“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.

*Video:new discoveries about god, dna and the origin of life

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://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Watch it on video:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/perryspeaks/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://cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

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

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/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://cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/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://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

Share and Enjoy:
  • email
  • PDF
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
 
 

1,237 Comments

Vivian says:

Hello there Mr Marshall:

First let me assure you that I do not contact you in a curmudgeonly or aggressive spirit. I was intrigued by your arguments as posted on cosmicfingerprints.com, and – in part while prevaricating from rather less stimulating chores of my own, if I’m honest – have given me pause. I am an interested, open thinker.

Firstly, let me see if I have your Athiest’s Riddle right: You ask to be shown where in ‘nature’ there is a process that has evolved a language spontaneously, outside of living organisms. Is that right? You want to be pointed to a non-life process with language in it – and hope in remaining unanswered to demonstrate that the fundamentally language-based processes of life require that a mind initially invoked them?

What I’d like to ask is this: Do you only desire to demonstrate, then, that living things have a creator? Are you happy to accept that nonliving things exist de-facto, and that a thinking being simply chose to populate this habitat? Or is it simply that this matter is beyond the purposes of your syllogism and you prefer to leave it to other thinking?

Respectfully,
Vivian

Vivian,

That’s right, I only desire to demonstrate that living things have a creator. I’m leaving matter to other people and other debates.

Comment about Matter itself – since we know entropy is in effect and we still have “spend-able” energy left, we know the universe and matter as we know it also have a finite life. They have not existed “forever.” So the logical conclusion is that there was some kind of initial singularity event. Which is generally taken to be the big bang. Which does suggest an act of creation.

The only problem with that is we have no access to that event. It’s impossible to make any observations about what “before” was like.

Information, however, is a different story.

No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process.

ALL of us have observed the creation of information and communication systems by intelligent beings making conscious choices. We see it every day.

The creation of information is something we all have MUCH experience with.

Since information, codes and communication are at the core of DNA and living things, we have 100% inference to an intelligent creator. With no current scientific evidence that suggests otherwise.

Perry

Bill Morrison says:

Perry, what do you suppose would be the minimum necessary for such a creation event? That is, would setting up DNA suffice, or would some intelligence have to also include the other elements of the system?

Do you envision a creation that would require not just DNA, but also a complete organism and an environment to live in? I guess I’m asking how you envision the establishment of the code and the context in which the code has purpose and meaning. Is an entire biosphere necessary and sufficient?

The root idea is if this has been done, as you suggest, how might we do it ourselves?

Thanks,
Bill

Bill Morrison says:

I’ve commented here on and off and followed the discussion with interest for about a month. I think I have the issues clearly in mind and have my own opinion. What I would like to know now is this — What do you think is the strongest criticism of the ideas you have presented and defended here?

Bill

Bill,

I think the strongest criticism of the ideas I have presented would be a person who says, “Very well then, you posit a designer but as a scientist I am not allowed to stop there. A scientist’s job is to search for a NATURAL explanation. So yes there is no natural explanation for the origin of DNA but it’s my job to find one. I’m going to continue to do my job and look for one just like Newton looked for a natural explanation for why apples fall out of trees.”

And I think that’s a very fair response. If there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of information then yes, we should look for it.

I would argue that the only way we could ever find such an explanation is to admit that the current laws of physics do not explain the origin of information or consciousness, thus acknowledge we are searching for a new law of physics.

Again, all that is fair enough.

But note that some people accuse me of throwing up my hands and saying “GodDidIt” and giving up the search for scientific answers. I am NOT doing that. Any more than a mechanic who works on Toyota Camrys throws up his hands and says “ToyotaDidIt” when he has a question about how the engine works.

Recognizing the existence of a designer is not anti-scientific at all. It just acknowledges that there are some things that are not reducible to mere physical laws. Case in point, you cannot reduce the rules of any computer program to mere physical laws. They obey physical laws but they also follow additional rules set by the programmer. To pretend there’s no programmer is not just unscientific, it’s stupid.

That’s where we’re at with DNA. You clearly cannot derive the genetic code from physical laws; it has every indication of being designed; and living things are better studied in the same manner that we study car engines, than in the manner that we study apples falling out of trees.

Perry

GM says:

I believe language meets all your criteria for a designed code without one designer.

Every human language I know of is spoken by a conscious being. I have yet to see one that emerged from a rock.

GMEstes1 says:

Can’t say I’ve ever heard a rock talk. Rocks must be space junk minus carbon. I’ve never considered intelligent design for the universe, unintelligent design is more precise for our planet. Our life span for example exceed our bodies capabilities, vital organs were not designed to live as long as the entire body. We live to the 70s and to 100s today lingering until death finally arrives and releaves suffering. Just because the unintelligent designer made horrendeous
mistakes doesn’t mean the designer didn’t exist. Humanity has created their own perfect designer in the Bible with nothing but mythic stories and fables from lunatics.

allanregistos says:

I love those mythic stories and fables, they made my life safe. However, you did not substantiate that claims, unless you defined things differently.

GMEstes1 says:

No, I think we agree on the same definitons.
The recorded history in the Bible is all we have to account for God’s dealing with His creation.
God will only intervene as we humans allow Him.
Mr. Marshall makes excellent points for intelligent design. All DNA and RDNA cells have their own language to create our body parts. Bacteria seems to be the catalist that gets everything started. Watch Bonnie Bassler on TED.com.
I read somewhere that we the creation are God’s members today to carry on His work. Unfortunately we don’t always get things correct.
The Bible is an excellent roadmap, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at mans creation.Jesus’ intent wasn’t to explain creation but to be slain for humanities sin nature. It’s called atonement. The Holy Spirit has a roll in everything today. Read the Bible and you will find answers, unfortunately we can’t inspect with chemical reaction everything in the Bible and proof its authenticity. The Bible is written on a 6 to 7 grade level and therefore its easy to understand. It is no scientific book that offers proof. It offers an answer to communicate with God.

To sustain my position, recently a rift in the Atlantic Ocean is a recorded fact. Some people have erroneously made a statement that God caused the rift. They apparently never studied geology. Earth floods in different regions of planet earth aren’t a result of God. The Dead Sea is a result of Asia separating from Africa, rift. A natural occurence.

Spencer says:

Perry,

You have stated that matter cannot have existed for forever. Will you also acknowledge the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed? If so this does seem to purport the universe to be God designed, as there must have been a first un-caused cause. However, why is it no more valid to suggest that matter has always been in existence than it is to suppose a God has always been in existence? Why couldn’t the universe in some form or another have always existed? This hypothesis would be entirely consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The singularity, as it has been stated many times, was all matter condensed into something smaller than an eighth of an atom, and not as you assume to be the beginning of all matter.

(Here is an article that you may want to read, regarding misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions).

Therefore there really is no need to jump to the conclusion that God started the Big Bang, because your assumption that the big bang was the point in which all matter began is false. Now on to your information theory.

Simply because there is a lack of an understanding of the information given does not mean that God is inferred. No knowledge of one thing does not prove the other. So here is my issue with your argument. You are stating that because information is not material, it can only be created by the mind. Firstly you are assuming that labeling DNA as information is completely correct. In fact the use of this word comes from our own biases as human beings. It is not as though, that DNA passes on thoughts and feelings. DNA passes “information” of one being on to another. This information perfectly reflects the person physically. Essentially it could be looked as like a photograph of a person, but with such immense detail that it covers all aspects of the person perfectly. Photographs do contain information, but in a different way than what is being written on this page.

However even if you do look at it this way your argument still does not stand to reason. Simply because “No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process” does not mean it could never happen. It does not mean that it isn’t happening as we speak. Most importantly however, it does not mean that it is proof of creation. Simply because we cannot explain the mind, or how DNA originally came to be does not make the lack of knowledge evidence of a creator. Essentially what you are arguing is this:
Person 1: I do not believe in the Easter bunny.
Person 2: How do you explain the decorated eggs hidden around the house?
Person 1: I don’t know. We were both asleep last night.
Person 2: Well if you cannot provide me with the answer then the Easter bunny must exist.

It could be very well that there is an alternative explanation, which would make more sense than a large rabbit hiding eggs around the house. The majority of the population knows that the Easter bunny is in fact a fictitious character. Not having knowledge of how the eggs were placed around the house when both people were sleeping does not prove the Easter bunny’s existence.

I do realize that the example above is slightly juvenile however the comparison remains correct.

Sincerely,

Spencer

Spencer,

Is the Big Bang the beginning of time? I don’t see how it can’t be.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq/#time

If you want to argue that there was something physical before that, that’s fine…. but now you have a problem with entropy. Because somewhere you have to have a finite starting point otherwise the energy of the universe is completely spent once you get to now.

String theory does not solve that problem.

Finally you will get no respect from me talking about Easter bunnies, or bringing in any argument that is by your own admission “juvenile.” You cannot sweep important arguments under the rug that way.

You can posit alternative explanations all you want, but what I am asking for is evidence. What I have provided is 100% inference:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

Perry Marshall

spencer says:

Perry,

All that you argue against my response can be argued against you as well.

I assume that when you say eventually you have to find a finite starting point, you are saying this because you believe that an infinite regression of causes is impossible. So you posit a creator in order to solve this.

First let me ask you who created the creator? I would suspect you would reply with something along the lines of the following:
“He didn’t, He had no need for a creator. He is the first un-caused cause.”

So then I ask, if God can be thought to be un-caused then why can we not think of the big bang to be un-caused?

In regards to my rather insensitive statement above, illustrating it in such a way may not have been appropriate; however, I feel as though any less juvenile illustration would still fail to avoid the inevitable act of “[sweeping] important arguments under the rug.” Presumably, in your eyes nothing is more important than the existence of God, so any example at all might harbour the same negative sentiments.

That does not mean that I retract the idea I was trying to convey. You are arguing fallaciously from ignorance. You state that because we do not have any evidence to the contrary, this lack of evidence proves the existence of your claim. Let me formalize a similar argument to yours.

If God does not exist then we should have evidence that He does not exist. We do not have evidence that He does not exist. Therefore God exists.

1. If God does not exist then we should have evidence to support that He does not exist
2. We have no evidence to support that He does not exist
∴3. God exists. (1,2)

or

Let God not existing be represented by the annotation N.
Let evidence to support that God does not exist be represented by the annotation E.

N ⊃ E; ~E; Therefore N

This is illogical because you cannot infer N from no E or ~E.

Similarly you say,

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

You cannot argue that we have 100% inference that DNA is designed because you do not have 100% knowledge of ALL codes. Simply because you state that all the codes we KNOW ABOUT are designed does not mean that they all ARE.

Your argument is not cogent, therefore not correct.

We cannot think of the big bang as un-caused because of entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, it would be burned out by now. If the universe is not infinitely old then it has a cause. Which brings us back to the necessity of an uncaused cause.

The uncaused cause has to be metaphysical. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness

We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.

Yes there is always room for doubt. But I am arguing based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method – which uses inference and induction – we have every reason to believe DNA is designed. There is some room to doubt it is designed but there is vastly more room to doubt that it is not designed.

If you reject my inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.

My inference to design is therefore as reliable as the current theory of gravitation.

go2mark says:

hello perry, i have nothing significant to add here only to say that i praise you for your outstanding clarity and evenhandedness in dealing with all the irrelevant and misguided posts on here. a job well done sir and i support you and your cause. i do hope to contribute as soon as i feel i can offer something useful.

Solo74 says:

Hello, I just wanted to throw this into the mix after “stumbling” onto your website, have fun with it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?src=mv

franpar says:

We could be nothing but bacteria on an atom, these bacterias kill one another, could we not be the results of an experiment by somebody very very big, could we ourselves have killed off many many planets galaxies and universes when we split the atom!!! When we look through a microscope we see living organisms, on those organisms there are more organisms and on and on its infinite. What has religion got to do with it, i believe that religion was invented by man after cosmic beings visited the earth and tried to impose some kind of order, when we crucified one of them they gave up and left after coming to the conclusion that we were too violent. we then made him part of that religion

atorrnce says:

Here’s my calculation of the probabilities of successful random mutation. I’m not a specialist in statistics, just a mechanical engineer, so I would welcome corrections to my assumptions or my maths.
It has been shown, using Google © that certain advertisements attract more hits than others. Here is an example of two forms of wording, the second of which is about twice as successful as the first:
1. Easy Personal Protection Training
2. Fast Personal Protection Training
Suppose we were to write a programme to change characters at random in the first phrase with the following constraints:
1. Any letter can change. The probability of a letter changing is p.
2. If the change does not produce the desired result, (ie phrase 2.) it is rejected by “natural selection” since it will lose its meaning and become less effective than the original phrase.
3. The programme runs fast enough to attempt one mutation every microsecond.
4. The number of letters in the alphabet is z =26.
The probability p1 that the first and third letters will mutate correctly is given by:
p1=(p/(z-1))^2
The probability p2 that none of the other 28 letters will mutate is given by:
p2 = ((1-p)/(z-1))^28
The probability P of successfully mutating the phrase in a single operation is then:
P=p1p1=(p/(z-1))^2 . ((1-p)/(z-1))^28
If the operation is repeated x times, the probability that a successful mutation will occur is xP
The time, T needed for xP=1/2 is given by:
T = (10^-6)/(2P)

T depends on the value of p selected. The minimum occurs when p~0.07 and is about 2.14×10^31 years, or 10^21 times the age of the Universe !
A shorter time results if we consider a sequence of 30 amino acids and consider changing just one of them in a defined way. The quantity z is 4 and all else remains the same. The minimum time now occurs when p~0.035 and is about 262 years. If, however, we were to assume a more realistic mutation rate of one attempt per second, we would arrive at a time of 262 million years to achieve a 50% chance of this one simple change: the length of a whole geological era.
Finally, it is interesting to note that, since the total number of characters/amino acids N in the mutating sequence is the exponent of a probability, raising N to the values found in living organisms makes the probability of successful random mutation vanish for even the simplest mutation of the simplest organism.
As Einstein is supposed to have said: “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.”

Johan Crist says:

Just let me tell you that you Intelligent Design is just a disguise of the same old imagination named creationism. Stop pretending, it is NOT a fact, and you know it. There´s no reply, since 150 years ago was (and continues to be) proven the evolution law. Stop faking, most of the people knows the truth and want to be enlightened by real facts, still few, but only science has given them

You sound as though you think I made some kind of statement against evolution.

Andrew says:

Mr. Marshall,

First let me complement you on your argument. It really strikes at the core of the question of the existence of a creator/designer and the question of evolution. Let me explain:

Evolution is the random creation of useful biological structures which are sorted by natural selection. Evolution is simply the creation and destruction of information in the form of DNA and RNA. If the DNA can preserve itself, it is passed to the next generation. Therefore, the origin of biological information is the same as cause of evolution. If you try to tell me that information must have an intelligent “typist” then evolution must have a designer.

So all that is would be required to throw doubt on the information based explanation of a creator/designer is to point out some randomly generated information. So,

1) Clouds. Lie on your back and look up. Do you see any shapes in the clouds? Can you name them? Unless you believe that God is talking to you through the clouds (at which point I will walk away from this discussion), then you have just witnessed randomly generated information. Maybe you can’t get the completed works of Shakespeare out of the clouds, but they definitely conveyed information that was in no way tied to the medium (water vapor).

2) Stars. For years before modern navigation, sailors used the stars to find their way around the world. Again, those of you who think that God engineered messages into the stars for you should stop reading now. If you take it as given that the stars are random, then they are an example of non-designed information.

This would suggest that you do not need an intelligent typist. You only need a reader that is primed to interpret information and able to do something with it.

A cloud is a cloud, an electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Contrast this with DNA where three Guanines in a row are instructions to make Glycine. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine.

Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos. It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next. It is possible to predict what a creature will look like, given sufficient knowledge of its DNA.

Andrew says:

You misunderstand. I am not using clouds to model creatures, I am using them to model DNA. You say:

“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.”

The point is that clouds are a randomly generated form of information. The cloud is in fact created from chaos and water droplets as you say and humans can interpret them as shapes that do not have to do with the medium. The same is true of the stars which move in predictable and navigationally informative patterns. In other words, coded information does not have to come from a mind.

Andrew,

None of these things can be properly labeled as communication systems. Why things like sunlight, hydrogen atoms, electrons, layers of sediment and snowflakes are not codes:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq/#naturalcodes

A proper encoding/decoding system has these components – see Basic definitions of information theory: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/information-theory-made-simple/

Perry

BlindSight says:

Hi there,

I just responded to another one of your posts, but I have no idea which of my comments you will read first, so I’ll introduce myself here, too. I’m a Christian who believes in a still-active and personal creator-God as described in the Bible, but I’m also an advocate of solid reasoning, so please allow me to quickly debunk this idea here haha. No offense meant. I will try to redirect your thoughts, as I think you’re stumbling into an area with real merit, even though you’re not aware of it.

The idea of Information Entropy and any appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is inherently flawed. No, information cannot become more complex through random mutation, but evolution is not STRICTLY random mutation. It’s also integration of new information. We call this process eating/digestion. These things fuel all the processes of both our cellular and sexual reproduction. We constantly expose ourselves to new information when we eat steak. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy goes up, information is lost, etc., but in a localized, open system, things have the ability to tend toward local order.

The second problem here is that, at least from a Naturalist’s perspective, the mind (or perhaps more accurately “the brain”) is a product of a code to begin with, so these codes you’re interpreting are products of a more complex code/structure. The process is code -> brain -> code. There is no contradiction that implies anything further.

What I think you’re discovering, though, is an entirely different philosophical problem. We are not only aware of information on a processing level, but there is a second, redundant awareness that many in the philosophical world call “qualia,” which are most accurately described as “how things seem.”

This is classically illustrated by thinking of a person who is trapped in an entirely in a black and white room. He/she is constantly fed information about colors, but they are otherwise completely cut off from the outside world. As they grow older, they become an expert in the field of color, even though they have never seen it. One day, though, someone tosses an apple into the room, and suddenly their understanding of color transcends anything they had previously known. In this lies qualia.

There is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. From this we deduce merely that there is another substance beyond what we traditionally think of as the material world. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it obeys abstract laws or is evidence of God, but it DOES fit into the model of the soul as depicted by Christianity (and other religions for that matter).

I have recently come to the conclusion that, by and large, God intentionally does not reveal himself in scientifically verifiable means. Instead, God operates on a personal level. Science, by its very nature, is impersonal and non-loving (didn’t want to say “unloving” since it’s not hateful). If God truly desires a relationship with us, he would not reveal himself in a bland and dispassionate manner.

For example, I have had a very clear and distinct vision from God several years back, for which I thank God and consider myself incredibly blessed. It is this vision which has brought me here, even, as in it I received my purpose in directly combating the New Atheism and baseless moral structure that now plagues our society. But it is not scientifically verifiable. If I tried to prove it to anyone, then they would just counter with, “Well you could have been temporarily delusional,” or, “It was just a dream,” and so on. But if I earn their trust and show them that I have something real and good, then I will be able to minister to their needs.

Don’t get me wrong, we need apologists, but I wager that we need them mostly as a defense, not an offense. What we need on offense is good philosophy to expose the poor philosophy inherent in so many modern ideas. I have just picked up a book entitled “The God Who Is There” by Francis Schaeffer, and though I haven’t made it through more than one chapter, it’s pretty astounding so far, and it looks as though it will give you a synopsis of how our current modern philosophies have developed.

I was very, very grateful to have found this book, and the circumstances surrounding that are rather extraordinary, as well. I’ve had it for many years, and it’s one of the only books I’ve ever bought (I don’t read very often at all). As I picked it up just yesterday, I discovered that the way had already been prepared in terms of discovering the roots of these modern ideas, and as I read, I could see my own ideas which I had been thinking on for several months — if not years — suddenly unfolding in completion before me. It was truly providence for one of the only books I’ve ever bought (at complete random, by the way) to be so directly relevant to the issues I’m currently discussing.

So anyhow, I highly recommend you pick it up. In it, I think you will find the true battleground where we must fight our spiritual battle against modern ideas.

JonathanWagner says:

I agree with a lot of what you said except your whole spiel on understanding. To see a color is not to understand it, it is to experience it. Experience does not necessarily equate to knowledge. For instance in the dark room example, if I had another room that was well lit, and all that person had was an apple, and then later the two met, the one who had the apple wouldn’t necessarily have a better understanding of color, instead that person will have a better experience of color. A sensation or experience is only understood through mutual experiences, not knowledge. For instance, someone who has never felt pain, will not be able to share in a the mutual experience when the idea is expressed, instead he will always have an abstract idea of it. So I would have to disagree that it is redundant.

Next you said that as far as we are aware there is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. I find this a little confusing because qualia originates from your brain, and your brain is made of atoms. So while an atom independently may not be able to cause qualia, it definitely is responsible indirectly for it.

BlindSight says:

Jonathan,

First, it’s not letting me reply to you directly. I assume that it doesn’t allow it past a certain level.

Anyhow, I think you misunderstand me when I say the person who sees an apple understands color on a deeper level. It is not necessarily KNOWLEDGE, but it is a different kind of understanding.

But I hold that atoms cannot produce qualia. Yes, they are responsible for producing the signal that ultimately gets translated into qualia, but qualia transcend physical existence. You don’t have to experience (qualia-level interaction) something to respond to it. Computers store information and churn out responses regularly. Qualia are redundant when compared to mere information, because they don’t really offer anything new from a strictly computing standpoint, but if we’re creatures of choice, then qualia may play into whatever structures govern free will.

GMEstes1 says:

Read Mr. Marshall’s statements carefully. I believe I discovered he believes as I do, God uses the evolutionary process in creation.

Dave says:

No, Intelligent Design is NOT (underlined and bolded) creationism. That’s like saying the WWE and TNA are the exact same thing. Creationism is explaining our origins through supernatural mythology stories (ie the bible and Quran) and Intelligent Design is “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Of course Intelligent design resorts to the “God of the gaps” argument, but evolution itself has many gaps in it’s theory. Face it, we may never really know our origins.

Imran Khan says:

Yes you are right Dave and intelligent as we humans may seem we are not the most intelligent. We live in a dimension created for us with laws and human limitations, much like a creation we have not been able to built till now. Which serves our causes but does in some manner harm to us too. there is no system devised till now which is flawless no matter what the claim may be.

Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right !? and far as it may seem we will be one with this world. Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator ? ! A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes. Why!? simply because a creation cannot comprehend completely what or how or Why the creator created it in the first place.

Now God (creator) has created us humans for some sort of exam. we all know there is no eternal life on earth as we understand it unless you believe in the fairy tales literally. Religion it seems is the only guideline that makes sense. all other guidelines that we humans have created for us are both incomplete in nature and also harmfull to humanity.

Since God the creator, (Imagine yourself as a creator of a world and with set rules and laws, predictions, timelines etc etc…. ) does tell you how to live the life and how to proceed with life incase incidents occur. and not one thing mentioned in the Quran is in any way harmful to human race.

It is the destructive nature of man which comes from greed and impatience that can never allow the human race to live in peace. What is nature. ?

A creator almost never wants its creation to kill itself or to take over the creator. A scientist if not working to kill its specimen will not want any such occrance to occur. Why would any loving creator do that. Is God a loving creator or not?

God is a loving creator and that he has mentioned in the Quran more so often. not only Quran, look around you. It is the choice that makes the difference. Choice comes from within and not from any outer source. There is no such thing as destiny unless you want it that way.

Crusades were fought by Muslims for the very peace that they had in their world and they wanted the same for the people under barbaric and currupt rulership.

unfortunately there is no comparison between a muslim from that time and muslim now.

Leaving Islam or Religion aside, God has always sent us messages, for those who want to listen to them or want to know the truth and the whole truth. For those who consider that life (as we know it) is everything, and cannot comprehend the existence of God or a Loving Creator can always continue to live as they wish. The only problem in that is they will live a hard harsh life with no rules and no boundaries much like the apemen were living in the past when they didnt believe in anything. Remember that time ?!

Is it not true that Apemen as we know them or the early people were Athiests and didnt know how to light fire!? and then myths and religion came and societies were established. We as humans will not evolve and have five hands with 10 fingers. No WAY> unless we do some genetic engineering ourselves.

Evolution & Creation go hand in hand. We as living beings have been given the gift of adapting to our surroundings. If this code was not written we would not be able to survive in this world. unless we use oxygen to breathe we cannot go underwater. Human out of all beings on this earth is the most intelligent so much so that it has been said the universe has been created for us…The question is will we be able to live long enough to see the corners of it.

God has created perfection, Humans have not been able to do it. maybe possible but a Creator will not let that happen .. So are you gonna side with the Devil and curse the creator or accept and respect (HIM) your god your creator. !!

Judgment day !! rings any bells….we(creations) are all finite in this dimension except the creator. As soon as he realises its time, he will pull the plug..so heres a hint. Life is a gift….dont waste it…and atleast understand what is best for human race and not for particular club or person..

life is full of secrets…and possibilities are endless.. that makes life even more beautifull…

Forrest Charnock says:

Dear Imran:

There never were any apemen. The only “apeman” ever “found” was Piltdown Man who was a childish fake.

The whole idea of apemen is atheistic. As far as cave men there are people who live in caves today. Some of the Neanderthals who had bigger brains than we do, made super glue , flutes, planted flowers on the graves of their dead, cared for their sick and held religious services lived in caves. They fashioned rooms inside these caves that took above average math skills even by today’s standard. These are well known facts but to explain away God they are portrayed as more animal than human. They were as human as you are and you in fact may be one of their descendants as I may be as well.

History teaches us the oldest people we have records of worshiped one God, the creator of heaven and earth, they were not atheists. Pantheism and the animism of people such as the Arabs with their jins etc. came later.

The whole concept of apemen has no basis in fact and neither does your assertion the ancients were atheists.

jrunyon says:

Forrest,

Again, your very bad science is driven by your bad theology – and – not everyone who disagrees with you is ‘atheistic’. While your note about the Piltdown man is accurate, you have ignored a monument of scientific information that address pre-human bipedal primates.

There clearly have been other ‘bipedal’ primates other than humans. Modern humans are very recent. Scientists refer to their appearance a “Culture Big Bang” where there is an explosion of spiritual express, culture, music, art, etc that took place about 40,000 years ago. (“The Dawn of Human Culture” by Klein & Edgar).

All the recent DNA findings on the Neanderthal is that they are not ‘modern humans’ with a spiritual expression. Further, the earlier primates were clearly non-human (i.e. very primitative, no spiritual expression, music, art). For instance ‘Homo Erectus’ grew and developed like an ape and not a Modern Human (see http://www.reasons.org/focusing-pelvis). An excellent book that discusses the bipedal primates is “Who Was Adam?” by Dr. Fazale Rana.

Jim Runyon

Forrest Charnock says:

No Jim we are not talking about science, science has shown time and
“The odd thing about the Toumai cranium is that it looks chimpanzee-like from the back, but from the front it is said by one expert to pass as an advanced australopithecine. ”

time again the only “ape-man” was Piltdown Man.
Lucy was a knuckle walking ape and the recent nonsense of pushing a lemur as a “human ancestor” has embarrassed even evolutionists, it’s a sick joke.

Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature404(6776):382, 2000.

No matter what the evidence those that deny God must bend it to their view. Everyione, besides you apparently, knew Lucy was just an unusual ape from day one, when it could not be silenced she was a nuckle waalker with EXTREMELY curved hands and feet and the Lucy Dolls at the Fiels Museum, the St. Louis Zoo and other places were frauds equal to Piltman save the fact there really was an ape we call Lucy the story changed from “proof” “pre-humans” walked upright to we evolved from a knuckle walker. I would find the whole story hysterically funny as well as absurd save so many will be lost over it.

Go to the Field Museum, P.T. Barnum would blush at the Lucy doll with her absolutely human figure,hands feet, eyes, nose etc. The people who made the one in St .Louis went so far as to add human genitalia to fool children into believing this side show freak display you call science is true.

You can’t date anything 40ka ago anymore than 40 million. Tell me Jim, since you think you are a scientist how any dating beyond what can be cross checked with human historical record can be done without at least 3 assumptions that are pulled straight from the air? Otherwise you are telling me your faith , not science. I already have a faith.
I predict you will ignore the question and tell me all scientist believe this and that makes it true.
They do not all believe it Jim and even if it was true you could never be sure, you only have the faith, the belief.
Even from an evolutionary view to believe monkeys to turn to man in 40ka is absurd.

By the way, have you forgotten the whole basis of “dating” of “pre-humans” im Europe was exposed as a total and complete fraud?

Remember the “Dating Disaster” or did it slip your mind? Remember Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten who drove a BWM from 97-B.C. and drank 40k year old milk? LOL!

Neanderthals were just as human as you are and you may in fact be one. They made superglue, made complex mathematical calculations, held religious services , buried their dead and played music as they put flowers on the graves of those they cared for and could not be saved.

If you want to know the truth Jim go read Hugh Ross’s first books. He said that any “human-like” creature more than 40 thousand years old was a souless human , an animal. When the evolutionists decided the Aborigines were at least 60ka old he was forced to change his interpretation of the Bible. You criticize my theology, you mock God’s word and those who believe it, but my theology will never change. Truth never changes,God never changes. Those who base their “truth” on the latest fad in science are doomed to die and never be sure if their “interpretation” was correct.

BTW Jim let’s say they did find a bi-pedal ape,so what? I doubt they ever will but the assumption that would prove random events turned monkeys into men is childishly absurd. Have you ever stopped and realized that those who believe in evolution believe in it and then go trying to find evidence to support it? Evolution has nothing to do with science, it is all about God.

Why would the existence of a bi-pedal ape convince anyone DNA rewrote its own order to turn a creature that is still vastly different from a human being into one? It seems you should be looking for a monkey who can read ,write and play chess, that Jim would impress me.

You are convinced with no evidence and all the evidence against your belief you dismiss.

There are a lot of evolutionists who have no real regard for Klein & Edgar

Wood, B., Hominid revelations from Chad, Nature 418:134, 2002.

I could list 20 others if you like.

Apparently you have been brainwashed that all scientist agree, they don’t. The most telling rebuttals of “ape-men” come from evolutionists themselves. It seems the ones who found the fossil have a much different view than their peers as to whether it is a “pre-human”.
Not a lot of grant money in finding ape ancestors.

If you honestly study the history of “humanoids” you find outright frauds like Piltdown and the Lucy Dolls, highly questionable stories like Java Man , huge mistakes like Homo Habilis which one evolutionist claims evolved into Homo Erectus and another says they were our ancestors and others no , and then you have the sensational HollyWood hype of the lemur and the baby Souther Ape .In the end all we have ever found are people and apes, never an ape-man and we never will.
God made apes and He made us. All creatures adapt to their environments but apes will always be apes and people will always be people.

Jim I will give you the benefit of being ignorant of any information nor Ross approved but to claim that all biologist agree that Neanderthals were not human is false. To say you can dig up a bone and decide it has a spirit is absurd.

Please explain, I have a pretty good layman’s knowledge of biology, please tell me how the DNA tells us that Neanderthals had no souls?

These people made music, they were human beings. Some of those 40ka old “pre-humans” proved to be less than 1500 but no adjustment was ever made after the “Dating Disaster” , they waited till the story got cold and swept it under the rug. Ross is the best friend an atheist ever had.

Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language.
Carles Lalueza-Fox et al., “A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals,” Sciencexpress, October 25, 2007: 1–3
Johannes Krause et al., “The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern Humans Was Shared with Neanderthals,” Current Biology 17 (2007):1–5.

PLOS Genetics brings these results and others published on the Neanderthal genome
effrey D. Wall and Sung K. Kim, “Inconsistencies in Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences,” PLoS Genetics, 3 (2007): 1862–1866.
The authors of the article reevaluated work done on sequencing of the Neanderthal genome last year published in the journals Nature and Science and suggest that contamination with modern human DNA may have been a factor for the work published in Nature.

Jim most scientist who get published preach atheistic evolution so all their conclusions are tainted by those assumptions. If you start out believing God spoke the truth to us the evidence makes perfect sense
It is pure assumption that if a particular sample of DNA does not match another that they could not interbreed. No one would ever mistake Neanderthal DNA with a monkeys. .

The idea that ‘modern humans’ and Neandertals interbred (and thus are the same species) is strongly supported by evidence that Neandertals lived side–by–side with modern humans in the Middle East for 100,000 years of evolutionary time, and made virtually identical stone tools.
Bower, B., Neandertals and humans each get a grip, Science News 159(6):84, 2001.

Fossils combining features of both Neandertals and ‘modern humans’ are known from a number of areas including a recent find of a child in Portugal Several excavation sites include both Neandertal and ‘modern humans’ buried together. It is not difficult to conclude that Neandertal Man was totally human, and that ‘modern humans’ and Neandertals likely amalgamated in Europe.

Trinkus, E. and Shipman, P., The Neandertals—changing the image of mankind, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 391, 1993.
Bower, B., Fossil may expose humanity’s hybrid roots, Science News 155(19):295, 1999.
Lubenow, M., Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation, TJ(12)1:87–97, 1998.

The problem with trying to claim historical science and operational hold the same weight is you have to ignore the axioms. Since modern science is controlled by overwhelmingly atheistic people that is the axiom, no God. People like Ross and his ancestors the catastrophists eagerly compromised God’s word to make their theories fit the atheists axiom. They held on to the flood until 1835 when the con-man lawyer Charles Lyell eventually convinced them the Mosaic account was a myth.

All of the world’s best geologists, the late Derek Ager, Steven Gould, Niles Ethredge etc. have made it plain Lyell brainwashed secular geology for 150 years. That is why the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium became so popular, gradualism was based on a well known lie.
But the axiom of no God remained so all the “science” based on Lyell’s lies remains.
Ross thinks if he compromises and agrees with 99.999% of world history the atheists will respect him, they don’t.

He knows that a recent study proved that the more children attend Sunday School and Church the less likely they are to remain in church after graduation and he knows why that is. The reason they gave was overwhelming. The church is too faced, it tells them the Bible is true where it talks of morality and salvation and to just ignore what it says about history and science. They reason a liar is a liar, if the first verse is a lie why read the second?

But this knowledge means nothing to him because he has decided truth for himself. In the end science is beside the point, we all have to die and we all face our maker Jesus Christ. He said the flood was a real event, that humans and animals were created the same day and how anyone can disagree with God , and that is who Jesus is, and can still convince themselves He will save their souls is beyond me.
If He lied about Adam and Eve He is not God.

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The beginning means the beginning or we have no reason to believe .
Correcting God seems unwise, if a person truly believes He exists.

Forrest,

Soon I will do a blog post about YEC vs OEC and you can continue this there AFTER you have read Snoke’s book. Meanwhile I ask you to refrain from posting.

Forrest Charnock says:

I will make you a deal Perry, I will send you a copy of Dr. Safarti’s Refuting Compromise and you send me Snoke’s book and then I will not have to send money to a person I do not wish to support and neither will you.
That seems equitible and fair to me.
Refuting compromise is the best creationist argument against your view and according to you Snokes is for yours.

Perhaps we will both learn something

jrunyon says:

Forrest,

Well, that was quite a disjointed ramble and a lot of personal accusations. It doesn’t even sound like you or the grammar that you used in your other posts.

Both you and I (along with all scientists) agree that the Piltdown Man was a fraud – and – was exposed in the 1950′s. You should complement, rather than condemn, scientists for being honest for rejecting this hoax. This fraud prevented research on other pre-human bipedals (e.g., Australopithecine) discoveries for years (in the 1920′s, over 90 years ago). Science does self-correct itself. Please do the same – and – get on with new scientific discoveries. Living 50 years in the past with Halton Arp/Fred Hoyle – or – 90 years in the past with the Piltdown fraud has ZERO relevance today.

Neanderthals are NOT Human. The most recent DNA analysis indicates, not only that they were not human, but that Neanderthals did not contribute to the human genome. Here is a quote from the latest studies: “The mitochondrial DNA of thousands of living humans already has been examined. The Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA examined to date is distinctly different from that of humans… No mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthals have been encountered in modern humans.” Ed Greer, Max Plank Institute, Sept 2009

You continue to say that we can’t date anything past human history. You say “you can’t date anything 40ka ago anymore that 40million.” You really should read Roger Wiens discussion on the valid “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html . He not only discusses some of the ‘simple clocks’ and 13 radiometric clocks.

It is essential that you use the RIGHT CLOCK for the RIGHT JOB. Having multiple ‘right’ clocks to date things is essential. As I’ve stated before, there hundreds of clocks in nature and NO clock shows that the earth is 6000 years old. Show me one!?

In Summary
- Tree Rings go back to 8000 years (Bristlecone Pine) while others go back over 12,000 years.
- Polar Ice Cores (2.25miles in length) go back 37,000 years with visible volcanic ash confirming the annual layers; with Oxygen-18 dating going back over 100,000 years; and other radiometric dating going back to 720,000 years (each show clear variation of CO2, CH4, O-18, temperature)
- Coral Reefs. Modern/active coral reefs also have growth ‘rings’ and can be dated back >100,000 years. Ancient Coral reefs that we find on land around the world go back over 225,000 years.
- Light from Stars. Light takes time to travel.
+ Sun-Earth: 8 sec
+ Sun-Pluto: 315 sec (5.24 min)
+ Next-nearest-Star to Earth: 4.2 years (i.e. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away)
+ Across the Milkyway: 100,000 years (i.e. it takes 100,000 light years for light to transverse the Milkyway)
+ Adromeda to Milkyway: 2,900,000 years (i.e. 2.9million light years)
- Radiometric Clocks (see Roger Wiens document, above)

In summary, you claim that most (if not all) scientific findings are all invalid since most scientists are atheists. Also, that the reason for children abandoning the Christian faith is because of science. I would agree with the later if they are exposed to young-earth “Alternate Science” that has little (if any) scientific basis. When I first started my science-faith journey, I was excited about young-earth creationism UNTIL I tried to explain it – an impossible task given the convoluted logic of their various ‘alternate explanations’.

I think we, as Christians, should love science because it shows us the amazing design in the universe – and – gives us clear insight into the character of God (Rom 1).

Jim Runyon

Forrest Charnock says:

Jim:

sometimes I write things on this forum when I can’t sleep and barely remember doing it . I apologize for the ramble.

Your defense of {scientists} I find rude as you always consider only those who agree the Bible is not the word of God and must be reinterpreted to “fit” “modern science” to be such. As far as Piltdown Man Harvard Press still used it as evidence in 1966.
All I can say is when I hear that cliche argument, all of your arguments seem to be cliches, that “scientists” protected us by exposing Piltdown I hear kowtow. For 43 years a fraud that would not fool a smart 10 year old was accepted and led many to deny Christ. If you are a Christian then why is that not your great concern and why does it not cause you to question evolution in general? It took 30 years before anyone bothered to check out the “Dating Disaster” yet I am told to be proud “scientists” protected me from error? Please note the creationists you consider idiots were never fooled by that or the even worse error of Uniformitarianism that took 150 years for the secularists to concede and yet many still refuse to..

” Living 50 years in the past with Halton Arp/Fred Hoyle ”

Please do some research, Halton Arp is alive and well and researching at this moment. Making it up does not impress me. You are a smart guy but you are brainwashed and “know” that anyone who disagrees with the party line is an idiot whether they be Christian or atheist so you have no need to study opposing views . Arp is right , the Big Bang is a joke. Christian theologians argued against it is the 2nd century . It is an assumption even Hubble “reluctantly” admitted was just one possible interpretation of red shift.

The southern apes are just that ,apes! None of them walked upright and Lucy was a knuckle walker with super long digits. The Gibbons are far closer to humans in the way they are designed than southern apes yet since they live today no evolutionists claims they are our ancestor.

There are plenty of scientists, secular as well as creationists that interpret Neanderthals as fully human. The fact many disagree means nothing unless you can explain how they could perform complex math , make musical instruments, super glue , have the social structure to bury their dead, perform religious ceremonies etc. If you don’t want to believe the bible you can torture scientific data to sing any tune you want. Claiming all “real” scientist see Neanderthals as non-human is either ignorant or worse. It always amazes me that Christians who compromise the word of God agree with atheists the vast majority of the time and claim those who say that God is the authority and He and Jesus Christ say that scripture is divine are idiots. By that definition being a Christian is an idiot. Those you follow tell you that all the time yet you seek their approval, not God’s.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm

I have read “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” and there is nothing Christian about it, he gives the same arguments the atheists do .
Why don’t you read the R.A.T.E. report. The head scientist on the project wrote the Tara program and NASA sees him as the best geophysicist on earth, as do others. Yet you “know” he is wrong because he believes the book you claim to follow. If there was death before sin the Bible is a lie. Even if the operational science seemed to disagree I would go with God’s view but it does not, only atheistic interpretations you have been taught are facts.

Show me from the Bible that there could have been thorns and thistles before Adam or be honest with yourself and admit the Bible is not your authority, man is.

There are no “clocks” , a clock can be cross checked and tested in real time. The past is past and all we can do is look at the present and make up stories, or accept God’s version which seems to repulse you.

Read what Lilly said about equilibrium and then read the R.A.T.E. Report. The majority of the R.A.T.E report is referenced from secular sciences records. How is it creationists excel at geology while dismissing great ages as the heathen belief it has always been. If you do not believe in God you must accept great ages, does that not for a second make you pause? Is it a coincidence that those who take God at His word all dismiss great ages and all those who hate God promote them?

I can show you a “clock” that does scientifically “prove” the 6000 years the Bible teaches, in fact I can give you 2 as well as over 100 other evidences for a young earth but your mind is welded shut on the issue. The atheists would laugh and persecute you and you can see no reason to stand up and claim the Bible as your authority seeing as it is not such.

Read the R.A.T.E. Report, you can download the short version for free. It details a scientific test similar to ur-lead , pot str etc that gives a date of 6000 years plus or minus 2000. Also Mitochondrial Eve when the figures are adjusted for new discoveries since the report first came out gives a date of 6000 years. Even though I believe both are correct to use them as “proof” the Bible is true is to say God’s Word does not make it so, ever think of that? Any of man’s ideas, correct or otherwise used to prove, or as in your case, disprove the truth of scripture is blasphemy.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

“Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago). She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent. The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA (Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emphasis added).

And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers. The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:

Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).

Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.[b]For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added).[/b]

Maybe you should try a Christian website, Trueorigins ,rather that the people who gave us :Genesis is a Jokesis” , of course you seem to agree with article and I would assume the flat earth accusation as well.
If you can’t beat vilify ‘em.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
There is nothing , period, on this earth older than the flood. That is the word of God!
That being said you are dead wrong about Bristle comb Pines. The scientist responsible for them cut one down and counted the rings, it was around 4500 you can look it up. The figures thrown around of 6- 9000 years are of fossil trees subjected to the incredibly fallible carbon 14 method and is a cheap trick attempt to get Bible believers to accept that “science” has trumped God’s word, it has done no such thing. You are representing an assumption as a fact. I am not so easily brainwashed.

An interesting sidebar is the scientist realizing he had killed one of the oldest living things on earth planted some in Arizona to try and make up for it. Quickly he concluded that in wet years more than one growth ring is produced throwing ALL TREE RING DATA into question.
You need to do your homework, to present c-14 data as fact without even telling the person it is in fact c-14 data is dishonest, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the atheists without question but you have been warned. If you ever do that again it will be deliberately untrue.

A light year is a measurement of distance, not time. The Big Bang has the same problem all cosmologies do, Biblically sound or otherwise.

For the temperatures of the background microwave radiation to have equalized would take in excess of 100 billion light years yet the BB claims 12-15 . All “real” cosmologist know this but for simple minded people the starlight proves God is a myth argument is
way too effective to worry about silly details like the truth , logic and good science.

There are far more scientific arguments against millions or billions of years than for them but please understand, ALL atheists believe in great ages and evolution. That was true centuries before Christ was born, it was true when He was born, it is true now and will be until He returns.
No one is insane enough to believe that the world popped into existence quickly for no apparent reason. Sadly there are few who have the faith to believe in the creative power of God, the power Christ used to heal the sick and raise the dead.

Here is a deep thought, if it takes billions of years for God to wait around while the New Heaven and the New Earth create themselves where will we be? Or do you even believe that 100 million years from now you will be alive in heaven with Jesus? Please take this question seriously, what you believe about the age of the earth does not affect your salvation unless of course it affects your belief in Jesus Christ and His blood redemption of your soul. If He lied , or was just too stupid to know better about the flood and Adam then how can you believe He is God at all ? If I accepted the secularist world view I would be one. Think ! Live!

Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

YEC is good enough for Jesus Christ ,a literal view of Genesis 1-11 was good enough for Jesus Christ the Son of God , why are you so violently opposed?

It is essential that you use the RIGHT CLOCK for the RIGHT JOB. Having multiple ‘right’ clocks to date things is essential. As I’ve stated before, there hundreds of clocks in nature and NO clock shows that the earth is 6000 years old. Show me one!?

I

jrunyon says:

Forrest –

This sounds like another late-night ramble. I might suggest that you capture your response in a text file and edit/review it the next day before submitting your response.

I do not find any of the Young Earth ‘scientific’ arguments convincing. They are easily refutable. One Christian web site that does this systematically is ‘Answers in Creation’ at http://www.answersincreation.org

I am familiar with the R.A.T.E. experiment by Young Earth Creationists and, from a positive perspective, they attempted to conduct a valid scientific experiment in spite of the pre-experiment bias that the results had to show a timeframe consistent with their young earth views. The R.A.T.E. study focused only 1 of the ~50 radiometric dating mechanisms (i.e. ‘clocks’), namely Heilum diffusion rate in Zircron (note: this is a challenging experiment since, as a gas, Helium is very difficult to retain in rocks and get accurate results). I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R.A.T.E. folks since 2007. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists. For a good summary of the objections, see the American Scientific Association (a Christian organization) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm In summary, the many objections to the R.A.T.E. study and its methodologies have been raised to nullify any significance in their findings. Also, if you look at all the other ~50 radiometric ‘clocks’ that have more accurate methodologies (i.e. not slippery Helium), they all point overwhelmingly to a very ancient earth.

Halton Arp: Yes he is still alive, and he’s still objects to the Big Bang. His 1966 book on “Atas of Peculiar Galaxies” documented 338 galaxies that, in 1966, did not fall into any classic categories of galaxy shapes. However, with the advent of the Hubble Telescope/etc. his objections have been sufficiently addressed. On the other hand, evidence for the Big Bang has increased by orders of magnitude such that it is the most tested & proved theory of all time – while Halton Arp’s objections are systematically discarded. So, you have the Big Bang proven to 99.9999999999999% +/- 0.0000000000001 while Halton Arp’s theory has a confidence of 1% +/- 1%. You may hold onto the 1% confidence if you wish, but I think you are ‘wishing’ upon a dream.

I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me (and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science) as an atheist. I see this universe as God’s handiwork and that a study of this handiwork (i.e. science) reveals his character to both Christians and non-Christians that are studying his handiwork.

Jim Runyon

jrunyon says:

Forrest -

This sounds like another late-night ramble. I might suggest that you capture your response in a text file and edit/review it the next day before submitting your response.

I do not find any of the Young Earth ‘scientific’ arguments convincing. They are easily refutable. One Christian web site that does this systematically is ‘Answers in Creation’ at http://www.answersincreation.org

I am familiar with the R.A.T.E. experiment by Young Earth Creationists and, from a positive perspective, they attempted to conduct a valid scientific experiment in spite of the pre-experiment bias that the results had to show a timeframe consistent with their young earth views. The R.A.T.E. study focused only 1 of the ~50 radiometric dating mechanisms (i.e. ‘clocks’), namely Heilum diffusion rate in Zircron (note: this is a challenging experiment since, as a gas, Helium is very difficult to retain in rocks and get accurate results). I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R.A.T.E. folks since 2007. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists. For a good summary of the objections, see the American Scientific Association (a Christian organization) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm In summary, the many objections to the R.A.T.E. study and its methodologies have been raised to nullify any si!
gnificance in their findings. Also, if you look at all the other ~50 radiometric ‘clocks’ that have more accurate methodologies (i.e. not slippery Helium), they all point overwhelmingly to a very ancient earth.

Halton Arp: Yes he is still alive, and he’s still objects to the Big Bang. His 1966 book on “Atas of Peculiar Galaxies” documented 338 galaxies that, in 1966, did not fall into any classic categories of galaxy shapes. However, with the advent of the Hubble Telescope/etc. his objections have been sufficiently addressed. On the other hand, evidence for the Big Bang has increased by orders of magnitude such that it is the most tested & proved theory of all time – while Halton Arp’s objections are systematically discarded. So, you have the Big Bang proven to 99.9999999999999% +/- 0.0000000000001 while Halton Arp’s theory has a confidence of 1% +/- 1%. You may hold onto the 1% confidence if you wish, but I think you are ‘wishing’ upon a dream.

I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me (and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science) as an atheist. I see this universe as God’s handiwork and that a study of this handiwork (i.e. science) reveals his character to both Christians and non-Christians that are studying his handiwork.

Jim Runyon

Jorge says:

It is true, there are unanswered questions, or gaps, in the theory of evolution. Same can be said for the theory of gravitation. However, there’s also tons and tons of evidence supporting them. There is NO evidence, however, that supports the lie of Creationis… I mean, Intelligent Design.

I have to disagree, Jorge. I have shown 100% inference to design and my opponents have shown 0% inference to any other explanation.

Forrest Charnock says:

Dear Jorge:

Sadly you seem to have confused the difference between evidence and the interpretations of said evidence. The school system brainwashes people into accepting popular opinion among scientists as fact and they misrepresent the number of scientist who do not accept Darwinism by a factor of about 10k to one.

The evidence used to argue for evolution is the exact same evidence used to argue for creationism or ID . We all live in the same universe, study the same stars , the same living creatures, the same plants ,the same rocks , the same fossils and we all use the exact same science to study these things with. Just in case I missed one perhaps you can give me one single example of a law of nature or major branch of modern science that was founded by an evolutionist? Good luck, there may be one but so far no evolutionist has ever been able to give me an example.

I brought the fact up that the core of western science is the brainchild of theistic scientists to hopefully get you to realize your bias against Christians in science is unfounded, without Christian’s there would be no modern science to claim was the work of atheists. That being said what one believes has little to do with operational science. You mention gravitation in the same breath with evolution and mocking theist.
Please learn the difference between ID theorist who may or not be theists and creationists who are all Bible believers. Even atheists like Francis Crick of DNA fame doubted Darwin and believed we were intelligently designed by little green men. Of course he could never answer where the little green men came from.

Regardless of what you believe about origins water still boils at 212 degrees f. at sea level, airplanes [a creationists invention btw} fly by the same principles , and M.R.I. machines {also a creationist invention} work the same way. Plate tectonics [another creationists idea} is pretty much he same whether you believe we magically and spontaneously generated ourselves for no apparent reason or were created by God. The disagreement is why the plates started moving in the first place and why they even exist.
The secularist has no clue , the creationist knows why. The whole idea of plate tectonics comes straight out of Genesis. You can laugh all you want but the man N.A.S.A. goes to on this subject and to make earthquake predictions for them and wrote the supercomputer programs used by the vast majority of the world’s major universities did so to explain Noah’s Flood. The idea started with the creationist Antonio Snider , who like the founder of genetics Gregor Mendel had the grave misfortune to publish in 1859 and was ignored for decades. Who knows where we be now if Mendel was not silenced by the Darwinist for half a century? In case you are unaware Darwin printed his novel in 1859. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as the Origin of the species. {Of course he never addressed the subject of origins in the book}

That is a perfect example of your confusion . The software was created on the assumption the Bible is true but if you choose to not believe that on religious grounds you can tweak the starting assumptions and make it work on an atheistic assumption of millions of years. Of course you will never come up with an explanation for why plate tectonics even exists. The evidence is the same, same plates, same mountains, same everything. The argument has NOTHING to do with evidence, only interpretations.

What happened in the remote past, whether you believe that is thousands or billions of years ago lies in the realm of historical science.
The very fact you have been taught to compare gravity with evolution is overwhelming evidence evolution is a bait and switch, that it is without substance, unscientific. We can do experiments to test the effects of gravity so we know the force we call gravity exists . Again, the secularist can never now what caused it.
As far as believing a dinosaur evolved into a bird there is no experiment to prove that nor a rational, scientific, and logical explanation as to how it could have occurred,much less a shred of evidence it did.
When we find a dinosaur bone, despite what you are taught at school, it exists in the present. you cannot dig up the past. The dinosaur bone proves one thing and one thing only, it died. They do not come with a date stamp or a genealogy chart. There is no way to calibrate a scale past the time of recorded history and any “dating” method you choose requires you to make at minimum 3 unknowable and unprovable assumptions. You can manufacture any date you choose my changing the assumptions which are based on your world view. You have to have a deep and totally blind religious faith to pick up a T-Rex bone with soft and stretchy meat on it, blood in its blood vessels and reeking of the stench of death and proclaim it is 65ma old! Not to mention it has easily identifiable amounts of c-14 scientifically proving it cannot be 100ka old, much less even one million.

That bone is better explained in a Biblical chronology , that it is less than 4500 years old, blood cells, DNA, and the stench of death lasting for 65 million years requires a deep and abiding religious faith.

