I have a question.was the dna molecule the same in the past,or did it gather information.I mean,a crocodile a million years ago was the same crocodile as the one in our present day?And I've heard many people saying that a dandelion has x% human dna,a bee has y% human dna and stuff like that.Is their dna shorter?and does it mean that we are the most recent and evolved link of life?
why can't IDiots understand that man made things are different from natural. They aren't designed they are naturally like that. It's like saying that big rat looks like a cat therefore it is a cat. For any IDiots the rat is nature and the cat is something designed.
Less than 2 minutes into the video the athiests already failed. DNA is actually a code and is not used as analogy. Every science textbook I have, which is written in very literal language, refers to it as a code and without quotation marks.
Moreover, one the greatest scientist in Information Theory, Yockey, says DNA is an actual code.
@vizion24 lol..... "codes" are man made , nature is not following orders from any man made god. nature works how it works because of evolution and natural selection. call it a code all you want, but if thats the case you have to agree that the "god" or whatever "created" the code imperfect.
@7glitch You're right, codes are man made or come from an intelligent source. The question is where did the DNA code from since codes cannot be produced by blind naturalistic processes?
@vizion24 the DNA code is not a "code" the way your thinking about it. its simply arose by natural forces the same way that single cell organisms evolve into more complex structures. /// the code is imperfect because people die all the time from bad DNA. like people with 8 arms and such. idk im realy not to educated on this subject , but it seems like common sence to me tosee DNA "code" as a more of a term. even if it acts like a code, it doesnt meanthat it could'nt havecome from natural prosses
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)"
@7glitch From Yockey: "The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. There is nothing in the physico -chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
@7glitch All communication systems are subject to mutations, following the laws of probability. That's why Ethernet and TCP/IP have error correction and redundancy features. DNA has error correction and redundancy features as well. Note that mutation, noise and entropy are all the exact same thing in communication theory – and they are all undesirable.
Since all codes come from a mind and there is no naturalistic process to generate codes then it's reasonable to conclude God did it :)
@vizion24 Since "all codes come from a mind and there is no naturalistic process to generate codes then it's reasonable to conclude God did it :)"....... ok what if DNA is just a way that cells evolved to reproduce themselves? like i said im not an expert on this, im barely a laman. i cant even spell lamen right probably, but to say "its reasonable to believe god did it" is an arguement from ignorance, because why is'nt it reasonable to just say i dont know yet?
@vizion24 BTW wich god or gods do you think could be responsible for this? surely not the god of the bible, because he doesnt even know how the universe works according to the bible.
There is no scientific evidence to support evolution period.
Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance.
Question: What takes greater faith - to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of the cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
@Queegzzz "millions of intricately coordinated parts of the cell arose by chance" .... we live in a universe that is so big that rare things happen all the time,14 billion years is a loooooong time. so wait , you think that stars explode all around the universe creating star nurseries full of organic material for no reason? its more likely that a "god" we have never seen or heard from , who exist outside of space and time did it???? no scientific support for evolution???? YOU HAVENT LOOKED!!!!!
the whole premise of DNA being a code is simply an analogy. period. if analogies didnt exist, it would still be DNA. i can't compare theists to ants and then assert that there is a massive theist that spits out smaller theists to do work.
These people are idiots i should finish this. He said random or coded what difference does it make? When you see something organised in a certain way you are seeing design. Nowhere anywhere in the entire universe except in their theory will you see randomness forming anything but randomness. But that is not what you see. They were not understanding his point simply because they were blind. Soldiers do not march in formation just because "they can". They simply dont see whats right in their face.
@Gaaminator "Nowhere anywhere in the entire universe except in their theory will you see randomness forming anything but randomness."
Um, You won't see it in the ToE either. Sorry to point out what should be obvious even to a child, but "SELECTION" (as in the environmental culling of members of a population from the genepool) is quite NON-RANDOM.
Curiously It's lions expending the least energy that leads to predominantly culling the slow deer that jacks up the population of faster deer.
@ExtantFrodo This is the part atheists dont understand. In the beginning, what is there? Either God, the laws of nature, a random explosion, or nothing. or a combination of those things. So. which is it? If nature is selecting something than obviously nature has a will of its own....hence... GOD! So think about it what are the "powers that be"....nature...or god? nature is pretty much the entire known universe minus God in which case where did the universe come from???
@Gaaminator WTF dude I gave you an example of natural selection and you act like "NATURE" has a mind with a will. It's just the energy cost applied to variantly replicating systems of populations that are non-randomly culled in the manner i posted earlier. Using the least energy to cull particular members of one group BY DEFAULT leaves the other members to breed and leave their evasive talents to the next generation. This survival of the mutants jacks up complexity over millenia.
@ExtantFrodo think about it anything that is organised must have a reason behind that organization does it not? so if nature is organised with laws and these laws can create a universe with life which is what your saying. I understand what natural selection is But why would animals evolve? There would have to be a driving force behind that. and in order to have complexity in the first place there has to be the first complexity. Where did that come from? atheist answer:nowhere.
@Gaaminator What do you uphold as evidence that ANYTHING organized has to have a reason (i presume you mean motive) rather than an un-thinking natural process?
Nature is organized BY the laws. But your incomplete sentence left me dangling.
They evolve because it is thermodynamically favorable.
There is. The driving force is thermodynamics.
Logic nuclear bomb failure. Where did god's complexity come from Theists answer:nowhere.
@ExtantFrodo There has to be a beginning. How does it begin? well lets think about this for once. either a big bang with the laws already in place. Or a god who made the laws and designed the rest. So do you like your laws? do you feel that your universal government is fair?
The mere fact that nothing comes from nothing proves that something has to be there in the first place and that that one something has to be a very powerful and creative force.
descriptive: as a product of analysis of a preexisting set of conditions. Example, objects on earth at sea level fall at 32 feet per second per second. That's a description based on observation.
prescriptive: like the laws of man. Used to artificially impose order essentially because natural order is esteemed to be inadequate or insufficient.
well you cannot describe something properly that was not in our lifetime. Therefore you must prescribe theories to figure out what works until you find the answer.
Hey fucktard from Denver...if DNA is a blueprint that is intelligently designed, how is it that this code replicates incorrectly, causing genetic deformity such as polydactly, albinism, or hemophilia? God is perfect, after all, and if he is the designer, how can such replication errors occur?
This poor soul comes by saying man i think there for I am. I'm intelligent according to what is excepted by all humans as intelligence. Which is the ability to even detect and crack a code. I myself use this intelligence to create and make things that have function and form. It looks like the world im in has function and form and can be decoded and detected. Maybe just maybe this is a design. Maybe aliens designed it maybe its a program. No, the atheist says just as loud as the religious say NO.
Scientists do not say DNA IS a code, they compare it to a code because it acts similar to a code. The only sites I've seen that say DNA is a code are Creationists websites. Creationists always compare things we know that requires intelligence to something that occurs naturally. If there is an intelligent designer, he also designed viruses that could penetrate cells "dumb" enough to replicate itself while infected.
I am gonna test this inferior atheist reasoning and logic.
It is true that atheist would not believe Mary mother of Jesus gave birth by immaculate conception because from an atheist perspective its illogical?
So isn't it illogical to concede that all life on earth arouse by immaculate conception?
Today's scientist unsuccessfully attempting to copy or replicate the original DNA is this not evidence or the experiment that proves a designer/creator.
@Unity4allhumans Are you honestly comparing Abiogenesis to a magical event that requires a female's sexual organ? Because we can't replicate something we doesn't mean there is a designer, it just means we don't know everything, that's superios theist logic for you. It would be nearly impossble to replicate the original DNA, what ever that is in your view, because we don't know what the original DNA was or is. We can't compared life today with life in the past.
Atheists don't reject the immaculate conception because it is "illogical", per se. They reject it because it is 1) improbable and 2) there is no evidence for such an event and 3) there are plenty of such myths circulating in the ancient world.
Secondly, abiogenesis is not the same as immaculate conception.
Thirdly, scientists have managed to cook up some DNA in the lab.
@BendTheBullet Why do we still have England if the settlers came from England? Monkies didn't "turn into" humans. We share a common ancestor and evolved "separately" but even if that was the case, the entire species wouldn't have to change. Just the X number of the species that natural selection acts upon.
Why did this intelligent designer create Rh negative women and Rh posiitive men? The results wouldn't be pretty. If humans came from two people, why do we have different blood types?
Talk about beating your head against a brick wall. Its always fascinating to hear people ask a question over and over again when they don't get the response they want.
There is no evidence to suggest the presence of a designer when it comes to life on Earth. Just because we don't know how life originally came to be in the earliest days of our planet doesn't mean that you can assume whatever you want and call it fact, there always HAS to be evidence of some kind.
@Bromopar Abiogenesis covers the origin of life and it's been confirmed in labs but spontaneous generation of complex organism(creationism) has been disproven in the mid 1800s. Creationists/IDs are centuries behind on scientific knowledge. If man can create artificial life, using techniques of Bioinformatics, an application formed by the help of Evolution, we may find out even more about our origins.
geez,these people are so moronic in that they don't understand and think that asking idiotic questions adequately substitutes their lack of logic in explaining anything they have to claim.
@ncPsychosis I don't think it was an idiotic question. Most people think DNA is a code... ask anyone in the street to see what they say. So, that's no reason to start name-calling and get angry at people for not agreeing on the same beliefs one has.
Anyway, i don't think that YOU, ME, or the most intelligent person in this world can explain how everything became to just... be. Therefore, there is no idiotic questions, there is curiosity.
@Bromopar I do not agree with that. There's infinite possibilities and we can never know for sure if someone "created us" or if our existence is just something.. "random". There doesn't have to be evidence, and there probably never will be. I am 100% sure that all these questions will be answered the minute we die.
I like what these guys talk about, but my opinion is that no one can know for sure how or when everything started. So, it could be an endless debate, no one will be right or wrong :)
@iSleekDesign That is no better than the argument from ignorance. That's like saying "I know we see a sun and it gets hot when the sun is in the sky but there is no acutal evidence that there is a sun so I'm just going to wait until I die to know for sure." The truth is we can know things for sure, we know a lot of things for sure because we can study the evidence in front of us. Evidence can not be tossed aside simply because we don't agree with the conclusions it points to.
@Bromopar That's definitely not what I meant. So, what will happen the day humans find out how we came to be? What then? Don't get me wrong, I agree with these guys, just don't think there always have to be "facts".
So, how can you explain the inexplicable? I see everyone in here talking about particles, molecules, "the sun". How about that which we can't see, like thoughts? Like dreams? Like out-of-body experiences? How do you explain that? There isn't facts to explain that part of the theory.
@iSleekDesign To answer the first part of your question we'll crack open a few beers and write paper after paper about it to spread the news to the entire world. Then we'll spend the rest of time arguing with people like you who don't agree with us for whatever reason.
To answer the second part of your question I don't know how to explain those things...yet.
@Bromopar Why does everyone have to agree with you? I accept the evidence and am aware it is there for anyone to see, but this doesn't mean we all have to agree on how you put this evidence together... or what comes out of it - your "hypothesis", because, after all, it is a "hypothesis". Anyway, I'm not really here to argue, like I said, I get what they're talking about and agree on most of it. I just don't think being rude to those who don't agree with you is the best thing to do.
@Bromopar Aditionally, I sense arrogance when you say "not yet" about the things you or anyone else hasn't yet found a solution for. There's just some things we have to accept even if we don't understand it... that's the way it is. We dream every single night, even if we don't remember, and that's a fact. You may have your theories about it, and I have mine. Doesn't mean I have to punch you if I don't agree with your point of view.
I'm not here to fight, I'm here to share my point of view.
@Bromopar Notice you are starting out with an assumption. Maybe you are on the other side saying to yourself there CANT be evidence of any kind.
He wasnt really asking the same question but more like asking him to think about it. There is no way you can have a completely unbiased argument otherwise it wouldnt be an argument. Both sides may make an assumption and press on it.
Honestly i dont think the 3 people are looking at the big picture...
@Gaaminator I'm not starting with anything other than what is plainly and clearly proven with facts that are supported by evidence. I'm not saying there CAN'T be evidence I'm saying that what is being presented as evidence to support ID is in fact just the opposite. Not only that but when it comes to the designer there has never been a scientific theory to propose what the designer is, how it works as well as where and how. The only arguement that is ever presented is "This was designed."
Scientist have found in proteins some amino acids in this sequence: Tyrosine-Histidine-Tryptophan-Histidine. Using IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) one letter system for abbreviating chemical names of amino acids, we get: YHWH, wich is the English transliteration of Hebrew name of God!
The argument here is flawed in either case. You can't answer it unless you define what intelligence is from its most basic level. Perhaps it's comprised of the seven states of logic, which of itself is comprised of binary states. pleasure, pain but not always so extreme. To us, it seems like choice. I've seen a film (time lapsed) about vegatation seemly displaying intelligence. Intelligence is not only a function of the brain.
@Jeorney, I think they asked if he believed in the Christian god at the beginning, or the caller mentioned it. If not I'm sure they are running on an assumption that that is what they are talking about. Not the smoothest way to intilialize a debate, but their points were still valid.
@Jeorney The basic flaw, the important one, remains on the side of the caller. You could say all codes that we know were designed, were designed by human beings. Therefore the only conclusion (by analogy) that can be drawn is: DNA must have been designed by a human being too. It still says nothing about any kind of deity.
The first thing you need to do is provide a specific definition of what code is.
If you're defining code as having an intelligent creator, then you first need to establish whether DNA has an intelligent creator *before* you can decide whether the label of 'code' applies to it.
If you apply the label first, and then argue that it was intelligently designed based on that label, then you are assuming your conclusion in your premise (circular logic)
If your definition of code does not include the requirement of having an intelligent designer, then you can easily apply that label to DNA without necessarily implying that it has an intelligent designer
Hey guys,..i think the show needs more laughing,maybe hire one of those laughing carnival clowns that sit at the top of the water pool (you throw the ball to knock him down) . Wait ,..Don has the best laugh on the show,.maybe you can dub that laugh in the videos for these callers.
douch bag's we were all created by god!or a creator however you'd like to call it we were created.There are a variety of forms of "the god"i'm persanaly cristian. You dont have to agree but you cant disagree without proof,I have enough proof myself of "God"How were we created?A mistake?No.The big bang is a hypothosis not truth.Prove there is no god?Read the bible,All athiest's do us all a favor and sit down read a bible this goes to people who dont belive in any god.G'day!
@JuanAcostaTVofficial "douch bag's we were all created by god!or a creator however you'd like to call it we were created."
No. This "douch bag" was created by his parents, as were all other people and most other animals on earth. All life is created by replication. We don't know exactly how the first replicators arose, but that does not mean that God must have made them by magic.
There is a huge amount of evidence for the big bang. There is absolutely no evidence for any alternative theories.
@JuanAcostaTVofficial "Read the bible,All athiest's do us all a favor and sit down read a bible this goes to people who dont belive in any god."
Dude, many of us douche bags have read the Bible. That's why we're atheists. The Bible is a load of nonsense written be very ignorant bigoted people. Reading the Bible should make anyone an atheist or at least non-Christian.
@AThagoras Agreed, but i would'nt go so far as to call the authors ignorant. They may very well have known exactly what they were doing, which was to take advantage of the majoritarily ignorant people. Kind of the same today if you think about it.....hmmmm?
@biozamadotcom Hi, It's a play on the anti- littering campaign line,"Don't mess with Texas". Since Texas and some other states have pushed for the inclusion of creation science in biology textbooks...Don't mess with textbooks (texas)
yea the dna code was designed by something even more complex than the code itself,..GOD,...remember ,humans were made in gods image so god must have blood in his bones. ..it was gods great grandfather who designed the code for gods DNA. But gods great grandfathers DNA code was so highly complex that it just came into existance on its own. : /
How can the host say DNA is a synonym for 'information' and then dispute the fact it is a code? Where did the information inside DNA come from? Where did any of the information for creating a certain molecule come from, where did the specific order in the "geometrical" build-up moleucules come from? All by chance? All by evolution? not likely since all evolution has to begin with some sort of information...
& don't get me wrong, i'm not saying there's a dude in skies who was the great architect of this all(creation). On the other hand, is it too hard to comprehend some sort of greater consciousness did create this or create the information/field(morphogenetic-fields) for certain structure's/form to arise, but we just cannot define this greater consciousness?
@MACRONOne So who created this greater conciusness ?
This code is simply a string of molecules. We just call it a code because it does something. They happen to dictate who we are due to evolution. Your trying to look at our world and work backwards. Try looking at the start and work forwards. Our world could easily have contained many different things if some factors had favoured a different set of "code"
@SunsetNap It takes some people a lifetime >.>....If Christians were able to admit that they didn't know, then this world would be a much better place.
So let me get this straight. 1) Life spontaneously arouse under perfect circumstances, of which we do not know. 2)This life form not only survives, it has the magic ability to replicate itself seeing the need for it to pass on this life creating information, even though it itself will die. 3) There are people today who fervently believe in this scenario even though they haven't seen it or have any evidence of it occurring as such.
@2uberu Let me get this straight. 1) Life was blinked into existence by a genie. 2) This life has the magic ability to live forever, after it dies, but only if it believes (according to one popular story anyway) the genie disguised himself as his own son and had himself sacrificed to himself to forgive the sins of his pet life forms. 3) there are people today who fervently believe in this scenario even though they didn't see or have any evidence of it occurring as such.
@mandrellian Why do you assume such things? I am trying to understand a Darwinist's belief system. Can you focus on that or must you change the subject? If someone claims to have cured cancer must every challenge produce it's own cure? Your response is both immature and irrelevant.
created MEANS (not implied) that something exists that didnt before. ie, a cold stream of water runningto a hot stream of water creates lukewarm water.
One set of molecules mixing with a different set of molecules creates a new molecule. There is no creator required. ie. There is no god
@podoau Humans created this new life form, thus humans are the creator. Humans are the "god" in this context. It did not spontaneously occur without the help of intelligence.
@2uberu god exists in the minds of some people, but there is no proof for the actual existance of any god. So therefore, god was created by the minds of men.
I dont beleive in the existance of any god. simply because there is no proof
@2uberu Since we weren't there to observe it, we may never be sure how the first replicating molecules arose, but we are working on plausible theories. It is very likely that we will be able to demonstrate that intelligence is not required for life to arise.
If life was created by intelligence, what created the intelligence in the first place? Evolution explains how intelligence can arise.
ID is not a sensible theory because there is no evidence for it and it explains nothing.
@AThagoras Every time humans come across information, we assume that there was intelligence behind it. Information has never been observed to appear out of nowhere yet Darwinists insist that it does. I don't make an attempt to explain the origin of intelligence just the origin of the information required for life.
@2uberu There are several fallacies in your last post.
1. Biologists aren't claiming that information appears out of nowhere, but ID does claim that information appears by some kind of magic that contradicts known laws of physics.
2. Information is not required to start life off. All that is required is a self-replicating molecule or system of molecules. There are many billions of planets with different chemical mixes. All it takes is the right combination of molecules to start life off.
@2uberu If there is even a tiny chance of a self-replicating molecule arising from available materials, when you have billions of planets each with trillions of tons of materials available, the chances of a self-replication molecule appearing can be very large. No intelligence or source of information is required.
@AThagoras You say the chances are quite large, then the universe should be teaming with life with the billions of galaxies containing billions of solar systems containing billions of planets, yet we have found 0. Why does someone say that the chances are great when the evidence is toward the contrary? Even if life is found somewhere else these self-replicating molecules would also have to randomly assemble information. It's like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and typing works of Shakespeare.
@2uberu The universe probably is teaming with life. There are many scientists trying to detect it.
"these self-replicating molecules would also have to randomly assemble information. "
That's the whole point of evolution. Natural selection encodes information in DNA. Selection is not random.
One analogy is that water in a puddle adapts to the shape of its environment. Life also adapts to suit its environment. Information about the environment is transferred in both cases. It's not random.
@AThagoras How is this information transferred from the environment to the organism? What is the vehicle? How does the environment transfer information to DNA? And how does DNA pick up this information? Magic?
@2uberu "How does the environment transfer information to DNA?"
Its called "natural selection".
Imagine that I roll 10 dice and I keep any that show a 6, and re-roll the rest. If I keep doing that, my preference for 6's will be encoded in the dice. Eventually they will all show 6.
In the same, way natural selection keeps DNA that is suited to the environment and discards DNA that is not suited. This encodes information about the environment in the DNA.
@2uberu "So who is the dice roller and how is what to select known before hand?"
It's just an analogy! I was just showing how selection can encode information when there is some source of randomness.
Random mutations are analogous to rolling the dice. Selection in nature depends on how suited the organism is to its environment, so the environment does the selection. Organisms that are better suited to their environment are better able to pass their DNA on.
Organism A survives better than organism B. Organism A can reproduce faster and more frequently than organism B. Organism B and its DNA would be rubbed out into non-existence. basically all the organisms in that population of Organism Bs would die off and Organism A is kept in the environment as the more fit population.
That's why cacti are close to the only plants that live in a desert. A tree couldn't survive there. So it dies and its DNA isn't ever passed on to the next generation.
@berniebay You are only observing results, yet the odds of something randomly adapting to an environment even once is astronomical and statistically impossible.
One mutation happens in about 1 in a billion organisms of one population.
Bacteria reproduce exponentially about every 20-40 minutes. Assume they double every 30 minutes. So twice per hour. In 24 hours, they will have split 48 times. So 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 16. You have 16 after 2 hours.
In 24 hours, you will have 2 raised to the 48th power of cells. That's about 2.8x10^14. Divide by 1 billion and that's about 280,000. 280,000 mutations in one day.
Enough mutations can completely change it. And Eukaryotic life spawned when prokaryotes engulfed other prokaryotes. Obviously that isn't fact but because mitochondria reproduce at their own rate, it is safe to assume that one prokaryote ate another basically and they live symbiotically.
Thus a new organism. Then as more and more DNA mutates, chloroplasts form leading to the birth of oxygen on earth. Algae become colonial to give way to seaweed, seaweed evolves into plants, etc.
You are aware that science isn't absolute. It just makes the most sense. Nothing is proven, they're just very good explanations as to how things happen.
The way gravity works isn't a proven fact, but we can draw from observation and experimentation that it has something to do with mass.
All science works this way, nothing is proven to be 100% true. But gradual change over time is observable. The fact that populations evolve is true, we can observe it. The way things evolve is the theory
@berniebay Yes, the way things evolve is theory. So someone who theorizes that there is an intelligence behind it would be just as credible as someone who believes alternatively.
How can you observe or perform an experiment about intelligent creation?
That's the difference. A theory must be built from a hypothesis (yes, creationism is a hypothesis, but only that), then it must be able to be observed and experimented using many variables.
And by saying "my car wasn't always there, someone made it" is not an experiment or scientific observation. Merely an assertion.
I already did. Considering a mutation can occur 280,000 in one day, say only 1% are not death causing. And say 1% of that are actually beneficially. So 28 beneficially mutations a day. Now say 1% of those mutations replace the old population. that's .28 per day. So in 4-5 days the population can be replaced.
A population can be replaced about 73 times in one year. If that happened for over 100 years then the pop. would have been replaced 7300 times. A new species will have arose.
@berniebay Are you serious? You actually think that what you stated is scientific observation? Your last sentence says it all. "A new species WILL have arose". WILL HAVE? Tell me how that is an observation. lol
From what we have observed we can make predictions. That's what science is, predictions and guesses, it isn't fact. The only thing is that the predictions are very good ones just because there was so much work done to build up to it.
And even if evolution weren't true, that doesn't make intelligent design true in any way.
Now you give me evidence of intelligent design. Scientific evidence.
I have a question.was the dna molecule the same in the past,or did it gather information.I mean,a crocodile a million years ago was the same crocodile as the one in our present day?And I've heard many people saying that a dandelion has x% human dna,a bee has y% human dna and stuff like that.Is their dna shorter?and does it mean that we are the most recent and evolved link of life?
Thank you,sorry for my bad english
Torcika 1 year ago
matt d has more patience than i will ever have.
toolegit2quittttt 1 year ago
why can't IDiots understand that man made things are different from natural. They aren't designed they are naturally like that. It's like saying that big rat looks like a cat therefore it is a cat. For any IDiots the rat is nature and the cat is something designed.
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
Less than 2 minutes into the video the athiests already failed. DNA is actually a code and is not used as analogy. Every science textbook I have, which is written in very literal language, refers to it as a code and without quotation marks.
Moreover, one the greatest scientist in Information Theory, Yockey, says DNA is an actual code.
vizion24 1 year ago
@vizion24 lol..... "codes" are man made , nature is not following orders from any man made god. nature works how it works because of evolution and natural selection. call it a code all you want, but if thats the case you have to agree that the "god" or whatever "created" the code imperfect.
7glitch 1 year ago
@7glitch You're right, codes are man made or come from an intelligent source. The question is where did the DNA code from since codes cannot be produced by blind naturalistic processes?
How is the code imperfect?
vizion24 1 year ago
@vizion24 the DNA code is not a "code" the way your thinking about it. its simply arose by natural forces the same way that single cell organisms evolve into more complex structures. /// the code is imperfect because people die all the time from bad DNA. like people with 8 arms and such. idk im realy not to educated on this subject , but it seems like common sence to me tosee DNA "code" as a more of a term. even if it acts like a code, it doesnt meanthat it could'nt havecome from natural prosses
7glitch 1 year ago
@7glitch From Yockey On the DNA Code:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)"
vizion24 1 year ago
@7glitch From Yockey: "The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. There is nothing in the physico -chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
vizion24 1 year ago
@7glitch All communication systems are subject to mutations, following the laws of probability. That's why Ethernet and TCP/IP have error correction and redundancy features. DNA has error correction and redundancy features as well. Note that mutation, noise and entropy are all the exact same thing in communication theory – and they are all undesirable.
Since all codes come from a mind and there is no naturalistic process to generate codes then it's reasonable to conclude God did it :)
vizion24 1 year ago
@vizion24 Since "all codes come from a mind and there is no naturalistic process to generate codes then it's reasonable to conclude God did it :)"....... ok what if DNA is just a way that cells evolved to reproduce themselves? like i said im not an expert on this, im barely a laman. i cant even spell lamen right probably, but to say "its reasonable to believe god did it" is an arguement from ignorance, because why is'nt it reasonable to just say i dont know yet?
7glitch 1 year ago
@vizion24 BTW wich god or gods do you think could be responsible for this? surely not the god of the bible, because he doesnt even know how the universe works according to the bible.
7glitch 1 year ago
Why do athesists need to hurl personal insults?
"if you think you know more about biology than the leading biologists? lol what a way to make an ass out of yourself.
Jayhawkblue 1 year ago
@Jayhawkblue why do creationists have to whine about and act as if their being victimised and somehow equate this to a legitimite argument?
TheEnchantedCereal 1 year ago
There is no scientific evidence to support evolution period.
Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance.
Question: What takes greater faith - to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of the cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
smart asses
Queegzzz 1 year ago
@Queegzzz "millions of intricately coordinated parts of the cell arose by chance" .... we live in a universe that is so big that rare things happen all the time,14 billion years is a loooooong time. so wait , you think that stars explode all around the universe creating star nurseries full of organic material for no reason? its more likely that a "god" we have never seen or heard from , who exist outside of space and time did it???? no scientific support for evolution???? YOU HAVENT LOOKED!!!!!
7glitch 1 year ago
7:56 did you hear that shockofgod?
runnysmokey0304 1 year ago
the whole premise of DNA being a code is simply an analogy. period. if analogies didnt exist, it would still be DNA. i can't compare theists to ants and then assert that there is a massive theist that spits out smaller theists to do work.
Bobselete 1 year ago
When someone does not understand what information is, yet continues to talk, hurts my pancreas.
Macque77 1 year ago
These people are idiots i should finish this. He said random or coded what difference does it make? When you see something organised in a certain way you are seeing design. Nowhere anywhere in the entire universe except in their theory will you see randomness forming anything but randomness. But that is not what you see. They were not understanding his point simply because they were blind. Soldiers do not march in formation just because "they can". They simply dont see whats right in their face.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator "Nowhere anywhere in the entire universe except in their theory will you see randomness forming anything but randomness."
Um, You won't see it in the ToE either. Sorry to point out what should be obvious even to a child, but "SELECTION" (as in the environmental culling of members of a population from the genepool) is quite NON-RANDOM.
Curiously It's lions expending the least energy that leads to predominantly culling the slow deer that jacks up the population of faster deer.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo This is the part atheists dont understand. In the beginning, what is there? Either God, the laws of nature, a random explosion, or nothing. or a combination of those things. So. which is it? If nature is selecting something than obviously nature has a will of its own....hence... GOD! So think about it what are the "powers that be"....nature...or god? nature is pretty much the entire known universe minus God in which case where did the universe come from???
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator WTF dude I gave you an example of natural selection and you act like "NATURE" has a mind with a will. It's just the energy cost applied to variantly replicating systems of populations that are non-randomly culled in the manner i posted earlier. Using the least energy to cull particular members of one group BY DEFAULT leaves the other members to breed and leave their evasive talents to the next generation. This survival of the mutants jacks up complexity over millenia.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo think about it anything that is organised must have a reason behind that organization does it not? so if nature is organised with laws and these laws can create a universe with life which is what your saying. I understand what natural selection is But why would animals evolve? There would have to be a driving force behind that. and in order to have complexity in the first place there has to be the first complexity. Where did that come from? atheist answer:nowhere.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator What do you uphold as evidence that ANYTHING organized has to have a reason (i presume you mean motive) rather than an un-thinking natural process?
Nature is organized BY the laws. But your incomplete sentence left me dangling.
They evolve because it is thermodynamically favorable.
There is. The driving force is thermodynamics.
Logic nuclear bomb failure. Where did god's complexity come from Theists answer:nowhere.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo There has to be a beginning. How does it begin? well lets think about this for once. either a big bang with the laws already in place. Or a god who made the laws and designed the rest. So do you like your laws? do you feel that your universal government is fair?
The mere fact that nothing comes from nothing proves that something has to be there in the first place and that that one something has to be a very powerful and creative force.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator "There has to be a beginning." Why?
"How does it begin?" I don't know.
"either a big bang .. Or a god..." Or maybe something else?
"So do you like your laws? do you feel that your universal government is fair?"
The laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PROSCRIPTIVE. Do you know what this means?
The mere fact that nothing comes from nothing proves that something has to be there in the first place.
Great, now keep it simple as that. Something always was. PERIOD.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo something else? i would like to hear any other explanation...
And actually i dont know what descriptive and prescriptive means in this context, But I would like to learn.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator
descriptive: as a product of analysis of a preexisting set of conditions. Example, objects on earth at sea level fall at 32 feet per second per second. That's a description based on observation.
prescriptive: like the laws of man. Used to artificially impose order essentially because natural order is esteemed to be inadequate or insufficient.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
well you cannot describe something properly that was not in our lifetime. Therefore you must prescribe theories to figure out what works until you find the answer.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator Please don't slaughter the language like that.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@Gaaminator when you have to dive into the farthest reaches of the unknown to find god. It's time to stop looking.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
OMG he cant even get it through his narrow fatass mind that DNA is a code...He cannot even comprehend it, it doesnt even compute for him.
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE! ME NO UN___ DERRRRR STAAAND!
FACT: organization does not exist without design.
PROVEN! can we send these people back to preschool?
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator that is not true. try actually making sure something is proven rather than blindly saying it has.
Bobselete 1 year ago
Hey fucktard from Denver...if DNA is a blueprint that is intelligently designed, how is it that this code replicates incorrectly, causing genetic deformity such as polydactly, albinism, or hemophilia? God is perfect, after all, and if he is the designer, how can such replication errors occur?
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
This poor soul comes by saying man i think there for I am. I'm intelligent according to what is excepted by all humans as intelligence. Which is the ability to even detect and crack a code. I myself use this intelligence to create and make things that have function and form. It looks like the world im in has function and form and can be decoded and detected. Maybe just maybe this is a design. Maybe aliens designed it maybe its a program. No, the atheist says just as loud as the religious say NO.
Poalee 1 year ago
I have yet had to have an "intelligent discussion" with an Intelligent Design Proponent.
Killjeser 1 year ago
Yay for Matt indirectly schooling ShockofGod without even mentioning his name.
Acorafication 1 year ago
I'm not a theist for two reasons:
1) There's no evidence of any god(s)
2) I would NEVER even think about arguing with Matt
laib17 1 year ago 19
@laib17 ur an atheist because ur an idiot with no brain
simonwacko 1 year ago
@laib17 Even if you did find yourself arguing with Matt, you'd still have to deal with Hitchens afterwards.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
What's with all the noise of fumbling and stuff being dropped on the floor? It's really annoying!
mythinktube 1 year ago
Scientists do not say DNA IS a code, they compare it to a code because it acts similar to a code. The only sites I've seen that say DNA is a code are Creationists websites. Creationists always compare things we know that requires intelligence to something that occurs naturally. If there is an intelligent designer, he also designed viruses that could penetrate cells "dumb" enough to replicate itself while infected.
HybridD91 1 year ago
I am gonna test this inferior atheist reasoning and logic.
It is true that atheist would not believe Mary mother of Jesus gave birth by immaculate conception because from an atheist perspective its illogical?
So isn't it illogical to concede that all life on earth arouse by immaculate conception?
Today's scientist unsuccessfully attempting to copy or replicate the original DNA is this not evidence or the experiment that proves a designer/creator.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Are you honestly comparing Abiogenesis to a magical event that requires a female's sexual organ? Because we can't replicate something we doesn't mean there is a designer, it just means we don't know everything, that's superios theist logic for you. It would be nearly impossble to replicate the original DNA, what ever that is in your view, because we don't know what the original DNA was or is. We can't compared life today with life in the past.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Comment removed
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HybridD91 sexual organ? so sex gives birth to life? But nothing gave birth to this earth full of life?
All by chance luck and coincidence that we are here today? This is the atheist logic? Is this scientific?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans humans are advanced life form that require cells made by male and female to organs reproduce.
Flowers got male and female parts. Look up hermaphrodite. Mammals are not hermaphrodites.
What is this original dna that youre talking about?
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
Atheists don't reject the immaculate conception because it is "illogical", per se. They reject it because it is 1) improbable and 2) there is no evidence for such an event and 3) there are plenty of such myths circulating in the ancient world.
Secondly, abiogenesis is not the same as immaculate conception.
Thirdly, scientists have managed to cook up some DNA in the lab.
Eron2828 1 year ago
@Eron2828 Really? Did they have it medium or well done?
Seriously what kind of DNA did they recreate? And can you site your source?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
I was thinking of this:
bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
Eron2828 1 year ago
@Eron2828 I doubt he knows who Craig Venter is and the success you're talking about.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91
He seems to have fucked off out of it anyway with his ignorance.
Eron2828 1 year ago
@Eron2828 He's probably saying it isn't true or even knows what synthetic DNA is.
HybridD91 1 year ago
w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=wwOlMry_H2o
Here's your proof.... that God exists
MrBeautifuluniverse 1 year ago
This is Perry Marshalls "Atheist Riddle"
ThatSneakyGuy 1 year ago
You guys are GODS...I worship YOU!!
ncPsychosis 1 year ago
this is making me sleepy
lawrencepluto 1 year ago
Why we still got monkeys?
BendTheBullet 1 year ago
@BendTheBullet
They're waiting to take over once the religious nuts drag us back into the Stone Age.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@BendTheBullet Why do we still have England if the settlers came from England? Monkies didn't "turn into" humans. We share a common ancestor and evolved "separately" but even if that was the case, the entire species wouldn't have to change. Just the X number of the species that natural selection acts upon.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Why can't creationists tell the difference between analogy and reality? Jesus H. Christ!
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever What does the H stand for? I always wondered that.
db10001110101 1 year ago
This caller needs to study what DNA is before he makes claims about it.
cherylsalo 1 year ago
do only idiots call them?
themachinegunn 1 year ago
@themachinegunn thats becuz only idiots believe in invisible magic man
joshchu 1 year ago
well that was a productive ten minutes...
why ask a question if you don't want to listen to the answer
Blambla72 1 year ago
I would like to slap that fat guy in the face and piss down his neck
metal12327 1 year ago
@metal12327 That's cause you're a fucking kinky faggot. Like me.
electronicoffee 1 year ago
@metal12327 that doesn't sound crazy at all
Kiajw 1 year ago
@metal12327
This is often the response from religious nuts when they don't like what they are hearing, or when they are losing an arguement.
cherylsalo 1 year ago
Why did this intelligent designer create Rh negative women and Rh posiitive men? The results wouldn't be pretty. If humans came from two people, why do we have different blood types?
HybridD91 1 year ago
"God is real." "Why?" "Because the bible says so." And why trust the bible?" "Because god says so." "Where?" "In the bible."
I wish public transportation were as reliable in their circles.
BigSwede7403 1 year ago
Talk about beating your head against a brick wall. Its always fascinating to hear people ask a question over and over again when they don't get the response they want.
There is no evidence to suggest the presence of a designer when it comes to life on Earth. Just because we don't know how life originally came to be in the earliest days of our planet doesn't mean that you can assume whatever you want and call it fact, there always HAS to be evidence of some kind.
Bromopar 1 year ago 8
@Bromopar Abiogenesis covers the origin of life and it's been confirmed in labs but spontaneous generation of complex organism(creationism) has been disproven in the mid 1800s. Creationists/IDs are centuries behind on scientific knowledge. If man can create artificial life, using techniques of Bioinformatics, an application formed by the help of Evolution, we may find out even more about our origins.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Ah, I was not aware of Abiogenesis thank you.
Bromopar 1 year ago
@Bromopar ..exactly.
geez,these people are so moronic in that they don't understand and think that asking idiotic questions adequately substitutes their lack of logic in explaining anything they have to claim.
ncPsychosis 1 year ago
@ncPsychosis I don't think it was an idiotic question. Most people think DNA is a code... ask anyone in the street to see what they say. So, that's no reason to start name-calling and get angry at people for not agreeing on the same beliefs one has.
Anyway, i don't think that YOU, ME, or the most intelligent person in this world can explain how everything became to just... be. Therefore, there is no idiotic questions, there is curiosity.
Peace.
iSleekDesign 1 year ago
@Bromopar I do not agree with that. There's infinite possibilities and we can never know for sure if someone "created us" or if our existence is just something.. "random". There doesn't have to be evidence, and there probably never will be. I am 100% sure that all these questions will be answered the minute we die.
I like what these guys talk about, but my opinion is that no one can know for sure how or when everything started. So, it could be an endless debate, no one will be right or wrong :)
iSleekDesign 1 year ago
@iSleekDesign That is no better than the argument from ignorance. That's like saying "I know we see a sun and it gets hot when the sun is in the sky but there is no acutal evidence that there is a sun so I'm just going to wait until I die to know for sure." The truth is we can know things for sure, we know a lot of things for sure because we can study the evidence in front of us. Evidence can not be tossed aside simply because we don't agree with the conclusions it points to.
Bromopar 1 year ago
@Bromopar That's definitely not what I meant. So, what will happen the day humans find out how we came to be? What then? Don't get me wrong, I agree with these guys, just don't think there always have to be "facts".
So, how can you explain the inexplicable? I see everyone in here talking about particles, molecules, "the sun". How about that which we can't see, like thoughts? Like dreams? Like out-of-body experiences? How do you explain that? There isn't facts to explain that part of the theory.
iSleekDesign 1 year ago
@iSleekDesign To answer the first part of your question we'll crack open a few beers and write paper after paper about it to spread the news to the entire world. Then we'll spend the rest of time arguing with people like you who don't agree with us for whatever reason.
To answer the second part of your question I don't know how to explain those things...yet.
Bromopar 1 year ago
@Bromopar Why does everyone have to agree with you? I accept the evidence and am aware it is there for anyone to see, but this doesn't mean we all have to agree on how you put this evidence together... or what comes out of it - your "hypothesis", because, after all, it is a "hypothesis". Anyway, I'm not really here to argue, like I said, I get what they're talking about and agree on most of it. I just don't think being rude to those who don't agree with you is the best thing to do.
iSleekDesign 1 year ago
@Bromopar Aditionally, I sense arrogance when you say "not yet" about the things you or anyone else hasn't yet found a solution for. There's just some things we have to accept even if we don't understand it... that's the way it is. We dream every single night, even if we don't remember, and that's a fact. You may have your theories about it, and I have mine. Doesn't mean I have to punch you if I don't agree with your point of view.
I'm not here to fight, I'm here to share my point of view.
iSleekDesign 1 year ago
@Bromopar Notice you are starting out with an assumption. Maybe you are on the other side saying to yourself there CANT be evidence of any kind.
He wasnt really asking the same question but more like asking him to think about it. There is no way you can have a completely unbiased argument otherwise it wouldnt be an argument. Both sides may make an assumption and press on it.
Honestly i dont think the 3 people are looking at the big picture...
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator I'm not starting with anything other than what is plainly and clearly proven with facts that are supported by evidence. I'm not saying there CAN'T be evidence I'm saying that what is being presented as evidence to support ID is in fact just the opposite. Not only that but when it comes to the designer there has never been a scientific theory to propose what the designer is, how it works as well as where and how. The only arguement that is ever presented is "This was designed."
Bromopar 1 year ago
Evolution is a communidt ideology.Period.
levonet33 1 year ago
Evolution is a communidt ideology.Period.
levonet33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientist have found in proteins some amino acids in this sequence: Tyrosine-Histidine-Tryptophan-Histidine. Using IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) one letter system for abbreviating chemical names of amino acids, we get: YHWH, wich is the English transliteration of Hebrew name of God!
neovicixity 1 year ago
@neovicixity
Pareidolia much?
Atharkas 1 year ago
This guy isn't listening to a single word they are saying. He keeps going "okay, let me explain this"
Over and over and over and over. C'mon theists...
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
The argument here is flawed in either case. You can't answer it unless you define what intelligence is from its most basic level. Perhaps it's comprised of the seven states of logic, which of itself is comprised of binary states. pleasure, pain but not always so extreme. To us, it seems like choice. I've seen a film (time lapsed) about vegatation seemly displaying intelligence. Intelligence is not only a function of the brain.
Jeorney 1 year ago
@Jeorney, I think they asked if he believed in the Christian god at the beginning, or the caller mentioned it. If not I'm sure they are running on an assumption that that is what they are talking about. Not the smoothest way to intilialize a debate, but their points were still valid.
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
@Jeorney The basic flaw, the important one, remains on the side of the caller. You could say all codes that we know were designed, were designed by human beings. Therefore the only conclusion (by analogy) that can be drawn is: DNA must have been designed by a human being too. It still says nothing about any kind of deity.
queenastilon 1 year ago
The question is how does DNA or codes prove god.
jezza170 1 year ago
Is DNA a code?
The first thing you need to do is provide a specific definition of what code is.
If you're defining code as having an intelligent creator, then you first need to establish whether DNA has an intelligent creator *before* you can decide whether the label of 'code' applies to it.
If you apply the label first, and then argue that it was intelligently designed based on that label, then you are assuming your conclusion in your premise (circular logic)
aaaaaFuck 1 year ago 3
If your definition of code does not include the requirement of having an intelligent designer, then you can easily apply that label to DNA without necessarily implying that it has an intelligent designer
aaaaaFuck 1 year ago
Holy Shit someone has Evidence for Intelligent Design!!!! Oh.............., no wait scratch that. (Utmost sarcasm)
jesuslikesporn 1 year ago
fucking people talking about who is the creator, cognitive failure
hopokuk 1 year ago
facepalm
breakdanceexpress 1 year ago
Hey guys,..i think the show needs more laughing,maybe hire one of those laughing carnival clowns that sit at the top of the water pool (you throw the ball to knock him down) . Wait ,..Don has the best laugh on the show,.maybe you can dub that laugh in the videos for these callers.
puffadderbite 1 year ago
@puffadderbite Well I would recommend, you watch the full shows or listen to their other show.
stenokhoria 1 year ago
Baldy is a bit smug.
Wipe the crap eating grin off your face. It undermines your credibility.
Clammypollack 1 year ago
douch bag's we were all created by god!or a creator however you'd like to call it we were created.There are a variety of forms of "the god"i'm persanaly cristian. You dont have to agree but you cant disagree without proof,I have enough proof myself of "God"How were we created?A mistake?No.The big bang is a hypothosis not truth.Prove there is no god?Read the bible,All athiest's do us all a favor and sit down read a bible this goes to people who dont belive in any god.G'day!
JuanAcostaTVofficial 1 year ago
@JuanAcostaTVofficial Provide proof there is god
You claim god exists.. show proof
I'll show you proof that there is no god...
There.. no proof.
podoau 1 year ago
@JuanAcostaTVofficial "douch bag's we were all created by god!or a creator however you'd like to call it we were created."
No. This "douch bag" was created by his parents, as were all other people and most other animals on earth. All life is created by replication. We don't know exactly how the first replicators arose, but that does not mean that God must have made them by magic.
There is a huge amount of evidence for the big bang. There is absolutely no evidence for any alternative theories.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@JuanAcostaTVofficial "Read the bible,All athiest's do us all a favor and sit down read a bible this goes to people who dont belive in any god."
Dude, many of us douche bags have read the Bible. That's why we're atheists. The Bible is a load of nonsense written be very ignorant bigoted people. Reading the Bible should make anyone an atheist or at least non-Christian.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras Agreed, but i would'nt go so far as to call the authors ignorant. They may very well have known exactly what they were doing, which was to take advantage of the majoritarily ignorant people. Kind of the same today if you think about it.....hmmmm?
wanderlei85 1 year ago
Why does his t-shirt say "Don't mess with Textbooks?"
biozamadotcom 1 year ago
@biozamadotcom Because these guys live in Texas where the Board of Education is literally re-writing history. It's a really serious issue.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@biozamadotcom Hi, It's a play on the anti- littering campaign line,"Don't mess with Texas". Since Texas and some other states have pushed for the inclusion of creation science in biology textbooks...Don't mess with textbooks (texas)
callingeuterpe 1 year ago
Who's the cute girl? And why do they bring a mute one on the show? :)
Phyrexious 1 year ago
yea the dna code was designed by something even more complex than the code itself,..GOD,...remember ,humans were made in gods image so god must have blood in his bones. ..it was gods great grandfather who designed the code for gods DNA. But gods great grandfathers DNA code was so highly complex that it just came into existance on its own. : /
puffadderbite 1 year ago
@puffadderbite Oh,has god got nipples then?
Rockster969 1 year ago
@Rockster969
check darkmatter2525 videos ,..you can see what god looks like
puffadderbite 1 year ago
How can the host say DNA is a synonym for 'information' and then dispute the fact it is a code? Where did the information inside DNA come from? Where did any of the information for creating a certain molecule come from, where did the specific order in the "geometrical" build-up moleucules come from? All by chance? All by evolution? not likely since all evolution has to begin with some sort of information...
MACRONOne 1 year ago
@MACRONOne
& don't get me wrong, i'm not saying there's a dude in skies who was the great architect of this all(creation). On the other hand, is it too hard to comprehend some sort of greater consciousness did create this or create the information/field(morphogenetic-fields) for certain structure's/form to arise, but we just cannot define this greater consciousness?
MACRONOne 1 year ago
@MACRONOne So who created this greater conciusness ?
This code is simply a string of molecules. We just call it a code because it does something. They happen to dictate who we are due to evolution. Your trying to look at our world and work backwards. Try looking at the start and work forwards. Our world could easily have contained many different things if some factors had favoured a different set of "code"
podoau 1 year ago
Ok, search for this:
Ep2: Designed and Designoid Objects.
See? No arguments for Intelligent Design.
MithranArkanere 1 year ago
It took 8 minutes to say "i don't know."
SunsetNap 1 year ago
@SunsetNap It takes some people a lifetime >.>....If Christians were able to admit that they didn't know, then this world would be a much better place.
IceC80 1 year ago
So let me get this straight. 1) Life spontaneously arouse under perfect circumstances, of which we do not know. 2)This life form not only survives, it has the magic ability to replicate itself seeing the need for it to pass on this life creating information, even though it itself will die. 3) There are people today who fervently believe in this scenario even though they haven't seen it or have any evidence of it occurring as such.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Let me get this straight. 1) Life was blinked into existence by a genie. 2) This life has the magic ability to live forever, after it dies, but only if it believes (according to one popular story anyway) the genie disguised himself as his own son and had himself sacrificed to himself to forgive the sins of his pet life forms. 3) there are people today who fervently believe in this scenario even though they didn't see or have any evidence of it occurring as such.
mandrellian 1 year ago 2
@mandrellian Why do you assume such things? I am trying to understand a Darwinist's belief system. Can you focus on that or must you change the subject? If someone claims to have cured cancer must every challenge produce it's own cure? Your response is both immature and irrelevant.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Check todays news. Life has been created in a testtube
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau So quick to believe something that hasn't been tested or vetted. Like most agenda-science news, the facts will probably change.
2uberu 1 year ago
@podoau If this is true though, It has a "creator".
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu . No. It proves that under the right curcumstances life can be created
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau ...created implies a creator.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu no it does not
created MEANS (not implied) that something exists that didnt before. ie, a cold stream of water runningto a hot stream of water creates lukewarm water.
One set of molecules mixing with a different set of molecules creates a new molecule. There is no creator required. ie. There is no god
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau Humans created this new life form, thus humans are the creator. Humans are the "god" in this context. It did not spontaneously occur without the help of intelligence.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Humans created god as a way to expain the unknown, therefore humans are the creator.
podoau 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@podoau "Humans created god as a way to expain the unknown, therefore humans are the creator. " This is obviously your "belief."
2uberu 1 year ago
@podoau You cannot prove that humans created God but you fervently believe believe it in an almost a fundamental pseudo- religious sort of way.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu god exists in the minds of some people, but there is no proof for the actual existance of any god. So therefore, god was created by the minds of men.
I dont beleive in the existance of any god. simply because there is no proof
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau Can you prove that there is no God?
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Looks around.. sees no evidence.. Yep.. no god
Now you prove that there is
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau Prove that there isn't.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu What a ridiculouus response. Your the one claiming that god exists.. prove it.. The onus is on you to prove the existant of something
Until you provide the proof, this discussion ends.
podoau 1 year ago
@podoau Prove that life spontaneously occurred with the information necessary to self replicate without the help of intelligence.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Since we weren't there to observe it, we may never be sure how the first replicating molecules arose, but we are working on plausible theories. It is very likely that we will be able to demonstrate that intelligence is not required for life to arise.
If life was created by intelligence, what created the intelligence in the first place? Evolution explains how intelligence can arise.
ID is not a sensible theory because there is no evidence for it and it explains nothing.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras Every time humans come across information, we assume that there was intelligence behind it. Information has never been observed to appear out of nowhere yet Darwinists insist that it does. I don't make an attempt to explain the origin of intelligence just the origin of the information required for life.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu There are several fallacies in your last post.
1. Biologists aren't claiming that information appears out of nowhere, but ID does claim that information appears by some kind of magic that contradicts known laws of physics.
2. Information is not required to start life off. All that is required is a self-replicating molecule or system of molecules. There are many billions of planets with different chemical mixes. All it takes is the right combination of molecules to start life off.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@2uberu If there is even a tiny chance of a self-replicating molecule arising from available materials, when you have billions of planets each with trillions of tons of materials available, the chances of a self-replication molecule appearing can be very large. No intelligence or source of information is required.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras You say the chances are quite large, then the universe should be teaming with life with the billions of galaxies containing billions of solar systems containing billions of planets, yet we have found 0. Why does someone say that the chances are great when the evidence is toward the contrary? Even if life is found somewhere else these self-replicating molecules would also have to randomly assemble information. It's like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and typing works of Shakespeare.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu The universe probably is teaming with life. There are many scientists trying to detect it.
"these self-replicating molecules would also have to randomly assemble information. "
That's the whole point of evolution. Natural selection encodes information in DNA. Selection is not random.
One analogy is that water in a puddle adapts to the shape of its environment. Life also adapts to suit its environment. Information about the environment is transferred in both cases. It's not random.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras How is this information transferred from the environment to the organism? What is the vehicle? How does the environment transfer information to DNA? And how does DNA pick up this information? Magic?
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu "How does the environment transfer information to DNA?"
Its called "natural selection".
Imagine that I roll 10 dice and I keep any that show a 6, and re-roll the rest. If I keep doing that, my preference for 6's will be encoded in the dice. Eventually they will all show 6.
In the same, way natural selection keeps DNA that is suited to the environment and discards DNA that is not suited. This encodes information about the environment in the DNA.
No magic required.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras So who is the dice roller and how is what to select known before hand?
2uberu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2uberu "So who is the dice roller and how is what to select known before hand?"
It's just an analogy! I was just showing how selection can encode information when there is some source of randomness.
Random mutations are analogous to rolling the dice. Selection in nature depends on how suited the organism is to its environment, so the environment does the selection. Organisms that are better suited to their environment are better able to pass their DNA on.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@2uberu
Organism A survives better than organism B. Organism A can reproduce faster and more frequently than organism B. Organism B and its DNA would be rubbed out into non-existence. basically all the organisms in that population of Organism Bs would die off and Organism A is kept in the environment as the more fit population.
That's why cacti are close to the only plants that live in a desert. A tree couldn't survive there. So it dies and its DNA isn't ever passed on to the next generation.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay You are only observing results, yet the odds of something randomly adapting to an environment even once is astronomical and statistically impossible.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
One mutation happens in about 1 in a billion organisms of one population.
Bacteria reproduce exponentially about every 20-40 minutes. Assume they double every 30 minutes. So twice per hour. In 24 hours, they will have split 48 times. So 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 16. You have 16 after 2 hours.
In 24 hours, you will have 2 raised to the 48th power of cells. That's about 2.8x10^14. Divide by 1 billion and that's about 280,000. 280,000 mutations in one day.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay But it is still bacteria, not a new species.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
Enough mutations can completely change it. And Eukaryotic life spawned when prokaryotes engulfed other prokaryotes. Obviously that isn't fact but because mitochondria reproduce at their own rate, it is safe to assume that one prokaryote ate another basically and they live symbiotically.
Thus a new organism. Then as more and more DNA mutates, chloroplasts form leading to the birth of oxygen on earth. Algae become colonial to give way to seaweed, seaweed evolves into plants, etc.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Sounds like a good theory, but to be scientific it needs to be proven.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
You are aware that science isn't absolute. It just makes the most sense. Nothing is proven, they're just very good explanations as to how things happen.
The way gravity works isn't a proven fact, but we can draw from observation and experimentation that it has something to do with mass.
All science works this way, nothing is proven to be 100% true. But gradual change over time is observable. The fact that populations evolve is true, we can observe it. The way things evolve is the theory
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Yes, the way things evolve is theory. So someone who theorizes that there is an intelligence behind it would be just as credible as someone who believes alternatively.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
How can you observe or perform an experiment about intelligent creation?
That's the difference. A theory must be built from a hypothesis (yes, creationism is a hypothesis, but only that), then it must be able to be observed and experimented using many variables.
And by saying "my car wasn't always there, someone made it" is not an experiment or scientific observation. Merely an assertion.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Show me where the origin of a new species can be observed using the scientific method.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
I already did. Considering a mutation can occur 280,000 in one day, say only 1% are not death causing. And say 1% of that are actually beneficially. So 28 beneficially mutations a day. Now say 1% of those mutations replace the old population. that's .28 per day. So in 4-5 days the population can be replaced.
A population can be replaced about 73 times in one year. If that happened for over 100 years then the pop. would have been replaced 7300 times. A new species will have arose.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Are you serious? You actually think that what you stated is scientific observation? Your last sentence says it all. "A new species WILL have arose". WILL HAVE? Tell me how that is an observation. lol
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
From what we have observed we can make predictions. That's what science is, predictions and guesses, it isn't fact. The only thing is that the predictions are very good ones just because there was so much work done to build up to it.
And even if evolution weren't true, that doesn't make intelligent design true in any way.
Now you give me evidence of intelligent design. Scientific evidence.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay So then you admit that Darwinism has not been proven by the scientific method, yet you religiously stand by it.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
Again, science doesn't prove anything, it makes good arguments for the reality of something. an