Good, because it isn't.
Your awe is noted, but is totally subjective.
Perhaps because we do not rely on the fallacy of begging the question or the strawman fallacy and do not engage in the argument via awe?
Is it?
Please show the math that you employed in drawing that conclusion.
3 dimensional? Explain.
I see quite a bit of analogy and awe-based hyperbole there.
I am perplexed by much of it, but can you please explain the part I bolded, at least to start?
I see that you, too, do not understand what the phrase "genetic code" means. This is from a post I made on another forum on this subject:
For more detail, we can look at the page of the National Human Genome Research Institute - they would know, right?
The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.
Bolding mine.
Not that hard, right? The illustration they use at the NHGRI:
That ^^^ is the genetic code.
And yet, we see creationists use it in very.... non-standard ways. To avoid being accused of 'call outs' and such, I will provide no links and use no names, but if you think I am being unfair or dishonest, you can always use the forum search tool.
A few examples:
"Although we do observe elements of adapation [sic] and natural selection in flipping the switches on already existing genetic codes - we never see the creation of new genetic code that would allow one kind of animal to turn into another kind."
"the genetic code drives the makeup of the body, not the mind.
there isn't a genetic code for consciousness"
"Does our genetic code change over the course of our lives?"
" The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there."
"You still have not given any arguments to support your claim that any of the things you listed (polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, plasmids, VNTRs, endogenous retroviruses,) could be used to explain how the new genetic code required for reptilian style scales could be introduced by random chance into a cat and result in replacing their fur."
"Adaptation is using the information already in the genetic codes to express changes in an organism.
Evolution is the introduction of new information, new code, that allows for doing something that the organisms previous genetic code did not have the ability to express through epigenetic adaptation."
Lots, lots more. But that is a nice sampling.
Seems like creationists conflate the actual "genetic code" with an organism's genes, or genome. Or something. This is among the many reasons it is hard to have real discussions with creationists - they conflate concepts/mis-define concepts/employ idiosyncratic definitions and expect others to use their fake ones/etc.
But hopefully they will learn,
In the end, there is really no need to 'read' the entire genome. So I am not sure what you think you are accomplishing with these factoids. Other than justifying your awe.
We know a LOT about it.
Bare assertions are cool, but pretty childish.
Truly, relying on such "arguments" may impress pew-warmers, but amongst educated adults, they just come off as pathetic.
But kudos for
almost staying on topic!