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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

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

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

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

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

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

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

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

http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

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

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

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

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

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

http://evo2.org/iidb.htm

1,969 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!).

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 *