“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
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html

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

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

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

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

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

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

http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

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

http://evo2.org/faq/#designer

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:

http://evo2.org/iidb.htm

1,883 Responses

  1. emir Nurican Yılmaz says:

    There are so many proves, one of them is near death experiences, besides, I hate god, I hate god so much

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Emir, when you say god, are you speaking of the Biblical God?

      • Stuart Norey says:

        What god seems determined by where and when you were born, language, culture etc. Take your pick.
        The biblical god is only important to you because of those things. If you were born in Ancient Greece or Egypt, or e.g. Asia today, it’s be some other god(s) you ‘knew’ were the one (or many) true god(s). Might even have been a woman at one time. It’s a lottery, you got a vengeful Jewish bloke who later got turned into a benign absent father?

    • Stuart Norey says:

      What makes you think near death experiences are any sort of proof? I’d say the opposite.

      People reporting them tend to report an experience pretty much aligned with whatever religion they practice, some of the ones from non religious people seem to be fairly ‘non-religious’ although we could reasonably expect some of the religion dominant in their local culture to filter in…

      So, logic would say that near death experiences are not proof of god but more likely something going on locally in the near death brain, probably starved of oxygen and having all sorts of ‘circuits’ firing?

      Most religions claim there is only their god, or indeed some have multiple gods, and many are so different as to be incompatible with one another.

      So, they can’t all be genuine can they?

      It might be very possible that a radical islamist terrorist who had killed himself in a suicide bombing (assuming he had some brain left) would float up towards his promised bunch of virgins etc, a raiding viking warrior see a drinking hall full of his fellow warriors, a slave holding egyptian pharaoh float towards the stars accompanied by animal/human hybrids and a member of the Spanish inquisition be congratulated by St Peter for murdering countless innocent people? Whose are genuine?

      How do these people report seeing light and hearing noises etc when they no longer have the sensory apparatus to capture it?

      I neither hate nor love god, no more than I do Harry Potter or Bilbo Baggins. I love humanity in all its quirkiness, despite the things we do to the planet that created us!

  2. Stuart Norey says:

    Here’s an interesting article – an example of abiogenesis in a molecule we already know can form spontaeneously. Creationism backed into a yet smaller corner.

    http://www.newsweek.com/how-did-life-begin-key-alzheimers-protein-has-surprising-tie-primordial-soup-816807

    A new study showing that amyloids are able to self-replicate, and thus could have quite possibly been life’s original building blocks.

    The ability to self-replicate is an essential trait for early life forms—a lone molecule could not have generated more molecules without that skill—so this finding is extremely important in the scientific community, Phys.org reported. And the study, published in Nature Communications, proved that amyloid protein structures can do just that.

    are capable of abiogenesis, or replicating themselves.
    In an experiment, researchers from the Laboratory of Physical Chemistry in Switzerland showed that amyloids can create short peptides, a chain or two or more amino acids. Two years earlier, the same group showed that amyloids can form spontaneously. The combination of these two findings suggest that amyloids may be the right candidate for the origin of life

  3. Stuart Norey says:

    We are getting closer, step by step. This study goes a long way to showing you don’t need a supreme being to intervene to do what you’ve always said is the hardest bit, the first organic molecules, self replication etc.
    As I’ve said to you many times, science will hopefully one day roll back the story of life to its beginning – and everything we know now says that won’t be a mystical one. We will prove how the information in DNA, the code if you like, evolved.
    Of course there will still be a debate. It’ll be ‘ok, god didn’t do biology, but what about chemistry?’ and then ‘what about physics?’ until finally ‘what about before the Big Bang?’.
    It’s not a battle that can be ‘won’ by science while faith trumps reason. To be fair I don’t think science is fighting religion, just trying to find answers through unbiased and methodological application of logic – which happen to be, more often than not, in opposition to what religion would have us believe.

    • Maximilian Somerset says:

      Your reasoning here isn’t really how a Theist reasons. We believe God “did it” not because we are bereft of explanations so we think God or Zog or what ever other non-explanation will do to plug the hole. We believe it all came from God-who was it’s entire potentiality and is it’s sustainer, because God revealed that by his own self revelation of himself. Our universe is consistent with that revelation.

      • Bravo. I absolutely agree. 12 years ago I was still in God-of-Gaps reasoning. And I was fighting “make up a story whenever there’s a gap you can’t solve” which is what the atheists were doing. Scientifically I believe in God because there is necessarily an uncaused cause which by definition cannot fit any any scientific category.

        Any place where you find creationists fighting with reductionists, or scientists making up stories to fig-leaf their lack of explanations, there’s a discovery waiting. Case in point from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07184.pdf
        “The “Hard Problem” of Life by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies

        Their approach and mine are very compatible and I met with them in August when I announced the Evolution 2.0 Prize at ASU.

        • Stuart Norey says:

          I hate to beak it to you, but you are still in god of the gaps mode.

          ‘I believe in God because there is necessarily an uncaused cause which by definition cannot fit any any scientific category’ is god of the gaps thinking in a nutshell.

          You’ve settled on god as that explanation, despite having no evidence. You just believe in him, he’s the explanation you’ll seek. A bad scientist will do the same with his or her pet theory, despite constant knock backs. A good one will screw up his work, applaud his peer (after checking his work of course) and start over.

          Does there HAVE to be an uncaused cause? Only if the universe is part if something finite. A simple circle doesn’t have a start and end. Our laws of phsyics might only apply in our universe, maybe it’s the only one with space and time? Maybe it’s the only one. Even if there has to be an uncaused cause, it is highly improbable it’s the biblical god. Why would it need to have intelligence for starters, or even self awareness? Where and when would it exist, there was no space and time for it to do so?

          Start from ‘there’s a gap in our understanding here, I wonder what fills it?’

          You are not doing that. Your whole blog relies on ‘science hasn’t figured this out yet, that proves god did it’.

          • Yes, Stuart, there has to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is not a gap. It is a logical necessity. Logic tell us this is necessarily the case even if we didn’t have any other evidence.

            But that is ONLY true if we insist on using logic.

            The good news, Stuart Norey, is that you are also welcome to break free from the harsh prison walls and strict confines of logic! You are then allowed believe that a universe popped into existence for no reason at all, caused by nothing at all.

            It’s a free country. Abandon logic if you wish. The good news is you get to decide whether logic is going to be your traveling companion or not.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              It appears space and time only came into existence at ‘the Big bang’. One could argue there was no time for a cause, or space for it to ‘work’ in.

              Some odd stuff happens at the quantum level, where particles seem to pop into existence and matter appears to mostly be empty space (although describing it as space seems wrong, it’s not the same as our macro space). Time even does odd things. I personally think that’s where we might find some answers.

              Maybe the universe is in some way self causing? I know you’ll have me for pleading a special case. Our physical laws would not apply Pre Big Bang though.

              Even with the god argument we are stuck. It would have to have a cause?

              If you claim god is infinite, then you don’t need god. An infinite bundle of some sort of matter/energy (or whatever) would suffice, an eternal and multidimensional bundle of potential… maybe in a parallel ‘universe’ it hasn’t and never will go Bang and in countless others it has. Just like in quantum physics, it could be in several states at once, both ‘big banging’ and forever stable. This quantum state might be where we end up finding our best theories? The god theory is welcome, although it seems we don’t need something so complex.

              Anyway, God’s creation claims have in the main been shown to be false ones. He didn’t create man, birds, fish, lights in the sky (the moon isn’t even a light) etc. We know this.

              So, if he didn’t make the actors, I don’t really think we can take his claim of building the stage too seriously either!

              He’s an explanation primitive people needed to huge fill gaps, he stuck around as we became less primitive – in part due to gaps, in part because he enabled social control and in part because it’s comforting. Now, some of us still think they need him, some don’t. What’s important is that we are here, however ‘here’ got here, and shouldn’t let religion or lack of it be a barrier between us.

              • Are you trying to tell me that “what caused time to begin” is a question you are somehow excused from having to face?

                Nice try.

                Time coming into existence doesn’t excuse you from cause and effect, Stuart. It only opens up another dimension of causality that you have also failed to explain.

                Mathematics is outside of time yet some things in mathematics CAUSE other things to be true. Cause and effect exists in pure logic as well as time.

                No, God does not have to have a cause. You’re confusing God with material objects. You’re also forgetting about logic. (Excuse me, I forgot. You opted out of that.)

                Well for those of use who choose to obey the confines of logic, yes. There does necessarily HAVE to be an uncaused cause.

                And that, no matter how you slice it, is a naked fact that you cannot get around.

                Except if you opt out of logic.

                • Stuart Norey says:

                  I’m not confusing god with material objects. They couldn’t have existed in the state we’ve know them ‘Pre big bang’ I.e. in space and time, or our version of it.
                  So, like god, they wouldn’t need a cause either. Or BOTH do.
                  The universe is complex, but doesn’t need a complex and intelligent creator.

                • Stuart Norey says:

                  And our logic would seem to be wholly influenced by the universe we live in, it can’t really be otherwise. Everything we know is finite, has a cause. Except one thing, the Big Bang, where logic breaks down – along with space and time.
                  There ‘might’ be a god, of course. What bothers me is you insist there is – you do not and cannot know that.
                  You also insist (read your introduction) you have proved god exists. You haven’t. You have a theory, it has less going for it than evolution – which is backed up by what we know and can be tested. Your theory is backed up by what we don’t know, I.e. on our little planet we have thus far only found codes created by intelligence. We have the whole universe and all of time still to seek answers. A gap in knowledge doesn’t prove a theory right or wrong, we need to fill that gap with tested and peer reviewed facts.
                  If these answers are evolution or god, scientists will be equally pleased – in fact ANY proof for god would open up whole new areas of work for them (as would any new branch of science).

              • Jose Lopez says:

                Stuart, astronomical research has already shown us that the universe came into existence out of nothing. That includes space, matter and time. I watched, and heard, Sean Carroll change his lectures after evidence of the cosmic radiation, left over from the creation of our universe, was discovered. Just for reference, nobody on this planet is going to discredit the Biblical God by hanging on to anything other than what astronomers already know about the beginning of our universe. Why did I say the Biblical God? I’ll tell you. The Bible is the only “holy book” that says God created our universe outside of space and time. And,how did that look? Astronomers call it the Big Bang, which also says that the laws of space and time do not change. So, does God “uphold” our universe? Yes, He does. And how does that look? Astronomers call that the Anthropic Principle. Stuart, it doesn’t matter if you’re a theist, atheist, or whatever you want to call yourself: The Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle are facts. As far as Perry, he and I may not agree on every detail of the questions of biological life and it’s beginnings, but; I can say that we agree God had much to do about it. We’ll never know everything. But, we know quite a bit. And, in my very strong opinion, Jesus is God, and He’s a scientist.

      • Jose Lopez says:

        Maximilian, how does a theist reason?

      • Stuart Norey says:

        I’m not out to offend or belittle anyone. Believe what you like, everyone is in my mind free to do so. But I find it an offence to humankind and all the work we’ve done to understand our universe and everything in it, when people twist facts or simply make them up to further their cause – for example I’m not a fan of Donald Trump!

        I won’t be offended if you say you think I’m insane for thinking evolution is poppycock. I’ll ask you why of course! You ought not be offended if I say I think god is a delusion.

        By all means have theories, we can debate them. Make mistakes or misjudgements – I do frequently.

        But if you want to debate, you really have to challenge everything you think you know and everything you believe. ‘God said’ or the ‘bible says’ don’t belong in scientific debates unless accompanied by evidence. And I’d suggest, given the weight of evidence against ‘god’ and in favour of e.g. theory of evolution, it would have to be of an equivalent weight.

        ‘Revealed that by his own self revelation of himself’ what does that mean?

        Jesus, for example, is not evidence. He may or may not have existed. There’s no proof. He was likely a real person, but the biblical jesus story probably incorporates the stories of other men too – and a fair bit of speculation, misinterpretation and pure fantasy. The words attributed to him were written centuries after his death. When the ‘cult’ spread and the Romans adopted Christianity, the various sects debated and voted on what went into a kind of consolidated and heavily edited bible. Lots then got mistranslated or purposefully changed.

        Who did he reveal it to? It’s all hearsay, not fact. You have to choose to believe the bible on faith alone, or not. It’s not evidence. Much of the Old Testament draws on stories from older religions.

        Why did god create the universe then bugger off for 13.7 billion years? Why did he only then reveal himself (very frequently) in a very short period in human evolution and history, often championing people who’d be considered immoral by today’s standards? Why always up a mountain, or in a dream? Why did he come in so many conflicting forms around the world, sometimes worshipped as a rock or tree, the sun or moon, a living pharaoh, Odin, Zeus, often multiple gods etc etc.

        I’m not saying YOU necessarily plug the gap in understanding with god. People did that 2000+ years ago (and some more recently, in fact much of what christians believe is embellishment from medieval times onwards, there are some who still plug every gap with god), in my eyes your error is that you are accepting something for which there is zero real evidence.

        This is damaging. Look what’s being taught in some US schools. Stuff that tells kids good peer reviewed scientific findings are lies. In Britain we have ‘faith schools’ doing the same.

        Our universe is NOT consistent with the bible. Sure, you can change timings, order of events, scale etc and cobble something together, teach it to kids who’ll possibly accept it for life – it came from someone they trust, they have busy lives as they grow up and more to worry about – like getting shot at school or having their own kids, most of us can’t even understand how our tv works anymore, let alone the universe. But it’s a bit of a Frankenstein…

        Perry IS plugging a gap. Science does not yet understand how we got from the Big Bang to DNA. Our understandably limited understanding of the universe hasn’t yet revealed a conveyor of information / code without either intelligence (e.g. a bird singing) or made by intelligence (e.g. a book). So he’s using that gap, and a man made definition, to argue god exists. In fact he says he ‘can prove’ it. He can’t. He’s just taking humanities lack of total understanding and saying we don’t understand it so god did it.

        Classic god of the gaps. He denies this of course.

        Science comes up with findings. Not good enough. DNA is one of the more recent milestones in the evolution of life. Lots had to come before that. Science has shown him some of those previous stops – I highlighted a case of ‘potential’ abiogenesis just the other day (scientifically sound it seems) which is a step towards complex life and DNA. Not good enough. Science has to fill EVERY gap, or god made the universe before abiogenesis and DNA after, but he’ll concede the tiny bit of ground to science!

        • Jose Lopez says:

          Stuart, why is our universe not consistent with science?

          • Jose Lopez says:

            Pardon me, why is our universe not consistent with the Bible?

            • Stuart Norey says:

              Have you read the creation story? The two totally contradictory ones?

              Two of every global species on a boat?

              Turning people into pillars of salt?

              As for Jesus…

              Loaves and fishes?

              Water into wine, which I can never remember if he did before or after walking on it?

              Restoring severed body parts?

              All after being born from a virgin?

              I could go on, and often do.

              • This argument can’t even come close to valuable because you have to prove there is no God first, if u don’t all these miracles are very possible.
                Second if u want to know why they happened you have to pay attention and read their purpose first.
                Thirdly different and uncountable miracles are happening by people who believe in the miracles you mocked, why don’t you try YouTube and see for yourself first.

            • It is you’re just not looking, you tube simply answers your questions. All you have to do is search undeniable live miracles and testimonies and you will find millions and millions of Christian undeniable testimonies, live healing and much more

        • I see you have many questions but your flow is that you have not researched your questions which mostly have been answered. For example your questions about Jesus can easily be answered by the book or movie “Case for Christ”. So please do your research before you boldly debate already answered questions. And for your creation questions you can look the website creation.mobi/who-created-God.

          • Stuart Norey says:

            You will see elsewhere that I’ve repeatedly said no one knows exactly how the universe came to be and what, if anything was there before. I’ve said it could be a god type figure – a very unlikely solution, and they’d almost certainly not be the biblical god. I’ll be swayed by evidence.
            This is where I have an issue with what you are saying, and Perry’s blog title ‘I can prove god exists’.

            Firstly, I think Perry should change the title – he’s as good as said elsewhere that he can’t PROVE it. It’s an interesting theory.

            Second, I take issue with your ‘proofs’. I’m not saying there are not amazing things happening, but YouTube isn’t proof, just like the bible isn’t proof. They should not be credited to god, even if all those involved believe it was him.
            It’s an ‘acceptable’ theory of course, but there is no proof what look like miracles actually are miracles or are down to god.
            We know through trials that in some ‘medicines’ the placebo effect is actually bigger than the effect of the ‘chemicals’ given to patients. There are some studies showing prayer has a positive impact (also many showing none and some showing it actually made things worse). Some dogs have, due to amazing sense of smell, spotted cancers – some humans claim to also.
            So, we need to consider placebo effects, fraud, people getting better anyway, enhanced/unknown senses etc etc alongside ‘god’. We live in an amazing world.
            YouTube is there to suck in clicks and advertising dollars. One can find claims for Bigfoot, aliens etc etc. It’s not a source to be blindly trusted, I hope you agree there have been many religion based scams over the centuries!?
            I have no issue with you debating for a god. You just can’t quote these as facts and truths because they are not established facts and truths. That’s why science has theories, either strengthened or weakened by accumulation of evidence until they are proven or disproven – there’s also a stage where most people would look at the evidence and alternatives and say ‘that’s highly likely’

            • Jose Lopez says:

              Stuart, astronomical research has already shown us that our universe came into existence out of nothing: That’s space, time, matter and energy. That’s a fact……What did the Biblical God have to say about that: Genesis 1:1.

              • Stuart Norey says:

                Jose. At one end you are confusing the bible with fact. At the other you are confusing scientific theory with fact. The universe could have come from nothing, yes, both that is a theory and there are mathematical models showing it could have happened – which don’t require a creator by the way. But we don’t know. We’ve not got a unified theory yet so far as I know, including quantum mechanics.
                We have to approach these challenges rationally and methodically to make progress, humanities days of making up supernatural answers to fill gaps in understanding ought to be well over by now.
                God should be treated like any other theory and we don’t see evidence for the biblical creation like other theories – e.g. cosmic microwave background and gravitational waves.

                • Jose Lopez says:

                  Stuart, you’re way behind common knowledge. Our universe was created out of nothing. That’s a fact. If you can’t get past that then you and I are wasting our time.

                  • Stuart Norey says:

                    Jose. To the best of my knowledge it is a theory, not a fact. We can see the CMB and light from stars hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang, but I’m not aware we’ve got closer than that. The rest is theories, maths etc?
                    If you send me a link to the proof I’ll gladly read it – I’d be interested.

              • Jeff Dixon says:

                “In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.”

                Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

                So, no, matter and energy did not get created in the in Big Bang. It already existed.

  4. Donny Muncie says:

    What do you think of Jeremy England’s work? It seems he is on track to win your prize, if he hasn’t already.

  5. Minnase Dereje says:

    Perry Marshall I think all of the points you have made are backed with scientific proofs which are very necessary in these times but as a friendly advice one of the most repeated and in my capacity of information unanswered question is proof of a miracle or a sign, so I would like to invite everyone to see millions and millions of healing testimonies of live videos, miracles in numbers you can’t imagine and all you have to do is use YouTube and search for live miracles and healing by T.B Joshua, Benny Hinn, Emmanuel Makandiwa, Katherine Kulman. You will get so many witnesses, doctors and scientists speechless and if this isn’t enough search for prophecies about world events by T.B Joshua and the names I mentioned above and you will see that there is a God WITHOUT A DOUBT

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Minasse, Benny Hinn is a joke. He doesn’t represent the Christian faith. You may want to research. The Bible commands us to test everything.

  6. Tom Godfrey says:

    Stuart Norey,

    Please excuse me for jumping into this discussion late, but I just came across an interesting comment you made here back on February 23, 2018, at 12:58 pm. (Other participants may have dropped out anyway.) You said, “Here’s an interesting article – an example of abiogenesis in a molecule we already know can form [spontaneously]. Creationism backed into a yet smaller corner.” Here is your link to the article.
    http://www.newsweek.com/how-did-life-begin-key-alzheimers-protein-has-surprising-tie-primordial-soup-816807

    It certainly was interesting, all right, but I think your excitement was premature, and I dispute your idea that creationism has been “backed into a yet smaller corner.” I also think you overlooked an important point made by Maximilian Somerset in his (12:30 pm) comment for you the next day, a comment that Perry applauded later that day.

    The Newsweek article does indeed say, “The ability to self-replicate is an essential trait for early life forms […] And the study, published in Nature Communications, proved that amyloid protein structures can do just that.” The paragraph following this one was mysteriously truncated and had nothing in quotes: “are capable of abiogenesis, or replicating themselves.” Fortunately, Dana Dovey, the author of the article, provided links to more technical sources that we can use to check out her story.
    https://phys.org/news/2018-02-protein-self-replicates.amp
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02742-3
    Dovey may have wanted to claim that amyloid protein structures have been proven to be “capable of abiogenesis, or replicating themselves,” but the cited sources tell a different story. Though she was probably eager — maybe too eager — to break sensational news, she may have been misled and therefore not totally at fault for any confusion that fooled you.

    Her first source says, “By proving that amyloids self-replicate, Riek and his team have not only highlighted another amazing aspect of this commonly underestimated protein, but also filled in a previously missing link in the amyloid hypothesis’ argument.” However, the same source had already provided the basis for this claim, suggesting to me that it was actually a bit of a stretch: “ETH [Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich] scientists have been able to prove that a protein structure widespread in nature – the amyloid – is theoretically capable of multiplying itself. … Early proponents of the amyloid hypothesis include ETH Professor Roland Riek and his senior assistant Jason Greenwald, from the Laboratory of Physical Chemistry. In an experiment, they have now been able to show that amyloids can serve as a chemical template for the synthesis of short peptides. And the critical point: ‘This ability also potentially applies to the amyloid itself – meaning the molecules can self-replicate,’ says Riek.” In other words, while the amyloid “is theoretically capable of multiplying itself,” this has evidently not yet been demonstrated in a lab. You might say the proof in question remains theoretical.

    The second source reinforces my conclusion: “However, concerning questions of abiogenesis, there is still little experimental evidence of molecular replication in a truly prebiotic system. While the templating capability of the amyloid structure is well documented, it remains to be shown how far their self-organizing nature can be taken towards a self-replicating system of simpler molecules in more prebiotic conditions.”

    As interesting as developments like this may be, it is important to keep them in perspective. Lab experiments are all about science, a study of nature and the laws of nature as they are currently observed and better understood through repeatable experiments. Science should be carefully distinguished from history, which is all about events and conditions in the unobservable past and about worlds no longer subject to repeatable experiments. We should appreciate contributions that scientists have made to the advancement of modern technology, but I challenge you to point to even one of them that sprang from a study of origins or speculations about history. After all, history is not really their specialty. We normally turn to historians for help with questions about history, and the story of our origins is certainly in this category. Historians collect and summarize documents and testimony deemed credible, seldom finding a modern scientific study of physical clues relevant to their topic.

    My point is that whatever can be demonstrated in a modern lab really has no bearing on what actually happened in the past except to provide ideas for guesses, which may or may not be correct, depending crucially on the validity of the assumptions involved, such as the assumed “prebiotic conditions” mentioned in the second source article.

    The fact that no one has won the Evolution 2.0 Prize yet is no proof that no one ever will or that it is impossible to get a code from chemicals. I think Perry acknowledged this in his book, because he said, “My design hypothesis is falsifiable” (p. 339). A prize winner would falsify it, but the current lack of one does not prove it. A claim that no perpetual motion machine will ever be built is logically falsifiable too. If someone built one, this would falsify it, but would it make sense to offer a prize to build one and patent it? At least it is clear that Marshall believes his design hypothesis is not easily proven wrong, but he also understands that it could be wrong and wants to encourage people to try hard to prove it wrong.

    By the same token, the fact that abiogenesis has not yet been demonstrated in a lab is no proof that the scientists working on this will never succeed. This would be like arguing in 1905 that no one had ever converted matter into energy, so therefore this must be impossible, and Einstein’s theory must be wrong. In general, one ought to avoid the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The other side of this coin is that even a modern demonstration of abiogenesis would be no proof that scientists had discovered how life first appeared on earth. They could only guess, hoping that their assumptions were correct. This is why I dispute the idea that any modern experiment can back creationism “into a yet smaller corner,” which brings me to the comment by Maximilian. Here it is again for ease of reference:

    “Your reasoning here isn’t really how a Theist reasons. We believe God ‘did it’ not because we are bereft of explanations so we think God or Zog or what ever other non-explanation will do to plug the hole. We believe it all came from God-who was [its] entire potentiality and is [its] sustainer, because God revealed that by his own self revelation of himself. Our universe is consistent with that revelation.”

    In my own words, creationists simply believe that God did what the author of Genesis says he did. We reject the whole approach to knowledge of our origins through a study of modern, necessarily incomplete, physical clues, strictly interpreted under the no-miracle presupposition or methodological materialism. If we were to go that route, then if we came to some mystery we could not solve and jumped to the conclusion that God did it, that would indeed be a God-of-the-gaps argument, but that is not our approach at all. We plead not guilty. Maybe Perry does too, but I cannot speak for him.

  7. Stuart Norey says:

    I do think studies like that back creationism into a smaller corner. I’ve said many times the ‘proof’ some creationists ask for is almost certainly impossible – it would require a time machine or, in the case of the Big Bang, a machine capable of travelling beyond space and time (although anyone claiming God created the universe probably needs one of those too).
    The best we can, and maybe ever will, do is to develop theories and test them as far as we can.
    Man made global warming is probably one of the most researched and best evidenced we have. Evolution is pretty well accepted too as we can see it happen in the fossil record and in life today, and trace its path in DNA.
    Research like that I pointed out surely adds more weight to the ‘evolution based’ or non creationist theory at the expense of creationism, one becomes more likely and the other less.
    Certainly, however you twist it and dress it up, biblical and similar creation stories don’t match the evidence. In fact, the way some people interpret them would have had them burnt at the stake a few hundred years ago, and a thousand or so years ago you’d have got blank looks – they probably would not even see what you present as any sort of Christian or Jewish god (many creationists today wouldn’t either, thankfully most people don’t go for stake burning nowadays).
    I suppose we have more gaps in understanding to fill and one day we might even run an experiment actually ‘creating’ simple life from organics from chemistry.
    Many theories remain so, especially grand ones, that does not make them devoid of facts.
    It still won’t be enough, you mention belief/faith and that doesn’t demand or accept evidence. Faith doesn’t even demand logic.
    In my view at least deism is all in, although still Mumbo jumbo. Theism is neither here nor there, seems to be an acceptance that the biblical god is probably fantasy but unwillingness to completely give up the comfort blanket…
    Atheism isn’t really about belief, it’s a considered position that accepts one theory relies on zero evidence (in fact I’d say it’s gone overdrawn) and another on plenty – we considered the evidence and found him not guilty of creation, or rather decided there was no case to answer. However, if god popped his head out of the clouds tomorrow or real evidence showed up, we’d all know – and apologise for getting it so wrong!

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Stuart, you seem to be hanging on to doubt just for the sake of not accepting the fact that thelogians were correct. The universe began out of nothing, Stuart.
      You don’t need a thelogian to prove anything. It’s a fact. Do you realize that you’re out of touch with that fact? Let it go.

  8. Tom Godfrey says:

    Stuart Norey,

    Thanks for not disputing my analysis of those articles. Thanks, too, for reassuring me that you stand by your claim that the latest developments in abiogenesis research “back creationism into a smaller corner,” but you did not clearly explain in either comment how this can possibly be the case. This leaves me thinking that you have fooled yourself. From my perspective, your claim might be true if creationists accepted the secular approach to gaining knowledge of our origins, which is to rely on a study of physical clues and see what can be figured out. As it is, we simply believe Genesis, so we are not even in the same house or yard, let alone forced into some corner by experts with a more credible interpretation of presently available clues.

    Can you document your idea that creationists ask for proof? What proof are you talking about? Of course no one has a time machine. This explains why the history of our origins is not a proper topic for scientific investigation. No modern scientist was there in the beginning to observe or run experiments. This is why you rely on guesswork based on clues instead of preferring the normal way to learn about our history. Maybe this is one point where we can agree, because you said, “The best we can, and maybe ever will, do is to develop theories and test them as far as we can,” but you forgot to include our option to believe Genesis, which might be the best option of all.

    You said, “Evolution is pretty well accepted too as we can see it happen in the fossil record and in life today, and trace its path in DNA.” I agree with the part about wide acceptance of evolution, but this could be a good reason for a creationist to switch sides only if he falls for the argumentum ad populum fallacy. What about the three specific reasons you listed?

    The fossil record ought to be an embarrassment to people who believe in common descent and tree-of-life evolution, not a reason to become an evolutionist. No one can expect a complete record of the theoretical transitions from a common ancestor to each one of the marvelous variety of life forms observed today, for obvious reasons, but high quality transitional series of fossil forms should not be as rare as hen’s teeth either. As it is, evolutionists consider only a few of these series presentable, among the gazillions of fossils available, and of these few low-quality series, most come from the poorest part of the fossil record (terrestrial vertebrates). Too little evolution can be illustrated in the richest part of the record (marine invertebrates) to be of much use. You may have been fooled by evolutionists who do not call attention to this embarrassing situation. Please let me know if you can find me any exception.

    You may think that you can see evolution in life today, but no truly observable evolution is controversial. This kind is amenable to scientific study. Tree-of-life evolution or evolution of one creature into a dramatically different kind of creature has never been observed. This is the only controversial kind of evolution, and it is totally theoretical, maybe even a dogma accepted by faith, but it is by no means amenable to truly scientific study involving observation and experiments.

    Similarities in DNA prove nothing. They can be explained just as well by assuming that DNA is like computer code. A good coder does not write every line of code from scratch. Functions are reused. Wheels do not have to be reinvented whenever they are needed. If you are talking about similarities in “junk” DNA, I think a lot of your argument depends on a full understanding of what really is junk. What used to be considered junk has been discovered to be functional after all. Let’s talk about junk DNA after someone has removed it and shown that it must not serve any useful purpose at any point in the life cycle of the affected organism.

    You said, “Research like that I pointed out surely adds more weight to the ‘evolution based’ or non creationist theory at the expense of creationism, one becomes more likely and the other less,” possibly to support your “smaller corner” comment, but all this really tells me is that you still imagine that evolutionists and creationists both embrace the same approach to learning about origins. We certainly do not, as I explained.

    You went on to say, “Certainly, however you twist it and dress it up, biblical and similar creation stories don’t match the evidence,” but to be honest, I ought to take issue with this claim too. It may be either an exaggeration for dramatic effect or an honest mistake that you can blame on evolutionists who have ignored or tried to discredit evidence presented by creationists. As far as the credibility of Genesis is concerned, I would like to call your attention to a book on aging by Gerald E. Aardsma, available as a free PDF download from his website: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ (fourth book in top banner). It is true that creationists do not demand evidence before belief in Genesis can be considered reasonable, but if you have an open mind, I think you, like the disciple Thomas after the resurrection, can find whatever evidence you really need.

    I would say that atheism is totally about belief. A negative, like the non-existence of an invisible spirit, is extremely difficult to prove, especially in the case of God, who is supposed to be eternal and omnipresent. I think most atheists recognize this and fall back to a decision to postpone faith in God until satisfactory positive proof has been provided. This puts their mind at ease, because God never “[pops] his head out of the clouds,” and whatever evidence is presented, like the hand at the end of your arm, as Perry has suggested, it can always be easily rejected, dismissed, or ignored. No problem, right? Well, maybe origins is a problem that can’t just be ignored, but this can be always be set aside as an unsolved mystery right? A breakthrough by atheist scientists might be just around the corner.

    Yes, we are talking about faith, hope, and belief, all right, even if you are an atheist, daring to trust that the Bible is full of hooey. If you have been fooled, may God have mercy on you. If I have been fooled, well, I still had a blessed life.

  9. Stuart Norey says:

    If you read and are taken in by the bible, you have to accept god has ‘popped his head out of the clouds’ many times to set fire to shrubs and hand us instructions etc, he just hasn’t done it for a few thousand years. He even took the time to explain to someone how he created them and everything else, I assume to secure ‘buy in’ – which he’d now need more than ever in the face of progress – we have progressed in pretty much all measures of human ‘betterment’ since the enlightenment period, when we began to free ourselves from the shackles.

    Nor have his ‘representatives’ been handing out magic food in famine struck countries or been seen casually strolling past as someone floats on their lilo in the mediterranean.

    And which Jesus do you accept? The one who got ‘voted in’ to the bible hundreds of years after his death, or the alternative non-magical mortal one who they decided to leave out?

    And, if you accept christianity on faith, you have to accept all the other religions are correct too – after all what makes you so special and ‘right’? In fact, when you consider all the supporters of all the religions that are and have been, Christians are in the minority – either you are wrong and in deep doo-daa or billions of non-christian souls are slapping themselves on the forehead and saying ‘doh!’. Of course Yahweh, Asherah, Thor, Odin, Jupiter, Mars, Athena, Zeus, Set etc etc might (in fact should) ALL be ‘up there’ and probably arguing and fighting with one another – after all they had conflicting views about most things. In fact you’d have various attempts by some ‘Gods’ to re-decorate heaven as e.g. a Feasting/Drinking Hall, mountaintop palace, celestial Nile Valley etc and the various ‘gatekeepers’ arguing over who to let in – he strapped a bomb to himself and below up Christians because our priests promised him virgins etc / he is not coming in because he strapped a bomb to himself and blew up Christians…

    No thanks!

    There really is not much point us discussing this anyway. Your ‘no need for evidence’ thinking (in fact many who share your faith will insist God is angry if you seek it) is what resulted in innocent women (who were probably far wiser than their accusers) being burnt as witches. Today most of us have trials and consider weight of evidence when making a judgement – of course we sometimes get it wrong and sentence the wrong chap, but we learn from that and improve our methods.

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Stuart, you still have not commented on my last post. Our universe began out of nothing. That’s time, space, matter and energy. What are your thoughts?

      • Stuart Norey says:

        Jose. It is a theory. It may be correct. If it is, that leads to other theories about what made it happen, how we seemingly got something from nothing – there could be no ‘what’ to make it happen, maybe some God like entity, maybe it is related to quantum theory, maybe our universe was spawned from another, maybe it is part of a multiverse. All theories.
        It is beyond me, and I’d suggest probably you. There is a difference though – my mind is open to any of the above, even something as unlikely as the hebrew god described in the bible given enough evidence, you have selected the answer based on belief and I fear your mind will not be changed should any amount of evidence be presented. Whatever you do for a job and in life, I’d imagine most of it is evidence based and that you rely on the outputs of logic and science an awful lot – and that it has changed your mind about many things, but not this one.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          Stuart, the fact that our universe came into existence out of nothing (that’s time, space, matter and energy) eliminates any theory of a multiverse. That’s a fact. That’s also exactly as the Biblical God said He created this one, single universe. As far as my job, I’m not sure I’d take your comment offensively. My job is a specialty based on scientific disciplines. However, I believe God’s Word is the inerrant truth.

          • Stuart Norey says:

            Jose, believing in something does not make it fact. And the bible doesn’t say that at all! And the creation story is drawn from much earlier ones, Mesopotamian I think – no surprise as that’s where the first scholars were educated, although changed to fit the idea of a single god etc. What god created was more or less a flat land surrounded by sea and a firmament (a solid dome) with lights (sun, moon, stars – the sun created after the earth, when we now know planets form around stars. And the moon isn’t a light) in it and windows to let in the rain… that’s what the bible says. The temple in Jerusalem was apparently even designed to reflect it. It was all very small scale and human-centric, more a land than a planet. If you take it literally, as you should – because it’s the word of god, you’d be afraid to get in a plane, because you crash into the sky. And you’d expect boats to fall off the edge. Then there’s the animals, created in the wrong order and missing most of the history of life on Earth. And man, created as he is now? No mention of the fact non Africans have Neanderthal DNA – which we can’t have, as we were created as a single species? You are just taking modern science and twisting the story to fit what we now know, hundreds of years ago you’d have been burned alive for suggesting the sun was a ball of gas and the earth went round it!
            I have no particular issue with you believing in god, just believe in what’s actually written – but please stop the Americans teaching it in schools.

            • Jose Lopez says:

              Stuart, I appreciate you allowing me to believe in my Lord and Savior, namely, Jesus Christ. On a different note, I was wondering how the sun was created after the earth. I’m pretty confident in that you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation, if that were the case.

              • Stuart Norey says:

                Exactly, we wouldn’t be here would we?! But read the bible, I mean actually read it as if you were a first timer.

                Day 1 – created heavens (emptiness around earth) and earth. He also made day and night, although no sun yet – that comes later. We ALL know the universe has 24hr day night cycles without a light source, done we? It’s unclear how planets form without their host star, although to be fair the other heavenly bodies come later – it’s just this planet it seems, typical old world view with earth the centre of universe.
                Day 2 – sky/big dome over earth
                Day 3 – land, plants – ready with ability to photosynthesise but no sun yet
                Day 4 – sun, stars, moon. The plants would have thought this was good.
                Day 5 – fish and birds
                Day 6 – land animals, including man. Dinosaurs too maybe?
                Day 7 – rest

                And that’s the bible, and therefore word of god etc etc.

                I’m no expert on archaic Jewish, but apparently these were definitely 24hr periods.

                So no – nothing about big bangs, expanding universes, galaxies, planets forming from discs of matter around stars, a planet crashing into earth and becoming the moon, stars being distant suns, life evolving, birds evolving from dinosaurs, man from earlier primates etc etc etc.

                Granted, it was a step up from the sun and moon being driven about on chariots etc. But still not even close to the reality in ANY way.

                Sure, swap the order about totally, change timescales from a day to a billion years or so, ignore whole species and evolution etc etc.

                I’m an atheist not because I ‘believe’ in physics, chemistry and biology. Sure, the theories are very very strong – evolution is probably our best evidenced and most debated after climate change.

                No, I am an atheist because I can see genesis is nonsense. I’d be more inclined to ‘beleive’ a bearded man in a red suit lives at the North Pole – which I did for a while to be fair, based on the word of people I trusted and my local culture and traditions (some books too).

                Come to think of it, that’s how religion works too.

                Whatever scientific job it is you do, I’m glad you seem able to separate it from your personal beliefs. And you must, by the way, have a higher level of education than me – I’m just a researcher and writer.

                • Jose Lopez says:

                  For clarification, Genesis 1:1 says God created (Bara) the Heavens and the Earth. So,weask the question: How did that look, or how did that happen? Astronomy calls it the Big Bang, which is when space, time, matter came into existence. That’s a fact. In the book of Psalms, it tells us that the Heavens show us God’s creation, which is reference to general revelation. That’s the simple text. Verse 2 says the earth was void and without form. The point of view changes from verse 1 to 2. At verse 2, we’re now on the face of the Earth, looking up to the sky. This is where it says that God’s spirit was brooding over the face of the waters, of planet Earth. If you can comprehend this one of view, then everything else comes into the picture. This has to be understood, first. It’s critical. This is what separates me from a young earth, literal interpretation, which is what you’re referring to.

                  • Stuart Norey says:

                    Ah, so the word if God isn’t the word of god – he told his own story wrong. However, your version still doesn’t work. He clearly says the sun and stars came later than the earth, hardly something he’d forget he did before the earth. And he says they came after plants.
                    My point is, you are trying to fudge the findings of science into a primitive mythology, and choosing the findings of science against the word of God. Many Popes have (God’s representative on earth) have, until the couldn’t denny it any more, said this was heresy.

                    • Jose Lopez says:

                      Stuart, the next thing on my list is that we have an English language issue. First the BIBLICAL Hebrew word for day is Yom. It has three literal definitions used in Genesis: part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours and a long but finite period of time. In verse 14 God says let there be the great bright lights. It doesn’t say He created the sun, moon and stars. It says he had already made the sun, moon and stars, which means they were there from day one. Verse 15 says so these lights could establish seasons, years and DAYS, which is a reference to our twenty-four hour days. The Biblical Hebrew word used for made is Asah. The Biblical Hebrew word for create is Bara used in verse 1. Verse 16 then says so the could shine and preside over the earth. So, how did that look? What’s happening on day four is that God is transforming our atmosphere from opaque and translucent (days 1-3) to transparent, in preparation for the life He’s about to create in days 5 and 6. That life needs to know where these lights are for migration, their biological clocks, human digestion, etc. So, day 5 is the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, dinosaurs, neanderthals and so on, before Adam and Eve. How? Well, they have to be long periods of time for this to happen. The fossil record tells us these stories if we’re to have more than 78 quadrillion tons of bio-deposits underneath the Earth’s dirt for advanced life and civilization. That was God’s purpose for that life before humans. The scientific records help us understand how God did it. How long are the days of creation? I believe they are long periods of time. Our universe is about 14 billion years old and the Earth about 4 billion years old, more other less. I believe the young earth interpretation destroys the Word of God, and it’s dangerous for the minds of our young people.

      • Stuart Norey says:

        Jose. I would also point out that, if you personally believe this theory, you are going against the creation story/stories that underpin the entire bible – which you are asked to take as fact.
        ‘God’ was very clear on what he/she did, how the universe/earth was created and what order it was done in etc. People (Perry for example) can try all they like to bash the square peg of the creation story into the round hole science has dug out, but it does not work.

        • David Altman says:

          More on Jose Lopez’s point: The YEC theory of things does not fit with reality. According to YEC, the earth began about 7,000 years ago. This is, on its face, absurd, seeing as how a). There’s no way for nearly 10 billion people to have been born since Noah’s time; b). We have human artifacts that are over 100,000 years old; and c). If you insist that the “Yom” days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods (they aren’t), then Jesus lied when He said that He would rise in “three days” (it was nowhere near 3 literal 24-hour periods, and He would have used “yom” to express how long it would be.

          Also, “there was evening and there was morning” does NOT express a 24-hour day. From evening (at 5:00 PM) to morning (at 5:00 AM) [sunset to sunrise] is 12 hourse, not 24. So it’s not 24 hours, no matter what.

          • Stuart Norey says:

            David,

            The creation story does not really work whether you have 12, 24 or billion year long days.

            ‘Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. And God said: ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness’.

            The universe is full of light, dividing light from darkness suggests day and night, i.e. a 24 hour cycle on a planet.

            The word ‘Yom’ seems to be a nice excuse frequently used by creationists. Maybe neither they or I can define what context it was used in – although the following seems to provide the context for the first quote:

            ‘And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day’.

            Clearly, as light was divided by God and they had experience of only one planet and never travelled into space, they are referring to the day and night and evening and morning as caused by the rising and setting of the sun (actually the earth rotating, but they did not know that) on earth and show no awareness of the fact that the sun does not actually rise and set in space – i.e. there are no days and nights at the cosmic scale god would work at.

            ‘And there was evening and there was morning, a second day’.

            Again, evening and morning cannot really result in any other interpretation of Yom as part of a 24 hour or similar period – unless of course the earth took over a billion years to rotate.

            ‘And God said: ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.’ And it was so’.

            No mention of billions of years of evolution here, everything is fully formed with seeds and fruit and ignores the fossil record.

            ‘And there was evening and there was morning, a third day’.

            Again… this does not say there was evening and morning and another billion years.

            ‘And God said: ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good’.

            This gets confusing, as there already were days and nights. There must have been for plants to photosynthesise? And it clearly says the sun came after the earth, which is not possible as the Sun’s gravity was required for the earth to form. Clearly the moon is NOT a light, it is the remnants of another planetary body which crashed into the early earth, so it cannot have been made after the earth was populated with plants.

            ‘And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day’.

            Again….

            ‘And God said: ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’

            We are pretty sure life started in the waters, although we also know ‘fowl’ came along well after life on land evolved, stopping off at Dinosaurs along the way.

            ‘And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day’.

            ‘And God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.’ And it was so’.

            Obviously pretty much everyone knows life on land did not start with Cattle. And that land animals came before ‘fowl’.

            ‘And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’

            We spent much of our evolution as much as hunted as we did hunters. One can make a very strong case that at one time we looked very much like monkeys, in fact we were probably shrew like even further back and DNA analysis shows we share common ancestry with just about everything on earth. So logic says if God created us in his own image he was not supernatural but most likely some sort of single celled organism at best?

            ‘And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day’.

            ‘And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made’.

            Again, a reference to day. Seven of them in total (clearly a week was not recognised for most of human history, testifying to just how recently the creation story was written). But this time God made it a hallowed day. Clearly a reference to a ‘day’ being part of a seven day week and Sunday being a holy day.

            So ALL the day references seem to be made in the context of consistent light/dark divided actual days, which exist only a rotating planet. These periods can only really be 12/24 hour periods as they end on the seventh hallowed day now known as Sunday.

            Where the story goes on to talk about Eden, it is clearly restricting creation to a small geographical area on earth – or a planet at most, with little lights (Stars) and big lights (Sun and Moon) hung in the sky. This would seem to tie in with the early creation stories the Hebrew Bible borrows from, where creation often happens at a distinct and very local place, like a mound rising from the waters etc. It also ties in with later stories, like Noah’s Ark, which are also seemingly very local in nature – i.e. a man saving his family and livestock from a catastrophic local flood/myth created to remember a global event in the distant past as opposed to gathering one of every creature and placing them in a huge boat.

            Later passages also present a very ‘local’ view.

            ‘And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof’.

            We now know that languages evolved all over the earth and animals and plants are actually given all sorts of different names by many different groups of men at many different times, not one man giving each one name.

            We are then told about Adam and Eve, and their two sons. Yet Cain runs off to Nod and finds himself a wife there? Again, Eden seems a very local story, not global.

            Really, one can forgive the odd slip up, but the creation story is not so much Holy as full of holes – exactly as one might expect if ‘primitive’ man were trying to explain the world, passed stories on verbally, borrowed from older cultures and even made up myths to e.g. enforce their morals or justify power over women.

            None of it supports the real story of life on earth, let alone the creation of the solar system, galaxy and universe.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              Before I get a load of abuse (again) my point is that the bible creation story does not work. I have no issue with someone rolling all the way back to the Big Bang and questioning what might have come before that. Maybe it was an uncaused cause, maybe God did it or maybe it’s a computer simulation. Nobody knows, and we probably never will!

        • Stuart Norey says:

          Jose, I’m glad we both agree on the danger of the young earth creationist view.
          What you are presenting, acknowledging undeniable facts about physics etc role in the universe, is a shift away from the bible and towards a scientific approach.
          You should logically move away from ‘god created the sun on x day’ towards having to acknowledge he most likely did not do that.
          Where you should probably end up is at the Big Bang or whatever (if anything) came before it. There, religion and science will probably remain at odds for all time – we are unlikely to even be able to ‘look’ back within a few hundred million years of that event, and certainly not to before it happened as there was likely no time or space for us to look back to.
          If a god created at that point, he isn’t like the biblical god. He’d be very unlikely to ‘care’ about the affairs of one species on one Little Rock around one insignificant star. In fact he’d likely operate entirely out of space and time and probably be unable to interact with it at all – he’d follow different laws of physics.
          So, you’d be filling the last gap with god while science would be seeking answers it’s unlikely to be able to ever find or prove. Science would of course have theories, I’d personally bet they end up being more ‘likely’ than the theory of religion.

          • Jose Lopez says:

            Stuart, I’m not going to stray away from God’s Word. You’re not hearing what I’m saying. I’m saying that this is an English language issue. Young earthers do not recognize the Biblical Hebrew that the Sriptures were recorded in. It’s about how did God use His words. That does not mean that Scripture is not trustworthy. You’re doing what young earthers do when they disagree with anything but their interpretation: they dismiss it. My interpretation is not a gap theory or some type of a confusion. Biblical Hebrew is critical when interpreting God’s Word because his Word, the Bible, was recorded in Hebrew. We call it Biblical Hebrew. I’m not speaking of modern day Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew, without names and places, has about three thousand words, of which almost all of those words have different, multiple, literal meanings. That’s a fact.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              Ok, give me the interpretation you think correct BUT using ONLY the Hebrew words and known translations. NOT adding in extra words or changing the order. For example what is a literal translation of light/dark, morning/evening, fowl, cattle, the bit currently translated as referring to keeping the 7th day hallowed?
              If you can’t use a word for word translation, it’s not a translation. Once you have a translation, you can put an interpretation on it, but you can’t change the written text…

              • Stuart Norey says:

                You also need to take into account where the Old Testament biblical stories one from. We know the original ‘tellers’ of those stories, and Moses the probable ‘writer’ spent time in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaanite etc and almost certainly borrowed and were influenced by them. So any translation has to use them for intended context.

                The similarities are striking. You also have to understand why the Hebrews made their versions different – the others had multiple God’s (as did Hebrews at first) but chose to have only one by the time genesis was written, so the stories are simplified and slightly less mystical. Although the other biblical creation stories mirror other cultures more closely when talking about the order of events, monsters, Eden etc.

                Clearly one can get context for genesis from its influences – it’s more a local event than a cosmos scale one.

                Examples:

                https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story

                https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-where-did-creation-story-come-from-1.5404560

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

                https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths

              • Jose Lopez says:

                Sorry, I missed this one. I commented on a response you had for Perry. You’ll see it. And about Hebrew. You don’t need every word translated. In my opinion, you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be. If you want the Hebraic Scriptures, you can purchase one. I’m pointing out key words that have to do with the contextual meanings of words that God used, and recorded, thru His writers. English is a language comprised of about four million words. To try and translate a small language, such as Biblical Hebrew: that can be comical and can easily cause confusion and misinterpretation. We all know that God created the sun, moon and stars before day four. That’s common sense. My three year old nephew can tell you that. But, that is what happens when you try to use a four million word language to translate a language of three thousand words. It can, and does, lead to misinterpretation. In defende, there are key words that can change everything. I don’t need to quote the entire Hebraic Scriptures to make my point.

            • Stuart Norey says:

              Jose, I think you are straying from God’s word. Because the context in genesis and through the bible is clear. It needed to be understood and was written as such, with numbers/morning/evening providing context that ensured understanding of intended timescales.
              I don’t normally agree with YEC lot, but here you go – they make the same point I do about context.

              http://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis

    • Ekim Waltman MARS says:

      Stuart Norey — So I could yake a part ever part of your non believing rant but why bother? All the proof in tge galaxy won’t fix stupud. Yiur thousands of years sincw God talked to anyone is just stupid. Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormon church spoke with I believe God and angels. Not to mention probably many thousands if not millions of people (Not just Christians) talk to them as well. Proof ? The beautiful symmetry of Frequency and mathematics, 3 6 9, Fibonacci , etc it all says everything is by design not random at all. Again I’m not going to argue with you because your mind’s made up and you’re a Twisted Sister but I am going to tell you this all of you non-believers just before you ran over by that bus on the highway scream out oh God so I don’t want to hear it I really don’t want to hear it I’ve seen you I’ve seen you in action and I’ve seen you melt and I’ve seen you fall down and I’ve seen you pray to God I’m not impressed. I’ve also seen you blame God for everything but never acknowledge Him for the good things never acknowledge Him for the beauty you’re as blind as you are dumb. Peace

      • Stuart Norey says:

        You are welcome to try to pull my argument apart, with EVIDENCE.
        I know nothing about Joseph Smith, although a quick Google reveals he was not a very good character – convicted con artist for a start? Also said the moon was populated by some alien race? http://www.padfieldconsulting.com/mormonism/mormon-comparisons.html
        I’d imagine he feathered his nest rather nicely (money and women by the sound of it) from his ‘religion and that speaking to ‘god’ was part of this – although many people with mental illnesses and brain injuries hear voices, so that is a possibility too.
        I am sure many of the people who think they heard god talking to them genuinely do, but it is evidence of nothing – it would not for example be accepted in any decent court of law.
        Just because mathematical sequences LOOK designed, it in no way means they are designed. We also know, for example, exactly how rainbows form and that they don’t have pots of gold at the end. Same goes for humans, animals, plants – they might look designed, but drawing that conclusion is lazy. To be honest, you seem to have some very strong beliefs that really mean you are not going to be able to engage with scientific facts and theories where they in any way conflict with what an old book and it’s more modern offshoots tell you.
        I think most people throughout history have looked inside and outside of themselves for comfort in times of need. One does not have to believe in god or spirits to do that. We create art to express ourselves, but certainly not to a god (in most cases).
        I think people are free to follow religion. Personally I think it stops us truly being in awe of our universe and leads to much persecution, war, inequality etc. Where I take issue is when deeply religious people try to use belief as an argument vs. evidence or logic, or twist science to fit their world view – this is not restricted to science and religion, e.g. Donald Trump does it very well with just about everything and most of the citizens of the USA defy logic in their support for firearms.
        I wish you well.

  10. Neil Caithness says:

    If we want to understand the human condition, we will do well to consider belief as an addiction.

  11. Jeff Carson says:

    Perry, assuming you’re right and a DNA creating god does exist. How do you make the leap to it being “your” god? Could be any number of gods. If one god can exist, many gods can exist.

    Also, assuming it is your god(biblical god) you still have to prove that this being is worth worshipping.

  12. Stuart Norey says:

    Perry, I assume you are referring to the bit about a christian God. You say ‘I think cosmology and information theory harmonize especially well with Christian theology. Here’s why’ and set out Genesis etc.

    Genesis is not the only biblical creation story.

    Genesis (and the others) is not entirely original as it draws its roots from far older religions.

    You say ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth – a definitive statement that time has a beginning and the universe begins with it. This has only been fully validated in the last 20 years and turns out to be a stunningly accurate statement’. But the translation is only one possible one (an argument you use to change days to billions of years) and also ‘heavens’ does not seem to mean ‘universe’ but something far more local to earth if one references elsewhere in the bible. Regardless, a 2000 or so year old observation that the sky and land must have been there first is hardly ‘stunning’, these people were essentially the same as us physically and mentally and capable of thought – I’d imagine one trip in a space rocket and a read of Darwin, Hawking and Dawkins would have cured a good few of them of the religious virus and set the world on a far more peaceful path.

    The order does NOT work regardless of whether it is seen from earth, space or the top of a double decker tour bus. You twist it beyond recognition, a good portion of the population of the USA would not agree with your interpretation and, up until a hundred years or so ago, most clergy would not either. We know sea and land animals came before birds, why can you spot a fish from space, why do you spot birds but miss land animals the size of dinosaurs for hundreds of millions of years? If the atmosphere only becomes transparent when you need to explain being able to see the sun, moon and stars how come you could see the water cycle, land and vegetation from space – the sun is far brighter than a daisy? Anyway, early earth in all probability did not have much of an atmosphere as it formed, and much of the current composition is down to life. The atmospheric water cycle is not what is described in genesis – that part of the story is a watering down of most other creation myths where a god fought a sea monster/god and split them in half, dividing the waters etc. God did not make human beings in his own image – we clearly evolved and our more primitive form shows in fossils of similar/related species, similarities with species alive today, our bodies and DNA. Why create something with so much redundant code in it, which drives unhealthy reactions to the very modern agricultural world god created man into? He started with two humans, but why do some humans have Neanderthal and other earlier species DNA and others not? Evolution happened and is still happening, it is one of the best supported but most denied scientific theories of all time – along with man made contribution to climate change and species extinctions, which many of the same people seem to be denying! If the seventh day is an epoch, then he certainly got the creation of birds vs land animals in the wrong epochs.

    There is also what is NOT in the creation story. For example we know a huge planetary body collided with the earth and part of it merged with early earth and the rest became the moon. Many argue the moon is one of the vital things that made life on earth possible. We also know that earth suffered bombardment from comets etc, which potentially brought much water and life’s building blocks to earth. What about early volcanic earth, again something that helped create our atmosphere. Why does the bible leave out such important parts of creation, especially when God loves his fire and brimstone so much?

    • DNA has redundant code because of error detection and correction. Neither you nor anyone else has any business declaring which DNA is important or not when the human genome project has still fallen FAR short of its original promises about disease prevention etc. If you disagree, then tell me which parts of your “junk DNA” you’ll give us permission to delete. With CRISPR technology we can now do that, if you wish. We can even send you to a foreign country that currently has no laws about human genetic engineering so that we can delete your Junk DNA legally.

      Let me know which sections we can safely get rid of, Stuart.

      Day 5: God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.

      Birds came before cattle, as well as most things we would call wild animals.

      Genesis is the only ancient creation story which, with simple assumptions, can in any fashion be reconciled with modern science. None of the others stand a chance. That said, I do not think that the writers of Genesis were at all concerned about the questions that western people ask about origins. I think their point is quite different. Considering that in four chapters – essentially the length of blog posts – the writer(s) establish the central moral questions of humanity, I say that’s pretty impressive.

      You do not appear to have any knowledge of what Jewish and Christian theologians understand “made in the image of God” to mean. But if you investigate you will find that this idea is the basis of modern western human rights. Ignore it at your peril.

      Dawkins and Hawking did not set the world on a more peaceful path. The internet is full of arrogant trolls because of Dawkins, and more people were murdered by atheist regimes in the 20th century than all religious wars in all centuries combined. Don’t come around here telling me how peaceful atheism is. The evidence is that atheism is powerfully correlated to violence and genocide.

      February 25 2018: You never answered my question about uncaused cause some time ago. Was there one, or not?

      Yes or no. Answer it, please.

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Stuart, just to clarify, as Perry is perfectly capable of managing this conversation. There is no word for universe in Biblical Hebrew. The word day in Biblical Hebrew has four, literal definitions: part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, a twenty-four hour period, or a long but finite period of time. Also, the point of view changes from the universe to the surface of the earth from Genesis One, verse 1 to verse 2. Scripture does not tell us how much time passed from verse 1 to 2. In a very simplistic explanation, during that unspecified time between verses 1 and 2, we have our sun and your earth/moon event, which you spoke of. Verse 3 tells us God said let there be light. It doesn’t say He created. He already did that from verse 1 to 2. It then says He separated light from darkness. This is when He transforms our atmosphere from opaque to translucent. That was just the first day. It was not instantaneous. This all happened over a YOM, or a long period of time. Scripture does not tell us a good chunk of Jesus’ time on our planet, either (childhood to adult). Doesn’t mean He wasn’t here. For whatever reason, God did not have that recorded. I went to the bathroom while I was typing this response. I didn’t tell you. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That argument is senseless, Stuart. And as far as astronomical research, that argument is beyond senseless. It’s not even intelligent. Verses 6-8 is when God made our water cycle. He didn’t create it. The water was already there at verse 2, when it spoke of the Holy Spirit brooding over the waters. Again, no explicit time period. But, we know earth was a water world, void of life, billions of years ago. That’s a fact. You mentioned this is not the only creation story. You’re correct. Many other religious books, or writings, speak of creation stories. However, the Bible is the only story that speaks of God creating outside of space and time. The others speak of God creating within space and time. The book of John says before time began, Jesus was already here and He was God. It also says He created our universe and everything in it. The book of Psalms tells us that the Heavens speak of God’s work, and it helps us understand what He did. We call that astronomical research. It tells us that space and time is not eternal. It had a beginning. What we know as astronomical research is how God did what He said He did. We know that’s how it looked. It’s very simple, Stuart, and it doesn’t take a college degree or a theological degree to comprehend it. You may say that’s not good enough, but you can’t say that it’s beyond truth.

      • Stuart Norey says:

        Jose. Pretty much everything you are saying about genesis is NOT in genesis. It’s your interpretation (or someone else’s you agree with). Plenty of biblical scholars disagree with you, plenty agree. What you state are facts are NOT facts, you are basing it all on a story, which is evidence for nothing – it’s like quoting lines from CSI in a real murder case. Genesis is a story, it borrows from other stories, that’s pretty clear. And it’s not just genesis either, a lot of the Old Testament is borrowed, the flood story for example comes from elsewhere because the writers came from elsewhere too.
        With all due respect, you don’t have a clue what the writers of the stories the writers of the bible borrowed from had in mind, or what the Hebrews had in mind – which have very little to do with the New Testament and Jesus anyway, Christianity borrowed from Judaism as Judaism borrowed from Summeroan myths etc etc.
        As for Yom, if you talk about evening and morning and keeping the seventh ‘Yom’ sacred then use ‘period of time’ it’s blindingly obvious what you mean!
        The world was NOT a water world when it formed. It was a ball of rock formed from material circling the sun, that’s how planets form, there was plenty of volcanic activity, comet bombardment, another planetary body crashing into it before earth had waters a spirit could hover over and divide – which is a reference to earlier stories about God’s and sea serpents fighting, changed to fit a monotheistic world view.
        I’m afraid you’ve allowed yourself to be brainwashed, although I’d bet you were too young to know when it happened. You are basing your entire world view on a bunch of goatskin/papyrus borrowed stories that weren’t even put into a single volume (agreed with recently and reluctantly converted Romans) until hundreds of years AD, and they left a lot out which held equal merit and were equally or more credible – for example Jesus was a normal man in many scriptures.

        • Jose Lopez says:

          Perry, I’m being lazy in not finding one of your direct responses. So, I’m going to borrow from Stuart. I think I understand why you don’t bother with this dude, much. He claims that I’m brainwashed. And, he thinks that I don’t know that part of the Earth’s process has to do with a big ball of rock, valcanoes, bombardments, and all of the good stuff. He doesn’t comprehend a simple response. He thinks the Scriptures are borrowed stories. I wonder if he had a traumatic experience in a church, or that maybe he lost his faith because of a bad encounter with a Christian, or Christians. Maybe, he’s a prodigal child (I can relate to that). Who knows. Perry, you were right. I’m sorry I wasted my time with this one. And if this type of response is not allowed on your thread, I apologize. I enjoy your thread, Perry. Thanks.

          • Stuart is not worth much of your time. He is very angry and he evades the hard questions – like “there is an uncaused cause – true or false?”

            • Stuart Norey says:

              I don’t avoid the question, just not in the habit of stating as fact things I don’t fully understand.
              We do know the Big Bang happened, or are very certain. We don’t know what, if anything, it came from – theories include an infintely dense point if matter (maybe like a super dense black hole?); nothing; a universe in another dimension etc etc.
              Maybe caused or uncaused is the wrong way to look at it. If there was no time and no space prior to the Big Bang, then the moment it came into existence would have occupied all of time and no time at all. It didn’t need a creator, because it was ‘always’ there.
              So I’d guess it was it’s own cause, certainly not caused by anyone.
              You cannot draw any serious answers from the bible, no matter how you dress it up, better men than me have clearly shown genesis (and the other creation accounts) are totally flawed.
              If you insist everything has a cause, explain God. Explaining the universe looks a doddle compared to explaining the existence of God.

          • Stuart Norey says:

            Jose, you’ve never been able to present a single fact supporting the biblical creation story. You haven’t even been able to support your own twisted version of it, which looks nothing like genesis.
            Read up on real history, where the Hebrew people had been and what those cultures believed.
            Read up on the ‘creation’ of the bible, who controlled it, the political climate and understand why the rest of the (equally valid) scriptures were not put in, what they said about Jesus for example – Making him a ‘god’ was a choice vs. choosing stories that portrayed him as a man, nothing more.
            Of course you are brainwashed. Local or family culture, society, religion, politics have a massive influence on everyone and are hard to avoid absorbing.
            You cannot beleive in God and apply a purely scientific method, It is too huge a bias. Science looks for truth, it doesn’t go into things already knowing it.
            Explain ONE point in genesis and other parts of the bible for me as an example:

            “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so… And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good”.

            Forget for a moment these fruit and seed bearing plants came BEFORE the sun etc.

            Fruit and seed bearing plants only evolved approx 140m years ago, after the other acts of creation presented later in genesis. Same for e.g. Whales, who came much much later.

            Plants at the timescale you claim genesis covers (not days but billions of years) were anything BUT fruit and seed bearing, yet are not mentioned at all.

            Fruit and seed bearing plants are mentioned elsewhere too, relating to creation.

            Why mention them specifically, ahead of all the things that actually came into being BEFORE them?

            Why such a massive mistake? It can’t be ‘symbolic’, it is one of the few things (along with the other things genesis gets oh so wrong Luke whales and fowl) about which genesis is very specific.

            You see, I’m wasting MY time trying to have sensible debate with people who claim the bible aligns with science yet resort to symbolism and require faith as soon as the heat is on…

            Perry’s entire information idea relies on ‘everything I know is like X so this must be X too’. It’s nonsense. We know so little about our world, let alone the universe. We still discover 1000’s of new species each year, and estimate we have about another 6 – 7 million to document (we’ve only discovered about 1.7 million, roughly 25% of the estimated number).

            And we’ve not even set foot on another planet yet!

            • Jose Lopez says:

              I guess you’re not going to answer or comment on what I wrote to Perry on your thread. That doesn’t surprise me. Instead, you prefer to punk me around. Your arguments aren’t even intelligent. I can talk to a wall and get some decent responses. Get off the thread. Or, Perry: ban this idiot.

              • Stuart Norey says:

                Jose, I don’t know which comment you are referring to. I do have at least one awaiting moderation. Do you mean the one with “I wonder if he had a traumatic experience in a church, or that maybe he lost his faith because of a bad encounter with a Christian, or Christians”.
                No, I have not had bad experiences – not so much as fondled by a Bishop I am afraid! I got on well with our local Vicar, until she was driven out for being a bit modern (and mad). I have a school friend who is a Vicar too. And my partner is a half Irish Roman Catholic who was taught by Nuns in a convent school. I talk to the Jehovah’s Witnesses over the fence when they come by. Even been a few feet away from the Pope. So no bad experiences in general, no. I just look at the world differently than you, not through the filter of the bible, but as it comes and as we understand it – which is nice, because it is an evolving story with the excitement of new discovery at every turn of the page.
                There is plenty of evidence many of the scriptures are borrowed stories, I am referring to the Old Testament of course. There is a genuine story there too of course, the exodus etc.
                And of course you are somewhat Brainwashed. It’s no coincidence the best time for humans to learn and to pick up religion is childhood, it is when we are most open to influence – especially from those we trust or are close to. If you were Muslim, Buddhist etc we’d be having the same debate right now. Among other things, religion has always been a form of social control, a very effective one.
                You have not answered my question about Genesis, why an all powerful God cannot get his plants right?

                • Jose Lopez says:

                  Brainwashed? I’ve been called wose. I find that humourous. I’ll play along. So, tell me Stuart: why do you think I’m “brainwashed”?

                  • “brainwashed” – enough name calling and ad hominem attacks and insults – it’s come time to ban Mr. Norey from the conversation. I’ll have my webmaster take care of that shortly.

  13. Stuart Norey says:

    I am not referring to ‘junk DNA’. I’m referring to genetically driven behaviours which, in the modern world, have negative manifestations – you might call the fight or flight reaction one. By modern world I mean the post 10,000 years ago agricultural world portrayed by genesis as the start of things – populated by crops, cattle, birds etc. And I would not suggest anyone ‘removes’ any DNA (you wouldn’t take a ring out of a ladder and not replace it) although I’m all for fixing inherited mutations that cause disease and disability.

    I’d disagree on the 20th century atheist caused deaths. Sure, there are nations with atheists in them but many identify with one or more religions. Many if the genocides and wars in the 20th century had religious roots or were fought by religious people. Go further back and Christians wages war on most other religions in the name of god, even almost wiped out the population of parts of the Americas through violence (along with western imported disease). Of course there is good in religion, charity for example – although you’d agree that’s not restricted to religious people, there are very good and generous atheists too. As there are very bad and greedy christians and Muslims – I could name a number of Popes for example.

    I’d somewhat agree with your comment about western culture and science, religion certainly played a part in things like capitalism and science getting going. Have you read ‘Sapiens’ by Yuval Noah Harari? Gives a good explanation as to why. But it wasn’t because god exists, religion just provided the cultural foundations. In fact, capitalism and the idea of credit had much to do with science taking off – it drove innovation and progress.

    As for uncaused cause, I don’t know what is possible outside of ‘our’ universes laws of physics and the potential non existence of space and time, do you? The idea of some Jewish guy inhabiting nothingness doesn’t work for me though, what are we – some bubble gum he inflated? There are passages in creation stories that suggest god created himself (with a word), I’d hope you’d agree he would not be a special case.

    The biblical creation works better than others only because the writers took the older stories, which had multiple God’s, and rewrote them in a less mystical way and to suit their monotheistic view. Of course they sound more plausible – although still not particularly so if you take them as they are. There were people who devoted their entire lives and every waking minute to understanding god, who would have burnt you alive for suggesting a lot of what you do – even a few hundred years ago (and young earth creationists might want to do so now).

    Trolling is not healthy. Sensible debate is. Atheists like Dawkins just think you are misguided, they aren’t going to persecute you and don’t tell you something horrid is going to happen (to you anyway) as a result of your belief system. I’ve had a few very badly spelt threats about how I’m going to burn in hell etc levelled at me via this blog! I simply think you’ll all die disappointed – in fact I don’t think you’ll have the capacity to ‘feel’ anything after your brain and nervous system packs up!

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

      He knew what he was talking about.

      You seem to be talking to me as though I don’t believe in evolution. Read Evolution 2.0 from cover to cover and I’ll engage with you about evolution.

      You still didn’t answer my question about an uncaused cause.

      is there an uncaused cause, or not?

      Yes or no.

  14. Dan says:

    There is one question no one on this forum has yet answered. Mr. Marshall has made the astonishing claim, “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists.” The question is, WHICH God/god/Goddess/goddess/Gods/gods/Goddesses/goddesses? There are well over 4,000 different deities which have been worshipped by humankind since the beginning of time. ‘God’ is a universal concept, like triangle. You can draw a specific triangle; you can reference a specific God. You cannot, however think of a universal, nor prove a universal. It cannot be done by definition.

    The question of WHICH God Mr. Marshall intends to prove is an interesting one. Since there’s no empirical evidence, repeatable test nor logically coherent argument for the existence of deity, using DNA “code” – which has created fundamentally flawed beings such as ourselves – to try to prove deity hardly does so. In fact, it proves nothing of the sort.

  15. Laura Zielinski says:

    Hello Perry,

    This is the best explanation I heard for God’s existence. I want to thank you for making it clear and reasonable.

    One topic I have been researching, and you covered it briefly at the end, concerns the nature of God. If you have a moment, could you list some resources that explain how the Trinity works? The three parts (for lack of a better phrase) forming one God is confusing. As a young student in Biology, I would gratefully accept your perception of this topic.

  16. Xandra says:

    Should we stick labels everywhere? dangerous to use only if one is divine? before Humanity understands that there is a God above all.
    Then shoot yourselves into a black hole and find out for yourselves.

  17. Subhendu Das says:

    “No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.” – Here is one example:

    A yogi from India came to visit a research institute in USA during the early seventies. A white American woman came to his office to see him. As she entered his office, the yogi told her to ask some questions. One by one she asked seven questions. Then the yogi picked up a paper from his desk, turned it upside down, and gave that to her. In that paper all her seven questions were already written along with their answers. For more details take a look at the yogic power chapter in the free book at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ There are millions of such examples and all over the world.

    How did the yogi know the questions before the woman asked? How did the woman know that she will ask such questions? Life is completely defined or planned and any high level yogi can see that plan using the power of his third eye. Thus God has no role in our life. This also proves there is no God.

    Everything that we do, think, say, dream, etc. are all written in the memory of the universe which anybody can read with yogic power. Things are not in our mind, not even in our brain. There is nothing called information. Everything is a physical object and its characteristics. The word “red” is not information; it is associated with a physical object called rose and its characteristic color. Information does not exist, physical objects do. We do not have languages either, we use telepathy, which is the universal language, and all yogis use that telepathy. UFO-ETs also use telepathy. UFO-ETs are also very high level yogis.

  18. Robbie B says:

    Mr Marshall,

    Intersting reasoning. However, formulating, processing, storing, transmitting information implies a physical Brain. Your theory then implies that the Creator has a physical brain to create DNA info ie a Body which makes him as susceptible to death as us humans.

    Such reasoning or logic, how can it lead to the Faith that Jesus commands ? Reason should be filled with Love, and not mere logical statements if it has to attract the True Believers. Jesus could also use such statements, but he used poetry instead. Why ? Cz he didnt want to convince people logically but to fill their heart with Truth. Logic always has a loophole. The above one has many.

  19. Justin Hand says:

    I think my major beef with your argument is your interpreting DNA as a code. I believe, in some contexts, that it is an apt comparison for understanding DNA is the whole “building blocks” thing. However, couldn’t ANY thing with a structure, such as the atomic structure of a rock or whatever else you’d call inanimate, possibly be interpreted as a code?

    I think that’s your major flaw. Things can come together with patterns, like whorls in fingerprints or the atomic structure of a diamond or our genetic “code” or geometric constants found in natural examples, because of the laws of physics. I’m not saying it isn’t a beautiful and miraculous world, but your “I can prove the existence of God with one sentence” thing sounds more like a flawed sales pitch or “click bait” than it does a legitimate theory.

    • Justin, see http://www.herox.com/evolution2.0 – read the specification for my $5 million origin of life prize. My judging panel includes the leading geneticist at Harvard Medical school. Consult the specification if you have any questions about whether DNA is code.

      • Justin Hand says:

        Searched high and low. Can’t find it. I don’t know what to say, but you have not proven the existence of a God. I appreciate that brilliant minds saw fit to award you $5 million.

        • Click on the guidelines tab. The specification defines what code is, refers to the appropriate literature, it shows that DNA is code, and outlines what we are looking for.

          No I have not deductively proven God exists. (And I even said so in the original first version of this article in 2005.) What I have shown is that there’s a million codes, 999,999 are designed, and there’s one code we don’t know the origin of ($5 million prize for that)… and there are zero codes that aren’t designed.

          I am not even remotely opposed to someone solving this problem. Maybe there is a physical law that produces codes. If we find that, then the next question will be: Where did that law come from?

          And for the time being nobody has solved the design problem in biology. Nobody has solved Paley’s watch problem that Hume and Darwin claimed to solve. And just-so stories about lucky lightning strikes and warm ponds and happy chemical accidents don’t win the prize money.

          The science we have so far as of 2018 infers design in biology. That’s where things stand at the moment. And… if someone wins the prize they go down in history for one of the biggest discoveries of all time.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *