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
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html
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:
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
–“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:
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
How you explained God before the existence from man?
God would have message that give since beginning to existence from man, before Big Bang what, it would have reason from being before that?
You state that messages and information exist only as the product of a mind. This statement cannot be supported. Information only exists when interpreted and or understood by a mind. It takes a mind to understand what then becomes information, or, if you will, message or messages. Here is an example of “information” and “message.” I see a particular type of cloud, a cumulonimbus. By itself, it is nothing but what it seems. To an untrained eye (mind) it is a beautiful white structure that is growing vertically. Modern people understand that it is made of water droplets and ice crystals. It still may not be a bit of information or a message. But knowledgeable minds know that a cloud of this type portends rain showers, and possibly thunderstorms, lightning, and high winds. This then is information, and the message is “beware the storm that may ensue.” To an experienced aviator, a CB cloud means “Keep clear!” He knows it may contain violent up and down drafts and hail which may extend several miles from the cloud itself. This is information to the mind of the observer. Without the observer, it is not information, and there is no message. This does not require a mind to put the information there in the first place.
There is nothing in that example that presupposes a mind, other than the required mind to interpret what the cloud means. It depends upon the observer and his knowledge, experience, or awareness. It does not require a mind to make the cloud, nor a mind to put an implicit “message” of storm-to-come there. It very well may be the same in the instances you cite in your proselytizing note. Perhaps the “information” in the DNA molecule is not “information” until an analyzing mind contemplates it. The data held in the molecule are not information until a brain uses knowledge to interpret what that data represent. To state that it required a mind to “design” that molecule for human brains to take in as information and messages is unsubstantiated. You may well be correct, but your thesis scarcely “proves” that god exists. It does nothing of the kind, except to minds that are easily manipulated or are presupposing at the onset.
I am not a scientist, nor am I very bright, but your “proof” falls short. The argument is ancient, and you are not going to convince any but the gullible. Nor am I.
You are welcome to your belief. My question is, why do you persist in attempting to justify it? You do not have to convince me that your faith is real. You really believe in the existence of god, and good for you. I have come to a different conclusion: I am without belief in god or gods. I am without belief in the supernatural. I do not find them necessary to explain the universe. The origin is unknown both to you and to me. You think you know, and I do not. It is a simple difference.
Ron Weinert
Skeptic
Ron,
You are repeating arguments that have already been refuted years ago. I recommend that you apprise yourself of the infidels debate at https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/. Once you have done that I will be happy to pick up this discussion with you.
Perry
Simply because science can’t yet explain what happened before the Big Bang, you can’t slap the OLD “God must have done it”, and expect and intelligent being to go with it!
Unless you can explain how your God came about, you are saying nothing! The “God has always being”, EXPLAINS NOTHING!!!
Otherwise, all I have to say, is “The Big Bang just happened”. Cased closed!
The problem is you can’t say “case closed” because of what Kurt Godel proved in his Incompleteness theorem:
-All systems rely on something outside the system that cannot be proven yet must be assumed
You can say “the big bang just happened” but if you don’t inquire as to what’s outside the system then you have short-cut intellectual inquiry and free thought.
Case not closed.
You wrote:
The problem is you can’t say “case closed” because of what Kurt Godel proved in his Incompleteness theorem:
-All systems rely on something outside the system that cannot be proven yet must be assumed.
Your abstraction of Gödel is not correct. Gödel proved that any (not all) system strong enough to include arithmetic can construct statements in the system the truth of which cannot be demonstrated using the system. In other words, for any system of independent axioms sufficiently strong, statements can be constructed that cannot be decided by the axioms and valid rules of inference.
A corrolary can be interpreted that given any such undecidable statement, we can choose to assume it true or false and add either case to form a larger system. And the induction from this yields an infinite hierarchy of systems branching at each undecidabe by lower levels statement.
Look absolute geometry with only four postulates. The fifth postulate can be added in many forms, each generating a different geometry.
Look also at Russell’s theory of types as an answer to Frege in Russell’s paradox. “Information” is a product of the human nervous system that does not depend upon the prior existence of either information or any so-called “mind”. The basis lies in our nervous system’s ability to abstract and to compare. See “The Neurological Basis of Identity” at http://xenodochy.org/gs/identity.html
Ralph,
Your statements about Godel are not incorrect but neither is mine. The system of logic in a high school geometry book rests on 5 theorems that you know are true but cannot prove. We can draw a circle around the ones we can prove but they still rest on the 5 outside the circle that you cannot prove. They are, to use Godel’s terminology, undecideable.
The universe is no different. It cannot prove its own consistency, account for its own existence, or be contingent upon itself. It is dependent on something that is, to use Godel’s terminology, undecideable. We know that the something is not a nothing. It is a something. There is something outside the universe.
Perry
Perry wrote, “The system of logic in a high school geometry book rests on 5 theorems that you know are true but cannot prove”.
This is not correct, as the excursions into non-Euclidean geometry have shown.
It is five “postulates”, not “theorems”; a “theorem” is proved from postulates and previously proven theorems using strictly truth preserving rules of inference. A “proof” is a series of statements, each of wich is a postulate or axiom or which follows from prior statements in the list using valid rules of inference. Now, about non-Euclidean geomtries… They are form my assuming a different format of the fifth postulate.
1. Euclidean: One and only one “straight” line may be drawn parallel to a given line through a point (usually not on the given line).
2. Closed or negative curved spaces such as the surface of a sphere: No “straight” lines may be drawn parallel to a given line through a point not on that line.
3. Open or positive curved space. More than one line may be drawn parallel to a given line through a point not on the given line. (Saddle shaped space.)
4. Other variations.
Note that 1, 2, and 3, are all mutually incompatible. You cannot have lines with the property of one space in another space. All these different, mutually incompatible, geometries are each internally consistent. In Gödel’s terms, the fifth postulate is undecidable in the system of the first four postulates.
This system does not fall under Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, but it is simple enough to illustrate the result as a concept by intuition. Gödel does not apply to “all” systems, as you claimed earlier, and by implication in your response when you said your remarks were not wrong. Gödel only applies to systems sufficiently strong to model arithmetic. The geometry illustration does not model arithmetic.
In sufficiently complex systems we get a countably infinite ascending hierarchy with branches spreading out that covers alternative values assigned to any undecidable statement. Decide “true” and get one branch; decide false and get another branch; change the parameter, possibly, and get multiple other possible branches. Each branch then spawns its own undecidable statement which further branches at each “indecision” point. It produces a tree of possible paths into varying sematic values. It even happened in physical systems. During early automobile manufacture, some cars had positive grounds and others had negative grounds. Each works fine by itself, but you cannot connect the two together without a polarity reversing bridge. You have to cross the jumper cables to go from a negative ground (modern cars) to a positive ground. The choice of whether to use negative or positive ground is undecidable from the principles of ignition, motors, lights, etc., so you can choose either, and both systems were at one time in use.
But just like the big flash and burned out cables and batteries you might get from connecting them with the crossover, mixing Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries results in a contradiction which destroys any conclusions you could get from one or the other.
Ralph,
You can use other systems of geometry to validate Euclid’s postulates but those systems rely on other postulates which still cannot be proven. You always end up with something you have to assume but cannot prove.
Dear Ron:
The Bible explained where the rain came from 4000 years ago in the book of Job.
There is tremendous evidence that ancient people were highly intelligent , the idea they were not has a name, chronological snobbery.
As far as information a cloud is not information, bricks are not information , no material thing is information, even secular scientists who study information understand that. The information is not the cloud itself but the description that can only be created by a mind.
The truth is you have no explanation for the universe , life , or much of anything else. The Big Bang is a story to explain certain evidence but even Hubble said there were other interpretations but either way the universe had a cause because it had a beginning. Evolution fails before it starts because the minimum self reproducing organism is itself. Evolution begs us to just assume somehow spontaneous generation happened at least once, that is not an explanation at all.
The idea ancient man was too stupid to understand how the universe came to be pre-supposes we do . Hate to break this to you but we don’t.
Wait, but just prove that God according to the dictionary definition of God that God does not exist. 🙂 Below are the definition for the word”god” and the word “exist” I didn’t even have to contemplate to deep to answer that.
“God
n
supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god ”
“Ex·ist
vi
1. be: to be, especially to be a real, actual, or current thing, not merely something imagined or written about
Does life exist on other planets? ” Microsoft Works Dictionary
In another word when we die information dies too, I don’t know of any living mind in a dead body.
I like that sentence ““So simple any child can understand; so complex,
no a-theist can solve.”
Here is a gift, now prove to me a mind that exist without a flesh ? You can always give it back to me if you don’t like it.
