it said once we will travel by the speed of thought.
            Body impluses travel at 300,000 kilometers a second.
            I like your example of the typist implies a typer. Same as the watch and watch maker. That is logic for you. I can’t believe logic is the silver bullet everyone is looking for.
            For now that’s all we have!

          • ted says:

            Your argument collapses at number 1. The pattern in DNA is a pattern. That’s it. From the pattern you can deduce certain things, hair colour, eye colour, etc. Atoms in a molecule contain a pattern, and from that you can deduce certain things.
            You simply assert without any evidence that DNA is a pre-designed code. It’s not a viable argument.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            This is classic religious thinking dressed up in modern garb. ‘We don’t know, it’s beyond me, so it was god’. It’s also an engineers thinking, not a scientists. We know a tiny bit about what’s happened on ONE planet among trillions. What we see points to DNA ‘evolving’ not being created. We don’t know what else is out ‘there’ to discover, so we can’t say all codes are designed.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Perry, it’s highly probable that early ‘life’ was RNA based – not DNA. That’s probably where we need to chase down life’s chemical origins, a 4bn year old story and one we can follow much of through RNA. At least that’s what the last few decades research seem to suggest. And DNA isn’t as stable as you make out, as a design would be. Bacteria and viruses leave bits of their own DNA in cells and even within the cells own DNA – sometimes having no effect, sometimes driving evolutionary ‘leaps’ and probably more often leading to cancerous mutations or extinctions. Roughly 8% of our own DNA was acquired this way, pretty shocking thought.
            You believe there is a ‘god’ so you are following that path, at every junction taking the well trodden path signposted ‘god’ and ignoring the inconvenient truths down the other ‘newer’ roads. I’ve read the bible, it’s nonsense. I’ve read Darwin, Dawkins etc – it’s not nonsense, I can see their truths everywhere. If some genuine evidence for a god showed up tomorrow, I’d revise my position. But there isn’t any god in any facts we’ve found thus far, and seemingly no need for a god to fill the gaps in our understanding of own world and no need for one to explain the big gaps in our understanding of the rest of the universe.

            • Jose Lopez says:

              Jack, Darwin and Dawkins are beyond nonsense..they’re a joke.

              • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                Jose, if you intend to be taken seriously by any reasonable person, you need to start putting more thought into the content of your comments.
                First off all, dismissing any number of scientists as ”a joke” is never a good sign that you put any effort into understanding even one of them.
                Second of all, Dawkins and Darwin worked in very different time periods, and they worked in quite different fields – Darwin was a field researcher, while Dawkins is mostly concerned with popularization of science. Also, Darwin was very hesitant about publishing his findings and kept them to himself for some time. The thing that got him to publish his results is that there was another researcher (Alfred Russel Wallace) who published studies which slowly arrived at the same conclusions Darwin did before in his own studies – and that was a major factor convincing him that his findings will not be so controversial and that he is right to publish them. On the other hand, Dawkins mostly talks about results other researchers came to, so his conclusions are also resting upon a large number of scientists working in various fields.
                So, if you intend to call anyone a joke, you would need to list a whole lot of other people with a great amount of education and experience, and the more that list expands before your eyes, the more you should realize how wrong you most probably are. 🙂

                • Srdan Klikovac says:

                  Veljko, I see you’re a smart and steady person and I would like to introduce you to my research. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised with my research in the field of medicine and discoveries about the origin of life on earth. I’d like you to be in my team of collaborators on future research.
                  The research I’m doing is interesting to some of your professors and deans, and I’m sure it will be interesting to you especially. There is one theory of the origin of life that my research confirms. In that theory, I participated 10 years ago, but my name is not among those scientists. Are you currently in Torlak? If you are, I will call you soon by phone or email in order to talk about a topic that I see you very much interested in. If you are not now in Torlak and Bg, then please give me some email which you do not constantly use, but only for our first future contact.

              • Jose,

                This contributes nothing to the conversation. As Veljko says you need to say something substantive.

                And Darwin is to be taken much more seriously than Dawkins. I suggest you read Evolution 2.0 before you continue this thread. There is much that you do not know.

                • Jose Lopez says:

                  Perry, evolution is a theory. Your 2.0 is a also a theory based on some basic research, packaged in a new box, wrapped up in strings, paper and bows of theistic evolution. Neither theory challenges the Cambrian explosion. That’s a fact. Everybody with any common sense knows that Darwin was buried in his grave never to find an answer, as well. Evolution died more than a century ago, and you’re still one, of many, who continues to keep this very same issue open. You should be giving money away to anybody who can find the Cambrian answer. This is not about who knows, or doesn’t know. We can agree to disagree, Perry. So, I stand on my nonintellectual, contribute to nothing, comment: Darwin and Dawkins are a joke. Furthermore, their theories, and yours, are an insult to any Christian with any common sense.

                  • You have not read this research, you have not examined the evidence and you are not contributing positively to this discussion.

                    • Jose,

                      To put a finer point on it:

                      It is clear to me that you have not read my book or any similar books; and you are not familiar with the EXPERIMENTAL evolutionary literature. The actual experiments that produce new species etc. This is not to be confused with evolution theories based on anecdotal evidence. 99% of it is merely anecdotal. But not all.

                      I expect people on this forum to engage with facts. I have no patience for those who only want to come here and repeat bumper sticker slogans. Those who want to do so can go elsewhere.

                      I also expect a common ground of presenting and considering evidence. Tom Godfrey, for example, believes it is impossible for science to tell us historical information. He thinks that can ONLY be gathered from the Bible. So there is no common ground on which he and I can have a conversation so I refuse to engage with him.

                      I hope you will exercise the curiosity and humility necessary to do the careful research and apprise yourself of the information necessary to productively dialogue about this.

                  • David Altman says:

                    Jose, a scientific theory is a collection of all the knowledge regarding the observable, testable (and potentially falsifiable) testing we’ve done on any particular subject. In other words, it’s all the best information that we currently have, our best understanding of the subject. In short, all the known facts about the subject.

                    Perry’s book, on the other hand, is what is known in science as an hypothesis. A hypothesis is essentially an idea about how something works.

                    How science works is that a person will take an hypothesis and create a test to attempt to bolster or refute that hypothesis. They will often repeat that test many times to verify the results. The entire experiment is then published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, where others can read it, try the same or other tests, and add to what we observe regarding that hypothesis.

                    Eventually, we get a reasonably clear picture of whether that hypothesis is true or not; the observations regarding that hypothesis, along with hundreds of others on the same subject, are collected into what we call a scientific theory.

                    Any person who says that “Darwin is bunk” or similar does NOT understand either the scientific principal nor the theory of evolution.

                    Life evolved. Face it, folks; that’s an undeniable FACT based on the observations made in multiple branches of science. There’s an insurmountable mountain of evidence proving it happened and is still happening.

                    As far as Christianity goes, either God created every living thing using evolution, or else God does not exist.

                    If God exists, He must be consistent with reality. Any God that would require us to deny reality CANNOT exist.

                    That’s why this is not a false dichotomy. There are only two options. Either God AND evolution, or just evolution.

                    The theory of evolution has been demonstrated so well and in so many ways as to demand that we call it the FACT of evolution.

                    We know more, and have more proof regarding – the theory of evolution than nuclear theory.

                    Yet we don’t have people saying that we don’t need to worry about nuclear bombs or the meltdown of nuclear plants because it’s “just a theory.”

                    It’s time (and past) for the people of this world to grow up and accept that evolution is real.

                    We’re not children who need to believe in the fairytale existence of the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11…

                    Denying evolution isn’t just childish, it’s nonsensical.

      • ramsai says:

        Test this logic about God!

        Its all pure science.

        Only think, visualize or imagine with an open-mind. Dream the OUTCOME but not the MEANS. Coz’ when one thinks of means one will inevitably plan. Eventually, in the process of planning, one considers all the pros and cons. Thus, one is also weighing the relative impact of the choices taken & the methods chosen to reach the END. Many things like social obligations, professional commitments, financial duels & personal states of mind invariably have their effect when the MEANS or PATH to be taken is planned. Apart from this the limitations of the present existence as a mortal and boundaries of the mind constrict the means.

        One has both positive (that enhances the possibility of the event happening) and negative (that undermines the OUTCOME) currents. These currents are the emotional forces which give energy to the thought constructs conceived by the mind. When one resorts to negative thinking, all the possible thoughts of obstruction to the CAUSE, scheme to truly build roadblocks. Since the mind sees the situation as a problem, the reality which is a mental construct / maya will present genuine hurdles. Thus, the mind is both a true friend as well as the worst enemy through out one’s life.

        How to resolve this?

        Right thinking.

        Literature all over the world recommends that we adopt POSITIVE THINKING. But, tell me, “If I had that kind of a control over the mind so as to force it to think positively, then, why would I think negatively in the first place? Hence, the plethora of “positive living” books are useful only to bring about an awareness of how the reality actually operates and how much the mental state or thought process has a say in the creation of reality. Only, in a few handful cases, these positive thinking books rub off a bit of their philosophy. In the rest, they only evoke a head level appreciation of the essential truth that is put forth in the form of an eye opening book but they don’t develop emotional attachment to the principles stated and in the process, eventually the dream or the spark of desire dies coz’ the energy required to sustain the mental construct was missing( both gut and nut level are required, the nut level to appreciate the books capacity to bring joy & happiness). Since the intellect is in itself the limiting factor, in most spiritual disciplines one is asked to drop even the guise of the mind to realize the true self cause the being called GOD or the true self is pure energy or feelings, it is the essence of the universe minus the mental construct or maya. The universe is the dream or mental construct of GOD or this pure energy BEING. We are infinitesimally small components of this dream . Of all the components that evolved , the most evolved ones purified themselves fully ie. became benign or desire less ,washed themselves from maya and stay out of the dream (MATRIX-travellers). They are no different than the SOURCE but retain the capacity to desire to play and experience – it is boring to live for eternity in sea of peace, light and silence.

        But thinking capacity and creative thought can only function constructively for the well being and harmony of the universe only when emanating from consciousness (by being in the here & now) and not from the EGO (which tides the waves of space & time and hence reside in the relative time frame – this produces varied behavior with different people in different situations depending upon class, racial, financial and religious status.)Ego develops duality (I, me , myself & you, us & them, they, GOD) keeping one separate from the rest of the universe and dreaming a dream(for himself) inside a dream(universe).

        But when one operates from the level of conscious he is bereft of all the above considerations as he is one with the source of the universe, and he has no dream apart from the universal dream he is in, and this dream is immeasurably better than anything that he can concive of coz this dream is formed from the wisdom of over countless births or evolutions of the universe. Though the SOURCE or GOD is benign it carries impressions of all its lives and this IT weaves into the fabric of the universe which it is dreaming. ( Vishnu-brahma)

        Every problem comes with its solution cause causality is an integral ingredient for the dream to go on.integral truth

        At the consciousness level everything is in a resolved state cause every event is accompanied by the resolution and since every bit of this universe emanates from it(big bang) and everything finally has its dissolution in it and also since everything is its reflection it would invariably reflect its qualities of serenity and love.

        Approaching God to resolve a situation with hope(mental construct of desire) and faith in the heart(energy born of intuition not logic) definitely accomplishes the desired result. The medium of GOD helps to operate from the consciousness level. And since only the outcome is visualized in the prayer and the course and also power to overcome the hurdles in the path are left to GOD or consciousness the adage is true – God listens to our prayer’.

        The trick here is to relay on a higher intelligence that has both conceived the universe and at the same time is sustaining it to maintain harmony and experience itself through its creation.

        In truth GOD does nothing. He is benign and sleeping otherwise how can he dream this universe and us.

        In truth we are the creators of our destiny. When we don’t let go of our mind playing GOD by determining every bit of the course we do at many times realize our ambitions but in truth are only threading the path which is deterministic in content cause we are then only mental beings and not conscious beings and hence are bound by the laws of causation enveloping this mortal frame and hence the complete path of life can be easily tracked by scientific methods like astrology, palmistry, etc. which merely use the principle of one to one correlation that exists between every single component regardless of their relative sizes coz everything is permeated by the dream of the ONE consciousness. Thus the adage the microcosm reflects the macro.

        To become the masters of our destinies all we have to do is stop being the creators of our destiny. That is the paradox of duality. Cause when we stop playing GOD we become one with the creation and as the acceptance(benign) of the one reality becomes more and more unconditional, the closer we come to our Self.

        thanks for letting me express.
        Happy new Year

      • fredd says:

        The intelligent design theory you are putting forth may show strong anecdotal evidence for the existence of a supreme being, but does NOT prove such an intelligence is the one imagined by Christians in any way, shape or form. Such an intelligence could just as well be the monotheistic pantheism of the Hindu faith (the Bramahn), the Great Spirit envisioned by some Native American tribes, or even (as many suspect) NONE of these religious viewpoints at all and something we simply do not understand.

        I simply cannot make a leap of faith based on scientific evidence that is skewed to act as proof of one belief system, when the belief system and the existence of an Intelligent designer are completely and irrevocably outside the tenets of a particular faith. This is the exact reason that the US government does not want intelligent design used in a classroom—it will be regionally usurped to explain a particular belief, and that is as un-American as communism.

        I think instead you are preaching to the choir, and are trying to use science to prove Christianity, which is inaccurate and non-scientific in itself. Evidence creates a theory, and the evidence you lecture on does not prove Christian theology in any way that I can read, and I heard all your lectures on this site.

        • ramsai says:


          HERE & NOW : is the most elusive key to waking up from this dream called reality.

          Here & now is the end product of the shrinkage of the quantum of time such that a moment holds eternity.

          We usually live our lives going to & fro between the past & future. The impressions (sanskaras) of the past in conjunction with the expectations of the future together engross the ego in an endless loop of pride/attitude & unrealistic desires OR fear & apprehensions.

          This creates the game called life in which we spend all our lives deeply engrossed. But like any game the better player wins. Hence the priority of life should be to master the rules of the game & then without even playing we will be winners. This is the true lesson of the Bhagavat Gita- perform action without expectations of fruits (coz if the karma is done correctly the fruit will follow). One more advantage of not thinking of fruits/future is –one will not be bogged down by the limitations of a doubting mind. This achieves two ends; firstly our own minds negative thinking will not undermine the result & secondly instead of using our limited intellect & experience, we let the universal intelligence in conjunction with collective conscience guide us. This process produces avenues & results that can be termed to be magical coz our higher self in communion with GOD is at work.

          The task mentioned above is both easy & difficult. It is easy if one simply accepts the truth that the whole creation is but one single unified dance which is emulated both in the microcosm & also in the macrocosm. This is the reason the ancients said not a leaf moves or an ant bites without the permission of SHIVA. That is the reason elders who are wise say –everything happens for the best.

          Some times the drama of life is to drive home a truth while at other times it is just for the sheer pleasure of existence. At times even when the truth is bitter to swallow, if taken with the awareness that it is a game, will make one have the sporting spirit to play better in the game ahead. After all the true self of us has played many such games in the past & it is facing the present calamity because it did not learn to master it in the past lives; so at least now let us master ourselves to exist in here & now and see the game as the game that it really is. Let us not make the mind a slave to the circumstances but make the reality reflect the state of our minds.

          Living in the here & now doesn’t necessarily mean not drawing from past experiences or having passion to excel in the future; all it means is to commit oneself 100% to the situation one is presently in. Coz’ the happiness which one expects to have in the future is also present in every moment because though the reasons for happiness may be outside, the source of all joy, happiness & ecstasy is within.

          As long as we live our life in compartments, we lead a fragmented life. Whenever ‘I’ becomes a priority like ‘I am’ (engineer, Hindu, telugu, officer) or ‘my’ (family, car, house, money) then we are limiting ourselves while in truth we are the source of the universe. By living in the here & now the objects & qualifications will still belong to us but we don’t belong to just these. It is just a paradigm shift in the mind state, everything will be as it is outside. Ultimately on this path we will encompass the whole universe in our mind– this is what the Vedas meant by ‘Aham Brahmasvi’

          1. When we oscillate in time we are in effect living life in compartments. We get divided between the glories or guilt of the past & promises & fears of the future. But when we live life by the moment, reality glides past us with no power to cling to us. In effect , as Guru Nanak said, we live in the world but the world doesn’t live in us. This is the golden rule of being in the here & now – to be attached to life in a detached manner. One performs ones duties(karma) without losing the inner serenity. It is very easy to lead a detached life if one considers the fact that not me but a universal intelligence has created the abounding sophisticated human body & a precise solar system & it is but obvious that our lives will well taken of since we are made in his image

          The practice of meditation is represented by the three monkeys, who cover their eyes, ears and mouths so as to avoid the phenomenal world. The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life. Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei

          To be in the here & now all one needs is a shift in perception towards life involving the child ego( childlike innocence but not childish), adult ego( full of jest for life & compassion but not undue insistence) & parent ego(not dictating but appealing to our higher wisdom).

          And all this can be accomplished by just not being in conflict & assimilating the fact that we are one with the creation. By realizing we are an integral part of it & not apart from it.

          By dealing with life in a subjective manner while analyzing it in an objective manner.


          Oh Lord! Thy vision is fathomless, what! with thy experience of all the previous evolutions. An endless chain of creations and dissolusions (big bangs and blackholes). This the poets of the modern era call the blackhole-sun.The hindu symbolists named it as the angavastra(garment) worn by Gods especially Ganesha-the Lord of learning or wisdom.(the angavastra is a continuous chain of 108 puffs of cotton to symbolize the day of brahma or the active state of creation & each puff is followed by an equal length of rolled cotton representing the night of Brahman or desolution. If ones passes the state of a blackhole-sun(resolution of opposites) then such a soul has reached the heart of every creation – Ohm . This is the first sound that permeates every virgin universe & as the rate of expansion in vacuum slows down after the bigbang the syllables move from a ‘Ooooo’ to ‘Ummm’ to ‘mmmm’.

          The above words are by me but still I am not the above words.

          When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always long to return.
          — Leonardo da Vinci

        • Forrest Charnock says:

          All scientist have an agenda, only the most naive person thinks that anyone in unbiased. The question is which bias is best. My bias it that of Jesus Christ who said scripture cannot be broken, a view you are quite hostile to.

          No offense but you are very ignorant of this subject or worse. As I have told you the oldest tree on earth, if you accept tree ring chronologies as infallible, is less than 5000 years old. The 8ka and 12ka year ‘dates” are based on c- 14 dates of fossil trees or creative math applied to colonial trees {usually including c-14 data} and a minimum of 3 unprovable and unknowable assumptions. I will say this one more time, to present these great dates for Bristlecone Pines as tree ring chronologies is untrue and deceptive. Your authority is man’s fallible ideas and you always choose them over the Bible.

