Stephen Meyer Unmasks The Coding Of Human DNA (Science Uprising EP3)

Stephen Meyer Unmasks The Coding Of Human DNA (Science Uprising EP3)

99 thoughts on “Stephen Meyer Unmasks The Coding Of Human DNA (Science Uprising EP3)

  1. Why don't these guys stop making videos on misinformation, and direct their points of view on the science; and not doubt for the sake of doubting. I KNOW god does not create a new disease each year; bacteria and viruses evolve, just like WE did.

  2. I LOVE this channel. If you love truth, you'll love this channel….keep it going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Stop with the video gimmicks. While it will always be arguable that a Supreme Being planted the seed which became the universe, the vast stretches of time, and the predictable mutation rate fully explain DNA and the different life forms, including us.

  4. It just happened by chance. Lol. Sad thing is. Darwin actually believed the nonsense he spun. Hay why not though? He got paid for it.

  5. comparing this to that , even if they may share similarities, don't make them the same… to top it off the example used to make their point is a new type of ridiculous… a "glitch" in a video will not produce a new video game, therefore random mutation in our DNA can't produce a new organisms. for the sake of the ridiculous argument let's suspend our ability to think for ourselves and that we are on the same level of dumb, so we may go along-with this nonsense. Yes, Ping Pong has yield to (insert your fav modern video here) and glitches did in-fact play a role to get rid of the mistakes and make a better game, so yes that makes it a new game. But a glitch only provides feedback…. DNA is more like a computer virus, and these have and do copy themselves and well, do i need to say more…? That's about as much as I care to help people who were easily capitative by this… DNA is DNA, it resembles code, but it's not code, so who coded it? is a rhetorical question… if DNA was code, then we wouldn't be asking this in the first because we would ourselves would makes changes and look like avatars, therefore video games wouldn't be a thing.

  6. As a software engineer of 30 years DNA is extremely complex but also full of a million bugs… hence thousands of kinds of cancer and genetic diseases (just in humans) that us humans are just now attempting to FIX … so if god programmed DNA he did a lousy job.

  7. If it's an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer..?.. .This video is meant only for creating confusion among common people. Don't put designer in the GAPs of our understanding s…

  8. We can all ask questions an d imagine a myriad hypothesis, yet at the end of the day the real answer comes from proof. Intelligent design advances hypothesis without being able to prove them and that is also an issue. Besides that the video starts upon some fallacious premises which affect anything that comes later. Such as assuming that only very smart people can code a computer program, assuming that the genetic code is a computer program, assuming that living organisms are like a computer game, and also assuming that evolution is driven only by random mutations. Those premises are fallacious, and the video builds upon them to draw equally fallacious conclusions and top everything at the end with a dose of emotion. Sorry not convincing at all.

  9. This so oversimplified and downright misleading. Computer Code and genetic code are two different at that that Genetic Code is dimensional free space and by standards of Computer Coding is not sophisticated as career of information, but Genetic Strings of DNA builds its copy for its long line of sequences that is long stretches of Basic four forms of Carbon formations, and that is it. DNA strands is complex for its length than sophistication. Human made binary codes are much shorter and at its infancy level, that cannot be formulated into much complex forms yet.

  10. who code it? Is who created it in first it created all we have to do is try to look search and try to under stand 🧐

  11. Declare Jesus (our intelligent designer) as your Lord. Believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved!

  12. Nicely done…particularly the part at 6:30 about computer game glitches adding up to a more sophisticated game…well done.

  13. Because nature is programmed to SURVIVE. Random malfunctions die off, while random survivors reproduce! That's your answer Einstein!

  14. Definitely,gauging the distances of mile or Kilometers in a car-meter and through walking physically will gets error in reading similarly coding though computers and through god gifted eternal power will get different evolution theories.

  15. Can a blind man design clothing to match his surroundings as a defence mechanism or a plant design itself to mimic perfectly a bird or an insect design its body to mimic a leaf as a defensive evolutionary tactic when it does not have a sense of self in the mirror ? The concentration of theory narrowed to a pinpoint as an explanation "sort of" when there are 8000000 million mammals that have simultaneously evolved by a freak of accident to create 8000000 million perfect to form DNA ,that is not even going to the plants evolving just in time in tune with the mammals evolving to allow for survival.
    When taken in that context THERE IS NO SCIENTIST THAT CAN EVEN COME CLOSE to justifying evolution as even a scintilla of a valid argument .
    So lay of the Magic mushrooms .😀

  16. Maybe when fish that fly out of the water to escape from a predator and have maintained the method of evading death SURELY they should have evolved the ability to fly thus increasing their chances of survival exponentially .

  17. Atheists get mad when real smart people reveal evolution is just a fairytale…its means their evils will be one day examined…they hate it

  18. The Bible is a fairy tale. Beneficial mutations do exist. Just look at teenaged mutant ninja turtles. X men. Spider men. Etc.

