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

  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    "The case for Junk DNA" ... a belief that persists just as much as Geocentricism once persisted. Epicycles, you may recall, were invented in order to retain the geocentric paradigm. That pales in comparison with the "epicycles" that have been invented in order to retain Evolutionism. More "epicycles" are sure to come.

    Jorge
    Geocentrism, huh? Perhaps the BEST example of projection from you yet. You win the Kewpie doll!

    YEC "science" tries ANY ad hoc approach it can get to prop up the Titanic even though it's sunk to the bottom of the Atlantic a century ago.

    So, again -- 1) Do you believe there is any junk DNA at all? 2) If so do you believe it's evidence of degradation of the genome due to the Fall as evidenced by the declining lifespans of the Patriarchs?

    This should be easy to answer since it covers all your bases.

    K54

    P.S. What the Devil do epicycles have to do with "evolutionism"???
    Last edited by klaus54; 05-28-2014, 12:41 PM. Reason: P.S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Folks,

    What was this thread supposed to be about, anyway?

    Confused...

    Santa
    "The case for Junk DNA" ... a belief that persists just as much as Geocentricism once persisted. Epicycles, you may recall, were invented in order to retain the geocentric paradigm. That pales in comparison with the "epicycles" that have been invented in order to retain Evolutionism. More "epicycles" are sure to come.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Folks,

    What was this thread supposed to be about, anyway?

    Confused...

    Santa

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    WOW ... lay off the 'hard stuff', Jimbo ... it'll 'eat' your liver.

    Jorge
    Jorge,

    Lay off the brittle YEC Fundamentalism, it'll 'eat' your frontal lobe!

    You're welcome!

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    You're a moron, Tiggy-Beagle. What in heaven's name possessed me to believe that I could 'reason' with you. Shame on me ... let that be a lesson to me and to any reader. I may as well have tried to present my argument to a sea slug.

    Jorge
    Ah, I can see one problem. You're trying to "reason" with us, and we expect you to reason with us.

    Am I on the right track, Folks?

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post

    BWAAAAK BWAAAAK buc buc buc BWAAAAK!!

    Jorge
    Exactly as expected when Jorge can't answer critiques of his nonsense he flings a few insults then clucks away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I have tried to point it out, but it goes over the head like most other attempts at reason. With Jorge and others like him, the end justifies the means. There is no reason to be concerned about the logical consistency of the argument, or even that attitude with which it is delivered, because what they are telling you is true, therefore it's your fault if you don't get it, self-examination is unnecessary, and self-doubt verboten.

    Jim
    WOW ... lay off the 'hard stuff', Jimbo ... it'll 'eat' your liver.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    For the scientific community the consilience of the evidence sealed the case a century ago.



    There's no difference in the method the science is done. That's your usual blustering Creationist hand-wave.



    Change the foundation from scientific intellectual honesty to Creationist lies and bluster and of course you can 'manufacture' support for your presuppositions. That's not how science works however.



    Except the scientific position explains all the evidence in a single consilient manner. You have to make up a different BS story for every piece.



    OK, you admit your position has no scientific evidence to support it.



    Not a consilient cross-correlating one it can't. That's why your Creationist hand waves are so much chicken poo.



    Thanks for proving my point. You make up one BS story for the first set of data, then a different BS story for the second set of data that contradicts your first BS story. Later you'll make up a third BS story that contradicts the first two. Science has one, count 'em, one consilient explanation that fits ALL the data.



    The fact that you have nothing but chicken poo to fling sunk in long ago.
    You're a moron, Tiggy-Beagle. What in heaven's name possessed me to believe that I could 'reason' with you. Shame on me ... let that be a lesson to me and to any reader. I may as well have tried to present my argument to a sea slug.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Posted again for your perusal. Is this a valid debate point?

    Thanks!