          The record holders for an individual non-clonal tree are Great Basin Bristlecone Pine trees from California and Nevada in the United States, dated 4,000 to 5,000 years old by counting tree rings. The oldest is known as “Prometheus” (which is now dead), located on Wheeler Peak in Nevada; dendrochronology revealed the tree to be almost 4,900 years old.[2] The oldest living non-clonal tree (verified by dendochronology) is “Methuselah” (almost 4,800 years old), a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine still growing in a “secret location” somewhere in the White Mountains of California.[3]

          That is it . All the dates older than that are estimates based on highly assumptive methods by people with an agenda to deny God.
          If you make the claim again that anything has been shown by tree ring chronology, which is not in any way shape or form infallible , t be more than 5ka old I will have to assume your agenda has become more important to you than the truth. I have now given you the benefit of the doubt twice, that is enough.

          • jrunyon says:

            Forrest –

            The best answer to your tree ring discussion is from “Answers in Genesis,” an organization that you embrace. John Woodmorappe in his “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology” states that “the 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year.” Further, he states that these 8,000 years are Post Flood because of “fossiliferous sediment under the …” the trees. Since most Young Earth Creationists put the flood at 4,000 years ago, this is a big problem for them.

            There are multiple other trees that are much older (12,000-15,000 years) and, while they do rely on C-14 dating for the older portions of the trees, we can be fairly certain that they are accurate (within the error bars) since they can be calibrated using C-14 dating from the section of the trees where the rings can be clearly counted. Young Earth Creationists, of course, reject anything C-14 based even for something as simple as I just mentioned – but they are forced to do so because to do otherwise, is to negate their ‘young earth’ pre-supposition.

            The Woodramorrape reference is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine

            – Jim Runyon

      • Hornbill says:

        I’ve only just stumbled on this, so forgive me if you’ve answered elsewhere. I checked the FAQ.

        You ask, in your presentation, to show you any naturally occuring code or symbol.

        First, let me point out that early Egyptian writing used symbols, rather than an alphabet. We can both agree such writing still falls within the category of writing, communication and code.

        Poisonous sea snakes are bright red, with black stripes. Wasps and bees are bright yellow, with black stripes. As such, if you came across any crittur that was brightly colored, with black stripes, you’d “read” that to say “poisonous”.

        Arguably, it’s a code.

        For a symbol, consider how many butterflies have patterns that effectively mimic “eyes”, to scare off predators. So is that purely a pattern – or symbols? Evolutionists would say patterns that evolved into symbols…

        Consider camoflage (sp?), such as a tiger’s orange and black stripes. It’s a pattern, but one with meaning, ie hiding.

        So in nature we have codes, symbols and meaning.

        I mention this because while I think you’re onto something in that information cannot mutate without destroying itself, your argument that no naturally occuring symbols exist, is weak. Arguably, they do. You can say they exist via patterns, so don’t mean anything – but they do mean something to the predator avoiding the poisonous crittur or the “large” crittur with the staring eyes etc.

        Apart from that, good work :o)

        • The fact that bees waggle and there are ant pheromones and all kinds of ways that animals communicate with each other is irrelevant because they’re all living organisms. Any example of a “naturally occurring code” has to be completely outside the realm of DNA / living things if it’s going to demonstrate that DNA could naturally occur.

          I could ask for a successful origin of life experiment. But I’m asking for a lot less than that. I’m only asking for a code that originates completely outside the realm of living things.

      • FredHahn says:

        So who then created the creator? Though said over and over again, you’ll have to solve this and that is not possible.

        If God exists there isn’t just one. God did say in the ten commandments “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” Other?? So there are others???

      • probo rahadianto says:

        Hi perry,
        Can u comment on this?

        Perry is a human
        Every human we know born in planet earth
        Perry born in planet earth

        Above statement is true, but maybe not in the future when man can colonize mars and a baby named perry born on that colony.

      • JohnM says:

        Hello Perry,

        “Consciousness cannot exist without a physical body as far as we know. 100% of all known conscious minds are dependent on a physical mind.”

        I’ve been faced with this argument against a immaterial metaphysical designer. And it’s bothered me for some time. It seems to weaken the method of inference if on the one hand we can use it to infer code in DNA is designed by a mind but then on the other hand use it to infer all minds must be physical or at least housed in a physical body etc.

        And then I have also struggled with the question of how does a immaterial being even exert influence on the physical realm etc.

        But then the Word, Jesus Christ Himself comes to mind as the key to all of this.

        Information as we know is carried by matter and energy so if Jesus is the “matter and energy,” carrying the Word(information) of the immaterial Father, then this is how the immaterial exerts His influence on the physical world.

        This also solves the inference that all minds we know of must exist in a physical body. Jesus becomes the mind housed in a physical body that created the universe. “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)…and without Him was not anything made that has been made etc.”

        Jesus the Christ, the Word (immaterial information) of God in flesh (carried by matter and energy) is the key to everything!

        Everything revolves around the Lord Jesus Christ! He IS the center of the universe and of existence!

        What do you think Perry?

        Would this bring the two apparent conflicting syllogisms together?


      • greyfox says:

        There is little point in arguing with someone whose mind is made up.

      • David Chaverra says:

        Just one example of a message that comes from an organism that has no mind, the scent of a carnivorous plant… is a massage that is carried through a medium with an explicit audience and with an explicit purpose, yet the pant has no mind, but it can give a message.

      • Robert says:

        Perry, your insight is nearly in lockstep with Intelligent design movement of which the a avante guard are principally composed of the various scholars associated with the Discovery Institute. Where you differ is that you explicitly name the designer or coder responsible for the DNA code – God- adifference which commends you.

        That said, I am deeply concerned about some of your statements, foremost among all is your peculiar understanding regarding the degree of organismal evolvability. While it is true that stretches of DNA sequences of most every genome studied in detail have been designed with the capacity for rearrangement, for example antibody genes in mammals that permit intra-genic base pair rearrangement (rearrangement restricted to a very specific, finite region, or locus, along a chromosomal) producing both novel DNA sequences and their expressed products such as the variable region of antibody proteins, however this capacity is limited and has never been shown to add information to a genome. While novel variable regions might at first seem to add information, it merely substitutes for the information that previously was encoded along the same stretch of DNA (the source entropy of the original coded message, what Claude Shannon quantitatively developed and called the “average surprise”, is identical to the entropy of the substituted coded message embedded within the newly arranged DNA sequence). For macroevolution to occur, the information content must, at least for some length of time, increase, an event that has never been scientifically observed. What has been observed is the loss of genomic information that has conferred a survival advantage, an increase in fitness that is, for an organism subject to very unique environmental stress; development of antibiotic resistance is a good example. (To my mind, the very best example offered by evolutionists of a putative random genomic change said to be illustrative of the sort of DNA mutations necessary for macroevolutionary phenotypic change and novelty is the set of mutations that occurred in a line of E. coli cultured on a glucose restricted but citrate abundant nutrient medium described by Lenski et al. as part of their Long Term Evolution Experiment. What occurred however is yet another loss of genomic information that happened to confer a fitness increase to the mutant strain, an enhanced fitness that consigned the mutant strain to extinction in any other environment not superabundant in citrate. The mutant developed in at least two stages: first, a regulatory promoter distant to the gene whose expression creates the citrate transporter, a protein that is inserted into the plasma membrane permitting the energetic uptake of carbon containing citrate from the cell’s exterior into the cytosol where it can be shunted into an enzymatic metabolic pathway producing a net gain of ATP; second, duplication and transposition of the copy of the citrate transporter gene next to the damaged promoter. The upshot was that the gene, which was only activated in environments with low oxygen tension, became permanently active since it was no longer under any kind of regulatory control – the citrate transporter protein was now constitutively expressed, a energetically demanding process that, if present in virtually any other environment, would dramatically decrease the organism’s fitnesso if not cause the mutant strain to become extinct. This sort of genomic change decreased the information content of the damaged promoter and presumably the proper exptession of the information encoded by the DNA sequences under the regulatory control of the promoter. Similarly, the gene duplication does not add any information that was not previously available within the genome, but the extra copy being inserted next to a defunct promoter led to a complete loss of any regulatory control of its expression – a set of mutational events causing the mutant strain’s progeny to become less responsive, less able to adapt or cope to future changes in its environmental citrate level.)

        All of the above is meant to direct your attention to the empirically established fact that a decrease in informational entropy (an increase in its quantity) has never been observed, and that observed improved/increases to fitness has always been a serendipitous result of genomic damage; that is, all mutations to DNA sequences that improve an organism’s relative survivability is due to loss of coded information rendering the mutant organism and its offspring less likely to remain extant in any other environment except the very unusual one in which the mutation serendipitously increased the mutant organism’s fitness. Hence, macroevolutionary phenotypical changes simply cannot occur; it’s physically impossible. Relat small adaptive changes in phenotype do occur as environmental stressors cue regulatory DNA sequences to alter the extent and type of allelic expression in much the same way that CPU’s respond to user inputs through switches, circuits and logic gates. For a good review of the limits to phenotypic evolvability due to genetic mutations and natural/sexual selection, including internal genomic mechanisms governing pre-programmed DNA sequence rearrangements, please see Michael Behe’s book “The Edge of Evolution”.

        I have one other concern related to the concept of deep time which you seem to endorse through your seeming acceptance of the “Hot Big Bang” cosmological model. The Bible is incredibly clear about the historical sequence and duration of time God used to create the universe and everything in it – six consecutive normal 24 hour days; any other interpretation is an unabashed retreat away from properly controlled exegesis of the dozens of passages referring to the creation events sprinkled all throughout both testaments. Furthermore, a fairly accurate date of the creation week has been established by working back to the origin of Adam and his wife, Eve, using the genealogies listed in the Bible explicitly for this purpose. Again, an alternative interpretation for the inclusion of these painstakingly detailed genealogies defies all reason. God, through his special revelation, has given us a very accurate date of the six days over which He created the world, roughly 6000 years in the past. To abandon sound exegesis by embracing the currently voguish though highly tenuous hot big bang cosmogonic model that claims the universe evolved over billions of years and out of sequence with the biblical data is to favour a highly flawed model (and might I add a probabilistically and thermodynamically impossible one whose exponents add layers upon layers of special pleading to insulate the model, which by the way fundamentally changes every five years or so, against legitimate criticism) contrived by man over against the certainty of God’s explicit revelation to us. There is much truth in the model, but its philosophical commitment to materialism will cause it to drift outside the scope of science into the realm of metaphysics and even religion. Scientists need to reign in this tendancy otherwise they will fool themselves and the public at large into believing the utterly unreasonable, illogical, indeed impossible.

        In summary, there are empirically derived limits to evolvability: macroevolution that proposes birds have evolved from dinosaurs is simply impossible because new code must be introduced into genomes, which has never occurred (this proposition also includes the designed capability of genomic rearrangement); while macroevolution certainly does occur, causing modest phenotypic variation due mainly to genomic regulatory changes as an adaptive response, within limits, to novel environmental stressors. Additionally, a properly controlled exegesis of the Bible in its entirety unambiguously informs us that God created the universe over six ordinary 24 hour days about 6000 years ago. To reject this plain interpretation of the various relevant biblical passages is to reject the doctrine of a divinely inspired bible, and for the existence of the Christian God Himself. For a highly plausible solution to the problem of the observable universe’s vastness of billion of light years and the prevailing corollary of its vast age of billions of years, I would direct you to Jason Lisle’s theory that rejects the prevailing assumed convention that the speed of light is the average time for it to travel two-ways; he prefers the biblically compatible convention, which is equally valid and consistent with all known laws of physics, understanding the speed of light as infinite as it travels towards us and 2 x c in the opposite direction, that is away from Earth. (It is an unasailable fact of physical law that light can only be measured with reference to one single clock; therefore, the speed of light is determined by timing the distance it travels in two directions, for example toward and reflected in the opposite direction off a mirror).

        Science is, in one sense, thinking God’s thoughts after Hi, so pursuing science seems a noble thing, but only so far as the scope of science permits, unfettered by philosophical materialism and in light of the knowledge God had revealed to us in the bible properly interpreted. Armed with this simple wisdom, we are truly free to follow wherever the evidence leads.

        God bless you.

        • >>macroevolution that proposes birds have evolved from dinosaurs is simply impossible because new code must be introduced into genomes, which has never occurred (this proposition also includes the designed capability of genomic rearrangement); while macroevolution certainly does occur, causing modest phenotypic variation due mainly to genomic regulatory changes as an adaptive response, within limits, to novel environmental stressors.

          Please stop and think about this:

          If an organism has, by whatever mechanism, the ability to freely CHOOSE a “1” or a “0” in its own DNA then that organism, by definition, has the ability to create information.

          Also I believe you are ignoring a key statement found right in Genesis 1:

          11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds….
          24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds….

          Notice that it does not say, “Let there be plants” or “let there be animals” the way he said “Let there be light.”

          The scriptures clearly indicate that plants and animals were made INDIRECTLY.

          As for kinds, let us notice that the only way in biology that you get a SIGNIFICANTLY different kind is by merging two kinds – through hybridization and symbiogenesis.

          Both hybridization and symbiogenesis are observable phenomena that do in fact empirically generate new species.

          So unless you think these observable facts somehow contradict Genesis, then evolution is perfectly compatible with the Biblical narrative.

          >>Additionally, a properly controlled exegesis of the Bible in its entirety unambiguously informs us that God created the universe over six ordinary 24 hour days about 6000 years ago.

          No, because the word “yom” in Genesis 2:4 includes multiple yoms (referring to all the days of creation) thus removing anyone’s ability to be dogmatic about the meaning of the word yom.

          >>To reject this plain interpretation of the various relevant biblical passages is to reject the doctrine of a divinely inspired bible, and for the existence of the Christian God Himself.

          I respect the fact that you believe that rejecting Genesis undercuts the whole of scripture; Ken Ham has been saying this for decades.

          However Ken Ham is failing to make a distinction between the scriptures and his own human interpretation of scripture, which are two different things.

          If you can recognize this distinction, and allow for the possibility that a day means something quite different (see http://evo2.org/bible-science-reconciled/ ) then you will no longer have to pit the Bible against science – which, trust me, is a tremendous relief.

          You will no longer have to explain why it’s possible for a star to be 100 million light years away even though it was made only 6000 years ago.

          For the record, sir, I think that the YEC interpretation is bad exegesis and bad science at the same time. It is held in place by fear – fear that if we allow science to inform our interpretations of scripture, Christianity will shatter.

          It will not.

          >> For a highly plausible solution to the problem of the observable universe’s vastness of billion of light years and the prevailing corollary of its vast age of billions of years, I would direct you to Jason Lisle’s theory that rejects the prevailing assumed convention that the speed of light is the average time for it to travel two-ways; he prefers the biblically compatible convention, which is equally valid and consistent with all known laws of physics, understanding the speed of light as infinite as it travels towards us and 2 x c in the opposite direction, that is away from Earth. (It is an unasailable fact of physical law that light can only be measured with reference to one single clock; therefore, the speed of light is determined by timing the distance it travels in two directions, for example toward and reflected in the opposite direction off a mirror).

          Light travels infinitely fast moving towards the earth – and 2C moving away from us?

          I have never heard this before.

          How fast does it travel in a fiber optic cable, sir?

          One speed going away from the earth and another speed going towards the earth?

          You can measure this for yourself. Quite easily, as a matter of fact.

          I do not believe you have actually thought carefully about this at all. I can only comment that this perfectly illustrates the extremes that YEC forces people to go to – denying plainly observable reality in order to maintain what they falsely believe to be good theology.

          I shall refrain from saying anything more lest I say something rude.

          Please liberate yourself from this belief system. It is not serving you. Shed this legalism that Ken Ham foisted upon you and become free.

        • David Altman says:

          Robert: The word translated “day” in Genesis (i.e., on the first ‘day’) does NOT refer to a 24 hour period. It CANNOT refer to a 24 hour period. Firstly, the universe is 13.82 billion years old, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. These facts have been clearly and unequivocally established.

          Second, the word translated in English as ‘day’ is the Hebrew word ‘yom,’ which refers to an unspecified period of time. In the majority of cases when this word is used in the Old Testament, it ALWAYS refers to more than one day.

          The phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” has been used to “confirm” that this is a 24 hour period. However, from evening (5:00 PM, sundown) to morning (5:00 AM, sunrise) is 12 hours, not 24 – or else, 36 hours, not 24, if you go to the NEXT morning.

          This “evening, morning” thing is a poetic license from the writer, a figurative end and a figurative new beginning.

          Finally, if “yom” is ALWAYS a 24 hour period, then Jesus lied about how long he would be in the grave. He was NOT in the grave three literal 24 hour periods. Count: Thursday ‘evening’ (before 5 PM Friday – i.e., before the start of the Sabbath); a few hours. Friday 5:00 PM – Saturday 5:00 PM … ONE full 24-hour day. Saturday 5:00 PM – an unspecified time early Sunday morning. Again, less than a 24 hour day. There are a maximum of two 24 hour days represented here, very likely much less.

          Did Jesus lie when he told His disciples He’d be in the grave three “days?” No, of course not. The word He used was yom – he would be in the grave three periods of time. Because the Hebrews considered any PART of a day to be a day (i.e., work a few hours, get paid a day’s wages [See, e.g., Matthew 20:1-15]), He told the truth; He spent three separate periods of time (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) in the grave.

          If “yom” is ALWAYS a 24 hour period, Jesus lied – and the Bible clearly contradicts known facts. If you are a Biblical literalist (which is a form of idolatry), then this is a problem. If, however, “yom” is an unspecified period of time, a day can be “like” a thousand (or million, or billion) years (see, e.g., 2 Peter 3:8), and the Biblical account can be on one accord with science…

          Just so long as you accept the facts, you’re an intelligent person. If you think the earth is flat, or that there is a physical firmament covering the earth, or that the earth is at the center of our solar system, or that the planets are holograms, or that the earth is on the back of a turtle, or that dinosaurs and man lived together… you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT and nobody should listen to ANYTHING you say.

        • David Altman says:

          Robert: macroevolution & birds
          evolution does NOT require “new” information to be introduced, merely that a particular sequence be changed. It’s called random mutation.

          Random mutation can be positive, negative, or neutral. Any mutation which does not kill the organism is not, by definition, “bad.” These mutations happen CONSTANTLY. It took multiple neutral and/or positive mutations (i.e., mutations which didn’t kill the organism) to turn dinosaurs into modern birds.

          However, birds do not exist. Dinosaurs exist. Not all dinosaurs went extinct. Those things flying through the air are STILL dinosaurs. Their DNA proves it. Looking at modern birds, you can track their DNA back to their ancestors.

          Even better: Scientists recently “regressed” a modern bird to show its roots – it now LOOKS like a dinosaur, because the dinosaur DNA is being expressed. See, e.g., http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur

          You need to actually STUDY how evolution works.

          • The mutations that drive evolution are not random. They follow ergodic patterns. If you fully understand information theory you understand that random mutations are noise and noise ALWAYS destroys information, no exceptions. This is the subject of about 1/3 of the chapters of my book Evolution 2.0. See http://evo2.org/random-mutation/

            The “random mutation” hypothesis is the biggest myth in the history of science, and I’m speaking as a communications engineer who wrote an Ethernet book and fully understands information theory. Biology is not an exception to the rule – this is true in any field. It’s math.

