“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. Dennis G. says:

    This piece is flawed because we have created and applied a “language” to what we see in the DNA. we assigned a code to the already existing DNA.

    • Use your full name please.

      DNA is TRANSCRIBED into RNA and TRANSLATED to amino acids and this happens independently of how we assign language to it, long before we even knew about it. It is objectively classified as digital communication.

      No non-living thing outside of man-made computers etc posseses this property of digital communication. But if anyone can find a non-living system that has this property, we have a $3 million prize at http://www.naturalcode.org.

  2. Mike Wakefield says:

    Hey Perry.

    I read through quite of your comments and stuff. For the most part, I totally agree with you. But I would like to ask, honestly and genuinely(not trying to throw shade or being rude just throwing it out there hahaha) this;

    How do you reconcile believing in macroevolution through hybridization and symbiogenesis when God says He made us in His image? He didn’t evolve; He just *is*.

    I may be misinterpreting some of what you’re saying, and am currently only still watching the early part of your video. But God made us in his image. If we evolved from the sea, and from apes, how are we then made in his image?

    Or is your assertion of hybridization and symbiogenesis aiding in macroevolution only to the extent of making a zorse/zonkey or something like that?

    Personally, I am behind microevolution. The Galapagos islands thing proves that. However, that is just beings and creatures moving in the sphere of DNA that they have and stuff. They’re still the same *species*.

    I don’t have all of the information, of course, but I don’t think we as humans evolved from something else since God did make us in His image. I am looking to answer these questions and stuff, which is why I’m here and out searching elsewhere haha.

    I would really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

  3. I_Got_A_Question says:

    Why Do I need A God To Be Happy?
    Now there’s a question that will get me in trouble with just about everyone. In the past that question would have gotten me burned at the stake or worse. (If there can be something worse than being burned to death by good godly people.) Nowadays that question will still get some heads turning and some very aggressive retorts so I have to be very careful where and when I ask it.

    I suppose the real question should be, what do gods, angels, saints, spirits, fairies, pixies, devils, demons, witches and the like actually do? Not a single person I know has every seen any of the before mentioned creatures but every one believes in some, if not all, of these entities. I know some very smart, very well educated and quite intelligent people, they will be the first to agree that they can not produce any proof of any supernatural creatures or powers but they still believe.

    If the guy that does the maintenance on your car called you on the phone and said “Demons have taken over your transmission and it must be baptized in holy transmission fluid before they take over the tires” you’d ask for some kind of proof, wouldn’t you? Well I guess that’s what I’ve been trying to do for years, just looking for some small bits of evidence.

    I guess I got started looking at some of the first gods and spirits. Picture it, fifteen maybe twenty thousand years ago a man sits in a hut made of branches, mud and twigs. It’s dark and there are no lights in the sky tonight. FLASH!!! BOOM!!! RUMBLE, RUMBLE!! What the heck was that? Where the heck did it come from and where did it go? It’s not coming back is it? All good questions but with little time to spare after hunting, fishing and gathering the earliest people had little time for something like science.

    The early gods all had something to do with the forces of nature. There were gods for the sun, wind, water/rain, moon, stars, earth, sky, valleys, mountains, seas, fire, and air. Who made the corn grow? Well, the corn god of course. Who made the herds of deer or buffalo return each year? Again it was the god of the beast that brought them back. There were gods of fertility, always good gods to know. Gods that lived in trees and rocks, gods were everywhere. We didn’t know what made some things happen so it had to be a god. We didn’t know where some things came from so it had to be a god. We had no idea what made some gods angry but blood always makes any god happy. It made perfect sense at the time.

    No one was allowed to say anything negative or question anything about a god for fear of angering the god. This could have very dire consequences and upset the entire balance of nature. One day somebody figured out that they could make a good living out of speaking for god and in some respects control a god. They and they alone could decipher the hidden meanings of god’s actions and keep the ignorant people ignorant. Power and wealth always seem to go the clerics of a god. It’s a good life living off the ignorance of hard working people as long as you don’t mind lying your face off all the time.

    I asked a preacher “Why do I need a god to be happy?” His reply goes something like this: You need god’s love and his forgiveness for your sins if you are going to have any hope of finding happiness. You’ll have to obey his laws and submit yourself to his judgment. Only in doing gods work can you be happy and go to heaven when you die. We all want to be with or like a god when we die, right?

    A god won’t speak directly to someone as unworthy as me but guess who can tell me if I’m obeying correctly and working hard enough,,,, preachers, priest, clergymen, etc, etc. Where is their proof? What evidence can they show? There is none, not one tiny scrap. What they mean by “doing god’s work” is giving enough money to them so their investment portfolios can grow at an acceptable rate. After all they want to retire young enough to enjoy life. Why should they give a flying flip about my retirement? A god is going to take care of me, right? But once again they can’t show me any evidence for anything they say other than “It’s all right here in the book we wrote for ourselves that you have to follow and you’ll just have to trust us if you want to be a part of our group.”

