@perry
we can try to ground certain conclusions with things we know to be facts (premises) now. Things like:
1. All life comes from previous life
2. All information comes from a mind
3. All books have authors
Um, premises are not the same as facts! They are something basic we assume to be true for the sake of argument or the basis or a syllogism. But they are not facts just because we claim them to be true. A fact needs to be demonstrably true, though can never necessarily be proven in the same way a mathematical fact can be proven.
Your premises are flawed for various reasons.
1. The claim that a transcendent God exists falsifies this premises because riot is making a claim that their is an exception to the rule - God is an example of a "lifeform" that did not come from previous life.
2. Yes, many forms of information come from a mind, but not necessarily ALL forms of information. Information structured in a certain way tends to be organised baby a mind, but there are other forms of information that are formed by natural laws. You can claim that those natural laws come from a mind but that just gets back in a circle to post one. Which brings us to the problem with point 3...
3. I have no problem with this premise, but when you conflate the kind of information in a book with other kinds of information (like that of DNA, which is what I assume you are implying here?) we have a problem.