"The case for junk DNA"

[HMS_Beagle]

Six consecutive posts by Jorge, six consecutive posts with nothing but insults and evasions of the topics under discussion.

Not a single person reading TWeb is surprised even a tiny bit.

[rwatts]

Not a single person reading TWeb is surprised even a tiny bit.

I am always surprised HB, always surprised.

Whenever I come across YEC behaviour as demonstrated by Jorge, I find it almost impossible to comprehend. And there are a lot of YECs out there who are just like ol' Jorge. Clearly creation science teaches them nothing good. Believing the Bible does them no good either.


It seems that Jorge does not want to discuss some of the evidence laid out in the paper. I don't fully understand all the arguments. But several I do, and they look quite good.

So I need Jorge's guidance here, with some good solid science as to why the arguments are, in fact, lousy. What does he do? Scoots off, again.

[Catholicity]

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

Number One, Prove that I don't know something about Jim's personal life.
Number Two , Prove How I Can't/ don't know Jim's take on YEC Belief's
Number Three prove the statement "anti Biblical Creationist" prove it. Prove how anyone of us are anti-Biblical. Are we anti Biblical? Or is it that we don't agree with Jorge's interpretation of the Creation story. Jorge you're walking a fine line of judgemental heresy by claiming that someone who does not believe the superficial literalism you do cannot be a Christian. In fact, it is complete heresy. You claim to understand every word in the Bible, yet you'd be the first to admit you do not know the nature of God, and do not know the meaning of every scripture. Therefore everytime you point the finger, there are three pointing back at you.

[Catholicity]

I am always surprised HB, always surprised.

Whenever I come across YEC behaviour as demonstrated by Jorge, I find it almost impossible to comprehend. And there are a lot of YECs out there who are just like ol' Jorge. Clearly creation science teaches them nothing good. Believing the Bible does them no good either.


It seems that Jorge does not want to discuss some of the evidence laid out in the paper. I don't fully understand all the arguments. But several I do, and they look quite good.

So I need Jorge's guidance here, with some good solid science as to why the arguments are, in fact, lousy. What does he do? Scoots off, again.

Roland, I don't think its about believing in the Bible, I think its called believing in the Bible as only they see it. Therein lies the problem...

[rwatts]

Six consecutive posts by Jorge, six consecutive posts with nothing but insults and evasions of the topics under discussion.

Besides, if I remember correctly from before the big wipeout, in Jorge's religion, his behaviour is Jesus like. I doubt that many Christians would think this to be the case, but presumably the Jesus whom Jorge worships would have been into insults and evasions.

In reality, and in deference to the other Christians, I reckon Jesus was pointing out the bleeding obvious when he reportedly said the words in Matt 7:20-23.

[shunyadragon]

Roland, I don't think its about believing in the Bible, I think its called believing in the Bible as only they see it. Therein lies the problem...

This an ongoing problem throughout history, and between different churches today. It is a product of clinging with an intense emotional investment in an ancient paradigm. Some build the baracades and cling to 'sola scriptora.' other juggle the books, and play with reform, and maybe a dose of humanism. selectively to make things fit one of the other options or ah . . . churches. If they can't find the pair of shoes that fit, start an new church.

[rwatts]

I think its called believing in the Bible as only they see it. Therein lies the problem...

Gidday Catholicity,

I see what you mean. I guess we all have beliefs about the Bible. Even as an atheist I have beliefs about it. And I think my beliefs are correct, or somewhat correct.

So, I think it a reasonable thing for folk to believe the Bible as they see it. But as you say, "Therein lies the problem ....".

Some folk handle their beliefs about the Bible in a mature, and reasonable manner, even YECs. Others have beliefs about it that make them utterly silly.

[klaus54]

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

Thanks, Jim!

Ooh, ooh, ooh... My guess is that Jorge's explanations involves the "Fountains of the Deep" and "Ye Greate Fludde."

The pressures required to form shocked quartz would have released a lot of internal energy. The PanOcean must have gotten pretty warm.

K54

[klaus54]

This an ongoing problem throughout history, and between different churches today. It is a product of clinging with an intense emotional investment in an ancient paradigm. Some build the baracades and cling to 'sola scriptora.' other juggle the books, and play with reform, and maybe a dose of humanism. selectively to make things fit one of the other options or ah . . . churches. If they can't find the pair of shoes that fit, start an new church.

What the devil are you yapping about??

"Sola Scriptora (sic)" or not, Scripture has to be interpreted, including cultural context. Are you a Phormer Phundy?

You sure do sound like one. They're the worst mockers of Christianity.

K54

[oxmixmudd]

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

I love it! I reference a thread right here still on the first page of NAT SCI where you got reamed for your ridiculous incapacity to recognize your own weaknesses and limitations, and I posted a link to a paper you wrote to deal with the meteor impact issues and you say I've 'misrepresented the facts'.

The facts speak for themselves Jorge, and in this case your infantile attempts to cast doubt on my own integrity simply make you look all the more petty and ridiculous.

Yellow is the right color Klaus. Not only can't he face himself or his own weaknesses or admit even massive mistakes, he can't even stand by his own work which he obviously spent a good bit of time creating and instead of defending it tries to make out like the fellow that brings it to light is somehow lacking integrity!!


You have to love it. The fellow that points a link to the Fruad's own work is 'misrepresenting' him.







So how DOES one react to such a mixed up piece o' work???



Jim

[rwatts]

So how DOES one react to such a mixed up piece o' work???



Jim

A big fat smoochy peck on the cheek at the top end, and a thumping hard boot up the bum at the other end.

[Roy]

A big fat smoochy peck on the cheek at the top end, and a thumping hard boot up the bum at the other end.

Don't get these cheeks mixed up.

Roy

[Carrikature]

So how DOES one react to such a mixed up piece o' work???

It's called ignore.

[klaus54]

Thanks, Jim!

Ooh, ooh, ooh... My guess is that Jorge's explanations involves (sic) the "Fountains of the Deep" and "Ye Greate Fludde."

The pressures required to form shocked quartz would have released a lot of internal energy. The PanOcean must have gotten pretty warm.

K54

I can't believe Jorge would explain what geologists call "impact" structures by steam explosions. The pressures to produced shocked quartz are hundreds of times that of the critical point pressure where liquid water and steam cease to exist as separate phases.

"You can't fight physics, but you can die trying."

Not so much cowardly on that one, but just plain knutz!

K54

[Jorge]

So Jorge,

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

If that's what you choose to believe, yeah, I guess they do.
I personally don't believe that they have a solid case - weak and circumstantial at best.

What they're doing in speaking out of ignorance. Kind'a like the guy that had some parts left over after re-assembling his car engine. Not knowing what the parts were for - and since the engine started "just fine" without the parts - he reckoned that the parts "must not serve any purpose". Sort'a like that.

But you go on believing whatever warms your bagel.

Jorge