@arizonaviking Based on what can you claim Creationists don't have any proof? That's a bald claim based on ignorance. Just because you never bothered to look at the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As Randall is trying to point out life is built with digital code. You would think people like yourself would pause and think for a second. This code is highly organized information. There is no random process that can produce this level of organization. Including "random mutation."
@thewordofgod2010 It's not a digital code. Randall makes the equivocation error (or i would even suspect equivocation lie) between any type of information being called a code, and the original definition of code which has the intention of one intelligence communicating with another. Biologists can explain how it has reached it's current level of complexity. Also, whenever creationists claim to have evidence, it has always been something like this disingenuous video.
@trueleroix Actually you confronted the wrong person, I understand this area of biology very well. It is precisely digital code, labeled A G C T. Not binary code, it's literally a four digit code. Don't believe me? Perhaps you respect PBS?
For an introduction to the process of Transcription an Translation watch this PBS animation:
@thewordofgod2010 I confronted the right person precisely. It is not a digital code. Please don't explain try to DNA to me as if I don't know it. There are no digits, and there is no code. There is just a replicating double helix with a combination of the four nucleotides. If you insist on conflating the word "digital" to represent the nucleotides as "digits, and if you insist on equivocating "code" as used to describe DNA with codes used for communication, then I will not continue this.
@trueleroix "There is just a replicating double helix with a combination of the four nucleotides."
You do admit it is a "combination," and there is a precise order obviously. So my question is, how does "combination" differ from a "code" in your mind? I'm honestly curious, what precisely is the difference to you?
Combination: "an ordered sequence: a sequence of letters or numbers chosen in setting a lock:"
@thewordofgod2010 Don't use the word "admit", and then equivocate information with code in your response while using challenging language. The guy equivocates the two in the video, you did it in your last response, and then after I pointed out your error, you just did it again in this response. You know these mantras that you are spouting have been demolished over and over throughout the world in many languages. I know that your sources are not much different than the man in this video. UrDun
@trueleroix I'm not the one that calls DNA a "genetic code." Francis Crick himself called it a code, and even wrote a paper titled "Deciphering the Genetic Code." scientists today call it a code. They call it a "code" because that is truly it's function, they know it's a code. So yes, Randall and I have the same source, Francis Crick himself. And since you're wrong about this, is it possible you're wrong about God too? I'm not picking on you, I really, truly hope you think about this.
@thewordofgod2010 You're not getting it. They all call it a code. When you look up a word in the dictionary, you some times see, definition 1, definition2, even 3, etc. There is a reason that they are separate. It is wrong to say something is definition 1 because someone uses definition 3 to describe it, for instance. Apologists do this all of the time. It's called equivocation. I'm sorry that I got upset. I thought you understood this. He does this on purpose to imply design.
@trueleroix I understand this perfectly. Francis Crick himself after discovering there was code in DNA proposed the theory of "Panspermia." The idea that life on earth was seeded from space. Because he realized that evolution can't explain this. Thus he looked for some other natural explanation and proposed that life came from outer-space. That's right, Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick proposed this. The obvious answer is God designed life, but science can't consider this.
@TheScienceFoundation Actually evolution cannot explain origin or diversity. And the reason I know God created life is because I know God is frighteningly real. I have verified prophecies in the Bible, they are real also. Many of these prophecies are not in a form most would automatically recognize as a prophecy. Can I prove this to you? Yes, if you are willing to look at this openly and honestly.
@thewordofgod2010 Evolution was never intended to explain origins, but it does explain diversity in astonishing detail with mountains of corroborating data.
@TheScienceFoundation Ok. Jesus said he would offer up one proof, "the sign of Jonah." Have you read any of the New Testament? Anyway, it turns out the story of Jonah is actually a prophecy of Christ's death and resurrection. In summary, Jonah sacrificed himself to save his shipmates from the wrath of God. Jonah was in the belly of a "great fish" (really dead) for three days and nights and was alive again. This prophecy mirrors Christ's three days and three nights in the grave....
@TheScienceFoundation We know that the story of Jonah predates the New Testament by 700-800 years. The bible is actually a library of books so it's not circular logic as long as don't use a single book to confirm itself. This is only one of many prophecies in this form from the OT. Christ actually claimed the OT was pointing to him. It does amazingly. Want more?
@thewordofgod2010 The bible is a collection of works which only partially keeps consistent with its own story line, using the bible alone to confirm a story within the bible will always be circular logic. I'd like actual demonstrably fulfilled specific prophecies if you have them, not the biblical 'wheel of power'
@TheScienceFoundation How much have you studied the bible? The problem with your thinking is it's self-defeating. Where do you think God would record these prophecies if not in the bible? And then why would such a book not be included in the bible if it existed? And why would you except it if it wasn't in the biblical canon? The very reason those books are bound together is because they are deemed to be inspired.
@thewordofgod2010 The prophecies themselves being made go in the bible, sure. But the fulfillment of them would have to be extra-biblical to have any legitimacy. Otherwise, would you accept any prophecy written in a text that was also supposedly recorded as confirmed in the same text? If not, why not?
@TheScienceFoundation Well that's my point. The bible is actually a collection of different books that were bound together after-the-fact. That's important to understand. And speaking of ciphers, these stories are actually an interesting form of cryptography. The stories contain allusions to Jesus Christ in hundreds of various ways. So they were locked and nobody even knew they were prophetic until after Christ died and rose again. This was likely to prevent impostors.
Genetic Code: "the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life" (merriam-webster dictionary)
@TheScienceFoundation I agree it's more an information storage medium, not C++. A better metaphor would be a computer document not a program or programming language. So the question is what created the document (recorded information)? It's a digital code no matter how you look at it.
@thewordofgod2010 It's a genetic code, as we've already defined, and if it were to be compared to anything in computing it would be more like a one way cipher.
I mean it Randall, for your sake you seem like an ok guy, just misinformed. To save you from sounding like a complete moron, in the future please do at least a *little* research?
It's not an interpretation code, you have that completely backwards, genes express into phenotype, not phenotype interprets genotype. "Code means nothing if no one shares the language convention...it's the same with DNA" It's so sad that you even realize *why* DNA isn't a code, DNA doesn't have to be externally translated to express traits.
"Where does information come from"
Any process that produces distinguishing characteristics.
DNA is not a written code, DNA is genetic code, which simply means the biochemical basis of heredity. Please actually learn about the subjects you speak on before making such ridiculously invalid analogies. You do realize that AGTC aren't literally characters but only our representation of nucleotides, yes? You even hit the nail on the head as to how it was produced by natural processes 'it's self replicating'
@gerinja no idea but its more tahn this,. id being investigating,.. and the dna its a tiny shit, because who ever create us, they also must have created this planet and the moon, its not about just DNA since there will be not live without the sun or without the moon, if would be just a little bit closer or far away from the son there would be no live either, even if the planet would be a little tilted up or down ther would no stations and not live,.. everything is connected
yep even dawkins proposed the panspermia theory, a bunch of them do...but thats right randall is a lawyer, help! can you look at this in regards to fair use and youtube censorship /watch?v=zUzWjWKLes4. i think legal action should be taken against youtube, or sony/wmg, seeing as they constantly disregard fair use...my vid knowing exposed part 5 is being censored in US and Germany when clearly it falls under fair use.
@SylvanSage He certainly made the invalid analogy that DNA is a code, it's not.
If it's comparable to anything it's a one-way cipher, and that's not even that accurate. DNA does not require interpretation to express traits, in fact it's not even an interpretation, it's a one way expression.
@TheScienceFoundation tell that to the amino acids that DNA..what's the word I'm looking for here?...oh yeah, codes for.
DNA is nothing less than PRESCRIPTIVE information. we KNOW that natural processes are not capable of producing prescriptive information, yet prescriptive information lies at the very base of even the simplest life forms. We KNOW that intelligent agents are the ONLY source of prescriptive information. Your darwin of the gaps desparation is amusing and sad
@FillTheirVoid Thank you for exemplifying multiple fallacies from this video, mainly the strawman of 'chance creating X' because anyone who is even slightly educated in any of the respective fields of science is aware that physics/chemistry/biology are not chance based processes.