      • Elliot says:

        Being unable to show you information that didn’t come from a mind doesn’t demonstrate a god, it could be super intelligent being that has capabilites to recognise a paradigm beyond our own. Also you’re shifting the burdon of proof – we have no examples of a God existing. We can’t prove a negative I could argue that a mind coming in to existence in the beginning is just magic and not a “god”. We do have examples of language and minds existing. What was there before a God and which mind made God arise?

        Scientific evidence doesn’t need to suggest otherwise the default position is not to assume a God. The time to believe it is when we have direct proof of God that is necessary and sufficient and language / mind doesn’t necesitate a god. At best it’s just one proposition.

        The thing about science is it doesn’t claim to absolutely know as we can never absolutely know anything at all. Science gives us our best model based on what we currently know and thankfully as we learn more we can gradually make more accurate models as time goes on. What has become apparent is that over time the amount of Gods have diminished the further that we’ve found scientific answers for things. Eg. Zeus producing thunder, then we worked out the mechanics of weather and discounted it.

      • Andre says:

        It is pretty easy for a religious person to point out the complexity of and eye, human body, the universe etc. Stating this must have had a creator. Well this creator must be infinitely complex – a religious person will point this out with no uncertain terms yet in the same breath accepts that a deity of such complexity always existed and there was no need for this deity’s creation. This makes absolutely no sense

      • Jay says:

        I noticed that your analogies have a remarkably similar construction to the analogies of William Paley, the father of the “intelligent design” argument. By noting the way certain things like computer code and music are structured as plans that have a purpose, you made the argument that in this way, DNA also fits the mold of a plan in that it determines our physical features. Considering this, why is it that DNA codes for unpurposeful tissues in the body, like male nipples and armpit hair? If it is true that DNA was God’s creation, why is it that useless structures are in the human anatomy?

        • Males and females have many homologous sexual organs and giving males nipples is a more efficient means of using limited information space than not having them. I would even say it’s elegant. Evolutionary processes of any kind (including evolution of human technologies) always have sub-optimal components. You can look at any man-made design and find something that’s less than ideal. I tell such a story at http://evo2.org/foot-in-mouth/

          Please use your full first and last name from now on.

          • Jay Johnson says:

            I think this comment is interesting, because in addition to their being homologous structures between male and female humans, there is also shared DNA sequences and homologous structures between humans and other species, like Chimpanzees. Certainly this evidence points to a common ancestor, considering that Darwinian evolution predicts this phenomena quite precisely. I’m addition, wouldn’t you say that writing these structures off as an elegant usage of “limited information space” is hasty, considering that it requires more information to code for something like a nipple, than to simply have there be skin?

            • You seem to assume that I am anti-evolution. I am most emphatically not. See my book Evolution 2.0 http://budurl.me/ev20

              The same code makes nipples and chest area for men and women. Different code for men and women would take more space, because it would require more code. Remember that every cell in your body has to carry this code, so if you waste a little space, that’s a lot of waste. The human genome packs more information per megabyte than any computer technology and this is one tiny reason why.

          • John Atherton says:

            There are plenty of designs that are perfect, no improvement can be made on it due to its simplicity. Think of a ladder diagram in electrical engineering, it is purely conceptual and is not tied to the actual components, it is strictly logic designed to have cause and effect, and it can be designed to be perfect. In application it may not be perfect but the idea and design can be perfect. To suggest we fail in some way every way is a rather sad outlook on humans. Don’t get me wrong humans suck, but I think I have more optimism in our capabilities than you do.

            If god created us, why would he be lazy and design efficiently when it comes to humans, but when it comes to the rest, the stars solar, systems, and galaxies, it isn’t efficient? I mean really the amount of design required to design the universe vs the lack of design in humans? It just screams lazy. Oh I need to make two different things, oh I don’t have enough bits to differentiate? Argh, just give them both nipples, it won’t be used in both designs . . . . .but that will have to do. That sounds like a human or the cause of evolution, but not god.

            There is only so much code in DNA and instead of creating a different base, or format, god decides to just wing the nipples, but not just give guys boobs also, it seems even more efficient to give both genders boobs, since you hand out nipples to everyone why not boobs also? Oh that’s right it wouldn’t fit into the argument you are making therefore it is irrelevant. LMAO for a perfect god he created a rather sloppy universe. For as far as we can see all the stuff around us is rather uneventful(as far as life goes), and the energy put into the universe is massive. This is crazy inefficient and should be considered a failure to someone as totally perfect as god. If you go with the idea that god created it all for just us, that is also very inefficient. It’s like creating earth and only allowing creatures to exist on a tiny island with no real possibility of leaving.

            Your foot in mouth story fails to address the useless organs we have in our body now. As that was the first thing that came to my mind, and probably a lot of other people too. Although it’s not like we don’t know why the resistors/organs are there, we know why and our reason is better.
            The reason we have them is due to a long development of the human body that took longer than 6000 years. Any “design” would be a lie or assume evolution at the core of our genes can happen super rapidly. Don’t bring up the galapagos, yes it happens fast there but it isn’t making new organs, or getting rid of them.

            • Please specify which organs are useless. I suggest you do your homework very, very carefully before you reply.

              • John Atherton says:

                Darwin’s tubercle, Appendix(not technically useless, but close, definitely could be more efficient in size and/or effectiveness) male nipples, and our tailbones, to name a few parts(because it’s not JUST about organs) that we do not use, there are other useless/unnecessary parts of the body that cannot be justified through a religious perspective. A “real religious person”, someone who does not interpret the bible loosely, could not use evolution as the reason for their existence. If you do not conform to a religious book, then why even a god? You would be cherry picking stuff from both science and religion to make your argument; which is a desperate attempt to cling to the idea of a god. Now I’m not saying they weren’t used at some point in history, but your fake bible history does not support their existence.
                Keep in mind you are the one that has the burden of proof to explain why these body parts would come about in order to mesh with your creationism theory.
                (Science has done “inference with no known exceptions” more accurately and more often that contradict religion many times over than the handful, if that, that you are proposing)

                Atoms and molecules have a code in the universe, they receive input and react to the changes and output results. The universe at a fundamental level has a set of codes/laws in which everything in it is bound by. They are already there NATURALLY. Code has arisen naturally because otherwise the universe wouldn’t exist. To say the it wasn’t natural it is god, requires you to prove that god made it happen “unnaturally” or by intervention in the universe. Inferring that god did it is more of a stretch than our(real scientists’) current inference of how the universe came to be; and we are getting closer and closer to the exact cause. Science works to get closer and closer to the right answer while the god story is one potential that if one detail is off then it would disprove his existence.(god creating a wrong bible?)

                To reference your “foot in mouth” story again
                You didn’t know the reason for the redundant resistors, like we don’t yet know how the universe came to be. While you use the “there ACTUALLY is a reason for it being there” idea to somehow support religion(faulty logic comparing human design to a god) you fail to apply the logic to the areas of science that are, unknown, but have a good reason for their being.(the big bang, origin of our consciousness, and many others that we will later discover why/how/when)

                Since you have not addressed these points in my earlier posts I will consider them a point made against your theory.
                -Humans can create something perfect.
                -The universe is a waste of energy if we are the only ones in it (god’s design isn’t perfect)
                -If god designed it all ~6000 years ago, the parts of our body that I mentioned that would be explained by evolution, are a misdirection(lie) to humans. (giving us parts we didn’t need/use that we would later infer that evolution was the cause because ~6000 years is not long enough for them to arise or recess).

                -Code in the sense of a language is all about interpretation, the design aspect is how we associate meaning to it. (it has no “meaning”, they are just pieces of a reaction like atoms etc)(101001011=? =depends on what language design you are using;binary/octal/decimal/etc and what meaning you associate it with)

                “Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information and language always originate in a mind.”
                -BS, THAT is not proof or even “inference with no known exceptions” (you are changing your standard for proof) and I have shown how a language like binary isn’t human made, we don’t make these concepts, we discover them and manipulate them to our benefit. (another point showing that you are wrong)

                Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too!
                -No I don’t agree with that(another point against your theory) Secondly you omit god having to come from somewhere in this train of logic.

                This whole premise of “nobody has proven a negative” seems to be the center of your argument and that is a logical fallacy. I’m sure I’m not the only one that has pointed this out to you, yet I haven’t seen you address that point.
                Because you can’t prove I’m not a reincarnation of Jesus doesn’t mean I am proof of Jesus.

                I am starting to think you are a highly camouflaged troll screwing with people by blatantly using bad logic to “prove” a point.

                I look forward to the day when the theists are weeded out from humanity, ironically by natural selection. You guys are holding the rest of us back, as has been the case throughout the MAJORITY of the history. (yeah i know there have been SOME contributions to science by the church, but there has been way more harm done than good in that respect)

                • “mesh with your creationism theory.”

                  I’m not a creationist, John. The fact that you are talking about “6000 years ago” at all means you don’t understand where you are, what this website is about, or who you are talking to.

                  Read Evolution 2.0 and then we will be able to have an informed conversation.

                  The problem with your alleged “vestigial organs” is that Nature is not nearly so wasteful as Darwinists imagine. Darwinists severely underestimate nature. You’re going to call a thick edge of an ear a vestigial organ? You’re grasping at straws. Appendix is not vestigial, it’s a safe house for symbiotic bacteria.

                  Male nipples are an efficiency because simply by changing gene expression, a radically different male vs female body plan can occur. Same with the sex organs. Penis -> clitoris, scrotum -> vagina. This is incredibly efficient use of code. No human-designed system is this elegant.

                  If you think the Appendix can be improved upon, design a better one, come back here, and report your results.

                  Evolution is directed by the cognition of cells and it is vastly more efficient than you give it credit for.

                  The universe does not have any codes at all, so far as we know. Not if we use proper formal definitions instead of ad hoc hand-waving rants about ill-defined “information.”

                  if you can demonstrate otherwise I’ve got $5 million for you. http://www.naturalcode.org.

                  Re: Natural selection of theists and atheists:

                  Jews and Judaism have lasted 4000 years. Catholics and Catholicism have lasted 2000 years.

                  Atheism has barely been around 300 years, no atheist country has lasted longer than 80 years, and atheist governments murdered somewhere between 80 and 160 million people in the 20th century alone. More than all religious wars in all centuries combined.

                  Lenin said, “Atheism is a necessary component of our propaganda.” Lenin was not a stupid guy.

                  “When you consider beliefs in evolutionary terms, do not look at how they compete with each other, but consider the survival of the populations that have them.” -Nassim Nicholas Taleb, from Skin in the Game

                  You are wasting my time. Do not post again until you’ve done your homework and are able to come here and present a cogent set of facts based on what I am actually talking about here. Otherwise I’ll just delete your comments.

                  • John Atherton says:

                    Jump to bottom for TLDR
                    If you are not a creationist then I don’t see a point for “proving” god exists, and not only is disproving god impossible, but proving god is impossible. God is considered to be “outside” of the bounds of our universe, otherwise he would be bound by it’s laws, and you can’t conclude anything about “outside” the universe, if you think you can then anyone can make up anything that would be unable to disprove, which seems to be what you are going for. This “god” concept is something borrowed from past religions and to throw religion out the window by scoffing about 6000 years is one of the most cherry picking means of doing so.

                    Not me, science calls it that. As far as vestigial organs go, I’m just pointing out how most design arguments do not coincide with leftover organs, although you gave yourself that wiggle room by throwing out religions.

                    You chalk design up to god, I chalk it up to millions of years of trial and error in evolution. To ask me to design better is a fool’s errand. Again there are plenty of near perfect designs that I have mentioned already that are perfect, or near perfect. You say god made the design perfect I say evolution did. You are just trying to shift the credit towards god making it so.

                    I don’t underestimate the contribution to everything in the body, I just don’t say that god made the design, evolution did.

                    The math is all around us, and it governs how everything comes together, to say this isn’t code but a dog bark is code, in my opinion, is absurd. You are a master at making people fight a battle on your terms, when you do not have sufficient evidence to prove that the code was designed based on reality’s terms. You have such faith in the elegance of evolution, except enough for it to have started on it’s own(evolution of the universe). We will have the answer why as science has its own elegance in finding the right answers(as opposed to making them up).

                    There is a reason why theses places
                    do not accept religious attempts, because even they(examiners and participants) know you can’t prove or disprove god.

                    I’m am sure Atheism has been around longer than that, all it would take is one, and you would have to prove nobody didn’t believe in god. I would love to see percentages of human population killed as opposed to numbers, as I’m sure more would have been killed by religions if there were more people around to kill. I also don’t even agree that atheists have killed more in total numbers. Stalin didn’t kill them personally, and it’s not really about the wars anyways, it’s about the individuals, in my opinion. I think atheists value life more than theists as we know there is nothing after this, as opposed to just getting a “game over” screen from heaven/hell. Although I’m sure you have some weird take on post-life also.

                    I hope you aren’t trying to argue that atheism is bad because bad people have shared the same beliefs.

                    “When you consider beliefs in evolutionary terms, do not look at how they compete with each other, but consider the survival of the populations that have them.” -Nassim Nicholas Taleb, from Skin in the Game – by that logic eventually mormons will climb to the top considering their rate of population, that (faulty) logic is basically why most religions want their kind to procreate more than the rest.

                    TLDR: I’m not here to try to out argue the reality you have made for yourself, there is no winning in that situation, on either side. Science has created life in the labs, and in my opinion, that is enough to say that, if given the right conditions, it can happen on its own. No god required.

                    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
                    Arthur Conan Doyle
                    But you say that spontaneous life if impossible, right?
                    And I say that god is the impossible. Agree to Disagree
                    I just think that my improbable is more likely to have happened than yours. Time & Science will soon tell, and you will have to rewrite your story like the rest before you.

                    • John Atherton says:

                      I found the homework I had already done and I just figured it out, I know the logic you are using.
                      You are using the “watchmakers argument” with a twist. Instead of a watch you are using “code”. Talk about rehashing a disproved line of thinking. Real clever there buddy.

                      We don’t have a different universe to compare to. The only experience we have is the one we are in, unless you have another universe in your pocket to compare to, we cannot say to any degree of certainty that our universe has been designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it has been in the first place. <– do you even logic bro?

                      I'm sure though you won't let this post go public, sooo . . .
                      Bye bye and have a rational day 😀 *drops mic"

                    • John,

                      If you take Hume to his logical conclusion, he undercuts science because Hume ultimately doesn’t think induction is rational; and all science is based on induction.

                      If you reject induction, you necessarily reject evolution because almost all evidence for evolution is inferential not observational.

                      In my conversation with my brother Bryan, where he pushed me right to the edge of atheism, I was floundering and I decided to throw myself into the void and let science make this decision for me.

                      Why? Because religion and theology were so squishy.

                      As an Electrical Engineer I knew very well that some things in science are not the least bit squishy at all. (Like the speed of light, which proved to me the earth was old, so I changed my mind about that. I was raised a Young Earth Creationist.)

                      Now this was a very big deal because I knew if I became an atheist (which I was quite willing to do, IF the evidence supported it) it would throw my life and my family and my friendships into bedlam. It would completely upend the relatively peaceful and well-manicured religious culture we had in our family. My wife might be taking the kids to church while I slept in. We might be having arguments about what to teach the kids.

                      But I had to pursue the truth at any cost. I couldn’t sweep things I knew under the rug just because I didn’t like them.

                      The first question on my mind was this: I said to Bryan, “Look at the hand at the end of your arm. This is a FINE piece of engineering. You don’t think this is an accumulation of random accidents [and natural selection] do you???”

                      His answer, basically, was: Yes I do. And he fell back on 150 years of Darwinian theory to back that up.

                      I knew there might be all sorts of things I didn’t know about biology. So I stopped arguing right then and there, and resolved to go home and find out.

                      Again the question was: “Will random copying errors and natural selection and millions of years produce a hand, or not? Is there something the biologists know that the engineers don’t?”

                      What I found was that the answer is: no. Evolution is far far more sophisticated than random mutation and selection., that the reason you get a hand is because cells cut splice edit and rearrange their own DNA – and organisms redesign themselves as they adapt to changing situations. And it’s not just natural selection.

                      I also found that there’s 1 million codes, 999,999 of them are designed, and there’s one code we don’t know the origin of an that’s DNA. I found out there are no codes that are not designed.

                      So as for the origin of the genetic code, you have five possible answers:

                      Humans designed DNA

                      Aliens designed DNA

                      Random chance designed DNA

                      An undiscovered law of physics is responsible for DNA

                      God designed DNA

                      In my book the only via meaningful answers are the last two.

                      The Evolution 2.0 prize (www.herox.com/evolution2.0) seeks any answer based on”Un-Discovered Law of physics.” And I have a $5 million prize for it. It’s a perfectly legitimate approach and I salute anyone who takes that path.

                      And we still don’t understand the essence of why evolution actually happens, because we don’t know how to design software programs that can adapt to the way the bacterium does.

                      So if you say “oh that evolved,” you haven’t really explained anything yet. Because nobody truly understands the mechanisms that drive evolution. If we did, we would have self evolving software programs that can adapt without human assistance.

                  • Jon Athertonn says:

                    HAHA didn’t care for my watchmaker comment hu?
                    David Hume has already disproved how your line of thinking isn’t enough. your “3 point inference” isn’t enough and at least gravity has been tested over and over, yours is a one time logic based primarily on guessing the outcome. You are a scam artist that has apparently even fooled himself into believing it.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          How would you, and your body, or anatomy as you mentioned, function without nipples, or armpit hair, Jay?

          • Jay Johnson says:

            To you I say this: how would it be detrimental to my body if I didn’t have nipples or armpit hair? It is unheard of to have health issues after someone has a nipple removed during surgery, or after someone has shaved their armpit hair, perhaps to participate in a swim meet.

        • People talk about the notion of design in nature as though it is some black-and-white thing.

          It is not.

          -Cells design and redesign themselves – we know this experimentally – and what they do is flat out amazing
          -We know this process is a trial and error process; it goes right by going wrong; it constantly self corrects and this is an ACTIVE process by the cell, it’s not merely passive and not merely “survival of the fittest.”
          -There is NOTHING in nature or the universe that can be regarded as “perfect” in some religious or platonic sense
          -That said, biological designs are for the most part incredibly elegant, despite having components that are regarded by some as “vestigial”. Pronouncements that organs are vestigial almost always turn out to be premature and over-stated. For example we now know that the appendix is a safe-house for cultivating symbiotic bacteria. Not absolutely essential, and admittedly trouble-prone, but certainly useful.

          Remember that human development takes 750MB of data (= 1 compact disc) and makes 200 kinds of tissue and male and female body plans from the same coding sequence (the only exception being X vs Y chromosomes), – compare to Windows which takes 30 GB of data and Mac OS takes 20GB. The human genome packs an astonishing, nearly incomprehensible amount of programming an an incredibly tiny space. Males having nipples can well be regarded as a data compression feature.

          I think it’s incredibly impressive – despite not being perfect.

