Britain's Chief Rabbi Tweaks Richard Dawkins with the Myth of "Junk DNA"

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of99
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 9, 2012
 
Dillion wrote:
"actually that 98 percent that people thought was junk isn't junk at all. It's absolutely essential to the maintenance of life."
I'm happy to say that I never believed in the unsubstantiated myth of junk DNA and that I'm on record on Topix demanding to see and test a common life form with all the "junk DNA" removed.

Thanks for posting the link to the video.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 9, 2012
 
What creatards cannot and refuse to understand is that the existence or nonexistence of junk DNA was never a big whoop as far as proving evolution. It was a big whoop for creationists since they had no answer for the concept.

So they see this latest discovery has a huge redemption, not that it is any evidence for creationism at all. Merely that one of the thousands of stones burying creationism has been lifted, slightly. Right now there is still 20% that does not code, far too much for creationists. So there cries of victory are premature to say the least. And even if all of the genome is decoded there are still items in it that are not junk DNA that creationism cannot explain.

Creationists cannot explain genes that turn on old features such as teeth, scales, long tails, and claws on their wings for chickens. Nor can they explain ERV's. Both of these elements of DNA, which are not upset by these latest findings bury creationism.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
What creatards cannot and refuse to understand is that the existence or nonexistence of junk DNA was never a big whoop
You've missed the point entirely. Evolutionists don't understand the fundamentals of science.

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman.

Sadly, evolutionists trust in just-so stories and believe in their fantasies as if they represent legitimate science.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Creationists cannot explain genes that turn on old features such as teeth, scales, long tails, and claws on their wings for chickens.
What is there to explain scientifically? The Bible clearly teaches that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eaglesí feathers and his nails like birdsí claws.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What is there to explain scientifically? The Bible clearly teaches that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eaglesí feathers and his nails like birdsí claws.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
No shoob, that does not support your claim at all. Notice the extremely important word "like". And you are talking about one man here, not a chicken. My points were about ancestral genes in birds that give huge evidence that they are descended from dinosaurs.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You've missed the point entirely. Evolutionists don't understand the fundamentals of science.
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman.
Sadly, evolutionists trust in just-so stories and believe in their fantasies as if they represent legitimate science.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman...
LMAFAO!! Evolution is based upon experimentation and observation. You have to stop believing creatard sites that admit they will lie at the drop of a hat.

Creation is the very epitome of a just so story. Evolution is backed by experimental science in several different disciplines. The fact that almost every science supports it somehow should give you pause.

The problem is that you are a braindead creatard.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
My points were about ancestral genes in birds that give huge evidence that they are descended from dinosaurs.
I'm a consistent creationist that has no problem believing that birds and dinosaurs are related genetically.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Evolution is based upon experimentation and observation.
As a consistent creationist, I believe in speciation. As a teacher of theology, I point out that Scripture teaches evolution (change over time).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm a consistent creationist that has no problem believing that birds and dinosaurs are related genetically.
<quoted text>As a consistent creationist, I believe in speciation. As a teacher of theology, I point out that Scripture teaches evolution (change over time).
What part of modern science, not just what part of evolution, don't you believe in?

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? There was none. That was busted over 50 years before Darwin and we have found much much much much more evidence against the flood since his time.

How old do you believe the Earth is? We have again an almost unlimited amount of evidence that the 6,000 year estimate of Ussher is ridiculous.

How old is the Universe? Again, science can give a very good answer. How about you?
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 9, 2012
 
I'm still confused about how the human genome can be deteriorating into random noise and still be 100% functional.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
What part of modern science, not just what part of evolution, don't you believe in?
Your question is religious and irrelevant. The proper question to ask is "What is true science?" Furthermore, this thread is about the religious dogmatism of evolutionists steering them into darkness and the irrefutable evidence of their religiosity.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Do you believe in a worldwide flood? There was none. That was busted over 50 years before Darwin and we have found much much much much more evidence against the flood since his time.
I believe that you don't know the simplest facts about geology. What percentage of the earth is covered in sedimentary rock? Does sedimentary rock exist worldwide?
Subduction Zone wrote:
How old do you believe the Earth is? We have again an almost unlimited amount of evidence that the 6,000 year estimate of Ussher is ridiculous.
I believe that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth is a recent development.
Subduction Zone wrote:
How old is the Universe? Again, science can give a very good answer. How about you?
I have no problem with the estimated time since the big bang when the universe allegedly exploded into existence out of nothingness.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 9, 2012
 
Evolution is true science. The theory of evolution was developed by the scientific method and is supported by scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for creation, that is a a undeniable fact. Let me amend that slightly, if you understand what scientific evidence is it is an undeniable fact that no scientific evidence supports creationism.

next.

What difference does it make what percentage of the Earth is covered with sedimentary rocks. If you count the land surface of the Earth it is about 80%, that is just an estimate off of the top of my head. If you count the whole earth it is only about 20%. And yes, you can find sedimentary rock world wide. If you think you can claim they came for a world wide flood, think again. That idiotic idea was busted long before Darwin and experimentation and studies of the Earth have only added to that busting.

Next.

No, life has been here for over a billion years. That is shown by the fossil record.

Last.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It could have been out of "nothingness" since that does not violate any physical laws.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You've missed the point entirely. Evolutionists don't understand the fundamentals of science.
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman.
Sadly, evolutionists trust in just-so stories and believe in their fantasies as if they represent legitimate science.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Experimented. Tested. Passed.

Goddidit with magic hasn't.

Sorry Shoob.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creation, that is a a undeniable fact. Let me amend that slightly, if you understand what scientific evidence is it is an undeniable fact that no scientific evidence supports creationism.
Mainstream cosmology teaches that the universe came into existence out of nothingness. By nothingness, the absence of space and time is meant.
Subduction Zone wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of the Earth is covered with sedimentary rocks.
It would be more precise to ask for a map of those regions of the earth that were never covered by water.
Subduction Zone wrote:
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
Thatís a petty whine about definitions. Compare http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explos... ? with http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Subduction Zone wrote:
It could have been out of "nothingness" since that does not violate any physical laws.
Correct. Quantum creationism doesnít violate any physical law.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewto...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
Mainstream cosmology teaches that the universe came into existence out of nothingness. By nothingness, the absence of space and time is meant.
Actually that is not correct. It teaches the universe came from a singularity, which is NOT "nothingness". Now, you HOPE that this singularity was the result of a quantum fluctuation ultimately set in motion by Jewmagic, yet there are other possibilities but they could potentially contradict your baseless religious beliefs and we can't have that.
Shubee wrote:
It would be more precise to ask for a map of those regions of the earth that were never covered by water.
Irrelevant. The fact is that there was no global flood. While various places may have been underwater at one time or another it was never all at once simultaneously. Global flood is and always has been a complete myth. If you want your fairy tales to be taken seriously then MAYBE your pal Noah experienced what was merely a local event.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Thatís a petty whine about definitions. Compare http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explos... ? with http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Sorry, but ask any actual cosmologist and they'll point out that the "bang" is more poetic license for the sake of quick language usage.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. Quantum creationism doesnít violate any physical law.
Nah, just violates common sense and scientific justification to the extremes. Gee, what are the odds of all species on Earth spontaneously appearing fully-formed by way of quantum fluctuations? Well pretty darn LONG - BUT STILL POSSIBLE!!!

:-D

And you still haven't figured out why no-one takes you seriously...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 9, 2012
 
Dillion wrote:
"Britain's chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, tweaked Dawkins with the ENCODE project results. "actually that 98 percent that people thought was junk isn't junk at all. It's absolutely essential to the maintenance of life."
In the debate "Dawkins manages to squirm out and seems to turn it to his own advantage (at about 13:00)."
You mean "Darn it! Genetics STILL really does demonstrate evolution!!!"

Oh well.

By the way, have your buddies at DI Central come up with a "scientific theory" of ID yet?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Oh well.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
the universe came from a singularity, which is NOT "nothingness".
Before the singularity there was nothingness.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shubee wrote:
It would be more precise to ask for a map of those regions of the earth that were never covered by water.
The Dude wrote:
Irrelevant. The fact is that there was no global flood.
The opening post of this thread has demonstrated that evolutionists don't have the discernment to know what they're talking about. But they don't understand that. So I believe they should be granted every opportunity to demonstrate their foolishness.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
what are the odds of all species on Earth spontaneously appearing fully-formed by way of quantum fluctuations? Well pretty darn LONG - BUT STILL POSSIBLE!!!
Why is that any more improbable than the universe coming into existence out of nothing in the first place?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Before the singularity there was nothingness.
We don't know what existed before the singularity.

And nothingness is impossible in our galaxy.

Have you watched "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 9, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that any more improbable than the universe coming into existence out of nothing in the first place?
Again, nothingness is impossible in our universe. So the odds of it coming into existence are approaching one.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of99
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••