Testable Hypothesis for Intelligent Design, Pt 3

Earlier I proposed that evolution is driven by a “Mutation Algorithm.” I said the Mutation Algorithm is the highest software layer in DNA and it explores evolutionary pathways by testing new features (fur, skin patterns, claws, limbs, wings) like switching out blades on a Swiss Army Knife.

I explained why Junk DNA is one of the most backwards theories in the history of modern science.

I said that the “random mutation” theory of evolution is an anti-scientific proposal which fails to presume underlying order and teaches us nothing.

Today I continue with the implications of turning Darwinism on its head and assuming evolution operates top-down not bottom-up:

1.    Discoveries first made in DNA will trigger watershed advances in “Artificial Intelligence.” Because of this research, AI will finally move from futuristic dream to practical reality.

Most evangelists of Artificial Intelligence operate from a materialistic presupposition that intelligence automatically “emerges” from complexity.

Their line of reasoning is that if life somehow got started in the primordial soup and eventually gave birth to sentient humans, then surely computers will likewise become intelligent once they get fast enough or if the software gets good enough.

Occasionally there is even talk of the Internet itself someday becoming conscious.

All these beliefs presume that information is a bottom-up phenomenon, but I propose the exact opposite. Everything we know about digital communication states the opposite. The Darwinian theory is totally backwards.

The only reason evolution happens at all is that the genome is literally intelligent; that intelligence in some form is essential to the viability of life.

2.    Random Mutations, far from being the driving force behind evolution, are universally detrimental to the survival of the organism. In a complete reversal of the former Darwinian theory, DNA research will definitively demonstrate that random mutation is not capable of producing “evolution of species” at all, but only destroys information.

Theodosius Dobzhansky’s failed fruit fly radiation experiments will finally be accepted as an example of irreversibly corrupted information.  The reason of course is that random mutation has the same effect as noise in man-made communication systems: it causes irreversible damage.

Also, positive genetic changes previously attributed to random mutation will be understood to be the result of error correction mechanisms producing an acceptable or beneficial result, even as they resist accidental changes.

3.    Birth defects are the result of random mutations of a defect-free ancestor. Mutation rate models will point to a zero-defect ancestor with birth defects accumulating over time.

DNA that is presently seen to have no function can also be shown to be a byproduct of random mutations and destroyed information.  Random mutations cause cancer, tumors, aging, congenital abnormalities and death – not improved organisms or new species.

4.    We will discover that the Human Genome can be repaired but not improved.
The best human genetic engineering can do is, for example, repair birth defects, which are the result of random mutations.  The only evolution of humans that is theoretically possible is already built into the genome (and thus may still be unfolding).

Humans cannot successfully “direct our own evolution” because we’re nowhere near as smart as the intelligence that created life in the first place and we do not have the ability to gather as much data as the Mutation Algorithm can gather.

Humans will not “take over” our own evolution in some triumphal Eugenics experiment of the future.

The very notion of engineering our own evolution is preposterous. It will continue to be preposterous until the genome is fully understood, an achievement that is at least several hundred years away.

5.    This new view of evolution as an engineered process
(i.e. the genome uses concepts comparable to Six Sigma, Kaizen and Quality Control to adapt to its environment) will lead to specific discoveries and systems in DNA that can be directly applied to man-made systems.

This is in stark contrast to Darwinism, which is virtually useless for teaching anyone how to design anything.

(After you learned about Darwinian evolution, what did you suddenly know how to do or build as a result? Nothing!)

Our cave-man ancestors knew that the fittest survive.  There’s nothing profound about that; and Random mutation as an alleged path to improved designs is useless.

If Taguchi or other Continuous Improvement methods are the fastest way to improve a design, a random walk is actually the fastest way to destroy a design.

(Also notice that even in the best of circumstances, like Dawkins ‘methinks it is like a weasel’ program, Random Mutation still does not work without a pre-programmed selective goal.)

Genetic Algorithms that mindlessly grind through millions of permutations are notoriously inefficient, which is why their use in the software industry is so limited.

Thus the most potentially productive hypothesis for evolution is that it follows an algorithm that’s pre-engineered for maximum improvement within the smallest possible number of steps. A program that starts with single cells and ends up with human beings in only 3 billion years is an engineering achievement of the highest order.

Reverse-engineering the Mutation Algorithm will be one of the most powerful future applications of applied science.  To understand this 21st century view of evolution will be to know something that has immensely practical, real-world applications.

Eventually, unlocking the secrets of the Mutation Algorithm will be the “Holy Grail” of biology.
It’s the secret to everything. The 20th century theory of random mutation will be seen as being just as foolish and detrimental to the practice of real science as the church’s opposition to Galileo.

6.    The adaptive capabilities of DNA (the Mutation Algorithm) are best understood as a function of intelligence. This adaptive algorithm that makes evolution possible does not blindly plod forward the way man-made programs do, but makes remarkably fit choices in environments that it has not faced before.

7.    DNA’s information storage is an optimal combination of physical data density, error-minimizing redundancy, and data compression.

Common sense observation: The entire human genome builds a 3-dimensional biological machine with a lifespan of 70-80 years and all the data necessary to do this can fit on a 750 Megabyte CD-ROM. A DNA molecule is thousands of times denser than a CD-ROM. Windows Vista can’t begin to fit on a CD-ROM, it has thousands of bugs and requires a never-ending series of software patches.

A man-made data storage program (i.e. CAD program) would require hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more storage space than DNA, to accurately represent the human body.

Hypothesis: DNA currently stores data at a higher density than any man-made digital information storage system, and as we approach or attempt to surpass the DNA benchmark we will encounter physical limitations that result in severe tradeoffs (i.e. greatly increased possibilities of long-term data loss).

The resources DNA devotes to error correction are extensive and absolutely necessary.  In DNA a single sequence of data is used in more ways and does more jobs than researchers presently imagine.

In DNA, nothing goes to waste.

Coming in Part 4: An Information Theory application of the Anthropic Principle.

Perry Marshall

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

150 Comments

Aki Tuomaala says:

Hi,I still think that Tao,somekind off natural force or a God(depending how we wont to definy a God )are the suorce to everything:We got different proves for a existens off a god like the cosmolocical God prove,ontologic God prove,theologic and physiolotheologic god prove yuo own god prove my god prove some kind off other god prove we dont know etc.To me Tao and god can be simular or somekind off god,remenber am either Christian musslim catholic or a Jude,thouse kind off believes are not enaught for me.And i still say ,everything we study so far only show that dna our soul brain etc. moustly have automatic natural forces and laws as a suorce.Sc creationism or intelligent design done by others than “homo sapians”on earth are nonproven.I muostly agree withDarwin, Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan in this kind off matters.In the 1980-ties Cheldricks theory on the cheldrics force field some people try to prove,but did not succeed,I think forex,the law off gravity are proven by Newton by a formular,but noone still know the suorce or how gravity rise!Right!?!And the problem are still that the reallity terrain are superior our word ,number or other sympole maps whichs try to decribe it,and survives without the symbole map,but the symbole map dont survive without the reallity terrain,thats one off the reasons I think like a taoist but are not 100%taoist either.We have to agee on some funtamental like 1 the everlasting are everlasting.2 Energy always exist and are not “created.” 3. time,motion and space always exist, are noncreated and without beginning or end.4.Everything in the long run are cyclic lapses without beginning andend.5.Our universe have a maximum energy level always the same,but we dont know what that maximum level are,because we are a smaller part off it and still cannot count or know what that maximum are.Do yuo agree at least on the 5 pionts here or not?Because off the language barrier (I speak finnish and Swedish)and lack off time I dont wanna argu and talk about all small details in evolution dna, its information code and whats its real suorce etc are.Greetings Aki.T.

Your points 2-5 are unscientific. Energy comes into existence at the point of the big bang. The universe is 14 billion years old. Can’t be infinitely old because of entropy. A candle will eventually burn out. Entropy does not allow for endless cycles and as for 5, there is only a finite amount of energy, regardless of how much you start with.

Jon says:

But entropy does not apply if that cycle is endless and infinite. If energy can not be created or destroyed, than that means it has always existed. Which is what the Universe could very well be, infinitely old. The universe never began and “our” tiny universe is just one small part in a much larger Cosmos we can never see.

So do you think there is nothing “outside” of our observable universe?

Q: Is the big bang the beginning of time?

A: From the standpoint of everything within our universe, yes.

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].”

Jon says:

This is only because our science has not yet found the answer. (Remember the absense of evidence does not mean the evidence is absent)

There is nothing in physics that says time and space did not exist before the big bang. It’s just that we have yet to detect any information before the event.

There are many theories that explain the possibility of an infinite cosmos, a Universe that is timeless and in that aspect, infinitely old.

We do not yet know if spacetime exists “outside” of our little universe. There very well may be no “outside” and what does exist is just other universes or we are just a tiny part of a much larger universe.

Why place limits on the Cosmos?

It seems from my point of view that the Universe is too vast and too great for any god or gods that humans can invent could create. A “god of the gaps” if you will.

Jon,

If absence of evidence does not mean the evidence is absent, then why don’t you believe in God?

You can speculate all you want about what’s outside the Big Bang. I however prefer to only present evidence which is scientifically verifiable.

Jon says:

And in reality, time does not exist. Humans measure time by how the Earth moves around the sun. Our bodies have internal clocks based around 24 hour days because we evolved on a planet that rotates on it’s axis.

Time here on Earth is not the same as out in space or on other worlds. We view the cosmos through our own eyes and our own expectations and sometimes think that it must fit to our own lives hereon Earth.

But time is almost an illusion, there really is no such thing as present time because time is infinite. Granted we count back to the big bang because that is all we can see, for now.

Do you really mean to say that time does not exist?

Jon says:

What is time?

Humans invented and measure “time” because we base our civilization around it.

