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

See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’

DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”

As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too!

Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):

“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:

http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

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

http://evo2.org/faq/#designer

Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:

http://evo2.org/iidb.htm

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

2,215 Responses

  1. Alex Ghinea says:

    With this comment I want to say that you have connected all the pieces of the puzzle for me.
    I will also have an engineering degree in computers and electrical engineering,(So I’m aware of signal, signal processing, coding, math, noise, filtering, writing errors, etc) and a really deep question of mine, was..: Where does
    information reside? I mean we use matter and energy to created mediums in which information flows. But by default(as i’m thinking) the universe restructures the matter(and so as the energy) by the information carrying it.

    And now a little joke:
    An atheist astronaut and an neurologist meet.
    The astronaut says: “I’ve traveled many times throughout space and I’ve never seen God!”
    The neurologist replys:”I’ve performed hundreds of surgeries and I’ve never seen a thought in my life!”

    Last night when I saw your presentation, at the end of it, my hair was standing on the back of my head, and just realized that God is information! And i continued to repeat “God is Information” and i was blown away..It was right there in my face all along
    So.. once again thank you for connecting the dots.

  2. bhagvat trivedi says:

    god might have created the universe. human beings and animals birds etc might have evolved overgenerations.

    is it necessary for human beings to worship Him or pray?
    would God be loving, caring for , or showering blessings only on such persons?

    why should we not bother ourselves about the existence or non-existence of God and He being the creator?

    WHY?

  3. juilee says:

    do u mean that GOD sends information to our minds so that we share it amongst people throug various medias?

  4. John says:

    Hi Perry,

    Some more responses from EvC forum,

    I said: Please note, just because a bee could be smart enough to make a code, doesn’t mean it’s smart enough to make THE genetic code.

    He said: You’re going to have to do better than that.

    Here’s what we have so far:

    Premise 1: Honeybees can make codes.
    Premise 2: The genetic code is a code.
    Conclusion: Honeybees can make the genetic code.

    Until you provide further evidence, we have to accept this as the logical conclusion of your own argument.

    Your dichotomous argument in relation to the waggle-dance ends with one of two conclusions:

    If the honeybee consciously created the waggle-dance code, the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a honeybee.

    If the waggle-dance code resulted from a genetic mutation, the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a genetic mutation.

    ——–

    He said: Both of us are making observation based inferences, and both of us would be assuming our conclusions if we claimed to be proving anything. Yet your friend Marshall claims to have “proof” of his god.

    My argument is a parody of yours. I can phrase it in many ways.

    “All known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite. From this evidence, we can infer that code must precede intelligence, and therefore not all codes can be intelligently designed.”

    Now, from “all codes that we know the source of are intelligently designed” it does not follow that “all codes are intelligently designed”, and from “all known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite” it does not follow that “code must precede intelligence”.

    If you’re going to make observation based inferences that mean anything, you need to take all the observations available into account. Ignoring the fact that code precedes all known intelligent designers when you’re trying to argue that all codes are the product of intelligent design makes your inference useless.

    The only way to actually discover the origin of the DNA code is via origin of life research.

    I’ll give you another illustration of your type of argument.

    Birds are flying things with wings. When we can directly observe the origin of things with wings that fly, they are intelligently designed. Therefore, we can infer that all birds are intelligently designed.

    Do you think it’s a good one? (You probably do!).

    There are hundreds of things that humans make and for which we can see analogies in nature. Of course we can directly observe our own actions. We make artificial hills; do you want to try one based on that? Or do we know too much about hill formation to stick a god in the gaps?

    Incidentally, your claim (or P. Marshall’s claim) that “there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information” would make your argument a “god of the gaps” argument, along with its other faults. On top of that, it’s arguably not much of a gap, because natural selection can organize information, and codes are organized information. The selection of better organized or more useful information can be observed, and so can the creation of new information by natural mechanisms of variation in biology.

    The laws of physics don’t tell you how mountains are formed, or how rivers are formed, or how chemical codes are formed, but all those things are in keeping with those laws. Interestingly, the existence of intelligent designers without some kind of organized information as a prerequisite probably would break numerous scientific laws!

    God Bless,

    John

    • Premise 1: Honeybees can make codes.
      Premise 2: HTML is a code.
      Conclusion: Honeybees can write HTML and make web pages.

      Do you think there might be anything wrong with this person’s reasoning?

    • Responding to:

      your claim (or P. Marshall’s claim) that “there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information” would make your argument a “god of the gaps” argument, along with its other faults. On top of that, it’s arguably not much of a gap, because natural selection can organize information, and codes are organized information. The selection of better organized or more useful information can be observed, and so can the creation of new information by natural mechanisms of variation in biology.

      John, get this straight in your head:

      Natural selection requires self-replication in order to occur.

      Self replication requires code.

      You have to have code first, before you can even talk about evolution.

      YES, this is a “God of the Gaps” argument. But it is a different kind of argument. Because information is qualitatively and quantitatively different from matter and energy. As Norbert Weiner said, “information is information, neither matter nor energy.”

      The DNA question is a “how did information come to exist?” question.

      Which is similar to “how did the universe come to exist” except there’s only one universe and we have nothing else to compare it to.

      With information we have thousands of examples to compare it to.

      The burden is firmly on the shoulders of the materialist to account for the origin of information. Your job is to hold these guys’ feet to the fire and insist on them providing evidence to support their argument.

      Notice: their argument is a “naturalism of the gaps” argument. It is actually no different; they just use different terminology. They just sweep it under a rug called “natural selection” and call it science. They use that word no differently than most people use the word “god.” In actuality they have explained NOTHING. They have produced no model; they have no hypothesis; there is nothing that they have provided which can be tested.

      Your job is to demand that they SHOW you one example of coded information arising naturally. One other than DNA, so there is a point of reference.

      And yes the laws of physics DO tell you how mountains are formed etc etc. They tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.

      But they don’t explain the pattern in DNA.

      Stand your ground, John.

      Perry

    • You said:

      Now, from “all codes that we know the source of are intelligently designed” it does not follow that “all codes are intelligently designed”, and from “all known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite” it does not follow that “code must precede intelligence”.

      If you’re going to make observation based inferences that mean anything, you need to take all the observations available into account. Ignoring the fact that code precedes all known intelligent designers when you’re trying to argue that all codes are the product of intelligent design makes your inference useless.

      This is a great observation! This person has pointed out that (1) all codes come from designers, and (2) all designers come from code.

      I do not disagree with him. He is entirely correct. It is a beautiful conundrum.

