Why DNA Will BLOW Your Mind | Ken Ham 

Perfectly said, me too turned into a believer, had gone thru an awakening! Everything is designed decorated and coded by a creator and the scope is ginormous! We are just the size of an ant and hence have limited sight and access!

I’m so happy you found God. So many people are so stubborn and just don’t believe in God because they hate God. I’ve had some friends who you can tell they just don’t care. They don’t want proof they don’t wanna even talk about it they don’t wanna know the truth they just want to live their life how they want. It sucks and it’s sad because God loves you and wants you to come to him more than anything. God bless you!

But why did his method of transmitting hereditary also transmit a sinful nature? Was he unable to do better or did he want the sin nature to be passed down from the first humans that sinned?

@@rizdekd3912 God gave you free will. That’s like saying “I wish my dad created me to never do bad things”.. the ultimate love is freedom of choice. Would you rather make your kids love you or give them the freedom to choose? You choose to love God by following Gods word and having faith in him in everything you do

@@ChemysteryKids This has nothing to do with free will. This has to do with God's method of hereditary passing down a sin nature cue to a corrupted creation. Obviously a 'sin nature' was not needed for someone to choose to sin as is evidence by Adam and Eve along with the angels in heaven rebelling. They managed to do that without an inherited sin nature.

Amen 🙏🏾

Chemical processes don’t require a soul to function though. Fire still burns, oxygen still causes rust. Most of the chemical reactions or mutations within DNA don’t yield an advantage, but when it does, we call it evolution. And evolution is very real. But it doesn’t answer why matter behaves the way it does. Or whether there is a being that assigns these properties to matter. But it’s not logical to invalidate a process by equating it to magic, while simultaneously believing in a magical entity or God. God has historically been a placeholder term to explain things we don’t yet understand. And it is much easier to believe God as a cause vs understanding quantum mechanics. But the easier understood premise isn’t necessarily the most accurate one. You can’t use the tools of the natural world (science) to prove or disprove the existence of a being that is outside the bounds and laws of the physical world (God).

It’s called abiogenesis stupid

Evolution does not try to answer that question, how did life first become a thing. However, with more deep sea discoveries we have more and more clues. Volcanic vents spew chemical soup into the oceans, making a perfect storm for proteins and eventually basic life to be created. Or maybe not. Maybe God made the first cell. Evolution doesn’t NEED an understanding of the origin of life to work, we can see it work, it does work, regardless of the missing pieces

Biochemistry is not built from minerals.

What are sodium, magnesium, potassium, etc...then?

Why I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jIZ0--4ZurE.html

Maybe I can help. DNA is very malleable. We are given flexible genes that change over time. It's "evolution" as in change, but there are limitations of what DNA can do. Also, new info generally doesn't happen. Natural selection tends to be a reduction of existing code that ends up helping the population. Like, if a beetle loses the information for wings, and it somehow helps them survive better on some ecosystem, but it doesn't make the information for new, functional wings that didn't exist before. The biggest example is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotics trigger cytolysis (it makes the cell disintegrate) in bacteria. When bacteria are immune to an antibiotic, it's because they had a mutation that didn't have the gene to melt when contacting antibiotics. So they didn't react in the normal way. When all the normal bacteria die off leaving the mutants, they reproduce leaving the population stronger. That's natural selection, but the bacteria didn't evolve into a super version, they just basically mutated to not have an allergy. So is that evolution? Yes, as in the population changed over time, but no, as in it didn't really become something new. The pollination just no longer has an allergy that the species used to.

They have gained unauthorized access to Rosalind Franklin's hard-won data. They had not contributed anything to the X-ray structure analysis.

@@h.gonyaulax2190 she actually willingly shared her data with Watson and Crick...

@@bicepticus4038 That is definitely wrong! She did not share the information because she wanted to be sure herself first. Only Maurice Wilkens, as head of the laboratory, received a copy of photo 51, which he “unfortunately” showed to Watson and Crick, who obtained their missing information from it. The hard work of analyzing the X-ray structure data was Franklin's achievement. Watson and Crick had contributed nothing, but nothing at all!

But you’re wrong, see. Chemistry don’t have to pull all those 3 billion strands out of a hat, it only had to pull around 4000 molecules out of a hat, and it had hundreds of attempts, each yielding thousands of results from one pull. Once those 4000 letters finally WERE pulled, there was no more pulling letters from hats, since there was already a successful organism. And that successful organism reproduces, and its fittest offspring survive to reproduce more than its siblings, and their fittest offspring reproduce more than the weaker ones, and their environments naturally select the most fit organisms, which happen to be the ones with specific DNA that’s more complex. You seem to grossly misunderstand how long even just a million years is, which is more than ample time for ancient earth to create a primitive cell. And you also seem to forget that there were BILLIONS of years between that barely alive, simple cell and us

@@Woopor Ultimately though, science has still a hit a brick wall with the "Hard Problem of Consciousness".

​@@Woopor Hey, did you know that DNA vital for life is only made of right-handed amino acids and that nature produces both right and left? This means that almost all of the amino acids that you're counting on making life are completely useless. Also, there are roughly 500 different kinds of amino acids and life as we know it uses only 20, so try making the 'perfect arrangement' of life given all of those hinderances. The point is, God made everything. Making evolution sound like a simple game of cards doesn't help make it any more realistic.

@@Woopor There are 0 examples of 2 celled organisms.

@@Wooporlife can’t come from non life but who cares about the LAW of biogenesis…….things tend to chaos and disorder but who cares about the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics Consciousness from unconsciousness? How? It just did …… Reason from non reason 🤷🏻‍♂️ Time isn’t the friend to the evolutionist because more time with no guiding force equals more chaos and disorder. That’s science.

Before the word molecule exists? You should look at the Hebrew translation of the first word of the Bible in Genesis by John Costik. It literally spells out "His son will be destroyed by his own hand on the cross"

Before the word molecule exists? You should look at the Hebrew translation of the first word of the Bible in Genesis by John Costik. It literally spells out "His son will be destroyed by his own hand on the cross"

It does sound similar. I don't know much about the Rosary; isn't it a prayer and each bead represents something? You're right that it is a coded message! That is pretty cool.

He's right, though that DNA is only information. If there was no God, then it would beg the question, How does information/instructions on how to build something develop at the same time as a process that can also read, understand, and process the information into real world things like muscle and cells? And where did the DNA information come from? Where did the building materials like atoms come from? And how is DNA made from the building blocks of protein, when DNA codes for protein? In other words, how are the original instructions for the material made from the same material it codes how to make? If we closely examine it objectively and honestly, none of it makes any logical sense to have developed by itself.