  19. DNA is the work, the composition, of true life. If we want to understand true life, we have to use the example of us, planing and organizing, creating and building, with all materials available. Then we might understand what it takes and what we can apply to help true life show us the steps they do with new possibilities. If we build a complete city, we know now what it takes, and we know what changes had to be made to renew an old city. Its a similar construction only in a biological minimized state. Dive in the organic world of true life.

  20. well, they forget to add that from 1 cell to multicell organism it took over 1 bilion years of Evolution games run in parerall 😉

  21. All the evolution theories are a scam. They have no idea of how to solve critical issues and they make up billions upon billions of years that didn't happen and make people believe it. Not only that, there is plenty of data that proves the Bible and hide it from the world. Our Universe is very young

  22. I don't expect an atheist to suddenly accept God as the answer but I do expect them to accept that life can't come from non organic matter and the complexity of even the simplest life shows design.

  23. It’s important to remember that’s while those are the odds, the fact we exist means those odds have occurred..for all we know the process could of been going on for 10 trillion years and only now has chance struck …..

  24. This logically makes sense, If humans had been reproducing and evolving at the rate evolutionists say, then the universe would over crowded. Besides there has to be a God to create life in the first place you can't deny that. The real question is who is he/her. Open a bible to find out who.

  25. The scientists turn their back on God and they descended into the empty speculation of their darkened mind.
    They call themself wise and in reality they are fool.

  26. If thousands of physicists, microbiologists, biochemists with their Nobel prizes, the smart brains 🧠 , eyes, ears, labs, research centers, scientific books, and scientific papers in 150 years, they have not been able to create a single cell or fly so far. How can the chance, randomness, nothingness, and the blind and deaf nature through period of time make the precise universe, including the miraculous creatures as the smart man who can hear, see, speak and rationalise???

  27. Someone needs to launch a psychological study as to why people cling to a strictly atheistic/materialistic view of the world, instead of facing head-on the mounting evidence that there has to be a creator of life and the universe. What makes some people so unwilling to grant God agency? I can understand a resistance to organized religion, certainly…but what has that got to do with Deism?

  28. If the first cell on Earth to appear 4.1 billion years ago was intelligently designed, then we would predict that there would have to be one or more features of that cell that could only be rationally traced to intelligence.
    A perfectly rational model of what constitutes intelligence comes from the designs and technology of modern human civilization. A perfectly rational model of what constitutes the first cell is the primitive, 425 gene M. pneumoniae bacterium.
    Human computers store, copy, error correct, proof read, transcribe, edit, transmit, and decode digital information. Ditto for the M. pneumoniae bacterium.
    Humans use energy driven machines to solve problems and accomplish specified functions. Ditto for the energy driven molecular machines in the M. pneumoniae bacterium.
    Our prediction has been confirmed. The first cell on Earth to appear 4.1 billion years ago was intelligently designed.

  29. Allah created every single atom in the whole universe. The universe which today scientists have calculated to be 1.5 billion light years across. And this all was not much effort for Allah. He said 'be' and it was.

  30. Sorry, you are completely wrong. Information is not added by random mutations. According to the definition of information used in information theory, random process do not create information, only deviations from the randomness generates information. So information is exclusively added by the very nonrandom natural selection process. Essentially it is the information about which mutations are more viable.

  31. God: Im gonna create a program to set up my creation.
    Evolution or chance: leave out of it i wouldn't know where to begin

  32. Yes! DNA is created by God who is the supreme intelligent designer. Dawkins is an ignoramus choked by his own Darwinian darkness. Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis is gobbledygook

  33. evolution is a HUGE hindrance to science. it limits the process we can achieve and understand how God make things. btw the scientist in old times ware all creationist. they wanted to understand God

  34. The difference between atheist and theist is that, theists are mesmerized by the beautiful grand design of the universe/nature/natural law and find blissful and have tears of joy while the atheist can't go beyond the existence of natural law/universal law and at the same time not surprised of such eternal natural laws and keep moving to proof everything but failed consistently.

  35. Who built the house I bought? Nobody! Yeah Right!?!?? Who wrote the software that I am using to compose this comment?? Nobody! Yeah Right!!!??????? They just happened!! Yeah Right!???? Design REQUIRES Intelligence—Yeah that's Right / Correct!!!!

  36. Similar finding in the field of anthropology: Ancient Greek religious art tells same story as Genesis except from the point of view that the serpent "enlightened" rather than deluded the first couple in paradise.

  37. The question is "What is consciousness and where did it come from?" In my humble opinion if DNA is code then intelligent design is an absolute and as far as I am concerned the one true God is – Be blessed

  38. They will keep people far from the truth by lying to them, they will make them believe that all of this sophisticated and intelligent creation, was created by an ALIEN, an imaginary animated cinematic alien, They will never admit the existence of God almighty…

  39. DNA may be a "code" and we humans may be able to screw around with it but it is beyond our ability to create and comparing it to computer programming is a false comparison. DNA is not "software." We can create "metal & plastic puppets" that mimic life but we are not "meat-puppets" and we are life.

  40. could a very smart entity place the code in a photon of light and programed it to EVOLVE? why can't we have creation and evolution work together?

  41. There can be nothing more compelling for evidence as information. People who want to deny that as proof of an intelligent creator are willfully ignorant. I guess some people just like the blue pill.

  42. One of the tenets of historical sciences is the notion of "causal adequacy." For too long, we've let Darwinists off the hook saying that the mutation/selection mechanism is "causally adequate" to do anything substantial other than break things. His theory fails on this point alone.

  43. Here a thought since we are self created does that mean the universe is self created? Even more, can we mess with its code.

  44. You know, this is really easy to understand. An adolescent can understand that precise, detailed information does not come about randomly, it's common horse sense and something we can see the proof of every day by not seeing snow falling into the form of a snow man, or as one scientist put it, an explosion in a printing shop resulting in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
    The thing I have trouble understanding is that so many scientists and academics believe that is possible. Where does the evidence for that come from? Where does it say that a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years could produce War and Peace? It's absurd.

  45. Evolution became a laughable myth in the 20th century, during which it was disproved by millions of discoveries. One such discovery is that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Another is the discovery that the cell's structural design is not generated by genetic information, but is instead passed on by reproduction form the reproductive cells of the parents (Cortical Inheritance) which traces back to the original created organism. Evolutionism is a philosophy which contradicts science. Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes.

    DNA is a material medium encoded encoded with information which is organized linguistically, possesses algorithmic information processing operations, and the language properties of phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, grammar, and aprobetics. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations to proofreading, compare information, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup, and restore, all of which are driven by algorithms. There is no potential for the material actions of chemistry to produce information, algorithms, and linguistics. They are non-physical fundamental entities that can only be produced by intelligence. This fact is proof that all life was designed by a mind of supreme intelligence. Because of this and many other biological discoveries, it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that evolution is impossible and creation is a scientific fact.

    DNA is a 4-dimentional (3 dimensions + time) operating system which is far more complex than man's computer software technology, posessing many thousands of information hierarchies and pathways in the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. DNA is a dual-directional information package, providing different information depending upon which strand and direction the transcription machinery of the cell is traveling. Man does not know how to to write computer software that can be read both forward and backwards to provide separate information processes and functionality. It is beyond our ability. DNA's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences, and information in different locations of the molecule are interdependent with each other, even when separated by hundreds or thousands of base pairs in distance from each other – a feature which exemplifies why chemical processes cannot design DNA.

    DNA possesses codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule. Genetic algorithms and information possess forward-thinking properties, which nature is incapable of producing because molecules are not sentient. During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism over time. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it.

    DNA an information package – a physical medium encoded with information. Information is a non-material entity
    1. Information is purposeful – it describes something meaningful such as data, function, concept, or process.
    2. Information cannot be physically measured because it has no physical dimensions or mass – the concept of measuring one pound or one meter of information is nonsensical.
    3. Information is not bound to whatever medium upon which it is encoded.
    Example: The information in a book can be spoken or copied onto any other medium without the information changing in any way.
    4. If information were comprised of or a property of matter, it would not be possible to convey information without relocation of the material medium upon which it is encoded.
    a. Reading a book: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to receive (read) the information in a book without relocating the materal of the book into the brain of the reader.
    b. Reading a printed message to another person: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to convey (read aloud) the information in a book without relocating the material of the book into the brain of the listener. c. Speaking to an audience: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to share information to an audience without relocating the material of the provider's brain to the brains of the each member of the audience.

    10 Laws of Nature Regarding Information, which prove evolution false and prove creation is true:
    1. Anything material, such as physical/chemical processes, cannot create something non-material
    2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter
    3. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission
    4. Information cannot arise from statistical processes
    5. There can be no information without a code – no thought or idea can be shared without a code
    6. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient
    7. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence
    8. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender
    9. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source
    10. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all:
    a. technological systems
    b. works of art c. biological systems

    1. Since the DNA code of all life is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender
    2. Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the sender must be supremely intelligent
    3. Since the sender must have
    a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
    b. constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing process and,
    c. designed all the features for the original life forms,

    We conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful.
    4. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the sender must have a non-material component
    5. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man's nature must have a non-material component (spirit)
    6. Since information is a non-material entity, we conclude that the assumption "the universe is comprised solely of mass and energy" is false.
    7. Since:
    1) biological information originates only from an intelligent sender and,
    2) all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (without a sender), we conclude that all theories or concepts of biological evolution are false.

    Anyone who disagrees with these laws and conclusions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources. Therefore, the laws of nature about information have: 1. refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution 2. all philosophies or theories based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution are falsified by the laws of nature about information.

  46. The reason why Stephen is failing to convince arrogant people is clearly because 1. Satan has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.
    2. People ask, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering? Stephen can't answer that because he does not use the bible.
    3. People don't want to believe in a God., because it makes them accountable.
    4. The bible says. That on judgement day they will have to know who is the creator. Right now only very few are wanting to find the truth. It's a narrow road, few are finding it.

  47. Infinite being god can be a finite human like jesus. Think abt it. Jesus is not hod but prophet. If u think god can be anythng than u must accept god can be a satan who mislead religous people pr an atheist who not believe in god. Can u imagine a god who is an atheist who doesnt believe in himself. God is not an author of confusion nor he contradicts himself

  48. (4:47) "…our [garbled words] experience …" Can anyone tell me what Stephen Meyer's garbled words are? I think they may be important.

  49. The fact that chance is negated as a possible origin for DNA not only disproves it for this universe, but also for the speculative multiverse invented by materialists. All the so-called universes in the multiverse are chance-based universes. And DNA would never arise in ANY chance-based universe.

    Just as no matter how many apple trees you have, none of them will produce bananas, not even an infinite number of chance-based universes will produce DNA.

    Multiverse, if it exists, has to be designed as well.

  50. If we are made by some kind of god (that I see on the comments), that's some immature god who did his homework bad. Nothing special.

  51. I fully believe intelligent design, but I have a question. I need to understand why natural selection is not a good explanation for evolution? Why does natural selection require mutations? I just want to know in case an atheist would make that argument against me, thanks.

  52. I have a recent discussion about this in a Richard Dawkins video with someone who calls himself an avid programmer. He makes a simulation program and learned ways on how evolution algorithms can work in the program. He described that there are more ways for evolution algorithm to function in that program, and that for evolution to fail, there needs to either be too many options or no option. Heck, he has the ego to call himself the "god" of the realm (the simulated program).

    Yet he can't answer, properly, on how does this evolutionary algorithm came to be in the first place since he (the programmer) is the one who HAS to input those algorithms in the first place. And there is no evidence in nature that such analogs for the evolutionary algorithm even exist. And he devolved to just shutting me out and not to speak with him again.

    I'd say he lost that discussion.

  53. Evolution could be a way God created life. Don't insist that God must have created like this or like that. This reminds me of how Bohr told the same thing to Einstein:
    Einstein famously remarked “God does not play dice” and Bohr replied “Einstein, stop telling God what to do”

  54. Why constantly the man with the mask pops in? It does not attribute anything to the video content that is, by the way, good and interesting.

  55. My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?…Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.1 —C.S. Lewis

    Philosophers and scientists, dedicated to spreading the Word of Atheism, find no greater sport than to ponder upon the deficiencies of the universe. Congratulating one another for having transcended the magic spell, they make grand plans to enlighten the gullible ones.

    Militant atheists have concluded the best cure for the gullible is to expose and broadcast the inherent flaws of the world we see around us. This is a line of attack known as the argument by negative theology. Eager to settle the war of worldviews in their favour, many evangelical atheists have unleashed the argument with the smug satisfaction of a prizefighter administering his coup de grâce.

    And if atheism is to be championed, can the Darwin-toting brigade be far behind? Though Darwinists can hardly agree with one another on the details of their doctrine, they are in complete agreement upon one thing—an omnipotent and benevolent being could not have created the world that we see around us. In an effort to raise public consciousness, Darwinists use the argument by negative theology often. So often that a dispassionate observer could hardly be blamed for thinking that Darwinism is more a diatribe against a theological system than a scientific theory.

    In his classic book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, mathematician Richard L. Thompson summarised the general form of the negative theological argument thus: “God must have certain characteristics, X, and therefore He would have created a certain sort of world. Since the world as we see it is very different from this, it must be that there is no God.”2 (Italics mine) The argument can be further classified into two categories:

    Category I: The existence of evil and suffering is incompatible with the idea that the world is created by an omnipotent, benevolent being and seems to be accommodated more readily by Darwin’s view of the world.

    Category II: Many features of living organisms would not be designed by a “sensible” God and must therefore have arisen through a process of Darwinian evolution.

    Darwin liberally availed himself of such arguments. He wrote that if species have evolved, “we need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee’s own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae [wasps] feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases.”3

    Where Darwin went, generations of biologists, psychologists, and physicists have followed. On the altar of atheism, the argument by negative theology occupies pride of place. Atheists of all stripes and colours have been brought to their knees by its persuasive aura.

    Read entire Article:,4988/

  56. Evolution is a fact, creation evolution is a falsey. What I find interesting, only a mutation occurs when there is a fertilized egg, or can it occur during gestion and or for how long?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *