@nephilimfree at the end she says in the end is two dna molecules, So what in the world created the first dna strand for the first cell if evolution is true? This alone slaughters any evolutionist beliefs.
I just watched this video again. I am impressed by the amount of knowledge that was required to produce those visualizations. I hope that in a short time we can use that same information to cure genetic diseases such as Cystic fibrosis. The means of patching DNA would be ERVs. We have captured one and studied it extensively. It is HIV.
Did you ever get a chance to checkout what it takes to bootstrap a C compiler like GCC or a Lisp compiler like SBCL?
@NephilimFree Indeed. It certainly does NOT work that way. There are stochastic processes. But they all obey natural laws. The fun question to ask is, where did the laws of nature come from? We can not even hope to violate these laws.
What we have here are the most complex structures known to humanity. We have a lot to learn. Our brains are built of these things and are able to store and process even more information than DNA. There may be more bacteria than us. But we are smarter than bacteria
Yeap this is a design. I wonder if the creator of the 3d DNA presentation did random movements with his mouse in order to create this presentation or really specific ones? A Design is made by a designer and a creation by a creator. People should look deeper in their closet for the actual causes that make them unable to comprehend this idea because "science" is not the reason. Science explains the how and not the WHO. Nirvana and God exist no matter if you experience them or not.
@krisv001 Hello Kris. Firstly, an acceptance of evolution is not necessarily a denial of God. Secondly, if you know the processes involved and the nature of chemical reactions and interactions, this is perfectly understandable. Though complex, DNA replication obeys natural laws. Things often seem unbelievable until you take the time to find out how they work. One would think intelligent design would, by definition, lend itself to simplicity, not unbelievable over-complication.
@FreeThinkingWoman88 Evolutionism is an excuse atheists use to deny God's existance, like it or not. Chemical reactions have no power to develop anything of endlessly increasing complexity. Abiogenesis has long been discredited, which is why even secular scientists are abandoning the idea in lieu of the equally absurd Panspermia concept. The secular Journal of Cosmology recently published a long paper describing the impossibility that life could arise on the Earth by molecular interactions.
@FreeThinkingWoman88 DNA is empirical proof of both Intelligent Design and Special creation. Aside for the fact that it's complexity alone discredits any notion it arose by natural causes, it's properties are those which can only be produced by mind: algorithmic process, language law conformity, and information. THere is no possibility DNA could be a product of nature. None whatsoever. Modern science has disproven the horse-and-bugy days concepts of Darwin and his contemporaries.
@FreeThinkingWoman88 DNA posesses information comprised of overlapping and embedded sequences, meta-information interdependance, punctuation, syntax, and grammar, stored and retrieved by algorithmic processes to conform to linguistics law organization more advanced that Zipf's Law. Evolution was a neat idea in 1950. It's just an empty excuse today. Those who cling to it do so because they think it gives them an excuse for claiming God does not exist, but all it does is make them look silly.
@lovingboarding One must suffer from a mild form of insanity to see this and believe nature could produce it, because it wuld be far beyond impossible. Such a person would lack a grasp on reality. But then, creationists don't believe that atheists actually believe it happened, because the majrity of them are denialists of what they know is true, but cannot admit it.
I think you might find this interesting. Look for the source code of GCC or SBCL. You don't have to download it (it would be a large download). But it would be worth checking out the requirements to compile the source.
Even intelligent design needs to bootstrap. The word "bootstrap" is worth looking up too.
As far as proteins go, with only 20 amino acids, it should not be surprising that there is a lot of commonality. If you want to digest sugar, you need the right stuff.
@Fudmottin It is true that some genetic and protien similarities exist because of a common environment/diet, etc. I've been telling evolutionists this for a long time. However, the formation of a medium sized protien from the amino acids by mere mlecular interactions is impossible times impossible (at least) according to statistical analysis of probability.Science therefore declares it impossible, but evolutionism isn't science, so evolutionist believe "it happened anyway".
Thank you this is a very interesting video. In your notes you make the argument for irreducible complexity (You made a good job of it). How do you answer that our DNA is similar to other life forms on this planet? If not evolution what is our connection?
@rjl404 National Geographhic states, "California purple urchins share more than 7,000 genes with humans, making them closer cousins to us than are fruit flies and worms." And yet flies are more similar to humans than urchins in that they at least have legs. Furthermore, the Human Genome project has determined that humans have about 20,00-25,000 genes - far fewer genes than the 200,000 evolutionists long predicted.
@rjl404 If euchins posess 7,000 genes in common with man, 1/3 of our DNA is the same. Yet morphologically we're not similar at all. Genetic similarity doesn't support evolution. These 7,000 genes don't posess information that produces similar design. Instead, they're evidence a common designer used the sequences of nucleotides in the genes of organisms to produce different designs. Striking genetic similarities exist between humans and plants tool they're not even of the same kingdom as man!
@NephilimFree Thank you for your response, I can see the backbone of your point. Our shared Genes comes from being designed by the same party. As for your means of making that point. I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree. I will start my research today.
cdk007 analogies in the beginning are very bad, in my opinion, but they get the point across. In the end, this video explain the theory of Abiogenesis very well, also in my opinion.
Remember the origin of life has nothing to do with th theory of evolution. Even if it were shown tomorrow that there was a designer, we still can't say it occurred 6000 year ago, uranium-lead dating, and others, say otherwise.
@TheCopaceticMan Evolutionism is tied to and dependant upon abiogenesis theory. There is no road sign that could say one ends here and this one starts here. Abiogenesis is simply a name given to the theory of origin, but it is claimed to be evolution process, and evolutionist scientists use the word "evolution" constantly when discussing their imagined abiogenesis ideas. The evidence that the Earth is only thousands of yrs old is oberhwelming.
@TheCopaceticMan For a cursory list of evidences which prove this planet cannot be more than thousands of yrs old, please go to nephilimfree d o t c o m and read "The Age of the Earth". That article quite a few, though only a relative few of the many proofs that the Earth is only several thousand yrs old. As for radiometric and isometric dating, these processes cannot actualy provide a date for anything. They are circular logic and assumption based, and all of them are discredited.
@TheCopaceticMan For a simple explaination of why uranium-lead dating is worthless, please watch the video series titles Drama in the Rocks. In it you will learn how hydrology experimentation proves that the flood is a scirntific fact demonstrated by the stratification of the Earth. You will also lean many things about stratification. Then go to the website titled "The Emperor Has No Clothes - Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution" and read the entire site.
@TheCopaceticMan When you are done with these, if you still claim evolution is true, then you will have proven that you do so not because what science demonstrates, but because your heart refuses to acknowledge that God is your creator and you are subject to His authority, and for this reason you refuse to acknowledge what you mind has learned in lieu of what your heart wants to be true.
Lastly, the existance of DNA is empirical proof of both Intelligent Design and Special Creation.
@TheCopaceticMan, actually abiogenesis and evolution have everything in common as the first form of life had to evolve amazingly fast or it would have died. you also need abiogenesis first or you dont get evolution as evo needs life to make changes in the first place. i dont debate the age of the earth but it is obvious to me that god made everything and i dont believe god used evolution to make life as there is no evidence to prove it.
Isn't it just amazing that evolutionists think that this all happened by random molecular interactions? The science denialism and lack of basic critical thinking skills these people lack is truly astounding.
The Theory of Evolution is the basis of modern biology because it works, it explains how organisms work.
demoskunk 6 months ago
@demoskunk Evolutionism is the basis for nothing. It has nothing to do with science, though evos attempt to bend science to conform to evolutionism.
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@nephilimfree at the end she says in the end is two dna molecules, So what in the world created the first dna strand for the first cell if evolution is true? This alone slaughters any evolutionist beliefs.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Well said. Even a bit of DNA is something nature could never produce.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
I just watched this video again. I am impressed by the amount of knowledge that was required to produce those visualizations. I hope that in a short time we can use that same information to cure genetic diseases such as Cystic fibrosis. The means of patching DNA would be ERVs. We have captured one and studied it extensively. It is HIV.
Did you ever get a chance to checkout what it takes to bootstrap a C compiler like GCC or a Lisp compiler like SBCL?
Fudmottin 1 year ago
@Fudmottin No, but I am sure it is complex. It pales compared to DNA though.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Too incredible for chance
Krazie316 1 year ago
Remember kids, this all happened by accident. A cosmic role of the dice. Atheism = pure idiocy.
Kelp25 1 year ago
@Kelp25 Amen! As if molecules bumping into each other could ever create something the slightest bit like DNA. LOL!
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Indeed. It certainly does NOT work that way. There are stochastic processes. But they all obey natural laws. The fun question to ask is, where did the laws of nature come from? We can not even hope to violate these laws.
What we have here are the most complex structures known to humanity. We have a lot to learn. Our brains are built of these things and are able to store and process even more information than DNA. There may be more bacteria than us. But we are smarter than bacteria
Fudmottin 1 year ago
Yeap this is a design. I wonder if the creator of the 3d DNA presentation did random movements with his mouse in order to create this presentation or really specific ones? A Design is made by a designer and a creation by a creator. People should look deeper in their closet for the actual causes that make them unable to comprehend this idea because "science" is not the reason. Science explains the how and not the WHO. Nirvana and God exist no matter if you experience them or not.
globalzombietion 1 year ago
Amazing stuff ! I wonder how an evolutionist can look at this sort of things and still believer that there is no God ... .
krisv001 1 year ago
@krisv001 Hello Kris. Firstly, an acceptance of evolution is not necessarily a denial of God. Secondly, if you know the processes involved and the nature of chemical reactions and interactions, this is perfectly understandable. Though complex, DNA replication obeys natural laws. Things often seem unbelievable until you take the time to find out how they work. One would think intelligent design would, by definition, lend itself to simplicity, not unbelievable over-complication.
FreeThinkingWoman88 1 year ago
@FreeThinkingWoman88 Evolutionism is an excuse atheists use to deny God's existance, like it or not. Chemical reactions have no power to develop anything of endlessly increasing complexity. Abiogenesis has long been discredited, which is why even secular scientists are abandoning the idea in lieu of the equally absurd Panspermia concept. The secular Journal of Cosmology recently published a long paper describing the impossibility that life could arise on the Earth by molecular interactions.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@FreeThinkingWoman88 DNA is empirical proof of both Intelligent Design and Special creation. Aside for the fact that it's complexity alone discredits any notion it arose by natural causes, it's properties are those which can only be produced by mind: algorithmic process, language law conformity, and information. THere is no possibility DNA could be a product of nature. None whatsoever. Modern science has disproven the horse-and-bugy days concepts of Darwin and his contemporaries.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@FreeThinkingWoman88 DNA posesses information comprised of overlapping and embedded sequences, meta-information interdependance, punctuation, syntax, and grammar, stored and retrieved by algorithmic processes to conform to linguistics law organization more advanced that Zipf's Law. Evolution was a neat idea in 1950. It's just an empty excuse today. Those who cling to it do so because they think it gives them an excuse for claiming God does not exist, but all it does is make them look silly.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@Nephilimfree - Hey Neph, look at all the intelligence.
Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty. The whole earth is filled with His glory.
- Isaiah 6:3
MultiArchangel 1 year ago
@MultiArchangel Indeed! Mind boggling genius.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Man, evolution is awesome!
Thanks, Neph^^
lovingboarding 1 year ago
@lovingboarding One must suffer from a mild form of insanity to see this and believe nature could produce it, because it wuld be far beyond impossible. Such a person would lack a grasp on reality. But then, creationists don't believe that atheists actually believe it happened, because the majrity of them are denialists of what they know is true, but cannot admit it.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
I think you might find this interesting. Look for the source code of GCC or SBCL. You don't have to download it (it would be a large download). But it would be worth checking out the requirements to compile the source.
Even intelligent design needs to bootstrap. The word "bootstrap" is worth looking up too.
As far as proteins go, with only 20 amino acids, it should not be surprising that there is a lot of commonality. If you want to digest sugar, you need the right stuff.
Great video.
Fudmottin 1 year ago
@Fudmottin It is true that some genetic and protien similarities exist because of a common environment/diet, etc. I've been telling evolutionists this for a long time. However, the formation of a medium sized protien from the amino acids by mere mlecular interactions is impossible times impossible (at least) according to statistical analysis of probability.Science therefore declares it impossible, but evolutionism isn't science, so evolutionist believe "it happened anyway".
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree If anyone is declaring that a particular protein formed purely from chance, I'll be happy to throw a wet sponge at them.
Fudmottin 1 year ago
Just AMAZING, and that just happened by chance? Yeah right.
shayneby 1 year ago
Thank you this is a very interesting video. In your notes you make the argument for irreducible complexity (You made a good job of it). How do you answer that our DNA is similar to other life forms on this planet? If not evolution what is our connection?
rjl404 1 year ago
@rjl404 National Geographhic states, "California purple urchins share more than 7,000 genes with humans, making them closer cousins to us than are fruit flies and worms." And yet flies are more similar to humans than urchins in that they at least have legs. Furthermore, the Human Genome project has determined that humans have about 20,00-25,000 genes - far fewer genes than the 200,000 evolutionists long predicted.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@rjl404 If euchins posess 7,000 genes in common with man, 1/3 of our DNA is the same. Yet morphologically we're not similar at all. Genetic similarity doesn't support evolution. These 7,000 genes don't posess information that produces similar design. Instead, they're evidence a common designer used the sequences of nucleotides in the genes of organisms to produce different designs. Striking genetic similarities exist between humans and plants tool they're not even of the same kingdom as man!
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Thank you for your response, I can see the backbone of your point. Our shared Genes comes from being designed by the same party. As for your means of making that point. I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree. I will start my research today.
Have a happy new year
P.S. Any suggested links?
rjl404 1 year ago
@rjl404 creation d o t c o m is a great place to start. Also Google
Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis
Edinburgh Creation Group
Tas Walker's Biblical Geology
The Emperor Has No Clothes - Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution
NephilimFree 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
cdk007 analogies in the beginning are very bad, in my opinion, but they get the point across. In the end, this video explain the theory of Abiogenesis very well, also in my opinion.
Remember the origin of life has nothing to do with th theory of evolution. Even if it were shown tomorrow that there was a designer, we still can't say it occurred 6000 year ago, uranium-lead dating, and others, say otherwise.
TheCopaceticMan 1 year ago
@TheCopaceticMan Evolutionism is tied to and dependant upon abiogenesis theory. There is no road sign that could say one ends here and this one starts here. Abiogenesis is simply a name given to the theory of origin, but it is claimed to be evolution process, and evolutionist scientists use the word "evolution" constantly when discussing their imagined abiogenesis ideas. The evidence that the Earth is only thousands of yrs old is oberhwelming.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@TheCopaceticMan For a cursory list of evidences which prove this planet cannot be more than thousands of yrs old, please go to nephilimfree d o t c o m and read "The Age of the Earth". That article quite a few, though only a relative few of the many proofs that the Earth is only several thousand yrs old. As for radiometric and isometric dating, these processes cannot actualy provide a date for anything. They are circular logic and assumption based, and all of them are discredited.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@TheCopaceticMan For a simple explaination of why uranium-lead dating is worthless, please watch the video series titles Drama in the Rocks. In it you will learn how hydrology experimentation proves that the flood is a scirntific fact demonstrated by the stratification of the Earth. You will also lean many things about stratification. Then go to the website titled "The Emperor Has No Clothes - Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution" and read the entire site.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@TheCopaceticMan When you are done with these, if you still claim evolution is true, then you will have proven that you do so not because what science demonstrates, but because your heart refuses to acknowledge that God is your creator and you are subject to His authority, and for this reason you refuse to acknowledge what you mind has learned in lieu of what your heart wants to be true.
Lastly, the existance of DNA is empirical proof of both Intelligent Design and Special Creation.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@TheCopaceticMan, actually abiogenesis and evolution have everything in common as the first form of life had to evolve amazingly fast or it would have died. you also need abiogenesis first or you dont get evolution as evo needs life to make changes in the first place. i dont debate the age of the earth but it is obvious to me that god made everything and i dont believe god used evolution to make life as there is no evidence to prove it.
godrulztheearth 1 year ago
Isn't it just amazing that evolutionists think that this all happened by random molecular interactions? The science denialism and lack of basic critical thinking skills these people lack is truly astounding.
micah1116 1 year ago