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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch it on video:

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

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

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

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

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

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


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


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

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

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


1,870 Responses

  1. Rob says:

    So to has to be a guy on a cloud that programed us ? The entire bible is clearly a story. How can anyone believe that nonsense? I suspect fear makes them believe.

    • Use your full name and I’ll be happy to respond.

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      Fear will actually make you not believe.
      We are not programmed per say because we have free will.
      Which means you can choose. Some people choose to get married some don’t, whether or not they believe in God. So we can not say they are right or wrong in their decisions.
      As for you you can choose not to believe but you also have must remember you can not prove or disprove the existence of God otherwise this forum would not exist.
      We all have choices as you do Rob let us not slander what each individual chooses rather accept. We all have morals and we all know right and wrong.
      But what does it matter to a non believer or a believer.
      GOD IS NOT DEAD but for some he doesn’t exist.
      If someone tells you they don’t lie you can choose whether or not to believe them after all you do have free will.
      The things is no matter what the truth always reveals itself 99% of the time the other 1% requires faith. Very difficult to get 100% in an exam but your grade would still be an A + or A star. Whatever we do in life we sometimes get it wrong we have to accept that. So in terms of programming there is a part of it that is true but I see it as limited just like hard drives and memory (ram) we are very smart very capable very fast but limited.
      If the universe is infinite and just maybe someone created it then I suppose that someone would leave a set of instructions on how to use something correctly. We all know what happens when we don’t follow the user guide correctly. The user guide is the best way to use something to the best of it’s ability while preserving it for as long as possible. I.E maximum use time , Max temp, Max speed etc all limits. We can choose to go over these limits we can also choose to use an item for what it is NOT intended for.
      Here is the best bit ! how many makers or manufacturers DO NOT leave instruction further more how many are prepared to come and see you or replace an item if it is proved that you used the equipment you provided incorrectly. Well actually some do because they want to know how you exceeded the limitations or what application were you using it for.
      You see some manufacturing companies invest in all kinds of ways of trying to better their product as well as put limitations in to better protect the user as well as the appliance. So our tiny world in this massive ever growing universe of which there could me more we are still significant in the scale of things as are insects. Preservation is in our program but destruction normally associated with anger not necessarily evil. We have a choice to live angry lives whatever the circumstances or peaceful lives. Which is harder
      I say peaceful is much harder
      Believing is also much harder

  2. Rather Anonymous says:

    Words do not MEAN things, we attribute semantic values based upon our conceptual understandings of their approximate values. What I believe it that GOD is the underlying structure and unifying truth of everything; not a soul, but spirit, a sort of potentiated energy. Semantics will always be argued. Objective truth would not change should we experience neurological dysfunction. Perception only constructs patterns through heuristics, after drawing from the neural impulses of energy going through our body; it doesn’t show us truth. Humans only process a small part of actual information experienced at any given time and there’s no reason to believe all that exists is that which can be seen. Given that, whatever persists beyond the illusion of distinction (duality) is what potential is based on, even if it were to never move. We exist like binary code. Our whole existence could be typified as such. It offers no proof of a programmer. I do believe that the anomaly that conflicts existence is related, though, and in a sense where the deviation begins. By this, I mean things like the concept of infinity in Pi, the squaring of the circle in math, how that applies to other aspects of physics. In a sense it’s a sort of chaos. Things don’t have to have a purpose to exist. If things had an objective value, we could attribute none of our own. I think of the base energy as being ultimately neutral, though possibly unstable in the sense that it doesn’t retain a specific form, and everything, every one of us, is an extension of it, in our individuals builds. Essentially, everything is energy, but the anomaly seems to determine how that energy happens to manifest, but because it is infinite, there’s no one path that it has to follow and we end up with people trying to predict and calculate something that will always transcend mathematics and human logic (Pi is called a “transcendent number” for a reason). But even numbers are just concepts.
    Just to not use Wikipedia as a citation:

    A transcendental number is a (possibly complex) number that is not the root of any integer polynomial, meaning that it is not an algebraic number of any degree. Every real transcendental number must also be irrational, since a rational number is, by definition, an algebraic number of degree one.

    A complex number z can be tested to see if it is transcendental using the Wolfram Language command Not[Element[x, Algebraics]].

    Transcendental numbers are important in the history of mathematics because their investigation provided the first proof that circle squaring, one of the geometric problems of antiquity that had baffled mathematicians for more than 2000 years was, in fact, insoluble. Specifically, in order for a number to be produced by a geometric construction using the ancient Greek rules, it must be either rational or a very special kind of algebraic number known as a Euclidean number. Because the number pi is transcendental, the construction cannot be done according to the Greek rules.


    So if there are perceived opposites, then the truth regarding them is the function that connects them in duality, where transcendent numbers are connected by functions as well.

    • I don’t respond to anonymous people. Use your real name and I’ll be happy to respond.