    We all want or maybe “need” to feel like we are a part of something. I also think most of us want to be a part or involved with something “bigger” than ourselves. “Good Men Of God” (any god) take advantage of this trait in all of us. BUT! You must do it on their terms, following their rules, doing what they say, and never asking the big (meaning wrong) questions.

    They (the holy and righteous) have spent thousands of years telling us that we (the common people) are no-good, low-life, depraved-thinking, sinful-living, monkey-spit-vermin that have no hope of seeing or speaking to god without their (the holy and righteous) help. (Where’s the Tylenol)

    Now we have “NEW AGE” religions that “say” they can use science to prove that a god (pick one) is in control. Their proof, well that’s some person that lives far away that speaks to a person that’s long dead and “channels” their ancient thoughts to us here today. This long dead person speaks the Queens English perfectly and has a complete understanding of our modern issues. What proof can the channel’r offer? None, you’ll just have to trust them. Just trust that all the some old homilies that have been passed around the hundreds of years, (updated and reworded), are now coming from a new source and a new prophet looking for new followers.

    I would like to meet one of these channel’ers and get them to let me speak to their channel’or . Of course they won’t because they can’t and they will have all the right reasons for not doing so. I won’t be as highly evolved as they are, or something like that.

    No god has ever spoken to me in person as apparently gods do for so many other people. Unlike the person that has just finished radiation treatments and is pronounced “Free” of the cancer that a god gave them in the first place no prayer, for me anyway, has ever been unequivocally answered. No religion has ever helped me feel happy or made me feel like I had any worth as a human being. I’m am so worthless someone else had to be sacrificed for me. (A gods need for blood.) But I’m a god’s creation so I must be a god’s worthless creation? What? (I know, another wrong question.)

    There are things I can not explain. There are LOTS of things I don’t understand. I’m not going to look for another god or prophet to fill in the blanks or voids. That’s the lazy way and will lead no where. I’m going to leave those questions open so maybe one day I can fill them in with the truth, the real truth.

    There, I’ve said it. Did you understand what I meant? I’m saying I’m ignorant of many things, maybe most things. That doesn’t mean I’m stupid, (I hope), I just don’t know so many things. I’m not going to let someone else tell me I have to trust them or their gods, prophets, priests, redeemers or psychics to find the answers.

    Maybe for me knowing I don’t have all the answers but having the idea that the answers are out there will be enough. I won’t be a part of any “group” anymore. No “group” wants someone with a lot of questions. That’s all I seem to have, lots of big questions no one wants to answer.

  4. Stuart says:

    Mr Marshall.

    Based on your requirement of observation, neither you nor Science can claim DNA as conclusive proof of anything OTHER than that we know life started off as something very simple and evolved, branched, evolved, branched etc. Fossils trapped in the early geological layers of our own planet tell us this, as does the record in our own DNA. Life continues to evolve today; there are many firmly evidenced examples of it doing so that no sensible person would argue with.

    But, if you can provide an entirely rational explanation of the following, without mucking about with Gods stated timings and order of events, I will admit that your argument that God created DNA might be worth even considering vs. what Science suggests.

    As a holy book, the bible needs to be taken literally. After all, it is not a theory to be argued with or updated; it is fact, the word of God. One surely cannot pick and choose. Granted, some of the stories can be interpreted – but if God says I did this on day 1 and this on day 5 etc, we ought to trust him?

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    There is an issue here right away. The heavens obviously can refer to the ‘universe’. The earth was created and was in ‘darkness’. Physics tells us the early universe was ‘dark’ and that, very quickly, starts were ‘kindled’ and it became full of light. All we observe tells us that we need stars to form planets and that planets only form around stars. So light, and the sun, must have been present before the earth. We know that the earth collided with another planetary body/moon at some point in its early history. Did this happen after day 1, in the evening? It cannot have been on day 2 after all. Current science also suggests the earth had several moons and that the current one is formed from these. What was the ‘spirit of god’ and how, as God later states, does it compare to the man he made in his image? How and why could God ‘see’ if he had no physical body and there was previously no light making seeing worthwhile?

    “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

    All evidence suggests early plant life started in water, not on land. It did not flower and bear fruit and seed immediately; it evolved to do so much later. Current research shows that the ‘tree of life’ has very simple common ancestors at its base.

    See for example:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170111132805.htm “A newly discovered group of microbes provide new insights as to how complex cellular life emerged. The study provides new details of how, billions of years ago, complex cell types that comprise plants, fungi, but also animals and humans, gradually evolved from simpler microbial ancestors”.

    “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night”.

    The sun has to have been here before the earth, not after. Unless one is going to deny the laws of physics. Among other things, the gravitational pull of the sun etc would be required to hold the materials in place to actually form a planet. The moon is obviously not a light, it simply reflects light.

    “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

    This was the fifth day. The life in the water bit is ok, although one needs to explain how they were fully formed living creatures and birds formed at the same time. We obviously know, from the fossil record, that birds evolved from land animals, Dinosaurs in fact – which we are told below God apparently created AFTER birds?