      THIS demonstrates as well as anything else that Norbert Weiner was right: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to recognize this can survive the present day.” The realm of information and the realm of matter and energy are separate. You cannot have a designer without a code and you cannot have a code without a designer. In the very nature information itself and all that we observe about it, we have a chicken-and-egg problem. We have an INESCAPABLE question of: “How did the information get in living things in the first place?”

      The naturalist worldview has NO explanation for this. It didn’t 50 years ago and it doesn’t now. Which is why during the last four years as I have publicly debated this on the Internet, the atheist side has only succeeded in proposing untested, unverified theories and angry retorts and stumbled all over itself attempting to tell us that the “code” aspect of DNA exists only in our imaginations.

      John, this guy gets it: the information “got here” somehow and nothing in the material world explains how. it came from the outside.

      There is no logical choice other than the information came from outside the material universe; that it came from an uncaused cause; and that the cause itself is both code and a designer.

      Which brings us to John 1:1: “In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. And through Him all things were made.”

      Thank your atheist friend for helping us both to clarify this point. Everything we know about DNA leads us to Jesus Christ.

      Perry Marshall

  5. Kristi King says:

    Have you ever given long, serious consideration to Genesis 1:2? “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” This is before God said, “Let there be light” so what were the waters? (certainly not H2O) and why was the Spirit of God hovering over them? (implying a passage of time and some process taking place)

    After long thought and prayer, I felt the answer to be that the “waters” were the “waters of life,” perhaps the DNA code, and the Spirit of God was writing the code, effectively programming life.

    I admit there is little basis for my interpretation other than I felt it to be enlightened and it seems to explain the verse in a modern context. I submit it for your prayerful consideration, in the hope that it will inspire the same sense of wonder that it inspired in me.

    May God bless your efforts and faithfulness

    • Forrest Charnock says:

      Dear Kristi:

      Who were you praying to, yourself? It you stop and think about what you are saying that is the case. If the Bible is not God’s word then everyone makes up their own god and in fact is their own god.
      God said He created the universe out of water in Genesis and in 2nd Peter , you refuse to believe that because it disagrees with the Big Bang.
      Despite what anyone has told you the Big Bang is built in the atheistic and anti-Biblical assumption that the earth is no where special.
      The Bible says the earth was created our of water, the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars and it all happened in a 6 day work week just as we have now 6000 years ago. When you decide the Bible can’t be true because of what man teaches you are a humanist philosopher.

      • Kristi says:

        Forrest,

        I do not appreciate your sarcasm; it undermines your Christian message. I am saved by grace, not by knowledge, and any mistake I make in attempting to understand God’s word will be nailed to the Cross with the rest of my sin. While I agree conceptually with many of your responses in this blog, you generally lack grace and express an intellectual arrogance that you might want to reconsider if your objective is to further the Kingdom of God.

        My thoughts about this text are based on the fact that God knew me before the creation of the world. The only thing that I am saying about Genesis 1:2 is that while the Spirit was hovering over the water, He was doing something, and because God knew us before the creation of the world, why couldn’t it have been there and then?

        As Perry has so thoroughly explained and you have agreed, our DNA is a code. God programmed that code long before sperm met egg. None of us is born by chance. I don’t consider evolution to have basis in logic or common sense. It is more stupid than global warming and I wish someone could expose the fraud equally as well, except that it is already so obvious – Evolution only persists because it is the last bastion of those who refuse to recognize God.

        Set aside even what the water was in Genesis 1:2. Wouldn’t you agree that the Spirit, while hovering there, was programming life? isn’t this a glimpse into the pre-creation moment when we were known by God?

        Maybe I am wrong. My faith does not rest on interpretations or science. My faith rests on the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and that he lived and died so that I might be free.

        To all who read this looking for ways to attack the science that Perry presents, let me tell you simply, our time on this earth has a purpose and that is to know God and to make a decision about who Jesus Christ is. If you seek God with all your heart, He will reveal himself to you.

        The Bible is very clear – Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to earth in human form in order to live to teach us about God and to die to pay for our sins. No other religion offers a savior – each one of us has sinned, how can anyone possibly face God, who is perfect, when we are dirtied by sin? No other religion can answer that question and atheism simply denies it, but it is silly to assume that we were not created and foolish to think that we will not face our creator.

        Jesus’ blood is the only acceptable payment for sin. There is no other hope, there is no other way to forgiveness – no other religion expresses God’s radical love for mankind. Christianity presents an outrageous claim, so outrageous that only God himself could make it – that the Creator of the universe was willing to suffer and die as a human in order to open a way for us back to relationship with him, eternal relationship. It is utterly foolish and incredibly arrogant to ignore that offer.

        Jesus has changed my life; are you ready for him to change yours? Ask him to do so

  6. JohnM says:

    Gmorning Perry,

    More from my discussion at EvC.

    I said: “In this argument, the words information, code are interchangeable…”

    -He said: “If you’re talking about Shannon information, codes and information are not interchangeable.”

    -I said: “You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably “encoded”(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.”

    -He said: “Information does not require symbols or an encoding/decoding system, not if you’re talking about Shannon information. This is figure 1 from Shannon’s paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communications. Note that there is no specific encoder or decoder:

    Shannon includes analog forms of communication in his paper, specifically mentioning radio and television. This is from page 2 of :

    By a communication system we will mean a system of the type indicated schematically in Fig. 1. It consists of essentially five parts:

    An information source which produces a message or sequence of messages to be communicated to the receiving terminal. The message may be of various types: (a) A sequence of letters as in a telegraph of teletype system; (b) A single function of time f(t) as in radio or telephony; (c) A function of time and other variables as in black and white television – here the message may be thought of as a function f(x,y,t) of two space coordinates and time, the light intensity at point (x,y) and time t on a pickup tube plate; (d) Two or more functions of time, say f(t), g(t), h(t) – this is the case in – three dimensional – sound transmission or if the system is intended to service several individual channels in multiplex; (e) Several functions of several variables – in color television the message consists of three functions f(x,y,t), g(x,y,t), h(x,y,t) defined in a three-dimensional continuum – we may also think of these three functions as components of a vector field defined in the region – similarly, several black and white television sources would produce ”messages” consisting of a number of functions of three variables; (f) Various combinations also occur, for example in television with an associated audio channel.

    Clearly the electromagnetic signals that strike the Earth from all directions are f(t,…) type functions, ranging from the very simple to the very complex.

    And whatever the communication system, by no means does it have to be agreed upon. For example, code breakers decipher codes they haven’t agreed upon. That’s essentially what scientists do, try to decipher the codes of nature.