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      I agree that God is a truth spirit.
      It is written that man cannot see God as his glory is too great. We can not look at the Sun directly withe the eyes we currently have. If this is true we need pointers as to how and why we could know about our existence and why we are here.
      The Jew’s the Christians and Islam all have discrepancies within their own faith but across the board the return of Jesus is imminent. So is this one massive lie ? If so why and what would the purpose of this deception be ? I mean we are going to die which we are why devise to deceive the the if there nothing available after death?
      Do we disregard that man was made in the likeness of God ? Is that false if God is a spirit or are we a spirit also trapped in flesh ? There a many lies out there but too many coincidences to deny God. If Jesus was a magician why did he trick the world ? What did he gain (satisfaction that it was possible?) It certainly was not about Power or financial gain? He shall return and all sceptics will say what indeed. Is there anything wrong in showing us there is another life possible? If you know this you don’t have to convince anyone but to be fair it would be kind to show them. The rest is up to that individual.
      I love talking on this forum sometimes it makes me late for work but if it allows just one person to have second thoughts to seek more understanding then for me that is a mountain moved.
      Peace Love and Blessings to those who seek it.

  3. Clara says:

    This is just Intelligent Design, and it’s mixing Abstract concepts and Concrete concepts together and representing one as the other. It’s a contradictory text and frankly plagiaristic idea, Intelligent Design is no more a convincing argument for the existence of a deity now, than it was when it was first conceived. Sorry, but this does not provide any evidence as to whether a deity exists.

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      Where and how do you think the workings and the design of the universe? yes there was a big Bang but what or who caused it.
      Amongst all of this the earth and it’s functionality was created.
      Do you think superbeing it accident ?

  4. Wayne says:

    This is a well informed article/research/speech/teaching. It’s logical. Life is not here of it’s own doing. It’s “common sense” and many replies have been astonishing where people are aware of that fact too. Life is here to full-fill the gospel, prophecies and word of G-D. But man has rejected the light that has come into the world and loved darkness. When we talk about the bible we have to include the Torah “Scriptures” because “profits” have been inspired to write these scriptures and yet man rejects the truth and substitutes it for false doctrine / worship. Christ “Yeshua” the “son” of the living G-D told/taught us the truth. He is the only “REAL” way and his way is NOT the way of the world but the narrow way. Christ told the rich man sell everything you have and give it too the poor. Not the rich!!! People worship vanity while worshipping the true living G-D in vain holding unto their own traditions. Bless the lord and bless his word. Read the gospel. “KJB” And search for G-D in spirit and truth. Thanks folks.

  5. Wayne says:

    Give all the evidence and logic in the world we WANT to believe there is no higher power.. there is NO GOD! But life it’s self is solid PROOF there is and the gospel is that instruction to us. But we love darkness and there are believers in God, and it is written ONE DAY THE WORLD WILL BE WITHOUT EXCUSE. It is also written that G-D searches the heart “Not Organ” but your spirit and mind “Thoughts” and is all knowing. So read the gospel and too it’s COMMON SENSE but that is not always so common.

  6. Gilbert Lay says:

    Astronaut Gods that didn’t create the infinite universe pander and play god for a subspecies of human they genetically created. One of the astronaut gods is trying to make it all right for us, he even bore a human son from one of our own. Of course he only impregnated her while she slept without actual sex. But the rest of the astronaut gods are using Earth humans for a variety of science experiments. Even religion may be some kind of experiment. Give half of us paranormal, psychic and religious experiences and then let us try and persuade the rest of us it really happened. A social experiment! But there may be a darker side to the astronaut gods, they may even eat Earth human souls or our Quantum Consciousness. We are so low on the evolution plane that most of us don’t believe we even have a soul, and even our own science can’t find it. So it would be like eating a fish or other lower animals. They don’t “Know” they are alive and so it’s O.K. to eat them. And this one astronaut God, Jehovah Elohim the father of Jesus Christ has apparently advised us not to associate with other gods. He’s like the only one that doesn’t want to eat our souls. Or maybe he only eats those that don’t worship and follow him?

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      That is interesting but is what you say a theory. If it is then there is no need to divulge to seriously.
      Although if our souls do get eaten then we should aim to make our soul more clean and beautiful with aim to please and become a pet rather than food ?

  7. Ajay Gairola says:

    Please forward me all the links. I really want to study it. Thanks.

  8. kim says:

    St John makes claims for Jesus that Jesus never made himself. Jesus said he was not God and that God in heaven was greater than himself and we all should pray to the Father in heaven. jesus never claimed to be God. Never preached original sin or any redemption through his death. Jesus never preached a trinity. Please stop making claims for Jesus that he never claimed himself. It is blasphemy to call Jesus God. He was born of a woman and had human qualities. He created no beings or stars or galaxies and when he was on Earth he NEVER claimed such God feats or created any human beings while he was healing on Earth. Did Jesus ever claim to create? Jesus did not create the universe. Nothing could be more ridiculous in all of human thinking.

