See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now? This blog article is proof of the existence of God.
| Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks. |
Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy. But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof. It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.
So how is this message proof of the existence of God?
This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences. It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.
You can do all kinds of things with this message. You can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are. You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone. You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document. You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.
Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same. My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language. The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.
Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).
Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)
Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.
Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet. Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.
OK, so what does this have to do with God?
It’s very simple. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and intent.
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind. No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”
Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.
It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.
But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’
DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.
DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”
As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years. I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.
But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from. This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”
You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html
Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too!
Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.
Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information and language always originate in a mind.
In the beginning were words and language.
In the Beginning was Information.
When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):
–“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
–“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:
–Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):
http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code
-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:
Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
How can God(s) exist when I proved that God(s) can not exist?
Here is my proof
http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
Sagar,
#4 – note that Euclid’s theorems, on which all of geometry is founded, include the statement “a line segment can be extended indefinitely in both directions.” Geometry itself requires infinite space.
#7 – the velocity of light is absolute, not relative.
If #4 is questionable then #11 is not true.
Perry
Not that I agree with Sagar, but space-time isn’t a Euclidean space. Therefore it’s actually irrelevant to this discussion how Euclidean lines are defined. Here’s how I would argue against Sagar’s ‘proof’:
1) Zero is a perfectly valid denominator, you just can’t say anything about the value of the fraction unless certain conditions are present in which case you can come arbitrarily close to the value of the fraction.
2) Show me some nothingness and then we’ll talk.
3) Same comment as 2
4) Conflicts with 5
5) Conflicts with 4
6) ‘Laws’ are psychological mechanisms dependent upon axioms, change the axioms and the ‘laws’ also change.
7) Please brush up on your 19th century physics.
8) An event cannot be described fully in anything fewer than 4 parameters, x, y and z position and time, thus there are at least 4 dimensions. If time were an imaginary dimension as you claim then Newtonian Gravitation would give accurate predictions of orbital motions in all situations, only by taking into account time as a dimension which interacts with the 3 spatial dimensions can we arrive at an accurate model of orbital motions at high speed and under intense gravity.
9) Merely existing suffices as time travel, as you’re traveling through time.
10) Your analysis is subjective, if you create a triangle with the side lengths phi, 1/phi and 1 what is the result? Convince me that this is not a triangle, by definition it has the topology of a triangle and nothing else.
11) I can just as easily develop a proof from this collection of counter-arguments that you don’t exist if I take as many creative liberties as you did. All you’ve actually demonstrated with this exercise is that my countermove to 6 is actually true.
Namaste
I want to know just one thing…Code written by whom so ever is ultimately run by a user so similarly since every creation is made up of codes too.. who ultimately runs and stops the codes??
On whose command does all this happen… We happen to know the process that this happens and so is the result (supposedly) but what do we know about the cause of the process or the end…
See http://www.evo2.org/incompleteness and https://evo2.org/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
there is one thing that I always think about it . every body say our body created by accident but I explain that ok you can say our eyes our hand ……………..mad by chance but look at the natur of the earth every things are conform to our needs for example if our body is an accident why we have wax inside our ears to protect it from insects if there was not any mind behind that so who has anticipated coexistence of human and insect in our planet?
Hello Perry,
There is a problem I am having with your argument, and I am hoping you can clarify the issue for me.
Here is the problem, the argument, fundamentally is, DNA is information, we can create information, we are intelligent, therefore DNA has to of been created by intelligence.
However, the issue I am having is that information could occur naturally, we just wouldn’t be able to translate it because we lack the proper decoders. We are made of DNA, so naturally our communication system would reflect our DNA, and would also allow us to analyze and disseminate DNA, however, since we lack any other decoder, we don’t know if other information exists naturally.
DNA spawns DNA Encoded information
SubstanceX spawns SubstanceX Encoded information
Since they would use completely different methods of encoding/decoding we would not recognize ‘information’ anywhere else, the only information we would ever be able to recognize is information structured in the same way as DNA. For all we know the patterns we regard as chaos, could actually be information, we just don’t have the proper decoders.
Jonathan,
If chaos created information and information replicated then we would still be able to recognize the replication. But there are no self-replicating mechanisms outside of living things.
Perry
Not true. Replication has been shown to be possible on a purely chemical level.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna/#previouspost
This is not self replication as formally defined by Von Neumann. There is no code in these molecules, there is no reading of the code and there is no building of structures from a code.
Hey, can you come up with arguments FOR the existence of a Christian God in a premise- conclusion format?
Thank you.
Hi there, I would like to point out that you might have provided a false analogy in your argument about why God could not have been created. You have interestingly mentioned that when one reads John Grisham novel, for example, he cannot ask “what page is John Grisham on?” I perfectly agree with you that this question is irrelevant and demonstrates flawed reasoning. But, however, your analogy too, is rather irrelevant. When one WRITES a story, how can this be analogous with one CREATING matter and energy? A story is a plot. It is information, a narration, either true or fictitious. It is a tale. Not matter or energy. It is conceived by the mind. Not constructed materialistically. Writing a story is, for example, certainly different from designing and making a book. As such, your analogy fails to address the issue still. To put it simply, there can exist an intelligent being who can conceive humans in his mind. He can create INFORMATION about it. But in the end, everything is still IMAGINATION. Not reality. It is certainly different from creating humans PHYSICALLY. Hence the analogy fails. Hope you get my point.
