Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"The case for junk DNA"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Does it even matter? And look at the Kettle calling the Pot black. There is not a more forgetful bunch in terms of seeping under the rug what they got WRONG than the YEC crowd. So what is the 'set of evidences for YEC' du jour Jorge over against those in 2000, or 1990, or 1980?

    What you fail to realize Jorge is that science is a continuous process of learning. Learning, refining, getting better, more accurate, this is what its all about.

    Your side, OTOH, is all about codifying and dodging the appearance of error. Because you ostensibly think your position is God revealed, and therefore nothing can be wrong, so 'correction' is NOT part of the process.

    So to you, pulling back from the idea of junk DNA is some kind of major faux pas that prooooooves you were right, right, right. To anyone with half a brain it just means we are learning more. The aspects of DNA that produced the observation 'junk' are still there. We just understand more about how it all fits together. And not only that, when new data contradicts old conclusions, it gets published and talked about, not buried and ignored as it does in YEC land (e.g. Sarfati STILL tries to claim their aren't any SNR's older than 10,000 years).

    What YOU can't deal with is the fact that at least some of the 'junk' DNA is in fact RE-PURPOSED DNA. And as I pointed out in my post which you ignored, we have observational proof that DNA once coded for artifacts known to be a part of the animal's ancestry (Activated genes producing teeth in a bird - a chicken - your mascot) now sits buried in its DNA in a more or less inactive state. This simply DOES NOT FIT any sort of YEC paradigm - BUT IS EXPECTED IN AN EVOLUTIONARY ONE. And you know it. But then again, that is why you 'missed' the post where I pointed this little snag out earlier.



    Jim
    I am convinced - convinced! - that a YEC stole your teenage girlfriend and you now have a vendetta against anyone even remotely connected to YEC.

    Your statement that "... science is a continuous process of learning" is a bunch of unethical hogwash. First, what "science" are you speaking of? Evolution? Physics? Second, ALL areas of study involve a continuous process of learning. Why do 'you people' believe that you've cornered the market of learning? Worse yet, you think you've cornered that market and have locked OUT anyone that doesn't agree with your views. Yeah, that's "good science" alright; more like Medieval dogmatism if you ask me.

    Anyway, you remain clueless, O-Mudd. But do keep trying.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      I didn't "duck" anything, you Yo-Yo.

      I commented directly to the point of "Wells does not reliably present science in his book."
      I also clearly stated - "clearly" except to the comprehension-impaired as yourself - that I have to
      wait until I'm home where I will have access to Wells' book and evidence contained therein.

      Jorge
      Wotta maroon. You failed to respond directly to the reason given for that evaluation. If you could not until you get home, shut yo' mouth until you are home.

      You also lied about the reason for his evaluation. It was not because Wells criticized mainstream science, it was because he cited one example of egregious error. I bet he can post more.

      Slimy even by Jorge standards.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        I didn't "duck" anything, you Yo-Yo.

        I commented directly to the point of "Wells does not reliably present science in his book."


        Jorge
        The problem here, is that you are demonstrably unqualified to make the judgment.
        "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

        Navin R. Johnson

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          I am convinced - convinced! - that a YEC stole your teenage girlfriend and you now have a vendetta against anyone even remotely connected to YEC.

          Your statement that "... science is a continuous process of learning" is a bunch of unethical hogwash. First, what "science" are you speaking of? Evolution? Physics? Second, ALL areas of study involve a continuous process of learning. Why do 'you people' believe that you've cornered the market of learning? Worse yet, you think you've cornered that market and have locked OUT anyone that doesn't agree with your views. Yeah, that's "good science" alright; more like Medieval dogmatism if you ask me.

          Anyway, you remain clueless, O-Mudd. But do keep trying.

          Jorge
          Jorge's response to Jim's cogent post is a sight to behold. No content, just insults.

          If this is what Fundamentalist YEC Christianity does to your brain, ... Ughh...

          K54

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            I am convinced - convinced! - that a YEC stole your teenage girlfriend and you now have a vendetta against anyone even remotely connected to YEC.

            Your statement that "... science is a continuous process of learning" is a bunch of unethical hogwash. First, what "science" are you speaking of? Evolution? Physics? Second, ALL areas of study involve a continuous process of learning. Why do 'you people' believe that you've cornered the market of learning? Worse yet, you think you've cornered that market and have locked OUT anyone that doesn't agree with your views. Yeah, that's "good science" alright; more like Medieval dogmatism if you ask me.

