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

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Day 4, Information Theory | 1,237 Comments

 
«
»
 

1,237 Comments

Goinglite says:
September 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm

This may be of interest.

Does God Exist.

http://vimeo.com/1786558

Goinglite says:
September 15, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Let me add one more link.

Intelligent Design – Kirk Durston

http://vimeo.com/1775160

Goinglite says:
September 16, 2011 at 12:10 am

Let me add just one more link :-)

Darwin Under The Microscope

http://vimeo.com/2397808

wmorrison says:
September 17, 2011 at 3:34 am

Not bad, but I have some problems with the presentation. For instance, in the part where he talks about cause and effect and the beginning of time, he failed to account for the fact that cause and effect has no meaning before time — although he uses the lack of time to propose something “outside of time.”

A second critique comes in with his estimate of the space required to explore to find a viable protein. Nature doesn’t actually have to test all or even a large part of the space at all. The first protein found can be the first protein, or the second. It only works if you think that where we ended up was where the system should have ended up.

Goinglite says:
October 1, 2011 at 12:21 am

Here’s a great video on the language of DNA and intellegent design. http://www.vimeo.com/27798192

Paradise Holding says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:25 pm

Exodus 20:3 is all God ever said in reference to the 10 commanmdments. Job and Moses added the rest. Most likely for governing the people escaping Egypt. The Bible is 100% metaphorical, doesn’t mean it didn’t really happen, it is a story and nothing more, to teach object lessons. Every civilization on earth has acknownleged their God in some way. The Bible is only a shard of the total human race dating back 30,000 years.It doesn’t give the complete history of any civilization.

SamThompson says:
October 5, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Can somebody help me out with how we arrive at the raw data size of the human genome being 750 Megabytes? I’m understanding a base pair as representing one bit of information. If that’s so, then: 3,000,000,000 base pairs (bits) / 8 =
375,000,000 Bytes / 1024 =
366,210.94 Kilobytes / 1024 =
3,521.26 Megabytes / 1024 =
3.43873 Gigabytes.
I’m only stuck on this point because I frequently engage in Evolution/Creation/ID conversations and debates and want to be clear on this before I use it in my arguments. There’s nothing worse than getting caught with your pants down on some marginally relevant point, like exactly how much information is in the genome only to have the discussion miss the greater point, which is that IT IS INFORMATION.

Perry Marshall says:
October 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm

3 billion base pairs x 2 bits per base pair (4 possible states). Convert to bytes.

SamThompson says:
October 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Thanks. I was about to respond that that would be redundant, as they can only be paired one way only to realize that the pair itself can be flipped either way relative to the other pairs in the helix.

kenkoskinen says:
October 7, 2011 at 12:19 am

Perry, every science includes the use of human invented codes. They are all products of human minds. As you know physics/chemistry uses a lot of code. H2O is the code for water; two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom to create it. ACTG of DNA is also a human chosen code used to understand and communicate the action of DNA but one should not confuse the map with the territory. Sure life is still a mystery and cells do amazing things but DNA involves molecular interactions created by the electromagnetic (EM) force. It binds atoms/molecules together but only in certain limited ways such as when covalent bonds are formed. In this respect, EM’s role is not any different in DNA than in other atomic/molecular interactions. Also DNA’s four character code is common in all known life forms. It works and it proliferated. Whether there are other routes maters little. You insist the DNA code necessitates there was a divine engineer but humans invented codes to understand nature. Why not make the same claim for H2O and other simpler atomic/molecular combinations? It amounts to the same thing.

Your statements about the “Quick brown fox …” and other written sentences are inconclusive in that they only prove a human mind created the code just like those in DNA, chemistry etc. Symbolic language is the known domain of intelligent beings like us and you cannot use its existence to prove unknown gods exist. We know we are here and language is here but early hominids did not have spoken languages like us. It took much time before we see evidence of this and the laws of physics/chemistry worked just fine and DNA was busy being and doing DNA things.

Many of your arguments are really remakes or updates of William Paley’s teleological argument. The problem is divine design is only one of other explanations. The constants of nature and early arbitrary life allowing factors could have all stemmed from initial conditions during the genesis event or even chance factors if one entertains the multiverse argument (one that I do not favor but it is also in the literature/discussion).

Further chance factors were involved in the rise of complex life forms including us. The Earth/solar system factors were chance events. This is misunderstood and misrepresented in “New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God.” These factors are not a design. All god needed to design was one Sun and one earth or billions of identical solar systems but this is not what we see. Hundreds of extra-solar planets have been discovered but we have not yet found a single earth twin that could be complex life allowing. We lucked out and life took hold on Earth and has changed over billions of years. There is not any solid proof for the mythological/anthropomorphic god of the Bible. However people are free to believe whatever they like and everyone does not believe the same things. In any case your argument has fallen.

See http://antspub.com Click on Downloads and chose my essays “Comments on a Debate: Does God Exist?” & “What Resurrection?”

Perry Marshall says:
October 7, 2011 at 7:39 am

H20 is a human code for naming water, but water does not code for anything. The DNA transcription/translation process is formally encoding and decoding using symbols. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq for clarity on this distinction. The human mind did not create the code in DNA, it only recognizes that the code is there.

The exact nature of the genome as a symbolic communication process makes Paley’s original argument rigorous and mathematical. If you can show a naturally occurring code I’ll write you a check for $10,000. Specification is at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

kenkoskinen says:
October 7, 2011 at 11:04 am

Perry, the same kind of human identification of the code for water is apparent in the code of DNA as it is also for all of the sciences. I had read your encoding, message and decoding process but you are confusing the terms. ACTG is a human recognition and assigned code just as is H2O. Again, the map is not the territory. ACTG is seen in all the maps of living things. Even though the distinction between living and non-living matter is not well understood, we know it cannot usurp the action of the EM force. It simply cannot decide to disregard the EM rules and just stick anything together. In this respect it is the same as H2O.

You are simply looking at the replication processes, identification and the appearances of new DNA sequences, repair processes etc. within living cells and things. It is building and elaborating upon the base code within EM limitations. If it weren’t for that and other cellular abilities you and I would not be here. Surely these functions within living things are not yet well understood but you have stretched the boundaries of your argument beyond its limits. You repeatedly claim you can prove god exists! Not so … you can merely argue with reasons why you believe. It is a choice and not the only possibility. There are other equally rational explanations such as “it all stems from initial conditions” & the chance argument via multiverse models. If you say you can prove it you must eliminate the other explanations. You have not.

You have also ignored the sun/earth/solar system factors I mentioned that are clearly chance factors and not designs. Also as I will outline later, Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory creation accounts and have nothing to do with what happened on Earth!

As far as your prize money goes … no one can show that non-living mater replicates or has the properties of living things. You have framed this incorrectly using only “code” terms. In any case I think your bet is probably safe but your terms of usage and especially your other “proof arguments” are all clearly flawed!