In addition, you also mentioned that God created time and space. I would like to make a clarification here. The big bang theory does not state that something magically appeared out of nothing. As far as we know, matter and energy cannot be created and destroyed. It is sort of eternal, just existing in other forms. We currently cannot know for certain what happened before the big bang. Because we cannot talk about anything prior to the point of expansion, one might as well cut those things out of the theory. As such, space and time did, and has always existed. There is just no point and importance in talking about them prior to the formation of the universe, because it is only from that point that we have something that we can measure. Before that, we yet have anything to measure; it is only after the big bang then did time become relevant to us. As such, scientists say that time started with the universe just for the sake of the theory. Anything before that is currently irrelevant.
I would also like to take up the challenge of answering your Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design.
I assume that your second premise does not really mean what it says: that all codes are created by only one conscious mind. I will now like to address your argument.
While I will want to think that your second premise does have several serious problems (that the DNA codes present in us are definitely distinctively different from the codes and languages that we use to communicate with other people and more,) I decided to list only three points for the sake of clarity.
Firstly, “information” does not imply the necessary existence of an intelligent being with a conscious mind. In fact, this can be reconciled with the explanation by natural processes. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time, self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). To elaborate a little further, it is not a problem of raw materials, since there is strong evidence that the Earth of 4 billion years ago contained the chemical ingredients for life. Amino acids, nucleic acids and other ‘life friendly’ materials are already present on other planets, in comets and in interstellar space, and it’s also likely that they were synthesized on Earth by various natural processes. To find out more about these natural processes, I highly recommend you to visit this website: http://www.evolutionofdna.com/default.html. Here, you can learn more about the evolution of the DNA. Hope you enjoy.
Secondly, your premises lead to an infinite regression. Your argument says that there exists a mind to design information. This information (DNA) will then be used to “design” other minds. In other words, language, codes, information et cetera comes from, you say, minds. Just like how humans who possesses minds due to input of information can create information, and that they got to be created, you say, then the mind that designed the DNA should also be designed. Otherwise, one will be making the fallacy of special pleading. This mind must be very complex and intelligent too, to supposedly create matter, energy, the DNA and other stuffs. Just like how our minds must be complex and intelligent too to “create” man-made stuffs (though the man-made stuffs are still less complex than us). As such, something so complex and well-designed must be designed, and this will lead to an infinite regress, because a mind due to input of information must be designed by, you say, the mind of a mind (also due to input of information) which must then also be designed by another mind followed by another and another…. So you have essentially explained and proven nothing. In fact, information and codes can be explained by natural causes. A mind needed to create DNA is simply unnecessary. Please do conduct more research on the formation of the DNA and its evolution and you may get my point. Again, you can refer to the above website.
Thirdly, the identity and characteristics of the designer is still not proven. From your argument, one can only, assuming that the argument is valid, deduce that there exists a mind to design information (DNA) needed for another mind. This mind that supposedly designed the DNA may not be the one who created time and space. It may also not be omnipotent and almighty and timeless and eternal. It may also not be restricted to only one mind- there can be a few minds that can create the DNA, and they may not be transcendent, all-powerful, immaterial et cetera. As such, your argument may not be too relevant to what you have wanted to prove- the existence of a Christian God.
Please do clarify with me if there is some sort of misunderstandings or something. Thank you.
Einstein’s Spacetime theorems combine space and time into a single continuum. The expansion of space corresponds to the forward movement of time. At the moment of the Big Bang, the universe occupies an infinitely small space. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.
As we move from the present to the moment of the Big Bang, general relativity breaks down prior to t=10^-43 seconds (“Planck time.”). Between t=0 and Planck time we are unable to investigate the exact progress of the Big Bang.
Prior to t=0 there is no such thing as time. Time itself begins literally at the point of the Big Bang.
There may be other dimensions of time and other universes but we have no access to them or knowledge of them.
In 1931, astronomer Georges Lemaître suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a “primeval atom”, at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence.
It is not logical to conclude that matter and energy existed before that since there is no “before.”
This has an interesting correspondence to Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning [of time] God created [out of nothing] the heavens and the earth [everything].” [words in brackets are mine]
Philosophers almost universally reject any form of infinite regress because the result is an infinitely complex answer to a finite question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress.
At some point in the past there is the inevitable reality of an uncaused cause.
Some say that the universe itself is its own uncaused cause.
However everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
Since the universe has a beginning, it has a cause.
Therefore the universe is not its own cause. It has to have been caused by something else.
It is possible to hypothesize that it came from another universe and that’s fine but it doesn’t bring us to any conclusion.
The question we have to answer is, what could cause the time, space, matter and energy to come into being at a single point in time and for the universe to expand at an exact rate with 120 decimal places of precision?
I would like to suggest that the only adequate explanation is an intelligent, willful, eternal being outside of space and time, namely God.
You said:
Over very long periods of time, self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines).
Avida only demonstrates intelligent design. If naturalistic evolution were true, we wouldn’t need Avida. We would have spontaneously occurring computer programs emerging simply because we have computers.
Perry
There’s a clear logical fallacy with your statement: it is not proof, it is a hypothesis.
First, I want to clarify for anyone who reads this comment that I understand the author is not arguing the Theory of Evolution is false. The Theory of Evolution clearly explains the origin of all species, as descendants from a single ancestor. It, however, doesn’t explain––nor intends to explain—the origin of that ancestor, or of life itself.
There are, however, many advances being made to identify and replicate how chemical reactions, triggered by the environment in specific areas of the early Earth, might’ve produced and slowly assembled the building blocks of life (Science News article: How RNA Got Started).
Now, even though Evolution is not supposed to be the topic of discussion here, I’ve read in many of the comments in this thread the tired argument that: “The Theory of Evolution has many gaps, therefore it’s not true!” This, I hope you all realize, is a logical fallacy. Moreover, the fact that there are gaps in a theory doesn’t automatically prove some other imagined, unrealistic hypothesis to be true. It’s sort of like saying that because we don’t know exactly every detail of how gravitation works, then the theory of gravitation and einstein’s theory of relativity are false, and we are more likely held attached to the earth by the hand of a 6+ billion-armed giant that lives on Mars.