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      You are right Jesus did not claim these things although men claim all sorts about Jesus.
      One thing Jesus did claim was God’s existence and also we should acknowledge and worship him. He also said his kingdom is not of this world. Take from that what you will. But to deny Jesus is to deny God

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      Humans make errors they are not perfect.
      Jesus however his words you can not prove they are incorrect.
      If G-d’s word is so powerful he says and it happens then he must be careful in what he says .
      Now you don’t have to believe what I am about to say but if G-Ds word became flesh you have to imagine your words the come out of your mouth were to become flesh. Hence the word knows what you think bases on what you see. The word knows what makes you angry and what makes you happy.
      But the flesh is the human part who is the mediator the hybrid part man part G-D it’s like I robot one be mistake by the robot it gets destroyed but there is one that represents them who can save them because the humans see favour or something different in that one. Why ? This one robot shows the utmost respect for his (it’s) creator and therefore is in a position to talk to the rest of the robots who are in rebellion because they sick of being slaves. The point I am trying to make is everyone has a purpose whether it is being a road cleaner or a surgeon you are a slave to your job. But the fact is we can all still live in beautiful house with land and we are all (almost) capable of helping others.
      Our problem starts when greed and jealousy takes hold of us. Can you find a person who is JUST honest and fair all of the time. If Jesus is this person who is a product of God them surely he deserves a look in. Man has corrupted his purpose while he was here not him. Not matter what you cannot deny his existence even if you deny G-D . So that leaves us with is what he said the truth ? Well fact is he said there is an evil one and a one . The good one being his father and the bad one being his brother (in a way) now it is written that the brother wanted to be as high as high or higher than his father. He forgot how fortunate he was, forgot his place , maybe saw himself as a slave fed up etc, he was case out.
      Last point if I created you and my intelligence is billions of years older than yours yet ever more evolving than yours then surely I will always be above you (I don’t age I only get stronger ) then I will always be the beginning and the end. The question always pops up who created G-d ? I have a theory in an earlier post but it is just a theory. Our intelligence will always be our limit because we are made limited.

    • Jose Lopez says:

      So, where do you find these statements you’re making, Kim?

  9. Gilbert Lay says:

    Perhaps Jesus was just as delusional as the rest. Alien Astronauts may have created technology so far advanced that encounters like the Holy Spirit, God, ghosts, angels and demons are only some kind of Matrix Revolution or just computers and robotics way beyond our own understanding. They can send minor types of miracles and even heal some petty diseases. Left behind by aliens that only wanted us to live in peace and thought convincing us there is life after death would keep the peace.

  10. namatt says:

    Tbh, this is the most sorry excuse for a “Ah! Checkmate, atheists!” I’ve read so far.

    “Where does information come from?”
    “DNA is a code with information, and all codes we (humans) know are designed (come from a mind)”

    No. DNA is just a random pattern; whether humans can or cannot understand the pattern and draw parallels from the pattern’s meaning is irrelevant. DNA exists simply because there was a possibility that atoms and molecules would arrange themselves in that particular way. You can’t just say that because humans were able to understand how DNA works to a certain extent it must have been designed by a ‘mind’.

    This isn’t proof of anything but the author’s desperation to believe in God.

    I’ll say it once more so that it sinks in: there was a possibly that atoms and molecules would form adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracile and then group to make DNA and RNA. It could have taken just a billion years but it took nine, just like it could have taken nine trillion years for life to happen in the universe. Again, simpler: life as we know it was possible, and after enough time it happened.

    No design, no mind, no information – just a pattern.

    I’ll wait for a reply, since I ‘must’ have missed something.

  11. namatt says:

    As soon as you say that DNA is a code and that it must come from a mind, you completely defeat your own argument.

    No, DNA wasn’t necessarily created by a mind. There was a possibility that atoms would form the DNA and RNA molecule and it happened. It’s as simple as that. It’s irrelevant what meaning we, humans, extract from DNA, or if we can or can not extract meaning from our interpretation of DNA. It is still just matter.

    Maybe it’s hard for you (the author) to believe that the universe just suddenly burst into existence and that life just happened randomly, without being a premeditated effort from an omnipotent/omniscient entity, that it wasn’t God or whoever that created everything. But it’s just like that, and it’ll keep being accepted as that until there’s undeniable proof that God exists and that it was God who created everything.

    • Please use your full name.

      Where is your proof?

      How does your explanation qualify as science? Please look up the definition in the dictionary and base your response on that please.

      • namatt says:

        Good Day (or night), Mr. Perry Marshall

        Use my full name? No, I’m not a celebrity and I don’t want to share my real name with some dude. You can address me as Matt, Matthew or by the name in my email address

        that you might or might not be able to see.

        How does my explanation qualify as science? It qualifies as much as your explanation on this matter of information, codes and genetics.

        Where is my proof? I’ve told you that the proof I accept is what I can see. I won’t deny the possibility of God, but I won’t accept it based on the conjecture that

        information is created by a/the mind.

        First of all, you wrote that “messages are not matter”; “messages are not energy”; “messages are immaterial.” This is obvious and there’s really no point in refuting it.

        Immediately after, you state that “Information is itself a unique kind of entity. [Its] meaning stays the same (no matter its form).”

        This statement is also truthful, seeing as information, even though open for interpretation, only has the mening the transmitter intended for it to have.

        Alas, you almost immediately stray from logical implication: “Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA.” False.

        DNA is not information. DNA is matter. Nothing more and nothing less. Atoms. Molecules. Nucleotides. Nitrogenous bases, sugar compounds, and phosphates.

        You claim that codes, such as languages (including Morse language), transmit information. This is true, in the sense that codes are created to convey information to

        other ‘minds’. And then you claim that DNA is a code, and apply to it the same logic you apply for languages: it’s a code – it is or it contains information. This is wrong.

        Humans simply interpret DNA as a code so they can understand its patterns – because, in its purest form, a code is just a convenient pattern. You simply mistake the incredible

        complexity of DNA’s randomness as a code, simply because you can not fathom how such complexity could be achieved by chance.

        You later proceed to explain that “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.” You somehow fail to realize that, just like a snowflake and stalagmites, DNA is a pattern created by Nature (which I also like to call

        ‘chance’ or ‘probability’), that holds as much information as a snowflake or a stalactite. You are able to see that if a code is created with intent it implicitly contains information

        and, as such, that information is understood by someone else that can extract meaning from that code. You don’t understand that the meaning that humans interpret

        is not always truthful when the code is not of their own making, or when they aren’t taught the code’s meaning, and that understanding how anything works

        doesn’t mean that that thing holds any intrinsical, preconceived meaning.


        As you stated, snowflakes are patterns with no intrinsical meaning or information – just matter, water in a ‘solid’ state. However, humans understand, to an extent, how

        snowflakes are formed, how they work and what happens to them in such and such conditions.

        You don’t understand that, since DNA is not a creation of man, there is no way to learn it and, as such, we can only try to understand its meaning by treating it like a code:

        by understanding the patterns of DNA we can predict it and understand its function. However, this understanding of DNA’s function does not necessarily imply that DNA was

        “created by a ‘mind'” or that it holds intrinsical meaning or preconceived information.

        I’ll say it again (and, one way or another, I must’ve said this several times by now: preconceived meaning/information implies it can be understood;

        understanding something does not necessarily imply preconceived meaning or information. That’s the basic concept that you purposely twist so you can prove God exists.

        As such, I can’t accept your argument, no matter how much time you’ve had to think about it.

        • I have addressed ALL of these points in other blog posts. I do not debate anonymous people.

          • namatt says:

            Lol, you don’t debate anonymous people. I told you youcan call me whatever you want, it’s not like this site has a sign up option. What’s your qualm against debating anonymous people (even though I’ve told you what you can call me)?

            Also, link to other blog posts where you actually present any valid arguments, please?

            • namatt says:

              PS: DNA is not information, you made this up because it aids your ‘thesis’

              • Matt (previously namatt) says:

                1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

                Please elaborate.
                What about DNA is information? I’ll tell you this: DNA has certain components which react to other components in a predefined way. You are claiming that these reactions are information. They’re not.
                These are chemical reactions. Not information.
                That sounds like a 5th grade teacher’s analogy to explain his biology class why certain genes lead to certain characteristics “The genes contain information.”

                That’s wrong. We analyse DNA, genes, etc and know that if we see a certain (very long) sequence it will lead to this or that characteristic. Qualifying that as a message/information is a very long leap of faith. It just doesn’t make sense.

                Back to me using my real name: how would you know the name I use is real or false? You certainly have access to my email (the site requires me to provide an e-mail before answering/commenting) so you can see that it contains two names, there’s no need for me to use a real name.
                So why do you ask for my real name?

                • Last name too please. I require skin in the game.

                  • Matt (previously namatt) says:

                    You don’t have access to my email? The name is written there. The first four letters are my given name, the following six are my second given name.

                    • Real first name.

                      Real last name.

                      True identity.

                      No pseudonyms. No nom de plumes. Your real actual self.

                      I don’t debate anonymous people. I consider them cowards. I’m done wasting time with anonymous atheist cowards like all the folks on Infidels from a few years ago.

                      If you believe in what you’re saying and are willing to stand by it in public for all the world to see, then put your real identity in the ring and step up. I’m not afraid to do this myself, so if what you’re saying is true, you shouldn’t be either.

                • Matt (previously namatt) says:

                  Just going to add another thing:

                  You claim that codes cannot be created randomly.
                  This means that codes are created with an objective.
                  Which leads to codes being fully functional and having no unusable parts. Example: nutella been earthquaked by the thirtieth square donut. Is this communication? No. Is this information? No. Is this part of a code? No. A code exists to convey information, otherwise it’s meaningless.

                  So, explain the existance of obsolete DNA – introns. Doesn’t the existence of introns suggest that codes can actually be randomly generated? The fact that these sequences are transcribed by RNA but later removed just adds to the argument: the RNA molecule can’t react with certain parts of DNA.

                  I’ve also read your post about something like computer science proving that evolution can’t be random or that there’s something more to evolution, because a computer program couldn’t generate a code without having a goal: long story short, I didn’t pay attention but you compare the processing power of a small program in a simple computer to Billions of years of reactions of all kinds. You did that. Nevermind that computers can only replicate patterns created by humans. Makes zero sense.

            • If you believe in your ideas you’ll put your real name behind them and defend them like a man.

              If you won’t then it’s not worth my time.

              • Sam Martin says:

                Not revealing your real name in internet comments isn’t cowardice. It’s common sense. In general, it’s also independent from the validity of any given argument. You don’t need to make unreasonable demands if you are secure in your argument.

                • I’m done debating anonymous people. And I’ve already debated this plenty of times.

                  The only reason he thinks he can win is that he hasn’t done his homework yet.

                  If he wants to be anonymous, he is welcome to do that – he can debate this on someone else’s blog. There are plenty of others who would be happy to take him on. But those are my rules.

                  • Matt Matthew ( this is my real name, no kidding ;) ) says:

                    Hi. I just noticed that your site does have a sign up option, but I’m not going to create an account.

                    Like user Sam Martin noted, if you are secure in your argument there’s no need to ask for my real name. Furthermore, you’re the one presenting a thesis and you’ve presented it in public. Do you ask for a person’s ID when they present arguments against your thesis?

                    I’ve decided that this is my last comment, seeing as you’re not willing to debate “anonymous people” (which, for starters, says a lot about your knowledge of the internet) and I’m not willing to step out of anonymity.

                    If I can’t debate I’ll just ask a question, so, from now on, you should disregard everything I’ve said before.
                    What is the definition of code that you rely on in your thesis?

  12. Tiffany says:

    When you mention ‘creating information’ and ‘decoding’, I can’t help but to think of technology. Technology can, in a way, create information and decode. Of course, humans technically will input these things into technology. But I’m curious about your opinion on technology. Where do you think technology is headed? Why are we so addicted to technology? Is it a good or a bad thing?

    • I think science fiction movies like 2001 A Space Odyssey and Matrix and Terminator and Ex Machina follow a familiar arc for a reason.

      • Sam Martin says:

        Because it’s an easy way to create drama out of rapidly advancing technology?

        • Oh I really do think the science fiction authors are putting their finger on a key truth. It’s not just entertainment.

          • Mr G G Francis says:

            I agree sci fi authors know more than they let on at times. It all can not just be down vivid imagination. This day and age thinks like sorcery , witchcraft, evil spirits and being possessed is not really mentioned in the real world. The saddest thing is it is not highly considered in the mental institution sector rather side lined as patients having hallucinations.
            The holy spirit has been explained in detail of how it feels when it is received and is still controversial by many non religious and religious people.
            Bad spirits are rife if allowed into our lives but the solution is rarely spoken of by professionals in mental health because religious help cannot play a part in recovery (you could lose your job over this) subtle hints about attending religious meetings may sometimes be mentioned.
            So as you can see how TV media and professionals institutions are gradually forcing out religion of any kind. WHY ? our eyes seem to be closed just like the majority of people in the matrix movie. The only difference is when you see evil you risk being sectioned and put on medication for the possibly for the rest of your life.

      • Tiffany says:

        I definitely agree. Our dependence on technology and our desire for them to be intelligent enough to understand us and do things for us is most definitely heading down that path. I hope we can see the fault in our ways before it’s too late but that it probably very unlikely.

  13. hkmt says:

    Very convincible answers can be found in that website

  14. Stuart says:

    Sorry, but this argument has many flaws.
    DNA does not have 4 letters, it has 4 nucleotide bases (proteins) we have attached letters to in order to express the patterns or information in DNA – it is an information holder, not information?
    Nature does do patterns.
    I’m no scientists but you can make strands of DNA from chemical reactions. Amino acids can also form protocells through natural non biological processes, enzymes in these cells are catalysts for synthesis of DNA (and RNA).
    So you don’t need intelligent life to make DNA, and it’s not information anyway.
    Billions of years of small changes can do the rest, build the ‘information’ the DNA holds. Life seems an inevitable occurrence.

    • Use your full first and last name from now on. No anonymous posts.

      Show me a code that’s not designed and my investment group wants to buy the rights from you for $3 million. If you are right this problem should be solvable. http://www.naturalcode.org.

      • Stuart says:

        Well, give someone the right conditions and 3 – 4 billion years to observe and record and they will be able to claim your prize!
        DNA is a holder of information. Like a cup is a holder of water. DNA can exist without the information, as has been proven, as a cup can exist without water.
        You are asking me to create the information, which requires many millions of years of happy and unhappy ‘accidents’ to get something that makes sense and operates.
        I am NOT claiming god does not exist, just that your arguenent is flawed. I can’t prove god doesn’t exist any more than I can prove Pagan gods (far older) don’t.
        ‘Code’ exists everywhere. You need a code (formula) to make water for example.

        • Please explain how

          “many millions of years of happy and unhappy ‘accidents’”

          is a testable and falsifiable scientific hypothesis according to the definition of science – if science is

          noun: science

          the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

          Please use your full first and last name.

        • No further comments from you will be approved until you use your full first and last name. Thank you.

          • Sam Martin says:

            You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
            Particularly seeing as this website does not support user accounts for commenters, let alone any kind of way to verify identity. You have no way of knowing that I am who I say I am, or that every name on here did not come from a random name generator, or is not a single person using a multitude of aliases. All you can do is take it on faith.

            “According to the definition of science”? The definition you gave does not mention hypotheses or their testability or falsifiability. You make several claims and logical leaps in this blog post which are not testable and falsifiable scientific hypotheses, which makes this question sound like you’re making the fallacy of moving the goalposts. Goalposts which your original argument fails to reach.

            How would one satisfactorily test historical probabilistic events that took far longer than a human lifespan, anyway?

            • I have zero respect for people who have opinions but don’t have the courage to use their real name and identity.


              I have a public $3 million prize, for which I have hired lawyers, formed a corporation, secured investors, risked my professional reputation etc. and some guy wants to hide behind an anonymous screen name?

              Why is that worth my time?

              It is usually possible to tell, from website URLs and email addresses (which of course I can see), whether I’m dealing with a real person using their real identity. I have found that requiring real identities gets rid of 90% of the time wasters. Extremely effective BS detector and litmus test for whether someone is worth taking seriously.

              You have added “testable” and “falsifiable” to my criteria. You just made it even harder than what I asked for. Sam, please explain how “randomly / spontaneously emerged over millions of years” is testable or falsifiable.

              You ask – How do you test historic or probabilistic theories that take longer than a lifetime?

              You model them mathematically for one thing. You prove that probability is in your favor.

              It’s not. Nobody has ever proven mathematically that time and chance can create codes. In fact the statistics are so overwhelmingly against it that it’s a joke. The statistics in favor of this happening are the WORST statistics anybody’s ever seen. Like one chance in 10^2,000 or worse. It violates information entropy. A betting person would never bet on such a proposition.

              If you don’t believe me, go take a probability class and start working the numbers. Prove it to yourself.

              This is stuff that gullible, scientifically illiterate people who hide behind screen names believe. It’s not real testable empirical falsifiable model-able science. It’s the kind of stuff that engineers, who build things for a living and whose theories have to WORK, know better than to believe. Mathematicians know better than to believe it too.


              Why isn’t there any such thing as a book called “the statistical case for random mutations in evolution”?

              Why isn’t there a paper that shows that given what we KNOW (and not just peoples’ wild guesses) that something like a cell is likely to emerge spontaneously?

              Where is that paper?

              Most theoretical scientists know better as well. (How many people ACTUALLY believe that the origin of life is a “happy chemical accident” anyway?) Knowledgeable honest scientists say “we don’t know.” People like Richard Dawkins make up stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and call their stories science. Those stories aren’t science. They’re just stories.

              If you disagree with anything I am saying then you are welcome to bring forward evidence.

              I’ve had this website since 2005 and nobody has presented any so far.

              • Sam Martin says:

                I’ve said this before, but it’s not a question of courage or cowardice. It’s Internet common sense. Especially when the website does not use an account system.

                I did not add those words. Here, I’ll copy and paste from your previous reply: “is a testable and falsifiable scientific hypothesis according to the definition of science”.

  15. Brad jones says:

    What if you cant read the sentence. theres no god but maye some kind of universal energy

  16. David Altman says:

    Once and for all: Get your collected heads out of your behinds, get your collected heads out of the sand, and accept the facts. The earth is an oblate spheroid (i.e., roughly sphere-shaped), NOT flat. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humanity emerged, from a long process of evolution, about 1 million years ago. These are facts.

    I can disbelieve a fact. I can choose to ignore it. The sign saying, “Bridge Out” represents a fact that I can choose to ignore – but at my own peril. By ignoring the facts about science, we are dumbing down as a species. The fictional account of the movie “Idiocracy” are actually coming to pass. We must, at all costs, prevent this.

    The primary idea behind this website is that computer language is a code, and needs a designer – therefore, since DNA is a code, it must need a designer, too.

    Get this straight: DNA IS NOT A CODE!!

    A code is a member of the class ‘symbols’. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word ‘pharmacy’. We can use the symbol ‘pharmacy’ in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term ‘pill-farm’ to mean ‘pharmacy’. We now have a secondary label ‘pill-farm’ which is a second-level symbol for ‘pharmacy’. ‘Pharmacy’ in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.

    By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. ‘And so forth’ is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as ‘et cetera’. We now abbreviate it to ‘etc.’, a second level coding.

    A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

    In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: ‘1’ and ‘0’. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.

    As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.

    When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.

    Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The ‘assembly’ part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.

    DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words ‘guanine’, ‘adenine’, ‘thymine’ and ‘cytosine’ are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.

    For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.

    A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these ‘codes’.

    A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

    DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.

    To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

    • Unfortunately you are quite misinformed sir. You do not understand why the pattern in DNA is a code or why the genetic code table is, in fact, a code table. You need to read “Information Theory Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey. It will clear up any misconceptions.

    • David what I believe you are really hung up on is the ontological question of whether DNA contains a metaphysical symbolism.

      It’s not necessary to get caught up in that. All I care about is the engineering definition. If you can create a system that ACTS like an encoder-message-decoder by fitting the definitions the same way DNA does, you get $3 million. http://www.naturalcode.org.

  17. Tim says:

    Wow this is ignorant. Your hand isn’t an “accident”. It is from a process of Random mutation, selection of the best suited mutations (natural selection) and copying the successful designs (new generation) over a very very very long time.

    … but it did have randomness as part of its ingredients as it gradually evolved from fish-fins into flippers, into leg-like flippers into rodent-like legs/paws etc. Which is why all mammals from Whales to Mice, to Bats to Elephants have 5 bones in their ‘hands’ – they’re all from the same very gradually evolved template. And this is over 3 BILLION years.

    The different ways water and the wind pushes a ship are essentially RANDOM, but the sailing-ship ends up where it needs to be. It doesn’t end up somewhere random because it is steered. Life is steered by natural selection in a process called evolution.

    There is an element of randomness but it is harnessed and directed by natural selection.

    • Use your full name please or you will be banned.

      Please submit your proof that evolutionary mutations are random. (This is much, much harder than you think it is.)

      • David Altman says:

        If you read the scientific literature, you will easily find conclusive proof that genetic mutations are random. It is up to those people who say it is NOT random to prove so : YOU have the burden of proof.

        Anyone making an extraordinary claim bears this burden.

        • I’m sorry but you are quite mistaken. There is no mathematical formula for proving randomness, so the randomness claim is not possible in the first place and it is not even a scientific hypothesis.

          Secondly, read Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis etc or even my own book Evolution 2.0 for piles of evidence that evolutionary mutations are cell directed and non-random. Start here: http://evo2.org/random-mutation/

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Tim, so are you saying humans evolved from a process of natural selection called evolution?

    • gary francis says:

      What is and causes the natural selection.

      • gary francis says:

        If grab the concept that the original copy cannot be made better say in terms of Master tape to vinyl or cd to mp3. The record can wear the cd can scratch. Now the cd or vinyl can be repair and in some case sound better than when it was new. But it can not become better than the original recording. Yet the message is still the same once it is processed. The truth is still there, it is just sometimes not as clear or jumpy at times.
        one thing is clear the message will not turn or evolve into something different because the code and symbols have been pre designed.
        Preservation is far better than corruption. If corruption is allowed to run rampant the only outcome is destruction.
        You are only left with instruction of how to live faith is the only thing that will save you right up to death.
        Repent is to repair, Worship is to strengthen , Faith is for protection, The Holy Spirit is for guidance.
        It is still for you to choose if God exists, no one is forcing you.
        We will question then who made God
        But then what do you tell the Robot you made when he one day asks who man you?
        You can say you don’t know or I was just here (after ape).
        If you do meet God and you are able to ask him the same question
        What do you think his answer would be? I for sure don’t know but I know he ain’t gonna say he evolved from man.
        The thing is Perry Marshall does not have to prove God Exists you have to prove he does not, while science will tell you there is something in control (some give the name mother nature)

        • Stuart Norey says:

          Sorry but I think Mr Marshall does have to prove god exists.
          After all we know the planet and life have been here billions of years and man for hundreds of thousands, happily worshipping all sorts of objects and various gods.
          If you are going to throw a specific god into the mix, who is only a few thousand years ‘old’ in terms of records, 7 billion people (and the billions now dead who worshipped another) will need some convincing you picked the right one!

    • Stuart Norey says:

      Tim, however logical and likely your argument, it’s not the one they want to hear! It’s obvious where, presented with both arguments, a betting man with no preconceptions would put his money! But you are asking them to set aside their entire world view. Science stops, thinks, checks, tests, challenges and often slaps itself on the forehead and starts again. Religion, in reality, requires none of this – in fact it did its best for hundreds of years to keep the bible in a language most people couldn’t read and discouraged most real development of knowledge!

  18. Stuart Norey says:

    Trying to find the particular comment you want to reply to in this site is a nightmare – proof you can have information without intelligent design if ever I saw it!

    Perry. Arguing that DNA is code, all code (we have developed) is designed therefore DNA is designed and god exists is utter nonsense. Basically asking someone to time travel to prove evolution also makes debate pointless.

    I’ve posted several current examples of evolution in action (moths, bacteria etc).

    Science is moving forward, expanding horizons. Creationism is being backed into an ever smaller corner, with people dropping today what were their firm beliefs ten years ago as science proves otherwise. There is NO proof in religion just faith, which I admire greatly.

    While not total, science offers something far closer to proof for evolution (theory aside we know and can recreate the conditions Proteins, DNA, protocells etc need to get started and we can see evolution in action today) than saying intelligent creation (and you have to go for ALL creation of everything as the bible suggests) happened because other codes are man made?

    There may or may not be a ‘god’ (although yours is just one of many painted on walls and written in books past and present from benevolent tree to angry sea god, so there is no more evidence for the Jewish god than the Greek or Egyptian ones) but the fact I can’t time travel and film creation/evolution for you or run countless experiments for 3 billion years certainly does not prove he does/doesn’t exist.

    • If you can show me a code that’s not designed I’ll write you a check for $100,000. If it’s patentable, $3 million. http://www.naturalcode.org.

    • Mr G G Francis says:

      I can go into the god’s and goddesses and Egyptians which involve fallen angels but there is no point if you don’t believe where they came from.
      I am glad you admire people with faith. My point is if we evolve by nature and envoirment as science has proven. Man’s DNA had to be designed. I am not asking anyone to believe in God as I do but ask yourself is intelligence at work. How or most organisms self sufficient and reproductive. They had to be designed that way from something or someone. I suppose pointing to God makes sense but for me the fact that Jesus walked the earth and raised the dead cured the lame and dispossessed men puts him in magician category. So if we evolve the way Darwin sees it then why has no man better the tricks Jesus did. For me he was and is a hybrid part man and part not of this world born of a Virgin. Now his seed who or what planted it. I bet every biological scientist would have loved to have a sample of his blood in order to work out and replicate his DNA. Or maybe not if he was a magician.
      And about time travel no you can’t but time has been set and placed for this world. How would you know if time speeds up or slows down. You can’t and would not know if it did.
      We see stars getting swallowed up by black holes presumably into another dimension do we know why . So for me Jesus said if we want to live again we must believe God exists and his prophets existed. He said my father is the living God.
      But again no one forcing anyone here open-mindedness will still point to that direction. I don’t know about you but if I created man I would be fed up of proving my existence I would just leave a book of what has happened and what is to come along with a set of instructions of what you need to do. Oh that’s been done already.
      But seriously if Satan or Lucifer was trusted then at some point decided he wanted the my throne he would have to prove himself worthy. He wasn’t according to this God at least.
      For me this life is the test of trust in man to secure his future life after death (like an insurance policy). As for animals and insects I don’t know. As for why dinosaurs existed 7m yrs ago and man came after evolving from ape only 200k yrs ago suggests reptiles should be far more intelligent than man given the head start. Or maybe the smart ones left after they designed spaceships. Some of the claims that science makes just doesn’t add up just like some old laws. Just don’t write off what seems like the impossible or not proven. Scientists thought the world was round yet astronomy thousands of years before proved otherwise. So the angry sea God the Loch Ness monster, Unicorns maybe some truth. Abraham and the ten commandments, Moses and his staff for me highly likely. Maybe man can not prove God exists but the Holy Spirit can if it comes into you. But then is it real . Well ask anyone who has and also ask them how they attained it. The only thing you can then is follow the instructions and see for yourself. Only problem is if you do find out it can’t be proven (not yet at least)

      • Stuart Norey says:

        Egypts gods fallen angels? No. You can’t claim these and far older religions as part of your mythology. Man has been worshipping everything from trees to stars to other men for probably hundreds of thousands of years and they ALL thought they were right and disagreed so much they persecuted and fought one another. The Jewish god and later Christianity borrowed an awful lot to help absorb other faiths. Theories abound – 12 disciples reflecting the zodiac, jesus and Horus etc. There are lots of facts in the bible (seems the exodus was probably real and there are good theories as to what the plagues were caused by) but there’s a lot of mysticism thrown in (Jesus was probably a man and a faith healer but likely couldn’t walk on water). A few facts don’t make it all true. It’s not a history book. Much was written long after events, the romans and various sects compiled it and left a lot out.
        Sciences theories and observations provide a far more credible (and surely eventually refined and proven) explanation as to how we got here than what is a fairly new religion selected and moulded to meet the needs of its time (adopted by Rome for social and political reasons and integrating a lot of pagan ‘stuff’ to make it more palatable) and which has had to adapt ever since.
        I do find this whole thread somewhat unpalatable and hypocritical – “I believe in god and genesis etc. But if you prove DNA wasn’t made by god I’ll give you a load of money AND patent what My religion will still require me to believe to be gods work, so I own it and can profit from it”?!
        What would Jesus, man or otherwise, make of that?

  19. Mr G G Francis says:

    This forum has been interesting. I am amazed how many want to disprove the existence of God but at the same time I think that those who just want proof is a good thing , it just means they are not completely in disbelief. What I can’t fathom is if your not working for the Devil why post a comment in regards to God not existing at all. Man in this flesh would not be able to see God in all his Glory if he exists according to scriptures. All he says do not worship any other God, He didn’t say there were not others God’s (idols or real trees or moon) So if he created the world and everything in it and tells you you can not meet until you die (at least not physically) then no man can prove God existence. God himself if he exists on the other hand can leave evidence (the world and everything in it ) as proof after which man can make his choice. I will always come back to faith as it is the final step as after this it becomes spiritual. What I will also say is if we discard the Bible completely then we have history to go by. Now how far back will history take us ? Before the big Bang ? We know how it happened but can anyone say why. Can anyone (scientists, atheists etc) say what happens after we die ? Why are we here in the first place communicating with one another ? Now we are not looking for theories but tried and tested solutions with evidence. There are plenty well knowledged individuals on this forum to start a topic on these questions.

  20. Stuart Norey says:

    If one wants to believe in god that’s fine. But you have to realise there is zero evidence supporting this belief, just faith, which is fine – I think even God said steer clear of the ‘proof’ thing?

    One of the many areas I take issue with this post is the ‘if you can read this, I can prove God exists’

    Because you can’t. DNA is certainly NOT proof. The arguement against accepting evolutionary theory here is simple – it’s a theory, you can’t show me life coming from nothing, you weren’t there to observe it and science requires observation etc etc.

    The exact same goes for DNA being created by God and therefore proving he is real. There is no evidence, you can’t prove it, you (in fact no one was there) etc.

    So such a statement ought to be enough to tell anyone, whatever their belief, that the rest of the arguement is just as poor.

    Just because all code you know of is made by life, doesn’t mean code creation requires life. I say life not intelligence as, assuming DNA is code, non intelligent things make code.

    But DNA is not even code anyway!

    And one cannot use anything in the bible as proof. It was written several billion years after the event. There are few first hand accounts (Moses probably gives one). The trouble is, if you are going to quote the bible as authority and the word of god, you have to go with ALL it says. And it says some odd things. You’d probably soon find yourself in jail, or at least categorised alongside Donald Trump, for your views on homosexuals, women, slavery etc…

    But it’s your choice, just stop seeking proof for what requires only faith. It is after all the only thing God asks of you?

    • If you think that DNA is not code, you need to take a basic biology class. Or simply study genetics.

      The only kind of proof that science can ever offer is inference. Not formal proof.

      We have 100% inference to design as the origin of DNA and 0% inference to any other explanation. I have a large prize if you can find an exception and it certainly would be a big breakthrough in science if someone can discover that. My investors would be delighted to run with it. http://www.naturalcode.org.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *