This is a interesting film, very interesting work about the DNA.
I recommend everyone to watch this film, whether you think it is bogus or
whether you are very spiritual.

What the code means is that people will see what they want to see where ever they want to see it. Doesn't make it true. I don't believe in the bible code either.

If there was a god, and it wanted to reveal itself to people, I think it would be easier to do it without hiding it in our DNA and then waiting millions of years for us to have the knowledge to de-code it.

And I'd like to know: has this person applied his "code" to other DNA, say that of a pig, or a fish?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
What the code means is that people will see what they want to see where ever they want to see it. Doesn't make it true. I don't believe in the bible code either.

If there was a god, and it wanted to reveal itself to people, I think it would be easier to do it without hiding it in our DNA and then waiting millions of years for us to have the knowledge to de-code it.

And I'd like to know: has this person applied his "code" to other DNA, say that of a pig, or a fish?

Uggggh. Did you even watch the video at all? Does it matter that they have spent 12 years deciphering this code? We're looking at scientists here, not priests that are researching into it. You seem to be just riding this off as some religious people making this up because you are so dead set on there not being a God. Maybe we could just ignore the fact that this translation has come across in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, and Arabic.

Also, it does not mean that the Christian God has revealed himself. Like I said before, God might have different meanings. You would have to define God. That is basic Philosophy. I do not think that it proves a Christian God, I do believe that it shows very strong evidence for some kind of intelligent design.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by bigbert81]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by bigbert81]

Any other feedback from someone who has seen the interview? 94 views, and only a couple of responses doesn't quite seem right...

so 20 minutes into the video we finally get to the question and well.. there really wasn't much in it at all. He apparently is able to translate DNA into any language he wants and have it say the same thing. He does have some good points though.

I'd like to see exactly how he does it because right now it sounds a lot like the bible code stuff that was going around before. I have a feeling you could probably translate that DNA into "want fries with that"

I read and have the book God Code by Greg Braden. It is probably more interesting than the interview. I have heard him several times on "Coast2Coastam" with George Nory. I recommend those that believe or not believe, should read about it. It refers to several references, like The Book of Enoch and other "lost books" of the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls, which speaks of Creation and God's name "YHVH" on our DNA.

Fantastic book and a good reference! I for one Believe!

[edit on 7-9-2007 by AngelintheWilderness]

The mistake that people make with this is that when they hear "grammar" they think of what Mrs Jones taught you in the fifth grade, which isn't what they mean here at all.

In this case they're discussing a Zipf ranking, which can indicate that there are rules (there's your grammar) in the way that the codons in DNA are organized. In other words, the codons are assembled in a meaningful way rather than randomly, and Zipf is indicating that there is a likelihood that there is a logical flow to the organization.

But you already know this. The DNA codes for structures, regulatory sequences and proteins. If it were randomly organized, then it wouldn't work very well. Of COURSE there are rules by which the groups are assembled, and that's what Zipf is showing.

It doesn't mean that it's a motorcycle maintenance book in Hebrew or something, more like you could generate a logically consistent Backus-Naur form from it, because there are rules to the assembly of the basic structures of the data.

I'd like to know how you spell YHVH with ACTG.

Curiouser and curiouser ...

{edit to add:} bigbert, well played, sir.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

Interesting stuff. I read a book recently that concluded with Lucifer as being the moving force in our DNA. I'll have to re-read it and compare it to the interview you've mentioned.

Yeah, but the guy that made the quote is the editor of an online alternative magazine.

It's not exactly like we're quoting Dr Kornberg here. So who we have 'admitting' that Braden has something also has no credentials. Maybe less than Braden, and all Braden's got is a job as a former computer systems analyst, which isn't exactly applicable either.

"Junk DNA" is no longer thought to have no purpose -- it is believed to help determine encoding and which genes are turned on and off.

In molecular biology, "junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has yet been identified. About 80-90% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some is believed to function in ways that are not currently understood. Moreover, the conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function. Some consider the "junk" label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it apposite as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term "noncoding DNA" (although junk DNA often includes transposons that encode proteins with no clear value to their host genome). However it now appears that, although protein-coding DNA makes up barely 2% of the human genome, about 80% of the bases in the genome may be being expressed, which supports the view that the term "junk DNA" may be a misnomer.

There is NO message in our DNA other than instructions for building a body. Everything else is wishful thinking. If you try hard enough, you can put a "code" onto any sequence. It doesn't mean the code is there, it just means that a quack is trying to sell a book and other people want to see something that isn't there because our biology is designed to seek patterns, even when there are none.