    K54
    I have tried to point it out, but it goes over the head like most other attempts at reason. With Jorge and others like him, the end justifies the means. There is no reason to be concerned about the logical consistency of the argument, or even that attitude with which it is delivered, because what they are telling you is true, therefore it's your fault if you don't get it, self-examination is unnecessary, and self-doubt verboten.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    That would also mean the not only is the YEC interpretation exegetically as well as scientifically wrong, but it means they are doing the same thing to God's word that they accuse non-YECs of.

    Has anyone ever taken that tack?

    K54
    Posted again for your perusal. Is this a valid debate point?

    Thanks!

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    1) Pure and simple: Ad hoc vis-a-vis consilience. Which do you prefer?

    2) Without an unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories, even the ad hoc explanations have no meaning. Of course Jorge can't even get through Ge 1:2 without choking.

    3) What if Jorge's particular unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is not what Scripture means by "inspired"? What if another unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is what's inspired? What if an historical-critical approach is the correct one from a standpoint of inspiration?

    It's much more complicated than Chicken Little and his ilk are spouting, at least in my opinion.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post

    NO physical data will 'seal the case' for any position - not for 10,000 years, not for 10 million years and not for 14 billion years.
    For the scientific community the consilience of the evidence sealed the case a century ago.

    Why? Because in order to arrive at dates regarding origins we are talking about historical science - not operational science. In the former you make observations but must then interpret according to some paradigm and from the outset you had to make assumptions/presuppositions. For Materialists like yourself, Uniformitarianism is one of these. The Copernican (or Copernican-like) Principle is another.
    There's no difference in the method the science is done. That's your usual blustering Creationist hand-wave.

    Simply change the paradigm, assumptions and presuppositions and THE SAME observations yield a different result. I see the same starlight as you do; I see the same fossils as you do; I observe the same geological features on Earth as you do. However, I do not employ Uniformitarianism or any Copernican-like Principle in their interpretation. What I do use is a historical narrative provided to me by a Book that I regard as True. I am able to use some operational science in all of this - in fact, I use the SAME operational science as you do. It's in the foundation where we differ.
    Change the foundation from scientific intellectual honesty to Creationist lies and bluster and of course you can 'manufacture' support for your presuppositions. That's not how science works however.

    Are there some 'apparent inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' between observations and this Book? Yes. But exactly the same applies to all other positions including Materialism/Naturalism/Humanism (although this is not readily admitted). These epistemological issues will always exist because we are finite beings with incomplete knowledge, incomplete understanding and inherent flaws (such as biases) in our inner being and perceptions.
    Except the scientific position explains all the evidence in a single consilient manner. You have to make up a different BS story for every piece.

    So how does someone like myself overcome these limitations? Easy - I trust the Words that are in the Book and move on.
    OK, you admit your position has no scientific evidence to support it.

    But I've made my point. ANY of the physical evidences listed by Santa Klaus or any others that you people would like to list may be given alternative "explanations / interpretations".
    Not a consilient cross-correlating one it can't. That's why your Creationist hand waves are so much chicken poo.

    As one example, the "salt in the oceans" evidence was never meant to "prove" a 10,000 year old Earth but only to show that the oceans cannot be billions of years old - something doesn't add up. That is countered by artifacts introduced for the purpose of explaining how the salt level "could be" what we observe in a "billions of years old ocean". Okay, on to the next one: short-period comets (SPC). No problem: simply introduce an "Oort Cloud" to explain how those SPCs could exist. But, something never observed has been introduced as an "explanation". Okay, shall we call that "science"? Sure, why not. Let's now introduce little green men to explain how DNA got to Earth. Oops - too late, someone's already beat us to that "scientific explanation". On and on and on it goes - I could go through the entire list and the net result with you people would be ... drum roll ... NADA!!!
    Thanks for proving my point. You make up one BS story for the first set of data, then a different BS story for the second set of data that contradicts your first BS story. Later you'll make up a third BS story that contradicts the first two. Science has one, count 'em, one consilient explanation that fits ALL the data.

    Is any of this sinking in?
    The fact that you have nothing but chicken poo to fling sunk in long ago.
    Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 05-26-2014, 04:11 PM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Jorge no one here has ever claimed to have positive scientific evidence for the Biblical miracles you listed above. You on the other hand HAVE claimed to have positive scientific evidence for a <10,000 year age of the Earth and a literal Noah's Flood only 4500 years ago. THAT's the evidence you keep getting asked for and that you can never produce.

    Unless you're going to change your story and finally admit you accept everything in Genesis on faith alone despite the contradictory scientific evidence. Is that it?

    Quit with the chicken poo flinging and make your position clear.
    The only "chicken poo flinging" is by you and your comrades here.

    I HAVE made my position clear - many, many times in the past. That you et al. have a hearing, learning and/or a retention disability is NOT my problem - don't try to make it so!

    I will waste more minutes (sigh!) of my life and succinctly "make my position clear" (AGAIN!!!).

    NO physical data will 'seal the case' for any position - not for 10,000 years, not for 10 million years and not for 14 billion years.

    Why? Because in order to arrive at dates regarding origins we are talking about historical science - not operational science. In the former you make observations but must then interpret according to some paradigm and from the outset you had to make assumptions/presuppositions. For Materialists like yourself, Uniformitarianism is one of these. The Copernican (or Copernican-like) Principle is another.

    Simply change the paradigm, assumptions and presuppositions and THE SAME observations yield a different result. I see the same starlight as you do; I see the same fossils as you do; I observe the same geological features on Earth as you do. However, I do not employ Uniformitarianism or any Copernican-like Principle in their interpretation. What I do use is a historical narrative provided to me by a Book that I regard as True. I am able to use some operational science in all of this - in fact, I use the SAME operational science as you do. It's in the foundation where we differ.

    Are there some 'apparent inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' between observations and this Book? Yes. But exactly the same applies to all other positions including Materialism/Naturalism/Humanism (although this is not readily admitted). These epistemological issues will always exist because we are finite beings with incomplete knowledge, incomplete understanding and inherent flaws (such as biases) in our inner being and perceptions.

    So how does someone like myself overcome these limitations? Easy - I trust the Words that are in the Book and move on. I employ faith where it is needed. But I have enough physical evidence to support that faith; in other words, it is not a "blind faith", suspended in mid-air, supported by nothing. It is a rational, 'scientific' (proper definition) stance - not as you people like to portray it ("irrational and unscientific").

    Here's my pet peeve with people like you: You too have serious epistemological limitations. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you too must employ FAITH to keep you going. You maintain that faith plays no role in your Materialism - obviously this can only be one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty. This denial is obviously motivated because you wish to be in some sort of 'Elitist' / 'Superior' position guided "solely by the power of science and intellect". Hogwash!!

    Now, there really isn't a way for me to continue without turning this into a dissertation. But I've made my point. ANY of the physical evidences listed by Santa Klaus or any others that you people would like to list may be given alternative "explanations / interpretations". As one example, the "salt in the oceans" evidence was never meant to "prove" a 10,000 year old Earth but only to show that the oceans cannot be billions of years old - something doesn't add up. That is countered by artifacts introduced for the purpose of explaining how the salt level "could be" what we observe in a "billions of years old ocean". Okay, on to the next one: short-period comets (SPC). No problem: simply introduce an "Oort Cloud" to explain how those SPCs could exist. But, something never observed has been introduced as an "explanation". Okay, shall we call that "science"? Sure, why not. Let's now introduce little green men to explain how DNA got to Earth. Oops - too late, someone's already beat us to that "scientific explanation". On and on and on it goes - I could go through the entire list and the net result with you people would be ... drum roll ... NADA!!!

    Is any of this sinking in?

    Got'ta go ...

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 05-26-2014, 02:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ...
    It should also be noted that the apparent contradiction you see derives from your incorrect formulation of Q2. If Genesis 1 is NOT a literal description of creation in 6 days as we humans count days, then not believing the time frame was 6 days does not deny any claimed miracle in scripture, any more than denying the sky is made of molten brass is somehow denying the truth of the text of Job, or any more than believing the Earth rotates denies text found in the Psalms.