    “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

    This tells us that animals were created fully evolved and already divided into ‘livestock’ and ‘wild’ types BEFORE man was even created. The fossil record shows us that animals evolved from very simple common ancestors, the ‘types’ share much DNA. We know (from the fossil record and DNA) that domesticated animals came from wild animals and that domestication was something man achieved after hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years as a ‘hunter gatherer’. One cannot surely suggest that the earth and everything on it (including dairy cows etc, not to mention Mules – which can only come after Donkeys and Horses) was fully formed after 6 or seven days, pre loaded with the fossils of extinct animals including Dinosaurs and early humans, and modern man ‘appeared’?

    “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness”.

    So what was God. Was he a single celled organism? Did he look like one of our early ‘ape’ like ancestors? Was he a black African, Neanderthal, one of the many other ‘human’ types such as Homo Floresiensis modern man killed off or a mixture of many types? Did he create us with the DNA of other human species ready incorporated, why? Why did he allow Neanderthals etc to be killed off, or their DNA to mingle with the man he created in his own image? As a white European with ‘non pure’ DNA, am I damned? Should pure humans have dominion over me? What language did he speak? Did he start, as we did, with no real language at all?

    The whole Adam and Eve story suggests that man was ‘ready made’ and that none of the other human species even existed. The Bible even mentions a long line of descent (which , taken literally, place the earth as several thousand years old) which leaves no room for an out of Africa event, DNA mingling with other human species etc etc.

    In many ways, the idea of God is very appealing, but you need to explain that lot first. Logically. As it is written. Without denying the observations of Physics, Biology etc.

  5. Joe M says:

    So from a broader sense could it be said that the visible universe is composed of matter/energy, time and information?

  6. Hasnain mohammed says:

    Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.


  7. bobtheaxolotl says:

    Your argument relies on two assumptions. The first is that coded information can only come from a mind. The second is that DNA constitutes coded information. You go on at length about how messages and information have to come from a mind.

    The problem is, DNA isn’t a message. It isn’t coded information built to be “deciphered”. People like to talk about DNA as if it’s “code”, but it’s a chemical chain. There are no ones and zeros, no information to be conveyed. A crystal lattice structure causes a structure to be carried forward as more crystal is formed. Is this information too? If it is, then information can be created and transmitted without a mind. If it isn’t information, then neither is DNA, as they act on the same chemical principles.

    The problem here is that you never create an operational definition of what “information” is, and that you have profound misunderstandings about basic science concepts.

    Your article fails to demonstrate anything other than your own inability to grasp basic science. You argument is absolutely invalid.

  8. Stuart Norey says:

    I am not going to argue for or against any sort of God. But I will say this.

    In the world NOW there are countless examples of evolution happening right now, backed up by sound science. There are no examples of god at work backed up by sound science.

    Science can show, through DNA and fossil records etc, the previous evolutionary paths species have taken. No sensible person would argue against examples of current species evolving from others, even man.

    Perry does not argue that god created man. His god is not like the god of the more traditional biblical god the ‘christians’ etc who defend his views argue for.

    Perry does not seem to deny science or evolution happening.

    The biblical story is clearly wrong.

    He has therefore had no choice but to retreat from biblical creation and his god appears to have made his ‘intervention’ at the point where he can currently comfortably say ‘science can’t prove I’m talking nonsense’.

    This results in a god who has training have intervened at the point chemistry transitioned to biology, that’s roughly where science is at. His god then appears to have retreated from the scene.

    Science has a pretty good theory, with some experimental evidence but obviously no observational evidence from billions of years back, how this transition happened.

    Perry might one day accept this.

    His god and science will then meet at the furthest point back in space and time – the Big Bang.

    Science will say ‘we don’t know’

    Perry will say ‘god did it’

    That’s where he will end up as science continues to push and discover. He will have no choice as he obviously understands science is ‘real’.

    We will probably never know.

    Perrys god is not the Christian, Muslim etc god. The god he advocates takes no interest in his creation. He/she appears to be more of a pagan Mother Nature type god.

  9. Silas Granger says:

    I don’t really think this is a valid argument, because you didn’t seem to prove how a fact HAS to be created by something, instead of its existence just being a reflection of nature. You just brought up the argument of infinite regress, which also messes up the idea of God.

  10. Jason says:

    I am blind and use a teletype to read what’s on the screen to me. Ergo, god must not exist.

  11. David says:

    Good article.

    I’m pretty agnostic, but I value legitimate claims about G-d that are based on clear logic and observable truth (and not just tautological statements like “God exists since God exists”, and ridiculous leaps of logic). My question is one on the matter of scale and the meaning of information, its transmission, and its actual existence. I would certainly be hard pressed to find any obvious kind of natural coding such as You suggest would dismantle Your argument. That being said, I think You might be running into a blindingly anthropocentric view. If the existence of information is a singularly human phenomenon, then indeed we shouldn’t expect anything that isn’t human to create or use it.
    The thing that really troubles me is what You might define as information and what You might define as messages.