          • Jay Johnson says:

            I completely agree that our universe appears to be elegant and precise; however, this result is undoubtedly achieved through evolution and laws of nature, not a God. Your assessment that almost all supposed vestigial organs are useful simply isn’t true, and in fact, some can be horribly detrimental to our health. The appendix can collect dangerous amounts of bacteria, but has no way of ridding itself of them, sometimes leading to an incredibly hazardous situation that must be dealt with by surgery. Male nipples, again, simply have no use, and it is hard to argue that they are the byproduct of some sort of ”data compression”. As well as these to previously mentioned structures, wisdom teeth can wreak havoc and someone’s mouth, displacing their established teeth and necessitating a removal. Isn’t it more logical to stipulate that these are the result of our descended line of biology, rather than the mysterious workings of a God?

            • I agree all these things are the result of our descended line of biology.

              But living things do something that no man-made technology does:

              They evolve by themselves.

              Contrary to popular belief they do not do this by accident. They do this through exquisitely sophisticated natural genetic engineering. No human knows how to make software that does this.

            • Todd Gnarly says:

              The Big Bang evolved? The physical constants of the universe evolved? This is an article on cosmology, not biology.

              • Jose Lopez says:

                Todd, the universe came into existence out of nothing. That’s a fact no matter what you believe. Common sense tells us that the same thing that brought this universe into existence out of nothing had everything to do with biological life, as well.

        • Ekim Waltman MARS says:

          Jay Hey, I’d ask you this about what you asked “Who are you to question God’s design?” Kind of ignorant and arrogant. What seems redundant usually isn’t. I think mosquitoes should have never been needed, yet they ween The Herd don’t They? I also could point out many humans seem eqaully useless air breathers, water drinkers, resource user’s. Yet because of our ignorant arrogance in thinking we can design super drugs and antibiotics to stack the chips in our favor of the weak, making many of the weak able to compete with the strong for the same resources and in essence will kill everyone of us and yet you sit there and question God’s design? What a human thing to do. ][, ([]) ][, peace

          • Jay Johnson says:

            I would like to start by saying that, yes, I am an atheist, but I am also curious about why devout people hold such strong beliefs. I do not seek to insult others, just to question them. When you say that our technology is going to result in the downfall of our society, I’m at a loss to see why you believe we should do nothing to better ourselves, especially against things that can kill us. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, isn’t it absolutely necessary that we do what we must to protect he continuation of our species and our planet? Isn’t that why we’re here?

      • Carey Ogola says:

        The existence of God is both a matter of fact as it is a matter of faith. Whether or not something has utility need not be a reason to disqualify the existence of its creator. Utility is relative, for example, a lion would find no interest in a potato while a hog would.
        Taking a simplistic perspective in the manner in which people try to figure out God, with others dismissing His existence altogether, we may make an analogy to the things men/people create. Can a bottle, for instance, totally comprehend who created it or how it was created? I’d say that the bottle is much wiser than many people who trifle with such questions as the origin of God rather than finding the purpose of their existence and fulfilling that purpose. The bottle is receptive to whatever its owner determines its purpose to be. If the bottle had a mind, how intelligent would it be compared to the person who made the bottle? Similarly, we as humans have minds, but we’re not at par or in any way comparable in intellect with the One who created us. It’s sheer folly to try figure Him out. It might serve well to recall that since He is the giver of the mind, He can tinker with it in any way He deems fit for His purpose; much the same way as one would use a bottle to store milk, and later change its purpose for water retention.
        As all bottles do, they eventually break or in some other ways are rendered useless for their original purposes. Does this negate the fact that they were created? Even men have been known to invent contraptions which end up serving no purpose, and have a hand in iterating such inventions to fit the needs of contemporary society. Now that, right there, is evolution and extinction through natural selection. Simply put, even if one should be a diehard proponent of Darwinism, doing so while failing to acknowledge that there is a higher intelligence at play is illogical. Anyway, maybe their purpose was/is to disprove God’s existence in His Grand scheme of things to show just how majestic He is.

      • Anon says:

        Sounds to me like “because I can decipher a pattern, then someone must have made the pattern”. We have to understand that our brains are wired to be constantly looking for and recognizing patterns, because otherwise we wouldn’t have survived or continue to survive.
        If you go to vegas and you see the roulette table has landed on red 20 times in a row or it has landed on your birthday or even spells out your name in correlating numbers. . . does not mean there is design behind it. These patterns are just unlikely odds triggering you to think it is somehow significant. People often find patterns or clues that seem conclusive, but it turns out to be weird correlation and not causation.
        How you can say
        “No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process”
        and omit the question that is begged when you assert that someone almighty created stuff; question being “How was god created?”. If you are going assume a magic god did it, why even include a god? Just assume magic beyond our dimensions randomly sparked our universe with life. But don’t just fill in “I don’t know” with “god” when talking about the cause for our being.

        • I don’t converse with anonymous cowards.

          • John Atherton says:

            @Perry-Fine then here is my name. However I find it funny that YOU took the cowards way out to not respond to the logic that I had laid out. I doubt that you will respond to my logic, even though I am no longer posting anonymously, but at least the people watching will know that YOU are the coward.

            @Stuart-Unless I am misunderstanding you, I believe you are saying that I am the one comparing evolution to the roulette wheel; which I am not! I am referring to Perry’s “Information is embedded in the universe because “GAWD””. My point is the information being analyzed is random but we look for any pattern we can scrounge for. If you look at the number Pi long enough you could make an argument for pattern in the string of numbers, but they don’t have any meaning. They are completely random, non-repeating, and in NO WAY determine my horoscope, your genes, or what the weather will be like today.

            It is completely understandable to be cautious to debate openly, although the internet is a less likely place to be targeted, hunted down, and killed, it is best practice to not share personal information on the internet.
            Since Perry is on his soap box preaching his thoughts, he should be the one that isn’t too pansy to respond to a voice amongst the crowd. Why should my name matter? His answer to a nameless question is more important, and it looks bad when he desperately searches for the coward’s way out from responding.
            In theory it would be nice for everyone to be nameless in a debate; so everyone feels free to participate, safe from repercussions, and equally heard.

            @Perry- Your move coward.

        • Stuart Norey says:

          I don’t think you can compare evolution to spinning a roulette wheel. Evolution ‘selects’ mutations (which might be random copying errors or might be caused by external forces, maybe for example radiation?) that favour survival, reproduction etc in an environment and it ‘deselects’ ones that don’t. I know it’s not as simple as that, but it’s far from random. It’s not chance in the same way red or black is.
          I get using ‘anon’ – Perry doesn’t seem the type to come slit your throat in your sleep, but religion makes people do funny things, however no one ought to be afraid to debate openly.

        • Carey Ogola says:

          who wired our brains thus?

      • Scott Turpin says:

        Proof of God is this.

        God is The I Am That I Am, the One who sent Jesus His Son only, and the One who brought the Israelite out of slavery.

        You have to sit still, listen for The I Am That I Am for 30 to 40 minutes, and He will push your sins in your mind. He will squeeze you from the inside-out. It will be unbearable unless you confess your sins. This is not a meditation, and this is not a psychological bias. This is physical. You have to open your heart up and this will happen.

        Ask my God to prove Himself to you every day. Just seek my God, The I Am That I Am. Eventually, He will respond back through circumstances and events in your life and it will be obvious. This takes time. Just keep on asking Him to respond back.

        We cannot continue in sin; in all sin.

        Christians are committing idolatry worship of Jesus as a God or the God of Love and they need to stop. God will continue His destruction on this nation until Christians stop their idolatry worship.

        For those of you who refuse to do what I say, your life will get worse.

        For those of you who did what I said and you continue in sin, your lives will get even worse.

        If you do not continue in sin, you will be blessed by God.

        Deuteronomy 28.

        • Stuart Norey says:

          Sorry, but that’s not proof of anything.
          There is no proof in the bible, any more than The Hobbit makes Gandalf real.
          There is no proof in your mind either, otherwise every 4 year old makes Santa real!
          Choose to think what you want to, but don’t get that confused with truth and proof.
          And if other want to worship Jesus or even a Teapot, let them, you are in no position to throw stones as God is just an amalgamation of earlier deities anyway.

          • “And if other want to worship Jesus or even a Teapot”

            You know the rules. Stop being a jerk.

            You will be civil and respectful at all times or you’re out.

            Last warning before I ban you permanently.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              I was actually referring to a real thing, I do try my best to stick to facts!

              Sky Kingdom attracted worldwide mass media attention in mid-2005, over concerns about efforts by the Malaysian government to suppress its followers as apostates from Islam. The controversy brought to light the issue of whether sharia law superseded the right to religious freedom under Article 11 of the Constitution of Malaysia. This attention was coupled with considerable bemusement over followers’ central objects of veneration, which include a large cream-coloured teapot, prompting local and foreign media to dub the sect as the “teapot cult”.

              Crazy huh?!

              There is also some sort of pasta cult and apparently Prince Phillip of the UK is worshipped as a God on one pacific island!

              My point is that people ought to be free to do what they want, no matter how crazy, as long as it is not hurting anyone and they don’t go around telling people they’ll go to hell and burn forever etc etc.

              You don’t need to apologise, easy mistake to make.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              My comment was not intended to insult anyone. The Teapot thing is apparently a real Malaysian cult, or was until the dominant local religion shut it down, and should be remembered. At least the pasta cult is still going strong.

              My point is that people can worship how and who they like.

              I’m pretty laid back about that, unlike the guy who had a rant at me – who, by the way, did not get threatened with having his point of view forever silenced.

              I actually feel a bit sorry for followers of religion, you’ve been hoodwinked.

              Where I have an issue is when the rest of the world is expected to give one or more religions a special pass and a soft time yet put up with whatever nonsense comes our way because you are all so sensitive… it is a sad world when, for example, someone’s religion drives them to burn women or non-believers alive or shoot a cartoonist.

              I’m not overly angry at how you are twisting the findings and theories of science, not enough to rant and swear like the other person who posted, but I certainly will challenge it.

              Isn’t this blog meant to be about debate? Or is it just here to recruit or retain in the faith those who cannot see the basic flaws in your logic?

      • Tux says:

        Why does it have to be a higher intelligence that created everything. For that to be true. Would imply the definition of nothing. Before all creation . Is in fact something as the creator needed to be there.
        That then makes me wonder how long it took to finalise the plan how creation should be. Was it unimaginable amount of time. Or being as the idea is so vast and complex . It realised instantly.
        Then all the matter needed to make creation must have been donated by the creator. So once the essence of everything was positioned . For some reason exploded. Then there was light. The other thing is. When the creator was by itself. For maybe so long it would be described as for all time up to that great day. What would it have thought about or did. Couldn’t have done much. It was by itself in nothingness. So what could it have thought about? With no platform or experience what so ever , pass. It seems to me because the creator or God was intelligent. Wouldn’t god have to have been created by himself. It all falls down. Unless the definition of nothing. Had to be something. At least the creator could have been created from nothing. Other than that why can’t our little slice of been created by Alien science ? Would explain why like takes a long time to progress. You would think god would just skip a few thousand years. Past the single cell , you could say. More boring times. Anyway I get stuck with a creator. Where as I like to think. No matter how strange things seem. It’s just nature. Nature takes a good amount of time in anything it doing ! I still don’t know how plants know what attracts certain animals. To help in the plants survival. How do they know rotting flesh, it’s stench is irresistible to it’s prey. Then to recreate the smell from the right combination and amounts of the chemicals needed. I’m lost. They don’t have a brain or a nose. I think if there is a god . Mother nature would her name. That’s my take on all this. Sorry if I’ve upset anyone.

      • Jarrod Briley says:

        I completely understand what you were saying, but I absolutely disagree. Language, information, etc. in no way proves, disproves, or in any way suggests the existence, or lack of existence of a god/deity of any kind.

        Granted, when you start delving into consciousness, things get pretty confusing, and quickly. But, language, information, etc., is merely a way that we explain the reality that we are aware of. But, in and of itself, it not evidence for, or against the existence of a god.

        If every single living thing suddenly ceased to exist, or if sentient beings did exist, but were incapable of any form of communication, then the the universe, the various forces and properties that make everything work the way it does, would still exist. Language, communication, science, math, etc. are all completely irrelevant to existence. They are simply ways that we have developed to understand and communicate what we experience, but existence itself, even sentence, is not predicated upon the ability to communicate or attribute value and parameters to reality.

        It’s a brilliant concept. Very interesting. I’ve been fascinated recently with the concept of existence, sentience, whether or not actual “nothingness” is even a logical or mathematical possibility. This argument adds a new dimension, a concept and variable I hadn’t considered.

        Very very interesting. Kudos! I’ll definitely be explaorinf this idea further.

        • Language doesn’t prove existence. Language proves intention.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          I disagree with some of what you said. Language and evidence can support the existence of God. They’re correlated. For example, no other holy book says that God created outside of time and space. Biblical Scripture does. Astronomical research has shown us that our universe came into existence out of nothing. That’s time, space, matter and energy.

      • Jarrod Briley says:

        LOL…well, I have to say your at least trying to be a bit original. But, you’re premise is critically flawed. But, your thinking about this on a deeper level than I used to fro the folks in your camp. Let’s just put aside whether or not I’m correct, or your correct, that your argument proves the existence of god…just for now. When you say “Proves God,” what, exactly do you mean? Are you saying it proves some kind of intelligent creative force, or are you saying it proves Yahweh, the god of the Bible?

        It is an interesting approach. I’ve kinda heard this before, but I’d really like a bit more…info. I want to make sure I’m fully understanding exactly where your coming from….like logically. I don’t want to start agreeing or disagreeing if I’m not sure we are even talking about the same concept, ya feel me?

        Cheers brother…look forward to hearing more… 🤙

      • Jimmy Brousseau says:

        I enjoyed your presentation. Heard some John Nash and other great minds in your words. Wrote many posts years ago on Catholic Answers Forums using the same information. Two areas you didn’t discuss were plant life in relationship to animals and how for example; a bear is a attracted to a berry bush and then eats the berries. The bear later drops the berries out of the side as seed, along with furtilizer… How does the bear know to eat the berries to survive? And how do berry bushes know that they need the bear? Like the birds and the bees. How do the clouds know the plants need water? And so on, and so forth. It would be nice if you went over things like that and why we need a moon the perfect size, at the right distance and speed to create tides and seasons and that facilitates life?…. How does the Moon know? Keep up the good work!
        Thank you!

      • Lypix Argo says:

        All your argument really boils down to the fact that since we curreny do not know how life was formed on Earth, it must be God because such a mystery only has a divine answer. You’re no better than the people in the dark ages who thought light came from God because they didn’t know how it worked.

        • The point here is that neither Darwin nor David Hume nor Richard Dawkins nor anyone else has solved the design problem in biology. Whether you ultimately believe in God is up to you.

          You are confusing me with the creationists. They’re not looking for a scientific answer; I am. I’ve got $5 million for anyone who can solve this problem and I’m eager for it to be solved. http://www.naturalcode.org.

      • Jarrod Briley says:

        So, the logic and rationale you used to validate your claims, and the claims themselves, are erroneous. I’d be more than willing to explain why. If anyone wants to hear, or discuss, the reasons behind my claim, let me know, and I’ll post a response. But, in my experience (and many MANY unread paragraphs later), I’ve learned that posting, what some people would consider contentious, is often wasted time, as my posts are frequently deleted. I e been looking for a good debate, so I’ll put that offer on the table, as well. If anyone does want to debate, I’ll get my information to you, and we can arrange something.

      • Nelson Hernandez says:

        I’m late to the party so I apologize. Since I know where you’re headed. Show me a mind existing without a brain?

        Also, there isn’t code in DNA. Those are just letters we give chemical interactions to be able to talk about them. There isn’t a code in DNA. That’s like saying there is a code in the rain/water cycle. Nonsense.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          There are many more codes and processes before we get to DNA. What’s the fascination with DNA?

        • Nelson,

          There’s a guy who often comments on this site, his name is Tom Godfrey. He is a young earth creationist. He believes the universe is 6000 years old and only “looks billions of years old.” He says that science cannot be used to determine history, only the Bible.

          Nobody but young earth creationists ever says this. Because the YEC worldview forbids people from thinking otherwise.

          You believe that DNA only “looks like a code”. You believe that code is only a convenient way humans use to talk about it, but it’s not really code. My experience is, only atheists say this. Because the atheist worldview forbids people thinking otherwise.

          What’s the difference between a YEC who thinks the age of the earth is an illusion and an atheist who thinks the genetic code is an illusion?

          Have not both camps invented their own version of science in order to avoid what would otherwise be painfully obvious?

          • Just to be clear, I’m not asserting that there’s no possible naturalistic explanation for the genetic code. I’ve got a $5 million prize for anyone who can figure out how. http://www.naturalcode.org. You don’t even have to argue about whether it’s a code or not. All you need is something that “looks like a code” and you’ll win the money.

      • Bobby Richardson says:

        Facts. For the life of me, I don’t understand how people can’t understand this. Information put evolution out of its misery years ago, people need to quit unburying the dead. It’s over, accept it and move on. Information, or letters/numbers/grammar-syntax/math, and the symbols representing them are special. One cannot exist without the other. Without numbers/math-arithmetic. Facts. For the life of me, I don’t understand how people can’t understand this. Information put evolution out of its misery years ago, people need to quit unburying the dead. It’s over, accept it and move on. Information, or letters/numbers or grammar-syntax/math-arithmetics, and the symbols which represent them are special. One cannot exist without the other. Without numbers/math-arithmetic, Grammar/syntax can’t exist. Neither can math-arithmetics exist without grammar/syntax. Let me show you: car-is a 3 letter word, without numbers or math, their is no way language can contain structure or syntax. And on the opposite side, there is no way for you to understand numbers or math, what they are, what they can or can’t do, without a language to explain them. One CANNOT exist before or without the other. This is why the hebrew/Greek/Latin alphabet was alphanumeric, their letters were also their numbers. So when someone tells you language is a man made construct feel free to laugh them to scorn. The universe is bound BY information. Information does not originate from within the universe. There is no planet where letters originate. 4 wasn’t born on krypton, and they damn sure don’t evolve. But numbers/letters or math/vocabulary-grammar are apart of a language that is the makeup of the information in our universe. IT’S EVERYWHERE, IN EVERYTHING. Now, if I wrote the number 3 on a piece of paper, then set the paper on fire, did kill 3. NO. IT’S ONLY A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE NUMBER 3. INFORMATION CAN NOT BE DESTROYED BECAUSE IT DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE WHEN THE UNIVERSE DID. IT IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST, GIVING IT ORDER AND STRUCTURE. INFORMATION CREATES MATTER, MATTER CAN NOT CREATE INFORMATION, IT ONLY STORES A COPY OF THE INFORMATION WHICH CREATES IT, NOT THE ORIGINAL. INFORMATION ONLY COMES FROM A MIND. I’LL PROVE IT. SAY YOU WANTED TO DESTROY ALL INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOWN TO THE LAST ATOM. LET’S SAY YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL, DOES INFORMATION NO LONGER EXIST. NO, BECAUSE IT COMES FROM A MIND, ALL THAT INFORMATION IS STILL IN YOUR MIND, AS YOUR THINKING TO YOURSELF IN YOUR LANGUAGE. YOU STILL KNOW MATH, HOPEFULLY, ANYWAY. IF YOU KILLED YOURSELF, INFORMATION STILL EXISTS, IN THE MIND OF HIM WHO IT ORIGINATED. Think about it, while we were supposedly monkeys, swinging from our tails from trees, the planets were orbiting the sun in accordance to the various laws and mathematical equations that they are bound and governed. We can go back to any point in time to find the exact locations of planets USING MATH-shout out to keppler. YES, EVEN WHILE WE WERE SUPPOSEDLY MONKEYS. But if we didn’t create math who did, and how are they able to make the universe obey it. This is just 1 of a million issues with the lie of evolution. Its why when I debate evolutionist, I slay ’em. Its not that im right, it’s the truth. What is truth, and Why does truth exist. Why is it that truth can only be revealed, discovered/found, or given and NEVER created, or destroyed. How does truth, which can only be known or understood by intelligence, exist whether there is intelligence capable of receiving it or not. Example: The sun will rise in the east and sets in the west (as viewed from earth) whether humans (or any other sentient beings people want to make up) exist or not. Funny that a lie only exist in man’s reality, in which the lie is hiding the truth. The truth never stops existing, just because it’s not known. Like the old proverb declares: “3 things are not long hidden in this world; the sun, the moon, and THE TRUTH”

      • Elijaha Gaines says:

        I’m sir yea this is the true God and I’m just going to cut straight to the point I’m looking for message like these that help me confirm I am god

      • Breanna Litts says:

        Seriously thank you for realizing this as well you can google where does information in dna come from all day it will not tell you a thing because there is only one source for it a external mind that programmed said information ….all matter and energy contain information whether its physical structure or behavior all things are based of information that was seemingly precoded within

      • Richard Coyne says:

        “DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.”
        Sorry but this just is not true, DNA never corrects its self and also never analyzes its self to fix errors either! DNA is simply a pattern of chemicals arranged in random orders formed from random mutations that natural selection deemed beneficial. Also the assumption that DNA is perfectly designed for an organism is also very false. If you want proof of this just look around you! Some common DNA copying errors have resulted in some of the deadliest diseases and viruses humans have ever come into contact with. Some examples of some of the less deadly and more common ones would be Psoriasis, Vitiligo , Hemophilia, Sickle cell anemia, Microcephaly, Colour blindness, Osteogenesis imperfecta, The list goes on and on, all the result of DNA being imperfect. So no, DNA is not perfect and dose not require a coder, it is a simple pattern of nature. Also if it was simply a pattern of nature wouldn’t that make sense? You would think that if there was in fact a god that was encoding everything, genetics and DNA wouldn’t end up making so many mistakes, like Psoriasis. Anyway good attempt, but it’s not enough. First you gotta prove that genes are in fact codes and not just patterns of nature (which btw science disagrees on)

        • There are thousands of papers on DNA error correction. The 2015 Nobel was about precisely that.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Well, DNA doesn’t correct errors, other structures do. And the process identifies and corrects potential errors during ‘copying’, to prevent them, I am not aware of a process/structure that wanders around the cell, like an engineer with a clipboard, checking DNA already there and correcting it.
            This is why we have eg cancer, bad copies that are then replicated and spread? The way the body stops cancer is not fixing cells, it kills them, assuming it even recognised them as ‘enemies’.
            Viruses etc can alter DNA in situ, essentially where CRISPR technique comes from?

            • The technical answer to the question is here and similar sites:


              I believe the motivation behind these questions, though, is the issue of whether or not life is purposeful. You seem to be objecting that life can’t be purposeful because we have things like cancer.

              The existence of things like cancer is itself proof that life is purposeful.

              If it is possible to say that a system is doing something “wrong” then the system by definition is purposeful. It’s not possible to say that a rock or bucket of sand or an orbiting planet is “doing it wrong.” It just does what it does, obeys the laws of physics, and that is it.

              It is obviously possible to say that a cell has copied correctly or that a DNA error has occurred. Therefore DNA is purposeful.

              Cancer has its own purpose, which is what makes it cancer. It’s when cells effectively declare mutiny and start evolving on their own, independently of the rest of the body (which may in fact recognize it as an enemy). Life is purposeful.

              • Jack Ellis says:

                I suppose it depends what you mean by purposeful. “ having a useful purpose; acting with a clear aim and with determination”. If it’s the former, everything probably has a purpose, if it’s the latter, DNA doesn’t act and isn’t guided, it’s just a string of ‘chemicals’. It’s certainly not undeniable evidence of god, as you claim.

      • craig wood says:

        how can I find faith to think that there is a creator that would not give his work the feelings of despair ,loneliness ,fear ,PAIN ,upset ,the love for our lovely pets and the fear of been without our loved ones what code is that for Perry????

    • Mel says:

      Interesting comments here, but I see that not many have really researched life, nor have they completed a comparative analyzes of historical facts.

      I respect those here with their many comments for each of us are on our own spiritual plateau of life. But for one to make a statement which will affect another’s life, they need to back it up with facts, and I don’t see many bona fide facts here.

      First of all, I believe in a God that can be easily proven, not a fictitious God, which is make-believe and has no substance.

      We, as individuals are not puppets, we are responsible spiritual entities, responsible for our many thoughts, feelings and creations in our individual lives!

      Next, all the many religions on our planet are man-made, and should one spend the time to research deep in history, this fact is easily proven.

      Now, should one really want to realize their basic aspect of life, they only need to look in the mirror, and then they will observe a responsible individual, one who has created their individual life, no other has created them..

      Neville once stated, “”In the beginning was the unconditioned awareness which imagined itself to be. As it imagined itself to be, it became that which it imagined itself to be!” And this is a cosmic law which has existed for zillions of years.. Simply, “As One Gives, So Shall They Receive!” And this is the basic foundation of the word, “Responsibility!”

      Responsibility…. A word with a massive amount of receiving, that which ones gives, whether consciously, or subconsciously. For those reading my post, they need to fully realize the meaning of the word, “RESPONSIBILITY!” For this word is, their cornerstone in life!

      Next, let’s discuss the bible, it is full of contradictions, which is sad, but true! The next question is how many bibles were in history, and which bible was carried to America by the Pilgrims, it wasn’t the KJV? Which of the many bibles in history should one associate with, and why?

      Perry Marshall states that he can prove God, well, it is simple to prove that God does exist, but not in an imaginary form!

      For one to believe in fiction, they are grossly wasting their valuable time, for each of us are in our respective life to spiritually learn something, and to believe in an entity that cannot be proven is stunting ones individual spiritual growth!

      Next, the individual spirit needs to be not only discussed, but realized..

      Each of us are Individual’s, A Spiritual Individual, and this is easily proven by a walk through any morgue. Here one will observe deceased physical bodies, but they are lifeless. What was giving any of those lifeless bodies was their Individual Spirit….. Note, I stated…. Individual, which is one of the keys to both our inner spiritual life, and its material world that he/she desires to create, and/or, have created in their individual life..

      Health is a spiritual aspect of life, and what we consume each day determines our health for tomorrow, thusly, one needs to be aware of what they desire to put into their body, for our physical body is our vehicle in this lifetime, well proven again, by a walk through any morgue.. And, with good health our mental and inner spiritual processes are at their peak performance, thusly, the creative expressions of one!

      Life is Absolutely Phenomenal, and each of us have evolved through eons of time, we just didn’t happen by chance, nor by the creation of a fictitious entity…

      Each of us are responsible individual spirits and are totally responsible for our thoughts, feelings and our material world, there is no cop-out in life.

      I see that the Big Bang was discussed, there can only be one explanation, which is in the realm of logic, of the black hole phenomenon. Should one compress matter to the nth degree, it will turn into pure energy, and finally into a singularity, and of course light cannot escape at this realm.

      This is the process which created the big bang, including others like it, in other dimensions. How many other universes exist? This quantity is unknown and could be in a figure which is not understood by our present spiritual minds, and presently will never be understood, and really does not matter for our individual creative abilities.

      A few scientists have concurred that we are living in a black hole, and should one understand the concept of both the big band, and of the collapse of matter, they will understand our existence at this moment of time, in our beautiful and chaotic universe, which is our home for now…

      Lastly, a few questions for one to ponder..

      Who Are You?
      What Are You?
      Why Are You Here?
      What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
      Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
      Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
      What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?

      Have A Most Beautiful Life All, For Your Existence Is Your Creation!

      • Mel Mayfield says:

        Hi Perry, or whoever you are who replied to me in e’mail..

        I downloaded your reply to me from e’mail into my word processor and read it over several times. I find that you are lacking much information about life, and that you are attempting to press your limited knowledge onto another by a lot of gibberish.

        Superman is a comic book hero, is fiction and is nothing that one can depend upon.

        Perry, or whoever you are, I really suggest that you study history, in depth, as I have, and then, perhaps you will be able to answer the simple questions that I have posed to you. There are many more questions, and in time, after you have successfully answered the posted questions, I’ll upload a few more.

        What you e’mailed to me relates nothing about life, just a lot of assumptions.

        Perry, if you truly have any knowledge of life, then answer my simple questions publicly, and they are simple if you have researched life in depth, otherwise they are quite difficult. If you wish, I’ll answer them for you, but if you request my assistance, then the assumption is, that you do not know the answers.

        I’m not a game player, I believe in life in its many aspects, and am well knowledgeable, responsible and adjusted to help another without presenting gibberish.

        Lastly, I leave you with the following:

        “If I Give A Man A Fish, I Feed Him For A Day, Should I Teach A Man To Fish, I Feed Him For A Lifetime!” This is an old Chinese proverb and is very true!

        One more for you, “With All Thy Getting, Get Knowledge!” And this is from Shakespeare..

        Perry, this is something to seriously think about, for a Teacher poses a very serious responsibility, and I have stated publicly, Responsibility reaps our many tomorrows..

        Life is meant to share knowledge, but the knowledge must be factual for Karma is always working, every moment of the day/night!

        Love Is You Perry, make sure that you express knowledge truthfully, and if you don’t know the answers, do some research before any presentation…

        • Mel,

          I fail to find a single factual scientific statement in your post, which can be evaluated or debated. If you have questions then post them here.


          • Mel Mayfield says:

            Hi Perry,

            Here are the questions again..

            Lastly, a few questions for one to ponder..

            Who Are You?
            What Are You?
            Why Are You Here?
            What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
            Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
            Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
            What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?

            • You can find out who I am at http://www.evo2.org/bio

              As to the rest of these things, the answers are self evident from the website.

              There is pain and suffering because people have choices and we use these choices to inflict pain upon others. Pain exists because it is necessary for us to avoid further injury.

              I have deleted the rest of your posts because I see no interest in engaging real dialogue, only incredulous insulting statements that do not appear to be seeking knowledge. The few legitimate questions you have raised are mixed with condescension and vitriol and this is unacceptable. If you want to post them publicly you will need to litter someone else’s site, not mine.

              If you wish to ask a question then ask it respectfully. Over and out.

      • GM says:

        Yes, God is real…the Bible has attempted to explain the who, what , where ,when and how of God. It is the closes thing available to Christians. If anyone studies the Bible they find God has no form. The entire premise the Bible is founded on is man’s interpretation of God. I believe humanity has created their own ficticious God. When Genesis was written scientific evidence wasn’t available, if it was no one would have understood. The Bible says God is Spirit and so are we, my spirit is in my body… one has convinced me it will ever be anywhere but my body. When the body dies does the spirit also die?
        Religious ritualistic lunacy has become accepted as worshiping God. A person gives their interpretation of their faith and people are suppose to want to follow the religious leaders.
        Any one with a brain knows it is impossible to prove or disprove something that doesn’t have a form. Meaning it is impossible to prove something that is in another time space contiueum, from our present state of time.
        A black hole is a star that has colapsed on itself and gravity doesn’t let light out. I don’t believe we live in a black hole. I have never in 40 years of studying cosmology heard such. Dark and anti matter art two entirely different things.

        Mr. Marshall can prove the existence of God? Not really it still takes faith.

        • I have proven the existence of God, only to the extent that science can prove anything. Which is not deductive proof, but 100% inference. Entropy, conservation of energy and DNA being designed by an intelligent agent all have equal probability of being true.

          • GM says:

            I believe words like entrophy and probability are the key to your hypothesis. If they infer for you the existence of Spirit God then that’s great.
            I personally believe Spirit God exist and has to be laughing at his creation. The Spirit God isn’t the work horse of the religious man. I laugh at them for thinking they have Spirit God wrapped up in a box. Spirit God is only capable of producing life. SG gives and takes life.
            No person can spark life. It takes life to produce life.

          • Tux says:

            Is it right that the only way to get in heaven. You have to have faith?
            Who are the exceptions ?
            Are there exceptions ?
            Is this written in the good book. I don’t know much about the bible . I’m sure I’ve heard this a few times over the years …..

      • ron taylor says:

        Mel ,

        I think you have definitely made some very important observations .

        Atheists suffer from a profoundly mortal deficiency by choosing , either wittingly or unwittingly , to be incapable of comprehending the relationship between their present wellbeing and a future reality empowered by a timewise a priori Supreme Being – God . Consequently , they are unable to connect their present to their future . They refuse to believe that God is immanent , has transcendent powers and is manifestly unique to each theistic individual . Atheists disingenuously accept the fatalistic consequences of the simultaneous operations of two universally general biological laws – the law of competition for vital resources ( between and within species of beings ) and the imperative of reproduction ( common to all living organisms / beings ) which is governed by natural cycles ; and in the case of mankind , additional social , cultural , economic , religious , personal and political concerns affect that imperative . The undefeated Malthusian doctrine addresses those fatalistic consequences . Atheists believe there is nothing more than present knowledge available to mitigate those fatalistic consequences . Christian theism accepts available divine guidance in the absence of sufficient present knowledge . Islamic theism attempts to secure a divine future with the command of Allah ( not God ) as given in the Quran – ” K I L L infidels … “.

      • greyfox says:

        Anything is possible Perry. It’s even possible that you are God in
        disguise and that you have constructed this site to test us.
        It’s highly unlikely but in your world it is possible. You are probably saying “this is nonsense” and you would be right.

      • greyfox says:

        Our tombstones will all read the same. “I was not, I was, I am not”

        Our inability to come to grips with this, simple truth, has
        motivated our construct of a “God” and an afterlife.

        I love these questions submitted by Mel.

        Who Are You?
        I am an individual.

        What Are You?
        A Human being.

        Why Are You Here?
        I could swim faster than the rest.

        What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
        I had no preconceived notion of what I might accomplish.

        Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
        If it was procreation, then yes.

        Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
        That’s a tough one.

        What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?
        It would be arrogant of me to answer that. Are they the same for everyone?

      • Stuart Norey says:

        Hello. While I like the sentiment of what you are saying, there are not ‘proofs’ for much of what you state as fact.

        There is no proof for a god of any sort, personal or supernatural.

        There is no proof for ‘Karma’ as you mention in your later post. ‘Shit’ really does just happen. In fact, entropy means there are infinitely more things that can cause a situation to go wrong than the one or two things that can cause it to go the way you’d like – that is why we dont find self assembling sandcastles (although they are statistically possible, I suppose) and the ones we build very quickly degrade (waves, kids, dogs wind etc get them) into things that are no longer sandcastles. Karma is just another example of humans seeking patterns and wanting to attach meaning to everything.

        There is no proof for a ‘spirit’ that inhabits us or lives beyond us, in fact many of the findings of science would suggest there is not a spirit and that your statement below is incorrect:

        ‘Each of us are Individual’s, A Spiritual Individual, and this is easily proven by a walk through any morgue. Here one will observe deceased physical bodies, but they are lifeless. What was giving any of those lifeless bodies was their Individual Spirit’

        Those bodies are most likely exactly what a human is, an amazing machine, part of which is an even more amazing brain with a whole host of processes (call them algorithms if you will, refined by billions of years of evolution) that result in us being self aware and feeling like we are something else inhabiting a body and making all the decisions consciously. On death we most likely cease to be, or at least the cells that make our bodies and brains cease to function as living bodies and brains do. Of course we get recycled into something else, who knows maybe matter even retains some memory of previous forms – although I doubt one that could be recalled later or one that can still form into what one might call a soul or spirit?

        Beyond surviving to reproduce, we dont have a grand purpose that the universe of the rest of life cares about, in fact it does not appear to ‘care’ about us even surviving and reproducing.

        BUT we can give human life purpose and I think we should – for me it ought to be the pursuit and use of knowledge (rational thinking i.e. the scientific method would seem to be the best way to do this) for the survival and betterment of the individual, society, humanity, our eco-system and pretty much everything else in the universe. Alongside that we ought to pursue the things that enrich our societies and culture – music, literature, art etc. We should also develop strong and sensible morals and values and, yes, take responsibility for ourselves and our societies.

        Traditional religion would have us think this life is about preparing for the next one and honouring whatever god(s) our society has ‘invented’. Of course religion can be a great force for good (do charitable works and god will save you a place, do bad things and you will burn for eternity) and for bad (kill those of other religions and god will save you a space, women/children are possessions, god demands you sacrifice your son/daughter to make it rain etc).

        Debate is healthy, but we all really need to be honest with ourselves and others about what is theory and what is fact. Faith is NOT fact, faith is the acceptance of something absent of fact/proof. Scientific theories are not fact either, they are ideas supported by varying levels of evidence that can be further tested and refined. There are of course numerous facts that have been discovered by science that disprove ‘theories’ of the bible, and very few (if any) facts in the bible that disprove the theories of science.

        • Tux says:

          Faith is a cruel requisite.
          To have blind faith in something that has had no substance in your life. That has shown no help with a life of cruelty and despair. Shown no mercy to the innocent or broken. Why would a loving heavenly father even expect it ? That doesn’t sound like a celestial loving creator. Sounds at best less than human. Why would you let the same destructive behaviour to occur time and time again? If it was my universe I would have sorted out problems like that after a day. What do I know ? I’m just a Joe …..

    • Marc80 says:

      G’day Perry,

      Just watched your presentation on information and the existence of God. Just thought I’d add that in my view, both evolution, and intelligent design(or the existence of a creator) can both, and I think do exist. If an animal or human was made a certain way to live on earth at or near it’s inception, the earth and it’s environment was a lot different then, the climate, different vegetation etc. , even the continents being joined, then separating over time, so it is feasible to think that the design would change or mutate over time to better adapt to it’s changing environment. The only way for evolution to be deemed as being also created and written into DNA is to say that God or Creator planned for every single event in history so far, and the plan worked perfectly and is still working perfectly without a single mistake or malfunction.

      Cheers, Marc

    • Phievalon says:

      Inspired by your article, I wrote a poem…

      A Question Of Information

      I want to ask a question that may shake you to the bone
      And the answer could disturb you when you realize it’s true.
      You might not walk away without a limp once you know
      Because the facts become a stone inside your shoe.

      Imagine planet earth, not long beyond the dawn of time;
      When forces shaped the empty, wasted surface of our sphere;
      When chemical reactions worked the gathered dust and grime
      Together in the placeless void where stars had first appeared.

      Fill your mind with wonder as the rock that is our home
      Spins slowly ’round through eons in a vacant, burning sky.
      Then watch the surface buckle and erupt with molten ooze,
      While continental crusts emerge in mountainous divides.

      Wonder, at the mindless laws that work upon our world,
      Then gasp, if you can breathe, as tiny molecules combine.
      And remember, if you can, the laws of energy and matter
      Have never yet produced a life, or formed a living mind.

      And as we sit imagining, brains full of information,
      Bodies breathing, cells dividing, minds in focused contemplation
      Consider too, that all we know, and still confirm each day,
      Is more that plainly obvious. Don’t let it slip away.

      Make your heart accept and trust what every person knows
      What all our science verifies, and every day we find,
      That laws controlling matter are helpless to create
      The information that can only emerge from living minds

      And years ago, on planet earth, no thoughts had yet appeared;
      No wisdom or intention graced the toxic atmosphere;
      No source of information had arisen from the dust
      And not a single thought was there to doubt nor was there one to trust.

      Then suddenly, according to our earthen crust of strata
      This lifeless, mindless planet was awash with information.
      DNA, the complex codes of living data-compression
      Written into dirt, began to harness all creation

      And the only source of information science can confirm
      Is still a mind that can conceive or a soul that can discern
      And so the question is quite simple now that we reached our goal;
      Who’s information was it that made dust become a soul?

    • encinafun says:

      Hi Perry,
      I”m on your side! If I may as the evolutionists, how long does it take an amoeba to transform into a shark, whale or an elephant? And how long can it take a Chimp, given the perfect evolutionist condition, to metamorphosize into a human-super brain. Evidence of the reality of a master designer abounds everywhere, right under our noses- and he is watching, laughing at our self-inflicted ignorance.

    • Paradise Holding says:

      As the wizard was behind the curtain in, “Wizard of Ozz”. God must behind creative acts. Super Collidar in Switzerland has revealed dark matter that was theorized before. This seems to be the last piece of the puzzle of creation. Creation attempts to bring infinity and finity together.

    • Kevin Cobb says:

      I think you are mistaken in a fundamental way as to whether the chicken or the egg came first. Saying that the existence of information is proof of the existence of God is like saying that the fact that we see 7 colors is proof that 7 is a spiritually significant number. In this latter case, the solution, the truth is that we see an uncountable variety of colors, and we can only see them because our eyes evolved to see them. There is evidence that some creatures actually perceive more colors than we can, in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum. Also mind you that the color and sound spectra are probably infinite continuum, and we can only see a tiny sliver.

      The relevance of this metaphor is to say that what you see as information and mind is only a human concept and understanding of what is happening, which is to say, a limited one. What God is, or how it operates is surely far beyond and much more subtle than can be grasped at with “information”. I think it is belittling to God to suggest that it uses a “mind” as you understand it.

      Furthermore, when scientists and atheists suggest that life could arise without God, they are simply saying that they believe that whatever causes all of this strange beauty and horror did not, and could not reasonably have had Humans and Earth at the center of his creation of the universe. They also deny that God is as petty and Human-like as he is often claimed to be, which he would have to be if he really represented your idea of a mind. The thing that causes the universe, whether you call it nature, the Tao, Brahman, or God is not being denied. Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be. Saying “God doesn’t exist” is more a claim against your understanding . How can you claim with your finite mind to know something that is infinite, and in so doing deny the reality in front of you?

      Is DNA really “information”, or simply what it is?

      • A young earth creationist says “The universe only APPEARS to be 13 billion years old.” (Even though we have entire libraries of evidence that this is indeed the case.)

        An atheist says “DNA only APPEARS to be information.” (Even though we have entire professions like bioinformatics that give us incredibly useful tools for genetics and medicine.)

        What’s the difference?

        Anybody notice the pattern of both extremists putting ideology above science? Above what you can personally see, feel, hear, touch, taste, analyze and understand?

        I find it LAUGHABLE how atheist fundamentalists deny reality at every turn! “The universe only APPEARS to be fine tuned… Genomes only APPEAR to contain information… DNA only APPEARS to be code… Living things only APPEAR to be purposeful. Humans only APPEAR to have a spiritual nature… On and on it goes.

        This is Exhibit “A” of psychological denial. It’s like a woman with anorexia looking at herself in a mirror and insisting that “I’m fat.”

        In my view, nobody will ever be able to say with a straight face “Wait a minute God, there wasn’t enough evidence!”

        WAKE UP. The evidence is all around you. It’s embedded in the very language you use to describe things.

        And it’s evidence enough.

        Kevin, when you say “Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be” … I don’t know very many theologians who would disagree with you. You are closer to God than you think.

    • sarah paul says:

      oh my

    • Lostxkemo says:

      There are many things that you did not consider in your theory, like the fact that time is also not living in the conventional sense with even less characteristics than a stone or even an atom, time does not exist in a material state yet matter cannot exist without time, nor can a human think in any way without using time.
      so time creates all information, and all information is within time, and time does not have a mind.
      I am a christian tho, I would rather prove God by saying that the bigbang canot have happened because time is relative to space and for there to be nothing, including time, there would not have been any time for the event to have taken place.
      unless this event happened outside of time which implies that time was created, but then again, to create something you would need time.
      if you traveled from point a to point b but used no time, you would basically not have the space between the two points, but what if you traveled at that same speed but did not allocate point b, it would both stop to exist and gain eternal existence, this is clearly the two opposite ends of time, zero and infinity so time was never created, time was the only thing that could have possibly happened in the absence of time. considering this, nothingness cannot be accelerated because it is nothing also there would be no time for speed and if movement then is impossible, time is also impossible.
      so God created time.

    • dr Hemant Kumar says:

      Dear friend –It sounds so funny when someone says there is no God . God has been there since time immemorial .It is not the God particle which is also termed as the Higgs- Boson particle ..If you remember the experiment conducted in Switzerland and the tunnel was roughly 23 kilometers long and two particles with the same charges were made to collide which was next to impossible and this was the basis of it .Remember there was tremendous amount of energy produced .I wonder if God can be so small ” ‘ .The Bible speaks of God Almighty not in the particulate form without any shape or size.He created us in his own image therefore he has to be like us .Friends we are just trying to unearth the mysteries of the created things by the Creator and God definitely would not show his form or being and why .The face of God was created that became radiant in the form of Jesus Christ . We too are created in HIS OWN IMAGE what a great God and then why should He reveal to us as human beings being tiny dots in the entire universe full of sinful nature right from the time when our milestones develop under the three headings -MOTOR ,ADAPTIVE ,LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL .Have a good time!!!!

    • YourGodIsExtraterrestrials says:

      Oh I can riddle it for you.
      The “code” came from the ancient astronauts who were here living on earth long before we were thought of. They manipulated the DNA of the “evolved” Ape-like creature and created humans. It’s simple. Good day!

    • Mr Mike says:

      “DNA has a four-letter alphabet”

      That is very dishonest, we assign letters of the alphabet to it, it’s not like when it was discovered, there were little letters appearing under the microscope.

      And your argument is utterly flawed. If a mind, or something capable of thinking HAS to have been created by another, than god must have been created by another ‘being’.

      And if god, (with his capability to think), didn’t need creating by another form of intelligence, then you can’t claim the ‘logic’ that we needed to be.

      You’re basically falling into the same trap that so many do, of coming up with a logical argument for one thing, than ignoring your own logic for the other, because it suits what you want to be true.

      • Mr. Mike,

        No anonymous posts. Use your real full name or you will be banned.

      • David Altman says:

        The term you’re looking for is “Special Pleading,” and it happens all the time on this forum. Everything that we’ve seen from humans has been designed, so naturally, we look at the universe, and assume it must have been designed also. Only human minds can create other human minds – so our minds must originally have been created by another mind – except for God, of course. This form of special pleading means that the rules apply to everything EXCEPT God.

        Either the rules apply to EVERYTHING, or they apply to NOTHING. Take your pick; you can’t have it both ways. Why this channel continues to exist (as well as the many pages devoted to flat earth, magic, clairvoyance, esp, chakras, etc., etc.) is beyond me.

        • David,

          No theist here is even pretending that God obeys the same laws of cause and effect as the physical universe. So if you want to call that a special pleading I suppose you can do that.

          Can you resolve this question without making a special pleading yourself?

          Give it a go.

          • David Altman says:

            Certainly. There are observable rules in the physical universe – cause & effect, gravity, even the “laws” of logic are based on what we observe.

            If our observations lead us to believe that it takes a mind to create a mind, then it logically follows that the mind of God must also, therefore have been created. To attempt to argue otherwise is a case of special pleading.

            If it DOESN’T take a mind to create a mind, then God need not have been created – but then, it logically follows that we didn’t need to be created, either.

            The naturalistic explanation for the rise of all life provided by science (with mountains of uncontrovertable evidence to support it) doesn’t “need” deity. In point of fact, science can’t study the question of God – because God won’t “allow” Himself to be put under a microscope.

            Either God is beyond our ability to study – a technology that will forever elude us – or God CAN be studied. If God can be studied, God can be proven. No study = no proof, leaving God in the category of belief only. For science to accept the idea of deity, there must be empirical evidence, a repeatable test or a logically coherent argument to show that such a being exists at all; without those, all we have is an idea.

            Now, the lack of proof does NOT mean that there is no God – God could very well exist, beyond our means to study Him. But why not give us some proof? Why be so elusive? Why make it so difficult to choose among the over 6,000 different deities to know the “right” one? These are questions philosophers have raised for thousands of years.

            There seem to be two options. Either God is natural, and part of the natural universe, and is therefore able to be studied; perhaps we don’t have technology that’s advanced enough yet.

            The other option is that God ISN’T natural, that is, that He is supernatural. There’s a problem with this idea, though; the person proposing this bears the burden of proof to show that such a category exists… and there’s no empirical evidence, repeatable test or logical argument to demonstrate that supernatural is a thing that exists at all.

            So, IF supernatural things exist, God (by definition) would HAVE to be supernatural; all of the laws of physics, time, space, logic and so on would not apply to Him at all. In other words, God could indeed create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift – a paradox. As a supernatural being, part of His nature COULD be an immunity to paradox.

            That’s a whole lotta supposition there, and absolutely NO evidence for it whatsoever. AS FAR AS WE HAVE OBSERVED, things have a cause. This is the clearest, most honest statement we can make as a species at this point in our development. We CANNOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause – because we haven’t seen everything. And just because everything we’ve seen has a cause doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING has a cause.

            And then… and then there’s quantum physics. In quantum physics we observe:

            Effect following cause.
            Cause following effect.
            Cause without effect; and
            Effects with no cause.

            All of the rules go out the window. Perhaps God exists in a quantum state; but again, we’d need some kind of evidence to show that.

            The main problem is this: You can’t define God without proof – and God refuses to prove Himself. You MUST blindly believe, without question, that God exists, in order to please Him (Hebrews 11:6).

            Christians who claim that they have “proof” of God have been shown, time and again, to be making false claims. But those people are treading even worse ground: If they HAD some kind of proof, they wouldn’t NEED faith – and without faith, they’d have no relationship with God, and therefore no salvation. So, if you’re a Christian, you’d better have NO proof of God, not seek any proof, and just believe – whether it makes sense to or not.

            People believe in all sorts of things: ESP, clairvoyance, magic, unicorns, the flat earth, that dinosaurs and man lived together, that crystals have power, that copper (or magnets) will affect arthritis, that chakras exist, and so on. Every one of these things has been completely debunked as false.

            The question of God’s existence remains open. People cannot “disprove” God any more than a person can “prove” God. You can’t prove a negative. The God of the Bible may indeed exist on some level – but certainly not as preached in any of the churches in existence today.

            I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. This makes me a Christian by definition. There’s no evidence that such a person as Jesus ever existed – so I take His existence on faith. I believe in the IDEA of Jesus. Whether we got the facts about Him right or not, I believe in HIM: A totally good man, who wisely taught and led others, to love everyone no matter what; a person whose life was SO good that He actually was able to take on our sin, and thus purify us for eternal life.

            I believe, however, that God used the force called evolution to shape life on earth over billions of years. The reason for this is simple: Evolution has been conclusively proven to be a fact. Either I deny that fact (and thus reject science), or I accept that fact. If I accept the facts, and if I believe in God, then it must be that GOD did it; God caused evolution.

            In point of fact, according to the Biblical account of creation, God did not create animal life nor plants. It says “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth…'” (Gen. 1:11; Gen 1:24). To me, this absolutely screams evolution. God gave the earth a pattern to follow and said, effectively: “Here! Go follow this pattern! Follow these rules!” The earth, under God’s command, did so – using the principles of evolution to “bring forth” plants and animals.

            If the sign says “bridge out,” I can choose to believe it or disbelieve it. Whether I believe it or not does not change the facts. If the fact is that the bridge is actually out, then I will die if I attempt to drive across. That is an unavoidable fact.

            By the same token, I do not “believe” in evolution. My belief in evolution would have no impact on the fact that it is true. I do ACCEPT that it is true, rather than DENYING that it is true. The people who claim the earth is flat are DENYING all of the facts that conclusively demonstrate that the earth is, in fact, an oblate spheroid.

            DNA is NOT a language, no matter how you stretch the definition. The arguments the author of this page is making have been debunked thousands of times. They’re just plain wrong, and full of logical fallacies.

            If someone, somewhere, has a logical argument for God – one that hasn’t already been thoroughly debunked – I, for one, would love to see it. A coherent, logical argument for God could win a person millions of dollars, worldwide fame, and the respect of billions. Sadly, I’m more skeptical than ever that such an argument exists.

            • If our observations lead us to believe that it takes a mind to create a mind, then it logically follows that the mind of God must also, therefore have been created. To attempt to argue otherwise is a case of special pleading.
              If it DOESN’T take a mind to create a mind, then God need not have been created – but then, it logically follows that we didn’t need to be created, either.

              So explain to me where life comes from. Bring evidence too, please. Because “if God doesn’t have to be created then we don’t either” is another special pleading on your part.

              The naturalistic explanation for the rise of all life provided by science (with mountains of uncontrovertable evidence to support it) doesn’t “need” deity. In point of fact, science can’t study the question of God – because God won’t “allow” Himself to be put under a microscope.

              You do not seem to have studied this question.

              Origin of life is the most unsuccessful field in all of science. The only scientific statement we can confidently say about origin of life is that life always comes from life. There is almost nothing we can say about origin of life that currently qualifies as empirical science. If you disagree, please present evidence.

              So you just made a special pleading right there.

              You have also significantly misrepresented quantum mechanics. If what you say here was true, people would be causing matter to spontaneously appear and they’re not. Quantum mechanics does not violate conservation of matter and energy.

              ESP, clairvoyance – all rigorously demonstrated – over and over again over the last 100 years. See “Margins of Reality” by Jahn and Dunne or “Conscious Universe” by Radin.

              DNA is language. See

              More lingusitics of DNA – excerpt from Evolution 2.0:


              P.S.: The reason there is “no evidence for God” is you have disqualified all of evidence in advance. Another special pleading on your part.

              • Stuart Norey says:

                Oh come on, Radin? I’ve read that book, its full of errors and twists the evidence!

                Science would appear to have shown how the building blocks for life are present, the conditions they need to combine, how they combine etc. Granted it’s not ‘life’ but the physics and chemistry are all understood.
                The universe appears to have provided countless ‘labs’ for this physics and chemistry to play in, even the ocean and land of earth provides countless ‘labs’ and billions of years.
                We are here because one or more of those ‘experiments’ came off.
                It doesn’t appear to need ‘God’ at all. He might still exist but there are no logical arguements, just faith. Science certainly does not back you up in any way, so don’t pretend it offers proof via DNA or anything else!

                • The fact is there have been hundreds of rigorous scientific studies of precognition etc – across a century or so – and this is established beyond reasonable doubt. The Radin book provides hundreds of citations. If you want to refute them you will have to take them on one by one by one.

                  “We are here because one or more of those ‘experiments’ came off.”

                  A statement of faith if I’ve ever seen one.

                  I have yet to see so much of a morsel of evidence that this is actually true. Your explanation is nothing more than an appeal to luck. What part of anything you just said here actually qualifies as testable science?

                  Where is your evidence, Stuart?

      • Mr G G Francis says:

        OK so one of the big arguments between believers and non believers is who created God.
        He says he is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end.
        No one can answer this question with proof and will never be able to not in this lifetime.
        One thing we do know is mans life has lasted around 800years and more in history. The capabilities of man back then was astounding.
        We only need to look at the pyramids as one example. So the evolution from apes (is it proven) the Big Bang happened but can we prove who or what caused it and whether is was an accident how this earth came to being with it’s self-sufficient eco system.
        One thing that Seems to be true is that if there is a God then he has mastered how to combat death and based on scriptures he is not of this world and lives forever.
        So if an Alien appears one day and offers you a way to live for eternity would you take them up on the offer?
        Now bear in mind again if true Adam and Eve were destined to live forever until they to ill advice from a crafty individual.
        Sometimes we listen to the wrong voice.
        Now apparently it was God who made garments from the skins of animals which clothed them.
        Another discovery for man or not?
        Since then we have been taught about being accepted and how to live and fight for good over evil.
        So in terms of Aliens of course they exist.
        We can follow God of listen to the crafty one along with his deceptions if either exist. We could just choose to do as we please, in doing so especially as a scientists we must aim to search for the truth. Problems arise when the truth can not be trusted, what I mean by this is quantum. If there is no formula or to prove the to results then we cannot rely on advice.
        There was no proof that Adam or Eve would die just as there is no longer any proof that they would have lived forever.
        Faith is for individuals.
        Many have left their career because they have witnessed a phenomenon buy were unable reprove what took place.
        Faith is an invitation for mankind.
        No one forces you to believe in anything but life can throw up all sorts of challenges to sway our thoughts.
        This is why faith is so important or not for some

        • Stuart Norey says:

          There is no evidence man lived 800 years. None. Someone may have written it in a book, but that’s not proof. People wrote about dragons and giants etc, that’s not proof.
          The pyramids are well understood, they used simple technology (tools were even found in a sealed shaft), skilled workers (their homes and graves have been found) and knowledge developed over many years (early Proto pyramids have been found, showing the evolution of the idea, as have some design disasters).

    • maxine says:

      If you have true proof that god is real I will read a 100page or more book to see if you can .

      • Jose says:

        Maxine, I would suggest to pick up a Bible, and there are a number of translations that you can find to suit your understanding. and read the first chapter of Genesis. Then, you can research the most recent astronomical findings. You can google Hugh Ross, as I trust his academic knowledge as well as his Biblical knowledge. You can decide. It’s pretty simple. You’ll find that Perry Marshall knows his stuff, and it doesn’t take a college degree to understand what God’s all about.

      • David Altman says:

        The concept of “proving God’s existence” (at least, for Christianity) is fundamentally flawed. If you HAD proof of God – any proof at all – you would NOT need faith. According to Hebrews 11:6, without faith, it’s impossible to please God.

        So: Either you believe in God, through faith, with NO evidence — or else, you HAVE, evidence and accept that evidence — no faith is needed.

        I don’t need to “believe” in gravity; gravity is a fact; there’s plenty of evidence for the existence of gravity. I can choose to ignore the facts, or I can believe that gravity doesn’t exist, but the fact remains: Gravity exists. I accept the reality that gravity is a real thing that exists.

        As far as God is concerned, I have a BELIEF in God. Sure, having proof of God would be great, to shut up the atheists – but proving the Christian God is counterproductive. If you have evidence of God and accept the evidence, you don’t need faith, you can’t please God, and therefore you have no salvation.

        I truly wish that people would understand this concept, and get away from even TRYING to prove God exists. You CAN’T do it with science, you CAN’T do it with empirical evidence, and you CAN’T do it with a sound logical argument.

        Please, folks, just accept that God exists by faith. Stop looking to destroy your own religion.

    • wartengu says:

      This is far reaching and pseudo at best. First off, man, mind, etc does not have any exclusivity on information. Information is all around us, in nature too. Life evolves naturally within its environment. A rock is home to many creatures, so it can communicate, you are just not evolved enough to hear it. God is a man made invention. Words come from a mind, but information is all around us and has existed long before humans. You can’t prove God exist, because he doesn’t. The universe is in a constant state of evolving, as are humans. This has nothing to do with a God, it’s nature.

      You can debunk the existence of a God very easily. What God would create such an environment of miserly, corruption, suffering, a place where you have to pay just to live? A place where the wealthy rule over the poor, yeah, right. God’s will and all, don’t think so.

    • Jerry Ousley says:

      I find all this fascinating. If we remain level-headed and truly listen to each other and keep diligently searching and discussing these issues we will find the answers. However, I think it is apparent that trying to use scientific logic to prove or disprove the existence of GOD is impossible. GOD exists outside of our space time continuum. HE is not bound by the laws of our universe. HE is by definition “supernatural”. It seems to me though that people seem to make this issue more complicated then it has to be. Do we really need to delve into microbiology and quantum physics and advanced theology. Science has a methodology that it must adhere to to find the answers it seeks. Therefore science can only ask and answer questions that adhere to that methodology. If you believe that GOD created the universe then you can ask and answer questions that they can’t. For example: Let’s imagine that nothing exists. And I mean nothing. No matter no energy no atoms or molecules, absolute nothing. Now imagine that the universe doesn’t exist. No universe means that there really is nothing because the first thing you need for things to exist is a place. Even GOD has to adhere to that rule. So that would mean that the universe would have to be created first. The universe is a physical place. By definition it is no different than any other physical place that exists within it. Now since we know that a physical place cannot create itself and if nothing can exist unless there is a physical place for it to exist in then how did the universe come to exist. Science can’t answer this question. They can’t even pose the question because if there is no universe then there are no laws of nature or matter or atoms. Science has no choice but to postulate that the universe has always existed. Does that mean that they are right? It’s possible. It’s possible because no one can prove that it’s not possible. It’s possible that the universe has always existed and at one time nothing existed in it and that is as far back as you can go. No one can deny that that is one possibility. But that is not the only possibility. All you have to do is ask the question. What if the universe didn’t always exist? We now have another possibility. Just as valid as the other one. Science however cannot entertain this idea because it can’t be proven scientifically. How could someone exist before the creation of the universe to create the universe. Existence outside the universe. It’s one or the other.

      • David Altman says:

        There’s a problem with what you just said, that most people don’t understand, or else simply ignore. If nothing existed – a true, literal nothing, then that includes God.

        Now, let’s be more specific. If nothing NATURAL existed, and only God (SUPERNATURAL) existed, then God could create the natural.

        But with what you’re postulating – a natural “nothing” without the presence of a supernatural being to act on it, the universe could indeed create itself. Nothing existing means no rules, no laws of physics, etc. Literally anything could happen.

        This is why science doesn’t “need” God; there is a naturalistic explanation, which we can demonstrate. God can’t be demonstrated with empirical evidence, repeatable tests or a logically coherent argument. Belief is the only way.

        • 1 “Nothing existing means no rules, no laws of physics, etc”
          2 “Literally anything could happen.”

          Please explain exactly how #2 follows from #1. That strikes me as completely illogical and the exact opposite of what would be a reasonable conclusion. Describe in detail how this works, David.

          • David Altman says:

            For instance: The First Law of Thermodynamics (the total energy of an isolated system is constant).

            If this “law” didn’t exist, then the total energy of an isolated system could be INCONSISTENT, rather than constant. According to the Law of Conservation of Mass, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Without this “law,” matter can be created or destroyed, both, or neither.

            The sign on the freeway says 55MPH. You can go 75, but you’re breaking the law. Take away the sign (or put one up that says speed ∞), and there’s no limit. You can travel as fast as you want.

            The point is this: When there are rules in place (i.e., gravity, planck’s constant, thermodynamics, physics, etc.), the universe HAS to follow those rules. In a hypothetical situation, where a literal “nothing” could exist (btw: We don’t know that there ever WAS a literal “nothing.” It cannot be proven nor disproven. We’ve never seen a “nothing.”), there is NOTHING – including no laws of physics. Without those laws, the universe could simply come into existence by itself… because there’s nothing preventing it from doing so.

            The Law of Conservation of Mass makes it clear that energy is neither created nor destroyed. That’s how things are NOW. Therefore: Matter cannot spontaneously pop into being, nor can matter be destroyed. The universe is following that law.

            But if you take away that law, matter could spontaneously create ITSELF – and thus the energy/mass/etc. for the singularity which eventually expanded to become our observable universe COULD HAVE ‘created’ itself.

            Yes, the idea SOUNDS illogical – but what you have to remember, sir, is that in a “nothing,” even logic would not (and could not) exist. The illogical could indeed happen. In a “nothing,” ANYTHING is possible – no rules means no rules.

            • How do you get from nothing, to having rules?

              And how do you get from nothing, to matter?

              Please elucidate.

              • David Altman says:

                I think you missed the part of “no rules means ANYTHING can happen.” If indeed there was ever a time when “nothing” existed, then rules and/or matter could have spontaneously come into being all on their own – simply because there’s no reason they couldn’t.

                However, all of this is severely hypothetical. We’ve never seen “nothing.” We don’t know that a true state of nothingness ever existed. We don’t know if the idea of ex nihilio fit is true or not. We just don’t know. There is no evidence that a true state of “nothing” can exist. If we found a “nothing,” the moment we examined it, it would cease to be “nothing” – the mere act of our looking at it would make it be something, rather than nothing. We would never know that we had encountered it.

                The idea that at some point in time “nothing” existed, and then a deity of some sort acted on that nothingness and made something exist DOES exist in certain religions, although not in Christianity.

                Of course, even when arguing that God made everything out of nothing, requires the fallacy of special pleading: If you say that “nothing” existed, that would, by definition, have to include God… unless you believe that God began to exist at some point, and then made everything else.

                If you rephrase it to say “nothing natural existed,” and “only the supernatural (God) existed,” then you avoid the special pleading – but then you have to demonstrate that such a thing as a supernatural actually exists – which is utterly impossible. There’s no empirical evidence for it, no repeatable test, and no logically coherent argument for the supernatural — just as there is no empirical evidence, repeatable test, or logically coherent argument for God.

                By the way: As a note to anybody reading this forum who considers themselves a Christian: You CANNOT have proof for God or proof OF God. If you have any kind of proof whatsoever for God, then you are doomed to an eternity in hell – if the Bible is true.

                Huh? Why would that be? Because of Hebrews 11:6: …”without faith it is impossible to please God…” Faith and proof are incompatible with each other. I don’t need faith to accept the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid – simply because it is an actual, provable, observable fact that the earth is, indeed, an oblate spheroid roughly 4.5 billion years old. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence to back this up, thousands of repeatable tests – and yes, even logically coherent arguments to demonstrate this.

                Faith is defined as the “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.” (en.oxforddictionaries.com).

                The comedy book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy” by Douglas Adams put it this way:

                “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

                The people in the book, of course, demonstrate to God that since He’s proven that He exists, by His own argument, He doesn’t, and then God vanishes in a puff of logic.

                Either you have faith or you have proof. Pick one. Actually, since there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, then rest on your faith. Period.

                There is no empirical evidence for God. There is no repeatable test which can be performed on God. There is no logically coherent argument for God. If God exists, and is supernatural, it is beyond the realm of science to study, define, or otherwise quantify God – because science deals with the observable, natural universe. God, by definition, is unobservable and unobserved.

                I can believe that there’s a bridge crossing the canyon. My belief in its presence does not make it so. Likewise, I can believe that there ISN’T a bridge crossing the canyon; my lack of belief (or disbelief) in the bridge doesn’t make it NOT be there. Either there is a bridge or there isn’t; the facts are the facts, REGARDLESS of what I believe.

                If there isn’t a bridge and I drive toward the canyon, I’m going to end up very, very dead…. still believing in the bridge.

                Too many people in this world are willfully ignorant of the facts. It IS willfully ignorant: We live in the Internet age, and the truth is out there to be found – if only you look for it. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of falsehood out there (e.g., this website).

                The plain fact of the matter is this: There is an overwhelming, incontrovertible mountain of empirical evidence demonstrating that the earth is an oblate spheroid. IT IS **NOT** FLAT!! There is an overwhelming, incontrovertible mountain of empirical evidence demonstrating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. WE HAVE HUMAN ARTIFACTS THAT ARE OVER 100,000 YEARS OLD — THE EARTH IS A LOT, LOT OLDER THAN 6,000 YEARS, PEOPLE! And, there is an overwhelming, incontrovertible mountain of empirical evidence demonstrating that life evolved from simpler forms to more complex forms over billions of years.

                You can disbelieve these facts. You can ignore these facts. They remain facts.

                DNA is made up of four chemicals: adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. It isn’t a code any more than the stars Alkaid, Mizar, Alioth, Megrez, Dubhe, Merak and Phecda ACTUALLY make up the so-called “Big Dipper,” rather than the reality that we’ve seen these stars, they appear to make a pattern, so we call it a pattern (code).

                The human race evolved to see patterns, even where none exist. If the grass in the veldt rustles, I’m going to assume it’s a lion or other predator. Doing so (and going the opposite way and/or readying a weapon) will enable me to survive and pass on my genes. If a rock falls on me, apparently out of the sky, I’m going to assume an agency – and my tribe may invent a rock-throwing god.

                Most people don’t know that the God of the Bible evolved out of a merger of a god of the volcano and a god of war, and that god had a wife… and that the doctrines changed over time.

                Do your research. Do yourselves a favor: Accept reality. Believe in God if you want to (I do), but not at the expense of reality.

                • No rules means no rules.

                  How do you get rules from no rules?

                  Please explain.

                  And how is it that “anything can happen” if there are no rules in the first place? How does anything ever happen without rules?

                  I really don’t care about your anti-God rant. You can take that somewhere else. Meanwhile I’m not letting go of this until you give me an answer that makes sense.

                  • David Altman says:

                    You can get rules from no rules because there’s nothing to prevent them from coming into being. Without rules, there are no limits to what can happen; therefore: anything COULD happen when no rules exist.

                    As I explained, the hypothetical situation of a “nothing” does not even exist. A place where no rules exist does not exist. As far as we know, when the singularity began to expand, the physical laws of the universe began at that time, but changed as the universe itself changed.

                    I did not make an anti-God rant; I made an anti-ignorance and anti-stupidity rant. I believe in God (the God of the Christian Bible) wholeheartedly. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

                    None of my beliefs stand against the facts I’ve presented, and none of the facts I’ve presented stand against MY beliefs. A person who believes in a flat earth is willfully ignorant. A person who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old is willfully ignorant. A person who says they have proof of God or proof for God cannot be a Christian, by definition, according to the Bible.

                    Once again, without rules, things COULD happen – there would be NOTHING to prevent things from happening; likewise, there would be NOTHING to MAKE things happen.

                    But as I said, that situation is entirely theoretical. We’ve never seen a “nothing.” It may be that there has NEVER been a state of “nothing.” There’s absolutely no way we can know.

                    • Theist: “Nothing is impossible with God.”

                      You: “Nothing is impossible with nothing.”

                      “You can get rules from no rules because there’s nothing to prevent them from coming into being.”

                      Please demonstrate that just because there is nothing to prevent something FROM coming into being, that therefore it WILL come into being.

                      And please articulate what CAUSES rules to come into being.

                      Prevention can only happen once a process has been started. What starts the process of rules coming from nothing?

                    • A bowling ball crashes through 10 pins and knocks them all over. STRIKE!

                      Someone asks you how it happened.

                      You reply, “Well, there was nothing preventing it FROM happening!”

                      How is that an explanation?

                    • David Altman says:

                      Your bowling ball analogy is flawed in the extreme. The principles of physics and Newton’s laws of motion are well understood. If someone asks, “how did that happen?” I can respond with the physics principles.

                      You also misstated my position:

                      It is NOT:
                      Theist: “Nothing is impossible with God.”
                      You: “Nothing is impossible with nothing.”

                      It IS, however:
                      Theist: “Nothing is impossible with God.”
                      You: “Anything is impossible with nothing.”

                      There’s a fundamental difference here. Once again, I’m not sure why you’re hung up on a completely hypothetical notion – the idea of “nothing.” You apparently don’t understand a word I’ve said.

                      You said:
                      “Please demonstrate that just because there is nothing to prevent something FROM coming into being, that therefore it WILL come into being.”

                      I can’t do that – because I can’t show you a “nothing” (if, indeed such a thing exists or has ever existed). There would be nothing to prevent something from coming into being simultaneously. But there would be NOTHING! There’s no ‘guarantee,’ as it were, that anything WOULD come into being — it just is possible for it to do so.

                      You said:
                      “please articulate what CAUSES rules to come into being.”

                      In the case of the observable universe, the existence of the universe itself “caused” (if that word is even applicable) the rules of physics and logic to “come into being.” The rules of physics that exist are a fundamental property of the way the universe IS. We study the universe, we discover the rules that apply to it; we study the universe, we discover the rules of logic that apply. As our understanding of the universe changes, so do the rules of logic.

                      You said:
                      “Prevention can only happen once a process has been started. What starts the process of rules coming from nothing?””

                      Nothing would ‘start’ the process of rules coming from nothing. Either the process would happen or it would not. Once again, you seem to be highly fixated on this subject, which isn’t even real, as far as we know.

                      The earth is real. The observable universe is real. We can see, touch, taste, smell, hear, measure and experience these things in reality.

                      To be fair, even though we cannot see, touch, taste, smell, hear, or measure God, a deity (or deities) of some description MAY actually exist, in reality.

                      “Nothing,” on the other hand – a true, literal nothing — well, that’s up for debate. There MAY have been a state of nothingness at one time. There MAY be a state of nothingness existing somewhere NOW. We don’t know. There’s no way to know. If it exists or ever existed, there’s absolutely no way we can know or will ever know.

                    • me: “Anything is impossible with nothing.”

                      Yes I maintain that is correct.

                      You: “Nothing would ‘start’ the process of rules coming from nothing.”

                      Yes that is also correct. If nothing starts something, then nothing will happen.

                      This is basic common sense that any 5 year old understands. This is why your assertions are illogical.

                      If you wish to believe that a universe can come into being from nothing for no reason at all, then you can have your illogical faith and I will stick with my logical faith. And that will be your decision.

                    • David Altman says:

                      Actually, I cut and pasted that wrong. It should have been “Anything is possible with nothing.” Why should this surprise or confuse you?

                      NOTHING means NO THING. A law of physics is (in effect) a thing. No, it’s not physical, but they still exist. The rules of logic exist – again, not as physical things, but yet they exist. With a “nothing” state, NOTHING would exist, including physics, rules, and logic. Anything would be possible, including something coming from that nothing, on its own, without anything else to start it … and it’s fairly obvious that nothing COULD start something else, because there would be nothing there! Once the first thing was there, then THAT thing could cause other things, but you can’t say that it would take something to start something else when you have NOTHING.

                      I said “Nothing would ‘start’ the process of rules coming from nothing.” That’s because with ‘nothing,’ there doesn’t have to be ‘anything’ to start something; a something could start on its own. That’s the nature of “nothing”: There ARE no rules saying “this CAN happen” or “this CAN’T happen.” In a true “nothing” state, things could happen; or they could not happen. All bets are off, as it were.

                      Starting the process is a misconception about a state of “nothing.” A “nothing” doesn’t need a something to have a process ‘begin’ or to have a thing (such as energy) pop into existence, or to have a thing (such as a law of physics) come into existence. These things can ‘begin’ on their own.

                      It’s not that difficult to understand. If there’s a law that says matter can’t be created or destroyed (there is), then matter can’t be created or destroyed. It’s that simple. You can’t get around that law.

                      If no law existed saying that matter can’t be created or destroyed, then matter could be created or destroyed at any time. There would be nothing standing in the way of it happening.

                      With the lack of laws of physics, and with a lack of the laws of logic, ANYTHING is possible – by definition. With no logic, you could have a square circle or a married bachelor. When logic doesn’t exist, you can’t apply it to anything. If there was a time when physics didn’t exist, then the laws of physics didn’t exist, and they couldn’t ‘prevent’ things from happening or ’cause’ things to happen.

                      NOTHING. NO THINGS. NO RULES. NO LAWS. NO LOGIC.
                      Anything COULD happen. Anything CAN happen.

                      But, once again, don’t worry about it – “nothing” is a completely made-up concept. Most likely, it never existed and does not exist and will never exist.

                    • “NOTHING. NO THINGS. NO RULES. NO LAWS. NO LOGIC.
                      Anything COULD happen. Anything CAN happen.”

                      Anything = any THING. Any THING is the opposite of NO THING.

                      A logical contradiction.

                      In order to make this into a true and logical statement we have to change it to say:

                      “If you start with nothing, anything COULD NOT happen. Anything CAN’T happen.”

                      Then the statement will be correct.

                      I find it quite remarkable that any educated person could say what you just said. But hey, it’s a free country. Believe whatever you choose to believe.

                    • Sam Martin says:

                      I’m two months late to this, but as David said himself, we have never seen “nothing.” Therefore, we don’t know anything about its physical properties. That doesn’t mean we get to just make it up. All we know is that, according to the laws of our universe (specifically, conservation of mass and energy), there couldn’t have been a nothing.

      • Semirhage Boann says:

        If it is impossible to prove/disprove god’s existence then it is irrational to believe in god.

    • Tiffanii says:

      I think that our concepts of reality are too incomplete to create a diagram of how the universe was created as well everything in it. There is simply not enough information.

      Speaking on information in my opinion is premature. While I do believe there is a higher power, based off of syllogism, I know that what I know is perspective only. What I believe is based off of the knowledge that I singularly have been able to amass.

      That means that as we exist, our individual realities and perspectives are regulated by what we experience, how we process those experiences, and then the effect there after.

      We live in a world full of paradigms and mysteries. While we have a good foundation and have some solid truths about our pyshical world. Our spirtitual world is lacking in the populace’s education. I find that giant missing link to be pertinent. Especially because as we have begun to understand our universe more, we understand that our reality may not be the right one. For all we know information is like light, it’s can be broken down to particles and even more so.

      Perspective is the true mystery in how we understand our world. Assigning a God to our mysteries seemed to be a survival method for early humanity. But now that we know of dark matter and dark energy, concepts we have no true idea about exist, we can’t continue on the path of blind faith. We have to challenge even the physics that bind us to the earth, because just because we don’t have an answer to something doesn’t necessarily mean that a solid conclusion is able to be drawn. This while very enlighting did not provide proof of anything in my opinion, but only more questions.

    • paul hammond says:

      Humans have proved you don’t need a man and woman to create a human just clever doctors and test tubes so god didn’t do it so all u need is a fertile egg nature will do the rest and if you think it won’t cavemen didn’t have hospitals they did ok

    • Bob Singer says:

      ““Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind”

      Incorrect, we know coded information can come from nature, we have detailed understanding of the process by which it came about.

    • Paul Noblin says:

      I have met The Children of the Sun who US, a million billion generations from now. They have time and space machines. Place a fork atop a glass of water. With the fork touching the glass in two places and fill the glass with water. You can secure this device with a strip of scotch tape. When The Children of the Sun arrive, a roll of dice will be skewed.

      The Key to the Universe;
      Revelation One Nineteen
      Write down a brief account of your day, your problems that day, and a list of tasks to do the next day.
      ©1985 Paul Noblin

      Read Rev.1:19 (KJV).
      “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;”
      Write down the past, present, and future.
      Align your inside mind with the outside world (reality including Christ), and you will be one with All.
      Telepath Love & Perfection.
      The past is not fixed. The past is in flux and is constantly changing.
      You can bend reality.
      You are the center of your own Universe.
      Reprogram yourself.

      You must join our organization. The S. P. C. P. – The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to People.
      Just bury $40.00 in a jar in your backyard. We will contact you. Presto. You’re in!

      I told them about Jesus Christ and The Bible. They left for about twenty minutes. When they came back, they said that they observed Jesus Christ and read the Bible. They told me that Jesus Christ was the only Son of God and that every Word of The Bible is True. They have forgot about Jesus. They said that they worship the same God. I converted all of them to Christianity. They can travel on lightwaves into any place and time instantly. They may take you for a ride.
      I have seen God. He is surrounded by a fog and blinding lights flash from the center of the fog.

      God exists because I have seen Him. Find me on LinkedIn. When you die, you will be either light or matter. I will be beamed up the instant before I die. The Bible says so. Everlasting Life. Only Love and Perfection can travel in the lightwaves. All sin will be burned up. Follow Jesus on the straight and narrow road. Everything you imagine will be instantly turned True.
      The solution to 666.
      It’s all done with approximations.
      Take the age of menopause. Subtract the age of the puberty. This is the years of sex life a woman has. Multiply this by 12, this will be the number of months a woman can be sexually active. Multiply this by 2 (for the rhythm method of birth control). Adjust downward because women live longer today in modern times.

      The AVERAGE woman can sleep with 666 men in her life time.
      An AVERAGE man cannot come close to that.
      Here it is. It is the number of a man (men). It also something to do with the nature of evil.
      I am a Practicing Disciple of Jesus Christ and a Christian Mystic, if there is one. I am also a Silver Alchemist. I make enough silver for one day. For over twenty years I was a Color Darkroom Technician and I have a degree in Accounting. I hope you are doing well. See blue skies today and every day no matter the weather. Wake up!!!

      Warm Regards… Paul.

    • Michael Waugh says:

      Imagine watching your existing everything just like us as his life he had like ours but as he who lives in flesh dies and spirit mind soul entity lives out of flesh through 3 prospectives so God as a child at the existence then so timeless ago his everything was gone destroyed so powerful it froze and he was at the corner or kept shielded by an intelligent family inventor that knew like in our times was gonna be demolished knowledge so vast that the preparation could only save 1 being at that time …… after all of this God a child scared alone in youth now in death had know afterlife guidance so in a state of sleep a behind the scenes look through a blind man mind like child dreams of dreams and could only remember visions not many but simple visions bc he was alone in darkness as a spirit no evil in mind like child only innocence hopes and child sleeps they develop so he painted only what he freshly knew and the only existing power left had to build blindly so the first step was giving up a sacrifice for his vision to create vision so then he dreamed in darkness but light of his creation slowly giving up each sense until his only power left was his faith his heart, to be that unselfish to have a home he cannot enjoy but know that it’s whole he 0uts all faith back in the realm of his deepest breath and holds faith in us to restore him with our faith and it’s all in front of us and a stepping stone to what he is a vision of himself ……. a vision of life only explained through the heart of a child love our God love all of this I love everything and everone

      • Jack Ellis says:

        Why are the Jewish God and Jesus so important?

        I’m sure Osiris and Isis would have something to say about that child, they’d argue Horus’ case.

        Or Odin and Jörð, they’d argue for Thor.

        Or maybe Zeus, he’d say it was far more impressive that his head was split to give ‘birth’ to Athena?

        Imagine all the creator gods arguing over the timing and methods of creation. Egyptian, Sumerian etc gods laughing that they’d got it all finished thousands of years before the Jewish one claimed to.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          Jack, who’s the Jewish god and who’s Jesus?

          • Jack Ellis says:

            The Jewish god ‘YHWH’ is the Old Testament god. It was invented by the Jews, probably based on elements of earlier ones invented by Egypt, Sumer etc. It was adapted by early ‘christians’ to suit their needs and evolved through various rewriting of old scripts and imagining of new ones into ‘your’ god.

            Jesus was most likely just a man, or even a man to whom the deeds (some real, some imagined) were attributed to. He’s a man in some early Christian texts. In some he’s the ‘son’ of god, probably borrowing from earlier Greek myths – where that sort of thing was very common. He’s evolved too, in some religions he’s still just a ‘profit’ and in some he actually IS his own father too.

            If you want to know what he looked and dressed like, probably closest to modern people who live in that region who are not from ‘westernised’ Israel? Darker skin than he’s portrayed with in Renaissance art, probably black hair, maybe a beard – kind of ‘muslim’ looking maybe?

            That’s roughly it. Broadly. It’s hard to make sense of any of it really!

    • kevin blease says:

      a clock without a clock maker lol

    • Douglas Franks says:

      I know that God is real ,l also know that, Adam did not create all of the races .Adm was created on the 8th day.God created all the races on the 6th day.

    • Chris Simmons says:

      I agree…… I think that chance is too much of a hurdle to overcome for everything to happen by chance something had to put that information there.

  2. David says:


    I just read your entire discussion thread on the infidels message board. I am absolutely stunned by the logic and content of your arguments.

    I have been a Christian for 20 years, and in the back of my mind, I never really knew why I believed in God or what real, hard evidence there was to support my belief. In all honesty, I felt like I was wasting my life, but for whatever reason, I stuck with it.

    Then I started to investigate the question in earnest, which led me to Hugh Ross’s material, and eventually yours.

    I have to say, not only am I impressed with your breadth of knowledge and intelligence, I am also impressed with your debating skills, specifically how you never lose your cool and get hostile (even in the face of hostility), how you do not allow challengers to misquote you are infer that you are saying more than you are.

    How you don’t try to make your argument prove more than it does, and how you are able to cut to the heart of every objection and keep the discussion on course.

    Even though many of the scientific nuances were above my head, I was still able to follow the arguments….and what was clear to me was that (1) these guys have more blind faith in naturalism than the average Christian has in God and (2) they either don’t know, or are unwilling to acknowledge when they’ve been trounced in a debate.

    All I can say is thank you. Thank you for giving me a new confidence that belief on God is not for morons and simpletons as the naturalists would have you think.

    THANK YOU, Perry! You are a gift from God to me.



    • David,

      I can only encourage anybody who doubts what you say to scour the ENTIRE Infidels thread “Proof of god via DNA and evolution.” Scrutinize every last post. Follow every thread. Click on every link. Buy every book. Oh, and be sure and listen to my presentation that started the ruckus in the first place.

      It might take most people a few weeks to get through it. That’s OK.

      Because if you’re really looking for answers, I have a hard time imagining that a truly inquiring mind won’t eventually agree that the atheist worldview has provided no explanation for the existence of information or DNA. And that science indicates an intelligent source.

      See for yourself – I have answered every significant question presented to me, most of them more than once. The moderator, RBH, has not answered a single question I’ve asked him in 2 years. He has completely bailed on the discussion (though you can see from his comments to others that he’s still present.)

      SophistiCat, perhaps my most vocal opponent, has never actually read or listened to my presentation.

      Another atheist wandered in some time ago – he’s a programmer, I believe – and called them on their double-standard definitions. He said, “I don’t agree with Perry Marshall’s conclusion, but you guys can’t deny that DNA is a code. And Perry is right: nothing like a code has ever been observed to occur naturally, so far.”

      They accused him of being an undercover Christian Evangelist.

      Again I can only encourage those who are seriously seeking answers to scrutinize the Infidels discussion board and decide for yourself who’s telling the truth. I have summarized their arguments as well as mine here on Cosmic Fingerprints, but don’t settle for my 6-page summary of the argument. Read it for yourself and see.

      Perry Marshall

      • Kate says:

        Hello Mr Marshall,
        I’d just like to say that I’ve got a lot to thank you for. For a long time, I had no religion- just a horrible fear in death and the beyond that kept me up at night, and I thought nothing could help me feel better. Then, I found your presentations. They inspired me, uplifted me and by beliefs are beginning to come back for the first time in I, quite frankly, don’t know how long. I’m now totally convinced of there being an existence of God, which is why I asked you that question on the comments page of ‘New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God’ inquiring about the afterlife.
        In addition to this, I’ve also been trying hard to spread the word of the evidence that’s presented to me, and I’m finding it hard. A lot of people don’t want to listen, are wrapped up in their own views and refuse to thoroughly look at any evidence presented to them as you’ve forementioned yourself in the above post (the reason why I’m replying to it now) and I find that incredibly sad to hear. I just wanted to ask: ‘How do you cope with people who don’t listen but still keep on arguing with you?’ Do you stop trying to convince them? Do you try harder? Obviously, you can’t make anyone do or believe anything; but it must be horribly frustrating for you; trying to provide evidence to inspire people and them not only not listening, misinterpreting and not bothering to come up with a decent argument!
        Thanks again for all your inspiring work,

        • Kate,

          I’ve done a whole lot of ‘people who don’t listen but still keep arguing with you.’ The Infidels discussion board (see https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/) is the ultimate Prime Example. I have thoroughly, rigorously and exhaustively addressed their questions and they still insist that I’m not listening.

          It’s not me that’s not listening, it’s them. Exhibit “A” of psychological denial.

          So I stop by a couple of times a year and check in and that’s it.

          It’s not my job to change them. All the forces on planet earth cannot change a human being who does not want to change. This will teach you that; marriage will teach you that; teenagers will teach you that.

          What you need to do is what I’ve done – change your focus.

          Your focus is NOT the people who refuse to listen. (Which is many if not most, by the way.) Your focus is the people who are in that curious zone who really are looking for answers, looking for the truth. Even if that’s just 5% that’s entirely OK. I routinely get messages from people who say this information completely changed their life, altered their view of science and the world, and… that’s my audience. That’s your audience.

          You don’t need to waste time with non-listeners. Sure, you try harder for awhile and they will help you sharpen your delivery. But ultimately you focus on the people who will engage with you. The rest are just target practice.


          • Cory says:

            So just whose existence are you trying to prove? Is it Yahweh (AKA Jehova) or is it Allah. Who else wants to come up and say that Mithra, Zeus, or Krishna is the true God. My point here is that there have been way too many Gods for anyone to be completely sure that theirs is the right one. Personally, I choose not to partake in any of these religions, as there is no way that any of them could be true when so many diverse religions exist in this world. If you wanted to put a label on my faith, it would have to be science. No, not Scientology. Scientology is by far the craziest religion I have ever heard of. Science is the only thing that has progressed the human race. All religion has brought us is fear, intolerance, and manslaughter.

            By the way, saying that DNA is a code doesn’t prove that God exists. All it does is show that you don’t know how DNA came to be, and that you assume that it must be the work of a God. Stop making rationalizations and claiming them as “proof”. Just accept the truth that you have no evidence for your God, and I’ll go on my merry way.

            I know exactly how you are going to respond. You are going to go on and on about how there is no code in existence that happened without a mind to form it, but has it occurred to you that DNA could be the one? Or have you ever thought to say “I don’t know”? Because that’s the truth: you don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Because you can’t think of a way that DNA could come about on its own, you automatically assume that a God made it, and you call this evidence. I implore you to see reason here.

            • Richard says:


              Science often invents theories to fulfill its gaps. Theories which they hope will turn out to be true. Multiverses, for instance. And weren’t they trying to find the “God Particule” by colliding stuff in LHC? As of yet, it’s only known to exist in theory. Then, what’s the matter with assuming that God may have taken a part in it all and that DNA may be an evidence of his design? It’s not like that he’s killing off Science. It’s not a crusade, although many people think that is.
              Of course, belief in god takes a deal of faith. But, then, again, science does have its beliefs, everyone does. It’s part of us. If you think that science may one day discover that information pops up from chaos, that takes belief and hope. It’s no different. The merit in Perry’s work is that he’s trying, I assume, to show that religious belief will not be crushed by secularist thinking. Instead, it’s one of the most fundamentals expressions of how we are. It’s part of our history, as much as science, art, and everything else that has human hands in it.
              You have an extremely narrow-minded view of the world. It seems as though you think the entire world must look through your materialistic eyesight. Deep down, you think your culture, your way of thinking is superior. Well, your bad. Your assumption that religion only brought “manslaughter” to the world is quite an exaggeration, though I don’t deny that religion was and is used as an excuse to horrifying things. But science also is. It’s not that evil is intrinsic to religion or science, but it is the result of men’s flaws.
              Should I remember you that one of the most violent regimes ever were officially atheistic, and persecuted and executed millions of believers? I’m talking about Communist China and USSR. Then, following your logic, is it what it takes to say that Atheism is an evil thing? You get the picture.

              • go2mark says:

                Thank you richard for your post. I concur with your position. Most believers know that God will not force himself on anyone ( although some have done so in the name of christ ). God has provided us with clues and examples of his existence for us to contemplate and decide for ourselves. We as believers understand there is a narrow way and a broad way which God has set before us. The key to knowing that God exists is that you have to truly want to know the truth. Knowing and believing are separate so that a choice is required. Only the bible has the answers to the most challenging questions man has pondered. One question is do i take the broad path which relies on my own intuition and inferior logic (knowing) ,or do i chose the narrow path which requires a humble spirt to admit i can never truly know the truth without help from the one who is truth (belief). The bible is our ultimate truth and states that many will chose the broad path that leads to destruction. Perry had shown incredible discipline and courage in attempting to shine a light on truth and for this i am truly grateful. (Jeremiah 9-23,24) God bless

        • Cristiano says:

          Dear Kate,

          I also believe in all that Mr. Marshall has thoroughly explained here and proved with all the conviction of His soul, though I’m not a scientist and do comprehend only a bit of all the scientific proofs for the existence of God. I DO know that God lives and I have known that from my childhood up to now. I tell you that because of the question you asked for the afterlife, that is a truly important question and a fundamental one, since there is no purpose in God creating everything we know of as Mr. Ross so perfectly explained with such an accuracy that this earth and we could exist if all this is to end and vanish.

          The after death has been thoroughly discussed by many religions throughout the world with all kinds of argument and counter-arguments but no proof or evidence shed by any of them. Since men can comprehend only the things of man and not the things of God unless they are thought from a higher source than themselves.

          Someone said that a man could learn more by gazing for 5 minutes upon the visions of eternity and by speaking face to face with God than by reading all the books that have been written from the beginning. And that’s true! Unless God opens the heavens and tutors a man by His own voice and power no man can surely know and thoroughly comprehend His works.

          I say all that to tell you that there is a way for you to know, but most of Christianity or any other religion denies the possibility of such revelations, of a man looking at the face of His Creator and receiving a knowledge that is purer and higher the all the science and religion combined. They understate the power of God that they may continue to influence mankind to follow their creeds, saying that we must have a blind faith and hope for a better future. But I tell you, that is not the case! In contrary, God wants us to know Him personally, independently of all other beings that we may testify of His glory and witness the majesty of His power and love. Man can truly, in a physical sense, in a complete sense, see God, and touch the body of His Spirit, and commune with Him and taste of His glory and gaze upon the future, and the past, and the vastness of His wonders.

          There are men living upon the earth today that DO have seen God face to face, that DO testify that He lives and that can teach us how we can prepare ourselves and persevere and hold fast till the day comes when our doubts will be washed aways by the glory of His personal presence and hear the calm and tender sound of His voice speaking in such a way as to melt down the very marrow of our bones. I testify of that. I testify that He lives! And if you want to know more about this you can contact me on my e-mail ([email protected]) and I’ll provide you with all the information you need and answers about the hereafter and many more things that testify of Him.

          I bear my personal witness as one who DO know that there are again Prophets in the land, who bear witness of His existence and power and glory for I know them and I have learned under their tutoring since my childhood and today I can also testify that He lives. And I DO testify that there are answers to your questions and that you SHALL know by yourself.

        • Sohni says:

          Hello Kate,
          I have just read your blog.You said that you had got a belief on god,right?I do not really understand how you could believe something which you have never witnessed.Actually I am not an athiest but I do not believe anything blindly either.Could you please answer one simple question?Why did you think about opening this site?I mean,in order to improve your knowledge on science or to improve your belief on God?

      • Craig says:

        The problem with your argument is that you have to prove that a code cannot arise naturally. You haven’t done that — you are just asserting that it can’t.

        I can make this argument:
        1. Trees grow from seeds
        2. All seeds come from pine cones
        3. Maple trees do not produce pine cones
        4. Therefore, God created maple trees

        • I haven’t proven that a code cannot arise naturally. I’ve shown that nobody else has SHOWN that a code CAN arise naturally.

          Your syllogism bears no resemblance to mine and it does not constitute an argument, it’s just a nonsensical statement.

          • Enricco says:

            But, then again, the fact that nobody has proven it can arise naturally is not enough to use it as an argument and, according to logic, you’re using it as premise for your syllogism; which is in turn no other thing than an argument.
            You’re being contradictory.

            Science demands formal proofs and, as far as you MUST know if you want to make a bold statement as the one you are making (or any statement at all): syllogisms are NOT formal proofs.

            Have you ever read anything about a property of compex systems called emergency? Emergency is the appearance of order from a highly entropic system. Information is a consequence of emergency. The main ingredient of life is information; we agree on that. But information is everywhere without the necessity of something or someone creating it, because its an intrinsic property of matter and energy. Emergency could account for the assembly of all that information so life could exist.

            There’s an equation that shows the direct relation between information and entropical state. And emergency is proven to exist.

            I’m sorry; you are good at discussing, but you should be carefull: I’m not saying god does not exist, but everything you have said is not a proof. You have no proof god does exist, either.

            I’m open to the probability it exists, but only if proofs are available. At this time, no such proof exist, so please be humble and accept the plain truth: NO ONE is right for sure because there’s no evidence of anything.