Richard,
I don’t understand most of what you’re saying here.
Evidence that mind is immaterial: Information is clearly not an inherent property of matter; and information follows rules that are immaterial. The laws of any code cannot be derived from the laws of physics. Therefore the source of information must also be immaterial.
Perry
i absolutely beleive in God as i lived through world war two and survived and i specially learned about God in America where i felt closer to him maybe because of geographical reasons because i felt so small in front of a great universe , yet i did naturaly love him as a child, i rermember saying” thank you, thank you God” for all the beauty that i saw
One thing disturbs me , why did he create these horrible monsters like the dynosaures ? SO UGLY AND CRUEL HOW COULD THAT BE IF HE CREATED US IN HIS OWN IMAGE?
Colette Anne Naegle
poetry.com
teacher UCSD ( twenty years )
Cambridge prize for poetry
The national league of American pen women
i am not doing this to brag but to glorify God for he gave me the gift of languages as English is my third , yet he bypassed me in mathematics where i was an absolute dud
Colette,
Job 40 talks about monsters such as (perhaps) dinosaurs:
15 “Look at the behemoth, [a]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]
or trap him and pierce his nose?
If you read Job’s conversation with God, the upshot is: ‘Job, you don’t understand why I made the earth the way I did, such knowledge is beyond you. I’m not obligated to explain myself.”
The fierceness and wildness of nature tell us something about God. God is not tame, God is not domesticated.
The Psalmist expressed, “Be still and know that I am God.”
Perry
dear Colette:
You should read the Bible before you attack it.
God created a perfect world with no death,no pain,and no tears, we messed it up with sin. Lizards never quit growing so the dinosaurs that were so huge were likey very old. The majority were not big at all with some as small as a mouse. At first they were as tame as kittens and ate plants.
God will restore Paradise Lost one day.
Forrest –
The Bible make ZERO claims that the God created a ‘perfect’ world that contained ‘no death.’
The Bible states that the creation events are ‘Good’ and that the creation of man with ‘Very Good’ but not ‘perfect.’ This creation is perfect only in the sense that it is perfectly suited to achieve his purpose for the creation (e.g., the elimination of evil). To be perfect, you have to be 100% equivalent to God or His standards. As in baseball, even if you have only one strikeout, you can never again be perfect – but – you can be ‘very good’ if you bat 400 (i.e. 4 hits accompanied by 6 outs). The only other time ‘very good’ is used in the Bible is in reference by the spies’ when reporting on the Promised Land – and – we know that that area is not ‘perfect.’
Death? In this universe, ‘death is essential for life’ and there are ZERO examples of life being able to exist without death of plants or animals. Even Christ followed that example – it is through his death that we have ‘spiritual’ life. Romans 5:12 states that “…just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men…” As such, Adam, when he sinned, died spiritually – and eventually physically. Animals are not included. For all plants and animals, ‘Death is essential for life’ — a result of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Jim Runyon
[DELETED BY MODERATOR]
Forrest,
I will not tolerate character accusations and personal judgments from you. You will speak to others and especially Jim with respect and wherever reasonably possible, give others the benefit of the doubt. You will be factual and courteous or I will delete your account on this site.
Perry Marshall
Forrest –
The Bible never claims that God created a perfect universe or earth – only that it was ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ ‘Good’ cannot mean perfect. Even ‘very good’ does not mean perfect. The only other time that ‘very good’ is used in the Bible is when Moses sent spies into the ‘promised land’ and they came back and said that the land was ‘very good.’ I’m not sure what they were seeing, but the land of Israel is not perfect. In baseball, you can be a very good player but if you strike out one time or make one error, you are no longer perfect. Perfection will onnot be realized in this creation.
Jim Runyon
Yes, I also learned it was a perfect Paradise initially. Interesting points about good and very good. Could possibly be some syntax errors. The Hebrew and Greek
of the era don’t translate exactly. We don’t live in the period and culture when the Bible stories were passed along from one person to another. The Dead Sea Scrolls do validate the general theme of the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, there is no supporting data discovered to validate it. Today we have Judaism and the multitude of Christian demolitions as off shoots of the Greek Orthodox Church.
“As for the New Testament, there is no supporting data discovered to validate it.”
There’s even more validation of the NT than the OT. Jesus is mentioned in many other 1st & 2nd century historical sources, see http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/
If you spend any time investigating this issue you’ll find that this statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I encourage you to read authors such as NT Wright and William Lane Craig.
sir, was the universe created from a small dimunitive trivial substance?
how dense was it?
Best Regards
Furqon –
It would be incorrect to use the word ‘substance’ for the beginning of the universe. Using Einstein’s equation E=mc^2, mass and energy are interchangeable. At the beginning of the universe, all matter (i.e. substance) is energy, and the universe would be near infinitely hot. String theory would also state that, at these high energy states, the things that make up matter were in the form of multi-dimensional bands of energy that are referred to as ‘strings’. Again, these ‘strings’ are not ‘substance’ but the things that make up substances.
Jim Runyon
JIm the Bible says God created the universe from nothing. What separates Christianity from paganism is the ex-nihilo creation of matter.
What you are saying when you speak of string theory {very weak model btw} is that matter pre-existed God. There is a word for that. it is called pantheism.
Forrest –
The doctrine of ‘ex-nihilo’ comes primarily from Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Notice it doesn’t say ‘nothing’ – just that it is ‘NOT’ visible. While I do acknowledge that string theory has not been proven (i.e. the uncertainity is high), it must be acknowedged that ‘strings’ (i.e. multi-dimensional vibrating bands of energy) are not visible – but that they are the things that make up the ‘seen’ material of our universe, according to that theory.
We must resist telling God how he did things, like ‘how’ he created the universe. The only person that Jesus was ever ‘amazed’ at someone faith was when Jesus healed the Roman centurion’s servant. The Roman leader knew how ‘authority’ worked when he said “For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it” (Luke 7). The Roman asked Jesus to just “say the word” and the servant would be healed – and he was. In a similar manner, when God ‘spoke’ (commanded) the universe into existence, he did so with true or ‘ultimate’ authority. My view of science is that we are in the process of discovering ‘how’ this command was accomplished. Perhaps, these multi-dimensional vibrating bands of energy are God’s voice, not dissimilar to the vibrating sounds of our voices (with fewer dimensions).
– Jim Runyon
Perry,
You try and tell me that atheism is blindly believing in something? You tell me that for me to not believe in your God, who has NEVER shown himself, takes belief? I would walk you through the meaning of atheism, but it would be lost on you. You, like all religious folk, cannot accept FACT. You live through pseudo-sciences, and you live through a book written by men, edited by men, and translated by men. You believe just because DNA resembles a code, that it has to be designed? You use modern computers as a comparison. Mr. Marshall, I will totally submit to you if you give me an example of a structure, other than DNA, and that has been backed scientifically, not by people who believe the same faith as you, I’m sorry, I lost track. If you give me an example of a structure that builds itself from just a code. I will agree with you. You will be right. If you show me a computer that built itself out of zeroes and ones. I will submit. However, if you show me something that only USES the code. I cannot accept your argument.
On another note, you say that information is immaterial? You do NOT understand information sir. Information is all things. All things contain information. Even the rocks. I’d also like to point out another thing which you’re ignorance will not let you understand. Information obeys the laws of physics. It CANNOT travel faster than the speed of light. You say that there is a discrete measurement of how information is passed. Yet there is information that does not obey local causality. That alone makes ALL of your arguments based on lies. The fact that you do not understand science, does not make religion correct. Yes, to someone who does not understand science in the slightest, it does make more sense to be religious. Because you’ve had a fear installed in you since birth. A fear of going to hell. To live as an atheist is to live without that fear. To live with purpose. To live for oneself. I have something I’d like to tell you also Mr. Marshall…
Just because I cannot convince you that you are completely wrong, doesn’t make you right. And I have very VERY measurable reasons to believe in science. We see all the forces. We feel all the forces. For you to deny one part of science is to deny it all. And unless you think you typed all these pages on the internet by magic. I have a feeling you believe in science. However, don’t get it confused with things that are pseudo-science, like: Information theory. Creationism. (By the way, if you are catholic, or orthodox, your pope believes fully in evolution.) Good day sir.
Scott
P.S. You say that codes can only be designed by an intelligent designer, is not time the most intelligent designer. It forms canyons, it allows life, it allows for everything. Could it not have designed DNA? Myself, and all other rational thinkers believe that. We, of course, also believe that we have dragons in our garages. 😛
Scott,
I might be good to remind ourselves that you are not trapped into believing any certain thing.
