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

  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-15-2014, 08:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    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.
    Last edited by rwatts; 05-15-2014, 08:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X