            Anyway, you remain clueless, O-Mudd. But do keep trying.

            Jorge
            Well - you were also "convinced - convinced!", sylas was a TE posting on these pages and he deconverted before your eyes. Likewise your are "convinced - convinced!" all the major meteor impacts are steam explosions, and likewise you are "convinced - convinced!" that somehow 100 mile wide craters made by steam explosions is somehow 'better' for YEC than 100 mile wide craters made by meteor impacts, and of course, you were likewise "convinced -convinced!" it would be YEARS before we ever saw a picture of an extra-solar planet and so on and so on.

            Oh yeah, and you are also "convinced - convinced!" that the world must be <10,000 years old.



            Somehow I'm not thinking you are particularly 'convincing' ....



            Jim
            My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              I am convinced - convinced! - that a YEC stole your teenage girlfriend and you now have a vendetta against anyone even remotely connected to YEC.

              Your statement that "... science is a continuous process of learning" is a bunch of unethical hogwash. First, what "science" are you speaking of? Evolution? Physics? Second, ALL areas of study involve a continuous process of learning. Why do 'you people' believe that you've cornered the market of learning? Worse yet, you think you've cornered that market and have locked OUT anyone that doesn't agree with your views. Yeah, that's "good science" alright; more like Medieval dogmatism if you ask me.

              Anyway, you remain clueless, O-Mudd. But do keep trying.

              Jorge
              Clearly Jim doesn't talk about the length of time he's been married to his wife. And you obviously don't have a clue about logic and reason if you believe that a conclusion and then a person believes he/she should take revenge or something. In fact I think the ONLY issue Jim has with a person believing in YEC is the insistence that its somehow a requirement for salvation. Which you seem to believe. So you might want to come down from that stupid tree you climbed up.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                Clearly Jim doesn't talk about the length of time he's been married to his wife. And you obviously don't have a clue about logic and reason if you believe that a conclusion and then a person believes he/she should take revenge or something. In fact I think the ONLY issue Jim has with a person believing in YEC is the insistence that its somehow a requirement for salvation. Which you seem to believe. So you might want to come down from that stupid tree you climbed up.
                Jorge,

                Is this true? Do you really believe your scientifically risible position is a salvific issue??

                And in a previous thread you weren't even able to support your belief Biblically; you couldn't even get past Ge 1:3!!!

                Amazing hubris...!

                I think I'll ping that thread again -- just for you!

                K54

                P.S. Do you really believe that the various large impact structures are not formed by meteor impacts but rather by steam explosions???!

                Have you ever heard of shocked quartz and shatter cones?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  Jorge,

                  Is this true? Do you really believe your scientifically risible position is a salvific issue??

                  And in a previous thread you weren't even able to support your belief Biblically; you couldn't even get past Ge 1:3!!!

                  Amazing hubris...!

                  I think I'll ping that thread again -- just for you!

                  K54

                  P.S. Do you really believe that the various large impact structures are not formed by meteor impacts but rather by steam explosions???!

                  Have you ever heard of shocked quartz and shatter cones?
                  Read it straight from the source: Jorge Fernandez answers the 'problem of impact craters'

                  It begins:

                  Source: Jorge Fernandez


                  This is an answer to those that may be under the impression that the 'impact craters' evidence supports millions or billions of years thereby refuting the YEC position. It is not claimed that this is the only possible answer or even the best one.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  this actually came out of a thread here where we proposed problems for YEC. I happened to be one of the ones pushing on this particular button, and this essay was the eventual result. I have long felt the craters found on the Earth, the Moon, nearly all rocky bodies in the Solar System present what is simply an intractable problem for a solar system and Earth <10,000 years in age. These bombardments would have

                  A) wiped us out
                  B) not have had any possibility of being as worn and eroded as they are.
                  C) based on the lunar surface and proximity, it is impossible for the Earth to have seen any fewer impacts than what we see on the moon's face if this was some sort of massive swarm in the last 10,000 years. The Earth would not have a few 10's of large impacts buried and worn, but hundreds or thousands as obvious as what we see on the moon.

                  They present an immediately observable and impressive/overwhelming record of a past that simply must be at least millions of years in duration.

                  Jim
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-15-2014, 07:32 PM.
                  My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JOnF View Post
                    Wotta maroon. You failed to respond directly to the reason given for that evaluation. If you could not until you get home, shut yo' mouth until you are home.

                    You also lied about the reason for his evaluation. It was not because Wells criticized mainstream science, it was because he cited one example of egregious error. I bet he can post more.

                    Slimy even by Jorge standards.
                    WOW ... just when I thought that the clown-nosed fossil, aka JOnF, couldn't sink any lower, he proves me wrong by showing me and the world just how low he can go. Uhhh, hey buffoon, I HAD stated in an earlier post that I would hold off until I got home. It was YOUR stupidity that forced me to repeat myself and since you hadn't read my earlier post you proceeded to stick both feet into your oral cavity - an impressive feat (feet/feat ... hehehe) - by any standard this side of the galaxy.

                    NOW READ MY LIPS: I cannot comment on his "egregious error" example since I don't have access to the book. I can break that down into monosyllables if you like.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wally View Post
                      The problem here, is that you are demonstrably unqualified to make the judgment.
                      Given that you have difficulty stringing more than a few words into a coherent structure, what makes YOU qualified to make that claim?

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Jorge's response to Jim's cogent post is a sight to behold. No content, just insults.

                        If this is what Fundamentalist YEC Christianity does to your brain, ... Ughh...

                        K54
                        Be a good boy now -- have a soda and some cookies, Santa.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Well - you were also "convinced - convinced!", sylas was a TE posting on these pages and he deconverted before your eyes. Likewise your are "convinced - convinced!" all the major meteor impacts are steam explosions, and likewise you are "convinced - convinced!" that somehow 100 mile wide craters made by steam explosions is somehow 'better' for YEC than 100 mile wide craters made by meteor impacts, and of course, you were likewise "convinced -convinced!" it would be YEARS before we ever saw a picture of an extra-solar planet and so on and so on.

                          Oh yeah, and you are also "convinced - convinced!" that the world must be <10,000 years old.



                          Somehow I'm not thinking you are particularly 'convincing' ....



                          Jim
                          Yet ANOTHER instance of O-Mudd misrepresenting the facts.
                          Your M.O. is as tiresome as it is boring, O-Mudd. get a new gig.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                            Clearly Jim doesn't talk about the length of time he's been married to his wife. And you obviously don't have a clue about logic and reason if you believe that a conclusion and then a person believes he/she should take revenge or something. In fact I think the ONLY issue Jim has with a person believing in YEC is the insistence that its somehow a requirement for salvation. Which you seem to believe. So you might want to come down from that stupid tree you climbed up.
                            Be a good girl ... go play with your kitten and stay out of conversations which you know little or nothing about.
                            On second thought, most of the anti-Biblical Creationists here know little or nothing about what they talk
                            about also. Therefore, that makes you as "qualified" as any of them. Do carry on, Catholicity ...

                            jorge

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Read it straight from the source: Jorge Fernandez answers the 'problem of impact craters'

                              It begins:

                              Source: Jorge Fernandez


                              This is an answer to those that may be under the impression that the 'impact craters' evidence supports millions or billions of years thereby refuting the YEC position. It is not claimed that this is the only possible answer or even the best one.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              this actually came out of a thread here where we proposed problems for YEC. I happened to be one of the ones pushing on this particular button, and this essay was the eventual result. I have long felt the craters found on the Earth, the Moon, nearly all rocky bodies in the Solar System present what is simply an intractable problem for a solar system and Earth <10,000 years in age. These bombardments would have

                              A) wiped us out
                              B) not have had any possibility of being as worn and eroded as they are.
                              C) based on the lunar surface and proximity, it is impossible for the Earth to have seen any fewer impacts than what we see on the moon's face if this was some sort of massive swarm in the last 10,000 years. The Earth would not have a few 10's of large impacts buried and worn, but hundreds or thousands as obvious as what we see on the moon.

                              They present an immediately observable and impressive/overwhelming record of a past that simply must be at least millions of years in duration.

                              Jim
                              After seeing with my own eyes the evidence, I do believe that your ability to comprehend what you read and/or to present it in an honest manner is rapidly devolving into the gelatinous "ooze" from whence you believe that you emerged.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                After seeing with my own eyes the evidence, I do believe that your ability to comprehend what you read and/or to present it in an honest manner is rapidly devolving into the gelatinous "ooze" from whence you believe that you emerged.

                                Jorge
                                So Jorge,

                                From that paper I posted, they present great scientific evidence for massive amounts of DNA being junk, don't they!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                45 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                95 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X