    Jim
    That would also mean the not only is the YEC interpretation exegetically as well as scientifically wrong, but it means they are doing the same thing to God's word that they accuse non-YECs of.

    Has anyone ever taken that tack?

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    **************************

    On something as serious as this I am most certainly willing to give you the full benefit of the doubt. Okay, so let's make 100.00% sure of what you're saying and what you're not ...

    1. You ACCEPT the miracles of the feeding of the masses (several times), the walking on the stormy sea, the resurrection of Lazarus and the many other miracles spoken of in Scripture. IS THAT CORRECT? (I will proceed as if your answer is "yes".

    2. There is, however, ONE miraculous event - JUST ONE - that you do not accept / believe, namely, the 6-day completed creation of the physical universe and all therein. IS THAT CORRECT? (Again, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

    3. You say that you do not accept / believe that miraculous event because most or all of the observable, testable, scientific data testifies against a 6-day creation. IS THIS CORRECT? (One more time, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

    4. Okay, so I asked you for the observable, testable, scientific data that supports all of the other miracles that you DO choose to believe in. Your comeback was that you believe in them because you choose to, I quote, "One believes it or one does not." That's fine - no argument from me on that.

    So, SINCE YOUR BELIEFS IN SCORES OF MIRACLES FOUND IN SCRIPTURE ARE NOT BASED ON OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA, THEN WHY IS IT THAT YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ONE MIRACLE (6-day creation) THAT HAPPENS TO BE FOUNDATIONAL FOR NOT JUST THE BIBLICAL HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY, BUT FOR MANY OTHER FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY (e.g., marriage, the Fall, God's redemptive plan (the Cross), ... and so on)?

    Furthermore, the ONE miracle that you deny just happens (coincidence?) to be the one that is ESSENTIAL for the Materialistic position of the universe. Specifically, eliminate gigayears and Materialism is fini, kaput, finished! Materialists absolutely MUST HAVE gigayears in their worldview and, by denying God's clearly-stated chronology, people like yourself hand this to them on a silver platter.

    Okay, so I've given you the full benefit of the doubt. Now let's see what you respond.

    Jorge
    Jorge, your list is a straw-man (to use correctly a term you misuse constantly). It does not correctly reflect the content or the nature of the actual discussion/debate. Why is it a straw-man? A straw-man is a flawed representation of an argument or concept that is then systematically deconstructed.
    The proponent that claims that by deconstructing the straw-man version, he has deconstructed the actual arguments or concept.

    Where does your straw-man diverge from my actual position? Question #2. (BTW, my answer to 1, a valid question, is YES)

    Question #2 is flawed, it is basically "How often do you beat your wife". It takes as proven the assumption that the 6 day INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 is correct. That is THE point of debate Jorge. I accept God's capacity to perform the miraculous, and I accept that He has performed MANY miraculous events, only some of which are recorded in scripture. I believe God is Creator, and that creation proceeded from Him and is sustained by Him. The debate here is not if I believe in a miracle described in scripture, or if I believe God created this universe.

    The debate here is WHAT KIND OF DESCRIPTION OF CREATION IS GENESIS 1.

    We disagree on that point. To answer the remainder of your questions as they are formulated, I am implicitly agreeing with your interpretation, which I do not.

    It should also be noted that the apparent contradiction you see derives from your incorrect formulation of Q2. If Genesis 1 is NOT a literal description of creation in 6 days as we humans count days, then not believing the time frame was 6 days does not deny any claimed miracle in scripture, any more than denying the sky is made of molten brass is somehow denying the truth of the text of Job, or any more than believing the Earth rotates denies text found in the Psalms.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-26-2014, 10:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 10-19-2021, 03:24 PM
8 responses
76 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
3 responses
35 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
0 responses
12 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
56 responses
306 views
1 like
Last Post lee_merrill  
Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
37 responses
200 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X