In the Beginning was Information - PART THREE
Dr Werner Gitt shows that coded information can only come from an intelligent source. The DNA code is thus proof of intelligent design—specifically, the God of the Bible.
Physicist Paul Davies admits: ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing’.
If natural laws cannot produce information, then how did it get there? Based on known observation, it would have to come from an intelligent sender. We see that such things as speech stored as sound wave patterns contains information. It’s not the sound waves them self that is the information. The sound waves are just the medium for which the information is stored or transmitted. In a book, the ink and letters are not the information, it’s the patterns of the letters or ink molecules that make up the information. Information describes the complexity of a sequence. Remember from above that in all known cases, information requires an intelligent origin. This is powerful evidence for a creator and an enormous problem for evolution. If there is no law of physics able to create information, then perhaps it’s time set our prejudices aside and consider where the evidence inevitably leads us- that life was created with all it’s genetic information.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created………
Duration : 0:10:1
November 16 2008 05:54 pm | Genesis 1:1 In the beginning
25 Responses to “In the Beginning was Information - PART THREE”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
PattyCsU on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Boring
DNA is …
Boring
DNA is information that is matter
this video dis-proves nothing
70m0kun on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
There are already a …
There are already a TON of videos and an embarrassment of information of available that refutes these arguments. As a brief summary: Coded information does not ALWAYS have to come from an intelligence. Self-organization is found all the time in nature, from flocking behavior to economics. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. His whole argument put into 3 videos is nothing more than 2 logical fallacies, arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
iamaloserandisuck on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
It certainly does. …
It certainly does. It’s just to bad you don’t have any real arguments, because if you did you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
ATLpirate on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Your screen name …
Your screen name says it all.
ATLpirate on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
“watching this vid …
“watching this vid lowers ur intelligence”
Something tells me you weren’t very intelligent to start with.
middlekk on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
The Golden …
The Golden Crocoduck.
middlekk on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Heh. I didn’t get …
Heh. I didn’t get past the first sentence, which doesn’t even last 1 second.
“Anything material cannot create something non-material”
What nonsense.
EVERYTHING is “material” except for things like “thoughts”.
Living things are material. Dead things are material.
Only imaginary creatures like god are nonmaterial.
So, the proposition is backwards.
“Nonmaterial things cannot create material things.”
beeteebam on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
i think hes going …
i think hes going for the Templeton Prize..
andytoz on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
So…how does this …
So…how does this video disprove the one it’s responding to? The origins of life video is claiming that hydrogen cyanide and ammonia, left to stew created nucleotides which make up DNA (quoting from the video). To prove him wrong you’d really have to falsify the study that was conducted. This video proves nothing.
tristenmc on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Yes, nothing can be …
Yes, nothing can be information without an awareness to become aware of it. It’s about as elementary as you can get. A rock is just a rock, but we as conscious beings can gather information from them. Like, what is the rock made of? And then we find out. But a rock is oblivious to what makes it, and does not respond to any information on it’s own. So you see, it takes a conscious mind to create and interpret information. That’s because information is non-physical.
lifewhispers1 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Then, NOTHING is …
Then, NOTHING is information by itself. Do you not see the absurdity of your position?
enslaver on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
How much did the …
How much did the church pay him?
DeimosSaturn on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Meaning is …
Meaning is arbitrarily ascribe to inanimate objects that inherently have no value or truth by intelligent beings. This act does not imbue the inanimate objects with value and meaning, they are still objectively meaningless…but the intelligent being ascribes value to it in order to categorize it for practical use. The physical properties of DNA are consistent…but the nucleotides themselves have no real information within them. They merely have a consistent physical property.
tristenmc on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
I’m not sure I …
I’m not sure I understand your point. . .stalagmites are not information by themselves, although we can interpret information off of them. But that’s because we are conscious beings.
tristenmc on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
“6: All code …
“6: All code depends on an agreement between sender and recipient”.
Not so. If I see chalk drawings by a kid on the sidewalk we have not agreed on a code and yet I can see or guess what it tries to do.”
Well according to part two, that would be outside of HIS definition of information. . .such as the tablet on the pioneer space vehicle. Even though I too disagree, because I can interpret information from that tablet.
tristenmc on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
I’m not sure I …
I’m not sure I understand why he is not progressing science by explaining the medium in which science is given.
MrFacet on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Gees, his …
Gees, his definitions really look as if he has an agenda. “6: All code depends on an agreement between sender and recipient”.
Not so. If I see chalk drawings by a kid on the sidewalk we have not agreed on a code and yet I can see or guess what it tries to do.
But he wants to use this later, i bet to support his arguments of incredulity regarding evolution.
superfisto on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
nonsense
nonsense
lifewhispers1 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Prophetes says, “.. …
Prophetes says, “…so who put all that info in there a blind watchmaker?”
Why does it have to be a “who?” Walk into a cave and witness the countless stalagtites and stalagmites in their infinite variety and then ask, “How could there be so many of them and each one be so unique, if not that they were created by God?”
Sounds foolish, doesn’t it? Why? Because, we know they were formed over millions of years through totally natural processes that we can see and understand, and not by God.
Respectab13 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
it seems like …
it seems like people like this do NOT want progression, do not want an expansion of science and understanding. You are supporting not growing and learning the truth, people like you were the type of skeptics who stopped the progression of science to get us where we are right now. You rely on science to cure disease and for your medicine yet you refuse to allow progression in this field for what? Cuz your mommy and daddy told you God did it. Grow up
Kayo3000 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
“Matter cannot be …
“Matter cannot be created or destroyed.” lol it can change.. rna came from simple chemicals that joined together and reacted with other chemicals and became more complex.
watching this vid lowers ur intelligence
Sickopath333 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
Do you know WHY he …
Do you know WHY he brought up the Bible? Notice that he didn’t start quoting scripture.. it was for his demonstration, and there’s a reason for it.
1. Most published book in the world, so most people recognize the book and have a general idea of how big it is, how much info. is inside.
2. There’s quite a lot of info. inside a Bible, it’s pretty big. That’s why he uses this particular book because it’s big enough to make the statistic matter.
shaythemuss on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
No, thats newtons …
No, thats newtons 3rd law.
2nd law of thermodynamics (clausius’ version) is: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.
Kieran27 on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
If I may make an …
If I may make an observation, your first point is only partly correct. The full law of Thermodynamics is not “Matter cannot be created or destroyed.”
The full law states “Matter and/or energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be changed from one form to another.”
busymartian on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:54 pm #
You vill do vhat I …
You vill do vhat I zay un sink vhat I vant you sink. It is zo.