    There’s this great book, “GEB: An Eternal Golden Braid”, which suggests a couple of ideas on the nature of consciousness and messages. The first is that the nature of consciousness (and all brains, just ours to a higher degree), is that brains’ central function is the mapping of the world inside our own heads. That is, the brain creates isomorphisms whereby different elements of the reality we experience are connected to processes, certain firings and such, that run through our brains. As we construct these models, we are able to create expectations about the world around us, and we are able to act accordingly. At some point, people got good enough at creating these models that they mapped their own minds within their minds, which created a kind of strange, recursive, mystical loopiness which we often refer to as consciousness. So what are messages? They are simply other sets of isomorphisms, which we create an understanding about. Words are not simply pictures we see in our minds eyes that represent the concepts we’ve experienced, but rather they are further abstracted into a set of sounds that means something in a way totally unrelated to the sound. But here’s the crux, there is no fundamental sense in which the sounds are a message other than the fact that we can recognize them as such. The book gives a great example: say You send a record into a space and a “conscious” alien civilization comes across it. To them this, this is a meaningless object. Obviously it has special properties, given its strange symmetry and the pattern written across the grooves. But without a record-player, it is impossible for them to grasp the “message” that the record conveys. In fact, even if they do somehow replicate a record-player, it is very unlikely that a song will inspire in them similar emotions and thoughts as the song might any one person. What I am getting at is the fact that messages exist as much in the medium and listener as in the message itself. So when You say that DNA is code, all You are saying is that it is a code that is significant to humans–and not obviously so, at that. DNA is really a message for cells. Even after decoding the human genome, it is still very much not possible to simply read off a person’s DNA and replicate their image, like words on a book. So Your argument really, to me, seems to be that there exists a code which can be (and very roughly, at that) translated into human language, mapped into our brains. This code has a particular degree of complexity that is otherwise unheard of–hell, it maps for brains, which are the most complex chunks of matter known to humanity–and it’s nicely poetic that the very DNA and brain we discuss is what enables this discussion, but that doesn’t set it qualitatively apart from all other messages. We can interpret the entire universe through rough isomorphisms–we call this physics–and it provides incredibly precise expectations of the universe. In fact, in every way physics is a better language than DNA because the message it conveys is much more precise than whatever we can currently read off of DNA. In fact, physics is in many cases better than spoken language in this regard.
    What I’m saying is that for messages to exist, there has to be method of bringing the message into the consciousness of the receiver. If the message/code is DNA, then there are multiple translation processes–the DNA is transformed into some kind of array of pixels on a computer that is representative of information, which Your eyes then translates into distinct shapes (words/letters and pictures) which another part of Your brain then translates into concepts which are bound to the isomorphisms in Your brain. Likewise, if the message is the entirety of the universe, physics is the language of translation (in some sense equivalent to the computer analyzing DNA), and then processes in Your brain form associations with the results of Your calculations and the concepts in Your brain that pertain to them. The point is that the degree to which DNA is a code is only the degree to which we assume arbitrary (but scientifically justified) expectation out of it. Anything that our sense perceive is congruous in this sense, and DNA is not special at all. We constantly build causal models of the world, and we take the information we perceive and feed it into these models (and if we’re reasonable people, reconstruct our models when our expectations fail to meet reality). Thus, I argue that codes (like language and DNA) are really only bits of information that we have established very precise and complex models (translations, we can call them) of and that they all differ only in degrees but not in kind.

    Thanks a ton if You took the time to read this, and I’d to continue to engage in this discussion, if You’d respond (I do realize I’m a couple of years late, but You never know).
    Have a nice day 🙂


    Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
    Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
    He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
    And there is none like unto Him.(Quran 112:1-4.)
    Humanity, will keep searching God in every click, civilization, technology,invention will be product of his searching, perhaps only few will conclude reflection of truth was in his own Self, Darwin in remote galapagos island was not searching origin of species but origin of his own Self. Ameen.

    Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. (quran)
    Let there be light ( genesis) It is confirmed in scriptures that cause of creation started from light, Also science relates BigBang appeared from A POINT OF SINGULARITY
    which was intense light.
    , ” I am in your individuality, but you do not observe”(Sura Dhariyat, 51:21)Quran. Natural selection, Mutaion,billion years Evolutionary process will never change individuality in a Species, You cannot be a monkey and Homosapien at the same time, every atom, electron, cell or species is a single existance and follow their own destiny, A BEGINING AND AN END to curve a historical truth..there will be no new George washington or bush or obama in history again. EVOLUTION THEORY FALLEN SHORT
    Latest thinking comfirm Evolution is invalid or false .SOMETHING over writes Time. (Destiny)
    “I am in your individuality but you do not observe” ( sura dahriyat.Quran 51:21) EVOLUTION is An attempt to change humen thinking in wrong direction based on Time. Humen or Water (h2o) is not product of Time, Time will not change water (h2o). Atomic and molecular weight of all elements or compounds will remain same on earth or distant planets in universe. There is SOMETHING permanent in universe.
    Evolution Theory succumb in concept of Time. Time is relative standard…..(Einstein). In reality Time does not Exist. Time is illusion or 4th Dimension. What will be definite proof that Evolution Theory is invalid or False….?? It is water H2O … In billion years Water H2O remained unaffected by Time…… Water H2O is not a product of Time..Whooooo created water ??No Water, no life, No evolution, No natural selection..Water is a phenomena out of time, a rule over nature. When Time fails Evolution fails. An instant knock out of whole Evolution theory, so called Darwinism.