There are tens of thousands of scientists who believe the Bible, including many of the world’s best. There are many times that many who doubt Darwin. That does not prove anything other than those who claim “All Scientists Agree” have no real argument . Claiming something is true because a majority believes it is called the bandwagon fallacy.
When you told your mother you should be allowed to do something because the other kids were she asked if you would follow them off a bridge. That my friend is the number one argument for evolution by a huge factor, it is no argument at all.

Evidence does not speak for itself and without an interpretation is pretty meaningless. When dealing with the past the best evidence is an eyewitness. Only God witnessed His creation, not the evolutionists.

Can you answer the most basic questions about evolution? Where did the information in the first living organism come from, where did the pattern of the chemicals that formed it come from and where did the information for it to reproduce itself come from? If you cannot answer all that is left is the realization you choose to believe in evolution because you don’t want to believe in God. That is illogical.

jrunyon says:

Forrest,

Sigh! Now you’re an expert on dinosaur bones – and – not surprisingly your theology requires them to be 4500 years old!

My previous post stated that there are hundreds and hundreds/thousands of clocks in the earth and the universe – and – there are NONE that show the earth or universe to be less than 6000 years old. Even tree rings (e.g. Bristlecone pine) are over 8000 years and other trees are over 12,000 years old. Another ‘clock’ is the layers of earth. I have a whole presentation on these/other simple clocks so I can give more examples if needed.

As for the ‘layers of earth’ clock, there are over 30 places on earth where the complete geological column is in tact. These layers do tell time plus a lot more about what happened during each time frame. (Note: there are places on earth where, due to plate tectonics, where lower layers in the geological column are exposed to the surface).

As for dinosaurs, they exist in three distinct layers: the Triassic, Jurassic and the Cretaceous eras, each with clearly delineated boundaries. Each layer has dinosaurs unique to that era and there are clear indications of long periods of time (e.g., footprints, procreation, defecating, insect tracks, termite activity, etc.). More importantly, there are NO MAMMALS buried with the dinosaurs except for a small mouse-like creature. Mammals, especially humans, show up over 1000 feet above the dinosaur layers. So YES!! There is a way of calibrating these times even without resorting to the multitude of radiometric clocks. If anyone says that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed, it is a BOLD LIE that has zero scientific support. To further say that all the dinosaurs swam for many days during the flood, then dying, sinking to the bottom and forming 3 distinct layers is the type of science you get when you are trying to force fit it into your narrow view of theology.

As for plate tectonics, we know the devastation they caused in Haiti (2010) and the Indian Ocean (2004). The later was just a 33ft lateral and 13-16ft vertical movement of the fault and it caused a 100ft Tsunami that killed over 230,000 people. The energy was 550,000,000 times Hiroshima bomb. The model you reference would have a 2000 MILE movement of the continents during the one-year flood and moved the continents from Pangaea to their current location. If this were to happen, so much energy would be release to vaporize all oceans and melt the surface of the earth.

Many of the answers to your ‘alternate science’ have already been address by geologists without an agenda. See http://www.answersincreation.org

Please stop re-stating all this goofy ‘alternate science’ produced by young-earth creationist.

Jim Runyon

FredHahn says:

Perry –

We don’t know where it all came from! No one does. I don’t want to believe in anything. I want to know.

RE: DNA:

“Here is the problem with the theist argument that DNA is a code. DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend.

It is a set of chemicals that have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.

DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.”

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

“It is a set of chemicals that have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.”

This is completely incorrect. The genetic code, like any code, is freely chosen. There are billions of possible choices that could have been made but there is one choice that was made. This is the simplest aspect that separates life from non-life. Non-life only obeys laws. But life obeys codes and codes are freely chosen.

For example see The genetic code is one in a million:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9732450

Anyone who tells you DNA is not a code fundamentally misunderstands the very definition of bioinformatics and DNA itself. Search

claude shannon genetic code

on Google Scholar and start reading the thousands of scientific papers that come up.

To argue that DNA is not code is hopeless, and in my experience, only hardened atheists attempt to make this argument, for fairly predictable reasons. Look it up in any biology book. As I have told others, you will get nowhere pursuing this line of argumentation.

GM says:

Good Day

You imply RNA and DNA don’t disgard molecules that don’t fit the pattern of replication. The helix being the end result.
You can not prove with imperical evidence that DNA or RNA are a design function of God. It takes an astronomical leap of faith, only, to accept the hypothesis you propose.

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

That is 100% logical and only requires faith that the observations of science thus far are reasonably reliable.

Qqccho says:

Perry,
You always give same answers. Is your response so narrow?. Don’t you think that expressing yourself with more data input to your theories will convince or give the readers a more deep insight to your ideas on which I agree; “A Creator must exists and no Gods since are so many as well as religions. You have created a whole sound theory without the need of a cult or a religion or even J.C.”. Quotes are mine. For the Creator just a sign was needed to start all the Creation Process from the very start. If he could create such magnificent Universe then He could also decide how the process would be, wouldn’t Him?
Is it a possibility that He decided to Ceate everything in one shot and let His Tool- Evolution, to carry on without any other interferences in time?

Qqccho,

sure it is possible that the creator instigated everything in one single action.

We didn’t create DNA or RNA; we gave them definition and observe how they assemble themselves. We are a composite of trillions of cells. That implies nor infers a designer to me. We have to accept God on faith alone…trying to prove God’s existence is futile. How can anyone prove what exist, as God, has no beginning and no end. God seems to be different, He isn’t bound by the laws of the universe. I heard it said once we will travel by the speed of thought.
Body impluses travel at 300,000 kilometers a second.
I like your example of the typist implies a typer. Same as the watch and watch maker. That is logic for you. I can’t believe logic is the silver bullet everyone is looking for.
For now that’s all we have!

ramsai says:

Test this logic about God!
http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com/creative-visualization/

Its all pure science.

Only think, visualize or imagine with an open-mind. Dream the OUTCOME but not the MEANS. Coz’ when one thinks of means one will inevitably plan. Eventually, in the process of planning, one considers all the pros and cons. Thus, one is also weighing the relative impact of the choices taken & the methods chosen to reach the END. Many things like social obligations, professional commitments, financial duels & personal states of mind invariably have their effect when the MEANS or PATH to be taken is planned. Apart from this the limitations of the present existence as a mortal and boundaries of the mind constrict the means.

One has both positive (that enhances the possibility of the event happening) and negative (that undermines the OUTCOME) currents. These currents are the emotional forces which give energy to the thought constructs conceived by the mind. When one resorts to negative thinking, all the possible thoughts of obstruction to the CAUSE, scheme to truly build roadblocks. Since the mind sees the situation as a problem, the reality which is a mental construct / maya will present genuine hurdles. Thus, the mind is both a true friend as well as the worst enemy through out one’s life.

How to resolve this?

Right thinking.

Literature all over the world recommends that we adopt POSITIVE THINKING. But, tell me, “If I had that kind of a control over the mind so as to force it to think positively, then, why would I think negatively in the first place? Hence, the plethora of “positive living” books are useful only to bring about an awareness of how the reality actually operates and how much the mental state or thought process has a say in the creation of reality. Only, in a few handful cases, these positive thinking books rub off a bit of their philosophy. In the rest, they only evoke a head level appreciation of the essential truth that is put forth in the form of an eye opening book but they don’t develop emotional attachment to the principles stated and in the process, eventually the dream or the spark of desire dies coz’ the energy required to sustain the mental construct was missing( both gut and nut level are required, the nut level to appreciate the books capacity to bring joy & happiness). Since the intellect is in itself the limiting factor, in most spiritual disciplines one is asked to drop even the guise of the mind to realize the true self cause the being called GOD or the true self is pure energy or feelings, it is the essence of the universe minus the mental construct or maya. The universe is the dream or mental construct of GOD or this pure energy BEING. We are infinitesimally small components of this dream . Of all the components that evolved , the most evolved ones purified themselves fully ie. became benign or desire less ,washed themselves from maya and stay out of the dream (MATRIX-travellers). They are no different than the SOURCE but retain the capacity to desire to play and experience – it is boring to live for eternity in sea of peace, light and silence.

But thinking capacity and creative thought can only function constructively for the well being and harmony of the universe only when emanating from consciousness (by being in the here & now) and not from the EGO (which tides the waves of space & time and hence reside in the relative time frame – this produces varied behavior with different people in different situations depending upon class, racial, financial and religious status.)Ego develops duality (I, me , myself & you, us & them, they, GOD) keeping one separate from the rest of the universe and dreaming a dream(for himself) inside a dream(universe).

But when one operates from the level of conscious he is bereft of all the above considerations as he is one with the source of the universe, and he has no dream apart from the universal dream he is in, and this dream is immeasurably better than anything that he can concive of coz this dream is formed from the wisdom of over countless births or evolutions of the universe. Though the SOURCE or GOD is benign it carries impressions of all its lives and this IT weaves into the fabric of the universe which it is dreaming. ( Vishnu-brahma)

Every problem comes with its solution cause causality is an integral ingredient for the dream to go on.integral truth

At the consciousness level everything is in a resolved state cause every event is accompanied by the resolution and since every bit of this universe emanates from it(big bang) and everything finally has its dissolution in it and also since everything is its reflection it would invariably reflect its qualities of serenity and love.

Approaching God to resolve a situation with hope(mental construct of desire) and faith in the heart(energy born of intuition not logic) definitely accomplishes the desired result. The medium of GOD helps to operate from the consciousness level. And since only the outcome is visualized in the prayer and the course and also power to overcome the hurdles in the path are left to GOD or consciousness the adage is true – God listens to our prayer’.

The trick here is to relay on a higher intelligence that has both conceived the universe and at the same time is sustaining it to maintain harmony and experience itself through its creation.

In truth GOD does nothing. He is benign and sleeping otherwise how can he dream this universe and us.

In truth we are the creators of our destiny. When we don’t let go of our mind playing GOD by determining every bit of the course we do at many times realize our ambitions but in truth are only threading the path which is deterministic in content cause we are then only mental beings and not conscious beings and hence are bound by the laws of causation enveloping this mortal frame and hence the complete path of life can be easily tracked by scientific methods like astrology, palmistry, etc. which merely use the principle of one to one correlation that exists between every single component regardless of their relative sizes coz everything is permeated by the dream of the ONE consciousness. Thus the adage the microcosm reflects the macro.

To become the masters of our destinies all we have to do is stop being the creators of our destiny. That is the paradox of duality. Cause when we stop playing GOD we become one with the creation and as the acceptance(benign) of the one reality becomes more and more unconditional, the closer we come to our Self.

thanks for letting me express.
Happy new Year

fredd says:

The intelligent design theory you are putting forth may show strong anecdotal evidence for the existence of a supreme being, but does NOT prove such an intelligence is the one imagined by Christians in any way, shape or form. Such an intelligence could just as well be the monotheistic pantheism of the Hindu faith (the Bramahn), the Great Spirit envisioned by some Native American tribes, or even (as many suspect) NONE of these religious viewpoints at all and something we simply do not understand.

I simply cannot make a leap of faith based on scientific evidence that is skewed to act as proof of one belief system, when the belief system and the existence of an Intelligent designer are completely and irrevocably outside the tenets of a particular faith. This is the exact reason that the US government does not want intelligent design used in a classroom—it will be regionally usurped to explain a particular belief, and that is as un-American as communism.

I think instead you are preaching to the choir, and are trying to use science to prove Christianity, which is inaccurate and non-scientific in itself. Evidence creates a theory, and the evidence you lecture on does not prove Christian theology in any way that I can read, and I heard all your lectures on this site.

ramsai says:

http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com

HERE & NOW : is the most elusive key to waking up from this dream called reality.

Here & now is the end product of the shrinkage of the quantum of time such that a moment holds eternity.

We usually live our lives going to & fro between the past & future. The impressions (sanskaras) of the past in conjunction with the expectations of the future together engross the ego in an endless loop of pride/attitude & unrealistic desires OR fear & apprehensions.

This creates the game called life in which we spend all our lives deeply engrossed. But like any game the better player wins. Hence the priority of life should be to master the rules of the game & then without even playing we will be winners. This is the true lesson of the Bhagavat Gita- perform action without expectations of fruits (coz if the karma is done correctly the fruit will follow). One more advantage of not thinking of fruits/future is –one will not be bogged down by the limitations of a doubting mind. This achieves two ends; firstly our own minds negative thinking will not undermine the result & secondly instead of using our limited intellect & experience, we let the universal intelligence in conjunction with collective conscience guide us. This process produces avenues & results that can be termed to be magical coz our higher self in communion with GOD is at work.

The task mentioned above is both easy & difficult. It is easy if one simply accepts the truth that the whole creation is but one single unified dance which is emulated both in the microcosm & also in the macrocosm. This is the reason the ancients said not a leaf moves or an ant bites without the permission of SHIVA. That is the reason elders who are wise say –everything happens for the best.

Some times the drama of life is to drive home a truth while at other times it is just for the sheer pleasure of existence. At times even when the truth is bitter to swallow, if taken with the awareness that it is a game, will make one have the sporting spirit to play better in the game ahead. After all the true self of us has played many such games in the past & it is facing the present calamity because it did not learn to master it in the past lives; so at least now let us master ourselves to exist in here & now and see the game as the game that it really is. Let us not make the mind a slave to the circumstances but make the reality reflect the state of our minds.

Living in the here & now doesn’t necessarily mean not drawing from past experiences or having passion to excel in the future; all it means is to commit oneself 100% to the situation one is presently in. Coz’ the happiness which one expects to have in the future is also present in every moment because though the reasons for happiness may be outside, the source of all joy, happiness & ecstasy is within.

As long as we live our life in compartments, we lead a fragmented life. Whenever ‘I’ becomes a priority like ‘I am’ (engineer, Hindu, telugu, officer) or ‘my’ (family, car, house, money) then we are limiting ourselves while in truth we are the source of the universe. By living in the here & now the objects & qualifications will still belong to us but we don’t belong to just these. It is just a paradigm shift in the mind state, everything will be as it is outside. Ultimately on this path we will encompass the whole universe in our mind– this is what the Vedas meant by ‘Aham Brahmasvi’

1. When we oscillate in time we are in effect living life in compartments. We get divided between the glories or guilt of the past & promises & fears of the future. But when we live life by the moment, reality glides past us with no power to cling to us. In effect , as Guru Nanak said, we live in the world but the world doesn’t live in us. This is the golden rule of being in the here & now – to be attached to life in a detached manner. One performs ones duties(karma) without losing the inner serenity. It is very easy to lead a detached life if one considers the fact that not me but a universal intelligence has created the abounding sophisticated human body & a precise solar system & it is but obvious that our lives will well taken of since we are made in his image

The practice of meditation is represented by the three monkeys, who cover their eyes, ears and mouths so as to avoid the phenomenal world. The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life. Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei

To be in the here & now all one needs is a shift in perception towards life involving the child ego( childlike innocence but not childish), adult ego( full of jest for life & compassion but not undue insistence) & parent ego(not dictating but appealing to our higher wisdom).

And all this can be accomplished by just not being in conflict & assimilating the fact that we are one with the creation. By realizing we are an integral part of it & not apart from it.

By dealing with life in a subjective manner while analyzing it in an objective manner.

TRANQUILITY PEACE HARMONY
TO ALL THOSE WHO DESERVE IT

Oh Lord! Thy vision is fathomless, what! with thy experience of all the previous evolutions. An endless chain of creations and dissolusions (big bangs and blackholes). This the poets of the modern era call the blackhole-sun.The hindu symbolists named it as the angavastra(garment) worn by Gods especially Ganesha-the Lord of learning or wisdom.(the angavastra is a continuous chain of 108 puffs of cotton to symbolize the day of brahma or the active state of creation & each puff is followed by an equal length of rolled cotton representing the night of Brahman or desolution. If ones passes the state of a blackhole-sun(resolution of opposites) then such a soul has reached the heart of every creation – Ohm . This is the first sound that permeates every virgin universe & as the rate of expansion in vacuum slows down after the bigbang the syllables move from a ‘Ooooo’ to ‘Ummm’ to ‘mmmm’.

The above words are by me but still I am not the above words.

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always long to return.
— Leonardo da Vinci

Forrest Charnock says:

All scientist have an agenda, only the most naive person thinks that anyone in unbiased. The question is which bias is best. My bias it that of Jesus Christ who said scripture cannot be broken, a view you are quite hostile to.

No offense but you are very ignorant of this subject or worse. As I have told you the oldest tree on earth, if you accept tree ring chronologies as infallible, is less than 5000 years old. The 8ka and 12ka year ‘dates” are based on c- 14 dates of fossil trees or creative math applied to colonial trees {usually including c-14 data} and a minimum of 3 unprovable and unknowable assumptions. I will say this one more time, to present these great dates for Bristlecone Pines as tree ring chronologies is untrue and deceptive. Your authority is man’s fallible ideas and you always choose them over the Bible.

WIKI
The record holders for an individual non-clonal tree are Great Basin Bristlecone Pine trees from California and Nevada in the United States, dated 4,000 to 5,000 years old by counting tree rings. The oldest is known as “Prometheus” (which is now dead), located on Wheeler Peak in Nevada; dendrochronology revealed the tree to be almost 4,900 years old.[2] The oldest living non-clonal tree (verified by dendochronology) is “Methuselah” (almost 4,800 years old), a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine still growing in a “secret location” somewhere in the White Mountains of California.[3]

That is it . All the dates older than that are estimates based on highly assumptive methods by people with an agenda to deny God.
If you make the claim again that anything has been shown by tree ring chronology, which is not in any way shape or form infallible , t be more than 5ka old I will have to assume your agenda has become more important to you than the truth. I have now given you the benefit of the doubt twice, that is enough.

jrunyon says:

Forrest –

The best answer to your tree ring discussion is from “Answers in Genesis,” an organization that you embrace. John Woodmorappe in his “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology” states that “the 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year.” Further, he states that these 8,000 years are Post Flood because of “fossiliferous sediment under the …” the trees. Since most Young Earth Creationists put the flood at 4,000 years ago, this is a big problem for them.

There are multiple other trees that are much older (12,000-15,000 years) and, while they do rely on C-14 dating for the older portions of the trees, we can be fairly certain that they are accurate (within the error bars) since they can be calibrated using C-14 dating from the section of the trees where the rings can be clearly counted. Young Earth Creationists, of course, reject anything C-14 based even for something as simple as I just mentioned – but they are forced to do so because to do otherwise, is to negate their ‘young earth’ pre-supposition.

The Woodramorrape reference is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine

- Jim Runyon

Hornbill says:

I’ve only just stumbled on this, so forgive me if you’ve answered elsewhere. I checked the FAQ.

You ask, in your presentation, to show you any naturally occuring code or symbol.

First, let me point out that early Egyptian writing used symbols, rather than an alphabet. We can both agree such writing still falls within the category of writing, communication and code.

Poisonous sea snakes are bright red, with black stripes. Wasps and bees are bright yellow, with black stripes. As such, if you came across any crittur that was brightly colored, with black stripes, you’d “read” that to say “poisonous”.

Arguably, it’s a code.

For a symbol, consider how many butterflies have patterns that effectively mimic “eyes”, to scare off predators. So is that purely a pattern – or symbols? Evolutionists would say patterns that evolved into symbols…

Consider camoflage (sp?), such as a tiger’s orange and black stripes. It’s a pattern, but one with meaning, ie hiding.

So in nature we have codes, symbols and meaning.

I mention this because while I think you’re onto something in that information cannot mutate without destroying itself, your argument that no naturally occuring symbols exist, is weak. Arguably, they do. You can say they exist via patterns, so don’t mean anything – but they do mean something to the predator avoiding the poisonous crittur or the “large” crittur with the staring eyes etc.

Apart from that, good work :o )

The fact that bees waggle and there are ant pheromones and all kinds of ways that animals communicate with each other is irrelevant because they’re all living organisms. Any example of a “naturally occurring code” has to be completely outside the realm of DNA / living things if it’s going to demonstrate that DNA could naturally occur.

I could ask for a successful origin of life experiment. But I’m asking for a lot less than that. I’m only asking for a code that originates completely outside the realm of living things.

FredHahn says:

So who then created the creator? Though said over and over again, you’ll have to solve this and that is not possible.

If God exists there isn’t just one. God did say in the ten commandments “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” Other?? So there are others???

probo rahadianto says:

Hi perry,
Can u comment on this?

Perry is a human
Every human we know born in planet earth
Perry born in planet earth

Above statement is true, but maybe not in the future when man can colonize mars and a baby named perry born on that colony.

JohnM says:

Hello Perry,

“Consciousness cannot exist without a physical body as far as we know. 100% of all known conscious minds are dependent on a physical mind.”

I’ve been faced with this argument against a immaterial metaphysical designer. And it’s bothered me for some time. It seems to weaken the method of inference if on the one hand we can use it to infer code in DNA is designed by a mind but then on the other hand use it to infer all minds must be physical or at least housed in a physical body etc.

And then I have also struggled with the question of how does a immaterial being even exert influence on the physical realm etc.

But then the Word, Jesus Christ Himself comes to mind as the key to all of this.

Information as we know is carried by matter and energy so if Jesus is the “matter and energy,” carrying the Word(information) of the immaterial Father, then this is how the immaterial exerts His influence on the physical world.

This also solves the inference that all minds we know of must exist in a physical body. Jesus becomes the mind housed in a physical body that created the universe. “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)…and without Him was not anything made that has been made etc.”

Jesus the Christ, the Word (immaterial information) of God in flesh (carried by matter and energy) is the key to everything!

Everything revolves around the Lord Jesus Christ! He IS the center of the universe and of existence!

What do you think Perry?

Would this bring the two apparent conflicting syllogisms together?

Thanks,
JohnM

greyfox says:

There is little point in arguing with someone whose mind is made up.

Mel says:

Interesting comments here, but I see that not many have really researched life, nor have they completed a comparative analyzes of historical facts.

I respect those here with their many comments for each of us are on our own spiritual plateau of life. But for one to make a statement which will affect another’s life, they need to back it up with facts, and I don’t see many bona fide facts here.

First of all, I believe in a God that can be easily proven, not a fictitious God, which is make-believe and has no substance.

We, as individuals are not puppets, we are responsible spiritual entities, responsible for our many thoughts, feelings and creations in our individual lives!

Next, all the many religions on our planet are man-made, and should one spend the time to research deep in history, this fact is easily proven.

Now, should one really want to realize their basic aspect of life, they only need to look in the mirror, and then they will observe a responsible individual, one who has created their individual life, no other has created them..

Neville once stated, “”In the beginning was the unconditioned awareness which imagined itself to be. As it imagined itself to be, it became that which it imagined itself to be!” And this is a cosmic law which has existed for zillions of years.. Simply, “As One Gives, So Shall They Receive!” And this is the basic foundation of the word, “Responsibility!”

Responsibility…. A word with a massive amount of receiving, that which ones gives, whether consciously, or subconsciously. For those reading my post, they need to fully realize the meaning of the word, “RESPONSIBILITY!” For this word is, their cornerstone in life!

Next, let’s discuss the bible, it is full of contradictions, which is sad, but true! The next question is how many bibles were in history, and which bible was carried to America by the Pilgrims, it wasn’t the KJV? Which of the many bibles in history should one associate with, and why?

Perry Marshall states that he can prove God, well, it is simple to prove that God does exist, but not in an imaginary form!

For one to believe in fiction, they are grossly wasting their valuable time, for each of us are in our respective life to spiritually learn something, and to believe in an entity that cannot be proven is stunting ones individual spiritual growth!

Next, the individual spirit needs to be not only discussed, but realized..

Each of us are Individual’s, A Spiritual Individual, and this is easily proven by a walk through any morgue. Here one will observe deceased physical bodies, but they are lifeless. What was giving any of those lifeless bodies was their Individual Spirit….. Note, I stated…. Individual, which is one of the keys to both our inner spiritual life, and its material world that he/she desires to create, and/or, have created in their individual life..

Health is a spiritual aspect of life, and what we consume each day determines our health for tomorrow, thusly, one needs to be aware of what they desire to put into their body, for our physical body is our vehicle in this lifetime, well proven again, by a walk through any morgue.. And, with good health our mental and inner spiritual processes are at their peak performance, thusly, the creative expressions of one!

Life is Absolutely Phenomenal, and each of us have evolved through eons of time, we just didn’t happen by chance, nor by the creation of a fictitious entity…

Each of us are responsible individual spirits and are totally responsible for our thoughts, feelings and our material world, there is no cop-out in life.

I see that the Big Bang was discussed, there can only be one explanation, which is in the realm of logic, of the black hole phenomenon. Should one compress matter to the nth degree, it will turn into pure energy, and finally into a singularity, and of course light cannot escape at this realm.

This is the process which created the big bang, including others like it, in other dimensions. How many other universes exist? This quantity is unknown and could be in a figure which is not understood by our present spiritual minds, and presently will never be understood, and really does not matter for our individual creative abilities.

A few scientists have concurred that we are living in a black hole, and should one understand the concept of both the big band, and of the collapse of matter, they will understand our existence at this moment of time, in our beautiful and chaotic universe, which is our home for now…

Lastly, a few questions for one to ponder..

Who Are You?
What Are You?
Why Are You Here?
What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?

Have A Most Beautiful Life All, For Your Existence Is Your Creation!

Mel Mayfield says:

Hi Perry, or whoever you are who replied to me in e’mail..

I downloaded your reply to me from e’mail into my word processor and read it over several times. I find that you are lacking much information about life, and that you are attempting to press your limited knowledge onto another by a lot of gibberish.

Superman is a comic book hero, is fiction and is nothing that one can depend upon.

Perry, or whoever you are, I really suggest that you study history, in depth, as I have, and then, perhaps you will be able to answer the simple questions that I have posed to you. There are many more questions, and in time, after you have successfully answered the posted questions, I’ll upload a few more.

What you e’mailed to me relates nothing about life, just a lot of assumptions.

Perry, if you truly have any knowledge of life, then answer my simple questions publicly, and they are simple if you have researched life in depth, otherwise they are quite difficult. If you wish, I’ll answer them for you, but if you request my assistance, then the assumption is, that you do not know the answers.

I’m not a game player, I believe in life in its many aspects, and am well knowledgeable, responsible and adjusted to help another without presenting gibberish.

Lastly, I leave you with the following:

“If I Give A Man A Fish, I Feed Him For A Day, Should I Teach A Man To Fish, I Feed Him For A Lifetime!” This is an old Chinese proverb and is very true!

One more for you, “With All Thy Getting, Get Knowledge!” And this is from Shakespeare..

Perry, this is something to seriously think about, for a Teacher poses a very serious responsibility, and I have stated publicly, Responsibility reaps our many tomorrows..

Life is meant to share knowledge, but the knowledge must be factual for Karma is always working, every moment of the day/night!

Love Is You Perry, make sure that you express knowledge truthfully, and if you don’t know the answers, do some research before any presentation…

Mel,

I fail to find a single factual scientific statement in your post, which can be evaluated or debated. If you have questions then post them here.