There is no rule that says you have to adhere to the tenets of atheism.
There is no rule that if you accept the findings of information theory that you have to suddenly become an annoying Bible thumping Christian or whatever. You are free to evolve your beliefs to the facts however makes sense to you.
There are some things which I would like you to consider today.
If Atheism is said to be nothing more than non-belief in god or gods, then that is fine. You are welcome to advocate that if you wish. If that is ALL that atheism is, then you are not blindly believing in something. You are only disbelieving.
It’s OK to say “I don’t know” and leave it at that.
But a person who doesn’t know has no business going on the attack.
If Atheism is to compete with other worldviews as an explanatory filter – if it is going to hold itself up as being scientific – then it has no choice but to positively answer certain kinds of questions. Questions like, for example, “what caused the big bang” or “where did the rules of the genetic code come from?”
Yes, Scott, many non-theists do blindly believe a whole stock of standard answers to these questions, with only an illusion of proof or evidence. If you dig into these questions, it may take awhile, but you will eventually come to realize that these explanations are little more than assumptions piled upon assumptions, embraced with the comfort of knowing that lots of other smart people believe the same things.
However I for one will not permit atheism to completely dodge these questions with hand-waving non-scientific, non-empirical, hypothetical explanations, even as it mocks religious people for avoiding the realities of science. I think you also deserve more evidence than that, for whatever you choose to believe.
You may want to hold the evangelical atheists (Dawkins, Sagan, et. al.) up to the same set of standards as you apply to everyone else. Why should you be skeptical about religion and not be skeptical about, say, abiogenesis? Most religious people freely admit that some things they believe are not provable; many atheists are loathe to admit that they believe things which in principle SHOULD be provable but which have never actually been proven at all.
Why should anyone – especially you – believe a myth that says life spontaneously arose from chemicals in the ocean, when there is no evidence? Don’t you deserve better than that? Should you believe someone just because he said, “I am a scientist. Just trust me!” ?
Let’s clarify my definition of information. An information system consists of the following:
[encoder] –> code –> [decoder]
Information is defined as communication between an encoder and a decoder using agreed upon symbols.
Light traveling from the sun to the earth is not information by this definition. There is no set of agreed upon symbols; there is no encoding and there is no decoding. There is just light being generated and absorbed. Nothing is assigning any meaning to it. It’s just energy.
When you look up in the sky and interpret what you see, your own intelligence is required for any information to exist.
This is not the case with DNA, which both encodes and decodes on its own, independently of any observer. As the ribosomes decode the mRNA they assign meaning by producing a protein. In this sense DNA is completely different from any purely material object. Nothing like this happens to rocks or sand or starlight.
I have challenged you to apprise yourself of Yockey’s work. Until you have done that you may not understand what is being said here. If you wish to debate the fine points of information theory then read the literature first. Then you are invited to come back to the table and present your argument. Do not accuse me of not understanding information until you’ve done so and can go toe to toe with me on the technical details.
Information theory is not pseudo-science. It was the subject of a landmark paper by Claude Shannon in 1948. It is black and white, totally non-controversial, and the computer screen you’re reading now would not be possible without it. You can read about information theory at the following websites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Time alone did not design DNA, and to assert that it did is not rationality. It is a leap of faith.
I believe in God with a capital G; you had believed in chance with a capital C. Both are beliefs in the unseen.
Perry Marshall
Scott:
Your hostility towards “religious folk” shows a complete misunderstanding of religion, history, and science.
First you are as religious as anyone alive, you believe by blind faith that matter created itself, wrote a language and then at least one self replicating organism spontaneously sprang to life for no apparent reason.
You try and claim that there is a conflict between Christianity and science but the lamest historian, philosopher of science alive knows Western science was birthed in post Reformation Christian Europe and no law of science or major branch of science has ever been founded by an atheist.
It would behoove you to read some books on death. Christians often die in utter peace talking about the beauty , talking to Jesus, many atheists {Voltaire is a prime example} die in unimaginable fear . One poor soul who had just told his nurse 30 minutes before to never mention the name of Jesus again died nearly breaking my aunt’s hand begging her to pull his feet from the fire. {my aunt was his nurse]
It’s sadly amusing when atheists decide to prove their right it often backfires.
2 researchers who set out to prove near death and pre-death experiences could be explained away as chance occurrences ended up becoming Christians themselves , the Australian Skeptics sponsored a study to prove Christians were superstitious and it turned out it showed the opposite {no conservative Christian has ever been anal probed} , and recently a very liberal black fellow set out to prove how generous secularists are ended up writing a book called “Who Really Cares” that documents the most charitable people on earth are conservative Christians and the least young liberals who are often like you, atheists. He found it was night and day.
Some of the best scientists alive today are very conservative Christians so when I hear this mantra that only atheists are “real” scientists feel sorry for the person saying it because have been deceived and their anger is controlled by the puppeteer yanking on their strings.
Evolution has around from at least 600 B.C, that we have documented as well as the belief in millions of years, 150 years ago Darwin , who learned of evolution from his grandfather, convinced people he made it up despite the fact history disproved it then and does today. Darwin’s grandfather was a fan of the Epicurean Poet Lucretius who lived a century before Christ and emulated his poetry style. The fact you were lied to about evolution being a 19th century scientific discovery instead of an ancient anti-God religion should make you think.
People who have no choice but to believe in spontaneous generation that go around trying to insult the intelligence of those who believe in God don’t impress me much, I find that a sad way to live trying to belittle others to make yourself feel superior. I have yet to meet an evolutionists who had a clue what the history of that belief is . I have never met an evolutionist that ever read Darwin’s book’s. Huxley’s books , The Poems of Lucretius, knew the history of the Ionian School or could even name Haeckles book’s . Never met one who had studied Halton’s Arps cosmologies {he is an atheist} had the slightest clue what the scientific arguments of the creationists are, could explain radiometic dating on a junior high level or much of anything else yet they all claim creationists are stupid.
Here is the logic you present.
Evolution must be true because so many believe it.
We don’t want to believe in God so we need something to explain life.
Evolution is something..
In ancient times, atheists were given death penalty by the religious folks who had the political power in their hands. So it perfectly makes sense why great scientists like Galileo didn’t declare themselves as atheists.
Your example of Australian skeptics study is a hoax made up by you. Belief in Santa Clause can be considered as superstition which all conservative Christians do believe in.
Yes, some of the scientists today are Christians, most of them are not. We never claimed only those scientists who are atheists are real. Its your assumption. There are no scientific arguments for creationism.
You are stupid to say that evolution started at 600BC, Darwin found out himself about evolution, he was not informed by his grandfather.
Your logic is Creationism is true because bible says so, my father says so, pope says so. Majority in this world believe in creation, so it is true.
People do not believe in evolution, they understand it. We Do not believe in evolution because it is the only alternative, we have studied it with the facts and evidence.
Dear Shirhara,
In ancient times nearly from the beginning of Christiannity, Christians has been persecuted. First by Jews, then by Polyteist until the time of Constantine not to long thereafter Christians was again persecuted by the institution of Catholic Church who just gave ancient gods new names and prayed to them as saints,
If you want to talk about percecution, then look up Barthelomeus Night and the following persecution in Nimes beginning around year 1814, the genoside in Turkey where the christian Armenians where nearly wiped out, the history of the Waldenses a complete people who was killed, females raped and kids not spared, the genoside of Orthodox and Jews alike under TITO and the 2 world war I can only speculate how many christians was killed in the dark ages, I know it to be millions. There is a book called The book of Martyrs for you to read it contains some of the killings. Then you have the killings under Nero.
I honestly know no Atheist willing to die for his or her belief.. and I cannot see this in the history I have studied either… It is written go you on the ways and see,, ask for the old paths and walk therein and you shall find rest for your soul.. my friend there is not peace in evolution.
You have got me almost totally confused; I don’t think Mr. Marshall is hositile, Where is the proof supporting his hostility?
I don’t know what you think about the Bible; by its own admission Genesis 1
:1 implies God exisisted before Gen.1:1. The Bible was written by ordinary uneducated men and women. Judaism and Christianity are mankind’s attempt to explain an eternity. I prefer Hinduism and Buddism to anything associated with the Judaeo Christian concept . It makes more sense and less fantasy as with Judaeo Christianity. I don’t believe I’ve ever met a Christian that doesn’t suffer from some form of delusion just because they adhere to the Judaeo Christian belief, they meet the definition of narcissism.
Unfortunately people wanting a heaven and hell, they exsist. This life is all there is, nothing more but the fantasy. It’s a nice story without any supporting data. A sort of Alice in Wonderland.
Atheist is cold and strict with plenty of supporting scientific data.
Many good things have been accomplished in the name of Christianity even though it is a lie. The Bible can be thought of a hope so book but will fail upon death. The key issue is to be happy…it supports a healthy life…eventually the lie gets covered over with bliss and everyone is happy with the thought of the fantasy. Of course it is bull poop.
The story of Voltaire and the flames touching his feet is very much embellished to create sensationalism.
Forrest –
While there are many good scientists who are Christians, some of the most conservative Christian scientist have very bad science that is driven from their insistence on a young earth. A good resource refuting their bad science is “Answers in Creation” at http://www.answersincreation.org
Halton Art – You refer to this astronomer who’s theories of 50years ago have been thoroughly disproven (i.e. quasars are closer than you think). Please QUIT referring to Halton Art. It’s embarrassing.
Jim Runyon
dt.13.06.2009 1200hrs ist
dear sir , can you send me the “where did the universe come from” part 3 and part 4 as i hv deleted from computer thru oversight. i am sorry to bother you on this subject but it is most interesting and knowledgeable. i must thank you for the research you have done. thank you wish you the best at all the times shashi puranik
Yes I could read. Yes I have the same views, somehow. Although I find some to complex, liking going to college again. Im very slow. Most of the time I think more than people think I think. Every beat of my heart I use it to think. What makes me old is that, when I think. Sometimes people forget that God knows everyhting– most of the time, what we do not know. And most of the time what we are afraid of. Maybe its a calling. No its just how God is probably. Too bad He is invincible we are not. Well I beleive what is important is to go on and never look back. The theory of the begining belongs to a mind who has no begining, and if we can prove there is a god, well we found what we are looking for. Thus, when we look we enrich ourselves. And probably thats our job to keep on looking that we be enrich. Well ts been a long day I could feel my chest somehow, thank you. I guess I will think more…
well, i am quite impressed by your reasoning and now i have some point for believing in God……
but there’s one question in my mind……
you say we were created by some intelligent Thing(i.e. God)…….. means God was intelligent……
but the question is who created God??? was He just created by nature; but that’s not possible because He is intelligent… and as you say so he must have been again created by some other intelligent being…..
this can create a never ending chain……..
Hopefully you have some explanation for that….
I have made many references in these pages to links which address this question.
PERRY HELLO
Trough out the ages ‘when ever there was an impossibility to find an answer the word GOD
was immediately applied and like a miracle …. there was order in the thoughts …
“It must have been Him the Creator whom arranged this in such a fashion “.
SO TO SPEAK …. ALL WAS GOD’S FINGER … INCLUDING THE STORM
INCLUDING THE HURRICANE , HUMIDITY . WARMTH , . . . . so was it believed.
One thing was done by Man… changing the believed … changing the System …..
Now a Day We Explain Else … WE STILL DO NOT KNOW A THING .
ERST
p.s. comment on part nr. 4 of mails .
Good job Mr. Marshall.
Keep up the good work, and may God our creator bless you.
Hello Perry,
Heres a few more objections im having trouble dealing with. The waters get kinda murky dealing with words that can be taken and used in different ways, such as “intelligence, information, natural, supernatural “etc.
**Every code where we are aware of the origin of that code, are all natural. Every single one. What YOU need is an unnatural one. All minds we are aware of are natural, too. So if a mind made DNA it must be natural & of this universe! All you need is one supernatural mind, JUST ONE! **
Isn’t he here already assuming DNA code is natural? He seems to be saying whatever is here and now in the universe must be natural. But I keep trying to tell him that life itself is what we are questioning in the first place.
——-
I said: The initial information, in DNA, which produces life, cannot be derived from the laws physics and chemistry.
He said: I notice that you have provided no proof for this statement.
——-
I said: Who said we did? The one thing we havne’t observed being produced is the one thing in question, coded information in DNA.
He said: Right, so we reason from what we have observed to what we haven’t. Since we have seen the production of many codes, and none of them have been produced by magic, we conclude that in the case of a code the origin of which we have not observed, it most likely was not produced by magic.
———
He said: Two people holding a rope with a ring on it at one end maps point A to point B when the ring slides from one end to the other.
—————-
**Shannon launched the field of information theory with his landmark paper (A Mathematical Theory of Communication) back in 1948. Shannon was working for Bell Labs on the problem of communicating information in the presence of noise, and so he first had to define information. He defined information as a set of messages, and he defined the problem of communication as one of “reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point.” In other words, the problem of communication is how to transmit a message from point A to point B.
Shannon proposed a logorithmic approach to measuring information where the amount of information in binary bits is the log2 of the number of messages in the message set. So if you have a message set of size 6 then the amount of information contained in any single message from the message set is:
log26 = 2.58 bits
A simple example helps makes this clear. Here’s a set of six messages that I might want to send to a friend:
I am sleeping.
I am awake.
I am working.
I am playing.
I am away.
I am traveling.
How would you transmit one of these messages over a digital channel? You’d encode it, like this:
000: I am sleeping.
001: I am awake.
010: I am working.
011: I am playing.
100: I am away.
101: I am traveling.
Notice that although sending one of these 6 messages should require only 2.58 bits that we’ve actually used 3 bits for each message. We might be able to reduce the number of bits by using 2 bits for some messages and 3 bits for others, for example:
00: I am sleeping.
01: I am awake.
100: I am working.
101: I am playing.
110: I am away.
111: I am traveling.
This uses 2.67 bits (on average). Getting to 2.58 bits might not be possible with a binary encoding. But the specific encoding of the messages isn’t what’s important. Here’s the important part: messages do not have meaning.
Let me repeat that: In information theory, messages do not have meaning. Meaning is irrelevant to the communications problem. Reading meaning into messages is probably WordBeLogos’s biggest error. In Shannon’s own words, “Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.”
This means that information theory doesn’t care that one message means “I am sleeping” and another message means “I am awake.” All that is important to information theory is that one message is “000” and another message is “001”, and the problem of communications is how to transmit a message from point A to point B.
This too is key, so let me repeat this too: The information we’re tranmitting is not “I am sleeping” or “I am awake”. The information we’re transmitting is “000” or “001” and so forth. We could even send the information by converting the characters in “I am awake” to their ASCII code equivalents and sending those, which in hexidecimal for brevity would be, though of course this is much less efficient than “001”:
4A20616D206177616B65
But notice that the efficiency of the binary representation does not affect the amount of information contained in a message from our message set. If we use 3 binary bits to represent our 2.58 bits of information, then we’re only wasting .42 bits. If we use the ASCII code to represent “I am awake” as 80 binary bits, then we’re wasting 77.42 bits. Independent of the specific encoding, the amount of information we’re transmitting is always just 2.58 bits, because there are only 6 messages in our message set.
There is a high degree of consistency and rigour in all this that is completely absent in WordBeLogos’s level of understanding, and it is essential for discussing these issues. Discussion is pointless until Word begins accepting the feedback and discussing the issues in terms that make sense.**
—————–
I said: All other codes are ultimately derivatives of DNA. All codes that you know the origin of come from biological code makers, humans (or animals, insects etc). So all of human observation, 100% of it, tells us codes ONLY come from intelligence.
He said: For the sake of argument, let’s assume that all known codes are biological. So, human observation does not tell us codes “ONLY come from intelligence.” You have to assume your conclusion for this. In other words, you have to assume that DNA is intelligently designed in order to claim that it and the many codes used by non-intelligent organisms (I gave you an example of coded communication between brainless organisms further up the thread) are intelligently designed.
So, let’s look at what we actually observe. We can see codes that require intelligence (ours) and codes that don’t, unless we assume your conclusion. In other words, as we do not know the ultimate origin of the apparently mindless codes, so human observation would actually tell us, 100%, that biological codes are of unknown ultimate origin.
But there is one thing that 100% human observation does tell us. That all known intelligent beings have complex coded information as a prerequisite. There are upwards of 6,000,000,000 on earth, and not one exception.
——————–
I said: But by empirical observation, codes ONLY come by intelligence.
He said: Wrong. Either from intelligence (ours) or no known source (others), and all known intelligent code making depends on a chemical code of unknown source. So, I repeat, the ultimate source of codes is currently unknown.
—————–
I said: So, as it stands now, intelligence is the *ONLY* way we *KNOW* codes are made. And we *KNOW* humans, animals nor insects produced the coded information in DNA.
He said: Wrong. Ultimate unknown origin, as we’ve established above. This doesn’t support your argument, as I’ve explained, because we know of both intelligently produced codes and unintelligent codes, both of unknown ultimate origin. Both. Yet we know of no intelligent designers who don’t have code as a prerequisite. So, the 100% observation is actually that last one.
So, what we should infer from observation, then, is that chemical code is a prerequisite for intelligence and intelligent design, not the other way around.
If you can show me one example of an intelligent designer who does not depend on a pre-existing code, then you have blown a hole in my argument.
And please, don’t assume what you’re trying to prove (your god).
——————
Hesaid: WordBeLogos has explicitly stated that intelligence is capable of defying the laws of nature. He has failed to provide a single example of such, despite the continual harping of Dr Adequate on this point, so we currently have no reason to suspect that intelligence can defy the laws of nature. Since Word’s argument requires intelligence to have this ability, his argument can only be accepted pending his producing an example of intelligence defying the laws of nature.
I say: Information that arises from intelligence is what the laws of nature cant account for. In other words the laws of nature cant produce information. But they keep twisting this around. They say well we are natural and we produce information therefore information doesnt break any laws of nature. Isnt this begging the question though?
——————–
He said: WordBeLogos also conflates “information” with “meaning,” as Percy has persevered to explain multiple times. According to the Shannon definition of information, meaning is not required, and there is no law of nature that prevents meaningless information from fortuitously acquiring meaning without guidance. Thus, we have no evidence that Shannon information systems cannot be natural.
—————-
Hesaid: WordBeLogos also draws a false connection between “intelligence” and “code.” Everything that he accepts as a “code” is something that was created by humans, with the exception of DNA. However, since DNA was obviously not created by humans, WordBeLogos feels that it is appropriate to replace “humans” with the abstract concept of “intelligence” to maintain the connection between DNA and other codes. But, the fact is that the connection is broken by the observation that humans did not create DNA, so any attempt to group DNA with human-made codes is entirely speculative on his part.
—————-
Finally, WordBeLogos resorts to reductionism when it suits him. For instance, he claims that codes used by non-intelligent organisms—e.g. the waggle dance of honeybees—are derived wholly from DNA, and thus, are not viable exceptions to his rule that codes come from intelligence. However, he refuses to allow the same reductionism as an explanation for human codes—despite his inability to prove that human codes are somehow different from honeybee codes—and holds up human codes, rather than honybee codes, as the appropriate data set to which the genetic code must be compared.
I find these four points to be sufficient grounds to consider WordBeLogos’s hypothesis that DNA was created by intelligence to be logically invalid.
If he is right that intelligence created DNA, it is by pure coincidence, just as the broken clock in my lab coincidentally tells me the right time of day everyday at 11:05.
———————–
As you mentioned before, they don’t really refute as much as obfuscate the issues, an I have to admit it’s throwing me off some. Is there any validity to their claims or am I just missing something?
Thanks and God Bless you Perry!
John
John,
The only rational way to approach this question is for all parties to admit that the origin of DNA is unknown. Your opponent does not get the luxury of assuming that it’s natural. The burden of proof is on him to show that it is natural.
——-
I said: The initial information, in DNA, which produces life, cannot be derived from the laws physics and chemistry.
He said: I notice that you have provided no proof for this statement.
Yockey observed this in his 2005 book. You can look up the laws of physics in any physics book and nobody has ever shown how we get from those laws to the genetic code. Turn this around. Tell your opponent to show you how you get from the laws of physics to the genetic code.
——-
He said: Right, so we reason from what we have observed to what we haven’t. Since we have seen the production of many codes, and none of them have been produced by magic, we conclude that in the case of a code the origin of which we have not observed, it most likely was not produced by magic.
I need you to be more selective about what you present to me. He’s just giving you an insulting retort and this is wasting my time and yours. All information infers intelligence. Stick to your guns and ask him to present his evidence and DEMONSTRATE a code coming from non-intelligence.
———
He said: Two people holding a rope with a ring on it at one end maps point A to point B when the ring slides from one end to the other.
How is that a code??? Where’s the encoder and decoder and the table of symbols? That’s the criteria. John, don’t waste my time with questions like this.
—————-
4A20616D206177616B65
But notice that the efficiency of the binary representation does not affect the amount of information contained in a message from our message set. If we use 3 binary bits to represent our 2.58 bits of information, then we’re only wasting .42 bits. If we use the ASCII code to represent “I am awake” as 80 binary bits, then we’re wasting 77.42 bits. Independent of the specific encoding, the amount of information we’re transmitting is always just 2.58 bits, because there are only 6 messages in our message set.
There is a high degree of consistency and rigour in all this that is completely absent in WordBeLogos’s level of understanding, and it is essential for discussing these issues. Discussion is pointless until Word begins accepting the feedback and discussing the issues in terms that make sense.**
In Shannon’s system, meaning DOES exist. It is extremely simple: the only “meaning” that we need to be concerned with here is whether the message is encoded or decoded properly. In DNA, the meaning of “GGG” is Glycine. That meaning is real and black and white and quantifiable. In ASCII, the meaning of 100001 is capital A.
What Shannon does not attempt to quantify is semantic meaning because you can’t further reduce “1000001 = A” to a single number like 2.67. But Shannon does acknowledge that meaning exists. DNA does carry semantic meaning but that fact is not essential to this argument. Only the most rudimentary definition of meaning (“GGG means Glycine”) is necessary.
—————–
I said: All other codes are ultimately derivatives of DNA. All codes that you know the origin of come from biological code makers, humans (or animals, insects etc). So all of human observation, 100% of it, tells us codes ONLY come from intelligence.
He said: For the sake of argument, let’s assume that all known codes are biological. So, human observation does not tell us codes “ONLY come from intelligence.” You have to assume your conclusion for this. In other words, you have to assume that DNA is intelligently designed in order to claim that it and the many codes used by non-intelligent organisms (I gave you an example of coded communication between brainless organisms further up the thread) are intelligently designed.
So, let’s look at what we actually observe. We can see codes that require intelligence (ours) and codes that don’t, unless we assume your conclusion. In other words, as we do not know the ultimate origin of the apparently mindless codes, so human observation would actually tell us, 100%, that biological codes are of unknown ultimate origin.
But there is one thing that 100% human observation does tell us. That all known intelligent beings have complex coded information as a prerequisite. There are upwards of 6,000,000,000 on earth, and not one exception.
Yes, 100% of biological codes are of unknown ultimate origin. That’s the conundrum of the theory of abiogenesis. Everyone knows there cannot be an infinite number of generations of species; it has to start somewhere. But no one has ever seen life originate. So we have to infer. We have 100% inference to design and 0% inference to any other explanation.
——————–
I said: But by empirical observation, codes ONLY come by intelligence.
He said: Wrong. Either from intelligence (ours) or no known source (others), and all known intelligent code making depends on a chemical code of unknown source. So, I repeat, the ultimate source of codes is currently unknown.
If he is willing to admit he doesn’t know and wishes to go no further, then tell your friend, “thanks for finally admitting that you don’t know – welcome to agnosticism.”
—————–
I said: So, as it stands now, intelligence is the *ONLY* way we *KNOW* codes are made. And we *KNOW* humans, animals nor insects produced the coded information in DNA.
He said: Wrong. Ultimate unknown origin, as we’ve established above. This doesn’t support your argument, as I’ve explained, because we know of both intelligently produced codes and unintelligent codes, both of unknown ultimate origin. Both. Yet we know of no intelligent designers who don’t have code as a prerequisite. So, the 100% observation is actually that last one.
So, what we should infer from observation, then, is that chemical code is a prerequisite for intelligence and intelligent design, not the other way around.
If you can show me one example of an intelligent designer who does not depend on a pre-existing code, then you have blown a hole in my argument.
And please, don’t assume what you’re trying to prove (your god).
He’s doing exactly what he’s accusing you of doing – assuming without proof. Notice: You are freely admitting that you can’t put God on a table in a laboratory and test him. You are only claiming to infer. But he’s trying to get away with an assumption that he cannot prove. There is no inference to a naturalistic explanation of DNA. And just because it is here doesn’t mean it’s natural. He can’t have this both ways.
——————
He said: WordBeLogos has explicitly stated that intelligence is capable of defying the laws of nature. He has failed to provide a single example of such, despite the continual harping of Dr Adequate on this point, so we currently have no reason to suspect that intelligence can defy the laws of nature. Since Word’s argument requires intelligence to have this ability, his argument can only be accepted pending his producing an example of intelligence defying the laws of nature.
I say: Information that arises from intelligence is what the laws of nature cant account for. In other words the laws of nature cant produce information. But they keep twisting this around. They say well we are natural and we produce information therefore information doesnt break any laws of nature. Isnt this begging the question though?
Yes. Most of the questions you pass along to me are them begging the question. Stick to your guns. Ask THEM to produce support for their view. “We are here so DNA must be naturally occurring” is not an answer. Demand that they show you that DNA is naturally occurring.
John this is not a complex argument. This is simple. Every time they throw this back on you, demand proof.
Another way of looking at this: I’ve got a STACK of origin of life books here in my library. They fall into 2 categories:
1) The ones that admit that it is a profoundly complex mystery that no one has solved.
2) The ones that cleverly minimize the immense size of this problem, through sleight of hand. They slip in something that people have to take on faith, without the reader even realizing what has just happened.
It’s dishonest. People who have only a vague grasp of the issues believe it. Those who are familiar with the issues know better.
——————–
He said: WordBeLogos also conflates “information” with “meaning,” as Percy has persevered to explain multiple times. According to the Shannon definition of information, meaning is not required, and there is no law of nature that prevents meaningless information from fortuitously acquiring meaning without guidance. Thus, we have no evidence that Shannon information systems cannot be natural.
Simple mechanical decoding of a message = interpreting meaning.
—————-
Hesaid: WordBeLogos also draws a false connection between “intelligence” and “code.” Everything that he accepts as a “code” is something that was created by humans, with the exception of DNA. However, since DNA was obviously not created by humans, WordBeLogos feels that it is appropriate to replace “humans” with the abstract concept of “intelligence” to maintain the connection between DNA and other codes. But, the fact is that the connection is broken by the observation that humans did not create DNA, so any attempt to group DNA with human-made codes is entirely speculative on his part.
It’s not speculative, it’s inductive.
1) DNA is a code and that is a fact.
2) All codes we know the origin of are designed, that is a fact.
The inference to design is inescapable. It is what it is, and the atheist must either deal with it or admit he doesn’t know.
—————-
Finally, WordBeLogos resorts to reductionism when it suits him. For instance, he claims that codes used by non-intelligent organisms—e.g. the waggle dance of honeybees—are derived wholly from DNA, and thus, are not viable exceptions to his rule that codes come from intelligence. However, he refuses to allow the same reductionism as an explanation for human codes—despite his inability to prove that human codes are somehow different from honeybee codes—and holds up human codes, rather than honybee codes, as the appropriate data set to which the genetic code must be compared.
I find these four points to be sufficient grounds to consider WordBeLogos’s hypothesis that DNA was created by intelligence to be logically invalid.
If bees are conscious then the bee waggle is an example of an intelligently produced code.
If bees are not conscious then the bee waggle is a direct derivative of DNA and provides no answer to the question.
If human codes really just reduce to DNA *and there is no actual set of conscious choices involved in creating them (few people would argue that, BTW)* then we are still left with the fact that DNA has an entirely different set of characteristics from non-living things and we still have no explanation for the origin of living things. And if we accept that human codes are just direct derivatives of DNA then you have made man into a machine who can make no conscious choices. I doubt most atheists would be comfortable with that.
———————–
John, mostly you’re getting distracted from the core of the problem. Your job is to insist that THEY support THEIR assertions with facts and observations. Do not let ANYONE off the hook until they say “I don’t know.” Then welcome them to the world of agnosticism.
Perry
I have a great experience with the law of attraction. And I have done so many different experiments regarding that. I am agree with you that God exists. I know that our future is nothing but the reflection of our present conscious and the unconscious thoughts and vibrations. I think our mind is small reflection of the mind of God. I have two questions. 1. God exists 100% agreed. But in which form he/she exists? like our mind have a body structure within this physical world. So God also present within some body structure? He/She present in this physical universe like us? or in the spiritual world (souls)? 2.My second question is God is a living being or God is certain type of physical substance within spiritual world or this world? Thanks.
“How is that a code??? Where’s the encoder and decoder and the table of symbols? That’s the criteria. John, don’t waste my time with questions like this.”
That is a quote coming directly from you Mr. Marshall. That is YOUR quote. About DNA: “How is that a code??? Where’s the encoder and decoder and the TABLE OF SYMBOLS?” There are no symbols in DNA. There are things we’ve given symbols, G A etc. But these are not symbols. They are just things that are put together by the ‘encoder’ Would you call 2,3-dibromohexanoate a code? That is four components. I put them together, so I play the role of designer. I ‘encode’ the substance. And some one else could decode the message, as a smell. In fact, I could make many different smells using the same methods. I could build a language based on smells. But there is no table of symbols. None. There would be chemicals, that WE have given symbols. And there would be smells. That tangent is just one terrible example off the top of my head, but it still stands: Where is DNAs table of symbols? Does it have one? To me, they just look like nucleotides. Backed by a sugar/phosphate chain.
Scott,
An angry retort will not do. You do not understand why the genetic code is called a genetic code. I told you to study Yockey’s work and you have not done so. Refer to any biology book that carefully defines the genetic code and why it is called a code. I will be happy to debate the technical details of this once you have this under your belt but not until then.
Perry
Sir. I have DNA under my belt. I know why it’s a code. However, it does not fit with YOUR description of a code. Yockey is but one scientist that conforms to your way of thinking. He published one book. For most this seems insane. To base all of your beliefs off of one book. But that is how your religion works. You base your life around one, un-backed book. Let me say this:
I believe in Evolution. Because Darwin wrote of it. Until you are familiar with THESE works: The Descent of Man, and The Origin of Species. How can you be arguing for creation? Let’s assume that Darwin doesn’t have years of supported proof. Let’s also assume that Darwin is one man who stood alone in his field. Now, why don’t you believe that? I have based my views on exactly the same parameters that you have based yours. Why are our views not equal. I mean, I have provided much proof. In fact, because I know you want more proof, why not read Richard Dawkins’ books? There are a great deal of those. You see Mr. Marshall. You claim to be agnostic, you claim to be intelligent in your area. But in reality, it is a very small part of something that has a very large explanation. You reject the same idea’s that you propose. Whenever someone brings something up that will debunk you, you merely reject them as ‘not having someone/something under their belt’.
Sir, I beg you to stop dealing in things that you could never understand, as you are clearly not accepting of fact. If it pleases you to believe in myth, do so quietly. Do not try and convert people to this diluted way of thinking. It is unfair of you to expect me to read Yockey’s work, if you are not expected to read Dawkins’ and Darwin’s books. Another point sir. Why do you call yourself agnostic? You are not. You believe in some for of Judeo-Christian religion. You quote the BIBLE constantly. With all due respect for your religion. Allow me to quote the Holy Bible.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ( Genesis 2:7)
In the small excerpt alone. God did not create DNA. God did not create man. God allowed man to form from the dust on the ground. He gave him a SOUL. And I will not debate you on the soul. If you read your Bible well. You will find that God merely allowed all creatures to form, from the earth. Naturally. If the bible said:
And the LORD God took from the ground a speck of dust. And with his almighty power formed out of it a code in which all life would be based.
Then there would be proof in your religion that says creation is right. However, I am lost to find anything that explicitly, without the ability to INFER something else, says that God created man out of magic. One last point:
I have said this before. But I believe it needs to be said again. To say that God absolutely created man. Is to doubt his omniscience. If you want to believe that God is flawed, and would created something as flawed as man, and something as flawed as DNA. That is up to you. But right-minded Christians would not agree that God could create something like Homo sapiens. And I am so sorry if you feel offended about anything I’ve said. But after you doubt me and my knowledge. After you tell me, by accident I assume, that atheism requires a ‘leap of faith’, and that atheism is ‘a belief in no God’, (which it’s not. It is merely no belief in God.) I feel compelled to tell you that what you are saying ultimately makes no sense. I’m unsure as to whether you’ll post this, or not. But whatever happens. I look forward to some kind of feedback. You are in possession of my email address, and if you, and ONLY YOU wish to contact me personally. I would be more than happy to continue this discussion with you. As long as you are willing to read the books I suggest. As I have purchased Yockey’s book off of amazon.com. Good day to you sir.
Scott,
I have had many, many, conversations just like this one we’re having today. I’m not offended, nor am I bothered. It’s all in a day’s work. Though I think your attacks on and belittling of Christians is unnecessary.
It is clear from what you have said that you have not read very much of what I have posted on this website at all.
I can’t discern that you familiar with what I have actually said about Darwin or the theory of evolution. It doesn’t sound like you’ve listened to my talk “If you can read this I can prove God exists” or my article “Darwin: Brilliantly Half Right, Tragically Half Wrong.”
You certainly aren’t familiar with my religious views of you think I am an agnostic.
I am quite familiar with Dawkins and Darwin and many other authors, thank you very much. Some of what these authors say is absolutely fine. And other things they say have no support from empirical science whatsoever.
I heard Dawkins say on the radio “The origin of life was a happy chemical accident.” What’s testable about that hypothesis? What does it teach us? What helpful conclusions does it bring us to? How does it help us, say, build better automobiles? What kind of scientific theory is Dawkins’ “happy chemical accident”? Should a man who says such things held be held up as a leading 21st century intellectual?
It’s nothing more than a blatantly ANI-scientific statement. (A statement of faith, I might add.)
Darwin said that evolutionary progress is generated by “random variation.” You know what, Scott? Nobody has ever proven that. Not Darwin nor anyone since.
Communication theory and well documented research by McClintock, Shapiro and others shows that these evolutionary adaptations are not random, they are algorithmic.
Everything I say about this topic is supported by empirical evidence and I have generously given references if you are willing to spend the time reading the articles on my site. Everything I infer is reasonable and when I make an inference I explain what I am assuming.
Dawkins and Darwin cannot make the same claim.
My claim that DNA is a code is supported by nearly every biology book in existence. The textbook definition of “genetic code” corresponds perfectly to Claude Shannon’s 1948 definition. I don’t need Yockey to support what I am saying. I just think Yockey does a better, more succinct job of it than anyone else. My definition of code is not special or unique, it can be found in any engineering textbook.
Atheism, in order to consider itself rational, requires a whole collection of assumptions which cannot be proven. To be an atheist one must believe that there is nothing outside the universe, no guiding intelligence, and that no outside force or intelligence is needed to support it. It’s not possible to be a rational atheist without possessing POSITIVE beliefs about a whole range of things. If you are a rational atheist, you have no choice but to believe in abiogenesis. Such beliefs are not the least bit different from religious faith.
After running this website for 5 years and answering thousands of emails from Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Animists, Daoists, Agnostics and every other kind of person you can imagine, I can assure you that nobody has a stronger opinion about God than an Atheist. One might suppose that atheists would be calmly rational and somewhat indifferent to the whole question, but the opposite is true. I think atheists actually think about God more than most other people.
Atheism is a system of faith, replete with doctrines, multiple denominations, high priests and sacred cows.
Scott, I am not trying to insult you. I’m just telling you what I’ve seen after literally thousands of conversations: That atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. I see no difference between Richard Dawkins and the Pope or Dalai Lama or the Ayatollah. Each is a representative of a system of beliefs. (Scott, you can’t tell me that atheism is nothing more than “non-belief.”) The only difference between atheism and *some* other religions is that Atheism claims to wear the robe of science. Yet… the most fundamental scientific claims that it makes – all the ones that allegedly remove God from the equation – are all things one has to take on faith. Like abiogenesis.
Design makes no sense to the atheist because the atheist cannot fathom that an intelligent God would make such a f****d up world. For that reason, the atheist cannot even acknowledge that DNA is a code. It really comes down to the Question of Evil. I plan on blogging about that soon.
I hope you can read Yockey’s book with an open mind. His explanations are clear, his logic is for the most part faultless and his writing is enjoyable.
And finally I hope you might be willing to take a deep breath, relax, be open-handed about sorting all this out. Read what I have actually said on this website and absorb the information here.
There is no hurry, there is no rush, there is no threat. If what I’m saying is false you have nothing to fear, you will figure it out. If what I’m saying is true then the truth will set you free.
You have nothing to lose. Take your time.
Perry Marshall
Sir. I’m finished here. But I have to say this:
I make inferences on the same amount of proof that you do. I make the same judgments you do, and that you cannot deny. The only thing going against my assumptions is that they don’t include a meta-physical super-being who, as of yet, has not fully been disproved. Though I propose it is also hard to disprove the fact that there is an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon in my garage.
Atheist do NOT feel the strongest about God Perry, Christians do. Let us compare. How many people have been killed, with God or Religion as the main motivator. Now lets remember how many people have been killed in the name of….Atheism, or people who don’t believe in God killing people who do. There is a small difference I would say. Perhaps a few million people difference.
Atheists are just…we’re a rational kind of people. We want more proof than some magic book from 2000 years ago. You know, maybe a sign from heaven. I have something I want to ask you Perry. What if the Bible did not exist in the age. What if all the copies got destroyed. In fact, what if, people couldn’t be taught ‘God’. Would people still believe. Would people walk down the street and say…Oh dear. There must be a giant being that created us all, and made us from nothing. Who controls our every move. I doubt that highly. Any sane person doubts that. BUT. If someone is born, and they see a bike going down a hill, they might ask themselves: I wonder what the heck keeps that bike from falling. Because when I just stand mine up, it topples right over. Because of these things I propose:
1) Belief in God was once considered the Ultimate rule.
2) Belief that the world was flat was also considered the ultimate rule.
3) It has since been proven that the world is round, and science has changed in order to address the fact that it was wrong, and has adapted to the more recent, more advanced times.
4) Religion has remained the same for over 2000 years.
5) Religion could be wrong. But no one questions it.
6) Religion is now outdated.
7) It is time for people to let go of the past, and find something more recent.
8) Science provides that without demanding anything at all.
9) (According to you) The same absurd inferences must be made, so religious people don’t have to feel silly.
10) As a entirety, the human race can progress forward finally.
Scott,
On this site I provide a rigorous case for design in living things based on information theory. It’s an airtight case. You have been unwilling to engage in the details of that debate, despite the fact that I have addressed your specific objections. Thus I will not get sidetracked into a separate effort to refute these tired old bromides about religion, as they have been thoroughly addressed in a multitude of other places.
If you want to discuss a science then my blog is a good place to do it. If you want to post a screed, go to Infidels or some other place where religion-bashing is welcome. It is not welcome here.
Perry Marshall
Perry,
I submit that God is not needed for information. What you’re talking about is what A.N. Whitehead, the eminent philosopher/logician/theist, simply calls “data.” Data is passed along (“prehended”) at the sub-sub quantum level from one entity to another. One way to look at it is that God did not create information (God did not create anything), rather, God exists codependently with two other primordial elements: creativity and potentiality. God’s function is to provide order via fine-tuning of physical law and via “surveying” the known universe each instant, and providing for each entity it’s ideal future path, “luring” each entity onto the most productive and harmonious path. So, Information arose as part of the universe, but God provides order and guidance so that the information can come to some kind of fruition rather than a chaos.
Aloha
Aiman,
I am not talking about “data.” I am talking about the formal process of encoding and decoding according to the rules of an immaterial code. Examples include but are not limited to zip codes, morse code, ASCII, and yes, DNA. The fine tuning of physical laws do not explain these things.
Perry
Hi Perry,
Thanks for sharing your insight, I have found it very helpful.
I am close to publishing a website aimed at a UK audience, called gospelgeezer.net. The site will contain short videos looking at all manner of everyday life situations and tough questions, finding out what God has to say. The idea is to do away with “Christian lingo” and talk in plain English in a way that I can engage with non-believers and implore them to open their eyes to God. I’ll be including many Christian testimonies of people from all different walks of life and also asking other people to contribute videos.
What I’d like to ask you is, would be happy for me to include some of your articles / content?
Also, I watched the video with Part 5 of your emails. This was brilliant but it cut out 10 minutes before the end and I could not get it to work.
I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers
Steve
Sure you can use them. Re the video: Try restarting your browser & try again?
Hey Perry,
First off I want to thank you for your patience and work you do here, I believe it is really helping and answering questions of many many honest seekers, including myself. I believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, but I pray everyday that He help thou my unbelief! What a wretched man I’am as in Pauls own words! I find that in debating these arguments, it strengthens my own faith at the same time enabling me to be prepared to give an answer to those who ask. Thank you Mr. Marshall.
Heres some more interesting rebutts to your answers…
**If bees are concious then the bee waggle is an intelligently designed code.
You do realize the implication of this statement, right?
You’ve set the bar pretty low: if honeybees are sufficiently intelligent to create a code, then the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a honeybee.
In your mind, what is the cut-off point?
How intelligent must something be to create a code**
I would say here, how about life. Lets make that the cut off line? No DNA, no life, seems we are right back where we started.
————-
This is a objection that a ball rolling down a hill is code etc. If I remember you mentioned this in the debate, but was with water instead.
**How is that a code??? Where’s the encoder and decoder and the table of symbols?
The hill is the encoder: it writes the path of the ball.
The ball is the decoder: it reads the shape of the hill.
The USGS lists the symbols.