So if we are going to have a discussion based on logical arguments, please, drop the ID nonsense.
Now, on to the argument:
So as I stated before, there are numerous advances being made in science, to explain the origin of life in this planet. Now, one could argue that even if it looked like the process happened on its own, there’s still the possibility that a higher being put it together.
Truth is, we don’t know yet. In fact, there’s a chance we may never know! I mean, theoretically at the rate of knowledge acquisition we’ve experience since the scientific revolution, given enough time we should be able to find out the answer; but who knows if we’re going to have enough time. We may go extinct before we get to the answer for all we know.
What you present here is a hypothesis, not proof. Also, your hypothesis is based entirely on how our civilization works, specifically with the creation and transfer of information. For your statement to work, you would require all laws of physics in the universe to behave the way humans do. Now, we know that’s not the case.
A hypothesis is not evidence in the same way that a question is not the same as an answer. The only way we can ultimately know the truth is to actively seek for the answers, and the way to do that is by finding evidence. Someone simply “coming-up” with an answer just won’t cut it, in the same way that Evolution is not considered a fact because Charles Darwin proposed it, but because of all the evidence that has been found to support it. Same is true to Einstein’s theory of relativity.
It is true neither science nor religion currently have an “answer” for this question (origin of life), but at least science is actively and honestly trying to seek it. Religion is happy with considering unproved ideas some people came up with centuries ago as unquestionable truth.
My argument is a hypothesis in precisely the same way that the theory of gravity or thermodynamics is a hypothesis. No more and no less, all three have equal empirical support; all codes we know the origin of are designed.
Dead on, Perry. It’s also not the case that Evolution or General Relativity are facts simply b/c the theory fits the data. No good physicist would honestly claim that General Relativity is factual, similarly no good evolutionary biologist should claim that Evolution is factual. Lack of evidence is not evidence. To argue otherwise is to fall into the same trap Jorge accuses religion of doing in his closing argument.
Yes but that does not prove the existence of god. You are always one step behind. If thermodynamics sets out to prove something it is itself. You set out to prove that DNA is coded, therefore designed and that proves the existence of god.
Where did information in DNA came from?I don’t know!Some questions are never meant to be answered.Unlike you,I’m not smart enough to answer the greatest question ever!The Big Bang,God and other theories are all ridiculous for me.What you did here is that you tried to tell us “the last number”.There is no last number.Numbers are infinite!Maybe the time is infinite,and maybe life has always existed.Maybe all this isn’t created.Maybe it was already there.If I had to choose between God and the Big Bang,I would still choose Big Big simply because it’s 2000 years newer than the God theory.
hi,
really speaking big-bang is a absurd concept in science as long as the existance of God is concerned. Because before also the same universe was existing.Science can give reasons (given by people by their speculative ideas & degree of crazyness) But it can’t change the existing one hence can’t change the truth. We can give reasons as our mind says but it is not always correct. Science have changed its theories many times but do you think the things have been changed.No, they are same.
Regarding God he will be always there you may believe or not .But if you believe its better.
I apologize for my words if something irritates your mind.
Perhaps I should apologize right away for any irritation concerning use of language, English is not my native language.
I do not know what people you’ve discussed this with, but your arguments contain enough fallacies that I cannot accept it up front.
First of all, you’re defining both information and language in a decidedly arbitrarily way. It is not true that a rock do not convey information, every single particle conveys information. To be more precise, what we call information is our senses’ interpretation of those particles effect on the surrounding space, which include us and our senses. Take the formation of a new star. Two H-atoms clump together and create a slightly stronger gravity well, bending the space around them. The effect on the simple atoms around them is simply to fall “down” this gravity well and clump together some more. However, to an extremely fine tuned sensor nearby (yes, I ignore the mass of the sensor for the sake of the argument, I’m sure he validity of my point is obvious anyway) this occurrence conveys the information that there is a slightly stronger pull in the direction of the two clumped H-atoms.
There have been recent discoveries of planets orbiting a certain type of super novae residue, neutron stars. However, the blast from a super novae is more than enough to sweep away any planets in orbit around the original star, so those planets must have formed after the fact – a prime example of how the universe tends towards complex structures, even when it at first glance seems highly unlikely. Of course, entropy always wins in the long run, but for example gravity and the strong nuclear force make a damn good show of themselves in the process. We simply do not have enough data to asses the probability, on a cosmic scale, for this principle to extend to the formation of self replicating molecules, but it is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree to simply jump to the conclusion that this must mean that it is infinetly improbable and therefore requires divine intervention. The lack of conclusive data in this case is just as much a weakness in your hypothesis as it is in the scientific one. Please do not get me wrong, I easily see the potential for quote mining here which you believers are so happy about doing (Darwin and the eye anyone? Props to the theist managing to read both the first and the second paragraph of that little text). I do not place the scientific model of the origin and evolution of life on equal basis with any religious counterpart.
You say a mind is needed to create codes and languages. OK, but where do you draw the line? At humans? But horses and cats have their own form of information exchange, quite complex I can assure you, as one who have spent perhaps 80 percent of my living days together with animals. Even single cell organisms exchange information useful for their respective survival, and even more basic than that – viruses do, and we’re not even sure those buggers are really alive. Not much of a mind there. Of course, you can always defer to god at this point, but then you’re not actually proving anything – you set out to use language and information as a proof of god, and now you’re suddenly trying to use the desired right side of the equation as a haphazard term on the left side. I do not accept it.