We are biased to think that because we measure time a certain way, that the Cosmos must obey to that same time. It doesn’t, time is relative and a mystery.

So if you were to ask me, what time it is? I don’t know. I can give you what our interpretation of time but that is just a human concept.

Jon says:

There is a really good series on the Science channel about time. This british physicist talks about our defintions of time. When I find the name of the series, I will pass it on. It is very interesting.

Tavi says:

Jon “Time” exists, and even if the Earth wouldn’t rotate around its axes, like the Moon for instance, I would perceive the passing Time…you know my hair is gray… though many times, fortunately, I feel like the “Time” remains still and I act like I am in my 20s thanks to the discovery of the blue pill V_ _ _ _ _ :)

Lefty says:

That burnt out candle becomes another form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever we see in this universe has the ability to change from one form of energy to another. Anything you can stimulate, either with heat or the lack of, is living, by the fact of changing its form. If their is something in this universe we cannot stimulate, then that would be without life. Which I believe is something we cannot find. Every particle has life, it simply cannot reason as the life you and most consider.

Lefty,

If you can show how a candle becomes another form of useful energy after it’s burned, you will have solved the world’s energy problems and you can retire comfortably in Monaco.

ron taylor says:

The energy of the known universe was concentrated at the moment of the big B . The dispersion of matter / energy at the moment of the big B must be the result of the dissolution of the organizing principle that concentrated the energy . It could be that God – a supremely inspired intelligence – was inhered by his creation just prior to the big Bang and was released as a distinct and separate spiritual being – the Creator of it all – according to his laws which are imbued in the operation of the universe . According to Christian Science , sin and evil and suffering would be , from God’s point of view , phantom effects of the creative quantum moment that sparked the big B .

Peter LaChance says:

Perry, I believe from what I can understand the speed of light has uncovered the age of the Universe at 13.5 Billion years and would remain at that age if it were a static Universe. After the Big Bang, the Stuff that made up our universe, to get to where it is now, took at least that long (even if it could have travel to that point at the speed of light, making it at least 27 Billion years, if we are going to use the Big Bang as the beginning. Where am I wrong here. Pete

Aki Tuomaala says:

But I wonder,Why does “junk dna” exist att all?Do it exist with a purpuse or not for .ex?Does it prove that the suorce which make our bodies (even brain and soul in the long run)are nonintrelligent,without a goal, deaper reason,plan etc.so far I think so.Grretings Aki.T.

I am arguing that junk DNA does not exist.

JohnM says:

Perry,

Thanks for another write up. So if this is all engineered to be an algorithm, what is the cause for “random mutations?” You have said it is information entropy, but why does the design contain that if it is designed by God? I understand man has been “seperated” from God and creation itself recieved a curse etc.

I’m just having a hard time putting a finger on how or what causes the random mutation in the first place. I know it’s an error, or a copying mistake, but how do those slip into a Gods design unless it to is designed somehow? Know what I mean? Hes all-knowing, so nothing can take place without Him knowing it was gonna take place anyway.

I.e. if we trace a mutation back, what caused it? Is it a fumble in transcription or what? If so, what caused that precise event in the first place? I just don’t see how God could not be involved in any birth defect, being all-knowing from the outset. He knew every error that would take place and whos soul would be given that body etc etc, so it all has to be in His plan somehow. Whats your thoughts?

Sincerely,

JohnM

JohnM,

I assume you’re looking for a theological answer here. Here are two:

10 Moses said to the LORD, “O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”
11 The LORD said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?

3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Clearly God intends for man to be mortal, to be imperfect.

What causes random mutations? Cosmic rays, xrays. Perhaps ultraviolet light. Anything that can corrupt the operation of a nanomachine.

In Genesis when God finished making the earth he declared it “very good” – He did not say it was perfect.

Consider this:

“A perfect being would only make a perfect design.”

Why should this necessarily be true?

Perry

Jon says:

“Clearly God intends for man to be mortal, to be imperfect.”

Do you know the mind of god?

If man was created in the image of god, and god is “perfect” then how come we are not perfect as well?

Why is god not blamed for his mistakes in “our” creation? If a computer or car is bought and found defected, who do you return it to? The manufacturer.

But the fall of man is blamed on the devil, a piece of fruit and the tree of knowledge. Why do you think god didn’t want A&E to eat from the tree? Because he wanted to keep them in the dark and not become aware and with knowledge.

Of course this leads to the problem of evil but that is another story.

Jon,

Cars and computers and consumer products do not have free will.

Man does.

Thus God is not responsible for his actions, man is.

Think about it – from your own point of view:

Maybe God exists, and maybe he doesn’t. Supposing He does, is he responsible for YOUR actions?

Perry

Jon says:

But computers and cars perform in the way they were designed. Granted computers and cars are not sentient and aware (that may change one day when it comes to computers) so for now, when these machines break down, who is to blame, the creator…us.

If god was real then he created us this way and in that sense, why is he not blamed for the actions of his creations?

Freewill does not exist if the one who gave us that freewill knows every outcome and every decision we are going to make.

What does that say about god if he allows the evil and suffering in the world and does nothing about it? He knows it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it.

That is the essence of malevolence.

Jon,

I wonder if this is why you disbelieved in God – the problem of evil.

I don’t think it had all that much to do with science.

I think you’ll agree, you make your own decisions. If I said your belief that you make your own decisions is an illusion I think you might feel insulted.

So are you saying “I make my own decisions, therefore God doesn’t exist?”

If you’re going to debate the nature of God then you need to take theology on its assertions. Theology says God did a LOT to prevent evil. He told us to be kind to each other and to love each other as we love ourselves. We didn’t.

Is that God’s fault?

If God allows you to live your life the way you want to – are you calling that malevolent?

Peter LaChance says:

John, It would seem that when,
if you accept the “Eden” story as told, God close the door to this sanctuary and informed the former occupants that the pains of child birth and other ills not formally experienced would befall them. Perhaps this is an answer to your question. If you don’t believe the Adam and Eve story, All bets are off and you’ll just have to accept a God with faults, Perhaps? P

Jon says:

#3 sounds a lot like Christian theology there. Adam and Eve were created perfect, “defect free” and over time (and the accumulation of mutations) you get the current state of life that now exists. If this true, then how come we are smarter than ever before? How come we are living longer than ever before? According to this line of reasoning, we should be getting worse to by now, we are no more evolved than lower forms of life and have the lifespan of a moth.

I don’t have any children and I don’t know if you do either. However many of my friends do and I am a proud uncle as well. One thing I have seen is that children are BETTER versions of their parents, not worse. Every generation is smarter and better than the previous. That much is very clear. Children take the best traits of their parents to become better humans. Even our parents can say that about ourselves.

Every generation can attest to this as our parents (I assume we are around the same age and same generation) are smarter than our grandparents generation. The same can be traced back over the centuries. Not only are we getting smarter, but we are also living longer. 100 years ago the life expectancy was around 40 and today it is 80.

According to your “top down” theory, our lives should be growing shorter and our species dumber. But all the Science and even History show us just the opposite. We are getting smarter and living longer, not the other way around. We are a better species than we were thousands of years ago. Who knows what our species will accomplish in 1,000 years, if we survive that long.

However, we may be getting smarter for our own good but that remains to be seen.

Every generation has more advantages than their parents. They’re not inherently smarter or healthier.

Jon says:

They are not inherently smarter or healthier? History is filled with instances showing that the older generations were not as smart (and healthier) than more current ones. I believe that every parent would say that their child is smarter than they are (at that age).

Just look at the life expectancy. 100 years ago is was around 40, but today it is around 80.

How do you explain that? If information is supposed to degrade over time, we should be living shorter lives, not longer ones

Of course we have better knowledge and technology to combat diseases and have better health care for everyone. Which in turn suggests the current generation is indeed smarter and healthier than the last and the next will be even smarter than this one.

Peter LaChance says:

Perry, I’ve hear postulated that had the Cave Man had the education and all the advantages we have today, he would be able to function in our society all things being equal. If being smart is knowing to tie your shoelaces so you don’t trip on them….
If we were to be swept back to cave man days I think we would have great difficulty in surviving and would have to ask the cave man for help. Pray we don’t get blasted back to this existence. P

jamie says:

So, if life, if earth is so complex that it requires an architect, a mastermind, then wouldn’t that mastermind require a proportionally more complex designer, which would require a proportionally more complex designer, etc., etc.. you aren’t providing any answers, this is a circular argument for people who couldn’t deal with the fact that their parents were flawed so projected the false sense of security provided by loving parents, who are simply human and as prone to mistakes as any, upon a mythical being who’s just like your grandfather so you’d better behave.

that’s not to say that i’m an athiest, i fully believe and interact with the mystic i’m just not going to give control over my life and decisions to the oldest protection racket on planet earth. why does god need a cut of my wages? if he’d wanted the land covered in churches and for there to be fat corrupt priests living in his houses, being omnipotent wouldn’t they just exist? why would this all loving god require 10% for all of my life or i’ll burn forever? why would he create a system whereby only those annointed by the church can get into paradise but not put the church everywhere on the planet since the begining of time? moses never accepted jesus, so is he burning?

i don’t trust organized religion or anyone who claims to speak for our creator. you’re not that smart, you don’t understand anything revelatory, this is a career for you. if you were really holy you’d be living in the woods with god’s creation or out feeding the homeless and needy, not pimping yourself online.

jamie says:

oh yeah and just because darwin’s got the best selling book on evolution doesn’t mean he’s the only or original theorist. try reading Mutual Aid by Kropotkin

mike says:

Perry,

could not locate a blog for darwin half right half wrong article. When passing that around to atheists, some came back using the flavobacterium mutation where it mutated to be able to consume nylon as an example. I could not find enough information to confirm this though

They also used the argument of “you clearly dont understand mutations as most mutations are known to be neutral rather than harmful”. Again, I could not find any info in a google search to locate and confirm this.

This was also used to attempt to combat your life requires a mind theory. “DNA does not require a mind behind it, simply because of chemical reactions. DNA isn’t a determined language, it has formed due to chemical attractions. In fact, a few months ago RNA was naturally formed in the lab by using raw elements, which would have been found on the primordial Earth.”
have you looked into these arguments yourself and if so, what did you find?

As I currently have not had the easiest of schedules as of late to do my own due diligence to form an intelligent response…i was hoping to bounce this off you as you may already have done this research and know it off the top of your head. This debate has gone on longer than intended and im finding less time to be able to keep up with it now.

Thanks

Mike,

Whoever is saying that “most mutations are neutral” is just making stuff up. They’re not operating from experience or documentation.

There is some truth in this, which is that the redundancy in the genetic code neutralizes many otherwise detrimental point mutations. That is a design feature of DNA.

Perry

Jim Diamond says:

This is just more of the same. You are arguing from the same old ideas which just don’t stand up. Why don’t you get them peer reviewed if they are so good?

1)There is no evidence that the genome is intelligent as though it can decide what way it wants to evolve and then set about doing it, ignoring all the weaknesses in the human body and not stop people catching diseases.

2) Random mutation works, using what you called junk DNA as source material. What does not survive to breed is obviously wrrong, so what breeds, works. It’s called survival of the fittest.

3) As a creationist, are you talking of Adam as our mutation free ancestor? There never was one in evolution since Man came about after a four billion year breeding process. I refer you to (2) and survival of the fittest. Also it is all about carrying our genes on. The rest is window dressing. Once you have (in theory) passed your genes on (say 18-40), you are redundant, so it “does not matter” if you get cancer, if you age, etc. Since we continually replace parts of the body, it would cause an accumulation of mistakes in replacements, like continually copying out the phone book, using the copies. 900 year old people is just not going to work.

4) An empty prediction. Some have said that we will not evolve any more because we now live in controlled environments so no longer have the evolutionary need to change to adapt.

5) A whine against Darwinism. Creationists have been whining about it since Darwin thought up the original idea (original in that he said it but others thought it before him). I refer you to (2) where your clever genome has left us with a body full of faults, where our own immune system can kill us, where our appendix can kill us, where before medical care, MOST babies never made it to life or died in the first few years. Not very intelligent of the genome to make such a faulty product.

6) Again, DNA has failed us.

7) DNA has had the best part of FOUR BILLION YEARS to evolve to it’s present form. How long has Vista been out? A few years? It needs few patches as Microsoft gets it out quick and then lets the public find the problems and sort them out, rather than pretesting it.

As to an answer you gave above. NO as in NO evidence for creation. NONE at all. NO evidence that Moses ever existed. NO evidence for the Exodus story (Read “The Bible Unearthed” where two Jewish archeologists prove much of the OT WRONG.)

As to your perfect god, with only the knowledge that god had taught them, Adam and Eve decided god was a liar so believed the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. god the liar said they would die that day (the words used are warm hours and causatively to kill with none of this spiritual death crap) in Genesis 2:17. Yet Adam lived another 930 years (Genesis 5:5) so proving god is a liar who cannot be trusted.

Jim,

I need you to read the references that I cite in this series and you need to apprise yourself of the literature I am citing before I will be able to take up this discussion with you. It is clear that you have not been paying attention or reading the relevant citations.

Perry

ron taylor says:

Genesis 2:17 can be interpreted to mean ” in the day that you eat the fruit , you will surely know that you will die at sometime .”

Aki Tuomaala says:

Some foolish men STILL declare that a creator etc. made the world.The doctrine that the world are or was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.If God created the world,where was God BEFORE creation?How could God have made himself or the world for.ex without any energy,rawmaterial or information???????If yuo say the lord made this first,and then the world,yuo are faced with an endless REGRESSION….Know that the world is uncreated,as time,space,motion,energy and cyclic elapsies etc. is WITHOUT BEGINNING and END.And it is based on the principles..—The Mahapurana,the great legend,Jinisena india,ninth century and Aki.T. in Finlandia 2009 after chr.We hope we finally have made out our points.

Jon says:

The Hindus and their beliefs are the closest we have to the scientific truth. That brahma awakens every 8 billion years and dreams the great lotus dream of the universe. After a long life he falls asleep and then reawakens anew, forever.

The reason there are poor designs is because there were, at the very least, two designers, one benevolent the other malevolent. There may have been many more for all we know.

Kevin says:

One of the horrific things that has speeded up a Mutation process of sorts in the past one hundred years is the advent of chemicals into our environment. Mankind’s independence from the creator and buying into the lie that people do not need any directional help or advice from an all powerful, all knowing supreme being. The result of course is the present messed up world we all know and live in. Moral laws are made fun of and demonized, but the fact is they are so connected to the natural laws of the physical environment we live in on our planet. But as Perry has stated, these random mutations are hardly beneficial.

Lately I’ve heard rediculous arguements for evolution from those celebrating and chearing about the mutated birth of the latest Swine Flu virus. That virus is the result of a set of circumstances mankind put in motion and therefore has nothing to do with anything natural. The circumstances sorrouding this virus can almost be compared to what brought on the Spanish Influenza in the early part of the last century. The previous environmental factors for one. War just ended, devastation, famine, poverty, unhealthy living conditions as a result all contributed to this things presence. Same set of circumstances today involving ignorance or outright greed resulting in unsanitary environment perhaps caused by industrial farming for which flouting of environental practices in a third world country where officials can easily be paid off brought on a set of perfect circumstances for a new strain of epidemic to spread. As times after WWI , we have international travel also a factor in this things spread. Again, nothing natural at all, but definite human error.

The celebration of the wonderful mutation of homosexuality being found also in nature. Nature was never genetically effected by what adam and Eve did, only human genes were effected. Nature suffers at the hands of mankind’s greed, selfishness and arrogance. In the 1980s, researchers like Theo Colborn and Peter Meyers were warning of the unnatural phenomena of chemicals hijacking genes during fetal development. Chemicals like bisphenol A and others which cause endocrine disruption. Because of this it was observed in nature that male fish were spawning together, gay seagulls were observed, etc. Now our planet is in crisis mode because things hideous effects have compounded themselves and species in many areas are going extinct because of mankind’s greed and selfishness.

But in this politically correct modern day climate, it is a political hot potato to ascribe an increase of homosexuality to these same chemical disruptors, even though it’s happening in nature when it was never prevelant before. Now we are told their has been no peer review on the matter, as if a Marxist Panel of Peers would even give an honest assessment of any such study. I find very little science is done in the field anymore nowadays. Not when we have labs, Internet, and forums with ameteur pseudo-scientists with accountability issues. What ever became of real live field observation ??? Modern Science has usurped the Catholic Church’s role of demonizer of anyone who thinks outside of the conventional box they have defined. Even Francis Crick’s , “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology” has been relabled by the geniuses as “Central Dogma of Modern Biology” and all because Information Theory actually supports DNA’s creation and control over proteins, and not the other way around.

Hence we have the screwed up world we all are familiar with. Mankind’s independence experiment and court trial have been a miserable failure. No doubt we are at a time when all of this will soon come to a head soon. God has allowed things to go towards the brink, before stepping in and removing the cancer that has caused so much ruin. Interestingly, science itself is coming up with huge volumes of proof of numerous natural phenomena mentioned in Genesis, and they don’t even realize they are shooting themselves in the foot with these things. So threatening is some of it that when I’ve pointed some of this out, that opponents have contacted the very Universities who had such data on specific webpages removed from public view now. The thing that is hard to understand is that if so-called data never supported creation, then why consider the data a threat and remove it in the first place ??? Surely any critique of the such info on their University websites as proof of creation could be easily debunked or refuted by such scholarly individuals and geniuses!!!

Maybe not!

Jon says:

Wait Kevin…did you say that Swine Flu is mankind’s fault and has nothing to do with nature? This current strain of Swine Flu is a cousin to the flu outbreak of 1918. If if has nothing to do with nature, then where did it come from? It must the work of god then right? If it’s not “natural” then it must be “supernatural”, Right?

But since we know (through SCIENCE) that it is a strain of flu and is in fact quite natural, it doesn’t have anything to do with the supernatural or something that mankind has done. We are a part of this planet and it is part of us but nature is in control. If she decides that we have lived long enough, there are many ways to dispose of humanity, all through nature. Some by our own doing.

If this is the result of mankind’s arrogance, then how can you call god a just and loving god? God doesn’t suffer from the swine flu or from anything for that matter…and yet his creations suffer from all kinds of painful ailements and fear death. Some of his creations die of cancer at the age of 5 and some suffer horrible “natural” deaths.

Why would a loving and caring creator cause that much pain and suffering when he himself does not suffer or fear death. He’s god, he has no emotions and is immortal. If he had human emotions, then we would all be in for some trouble…if god was real.

I agree that nature does suffer from mankind’s greed and arrogance. But it is also arrogant to think that the universe and this planet was created entirely with us in mind. The greed and arrogance stems from our own evolution, which if god was real, was a tool he used in our creation.

Homesexuality is natural. There are over 1500 species of animals (humans included) that have homosexual tendecies. If people are gay, then they are that way because god made them that way. Of course, we are a species of two sexes, due to reproduction. So it must be natural.

The reason why the data is a threat is because it’s outdated and ancient. If the authors of the bible knew of Evolution and biology, then of course they would have written about it. But since they knew nothing of it, they used the only tool they had at their disposal…their imagination.

So do you think the authors of the bible (1st century humans) are smarter than 21st century humans? Many believers think so.

kevinSweden says:

Hi Jon

Have you ever read the book, “Our Stolen Future” ? Here’s a link to these researcher’s website:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org

The book and research is co-authored by three individuals. Dr Theo Colborn, Dr John Peterson Meyers and science writer Diane Dumanoski. They have known about the chemicals which have the ability to mask themselves as either estrogens, or testosterones. This is important because in minute trace amounts these chemcials have disrupted the endocrine systems of developing fetases in birds, fish, mammals and human beings. They warned about these damgers and destruction to our aquatic environments as early as the 1980s, but no one took them serious. The book “Our Stolen Future” was published September of 1996 and I got one of the first prints.

Homosexuality is not a natural occurance in nature. It strictly has a human (Science and the Financial Bohemoth Corporate Giants that employ them) cause and unfortunately it’s on the increase. It is a deadend evolutionary Cul du Sac if anything. Even now you can google many studies which are showing specific areas within the United states where specific species of fish are going extinct in those areas because of this degenerating effects of these chemicals. They can’t breed because their wiring is screwed up, males with males, females with females. The article which came out in June 2009 celebrating the two homosexual penquins at that German Zoo and citing other wonderful examples of homosexuality in nature was a complete and ignorant sham. These researchers have also seen the effects on humans. A girl born with testicals where her ovaries should be, hermaphrodite appearances on the increase (We have heard of recent media converage on the S. African) and studies on the confused sexual orientation behavior. They ONLY stop short of citing and labling this homosexuality as a disease or disorder in humans because it is such a political hot potato and unfortunately that’s how our world works.

Yes even the recent articles which came out joyiously celebrating the the latest version of Swine Flu as an evolutionary wonder neglected to give the reasons why such things exist is because of mankind’s failure to adhere to biblical principle and standards. I cited the Spanish Flu and it’s worldwide pandemic spread because it resulted in the previous horrific behavior of humans in World War 1 which created the setting and environment for such an unbalance to occur. Famine, food shortages always follow war. Certainly all those mass of deaths and the unsanitary living conditions that followed. Add to that the further improved advances in human transportation mechanisms which came out of that war and you have the perfect vehicle for a complete spreading of the disease worldwide.

Many of these things were foretold in advance in the bible. It’s a matter of “Cause and Effect” . Selfishness and Greed are what cause the effects. Remove the cause (selfishness and greed) and the effect goes away. But we don’t like to discuss the cause, because that would be judgemental.

The Bible’s purpose in being written was never to be a science book. But where it touches on science it is dead on accurate. It was merely written to explain where things went off track. Genesis the third chapter actually explain the legal arguement that was brought up by an intelligent being or entity named Satan. He basically stated the same arguements that most all modern day atheists spout, that mankind and indeed all inteeligent life is better off living independently from God. They can accomplish the perfect modle for living life without interference from God. Hence we’ve had just a little over 6000+ years to have that proved to us and what do we find ??? We find failure after failure. Want peer review and proof on that ??? Okay, flick on any World or National News coverage in any country, any station, 24/7 and see citing after citing of what a miserable failure mankind is in living independently from God.

Genesis is one of the most scientific accounts which thosugh it does’nt go into detail about the mechanics of how God did it, it does give enough amazing clues which bare out the truth of the statements. Take for example the biblical mention of life produced according to it’s kinds. Science today of course uses terms like genus, family, species, etc. Hence we understand something today called species barriers, for which it is impossible for differing lifeforms to cross and definately create true freaky mutants. However, does that mean that crossing these barriers can’t be done ??? No actually it can and has been done, but should it have been done ??? The infamous environmental wreaking ball company called Monsanto has done this. But why ??? Greed and selfishness under the guise of wanting to help mankind. But how could they possibly do this if the Bible mentions kinds according to their kinds, I thought it could’nt be done ???

It’s alot like moral laws. Can moral laws be broken ??? Of couse they can. But look at what the result has been. Again, look at all the history books and present news items on the nightly news in any and all countries. Hence monsanto has unleashed numerous environmental disaster with their playing Dr Josef Mengele and giving us Frankenfoods. BT Corn pollen has been found to kill Monarch butterfly larva on the milkweed plants that are dusted by it. Caddisfly larva in near by streams and creeks will die when they come in contact with this same pollen and it is an important food source for frogs and fish, hence there is a denegerating domino effect in nature. Other effects are of superweeds of similiar species to the particular Frankenfood plant created in the Lab which are pollenated with the same BT pollen and they don’t know what to do about it.

So apparently, according to it’s kind is a scientific truth. Another and actually one of my favourites is Genesis 2:5,6 which speaks of an ancient hydrological cycling system for which many Atheist love to make fun of. Yet recent discoveries by myself and others are proving this to be true and it’s actually a superior system in many ways. Mostly because of it’s effects on plant growth as opposed to regular rain water from storms formed off oceans. It has major applications for agriculture and landscpe inventions. I know because I’ve personally experimented with plants in this regard. There is however too much to go into, so I’ll leave it for another time.

Just wanted to give a reply. kevinSweden

I’ve changed my username to differentiate between me and this other ‘kevin’

Jon says:

Humanity has been around for hundreds of thousands of years (and according to a recent find, we have been evolving for at least 6 million years) before the bible was even invented. We seem to be doing ok as a species then, so why is it that after the ancient texts were written, do believers think that nothing existed before?

Genesis was simply mankind’s first attempt at trying to understand the world before Science came in and did a better job at it. And the authors of Genesis borrowed alot from early texts.

Let me ask you, if you were sick and needed aid, which doctor would you chose? A doctor during Jesus’s time with complete lack of knowledge in science and medicine, with no technology. Or a doctor of the today’s time, with our vast knowledge of science and technology.

Of course we would chose today, but why? Because we know more than they did. The bible is nothing more than parables and fables, not meant to be taken literally. It should really only be understood by the minds of those who lived 2,000 years ago. All you are really doing is thinking like those who lived long ago.

The world isn’t getting worse, it just that technology is now allowing us to hear about disasters and events in a matter of minutes instead of days and weeks. Think about it, 100 years ago if in an Earthquake hit Japan, we wouldn’t hear about it for weeks, maybe months. There are still disasters and murder and death in the world. Some of those troubles are natural, some are manmade. Humans are partly irrational, we are still animals.

You contradicted yourself when you first said that…”The Bible’s purpose in being written was never to be a science book.”

Then in the next paragraph you said…“Genesis is one of the most scientific accounts…”

Again, do you think that the authors of the bible are smarter than we are? Do you really think that 1st century humans are smarter than 21st century ones?

I agree that Science can be used for perverse reasons to make a quick buck. But just because one company uses some unethical practices does not mean that all are, Science is the search for truth. The beauty of Science is that it’s results and findings are for all of us. Knowledge is to be shared and cherished.

The beauty of the bible (and any religious texts for that matter) is that they are so vague you can take any chapter and verse and use it to support your position. This is exactly what Islamic extremists do.

As for the homosexual arguement, if humans were the only animals that was homosexual, that would be one thing. But since the research and science show that there are over 1500 species that are also homosexual, then it must be an aspect of nature. For as long as there have been life, there probably has been a small percentage that were homosexual.

The invention of agriculture predates the bible by 10,000 years.

kevinSweden says:

Clearly when it comes to the bogus claim of homosexuality in nature, you never read the massive peer reviewed volumes from the link “Our Stolen Future”.

So here it is again: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org (please read it this time)

I did’nt contradict anything. The Bible was not meant to be a science lessons book. It was first given to the Israelite people who freed as slaves from Egypt had very little if any education. It was written from the standpoint of epochs or lengthy periods of time in chronological order of a series of events that even science says happened in that exact order as far as appearances on Earth. In that sense it is dead on accurate. But there is no way that detailed science as we today know it was going to be written down for a people who would have had no clue to it’s meanings. Even the world viewed geniuses of the time would’nt have gotten anything out of a detailed explanation.

But I will tell you this, if evolution was the true mechanism that almighty God had used as far as the process, then it would have been clearly stated as such because the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and the Greeks had already incorporated such a pagan dogma into their religious beliefs and those common every day beliefs would have been common knowledge that even the Israelites would have known about since these pagan nations already had it as a major part of their doctrine.

But again, show us proof of your random mutation FACT. And please don’t just say it’s true. That gets tiring.

Thanks, kevin Sweden

Jon says:

I looked at the website and even though it does have some good points (I agree that our overreliance of some medicines are cause for concern) but at the same time, how can the future be stolen? The future is unwritten. If anything science and medicine have increased our life expectancy, not decreased it.

The bible was written by people who had very little education. It wasn’t given to anyone, the Israelites were the authors. They wrote about what they knew and saw in their tiny corner of the world. They did not know of the Chinese or Indians. They thought the world was their little slice of land. Now, there is undoubtly some history mixed in with the stories but for the most part, they are nothing more than fables and parables. There is nothing in the bible that can be taken as some sort of accurate account of the epochs of the world. They are 1st century versions with 1st century minds, which of course do not match with 21st century knowledge of the true Epochs of the Earth.

It’s obvious that the reason the Egyptians, Babylonians and even the Greeks did not incorporate Evolution into their dogma was that they did not know about it. If they had a Darwin or Wallace of their time, then probably they would have written in their text. But since Science (biology and genetics) had yet to be invented and Science is what we use to understand how the world works, then they could only use their imagination to figure out the world.

It’s easy to say that “God did it”.

And it’s only “Pagan” to a Christian. A belief is a belief and no person’s belief is better than another.

ron taylor says:

Evidence that Egyptians knew of evolution is given in Genesis if it is the first book of Moses .

Jon says:

And you didn’t answer my question from earlier.

If you were sick and needed aid, which would you choose? A doctor of Jesus’s time with their limited knowledge of science and medicine or a doctor of today, with our vast knowledge and technology?

Jon,

Why is this an either/or question?

I can choose both, and I have. See http://www.perrymarshall.com/travelogue/india/june-12/

Jon says:

Come on man, you can’t have both answers. That is not logical, you can’t be a and b, so choose. Which kind of doctor (and knowledge) would you have if you could pick?

Why can’t I have both answers? I already have and experience both in my real life experience. I’m not giving up either one of them.

Jon says:

For the sake of this very logical argument, Door A or Door B, you can’t in two places at the same time. So please, choose which doctor (and knowledge).

This question was actually meant for Kevin from Sweden by the way.

Jon says:

And how is morality connected to nature? Morality is, in a way, a product of evolution. We learned long ago that it is better to work together than to kill each other. But at the same time, we still haven’t learned that lesson entirely.

Moral laws are only made fun of when someone suggests that those laws stem from some divine being or some ancient texts.

There are many random mutations that are harmful, but some are not. There are many traits that we could call random that are very benefical to all life on this planet.

It was probably a mutation that allowed the first photosenstive cells to detect light in the visible spectrum, which in time evolved to become the eye.

Or a mutation that caused the first plants to absorb sunlight and generate oxygen which created an atmosphere. The sky is made by life.

Mutations are very benefical.

Jon,

Please cite peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates empirically that the mutations that drive biology are random and not the result of an algorithm.

Perry

Jon says:

There are many out there. How about a bug or insect that produces offspring with some new mutations. Many have no effect but let’s say that one mutation changes the color of the new offspring.

Which, quite randomly, would make the insect harder (or easier) for a predator to see. If the color that was randomly selected makes it harder to be detected by the predator, then chances are the new offspring are going to survive and end up making more offspring.

Or if the color mutation makes it easier to be detected, then the new offspring probably won’t survive. All of this by a random mutation. One out of a million is all it takes.

This mutation has been observed, peer reviewed and is a characteristic of genetics, biology and evolution.

Many of the traits and aspects of our very lives are the result of random mutations.

Jon,

Prove the mutations are random.

Jon says:

They can only be random. Because if the genetic code was based on some kind of algorithm, that would require some designer outside of reality (and unproveable and unknowable) to start that algorithm. Which would then suggest that there was an even greater designer than the first one who started that being…and so on.

The algorithm can’t start itself, nor can the designer of that algorithm. That is logically impossible.

The genetic code and the traits passed on are based on random mutations and a little chance. That is why life is so beautiful and precious, not by design but by luck.

Jon,

So what you have said is, “Evolution has to be random because I already know in advance there is no God.”

You have derived your premise from your conclusion. I salute you for at least being honest!

That might be good enough for you but it’s not for me.

Please provide evidence and not just philosophical supposition that the changes that drive evolution are random. If your theory is true you should have evidence.

Jon says:

I never said that I know in advance that there is no god. In order for me to make that statement, I would need all the knowledge of this universe and I can assure that I do not (nor do you) possess that knowledge. No human does. I am going with what I know and what I see and what I have learned through Science.

The first step in the path to knowledge is to first admit ignorance. I certainly admit that I do not know everything nor I can never know everything.

There question isn’t if I can produce science papers and texts that supports genetic mutation as a driving force behind Evolution. (which I could)

The question is can you accept the results?

Jon,

You said:
“If the genetic code was based on some kind of algorithm, that would require some designer outside of reality (and unproveable and unknowable) to start that algorithm.”

Then you went on to explain why there can’t be some outside designer because the designer would have to be designed and so on. This is precisely where you have claimed to know in advance that there is no god.

Clearly from what you just said, your logic is: since God doesn’t exist, evolution has to be random.

I showed you a peer reviewed paper which you seem unwilling to read See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf which clearly shows that it’s driven by an algorithm. You refuse to accept it.

It’s the same reason the infidels say DNA isn’t a code. Their logic is:

1. An intelligent designer does not exist
2. Codes require an intelligent designer
3. Therefore DNA is not a code

I have shown that all codes we know the origin of are designed.

I have shown that DNA is a code.

I have shown that evolution is driven by an algorithm.

All these things infer that the uncaused cause for the information in DNA is an Intelligent Designer. That is a completely logical conclusion. But I cannot force you to accept reason and logic. You have to make that decision yourself.

Jon says:

I did read the article by Dr. Shapiro’s but where in his article does it say that the algorithm is the product of an intelligent designer?

Nowhere in his paper did he say that “DNA is a code and God is the author”. That is just your faith and beliefs talking.

Why don’t your beliefs and view on some intelligent designer beg you ask to the question, where did the designer come from?

If life is so complex and needs a designer, then something so complex as our designer must then need an even greater designer. When does it end?

However, the great thing about Dr. Shaprio’s paper is that it’s based in the language of Science. That is the beauty of Science, if you do the work and come up with a good theory, you can publish your work for peer review. But as I said before, where in this paper does it say that God is the author of an algorithm?

Shapiro never says where the algorithm came from. He just states emphatically, and with robust experimental support, that random mutations are not the source of evolutionary development.

We can make the following set of statements:

1. The mutation mechanism in DNA is controlled by an algorithm.
2. All algorithms we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore the algorithm in DNA is designed.

Jon says:

Again, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

“Every algorithm we know the origin of is designed”

We don’t know the origin of the genetic code yet.

So how can you say that it comes from the mind of god?

Isn’t this a leap of faith?

Of course it’s a leap of faith. It’s just a much smaller leap than any other explanation. It’s inference. We have 100% inference that DNA and the mutation algorithm are designed and 0% inference to any other explanation. To the extent science can prove anything, codes and algorithms prove design.

To assign living things to chance is to leap across the Grand Canyon (as Shapiro so eloquently explains); to assign life to a designer is to leap across a six foot ditch.

Jon says:

We must have a different definition of the word inference because I always thought it means to work out from evidence. If we have 100% inference that DNA is designed, then it would be a universal truth in science. But it’s not. How come over 95% of scientists do not believe in god? They don’t see the design you are talking about, it is only a matter of faith.

It’s the same as saying if god was real, then there would be no atheists! If there were no atheists, then we could infer that god was real.

What if we found out tomorrow that DNA is actually a computer program written by an advanced alien race? Would they be god then?

Jon,

You’re right, inference is working things out from evidence. I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that DNA is designed. You’ve combed this website for months and you can verify for yourself that no one has presented any evidence that it was not designed.

You might want to double check that 95% figure. See “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics” at http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 which indicates religious disbelief hovers around 31% for all academics and 40% for those in physics and biology. Which is a minority.

If DNA were a program written by aliens then we would know for sure that it’s designed. Then we would want to know where the alien came from.

martyboy says:

I think that sums it up because if you don’t have the propensity to believe in God or the ‘God Gene’ you will never see design in nature. Why do great intellects disagree, both scientists and philosophers? Why does Perry analalize the evidence and see design and jay who is a scientist also analyze the evidence and not see design? That question poses a psychological conundrum not a design verses naturalism conundrum. The propensity to believe in God is not the reserve of the uneducated or the educated. Simple uneducated people who have never studied the arguments from both theists and atheists often believe fervently in God to the extent that it moulds their whole lives. Conversely highly educated scientists and thinkers will never believe even though they have all the scientific information at their disposal.
I am not a scientist or a philosopher so I take a rather simplistic view, a kind of gut reaction. My gut tells me that there is something extremely fanciful about the idea that a simple progenitor of DNA happened by accident i.e. naturalistically, and that mind boggling complexity and apparent purpose arose thereafter from random copying erros as that DNA molecule duplicated itself over the eons. Another very simplistic view is how things left to their own devices unmanaged and unguided invariably lead to chaos. Imagine a huge city without road signs or traffic lights, traffic would be utter chaos, or a garden left for years unattended. What about unimaginably complex finely balanced biological sytems? Do they find greater complexity and function left to themselves?

Jon says:

You said…“Then you went on to explain why there can’t be some outside designer because the designer would have to be designed and so on. This is precisely where you have claimed to know in advance that there is no god.”

How is this knowing in advance there is no god? I am only pointing out the logical fallacy involved in trying to explain god. Either god has a creator, or god does not exist. He can’t create himself and so he must then have a creator. There can not be an uncaused cause, that goes against reason and logic.

So it must then require faith.

Everything that is created has a creator.

At some point in the past there is a creator that was not created.

This is just as logical and truthful as the conclusion that there had to be a first strand of DNA.

Jon says:

“At some point in the past there is a creator that was not created.”

So who is to decide at which point? How do you know which is the “first”?

Why does there have to be a creator not created?

If everything has a creator, then they always do.

Why does there have to be an uncreated creator? Same reason you don’t have an infinite regression of ancestors.

Jon says:

Because I am not satisfied with an uncreated creator. To me, that is illogical and no matter if I wish to believe in some kind of god, I can’t ignore the logic. That is just me.

The only real example I can give is Santa Claus. Knowing what you know and that Santa is not real, could you wake up tomorrow and convince yourself he is? Once you reason it out, you no longer believe in Santa. It’s the same for me and any god of any religion.

I just trust in my own strength instead of trusting faith.

Jon,

You didn’t seem to have any problem with an uncreated universe – at one point you even indicated willingness to dismiss the entire theory of entropy in order to accommodate that view. Why should the idea of an uncreated creator be so difficult to fathom?

I believe that you know that God might in fact be real.

Rabia says:

That’s what I’d like to know as well. Why is it so easy to believe that the universe can be infinite, timeless, ageless (and to believe this without proof), yet an uncreated god cannot possibly exist?

To that I would add: Why believe that the universe is infinite when so far as we know time itself only goes back 13.7 billion years?

martyboy says:

The evidence for the Big Bang is pretty well conclusive as I understand. So why do folks keep on about an infinite universe? Are they thinking there was something before the Big Bang? Presumably there was something, a kind of progenitor universe or matter which exploded outwards to form the universe.
Others views on the pre-universe would be interesting.

Jon says:

I like the infidel comment by the way! Very Islamic! JK!

Jon says:

Also, if you say that the genetic code is an algorithm and that can only come from some greater intelligence, then you must provide even more evidence to prove your theory. You have to take it an extra step, an impossible one for that matter.

You are saying that the genetic code is evidence of god, so you must then provide another piece of evidence to prove your theory, god himself. But if such a being existed, he would be unproveable and unknowable and therefore you could never prove it.

It’s easy to prove that codes in machines and in languages are written by an intelligence, human. We can go back to the designer, the person who wrote the code. But you can’t do that for your theory, because you would have to prove something that doesn’t exist.

That is where faith comes into play and faith is the belief in the absence of evidence.

I never said I had formally proven God. I said that I have provided 100% inference. You have admitted as much right here.

Ostensibly the genetic code IS an algorithm. The basic process of transcribing and translating the code into proteins is itself an algorithm.

Jon says:

In order for you to have provided 100% inference in the existence of god, then you must possess all the evidence in the Cosmos to support your theory. Since no human being (as I have already stated) can possess all the knowledge of the Universe, you are not inferring anything. Except maybe inferring proof of your faith.

Jon,

You are right!

We could make the exact same statement about every other scientific law: entropy, gravity, the weak force, the speed of light – and it would be just as true as what you just said.

And in so doing we would discard 500 years of scientific progress.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to accept 100% inference to a law of gravity but you want to reject 100% inference to design.

Perry

Jon says:

I know we have already gone over this. We are not inferring about gravity, we know gravity is real. We can prove it’s effect and existence. We can observe it, we are experiencing it right now.

You can never prove design in nature because that requires an unprovable element. You can’t test or observe this. The only thing you are inferring when it comes to nature is your faith.

That the designer is unseen in nature but you work back from the evidence and you infer that nature is designed. But you haven’t proved anything, other than your beliefs.

Of course I can test and observe design. Genetically modified foods are an empirical example. Every code we know the origin of is designed. The cell phone in your pocket is proof of design in biology.

You are saying that it is impossible to infer something you have not personally seen. But you believe in subatomic particles and you’ve never seen them, they’re only inferred from experiments.

I can’t make you follow the inference, Jon. If you choose to not believe that is your choice. You choose to accept most scientific inferences but reject others. I have provided 100% inference to design from real scientific data.

Jon says:

You said it yourself…“Every code we know the origin of is designed” we do the origin of every code that humans can do. However, Science has yet to know the origins of the genetic code. That does not mean that there is must be something intelligent designer behind it all. It just means we don’t know the answer yet.

It takes a great leap of faith to claim that if computers codes come from humans, therefore genetic codes must come from god.

There are two complete branches of Science (Particle physics and Nuclear physics) that study subatomic particles. I will pretty much take what there results are, since they are scientists.

I only reject the inferences that are based on personal bias and beliefs and not on sound science and research. Your main frame of reference has been Dr. Shapiro’s paper, which in no way supports what you have been saying.

No, my main frame of reference is communication theory, Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper, and Watson and Crick’s discovery that DNA is a code. None of these things are even slightly controversial.

Jon says:

I forgot you did mention those papers as well.

ron taylor says:

The notion that God has a creator is absurd since God is by definition the ultimate creator to begin with . The attempt to go beyond God is logical nonsense .

dadriaen says:

Talking about logics, let’s put this in a model of logical thinking:

Premise A: “God is ‘by definition’ the ultimate creator”
Premise B: “ultimate creators are ‘by definition’ not created themselves” ??

Conclusion: “God cannot be created” ?

where premise A and B are based upon …. ???

So, I’d like to be enlightened what the ‘logical nonsense’ actually is here.

kevinSweden says:

Simply typing these statements and saying they are FACTS does not make them so. You have yet to cite one example that we can all read. It simply does’nt happen randomly as you state. Simply performing the act of typing us your religious views does’nt prove anything. As Perry and others have requested, show proof. Don’t say there is proof, show there is proof.

So far all we are observing is an angry individual with major accountability issues and that is not what this subject is about.

Jon says:

As they say, the proof is in the pudding or in this case, the science. There are mountains of evidence supporting genetic and random mutations in Evolution. I admit that I am not a scientist but the beauty of Science is that it is there for everyone.

You can believe with all your heart that the sky is red. You can create theories and produce all sorts of “data” supporting your claim. But when the majority of people come to same conclusion on their own that the sky is indeed blue, then what does that say about your theory?

Science is about getting through what is wrong, to what is right. Not the other way around.

And are you not typing your religious views here as well?

By the way, I am not angry nor do I have accountability issues. I am well aware that I am accountable for my own actions.

Jon,

Please present the evidence you are referring to, that random mutations produce evolutionary progress.

Jon says:

Cosmic rays, Asteroid impacts and Environmental disasters are random “mutations” in nature. We know from many sources, both past and present, that they can produce and even encourage evolutionary progress.

There is always the fossil record, that is one piece of the evidence.

It’s all up the organisms who have the accumulated traits, quite by accident, that allow that species to survive.

kevinSweden says:

Morality is not a product of evolution. I’ve seen the material from researchers from University of California Santa Barbara on “Evolutionary Psychology” and it’s a sham.

My favourite is how they justify “rape” and an evolutonary marvel. If you ever watch those National Geographic, Discovery Nature or Animal Planet programs on any animal subject, the main underlying theme of all of them is where animals are constantly fighting, competing etc for the “Memetic” (selfish gene) to forward their own genetic DNA. The evolutonary psychologists say that man is the same animal, so they cite many examples and I’ll just give two.

One of my favourite laughable examples is one scenario where soldiers in time of war will conquer a village, toen or city and will rape and pillage. Why do they do this ??? Because that animal selfish evolutionary drive helps them to realize that their profession limits their chances of further spreading their DNA naturally by acquiring a mate back home. Hence because their business is risky and life threatening, then rape is considered their only option.

The second example cited is scenario of a low status male in society, who will most likely always remain low status. He has been given the shaft in life and has had very few if any opportunities at finding a mate and furthering any kin. He sees rape as his only option. Although he meditates on the consequences of his actions, he views them as worth the risks if he succeeds in spreading his DNA.

This is the kind of junk science that is floating around in our world today. Following the wisdom laid out in the Bible works every single time it is practiced. Admittedly religion has not been the best example. Jesus and the Apostles foretold that after they were gone, the great apostacy would arise and it did and has been around for centuries. So religion in general is not necessarily reflective of what the Bible teaches.

Still, it only proves that even when someone acknowledges a belief in a creator, he cannot worship God in any way he/she sees fit. That’s why God’s dealings with the Israelite nation and their recorded failures are of beneft to us.

Respectfully kevinSweden

Jon says:

I can prove that morality is a product of our common evolution and has nothing to do with belief and faith.

Can you name me a good and moral deed that a believer can do and a non-believer can’t do?

You can think about it but there isn’t one. There isn’t anything good and kind that a believer in god can do and someone who doesn’t believe can’t do.

Because morality is not a product of a divine being or some religious text. All human beings have within them ability to do good and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you believe in. We are all related and all evolved and share a common heritage. Morality was learned due to many many years of trial and error.

But let’s flip the question around: Can you name me a vile deed that a believer can do and nonbeliever can’t do?

Well, two of the top of my head is suicide bombings and genital mutilation. 9/11 would have never happened if it wasn’t because of some distorted view of religion. Circumcisions have no medical grounds and are strictly religious in nature. There are others practices that are done that make you question the morality of religion but I will save that for another time.

Those two examples you gave have nothing to do with belief. In fact the bible is filled with unimaginable terror and with no morality at all.

Try reading Genesis 19:31-6 and you will read about incest. Or Judges 19:25-6, rape. What about the gruesome murder of that same rape victim, Judges 19:29. Genocide is also common, try Numbers 31:18 or Joshua 6:21.

You are generalizing if you think that every man with a low status is a rapist. I can bet you that there are many more men who have that same lowly status in life are recruited to be an Islamic terrorist. Religion being the motivator, not morality.

kevinSweden says:

You do realize that the peer reviewed Evolutionary Psychology garbage comes from your church don’t you ??? Did you bother to read all of it ???

To be honest, this all has nothing more than resentment about accountability and again that is not the subject here. Although I have to say that I can respect an Atheist who says what he resents most is the idea of a supreme being creating him with free will and then laying down rules. Clearly they resent behavioral limits, but at least stating this publically would be more honest then making statements about such and such happened in nature and science says so, but you offer no proof other than the mere act of saying so.

Clearly this is more about resentment of morality than it is about any real so-called science, otherwise we’d all be reading the proof by the links you’ve provided. Thus far there are ZERO.

Jon says:

My friend, I do not attend church. (I’m an Atheist remember!) I read websites and papers that are peer reviewed by Scientists. Evolutionary Psychology only seems like garbage when it conflicts with personal beliefs. But Science isn’t about belief, it’s about knowledge. You must leave your personal bias at the door and view the data for what it is, truth in nature.

If god laid down rules, then free will does not exist. If god is all knowing, then free will does not exist.

All things happen in nature, we are connected to this planet and to all life. We are related to all life and it is related to us. Nature is set up in such a way to allow her secrets to be revealed to us. The tools we use to uncover those secrets is called Science.

How can someone have resentment towards morality? We know where morality comes from, I don’t resent it. I embrace it.

Science is the search for truth.

“If god laid down rules, then free will does not exist. If god is all knowing, then free will does not exist.”

Unless God enforces rules, free will does exist. The fact that rules exist which are not enforced is proof of free will.

Knowing something in advance is not equivalent to controlling it.

Therefore free will exists.

Jon says:

So god made everything, even the future right? He then planned out every event, even the ones that “haven’t happened” so then there is no freewill.

But if can’t “control” us because he gave us freewill, then why call him god? If he can’t see the mistakes we are going to make, then what is the use?

Or if he does see that something bad is going to happen, but does nothing, then he is malevolent.

Have you ever had any friends who were about to make a mistake, you knew they were going to make a mistake, and you didn’t stop them? If so does that make you malevolent?

Let’s say that does.

Let’s say God is malevolent.

Then what?

Jon says:

I would try to stop them if I could. Especially if it was something that I felt was harmful. But I don’t have the ability to see into the future to see if my friend would be hurt or not. We don’t know if something we do is a mistake.

Forgetting something on a test or getting in a car wrecks are mistakes. We’re humans, we learn from our mistakes.

OK, so let’s say I didn’t do anything to stop them (and knew they would be hurt) and yes that would be wishing harm on others.

If god was real and like this, then we are all screwed!!!

Why believe in a god that knows you are about to suffer a violent death in a plane crash but will do nothing to stop it? Or a god that knows a little 5 year old girl is going to suffer from cancer and die young and do nothing to stop it?

Jon,

Thanks for being straight up. Evil and suffering – THIS is why people don’t believe in God.

It’s not because of biology or astronomy or DNA or any of that. 500+ years of modern science, and the atheists are no closer to eliminating God than when Voltaire and Nietzsche were proclaiming the death of God.

Darwin believed in God, then his daughter died. He was heartbroken. He couldn’t fathom that God would allow this to happen. His whole theory of evolution as a means of replacing God as an explanation was driven by the emotion of this tragic event. He became some sort of deist or agnostic or something.

I have no problem with a theory of evolution (BTW Darwin was far from the first to suggest such an idea). I just have a problem with the assertion that it’s random because if you read the literature carefully you see there’s no actual support for the idea that randomness increases information. Actually the opposite is true. Evolution happens only because living things are designed to evolve.

So here we are – after 150 years of evolutionary theories we find through the work of Shapiro and McClintock and many others, that evolution is an engineered process. Dang. There has to be an Engineer.

Yet here we are in this f*****d up world. The “design” has gone BADLY wrong. So what’s up with that?

Christian theology does not flinch from this question.

As a matter of fact this is just about the first question that it ever addresses. The man and the woman are put in a garden. A tree is placed right in the center of that garden (not the edge of the garden, not on the South Pole, not with a barbed wire fence and guard shacks around it) and they are told: Do not eat of this tree or you will surely die because you will know both good and evil.”

The setup is deliberate. The majority of Jewish and Christian theologians have always agreed that God knew what they would do in advance.

You can object to this all you want, and you’re welcome to. You don’t like it, and frankly I don’t either.

But regardless, I have a question for you:

Do you want your freedom to choose, or would you prefer to have it taken away?

Jon says:

It isn’t just the problem of evil, even though that is a big factor. There are other reasons of course, I believe the idea of an afterlife and heaven is very dangerous. With an atheist/humanist outlook, you will no longer fear death. I don’t need or want some sort of heaven, I think mortality gives life meaning.

I don’t see the need to believe and worship a being for doing something that comes naturally to him. I mean, isn’t it enough for god to be god? Why does he have to be reminded that he is god and he is great?

I have always tried to maintain that everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want. I embrace that face of American life, we have the right to disagree!

I fully admit that we have yet to uncover the origins of the genetic code. But I am no where near jumping to the conclusion that because we don’t know the answer, it must be the work of god. Like I said before, that is where faith comes in. I prefer reason to faith, that’s all.

As for your question, I believe in the freedom to choose. But the theological answer is if you choose “no” then you are punished for it. But that is another story…

Jon,

I don’t think God has to be reminded that He is great. We do.

If you choose “no” then you are given what you want – life without God.

I think atheists fear death as much as anyone else does.

Reg Le Sueur says:

While the Universe continues to expand, entropy cannot reach a maximum, and so ordered systems can arise.
Think of entropy which is a stream cascading down hill,-expands indefinitely, the stream will never run down completely; and while it is running it can drive water wheels, millstones shafts and pistons,-and do work!–thats organisatiion.

The dying Sun does work on our planet.

Reg Le Sueur says:

“Jon,

Please cite peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates empirically that the mutations that drive biology are random and not the result of an algorithm.

Perry

Reg: You are comitting the Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

Randomness is a disorganised default state; if you postulate an algorithm it is your job to prove it, not ours to disprove it,

The proof of that algorithm is here: See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf

Jon says:

I have been trying to say the same thing. The burden of proof is on Perry. But in order for Perry to prove his theory, he must provide something that unprovable, the designer himself.

Reg Le Sueur says:

“Also notice that even in the best of circumstances, like Dawkins ‘methinks it is like a weasel’ program, Random Mutation still does not work without a pre-programmed selective goal.)”

Random mutation does “work”; ie, it happens; –then “meaning” has to be attached to the outcome, othewise the mutations are pointless. Artifiial selction with a goal in mind is meaningfull, and Darwin and Dawkins both produced their own results from it.
In Nature, Natural Selection also acts on those mutations in the form of unintentional and blind selection by forces of nature, eg mountains rising up and cutting off populations into smaller inbreeding groups, wild fires, floods and tempests: these have selection effects upon the population; but they are just wild Nature, there are no gods and angels tweaking things, no Intelligent Desiging Agents,–just “Blind, pitiless Nature building life or death unintentionally and randomly. That is why we have so many plants and animals,-some very extraordinary. Any strange muttion just might be selected and go on to prosper in th population. It is all hit and miss. How many of you dear readers have had your lives meticulously planed down the generations to produce just you, as the final product? A “you” would have emerged somewhere, sometime, no matter who met whom or said what to which.

Evolution is not blind and pitiless and random, it is engineered.. James Shapiro explains in detail why what you have said here is wrong in his peer reviewed paper – See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf

Jon says:

Well said Req. And to think that of all the life that has ever existed on Earth, 99.9% of it is now extinct. That doesn’t suggest design at all, couldn’t the designer get it right the first time?

Why go through all those failures to make a flower, or a fish or a human?

Jon says:

Hey Perry, I wanted to ask you a question.

What do you think about the discovery of the 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus skeleton? It pushes back human evolution even further as this discovery is the oldest ancestor that was a biped.

That the divergance of modern day humans and modern day chimps happened even further, about 6 million years ago. That was when we split into two seperate but still very similar species.

Jon,

I don’t have much of an opinion about this. I don’t think it has much bearing on the stuff I teach – I’m kind of indifferent to this piece of data, one way or the other.

Perry

Jon says:

That’s cool, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on it.

However, if you are teaching an intelligent design theory, shouldn’t you include the most current and up to date data we have?

Humans have been evolving alot long than we thought. See, that is the beauty of science! We always have to rethink some things because we are leaning more and more about the world and our place within it.

dadriaen says:

Interesting strategy: let’s be indifferent to some evidence (especially the one that supports the theory of evolution) but use other evidence (that can be interpreted as if it is to reject the theory of evolution). Sounds quite similar to one of the quotes below by Kirllan: “Even if God came down and told all of us that he did it this way or that way evolution would still continue.” So, translated it would mean: “Even if fossil evidence like Ardipithecus ramidus came down to the world, the ignoring of evidence supporting the theory of evolution would still continue”, right?

Kirllan says:

I have just recently been following many of your emails and website content and I was blown away when you presented intelligent design using no bible or creationist materials. You have given a lot of evidence to the contrary of many evolutionist and I am completely amazed how when you show people a duck is a duck they comment with strange words. I see that many are going to believe what they want to. Even if God came down and told all of us that he did it this way or that way evolution would still continue. The idea that DNA is an algorithm and you have shown 100% inference is mind blowing and irrefutable even with the most solid evolutionary argument. DNA will continue to be the achiles heel of the evolutionist and the further they dig in the DNA compendium they will find even more complexity that shows there must be a designer.

ron taylor says:

Intelligent Design is an evolutionist theory . It simply opposes random evolution speculations .

dadriaen says:

If intelligent design is considered as a scientific theory, I’d be interested to know the key issues of that theory (being a scientific theory):
- what are the hypotheses?
- what is the evidence?
- what is the statistical analysis that allows drawing conclusions with a 95% level of confidence (if the data allows statistical analyses)
- what is the conclusion based upon that? So, can the null hypotheses be accepted or do they need to be rejected?

Gary Estes says:

As we know DNA and RNA and the human body functions controlled by the brain. I can’t accept your assumption of a supreme being. For the observation of the laws of the universe do not in any way support a diety or designer. Mr. Marshall has identified the natural selection principle and nothing more. DNA , RNA, particle physics, microbiology, nuclears laws and more are all repeatable experiments that fulfils the definition of scientific law.

The Bible and theology are a joke…all cultures have their own God they have created!!!

ron taylor says:

” The Bible and theology are a joke …”

Islamic theology gives you a choice – either convert and become a Muslim , or complete submission to Islam , or be ready to die for refusing either option .

Are you still laughing ?

G Mudur says:

I believe in every thing here about intelligent design, impossibility of randon evolution and that God (or whatever you call “it”) is what we understand to be the ultimate form of intelligent energy, the ultimate creator, etc etc.

But what we should NOT DO is to start giving shape /faces to God by means of religion, etc.

You too make references to Adam and Eve and the science stops there. Yes, we were created by God; but we dont know how and Adam/Eve is just a simplistic model to satisfy our understanding capability & is unscientific

All religions of the world try to do this (with good theological intentions) but end up trying to define God and also define how creation happened.

No one can. Not yet.

smitty says:

Perry,

In the bible is very clear that that the creation began suffering from death and corruption only after the fall. Theistic evolution would assume that death destruction were part of the creating process . Should we believe God’s Word or should we go with the scientific theory?
(By the way, your emails have been very helpful)

Respectfully,

Andy

Andy,

The world that God created has always had death. The Young Earth Creation view that there was no sin or death before the fall is taken from an inaccurate interpretation of Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

If you read this passage very carefully you can see that the only way of reading this that makes sense is that “death” refers to spiritual death, not physical death. Adam and Eve could eat of any fruit in the garden. You can’t eat fruit without killing it, can you?

smitty says:

Perry,

As for Romans 5:12, I don’t think one even needs to refer to it to see that physical death didn’t come till after sin. In Genesis 3:17-19 we see the cursing of the ground and man returning to the dust (Obviously referring to physical death). With sin there came a new order of death and decay that was not there before.

As for the eating of the fruit. God created the fruit and vegetables of the earth for the purpose of food. It was a part of His creation when he declared it good. At that time all creatures were vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-31). Killing and eating animals didn’t start until there were sin offerings.

Andy

What scripture do you have to support the idea that physical death did not exist before the fall?

smitty says:

Well, In Genesis 2:17 God’s says that if they eat the fruit they will die. In Genesis 3:17-19 God curses the ground and tells Adam that he is dust and to the dust he will return. So we see there is a one-to-one connection between Adam’s sin and a physical curse on creation. If you read Romans 8:18-27 it talks about the creation being subjected to suffering, it’s waiting to be liberated from it’s bondage to decay, groaning in the pains of childbirth (by the way, the pain in childbirth didn’t come till after the fall), and it talks about the waiting for the redemption of our bodies. That is just the first example in scripture where there is a physical consequence to sin: In the Genesis flood God destroyed all living creatures on the earth because of sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of sin. Christ was physically crucified because of our sin. All of the physical judgments from the book of Genesis through revelation that God brings upon man are because of sin.

To say that God’s curse of death on Adam was only spiritual seems to ignore a major theme and pattern throughout all of scripture. The whole of scripture seems to say that man’s sin not only affected his spiritual condition but all of creation and that He subjected it to death and decay until he will ultimately liberated in all together.

Also it’s worth noting; that God would bring the physical curse of death along with the spiritual curse seems perfectly consistent with the analogies God uses to teach us about spiritual truth through the physical. In the Old Testament God used the hideousness of leprosy to paint a picture of the disease of sin. Just as physical blindness helps us understand spiritual blindness, and physical thirst about spiritual thirst, so does physical death teaches us about spiritual death.

It doesn’t seem to me too hard from the scripture to support the idea that death came with sin, but what evidence from scripture is there to support that death and decay were a part of pre-fall creation?

Thanks

Andy

smitty says:

Also I’d like to comment that our redemption includes both a physical and spiritual resurrection from the dead. If death at the fall was only spiritual then why was Christ raised from the dead and what are our bodies in Romans 8:23 being redeemed from if there was never a change? As soon as we separate the connection between the two, things get complicated and don’t make sense anymore.

Andy

My primary argument is that death had to exist before the fall and the Bible does not say otherwise. I’m not saying that Adam would have died had there been no fall. I’m saying that when animals ate leaves the leaves were digested and the cells died.

smitty says:

So are you saying that death before the fall only existed in the form of eating fruits and vegetables? I won’t disagree with you on that, but killing a banana by eating it and having it die by natural decay is different. The creation was subjected to the law of decay after the fall. So in your view what would animal death have looked like before the fall?

Dead cells, whether fruit or leaves or whatever – that IS death. You cannot deny this. And it’s the main point I mean to make.

But why is this different? Smitty – it’s death!

Animals died before the fall, that’s my view. The Bible never states otherwise.

Good article on this: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=259

Andy,

God said to Adam “In the day you eat of the tree you shall surely die.” On that day Adam spiritually died. He did not die physically.

Nowhere does it say that the Curse is the beginning of death. The curse is the bondage that the creation is subject to. In fact the above verse in Genesis implies that Adam had some idea what death was already.

Labor pains are greatly multiplied by the curse, but they already existed.

Where does it say that death existed before the fall? Adam was allowed to eat. It is impossible to eat something without killing it.

Again I go back to Romans 5: If you read it carefully it’s clear that it’s not talking about physical death.

By the way I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that God made Adam capable of living forever, immortal in a sinless state. But to say that death did not exist in any form at all makes no sense, and the Bible never makes a statement that there was no death before the fall.

Rabia says:

Physical death has always existed, even before the fall. There are enough fossil records to prove that animal death existed long before humans came. The “death” that came as a result of sin signified spiritual death.
In Genesis 2:17, it clearly states that Adam would “die” if he ate of the fruit, which he did, yet he didn’t die right away. The “death” showed itself to be more spiritual than a physical death. Whether you take scientific records, or those from the Bible, etiher way it points to the fact that physical death had always been there.

Eocene says:

I would agree Rabia. Physical death was always a part of the natural world, but human creation was something different. Never was there any indication of dying unless they were disobedient.

Atheists insist that man is the ever evolving improving animal. The bible however says that man had a perfect beginning and has degenerated ever since. Given the sad run down state of our natural world and the growing disintegration of human society, I’d say I’d have to believe what the Bible is saying on the matter.

smitty says:

He didn’t die right away, but he did die. he returned to the dust from which he came just as God said he would after he ate the fruit.

Eocene says:

Hi Andy

Death always was a part f the plan in the natural world, with the exception of human beings for whom the Earth was created for in the first place. Plant’s animals, fish, birds, all lifeforms would have limited lifespans and die. Adam however, did die spirirually on that very day at that very moment. However, as the Bible indicates, his physcial death was’nt to come until he reached the age of 930 years. Spirituality is always linked with life. Adam and his wife forfeited that, not only for themselves, but for all of their offspring including us. The Bible has numerous promises that this purpose has not changed, and will soon be corrected.

However, Adam was created perfect with no inclination for sinning. His freewill and choice was a more diliberate action. The same would be true of the angel who fell away by misleading Eve and lying about God and later named Satan (meaning ‘resister’). He too has his days numbered. He will not be allowed to continue for all time despite the many fables out there. Once this trial has been finished, and the issue of universal sovereignty vindicated, then he and his angels will forever be put out of existance. Sadly for Adam and his wife, they no longer have the hope of living again, but their offspring do, which includes us.

Rabia says:

Eocene, you do have a good point. “Human creation” hadn’t suffered anything like death before the fall, but other creatures had. In the human case then, it would mean a spiritual death as well as an eventual physical death as a result of drifting away from god. We’re not disagreeing anywhere. I was speaking of death existing for creation in general, not specifically to humans, and since Adam and Eve were the only humans I know of back then, their being open to death would be as a result of sin. I’m not even Christian but I can agree there.

Eocene says:

This would be easy, Genesis 2:15-17 where the man was told that the reason for dying would be if he had eaten from the tree of the “Knowledge of Good and Bad”. This is yet another good scripture that shows the word day being used in a figurative sense. Obviously, Adam and Eve did not literally die on that very 24 hour day, but genetically they started to die. If we look at those people listed in the genealogies before the flood in Genesis, they lived longer lives in the beginning before eventually dying. When they pulled away from the creator on a course of independence, this has been illustrated like pulling the cord and plug of an electric fan from the wall. For some time the fan blades keep spinning, but eventually because it’s source of life has been cut off, it eventually runs out of momentum. It should also be noted that the consequence for disobedience was not Hellfire and Damnation, it was simply death. Hellfire is a pagan concept and teaching originally introduced a couple of centuries after the death of the Apostles who kept the apostacy in check.

In Deuteronomy 32:4 has this to say, “The Rock, perfect is his activity . . ” Basically, when God created man, there were no flaws in their genetic makeup, but notice what caused these flaws to come upon humankind.
In Deuteronomy 32:5 it says this, “They have acted ruinously on their own part;
They are not his children, the defect is their own. . . . ”
Humans, in particular the first human pair, were solely responsible for the deterioration of their genetic makeup, not God. Plants, animals, fish, birds and other lifeform genes were never effected genetically, only mankind. However, they are subject to the gross imperfections of humankind and the gross mismanagement of our planet. This is why we are now seeing ecosystem failings everywhere across the globe today. This was never God’s purpose for the Earth. This is why the 7th Day is ongoing. That day was specifically set aside for Almighty God to sit back and watch the fulfillment of his purpose for the Earth to be realized. This court trial of all intelligent creation’s failed independence experiment is almost over.

Even the earth itself has been adversely affected. Human greed and neglect have turned certain areas into deserts by stripping protective forests. Chemicals and other waste products have polluted land, sea and air. The Bible’s description, 2,000 years ago, of the condition of life on the earth is even more accurate today: “All creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.”- (Romans 8:22) The death that Adam and Eve brought humankind was both spiritual and physical.

I gave someone else here a link showing what science (alienated from God) has done to our planet. The beauty of this link is that it is loaded with tons of peer-reviewed research into consequences of what greed and selfish has done to our natural world. So here it is again.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/

Eocene says:

I agree andy, I think Perry’s emails have been very invaluable to many of us.

Cheers, Eocene

GM says:

Reply to an earlier post…referring to death. The Bible teaches physical death comes earlier because of an act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden ( Iraq).
The Penatuch is all about God being on a rip and a tear since the fall of His perfect Creation ( MAN). Humanity had to figure out a way to sustain the myth of an anger God. A blood sacrifice was the answer. Human libations were common since man became cognitive( in the world of evolution). God’s world does not go through developmental behavior but assumes humanity has been created as we see it today, diverse cultures. The practice of sacrifice was common to both schools of thought. The Christian God must be in the air…I see many Christians talking to the air in prayer to their God. Unfortunately the the Bible teaches Satan is the God of the air. Christians perform what I call Biblical gymnastics to support their views.

Comment Page 1 of 212»

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.