How do you meet the criteria? The shape of the codon (hill) determines the placement (path) of the amino acid (ball). **
———-
**About information and meaning Shannon says on page 1 of his paper A Mathematical Theory of Communications:
Shannon writes:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
In response, Word simply quotes Perry Marshall claiming that meaning does exist in Shannon information:
Word quoting Perry Marshall in Message 279 writes:
“In Shannon’s system, meaning DOES exist. It is extremely simple: the only “meaning” that we need to be concerned with here is whether the message is encoded or decoded properly. In DNA, the meaning of “GGG” is Glycine. That meaning is real and black and white and quantifiable. In ASCII, the meaning of 100001 is capital A.”
For WordBeLogos, Shannon stating that meaning is irrelevant to the problem of communicating information can be trumped by Internet denizen Perry Marshall claiming Shannon is wrong to have said this.
For Shannon, DNA’s ‘GGG’ is information. ‘GGG’ can be interpreted as meaning Glycine, but this meaning is irrelevant to the information itself. ‘GGG’ can be interpreted as having literally any meaning one wants, and the machinery in cells actually attach more than one meaning to ‘GGG’. During protein production ‘GGG’ means Glycine, but during fission (cell division) ‘GGG’ means “match up with ‘CCC'”.
Until Word begins taking seriously Shannon’s unambiguous statement that meaning is irrelevant to the information problem, this discussion will not be able to make progress.**
Would it be correct to say here, to qualify as code we only need meaning once? Also it seems your point about “you have a green light,” comes into play here right? More like polyencoding etc?
———–
**You presented a dichotomy: if honeybees are conscious, their waggle-dance code is intelligently-designed; but, if honeybees are not conscious, then their waggle-dance code is a derivative of DNA, and is inadmissibile in this debate.
I already showed that calling honeybee codes “intelligently designed” equivocates on the meaning of “intelligent.” If you want to go this route, we can start a new thread about how much intelligence is required to create a code, and how you determine whether the line between “conscious” and “not-conscious” has been crossed.
If you do not want to go that route, I would like to present the alternative:
In reality, I’m pretty sure the waggle-dance code is genetic: queens do not dance, and so, there is no one from whom the first batch of workers in a hive can learn the dance. Yet, the workers can do the dance. Thus, it is probably an innate, rather than a learned, behavior.
But, this does not mean that the waggle-dance code is the same as the genetic code. They are two distinct codes that relay two distinct sets of information between two distinct sets of encoders and decoders. So, the emergence of the waggle-dance code represents the creation of a new code.
But, who or what created this new code?
Remember, by your own argument, we must distinguish “caused” from “operated through.”
So, which statement do you think is more accurate:
DNA caused the waggle-dance code by mutation.
or
Mutagens in the environment, operating through the existing DNA code, caused the waggle-dance.
Once again, operate through does not equal cause.
In truth, the mutagen caused the waggle-dance code to emerge, and the genetic code was simply the medium through which the mutagen operated.
To argue that the mutagens did not produce the waggle-dance code because it did not produce the genetic code they altered to make the waggle-dance is like arguing that Johnny did not make the snowman because he did not make the snow from which he made the snowman.
At this point, you have about three options:
Concede that the honeybee waggle-dance uses a code that was not produced by intelligence.
Concede that the intelligence of an insect is enough to account for the genetic code.
Copy and paste the same quotes from pmarshall and Shannon again, on the off chance that my argument here will be ignored.
Gentlemen, place your bets.**
I would say here, if I understand your argument, that this is the engineered algorithmic aspect of the original code correct? The outworking of the original intent .
Thx again Perry, God Bless you.
John
John:
-Ball rolling down the hill: Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
There is no set of communicated symbols in this guy’s example. The USGS symbols your questioner is referring to are ONLY used by humans to describe the ball or rock. They are not used *BY* any ball or rock. This is wholly different from DNA where the base pairs are used *BY* the DNA as symbols. GGG –> Glycine. UUU –> Phenylalanine. DNA executes the rules of the genetic code in addition to obeying the laws of physics. A ball rolling down the hill has no such code and only obeys the laws of physics.
-DNA, Semantics and Claude Shannon: Your opponents should read all of what Shannon says about this topic instead of quotemining his paper. I thoroughly address all these questions at http://evo2.org/dnasemantics.htm.
Specifically I say: ‘Weaver has stated that his theory cannot quantify semantical meaning. There is no debate about that. But you have carried this further and now said that semantical meaning therefore does not exist. Shannon and Weaver have most certainly NOT stated that semantical meanings don’t exist; in fact when Weaver says “In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense” this is a direct acknowledgement that meaning is real and that it is important.’
Also on that page, read the section below that where someone asks:
“Test:
you claim all codes convey semantical meaning ,
I am sending you this message (and it is a message): 99jei7sn
What is the semantical meaning?”
My answer is instructive. (And at this point, the questioner bailed after four months of debate.)
-Bee waggles: First of all I think the person you’re talking to is correct: Bee waggles appear to be hard coded into a bee’s DNA because bees do not appear to gradually learn this from other the way humans learn language.
But we can still posit that bees have *some* level of intelligence. They’re smart enough to get mad at me when I move their nest after all. So let’s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that they came up with the dance themselves – creatively. OK….
Bees are perhaps 0.0000000000000000001% as intelligent as humans.
But bees are still INFINITELY more intelligent than rocks – because rocks have zero intelligence. Rocks have ZERO ability to create codes whatsoever. Anything divided by zero goes to infinity.
My thesis still stands. Codes only come from other codes or intelligent beings.
Please understand, I did NOT say that if a bee is smart enough to create A code, therefore it’s smart enough to create THE genetic code. Your opponent said that and it’s a non-sequitur.
There are MANY codes that are hard-coded in DNA. Mating calls of insects for example. DNA is the Mother Code.
Perry
If you provide a rigorous case supporting your ideas. What of the multitude of rigorous cases supporting evolution in it’s fullest? Those have been performed by PhD scientists from around the world. Abiogenisis has been supported by PhD’s from around the world. Richard Dawkins, who is right now, the leader in the support of evolution. Is a PhD. Sir, where is your PhD? I mean, if what you are saying is so inherently true, why is it not accepted by the rest of science. Take gravity for instance. We all know it happens, and it is accepted by all of the credible scientific community. Why is your idea not? I once again present you with an opportunity to prove your case to me. I have decided to take the time to read every single one of your articles, and listen to every single one of your .mp3 files. My hope in doing this is to understand exactly where you are coming from, because for such a logical sounding person, there must be a reason you have deluded yourself with these bizarre ideas. I give you this quote, from yourself, (or Wikipedia rather.)
“Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (–From Wikipedia)” That is from the Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong. I will also provide the example you used sir.
‘“My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you.” Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but it’s not proof.’ That is from the same article as above.
Now is not the following the SAME scenario?
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
What if, Mr. Marshall, many grandmothers drank and smoked. Would that make smoking and drinking good for you? I sincerely hope you do not think that. Just because it’s been proven that smoking too much WILL kill you.
Another point of consideration.
In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be 100% certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.
Entropy is always increasing, that is fact. However in the case of thermodynamic entropy, if there is a large enough source of energy entropy can decrease. It happens. It already happened in fact. If we were all dust, I would agree with you. But alas, we are not. The fact that I can read your article tells me that entropy must’ve decreased somewhere along the line. And information was not lost during evolution. It was transformed. One last point of disagreeableness on this point: DNA is supervised by enzymes which insure that it remains functioning properly, thus the information is acted upon by an outside force. Think of DNA as the classic example for entropy, a messy room. If DNA is a messy room, then the enzyme is the owner of the messy room’s mother. It cleans it. It decreases the entropy involved in DNA.
These are two things that, if you took the time, and instead of just saying: I already proved that wrong. Or “go get Yockey’s” work under your belt, you could answer coherently. Perhaps even provide a piece of evidence or two. Thank you.
Once again you have paid no attention to what I have actually said about evolution.
I am still waiting for you to address the core of my argument. You have not done so.
Perry
That is NOT PROOF OF GOD, it is prehaps proof of an intelligent creator, but not the God of the Bible, that has absolutely nothing to do with God. God is a word we use to describe, mostly, the God of the Judeo-christian Bible. That is not prrof of that, there is no proof of that. And untill this God that you just prooved to exist says anything to any of us, then life shall go on as if he doesn’t exist, ‘cos there is no way of knowing what it wants.
I’d really appreciate it if you could e-mail your reply to this statement to: [email protected], that goes for anyone else who wants to reply also, as I don’t want to keep checking back here, and probably won’t so replying to me here is pointless. Thanks.
Sam
If it’s not worth checking back for it’s certainly not worth me sending an email.
Dear perry,
You are too logic to prove the existence of God.You are splitting the hair with your logical and rational arguements to disprove scientifical theories.But you are not using this logic to prove Who or How God is created.