There is one more major objection I want to bring up. You claim you have evidence for the existence of god. But which god? If I were to ask you (I’m only guessing here mind you, but once again the point should be obvious) if you believe in Osiris, Thor, Allah, Krishna, Vishnu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the good spirits, Blind Io and so on I’d expect you to say no. If I were to ask you if you believe in the god of the bible, I’d expect a yes. So… atheist concerning most of the human experience in the field of religion, and a believer in what, through pure random chance, your immediate surrondings happen to embrace? It doesn’t fly. And as far as the gods of the big monotheistic religions are concerned, I’m having a bit of a problem understanding how something so vehemently vengeful, childishly aggressive and short sightedly stupid could possibly come up with something as wonderful as the universe I’m seeing on a daily basis in my studies. This point is of course something you can fairly easily displace by stating that you do not believe in any particular theistic god, something which I would recieve with no small amount of relief. But to be honest, I’d prefer to see this clarification right at the top of your home page, so that all those uneducated christians, for example, littering the world doesn’t get the notion that your arguments support their particular little perception of the world.
All in all, this proof will not stand up to a peer review.
Patrik,
I tightly define communication theory exactly as Claude Shannon does. Basic definitions of information theory: http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/
Why things like sunlight, hydrogen atoms, electrons, layers of sediment and snowflakes are not codes:
http://evo2.org/faq/#naturalcodes
As for other codes and where I draw the line: All codes are either direct derivatives of DNA (ie bee waggles) or else products of conscious choice. No known exceptions.
As for my theological leanings they are clear if you take some time to go through my site. However the way I have approached this topic would be compatible with a broad number of religious views.
Perry
No, you do not answer any of my objections, you simply keep on asserting. You do not present factual support that information, on the basic physical level, is a thing apart from the medium. Taking Shannon’s results to say so doesn’t so much “not fly” as dig a hole in the ground and jump into it. There is a point, mathematically, to treat the concept of information as an independent entity, but trying to extend this as a real world concept is like saying “evil” is a thing independent of people.
Once again, the working definition on information I gave was that it is an interpretation of an object’s influence on its surroundings. This I derive from the fact that at the bottom of it, everything everywhere obeys the same physical laws. You are trying to set up some sort of special case for some occurences in the universe, instead of recognising the fact that what you see as codes in DNA is simply a high level complexity case of the fundamental physical laws.
As for, specifically, the codes embedded in DNA. We know from experiments that amino acids is something that can form from dead materials in conditions similar to – those we know of, of course – those that were present back when the Earth was young. We haven’t yet had the time to actually see first hand what happens when you let a bunch of amino acids float around for a few hundred million years, but there are circumstancial evidences. That life evolves is an observed fact, and that life has evolved from a simple state to a more complex one is evident in fossil records and so on. And should it ever occur, on an otherwise lifeless planet, that just a few molecules banded together to form even the most rudimentary imaginable form of self replication, then it is no surprise that they would fill up the entire planet, because no other molecules do. It’s also no surprise that they should evolve into more complex structures, because the equation of evolution is, at its heart, extremely simple and depends on one variable only – the rate of reproduction for a given trait. And since we live on a planet with a sort of slight but constant radio active haze, mutations – and thus new traits – will occur as we also know from observation that they do in organisms. The conclusion of this is that there is no reason whatsoever to discount the basic physical laws of the universe as enough to produce DNA and the codes it contain.
Now, you seem to have done a bit of weaving and dodging here to get around my objections. Originally you asserted that code cannot exist without mind, and now you say that it is either direct derivatives of DNA or else product of conscious choice. But as I just said, there’s no reason to believe that physics isn’t enough, without any form of sentient creator, to produce DNA and it is fairly simple to understand the emergence of conscious thought on such a basis. And so I return to the point of intellectual honesty. If you ask “Ok, so how did it all start” I will reply that I do not know. It’s not even my field of research, but I dare say that what will happen is that we’ll continue to probe the workings of life, find more and more remnants of the earliest life forms and someday we might even come up with a good conclusive answer as to what abiogensis actually was. Along the way hypothesis after hypothesis will be brought up and discarded, some with hardly a footnote in some obscure publications somewhere and others with monumental clashes across the conference table. However, no matter how ludicrous any of these ideas might be, there is only thing that could make me actually angry with it:
That is taking incomplete or simply erronous data and lines of reasoning and from them spin a conclusion that potentially bogs down the whole process with assertive claims that “This is the truth and there is no point in arguing about it!”. Yep, that was a hint.
If anyone could come up with evidence for the touch of a god that is as stringent as, for example, the theories of evolution and relativity and just as hardy when it comes to testing, I will accept it. Atheistic view points over board, proof exist and I accept it the same way I accepted that time flows differently on the top of a mountain compared to at its base. But you don’t have it.
Patrik,
Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics and MIT professor, said, “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to accept this cannot survive the present day.”
The best way to explain what he meant by that is with the question, “What is ‘Romeo and Juliet’?”
It’s a play written by Shakespeare, of course.
In what sense does it exist?
It is a code. It is a sequence of symbols. Romeo and Juliet is Romeo and Juliet whether it exists on a handwritten manuscript, a printed book, a WORD document, a PDF document, a string of 1’s and 0’s. It exist whether that pattern is stored on a hard drive or transmitted by radio waves or sound waves or lasers in fiber optic cable.
Any person or algorithm or properly programmed computer can check its identity based on a simple set of rules of matching the pattern to a reference pattern. In the mathematical terms of the Turing Machine, the identity of Romeo and Juliet is “computable.” In other words you can write an algorithm that answers the question “Is this piece of data a copy of Romeo and Juliet?”
Thus the text of Romeo and Juliet exists as an ontological entity. But it is not matter and it is not energy. It is a PATTERN. Yes, in any particular instance it is either matter OR energy or a combination of both. But the pattern itself is neither matter nor energy.
That is what Norbert Weiner meant by his statement.
And you cannot derive codes from the laws of physics. You are welcome to disagree – just show me an example of how you derive the genetic code from the laws of physics.
Let’s take just one aspect of DNA: The fact that it has a four-letter alphabet.
It could have a 2 letter or 3 letter or 6 or 8 or 16 letter alphabet but it has 4.
Why 4?
Can you answer that question using the laws of physics alone? Or do you just try to appeal to chance?
Any appeal to chance is unscientific. It does not refer to any systematic repeatable process. It’s throwing up one’s hands and saying, “I guess we just got LUCKY.”
Even if the primordial soup provided ALL the intact chemicals necessary for DNA and the first cell (that’s a big if), you still have only answered half the question. Because the other half of the question is, why is there a code, where did the rules of the code come from, and how did the code come to make the SPECIFIC choices that it makes?
The choices seen in the genetic code include:
-4 letter alphabet
-The four letters are arranged in triplets so there are 64 possible combinations of triplets
-There is built-in redundancy so that there are 20 words in the messenger RNA alphabet, not 64. Each “word” can be represented by three different triplets; for example GGA, GGG and GGC all code for Glycine. If DNA is damaged there is a good chance the right amino acid will still be transcribed. A feature like this exists in most human-designed communication systems to prevent errors. The redundancy in the genetic code is actually quite ingenius. Out of 18,000 possible redundancy schemes you could make with the genetic code, THIS combination is the most robust known combination.
-DNA has error correction and error checking mechanisms, just like the hardware that connects your computer to the Internet. How do you derive those mechanisms from the laws of physics? Do the laws of electron bonding or gravity or the nuclear forces or the equations for light or magnetism give you these error correction mechanisms? Would random mutation produce mechanisms that prevent random mutation?
Of course not.
All of the characteristics of the things just described are ONLY found in intelligently designed communication systems. In man made systems, most of these things were developed in the mid-20th century by very smart people.
No one has ever seen rocks or snowflakes or sunlight or any naturally occurring molecule or substance possess these characteristics.
During the last few decades we have found that those features had already been in DNA for 3 billion years.
If a person wants to say that DNA occurred naturally, then he needs to provide ONE example of a naturally occurring communication system. All you need is one.
I’ve been exploring this online for 5 years and nobody’s ever shown me an example of a naturally occurring code.
Codes obey physical laws but they also obey the abstract laws of the code. An additional set of constraints.
Patrik, you are essentially arguing here that DNA evolved.
But evolution is not possible without self-replication. Self-replication is not possible without a code (John Von Neumann determined that in the 1960’s.) So evolution requires DNA to exist FIRST.
In your salvo you are taking for granted that self-replicating molecules somehow occurred first, but that’s cheating. You have to demonstrate that such things are observed to happen in nature.
You also assume that to have evolution all you need is self-replication. But that is not true either. Everything that evolves, evolves through intelligent action or via some algorithm. Evolution never happens as a result of pure randomness filtered by natural selection.
I understand that you will disagree with that. So I challenge you to name one scientific paper in all the biological literature that PROVES and does not merely assume that random mutations produce positive results and significant new features – and that the new features were, in fact, a result of RANDOM mutations and not internal cellular genetic engineering as described by James A. Shapiro, Evolution in the 21st Century:
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2009.EvolutionIn21stCentury.pdf.
As a communication engineer I can tell you that there is no such thing as a provision in communication theory that says “a tiny percentage of the time, noise actually IMPROVES the signal.” There is simply no such thing. Noise is always bad. Random mutations are always bad.
You said, “There is no reason to believe that physics isn’t enough.” I am sorry but I respectfully submit to you, you are making that statement from a standpoint of not having sufficiently researched this question. The laws of physics do not explain any code or language.
Hubert Yockey in his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” said, “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.”
Patrik, I submit to you that the inference to design in DNA is as reliable as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics and for a nearly identical set of reasons: ALL of the many thousands of codes we know the origin of are designed. No exceptions.
If you wish to disprove the above statement, please provide an example of a naturally occurring code. Again, all you need is one.
Perry
Quick question: Is Yockey the only one to do experiments of this kind?
In school the worst part of research papers was the bibliography page. So far you’ve cited Yockey and Shannon as far as the study of code goes. Did I miss some citations? Did you use other sources that you didn’t mention? Did you simply use two sources?
I understand that these reports were peer-reviewed and I have the utmost faith in that process. Also, a lot of peer-reviewed papers have been proven false.
There’s a ton of literature on information theory and biology. See for example http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/tcbb
Perry,
I know over the past few years there has been a growing number of dissenting scientist from the Darwinian view of evolution –
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
I was wondering if you know of any good peer review papers that are critical of the Darwinian view that you could refer me to?
God Bless,
JohnM
John,
There’s mountains of stuff but I think an excellent, up to date resource is Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell.”
Perry
Hello sir,
you can refer : forbidden archeology by Michael Cremo & Richard L Thompson.(http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcremo.com%2F&ei=AuCzSpW-GciIkAWbz726Cw&usg=AFQjCNGyeM5Bt6FdEg1wmH_SvM2ILQ3Iqw&sig2=yNM-GXCkY-cnf_HjJMWC-g)
:Darwin’s secret Identity by David webb
:life-How did it get here? by international Bible students Association.
You claim that DNA is a code and a code has to be created by a designer, by God in this case, therefore that to you is proof that God must exist.
I say that DNA is not a code that required a creator, it evolved.
Your argument is pointless, much less proof of God, but you will never see it, you want there to be proof of God so much that you are being illogical. If I have ever posted a comment that was a total waste of time then this is it. However, many will agree with me, if they get the chance to read it.
Keith,
Your claim that DNA is not a code contradicts ALL the scientific literature written about it since 1953. Such an argument is anti-scientific; the pattern of base pairs in DNA is by definition a code.
Perry
Perry,
You have missed the point and must have read through my comment too quickly. I never claimed that DNA was not a code, only that it was a code that does not require a designer, it evolved.
You can refer to as many quotes from learned professors as you like backing up your claim that DNA is a code, that´s fine, nothing wrong with that. However, to claim that because DNA is a code means it must have a designer – simply because that is how we have chosen to define codes, is not proof of anything, it´s just your assumption.
You are too bogged down with giving definitions of codes and what is information and what isn´t etc. etc. The real point is that you claim that DNA is a code designed by God and ignore the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that DNA could not have simply evolved, it is only your belief that DNA could not have evolved by chance.
If, as you claim, DNA must have been designed by God, then you would have to support that with evidence showing that it could not possibly develop naturally, and giving definitions of codes does not come even close. That is why I say your argument is illogical.
Keith,
Why evolution doesn’t explain DNA:
http://evo2.org/faq/#dnaevolved
Hubert Yockey explains why DNA is more than just physics and chemistry:
http://evo2.org/faq/#dnachemistry
Why information is immaterial (and thus is not naturally occurring):
http://evo2.org/faq/#immaterial
If you go through my entire presentation you can see that I have made a robust case for why we have no good reason to believe that DNA developed naturally. “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Perry
I see, because “we have no good reason to believe that DNA developed naturally” that is proof that God made DNA?
I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic in that at all, you cannot prove that DNA did not occur naturally so that is proof that it didn´t?
I am not going to pursue this any further, I have better things to do then get involved in any more of your one track belief system.
hi,
forgive for my words . But do you think that you are a monkey.
This is what I got from your posts.
Information>intelligence>dna
DNA is like information, therefore it must of been created by intelligence. This argument is like saying Machine A created Machine B which created Machine C, since Machine C has characteristics of Machine A, Machine A must of been created by a machine similar to B.
When all other information is lacking, I have no idea what created machine A (it could of been a human) scientifically I can only either use the other machines as a reference, or try to find a way that machine A was created using different methods. In this case the only method for DNA would be the ‘natural’ method, which as far as we are aware could not create DNA.
This logic makes complete sense, however it ONLY makes sense if God is made of DNA. Since there is no other place in the universe that intelligence exists apart from DNA, if you believe God is intelligent, and not made of DNA, you are making a complete assumption. If you want to use circular logic to validate your case, that’s fine, but you can’t stop the circle at your convenience to validate your religious beliefs.
All information comes from intelligence, which comes from DNA. If you believe God ‘intelligently’ created DNA, you believe God is intelligent, and therefore consists of DNA, if you don’t believe this then your proposition is no more valid then any other argument for God.
If you start the universe with the assumption that everything was created naturally, including DNA, regardless of the expression of the substances in that universe (in the form of information or otherwise), then you believe DNA is a natural substance.
If you start the universe with the assumption that everything came from an intelligence, then you have a little bit more freedom, you can believe this intelligence created DNA intelligently, and also created naturally occurring processes.
Either way, your argument isn’t infallible, there is still an assumption or faith at the start, because you cannot prove that DNA is not a a naturally occurring substance just because it has a unique expression, that is like saying since chemical B has a specific and unique reaction to chemical A, chemical B must of been intelligently designed. A unique characteristic of a substance does not negate natural creation, it just proves that there are unique substance expressions in the universe.
Jonathan,
This is one of the most intelligent objections to my theory that I have heard. It is certainly light-years beyond the people who continue to assert that DNA is not a code and all that.
There are specific considerations that have guided my thinking here. Let’s start with Hubert Yockey, the foremost living expert on information theory in biology.
In his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005) he said, “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.”
In his book Yockey stops right there and goes no further. He says “The origin of DNA is scientifically unknowable.” And you know what? He is entirely correct. You can go no further and be in the realm of empirical science. He essentially says, “There’s nothing more to see here, ladies and gentlemen, so we can all go home now and mind our own business.”
But human curiosity and even plain common sense tell you, you have to go further than that. Because there has to be some kind of answer.
At this point you either stop like Yockey does, or you make a leap of faith.
But I do not mean some blind wild leap of faith in the common sense of that term. What I mean is you are forced to make an educated inference based on everything else you know. People do this in science all the time. That’s the only way we have things in physics like quarks. Hey, it’s not like anybody’s ever SEEN one. They’re just inferred.
Yockey’s observation prevents you from making the assumption that everything was created naturally, including DNA. Because DNA has characteristics that we cannot properly classify as naturalistic.
Let’s not forget – There is no evidence that DNA or any information system occurs naturally. All information systems we know the origin of are designed.
Which brings us to your other proposition: “If you start the universe with the assumption that everything came from an intelligence, then you have a little bit more freedom, you can believe this intelligence created DNA intelligently, and also created naturally occurring processes.”
This is the proposition I accept. The only leap of faith I have to make is that intelligence does exist somewhere that is not made of DNA. In other words, that the intelligence is metaphysical.
This is a very small leap of faith. People in every culture and philosophers of most stripes have embraced some version of this view since the dawn of mankind. Pretty much everyone except atheists considers this to be intuitively obvious.
There’s no evidence that codes or DNA occur naturally. And assuming DNA came from an intelligent being made of DNA is absurd, because it gets you into an infinite regression of humans, essentially. So that makes no sense.
Which brings us back to my small leap of faith. God is metaphysical, not physical, God is intelligent and this intelligence created DNA intelligently and also created naturally occurring processes.
Perry
Knowing how long you have been at this, I am humbled that my argument is one of the best arguments you have heard, the irony is that I am actually a theist.
While I would never negate the ability for anything to occur naturally, because it could be due to a simple current lack of knowledge, the main reason I would want to show that faith is still required is because I think faith is what proves God.
Everyday we make choices, and no matter how much knowledge we have, no matter how much we analyze, we can never be 100% sure that the choices we make will have the outcome we expect, we literally have to have faith everyday in everything we do, whether it be going for a bike ride, or brushing our teeth, our actions always have a faith component.
If God wanted to let us know he existed, undeniably, he would of done so. What atheists fail to realize is that their very thought processes are a grace granted to them. Millions of years of evolution and we are still asking why we exist, we still believe in God, and we still have the ability to comprehend (we are not automatons). If you woke up every morning and undeniably knew that God existed, you would have your choice stripped from you, faith is the primary mechanism for choice. Without faith, there would be no choice.
While it might sound odd, I would never want an undeniable reason to believe in God whether it be through logic or otherwise, because I enjoy the freedom to make a choice, and I enjoy the ability to have faith, the characteristic that makes us who we are, and a characteristic that atheists don’t have enough of that ultimately imprisons them in a rigid universe that has no purpose.
Jonathan,
I appreciate your comment. Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe. Part of that blessing is simply faith itself. I couldn’t get through the day without it.
All the science is wonderful because it shows us God’s creation and teaches us something about God himself. Clearly, he is powerful, wonderful, creative, imaginative and awesome.
Thank you for expressing the blessings of faith. I hadn’t thought of it that way and it makes it all the more special.
God bless,
Kristi
Hi Perry,
I will make you another question. What will happen if we go back 200 years ago and start to talk on a mobile phone or start to project with a computer projector in the main square in Paris or London on a screen a football match? Will everybody start believing that God exist only because they can not explain how it is possible all that. I think that the fact we can not explain everything NOW, does not mean that God exist.
Neli,
If we time travel 200 years with a computer projector, we will have proven that very intelligent beings can make computer projectors. We will not have proven that random accidents create computer projectors.
perry marshall,
As i have seen your messages i thank you, and it is so simple to know that there is a god and this was the job of the prophets in the entier time from the existance of the human kind
and i hope that you knew that the god does not leave the human withowt giving him a message that helps him to know the god
and we are so close to the exact material of the message which became reer for some people and for others it is neer and simple .
Also i hope that you know that many pepole have chaneged in the messages of the god and some of them have lied at the god but there is another people has kept this message from change and lose .these people are too many but the best and the most honest of them are very few .
The message of god is only one but it was given to differant pepole in defferant languages in defferant places in the world withowtdoubt they have left it and changed it exept the people who you will find that they are reseaving the wars from the time they have started to keep message from the history
untel now… they are the moslems and the name of the message is islam in the arabic language and the god is protecting this meessage so its not going to be lost from the history untel the end of the world then we go back to our god
the word of islam nearly means : to be under the low of god and worship him and to be a good person to all of the people and this low can not be harmfull for any human animal or revolution.
thanks ,
ismail.
I must say this is entertainly to say the least. The reasons giving for not getting what Perry has already explained. Maybe it’s ignorance of not reading the entire account and explanation he gives. For the benefit of everyone, please read the entire account. That way you won’t be repeating and making the same mistakes of others before you.
As Perry has mentioned, this really is in our day and age something so simple and easy to understand that even a child can get this. For those who keep insisting that inanimate objects, elements, and forces all have codes, forget it. No where outside of a scientific text book is there any type of intelligent code explaining what they are what they do, etc. It does’nt exist. DNA is entirely different. It has an actually and I might add brilliantly put together code that cannot be matched anywhere.
What is interesting about the diehard evolutionists is they keep insisting that evolution is a FACT, when in actuallity, the last time I checked they were still calling it a theory. It seems that if you simply just parrot over and over the act of repeating what the more popular atheist websites say about it as being fact, the mere repition of saying it over and over makes it so.
The very one most important thing that Perry keeps asking over and over is please provide just one example of a naturally occuring code. Just one and only one. And yet not one reader or debater ever does. What that tells me is that every one here does get it and admitted it is more of a pride or ego issue, because if you accept certain truths, then other things must be true as well and accepted as well and accountability is an absolute atheistic no no!
I’ve been studying for over 20 years now the possiblity that an ancient hydrological cycling system mentioned at Genesis 2:5-6 where it never rained and ONLY a hydrological system originating from the earth in the form of springs, ponds, rivers, lakes, mist/vapor, etc actually existed and I have found it has. Or perhaps i should say that science has and they are baffled to explain it. Tons of research and info has lately been published and I’m amazed that if they knew what they had they would realize they are shooting themselves in the foot over this info. This past year has been one of the most rewarding as far as these findings and believe it or not we have Global Warming or whatever you want to call it to thank for revealing much of this.
One such site actually took down some of their info when they were questioned about there explanation of ancient forests being destroyed in a mega-flood. Pictures and all they deleted. Isn’t true peer reviewed science without agendas wonderful ???
Perry,
First off, God bless you for all the work you put into this. May God continue to sustain you and and keep prompting you forward with all this. Only the love of Christ in us can compel us so strongly to continue to tirelessly hold forth the Word of life to those who ‘have ears’ to hear it. Only on the other side will we truely realize the effect this ministry is having on honest seeking souls from all over this globe. I will be one of them! Thank you Perry!
May God continue to fill your heart with His desire to reach the lost. You are a refreshing example of the long-suffering and patience the Holy Spirit wants to produce in our lives if we but yield to Him.
Ok, you have probably already had this one….but how would you respond to the objection that there is no data from an actual ‘testing of the hypothesis of ID?’ Where are the papers that show us the results of the testing of the ID hypothesis?
I have showed the person your ‘testable hypothesis’ for ID. And the peer reviewed and published matarial from Discovery Institute etc.
In short I responded that until the gate-keepers of modern science (naturalist / materialists mainly) have a paradigm shift they will not interpret the ‘testable evidence for ID’ as evidence for ID. And that asking for peer-review to test the ID hypothesis (for now) is like asking a muslim to review my christian ‘hypothesis’ for Jesus being the Christ etc.
Whats your thoughts?
In Christ,
JohnM
John,
Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” devotes dozens of pages to this topic. You should buy it. The accusation that ID makes no testable hypothesis is simply a lie. The design paradigm consistently predicts that we will find good reasons for every mechanism that is discovered; that designs are remarkably close to optimal; and that there are multiple reasons for designing something a certain way.
The random mutation paradigm consistently predicts that organisms are sub-optimal; that they are wasteful; that they’re full of “junk” and vestigial organs; that the universe is ultimately senseless and disorganized.
A casual guy with very little familiarity with the arguments can easily make testable ID hypotheses just by sitting and thinking about any unanswered question about biology that anybody happens to be talking about. “I think we’ll find that Process X happens for a very useful, calculated and nearly optimal reason. I hypothesize that the reason is…. Y.”
Fact is, people SAY they believe that biology is purposeless and random (political correctness) but real scientists generally do not carry out experiments as though they actually believe this. Almost every biology experiment, development in medicine, etc., presumes implicitly that everything in an organism happens for a reason; has goals; has purposes; can be understood. This is actually diametrically opposed to the stated beliefs of materialism and Darwinism.
Which is just one more way of saying: The materialistic worldview has no explanation for the existence or nature of information, because information, programs and algorithms always have a purpose.
Perry
Perry,
How would you respond to this….
**I don’t see why I have to show any codified system arising outside of life? Life is the most complex systems we know of, and DNA, RNA has the requisite properties.What science has shown is that a rudimentary codified system can arise naturally, at least wrt tRNA under simple conditions that might have been present in early earth. I admit we have a long way to go to show how dna became the template for most life..rna is the template for some viruses**
I told him here, derivatives of DNA can’t be offered as naturally occuring codes because DNA and it’s derivatives are the very things in question.
**wrt DNA what we can do is analyse any segment of it across species.
What we find over and over is a pattern called a nested heirarchy. In replicating systems this infers common ancestry. The fossil record shows an identical pattern and a progression from simplicity to complexity over time. From physics we see that at the beginning( the planck epoch) there was complete entropy. No information at all present at the beginning. With inflation, complexity and info arose under the governence of laws of physics.**
So basically he is saying the genetic code was indeed produced ultimately through the laws of physics and chemistry isnt he?
**Sickle cell gene contains info on how to resist malaria. Unfortunately it doesn’t carry O2 as well. Occurs only in africans because of a random mutation even though malaria also occurs in s america. Consider small cell virus..contains info on how to torture and kill 100,s of millions of humans..mostly kids. Do you really think God designed this?**
Would genetic information entropy explain this?
Regards,
JohnM
John,
There is no support whatsoever for the assertion that “a rudimentary codified system can arise naturally.” I’ve been inviting people for 5 years to offer one example of a naturally occurring code, even a simple one. The artificially produced RNA has no code.
The 2nd guy is saying what you think he’s saying but he’s only asserting, he’s offering no proof.
Yes, information entropy is a perfectly adequate explanation for birth defects.
I, for one, must thank you for explaining to me what i have always wanted to know! And although this gift to me is, i know, from God, I salute you, Perry, for a job well done! Excellent work!!!
ps. i have studied all major religions and philosophies and never has my ever-questioning MIND been satisfied until reading your extremely well-researched and totally unbiased ‘revelation’ scientific though it may seem to be to some, to me it is inspired and all inspiration comes from the All-Knowing, Most-Sublime, Almighty Lords of The Worlds, Master of the Judgment Day how can that not be a revelation?
Perry,
“if God designed why is it that 99 % of the codes are now extinct…It appears as though the codes are modified and collected under a process of trial and error.a ameoba has more DNA that any other living cell. why ?”
How would you respond to this point? Wouldn’t a genetic algorithm have the ‘appearance’ of being a ‘trial and error’ process to?
John,
I am WAY behind on blog comments, my apologies to you and others whose comments are still in the queue. I will get to them.
I understand this question, I can relate to it. It’s: “Why would a designer use a process like this rather than just creating the end product that he wants?”
This is really a theological question. It’s a question about the intent of a designer. I think it’s actually the underlying motivation for believing the Darwinian explanation
First of all, please notice: ONLY intelligent processes and beings use trial and error. There is no “trial and error” if we’re only talking about rocks and snowflakes and planets. Because there are no “goals” and there is no way that we can properly speak of “evolution” in that context. There are only the laws of physics.
So from a purely technical point of view, the simple fact is, intelligent beings COMPETE. Lifeless objects do not. That is the fact and it is beyond dispute.
So this is solidly a moral, philosophical and theological question – it is – “Why would God do it that way?”
People say “If I were God I would not do it that way, therefore God does not exist.”
How is that logical?
Ostensibly, God created a world where creatures compete and evolve.
Why?
If people ask a theological question, they need to respect theology enough to listen to theology’s answer.
Ultimately I think the answer is found in the following question.
“John or Bob or Susan or whoever: Would you prefer to have a CHOICE to evolve and compete, or would you prefer that someone else make a perfect choice FOR you, in advance?”
Perry