    Shannon goes on to describe the functions of a transmitter, which may or may not perform any encoding:

    A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission over the channel. In telephony this operation consists merely of changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current. In telegraphy we have an encoding operation which produces a sequence of dots, dashes and spaces on the channel corresponding to the message. In a multiplex PCM system the different speech functions must be sampled, compressed, quantized and encoded, and finally interleaved properly to construct the signal. Vocoder systems, television and frequency modulation are other examples of complex operations applied to the message to obtain the signal.

    Everything in nature follows these rules of a communication system, whether man-made or not. Perry Marshall is misleading you about Shannon information. It isn’t what Perry is telling you it is. I’m giving you correct information from Shannon himself.”

    This is getting into the more technical aspects that I’m not real clear about myself. Can you clarify this for me?

    God Bless,

    JohnM

    • DNA is a digital communication system. No communication engineer or biologist can afford ignore the differences between analog and digital systems; otherwise Watson and Crick would have never discovered the Genetic code. For that matter, even the study of Mendelian genetics would be impossible without acknowledging that DNA is digital.

      I quote from Shannon, page 17:

      “We are now in a position to state the fundamental theorem, produced in this theory, for a noiseless channel transmitting discrete symbols.”

      Information is defined as: “Communication between an encoder and decoder using agreed-upon symbols.”

      Symbols are always digital.

      This conversation has always been restricted at the outset to digital systems. Yes, significant parts of Shannon’s theorems also apply to analog systems. But in order to apply the theorems involving discrete symbols, the system must be digital.

      None of the things your opponent refers to are digital communication systems.

      Shannon measures information in bits.

      Bits do not apply to analog systems.

      Perry

  7. JohnM says:

    Perry,

    I said: “Pure speculation. This presumes the existence of several things which have never been observed, first precursors of DNA. It cannot said to be a valid argument without evidence of these transitional forms. ”

    He says: “Curiously, there is evidence for this, so no, it is not “pure speculation” but a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence shows that self-replicating organic molecules do in fact occur on their own, but are simpler systems than RNA. The evidence shows that RNA does many of the same functions as DNA, and that it existed before DNA, but is a simpler system.”

    I ask you: Is there self-replication at these levels? Im under the impression there is none without DNA period.

    ——-

    I said: “So I ask you or anyone else here, to tell us how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?? How information (a code, message, instructions, plan) arises from the laws of nature???? That is what the materialist has to deal with. Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information! ”

    He says: “Information is whatever you call it. A record contains information. A rock has information in it. The information in it is the result of geological forces. It records the results of geological forces.

    Molecules contain information. The information is the result of chemical and physical forces. They record the results of those forces, and they transmit that information when they form new molecules.

    When a molecule becomes a self-replicating organic molecule, then it also records the chemical and physical processes whereby it became a self-replicating organic molecule and the information on how to replicate into another self-replicating organic molecule.

    Curiously, that is all that is necessary to determine “how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?”

    I ask you: Isn’t he conflating a reaction other molecules may have with another one with a preplanned idea of what is to be made, such as what DNA does?

    ———

    I said: You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably “encoded”(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.

    He says: Sorry, no, you are the one that fails to see that this also applies to water molecules in how they react with other molecules. This is how things are dissolved and then reformed into crystals and other compounds.

    Once you realize and accept this simple step, then you will see that it is a simple matter of accumulation of such information and processes to build more complex molecules, all still according to the laws of physics and chemistry.

    By this process you get from water molecules to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules.

    ——-

    I said: RAZD, you spent alot of time explaining how things obey the laws of nature. Thanks, but that completely misses the point. I’m not asking you to tell us *HOW* molecules act and react with the laws of nature, *BUT* how the laws of nature can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!

    He says: Sorry, I thought you could follow the argument to its logical conclusion: DNA actions and reactions are no different than any other actions and reactions in chemistry and physics. They all contain information, they all transmit information by the actions and reactions in chemistry and physics.

    The more complex the molecule the more complex the information transmitted in their formation and in the formation of more complex molecules. In producing more complex molecules this process is producing the *new* information on how to make more complex molecules.

    This also applies to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules.

    So yes the explanation of “*HOW* molecules act and react” tells you how it “can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!”

    I ask you: Isn’t he still obfuscating the differences between the information system in DNA with action and reactions of other molecules? Sorry Perry, but the way they restate things makes me wonder if it’s me that is missing something,lol. As you said before, this argument is just abstract enough to make things confusing if not clearly understood. I’m still wading through all the mire myself! Please forgive me.

    ——-

    I said:” I’ll follow the evidence, mental processes *ARE* known to produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans. Not the laws of physics or chemistry.”

    He said: “Strangely, the evidence shows that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce self-replicating molecules. The evidence shows that these molecules contain and transmit the “information” of how to form self-replicating molecules. Therefore the evidence shows that you are wrong that natural processes do not “produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans” so – if you honestly follow the evidence – you should concede that you are wrong.

    Once again your whole argument is shown to be nothing more than incredulity, ignorance and denial.”

    I ask you: Isn’t he here assuming DNA is natural again?

    Thanks, God Bless

    JohnM

    • John,

      Have you noticed how vague and unspecific these references to self replicating molecules are?

      The guy who talks the self-replicating molecules — go ahead, press him to point to these molecules, send you a link to a peer-reviewed paper, to describe them and how they self replicate.

      You’ll find out he can’t find them. They don’t exist.

      By the way John Von Neumann wrote extensively about self-replicating machines and he said that a self replicating machine cannot exist without a code. You will always return to the fact that the atheist needs to produce an example of a self-replicating code.

      What you are seeing here is exhibit “A” of psychological denial. If an atheist doesn’t want to believe that DNA is a code, then it doesn’t matter how much logic, proof, or stacks of biology books you put in front of him, he will choose not to believe it.

      (Which is proof enough of human free will, by the way. These guys aren’t really saying “DNA isn’t a code.” What they’re really saying to you is: “I DARE you to convince me, against my will, that DNA is a code.” In time you find out… that’s impossible. Dale Carnegie was right: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.)

      Information is not whatever you call it. Information is communication between encoder and decoder using agreed-upon symbols. Giving a rock a name is applying human symbols to rocks. This is not the same as DNA assigning the sequence “GGG” to be instructions to produce Glycine. Tell this gentleman to read Yockey’s book.

      Perry

      • JohnM says:

        Hello Perry,

        I asked him to produce some self-replicating molecules. Hes provided many examples in this post #333 in response to me. I dont know if you would want to look at them, but he says there are many self-replicating molecules etc.

        http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=554&m=333#333

        Heres some of the examples, with links represented by the number for each one.

        I said: RAZD, you are making a huge error here. There are no self-replicating molecules of any kind, outside of the realm of life.
        I challenge you to show us one that does not already come from a living thing.

        Before you provide a link of something you claim does, please read it carefully and see if it actually replicates at all.

        He says: Get ready to put on your denial helmet:

        (1)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        A new molecule that performs the essential function of life – self-replication – could shed light on the origin of all living things.

        Rather than start with RNA enzymes – ribozymes – present in other organisms, Joyce’s team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C. It performed a single function: stitching two shorter RNA molecules together to create a clone of itself.

        To improve R3C, Lincoln redesigned the molecule to forge a sister RNA that could itself join two other pieces of RNA into a functioning ribozyme. That way, each molecule makes a copy of its sister, a process called cross replication. The population of two doubles and doubles until there are no more starting bits of RNA left.

        Not content with achieving one hallmark of life in the lab, Joyce and Lincoln sought to evolve their molecule by natural selection. They did this by mutating sequences of the RNA building blocks, so that 288 possible ribozymes could be built by mixing and matching different pairs of shorter RNAs.
        What came out bore an eerie resemblance to Darwin’s theory of natural selection: a few sequences proved winners, most losers. The victors emerged because they could replicate fastest while surrounded by competition, Joyce says.

        ——————————————————————————–

        (2)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        In work recently reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Professor Rebek and his coworkers, Tjama Tjivikua, a graduate student from Namibia, and Pablo Ballester, a visiting scientist from the University of Palma in Mallorca, Spain, described the creation of an extraordinary self-replicating molecular system.

        Amazingly, the laboratory-made molecule that Professor Rebek and his colleagues have created can reproduce itself without the “outside” assistance of enzymes. As such, and because of its specific constitution, the molecule embodies some of the “template” qualities of a nucleic acid, and some of the structural qualities of a protein

        Technically, the self-replicating compound made by the MIT group is called an amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE). This molecule was initially formed by reacting two other molecules.
        The AATE replicates by attracting to one of its ends anester molecule, and to its other end an amino adenosine molecule. These molecules react to form another AATE. The “parent” and “child” AATE molecules then break apart and can go on to build still more AATE molecules.

        ——————————————————————————–

        (3)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        He mentioned three specific groups of scientists, including his group, that have created self-replicating molecules, and indicated that there are others. I asked him if these were derived from naturally occurring self-replicating molecules, and he said that none of the molecules were derived from naturally occurring molecules.
        Two of the three groups, his group and that of Guntr KieDrwski, have created peptides, which are similar in structure to naturally occurring molecules.

        ——————————————————————————–

        (4)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        My colleagues and I at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have designed such self-assembling molecules and crafted them in the laboratory. Our efforts are intended to illuminate the ways in which life might have arisen. Probably it began when molecules came into existence that were capable of reproducing themselves. Our organic molecules, although they operate outside of living systems, help to elucidate some of the essential principles of self-replication.
        ——————————————————————————–

        (5)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        Highly purified coliphage Qbeta replicase when incubated without added template synthesizes self-replicating RNA species in an autocatalytic reaction. In this paper we offer strong evidence that this RNA production is directed by templates generated de novo during the lag phase. … (3) Different enzyme concentrations lead to RNA species of completely different primary structure. (4) Addition of oligonucleotides or preincubation with only three nucleoside triphosphates affects the final RNA sequence. (5) Manipulation of conditions during the lag phase results in the production of RNA structures that are adapted to the particular incubation conditions applied (e.g., RNA resistant to nuclease attack or resistant to inhibitors or even RNAs “addicted to the drug,” in the sense that they only replicate in the presence of a drug like acridine orange).
        ——————————————————————————–

        Note – Q beta Replicase: is an enzyme that catalyzes the replication of the RNA of coliphage Q beta, and Q beta, Coliphage: is a bacteriophage genus of the family LEVIVIRIDAE, whose viruses contain the longer version of the genome and have no separate cell lysis gene. This is from a virus.

        (6)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        A large variety of different RNA species that are replicated by DNA-dependent RNA polymerase from bacteriophage T7 have been generated by incubating high concentrations of this enzyme with substrate for extended time periods. The products differed from sample to sample in molecular weight and sequence, their chain lengths ranging from 60 to 120. The mechanism of autocatalytic amplification of RNA by T7 RNA polymerase proved to be analogous to that observed with viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (replicases): only single-stranded templates are accepted and complementary replica strands are synthesized. With enzyme in excess, exponential growth was observed; … Template-free production of RNA was completely suppressed by addition of DNA to the incubation mixture. When both DNA and RNA templates were present, transcription and replication competed, but T7 RNA polymerase preferred DNA as a template.
        ——————————————————————————–

        (7)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        This paper gives details of Squirm3, a new artificial environment based on a simple physics and chemistry that supports self-replicating molecules somewhat similar to DNA. The self-replicators emerge spontaneously from a random soup given the right conditions. Interactions between the replicators can result in mutated versions that can outperform their parents. We show how artificial chemistries such as this one can be implemented as a cellular automaton. We concur with Dittrich, Ziegler, and Banzhaf that artificial chemistries are a good medium in which to study early evolution.
        ——————————————————————————–

        (8)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        Isopropylzinc alkoxide of 1-ferrocenyl-2-methylpropan-1-ol was found to be a catalytic chirally self-replicating molecule which produces itself with the same configuration from ferrocenyl aldehyde and diisopropylzinc with 35–39% e.e. in good yields.
        ——————————————————————————–

        (9)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        AbstractThe use of self-complementary structures in replication experiments is discussed, and a second generation of self-replicating molecules is introduced. Key design elements of the new system are described, specifically a high affinity (Ka~10^5M^-1 in CDCl3) between the two complementary reactive components and the careful placement of nucleophilic and electrophilic centers within the system. These considerations preclude intramolecular reactions within two-component complexes, thus minimizing undesirable background reactions. Autocatalysis is observed in the new systems, and by using appropriate control experiments the autcatalysis is traced to template effects
        Introduction

        Previous studies from these laboratories have shown how simple organic structures can catalyze their own formation.(1,2) Self-complementarity is the key to this autocatalytic behavior; by complementary it is meant that the sizes, shapes, and chemical surfaces of the structures are arranged so as to have affinity for each other. The affinity arises from weak, intermolecular forces – hydrogen bonding and aryl stacking interactions – that act on the molecular surfaces. These forces gather the reaction components and anchor them on the template surface while the intracomplex reaction takes place. The process leads to replication of the template, and the molecules are called replicators.

        ——————————————————————————–

        (10)

        quote:
        ——————————————————————————–
        An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other’s synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about one hour, and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.
        ——————————————————————————–

        Hes given many more “alleged” examples and some video.

        It seems some of them are “designed” by humans, which proves nothing other then they do need designed right? Usually they say no, it just shows that in the right conditions they can arise etc etc.

        Then he appears to show some examples that seem more legit, what do you think? Or how would we refute these examples?

        God Bless,

        JohnM

        • John,

          First, just to get one thing out of the way: RNA derived from living things doesn’t count in this discussion, because it’s derived directly from living things.

          For the moment I’m willing to set aside the fact that the other experiments described here were very carefully DESIGNED.

          Your opponent is perfectly valid in saying that these molecules are self replicating. That is a valid term here.

          But his examples are an entirely different thing than what DNA does. The molecules in these experiments is not all that different from growing crystals. Definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_replication:

          Early research by John von Neumann established that one common form of a replicator has several parts:

          * A genome, a compact, usually error-resistant representation of the replicator’s stored algorithm.[citation needed] Biologically, this is DNA.
          * A specialized set of mechanisms to copy and repair the genome, using resources gathered by the body. Biologically, this is something like DNA polymerase.
          * A body, which gathers resources and energy, and interprets a stored algorithm. Biologically, these are ribosomes.

          Exceptions to this pattern are possible. For example, scientists have successfully constructed RNA that copies itself in an “environment” that is a solution of RNA monomers and transcriptase. In this case, the body is the genome, and the specialized copy mechanisms are external.

          However, the simplest possible case is that only a genome exists. Without some specification of the self-reproducing steps, a genome-only system is probably better characterized as something like a crystal.

          Von Neumann is describing a self-replicating machine. Self-replicating can be taken quite literally, ie makes a copy of itself based on a stored algorithm.

          The molecules described by your opponent have no algorithm, they do not store information, they do not encode or decode. We can grow millions of identical salt crystals in salt water but that is not self replication.

          But going back to the original point of this discussion: None of these molecules account for the origin of information; none of them are communication systems, encoders or decoders.

          So these replicating molecules may give us very useful clues about the building blocks of life but they don’t explain the existence of information.

          Perry

      • JohnM says:

        Perry,

        This video seems to show a pathway to modern DNA.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=player_embedded

        This is the guy who says that there are other self-replicating molecules etc. I don’t know about other molecules that can self-replicate without DNA. Is there such a thing?

        Is this video simply more spectulation on origins? More wishful thinking? Just so stories? I’m pretty sure none of this is testable etc., correct?

        One thought I’ve always maintained is, what if God actually did use natural law combined with chance to produce life? In other words, if we do someday find a natural pathway to modern DNA through some kind of chemical evolution, how would we ever know if that is not precisely how God gave rise to it?

        Why do we or anyone else assume God has to somehow interrupt the laws of nature and probabilty to do anything? Cant natural law be Gods hands? I mean I can imagine a God simply setting up all the initial conditions that would give life the potential of at least randomly appearing once somewhere in a universes lifetime.

        Just like evolution *not* being by random, but purposeful mutation, so might the occurence of life *not* be by natural random events (as it would appear) but by pursposeful events with the appearance of randomness and chance?

        I guess my point is, even if the naturalist discovered the origins of life through “natural / random” processes, how does that in any way signify it was truely an unintelligent process? It simply shows us we dont directly observe an intelligence. It reminds me of someone observing an automated assembly line, and saying, “hmm lets find out how this end product was made, we see nobody here, it all appears to be happening “naturally” on it’s own.”

        Just because they can trace all the steps back to the start of the assembly line and observe no direct intervention of an intelligent agent it still in no way implies therfore it is happening without intelligence, it simply tells us it is happening without any DIRECT OBSERVABLE intelligent intervention.

        Derived intelligence can still be at work with no designer in sight. A thermostat for example. It will act and react all on it’s “own” apparently. But yet it is acting and reacting according to a designers thoughts, plans, and intentions. So my argument is, no matter how life arose, it was simply the laws of physics and chemistry naturally working out a prescribed intentional outcome, without the direct intervention of the Designer.

        This does have a haunting thought though, if life can arise simply through natural law somehow, then why do I need to add God to the equation? I guess this is where the strength of the information theory argument comes in. Information is neither matter nor energy so the physical universe cant account for it, and is currently only known to originate from mind. Inference is, a uncaused (eternal) immaterial mind outside of the physical universe. Which ironically fits the description of the Biblical God.

        Peace,

        JohnM

        • JohnM,

          The video says, for example, “Creationists say the probability of a cell arising by chance is 10^50,000. Those numbers are made up.”

          First of all, 10^50,000 is VERY generous because in the smallest known organism Nanoarchaeum, there are 10^200,000 possible arrangements of DNA and that doesn’t include ANYTHING else in the cell.

          When atheists reject such numbers they are failing to produce their own numbers and demonstrate why life from chance is actually probable. Ask them to produce their own numbers and present them to you.

          The video talks about replication but this is not self-replication! This does not in any way shape or form explain the origin of the code. When the video talks about mutation it’s not even using the word the same way it’s normally used in biology.

          It says “just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and function as enzymes.” They skipped the part of explaining how it encodes, stores and decodes information.

          None of these experiments have produced anything even remotely resembling a living cell. Only people who don’t actually understand what the video is describing think that the video has explained anything. This whole video is a snow job.

          What if God used natural law to produce life? I am open to that. That’s explanation #4 of where the information in DNA came from, ie undiscovered law of physics. If there is such a law then it’s an amazing thing.

          You can never avoid the question “where did all these natural laws come from?”

          And in the history of science, the discovery of those natural laws came about because people presumed a God who created an orderly discoverable universe.

          Your last paragraph is correct.

          Perry

  8. Scott says:

    Mr. Marshall,

    You said I did not talk about the ‘core’ of your argument. What exactly is your argument? I have seen you debate atheism on here. Is there no room for you to debate your religion as well? And I am going to propose to you something, this is your argument.

    1) DNA is a code.
    2) All codes arose from an intelligent designer.
    3) Ergo, DNA must have been created by a designer.

    Is it okay now if our views shift apart? I mean, I’m under the full belief that Zeus is responsible for this. I know you think I’m wrong. But why? Why can’t Zeus have done it. There is just as much proof for Zeus as there is for God. So I concede to you that it seems very unlikely for DNA to arose by chance, and I guess there must’ve been some kind of higher power involved. So it’s got to be Zeus! I always knew I should’ve believe in him. Thank you Perry for showing me the light. And thus, I have listened to you about evolution. I mean, it’s preposterous to say that in came over time. Regardless of the evidence. And even though your arguments are full of logic fallacy, and holes, and are mostly self-contradictory. I believe you just a bit. And so I ask you Perry. Why will you not discuss anything with me Perry? If you’re truly faithful, you would feel comfortable telling me the answers to my questions. I ask them because I would like the answers.

    • Information theory as stated indicates a Designer, an intelligent entity outside of space and time.

      It does not rule out Zeus. Or Superman. Or Deism for that matter. It just indicates 100% inference to design.

      As for the rest of your comments, you will need to address specific statements and ask specific questions. Vague statements about how I’m full of logical fallacies and self-contradictory statements will not get you very far.

      And I will not tolerate your mocking tone. If you wish to have a discussion here, you are expected to listen carefully and make factual statements, ask questions when things are not clear and be respectful. Otherwise your posts will be deleted.

  9. JohnM says:

    Perry,

    –I said: Let’s review where we’ve been in this thread so far.

    1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

    Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960’s.

    2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

    Much effort has been made to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been made that gravity, sunlight, tree rings, volcano rumbles, snowflakes, pebbles and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

    3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

    —He says: Premise #1: “The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.”

    Agreed, with this stipulation: that what the code involves, is how to replicate molecules. This is in essence the same code found in other self-replicating organic molecules, from peptides to RNA to DNA. Each of these molecules perform the same basic functions of “something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.”, and in this regard the DNA code is no different than any other self-replicating organic molecule.

    —I ask you: Is there actually self-replication without DNA? Im under the impression that there is no self-replication with out DNA. Or if there is, does the same problem occur with them also?

    —He said: Premise #2: “All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.”

    As we have seen above, self-replicating organic molecules arise naturally out of the interactions of atoms and molecules in accordance with the basic laws of chemistry and physics. These self-replicating organic molecules contain the same kind of code used to replicate molecules as is used in DNA, and thus fit the minimum definition required by Premise #1. Thus the natural formation of self-replicating organic molecules amply demonstrates “how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code” and Premise #2 is invalidated.

    —I ask you: Im confused here, is there self-rep without DNA? Do simply molecules self-rep?

    —-He said: Conclusion: “Therefore DNA came from a mind.”

    Because Premise #2 is invalidated, no conclusion based on it is valid.

    In addition to the invalidation of Premise #2, there is a logical problem in the structure of the argument that ALSO renders the conclusion invalid: “All codes that we know” does not represent the class of “all codes” — this is the logical fallacy of composition, equivocating from some to all is a hasty generalization and basing the conclusion on replacing some with all is the logical fallacy of the illicit minor.

    The conclusion is also invalid because the logic structure is faulty and does not properly lead to the conclusion given.

    —I said: But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model.

    He says: Irrelevant and a red herring, as all that was needed, based on the original post, was to show that a system similar enough to DNA, to involve the same degree of coding, occurs naturally. This has been done.

    —I ask you: Is he right? Do peptides and RNA self-rep w/o DNA?

    God Bless,

    JohnM

    • JohnM,

      The person you are talking to is making a huge error. There are no self-replicating molecules of any kind, outside of the realm of living things.

      Ask this person to show you one. One that does not already come from a living thing.

      He’ll reply back possibly with some link to something – and when you look carefully, you will find that it actually does not self replicate at all.

      • bill morrison says:

        I’m sure you won’t like this, but clouds self replicate. They do this by way of rain, surface water flowing and subsequent evaporation. Now, I know this doesn’t sound much like DNA, but why should it? Can you give a living example of something that reproduces in the same way clouds do?

        What’s going on is that you are taking one category (life) which is defined by how it acts, and then demanding that something outside of this category act the same way. But, if it acted the same way, it would be in the category of life.

        Life isn’t special in the way you propose. The only special thing going on is how we are talking about it – the biases we use and the emotional content we bring with us.

        • Cells are made from a plan and cells can make copies of themselves. Clouds do not self-replicate; there are no two clouds alike and clouds are not made from a plan.

          • bill morrison says:

            I think I see where this is going to go. We are operating from two different paradigms. I think, from reading some of your materials, that you believe information to be a separate qualia, and as you have used it, to be similar to the idea of ‘elan vital’ as far as living things are concerned. That is, the ‘extra’ ingredient that gives life, life.

            I am coming from the perspective of a materialist. I believe that the best explanations of what we see around us are based on physical laws and material objects without an additional ingredient.

            From my perspective, life is nothing special in that it doesn’t require other than chemistry and physics to investigate and understand. My training is in medicine and not communications theory, so I readily admit my bias.

            Here’s an odd ball idea that answers the intelligent design premise. Man eventually solves all biological recipes, goes back in time and starts the ball rolling. Since man is the only intelligent designer we know, that might wrap the whole thing up.

            In this model, you get your intelligence and atheists don’t have to adopt God. It’s a win-win!

            One other thing. Since you have established quite an in-depth theory, and defended it well, have you considered taking the next question on? If life evinces the property of intelligent design, how was the design accomplished? How and when was it executed? How might we adopt the design techniques for our own use? These questions would be a wonderful follow up and provide excellent and practical answers for current questions.

            • Bill,

              Great question. If you read my articles closely you’ll see that my central thesis is that the laws of physics and chemistry do not in any way explain the origin of the genetic code. The latter cannot be derived from the former. Nobody documents this better then Hubert Yockey in his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

              I do agree that once we are able to produce life, we will understand a great deal about how it was originated. My testable hypothesis is that to create life will require an incredible amount of precision in initial conditions and experimental setup; that no one will ever produce life from any accidental set of conditions. It will require design.

              Taking on the next set of questions – YES that is exactly where I am going with this.

              I am working on a series of articles called “A testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design” where I take all my background in engineering communications theory, and make forward projections. Predictions about how evolution really works; things that I expect we will discover in the genome and the fossil record; conditions necessary for evolution to take place; and mechanisms that drive it.

              Artificial Intelligence has been much more science fiction than reality for many decades now. The key to unlocking the whole “artificial intelligence” question is hidden right under our noses, in DNA. Once DNA is unraveled we’ll actually be able to produce AI ourselves, because DNA is in some sense literally intelligent.

              Any scientific theory that presumes that DNA would have happened by accident ‘sooner or later’ only impedes our study of it. DNA and its inner workings is a subject to be approached with utmost reverence. The most insulting and slanderous theory ever was the “Junk DNA” theory of the 1980’s, which is now discredited. DNA is truly a marvel of engineering of the highest order. There is no junk DNA.

              In future installments I will also explore the theological implications of information theory, because there is a direct connection there as well. We can actually use the principles of information theory to test any number of theological propositions.

              Perry Marshall

  10. Maija says:

    Do you know or hear something about scientist mystic-philosopher G.A. Shnaiderman from Russia?
    Maija
    p.s. Sorry my english is not so good.

  11. chanaka says:

    Actually I have enjoyed your first three e mails but this one disappointed me. As I understood your question is ‘where does information come from?’ and ‘who is the creator of information?’. Is this your proof for existence of the god? Thats ridiculous. Information is created by mind. Mind means brain. one developed form of matter. Thats all. More developed brains can process and create more information and less ones do less. Eventually your god also a creation of human brain.

  12. fionn tolster says:

    as hugh ross says in the link from your emails:”Revelation 21 tells us that the very instant that God conquers the problem of evil in man, he will create again.

    if god is so creative perfect and unimaginebly accurate why would jesus,allah,yahweh etc. create freedom of choice which in its self leads to evil how could someone or something make such a simple mistake when it ,god, could create a universe so perfect that in it brewed life?

    • Fionn,

      I’m not sure I really have an answer for you. I just ask: Would you like for God to take your freedom to do evil away?

    • go2mark says:

      i have an analogy for for to address this question.

      lets say i am a farmer who can till the soil, plant the seeds, water and fertilize, protect from pests and disease and allow the sun to grow up the plants. now i enjoy seeing the fruit come on the stalk and get much joy from the labor i have done.

      or then lets say i have superpowers to do what ever i like but i really get no satisfaction in that because i derive no joy from it because it required no work on my part.

      maybe God is like this in that he wants his creation to be like the fruits on the vines that come out and he gets great joy and satisfaction from it. I think that God gets great joy when we come to know and trust in him without be forced to do it.

  13. Joe says:

    I would submit that your inability to conceive of Chaos/Natural Selection capable of building DNA strands the likes of which are in every living thing today (cell structure) is not a proof that is didn’t happen. When you are capable of conceiving how insignificant an organism we truly are in the universe then you may be capable of understanding how this all works. There is no NEED for a god of ANY kind to achieve to biological diversity we have today. Just 20 years ago no one could conceive of an organism living and surviving on Hydrogen Sulfide coming from the vents on the bottom of the ocean. So to think that any person alive now or in the past is capable of such thought, is truly unimaginable. Even by me who not only understands why everyone else NEEDS there to be a god, but I accept the FACT that it is all in their head. Most people can’t deal with the concept, and I do, that Earth is just what happens when you have free H20 in liquid form to facilitate Biodiversity and by inference Natural Selection/ Evolution of higher level organisms. As for the information theory inherent in DNA, Evolution couldn’t happen unless you have a way of making sure mistakes don’t evolve. Only the most fit survive to procreate, mistakes are “weeded” out. There is your information theory, plain and simple, trial and error works. It just takes awhile. So why is this wrong?

    • Natural selection and evolution cannot occur without self-replication.

      Self-replication cannot occur without a code.

      A code must exist first.

      What you have said here takes the origin of life for granted – and that is not permitted here. I insist on empirical evidence.

      Show me an empirical example of a naturally occurring code. All you need is one. (DNA doesn’t count because you don’t know the origin.)

      • bill morrison says:

        naturally existing code: language, crystalization of minerals based on temperature, orbital motion, power series in earthquakes, entanglement and entanglement swapping in polarized light. A code is simply a rule. Nature makes rules too. There’s no reason to think that life has any special rules or rule making.

        Bill

        • Language does not belong in this list as it’s ultimately a derivative of DNA. None of these other things are codes according to the information theory definition: “Communication between an encoder and decoder using agreed upon symbols.” The Genetic Code itself is a “special rule” of life, as discovered by Watson and Crick decades ago.

  14. Rinchen says:

    Why don’t other species of animals believe in “God”?

  15. Bon says:

    If you can read this, I can prove to you that fairies and unicorns exist and they are the ones that created everything. Perry your reasoning doesn’t make sense. I do believe in God, but there is no way to prove His existence. Even if a being way superior than us and have the ability to create life shows up in front of me I will just think he is a superior life form than us, and there is a possibility that there’s a being more superior than that being.

    There is only one way we can know God’s existence… and it is if God introduce Himself to us. Just like what Christ said… “It is me.” Peter didn’t need a miracle to believe that the ghost looking creature walking in the water was Christ. Christ just had to say “It is me”. If God wanted us to know Him..He would have told us “It is me” and we wouldn’t even need to reason, we will just believe. He is God, if He wants us to believe we will believe.

    • JohnM says:

      Hi Bon,

      “There is only one way we can know God’s existence… and it is if God introduce Himself to us.”

      I have always wondered about devine hideness, why doesn’t God simply speak or physically show us himself. I still question it, very deeply.

      But in seeking this answer, I have made a few observations. We are finite in knowledge. So, if God appeared to me and told me He was God, would I not still have to believe, use faith that He is who He said He is? How would I ever know? I would literally have to be all-knowing myself to actually *know* this was God.

      Anyway we cut it, as long as we are finite in knowledge, there is only one way to know God, through faith!

      I find it interesting that Jesus said this is eternal life, that we might know God. Scripture also tells us that now we only know in part, as seeing through a dim glass, but then we shall know as we are known, in full. This makes perfect sense, until we become one with God, as He is, allknowing, only then can we know God.

      God Bless,

      JohnM

    • Bon,

      This is a great question, and an honest one.

      Information theory does not rule out fairies or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Or Zeus or The Great Spirit or Ganesh.

      It just indicates (exactly as reliably as the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and entropy) that DNA was the result of Intelligence.

      Still… just exactly what that Intelligence is, DNA does not tell you.

      What Information Theory does do is: opens the door to the world of theology. Theology is defined as:

      1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
      2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions

      The existence of information and the implications of its origin validate theology as an important system of thought.

      Obviously, once science shows us the Design inference, the question of God vs. Peter Pan vs. Fairies vs. Flying Spaghetti Monsters vs. Ganesh vs. Great Spirit is the first thing that comes up. It’s inevitable. This is a question well worth asking.

      Note that we cannot PROVE God – that is categorically impossible. A formal proof of Fact B requires that Fact A precedes it. Since everything else is contingent on God, then we can only infer God we cannot prove God. We infer Fact A from the existence of Fact B.

      Also remember: things like Gravity, Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics have not been proven either! They are INFERRED.

      Many people think that God can only be taken on a leap of faith. Many, perhaps even most religious people believe this.

      I do not believe this.

      Christianity does not teach this, either. In Romans 1, Paul says, “What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

      The great theologians (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Edwards, many others) have insisted that God is not only found through faith but through reason. And experience. Go through your Bible and read the stories and you’ll find that people encounter God in a whole variety of ways.

      Peter’s walking on water was an EXPERIENCE. I would have a hard time believing that the miracle itself didn’t play a part in his understanding of Christ in that moment.

      I don’t think that people believe in God just because God wants them to. People have free will. I think that personal experiences, deep inner questions, unusual events, healings, miracles, relationships with other people and rational thought all play a role in our discovery that God is real.

      Contrary to what some say, theology is a rigorous and exacting discipline. It grapples with the Big Questions, using reason and logic and systematic thinking. When you engage the tools of theology, Peter Pan and Fairies and Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Zeus get eliminated REAL FAST. Hey… if Christianity didn’t have a lot going for it morally, factually, historically, philosophically, practically, and yes scientifically, there wouldn’t be 100,000 books and websites arguing fiercely against it. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

      Finally I want to point out that the English language tells you a lot about people who speak English. Visual Basic tells you a lot about Microsoft. TCP/IP tells you a lot about the people who gave us the Internet. And yes DNA tells you a lot about God. DNA is a fantastically sophisticated and elegant communication protocol. It has error correction, redundancy, self-healing characteristics, repair mechanisms, and an amazing, adaptive, evolutionary algorithm.

      In Christian theology God cannot be known or understood without the Logos, Jesus Christ – see John chapter 1. I find the correlation between “Logos” in Christian theology and the role of codes and language in living things to be VERY interesting.

      Without DNA, the world is a dead and sterile place. With DNA it comes alive and becomes filled with life.

      How can any person who is educated in Christian thinking not see the analogy – God revealing Himself to a dead world through the WORD?

      Perry

  16. Bon says:

    All I am saying is if your “proofs” are actually “proofs”, then how do you prove that it was God that created everything and not the fairies or peter pan? Couldn’t it be that Peter Pan created everything?

    I am sorry if I sounded rude on my first message, I didn;t mean to, english is not my native tongue. I am really interested to know what you think. I wouldn’t even be here trying to argue with you if I am not giving your articles at least a benefit of a doubt. If I don’t argue, I will remain un-convinced. Lol.

    • Forrest Charnock says:

      A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
      I don’t want to believe in God and you can’t make me is a religious statement, not a logical argument.

  17. Osvaldo says:

    May be there is a better place to put this comment

    You say that random mutation can´t create new information.
    and that Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it.

    Now I don´t have the time but I promess to post Two sientific examples showing that random nutation can create new information and that noise can actually enhance a signal.

    see you next week

  18. Rinchen says:

    Which part in this message proves that god exists….. ?

  19. Utkarsh says:

    I am from INDIA, so there is no point that I am too annoyed about your idea, as back here everyone is too much religious.(You can say that I am used to it)

    First of all i really don’t like the idea of Biocentric Theory Of God or Everything (though some parts of it are completely un-arguable). But still I think, the evolution of life right from the earlier stages on our planet, is a process of gaining information either from a parallelly evolving organism or from any other non-living thing. Comparing this idea to early living beings, as all of them had a desire to fill their empty stomach (whichever way you take it, let it be the desire of collecting more & more energy) they developed a desire to live more and big.Comparing this idea to early-humans they with the ancestral desires had so much developed brains that needed something to feed upon too.Hence, now I am here using my PC to share my ideas with you.

    And one more point, those who couldn’t feed their desires didn’t survive.
    (Darwin’s fundamental idea)
    And yes it is important to know the fact behind WHY?, LET IT BE FOR ANYTHING LIKE:- WHY EARTH? WHY ONLY WE? WHY STARS GO SUPERNOVA? and finally WHY BIG BANG AFTER ALL?
    For these answers we have theories half proven and half unproven, like Quantum Theory,General and Special Relativity, String Theory, M-Theory,Multiverse etc.

    I REALLY LOOK FORWARD FOR YOUR REPLY.

  20. Tika Ram Ojha says:

    What Perry said is much nearer to what the OSHO says.OSHO says the origin of life is “CHETANA”(‘Conciousness’ -It may be a debet whether the source of conciousness comes from mind or it is independent) Conciousness make the code in the DNA perform its function as per the Designed it has.
    The Designer is the Source of the Conciousness so is he interleated with each an every units of Conciousness he have spread.
    Finally I agree with the Perry Marshall on a point that there is certainly a Intelligent Designer who design the life and the codes In DNA , but he unsees that to perform the function as per the design and the code there should be Energy that is what make DNA perform work as per the designed instruction , and the source of this “Chetana ” (conciousness) is the almighty designer.
    Now we can interpriate the Designer as , Shiva, Allaha, Christ or The God till we can discover the truth.

    • Tika Ram Ojha says:

      Dear Perry,
      I am n was always curious to know abt. the fate of life . Luckly I found your precious article “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists” while I was surfing in American Scientific. Since a week I read your all the contents and refered contents and still reading keenly.
      I have a great respect for your dedication, intelligence and confident, and your honesty. I really respect the most valued time you spent to make the great research.
      Science has the limitation and it’s too young…..at present. Science may find the way that lead to God….But can’t reach….Because of it’s limitation or its earlyhood…at present. Science obviously can mapout the way to the god and you did this great job, but it can’t travel itself to the destination…So it would be like this.
      I can reach and locate all the cities on the Map. It doesn’t mean I was live there.
      To prove God’s Existance someone should live with him.You have find the way to mapout to reach to the God, you don’t know how to reach …..and without reaching to him you are failed to prove his existance….but you creat an option that Intelligent n consious designer could be God….
      So with current Science, logic and evedience are unsufficient and too young.. to prove this since it is just half itself without the Science of MEDITATION.
      MEDITATION is the science discovered in Indian subcontinent. and has been experienced since thousand’s years.Science is the Mt. Everest I see in the Map and MEDITATION is the Real One I live with.

      • Kristi King says:

        We cannot live with God in the way that you mention because he is too great, holy and powerful. Just seeing him would kill us while we are in this state.

        But, God overcame that limitation and chose to live with us. He came as a person to show us the way to live and to teach us about God. To see that person and to know that person is to know God himself. That person is Jesus Christ.

        Read the Scriptures. Through the Bible, you will know Jesus Christ and through him, you will know God. Meditating on the Scriptures will bring you into the presence of God.

        God himself provided the way for us to be with him. God’s revelation through the Bible is the only holy book in which God reaches out to his people and pays the price for his people to come back to him. It is well worth knowing, better even than science.

        • Forrest Charnock says:

          Hi Kristi:

          What you said is true but how do you decide? You say the water in Genesis one cannot be water because it disagrees with “science”. I hate to inform you dead people tend to stay dead.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *