“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

2,098 Responses

  1. Tom Godfrey says:

    Jack Ellis,

    Thanks for your May 2 reply, the one where you promised another response to my comments. You seem to want to move away from our discussion of DNA, but if the new topics here interest you, I am happy to discuss them too. Hopefully, you will still find time to get back to those other issues that you left on the table.

    You closed by saying, “We’ve not found a miracle or process theists attribute to god yet that we were forced to attribute undeniably to god, sure we’ve not got through them all by a long shot yet, but those we have are firmly in the ‘myth busted’ box…”

    Is it even possible for me to force someone to attribute something undeniably to God? If you looked for an example of this but found nothing, no one should be surprised. So what? If a miracle ever really did occur, what would it take to convince you? For example, if someone tried to persuade you that a universe sprang into existence out of nothing, would you believe the story? If you were told that it took millions of years for this miracle to unfold and produce anything like what we see today, would you believe it then?

    On the part about the miracles you “got through” and concluded are now “firmly in the ‘myth busted’ box,” please give me one or two examples of what you are talking about, ones that you are prepared to defend with confidence. What were the mythical miracles? They are ones that I would consider real events in real history, right? How were they busted?

    I suppose I should be delighted that you admitted, “Science views on origins are theories, not facts,” but what is a science view on origins? Or what scientific theory has anything to do with origins or ancient history? I thought science was all about observations, hypotheses about nature and the laws of nature as currently observed, and repeatable experiments used to verify or falsify a theory or hypothesis. How could a theory about origins possibly be falsified? You went on to say, “But those theories/speculation are based on things we know about how the universe etc works.” Now you are talking about real science, all right, but what do “things we know about how the universe etc works” have to do with origins or the history of life on earth?

    If I know that Col. Mustard works on lead pipes most evenings, can this knowledge be a reasonable basis for concluding that he committed murder with a lead pipe in the kitchen? Let’s be reasonable. Your logic is not making sense to me. Can you explain the problem?

    I certainly am delighted that you also said, “I can’t say for sure there is no God or that you are wrong,” but then you continued, “It’s just highly unlikely.” What is unlikely? How “highly unlikely” is it? One chance in a million? Or what? How did you figure the probability? Are you giving me just a wild guess with absolutely no substance behind it, or not? Let’s be honest.

    You assured me, “So the bible can be considered a very unreliable and politicised source.” Well, of course it can, but if you want to present your ideas about this as reasonable, you ought to back your judgment up with a rational basis that you can honestly defend. So far, I don’t see much more than hand waving here. Let’s review what you put in your latest comment.

    JE: “Constantine adopting Christianity appears to be more out of necessity than anything else. … So the Romans adopted Christianity through need, …”

    TG: How did you come to this conclusion? Can you document a good reason to believe this? Even if Constantine did this “out of necessity,” or the Romans did this “through need,” would it be relevant? If so, please explain. Your goal is to judge the credibility of truth claims in the Bible.

    JE: “[The Romans] rolled lots of pagan mythology into the new religion – Easter and Christmas are pagan, some suggest Mithras and Jesus are very similar, they settled on 12 disciples and is it coincidence this is the number of signs in the zodiac, there are even early Christian church floors depicting it this way, with Jesus the Sun. … [The Romans] made [Christianity] palatable by rolling earlier religions up with it and probably attributed miracles to Jesus to make him more ‘god like’.”

    TG: You seem to believe that Christianity is a Roman invention. Can you document this? Why should I or anyone else agree? If you believe “the new religion” was invented around 313 A.D., are you sure that the church fathers before that time had not already “settled on 12 disciples”? Do you believe it is not a coincidence that there were twelve disciples, since the zodiac has twelve constellations? Are you only guessing? Is there any rational basis for your guess? If the Romans voluntarily adopted Christianity through need, why did they also need to make it palatable? Were all of their palatable, old-time religions also conglomerations of even earlier religions? Somewhere in the mists of ancient history, there must have been a first religion that could not be made palatable this way, right?

    JE: “Some [miracles attributed] to Jesus mirror those attributed to earlier characters, like Elijah.”

    TG: So what? Do you consider similarities a good reason to conclude that the reports of miracles are fictitious? Please explain with illustrative examples.

    JE: “It’s not a coherent story as it stands, and it’s certainly not when one adds in the equally valid other gospels and stories that had similar support.”

    TG: Please be more specific. Your quick generalities don’t show much evidence of serious scholarship. Maybe you can link an article that you consider both relevant and authoritative.

    JE: “None of these can be considered 1st hand accounts, they were stories probably passed on by word of mouth and later written down, we’ve seemingly no writers or text contemporary to Jesus.”

    TG: On this point, it would help to document a timeline or chronology, with dates that establish when you believe the gospels and epistles were first written down. To put this information in perspective, you should compare the age, quality, and quantity of manuscript witnesses to important secular events, say the assassination of Julius Caesar. Are any of those events more credibly witnessed and documented than the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Here are three articles to help you get started.
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/when-it-comes-to-ancient-texts-the-more-copies-we-have-the-more-confidence-we-have/
    https://www.zachariastrust.org/why-trust-the-bible
    https://truthfaithandreason.com/case-making-101-how-does-the-bible-compare-to-other-ancient-documents/

    JE: “That’s the agenda I mentioned and the reason very little in the bible can be relied on.”

    TG: When you mentioned an agenda earlier, you wrote, “Witnesses were separated by time and unreliable – they had an agenda and these claims reinforced faith.” Your new comment evidently has nothing in it about an agenda of witnesses. Did I overlook something?

    You said “very little” instead of nothing, so does this mean you believe that the Bible can be relied on to report some history truthfully? How do you decide what (in the Bible) belongs in the “very little” category and what absolutely cannot be relied on? You need some higher authority, right? Who or what is it?

    JE: “The Old Testament is even more flaky. It seems the Jewish people spent time in Sumer (?) and adopted many of their myths. It’s suggested writing was introduced to them there. Probably why cultures have similar creation myths, flood myths etc.”

    TG: This part is riddled with hedge words and vague speculation. Can you document any specifics here? I think you imagine that you know some things about the history of the Jewish people, but you ought to stop and think how you came to believe what you think you know. Did you accept documented testimony that you deemed credible, or did you rely on stories tentatively proposed by modern experts who based their speculation on archaeological studies or currently available physical clues, which they interpreted under various assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified or falsified? Let’s be reasonable, please.

    • Jack Ellis says:

      “Is it even possible for me to force someone to attribute something undeniably to God?” – The answer is yes, and religion has a long history of doing exactly that. Spanish Inquisition, suppression of the sciences, suppression of education and rights of women, burning of books, burning of ‘witches’, the ‘invasion’ of the americas, indoctrination/brainwashing of children from a very young age, abuse of children and telling them it was god’s will, declaring Kings and Popes gods representatives, recent declaration of an ‘Islamic State’ and all that goes with that. The list is huge. Even now, in the USA, Christians are trying to use scripture to force their views on the wider population through e.g. making abortion a crime and are trying to intertwine the state and the church.

      My point about Constantine is that, prior to this point in history, Christians could not even agree on things like whether Jesus was a mortal man or the son of god – there was not even a definitive ‘Bible’ – that only came many centuries later and much was left out that was previously considered truth by many sects. From that point through to the 1500’s, the faith became gradually more mainstreamed, standardised and state controlled. Even now, people who essentially believe in the same god (christians, protestants, jews, muslims etc) cannot agree on key things.

      I don’t believe christianity is a Roman invention, it is a human invention. The Romans simply began to standardise it and brought it into state control. Religions clearly did not all have a common source, although they all appear to have been created and evolved in similar ways – by that I mean humans try to make sense of the world, realise they got it wrong, adjust their faiths. The earliest religion we know of is Animism, the worship of objects such as rocks, trees, volcanoes etc as conscious things that could influence the world and people’s lives in a supernatural way, and be influenced by humans. One can understand how people attributed supernatural powers to a volcano for example, then attributed lightning to a specific god, then saw the sun as a god.

      Ancient peoples believed miracles were commonplace, pretty much every important (and many mundane) act required some form of divine intervention. As human understanding of the world has developed, they have become less commonplace. Maybe there were lots of people performing lots of similar miracles (misunderstood acts) or maybe single misunderstood acts became legend and were attributed to future individuals to culture their legends.

      A good example of something considered a miracle throughout most of human history, including the time of Jesus and the Roman empire, is fermentation. People did not understand the process, so assumed it was a miracle – i.e. required divine intervention. So many rites and indeed individual gods sprang up associated with brewing/wine making and alcohol played (and still does) and important role in religion – from monasteries brewing beer through to the Eucharist. Many scholars propose that the Jesus turning water to wine story is just such a ‘miracle’ while some see it as purely symbolic changing people with little faith (water) into people with rich faith (wine) – whatever the interpretation, crediting him with a power normally only associated with god would certainly make him special. We obviously now realise one does not need to pray to make beer/wine, simple yeasts and sugars etc do the trick.

      I always find it funny that the Bible is ‘the word of god’ to Christians until it sounds too far fetched, then it is a matter for interpretation/symbolic.

      How was the creation documented and by whom? One must assume either god wrote/dictated it or humans entirely made it up. If it was god, why did he make so many basic errors and state things that simply were not true in terms of what things actually are or the order they were created in? If I had been God, I’d have made sure something so important and the cornerstone of makinds faith in me was either written clearly by me in granite or I’d have checked the person I dictated it to got it right. If humans made it up, why should we believe it any more than we do Harry Potter stories or Santa Claus? We know ancient Jewish priests, like cultures everywhere’ used mind altering substances to commune with the divine – if we read genesis (or the other creation story the bible presents) as written by someone taking hallucinogens and with very little ‘scientific’ understanding (i.e. they think brewing is a divine act) then it starts to make sense (or rather not make sense).

      With regards the Bible, there are many documents that were clearly important but did not make it into the final cut centuries later. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain most of the books of the bible but also some omitted – e.g. prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel, Temple Scroll containing stories about Enoch, Abraham, and Noah and psalms attributed to King David and Joshua. Books like Enoch were not included in the Old Testament. Books like the Didache were well known and written in the century after Jesus death, they don’t mention a virgin birth, resurrection, jesus being a ‘god’ or even the bread and wine in communion being body and blood of Jesus. There are even letters attributed to Jesus family member, James – he supposedly had 4 brothers and several sisters, a few years after Jesus death that don’t mention divinity or crucifiction. Within the Bible, Jesus brother Jude even has a moan about the wider followers who were creating the divine cult, calling them “loud mouth boasters flattering people to gain advantage’. Those hidden along with the other Dead Sea scroll documents were clearly of importance and most were considered very important by early Christians, yet are edited out because they don’t support the winning agenda. Even after all this editing, the Bible is full of contradictions.

      Timelines are hard to establish. Some gospels were potentially first written down in the century after Jesus death – most people agree on 30ad for this. Some of the letters not in the bible are considered to be written a few years after his death. If any were from the time of Jesus life, either we don’t have the originals or it was initially word of mouth. Either way, we know many have been changed over time/through translation errors/interpretations.

      We cannot have more faith in religious texts the more copies we have. Just means the myth in question was widely accepted. Something like the Magna Carta, yes, having several signed and dated copies reinforces its provenance and makes it more legitimate. God did not sign and date the bible. Most of the surviving ancient texts were not written at the time and often contradict one another.

      The Bible – history vs. heresay. Some things mentioned in the Bible are also mentioned elsewhere. Some things we find archaeological evidence supporting the existence of a particular place/event. If it does not require belief in the supernatural and has some non bible support, then it can be considered somewhere between – somewhat likely and highly likely to have happened/existed. For example no one would deny ancient Rome existed. Where supernatural events/things unknown to science are mentioned, we should be sceptical at least. I’d have little issue if someone proposed Jericho existed for example as it is potentially supported by archaeological evidence. Did people stamping and blowing magic horns cause it to be destroyed? Unlikely. More likely there was an earthquake or the residents opened the gates (the city ‘fell’) through fear of the overwhelming force outside and tall tales were later told – the fisherman always says the fish was bigger than it really was.

      There are many similarities in creation stories and flood myths etc. I really don’t have time to research original texts, so will be lazy and use wikipedia…

      – The “creation of man from clay” is a miraculous birth theme that recurs throughout numerous world religions and mythologies. Examples include: The Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu is created by the goddess Aruru out off clay. In Greek mythology, Prometheus molded men out of water and earth. Per the Old Testament (Bible), Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”. In Hindu mythology the mother of Ganesh, Parvati, made Ganesh from clay and turned the clay into flesh and blood. And lastly, in Chinese mythology (see Chu Ci and Imperial Readings of the Taiping Era), Nüwa molded figures from the yellow earth, giving them life and the ability to bear children.

      – Cultures around the world tell stories about a great flood. In many cases, the flood leaves only one survivor or group of survivors. For example, both the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible tell of a global flood that wiped out humanity and of a man who saved the Earth’s species by taking them aboard a boat. Similar stories of a single flood survivor appear in Hindu mythology as well as Greek, Norse mythology and Aztec mythology.

      – Many myths feature a god who dies and often returns to life. Such myths are particularly common in Near Eastern mythologies. The anthropologist Sir James Frazer compared these “dying god” myths in his multi-volume work The Golden Bough. The Egyptian god Osiris and the Mesopotamian god Tammuz are examples of the “dying god”, while the Greek myths of Adonis (though a mortal) has often been compared to Osiris and the myth of Dionysos also features death and rebirth. Some scholars have noted similarities between polytheistic stories of “dying gods” and the Christian story of Jesus of Nazareth.

      Jews would have mixed with many of these cultures (e.g. Egypt, Babylon) and indo-european links are seen in language, DNA etc too. The ancient world was very much connected via trade and stories were shared between cultures too, although probably a little like a game of chinese whispers.

      This brings me back to DNA in the context of creation stories. God supposedly created man from dust (or clay) and created woman from man, the Bible says so. There are no other humans or human like peoples anywhere, except in this one garden with magic trees and talking snake. We’d therefore have very pure DNA, one cannot argue with that. BUT we know of other human species like Denisovans, Neanderthals, the hobbit like people of Flores who actually existed alongside homo sapiens AND interbred with us. Humans have been evolving for millions of years, we have found some of our common ancestors. Distinctly different human populations arose in asia, europe, africa, americas etc – depending on what other species they mixed with and for how long we have been separated. We know this from fossil finds and analysis of current DNA. The only DNA that can be considered ‘untainted’ by these other species seems to come from Africa. Much of this interbreeding happened as recently as 50,000 years ago, although still at lot longer in the past than many christians would have us believe with their 6000 year old earth ‘facts’ drawn from the Bible. We share DNA with other species on the planet now, even Bananas, so were clearly not made of clay but evolved from some common ancestor.

      However you view the Bible, you really do have to accept it as a whole and as written. Especially the bits that can be considered as ‘cornerstones’ of your faith – like the creation story, miracles and the resurrection.

      Christians are the ones making outlandish claims. Atheists don’t believe in magical sky gods, or any other sort of gods that have been worshiped by humans for far longer than they have worshipped the Jewish God and Jesus – after all, even the days of the week and months of the year are named after other gods and Christians worship on many of their festivals! Proper science only ever either backs up the Atheist world view, is still working on the answers or does not consider the questions worthy of the effort – e.g. checking if Thor, Odin, Jupiter, Osiris etc are real.

      I don’t think I need to provide you with constant proof. I am not making any outlandish or supernatural claims. Christians are. The burden of proof rests with you.

      All it would take to convince Atheists (or the sane ones at least) of the existence of God would be real unarguable proof of his existence and power. I’m not saying we’d all worship him, just that we’d have to accept the evidence. Question everything ‘religious’ you have been told is true, by priests or the bible, and treat deciding on belief like prosecuting a court case. The overwhelming majority of the evidence you’d put forward would not even be accepted by a court and the rest would be kicked out upon cross examination – because you could not prove a single piece of it. That is why you are required by all religions to put reason aside and have faith, because there can be no proof given to you – because it is not there.

      God is totally absent in everything in the world around us. Telescopes show us energy (light etc) billions of years old, effectively allowing us to look into the deep past, no trace. We can look at the workings of starts and black holes and see no trace. We can drill down to the quantum scale and still see no trace. We can look at our own DNA and see no trace. (in fact we discover a narrative that contradicts what we are old in the bible).

      The Jewish and Christian God could very easily solve this, all he’d need to do is what he did throughout a very short period of human history and start appearing and meddling in the affairs of humans – you know, telling people to sacrifice their children/offer up their daughters to be raped/talking through burning bushes, that sort of thing.

  2. Tom Godfrey says:

    Jack Ellis,

    Thanks for your May 3 comment too. It must have passed moderation too late for me to see it before I submitted a reply to you this morning.

    You must be referring to the First Council of Nicaea (held in 325 A.D.).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
    Is it controversial that Christianity existed much earlier, even before the middle of the first century? If it is, please point me to your authoritative source for your belief that Romans invented Christianity in the days of Constantine.

    You concluded, “… there is nothing you can trust there [in the Bible] (and no mention of DNA) and this undermines any speculation you make about Abiogenesis and evolution of man from another form of primate.” I am mystified. Why should the lack of mention of DNA in the Bible be problematic for creationists? What speculation have I made here about those two topics? I thought you were the one trying to defend your own speculation about them, and you don’t trust the Bible, so how is any ecumenical council relevant from your point of view? Is it even relevant from my own point of view? Has any creationist claimed that something relevant (to a discussion of evolution or the origin of DNA) was decided at any of those early councils? I don’t get it.

    I can assure you that the Bible is full of information that millions of people trust, and even a child can trust it. It’s just that you and others have decided not to trust it. Our discussion here affords you a great opportunity to explain why you think your decision is reasonable. You claimed to be “equipped with common sense and logic,” but so far, based on what you have written here, though highly intelligent, you seem to be much better equipped for hand waving. Where did you get the idea that the “New Testament evolved from roughly 200 – 1500 AD and the old written from at least 1000 BC”? Please document your claim, if possible, or admit that you really cannot defend it.

    From my own perspective, the truth about creation does not depend on what many Christians still insist on. I make no appeal to argumentum ad populum. What matters to me is what the Bible says about it, and Ex. 20:11 makes it clear enough that the number of days required for completion was only six, not seven, and that it certainly did not take billions of years either.

    The Bible does not state an age of the earth, maybe because it is constantly getting older, but biblical chronology can be studied and used to suggest when the earth was created. I like Gerald E. Aardsma’s work on this, and he figures the earth was created in 5176 B.C., plus or minus 26 years. If he is right, the earth is around 7,200 years old right now.

    In any case, I reject the YEC label, because for me, Gen. 1:1 implies that nothing in all of creation is older than the earth, so it can hardly be young in any normal sense of the word, and its creation was the least recent event in history. It therefore makes no sense to me to say that the earth was created recently.

    I am still waiting for you to explain why you consider any speculation about origins to be “real science” by any normal definition of science. Denial of evidence? What are you talking about? What evidence undermines belief in God? You may have just been careless with your wording again, but let’s not get confused. No dating method counts as evidence, and I think it is only an interpretation of evidence that can undermine belief in anything. Evidence itself just sits there silently and passively. It is not an animate agent capable of doing much else. Please explain what you really meant.

  3. Tom Godfrey says:

    Jack Ellis, here’s another lecture that you should find interesting. It nicely addresses an issue you discussed in your May 3 comment and in a couple of earlier comments. I know it’s a bit long, but I think you will agree that it is worth the time, including the Q&A at the end.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

  4. Bill Nolan says:

    While I appreciate your assertions in this article and find them somewhat intriguing, I nonetheless disagree. A language is not the same as a “code”. Indeed, by definition, a language must originate by design and intelligence. This is not automatically true of a code. Though complex, involved, and even unlikely, an intricate code CAN certainly evolve through trial and error, and the various mechanisms described in typical evolution theories. The mere existence of DNA does not prove that it was intelligently designed (though it may suggest it!).

  5. Vu Minh says:

    Based on the Fibonacci number sequence and the golden ratio, I am going to the concept you are looking for. The difficulty is, I cannot have a laboratory to show the interaction between Protein and Nucleic Acid. Details: “Priton” and “Virus”. The thinking I have is from Internet … Maybe, hunch let me know I’m on the right track!

  6. Hi Perry,
    I wanted to tell you about a book I read in 2014. It’s been translated from Arabic to English and I am editing the 2nd edition. I thought you might be interested in taking a look at it. This book also challenges the idea that evolution is random. Here are a couple of quotes, I was just reading it and thought of you. This section is about whether or not mutations are random and whether or not evolution has a purpose. It’s too long to post in its entirety.
    . . . .

    I will share just a small portion:

    “For us, within the limits of life that we know, there is uncertainty as to whether it is random or non-random, and there is no scientific reason to consider randomness more likely. Since it is neither possible nor correct to affirm that mutation or genetic change is random, the claim that evolution is without ultimate purpose is arbitrary, and it lacks proof.
    We can conclude by affirming that the claim that evolution has no purpose has been shown to be a mere arbitrary conclusion that holds no real scientific value. Rather, it is based only on the impossibility of proving otherwise. For example, is it reasonable to decide that Dawkins is a believer because I do not have enough evidence to prove that he is an atheist?!
    Actually, this is what Dawkins has done concerning the change in the genetic plan, or genetic mutations, which represents the essential basis of evolution. This might be one of the main reasons for the conflict between us and Dawkins (and other atheist scientists), because if genetic change, or mutation, is proven to be non-random and law-abiding, it means that it is purposeful and law-abiding and therefore, it means a god exists who wrote its laws and who wants to fulfill a certain aim with it. To claim otherwise requires proof as well. Dawkins has neglected this, repeatedly saying that genetic change, or genetic mutation, is random without any scientific proof. He only says this because he wants to deny the existence of a god. He decided to conclude that it is totally random based on random mutations that can occur in meiosis to produce reproductive cells, or because of a replication error or cosmic radiation bombardment.
    . . . .

    He quotes Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” pages 17-18. He then responds:

    “As is completely clear, Dawkins admits that there is a complex product, a law for making it, and a maker. He just does not see purpose so he says that the maker has no purpose and decides that the maker is not conscious of what he is doing, and therefore the maker is merely nature. With this, Dawkins denies the existence of a god. However, since Dawkins is an esteemed biologist—and not a philosopher as some like to describe him—he has overlooked quite a bit. For him to admit the existence of a law and a complex law-abiding product is enough to prove the lawmaking and conscious maker. Furthermore, the fact that he does not see purpose does not mean that there is no purpose. In order to deny the existence of purpose he absolutely must prove it does not exist, which he cannot do. We have already proven purpose, and God willing we will further prove purpose, thus closing off any means of escape for atheism through natural selection.”

    I hope you will have a chance to read the entire book and the arguments. The name of the book is “The Atheism Delusion” and it is available online. The author is Ahmed Alhasan. Thank you for your time.

  7. Jack Ellis says:

    There isn’t a ‘design’. Evolution is not a path set out. Several bits of our cellular structures are shown to be what were once ‘captured’ bacteria, some of our DNA comes from horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and 8% is actually viral DNA that got ‘inserted’ and adopted – this includes DNA responsible for mammals evolving placentas, which happened 3 – 4 times independently. Try reading a real book on current evolutionary thinking, The Tangled Tree is pretty good.

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Jack, all animal species contain complex molecular machinery inside their cells. These machines include ratchet, rotary and piston motors that operate with greater efficiency than similar machines we humans build. These machines operate and construct animal body plans according to specific instructions, including protiens and DNA. Each body plan is different from any other. Not one is the same. In human beings, our molecular machines construct our finger prints. Common sense tells us that these molecular machines were designed and constructed before anything else. In other words, before any specific instruction. That’s a biological fact. Jack, where did those machines come from?

  8. Jack Ellis says:

    This simply isn’t true – “Common sense tells us that these molecular machines were designed and constructed before anything else. In other words, before any specific instruction. That’s a biological fact“.
    You are stating ‘fact’ when no one yet knows the answer, how is it a fact? Science is working towards answers, which don’t involve god or design, religion isn’t. Many of the cellular structures you mention e.g. mitochondria, are shown to be what we’re once bacteria ‘captured’ in a more simple cell and eventually incorporated. Horizontal gene transfer (genes from bacteria, viruses etc ‘spliced’ into other dna, how we got CRISPR) happens all the time, it even happens in humans. Whatever the ‘common ancestor’ was, it was a very simple ‘cell’ whose evolution was driven by ‘mergers and acquisitions’ as much as (more probably) Darwin’s part of evolutionary theory – which is still valid, just not the whole picture.

  9. Michelle Pahlke says:

    I read through the short 700 words you said to read first, but they’re filled with the same kind of fallacies – and unproven claims to debunking atheists – that this post is, so I won’t bother referencing it.

    Regarding the “messages as proof” statement:
    It does not categorically lead to god because you have not demonstrated that it does. Each of your findings are based on the premise that god is needed, without showing WHY god is needed.
    The copy and paste oIt 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?’
    guage and we learn it as we grow.
    BUT language is not all verbal. And it is not all just the dominion of humans. Cats, for example, created their own language – miaowing was created in their effort to communicate with us.

    So what that non-living things can’t create language or code. That has nothing to do with belief in any deity.

    “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?’”
    There have been numerous postulations to this questions. The most highly regarded idea is that the first building blocks of life came from space. In the early millions of years of earth’s life it was bombarded A LOT.
    Regardless, your premise is wrong: nobody is saying life happened by “accident”. This is a common theist mistake. You claim we do this so that you have something to respond to, which is completely disengenuous.

    Where did that information come from? Keep reading:

    What YOU know is not all there is TO know. Just because you can’t fathom a naturalistic answer, does not mean one does not exist. DNA is hereditary material applicable to all living things. The origins of RNA and DNA are far more complicated then you’re claiming. I’m no geneticist, so here:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
    This explains it far better than I ever could. THAT is an answer to where the genetic information came from. You theists seem to think that the evolutionist stance is that life just “poofed” into existence. These things TAKE TIME. Billions of years, to be exact. It’s not an overnight transformation. I suggest you rethink your skewed view of your opposition’s true stance on the matter.

    “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.”
    How? Why? Where’s your proof? You still have not sufficiently demonstrated this claim. All you’ve done is made suppositions using flawed logical arguments.

    Do you know about logical syllogism?
    [I’m going to use the premises you stated in that 700 word link you provided, since you make no such argument on this blog]
    Logical syllogism: You present two premises (or more) that have a common theme, and then connect them together to create a conclusion. In this case you have the “DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism” as the first premise. It is the main premise.
    Then you have “all codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information” as your second premise.
    Then you have your conclusion which is “therefore DNA was designed by a mind”.
    Your first premise is fine. But your second premise is flawed.
    Science is not something that other things are “known” to. It is merely a tool – a method of discovering. In this case, you should have said “scientists are not are not aware” instead. Regardless, your premise is flawed; scientists study the natural world. It’s kind of the point, since they only have naturalistic data to work with. The observable universe IS the natural world. So, they DO know of natural processes that creates coded information. It’s called evolution.

    You cannot begin a premise with the assumption that we already know all there is to know about code, DNA, or life. Therefore DNA was designed by a man is the product of a flawed premise.

    This does not inherently make your conclusion wrong; it makes your argument flawed. You cannot propose a conclusion based on flawed premises. As such, your conclusion can be easily dismissed.

    I have a feeling that those atheists on that website you mentioned already said similar things, but you chose to ignore it and pretend they couldn’t refute you. The entire point of not accepting the claims of theists that god is real is that YOU have the burden of proof. Atheism is a rebuttal to theism. It is about not being convinced by YOUR argument.

    For the questions that aren’t YET answered by using the scientific method:
    You do not get to insert god into a knowledge hole just because – at this very second – you don’t have any other idea. You seem to be able to understand biology well enough, so how is it that you don’t understand that this field of science is always changing, advancing, and learning new things?
    Five hundred years ago, they didn’t understand DNA, and now we do. But does that mean that DNA didn’t exist until we discovered it and unlocked its mechanics?
    NO.
    DNA was always there. So how is it that you can’t understand that the things we don’t understand today do NOT mean there’s nothing else to discover?

    Again: you do not get to insert god into things just because you don’t understand how they could be.

    I would postulate that you got all your information from religious and anti-evolution sources, so correct me if I’m wrong – with proof, not just statements that I’m wrong. I suggest you look it up without factoring religion into your supposition. You want the readers of this blog to have an open mind? Well it’s time to reciprocate.
    https://medium.com/@R2Rnow/was-the-primordial-soup-prepped-in-outer-space-befbd0327d6e

    • Michelle Pahlke says:

      [My copy and paste from a word document to this site seems to have created some typing errors. Please excuse these rough edges. If anyone uses this as a point of contention in their argument, I will ignore this.]

    • I have $10 million for anyone who can produce a code without a designer. http://www.naturalcode.org.

    • All it takes to fix my syllogism is: “All codes THAT WE KNOW THE ORIGIN OF are designed.”

      It is entirely possible that someone will discover a naturally occurring code. My prize is not a bluff or a PR stunt. It’s a very serious inquiry for the most fundamental question in science that can be precisely defined. Announced at the Royal Society and Arizona State University with judges from Harvard, Oxford and MIT. If we discover this it will change EVERYTHING.

      May the best man or woman win.

      But let’s make something very clear:

      Nobody has solved the design problem in biology. Nobody. Not David Hume, Not Charles Darwin, not Richard Dawkins, or anybody else. There’s a million codes; 999,999 are designed and there’s one we don’t know about and that’s DNA. To assume that it also is designed is entirely logical. To assume anything else is a matter of hope.

      We don’t even understand how it is that cells “know” how to evolve. They perform incredibly sophisticated operations to their own genetics that we barely understand. News about this has just started to reach the public in the last few years, even though it’s been in the literature for decades. So even evolution itself is largely a mystery as well.

      Meanwhile, until we have solved this, there’s going to be no more making up folklore about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and happy chemical accidents. As it stands, nobody knows where life came from. And one blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any human technology.

      • Michelle Pahlke says:

        Perry Marshall,
        You haven’t actually answered my points. You can talk all day about who has or hasn’t figured anything out, but at the end of the day it DOESN’T MATTER. Just like 500 years ago, there were numerous things people didn’t know that we do now. In 500 years from now, scientists will have discovered many more things – and probably look back at US and laugh at what we believe.

        So what?

        Also: the logical syllogism is just an example of logical arguments. Most people don’t rely on it. I was trying to prove a point – a point that’s clearly gone over your head. It is really frustrating talking to someone who ignores my points and continues to make claims they can’t substantiate. Please DEMONSTRATE how any lack of information in the scientific conclusions has ANYTHING to do with god.

        I suggest you actually RESEARCH this stuff instead of positing assertions that you clearly can’t prove.
        Here:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

        “Meanwhile, until we have solved this, there’s going to be no more making up folklore about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and happy chemical accidents. As it stands, nobody knows where life came from. And one blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any human technology.”

        This is a statement that proves you haven’t looked into it.
        Do it.

        • “The first cell is presumed to have arisen by the enclosure of self-replicating RNA…”

          PRESUMED.

          The first cell is thought to have arisen by the enclosure of self-replicating RNA and associated molecules in a membrane composed of phospholipids.

          THOUGHT TO HAVE ARISEN

          Not known. We know very, very little about the origin of life that can be properly classified as scientific knowledge. Most of this is conjecture. 99% of the process is completely missing from our knowledge.

          What you have linked to here is not evidence. It is hypothesis with fairly little empirical support for the stated assertions.

          Also, none of it even begins to address the question I’m offering $10 million for: origin of the genetic code.

          I debated this for 7 years on the world’s largest atheist discussion board. We explored every rabbit trail imaginable. Summary here:

          https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/ and https://evo2.org/infidels/

          You are free to reject the God hypothesis if you want. 15 years of debating this have demonstrated to me that if someone doesn’t want to believe in God… no evidence on earth can ever force their will.

          But don’t make up stories about self replicating RNA situations which are “thought to have….” or “presumed to have” done this or that without solid evidence.

          • Veljko Blagojevic says:

            Perry
            I can say I KNOW that your name is Perry. But, in reality, I am just PRESUMING that is your name.
            Scientific research comes from examining evidence (like me examining what is the name you sign your comments with). If evidence points to a conclusion, that doesn’t make the conclusion 100% irrefutable truth. There are no irrefutable truths because there are always potential future findings which would lead to alternate conclusions. Therefore, everything that is KNOWN by scientists is merely PRESUMED, based on EVIDENCE.
            With that in mind, it is devastatingly pointless claiming that scientists are wrong simply for using the most precise language when describing their work. If anything, they are honest. 🙂

            ”Also, none of it even begins to address the question I’m offering $10 million for: origin of the genetic code.”
            Perry…this is a loaded question, and it was explained to you why it is loaded. Genetic code originates from chemical bonds and proximity/environment which is beneficial to the formation of those bonds. Really, you are attempting to shoehorn in the notion that ”DNA is a designed code which MUST have an intent/purpose behind it” that you are completely disregarding the equally (or more logical) solution – that it truly is ”random” (as random as a natural process can be in this context). DNA is a chemical. All the elements comprising it are natural. It reacts in accordance with all the known laws that govern matter. Nothing points us to the conclusion that it is engineered, it’s building blocks can and do arise in nature through unguided natural processes. And cells do not ”know” to evolve, they only change (like all matter does), and the cells that do survive didn’t have any intent behind their survival – they were simply ”lucky”. If you drag a net through water, the fish small enough to escape the net didn’t purposely grow small beforehand because they knew that a net would be used against them one day – they simply are what they are, due to a random shuffling of genes from their parents, and it happened to benefit them at that particular moment.
            Most of our intelligence and functions could be explained with simple code: if stimuli>upper-treshold then avoid; if stimuli<lower-treshold then relocate; if stimuli=pleasant then tryToGetMore; 🙂
            This is the code which is at the center of all life. It applies to food, light, air, sex, love, pain, business, anything. And it is what most living beings spend most of their time utilizing. 🙂

            ''15 years of debating this have demonstrated to me that if someone doesn’t want to believe in God… no evidence on earth can ever force their will.''
            This is also loaded, Perry…because you imply that there is SOME evidence, but that atheists are refusing to believe it – but the process works the other way around, actually. Agnostics/atheists listen to your arguments, and then find them unconvincing. ''Desire'' doesn't come into it at any point – I would be thrilled if there was someone rewarded me with eternal enjoyment for my life. Unfortunately, nothing conclusively points me to the conclusion that such a person/entity exists. All I see is arguments from ignorance and appeals to authority. Nothing more, nothing less. 🙂

            ''But don’t make up stories about self replicating RNA situations which are “thought to have….” or “presumed to have” done this or that without solid evidence.''
            This may be nitpicking, Perry, but – wouldn't, in your view, the inability of human minds to design life be….PROOF that life is NOT DESIGNED? Just a thought. 🙂
            Maybe our minds are too ordered and lack the randomness and magnitude of nature in order to replicate life on such a scale?

          • Veljko Blagojevic says:

            ”And one blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any human technology.”
            How? Can a blade of grass calculate the distance between the Moon and Earth? Can it cool down a gallon of liquid? Can it focus light in a beam hot enough to fry an ant? Blades of grass are sharp…Do we have anything sharper? They can use light and mineral matter to make organic matter….Can we make organic matter?

            I think you know the answers to those questions, Perry. 🙂

          • Michelle Pahlke says:

            Marshall.
            It is perfectly fine to say “I don’t know” about something. We don’t have to know what causes something in order to not use the god of the gaps argument. What is it with you theists and your incessant need to find “I don’t know” synonymous with “god did it”?

            Given enough time, all questions will be answered. Many of the NUMEROUS questions of life posed throughout the centuries have been answered. Questions religion asserted answered to and turned out to be wrong about.
            You don’t have the answers to this discussion. You just think you do. And meanwhile, you berate atheists for not having answers. But we at least, acknowledge that this information has simply not been found yet. At least we are not so egotistical as to believe we “know all”.

            You’ve wasted the last seven years. And that’s the saddest thing on this post.

            • I never berate atheists for not having answers.

              I berate atheists for pretending to have answers they do not have.

              The crowd on infidels was one of the most dishonest groups I have ever encountered.

              • Michelle Pahlke says:

                Marshall,
                The answers you are being given ARE answers. Just because you don’t like what you’re hearing, or don’t agree, doesn’t make them wrong answers.
                You have wasted the last 7 years of your life preaching to people who are not stupid enough to take your word on anything, and being willfully ignorant of the facts that are being thrown your way.

                Also: stop making up facts and not giving supporting evidence.

                And, the things we DON’T know is not automatically divine.
                You’ve yet to produce proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god exists.

                YOU are the one pretending to have answers.

                “I agree with you that jumping to God of Gaps explanations is scientifically unproductive.
                But we have to equally acknowledge that belief in God was a major driver in the development of science…”

                No we don’t have to agree. It wasn’t belief in god that drove science. It was human curiosity and great minds. What you’re referring to is the greed and power hungry people in charge of the church who merely took advantage of it. When they realised they couldn’t stop the advance of science, they took control of it instead, dictating what would be used. It was NEVER the belief in a deity that directly caused science – that belief only served to make the bigots think that science should be working for them instead of the masses.
                And arguing that the religion that was incidentally in control at the birth of modern science was responsible for science is IGNORANT – science would’ve developed regardless of religion.
                Science develops in SPITE of religion.

                None of your assertions lead to god. They only highlight YOUR ignorance, and simply the things we’ve yet to learn.
                Stop beating around the bush.
                Prove god exists.

            • Given enough time, all questions will NOT be answered. See http://evo2.org/incompleteness/

              • jack Ellis says:

                Perry, you are misrepresenting Gödel, twisting it to make a point. It does not result in what you say or in any way prove god’s existence.

                A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another.

                You consistently link to your own writings as if they are some form of evidence, most are just biased and not factual.

                If you’d like a proper explanation, I am not the one to give it, but anyone who does not want the wool pulled over their eyes can see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

              • Michelle Pahlke says:

                “Given enough time, all questions will NOT be answered.”
                You and your link are wrong.
                I do not accept your assumptions.

          • Michelle Pahlke says:

            Marshall.
            Everyone has told you the things you need to know in order to be skeptic about the god assertion but you’re not listening.
            Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
            You’re making a positive claim.

            Now prove it.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Presumed. Thought. The issue is we were not there, so can’t KNOW. Even if we replicated abiogenesis and early evolution in a lab, it might not be exactly how it actually happened. Science is advancing in this area and presumptions are supported by some experiments, models, evidence etc. But of course it’s scant, we are talking a process that occurred 4b years ago (ignore the young earth creationists, it’s a foolish idea). But the god explanation offers nothing it didn’t when man first decided to use god(s) as an explanation for anything.
            Religion doesn’t explain the cosmos, man has. Religion said the earth was flat, man explained it. Religion said thunder was Thor, man explained it. Religion said epilepsy was possession, man explained it. Religion said creatures (including humans) were plonked in the surface of the earth as they are now, man discovered the process of evolution.
            All the above are why, gradually, people with intelligence are becoming atheist. We know god isn’t necessary. And it is a ridiculous explanation for thunder, seizures etc.
            Theists are suffering from the same malaise as our distant ancestors, seeking the mystical explanation, except you’ve got less excuses than our ancestors did!
            Man will explain how life ‘almost certainly’ got going, I hope it happens in my lifetime.

            • I agree with you that jumping to God of Gaps explanations is scientifically unproductive.

              But we have to equally acknowledge that belief in God was a major driver in the development of science in the first place as I explain in detail at http://www.evo2.org/faq.

              And please do not fail to notice that “junk DNA” arguments (which have been demolished in the last few years) came almost entirely from the atheist camp – and it was an utterly anti-scientific theory. CRISPR came from coding sequences that were long considered by atheists to be “Junk DNA.”

              The creationists and ID people were never that naive.

              Neo-Darwinism, in its assumption that evolutionary mutations are random and accidental, has similarly vandalized science for 80 years. The 2016 Royal Society Evolution meeting firmly established this is not the case.

              Another similar phenomenon – the assertion that our universe only appears to be fine tuned and there’s actually a trillion other “junk universes” – again, an anti-scientific view that almost entirely comes from the atheist camp. Atheism has consistently advocated the idea that the universe and life are random and accidental. It’s anti-science.

              In the end, all “ultimate” views of science fall into two categories: Either God with a capital G or Chance with a Capital C.

              Take your pick.

              I freely acknowledge that many Christians pit God against science. But there is no contest. Science is orderly because the cosmos is divinely ordered.

              I explain all of this in much more detail at http://www.evo2.org/faq.

  10. Jack Ellis says:

    Perry

    Of course religion was a driver for many things, including some science, it does not mean anything in terms of the truth of a god claim.

    CRISPR actually came from study of Archaea and Bacteria, it is part of what you could describe as their ‘immune system’.

    Much of what people term ‘junk DNA’ does not code for specific proteins and was actually ‘inserted’ into our cells and even genome over millennia by processes such as infection by bacteria, viruses etc – the DNA inserted is often termed ‘selfish’ as it’s purpose/survival mechanism seems to be to get ‘adopted’ and then make multiple copies of itself, thus ensuring it perpetuates. Such DNA ‘mergers and acquisitions’ can do nothing, can cause cancerous mutations or can fast track evolution by introducing new ‘traits’ – for example some functions of the mammal placenta actually come from viral DNA inserted into the genome, and this happened on more than one occasion.

    The evolution of the cell has also been driven by gene transfer, there is good evidence that mitochondria (the power plant of a cell) were once bacteria ‘captured’ by a cell and eventually incorporated, i.e. becoming part of it’s ongoing ‘blueprint’.

    Evolution is not wrong. Darwin did not have the full picture and his natural selection is not the only (or most important) process at work, certainly in the early evolution of cells. Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) was, and is, a very important process. The best example of this process at work in the modern day is antibiotic resistance in bacteria, where resistance is transferred between different groups of bacteria very quickly. You could still say it is ‘accidental’ or ‘random’ as they don’t plan to do it with a reason, it is just that those bacteria acquiring the resistance trait via HGT survive and prosper – this is really not much different to Darwin and his idea of certain mutations proving beneficial and providing a survival and breeding advantage, it is just one way those ‘mutations’ are acquired. We know this though mapping the genome of bacteria and tracing it back through time. And this is not confined to bacteria, it happens in multi-cellular life too. 8% of our core genome comes from viruses, it has been mapped, and there are recent examples in mammals of HGT at work (e.g. the placenta has evolved slightly differently and developed different ‘traits’ at different times in different mammals, even in the last 20,000 years).

    As you say, DNA (and RNA) presents us with something (a natural code) we can read like a book . We can not only read it, we can track where various blocks of it came from (your sentences and paragraphs). What we find is not god(s) blueprinting a human, we find multiple ‘authors’ of our story and a path leading back roughly 4bn years to our ‘common’ ancestors of bacteria like life.

    So there is no blueprint as creationists would have us think, God certainly did not build man from mud. Man evolved.

    As for the first cellular life, RNA and DNA etc, we are starting to see bits of the picture (e.g. where mitochondria came from). RNA based life probably came before DNA based. Sure, there is a gap in knowledge between a star pumping out elements and that RNA based life. But we do know that chemicals like to react and bond, and how to drive that, for example H2O. We know processes (fusion in stars, comets hitting an early earth etc) that make and deliver the materials needed to build life. We also know that simple self assembly is possible, I have linked to some research before.

    As for the cosmos, it is orderly because it would not be here if it was not! I don’t know whether the ‘laws of physics’ as they stand now came into existence at the point of the ‘big bang’ or not. Maybe that pre-universe state had many attempts to ‘get going’ that did not work because the rules that came into being were not right, maybe the way it is is the only way it can be – I’ll have to do some reading. Same as why life arises on e.g. earth and not the surface of the sun – we are here because it is the right place for our sort of life. There is not anything unscientific about that, we just need to understand.

    Science is orderly because the cosmos is orderly. Why is the cosmos orderly? (a) god did it or (b) how exciting, lets see if we can find out why!

    evo2 explains nothing, it ultimately just says “god did it because I want that to be the answer and you’ve pushed me back form thunder gods, man from mud, world in 7 days etc, so I’ll credit him with something difficult to explain (difficult today) like how DNA got here – and if you prove that I’ll hide him behind the curtain of the big bang”.

    ALL the things the bible says we need God to achieve, we have shown it to be wrong. Nice try, but where you are is a place unsupported by both the bible and science.

    There is always an answer, we just have not found it yet, and it has never yet been God.

    • Jose Lopez says:

      Jack, Ellis, evolutionists have been searching for the answer they have not yet found. Dude, it’s been well over a century. It’s not happening. If you have an issue with God, then so be it. Otherwise, here are four evidences that God, more specifically Jesus Christ, created this universe and everything in it. First, the universe had a definite beginning. Second, space and time had a beginning. Third, the universe has been fine-tuned for life. Fourth, the design of the human cell. I’ll add a fifth: Jesus designed molecular machines inside cells in order to carry out all of the specific instructions needed before DNA is a factor. DNA or any other NA’s are not enough.

      • Michelle Pahlke says:

        Jose Lopez.
        “Dude, it’s been well over a century. It’s not happening.”
        It’s been 2000 years. Where’s the UNDENIABLE proof of god?
        It’s been centuries. It’s not happening.

        Evolution on the other hand, is still a work in progress. We have fossilized evidence of evolution. We have numerous scientists, fields of study, and studies that prove evolution is real.

        It happened. And it’s still happening to this day.

        Doesn’t take 2000 years to prove something that’s real.
        It’s been 2000 years. It’s time to let go of childish things.

      • Michelle Pahlke says:

        Jose Lopez.
        Here are four evidences that god doesn’t factor into life. First, the universe’s beginning has a naturalistic explanation. Second, space and time are observable with science and reasoning. Third, the universe isn’t fine-tuned for life as we know it, because humans would die in 99% of the atmospheres (or lack thereof) we’ve observed so far. Fourth, human cells are the result of an evolutionary lottery that is both observable and provable. I’ll add a fifth: none of these evidences require input from god or jesus or any other mythological being; RNA and DNA evolved on its own.

        Do you see how persuasive stating things is?

        If you’re not persuaded by my argument, you’ve no right to expect me (or anyone else) to be persuaded by yours. Especially since mine is sound and yours is full of fallacious assumptions.

      • Jack Ellis says:

        None of your 4 evidences are evidence of anything. Stuff began, how is that evidence of god? The universe isn’t actually fine tuned for life, most of it is inhospitable to life. You could say earth is, but it’s actually a case of life (through evolutionary processes) fine tuning itself to fit into the niche it’s in. That niche changes, life changes with it, sometimes it can’t change quickly enough and species go extinct.

        The design of the human cell? That isn’t evidence, it’s a statement that needs evidencing. There is zero evidence it was designed and a massive amount of evidence it evolved – as I said elsewhere, through RNA analysis we KNOW bits of cells like mitochondria were of external bacterial origin and we also KNOW there is a lot of bacterial and viral DNA ‘code’ in our own core genome.

        So we know Jesus did not design anything, other than maybe a few bits of furniture – being a carpenter? Jesus is a very recent element of human religion, and one core to only one religion plus a prophet within another. He is meaningless and unknown to a huge portion of time and humanity. The whole trinity thing is a later idea anyway.

        Read about someone like Carl Woese (who incidentally believed in god) whose research confirms this.

      • Veljko Blagojevic says:

        ”First, the universe had a definite beginning.”

        Funny how you believe scientists who support your presupposition, but reject those that don’t – even if they are the same scientists. Pretty selective and arbitrary, is it not? 🙂
        btw, preface the ”universe” with ”THIS” and not ”the”. We don’t know how many universes there may be, and we don’t know that this one is the ”first” or ”only”. 🙂

        ”Second, space and time had a beginning. ”
        Again, in THIS universe. Maybe.

        ” Third, the universe has been fine-tuned for life. ”
        Can you breathe in space? Because that is what >99% of the universe is.

        ”Fourth, the design of the human cell.”
        So…your argument is that the human cell is designed? Not plant cells, bacterial cells, viruses? Those are not designed? Is that what you are saying, Jose? 🙂

        ”I’ll add a fifth: Jesus designed molecular machines inside cells in order to carry out all of the specific instructions needed before DNA is a factor. ”
        Jesus was a carpenter, not a molecular biologist. 😀
        And I challenge you to find a passage in the Bible which describes cells, let alone any ”molecular machines inside cells”. 😀

        ”DNA or any other NA’s are not enough.”
        Look up ”ribozymes”. 🙂
        And tell viruses that their ”NA’s are not enough”! I am sick of them surviving so long as simple pieces of DNA/RNA! Tell them they cannot exist! 🙂

      • DAVID ALTMAN says:

        Jose, let me address your “four evidences” (so-called) point by point.

        1. The universe had a definite beginning.
        A. According to the principle of Hitchen’s razor, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to support that “the universe DEFINITELY had a beginning.” It MAY have had a beginning; the “big expansion” may have indeed been the beginning. However, there are several hypotheses out there (some with great mathmatical models to back them up) to suggest that the universe may have always existed, or may exist, die, exist, die in an endless cycle. We just don’t know. Even if you assume that the “big expansion” was indeed the beginning of the observable universe, so what? Ok, so it began. That proves nothing except that the universe began.

        2. Space and time had a beginning.
        A. Once again, an assertion with no evidence. We can’t study anything “before” the T-0 event of the “big expansion.” If time existed before that moment, we will never know it. It’s as far back as we can examine.

        3. The universe has been fine-tuned for life.
        A. This universe is NOT “fine-tuned” for life. If it were, we’d expect to find life EVERYWHERE. In point of fact, it seems just the opposite is true – the universe, so far as we have observed, is actually inimical to life as we know it. The problem with the “fine-tuning” argument is that we only have one universe to observe; thus, we cannot make any % stick to how “probable (X)” is – (appeal to meaningless statistics). There are billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone; there are one hundred billion plus galaxies in the observable universe. Of those trillions upon trillions of stars, there are a fixed number which have planets; of those which have planets, there are a fixed number where the planet is in what WE call the “Goldilocks” zone – where liquid water can exist, and thus the POSSIBILITY of life (again, as we know it) – we’re talking about carbon-based life; life forms other than carbon-based COULD exist. Of those millions upon millions of planets, the possibility that various chemicals came together to form amino acids, and that amino acids came together, etc., etc. and life evolved over billons of years is highly probable (if you want to use statistics). Again, we only have earth as a model. Until we personally examine some of these worlds, we won’t know how often life has arisen in the universe. There seems to be good evidence that life existed (or still exists) on Mars. The whole “if even one of these factors – distance from the sun, rotation, temperature, etc. – were different, we couldn’t exist” – is nonsense. If things were different, then things would be different. Just because the circumstances we find ourselves in here, on one insignificant planet out of quadrillions, SEEM to favor life, does not mean that we are special in some way. If the conditions HAD been different, then we might still have evolved – but we would be different (in some way) than we are. We just haven’t observed any other planet with life – yet. Now, if you were able to thoroughly examine every single planet in the universe, and determine that life did not exist there (and never had, and never would), THEN you MIGHT be able to claim that our universe was fine-tuned for life. Until then, we can say, with assurance, “we don’t know.” Life may indeed exist out there. It’s very likely. It’s unlikely that we will automatically recognize it as life when we see it – but it’s still likely to be there.

        4. The design of the human cell.
        A. This point is ambiguous at best. What kind of cell? Skin cell? Brain cell? Bone cell? White blood cell? If these things are “designed,” the designer did a piss-poor job. They’re constantly breaking down. They’re suceptible to growing out of control (cancer). The problems with this so-called evidence are too numerous to list.

        5. Jesus designed molecular machines inside cells in order to carry out all of the specific instructions needed before DNA is a factor.
        A. This is so far out there as to be nonsensical. The molecular machines inside cells (i.e., mitochondria) need DNA and RNA to do their job. The mitochondrion have their own independent genome (using DNA) which they use to help them create proteins.

        Ultimately, if you conclude that some deity created all living things, then creating a superlatively flawed system shows either that the deity in question is NOT all-knowing, NOT all-powerful, or both — or else, DELIBERATELY designed a flawed system for some ulterior motive. Good job.

  11. Vishnu Swaminathan says:

    The main problem with this entire page is that everyone is ignoring the logical fallacies.

    The first one is begging the question, and the second is shifting the burden of proof.

    What’s happening here is that Perry says he’s offering big money (appeal to greed) for anyone who can prove that there’s another natural code like DNA.

    Don’t you see? The statement here first assumes that DNA is a code (begging the question), and then says “YOU prove it.” (Shifting the burden of proof). It’s really a neat little package.

    Perry doesn’t have to lift a finger. He can continue with his unproven assertions, and let someone else do the hard work. Good job.

    I truly wish some credentialed scientists would log in here and dismantle this guy, and show everyone, once and for all, what a charlatan he is.

    • Yes…. Perhaps these scientists you’re hoping to find would also tell these Oxford Professors and the Royal Society of Great Britain (and perhaps my judges, like George Church from Harvard and MIT) what a charlatan I am.

      http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/origin-of-life-10-million-prize-at-the-royal-society/909

      While they’re at it, maybe they can overturn 70 years of genetics literature all of which asserts that the genetic code is, in fact, a code.

      Let us all know when you find these scientists you’re looking for.

      • It seems useful to point out that this prize awards people for finding an actual answer to the origin of the genetic code.

        It’s remarkable that this makes the atheists so incredibly angry.

        What reason is there for anyone to angry that I have undertaken enormous expense and risk — and raised $10 million of capital — to solve one of the most important scientific questions in the world?

        What are you complaining about?

        All you have to do is solve it and you get the money.

        Please remember: You have FIVE choices as to where the genetic code came from:

        1) Time travel is possible and humans designed it, just like we design other codes
        2) Aliens designed it
        3) It happened randomly and accidentally
        4) There is an unknown law of physics / chemistry / emergent properties
        5) It was a divine miracle

        If you don’t like #5 you’re free to choose any of the other four.

        Now to be fair, #1 is probably absurd, #2 could well be true but only kicks the can down the road; #3 is ANTI-science as it’s merely an appeal to blind luck; and #5 is an article of faith, as any person well knows. It could be inferred from the facts of hand, certainly, but is not absolutely proven. Inductive not deductive proof.

        You still have #4. Why can’t you just run with that?

        Are the atheists angry because the common folklore about warm ponds, lucky lightning strikes and happy chemical accidents is now off the table?

        Are the atheists angry because they’ve been telling us for 200 years that William Paley’s design problem in biology has been solved – when it in fact has not?

        Are you angry because a person of faith called out the elephant in the room, instead of someone from the “right team”?

        Please explain to me what the problem is.

        • Jack Ellis says:

          To be fair, I do not think the prize makes atheists angry, I think you claiming “if you can read this sentence, I can prove god exists” off the back of it. The prize seeks an answer to a question, you bypass any sort of scientific process and use the question to present an answer you want to hear.

          You said elsewhere that there were several ways DNA might have come about. Random processes were one. I am not a scientist, but anyone with a basic education knows that chemistry and physics don’t operate randomly. Physics operates by what we term ‘laws’ (not all of which come from a mind) and they, e.g. gravity, determine how things will interact. Chemistry also operates predictably, certain things react with others in a predictable way.

          There are so many parts in play and different systems interacting that physics and chemistry can look random, but you’d agree they are not?

          The basic building blocks, amino acids, are not a mystery. They can be found throughout the universe, probably from 8 – 9 billion years ago, and there are processes on earth that create them. So the lucky lightning strike idea is not required to create those very early basic building blocks.

          Chemical reactions (peptide bonds) cause amino acids to form peptides and proteins. DNA holds the ‘instructions’ for protein synthesis and RNA carries out those instructions (messenger, transfer and ribosomal RNA). It catalyses chemical reactions.

          Most scientists think that early life was RNA based. I have edited the following from a few texts, mainly https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/

          RNA molecules are strings of nucleotides, made with a sugar as a base and a phosphate attached. Enzymes are involved in producing nucleotides and joining them together. In 1996, biochemist Leslie Orgel showed that when “activated” nucleotides were added to a kind of volcanic clay, RNA molecules up to 55 nucleotides long formed (Nature, vol 381, p 59).

          This suggests that if there were plenty of activated nucleotides on the early Earth, large RNA molecules would form spontaneously. Experiments simulating conditions on the early Earth and on asteroids show that sugars, bases and phosphates would arise naturally too.

          John Sutherland, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, showed simpler molecules can assemble into a nucleotide without ever becoming sugars or bases. He took half a sugar and half a base, and stuck them together – forming the crucial sugar-base link. Then he bolted on the rest of the sugar and base. Sutherland stuck on the phosphate last, though he found that it needed to be present in the mixture for the earlier reactions to work (Nature, vol 459, p 239). RNA has four different nucleotides, and so far Sutherland has only produced two of them. If he succeeds in producing all four, it will show that the spontaneous formation of an RNA replicator is not so improbable after all, and that the first replicator was most likely made of RNA.

          Many questions remain, of course. Where did the first replicators arise? What was the first life like? How did the transition to DNA and proteins, and the development of the genetic code, occur? We may never know for sure but many promising avenues are being explored. Most biologists think there must have been something like a cell right from the start, to contain the replicator and keep its component parts together. That way, individuals could compete for resources and evolve in different ways.

          Jack Szostak of Harvard University has shown that the same clay that produces RNA chains also encourages the formation of membrane-bound sacs rather like cells that enclose cells. He has grown “proto-cells” that can carry RNA and even divide without modern cellular machinery.

          Another idea is that life began in alkaline hydrothermal vents on the sea floor. Not only are these vents laced with pores and bubbles, but they also provide the same kind of electrochemical gradient that drives energy production in cells to this day. Conditions may have been ideal for producing long RNA chains.

          Maybe it all happened in ice. At the time life began, the sun was 30 per cent dimmer than today. The planet would have frozen over if the atmosphere hadn’t been full of greenhouse gases, and there may well have been ice towards the poles. Cold RNA lasts longer, and ice has many other benefits. When water laced with RNA and other chemicals is cooled, some of it freezes while the rest becomes a concentrated brine running around the ice crystals. You get little pockets within the ice. Interestingly, the R18 RNA enzyme works better in ice than at room temperature (Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1076).

          The universe is very very big and billions of years old. There are billions of stars and planets, all doing their thing. That is billions upon billions of scientific ‘experiments’ being conducted everywhere, every second of every day for billions of years.

          It only needed to happen once. Clearly it did – we are here.

          As I said, I am no scientist, but I can see the possibilities there. A cell with RNA, DNA and all the machinery did not just pop into existence – it evolved. The fact that we do not, and may never, know exactly how it all happened does not mean you can just insert god into those gaps. There are so many things pointing to ‘non-design’ within the cell and the process that we should be fairly certain god did not do it. Like the fact that proteins can be built with 13 amino acids but comprises 20, the extra ones actually coming about far later than the others but offering advantages in dealing with oxidisation on earth etc – why did a creator design some required elements billions of years after others, let alone within 7 days. Like mitochondria originally being bacterial entities – why did a creator need to borrow one bit of already existing life to create something more complex, surely an all powerful being could just click his fingers and ‘bingo’?

          God does not come into it, design does not come into it, but it is certainly not ‘random’ either – it is driven by many interacting natural processes.

          • “If you can read this I can prove God exists” is how this thing started. That talk was given in 2005.

            As my thinking evolved I realized I was pitting God against science in that talk. This article explains my thinking now: http://evo2.org/god-of-gaps/

            I have no objection to the various OOL hypotheses as long as they are not overstated. The success of these theories is usually greatly exaggerated.

            My personal experience of God (and for that matter God as portrayed in the Jewish and Christian tradition) is not a God of “click his finger and bingo.” My experience is that God creates processes.

            For me the bottom line is that nature is far more intrinsically orderly than either the atheists or the creationists are willing to admit and the only rational explanation for that is an incomprehensibly intelligent first cause.

            And Nobody has solved the design problem in biology.

            However, the atheist is still free to believe in an illogical universe that pops into existence and is orderly for no reason at all. The only problem with such a universe is that it is anti-science.

            Most of my views are explained at http://www.evo2.org/faq.

            I think any reasonable person can agree with what has been said above. But it makes the fundamentalists on both sides very angry.

            https://evo2.org/goddidit/

            • Jack Ellis says:

              Why not remove the “if you can read this…” heading then? If you no longer feel that?

              God makes processes? Which ones?

              All the other processes, biological and chemical, arise because of the ‘laws’ of physics (known and as yet unknown). If you changed the laws of physics, you’d change all other processes, yes, or they’d cease to function? So they are certainly not designed. You’d have to agree.

              If you are arguing that some god created the laws of physics, fair enough. But it seems to me they come as part of whatever ‘event’ brought the universe into being. Maybe they are the only ones there can be, because we’d have total instability otherwise – I’m not a physicist either.

              So god is beyond the point the universe came into existence then, outside of (and therefore unable to influence) space-time. So the stories in the bible are not ‘true’ because god could not interact with the universe, being outside it. That makes sense, because of he were in it, we’d see traces – but we don’t. Bang goes all the so called ‘evidence’ for a god anyway, the bibles wrong – and it’s not evidence anyway, it’s stories.

              That takes creation beyond any observable point. We can’t know. To all intents and purposes god doesn’t exist and it doesn’t matter how it got started.

              But why do we need a more complex creator to create a universe, surely it (god) then needs an even more complex one? Or are you pleading a special case? And in what ‘realm’ outside our own does god reside? Where did that come from? What created that?

              You see, your ‘answers’ are not answers. They throw up more and more complex questions with more fantastical answers.

              Sounds like you ought to be debating creation, not DNA, as DNA based life is clearly a long way down the road from the creation point and results from your ‘processes’ or ‘process’ (laws of physics).

            • Jack Ellis says:

              What personal experience do you have of god? Many have claimed that – thunder turned out not to be Thor, epilepsy not the work of the devil. How do you know you are not also mistaken? Evidence?

              You say you believe in the Jewish/Christian god? It does not sound like it. In genesis, god very clearly created THINGS, not processes. He even took a rib from Adam (who he created) to make Eve. He set bushes alight. He made stone tablets. He made Mary pregnant. His son/he turned water into wine and performed healing miracles. Those are not processes at work he (why does he have a clear gender, being outside space-time) created long before, they are god directly intervening.

              You are probably one of the most advanced biological ‘machines’ in the universe with a biological ‘computer’ running complex algorithms. What we achieve is amazing. But we are also ‘programmed’ to see faces (even Jesus in toast), subconsciously learn behavioural patterns (without needing the underlying logic/why, hence creation of Gods) and experience pleasure/pain to drive our thinking and decisions etc all for our survival. Despite logic and reason (science) explaining much, we still fill gaps with superstition, magic and religion because that’s the way evolution made us.

                • Jack Ellis says:

                  Really?! Credibility nosedive… albeit from not very high.

                  And there you were saying everything in our universe has to obey its laws, like entropy.

                  There are not any miracles I know of attributed to god by mainstream science – just human error, lack of knowledge, dishonesty. All of them.

                  The human body can do some amazing things, some only recently known to science. The mind too. Prayer can work on both, as can meditation. I’d suspect being prayed for can work too, like the placebo effect. You can certainly ‘think yourself’ sick, so why not better too?

                  You’ll be telling me Angels are real next, with wings.

                  • I can tell you about the two people I know who were deaf for 30+ years and I was there when they got their hearing back. I can link to the video where I talk to the person about what happened,

                    I can give links to recent peer reviewed literature documenting the fact that blind and deaf people can now see and hear as a result of being prayed for.

                    But I cannot make you read.

                    And I cannot stop you from responding with canned atheist bumper sticker slogans.

                    Believe what you wish. It’s a free country.

                    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                      There is scientific literature and published studies on controlled experiments with large sample sizes in which it was proven with high statistical significance and power that praying helped with recovery from incurable diseases?

                      Cite that stuff, Perry. Are you crazy?! You have such a strong evidence in those papers. Give them here, I want to read!

                    • Jack Ellis says:

                      America, a free country? For now. But under Trump and his evangelist allies you are heading to something akin to Islamic State. If he doesn’t cause WW3 before that.

                      Facts are NOT about belief, they are pretty much opposites as far as religious faith goes. Religious faith is belief absent facts, it’s an absolute requirement.

                      IF your miracles (I read it) happened, and it’s more likely you were conned or saw what you wanted, there are many more plausible explanations than god, probably including the power of suggestion, the human mind and body to achieve certain things we probably haven’t yet understood.

              • Jose Lopez says:

                Amen, bro. The Cambrian Explosion is an excellent example of
                How, and when, God created. Evolution was never a factor. It’s an ideology that was created in order to directly challenge God’s creation. It’s a gap theory, and it’s an insult to anybody with any common sense. It’s very simple. If that’s not good enough for anyone, and some need evidence of how God did that, then research has given us a pretty good idea. Perry touches on some of that. However, God did not use evolution when He created life. The Cambrian, as I referenced above, is how God did that. So, for those of you who think you’re more intelligent than I am, and do not believe in Jesus Christ as Creator, answer this: What do you do with the Cambrian Explosion? There’s no need to tell me what you think of Jesus or how many degrees and doctorates you’ve earned. That doesn’t matter. Just the question, please.

                • Jack Ellis says:

                  What are you on about?

                  The Cambrian explosion was a divergence of EXISTING life that happened around 540 million years ago.

                  Life potentially got going on earth about 4 billion years ago. There is UNDISPUTED evidence it was around 3.5 billion years ago – well, undisputed by everyone who understands these things properly and isn’t a young earth creationist.

                  The Cambrian Explosion, like other such events in earths history (biological and geological) is actually evidence AGAINST there being a god, because it sure ain’t what or when the bible says happened.

                  Your statements are unsupported, where they make any sense at all.

                • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                  ”The Cambrian Explosion is an excellent example of
                  How, and when, God created.”
                  …except there are fossils of organisms much older than the ones found from the Cambrian era. Guess God couldn’t get it right in one shot? 🙂

                  ”Evolution was never a factor.”
                  If that was the case, the creatures from the Cambrian Explosion would be alive today, unchanged.

                  ” It’s an ideology that was created in order to directly challenge God’s creation.”
                  Since it’s authors were Christians, I highly doubt that. And, in what part of the theory does it claim that it is an alternative to ”God’s creation”. It’s funny how you creationists don’t have the slightest problem with saying your God could create an infinite amount of complex organisms and systems out of nothing, but to imply that he created simple life forms and gave them the ability to evolve? Nope, that is blasphemy to you. I seriously don’t get it. 😀

                  ” It’s a gap theory, and it’s an insult to anybody with any common sense.”
                  How is evolution a gap theory? Explain to the dogs that they didn’t come from wolves, and that the explanation for how they came to be so different from wolves is ”a gap theory”. Explain domesticated crops. Explain cats. Explain ANYTHING without in biology without evolution. 🙂

                  ”It’s very simple.”
                  No, it’s not. It is oh-so-very complex. And that is the reason you, as a layman, fail to understand it. And from your misunderstanding of it comes your denial. Because god-forbid that you admit that you don’t understand something in science. 🙂

                  ”So, for those of you who think you’re more intelligent than I am, and do not believe in Jesus Christ as Creator, answer this: What do you do with the Cambrian Explosion?”
                  This question is not phrased properly. What do I do with it?! You mean, how do I explain it? Perhaps?! Simple – I don’t need to. People with more education, qualifications and time devoted to actual research explained it for me. You must have not been paying attention to their work. 🙂
                  You fail to realize that the term ”explosion” refers to a ”geologically fast period”. It doesn’t mean ”overnight” or ”over a week”. Cambrian explosion lasted well over 10 million years! We have been around for less than a 50th part of that time on Earth, and look at how our world changed in that time. Hell, look at how it changed in just a few hundred or a thousand years. 🙂
                  Second of all, simpler life forms have existed for billions of years before. So, ”life” obviously existed BEFORE the Cambrian period.
                  And, finally, the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t the time all modern animals appeared, but when all modern PHYLA appeared. What is a phylum, you may ask, and how is that not the same as saying ”modern animals”? Here:
                  ”A phylum is not a fundamental division of nature, such as the difference between electrons and protons. It is simply a very high-level grouping in a classification system created to describe all currently living organisms. This system is imperfect, even for modern animals: different books quote different numbers of phyla, mainly because they disagree about the classification of a huge number of worm-like species. As it is based on living organisms, it accommodates extinct organisms poorly, if at all.”
                  This should be sufficient answer to your grand question. If you don’t understand any part of it, feel free to ask for further clarification.
                  If you don’t agree with the veracity of some of these claims, I would be happy to provide sources.
                  If you denounce the sources as ”wrong”, then I would be forced to ask you the question ”how are those scientists wrong about that, but right about the Cambrian Explosion happening? What is your criteria for such a selective acceptance of scientific findings?” 🙂

                  • Jose Lopez says:

                    Veljko, let me just say that I don’t care how much more knowledge you think you have. And, I don’t care what you want to call it, or from where you obtained it. I don’t care about how many pieces of paper you have from an accredited institution. I got it, dude. I never said anything about pre-Cambrian fossils. However, yes, I do agree with you. They were there. I have the same question, as I stated it previously: What do you do with the Cambrian Explosion? It’s simple language, dude. I don’t need for you to tell me what, and how, to rephrase my words. Dogs from wolves? I actually laughed at this one because a Young Earth Creationist would probably agree with you. As for me, those codes that Perry talks about: They’re different for every animal. You claim to be smart
                    Just keep it simple, bro. I don’t need for you to lecture me. So, how can the codes, or instructions, that those little molecular machines, inside those cells, are using, to construct the body plan of a dog and a wolf, be the same?

  12. Jack Ellis says:

    I have.

    None of it is science. There is no evidence. Just you suggesting answers, which is fine, that require faith. Most science you draw on is done by people who don’t share your conclusions – or aren’t making any yet. Much is selectively quoted to support your already decided answer.

    It’s full of logical errors. For example you say philosophers (not scientists, philosophers don’t really deal with the known in the sense scientists do, their work is often abstract) reject infinite regress. Many also reject god. Then you say:

    “At some point in the past there is the inevitable reality of an uncaused cause.
    Some say that the universe itself is its own uncaused cause.
    However everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
    Since the universe has a beginning, it has a cause.
    Therefore the universe is not its own cause. It has to have been caused by something else.
    I would like to suggest that the only adequate explanation is an intelligent, willful, eternal being outside of space and time, namely God.”

    But that doesn’t work, because you clearly say everything that has a beginning must have a cause. If you are saying god didn’t have a beginning because he’s outside space and time, then whatever ball of energy/potential/whatever we’d call it from which the universe (and space-time with it) arise was ALSO outside space-time , so did not need a creator. Either could be infinite, as there was no time (or not this time). God had no time (or space) in which to act upon anything. Unless there was time in his space, in which case it’d have a beginning too?
    There are many more plausible explanations, like a forever expanding and contracting universe, a loop. Or maybe the ball/point of whatever acted upon itself or came into existence through some law of quantum physics?

    • “then whatever ball of energy/potential/whatever we’d call it from which the universe (and space-time with it) arise was ALSO outside space-time , so did not need a creator. Either could be infinite, as there was no time (or not this time).”

      The above statement has no relation whatosever to any known science. Everything known to science has entropy, exists inside of time, and cannot have existed forever. The laws of entropy do not allow for a forever expanding and contracting universe.

      Thus your above statement is indistinguishable from metaphysics.

      Which is fine – but realize at that point all your objections to God evaporate, because what you are describing is indistinguishable from God. The logic for processing this question is outlined at http://www.evo2.org/incompleteness. Godel’s incompleteness theorem indicates that if the universe is logical, it necessarily originates from something that is boundless, infinite, not matter, not energy, outside of space and time – which perfectly matches Aquinas’ Via Negativa.

      Those theologians were not dumb.

      • Jack Ellis says:

        I know the energy/potential thing isn’t science, my point is that if there was a ‘before our space and time’ then it could have been be anything. Or nothing. The laws of our universe might not apply, entropy for example, because they are our universes laws?

        So yes, maybe the universe ‘resets’ infinitely. Maybe there was some strange quantum event and it just came into being. Maybe it sprang from another dimension. Maybe it’s infinite after all, in both directions.

        Less likely is that some petulant jealous sexist Bronze Age bearded sky god with an obsession for a tiny plot of irrelevant land on earth and a foreskin obsession created the early universe, cleared off for billions of years, came back for a few thousand and used his infinite power to save the Jews by making it rain frogs, spoke through bushes, concerned himself in petty human issues, conceived himself, became more loving, got killed despite his infinite power and then cleared off again, only to appear on toast from time to time.

        Not very likely is it?

        And before you ban me, I’m not insulting YOU or calling YOU stupid, for all I know you might be a decent bloke. Religion is a human idea. Not part of you. I’m laughing at the total and utter nonsense fairytale that is religion, same as you’d laugh if I suggested the Easter bunny were real, not because I’m bitter or suffered some childhood trauma at the hands of a priest, but because it’s plain silly. Unfortunately it’s serious too, it’s caused many millions of deaths, wars, much suffering, poverty etc.

        And there is not a single shred of evidence for it, not one. That’s the only bit that annoys me, the fact it’s clearly nonsense but you present it all as unarguable fact and attempt to twist scientific work to perpetuate and reinforce the fantasy!

        😉

        • You have three choices:

          1. Universe ex nihilo, caused by outside transcendent force, as seems to be indicated by the big bang. That is western monotheism.

          2. Universe in endless cycles. That is eastern religion.

          3. Universe from nothing for no reason at all. Totally illogical. That is atheism.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            Nonsense.

            One and two are not ‘god did it’ by default and are not exclusively theist propositions.

            We don’t know which ones are right yet, if any, and all three would be cases of ‘now we know what, let’s find out how’.

            People will throw up everything including giant turtles, aliens, gods and non-magical processes as yet unknown to science.

            God is less likely than other explanations.

            Why?

            Because all the god stories explain creation of the cosmos (where they knew there was one), earth, seas, rivers, mountains, animals and humans and the operation of processes like disease almost totally incorrectly.

            Pretty much everything holy books attribute to god was not god and the processes they say he used were wrong too. There is no firmament with portals to allow rain in. The moon wasn’t put there and it’s not a light, the earth and moon are remnants of two planetary bodies that collided. Man wasn’t fashioned fully formed from clay, we evolved.

            So, given track record, god is less likely than even other fantastical answers. Because it’s shown to be nonsense.

  13. Veljko Blagojevic says:

    I just now realized I never addressed the contents of this blog post. Well, time to do that. 🙂
    You were doing ok from the start, Perry. Until you came upon this little nugget:

    ”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 are immaterial, true. However, ”information” doesn’t imply ”meaning”, it is the other way around. That is why your sentence ”it can be stored…but the meaning still stays the same” is false, since a single piece of information (a sentence) can have multiple meanings depending on where it is stored. The same goes for computer code – a single line of code will not be read the same by every chip. On the other hand, a DNA codon will always transcribe/translate the same. This is the crucial difference between ”intelligent” and ”non-intelligent” coding. 🙂

    ”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.”
    Yes. And all of these are meaningless by themselves:
    – a sentence written without anyone to read it is meaningless, it doesn’t fulfil it’s purpose of communication.
    – a bird mating call is just wasted breath if no birds around hear it, it doesn’t fulfil it’s purpose of communication
    – and internet/tv/radio show without an audience is also meaningless, it fails at it’s intended purpose of communication
    – computer programs and blueprints for structures/machines are meaningless without end-users/architects/engineers capable of reading the program/blueprints, hence it FAILS in it’s intended purpose of communication.
    Does this apply to DNA, Perry? Does DNA fail to transcribe/translate when no one is watching/listening/in-any-way observing it?
    Of course it doesn’t. THAT is the fundamental difference between sentences/programmes/blueprints and DNA code.

    ”Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.”
    Message implies sender and a receiver. You need to acertain FIRST that there is communication between two KNOWN entities, and only THEN can you claim that something is a message. During WW2, the british didn’t try to crack coded messages just because they were receiving something that could be a message, but because they KNEW that there was someone communicating (Germans). 🙂

    ”OK, so what does this have to do with God?
    It’s very simple. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. ”
    Perry, if we did something, it obviously comes from us. I don’t know why you need to point this out. This is, again, the ”every painting has a painter” argument, and it is not very convincing. You are comparing artificial objects, with known origins, to natural objects, with unknown origins, and implying that you KNOW their origins simply because SOME of the traits are shared between the two. Not very convincing…Perry. 🙂

    ”Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.
    But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.”
    You never saw a rock or cloud formation which reminded you of something? You can use rocks to convey information – a row of three rocks represents the number ”3”. Can we find 3 rocks in a row somewhere in nature which an intelligent individual didn’t lay down in the row of three? Of course we can. 🙂

    ”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.”
    It’s words like ”accidentally” that reveal your true, foolproof creationist background, Perry. It wasn’t an accident. It was all according to the laws of nature. There is no chemical reaction inside our bodies which defies explanation by natural laws.

    ”But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’”
    Information is just a sequence/pattern. Sequences and patterns exist throughout nature. It’s no big deal. You just ascribe the DNA sequence divine characteristics (which it doesn’t have) and use THAT as an argument to claim that it is somehow different that other natural patterns. If you took a step back and looked at it without pressuppositions, it would become more clear to you. 🙂

    ”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.”
    It is merely a molecule, Perry. All chemicals are arranged according to their physical characteristics. DNA is not an exception to the rule there. 🙂
    Also, languages and codes are made up – DNA isn’t. We can decide to call a thing using some other word, or to have a line of code do something else. DNA codes cannot change their specificity. Another difference from intelligent codes, Perry. 🙂

    ”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.”
    Not exactly, Perry. The fact we use letters to describe it easier doesn’t make it a ”language”. And it doesn’t ”come with precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them”. SOME DNA does, but others don’t. And if you count mutations that escape detection, you REALLY have a problem with your claim about ”precision”. 🙂

    ”All codes we know the origin of are designed.”
    All paintings we painted were painted by us. Does that make anything resembling anything else ”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.””
    Body language. 🙂
    It is used by humans and animals alike, mostly by reflex.

    ”Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.Everyone can agree on that. ”
    Except physicists, I’m afraid. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter, and matter is eternal (according to the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy).

    ”But information has to come from somewhere, too!”
    No, meaning has to come from somewhere. Information can come from un-intelligent things. For example, a leaf, even when separated from a plant, carries information of it’s color.

    ” Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. ”
    It really isn’t. Information can be meaningless. It is the meaning which must come from a mind. 🙂

    ”In the beginning were words and language.”
    In the beginning of what, Perry? Didn’t you say that words and language come from OUR minds? If we spent a good deal of history without words, how were they there in the beginning of anything?

    ”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?”
    Another thing that gives away your fundamentalist position, Perry – you use the word ”miracle” seriously. 🙂

    I know your answer already, Perry. You are just going to ask me to buy your book and study it and it will magically appear to me, the proof of your God.
    However, I downloaded your book for free, and have started reading it. And you bet I will deconstruct it pretty easily, I just need time. I already broke down your broken premise, so the rest shouldn’t be that difficult. Bye. 🙂

    • Jack Ellis says:

      I hope everyone attracted to this site reads this, because it explains the bad thought processes and false representations made here.

      I’m firmly in the god is childish nonsense camp, all the evidence says I’m correct.

      But if there is a debate to be had, it’s not based on anything this site states.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

    • Sam Sorrell says:

      “The same goes for computer code – a single line of code will not be read the same by every chip.”

      I’m going to speak as a real-life, bonefied computer scientist and suggest that you don’t know anything about the subject. Firstly, a chip does not understand “lines of code”, it understands operation codes, or opcodes. A “line of code” is a non-sensical phrase when you’re speaking at the chip level. Secondly, an opcode has the exact same meaning on every chip which confirms to the same interpretation of that opcode, which is generally referred to as a “family” of processors. An example of such a family is the x86 family of processors. Perry, time and again, acknowledges that there is a common understanding; that someone decided there would be a common understand. That “common understanding” is what makes chips belong to the same family. But, the question you actually, and inadvertently, pose is, “What is the processor for DNA, such that there is a common understanding?”

      In any case, you pose this question poorly, because you modified the assertion by treating a fragment of the message as the whole message. Perry’s claim was never that a fragment of the message was equal to the complete message, but in your assertion, you use a fragment to, it would seem, eliminate the remainder of the message as useful context for the fragment’s interpretation. You split off a tiny piece to eliminate context so that you could then say Perry was wrong about the message as a whole. This is a logical falicy.

      “computer programs and blueprints for structures/machines are meaningless without end-users/architects/engineers capable of reading the program/blueprints, hence it FAILS in it’s intended purpose of communication.
      Does this apply to DNA, Perry? Does DNA fail to transcribe/translate when no one is watching/listening/in-any-way observing it?
      Of course it doesn’t. THAT is the fundamental difference between sentences/programmes/blueprints and DNA code.”

      You are posing a “meaning of life” question here, but apparently don’t realize it. It is clear that the Sojourner robot on Mars busied itself in exploration without human interaction for extended periods of time, if you can even call an 8 to 16 minute delay in communication “human interaction.” This is a “meaning of life” question because you pretend to know the “intended purpose of communication” as if there were some universal purpose to communication. In the case of DNA, there is an “intended purpose of communication”: procreation, repair, and (in Perry’s argument) evolution. In the case of the Sojourner robot there is an “intended purpose of communication”: to further the understanding of the people who will eventually receive the information. The question for the Sojourner robot is “to what end?” I mean, what do we care about Mars’ soil anyway? That is where we stray off into the “meaning of life”. Hence, if the Sojourner, puttering about on Mars’ surface, were sending it’s data back to Eareth, and no one was listening, then the Sojourner would seem to have no purpose; it’s existence would be “meaningless.” Similarly, DNA is used to make and repair living things, but to what end? When we know the meaning of life, then we can know the answer to this question, but presently we know the answer to this question for Sojourner. Also, when a computer is on, the processor never idle; software is running. The same cannot be said for blueprints, which require humans to be their processor. Hence, for the sake of making computer software idle, you equate it to somwthing that necessarily requires a human as a processor. Computer software is not processed by humans, but by computers, so humans are NOT needed for the software. Whether what the computer winds up doing as a result of executing the software ultimately has any use is a “meaning of life” question. I wonder if you’re ever seen the movie “Silent Running”, with Bruce Dern? At the end of it a robot is tending to a forest which is floating in space. Does what that robot is doing have any meaning? <– "Meaning of life" question. The robot is certaining executing software with no humans around to observe it. If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? What say we stick to what is provable instead of straying into sterile philosophy?

      Geez, it's hard to respond on this little textarea.

      I won't say taht Perry's argument doesn't accept as fact a couple of things not in evidence. For instance, just because it's not scientific to accept something happened as a matter of chance, that doesn't mean DNA didn't happen as a matter of chance. That just means science will never explain DNA, if it was a product of chance; which means anyone who accepts it arose by chance is making a statement fo faith, not a statement of science. DNA could have arisen by chance, but anyone who accepts that, at least presently, can't then call their assertions "scientific." — It's a flaw in Perry's argument which, if chance is the actual explanation, really just elevates "chance" to god status.

      I find Perry's argument, in general, to be very credible. The universe does tend toward entropy. In fact I think it's supposed to be a thermodynamics law or something.

      Ok, I cheated and scooted back to glance at your comment again. . .
      "Energy is an intrinsic property of matter, and matter is eternal (according to the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy)."
      I'd like to hear more about these physicists who say "matter is eternal". Are you reading books published 100 years ago or something? I think you could safely find physicists who would say "energy is eternal", but I doubt a modern-day physicist would say matter is. It's the difference between the big-bang being a hot ball of energy, and a cold infinitely dense ball of matter. If it were a hot ball of matter, then that heat is. . . ENERGY, and the argument a physicist would then be making is that energy and matter are NOT interchangable.

      • Jack Ellis says:

        DNA surely doesn’t have a purpose in the way eg a printer or camera does, at least not one guided by anything other than evolution – and now us I suppose, using techniques like CRISPR we have re-purposed from bacterial defence systems. Genetic code isn’t intelligently ‘put’ there to benefit the organism or guided by the organism, in fact it often gets messed about with by chemicals, radiation, bacteria, viruses and acts against the survival of an organism and even species (and sometimes to it’s benefit). Those processes are, from the point of view of the organism or DNA surely very much blind/random as they are external influences – but it’s not random, it’s unintentionally but somewhat predictably guided by natural forces. There isn’t any evidence of consciousness involved, in fact the opposite.

        Unlike computer code, DNA is not purposefully ‘designed and written’. Again, unless by us repurposing nature’s toolbox to do so.

  14. Sam Sorrell says:

    One could argue that there is one example of a code which did NOT come from a mind; DNA.

    Of course the problem with that argument is that they take it on faith that DNA is such an example. And when they take it on faith, it becomes part of a belief system. . . and not science.

  15. Jack Ellis says:

    Except all the component parts and individual processes, like chemical bonding, appear to be present in ‘nature’. It’s highly unlikely you need to add god. Sure, we don’t understand much of how it all came about, but we are talking 4 billion years of processes regards biology on earth and 13.7 billion regards chemistry and physics in the wider universe. It (DNA) wasn’t a single linear process, the outcome we got would be nigh on impossible then, there would have been many different processes going on concurrently and many dead ends and failures etc along the way, with at least one success.

    Whereas with computer code, one relies on a huge range of human made processes, ideas and even materials that simply don’t come together in nature?

    God is an entirely illogical conclusion and raises more questions than it answers, more complex too.

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 *