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:
–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:
Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists” [title]
“Note that we cannot PROVE God – that is categorically impossible. A formal proof of Fact B requires that Fact A precedes it.” [by you in one of your more recent replies]
We can’t, you can?
Personally I found a lot of the replies and brief arguments an interesting read, but when scriptures started being quoted credibility slips slowly away. Quoting from scripture is in my opinion no better than living your life from reading the tabloid horoscopes. There is enough written in any scriptures in such vague detail that you will always find something you can relate to and pad out to make it more applicable.
“if Christianity didn’t have a lot going for it morally, factually, historically, philosophically, practically, and yes scientifically, there wouldn’t be 100,000 books and websites arguing fiercely against it. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
As for morally, I concur and for the most part (radicals aside) religion generally does society a great favour. Factually, historically.. hmm most of it is heresay and oftentimes dates/timeline fails to come close to what scientific or archaelogical findings might otherwise suggest even when being open minded and making fairly loose connections to biblical accounts. Scientifically? Please don’t tell me blogs and articles of supposition satisfy that criteria. If anything religion has slowly been scientifically disproven over the ages.
I do not consider myself agnostic, aetheist or of any religion. I do not vehemently disbelieve in a god, nor do I put myself under the label of ‘I don’t know what to believe’. Why do religious advocators force the necessity of having a belief one way or the other and label people accordingly? Why do I have to believe or have faith in the existence or non-existence of a god? Perhaps rather than ‘not knowing’, I just couldn’t care less, there is no hard proof either way anyway. Similarly just because I choose to not care about believing one way or the other about a god, that does mean I am not entitled to believe or disbelieve in other theories in a completely different area than theology. Of course I can. I respect those who do believe in a god and respect their choice to do so, though I am more inclined to think that most choose to believe out of fear. Fear of the unknown and comfort that everything unexplained can be attributed to a (mostly) benevolant supreme being.
“After running this website for 5 years and answering thousands of emails from Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Animists, Daoists, Agnostics and every other kind of person you can imagine, I can assure you that nobody has a stronger opinion about God than an Atheist. One might suppose that atheists would be calmly rational and somewhat indifferent to the whole question, but the opposite is true. I think atheists actually think about God more than most other people.”
I think perhaps if you had posted an article with a somewhat opposing title “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God doesn’t exist” you would probably find out how strongly religious people feel and their need to impose their beliefs on others. I am also fairly sure you would find yourself barraged by email complaints and possibly even a death threat or two!
Anyway religion aside, noise and mutation:
I think my primary reason for not really accepting any of your reasoning/methodology is your constant analogy to something in a ‘humanly accepted finished state’ or that any mutation must be comparable to ‘noise’.
“Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089 – one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so – that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.”
But in this example you are looking at perfecting one specific element and intending to keep the entirity of its current form the same.
It is also only allowing for possibilities that render the result in readable English words, though a mutation could come just as well come out as: ‘The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy god.’
The criteria for acceptance on the mutation is are slim as it must be readable and only use words that are currently in existence.
What if, instead of a sentence you used a 40 digit number and allowed any digit to be mutated into another digit. Or even simplifying it down to a 4 digit number.. ‘1234’ with a random mutation, perhaps this becomes ‘1284’. Both are readable, both have value. However, perhaps having the number be divisible by 3 is actually an improvement, a successful mutation. Perhaps the less prime the result the better, perhaps the more prime the result the better. My point is that at least you are not starting with something that is in a finished or semi-finished state, and that there is no man-made, dictionary based, censorship on the mutations.
“Noise always degrades a signal. Always.”
What if the signal was noise to begin with? Sure it gets altered or mutated, but ‘degradation’ is a subjective term.
And, as for Dolby noise reduction etc, yes that might be imperfect, but your statement of “And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.” I would contradict that too. If you knew the exact pattern of the noise that was added in the first place, and applied the exact inverse of that pattern you could remove it completely. The problem for most ‘noise reduction’ software, is that they simply don’t have the information regarding to the noise added and nor does it have the original sound to compare it to in order to calculate the noise added. Instead it has to look at surrounding data and try to smoothe it to reduce the tiny peaks and troughs that the random noise induced. In algebraic terms it resembles A + B = C. But only one value is known (C). It is impossible to determine the value of both the others without additional unknown information.
“Let’s say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.”
‘Your favorite CD’ therefore something considered to be in a state of perfection, or at least ‘just as you like it’. Sure, any alteration at all will degrade it from an aesthetic perspective, because you want to keep it exactly as it was originally intended, you don’t want it to be mutated or to evolve to become anything else – even if it (very small chance) does change it to become something considered by others to be better.
“Well let’s say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.”
“Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, you’ve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesn’t care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD player’s point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.”
So long as you had the same settings for both original and final recordings, the amount of information should be identical. You lose some music information and gain some hiss information, but the total information should remain constant. (Though they may end up as different filesizes due to file compression/data encrypting methods, but the total amount of information should remain identical.)
On another note, humans are a long way off being able to recreate natures perfections, especially when it comes to copying or the identical reproduction of a something. Photocopies being one of the finest examples. I would argue that it is a very different ball game to compare that to something like cell division. If you instead take digital reproduction of a small image file as the analogy, that is far more precise. Its just a string of 0’s and 1’s that can be perfectly copied almost every time. Occasionally however, due to a power fluctuation or something the file may get altered (forget about all the checksums involved for the sake of argument) and it may end up with some random alteration to one of the pixels or the palette table altering the hue of a particular colour or one of many other things. Now, if the file was a perfect picture to start with, then yes it could be considered to have degraded the image. Life however is far from being perfect. If monkeys really were perfect why did they evolve into man? If we are so perfect why do we only use 10% of our brains, why do we not all look identical?
Art, music, text are all man made forms of art that are presented in a state of completion and assumed perfection and any small mistakes within them oftentimes make them as unique as they are valued for it. Even if the original text of Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was riddled with spelling mistakes, would that not be of a higher value and more cherished than the first edited draft copy with the corrections made? How can you possibly compare man-made art with nature. Or are all your assumptons and assertation based on your belief in God, and that nature is God’s art and God made man in his own image, thus nature is comparable to man-made art?
You ask, what if we add noise to noise.
My question to you is: Have you ever added noise to noise and gotten anything other than noise?
I never said any particular CD was in a state of perfection. Let’s assume it’s in a state of evolution. I challenge you to use random mutations (noise) to evolve it and make it better, according to ANY reasonable, actionable definition of “better.”
I submit to you that if you have established any objective criteria for the performance of a system, noise always degrades that performance.
You say: “How can you possibly compare man-made art with nature?”
I compare DNA to TCP/IP. I see huge similarities. And I see that DNA is more elegant. And yes, even in the most formal sense, DNA is comparable to man-made codes.
Theoretically noise applied to the exact inverse of said noise could create a beautiful silence. Digitally this can be easily accomplished. Create one ‘noise’ sound (A) and then create a new file using the inverse of the first one (B), then mix both together A cancels out B and you have silence. I just did the very thing myself on my computer just to double check.
If I had overlay (A) on a piece of music (thus degrading the music) and then apply (B) to that, I would successfully restore the music. (so long as neither sound is so loud that data is lost/cut off) I can even upload files to prove this.
No, you didn’t say it was in a ‘state of perfection’ you said, you said “your favorite CD”. If I altered it in *any* way it would likely lose the very quality that made it my ‘favourite’ in the first place. That is why I use the word ‘perfection’. Perhaps if I used a CD of some music I really couldn’t appreciate in the slightest, then random mutations of noise on top of it may well make it more pleasant for me to listen to.
If you add the inverse of noise to noise, the inverse of noise is not noise. It is a signal which is deliberately intended to cancel out the original noise.
Finally someone posted what I could only fumble with. He can not argue with you and I find it amusing. Thank you 凯阳
DNA: Are we not dicussing quadrinary code desribing the combination of the four amino acids? This code would come into the equations after the calcular descriptives of these amino acids. Therefore are we not discussing the esoteric codes of mathmatics (which can only originate from a concious mind)?
I apologize for not reading absolutely everything before putting my conjecture forward. I searched for a few key terms on this comments page, and I don’t believe anybody has given this simple answer that answers your riddle:
The periodic table of elements.
It’s an alphabet for the code of matter. Two hydrogen atoms an an oxygen atom will provide the “code” that translates into a water molecule. A sodium atom and a chlorine atom is the “code” for a salt molecule. Keep in mind that I flunked chemistry back in high school, but I’m pretty sure that organic polymers function very similarly to DNA, with the carbon atoms essentially representing the four DNA proteins.
Not to be over-critical, but I think it’s a smidge disingenuous that you’re proving your point against “atheists” instead of “scientists.” Not believing in God doesn’t make one an expert in DNA biology, so it isn’t incredibly surprising that a community of atheists doesn’t include a member whose science knowledge is high enough to sufficiently answer your questions. But that doesn’t mean that if you posed them to a *science* community, you’d get the same result.
Fishamaphone,
The periodic table is a human representation of how elements relate to each other. And yes that table itself is a code.
The relationship between those elements however is not a code. A code is “a system of symbols for communication” and sodium does not communicate with chlorine.
Read the articles on this site and you’ll see DNA is very unique in its information storage attributes. Nothing else in nature is like it.
The Infidels claim to be scientifically literate people who have used scientific knowledge to eliminate the need for God.
They have access to the whole entire Internet. If their worldview is sound they should be perfectly capable of finding some evidence to support their beliefs. And if they are what they believe themselves to be, they should have a scientist among their ranks who can answer my questions and solve the atheist’s riddle.
Perry
Hello Perry,
I have read all of your messages and I have a question for you: All right, since you proved that god exists, can you tell us what kind of god he is? Is he the god of Egyptians, Greeks, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians or some other kind of god?
I am impressed with your rhetoric, but I’d like to know if it is sustainable. But think about it like a pacific debate. I’m not trying to cause any polemics.
Thanks a lot.
Regards.
I think there is a good answer to your question in my conversation with another guy on this blog:
http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/comment-page-3/#comment-725
I hope this thread isn’t closed, I’m a late arrival to class. My background is scientific and materialist, and while I admire your ability to construct an argument, I think it fails based on two problems.
Let’s say that information can only be created by a mind. Doesn’t that leave open the possibility that it’s my mind doing the information creating? When I see a picture drawn in the night sky by stars, can I reliably say that the information was there for me to discover, or might I suspect that the information content came from my own viewpoint? You talk of information as if it were a real, and not a conceptual entity. The fact is that perception is required and adds or subtracts from what we think of as information.
You give an excellent example yourself when you say,(paraphrased) “‘One person arranges the fossils and tells one story, and another rearranges them and tells another, different story.” How then are we to say that the fossils have (or had) informational content? It is as if you would treat information as both an operator (times, plus, minus) and an operand (2,4,6…).
The second thing is that you treat life (and mind) as a category of special thing. As we probe deeper and deeper into biology, we find more often than not that physics and chemistry do rule the day. DNA is nothing more than a megamolecule, thinking may be nothing more than electrochemistry. I invite you to look into recent experiments in ethology to see how complex behavior arises from very simple chemistry and rules. I do not see how you can avoid thinking of life as anything more than a convenient way to talk about animals of interest and not some separate category in the physics sense.
Thank you, I will continue to read with interest.
Bill
Bill,
When we look at stars and light and physical things we create representations of those things in our minds. But within those objects themselves there are no symbolic representations.
DNA, however, contains a symbolic representation. The codons “GGG” symbolically represent Glycine. Glycine is produced when the code is decoded. This is an encode/decode operation and a code which cannot be derived from the laws of physics. Because DNA uses symbols and purely material objects to not, it is in a separate category.
Why you bother with such a theory? if you need something to be created from “something else” to prove that god exist, just look at the matter, energy and space, and you will not find any logical or “scientific answer”, and I believe we will never answer that question.
It is hard to accept that it “just exist”, but maybe this is just a little easier to accept than god, because you are adding steps and complexity to your theory.
So, as human beings, we have to make a decision to just believe in something, and we can choose atheism or believe in some God to explain this.
If you choose some God of any kind (you have a universe to choose from, or even better, you can invent your own God, fitted to your tastes), you will have the question of where did God come from, and that cannot be answered, and you just have to accept it. For atheism, it is just the same, they just have to accept the matter, energy, space and, according to your theory, DNA. And as phisycs and the “all theory” advance, this become easier and with fewer things to just believe in.
So, maybe you are not proving anything, because your “proof” (God) also requires to be proven and explained: where did it come from? who made him?
And about information and complex creation, I wonder if you have played the “life game”, it is really simple and creates complex creatures (sliders, growing creatures, replicants) with just some simple “universe rules”.
I, personally, believe in God (christian), but I accept the fact that it is a matter of feith, just that.
thank you
Mind Perry. Mind. Mind that there is the mind. Do not approach the definite for possibilities are infinite as long as everything changes. Your “theory” is not really new and I agree to the Muslim. Yours could be true or not, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the process, and your are just a part of that. Thank you for your attempt, but the world created by our collective mind is still very young; and our arguments may appear very childish centuries from now.
Typical, if someone can’t fathom something as simple as the notion that matter wants to organize and came to eventually evolve to perpetuate itself they immediately point to God as a simple solution. No matter how complex they want to get by explaining its existence.
In regards to their information theory, there has been chemical signal communication that denotes, what is a nutrient and what is not, since the single celled organism. If consciousness cannot explain the how and the why we immediately start speaking in terms of God.
As if millions of years and an incalculable amount of chemical processes didn’t need to occur before that first single cell organism came to be. Then it took another million years of processes to get to DNA.
They will really be baffled when they find out that the same coincidences have happened somewhere else when they discover life on other planets in the universe. Just like other stars and planets have evolved and been destroyed in similar patterns as our own Sun and Earth have and will. Matter and energy is just running its course and doing its same predictable dance through time.
I am sure there is a super intelligence in the universe compared to us. Just the way we feel super intelligent to a single celled organism. Something more evolved is out there, and it had millions of years of a head start on us.
We just want to feel special, in order to feed our human ego. I am sure that a single celled organism wants to feel special too and still knows it should be humble; because, you never know when something is going to come by with a bottle of Formula 409.
t would be better to represent God as being everything in the Universe. If it makes you feel more at home to say him, fine. If it gives you a fuzzy feeling inside to think he cares about you or is listening to your prayers, wonderful. Maybe you will even get to meet him in Heaven when you are dead, so be it. But please, do not push your notions of God on my Universe; it will not make a difference here on Earth.
Sincerely,
A Member of the Universe
I with all respect to all other debators think that it is impossible for a blast to create such complicated systems, although I believe in the bigbang theory to some extent, but a blast is just not enough to make humens,plants,insects to be in such balance.Assuming there is no messeges or codes in DNA or they are also part of the blast’s effect, there are still the physics laws…physics laws are not matter-less, laws are laws and they have to be made by someone or something,
I would be very happy if u read the quran, not in a religious way but as scientific study, it has many facts that are stated before 1400 years which are discovered by scientists in the 20-21st century.
﴿ أََوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقاً فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا
this is a verse from quran that says(God speaking): “didnt the disbelievers see that the sky and the earth was on one piece then we blast them.”
another verse is:
(يَوْمَ نَطْوِي السَّمَاء كَطَيِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُهُ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ
this verse states(God speaking): “the day when we will close the sky like the closure of the book covers, like we created it first we return to its previous state, it is a promise on us that we will do it”
This day will be the day of judgement.
I can prove the second verse by that it is in the bigband theory that the universe is in a continous stretching at will reach a limit which theoretically will reverse the phenomena. there are many more facts in quran…ones are discovered other that are still not,
Your thaughts are very much like islam’s, and its likely because islam believe in jesus and mosas along with all prophets, and islam is only a continuation of those religions. I believe in god and iam very happy to find such and intellectualist and open-minded person that believes in god and trying to prove his existence, so I sincerly apologize for making this massege so religous, but I couldnt help it, I wanted to introduce u to this wonderful religion..Thank you very much.
Salah Khalid
Hi Perry,
I really like your website. It’s great to see someone put so much effort into something worthwhile on the web.
I’m in a strange position in that I’m a creationist who believes in God, but I’m not convinced by your arguments. The trouble I have is with your Atheist’s Riddle, which seems to break down to this:
There’s no evidence to support that DNA is naturally occurring, therefore it cannot be naturally occurring, and must have been designed by a designer.
The trouble I have with this argument is two-fold. First, the argument depends on the actual origin of DNA. If designed by God (which I think it was), then you’re correct – there are no examples of naturally occurring code. But, if DNA did, in fact, occur through a natural process (and may be the only possible manifestation of naturally occurring information generation), then the evidence for the natural occurrence of DNA is the existence of DNA itself. It’s really a semantic argument.
The second issue I have with your argument relates to the Darwinian filter of natural selection:
As evidence against the possibility of naturally occurring information, you provide the random mutation generator, that randomly generates mutations. However, in your video you pointed out the critical flaw in the mutation generator as evidence. You show two very similar google ads, one with the word ‘fast,’ and one with the word ‘easy.’ One of these was a closer fit to the wants of customers (its environment), and was, therefore, more successful.
Your random mutation generator fails to address the precepts of Darwinian evolution in two ways:
First, it limits the number of mutations to one, rather than providing a random number of mutations per mutation event. Your method filters possible results to those that have only one change per mutation. The replacement of the word ‘fast’ for the word ‘easy’ (or was it the other way around?) is impossible with your mutation generator (or at least, impossibly unlikely), but would have a defined likelihood of occurring (and in fact, would be almost certain to occur, given enough time) were a random number of mutations to occur.
Second, your random mutation generator is accumulative, and as such, leaves out the ‘survival of the fittest’ aspect of Darwinian evolution. According to Darwin, those less fit die off, and those most fit survive. A real test of this would have been to create a google ad that randomly mutates (in random numbers). The majority of these mutations would be noise, and would not be clicked. However, eventually, a mutation would occur which replaced, say, fast with easy, or some other word that would make it more successful than the original message. The success of the mutation is what would ensure its survival. Your arguments don’t address this.
In the end, the ‘survival of the fittest’ aspect of Darwinian evolution is what makes the natural occurrence of code at least plausible. If any final determination is to be made, I think it will have to come from determining a mechanism for large evolutionary jumps. The flexibility inherent in DNA (the speed with which species can adapt to environmental changes, the extremes of variation that can be produced from a limited population, and the molecular architecture of cellular genetic manipulation) lend more evidence to the position that DNA occurred naturally, while on the other side, there’s no mechanical explanation for the process by which large changes (say different numbers of chromosomes in sexually reproducing species) occur. In the end, I think a definitive answer will have to come from the specific mechanics of DNA.
Of course, all of this is really negated by the fact that all arguments eventually wind their way back to the unanswerable (for the time being anyway) question of ultimate origin. Still, I don’t think your Atheist’s riddle is air tight.
-Matt
Matt,
A lot of materialists want to say: “DNA is part of nature, therefore it has a natural cause.”
That’s actually just a circular argument, ie DNA is natural because it’s natural.
DNA is not its own evidence. If you want to probe the question you have to study other codes and see where they come from, then make an inference.
Every single one of the thousands of other codes always come from a conscious and intentional choice on the part of an intelligent being.
Re: Random Mutation: Please allow me to point out that the sentence
“The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” has 10^73 possible combinations of letters.
A Google ad has 10^200 possible combinations of letters.
In the Google ad example I gave you
Simple Self Defense
For Ordinary People
Easy Personal Protection Training
http://www.tftgroup.com
It would take a supercomputer longer than the history of the universe to accidentally change “easy” to “fast” via random mutations. Doesn’t matter how good your natural selection process is. All natural selection can do is eliminate the losers. You would generate billions of losers before you’d ever get even one correctly spelled sentence.
Let me point out that “the fittest survive” is a tautology. What does fit mean? It means “able to survive.” Natural Selection explains nothing in and of itself.
My Random Mutation Generator lets you select 1, 5 or 10 mutations at a time. I could have made the number of mutations random but that would just give you less ability to play with different outcomes.
If you wanted to design a quasi-scientific analogy to darwinian evolution you’d use the random mutation generator to modify Google ads, then submit them to Google and see if it produced some winners.
I can promise you it would never work in literally a million years and I’ve never had anyone take me up on it.
People are welcome to criticize me for not including a natural selection feature on the random mutation generator. What I did instead was put a button that says “select” and another that says “Revert to selected text.” It saves “winners” for you.
If I did any more than that, I would have to DESIGN a natural selection feature and DESIGN would be cheating, according to neo-darwinism.
Perry
Thank you for taking the time to consider and address my comment. You present a powerful defense.
I agree that the evidence of DNA being the existence of DNA is a circular argument, but you’ve tied your argument to that argument by saying that the lack of existence of evidence is evidence, meaning your argument is circular as well.
You actually summed it up best when you said that if you want to probe the question, you have to study other codes and then make an inference. The best we can do is infer, and while inference can be strong evidence, it is not absolute proof.
As for ruling out the possibility of natural selection based on the fact that it would take a supercomputer longer than the history of the universe to change “easy” to “fast”, this argument is also critically flawed. While I can’t argue that it could take that long, taking that amount of time is the absolute worst case scenario. In order for it to take that long, the change would have to be the absolute last combination made. Statistically speaking, the chance of it occurring at the last opportunity is the same as the chance of it occurring at the very first opportunity. The fact is that, looking at it macrologically, the change could occur at any time so long as the environment provides for it, and is most likely to occur in exactly half the time it would take to create all possible combinations. Looking at it micrologically, it would be certain to occur at a specific time, we just don’t have the ability to know when that time is because of the complexity of the system, and our limits.
If I were trying to infer that natural selection is responsible for the existence of DNA, the fact that the word ‘easy’ is absolutely certain to change to the word ‘fast’ would help me do so (such is the weakness of inference).
Now, calling “the fittest survive” tautology is another purely semantic argument. The dominance of a more efficient mechanism in a competitive environment is a firmly established ideology. Look at capitalism. Saying that ‘fit’ means ‘able to survive’ is saying that the phrase goes ‘survival of the fit’. That’s not the idea at the root of natural selection. It’s survival of the fitest, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the soundness of Darwinian natural selection.
Saying that natural selection explains nothing in and of itself is not accurate either because, were someone trying to make an inference as to the origin of DNA, natural selection does provide a causal mechanism for the anti-entropian behavior of evolutionary organism development.
That said, the gapping hole in the atheistic theory is the mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life – whether or not it is possible for the protein pairs that make up the most basic DNA that could evolve into a human being to come together in a way that provides for them to function. And, of course, even if it could, that doesn’t mean it did…
As what I think is an interesting aside, there’s a fundamental difference between DNA and codes like TCP/IP. While DNA has elements of code in it, it is a machine itself, while TCP/IP is purely information, and requires transmission lines, storage, and interfacing software; DNA requires only ‘fuel’ materials.
A question I have for you (who are more versed in both DNA and TCP/IP) is this: is DNA actually code?
DNA is a sequence of nucleotides. The mRNA corresponds inversely to those nucleotides, and the tRNA inversely to that (meaning that tRNA directly mimics the DNA, save for substituting thymine with uracil). The tRNA then mechanically (well, chemically) bonds with corresponding amino acids. GGG equates to glycine because the amino acid serine will only mechanically bond to the the anticodon guanine in tRNA, and when three sets of guanine are present (GGG), a chain of three serine’s are linked, (creating what we call glycine). The creation of glycine, then, has a direct correlation to the chain of three guanine’s of DNA.
A code, at it’s most basic level, could mean any arbitrary thing, depending on how it’s translated. A positively or negatively charged bit has no mechanical correlation to anything, while guanine creates an actual mechanical bond with serine that the other three nucleotides will not. My ability to read your sentence telling me that you can prove that God exists depends on my being able to speak english. A screen’s pixel value equating to a given color depends on if the colorspace is RGB, CMYK, or LAB. But the equation of GGG to glycine is purely mechanical. The message of the DNA is not independent of the medium. In fact, with DNA, the message is the medium, and cannot be separated from it.
In other words, DNA is not a message, language, or code. It’s a mechanism – and every different arrangement of it that exists is a unique machine.
Another interesting thing to point out is that, while rocks, snowflakes, and tornadoes can’t think for themselves, neither can messages, codes, or languages. All these, codes, rocks, snowflakes, languages, messages, and tornadoes are manifestations of mechanisms. The real question is which mechanism is responsible for our existence, the mechanism of God, or the mechanism of natural occurrence.
All this argumentation aside, I’d like to commend you on what you’re doing here. You’re helping to provide a means by which a Christian (or really, any monotheist) can justify their beliefs. The pervasive sentiment seems to be that the belief in a creator is irrational. You’re helping debunk that by providing rational, fact based support for the belief in a God that created us. Thank you.
Finally, some thoughts on proving God exists: The problem, for me, with absolutely proving that God exists is that, were we able to actually prove that God exists, we’d still be separate from him, and such proof would allow us to begrudgingly, or reluctantly accept God’s existence without developing a realization of our need for him. Who knows, maybe that was the problem in Noah’s time. Either way, I have to wonder if God’s hiding himself from us is meant for our benefit – allowing us to determine, independently of the truth, and for ourselves, whether or not we actually want him to exist.
Matt,
You are right, the likely amount of time something would take may be somewhere in the middle of two extremes. However when the furthest extreme is 10^100 years, halfway in between – i.e. 0.5 x 10^100 years – is still a LONG time.
Yes, given a long enough period of time “easy” would change to “fast.” However I would have to go through billions of failed trials just to get that. It’s not a parsimonious argument.
The fittest survive tautology: My point is, natural selection does not create anything at all, whatsoever. It only eliminates. It has no generative power.
I agree that there may be an overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution has taken place. But what I am saying is that if you are hypothesizing that the mutations were RANDOM, there is NO evidence that this is true.
I’m still waiting for someone to come her and present some. The “random mutations” are always assumed, never proved.
Difference between DNA and TCP/IP and whether DNA is actually a code: See
http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/
Also see https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/
Your last comment about proving God exists is a good one and I agree with your sentiment.
Perry
Hi Perry,
I feel a little guilty writing to you when you have so many people challenging you.
Still, something really bothers me about considering DNA to be a code – mainly that all the other examples you’ve provided of human created codes are based on arbitrary correlations, like A being equal to 10000001.
I read and re-read the pages you referred me to, and realized that either DNA doesn’t actually fit your definition of a code, or that there is an example of code that was not created by a conscious mind (although conscious minds do mimic the process to manufacture most of what surrounds us). Saying that, I fully realize that I’m likely getting in way over my head. At any rate, if DNA matches your definition of a code, then so do fossils.
Now, I should probably clarify that what I mean by fossils is actually the natural occurrence of a mold making process, in which a cast is made of an object (not necessarily animate), the cast object is stripped from the casting, and a filler material then fills the original cast, which itself is stripped away.
The reason I feel that fossilization meets the same criteria as DNA is that the DNA replication process is essentially a male/female casting process, done at a molecular level. To properly support this idea, though, I thought it best you use your criteria:
The most comprehensive criteria I could find on your site for defining a code came from your ‘Communication 101’ page. You laid out 6 aspects of code:
1. All communication systems rely on prior agreement between encoder and decoder, otherwise no communication takes place.
It seems like we can’t avoid addressing semantics in this discussion. Calling the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein process an encoder/decoder process is somewhat of a misnomer. While you’re strictly accurate to say that mRNA/tRNA are symbolic of the proteins they produce, the word ‘symbol’ implies an arbitrary relationship, even if an arbitrary relationship is not strictly required for something to be defined as a symbol.
A symbol is defined as something that stands for something else. Clearly, the agreed to correlation between the letter ‘A’, and the binary ‘10000001’ is an arbitrarily symbolic relationship. There is no physical correlation between the two. In this respect, DNA has more in common with my house key and the door lock than it does to A and 1000001 – or to get to the point, DNA has more in common with the casting process, in which the cast can be defined as a ‘symbol’ of the molded part, than it does with computer code.
Where DNA falls outside your definition is the ‘agreed to’ part. There is no need for ‘prior agreement’ between DNA and proteins because they share a direct physical inversity. mRNA is the mirror image of DNA, and tRNA is the mirror image of mRNA and the proteins it builds. What we’re looking at is a purely physical process that exchanges information – just like making a casting. Information is exchanged through direct, non-arbitrary, and non-‘agreed to’ means.
So, one of two things is true. Either DNA is not a code because it does not rely on ‘prior agreement’ between encoder and decoder, or the casting process is a code because it uses an identical inverse replication process to encode and decode information.
2. Communication systems possess something that matter and energy alone don’t possess.
Information is a tricky concept because meaning is such an ambiguous thing, but I think we can get around all that by using the term ‘arrangement.’ A computer program uses a specific arrangement of its component parts (0s and 1s) to convey its meaning. DNA relies on a specific arrangement of its component parts to convey its meaning. Similarly, a casting uses a specific arrangement of its component parts to convey its meaning. A bronze statue of Mozart is not Mozart himself, but the arrangement of the bronze conveys the meaning of Mozart. It possesses something that its matter and energy alone do not possess. More on point, a fossil of a crustacean, or a plant, or striations of limestone are not these things themselves, but convey the meaning of them. They are symbols of them – and, to end your search, they are derived from a natural process.
3. All communication systems are implicitly purposeful.
I don’t think this is a good criteria because purpose is hard to separate from intent, and both are open for interpretation. More critically, if one is to argue the existence of a naturally derived source of code, the mention of ‘purpose’ stacks the deck against it. You could argue that the ‘purpose’ of fossils is to convey information of the fossilized subject, or you could argue that the ‘purpose’ of casting something is to replicate it. It’s probably more accurate, though, to say that all communication systems are implicitly functional, and that fossils function to communicate the outer form of the fossilized subject.
4. In communication theory, noise is always your enemy.
This is no less true in the casting process, in which air bubbles, or impurities degrade the accuracy of the process.
5. Information is always created top-down, not bottom-up.
True enough of the casting process.
6. Existing information has to be decoded before it can be edited.
This pertains more to communication processes with diverse layers. Both casting and DNA/protein synthesis feature inversely repetitive copying processes, and are more open to inter-transmission data manipulation – the only quirk being the inverse nature of the transmission of edits. Still, if DNA makes the cut, so does the casting process because, in this respect, they behave the same way.
So, unless there’s something I’m missing, either DNA is not a code, or fossils are codes. Either way, I (ironically a non-atheist) have solved your Atheist’s Riddle.
Matt,
I refer you to Hubert Yockey’s book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938 in which he shows that DNA is a code and it is isomorphic with Shannon’s communication system. I elaborate on this at http://www.evo2.org/faq
The definition of a code is very simple – a sequence of symbols for communication – and DNA fits the definition because GGG codes for Glycine and not any other amino acid; AAA codes for Lycine and not any other amino acid, etc. Just like the zip code or a bar code or ASCII. GGG is not Glycine. it CODES for Glycine.
With fossils, do this: Try to make a table of symbols for fossils that exactly corresponds to the ASCII table.
Information is not a tricky concept. Read Claude Shannon. Read my FAQ.
All information systems are implicitly purposeful, see http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/comment-page-6/#comment-1502 and follow the thread down.
I don’t mean to be impolite but no educated person has any business claiming that DNA is not a code. The discovery that DNA is a code was made in 1953, it is arguably the most important discovery in the history of biology and you can verify this from the story of how it was discovered, or by the very definition of codes and how DNA operates.
Perry
Hello – perhaps DNA is an example of a type of information that has been created independently of a mind (?).
I was surprised that you didn’t even mention this as a possibility in the beginning; in your main explanation near the top of this page. So, it seemed that you were blind to such an obvious point; a typically religious thing.
However, your other arguments were interesting. You mentioned something about the creation process – similar to the idea that Newton had about the ‘first mover’. You mention this in terms of the big bang. If there was a creator, then i always thought that the ‘first mover’ idea was the most intelligent one.
The alien workshop idea is pretty weak because then you have to ask where did they come from? At least the God idea at the beginning of time is a bit abstract and more subtle.
I better stop there – i wrote a lot more; but i pasted it into a Word Doc.
I should have said: DNA might be an example of a type of information that has come into existence independently of a mind (?). Nature/Universe with the laws of physics has shaped things into definite patterns.
But then how did the Universe come about?
I could go on, but i’ll stop there.
Hello – perhaps DNA is an example of a type of information that has come about independently of a mind (?).
I used the word ‘created’ before; but that was obviously not right – lol!
‘Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.’
Have a look at this paper published in 1958.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=528673
I will have to admit that I have not entirely gone through it but it does seem interesting.
i think it is a power which controls the mars, the stars, the sun, through which every member in the world is exiting or having extinction in the world ,the member can be material or immaterial, as we are human being who are very intelectual body of than other bodies , the live or non live bodies of the earth are made of that power which is called god. so we can draw many images of that power whom we worship to boost the development of our function in the daliy routine. so we can have feeling of that moves around us. so it is the power who can give the earth a perfect/ pure image of any existing substances, however without that can every bodies be imaginary or non exitance?
Dear Perry,
Reading through your various posts, unfortunately I find you do something which people of faith typically do. You attempt to fit your arguments to a preconceived world view. Even if you “prove” that the theory of evolution is wrong this does not automatically prove that the Christian version of god exists and is responsible for designing living creatures.
I’ve had many debates with Christians about a variety of subjects, from abortion to divorce to evolution, and they almost always run the same way:
1. Make a statement which I believe to be true and therefore I state as fact (your example is “Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind”. I submit that DNA is an example of a code which doesn’t come from a mind),
2. Continually repeat this statement and ignore any evidence that the statement might be wrong (typically by focusing on semantics or minor points),
3. Make a leap: if this statement is right, then the Christian god must exist.
It’s not an honest method intellectually or scientifically. I repeat: even if you prove the theory of evolution to be incorrect (which you have not), you do not automatically validate the Christian world view.
Thanks! P-Dog
P-Dog,
Until you can show an example of ONE code that did not come from a mind – that you KNOW the origin of – you’re the one making the leap, not me.
Perry
Yes… I have one: DNA. Its origin: as per the theory of evolution!
You see where this is going?
But.. let’s try something. Hypothetically, I accept that you are right and that DNA is a code which has been designed by a mind. Now: why is that mind necessarily the Christian god mentioned in the bible?
P-Dog,
Evolution requires replication. Replication requires code, which is DNA.
“Evolution” does not in any way shape or form explain the origin of DNA. DNA must exist for evolution to take place.
I ask that you read the articles and apprise yourself of the details of this discussion before debating it. I have already covered this MANY times on this website.
I won’t debate the Bible with you until you’re up to speed on the science end of things.
Perry
Hi Perry,
In the last several days I have noted that several people have clearly refuted several of your arguments and have been ignored. What I would like to hear from you is, given you are right and DNA was “created” by a mind, why must it be the God of the Christian Bible that did the creating? I would rather debate you on biblical grounds, seeing as I think your scientific method is very limited and seems to revolve around the almost blind defence of a non-scientific statement.
If you think evolution is built on shaky ground, you must be able to see that the grounds for your alternative theory are considerably wobblier.
I would also request, on behalf of the science community, you stop equating atheism and science (although I’m sure both parties would take it as a compliment!).
Regards
P
You’ll need to elaborate on the specific ways in which I’ve been refuted. You will also need to debate me on exact scientific points, not throw around accusations and insults about my “blind defence” etc etc.
Hello Perry,
Im getting kinda unsettled about this RNA stuff recently. They are all claiming “game over creationists” and all that. Whats your take?
I guess they set up conditions and formed RNA or something. Now I know it took INTELLIGENT scientist to set this up. But doesnt this kinda open the door that “if and in the right conditions” these things can form create a challenge to creation in some sense?
And I also heard that RNA or some molecules can self-replicate without code. Is this true that you know of?
God bless,
John
JohnM,
Your recent post is very detailed so I haven’t had time to do it justice. Really short answer:
RNA is a derivative of DNA. Using RNA as an example of naturally occurring code is like saying Bee waggles are a naturally occurring code. Bees come from DNA.
Helpful point of reference: Look up “Self replicating machine” on Wikipedia and you’ll find there’s no entry.
There are short entries on related things like “self replication.”
There is a HUGE difference between something like a crystal, which is NOT self-replicating (it’s just molecules fitting together in a repeating pattern) and a cell, which builds a copy of itself from a PLAN.
Self replication requires a plan which requires a code. John Von Neumann determined this almost 50 years ago.
It’s not “game over creationists” until they produce a self-replicating machine.
And when they produce one, they will have designed it.
Perry
Hi John:
What they actually did {Gerald Joyce et all} was to spend thousands of man hours of some of the worlds smartest people to redesign a previously existing molecule to reproduce. What they did John was prove that life was intelligently designed by a superior being.
Never let these materialist fool you. The Bible is true, God created us and that is confirmed by operational science such as this.
Also could you maybe provide some good ID resourses, material etc., that you refer to yourself?
Thanks,
John
Best ID book I’ve ever read: “In the beginning was Information” by Werner Gitt.
I also like Hugh Ross’s books. And David Snoke’s “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.”
There is nothing that created God. This is the only postulate to the ‘Who created God question.’ On the finite level of exsistence we have time and space, which is the ‘shadow’ of the absolute or infinite level. Time and space and evolution is here because God so willed. Anything that is Absolute could hardly experience growth. It is this ‘split’ of Infinity that God so willed. In this split we have finite universes and evolution and creation in space. This was God’s inevitability in that he would have otherwise been subject to the fetters of personality absolutisim. He would have been self exsistent and alone. He has, back in eternity, created time universes in space in which to grow and learn. In actuality he is Experiencing throughout his creation, he is experiencing what it is like to grow, the same ‘beginning’ that he never had… This is the relationship, with himself, I am as I am. it is a self validation of the ‘first’ intent to make creatures ‘perfect even as he is perfect’ This mandate happened in eternity. AT no ‘time’ did this command ever take place. It is difficult to grasp, but oneday in the future of eternity we will somewhat comprehend it…there is more, much more but i have to go…
Perry,
Reading through the last few posts, I’ve noted that you’ve dodged every “good question”. I was hoping you might be someone who actually faced the difficult questions head on, but actually you use the same tactics as every other person I’ve come up against.
You’re confused between atheism and science, and have a very limited understanding of scientific method. In your last message to me, you dodged an important question and suggested I “get up to speed” on the “science”. I am very much up to speed, and I think a PhD is evidence enough for that.
If you really want to engage people in meaningful scientific debate, I suggest you change your tactics.
P-dog:
Who is dodging what? Making a blank statement that Perry is dodging is dodging. What did he dodge?
It is the atheists only argument, the personal attack. If you actually had an argument you would say what he was dodging.
I think you are confused and believe atheism is science. Anyone who claims science must not come to the conclusion that we were created by God is confused. That is the only scientific theory that exists.
Atheism requires evolution to be true and evolution requires there to be at least a pair of living organisms capable of reproduction. The problem with that is that first pair has no explanation other than spontaneous generation witch is scientifically and logically absurd.
You can whine and ask us to just assume they were just there but that is not science, it has no methodology. it’s just whining.
The argument from authority “I have a phd” is also fallacious. Having a phd proves you did a thesis that passed not that you are “up to speed’. Perhaps a logics course would help?
What tactics? You are the one making blanket unsubstantiated statements, vague and mean spirited accusations and using personal attacks and arguments from authority.
I have debated lots of people with phd’s , or at least those who claimed to have one. Can’t say p-dog is a name most doctors of science I have met would choose. They did not impress me either.
Perry is correct, DNA had to pre-exist evolution, it had to pre-exist life. Unless you want to tell us dead thinks evolve by RM+NS? I am betting you will take the big dodge and tell us that we should just ASSUME that there was an original pair, sorry dog,no cigar.
\
GOD has its own world wide web……………..we are all submerged in it..what else we are living.we and GOD are always together.there is no other lif or death involved
Hi Sudershan:
What evidence do you have for your belief? How do you account for design?
If your belief is correct we created ourselves.
Nothing can create itself, to do that it would have to pre-exist itself and that is logically impossible.