    If life is an accident Then every incident happening in this world will demand an accident. Even existance of a piece of Bullshit cannot be confirmed without a Bull…So from where two cars will come to cause an Accident. What will be definite proof that life is not an accident, Just throw a bag of rice mixed with vinegar in a dark warm place, within 48 hours you will see bag of rice turned into full of life, ( worms) Throw it again if it happens again then this incident ( life ) is not an accident, example is silly but it points out a big mistake in evolution history. ..life is not an Accident but conditional (Confirmed)

    H20 ( water) is a permanent condition in nature which caused diversity of life on earth. Scriptures says life is created not evolved from water” And God created every animal from water ” ( Quran 24:45 ) . What will be definite proof that life is created and not evolved ?? It is water H2O. Water suffered no evolution from another source as a product of time thus Water lack co ordination and stability with time to aid a billion years evolutionery process . If water is found in another planet, still water cannot be designated as product of Time, H2O is A permanent law or command written by PEN in nature (destiny) which will contnue to display any where in universe where oxygen and hydrogen is available. If life is an Accident then Life may be found in another planet even that planet is made of copper. For An accident cannot be dependent on another factor like water..if a Pre-condition like water is a requirement for an accident (life) to happen,then this life must be A divine plan.

    Time is not a cause Time is not a real entity or quantity. Time is nooothing.. Null…00.. Nada (void of self). To validate evolution theory you must establish A definition of Time, it is not possible. Did you ever think or ask yourself a question WHAT IS TIME ??? your mind will go blank, Time will create a delusion in your psyco, beacuse Time itself is illusion, In mathematical term time is variable,Relative and unstable .To understand Einstiens space time theory you need to grow wrinkles on your forhead likeEinstein.

    1 Kg, 1 Lbs, 1 Km, 1 Mile, 1 Minute, 1 Hour, 1 Year ,100 Years, Million years, Billion years, Time is a relative standard (Einstein) Water is not a product of time, Atomic and Molecular weight of all elements and componds will remain same unaffected and unchanged by Time until eternity. Even number of smallest praticle electrons and protons, will remain same on this earth or another planet. . TIME FAILED HERE AS ETERNAL CAUSE………. Evolution is invalid or false (confirmed).
    Astronomy says,universe has a begining (BIGBANG) and this ever expanding universe will end up on a reverse massacre when gravitational point is zero..(.00)…Since universe has a begining and universe has an end there must be CREATOR. An american scientist said give me time and technology I will create A Man. His intention was to claim A God is not necessary to create a Man, in that case is it not true that american scientist will be creator or God of that Robot. So origin cannot be denied.”Looook” Watch out” what Richard Dawkins a british biologist, an evolution scientist saying “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”I am my own god. Richard Dawkins is actualy confirming God in his own self like pharooh of anciant Egypt,
    so Existance of God cannot be denied,
    Why monky look like Man ?? We know the root confusion is there than observation of species. …Answer is Beacuse God wanted that way,or Man came from God and desperately trying to return to God Amighty.. There is a similarity and contest in creaton or species beacuse they came from same origin and trying to return same origin so Monky looks like Man and Man looks like God or represent God by mastering nuclear power. Superior inferior brain dogma does not fit between an Ant and An Elephant. Yet there is an inbuilt similarity common in all creatures, We all see and hear beacuse God Almighty see and hear all things, it will be more appropriate to say humanity came from a Godlike origin not a monky beacuse our thinking does not support that humanity will ever evolve into a new species diffrent than human . Jesus is a sign from God Almighty that evolution is False and singing of million billion years(evolution) not required for creation of Man…..Prophat Mohammed peace be upon him said Allah The Almighty said:” The son of adam abuses Me. He curses Time and I AM TIME for in My hand is night and day”( Narrated Authentic by Abu Huraira may Allah be pleased upon him.(book of bukhari and muslim

  13. HiEv says:

    “Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA”

    No, it doesn’t. It contains chemicals, some of which are in a sequence that produce other chemicals. That is not a message.

    A message is, “a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly.” (Google “define:message” if you don’t believe me.)

    So, the first part of your argument is based on very unsubtle verbal dishonesty. What a shameful way to start an argument.

    “Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.”

    False. “Information” is simply data which is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. (Google it.) The pattern in which a rock wall cracks due to natural events is information. The position of every grain of sand on a beach is information. The pattern of a snowflake is information, something you yourself admit comes from nature. However, there is not one shred of objective evidence that any of that information came from a mind.

    Even if a universe was completely random and not the product of any mind, that universe would still contain information. The content and properties of the content of that universe would constitute information.

    To put it simply, a universe with no minds in it and no mind that produced it will still contain information. So, since the existence of information is not contingent upon a mind, your conclusion is unwarranted by that argument, thus your argument is utterly destroyed.

    “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.”

    This is blatantly manipulative wording in an attempt to make an argument. You conflate “messages” and “information”, even though they mean two very different things, and try to use the word “message” as a stand in for “information”. “Messages” come from a mind by definition, but “information” does not necessarily come from a mind. Making an argument about the source of _information_ based on where *messages* come from is completely dishonest.