Perry

Mel Mayfield says:

Hi Perry,

Here are the questions again..

Lastly, a few questions for one to ponder..

Who Are You?
What Are You?
Why Are You Here?
What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?

You can find out who I am at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/bio

As to the rest of these things, the answers are self evident from the website.

There is pain and suffering because people have choices and we use these choices to inflict pain upon others. Pain exists because it is necessary for us to avoid further injury.

I have deleted the rest of your posts because I see no interest in engaging real dialogue, only incredulous insulting statements that do not appear to be seeking knowledge. The few legitimate questions you have raised are mixed with condescension and vitriol and this is unacceptable. If you want to post them publicly you will need to litter someone else’s site, not mine.

If you wish to ask a question then ask it respectfully. Over and out.

GM says:

Yes, God is real…the Bible has attempted to explain the who, what , where ,when and how of God. It is the closes thing available to Christians. If anyone studies the Bible they find God has no form. The entire premise the Bible is founded on is man’s interpretation of God. I believe humanity has created their own ficticious God. When Genesis was written scientific evidence wasn’t available, if it was no one would have understood. The Bible says God is Spirit and so are we, my spirit is in my body… one has convinced me it will ever be anywhere but my body. When the body dies does the spirit also die?
Religious ritualistic lunacy has become accepted as worshiping God. A person gives their interpretation of their faith and people are suppose to want to follow the religious leaders.
Any one with a brain knows it is impossible to prove or disprove something that doesn’t have a form. Meaning it is impossible to prove something that is in another time space contiueum, from our present state of time.
A black hole is a star that has colapsed on itself and gravity doesn’t let light out. I don’t believe we live in a black hole. I have never in 40 years of studying cosmology heard such. Dark and anti matter art two entirely different things.

Mr. Marshall can prove the existence of God? Not really it still takes faith.

I have proven the existence of God, only to the extent that science can prove anything. Which is not deductive proof, but 100% inference. Entropy, conservation of energy and DNA being designed by an intelligent agent all have equal probability of being true.

GM says:

I believe words like entrophy and probability are the key to your hypothesis. If they infer for you the existence of Spirit God then that’s great.
I personally believe Spirit God exist and has to be laughing at his creation. The Spirit God isn’t the work horse of the religious man. I laugh at them for thinking they have Spirit God wrapped up in a box. Spirit God is only capable of producing life. SG gives and takes life.
No person can spark life. It takes life to produce life.

ron taylor says:

Mel ,

I think you have definitely made some very important observations .

Atheists suffer from a profoundly mortal deficiency by choosing , either wittingly or unwittingly , to be incapable of comprehending the relationship between their present wellbeing and a future reality empowered by a timewise a priori Supreme Being – God . Consequently , they are unable to connect their present to their future . They refuse to believe that God is immanent , has transcendent powers and is manifestly unique to each theistic individual . Atheists disingenuously accept the fatalistic consequences of the simultaneous operations of two universally general biological laws – the law of competition for vital resources ( between and within species of beings ) and the imperative of reproduction ( common to all living organisms / beings ) which is governed by natural cycles ; and in the case of mankind , additional social , cultural , economic , religious , personal and political concerns affect that imperative . The undefeated Malthusian doctrine addresses those fatalistic consequences . Atheists believe there is nothing more than present knowledge available to mitigate those fatalistic consequences . Christian theism accepts available divine guidance in the absence of sufficient present knowledge . Islamic theism attempts to secure a divine future with the command of Allah ( not God ) as given in the Quran – ” K I L L infidels … “.

greyfox says:

Anything is possible Perry. It’s even possible that you are God in
disguise and that you have constructed this site to test us.
It’s highly unlikely but in your world it is possible. You are probably saying “this is nonsense” and you would be right.

greyfox says:

Our tombstones will all read the same. “I was not, I was, I am not”

Our inability to come to grips with this, simple truth, has
motivated our construct of a “God” and an afterlife.

I love these questions submitted by Mel.

Who Are You?
I am an individual.

What Are You?
A Human being.

Why Are You Here?
I could swim faster than the rest.

What Did You Come Here To Accomplish?
I had no preconceived notion of what I might accomplish.

Are You Accomplishing That Which You Came Here To Accomplish?
If it was procreation, then yes.

Why Is Their Pain And Suffering?
That’s a tough one.

What Two Days Of The Week Are NOT Important To Anyone?
It would be arrogant of me to answer that. Are they the same for everyone?

Marc80 says:

G’day Perry,

Just watched your presentation on information and the existence of God. Just thought I’d add that in my view, both evolution, and intelligent design(or the existence of a creator) can both, and I think do exist. If an animal or human was made a certain way to live on earth at or near it’s inception, the earth and it’s environment was a lot different then, the climate, different vegetation etc. , even the continents being joined, then separating over time, so it is feasible to think that the design would change or mutate over time to better adapt to it’s changing environment. The only way for evolution to be deemed as being also created and written into DNA is to say that God or Creator planned for every single event in history so far, and the plan worked perfectly and is still working perfectly without a single mistake or malfunction.

Cheers, Marc

Phievalon says:

Inspired by your article, I wrote a poem…

A Question Of Information

I want to ask a question that may shake you to the bone
And the answer could disturb you when you realize it’s true.
You might not walk away without a limp once you know
Because the facts become a stone inside your shoe.

Imagine planet earth, not long beyond the dawn of time;
When forces shaped the empty, wasted surface of our sphere;
When chemical reactions worked the gathered dust and grime
Together in the placeless void where stars had first appeared.

Fill your mind with wonder as the rock that is our home
Spins slowly ’round through eons in a vacant, burning sky.
Then watch the surface buckle and erupt with molten ooze,
While continental crusts emerge in mountainous divides.

Wonder, at the mindless laws that work upon our world,
Then gasp, if you can breathe, as tiny molecules combine.
And remember, if you can, the laws of energy and matter
Have never yet produced a life, or formed a living mind.

And as we sit imagining, brains full of information,
Bodies breathing, cells dividing, minds in focused contemplation
Consider too, that all we know, and still confirm each day,
Is more that plainly obvious. Don’t let it slip away.

Make your heart accept and trust what every person knows
What all our science verifies, and every day we find,
That laws controlling matter are helpless to create
The information that can only emerge from living minds

And years ago, on planet earth, no thoughts had yet appeared;
No wisdom or intention graced the toxic atmosphere;
No source of information had arisen from the dust
And not a single thought was there to doubt nor was there one to trust.

Then suddenly, according to our earthen crust of strata
This lifeless, mindless planet was awash with information.
DNA, the complex codes of living data-compression
Written into dirt, began to harness all creation

And the only source of information science can confirm
Is still a mind that can conceive or a soul that can discern
And so the question is quite simple now that we reached our goal;
Who’s information was it that made dust become a soul?

encinafun says:

Hi Perry,
I”m on your side! If I may as the evolutionists, how long does it take an amoeba to transform into a shark, whale or an elephant? And how long can it take a Chimp, given the perfect evolutionist condition, to metamorphosize into a human-super brain. Evidence of the reality of a master designer abounds everywhere, right under our noses- and he is watching, laughing at our self-inflicted ignorance.

As the wizard was behind the curtain in, “Wizard of Ozz”. God must behind creative acts. Super Collidar in Switzerland has revealed dark matter that was theorized before. This seems to be the last piece of the puzzle of creation. Creation attempts to bring infinity and finity together.

David says:

Perry,

I just read your entire discussion thread on the infidels message board. I am absolutely stunned by the logic and content of your arguments.

I have been a Christian for 20 years, and in the back of my mind, I never really knew why I believed in God or what real, hard evidence there was to support my belief. In all honesty, I felt like I was wasting my life, but for whatever reason, I stuck with it.

Then I started to investigate the question in earnest, which led me to Hugh Ross’s material, and eventually yours.

I have to say, not only am I impressed with your breadth of knowledge and intelligence, I am also impressed with your debating skills, specifically how you never lose your cool and get hostile (even in the face of hostility), how you do not allow challengers to misquote you are infer that you are saying more than you are.

How you don’t try to make your argument prove more than it does, and how you are able to cut to the heart of every objection and keep the discussion on course.

Even though many of the scientific nuances were above my head, I was still able to follow the arguments….and what was clear to me was that (1) these guys have more blind faith in naturalism than the average Christian has in God and (2) they either don’t know, or are unwilling to acknowledge when they’ve been trounced in a debate.

All I can say is thank you. Thank you for giving me a new confidence that belief on God is not for morons and simpletons as the naturalists would have you think.

THANK YOU, Perry! You are a gift from God to me.

Sincerely,

David

David,

I can only encourage anybody who doubts what you say to scour the ENTIRE Infidels thread “Proof of god via DNA and evolution.” Scrutinize every last post. Follow every thread. Click on every link. Buy every book. Oh, and be sure and listen to my presentation that started the ruckus in the first place.

It might take most people a few weeks to get through it. That’s OK.

Because if you’re really looking for answers, I have a hard time imagining that a truly inquiring mind won’t eventually agree that the atheist worldview has provided no explanation for the existence of information or DNA. And that science indicates an intelligent source.

See for yourself – I have answered every significant question presented to me, most of them more than once. The moderator, RBH, has not answered a single question I’ve asked him in 2 years. He has completely bailed on the discussion (though you can see from his comments to others that he’s still present.)

SophistiCat, perhaps my most vocal opponent, has never actually read or listened to my presentation.

Another atheist wandered in some time ago – he’s a programmer, I believe – and called them on their double-standard definitions. He said, “I don’t agree with Perry Marshall’s conclusion, but you guys can’t deny that DNA is a code. And Perry is right: nothing like a code has ever been observed to occur naturally, so far.”

They accused him of being an undercover Christian Evangelist.

Again I can only encourage those who are seriously seeking answers to scrutinize the Infidels discussion board and decide for yourself who’s telling the truth. I have summarized their arguments as well as mine here on Cosmic Fingerprints, but don’t settle for my 6-page summary of the argument. Read it for yourself and see.

Perry Marshall

Kate says:

Hello Mr Marshall,
I’d just like to say that I’ve got a lot to thank you for. For a long time, I had no religion- just a horrible fear in death and the beyond that kept me up at night, and I thought nothing could help me feel better. Then, I found your presentations. They inspired me, uplifted me and by beliefs are beginning to come back for the first time in I, quite frankly, don’t know how long. I’m now totally convinced of there being an existence of God, which is why I asked you that question on the comments page of ‘New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God’ inquiring about the afterlife.
In addition to this, I’ve also been trying hard to spread the word of the evidence that’s presented to me, and I’m finding it hard. A lot of people don’t want to listen, are wrapped up in their own views and refuse to thoroughly look at any evidence presented to them as you’ve forementioned yourself in the above post (the reason why I’m replying to it now) and I find that incredibly sad to hear. I just wanted to ask: ‘How do you cope with people who don’t listen but still keep on arguing with you?’ Do you stop trying to convince them? Do you try harder? Obviously, you can’t make anyone do or believe anything; but it must be horribly frustrating for you; trying to provide evidence to inspire people and them not only not listening, misinterpreting and not bothering to come up with a decent argument!
Thanks again for all your inspiring work,
Kate

Kate,

I’ve done a whole lot of ‘people who don’t listen but still keep arguing with you.’ The Infidels discussion board (see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm) is the ultimate Prime Example. I have thoroughly, rigorously and exhaustively addressed their questions and they still insist that I’m not listening.

It’s not me that’s not listening, it’s them. Exhibit “A” of psychological denial.

So I stop by a couple of times a year and check in and that’s it.

It’s not my job to change them. All the forces on planet earth cannot change a human being who does not want to change. This will teach you that; marriage will teach you that; teenagers will teach you that.

What you need to do is what I’ve done – change your focus.

Your focus is NOT the people who refuse to listen. (Which is many if not most, by the way.) Your focus is the people who are in that curious zone who really are looking for answers, looking for the truth. Even if that’s just 5% that’s entirely OK. I routinely get messages from people who say this information completely changed their life, altered their view of science and the world, and… that’s my audience. That’s your audience.

You don’t need to waste time with non-listeners. Sure, you try harder for awhile and they will help you sharpen your delivery. But ultimately you focus on the people who will engage with you. The rest are just target practice.

Perry

Cory says:

So just whose existence are you trying to prove? Is it Yahweh (AKA Jehova) or is it Allah. Who else wants to come up and say that Mithra, Zeus, or Krishna is the true God. My point here is that there have been way too many Gods for anyone to be completely sure that theirs is the right one. Personally, I choose not to partake in any of these religions, as there is no way that any of them could be true when so many diverse religions exist in this world. If you wanted to put a label on my faith, it would have to be science. No, not Scientology. Scientology is by far the craziest religion I have ever heard of. Science is the only thing that has progressed the human race. All religion has brought us is fear, intolerance, and manslaughter.

By the way, saying that DNA is a code doesn’t prove that God exists. All it does is show that you don’t know how DNA came to be, and that you assume that it must be the work of a God. Stop making rationalizations and claiming them as “proof”. Just accept the truth that you have no evidence for your God, and I’ll go on my merry way.

I know exactly how you are going to respond. You are going to go on and on about how there is no code in existence that happened without a mind to form it, but has it occurred to you that DNA could be the one? Or have you ever thought to say “I don’t know”? Because that’s the truth: you don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Because you can’t think of a way that DNA could come about on its own, you automatically assume that a God made it, and you call this evidence. I implore you to see reason here.

Richard says:

Cory,

Science often invents theories to fulfill its gaps. Theories which they hope will turn out to be true. Multiverses, for instance. And weren’t they trying to find the “God Particule” by colliding stuff in LHC? As of yet, it’s only known to exist in theory. Then, what’s the matter with assuming that God may have taken a part in it all and that DNA may be an evidence of his design? It’s not like that he’s killing off Science. It’s not a crusade, although many people think that is.
Of course, belief in god takes a deal of faith. But, then, again, science does have its beliefs, everyone does. It’s part of us. If you think that science may one day discover that information pops up from chaos, that takes belief and hope. It’s no different. The merit in Perry’s work is that he’s trying, I assume, to show that religious belief will not be crushed by secularist thinking. Instead, it’s one of the most fundamentals expressions of how we are. It’s part of our history, as much as science, art, and everything else that has human hands in it.
You have an extremely narrow-minded view of the world. It seems as though you think the entire world must look through your materialistic eyesight. Deep down, you think your culture, your way of thinking is superior. Well, your bad. Your assumption that religion only brought “manslaughter” to the world is quite an exaggeration, though I don’t deny that religion was and is used as an excuse to horrifying things. But science also is. It’s not that evil is intrinsic to religion or science, but it is the result of men’s flaws.
Should I remember you that one of the most violent regimes ever were officially atheistic, and persecuted and executed millions of believers? I’m talking about Communist China and USSR. Then, following your logic, is it what it takes to say that Atheism is an evil thing? You get the picture.

go2mark says:

Thank you richard for your post. I concur with your position. Most believers know that God will not force himself on anyone ( although some have done so in the name of christ ). God has provided us with clues and examples of his existence for us to contemplate and decide for ourselves. We as believers understand there is a narrow way and a broad way which God has set before us. The key to knowing that God exists is that you have to truly want to know the truth. Knowing and believing are separate so that a choice is required. Only the bible has the answers to the most challenging questions man has pondered. One question is do i take the broad path which relies on my own intuition and inferior logic (knowing) ,or do i chose the narrow path which requires a humble spirt to admit i can never truly know the truth without help from the one who is truth (belief). The bible is our ultimate truth and states that many will chose the broad path that leads to destruction. Perry had shown incredible discipline and courage in attempting to shine a light on truth and for this i am truly grateful. (Jeremiah 9-23,24) God bless

Cristiano says:

Dear Kate,

I also believe in all that Mr. Marshall has thoroughly explained here and proved with all the conviction of His soul, though I’m not a scientist and do comprehend only a bit of all the scientific proofs for the existence of God. I DO know that God lives and I have known that from my childhood up to now. I tell you that because of the question you asked for the afterlife, that is a truly important question and a fundamental one, since there is no purpose in God creating everything we know of as Mr. Ross so perfectly explained with such an accuracy that this earth and we could exist if all this is to end and vanish.

The after death has been thoroughly discussed by many religions throughout the world with all kinds of argument and counter-arguments but no proof or evidence shed by any of them. Since men can comprehend only the things of man and not the things of God unless they are thought from a higher source than themselves.

Someone said that a man could learn more by gazing for 5 minutes upon the visions of eternity and by speaking face to face with God than by reading all the books that have been written from the beginning. And that’s true! Unless God opens the heavens and tutors a man by His own voice and power no man can surely know and thoroughly comprehend His works.

I say all that to tell you that there is a way for you to know, but most of Christianity or any other religion denies the possibility of such revelations, of a man looking at the face of His Creator and receiving a knowledge that is purer and higher the all the science and religion combined. They understate the power of God that they may continue to influence mankind to follow their creeds, saying that we must have a blind faith and hope for a better future. But I tell you, that is not the case! In contrary, God wants us to know Him personally, independently of all other beings that we may testify of His glory and witness the majesty of His power and love. Man can truly, in a physical sense, in a complete sense, see God, and touch the body of His Spirit, and commune with Him and taste of His glory and gaze upon the future, and the past, and the vastness of His wonders.

There are men living upon the earth today that DO have seen God face to face, that DO testify that He lives and that can teach us how we can prepare ourselves and persevere and hold fast till the day comes when our doubts will be washed aways by the glory of His personal presence and hear the calm and tender sound of His voice speaking in such a way as to melt down the very marrow of our bones. I testify of that. I testify that He lives! And if you want to know more about this you can contact me on my e-mail (elderalves2002@hotmail.com) and I’ll provide you with all the information you need and answers about the hereafter and many more things that testify of Him.

I bear my personal witness as one who DO know that there are again Prophets in the land, who bear witness of His existence and power and glory for I know them and I have learned under their tutoring since my childhood and today I can also testify that He lives. And I DO testify that there are answers to your questions and that you SHALL know by yourself.

Sohni says:

Hello Kate,
I have just read your blog.You said that you had got a belief on god,right?I do not really understand how you could believe something which you have never witnessed.Actually I am not an athiest but I do not believe anything blindly either.Could you please answer one simple question?Why did you think about opening this site?I mean,in order to improve your knowledge on science or to improve your belief on God?

Craig says:

The problem with your argument is that you have to prove that a code cannot arise naturally. You haven’t done that — you are just asserting that it can’t.

I can make this argument:
1. Trees grow from seeds
2. All seeds come from pine cones
3. Maple trees do not produce pine cones
4. Therefore, God created maple trees

I haven’t proven that a code cannot arise naturally. I’ve shown that nobody else has SHOWN that a code CAN arise naturally.

Your syllogism bears no resemblance to mine and it does not constitute an argument, it’s just a nonsensical statement.

Enricco says:

But, then again, the fact that nobody has proven it can arise naturally is not enough to use it as an argument and, according to logic, you’re using it as premise for your syllogism; which is in turn no other thing than an argument.
You’re being contradictory.

Science demands formal proofs and, as far as you MUST know if you want to make a bold statement as the one you are making (or any statement at all): syllogisms are NOT formal proofs.

Have you ever read anything about a property of compex systems called emergency? Emergency is the appearance of order from a highly entropic system. Information is a consequence of emergency. The main ingredient of life is information; we agree on that. But information is everywhere without the necessity of something or someone creating it, because its an intrinsic property of matter and energy. Emergency could account for the assembly of all that information so life could exist.

There’s an equation that shows the direct relation between information and entropical state. And emergency is proven to exist.

I’m sorry; you are good at discussing, but you should be carefull: I’m not saying god does not exist, but everything you have said is not a proof. You have no proof god does exist, either.

I’m open to the probability it exists, but only if proofs are available. At this time, no such proof exist, so please be humble and accept the plain truth: NO ONE is right for sure because there’s no evidence of anything.

Enricco,

I do not mean to be impolite but you’re not recognizing how science actually works. Science does not work on formal proofs. That’s mostly the domain of mathematics. Science relies on induction, which essentially is syllogisms. The laws of thermodynamics are developed from syllogism based on experiments.

Yes I know about emergence. Chaos theory shows that complex patterns can come from simple inputs but anyone who ascribes the origin of life to emergence is giving you a snow job. Emergence cannot account for the assembly of information because information is immaterial. Emergence has proven nothing about the origin of life.

My syllogism is not hard proof. It is 100% inference.

Perry

Kevin says:

Wow, this is really nothing more than an individual with accountability issues. I wish more would be open and honest and just admit that rather than looking ridiculous for parroting atheist website deadend go nowhere comments. Perry does’nt have to prove anything about Information occuring naturally on DNA, that is what he has asked of you geniuses, but none of you has yet to come up with one. Just one. The burden of proof is on you.

He’s taken up his position and take with what all intelligent humans know to real facts involving how information comes about in the real world. The real make believe part is the attempts by opponents at refuting what the average Joe/Jane Q-Human knows to be the facts. Taking such a position as they do exposes them to a humiliating embarrassment. The ONLY thing that saves face for most of them is that this is the Internet and they all remain annonymous. Might be different if this were a real life venue where all their family , friends , neighbours and colleagues could see the absurdity of their arguements.

Craig, I think you have fallen into the same trap as I have. I was wondering about the nature of the matter and energy……… Sometimes clouds present some figures……. They are almost upto the standards of Leonardo Da Vinci’s sculptures and masterpieces………. They cannot be happening naturally………… There must be a Designer or an Artist behind them………

Our problem is, the Artist knows His art, but His art cannot know the Artist.

Dr. Ross thinks that there are not many intelligent lives out there in the Universe or even in our own Galaxy MilkyWay….I could not agree with this specific point of his speech. I enjoyed listening to his lecture and I found his lecture very educational, but when it comes to Aliens, I could not agree with him at all…….. How come that he can think only planet Earth can have intelligent lives. Are we God’s conseille? this kind of explanations sound quite childish……. Only some creatures who can only use 5% of their brain capacity can think such big dreams. We respect humans like Einstein and Steven Hawkins and etc. just because of their intelligence in discovering about God’s Truth……… then we deny all the other intelligent creatures of God scattered all over the Universe and think that we are the ONE……. In our own solar system, Jupiter and moon might have instrumental duties for our existence, I have no objection to that…..We might be the only planet having intelligent lives, in our solar system and even in a local part of our galaxy, but I cannot accept that we are the only one…………

In fact, I believe that God has a very hyrearhic system in the whole Universe…. If we can pass His tests, we might be given the part of His creation process in other planets, which have reached to the necessary stage in time where they can be home for new lives.

I think God can design trees which can grow from seeds, seeds can come from pine cones. Maple trees may have different life lines…….. Please do not mix mammals breeding with the chickens……… Why were you kept in your mom’s womb for 9 long months, whereas a chick can come from an egg within a week……….

Let us keep trying to discover about God’s Truth and Mechanism altogether. I am a female body, who refused to give birth to a baby in my own time. God did not like this attitute of mine and He said; “You want to be a mom now, is that right? Nooooo, I am not going to give the control of time and creation into your hands. I am the absolute decision maker. You are not going to have a baby”……

My last pregnancy was at the age of 25. I am 60 years old. Time to time I feel inclined to have a tube baby, with the new technology, then I come to my senses…….. I know that whatever I do, or however hard I may try, if God decided to punish me as a lonely woman, due to my stupid mistakes of judgement early in my life, I can never change my destiny. So I do not dare to attempt to be independent with the latest technology……. However, I always read with great interest the news of an Italian peasant woman becoming a mother at the age of 67, with the help of the new technology……

My best consolation is this; maybe God brought me to life with my DNA map, so that I was meant to be a lonely woman, to dedicate all my time to God and to His Teachings.

All the best!

Mahsa says:

Hello Mr. Marshall
I read your elegant mail but not complete,I read it till this sentence “A mind that expressboth desire & intent“.
Then I thought with I myself about everything you said & wanna to say.I want to guess the sequel of your mail after thinking.
I think the people who are like you even they weren`t a cosmologist,can think ulterior than the others.
“The universe yours to discover“,I know why ,because people think external & doom external but God didn`t creat like what they do,didn`t creat external.
sometimes I think our God doesn`t satisfy from us & he think we can be better.
Anyway you are a man of considerable theism skill from many kinds of methods,like self-examination,astrophysics even biology.
After I read your mail till the end I`ll recount my opinion again.
Thanks alot
Mahsa

GM says:

Hello David and Perry

Nice and accurate posts. I’m not exactly sure what you expect from your journey into the spirit world? It is impossible to use the Bible as a scientific reference book. Scienctific experiments had no place in the culture of the day, maybe the Greeks were beginning to think about mathematical solutions and interpretations of natural phenomina..later.
The Bible’s theme is disobedience to God’s mandates. I have never been able to figure out why after I Samuel 15 ( God says obedience is better than sacrifice) that humanity has tried to improve on God’s remedy for the act of disobedience? By writing the New Testament after 400 silent years. Really weird !!! The laws of God of whom you speak demand obedience and nothing more.

Jonathan Dobson says:

Hi Perry.
 
You know, I never thought there would be proof (okay, 100% inference in any case).  I am a robotic engineering student in Ontario, Canada.  I have a background in computer programming and music, and write fiction as a matter of habit.  I read a lot.  For the last seven years, I have read strictly non-fiction. 

So I first began reading about math, its history.  Then about science, its history, and especially its philosophy.  Then I moved on to books like “Decoding the Universe”, and “Programming the Universe”.  The concept of “information” thoroughly penetrated my thought processes, and it seemed to appear everywhere – in everything I read or physically observed. 

You could literally put any thing you saw into a framework based on information.  Especially when you were not afraid to allow both the subjective and objective realities of information to mingle freely.  Meaning and structure.  Quality and quantity.  Good stories always promise mystery, and the profound. 

Now I was seeing profundities in things I generally thought were outside a narrative.  And they were meaningful.  They “meant”.  Information that means is a miracle of the first order.  It is always an indication of a good story.  We are in one, if my observations are of any merit.
 
So how did I stumble across your website, cosmicfingerprints.com?  Well, I was searching away on YouTube and up came one of your videos (not posted by you, but by another fella’).
 
I’d always felt that proof of God was based on a totally different set of senses.  Christians who have been made the habitation of God have new senses by which to verify His existence.  We are born “from above”.  This is completely empirical to us, and natural. 

We ARE naturalists, we just have more senses than strictly physical naturalists.  We are hybrid creatures (new creations) who naturally live in both the physical realm and the spiritual.  What need do we have to “prove” God via physical matter when we have spiritual matter as qualitative and quantitative proof?  (We’ve got plenty of physical evidence, I admit, but the point remains.)
 
So when I got through one of your presentations, I remained very wary.  I read every post at the Infidels website – it took me a week, but I ground through every last word.  You were not refuted (despite assertions to the contrary).
 
Consequently, I have now found that I have an intense affinity for cellular biology, and that my engineering interests are eerily related:  the ultimate design is us, and if we can figure out the human nano-machine, we can build some pretty cool robots. 

The fact that cells can so precisely take advantage of physical and chemical law utterly astounds me.  It requires a heck of a lot of informational complexity to do this. 

(Look at how much we need in order to keep things running in first world countries. How much material we move around, building houses and roads, having dinner, playing sports, manufacturing products!  Heck, look at how much information it requires just to keep a kitchen clean and running smoothly.)
 
A little diagram I saw via your website, with matter and energy on the x-and y-axis’ respectively, and information on the z-axis, clarifies so much.  Thanks for that.
 
You mentioned in one of your presentations that a friend of yours said “Evolution is chaos resolved by intent.”  I can go so far with this (by reasoning), but I seem to be hitting a wall.  Could you explain what this means in a little more detail?

Jonathan Dobson
Waterloo, Ontario

Jonathan,

The guys at infidels cannot refute, but they can obfuscate.  I think the most telling thing is the most vocal guy on the forum still has not read my presentation in its entirety and the moderator hasn’t answered a single question I’ve posed to him in 2+ years.

There are still quite a few hangers-on who say they’ve solved the “atheist’s riddle” but none of them uses Claude Shannon’s definition of information. They say snowflakes are codes and DNA is not at the same time. It’s incoherent. You read every post so you saw for yourself what is happening there.

“Chaos resolved by intent:” Framed in terms of traditional Darwinism, they say it’s random mutation filtered by natural selection.

I say, it’s intentional engineered mutation filtered by not only natural selection, but maybe even some mechanism that knows that permutations have already been tried unsuccessfully. It’s not a random walk. It’s more like the intentional competition that we see in technology, business and culture.

James A. Shapiro has some great papers on this, especially this one:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html

In researching this topic for 5 years I have not encountered any direct evidence that random mutations drive evolution. I insist that this is an urban myth and that when pressed to actually prove this is true, everyone comes up empty.

I am fully open to being corrected. A satisfactory answer to this question requires actual empirical evidence, not assertions.

James Shapiro has discovered that organisms devote considerable resources to preventing accidental random mutations – via mechanisms very similar to the error correction mechanism and redundancy features in computer systems, DVD players and the Internet.

Meanwhile these same organisms do mutate in very controlled, specific, algorithmic ways, when subjected to stress. Barbara McClintock discovered this in 1944 and won the Nobel Prize for her work in 1983. She called it “Genetic Recombination” and Shapiro’s work is a continuation of her original discoveries. Fascinating stuff.

The genetic code is every bit as complex and subject to just as many rules as human language. That’s why random mutations damage DNA just as much as they damage English or Chinese.

Random mutation = devolution, extinction and death.

I submit to you that the “evolution through random mutation” hypothesis is one the greatest and most subtle half-truths in all of modern science.

On the other hand, when we observe the way DNA re-arranges itself and adapts, we see what appears to be a more amazing display of “artificial intelligence” than most science fiction authors even dare to imagine.

Perry Marshall

Rick Deccard says:

I find your topic a very interesting one, and as much as I’d like to believe in all, I think there are still some flaws that prevent me from truely focusing on your premices, the first one: concerning the similarity between the genetic “code” and the word “code” or “language”, apearently there has been a great battle with this matter on the disscussion board (http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=135497&page=2).
And also, as far as I’m concerned, random mutation is a double-edged event. It either “fits” (not necesarily enhancing the individual, but changing it) and survives, or, causes such a mutation that prevent the organism from working at all.
I’m not done reading your whole work here, and if you’ve already answered it, im sorry, no reply needed.
Thanks, it is really inspiring to hear hypothesis trying to unify facts with belief based in more arguments than religious totalitarism.

Rick,

DNA is highly analogous (VERY highly analogous, I might add) to human language.

DNA IS literally and not figuratively a code. A multi-layered code, at that.

If language is defined as a multi-layer code then DNA is also a language.

Random mutation: see http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

Perry

Qqccho says:

Perry,
“Evolution is Chaos resolved from Intent”
I will put it this way; ” Intent resolves Chaos through Evolution”
In both assertions Chaos existed first. How come this could be?

Qqccho,

I hypothesize that the origin of life is the 2nd singularity. Or else the 1st one was more magnificent than we suppose.

Randy says:

So where did God come from? Who or what made God?

Randy

Asking “Where did God come from” is a lot like reading a John Grisham novel and saying “This book has lawyers and judges and secretaries, but what page is John Grisham on?”

The answer of course, is that John Grisham is not in the novel at all. He lives outside of the novel. He wrote it. He created the time line, the story and the characters. The novel is a book with a finite number of pages, a beginning and an end. But John Grisham lives a life that extends far beyond that book.

Similarly, God lives outside of space and time. He created space. He created time. He is confined to neither of these things. It’s somewhat of a stretch for most of us to imagine that, but a physicist or mathematician will attest that it’s entirely reasonable. There is nothing absurd or illogical to speak of dimensions outside of space and time; in fact additional dimensions are necessary to rationally explain the universe. String theory in modern physics defines 11 dimensions, four of which we experience.

Human experience, without exception, is that all effects have causes. There are no uncaused causes in the world we live in today; yet if we go back far enough we are still forced to accept an uncaused cause.

The inevitable conclusion is that the laws of physics explain how the universe operates but they don’t explain how it got here. All explanations require an “eternal” ingredient. The existence of anything at all demands this uncaused cause.

So we never escape the question ‘where did it all come from.’

A purely physical explanation (i.e. materialism, or an atheistic belief that says that there is no such thing as a metaphysical world) relies on as-of-yet undiscovered principles of physics. It requires faith, if you will, that someday we’ll discover a way for matter and energy to come from nothing.

Another problem faced by materialistic explanations is entropy. Entropy says that the universe is cooling down, that energy is being converted from usable forms to unusable forms, and that this process is irreversible. Processes with entropy happen, by definition, over a finite period of time. An infinitely old universe with entropy would now be cold and dead. Once again, the universe can’t be infinitely old. It had to have a beginning.

So science as we know it now cannot explain this. The only logical explanation is a cause outside of space and time – which of course is consistent with the definition of God that theists have held for thousands of years.

Science does not refute this; in fact a truly scientific assessment of the facts is that all purely materialistic answers to the origins question violate the laws of physics.

Jim says:

In this universe, Cause-Effect takes place on our 1/2 dimension of time (i.e. if you hit me, I will feel pain at a later moment in time). Time only moves forward and never backwards (thus the1/2 time demension). As such, everything must have a causal beginning at one moment of time. So, your question about God’s beginning seems reasonable. BUT, …

We do know that time (and thus, cause-effect phenomena) began at the beginning (i.e. the Big Bang) as proven by Stephen Hawkins. As such, it is quite clear that another ’cause’ outside of time-dimension caused our universe to begin (with it’s 1/2 cause-effect time dimension). If there is a beginning, there must be a beginner. More importantly, that Beginner is not necessarily restricted to our time-line. If that Beginner had a 2-dimensional time-line (i.e. a cause-effect dimension beyond our time-line), AND could move in both directions along this other time-line, the Beginner of our universe would not have to have a beginning. (See Dr. Hugh Ross’ “Fingerprint of God”)

Jim

Qqccho says:

Perry,
Your words; ” Similarly, God lives outside of space and time. He created space. He created time”. You’re CREATING your story.

GMEstes1 says:

God is the motivating force, mankind created his own God that he routinely controls.

Ana M. Boyer says:

This is not a question this is a proof of God existance in my presence. God represents “Good Spirits” all around us, and it’s up to us to take it in our hearts. Evil “Negative Spirits” they are the ones envade our souls. Your negative thoughts are evil, and your good thoughts represents God – Goodness in our hearts. I have God living in my heart and my brain. I have faith. But I’m weak, and sometimes “Negative Spirits” wins in my presence. I pray and talk to God when I feel I needed his guidance. My prayers always answered. Immacullee Illibagiza survived the genocide through prayers to God – Good Spirits. I know God exist and created all of us, we just need faith, and there’s no need to explain or questions God’s love for us. There some questions left unanswered. Humanity creates our very own problems. Genocides or not God did not intent for us to harm others, nor he did not create the answers from all these because he loves us all.

Nikos says:

I have read a lot of this site and the infidel thread. I have done my best to read your opinions with charity.

However, it’s admittedly hard to take someone’s opinions on biology seriously when they have quoted themselves as saying: “Random Mutations cause birth defects, tumors, cancer, death and extinction; NOT helpful adaptations. The current dogma which says random mutations drive evolution is 100% false.” If mutations did not aid the propagation of RNA/DNA containing entities, HIV would have been cured 15 years ago. Most biologists would agree with you that mutation is indeed MUCH MORE OFTEN harmful. This does not preclude helpful mutation, natural selection or neo-Darwinian synthesis.

My point here is NOT to get you riled up in a “gotcha” moment. My point is simply that if you expect others to give your ideas on information theory charity, you should probably give the same charity in attempting to understand evolutionary theory.

Now on to your main argument:

It might surprise you to know that part of your argument is FAR older than you, or even Christianity. Plato argued that there was a “Demiurge” (creator) that originated “the Forms”. Plato argued that there are “essences” or Forms that constitute the ideas of Justice, Goodness, or in your case, “information”. You are arguing that there is an “essence” to the “Idea of Information” that exists outside of matter. Your argument seems to be that because “information” has “real effects”, that Information does indeed have a metaphysical essence. Your argument is actually structurally very similar to the theory of Memetics (when one reads the definition of memetic theory, its appears simply true by the definition given).

Kant could help this discussion. Kant believed in God (just to get that out of the way). Kant helped philosophy by identifying certain types of propositions. A priori analytic, a priori synthetic, posteriori analytic and posteriori synthetic.

A priori analytic: All Bachelors are unmarried. Posteriori synthetic: that tree is 10 feet tall. Posteriori analytic would be comparable to information derived from a thought experiment, and finally a priori synthetic would be metaphysical propositions.

Immanuel Kant, a Christian, stated that the surest way to discover what statements could be a priori synthetic would be to determine if something was “necessary and universal”. Statements that fit this are going to be wishy washy admittedly, but thats kind of Kant’s point (a believer). The best example I could think of would be “Men desire to be happy”. Happy seeking doesnt flow analytically, nor is it necessarily measurable posteriori. However, depending on one’s views of psychology, someone could convince themselves that it was necessary and universal that men desire happiness. This is why metaphysics is such a personal thing; it takes a degree of intuitive evaluation rather than “pure logic”.

Let’s look at your Platonic statement that “Information is real, because it has real effects”.
1. It could be analytic a priori if we take the lexical definition of information you have provided. However, the lexical definition here isn’t nearly as clear as say “bachelors are unmarried”.
2. It could be analytic posteriori because if hypothetically your lexical definition were true, then yes your answers analytically follow.
3. It could be posteriori synthetic if we were to somehow measure the actual “essence” of information or the essence of “real effects”. Like number 1, it seems reasonable, but it’s hardly comparable to measuring a tree (an admittedly poor example).
4. Most likely it comes down to being an a priori synthetic proposition. So now we must ask, is it “necessary and universal” that real effects makes something information or that information has real effects?

Now this is very important: I’m NOT going to “prove” you wrong! Im not going to prove that information is NOT real. I’m simply going to show that its far more difficult to prove that it is real.

I’m simply going to show how “information being real because it has real effects” is NOT necessary and universal. This would leave us with the following: there is no proof for information being real, NOR is there proof that abiogenesis of RNA/DNA happened naturally. I know of many Evolutionary scientists, who rightly believe that evolution is “true”, but admit that abiogenesis is not a natural fact (yet). In a sense then, you would be attacking a straw man for these scientists who freely admit that we dont know yet how the original RNA code got started.

“Information is real, because it has real effects”. Is IMO not necessary and universal because it conflates descriptive causality with “essence”. In the same sense that Justice does not “cause” murders to go to jail (it merely describes an example of the idea of Justice), information does not ALWAYS “cause” the effects. When I decide to stop my car at a stop sign, is it the essence of information that causes me stop? Could it be that my eyes pick up red light spectrum, which fires neurons in my brain, to other neurons that have been trained to push my foot down on the brake? I do NOT deny that the stop sign was a code for stop. However, the causality was not from the essence of information. The causality was from photons interacting with my eye, which interacted with my trained neurons. I understand that in this sense the neurons are a “decoder”. I don’t deny that. I’m not even inherently denying the existence of the essence of information here. I’m denying that the essence of information could have a causality.

If the information essence lacks causality in this instance (necessary and UNIVERSAL), then I just don’t see how it follows that effects can be attributed to the information. If there’s no causality, then we can’t attribute real effects to real information. If there’s no evidence for or against real information, then we can’t make the a priori synthetic statement that you made. Without your a priori synthetic, information doesn’t have to be real. I admit that natural abiogenesis could still be true or not true.

Not knowing abiogenesis, does not automatically give you “victory”. Nor does it give the scientists “victory” (yet, they may come up with something some day).

I feel that I have been very charitable. I have not tried to prove natural abiogenesis, nor have I tried to prove that DNA is not a code. I’m simply objecting to “idea” that “information” has metaphysical essence.

Nikos,

I will take your post in two parts: First, in regards to random mutations; later I will reply in regards to the essence of information.

My statement was: “Random Mutations cause birth defects, tumors, cancer, death and extinction; NOT helpful adaptations. The current dogma which says random mutations drive evolution is 100% false.”

Your statement was: “If mutations did not aid the propagation of RNA/DNA containing entities, HIV would have been cured 15 years ago.”

I stand by my statement. Note that I said RANDOM mutations. Not all mutations.

The adaptive mutations of HIV and other viruses like Swine Flu are not random. They are internal cellular genetic engineering such as James Shapiro describes in his paper “A 21st Century View of Evolution” following Barbara McClintocks’ research starting in the 1940′s on the same subject.

This is a highly ordered re-structuring of the genome that is so fantastic that it took decades for McClintock’s colleagues to even believe her, and is still not generally taught today, even though it’s been well known and documented now for 60 years. I believe this is because it overturns traditional Darwinian dogma.

In researching this topic for 5 years I have not encountered any direct evidence that random mutations drive evolution or even useful adaptation. I insist that this is an urban myth and that when pressed to actually prove this is true, everyone comes up empty.

I am fully open to being corrected. In any case, a satisfactory answer to this question requires actual empirical evidence, not assertions.

Shapiro and McClintock discovered that organisms devote considerable resources to preventing accidental random mutations – via mechanisms very similar to the error correction mechanism and redundancy features in computer systems, DVD players and the Internet.

Meanwhile these same organisms do mutate in very controlled, specific, algorithmic ways, when subjected to stress. Barbara McClintock discovered this in 1944 and won the Nobel Prize for her work in 1983. She called it “Genetic Recombination” and Shapiro’s work is a continuation of her original discoveries. Fascinating stuff.

The genetic code is every bit as complex and subject to just as many rules as human language. That’s why random mutations damage DNA just as much as they damage English or Chinese or TCP/IP. Random mutation does = devolution, extinction and death.

I am willing to back down from my statement that it’s harmful 100% of the time.

Rather I will say that it is harmful 99.99999999999999999999% with as many nines as you care to have.

The instance of helpful random mutations is so small, and the occasional benefit so trivial, that they are not worth considering. Not any more than we would say data transmission errors on the Internet improve the content of our websites. Or that scratches on a CD improve the music. Nobody I know can point to a good example of any of these things contributing a useful or desirable improvement.

I submit to you that the “evolution through random mutation” hypothesis is one the greatest and most subtle half-truths in all of modern science – and that there is no evidence for it in the literature.

Again, I invite whatever data you have. And I invite you to read Shapiro’s paper.

Perry Marshall

GM says:

Mr. Marshall

Great info about the behavior of RNA/DNA. I understand now why you have taken the road into the world of God and are so deeply anchored, it was your background with the mathmatical theorist Shannon. I had pondered why such a talented person as yourself would waste valuable time on Christianity.
I never considered God in the mix of a mathmatical model of the universe when I was introduced about 40 years ago to the model. Math has been always been good to me and easy. Now we have these great calculators that compute what has taken many pages to solve and transposing can lead to errors, the error free calculators perform in seconds what has taken much toil, sweat, and checking to solve. My GPA for math has risen to A** with a few lessons from professors and data entry.
I do belief our life is predicated on numbers.
I think you mentioned 10 raised to the 20th once and you get 1 rung on the helix.
Also encoders and decoders that act as traffic directors for the neurological network for electrical inpulses from the brain.
We are a living breathing dynamo.
Thank you for being a stimulus for brain exercise.
The study of the brain has always held me captive since my undergraduate school days.
Today, Mind/Brain, is a hottly debated subject and very interesting to follow.

Cheers

Nikos,

Thank you for your thoughtful and gentlemanly analysis.

My own lexical definition of information is as follows:

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

In this discussion, “information” and “code” are interchangeable terms.

The above definition is analytic a priori because it IS just as clear as “all bachelors are unmarried.”

According to Shannon’s model, for communication to take place, an encoder, decoder and transmitted code must be in place. We can look at any system and see if it has an encoder, decoder and a message – or not. DNA is a communication system. A snowflake is not. The definitions are black and white.

I see no difference between the way bachelors are defined and the way information is defined.

Any particular example of an observed communication system is posteriori synthetic because the components can be observed and labeled. DNA unambiguously fits this definition because as Yockey showed (see diagram at http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm ) it matches Shannon’s 1948 model exactly.

Therefore DNA is a communication system based on the above definition and observations, and my argument is on solid ground so far.

When I say “information is a real cause because it produces real effects” we have now actually made a judgment about whether the information has been properly encoded and decoded or not. Just by defining its effects. Let me explain what I mean.

If you press the button on your garage door opener and the garage door opens, this happens because a code has been successfully transmitted and received.

The opening of the garage door is real.

Therefore the information that was passed between the transmitter and the receiver was also real.

Communication is real. It’s physically measurable.

Communication systems are real. They are also physically measurable.

We can make a judgment as to whether the code was successfully transmitted and received. If you push the button and the garage door doesn’t open, then transmission was unsuccessful.

It could be unsuccessful because the battery was dead. It could be unsuccessful because the I set the DIP switches wrong in the transmitter and it was transmitting the wrong code or using the wrong frequency.

It could be unsuccessful because you were too far away or because there was interference from electrical noise.

In any case there is an implicit definition of success or failure based on the INTENT of the code – and the intended consequences of pushing the button. The fact that the right transmitter is “supposed to” open my garage (notice the teleology here) and that all other transmitters in the neighborhood are not supposed to open my garage door.

We can describe this in terms of the OSI 7-layer model – physical layer, data link layer, transport layer, application layer, etc.

In the garage example there are only a few of layers in use. There’s the radio transmission (physical layer), and there is a code that is transmitted (transport layer). Then there is the application layer, which is the command to open the garage door (i.e. pushing the button).

In any communication system, there is ALWAYS at least one additional implied layer, on top of the ones that are physically present. In this example it’s the INTENT to open the garage; and also the INTENT to build a system that performs this task in the first place. All communication systems imply intent. DNA implies intent to convert GGG triplets to Glycine.

This implied intent is posteriori analytic. We can infer that this system existed as a thought experiment before it existed as a physical system. We make this inference from our observation that the system uses agreed-upon symbols. Symbols are abstract.

In DNA, the tables that map triplets to mRNA to proteins are not physical but the tables describe ideas that accurately describe the rules of a real coding system.

I think you are trying to ask the question, are symbols real? Are the rules of a communication system real?

(BTW I recognize the distinction between a physical object and the labels we attach to it. “Glycine” is a label we attach to a certain amino acid. As the Neuro Linguistic Programming people say, the territory is not the map.)

The rules of a communication system are not physically real. You cannot weigh them on a scale.

However the fact that we can MEASURE whether the rules were followed or not; whether the symbols were properly decoded or not; proves that they are still real. We could not talk sensibly about them if they were not.

We can measure whether the rules of a communication were followed or not just as accurately as we can measure a tree.

Correct programming of a garage door opener is real because the garage door opens. A measurable event.

Incorrect programming of a garage door opener is real because the garage door does not open. Also a measurable event.

Therefore communication is real; communication systems are real; the information in those systems is real; and the rules that govern them are real.

The fact that these words on this blog have appeared on your screen, properly decoded by your PC and in turn properly decoded by you, is proof of the reality of multiple layers information. And intent. Even on a purely mechanical level, ie your Wi-Fi sending this information to your computer.

Our judgment of “proper” or “improper” decoding is not a physical object. But the judgment exists and it is still measurably true or false.

This is proof that Norbert Weiner was right: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”

So information is on solid footing on priori analytic, posteriori synthetic, and posteriori analytic grounds.

This brings us to the priori synthetic – my metaphysical proposition of God.

Communication systems are built using rules that are arbitrary. The choice of 1000001 meaning the letter “A” in ASCII is arbitrary. The choice of GGG coding for Glycine in DNA is arbitrary.

Neither the rules of ASCII nor the rules of the genetic code can be derived from the laws of physics (Yockey, 2005). The rules of any particular coding system are not properties of pure matter and energy. Rather, these rules organize the movement of matter and energy.

In the OSI model, these rules operate in the upper layers, not at the physical layer. The physical layer simply obeys the instructions of the layers above it.

Since physical laws can never be disobeyed, the rules of codes are fundamentally different from the laws of physics. Why? Because they can fail. The intended outcome can fail to occur. The decoder can fail to properly decode.

The only place that rules of this kind originate, so far as we have ever observed, is from conscious intelligent minds. We have 100% inference from millions of codes supporting this statement and 0% inference to the contrary.

Rocks do not talk. Therefore the rules of communication systems come from consciousness and not from matter or energy.

Information is a separate entity from matter and energy and therefore has a separate source.

Since information exists and does not come from unconscious material sources, it must come from an immaterial conscious source that exists.

Therefore an immaterial conscious source exists, and information has a metaphysical origin.

Therefore God exists.

I have not formally proven this; such a thing is inherently unprovable in the formal mathematical sense. As Gödel said, all knowledge rests on axioms that you know are true but cannot be proven.

I have shown that all human knowledge provides 100% inference to this. Based on current knowledge and the scientific method of induction, we can be just as certain that God exists as we are certain about the laws of thermodynamics.

Perry Marshall

Mike SKomina says:

Good work.

I pose the thought that this existance is real BUT through the very information we are talking about, the association of the letters formed to spell God are assigned to this indicated itteligence by a mind. Now what i am saying is that we may find that god was a term applied to this intelligence but in fact this very real intelligence may in fact be information that indiates another ‘name’ or understanding for this existance. So…it may not be god as we are informed of, mans interpretation (a mind) over years and years. We have all seen evidence of the sort of manipulation that has occurred with information. Boltzmanns brain and other developments in theory of the universe leads me to assume that we all are our own god that has our own complete universe, much like one of the ‘balloons’ we have seen described as universes that are forming. The 11th Dimension has also heightened the stakes. There is possibly too much to fill in here, we are a unique existance ourselves that posses conciousness, leading to information we learn of as soul. This is unique to the human species and our universe (plants, animals etc). Other existances in the infinity of this megaverse are not to be disregarded, the possible interactions, the very possibilities lend itself to serious examination of where information in the form of messages and organized communication occurs. We have at least a couple of thousand turbulant years to make our way through before the human mind will sufficiently exist on a higher level as to where understanding will be the source of all the information and knowledge of the universe. Perhaps the theories of de sitter space, poincare, m-theory and entropy of the universe can help one reach an understanding. What I found is that you can really get it all in the end, but you will have great difficulty in explaining yourself to another in this reality.

Anyways, all have a wonderfull universe. We really do attract a lot of what we got.

Warm regards,
Mike

Some reading to get you interested could be ( have a dabble as a ‘freaky’ observer go on..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

Steve says:

“Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.”

You sir are entirely wrong in this statement. The Bible itself says in Luke 19:40 the following”

“I tell you,” he [Jesus] replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

Furthermore, rocks contain radioactivity…..as do most things. But, simple mathematical caluculations of the half life of the radio activity within rocks prove a young earth.

Every atom records history as well. The limitation is our ability to measure what it has recorded. Envision this -

God spoke “light” into being. The term “light” in the Bible does not merely refer to sunshine or the light from stars. “Light” refers to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Among that spectrum is infrared, visible, X-ray, gamma, etc……oh, and audible utterances. Don’t believe that? Then explain how sound can be transformed into electical or light (fiber optic) signals and back into sound again. Maybe Alexander Graham Bell lied to us. Keep this fact in mind as you continue…..

The Bible speaks of “the books being opened”. While there may be books, God’s creation records everything as it happens. When you speak you create vibrations among air molecules. Those molecules and the atoms they are made of vibrate for eternity (sound has a half life because it is radiation). We simply can’t hear the vibrations. Or when you create a shadow your presence is forever recorded by the atoms you cast your shadow upon. (Hint – You are always casting a shadow everywhere you go despite the lack of visible light). This scientific fact is further backed up by the Bible where it speaks of Peter’s shadow passing over people and them being healed).

So, the next time you speak…..remember it is forever recorded, or the next time your foot takes you where you should not go…..it is forever recorded. Got the picture?

But as for your article proving that God exists…..it is pretty weak. Good, but pretty weak. And for someone who chooses to disbelieve the existence of God you have proven nothing.

Steve,

Luke 19 says, Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”

“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

I believe the point being made is that rocks indeed do NOT talk, unless God causes them too. Which in the context of this passage is understood to be a miraculous, if necessary, event. Nobody there had ever heard a rock talk and neither have you or I.

If you wish to assert that every atom records history, you need to back up that statement with evidence. I would invite you to probe said atoms and use the information stored in them to support your statement that the earth is young.

I would also like to suggest that radioactivity measurements do not indicate a young earth, but an old one. Good book: “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by David Snoke.

I see no conflict between the Genesis account and an old earth.

Perry

nick says:

Hi Perry, First I want to thank you for sending your material & I commend you, as I’m sure the Lord does, for standing up for the Truth, as Jesus said of himself, “I am the way the truth & the life, no man can come to the father but by me. John 14:6
I tried reading through some of the other comments but found them tedious, superflous, extraneous, & puffed up with man’s wisdom which is “foolishnes with God” as His word states.
I am a missionary presently serving in the Philippines & it’s a wonderful life serving our wonderful creator. The most convincing proof I have for the reality of God’s existence is to see lives instantly changed through the miracle of salvation & the born again experience. When the blind man was healed by Jesus in John 9 & he was challenged by the unbelieving Pharisees, when they said Jesus was a sinner, his classic reply was, “Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” Simplicity is the key to believing like a child as Jesus said, Except you have the faith of a little child you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Regarding simplicity, the apostle Paul stated in IICor. 11:3, “I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his sublety,so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ.” Thanks again Perry, I appreciate what you do & my prayers are with you.
Sincerely, Nick

GMEstes1 says:

I believe this is simile and metaphorical; writing skills and can’t be taken literally. Rocks don’t have the ability to speak, unless of cousre a person is influenced by mind alterering substances. I believe many writters of the Bible were under the influence of such sustances.
The Bible seems to be focused on obedience, sin nature, and monarchy. The rest is just hyperbole and fantasy.
Religious leaders won’t tell you anything new, they themselves don’t know anything new.

fefooo says:

do you see what u have done here? do you see the problem? you have both taken writings/information from another being be it god be it man but another… u have taken his words which mean what they mean whatever the meaning is and u have twisted them into your favor your way of thinking your way of seeing…from one peace of writing/information we came up with 3 different meanings…mjm the human mind is an extraordinary thing

Cristiano says:

Dear Steve,

Though I comprehend what you said I want to assure you that what Mr. Perry meant has nothing to do with the future “opening of books” that surely shall take place sometime near in the future.

He speaks of communication, the exchanging of symbols with a purpose between a transmiter and a receptor and in this sense “rocks don’t talk”. It is sure that to the Creator they listen and as He commandsthey obey. In THIS sense, in the beginning, there was a transmiter, God, a message, “let there be light” or “let the dry land appear”, and we can measure the results of such message being transmited, received and worked upon.

But again, in the broad sense of communication, what Mr. Marshall meant is that, today, rocks are not exchanging messages between themselves for a given purpose, or at least it has not been proven that they actually do; what if proven that they do exchange messages it would be a greater proof of design and an intelligent mind working on or upon them. What would make the very concept of a such personal God much more important that now without such knowledge of such widespread inteligence and purpose and design.

John says:

Perry,

Wow, this argument is so powerful, it almost seems too good to be true! Thank you so much and my the Lord bless you for all your hard work you have obviously put into this. I’ve read the debate over at infidels and went through your site. Good stuff. Great job your doing. I know you are strengthening the faith of alot of us doubting Thomas Christians.

This is like the “proof” I’ve always wanted, at least as far as we can prove a thing. What a masterful way for God to leave our freewil intact as to not impose himself on us directly, but yet at the same time leave Himself currently as the only available explanation for all that we see! Amazing!

Anyway I’ve been attempting to advance this argument at a few forums, but I get kinda hung up on some questions and objections, that I know you have covered. I keep going through the entire debate and your site trying to remember where you said that one certain thing etc,lol…grrr. It’s really amazing how you advanced it with only 26 posts at infidels. Im almost 70 posts in at EvC forum still trying to convince them of your definition of code. And that DNA most certainly fits. I would like to invite you there if you so desired, if not I totally understand.

Heres a few of their latest objections….

“You’ve chosen the definition of human created codes intended for a digital age and are in effect claiming, without justification, that there can be no other types of codes, and that therefore only human created codes can be codes.

Information can be encoded in ways that are not symbolic. With a finite set of symbols, how are you going to define a symbolic representation of the infinite range of pitch and volume used by our military sentry? How are you going to represent the continuous changes in amplitude of the human voice modulated onto an AM radio signal? You can, of course, approximate them through analog-to-digital conversion, which is how music is encoded onto CD’s, but this is an approximation that while adequate for human hearing does not actually reproduce the original signal.

A few examples. A volcano makes a soft rumbling sound, and a nearby sentry assigned to watch the volcano journeys back to his tribe and when asked the status imitates the rumbling sound of the volcano. How is the rumbling sound coded information when made by a human, but not when made by the volcano?

Or consider a rather strange arborist who decides to communicate the pattern of 60 growth rings in a recently deceased tree by growing another tree. For a thick growth ring in the old tree he richly waters and fertilizes his new tree for a year. For a thin growth ring he only waters and fertilizes his new tree sufficient to keep it alive for that year. For an average growth ring he gives it a normal amount of water and fertilizer. After 60 years his new tree contains a record in its pattern of rings of both its growth and the growth of the old tree. How can the tree rings of the new tree be information, while the tree rings of the old tree are not?

Or consider Alphabits cereal. You select three letters and spell the word “yes”. That’s human encoded information. Now let’s say you jostle the box of Alphabits, and three of the bits pop out and fall together to form the word “yes”. How would someone arriving later determine whether the word “yes” was formed by an intelligence or not, and therefore whether it represented information or not?

The reason your definition doesn’t work is because it is artificially restrictive. You want codes to be something that only an intelligence can create. You’ve introduced this restriction because it allows you to reach the conclusion that is important to you. Unfortunately, by insisting on this restriction you’ve produced a definition that doesn’t accurately describe the real world, as the contradictions indicated by my examples clearly tell us.”

“Again, you’re trying to draw a distinction that doesn’t exist, and you’re insisting on a restricted definition of code that was crafted for the specific context of communications in a digital age. The information that there’s a large mass nearby in the form of a star is communicated in the form of electromagnetic radiation and gravity that takes about eight minutes to arrive. Clearly information is being communicated from the star to us, else we couldn’t know it was there. Until you have an inclusive definition of information and codes, your ideas won’t be representative of the real world.”

“Thus a message in English writing can be in the form of a book, words produced by an LCD screen, or dots and dashes of Morse code and still have the same “symbolic meaning”. The message (information) is independent of the carrier. I think that is a requirement he has but I’m not sure.

Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still “work”. It is pure chemistry and the “sender” and “receiver” are chemical reactions which have to have it in it’s chemical form.”


We can’t derive geological principles from the laws of physics and chemistry, either, they’re too complex. Are you therefore willing to conclude that only an intelligence could design sedimentary, erosive and tectonic processes, among many others. Yockey is essentially making the “complexity requires an intelligence” argument, just as does Dembski.

Life is indeed complex and unique chemically in its sequenced reactions and processes, but when we examine life in detail what we observe is completely consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry. And the changing pattern of life over time is described by the theory of evolution, which is also consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry.

You can point to things we don’t yet understand about the origins of the genetic code, but this would only mean that you somehow don’t comprehend that there will always be things we don’t yet understand. That’s why the religious who require their myths to be consistent with science always focus on the frontiers of science where knowledge is most uncertain. That’s why intelligent design focuses so much energy on the tiniest processes of life at the nuclear level, and on the tiniest components of reality at the quantum level. Religion has had to retreat from claims of everyday experience like “God controls the weather” and “God controls the dance of the planets” to the far more esoteric and remote “God controls DNA” and “God controls quantum fluctuations.”


NosyNed writes:
WBL suggests that only a “code” that transmits a message that is purely “abstract”, that is, is symbolic and not a part of the physical nature of the medium of which the code is built is what he is talking about.

You’re right about this, and I think that’s why he said, for example, that matter contains only its “personal” information. But obviously he’s wrong there, too, such as in geology where a rock layer contains not only information about itself specifically, but also about the context and environment in which it formed, such as limestone layers that formed in warm shallow seas. And of course the examples go on and on, like a spectrum light from a distant galaxy passing through a gas cloud and picking up hydrogen absorption lines.

Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still “work”. It is pure chemistry and the “sender” and “receiver” are chemical reactions which have to have it in it’s chemical form.

I don’t think WordBeLogos’s definition of communication requires an intelligent sender and receiver. I think his claim is that the origin of the code requires an intelligence. Of course there’s a complex process built around the code, and I think WordBeLogos believes that that requires an intelligence, too.”

Thanks, John

John,

Here are responses to these questions, feel free to use them:

“You’ve chosen the definition of human created codes intended for a digital age and are in effect claiming, without justification, that there can be no other types of codes, and that therefore only human created codes can be codes.

“Information can be encoded in ways that are not symbolic. With a finite set of symbols, how are you going to define a symbolic representation of the infinite range of pitch and volume used by our military sentry? How are you going to represent the continuous changes in amplitude of the human voice modulated onto an AM radio signal? You can, of course, approximate them through analog-to-digital conversion, which is how music is encoded onto CD’s, but this is an approximation that while adequate for human hearing does not actually reproduce the original signal.”

I define Code as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

I chose Claude Shannon’s model. Shannon’s model is THE definitive model of engineering communication theory. Furthermore I have restricted my own definition to digital communication, using “symbols”. Shannon’s approach is the simplest available structure for defining digital communication.

Note that Shannon’s paper was written in 1948, a decade before DNA was discovered.

AM radio does not fit my chosen set of definitions because it is analog. I chose digital communication instead of analog because digital is black and white and totally unambiguous.

By choosing a black-and-white, 1-and-0, discrete definition of information, I am able to put my finger on the definitive difference between information and non-information. This is what we are looking for when we define things: Terms that allow us to make important distinctions between seemingly similar things.

In Shannon’s There is an [encoder] that sends a [digital message] that is decoded by a [decoder] using agreed-upon symbols.

When this process is complete with all three parts, we have digital communication.

This definition makes a clear distinction between things that are communication systems and things that are not.

“A few examples. A volcano makes a soft rumbling sound, and a nearby sentry assigned to watch the volcano journeys back to his tribe and when asked the status imitates the rumbling sound of the volcano. How is the rumbling sound coded information when made by a human, but not when made by the volcano?

“Or consider a rather strange arborist who decides to communicate the pattern of 60 growth rings in a recently deceased tree by growing another tree. For a thick growth ring in the old tree he richly waters and fertilizes his new tree for a year. For a thin growth ring he only waters and fertilizes his new tree sufficient to keep it alive for that year. For an average growth ring he gives it a normal amount of water and fertilizer. After 60 years his new tree contains a record in its pattern of rings of both its growth and the growth of the old tree. How can the tree rings of the new tree be information, while the tree rings of the old tree are not?”

One might argue that information has been ENCODED by the volcano or by the tree. However in both cases this information is not DECODED until a human comes along to interpret it. So no communication system exists before the intelligent being arrives on the scene.

This is entirely different from DNA which encodes and decodes using a set of symbols, and this process goes on independently of human intervention or observation. It communicates whether we are there or not.

“Or consider Alphabits cereal. You select three letters and spell the word “yes”. That’s human encoded information. Now let’s say you jostle the box of Alphabits, and three of the bits pop out and fall together to form the word “yes”. How would someone arriving later determine whether the word “yes” was formed by an intelligence or not, and therefore whether it represented information or not?”

Just by examining the letters in the box themselves, we can do a statistical calculation and ask ourselves what is the probability of all the pieces of cereal in the box being shaped like the letters of the English alphabet instead of blobs of oat paste. Do they all look like letters by pure accident, or on purpose?

We may not be able to PROVE that the box was designed, but we do have 100% inference for design. The statistical likelihood of all those letters appearing accidentally is effectively zero.

As for the word “yes” in the Alphabits cereal: Claude Shannon defines “statistics” as a layer of information and Shannon’s statistical analysis would tell you whether the pattern of cereal letters on the table is random; or if the word “yes” is there because it was arranged by an English speaking person. (If it is real English, “e” and “t” will appear far more often than “x” or “z” or “q.”) Statistics tells you whether the word “yes” and other words on the table were designed.

“The reason your definition doesn’t work is because it is artificially restrictive. You want codes to be something that only an intelligence can create. You’ve introduced this restriction because it allows you to reach the conclusion that is important to you. Unfortunately, by insisting on this restriction you’ve produced a definition that doesn’t accurately describe the real world, as the contradictions indicated by my examples clearly tell us.”

My definition is Shannon’s, and Shannon’s accurately describes all communication systems. Years after Shannon wrote his paper, we also discovered that DNA matches his model 100%. Shannon’s definition has been working just fine for 61 years.

All definitions are restrictive, otherwise we couldn’t have meaningful communication about anything at all.

There are no contradictions. DNA fits Shannon’s model. As does everything on the Internet, and human languages.

Snowflakes and rocks and volcanos and hurricanes do not fit Shannon’s model.

This person is crying foul because you have successfully identified ONE thing that designs have in common with biology, that is not found anywhere else in the purely physical world.

It ends the argument.

The only thing the skeptic can say about this is “I don’t know.” To which you respond, “Congratulations on graduating from atheism to agnosticism.”

If the atheist doesn’t want to be an agnostic, if he doesn’t want to admit that the only available explanation is intelligence, he claims you cheated. But you didn’t. You just presented data that stops the argument cold.

This makes people angry if they’re just looking for an argument and not looking for answers.

“Again, you’re trying to draw a distinction that doesn’t exist, and you’re insisting on a restricted definition of code that was crafted for the specific context of communications in a digital age. The information that there’s a large mass nearby in the form of a star is communicated in the form of electromagnetic radiation and gravity that takes about eight minutes to arrive. Clearly information is being communicated from the star to us, else we couldn’t know it was there. Until you have an inclusive definition of information and codes, your ideas won’t be representative of the real world.”

According to Shannon’s model, no communication exists here until an intelligent observer is in place who decodes the information. Even then, it is still different from DNA. Because the transmitted light from the star was not encoded according to mutually agreed-upon symbols. We can only impose an interpretation of the data (the starlight for example) based on judgments of the meaning of starlight, which constantly changes with scientific progress. An astronomer sees one thing, an astrologer sees another. Clearly there is no agreed-upon system of symbols for starlight the way that there is in DNA.

“Thus a message in English writing can be in the form of a book, words produced by an LCD screen, or dots and dashes of Morse code and still have the same “symbolic meaning”. The message (information) is independent of the carrier. I think that is a requirement he has but I’m not sure.

“Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still “work”. It is pure chemistry and the “sender” and “receiver” are chemical reactions which have to have it in it’s chemical form.”

The only requirement in my definition is that there be an encoder, a code, and a decoder.

The fact that code can take different forms and still mean the same thing once decoded illustrates the transferrable nature of information.

The triplet GGG translates to Glycine as DNA is decoded, and it doesn’t matter how the sequence GGG was originally put there (naturally, or by a geneticist; whether the geneticist stored the pattern on a hard drive or a piece of paper). Similarly, the words you are reading right now translate to English inside your brain and it doesn’t matter whether the information came through your eyes or your ears.

“We can’t derive geological principles from the laws of physics and chemistry, either, they’re too complex. Are you therefore willing to conclude that only an intelligence could design sedimentary, erosive and tectonic processes, among many others. Yockey is essentially making the “complexity requires an intelligence” argument, just as does Dembski.”

I have always stated the exact opposite in my lectures and papers. All geological forms CAN be derived simply from the laws of physics and chemistry. Any atheist would agree. The only thing we need to explain the structure of rocks and dirt and planets and stars is the laws of physics and the initial conditions.

However the genetic code is not explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone. It requires an additional set of laws.

Finally you are completely misquoting Yockey. Yockey doesn’t believe in intelligent design. He believes that the origin of information is unknowable to science.

“Life is indeed complex and unique chemically in its sequenced reactions and processes, but when we examine life in detail what we observe is completely consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry. And the changing pattern of life over time is described by the theory of evolution, which is also consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry.”

All these things OBEY the laws of physics and chemistry, but the laws of physics and chemistry alone are not enough to give rise to them. The laws of the genetic code are also necessary and these laws cannot be derived from physics. Quoting Yockey (2005):

“The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico -chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

“You can point to things we don’t yet understand about the origins of the genetic code, but this would only mean that you somehow don’t comprehend that there will always be things we don’t yet understand. That’s why the religious who require their myths to be consistent with science always focus on the frontiers of science where knowledge is most uncertain. That’s why intelligent design focuses so much energy on the tiniest processes of life at the nuclear level, and on the tiniest components of reality at the quantum level. Religion has had to retreat from claims of everyday experience like “God controls the weather” and “God controls the dance of the planets” to the far more esoteric and remote “God controls DNA” and “God controls quantum fluctuations.”

I fully understand that in order for science to do its job, it must search for naturalistic explanations. The scientist who does this is following the dictates of his career. To just throw up his hands and say “Goddidit” is to give up. I understand that.

But there is still another thing which you must consider: All science is based on an assumption of underlying order. This order cannot be proven in advance, rather it is a hypothesis that has always been rewarded in the history of science. This hypothesis originally came from the theologians and from belief in God. It’s no accident that many early great scientists (Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, Boyle, Maxwell) were deeply religious. The rise of science was not some victory of atheism.

The function of DNA is governed by arbitrary codes that cannot be derived from the laws of physics. The only coherent way to understand the genome is to acknowledge the genetic code. So we must now inquire into the REASONS why the code is the way it is.

Thus we cannot study biology without invoking teleology (purpose). Biology has purpose that is driven by information and information is immaterial. The only responsible thing the biologist can do is take this observation at face value and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. At every step as he studies an organism he has to ask, “What is the REASON for this part or this organ?” He is not allowed to assume, “This is here for no reason at all.”

Moreover, the WORST thing that the biologist can do is attempt to explain biology as a product of random accident. This view only shows contempt for what the biologist is supposed to be studying, and this contempt is an insult to his own profession.

Notice that science pushes the boundaries of the unknown further back, as well it should. But it never does away with the origins question and never will. There will always be the question “Where did the universe come from? Why is the universe orderly? Why is it rational?”

NosyNed writes:
“WBL suggests that only a “code” that transmits a message that is purely “abstract”, that is, is symbolic and not a part of the physical nature of the medium of which the code is built is what he is talking about.

“You’re right about this, and I think that’s why he said, for example, that matter contains only its “personal” information. But obviously he’s wrong there, too, such as in geology where a rock layer contains not only information about itself specifically, but also about the context and environment in which it formed, such as limestone layers that formed in warm shallow seas. And of course the examples go on and on, like a spectrum light from a distant galaxy passing through a gas cloud and picking up hydrogen absorption lines.

“Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition.

“It can not be conveyed in any other way and still “work”. It is pure chemistry and the “sender” and “receiver” are chemical reactions which have to have it in it’s chemical form.”

If NosyNed wants to create his own definition of information for his own purposes, that is fine; and yes, by some non-Shannon definitions, rock layers do contain information. But I am using Shannon’s definition, not NosyNed’s. DNA is a code by Shannon’s definition and geology is not.

I don’t know about you, but in my opinion, a definition of communication that does not distinguish between rocks computer systems is not a very helpful definition.

Your hard drive is pure chemistry too. It’s just a big magnet with silicon and copper and plastic. “Reading” and “writing” are entirely mechanical processes.

But that description falls a little short of explaining or describing the data that is stored on your hard drive, doesn’t it? Your hard drive does not weigh any more when it is full than when it is empty. But its value to you and its ability to perform any particular task is different. Because information is immaterial.

“I don’t think WordBeLogos’s definition of communication requires an intelligent sender and receiver. I think his claim is that the origin of the code requires an intelligence. Of course there’s a complex process built around the code, and I think WordBeLogos believes that that requires an intelligence, too.”

I didn’t see this person’s original post but many times this is true. A computer itself is as dumb as a box of rocks (it IS a box of rocks, really) and contains no intelligence. But intelligence is still required to explain its origin.

Perry Marshall

BlackHoleSun says:

The big bang and black hole theory is highlighted in the hindu ritual of having a ANGAVASTRA-ring of cotton- around Lord Ganesha (lord of wisdom) such that it has alternate puffs and rolls which are equal to indicate the day of the Brahma(creation of universe) and night of Brahma(dissolution). The Puff is to indicate the physical form of universe to emanate from collective consciousness of last creation(puff) which is held in seed form as a black hole (rolls).

Big Bang forms the universe and since sound needs a medium (before the big bang there is no sound, time , space) the first sound that emanates with the new creation is OHM. By mere utterance one can find the sound exploding like the expanding universe (3/4 of which is formed in 1/10 billionth of a second) and stabilizing into a hum. It is not a superstition to utter OHM. Rather it is the means to reach out to the pristine state of the universe and identify with it.

This is bound to change ones perspective in the objective view such that he becomes more and more subjective. Takes responsibility for his thoughts, words and deeds such that he realizes the hidden potential and open truth that the universe is the construct of ones mind. But due the limited intellect our awareness of the universe is only a miniature subset of the cosmic manifestation.

But with the advent of science and all the great discoveries one is now able to grasp the universe in bits and pieces. But most of these are sufficient to show the symbolism in the Hindu culture. Just the fact that after a big bang the monosyllable sound OHM is emanated and was recognized as the source, shows the intersection of religion and science.

If the fact that the universe is illusionary is added to the above knowledge we are bound to become Gods. But it is possible only after all inner conflicts are resolved. Then one is in synchronicity with the universal consciousness.

Simon Says says:

Have no doubt about God existing; but there is no proof of his will to communicate in any way with mites like humans… What do we have to communicate to an entity so immense? Maybe some day we may be capable of transmitting the capacity of some of us of being happy in any circumstance, even in total loneliness.
When creating different kinds of gods, humanity has been unable to imagine
a compassionate one. Proof of this is the blindness of human Justice.

Simon Says

nick says:

All through the Bible God was communicating with His beloved creation starting with Adam & also with the crowning glory of that creation, Adam’s wife, Eve. Then on through the entire old testament, He communicated through prophets the likes of Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, just to name of few out of the many. You’r e right in your terminology stating an “entity too immense” since only the select few in the OT had “rights” to communicating with the Almighty & even then it was a fearsome thing which even left the prophets physically sick from such encounters with Perfection. Too bridge this gap & to bring about an intimacy & love relationship with mankind, God did the most logical thing. He sent His mind & His love in a human body & named Him Jesus Christ! Maybe you know the story from there, bit if not it’s all there in the New Testament, specifically the four gospels.

GM says:

Good points about GOD…GOD repaired the sin problem with a blood sacrifice of an animal in Genesis. Therefore I don’t understand the need for a New Testament. It is taught GOD’S creation is born with the Adamic sin nature and needs redeeming in order to communicate with GOD. But GOD repaired the sin problem back in Genesis, didn’t HE. So why did GOD send Jesus if the sin problem was already repaired? I was reading tonight in John 12:45…Jesus is speaking with a Samarian woman at Jacob’s well, their conversation has absolutely nothing to do with redemption. Jesus describes Himself in the verse as, “if you see me you see GOD”. I will give you water that satisfies the sinue of humanity. Nothing to do with redemption again.
Somewhere through the centuries humanity either forgot or didn’t accept GOD’S
repair for the sin nature problem. WEIRD! At the well of Jacob Jesus describes GOD as LOVE,LIGHT,and SPIRIT. The Bible has very little dialogue and is presented in the passive third person for most of its context. Jacob’s well encounter is one of the rare moments of dialogue between, GOD not GOD Jesus…as HE describes Himself as the one sent by my Father to perform miracles? No, Jesus is establishing Himself as one qualified to speak to a Sararian woman…He must have thought, if I can convince her I”m God I’m justified to ignore protocal. The Jesus theme was to fulfil the law not destroy it.
The law was an Old Testament law, one of which is GOD’S repair of the sin problem. Writing’s of the Apostle Paul (?) took off like Peter running to the empty tomb of Jesus. The New Testament has snowballed ever since, out of control, a real crowd pleaser.
GOD having no form is the only undetected presence in the helix of RNA and DNA…so far.

GMEstes1 says:

Try this if you pratice New Testament principles. Galatians 2:20, try and crucify yourself…it’s impossible, you always have one hand left over. Covered sin verses removed sin…is the sin nature completely gone? God says if He sees blood he will pass over and not require death. God says He requires a blood sacrifice and Jesus says obedience is better than sacrifice? Blood’s reward is eternal life and obedience’s reward is happiness. Both are available from the Old Testament God and religious tradition. The New Testament is suppose to be a better way.

Unni Raman Tharakkal says:

Everything has two sides, Substance and Essence. Substance is that which is extended in space and Essence is that is not extended in space but always stays with Substance. One cannot exist without the other. The flower Rose consists of the basic matter which is extended in space, that means, takes space to exist. But its colour, its smell which are characteristics to itself which makes it different from others are its essenses. Those essences cannot exist in themselves, but need the basic matter which is extended in space. This way what ever exists in this Universe has both substane and essence. So the Substances and their Essences are born together. Hence, if one can believe that no God is required for the creation of Substances then no God is required for the creation of Essences also. This Universe always existed. Its Substances and Essences ever expand and change form infinitely small to infinitely big and infinitely change for ever. So there is no requirement of an external creator. There is nothing external to Universe. What ever exists is Universe. If everything needs a cause, then there cannot be an ‘uncaused cause’. Why give a concession to the rule that everything needs a cause?

If we call something is ‘Red’, there are something else which is not ‘Red’. We call a thing ‘Big’ because there is something else which is not ‘Big’. Everything is something because something else exists. If something ‘God’, then there should be something ‘Not God’. If ‘Everything is God’, where is something ‘Not God’ ?

John says:

Hello Perry,

Thanks for the reply.

Btw im curious, has your brother found a renewed faith yet? I feel like I’ve been there myself, especially after debating atheists for a few years now myself. I sometimes wonder if neo-Dawinism is the “lie” that would be so strong as to even decieve the very elect, if it were possible.

I myself believe evolution is merely Gods hands working through natural law. God who has rigged a single point with the odds of life arising, then producing a form suitable for man, with the odds of it happening only once in a universes lifetime! Hey even only once in a muti-universes lifetime! lol All by simply setting up the initial conditions and properties matter. What genius! Now that’s a feat that sounds God worthy!

Anyway, heres a few current objections I’ve ran across at EvC. I myself am still trying to nail down your argument, not sure if I correctly understand it. Some of these objections cause me to wonder myself. I’ve invited them to your debate at infidels and to come here etc,. But as usual, when it gets tuff, it’s the same old “no no no, we want it in your own words, leave Perry out of it.” Which of course, can’t blaim them, it’s much easier to twist the debate with me. Anyway heres a few, if you don’t mind….

Btw Im WordBeLogos,

“”And I showed you what that symbolic code was. For neon it is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6. For the W Boson it is Charge -1, Spin 1, Mass 80.4.”

“Your examples contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule,”

“Yes, they do. The electron orbital code specifies the chemical reactions it is planned for in the same way that DNA does. This orbital code specifies whether or not an atom will take or give up eletrons, and how easily this occurs. The electron code specifies the arrangement of atoms that it binds to. The quantum code found in particles specifies the plan for it’s path through a cloud chamber and it’s interactions with different fields.”"

This one im not sure about myself, is this coded information?

———————-

“”Why don’t you address this one simple example: Let’s say you’re a scientist studying the sun and you’re making notations in a notebook. Where does the information about the sun come from? Is it coming from the scientist? If it’s coming from the scientist then he should be able to make the same notations without the sun. But he can’t, right? Therefore the information he’s writing down must come from the sun, because he can’t just make up the information himself and have a prayer of any of it being correct. You’ve already conceded that matter contains information about itself, so it must be true that information was communicated from the sun to the scientist.

Now we know you’re insisting that the information from the sun is not *encoded information*, but it is. For example, the elements in the sun’s outer atmosphere are encoded in the sun’s absorption spectrum. Every black line in the spectrum represents an energy change in the electron shells of the isotope of a specific element. Now explain to us how this correspondence between black lines at a frequency (symbols, since you’re so insistent about them) and elements is not a code.”"

Now from my understanding, this may be encoded but there is now “message” meant to be sent and decoded by us or anything else, is this correct?

—————————

“”Manmade codes, such as symbolic language, written language, wartime ciphers, etc., are all about imparting information from one mind to another. Thus, it’s not surprising that minds have to precede codes — there’s no point to these codes without a mind on both ends of the message transmission. That’s also why the medium doesn’t much matter — as long as the message gets from the originating mind to the receiving mind, it doesn’t matter if it travels by vibrations in the air, the internet, smoke signals, words on a page, etc.

The mistake you and pmarshall are making is trying to use *those* kind of codes to draw conclusions about very *different* kinds of codes — you mistakenly use the example of manmade mind-to-mind communication codes in order to FALSELY draw conclusion about how nature-based codes (such as DNA) “must” be.

But despite numerous similarities, there are very stark differences, which you and pmarshall are failing to see when you try to make your various conclusions based on a faulty “codes are codes, what’s true of one code — especially manmade codes — must therefore be true of all other codes” argument that is very much NOT a valid way to reason.

Just because manmade codes are (duh) made by man’s mind, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily made by a mind.

Just because manmade codes are for the purpose of communicating mind-to-mind, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily crafted by or carrying a message from a mind.

Just because manmade codes are indepedent of the medium, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily indepedent of their medium.

Let’s take that last one for example, because it helps underscore how fundamentally UNLIKE human codes they are, and how your attempt to argue from a “all codes are the same, have the same properties/origins” premise fails because they are NOT as uniformly alike as you simplistically think.

Manmade codes are used to impart information from one mind to another, and as such the medium is largely irrelevant. I could send this post to you over the internet, via ink and paper, through a messenger who had memorized it and would repeat it back to you, etc.

That is NOT the case for DNA. DNA works via direct, physical, molecular interaction. Period. You can’t slip a (microscopic) ink-and-paper representation of a DNA sequence into a cell and have it do anything. It *has* to be a molecular of sequence of exactly the right type, because *all* of the interactions in a cell, including the transcription/translation of a DNA sequence is done by the *physical* interaction of molecules literally bumping into each other and affecting each other (or not) due to their molecular shapes and atomic properties. It’s how they physically fit together (or not) that determines where a DNA sequence is going to cause certain kinds of changes in other molecules around it and throughout the cell’s interior. The medium and the “message” are *intimately* intertwined. The medium *is* the message and vice versa. This is very, very different from human codes.

The first thing to realize from this observation is that it’s likely to be a mistake to try to draw too many conclusions about natural codes by trying to assume that they’re “just like” human codes in every way (which is what you’re attempting to do). They have fundamental differences, which are very likely to make such analogies eventually break down if you try to take them too far, apply them too universally.

It also provides a gigantic hint that natural codes may have originated differently than manmade codes. They’re fundamentally different in many ways, which hints at a different origin — if minds (ours) make humanlike codes, and if natural codes are different than humanlike codes, perhaps that’s because natural codes aren’t mind-made codes (because minds make *our* kinds of codes, not the kinds of codes found in nature).

Finally, it shows a way out of your and pmarshall’s “codes need coders” conundrum. While a “medium-independent” code might arguably need the mind of a coder to craft it, medium-dependent codes have obvious methods by which they can conceivably arise naturally. When the medium is an intimate part of the message, as it is in molecular codes like DNA, then natural variations in the medium (molecular configurations) can directly produce new “messages” and new “coding machines” (including variant coding schemes) without a Cosmic Coder typing them out on his Typewriter In The Sky(tm).

Modern life’s system of DNA -> RNA -> ribosome-mediated production of proteins may seem too baroque, too “code-based” to have arisen naturally through variation and selection, but thanks to the molecular medium-is-the-message nature of the cell’s molecular machinery, there are numerous conceivable pathways by which it could have arisen from simpler beginnings in a series of evolutionary refinements.”"

———————–

“”This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female.

Does it code for whether an alligator egg produces a male or female? Oh, wait, no it doesn’t… Care to try again?
Genetics is not nearly so simplistic as you falsely presume.”"

My answer here would be as long as it codes for one single thing it qualifies as code – Per Shannon’s model.

———————————

“”Your faith that DNA code in fact has arisen naturally somehow keeps you from understanding this.

No. My knowledge that no code of known origins came into existence in a way that violated the laws of nature keeps me from having blind faith that some other “code” came into existence in a way that did violate the laws of nature.”"

From what I understand, I would say here that the orignal code is what is in question here, because all other codes (in DNA) which appear to be following natural law are themselve derivatives of the first one, correct?

————–
“”In my post 87 I described (in very outline) how an E. coli bacterium regulates the production of the proteins required to metabolism lactose to only be expressed when lactose is present. This mechanism only works because certain proteins coded for by the DNA can attach themselves to the chemical structure of the DNA molecule.
So the message (protein) actually works because the medium by which it is communicated is the DNA molecule. This is not equivalent to say, the message of a music CD. You could take that message and transmit it any way you like (MP3, AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, etc.) and you’d get the same music out the end.

The proteins (and other bits) produced by DNA require DNA to be the medium in which they are encoded in order to function – that is, in order to produce a working cell, plant or animal.

Does that clarify my meaning for you? “”

Does he have a point here? Or is it irrelevant just because there is no other medium that can comunicate DNA code, or carry it etc? To me it seems just because a specific code is made for a specific medium this still doesnt change the fact its code right? But if it is information why cant it be carried in anyother way?

————————

“”Another fact worth mentioning is DNA tertiary structure as it relates to DNA binding. A good example is the Arabinose operon. In this example two proteins bind to the DNA creating a loop in the DNA. This tertiary shape blocks access to the promoter.

What happens when you fold a page of code? Nothing.”"

—————-

“”Hi, WordBeLogos.
Welcome to EvC (in case I haven’t done that already)!

I’ve been watching this debate, but the usage of information in the evolution/creation debate confuses the crap out of me, so I always just end up watching from the sidelines.

But, today is going to be different: I thought it prudent to insert a couple comments of my own.

First, you’ve put up a definition that groups DNA with artificial codes. This is fine with me: I’m no expert, so I’ll let you have it.

But, it seems to me that you’re ignoring the complexity of the issue. Definitions, while convenient for discourse, are subject to all kinds of inaccuracies when applied to nature.

For instance, you could define “life” to include viruses and prions; to exclude viruses and include prions; to exclude prions and include viruses; or to exclude both, depending on the traits that you deem appropriate for defining “life.”

But, so what? What have you proven? Nothing really. The real task of a scientist is to show that his or her definition is meaningful in the real world.

To that end, let me present a different system of classifying codes:

While genomics has an encoder, a decoder and a message, thus making it compatible with a grouping based on these characteristics, it is different from other things that you have grouped it with in other ways.

For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum.

However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced “message.”

This constitutes evidence that DNA is more appropriately grouped with those codes that are simply an expression of the physical and chemical nature of their source—such as gravity and pebbles—than it is with artificial codes.

What is the difference between my system and yours? My system groups things by basal, fundamental characteristics, while yours groups them based on functional, derived characteristics. My system is like grouping people based on their ancestry; yours is like grouping people based on their profession.

Now, which of these two systems do you think is more appropriate for determining the origin of something?”"

It almost seems they have a point here, or I just can’t see what’ wrong with it, is thisa problem? Wait, lets see, we can use other mediums to carry our codes because we have also made other mediums that are capable of carrying our codes. If all there was, was people with only mouths, and no technology yet,then our codes could only be carried through sound waves. We couldnt write them on anything because there would be no eyes to decode them. So maybe this is the case with Gods code in DNA, there is only one available medium that cab decode it? Am i missing something here? lol

Anyway, thx and God Bless you Perry!

———————-

Btw im curious, has your brother found a renewed faith yet? I feel like I’ve been there myself, especially after debating atheists for a few years now myself. I sometimes wonder if neo-Dawinism is the “lie” that would be so strong as to even decieve the very elect, if it were possible.

I would not describe him as being in a “renewed faith.” He’s still searching. On the other hand he thanked me for keeping him from becoming an atheist.

~~

“”And I showed you what that symbolic code was. For neon it is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6. For the W Boson it is Charge -1, Spin 1, Mass 80.4.”

An information system consists of the following:
[encoder] –> code –> [decoder]
Information is defined as communication between an encoder and a decoder using agreed upon symbols.

The litmus test for all these things is, can you neatly and cleanly take these various molecules and show that there is an encoder, a code being transmitted through a channel, and a decoder – and draw a table of agreed-upon symbols? Just like we take a sender/receiver of morse code and show the morse code table and it’s crystal clear what is being communicated?

If you ask these people to fit their examples into Shannon’s model, they won’t be able to do it. The electron orbital does not specify any particular structure or molecule in advance. It is completely dependent on what molecule you bring into contact with it.

~~

They said: Now we know you’re insisting that the information from the sun is not *encoded information*, but it is. For example, the elements in the sun’s outer atmosphere are encoded in the sun’s absorption spectrum. Every black line in the spectrum represents an energy change in the electron shells of the isotope of a specific element. Now explain to us how this correspondence between black lines at a frequency (symbols, since you’re so insistent about them) and elements is not a code.””

You said: Now from my understanding, this may be encoded but there is now “message” meant to be sent and decoded by us or anything else, is this correct?

Light traveling from the sun to the earth is not information by this definition. There is no set of agreed upon symbols; there is no encoding and there is no decoding. There is just light being generated and absorbed. Nothing is assigning any meaning to it. It’s just energy.

When you look up in the sky and interpret what you see, your own intelligence is required for any information to exist.

This is not the case with DNA, which both encodes and decodes on its own, independently of any observer. As the ribosomes decode the mRNA they assign meaning by producing a protein. In this sense DNA is completely different from any purely material object. Nothing like this happens to rocks or sand or starlight.

~~

Manmade codes are used to impart information from one mind to another, and as such the medium is largely irrelevant. I could send this post to you over the internet, via ink and paper, through a messenger who had memorized it and would repeat it back to you, etc.

That is NOT the case for DNA. DNA works via direct, physical, molecular interaction. Period. You can’t slip a (microscopic) ink-and-paper representation of a DNA sequence into a cell and have it do anything. It *has* to be a molecular of sequence of exactly the right type, because *all* of the interactions in a cell, including the transcription/translation of a DNA sequence is done by the *physical* interaction of molecules literally bumping into each other and affecting each other (or not) due to their molecular shapes and atomic properties. It’s how they physically fit together (or not) that determines where a DNA sequence is going to cause certain kinds of changes in other molecules around it and throughout the cell’s interior. The medium and the “message” are *intimately* intertwined. The medium *is* the message and vice versa. This is very, very different from human codes.

This is no less true of a CD player reading a CD. That system is just as constrained as DNA is. There is only one way for the player to read the CD. The fact that humans have more flexible inputs and code information in more ways has no bearing on the nature of the problem, it just adds more codes to the mix.

~~

Modern life’s system of DNA -> RNA -> ribosome-mediated production of proteins may seem too baroque, too “code-based” to have arisen naturally through variation and selection, but thanks to the molecular medium-is-the-message nature of the cell’s molecular machinery, there are numerous conceivable pathways by which it could have arisen from simpler beginnings in a series of evolutionary refinements.””

People can declare all kinds of abiogenesis explanations to be plausible, but the fact is, none of those experiments are successful and none explains the origin of the genetic code itself.

~~

Does it code for whether an alligator egg produces a male or female? Oh, wait, no it doesn’t… Care to try again?
Genetics is not nearly so simplistic as you falsely presume.””

My answer here would be as long as it codes for one single thing it qualifies as code – Per Shannon’s model.

Correct. The laws of mendelian genetics are themselves a higher level code.

~~

From what I understand, I would say here that the orignal code is what is in question here, because all other codes (in DNA) which appear to be following natural law are themselve derivatives of the first one, correct?

All other codes are ultimately derivatives of DNA.

~~

“”In my post 87 I described (in very outline) how an E. coli bacterium regulates the production of the proteins required to metabolism lactose to only be expressed when lactose is present. This mechanism only works because certain proteins coded for by the DNA can attach themselves to the chemical structure of the DNA molecule.
So the message (protein) actually works because the medium by which it is communicated is the DNA molecule. This is not equivalent to say, the message of a music CD. You could take that message and transmit it any way you like (MP3, AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, etc.) and you’d get the same music out the end.

The proteins (and other bits) produced by DNA require DNA to be the medium in which they are encoded in order to function – that is, in order to produce a working cell, plant or animal.

Does that clarify my meaning for you? “”

Does he have a point here? Or is it irrelevant just because there is no other medium that can comunicate DNA code, or carry it etc? To me it seems just because a specific code is made for a specific medium this still doesnt change the fact its code right? But if it is information why cant it be carried in anyother way?

Information is “fungible” which means:

1. Law. Returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain.
2. Interchangeable.

We can take the pattern that is in any specific DNA molecule and we can represent it any way we want, but as long as the same pattern is used when we build some other DNA molecule, the result will be the same. Doesn’t matter how the pattern got transported before it got there.

Remember that when I say “I can send you this message via email or call you on the phone or write it on a piece of paper” the point is that when it actually gets to your brain it has MEANING regardless of how many ways the message was physically transformed before it got there. This is just as true as if we store a DNA pattern on a hard drive. Information has this property of fungibility. But being fungible doesn’t mean that the input doesn’t eventually have to still arrive in the proper form.

~~

“”Another fact worth mentioning is DNA tertiary structure as it relates to DNA binding. A good example is the Arabinose operon. In this example two proteins bind to the DNA creating a loop in the DNA. This tertiary shape blocks access to the promoter.

What happens when you fold a page of code? Nothing.””

Not every coding system shares every characteristic with DNA. This question is completely irrelevant to the fact that the pattern in DNA is a code.

~~

While genomics has an encoder, a decoder and a message, thus making it compatible with a grouping based on these characteristics, it is different from other things that you have grouped it with in other ways.

For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum.

However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced “message.”

Computers and radios ARE confined to their substrates. Period. You can’t change the information content of a CD without changing its physical composition either. But the CD and player are still a coding system.

Perry

Moses ajigbotoso says:

It is a circumstance of irony that the discoveries of the scietists by which many people were confused over the belief of the existence of God were the most vivid evidence by which many people were convinced of the same believe. The most logical, sencible, meaniful, and tenable story or theory about the emergence of the universe is the creation story. Others are full of hoasis and quetionable contradictions. The only disturbing quetion of the creation story is: Who created God? The answer to that is simple. I think the greatest problem of the scientists, o! sorry, the Atheist, is the first verse of the bible, while the most convincing evidence of the existence of God is genue salvation. But then when will another universe be formed following the scietific theory of universe formation?

Scott says:

To the author…

My friend. I’m not going to speak of anything but this: You’re entire proof for God, the one based on DNA. You know, the one in which you say that since DNA is a code, and all codes that we know of are designed by intelligent minds, therefore there must be a God. First off, you’re entire point is based around a clause. You say “all codes WE KNOW OF”. Are you telling me that there could be codes we do not yet know of that arose spontaneously? Another point: Let me ask you this. All Frogs are green. Since this creature I see here is green. Does that make that creature green? I hope you can provide a correct response. In closing, the fact that you use a vague understanding of science, along with highly repetitive prose, does not make you right. You demand empirical evidence of a “non-designed-by-a-intelligent-mind” code? I demand empirical evidence of “God”. If you can provide me with that evidence. Evidence that is MEASURABLE, and not just based in a poor understanding of DNA, and science in general. Good day to you sir.

Scott,

Just because all frogs are green do not make all creatures green.

Yes there is a possibility that codes exist which arose naturally, that we have not discovered. That possibility cannot be ruled out.

The truth is, outside of DNA, all codes we HAVE discovered after 500 years of practicing science are designed. There are no known exceptions.

We make this statement in the exact same manner that we say that toast grows colder, not hotter, when you take it out of the toaster – and thus we conclude that there are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics.

Therefore we have 100% inference to DNA being designed and 0% inference to DNA not being designed.

This observation is not based on a vague understanding of science. It is based on a thorough understanding of communication theory. A book that rigorously documents the communication theory aspects of DNA is Hubert P. Yockey’s “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005). If you read this book and Claude Shannon’s “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” (Bell Labs, 1948) you will be able to verify that everything I have said about information theory and DNA is 100% supported by peer-reviewed literature.

Thus my conclusion that DNA is designed is measurable and based on an accurate understanding of the facts.

If you demand “empirical evidence” of God (I assume that to actually mean “physical manifestation of God”) then you will never believe in Him. But I submit to you that you have empirical evidence for very little of what you believe, including ALL scientific laws. Because all scientific laws are immaterial, not physical, just as God is immaterial, not physical.

Therefore belief in God is just as rational as belief in the scientific inductive method. And it is rational for an exactly identical set of reasons. To believe one and not the other is a contradiction.

Perry Marshall

Scott says:

Dear Perry,

I realize that you have knowledge of communication theory, information theory, and some kind of a knowledge of DNA. But you do not have a knowledge of science. To say you have an extensive knowledge of science because you understand a few pseudo-sciences, is not correct. It is on this point that our views diverge Mr. Marshall. There is a book I think you should read: “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan. It might be able to explain to you what the difference between science, and a pseudo-science is. However, I will not let your statement go by unnoticed.

“But I submit to you that you have empirical evidence for very little of what you believe, including ALL scientific laws. Because all scientific laws are immaterial, not physical, just as God is immaterial, not physical.”

That statement comes from a misunderstanding of science. All laws in science are measurable. All the forces have a particle intermediary that acts as a carrier of it’s specific force. Theses particles have mass, and can be measured, very accurately in fact. Photons, W/Z bosons, gluons, and the PROPOSED Higgs Boson, and the proposed graviton. As you can see, I have accented the word PROPOSED, because I am a rational thinker. Since I cannot measure either of those particles, and will not say with 100% certainty that I am sure they exist. Another good book to read is The Blind Watchmaker.

Though you did explain entropy with your toast idea, you have left out the fact that if the object in question is placed by a large source of energy, entropy might, in fact, decrease. I’ll let you decide as to whether or not the sun is a large source of energy.

In closing Mr. Marshall, DNA may be a code, it may be complex, but complexity doesn’t mean there is a creator. Your logic is full of fallacy in the sense that you never actually present proof aside from a 3 step list in which you think you have proved that God made DNA. I require more than three steps. I would also like to point out that steps 2 and 3 are based on your own personal opinion. Also, when I ask for empirical evidence of God, I would be happy just to see something that is 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, any effect that God has. To tell me he permeates this universe, and that he has no effect on anything, is a ridiculous claim. He must have SOME measurable effect. (These cannot be things based on hear-say, or include any kind of example that relies on a biblical assumption.)

Sincerely,
Scott.

Scott,

Scientific laws cannot be measured. We can only observe their effects.

You cannot measure the law of gravity, you can only measure the effect of the law of gravity.

The total consistency of the measurement of the effects of gravity is what leads to our conclusion that there is a law. Gravity is not in question because the theory of the law of gravity seems to completely explain the measurements that we observe.

This conclusion that a force exists that we call gravity is reached by induction and can never be formally proven. The same is true of thermodynamics or theories about subatomic particles. I fully understand that some of these are PROPOSED theories as theories are not always considered complete. Perhaps some aspects of gravitational theory are incomplete, and that is fine. Science is always refining its conclusions.

I will not permit you to accuse me of not understanding DNA or its informational structure until you have read Yockey’s book. These statements are not pseudoscience; in fact they are about as black-and-white as anything ever gets in the realm of biology. Once you have Yockey’s work under your belt you are welcome to come back and debate the fine points with me.

DNA is a digital communication system, with encoding, a communication channel and a decoding mechanism. Just as Shannon describes in his 1948 landmark paper. Yockey thoroughly explains this in his book. By the way, Yockey’s conclusion is that the origin of the information in DNA and the laws of the genetic code is scientifically unknowable.

He is right. Anything beyond that must be inferred. In science, inference is allowed.

My 3 point syllogism is not a formal proof. It is a statement of 100% inductive inference. Which is as good as you can ever get in science. It is a conclusion that is arrived at in the exact same manner as all other scientific laws.

DNA is…

-A digital communication system
-It has error detection and correction mechanisms
-It has redundancy mechanisms
-It self replicates
-It self-modifies (“Cellular Genetic Engineering” as Shapiro and McClintock call it)
-It contains multiple layers of coding such as described by the OSI 7 layer model that is well known in computer networking
-Even the very smallest organisms contain at least 100 Kbytes of highly structured data
-There are no mechanisms simpler than these micro-organisms, that are known to self replicate

The only things in all of human experience that are even comparable to the above list are computer codes, i.e. TCP/IP, DVD’s, CD’s, cell phone transmissions, etc. (TCP/IP is the transport mechanism that brought this very message to your computer.) TCP/IP shares ALL of these characteristics with DNA. TCP/IP and the other systems are in the category of “things that very very smart people come up with.”

TCP/IP is not in the category of things that happen all the time by random accident.

There is nothing else in nature that shares these characteristics. Rocks, snowflakes, sand dunes, weather, starlight, natural chaos patterns – none of these things share this list of data characteristics. None of those other things are communication systems a la Claude Shannon.

The data communication / information processing aspect of living things divides them from non-living things. The chasm between the two is nearly infinite. From an information technology point of view, living things have every appearance of being designed.

You ask for empirical evidence. Let’s turn this around for a minute. Apply your same criteria to your own non-theistic belief system. Are you able to find any empirical evidence that information systems can appear WITHOUT being designed? Where can you find even ONE example? What happens if you apply skepticism to the things that most skeptics believe? Can those beliefs survive skepticism? Or are those beliefs just a different system of dogma?

How about the theory of abiogenesis? Can we even name a branch of science that has hit more brick walls? Is there any branch of science that has made less progress in the last 50 years?

I submit to you that all current theories of living things emerging from non-living matter are pseudoscience. Vague theories about self-replicating molecules somehow emerging from the primordial soup. No evidence, no successful experiments, no working models.

We could go to Amazon.com and buy every single book about abiogenesis in print, and you would discover that 50-90% of the content of those books is pure speculation and myth, clothed in scientific garb. The parts that are not speculation are experiments that produced interesting chemicals but no codes.

You have asked to see an effect that God caused. I have shown you one. It’s DNA and the information it contains. 100% inference to design. Zero inference to any other explanation.

Scott, DNA is the measurable effect you are looking for.

You cannot PROVE a priori that God exists. However you can infer 100% and that’s what I’ve done. To the extent science can say anything – to the extent that science can conclude that such a thing as a law of gravity or entropy exists – we can also reliably conclude that DNA was designed by a profoundly intelligent being.

If you believe that gravity exists, and that objects don’t fall simply by caprice or random accident, then by the an IDENTICAL process of logic you can also conclude that God exists.

Sincerely,

Perry Marshall

Bill Morrison says:

This post has brought a question to my mind. Suppose we discover (on Mars or elsewhere) a DNA based (or very similar) life form. Wouldn’t we then be left to puzzle out whether this is evidence for DNA like code naturally occurring or that God simply did it more than once?

And, if that were so, wouldn’t we then be left with the same non-answer to your riddle if we found a code other than DNA? Couldn’t it simply be that the intelligent designer created more than one code?

It wouldn’t suffice to simply find another example of a code. One would also have to find the genesis of that code by natural means, and EVEN THEN, there is no reason not to say, “Well, sure, it could have happened naturally, but life has purpose beyond mere reproduction, it has a plan, a goal, a moral condition. Therefore, although it could have arisen without conscious intent (in my hypothetical) the result is obviously more than a mere flexing of undirected natural law.”

I hope I didn’t dilute my main point with the exegesis.

Bill M

Bill,

If we found another code somewhere and we still didn’t observe its origin, then we’d be in the same place we are with DNA.

If we found naturally occurring codes then it would be a different story entirely.

Perry

Scott,

There is a subtlety that I’d like to bring your attention to.

Gravitation and entropy are universal laws.

The genetic code and the rules of all other codes and languages are arbitrary, local laws. They are specific to an individual communication system, not universal.

Because they are arbitrary, they cannot be derived from the laws of physics. There is no law of physics that says the DNA triplet “GGG” has to make Glycine. If the process were structured differently, it could make some other amino acid instead. There is no law of physics that says 1000001 has to represent the letter “A” in ASCII.

Now many people see the existence of universal laws as evidence of a lawgiver. I feel that is a pretty reasonable conclusion. It also goes hand in hand with the fact that people went looking for universal laws in the first place because they assumed there was a lawgiver. Deductive reasoning hypothesized that if there is a Lawgiver, therefore we will find laws if we go looking for them and the hypothesis was correct.

You can also go the other direction. You can inductively reason that if there are laws, there must be a lawgiver. This, I feel, is reasonable.

However this is not enough for some people. After all, we only live in one universe and we have no idea if or how things might be different in another one. Our universe is what it is. Plus we’ve never had the chance to observe a universe being made from scratch and then come back later to check and see what the laws are. Would they always be the same? Or would they be different all the time? We just don’t know.

But the laws of codes are different. They are specific to a situation and new ones can be created. We create codes and communication systems all the time. So we are intimately familiar with the process of creating such things. You can go to college and learn how to create a computer programming language from scratch, and all the choices and pros and cons.

So we can study DNA and every question you would ask about TCP/IP – why certain choices were made – you can also ask about DNA. Why a 4 bit system instead of 2 or 3 or 5 or 6? You can find scientific papers that consider that. Why the number of amino acids? Why triplets instead of octets? Why store the information in molecules instead of using magnets like in a hard drive? All viable questions.

When we see arbitrary laws of communication in a system we can ask, what is being communicated and what priorities did the designer have in mind? And we can expect to find an answer. DNA makes sense ONLY in the context of the arbitrary, immaterial laws of the genetic code.

Isn’t Watson and Crick’s theory of the genetic code THE biology breakthrough of the 20th century? They correctly identified a law. Therefore they will be forever heroes in the annals science.

So right here in DNA, we find a bridge between science and theology.

Perry Marshall

Scott says:

If I were to follow your advice, I would have to not believe what you say. Mr. Marshall. If you are correct then why not base your argument on the electron? Why not quarks? Why not ANYTHING else.

Since you love DNA so much, lets talk DNA. Your God, the same God that created everything, that created the CODE of DNA. Why would he do it in such a flawed way? Why would his code RANDOMLY mutate? Why would an all powerful God create a code that didn’t always adhere to his rule? I submit to you, that the fact that DNA is flawed, and the fact that it is subject to random mutation, is proof that there can’t be a God. Would a being all powerful and omniscient really create something so tragically flawed? DNA may be a code. But it is able to changed by man. It is able to be deciphered by man. Why would any right-minded God code his greatest creation in something that the created could understand. If God made the code of DNA, don’t you think it would be uncrackable? I propose to you this:

1) DNA is a code.
2) God is to be viewed as an omniscient, all powerful, perfect being.
3) Man can influence this code, decipher this code, and destroy this code.
4) DNA must not be a result of God, and as such, must be a result of random mutations. Much like the ones that happen, and have happened frequently throughout history.

That is my inference with 100% certainty that God cannot have created DNA.

To not accept my simple 4 step process would be to make an error in judgment. I have covered all the bases.

Btw: After 14 billion years of existence. I feel safe saying that DNA is a naturally occurring code you would see that, if you actually understood DNA, not just information theory books which use DNA as their base. It took a very long time to arise, and we tracked it’s evolution through history. So if you wanted to be even a small ounce correct sir, you would say: God created RNA. If you are even familiar with RNA.

Scott

Scott,

You said:

1) DNA is a code.
2) God is to be viewed as an omniscient, all powerful, perfect being.
3) Man can influence this code, decipher this code, and destroy this code.
4) DNA must not be a result of God, and as such, must be a result of random mutations. Much like the ones that happen, and have happened frequently throughout history.
That is my inference with 100% certainty that God cannot have created DNA.

Your #4 does not logically follow from #3. Just because a man buys a Toyota Camry and wrecks it does not mean that it was not made in a factory by robots and smart engineers.

It just means that the man was free to do with the car as he wished.

Or to put it more simply, just because something can experience an accident does not mean it came from an accident.

The fact that the Camry is intelligible rather than incomprehensible, is also evidence that it is designed.

That said, I do think you have now put your finger on the underlying emotional reason as to why so many people are atheists. It’s not because there’s a positive scientific argument for atheism; there’s not one. No one has ever seen life emerge spontaneously; there’s no model for how such a thing could happen; living things have every appearance of design, to such an extent that Richard Dawkins once said “Biology is the study of things that appear to be designed.” People invoke theories of infinite numbers of universes just to dismiss the apparent fine-tuning of our own universe as a hugely lucky random event.

The real emotional reason behind atheism is that it’s almost unfathomable that an all-knowing God could make such a F****’d up world.

I fully acknowledge how broken and screwed up the world is.

Welcome to the tensions of theology.

Atheism seems a lot easier. About 5 years ago, they almost had me convinced. And I felt as though to switch over to atheism would actually relieve me of just those kinds of dilemmas. I could just say “#$%&! happens” and go on with my life and try to do the best I could.

But as I dug deeper I found that science itself did NOT support the atheist worldview. It only supports it if you confuse science with materialism, or think that science explains more than it actually does. Or if you believe a lot of popular books by people such as Richard Dawkins and you never investigate their statements far enough to see how much of it is half-truths. I could not be that intellectually dishonest with the facts. Because science does give us a lot of hard data. The hard data is, codes with redundancy mechanisms and self-healing characteristics and error checking are always designed. No exceptions.

The theologians have been wrestling with this question for ages. Why would God allow a world to plunge itself into ruin?

I don’t know. But what I do know is, those who most strongly object to God doing this are, puzzlingly, the most resistant to any kind of external moral code.

If we enforce the Ten Commandments via martial law – assuming we could do so successfully – I think we would rid the world of MANY problems.

I don’t know too many “freethinkers” who would be interested in such a proposition. They’d rather have their free will.

Well, if you want your free will, you have your answer. God gave human beings exactly what we wanted all along and still want: Freedom of choice.

Welcome to the empire of man. The world is what we have made it to be.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: 1) The pattern in RNA is a code
2) All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3) Therefore RNA is designed.

Ron Weinert says:

Sir: You state: “But what I do know is, those who most strongly object to God doing this are, puzzlingly, the most resistant to any kind of external moral code.”

This, Mr. Marshall, is an opinion, not a fact. Please support this statement. And, as a matter of fact, the imposition of the Decalogue has been tried several times, to the great detriment of the citizenry. The Puritans are a fair example, as is the Shia Rule of Law in some current Muslim countries.
The Ten Commandments are garbled. To which ten do you subscribe: The Catholic, the various Protestant, or the Judaic? Where do you find commandments one through ten in the Bible? They do not exist in that order, but are mentioned in two or three places, and are intermixed with “commandments” that have long since been discarded.
Your implication is that non-believers do not follow any moral code worth considering. I demur. Many non-theists follow practical codes that often are close to the revered ten. The fact is that morality is not sent by god or gods, but is a practical conclusion reached by societies throughout the ages, derived from experience. Morality is right because it works, not because a deity said so.
Morality is not the exclusive property of the relgious. Many atheists are moral, just as many Christians are not.

Ron,

The 10 commandments are identical whether you’re Catholic, Protestant or Jew. They are in Exodus 20. Yes, they do exist in that order.

I never said atheists are immoral. Rather, I refer you to the fact that secular people prefer to not have the 10 commandments in any classroom or government building and resent the idea of obeying the moral law of any kind of god, even as they blame god (supposing he exists) for the evils that exist in the world.

Perry

kyle says:

It’s the fact that a large part of that moral code abides strictly to a religious belief and not a humanitarian perspective. It’s not the idea of MORAL LAW, it’s the idea that it includes a religious ideology. I can see that saying secularists attack moral law, and then including ‘of any kind of god’ takes quite a bit away from them attacking the god and instead makes them appear to attack the ethics/morality. This method of arguement is not only an easy way to avoid by claiming the reader has a misinterpretation, it’s a great way to confuse the readers into thinking the point is valid.

Forrest Charnock says:

Dear Perry:

Read Exodus 20 in the KJV and then the Catholic . The second commandment-idols, is deleted. That is very common knowledge, I an suprised you did not know that.

While on the subject of the 10 commandments please explain how you can say the work week is 6 days and creation billions of years without surrendering all biblical authority to man’s theories?.

jrunyon says:

Forrest –

A week is 7 days but we ‘work’ 6 days and ‘rest’ the 7th day. Since each of God’s 6 work days began and ended with a start and finish (i.e. “The evening and morning were the X day”). However, the 7th day does not have this statement and, as such, the 7th day is still in progress. Even by your ‘young earth’ calcualtaion, that makes Day 7 somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years. The latest scientific calculations have modern man originating somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago (which by the way is only a factor of 10x from your calculations — a very small factor, indeed). This shows that ‘days’ are clearly not 24 hours.

Jim Runyon

GM says:

According to the definition of atheism by the American Oxford Dictionary , I don’t qualify. By the religious crowd I do qualify. Because I don’t believe in their GOD.
There has to be a God, who else could have created such a ridiculous people as human beings. ( That is a Joke ) And have the same people create their God, attempting to contact GOD. Humanity has always entertained.

2 of the 4 preceeding points need a little tweaking for me. DNA is the end result of replication, GOD is infinite and has no definable form, point 3 and 4 are perfectly correct in my mind. As Mr. Perry uses the anology of the Toyota Camry
with precise asimile’, all protein and nucleic acid molecules in the DNA and RNA don’t form part of the helix. Like a jig saw puzzzle piece except the piece isn’t stored for later use. Unfortunately some mutation ( lack of cell memory integerity) occur resulting in physical defects.

It is devastatingly unfortunate for humanity that monarchies are allowed to flourish.

Free will, is a religious term referring to the Genesis account of the fall of humanity and is coupled with a redemptive act of blood sacrifice by God. Due to the fall humanity has inherited a sin nature and God will destory sin and anything linked to sin after this 1000 year regien we are presently in. This is what the Bible teaches about God, humanity, and sin. The Bible should be titled, The Holy Philosophy not Holy Bible due to so many errors and contradictoins.

Finally DNA and RNA do follow a defined observable pattern. I don’t believe the pattern can be attributed to GOD but to the observable pattern of replicaton.
Only by faith can anyone except God in the mix of cell replication.

GMEstes1 says:

Yes, a pattern repeats itself in a pristine environment in which it evolved., unless acted upon by some outside force. The human genome adapted to the changes in environmental weather patterns over thousands of years. For example all homonyms can’t survive in an environment they didn’t adapt to over thousands of years of evolution.

How can you have a design without a desinger?

go2mark says:

hi scott,
maybe you would have been happier as a rock. that way you would not have to participate in any kind of debate. just keep in mind that perry did not create God he is only interested in exploring evidence for the existence thereof . I can not understand why this would bother you. would you prefer that everything was perfect and that there is no need to investigate further . it appears that your opinion of God is that he is like the uncle who used to give you presents every year at christmas time and now you have grown up and he does not send them anymore. early on you never questioned the gifts but later on you were concerned why they stopped coming every year. if you are happy that God does not exist then you should share your personal satisfaction with us all instead of trying to convince us that we do not need to believe in God. if your reason for the non existence of God is that not everything is perfect , well you could also say that if everything was perfect than what do we need God for ? but as a scientist and a atheist you should know that our very existence is due to a nearly perfect environment both locally and cosmologically . and just as you suggest without proof that DNA has occurred from trillions of random accidents , i propose to you that at one time in our history everything was perfect and has been going down hill ever since.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+9&version=KJV

basharat says:

Yes Mr.Perry Marshall, I well appreciate your research about the big bang, but being a muslim it is written in our holly book that this universe was as big ball, which was blasted lateron and and split into particles and this practice is still continue. our national poet Iqbal says: “ever change is a permanance” this facts have already been given in our holy quran 1400 years before. I do not say that you are doing nothing, you are a big scholar and doing very well, but I want to inform you that if you read “Holy quran” for for accept it but just for knowledge than you will find that the fact your science is proving today have already been stated since long. If you want more knowledge about big bang, you should have to contact with Ahmedyya community in your country, they have a vast knowlede of quran and its preaching.

do you know,nature has its own blog,written everywhere if you can read it…………

Scott says:

I don’t agree that nature has a blog, since that is merely a shortening of ‘weB LOG’
But you are correct if you meant by that many great patterns that exist naturally.

burning says:

Evolutionists are now highly talking about their recent discovery which they calls as “the missing link”. They tell that all the doubts have been cleared and that their is no way that people can now argue about evolution.I will be very thankful if you express your views and help me to fight back those who use this so called missing link to prove that god is a myth?

The following article should be helpful:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/darwin-half-right/

Short answer: it is a grave mistake to assume that if evolution is true that somehow this would prove that God is a myth. Actually, if evolution is true then God is even more clever than the creationists assumed him to be.

Perry

Andrew says:

“Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come
from a mind.”
Here it is: DNA!
DNA developed evolutionarily over more than 2 billion years before the “language” was even sufficient to allow for multicellular organisms (http://andabien.com/html/evolution-timeline.htm). It isn’t a system of messages purposely designed, like HTML or English, it is the result of ideal circumstances and trillions upon trillions of trial and error lives in an evolutionary system. As it stands today, it is the language of cells for replication and expression, whose nuclei are sophisticated enough minds to orchestrate the implementation of the code. Your reasoning doesn’t prove the existence of god, even though there is reasoning that does. You would convince more people if you focus on the fundamental physical forces that exist at all points in the universe and govern how all the constituents of the universe behave. These fundamental forces, extensions of the underlying logic of existence (or god, if you like that label), acting on mass-energy over time give rise to DNA, and later, intelligent life. But DNA is not the language of god, not at all. It is the language of Earthly life, which is an extension of the possibilities inherent to existence.

Andrew,

Nice try. Everything you said sounds fine on the surface, except when you look a little closer:

1) You don’t get to just assume that DNA occurred naturally or spontaneously. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim at this time. DNA is the one code we don’t know the origin of. All others that we DO know the origin of are designed. Thus all the evidence we do have suggests design in DNA.

2) Evolution is impossible without self-replication. Self replication requires DNA. So evolution does not explain DNA.

Perry

Tavi says:

Hi Perry ,
It is correct; the evolution does not explain DNA because evolution is impossible without self-replication. I expressed this truth in one of my art works “Our Hyper Dimensional origins” that most of us believe is a part of the expression of the God Consciousness – The Seeds of Everything. As a symbol for the Hyper dimensional Universe I used an Octachoron (tesseract). According to the Cosmology theory the seeds for galaxy formation were created prior to the Big Bang … so we came from “Heaven” (Singularity). Look in the picture folder http://www.myspace.com/octavian7
Regards, Octavian (Tavi)

Craig says:

Self-replication does not require DNA.

It requires a code. John Von Neumann determined that 40+ years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication

Richard says:

Perry,

Congratulations, your use of false logic has had a staggering effect on many of your readers.

If I’m correct in my assumtion, you’re saying that because DNA contains information, or ‘a language’, that God must exist because information, such as those codes, don’t come from anything but intelligent minds?
And the challenge to Atheists is to present an example where information has been generated by a ‘thing’ that doesn’t have a mind?

So, while Atheists can present all kinds of discoveries that ‘do’ exist to disprove an intelligent creator, your requesting that they present a discovery that, at present, ‘doesn’t’ exist to prove their theory?

Furthermore – your interpretation on the concept of ‘information’ is flawed. You seem to be focusing on language and auditory information – codes that were created by humans to be heard and interpreted by other humans.

But we don’t just receive information that way – a cloud doesn’t have a mind but it gives me visual information whenever I look at it. If I look up and see a dark black cloud I am ‘informed’ that there is a high probability of rain. If it’s fluffy white then I’ll probably leave the umbrella at home. The absence of any clouds offers me the information I need to throw on a pair of sunglasses and sit in the sun!!!

I didn’t make an intelligent deal with the cloud to offer this information – the cloud would offer this information even if I wasn’t there to see it. It is a different kind of information to a language, but it’s information all the same – the only symbols in this code are “dark cloud = wet stuff” and “white cloud = no wet stuff”. A small alphabet with just two letters.

There are many examples of visual information, not just ‘thought up’ languages, but the information our inanimate environment offers us everyday. Sure, we need intelligent brains to interpret the information, but the information was there before we were – we didn’t have to create the information with our intelligence – we just needed our intelligence to be able to read it.

Be good.
Richard.

Richard,

In order for us to discuss this you’ll need to do more than just skim the pages on the site. You’ll need to familiarize yourself with information theory and apprise yourself of the Shannon definitions of codes and coding systems. By using these definitions you’ll see the distinction between things we see and later interpret as information (such as clouds) and things which themselves encode and decode information, such as DNA.

I sense a certain amount of incredulity on your part. I am accustomed to this. Some people believe that it’s impossible for someone to advance a “creationist viewpoint” that actually has substance. I understand that, and I can see why you might be offended.

But you have actually already put your finger on the core technical issue: There are some kinds of “information” that really is not information at all until an intelligent brain gets involved.

But there are other kinds of information systems which are self-contained – such as DNA, or your computer automatically getting its anti-virus updates.

By proper Shannon definitions, systems which encode and decode information possess something which is not a property of pure matter and energy: Immaterial rules of code.

I respectfully propose to you, Richard, that once you no longer conflate information systems with non-information systems, my thesis will become clear, and in fact, unassailable.

Perry Marshall

Richard says:

Perry,

Thanks for the response. I take no offence in your defence of your theory. I expected nothing less.

And you’re right – I have just skimmed the pages of this site. I’m not a scientist, or a biologist or anything that would qualify me to conclusively prove or disprove any theory on the debate.

I am however a human being, and I understand why an imaginery friend would be a comfort to you from a psychological point of view. The belief in a God who plays with an elaborate dolls house and holds all of the little dollies accountable for their nasty actions is a popular one. I especially like the version where the God sends God Junior to get crucified so all the dollies that crucified him can be absolved of the bad stuff they did and continue to do more bad stuff anyway.

I know if I built a dolls house I’d expect all of the dolls to worship me too – and I’d get really upset if those dolls didn’t believe in me, so upset that I’d probably burn them in a fiery pit!!

We have short time on this planet – don’t waste it inventing ways to make something exist, IF there is a God, why would he care what we thought of him?

You seem like a smart guy, very articulate and well read – put your mind to healing or helping, or anything else. If you believe in God then good for you – why do you feel the need to convince everybody else???

Richard.

Richard,

We are not talking about dollies here. We are talking about science, inductive reasoning, and empirical evidence. You are only being derogatory. Sincerely so, I do acknowledge.

If you disbelieve in God for emotional reasons – because you think people who do are comforting themselves with fantasies – then use science, inductive reasoning, and empirical evidence to demonstrate that these things are fantasies. But don’t put down others for believing in God for logical, sound, defensible reasons. We have a short time on this planet and there are more productive ways to get to real answers than satirizing people you disagree with.

The universe has the fingerprints of a designer all over it, and that’s not wishful thinking. That’s a position I have put forth with scientific rigor on this website, and I expect the same from you.

Perry Marshall

thank you mr. Perry Marshall for your Scientific(non emotional) mind ,this is fair in Scienc.This is Islam,to let your self to Allah (GOD) and to be fair and good man.
thank you..

GM says:

I don’t believe it is the criteron of science to prove the existence of God.
Science has fianlly come around to Gensis 1:1, that infers,” nothing”.
The scientific criteron for anything is repeatable data not fantasy (
chriatianity).

Forrest Charnock says:

Please at least have enough respect for others views to spell them at least somewhat correctly.
Your reply is a statement based on air. Evolution is called science by many , please repeat the creation of the first self replicating organism.
Asking me to just “believe” is religion, not science.

Cristiano says:

Dear Richard and Perry,

I know how difficult it is to believe in such a Being seeing that the true knowledge of His existence and powers and attributes has been lost for more than centuries. I take hearth for Mr. Perry’s position in defending his belief on such a Designer and Creator.

But I want to testify of the existence of such a Being, who created all things in the beginning and whose mind is full of knowledge and power. He is an exalted Man, in the sense that He was once what we are now, not upon this earth or universe and in a time immemorial. He grew from childhood to manhood and undergone all the same challenges and difficulties we do. He died in the flesh as we do and in some moment unknown to us he raised again with a body perfect again, full of power majesty and glory. He inherited the mansions of His Father and strengthened His understanding in an immortal state. In that exalted stated he grew in all attributes living in the family unity until he become in the full sense a God. He looked from the everlasting heavens and through His knowledge and power initiated the process that would eventually lead to the plain creation of this earth and thousands of other earths with a sole purpose: to provide bodies that His offspring could dwell and undergo the same probationary state and finally enter also upon their exaltation.

Before the foundation of this earth in times vastly forgotten we livid with Him as his children with a body of spirit more pure than this of flesh, clothed with the glory of His divine presence. There we grew and acquired all the knowledge attainable to us at that state, but there was a point where our growth was no more possible should we stay there. A plan was made and this earth was designed and prepared from the material provided in the vastness of the universe. All living things were set upon this earth but there was still left a place for the crown of our Father’s glory, His children. A council was made and a King, a Chief, a Example and a Savior chosen. Those who rebelled against the agency of men were sent down to earth without the opportunity of being vested with bodies of flesh to attain all the glory of their father and from that time on became testators, to tempt men aways from their path. Bodies of flesh were prepared for the foremost children of God, and they were placed upon a majestic garden. It was not long until the adversary helped them fall and mortality crept into being. In that blessed bodily state they conversed with their creator face to face and saw the wonder of His glory and gazed upon the sublime nature of their future, but after the Fall, they were shut from His presence and waited upon the Redeemer.

Time passed by, men in general quickly forgot their origin and the communication with the Creator was restricted to those few who truly desired and looked upon it with steadfastness. But the time was near and the great Redeemer would soon come. His birth was attended by angels from on high and stars of unbelievable brightness shone upon the long awaited night when the King came to the world. His life was a merciful one. His hands outstretched and His love abundant. When the time appointed came He stepped forward and took upon Him the sins of the world and built the bridge to eternal glory and exaltation. He rose from the dead with a glorified body and broke the bands of death, an innumerable host of men whose spirits were imprisoned He set free and they took their bodies in a glorious state and showed themselves to many.

There was a long night of complete darkness since that blessed day when the Mediator went up to sit on the right hand of the Father, but the day came again when the Father and the Son were seen again by mortal and the voice of eternity were heard again. Today again there are Witnesses on the earth that testify of these truths preparing the world to the long awaited day of His coming.

I praise highly what Mr. Perry is doing in trying to show the world that no matter where we look, there is abundantly proof of the existence of God. And I want to add my witness that I know for myself, independently of all the creatures under the celestial worlds, that God lives! That more than existing He loves us! And that no matter how much we try, one day we will all recognize that this is true! We are indeed created on His image! Of that I testify.

Mark says:

The life that God had wanted us to live wasn’t about seeing how good everyone can act and living by a set of rules and laws. That’s religion. God wants relationship. What would it hurt to ask God if he does exist? If he couldn’t hear you nor responds than he isn’t God. And then if there is no God than how can any man or woman determine or know in their hearts what is right and wrong really. How can science measure these things? Even this how can God be measured men? God is not on the look out in destroying anyone. Even those who say they know God because they do everything right does not mean they’ll live a happy afterlife. All it takes is just to say hello. Consider the exoplanets and the makeup of their systems and how unique our planet is. When it comes to God everyone expects a show of might and power, but if they read their bible all he wanted to do was to just hang out.

Sanrow says:

Thank you Mr.Marshal for an interesting topic and very interesting discussion.According to the vedic philosophy this is called Brahma Jnanam.Difficult to answer.There was great discussions on the existence of God in Hindu philosophy.Einstein said ‘Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.If you keep aside the argument about the existence of God, Faith certainly gives strength in an actual weakness.It keeps man to progress forward in most difficult and negative situations.I feel whatever Law is prevailing on the earth is due to the presence of people who have faith. So in the interest of the well being of the society at large we shall not discuss whether God is existing or not and faith is the answer.

AlanDeko says:

There are basic codes witch not occurs naturally; they are not created by mind or by someone another – they just exists without creation and beginning. Mind is combination of natural process and these basic codes. Mind can generate other codes.
Even if DNS is designed by mind, this mind is just combination of basic, for this moment, unknown code and natural particles

With combination of code and natural particles I understand that there are some physical rules by which code become stored in material and can change nature in all kinds like people, animals, plants etc. does.
imants.bergs@gmail.com

Forrest Charnock says:

Dear Alan:

Science is only aware of one source of information, intelligence.
The existence of genetic information is prima facia evidence of a supernatural creator.
Your contention that the mind came about by some random process is a purely religious belief, science looks for a cause.

Logic 101
Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

The First Cause is by definition without cause.

ramsai says:

Neither is a god overseeing and granting favors as we desire nor is the intellect alone capable of delivering the desired result. The result is already existing the moment its need is perceived and the mind knows it. All we have to do is take away the reactive self to allow for the no-mind or consciousness to operate. That’s why it is stated in Zen – every ? has an answer and every answer results in a ? as long as the mind is in operation. The tao of Zen is to reach the no-mind and experience the perfection that inherently exists in creation and which is only clouded by the mind. Coz for the universe to exist cyclically (to avoid stagnation and provide for continuous change which alone gives novelty to things we otherwise will take for granted; in other words uncertainty is the only certain principle in the universe) the resolution of all the constituents of universe need to be in harmony though in pockets it may seem to be in disharmony.

That’s the reason lovers, poets and artists create their own heaven since they live their life in glee abandon with little or no reason, thus limit the rational side of the mind and almost live in no-mind. This is the reason lovers live in a different reality more closer to the source whose nature is love and peace. And so do artists (Monalisa) achieve a surreal but eternal impression whose source is other than just of the mind. It reflects the true harmony of the creation itself. Analysts can then put in reason and find what are the factors contributing to the effectiveness of a creation but let it be understood that the creator himself didn’t put much thought to the metrics of the creation, he just allowed creativity to flow through himself by intuition.

The concept of GOD is needed to nullify the Ego or sense of doing which gets limited to the extent of ones awareness. When the reactive state is taken out we live in the here and now. To be in this state is akin to living like a GOD since the whole creation will be in synchronicity. It only gets better when the seeds of impressions from the past are dissolved by reconciling with them (vipasana uses the observation of body sensations without reaction to clear the mental impressions in the body, while Hubbard found that impressions left while in the womb affect the present personality and these need to be resolved to reach a CLEAR state, past life regression is used to clear the impressions of previous lives in the soul’s ongoing journey and so on). The whole purpose of any method is to release the conditioning of the mind and set it free. Since a free mind can again get sullied, various religions sought different regimes (8 fold path, holy books, Scientology principles, etc.) to maintain the pristine state of the mind.

Here it is to be understood that the religion does not define us, rather, it is a means to stop defining oneself and thus reach Godhood.

Thus fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism in the name of religion or GOD is against the very definition of religion.

Since the essence of all religions is but the same- to reach the religion of humanity, let us endeavor to start the new year 2010 in the spirit of brotherhood. That should be the motto of the 10th year of the 21st century- to progress from I or 1 to Zero or 0 and thus become one with the universe.

http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com

Forrest Charnock says:

That was in essence vague, but in reality totally meaningless.
Dick Van Dyke

There are in reality 2 religions, the followers of the Biblical God and everyone else. All religions save Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Christianity believe that matter pre-existed God and they all disagree with each other on the character of God and can be dismissed out of hand.
They violate the Law of non-contradiction and the Law of First Cause.

The order of the universe is only explained in the book of Genesis. The minimum organism required for evolution to be imagined to occur is a complete one. That first organism had all the information required to thrive and reproduce from the instant it came to be.There is only one explanation that could possibly be correct and it is found in the first book of the Bible.

Asking us to just imagine that a complete organism capable of reproducing arose spontaneously from matter is not even worth consideration, it borders on insanity to seriously contemplate, let alone accept as fact.

beritk says:

Dear Forrest, I am not sure what you refere to when you state Orthodox Christianity and Jedaism states that matter pre-existed God. I am not familiar with this view at all. But I know for sure that seventh day adventist do not believe matter pre-existed God. But believe in the Bible exactly as it is, and the creation as it is expressed in Genesis.

It seems very logical to me that if one believe in a allmighty God, why then limit Him and make Him handicapped because of our crippled minds fail to grasp His allmighty power and greatness? I have seen some very sensible remarks from you and perhaps I misunderstood this one.

ron taylor says:

“… a cloud doesn’t have a mind but it gives me visual information…”

This is another example of the relentless confusion typically expressed by atheists . Specificly , external things that are not minds cannot give you information . Any information you may have that was not transmitted from another mind could only be created by YOUR MIND . Perry has been adamant about this point . Your information that God does not exist was either transmitted to you by another mind or you created it . Either way , Perry has revealed over the span of numerous discourses that the validity / truth / factualness of the infogram ” God does not exist ” cannot be scientificly ascertained and is in fact a scientificly invalid assertion . Please do not confuse the controversy over the existence of God with the controversies over the multitude of religious concoctions pertaining to God .

Well said; what do people expect out of God or for God to be?

Comment Page 1 of 1912345»...Newest »

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.