Perry Marshall says:
October 7, 2011 at 11:30 am

You still do not understand the terms and definitions here, or why DNA uses symbols. DNA itself is a sequence of symbols for communication. It is a map. I have exhaustively addressed every point you raise, elsewhere on my site, probably 20 times in the above comments alone.

No need to repeat them again. The following book lays your argument to rest:

“Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938

Yockey says, “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

You will get nowhere pursuing this line of argument. Read the comments above and you will see what I mean. The symbolic function of DNA does not merely exist in our imaginations, it is an objective reality.

kenkoskinen says:
October 7, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Perry, I do understand the terms and I suggest it is you who is in denial. H2O can be changed into heavy water depending on other interactions; DNA interactions also change into new combinations due to interactions. However, the process must obey the EM rules and other limitations. All of the DNA terms are symbolic and are as you admit maps. This is saying the same thing! No one here is saying the maps do not represent our current understanding of cellular reality. If and when they do not; we will have to remake the maps/symbols. That about says it for the objective reality argument. However realize this, it is the on going march of science; which by the way does not appeal to the supernatural.

In any case you will get nowhere denying or continuing to avoid the weightier issue I have brought up. You claim to prove god exists just because we can read human invented language. It is as I implied, at the end of your many trails … you are avoiding to admit you have merely cherry picked the god/designer argument. It is merely one of other choices. You have not eliminated the others and are therefore are only speaking to reasons why you believe. You have not proven anything! Please answer that issue.

Perry Marshall says:
October 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm

DNA contains symbols which function within the cell independently of our understanding of them. Water contains symbols *only* when we name it.

You do not understand the terms and until you are conversant with information theory as it relates to bioinformatics, this conversation is pointless. Read Yockey’s book. Then I will be happy to continue.

Paradise Holding says:
October 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm

We define the AGCT double identical helix cells with definition we give them. We teach language to our young. We are not God!
The Bible is one small shard of civilizations from the beginning of recorded and discovered time.

Example; the Roman Empire existed for a thousand years; Apostle Paul lived a short life and spoke not to the masses of people 40-65 million but at best 10 individuals. The Roman Empire is a larger shard in history than the Bible could begin to imagine. The Bible has one single theme running through it…God. Every Civilization has created their own God…it must be human nature.

kenkoskinen says:
October 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Perry, you are ignoring a key principle in information theory; once again: “the map is not the territory.” Symbols are an interpretive feature of human minds. DNA interactions depend on their compatibility with EM factors.

There is much more going on within cells than DNA activity and there is still much we do not know. Living things have what you could call an X factor that we are still far from understanding. This means the map of cellular activity will change again and who knows how many times. The bioinformatics model may well be adjusted and perhaps replaced by something more encompassing.

Rest assured, you have not proven anything with your “if you can read this sentence, then I can prove god exists” argument from design.

I have proven the earth/solar system complex life friendly features arose by chance and it is not a design feature of the universe. The complex life friendly features are distinctive, unusual local qualities in our little solar system. And we have yet to find another like it.

Perhaps the comparatively simpler initial form(s) of life started elsewhere and arrived here billions of years ago. In any case we know the Earth is the place where complex life arose. The fossil record is not a free-for-all that one can just juggle at will. The science is far better than that. The earth/solar system features are huge chance factors and do not support the belief in an anthropomorphic god/designer.

The biblical creation accounts are contradictory myths as is much of the rest of the tradition. It includes failed prophecies, contradictory accounts, portrays scientifically impossible events and even Jesus’ second coming prophecies failed. He did not return within the lifespan of his generation as he clearly predicted. I could go on & on … but you cannot rely on records like that.

Perry Marshall says:
October 7, 2011 at 10:31 pm

You are actually trying assert that there is no map in DNA, only territory, and that the map exists only in our heads. You are ignoring the most important aspect of information theory, which is that all communication systems contain maps.

“The map is not the territory” is precisely my point. The cell is the territory and the genome is the map, instructions build a new territory.

GGG is not Glycine. It is symbolic instructions which are decoded to make Glycine. The pattern of base pairs is a map which is read by the ribosomes to build amino acids.

When you understand that, then this conversation will be able to progress.

kenkoskinen says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:09 am

Okay, yes … I am saying the map is our understanding including our terms, symbols, theories, math if applicable etc. of the territory i.e. phenomena being studied.

In our case, the cell is being studied and our theories attempt to understand it. Our understanding of it is currently incomplete. Therefore our maps of it will change.

Instructions do not literally build new parts in cells. EM interactions between molecular elements do the heavy lifting, building etc. This is not symbolic but you can view this like keys and locks along interacting molecular chains. When there are the right EM combinations pieces break off or pieces fuse etc. but the EM interactions amongst the molecules are prime. These are what determine when and where changes occur. GGG is symbolic to us but in my sense carry specific EM potentials. When they line up (lock and key) EM triggers the action.

When human minds view this some interpret it like you do, in accordance to information theory. And clearly you imagine symbols being interpreted by other cellular elements. It’s a good analogy but “the map is not the territory” i.e. again in my sense of the statement.

I think everyone agrees that cellular activity is complex and even amazing. However cellular dynamics is viewed or mapped by humans your conclusion is not conclusive. You can only say it is another reason why you believe in the designer/anthropomorphic god. You are stretching your arguments beyond their limits. This is my main point.

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:16 am

Yes indeed, instructions do literally build parts in cells. In DNA, three different codons redundantly CODE for Glycine: GGG, GGA, and GGC. The word code is literal as Yockey explains, and the literal usage of this world is essential to modern genetics.

Yes our understanding is always evolving but the meaning of the word code as literal and not figurative is foundational to everything we know about DNA. GGG is symbolic to the cell itself, not just to us. Yockey is emphatic that the word “code” in biology is not analogous, not a metaphor. You cannot properly understand genetics or bioinformatics without acknowledging this.

DNA transcription/translation is ISOMORPHIC with Shannon’s system, and mRNA is a communications medium for transmission of symbols just like a DVD or CD or radio signal or TCP/IP message is. DVD’s and CD’s are just as physical as cells. They still contain symbols.

This most emphatically is symbolic. Please read very carefully the diagrams and definitions at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve and note the usage of the word “symbol” which is taken directly from Bernard Sklar’s engineering textbook. These definitions are universal in genetics.

Now what connection does this have to theology? “In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through Him all things were made.” -John 1

You cannot create anything without a plan and a plan is symbolic. Conception precedes embodiment. Anywhere we see words and language we see a dim reflection of the glory of God.

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Hebrews 1. The Glory of God is reflected in the genetic code and the care with which that code is made is but a dim reflection of God’s enduring love for YOU. Ultimately in the hierarchy of information, at the top of the “stack” is love. I invite you to open yourself to that love. It will forever change you.

Until you understand the nature of God – which is that WORD is part of the essence of God – you are unable to grasp one of the most foundational realities of biology, which is that it is linguistically based. Once you welcome this knowledge, all kinds of new knowledge opens up to you.

kenkoskinen says:
October 8, 2011 at 10:39 am

Perry, since there wasn’t a reply option on your last or Oct. 8th comment I had to reply on my own last post.

Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument everything Yockey says is like the Jesus of biology. One can’t question Yockey; he is right and that is all there is to it!

You take this one time appearance of code in cells etc. as an absolute proof of god. It is akin to saying that since life appeared initially once in the universe god exists and has to be given credit for its creation!

However whatever we know the universe began without life and some things over time became increasingly complex. Why did god bother with all of that? Why did she/he/it not simply presto the whole scheme into existence? Why is there only one solar system that we know of that is friendly to the arise of complex life? Check it out … only one that we know of. Why not just one sun and our life friendly earth? Or why isn’t every star we have studied surrounded by a complex life friendly plant like Earth?

I know the answer, our solar system among so many others has the chance occurrence of complex life friendly features!

Your whole final scheme or conclusion as expressed on this website is nonsensical. You also quickly shift from the rational to the emotional and make unrelated biblical claims about the word or logos in John 1:1. The Christians borrowed this concept from the Greek/Roman tradition.

The Genesis accounts are also contradictory and make no sense when compared to the findings of scientific investigation. Any attempt to do so is a mis-direct. I will engage you and others on the Genesis 1 post. I haven’t read it yet but will not be surprised.

I suggest your emotional need to believe what you were reared on trumps what is scientifically supported.

I am a content person and do not need to believe in unproven myths.

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 11:25 am

Yockey isn’t the first to say this. Read Watson and Crick. Read George Gamow. Or just Google “claude shannon genome” on Google or Google scholar and see how many papers come up.

In any case, this is the logic:

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.

I address Genesis at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/genesis1. I invite you to read carefully and after you have done so, challenge whatever assertions you feel you wish to challenge.

Perry Marshall says:
November 5, 2011 at 9:22 am

You ask:

Why did god bother with all of that? Why did she/he/it not simply presto the whole scheme into existence? Why is there only one solar system that we know of that is friendly to the arise of complex life? Check it out … only one that we know of. Why not just one sun and our life friendly earth? Or why isn’t every star we have studied surrounded by a complex life friendly plant like Earth?

I know the answer, our solar system among so many others has the chance occurrence of complex life friendly features!

You ask a theological question. Are you willing to listen to a theological answer? Can you legitimately reject a theological answer because you don’t know why God put life on some planets and not others? Is this question actually a valid objection?

Is your explanation that “it all happened by chance” provable? The fine-tuning of the big bang, which had to be finer than 120 decimal places – you say that’s a coincidence? How is it logical to conclude that?

Is it my emotional need to believe, or is it your emotional need to disbelieve?

Who is being more emotional here, you or me?

I acknowledge that people in the church have been very hurtful to you. I apologize to you for that. I am sorry for what others have done and I ask you for forgiveness, for all Christians and all “Christians”, one and all.

I submit to you that I have presented a logically and scientifically supported account for the God of the Bible being the creator of heaven and earth, and that God is always in a state of welcoming you to Himself.

kenkoskinen says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Perry, you missed the point. I have already said let’s assume you are absolutely correct. You can input any other names you like. It does not change the scenario.

Even if the codes of your definition firstly occurred within cells; it is the same as saying life firstly occurred in our universe. However we know our universe started without cells or life or any kind. It means elementary things evolved or changed into more complex things. The mechanisms issue is still open to discussion but not the general facts. Nothing points to the mythical gods of the Bible.

I also note you have not or will not address most of the questions I have raised in my earlier posts i.e. those about the unique chance factors of earth/solar system complex life allowing factors.

Of course I will engage you on your Genesis 1 interpretation. I assure you, you are again misleading your readership. I will prove this when time permits.

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm

With all due respect, I don’t see how “life allowing factors” equate to “life causing factors.” Planet earth allows computers to exist. The fact that the conditions make it possible doesn’t explain how they came to exist.

kenkoskinen says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Perry, it sounds like you have not clearly read my posts. You wrote:

“With all due respect, I don’t see how “life allowing factors” equate to “life causing factors.” Planet earth allows computers to exist. The fact that the conditions make it possible doesn’t explain how they came to exist.”

I have not commented on life causing factors as this is a current mystery. I did speculate about the possibility of life having begun elsewhere. But, we do not know this. However Earth does have complex life allowing factors since we know complex life forms evolved here. In any case you cannot cite the earth/solar system factors were designed. All of our observations suggest it is a rare anomaly. That means chance … these major factors related to our arrival do not support divine anthropomorphic design. You have lost your case!

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm

In other posts I talk about the fine tuning of the big bang etc. None of my conversation with you have been focused on the earth or the origin of the universe, it’s been about the origin of DNA and the genetic code. Nothing we know about codes allows for any reasonable probability that this happened by chance.

kenkoskinen says:
October 9, 2011 at 3:07 am

Perry you wrote:

“In other posts I talk about the fine tuning of the big bang etc. None of my conversation with you have been focused on the earth or the origin of the universe, it’s been about the origin of DNA and the genetic code. Nothing we know about codes allows for any reasonable probability that this happened by chance.”

The early part of the Big Bang theory is speculative and not the only model that explains the observations/detections. I will address this later on the Big Bang topic.

The origin of the code you speak of is directly related to the origin of life. If there weren’t any DNA there would not be life as we know it. We do not know how life originated and there is not any proof the biblical god exists or did anything. Even if everything you and others say about codes is correct you are merely speaking to reasons why you believe and this is what you do not want to admit.

helixbender says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:48 pm

Perry find one book where is says that GGG is instructions for the ribosomes to build an amino acid. You have just failed biochemistry. Glycine is synthesized in a metabolic pathway. The mRNA codon binds to an amino acyl tRNA with a glycine attached to its acceptor arm and the anti-codon CCC.

You said “GGG is not Glycine. It is symbolic instructions which are decoded to make Glycine. The pattern of base pairs is a map which is read by the ribosomes to build amino acids.”

You’re are 100% wrong! Codons specify the what amino acids are added to a growing protein chain.

beritk says:
October 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm

I got one thing to say to this debate. It might be of no help today but I hope it will be when you Kenkosinen is ready to receive.

We are all damaged human beings. All are we living in a society which one period hold something to be truth, while holding something else the next period. The problem with your comment is that you present things as truth which is only assumed to be truth. That is they are based upon a biased understanding of reality. That do not makes you bad or worse than others, because you are in very good company.

Instead of going hard on Perry, please look to yourself. Then you will figure out, that truth cannot be horizontal, it must be vertical. It is not possible for humans who live in a distorted reality to be anything other than biased. It is possible to limit bias, but this is only being done partly in science today. So what science present is not truth but instead what is a collective accepted truth.

Even if you see, the whole earth perceive the earth to be flat, it would still be round. We would just lack the ability to understand it. When we see, we look for things we recognise. Based upon our experience. And this inhibits our ability to be objective when the experiences we hold include not correct information. This happens, because as we live we accumulate not only knowledge but also biased and distorted information.

When it comes to myths you see, you will find that our society hold no less myths than previous societies. In fact many of the myths from earlier times, correlates with each others when it comes to the origin of this earth. That is they are telling the same story, in different languages, different people, different pictures but the same principles. This is our history, from people which lived earlier than us and where closer to the origin of our earth. Only bias keeps us from taking care of the knowledge passed on from generation to generation. That is the bias that we are so much wiser than they, lives longer with more. Still some of the paradoxes are that we are the only global community which is eliminating our own existence. We have created illnesses like cancer, and we claim progress when we treat it will cell-poison, which in it self gives cancer. Then we accuse previous doctors for lack of knowledge, while ignoring the fact that the medicaments today is no less dangerous than earlier, they only hold different names. Looking backward in history we find that people grew old, older than us and they did not die of cancer. They had a different society, but their abilities were no less than ours. In fact we are the degenerated ones just look at us. Comparing with old books, old paintings, old lumber work, old buildings. We say: They thought the earth was flat, while ignoring that they travelled around the round earth, we are selecting information which fits into a preset frame. The same problem science have. They wrote with beautiful handwriting, they draw much more advanced conclusions and less biased ones than we have today.

Just make sure, that since you are on the same boat as the rest of us, you figure out where the life boats are. The Bible holds eternal truth it does not change. The Bible is a life boat; it brings you safe on secure ground, but is only available when you are ready for it.

kenkoskinen says:
October 9, 2011 at 3:24 am

beritk, Perry is claiming proof for things which are not proven and is posting his ideas on the Internet and inviting commentary.

You can believe what you like … I’m okay with that and we all believe some things. Claiming to prove something requires that you must meet a higher bar and I clearly see Perry has not done so. So the discussion continues but it is not ill spirited … we just disagree.

Just because knowledge and science marches on it does not mean we do not know anything. Your belief in the Bible as eternal truth is puzzling as it goes against the major part of your comment. It is clear the Bible cannot be falsified at least not in your mind. Okay, but I do not agree.

Yes, we clash intellectual swords but we I do respect Perry and like his website or I would not be using some of my spare time posting. In the end I do not suspect anyone will change their opinions/beliefs too much but I think we can all learn in the process. It at least makes us think. I deem that to be good.

Paradise Holding says:
October 7, 2011 at 6:24 pm

Humanity defines their own beginning of a living soul. Genesis 2:7 Humanity was formed from the dust of the earth. It fails to tell us from which substratum the dust was selected.
Since a living soul doesn’t exist before the first breath, that should solve any questionable conclusions about aboration.

Paradise Holding says:
October 7, 2011 at 6:45 pm

I like that word,”pejorative”..also presumption form Psalms. Thanks

vYzion says:
October 8, 2011 at 7:53 am

Preliminary notes:

1a) Counter-examples are not the only way to refute an argument.

1b) Question begging arguments cannot be refuted.

This is why Perry will never write the check. He frames the so-called “challenge” in terms of 1a (“Show me just ONE…ONE is all you need…” etc.), then insulates the argument from 1a by using 1b. How so? Well, actually Perry is using 2 arguments. The first is: DNA has such and such features (search his website for the details)which are sufficient (it’s not clear if he claims they are also necessary) for a thing to be a code. Therefore, DNA is a code. The second is: All known codes were designed (the premises of the argument being a list of designed codes). Therefore, DNA was designed. The problem is, that DNA is included in the premises of argument 2 (this follows from argument 1). That is, in the list of known codes, DNA is already one of them. Hence, the conclusion (DNA is a designed code) is one of his premises to start with. (If he uses the arguments in the other order, it just means that we left it off our list for argument 1. But, now that we know it’s a code, it makes it’s way onto the list and the question begging appears).
—————————–
I’d like to now discuss some peculiar features of Perry’s argument.

It’s an inductive argument (as he will be quick to admit). Typically, induction is used to support NEW claims. For example: All crows ever encountered are black, therefore, the next crow I find will be black. We use inductive arguments to make PRE-dictions. Perry is using his inductive argument to make a RETRO-diction. Perry’s argument is like this: All crows ever encountered have been black, therefore, this particular encountered crow is black. This leads to some pretty bizarre consequences. The most interesting is that PRIOR to our discovery of DNA, it may very well have been an un-designed code (Perry’s first argument assures us it was, in fact, a code, long before Watson and Crick came along, his second only applies to KNOWN codes). Strange how the mere discovery of a thing can alter it’s origin.

In any case, I’d like to see, explicitly, the conditions that would need to be satisfied in order for a code to be “naturally occurring.” It will not do to merely say “un-designed.” That’s simply giving a synonym (as per argument 2). Under what conditions would a code be considered un-designed. If, in fact, there are no such conditions, then it’s pretty poor form to taunt people with “the check.” If, there are such conditions, the you will need to further explicate why it is that said conditions are not met by DNA (or any other known codes).
**This is another peculiarity in Perry’s argument 2. It seems to be the case (or it ought to be, at any rate) that one have a basis of comparison. That is, before I claim that all crows are black, I would need to have seen a pretty large portion of crows. Of course, in order to know what things count as crows, I need to be very clear on what DOES NOT count as a crow. That is, I need to be able to compare crows to non-crows. I should be able to point out the differences between the two. Apparently, Perry disagrees. It seems as if it ought to be the case, that Perry needs to be in possession of knowledge regarding criteria for a thing to be an “un-designed” code, yet I haven’t been able to find it anywhere.

So, I’ll try to make the following list of things on which I believe Perry owes clarifications as explicit as possible:

1) Is your account of what features a thing must possess in order to be a code intended to be MERELY sufficient (i.e., good enough, but other properties may very well impart code-hood also) or NECESSARY AND sufficient (i.e., at the very least it must possess ALL of these properties) or isomorphic (i.e., must posses ALL and ONLY these properties)?

2) An explicit account of the criteria under which one may designate a code either as “designed” or “un-designed.” (Note: explanations of the following sort are not acceptable.
–”Codes created by (fill in the blank) are designed.” This is obviously question begging. This amounts to saying “Codes that are designed are designed.”
–”Codes not created by (fill in the blank) are un-designed.” Same reason as above.
What you owe us, Perry, is a list of features that we can use as criteria for deciding whether or not a given code is designed (i.e., why is this particular black bird a crow and not a raven). These features obviously cannot make appeal to the designer itself. What we want to be able to do is, upon encountering some code (that is, some thing that meets your standards for code-hood), determine, via your criteria, whether or not it is designed. *You cannot invoke you strange little inductive argument. The very question we want to answer is how to determine what counts as a premise for your strange little inductive argument. That is, we wish to determine which things ought to count as designed codes in the first place. That is, we wish to determine how to populate the list from which your induction (DNA is designed) follows. Only then can we say “Ah yes, clearly this code IS designed, on account of (Perry’s criteria) and deserves to be on our list for argument 2. Wow, it really is the case that all codes we know of happen to be designed.” To put the request another way: What makes it the case (without question begging appeal to a designer) that a code is either designed or un-designed?

3) An explicit lucidation of how DNA fails to meet the criteria for being un-designed. (Note: This does not get you to the conclusion that the God of the Bible did the designing, but it is the necessary first step.)

4) Is “the check” to be awarded defusing your argument, or exclusively for producing a counter-example. If the latter, then it is even more pertinent that you give us the criteria under which you would consider a code to be a counter-example. If the former, then (assuming you recognize that counter-example is not the only way to defeat an argument) you should really alter the presentation of the challenge to remove the explicit appeal for a counter-example.

5) Actually, Perry has an Ace up his sleeve. Even if one were to produce a counter-example (which is impossible given the present set-up), that would not, in fact, in any way affect the claim that DNA is a code designed by God s opposed to…well, not designed by God. It may very well be the case that there are a plethora of “naturally occurring (un-designed)” codes (which, I hope, Perry will describe for us) and that DNA alone is the sole designed code. So, the question I feel we deserve an answer to the question of whether or not, in the end, you will use this Ace to not pony up the Ben Franklins that have attracted so many viewers to your site. That is, is you offer of “the check” a marketing ploy only, or genuine reward?

I feel I should note, that I am not asking for you to once again give your definition of a code. I am not asking for you to repeat your arguments. I have made very detailed, specific requests for clarifications. Ideally, each could be answered in either one or 2 sentences, or by merely supplying a list. So, for example, when (if) you supply the criteria for designed/un-designed codes, I don’t need you to reiterate what you take a code to be. I don’t need you to tell me what you take a designer to be (even though, that is an interesting question). What I’m asking for is just what I asked for. What makes a code designed and what makes a code un-designed?

I hope your response will be forthcoming.

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:28 am

Scott,

My syllogism is:

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.

#2 excludes DNA. The entire premise of the syllogism in the first place is that DNA is the one code we do not know the origin of. The design of DNA is not presumed. It is inferred only when we get to step 3.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ outlines the answers to the questions you raise here. The materialist has to show that purely material processes can create codes.

This is a minimum set of specs for said code. The code can be more complex than this but not less.

I am surprised that you would ask what counts as a designed code. Are you unfamiliar with the process by which humans create new codes? Have you ever coined a new acronym?

Scott, do you not know the difference between what is being claimed when someone says that something – anything – is designed – and what is claimed when a materialist says the genetic code emerged from natural processes?

One counterexample is sufficient for you to collect the check. You are welcome to make a submission at any time. Make your submission and see if the check is real.

vYzion says:
October 20, 2011 at 2:31 am

So, you do not recognize that counterexample is not the only way to defuse this argument?

The syllogism you list here suffers from the same issues I pointed out earlier. Specifically, the claim that you don’t have a basis of comparison.

“All codes we know of are designed.”
Sure, I can grant that. But, it may be the case that DNA has more in common with un-designed codes (of which we are unaware). You must either provide a criteria for what an un-designed code would be like, and then show that DNA does not meet such criteria, or you must provide an argument for why it is the case that there are no codes of which we are unaware, or an argument for why the codes of which we are aware of take precedence (or outnumber) the codes of which we are aware.

The burden of proof is upon you Perry. Science has a decent track record dissolving appeals to supernatural entities. You’re the one claiming that track record is approaching an end in Biology, so you must provide the reasons. You can’t simply shift the burden of proof by asking what are really rhetorical questions.

So, I’m asking for criteria for an UN-designed code, which you’ve failed to supply.

Perry Marshall says:
October 20, 2011 at 4:26 pm

The criteria is the same regardless of a code’s origin because I have based my criteria on the very definition of a communication system, which was taken from Bernard Sklar’s engineering textbook. I outline the criteria at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve and I show that both DNA (which we do not know the origin of) and computer codes (which we do know the origin of) both fit the definition exactly. Similarly, Hubert Yockey shows the isomorphism of DNA with Shannon’s communication system. I reproduce his diagram on this page.

If you think that DNA has more in common with some un-designed codes that we’re not aware of, the burden of proof is on you to show us those codes. All you need is one.

The burden of proof is on you to provide a third example of a code which meets the criteria and is known to not have been designed.

helixbender says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:03 pm

OK so you and Yockey believe gene expression is the same as a telephone? These two processes are not isomorphic! Why? Phones can be used for two way conversation. Gene expression is only one way. There is NO biological process known that converts protein back to DNA! Shannon’s Information Theory is for communications.
There are several more points of non equivalence between the two systems but you can’t see it because you are blinded by your preconceptions.
A non peer reviewed book is not a tome of scientific truth; they’re used to promote ideas that should lead to experiments.

Perry Marshall says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Where did I say it’s the same as a telephone?

It’s isomorphic with a Shannon digital communication system (1948). Read Shannon’s paper. Yockey’s book is peer reviewed and published by Cambridge University Press. I suggest you pick up a copy.

helixbender says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Wrong! What did Shannon develop his information theory for? Cells? NO telephones!
I have the book and Shannon’s papers. Yes so now explain why this theory fits the known data and is not shoving a square peg in a round hole.
So how is telephone communication isomorphic with gene expression? Point by point!
Telephone is two way communication.
Gene expression is a ONE way process and makes a functional physical products.
PS you FAQ does not address this at all!

Perry Marshall says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:45 am

Shannon’s model applies to a single communications channel. Telephones have two, one for talking, one for listening.

You have not read Yockey’s book. He explains the answer to your question in detail. And I did not say telephones are isomorphic with gene expression. I said Shannon’s channel is. Please stop misquoting me.

helixbender says:
October 26, 2011 at 9:02 am

1) Yes I have read it and there are many things in it that I find to either be assumed or wrong based on peer reviewed literature.
2) I did not quote you. You and Yockey use Shannon’s work and that work was based on telephone communication systems so I emphasized the point.
3) You did not answer the question.
Re read my answer. I stated Shannon, who worked at Bell labs, developed his Information theory for communication via telephones. The question is then on what basis do you conclude that this theory can be applied to DNA? NO answer.
Shannon’s channel is not isomorphic with gene expression because gene expression is only a ‘transmitter’ period! My cell phone is a transmitter and receiver. Kindly show me the paper that says otherwise. It cannot be isomorphic if the systems are different.
Your point that the cell phone has two channels is good. However it is still a difference and by definition cannot be isomorphic. Where one can listen to another there still is the ability to talk. When genes are expressed there is no ‘broadcast’ of information. Is there?
This is the first of many differences between communication systems and gene expression. I don’t expect you to be critical of your sources; however, you should.
My father told me not to argue with closed minded ‘experts’, given that I have seen no attempt by you to understand my point whatsoever, I will regard this conversation as a futile exercise.

Perry Marshall says:
October 27, 2011 at 6:55 am

Everything you need to know is at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve, including a detailed explanation of the isomorphism. You have not read Yockey’s book or you would not be asking this question. Read chapter 5.

helixbender says:
October 28, 2011 at 9:50 am

Really you can just say that I have not read something because I read it more critically than you? Just because Yockey says it isomorphic does not mean it is. It is not the same system. This is not just my opinion but it is based on the evidence of thousands of peer reviewed papers. I will no longer argue with an ‘expert’ you clearly has less than a high school understanding of biology. I’m not saying that to be mean. It’s obvious to me.

helixbender says:
October 28, 2011 at 10:41 am

The bottom line is communications can be reversed for example sound to signal and signal to sound. In gene expression DNA to RNA to protein is a one way street. Proteins cannot go back to RNA then DNA. This is a striking disagreement with isomorphism. Claiming different channels does not change that the underlying mechanism is different; therefore the systems cannot be isomorphic.

Perry Marshall says:
October 28, 2011 at 3:34 pm

In Shannon’s system there is no provision for signals moving from the receiver to the transmitter.

helixbender says:
October 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm

As I don’t see the reply function I’ll answer Perry here.
I’m quoting from Shannon’s 1948 paper on p2 where he defines a communication system “4. The receiver ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing
the message from the signal.”
To my only a avionics technician mind it sure seems like TX/RX is discussed.
So my question is what do you mean by no provision?

Perry Marshall says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:32 pm

He just said a receiver is an INVERSE of a receiver. Show me where he says that a transmitter IS a receiver.

helixbender says:
November 1, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Perry,
Why do continue to misunderstand what I say? An example of information reversibility in communications is; transmitting and receiving voice. Sound is converted to analog voltage then it is converted to digital prior to transmission. The receiver acquires the digital signal then converts it back to voice. The information is reversible sound to digital to sound! Get it!
In gene expression the information goes from DNA to RNA to Protein. Protein cannot go to DNA period. Two reasons 1) loss of specificity (degeneracy of the code) and 2) there are no known pathways to do so. Even if there were you cannot overcome reason 1.
So in short Yockey’s conclusion is wrong. Fundamentally the systems are different so they cannot be isomorphic.

Perry Marshall says:
November 1, 2011 at 3:13 pm

I am not saying that protein goes to DNA. You are misunderstanding me, and Shannon, and Yockey.

You press a letter “A” on your keyboard. The keyboard encodes it into ASCII 1000001. The computer decodes the 1000001 and displays dots which form a letter A on your screen.

Your screen is not an encoder, it’s a decoder. You cannot shine a flashlight on the screen and cause the buttons on the keyboard to move. The keyboard is not a decoder, it’s an encoder.

You can shout into the speaker of your telephone and no matter how loud you yell, it won’t send sound back through the phone system to the other person. Only the microphone is wired do that.

Encoding is not decoding. Decoding is not encoding. Please do not confuse the two.

When you press the letter A on your keyboard, the process of encoding and decoding is isomorphic with Shannon’s system. Same is true when you speak into a telephone and someone hears your voice on the other end. Likewise encoding of the genetic code to mRNA and decoding into proteins is isomorphic with Shannon.

If you doubt this, go to http://scholar.google.com and type in
claude shannon dna transcription
and read any of the hundreds of papers which describe this. This has been a universally accepted application of Shannon’s work since the 1960′s.

helixbender says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:49 am

Perry;
You have misunderstood my point from the beginning. Shannon’s system consists of a source, transmitter, a channel, a receiver and a destination. To be functionally identical gene expression must have the same components. I don’t buy Yockey’s conclusion. I‘ve read his book and I was not swayed by his arguments. My point, that I originally stated is that the systems have similarities and differences. So to insinuate that somehow I do not understand Yockey is ludicrous.
Isomorphic is a mathematical concept from set theory. The assumption that Yockey makes is that analogous functions equate to the components of each system being identical. They are not.
I have evidence (peer reviewed papers) and an understanding of the process of gene expression that is at odds with what you are presenting. Your replies show little to no understanding of molecular biology or even an open mind to try and understand my points.

In your last comment you said.
“When you press the letter A on your keyboard, the process of encoding and
decoding is isomorphic with Shannon’s system. Same is true when you speak into a
telephone and someone hears your voice on the other end. Likewise encoding of
the genetic code to mRNA and decoding into proteins is isomorphic with Shannon.”

I find it absolutely amusing that you say encoding from DNA to RNA and decoding is RNA to Protein.
How is it that decoding does not restore the information to the state of the source? How can another state even be considered equivalent to a system that decoded information is in the same state as the source? Can you show me any coding system where when the code is decoded it’s not in the same form as the original message? In your admonishment to me you state that voice is sent then heard, the symbol A is typed then seen. Then you say DNA to mRNA is decoded to Protein. Protein is not the same information as DNA. Your logic is totally flawed. In summary A=A, sound =sound then you say DNA=Protein, that is the conclusion you must draw if the claim of isomorphism is correct as well as the definition of decoding.

Is the DNA the same as the source? Is DNA to RNA a transmitter function? Is RNA the channel? Are mutations the same as noise? Is translation the receiver? Are proteins the destination? Yockey apparently believes this; however I don’t. I have several reasons.
In brief more will come if we can discuss this civilly without you dismissing my points without true consideration or insinuating that I don’t understand basic science or electronics.
The information source the genome is not accessed in the same way as in Shannon’s definitions. Yockey says RNA is a channel, I don’t buy that and it doesn’t fit Shannon’s definition. Where is the transmitter? Noise, equals mutation, really? It’s a change at the source not an effect of the channel. Translation the receiver function, NO because the information is not restored to the source form see Shannon’s definitions. Is the destination the proteome? Yes these functional molecules do provide physical functions; however the information is now in a different state.
Here is the evidence of the first difference we have discussed so far. In gene expression the transmitted information is never restored at the destination to the same information state as it was at the source. Shannon says “An information source which produces a message or sequence of messages to be communicated to the receiving terminal.” and, “The receiver ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing the message from the signal.” So by Shannon’s own definitions the information at the source and destination will be identical.

If you are going to use Shannon’s theory you have to show why it is applicable to your system, not just say that it is. That is the way science is done.

Previously your explanation is to offer that this is because there are two different channels one for transmit and one for receive. However; Shannon defines the channel as “The channel is merely the medium used to transmit the signal from transmitter to receiver. It may be a pair of wires, a coaxial cable, a band of radio frequencies, a beam of light, etc.” In other words the channel in a cell would more appropriately be the nuclear pore and/or the cytoplasm. The mRNA exits the nucleus and enters the cell where translation may or may not take place. The protein cannot be restored to the same state as the original source i.e. DNA. So Translation is not isomorphic to the receiver function.

In this example I’m only illustrating the information going from the source to the destination. The system is not generating a reply; therefore there is no need to invoke a second channel. In Shannon’s examples of a general communication system the received information is restored to its original state (in every case).

wmorrison says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Let us assume that DNA meets the rules for a code. I think Perry would agree that it is a self-modifying code, in that at least some evolution occurs.

Language would be an example of a self-modifying code, at least in the sense that new words are added and old words fall away. But we know that this requires the input of the designer, in this case, human beings. I’d stipulate that other codes used by humans also have this property of modification over time by the same beings that created them.

So, my question is what Perry thinks happens with DNA? Was there some initial design that has subsequently evolved into what we see today? And, that begs the question– what would that design look like? What would be the minimum required.

Secondly, do the modifications also require constant input from the designer? In other words, is it accepted that the designer’s hand is responsible for all the changes we see?

The dilemma becomes how to separate the designed from the non-designed when we know there have been changes over time. If natural processes caused the changes, the only an origin is required and that may be some proto-DNA or pseudo-code, as long as it is capable of directed change.

I don’t see how you can escape the idea of evolution entirely and the causative agent is a problem as well. Does DNA change due to natural forces or not?

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm

In my opinion the modifications do not require constant input from the designer. The modifications are made by the cell, and cells act as though they’re conscious. Cells are intrinsically far more capable than most of us give them credit for. Biology evolves in a way that’s eerily similar to the evolution of human language. Why? Because the process is essentially the same. It’s driven by cognition.

Scroll through the various entries at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog and read the entries on the systematic mechanisms of evolution, the smarts of bacteria, and I think you’ll begin to put the puzzle pieces together.

wmorrison says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm

Thank you. It was those entries that got me thinking along this line.

If I understand you correctly, some original form of DNA (or pre-DNA code) was designed, and then the cells themselves modified this in an intelligent manner?

That would give them designer rights on the latest versions of DNA, wouldn’t it?

That, at least gives us a non-human example of design (by way of code modification) and moves the argument into one where we grant intelligence to cells.

Interesting.

Perry Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Bill,

I have finally gotten around to posting a review of the world’s first book that explains how all this happens in one place, James Shapiro’s “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century.” You can read it here:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/shapiro-evolution-book/

vYzion says:
October 20, 2011 at 2:17 am

You haven’t really responded to GM’s criticism. To say that humans (or conscious beings) USE language (that it is spoken), is not the same thing as saying that it was designed. Furthermore, your use of the word “emerge” is puzzling. It doesn’t seem as if “being designed” in your sense, is compatible with an “emergence. Hence, your rock example is completely unrelated. Also, it’s not clear how “emergence” and “use” are at all related. Humans USE (and have used, in the past) rocks for various purposes…but you make no claims that rocks were designed.

To respond to the criticism, you must show that natural language was designed, rather than it emerging naturally amongst human communities. I doubt you’ll find many linguistic anthropologist or cognitive archeologists to support that claim.

It doesn’t even take much thought to notice the absurdity in the claim “Natural language was designed.” How would such a thing occur? Did a bunch of Chinese people get together 100,000 thousand years or so ago and deliberate on what various utterances would mean. Did they hammer out a specific order in which such utterances ought to be uttered (i.e., grammar)? What was the medium of discussion? How did they proliferate their decrees? Did they go around telling other Chinese people “We have designed this thing called language, here are its rules…Enjoy!” It seems, like the only sensible account of natural language being “designed” is one that would roughly follow the Tower of Babel story. That is, in the process of designing humans and DNA and such, natural language was also thrown in. But that’s just begging the question.

Also, it’s not obvious that everything that requires a “mind” (whatever you take “mind” to mean) is designed. Do you have some independent argument to support the claim that it is?

To meet the criticism, you must either demonstrated that, in fact, language was designed (that is, a conscious effort was made to produce it rather than a natural development, or emergence, arising from our close proximity to other creatures like ourselves) or, you must show that natural language is not, in fact, a code.

Perry Marshall says:
October 20, 2011 at 4:21 pm

All human languages are formed by human beings with brains who arrive at consensus on the meaning of words. Every time a new word comes out – like the word “blog” – or a new acronym – we witness the process.

This is always and without exception done by conscious minds. You’re welcome to name an exception.

Paradise Holding says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:46 am

Moses and Job say in Genesis 2:7, God breathed into the nostrils of man and he became a living soul. If life were possible in the womb we would drown…think about it.

Paradise Holding says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:15 am

I don’t see anything derogatory about lungs being full of fluid. Studying the fetus we find mom supplies oxygen in the blood and nutrients necessary to develop and support life prior to breathing oxygen out side the womb and birth canal. If a fetus didn’t have the ability to extract oxygen from moms blood we would die in the womb. Our lungs develop as fish, able to extract oxygen form water. In the womb celluar life is developing; zyegote , embryo, and fetus. I am attempting to define the moment life begins, once and for all. For me it is a no brainer that life begins when a body is the recipient of God’s breath and not before. This is stand alone biology…not my own developed procedure. It is my interpretation of Genesis 2:7. I thought cellular biology of membrane and dna development is your forte.

Paradise Holding says:
October 28, 2011 at 3:20 am

I can’t understand the elementary analogy how the discovery of background radiation noise by Bell Labs has anything to do with DNA and its staged membrane cell development? Or for a fact the basic formula E=IXR, pushing electrons through and copper wire with a potential, voltage has anything to do with the development of DNA, RNA, or mitacondria. Generators produce current flow from movement of a copper wound armature in stationary a magnetic field. Atoms are not the same as DNA. Please explain yourself assumptions. Current flows from one atom to the adjacent atom to perform a desired funtion in the form of work. A signal generator (moss) does the same thing only on a smaller scale, generally producing several different logic level voltages to carry multiple signals at different frequencies. Connect the dots for me.

Paradise Holding says:
October 28, 2011 at 11:38 pm

Study the latest findings on developing DNA, it is a staged process.

Shannon explains DNA is isomorphic, as the receiver(node) can’t communicate with the transmitter(Host). That is old thinking today we know nodes do in fact communicate with the host and
and hard drive or microprocessor.

Perry Marshall says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:35 pm

Which requires 2 channels, each communicating the opposite direction.

geet says:
November 5, 2011 at 8:34 am

You do not pour milk in dirty glass. If you want to drink milk, first clean up your glass.
God reveals Himself to those who deserve to know Him and not to those who merely want to know Him. Deserve before you desire.
In the path of knowing God, you come to a split – one way say “True Saints” and the other says, “True scientists”. It is your job to decide the road that you will take. People who pick the “True Saints” reach the goal and the ones who pick “True scientists” go round and round and never reach the goal. You want to know why? It is because Saints want to know God at every cost; they know that God is Truth and to know the truth you need adapt yourself to know the Truth in whichever shape and form it comes and cannot expect Truth to change its shape and form to suit the seeker, so they go through all the internal transformations to grasp the Truth and that’s why at the end they become the deserving candidate to know God. But scientist, in their arrogance, say that they will look at the Truth only if it comes in the shape and form of ‘science’. That’s why their pot remains dirty unworthy of receiving the milk. And, that’s why they keep going round and round and never find God. When such scientist claims that God exists, it is meaningless and when they say God does not exist it is meaningless because they have no idea what they talking about.

JohnM says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:28 am

Hello Perry, good to see you are still doing this good work, thank you!

How would you respond to the offered example to the following requirements I asked of someone.

“- Please identify in your offered examples, the three integral components of communication functioning together: encoder, code, and decoder.

- The message passed between encoder and decoder must be a finite sequence of symbols.

- Also the offered system must be labeled with values of both encoding table and decoding table filled out.

- It must be possible to determine whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly.For example when I press the “A” key on the keyboard, a letter “A” is supposed to appear on the screen and there is an observable correspondence between the two. In defining biological gender, a combination of X and Y chromosomes should correspond to male, while XX should correspond to female. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output.”

To which he responded:

“Climate

- Encoder : Temperature

- Decoder : Thermodynamics

- Code : The various mathematical constants of boiling, melting, cooling, and any other vast amounts of effects of temperature change. – Message passed : The mathematical constants that dictate when and where and how climate will change according to different ecological changes.

- labels of values with a coding table : Plenty of mathematical constants have been listed for climate, and it’s predictable because of it.
I win.

There’s such a testable system for climate. It’s being done right now. The more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by various agents causes changes to occur in the climate, not only changes, but predictable changes, like climate shift, a global warming, increased tides in different areas, receding glaciers, etc.
Inputs cause outputs all the time with climate.”

Thanks Perry!

tomn44 says:
January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Hi Perry,

Many of the posts raise objections to your conclusion that DNA is a code, by asserting that the DNA process is a natural process, the same as any chemical reaction when elements are combined.

To my way of thinking, as a non-scientist, that criticism is the most significant challenge your conclusion.

In some instances, you did respond, “…it isn’t s

tomn44 says:
January 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Perry,

[I accidently submitted my question, mid-sentence, before completing it.]

You have responded to criticisms that the DNA process is simply another natural process by stating “… it is not a chemical process.” Your reply did not satisfy me; I wanted something more detailed, thus, I embarked upon a research project, have reached a tentative conclusion and ask you to assess its correctness. Please say mindful of the fact that I am a lay person, with virtually no chemistry background and only college biology. I will most assuredly be expressing some ideas in non-scientific terms, so please bare with me.

My initial thoughts were: If the composition of the DNA was changed in any manner, similar to changes in the composition of elements when they are combined (chemical processes), that would cut against DNA being a code.

What I found (believe I found) was that, during the ‘transcription phase (DNA to RNA)’, enzymes copy the DNA sequence without any chemical interaction between the two. DNA is left in it’s original state, without any change it.

Is this correct? Can to refer more detailed discussions of this particular phase of the process?

This short video (1:28) is the best at expressing the concept that DNA is a TEMPLATE, ONLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztPkv7wc3yU

I would like to post again, but first want to know if I am on the right track.

Thank you, so much, for this information.

God Bless,

Tom

The Dark Dragon says:
January 30, 2012 at 10:22 pm

Hi, this is my first time posting here.
I’ve just read part 4 of your email, and I have a question.
Can you ‘EXPLAIN’god? Like, what is he like?
I know that you believe in the christian god. And he has a body. We know that bodies are made out of organs, tissues, cells, molecules etc.. And god created those. How does he have a body made out of things that he created himself?
There’s one explanation that he created the body for himself later and he existed as something else before that. But what? Was he some sort of energy? (That seems insane on the face of it) He can’t EXIST without a form! (Even gravity has it’s gravitons!) He was supposed to have created everything, how can he exist as something he created himself?
Anyways, back to the body thing, bodies also have DNA. DNAs, like you said, are messages. His ‘body’ relies on those messages. Any living thing relies on DNA. Without DNA, they can’t be created in the first place..
So… How is he created by those ‘Messages’ if he himself created them?
I don’t know about you but I am stuck in an infinite loop, if I accept the existence of god.
I reject theism, deism is an option but things like this kind of… screw things up. I am an Agnostic, just FYI. And Atheism seems like a good candidate.
And sorry if there was anything wrong with the grammar/spellings in this post, English is my 2nd language.

perrari says:
February 5, 2012 at 10:19 pm

If you want answers to the nature of God and His body, there are abundant answers in the Vedic literatures, specifically the Srimad Bhagavatam.
In brief, it cannot really be said that God has a body, He IS His body, which is purely spiritual and eternally transcendental to the mundane world. His body although having form is unlimited, and has always existed along with all the different energies outside of time (which is a material concept and absent in the spiritual world).
His form is human-like but indescribably beautiful and eternally youthful.
Being purely spiritual His body is not like ours, filled with various organs and produced over time, it is comprised of sat, cit and ananda – eternity, knowledge and bliss.
Ours are temporary, full of ignorance and suffering.
The goal of life is to return to the spiritual world in a spiritual body and live there eternally in ever-increasing bliss with God as His beloved servant.
The purpose of religion is to help you achieve that.

Paradise Holding says:
February 27, 2012 at 8:11 am

In my latest readings; “An Anthropology of Biomedicine” by Margaret Lock and Vinh-Kim Nguyen. It addresses many of the subject matter Mr. Marshall presents.Historically on page 29, the writters present Schrodinder’s
subsequent follow up in Newton’s footsteps. Notably the second law of thermodynamics conceptualizing chromosomes as “some kind of code script”. But Schodinger went on to argue with himself that, commenting that the term code-scrpit was too narrow because it doen’t account for continuity betweewn generations. In contrast to the inert matter of the physical world one must account for how the living world is able to resist decay and “keep going”. The architect’s plan and builder’s craft-in are two sides of the same coin one. One being the physicist’s atom and the other part Plato’s soul. This is all recorded history and metaphors. These subject carried enormous social repercussions then with Newtonian theories a they do to this day. Foutunately reproductive science can verify many of the early theroies today.

Littleflowerpot says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:11 am

Try as might you can never prove the existence of God. It will always be a matter of belief.

If I were to argue your point though, I would say you based your theory from the angle that codes are created and can only be done so from a mind. But what is a code, or information, until it is decoded? Nothing. And who is decoding it? We are. So how do we know codes are designed and not merely random patterns taken to have a meaning? To know this you would have to understand the very fabric of reality which thus far no-one or nothing that we know of does.

Also I ask, if your theory stands true, “which” God are you proving the existence of? The God of the bible? Or merely an intelligent creator which no-one understands? And in the end if you can’t prove which God, or who, or what you’re referring to or what his goals are, or even if you could in fact, what does it matter if we are or aren’t aware of his existence? Surely if it was his plan for us to aware of him then we would be, so there’d be no reason to concern yourself with it. Right?

Paradise Holding says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm

I believe there are many areas in the Bible and Curan that we must have overlooked; God must be in the gaps somewhere-maybe we need to start over and take another look. Mr. Marshall has presented a good foundation- did a code spontaneouly appear or was it designed. Newtonian laws are consistent throughout our known universe. Why don’t we try another criteria for Jadeo-God-Islamic to re-committ to making presense known.

perrari says:
April 30, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Better still, why not study the Vedas, in particular Srimad Bhagavatam, which gives the most comprehensive and detailed account of creation, including who does it, when and why. The Vedas are the manual that goes with the cosmic manifestation, explaining in great detail what the world is designed for and how to use to achieve your ends. If you like detail and answers, you will find The Bhagavat Purana contains everything. If you like to speculate and imagine then stay away.

Comment Page 18 of 19« Oldest...«1516171819»

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.