    You’re simply factually wrong when you claim that information only comes from minds, and attempting to conflate “messages” with “information” in order to make that claim only shows how bad your argument is.

    Regardless, even if DNA was contingent upon a mind, which it most certainly is not, that doesn’t mean it has to be a deity that created it. Completely non-supernatural alien beings would equally satisfy your claim. So even if we accepted your dishonest argument, it’s still a non sequitur to claim God did it, without any evidence that it wasn’t aliens, or magic pixies, or any of the infinite number of other possibilities one could imagine.

    In the end, all you have is a terrible argument founded on dishonest wordplay, false claims, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

    Sorry, but this garbage doesn’t constitute “proof” of anything, much less your particular deity.

    • You do not grasp information theory or genetics. I suggest you look up “genetic code” in any competent science dictionary.

      • HiEv says:

        No, I’m sorry it’s you who doesn’t grasp information theory or genetics. I suggest you look them up.

        What? Did what I just write look like a terrible response, because all I did was simply gainsay what the other person said, and not respond with an actual argument? Exactly. Seriously, go watch the Monty Python argument sketch.

        The fact is, I’m a computer programmer who double-majored in computer science and cognitive science/artificial intelligence. I’ve written software that used genetic algorithms to evolve solutions to software problems. I grasp information theory and genetics to the point where I’ve applied it to solve real world problems.

        Please don’t assume what I do or do not grasp.

        Now, I have no idea what you mean by a “competent science dictionary”, since I’d be willing to bet any that disagree with you you wouldn’t qualify as “competent”. Not to mention that there are hardly any recent science dictionaries that aren’t for children. So, this is an absurdly stringent source requirement.

        That being said, I was able to find the 6th edition of the Oxford Press book “A Dictionary of Science” online, and here is their definition of “genetic code” (page 350):

        genetic code – The means by which genetic information in *DNA controls the manufacture of specific proteins by the cell. The code takes the form of a series of triplets of bases in DNA, from which is transcribed a complementary sequence of *codons in messenger *RNA (see TRANSCRIPTION). The sequence of these codons determines the sequence of amino acids during *protein synthesis. There are 64 possible codes from the combinations of the four bases present in DNA and messenger RNA and 20 amino acids present in body proteins: some of the amino acids are coded by more than one codon, and some codons have other functions (see START CODON; STOP CODON).


        I see nothing there that disputes anything I said or supports the claims you make, which contradict generally accepted science. So, please tell me, what exactly that was supposed to prove?

        If it’s the word “information”, then if you’d actually read what I wrote you’d know that I don’t dispute that DNA contains information. What I dispute is the claim that all information must require mind.

        If you’re simply defining “information” as data which is the product of a mind, then you’d have to prove that DNA was the product of a mind before you could call it information. But that’s not what most people mean by “information”. Information includes both data (which may or may not be the product of a mind) and messages (which by definition are the product of a mind).

        However, it appears that you simply assume all information is the product of a mind, then since most people say DNA contains information, you assume that this somehow proves DNA is the product of a mind. This assumption utterly fails, however, because if that were the definition of “information” then someone would have to *prove* that DNA was the product of a mind *before* they could call what it contains “information”. Simply assuming you’ve proved God like this is absurd because you’re just playing silly word games.

        So, either “information” doesn’t mean what you seem to be claiming it means, *or* you still have a lot of work ahead of you to actually prove that DNA is the product of a mind, and that that mind happens to be your God.

        Simply assuming something is true because of deceptive word games is NOT evidence.

  14. I have some questions for you

  15. Jonathan says:

    If DNA is _not_ a code, then how is this possible?: https://www.wired.com/story/malware-dna-hack

  16. Brendan says:

    the difference is that we can perfect languages. The error checking in DNA is rubbish, because there is cancer. there are ddiseases. Why would god build it like that? We have about 150 years of mdeical science under our belt and we have almost cracked heaps of illnesses. So the allknowing creator cant figure out how to build something better than primitive humans can in a few years? Why? Im geuninely want to know. I want to believe but there has never been a useful argument.

    • I posted a lengthier response as a blog post at https://evo2.org/why-death-and-disease/

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Brendan, our universe functions, and contains disease, and other natural disasters because of matter, electromagnetism and gravity. Why did God create it that way? We also may ask why did God send His Son Jesus to die via crucifixion? Why not just have had Him die in His sleep? God has purpose in our universe, and it affects everything in it. What does that look like? Astronomical research can show us, and it does. As one understands how our universe works, you will understand why we have disease and natural disasters.

  17. Brendan says:

    You say DNA is like a computer program or language. But if it is, surely its not a very good one? It has so many bugs? Diseases and cancer, mental problems, so many horrid things. If we can debug it as we are strarting to, how cme god didnt?

    • From now on you will use your full first and last name. No anonymity is allowed here. Otherwise your posts will be immediately deleted.

      DNA like everything in the world is subject to entropy. All forms of information are subject to information entropy, which is irreversible degradation of a signal. Once a signal has static and noise, it’s never coming out.