'No, God did it'
That's certainly the bare assertion that has yet to be backed up with a single piece of empirical data. Bare assertion is another fallacy, by the way.
i think we can become dr. after see this.
miigashish 1 week ago
It's had 3 billion years of random movements and the evolution to fit molecules together and then structure properly.
josephpearse1 9 months ago
@reflect7 Thank you my brother for sharing and shining a light on the darkness.
thewordofgod2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Delete my comments, tool.
LeetchToss 1 year ago
Doucne
LeetchToss 1 year ago
Douche.
LeetchToss 1 year ago
Douche bag.
LeetchToss 1 year ago 2
Douche
LeetchToss 1 year ago 2
Douche
LeetchToss 1 year ago 2
You can't just wake up the reality of a science. You don't just develop the Pythagorean theorem in your sleep douche.
Huge ass tool.
LeetchToss 1 year ago
This guy is SERIOUSLY creepy looking.
odinata 1 year ago
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." Ashley Montagu
arizonaviking 1 year ago 5
@arizonaviking Though everyone has to admit the proof reaffirms their certainty
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@arizonaviking Based on what can you claim Creationists don't have any proof? That's a bald claim based on ignorance. Just because you never bothered to look at the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As Randall is trying to point out life is built with digital code. You would think people like yourself would pause and think for a second. This code is highly organized information. There is no random process that can produce this level of organization. Including "random mutation."
thewordofgod2010 1 year ago
@thewordofgod2010 It's not a digital code. Randall makes the equivocation error (or i would even suspect equivocation lie) between any type of information being called a code, and the original definition of code which has the intention of one intelligence communicating with another. Biologists can explain how it has reached it's current level of complexity. Also, whenever creationists claim to have evidence, it has always been something like this disingenuous video.
trueleroix 11 months ago
@trueleroix Actually you confronted the wrong person, I understand this area of biology very well. It is precisely digital code, labeled A G C T. Not binary code, it's literally a four digit code. Don't believe me? Perhaps you respect PBS?
For an introduction to the process of Transcription an Translation watch this PBS animation:
watch?v=41_Ne5mS2ls
thewordofgod2010 11 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 I confronted the right person precisely. It is not a digital code. Please don't explain try to DNA to me as if I don't know it. There are no digits, and there is no code. There is just a replicating double helix with a combination of the four nucleotides. If you insist on conflating the word "digital" to represent the nucleotides as "digits, and if you insist on equivocating "code" as used to describe DNA with codes used for communication, then I will not continue this.
trueleroix 11 months ago
@trueleroix "There is just a replicating double helix with a combination of the four nucleotides."
You do admit it is a "combination," and there is a precise order obviously. So my question is, how does "combination" differ from a "code" in your mind? I'm honestly curious, what precisely is the difference to you?
Combination: "an ordered sequence: a sequence of letters or numbers chosen in setting a lock:"
thewordofgod2010 11 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Don't use the word "admit", and then equivocate information with code in your response while using challenging language. The guy equivocates the two in the video, you did it in your last response, and then after I pointed out your error, you just did it again in this response. You know these mantras that you are spouting have been demolished over and over throughout the world in many languages. I know that your sources are not much different than the man in this video. UrDun
trueleroix 11 months ago
@trueleroix I'm not the one that calls DNA a "genetic code." Francis Crick himself called it a code, and even wrote a paper titled "Deciphering the Genetic Code." scientists today call it a code. They call it a "code" because that is truly it's function, they know it's a code. So yes, Randall and I have the same source, Francis Crick himself. And since you're wrong about this, is it possible you're wrong about God too? I'm not picking on you, I really, truly hope you think about this.
thewordofgod2010 11 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 You're not getting it. They all call it a code. When you look up a word in the dictionary, you some times see, definition 1, definition2, even 3, etc. There is a reason that they are separate. It is wrong to say something is definition 1 because someone uses definition 3 to describe it, for instance. Apologists do this all of the time. It's called equivocation. I'm sorry that I got upset. I thought you understood this. He does this on purpose to imply design.
trueleroix 11 months ago
@trueleroix I understand this perfectly. Francis Crick himself after discovering there was code in DNA proposed the theory of "Panspermia." The idea that life on earth was seeded from space. Because he realized that evolution can't explain this. Thus he looked for some other natural explanation and proposed that life came from outer-space. That's right, Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick proposed this. The obvious answer is God designed life, but science can't consider this.
thewordofgod2010 11 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Probably because evolution was never meant to explain the origin of life, only diversity.
'The obvious answer is God designed life' How is this obvious? What, other than your assertion and bias, makes you think this is plausible?
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Actually evolution cannot explain origin or diversity. And the reason I know God created life is because I know God is frighteningly real. I have verified prophecies in the Bible, they are real also. Many of these prophecies are not in a form most would automatically recognize as a prophecy. Can I prove this to you? Yes, if you are willing to look at this openly and honestly.
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Evolution was never intended to explain origins, but it does explain diversity in astonishing detail with mountains of corroborating data.
Sure, I'm up for it.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ok. Jesus said he would offer up one proof, "the sign of Jonah." Have you read any of the New Testament? Anyway, it turns out the story of Jonah is actually a prophecy of Christ's death and resurrection. In summary, Jonah sacrificed himself to save his shipmates from the wrath of God. Jonah was in the belly of a "great fish" (really dead) for three days and nights and was alive again. This prophecy mirrors Christ's three days and three nights in the grave....
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Is that confirmed in any way outside of the claim of the bible?
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation We know that the story of Jonah predates the New Testament by 700-800 years. The bible is actually a library of books so it's not circular logic as long as don't use a single book to confirm itself. This is only one of many prophecies in this form from the OT. Christ actually claimed the OT was pointing to him. It does amazingly. Want more?
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 The bible is a collection of works which only partially keeps consistent with its own story line, using the bible alone to confirm a story within the bible will always be circular logic. I'd like actual demonstrably fulfilled specific prophecies if you have them, not the biblical 'wheel of power'
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation How much have you studied the bible? The problem with your thinking is it's self-defeating. Where do you think God would record these prophecies if not in the bible? And then why would such a book not be included in the bible if it existed? And why would you except it if it wasn't in the biblical canon? The very reason those books are bound together is because they are deemed to be inspired.
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 The prophecies themselves being made go in the bible, sure. But the fulfillment of them would have to be extra-biblical to have any legitimacy. Otherwise, would you accept any prophecy written in a text that was also supposedly recorded as confirmed in the same text? If not, why not?
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well that's my point. The bible is actually a collection of different books that were bound together after-the-fact. That's important to understand. And speaking of ciphers, these stories are actually an interesting form of cryptography. The stories contain allusions to Jesus Christ in hundreds of various ways. So they were locked and nobody even knew they were prophetic until after Christ died and rose again. This was likely to prevent impostors.
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Genetic code means the biochemical basis of heredity.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Indeed thanks. Or more exactly.
Genetic Code: "the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life" (merriam-webster dictionary)
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Yep, nothing about a programmed language.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I agree it's more an information storage medium, not C++. A better metaphor would be a computer document not a program or programming language. So the question is what created the document (recorded information)? It's a digital code no matter how you look at it.
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 It's a genetic code, as we've already defined, and if it were to be compared to anything in computing it would be more like a one way cipher.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation A one way cipher? Yeah, that works too. Cryptography is something I understand. 267270253252199111165179305380232199
thewordofgod2010 10 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 I said it's most comparable to a one way-cipher but even that's not entirely accurate.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
I mean it Randall, for your sake you seem like an ok guy, just misinformed. To save you from sounding like a complete moron, in the future please do at least a *little* research?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
"Can it arise randomly by chance?" Ignoring the fact that abiogenesis/evolution isn't chance, yes, it's called emergence.