      Your question is like saying “why is there static on the radio when I drive by an arc welder?” The answer is that it’s impossible for it to be any other way.

      Therefore what’s remarkable about DNA is cellular error correction. It has five distinct mechanisms. The 2015 Nobel Prize was for the study of 3 of those mechanisms as relates to cancer.

      Cells are superior to anything humans have ever made because as Barbara McClintock showed, not only can cells detect and correct errors, they literally improvise when there is too much missing information. To persist with the analogy, you can add static to a DNA signal and if it’s not too catastrophic, the cell will over-write the static with new, suitable information, even if it has to borrow it from somewhere else. This is an ACTIVE process. Cells are profoundly robust. This is not in any way shape or form something that happens “accidentally.” I cover this exhaustively in my book “Evolution 2.0.”

      I debate this point with famous atheist PZ Meyers in my blog post “Memo to PZ Myers: Damage is random. Repair is not.”

      No human knows how to create systems or write code that does that.

      The only way we can learn how is to study cells.

      So actually your question runs far, far deeper than you may have considered in the past because life is exponentially more impressive than any human system.

      And yes, life on earth has flaws.

      Just because a system has flaws doesn’t mean it’s not engineered. In fact, those very flaws are proof of engineering because the only way you know engineering has been done is because you can actually contrast a CORRECTLY functioning system with an INCORRECTLY functioning system. That’s a very practical definition of teleology.

      There is no such thing as an incorrectly functioning rock. There is such a thing as an incorrectly functioning cell. And that’s precisely how you know it is endowed with purpose. It goes right and it goes wrong.

      And if you have a moral issue with that, then welcome to the theological question of theodicy.

  18. Rob says:

    How do you prove the existence of God? Science says there’s isn’t a God because of the laws of science…Example Stephen Hawking says God did not create our universe because of the Laws of Gravity… What these scientists don’t realize the very first thing to create Laws was not man but God… The meaning of the word Law does not mean chaos but the opposite… It means the order of everything… Science says that in evolution there is chaos but they use and go by Laws such as the Laws of Physics, & the Laws of Gravity… Science actually believes they know everything but they can never prove it… Let’s look at the planet Pluto which just recently PROVED everything they knew about Pluto to be wrong!!! Mans understanding is nothing compared to God’s understanding and wisdom… I have yet to see science create their own planet, even their own gas out of nothing so how can they even tell man there is no God only shows how foolish their wisdom really are… God have man wisdom and it’s their free will to choose how they use that wisdom and trust me they will have to answer fir it one day…

    • Sam Martin says:

      Rob, you seem to misunderstand what science is and isn’t. “Science” doesn’t—and can’t—say that there isn’t a god, because you can’t scientifically prove nonexistence. Scientists may say that there is no god, but they can’t prove it, any more than the scientists who do believe in the Christian God or any other higher power can prove it.

      “Science” is just a word for trying to intellectually understand our universe. If God can perform miracles that violate the laws of physics—our fundamental understanding of how our universe works—then He is beyond our intellectual understanding. But science isn’t, so please do try to learn more about it.

  19. Robert Moffett says:

    Unfortunately, your argument fails with respect to rocks – which under your definitions do in fact chemical “message’ the world around them, and participate in the creation of life.

    If you reduce “messages” to chemistry and yet, selectively choose only that portion of organic chemistry that supports your view – I find that deceptive. Deception is not the path I want to follow in the pursuit of God.

    • If you can show that rocks create messages, then formally demonstrate that and apply for the $5 million prize: http://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

      • Sam Martin says:

        With a broad enough definition of “messages,” you could prove anything regarding them. Likewise with a selectively targeted definition. Organic chemistry is unique in the universe. Uniqueness is not proof of intelligence, nor is a conceptual passing similarity. And you can’t prove the unprovable; you just have to have faith.

        • That’s why I don’t use a broad definition of messages. I use a very precise definition taken from communication theory.

          I now have a $5 million prize around this at http://www.naturalcode.org. George Church of Harvard and MIT was very helpful in refining the current specification. You can find out more about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Church

          • Sam Martin says:

            Yes, I think we’re all well aware of the $5M prize based around a naive comparison between communication and chemistry. It still seems a misleading comparison. A better argument, I think, would hew closer to good old irreducible complexity, but focusing on the fact that we live in a universe that conspired to allow life to exist, that there just happen to be unique chemical properties that seem tailored for genetic transcription and translation. Who cares if the process seems similar to any concept of human thinking? The confluence of the physical properties of matter necessary for genetics to even be a thing that exists is just insane.

            • It’s not a naive comparison, it’s an exact isomorphism based on information theory. It forms the entire basis of bioinformatics.

              You can read dozens of authors from Yockey to “Matter to life” the recent excellent book by Davies, Walker and Ellis, which show that information is a central problem in biology. There is nothing inexact about this. It is a very well defined problem and it has to be solved before origin of life can be considered solved.

              In science, when you see two phenomena that exhibit some range of identical characteristics, you pay extra attention and ask why. “Who cares if the process seems similar to any concept of human thinking” is a curiosity-killing, anti-intellectual statement.

            • Sam, it is fine and good to ask why we live in “a universe that conspired to allow life to exist, that there just happen to be unique chemical properties that seem tailored for genetic transcription and translation.”

              But if you’re really looking for an answer, you cannot at the same time dismiss good faith efforts to acknowledge the scope and magnitude of the problem and reward people for solving it.

              Some people ascribe origin of life to miraculous divine intervention. Based on the actual evidence we have, that is a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion given the facts at hand. Nevertheless, I think it is a higher view of science to posit that the universe itself contains directional qualities or fine tunings that make it natural for life to arise.

              But in that case you still have to adopt a higher view, a more nuanced and positive hypothesis about the universe. And even of reality itself.

              It will do you no good to ascribe it to chance or try to sidestep the question by dismissing the incredibly nuanced parallels that exist between computer science and genomics. When you do that you are simply resisting the progress of science and inquiry.

              And I know that you are not an atheist, but I have found that nobody is more willing to throw real science under the bus and sweep the issues of origin of life under the rug than the atheists. In fact when you reach the current bleeding edges of science, nobody is willing to throw up their hands and make up a piece of anti-scientific superstition than the atheists.

              The current theory that is all the rage is simple replicators and the RNA world hypothesis. Well, I am all for real experiments and research. But nobody gets to take a modestly successful experiment that produced something akin to crystal growth, and claim that they’ve solved the problem of the first cell. Not on my watch.

              • Stuart Norey says:

                Humanity has been seeking answers for all of our existence. The ‘bleeding edge of science’ was just about everywhere. When we didn’t know the real reason it was Mother Nature, the thunder god, the sea god etc. Then, in most faiths, just the god. God seems to be an explanation for what we don’t yet understand, or don’t want to… of course he is a great comfort to many too, and much suffering has also been caused in his name.
                At the current bleeding edge, which has and will continue to be pushed further away from ‘Zeus makes thunder’, scientists are best just asking ‘why?’. Assuming god is ‘real’ immediately narrows your options? Assuming he isn’t does too. So a good scientist will seek the truth?
                From thunder to magic healing springs, we’ve eventually arrived at the truth. We’ve a long way to go yet, and I’m sure many theories will be proven right and wrong and god will get pushed every back to the fringes. Maybe we’ll end at a singularity and there will be no more answers, just theories – god being one of them, but he probably won’t be recognisable as the biblical god, as everything attributed to him/her/it in the bible will have most likely been proven otherwise. We will all still be arguing, even then!

                • Your comments fail to acknowledge the fact that all of this still requires an ultimate explanation, which science by definition cannot measure or define. And you are entirely too dismissive of the Bible. I’m not going to argue about it here. I’ve written a great deal about this at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com.

                  • Stuart Norey says:

                    Perry. I very clearly said we will be left with some single event we can’t see beyond.
                    I’m not entirely dismissive of the bible, or other equally valid texts. There is a lot of historical fact in the bible. There is also a lot of spiritual interpretation of real events and possibly dreams/visions (a feature of most religions, be it by shaman or priests). You know very well the how the various parts of the bible were put together and that they were never intended as a whole. In fact, one can argue that there are two entirely different religions represented in the bible as well as many competing and conflicting ‘factions’. What was left out is just as interesting, although often totally in conflict with what went in.

                • Stuart,

                  One thing that tends to get overlooked in these conversations is:

                  Sure, we explained thunder. And now we know thunder isn’t the gods moving furniture around up in heaven.

                  But every time we nail down one of those explanations, the ultimate questions just get pushed back further – and they get bigger.

                  Once upon a time it was “where does thunder come from?”

                  Now it’s “where do the laws of physics come from?” and “what caused the big bang?” and “how do you create matter and energy out of nothing?” and “where does information come from?” and “why do physical systems obey the laws of mathematics?”

                  So it’s not like the God question ever went away. Actually it’s just that most people are sufficiently distracted with the massive knowledge base of science that they stop noticing that the ultimate questions have not changed the slightest bit.

                  • Sam Martin says:

                    “why do physical systems obey the laws of mathematics?”
                    I would say, rather, that mathematics models the laws of physical systems.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Mathematics does what, Sam?

                    • Perhaps that’s true.

                      But can you define “laws” when you say “laws of physical systems”?

                    • Sam Martin says:

                      According to whatever dictionary Google uses (reportedly the Oxford Pocket English Dictionary): “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.” In other words, the way things are, as best as we can tell. And math is one way of expressing it.

            • Sam Martin says:

              In fact, scientists at CERN seem to be having trouble explaining how it’s physically possible that anything exists, given the laws (properties) of the universe as we know them.

              It’s just downright bizarre that we exist at all, if none of it was engineered somehow.

  20. Mike Lee says:

    Stated in the article = 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.”
    This seems to me to be yet another statement in the vein of – “This is so complex it had to be created – it could never have evolved”
    You assigned the label “language” to an evolved set of DNA characteristics. Quite how you made a leap to believe in God is beyond any free thinking person (not necessarily Atheist).
    A good argument but yet another leap of faith.

Leave a Reply

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