"Or does information code have to be programmed"
Code are values we give to sets in a system. I can make a 'code' out of the stars in the night sky.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
It's not an interpretation code, you have that completely backwards, genes express into phenotype, not phenotype interprets genotype. "Code means nothing if no one shares the language convention...it's the same with DNA" It's so sad that you even realize *why* DNA isn't a code, DNA doesn't have to be externally translated to express traits.
"Where does information come from"
Any process that produces distinguishing characteristics.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
DNA is not a written code, DNA is genetic code, which simply means the biochemical basis of heredity. Please actually learn about the subjects you speak on before making such ridiculously invalid analogies. You do realize that AGTC aren't literally characters but only our representation of nucleotides, yes? You even hit the nail on the head as to how it was produced by natural processes 'it's self replicating'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
this was pretyy good video prety balanced on all parts
indeed the dna template canot arise by itself: this can mean about 2 things
-god wrote the code
-or the information contained in the dna structure is inherent to the multiverse
thus always existed, its present in hyperspace and manifest intself when the right soup of chemical elemets are present
already then
ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE False dichotomy, simple cells can be and are produced out of various non living organic components.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
so if the allliens create us, who create the alliens?
Quitenno 1 year ago
@Quitenno other aliens
gerinja 1 year ago
@gerinja then who create the aliens that create the aliens who create us?
Quitenno 1 year ago
@Quitenno other aliens, and those were created by other aliens and those by other... and so on. its an infinite regress.
gerinja 1 year ago
@gerinja But what was first?, .... are you saying there was not beginning??
Quitenno 1 year ago
@Quitenno what do you think was at the beginning?
gerinja 1 year ago
@gerinja no idea but its more tahn this,. id being investigating,.. and the dna its a tiny shit, because who ever create us, they also must have created this planet and the moon, its not about just DNA since there will be not live without the sun or without the moon, if would be just a little bit closer or far away from the son there would be no live either, even if the planet would be a little tilted up or down ther would no stations and not live,.. everything is connected
Quitenno 1 year ago
yep even dawkins proposed the panspermia theory, a bunch of them do...but thats right randall is a lawyer, help! can you look at this in regards to fair use and youtube censorship /watch?v=zUzWjWKLes4. i think legal action should be taken against youtube, or sony/wmg, seeing as they constantly disregard fair use...my vid knowing exposed part 5 is being censored in US and Germany when clearly it falls under fair use.
Leiflton 1 year ago
Typical creationist blind chance strawman.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Did you even listen to the video?
He just explained that DNA is a information code...how is that a blind chance straw man?
SylvanSage 1 year ago
@SylvanSage No, he was straw manning all naturalist positions as blind chance.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@SylvanSage He certainly made the invalid analogy that DNA is a code, it's not.
If it's comparable to anything it's a one-way cipher, and that's not even that accurate. DNA does not require interpretation to express traits, in fact it's not even an interpretation, it's a one way expression.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation tell that to the amino acids that DNA..what's the word I'm looking for here?...oh yeah, codes for.
DNA is nothing less than PRESCRIPTIVE information. we KNOW that natural processes are not capable of producing prescriptive information, yet prescriptive information lies at the very base of even the simplest life forms. We KNOW that intelligent agents are the ONLY source of prescriptive information. Your darwin of the gaps desparation is amusing and sad
RandomChance7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RandomChance7 DNA is not prescriptive information, DNA is a one way cipher at best.
'We KNOW that intelligent agents are the ONLY source of prescriptive information.'
Ignoring that this is begging the question, based on what?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Chance done did it I reckon mmhmm.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid Of course it didn't, but you already know that this video is fallacy I suspect.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, God did it ... but your laughable theories regarding chance creating everything are.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FillTheirVoid Thank you for exemplifying multiple fallacies from this video, mainly the strawman of 'chance creating X' because anyone who is even slightly educated in any of the respective fields of science is aware that physics/chemistry/biology are not chance based processes.
'No, God did it'
That's certainly the bare assertion that has yet to be backed up with a single piece of empirical data. Bare assertion is another fallacy, by the way.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago