Maz, you ignorant twit. You do not get to debunk your claims with articles that oppose you. I never said that ERV's never have a function.
And you still have not provided any evidence of creationists making predictions of DNA all being used before "junk DNA" was discovered.
And lastly there have been cases where ancient genes were reactivated in the laboratory. It has been done and several times over.
You have lost on all of your points and made none of them.
So are you going to keep blue waffling up this site? Probably.
Evolution vs. Creation
Posted in the US News Forum
Comments (Page 3,012)
|
Since: Sep 08
|
|
|
Since: Jul 12
East Gosford, Australia |
Oh Subby likes to hide in ignorance. Creos did indeed claim many years ago that there would be no junk dna and that is being validated. I just love to watch evos struggle and squirm. Evos have shown that their irrefuteable evidences are no more than flavours of the month. Thanks for the link. It is a rehash of the one I posted but may have more info, so thanks again. From your link... "Most of a person’s genetic risk for common diseases such as diabetes, asthma and hardening of the arteries appears to lie in the shadowy part of the human genome once disparaged as “junk DNA.” Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals’ well being — a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades. Those are among the key insights of a nine-year project to study the 97 percent of the human genome that’s not, strictly speaking, made up of genes." So the majority of the genome is used in maintaining ones well being and is NOT evolutionary junk as evos proposed for over a decade. That reminds me of our knuckle walking ancestry that they had evidence on for over 150 years. Evolutionary theory is just one big surprize after another for evos! |
|
“cdesign proponentsists” Since: Jul 09
|
Nice job! The fundie two step strikes again! You avoided dealing with the subject and said that your god could not make laws that transcends time! There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity. Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK. Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK. |
|
Since: Jul 12
East Gosford, Australia |
1. I should not need to provide any more you ignorant evotard. Are you suggesting that creos did not make claims around junk dna? Moron. When did you last support anything you say with anything let alone peer reviewed research..the big evo quack.... 2. Waffle and crap. 3. waffle and crap. Ask your creotard researchers what junk is. They invented the term. You evotards don't even understand your own terms now. Ha Ha. And the rest are crap also with nothing more than the simplistic replies of a child. Don't forget it is evo researchers that have found 80% functionality and are expecting to find 100%. Would you like to wager what is left of your credibility on that? All I have to do is demonstate that creos made claims around junk dna and I have pegged them back to 1998. I do not have to produce peer reviewed research evotard because most intelligent evos already know that creos preached that. I have produced evidence to support creos made these claims well in advance, and you would have to be a desperate moron to suggest otherwise as your sole defence. Creos did not toddle off and come up with convolutions as to why God would make junk dna and role model evolutionary knee jerk science. Creos denied the existence of junk dna from its inception. If they did us eknee jerk science you would be able to find the same kind of prattle from creos as I can find from evos loudmouthing their hubris, ad nauseum. You are a proud empty prat, trying to justify your existence on a debating forum. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
The problem with titles like "Junk DNA debunked" is that evolutionists never put great stock in the idea of junk DNA. It is a term similar to the proper use of UFO. There are millions of UFO's spotted daily. For example"
#1 "What is that?" #2 "I don't know." At this point in time the object is a UFO. #1 "Oh, it's a Boeing 747." And now it isn't. The same applies to Junk DNA.. When first found it was unknown what much of the DNA "code" did. It looked like it sat there and did nothing. Now they are finding some uses of it. Some control the body in ways that were not seen before. Some parts of it are old genes that are no longer used. They are not "junk" since they are now recognized, but they are still old and still debunk creatard nonsense. And of course Maz is still ducking the question of ERV's. Now if the original part of much of DNA being total junk persisted the creationists would have no explanation for it. This along with all of the other countless examples of evidence that creatards have not been able to answer to would be a very large nail in the coffin of their idea that has been dead for 150 years. For some strange reason Maz takes great hope in the discovery that some of the junk may not be junk after all. I know. Maz will keep blue waffling this site with her bullshit. This discovery does not hurt evolution in any way. If Maz could understand a lick of logic she would see why that was the case. And the case that it does not kill creationism dead is still far from being made. |
|
“cdesign proponentsists” Since: Jul 09
|
Ah, the god of the gaps argument. Brilliant. No one in science has ever claimed to know it all! But believers claim that their unseen god knows it all. What does that make them? |
|
Since: Jul 12
East Gosford, Australia |
I can't possibly have lost because I can back what I claim and so far we are still waiting for yout osay somethjing intelligent. 1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc... Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome's components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74... Everything I said above I have not only supported but also validated. You have presented twoddle. That generally means..I win. It is a point you can't refute subby. Just like knucklewalking ancestry you will have to suck it up and admit these evos did not know what they were talking about, whilst creo claims over a decade old were validated. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
Maz, try to bring up one point. Make it the strongest point. Your Gish Gallops are obvious lies.
So how does this "new" discovery help cretinism or IDiocy in any way? I will repeat that they did not find the whole genome to be functioning yet. Only that much more of it is functioning that was thought in the past. Some of those functions are old functions that hurt creationism. Dinosaur teeth, scales, tales, and claws in a chicken hurt creationism, they do not help it and those are some of the finds of what used to be "junk DNA". Do you need articles on how they found those? I will be happy to supply them. Second, none of your cited scientific articles support your side in the least. You have only gone to them for their title or at most their abstracts. None of them put a limit on evolution. The people who wrote them did not think there was a limit on evolution. Lastly you have failed to produce the articles that you claim exist. You have failed to show how creationists predicted a totally useful DNA before "Junk DNA" was discovered. Nor have you shown any articles that predict that all DNA would be found to have a use by creationists even after this latest discovery. Probably because they are aware of the old genes that have been found that already debunk creationism. So that is at least three strikes and you are out. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
No, you keep forgetting that ancient genes, like the ones I have mentioned several times did not count as "junk" once identified. You and yours still have no answer for them. More of the code may be used than we thought but still much of it is tied up in ancient genes, which are not junk DNA, ERV's, again identified so not junk DNA. Yes, some ERV's have been found to have a use. It looks like the majority won't and yet they are still not junk DNA since they are identified. Just as a Cessna would not be a UFO once identified. So until you have answers for those you still lose the DNA battle. |
|
Since: Sep 12
United States |
Judged:
1 I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it. As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind. |
|
Since: Sep 12
United States |
Judged:
1 1st off I just had this talk with kitten go read her post it was better than yours. 2nd when believers say God knows it all it makes them FAITHFUL. Before you spend the next couple of weeks trying to make me doubt God the other evos and atheists have been at it for 3 weeks and they had way better arguments than you do. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
Judged:
1
1 Here is the point. You are picking and choosing what parts of your Bible to believe on what feels good rather than on evidence. In the O.T. it was okay own a slave. Not only was it okay to own a slave, it was alright to beat a slave. You could beat a slave within an inch of its life and as long as it did not die in the next day or two you were alright. In fact the slave could die a week after the beating and that was not a crime. You could get out of a rape charge by paying the father, not the women, but the father of a women that you raped and marrying her. I am sure women would just love that. There is all sorts of immoral nonsense in the O.T. that you reject and yet you ignore science and believe what is obviously a fairy tale in the first book of the Bible. Now there is some good philosophy in the N.T.. A lot of it makes sense. And if it helps you that is fine. But you can pretty much throw the O.T. away. There is an amazing amount of extremely immoral behavior and nonsense in it. |
|
Since: Jul 12
East Gosford, Australia |
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional. Is that your desperate strategy now? You fool and desperate waste of space. I'd say I have the upper hand whilst you grab hold of a straws. I have not failed to show how creos predicted at all because I posted reference to a debate a creo had with an evo about junk not being junk. Your are really stupid and desperate. You lot actually had evidence of junk dna that was no more than farting in the wind. So are you saying that when the last 20% is found to have function you will shut the frig up and stop your stupidity. I doubt it! I'd say jumping from 98% junk to 80% functional is validation in motion. Note, I am sticking with my prediction and not knee jerk explaining why God would even have 20% junk in the genome. Is this 20% proof of evolution? What about you evos? Too bad you can't say the same thing. Knee jerkers! You have not refuted this.. 1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc... Everything above is true and suffiently supported, and you have desperation and bravado to offer to save face on this forum. |
|
“cdesign proponentsists” Since: Jul 09
|
But your god said that it was ok and that your wife is your property. I am certainly not defending your myth, just telling you what most preachers will not. My son would often start a conversation with, "Do you want to know something..." and I always reply with, "I want to know everything!" I guess that is the major difference between a believer and a non-believer; the non-believer is driven to ask questions. That is why believers say, "Don't question god!" Why not? Is he afraid of my questions? Teachers who did not know the material, also hate questions, but a person well versed, welcomes questions. |
|
“cdesign proponentsists” Since: Jul 09
|
I never claimed to be a good writer! I certainly would never put myself on the same level of knowledge as many of the others on here. They are very well educated. I have not spoken with a christian who was well educated on evolution or the bible. My arguments are simple. Would a supreme being worry about only the human females virginity? Would a supreme being allow owning and murdering a slave? Would a supreme being require a rape victim to marry her rapist? Three very simple questions and the obvious answer is, no. If jesus is god and a god cannot die, why do christians claim that he died for their sins? Very simple logic. Not much of an IQ is needed to answer these very simple questions. |
|
Since: Nov 12
Milk River, Canada |
Interesting. In my observation, it's more like religion drags it's heals a lot longer than science does, and only changes it's practice, kicking and screaming when the difference between an evolving understanding of reality, as well as an evolving culture, becomes too incredibly awkward. Of course modern science hasn't been around that long, so it's harder to take the long view. The modern science framework, of cherishing the competition of ideas, seems pretty foreign to how religion works, and allows the much faster rate of change that we see in science. In a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed, I notice that religion changes mainly by the splitting away of new factions, while the older faction keeps it's beliefs constant, but may diminish in numbers of adherents. Of course at the same time there are individuals who drift away from religious cliques into a rainbow of private interpretations, or even just ignore the whole thing. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
1. I have supported many claims in the past and have often offered. I see that you ran away from my claims that I offered to get links on. And you idiot, at least when I get links they support my claims, unlike yours where you only think they do. As I already told you, when it comes to your arguments there is no there there. That means you have nothing. 2. Yes, your blue waffle is rather stinky and you hate it when people show that you are an idiot. 3. Again, yes, See above. And no, the term "junk DNA" was always a popular press term. Don't make me laugh. The more proper term was always "Non-coding DNA". And you need to learn there is a big difference between them saying they expect to and may. They claim they may be able to find 100% functionality. But remember, some of that functionality is already accounted for in ways you don't like. Ancient genes count as functionality. If they know what the genes were used for they are no longer junk. Remember the chicken. The sort of research they did on chicken embryos obviously cannot be done on people. And ERV's don't count as junk DNA, they were never counted that way. We knew where they came from so they weren't junk. You still have no answer for either of those last two unpleasant facts for creatards So it seems that like normal you have nothing and you get pissed off when someone points out that you have nothing. Take your stinking flapping blue waffle elsewhere. |
|
Since: Sep 08
|
Judged:
1 Oops, I responded to the wrong rant. I was rudely awoken and had not had my coffee yet, but in my defense all of Maz's waffle flapping sounds the same after a while. Let's see how wrong she is this time. No, 20% nonfunctionality in DNA is still enough to sink any creationist claims. And evolutionists never put great stock in the claim of "junk DNA". Why should they? In fact I have never seen anyone make this claim except for creatards claiming that evolutionists have. Perhaps that one lone voice that Maz linked. And she claims of creationist predictions and she has yet to link any. Even if there was pure 100% functionality, no ERV's no ancient genomes, which are of course not Junk DNA, that would not do any harm to the theory of evolution. As I said, the Junk DNA claim was not even accepted by all evolutionists,especially not genetic evolutionists that understand the subject. This was an idea that sunk and buried, and still does sink and bury cretinism. No evolutionists are scurrying away in shame. We are merely pointing out how incredibly wrong idiots like Maz are. Let's see if I can explain this in logic terms that even our creatard "friend" can understand. Let's call evolution E and creationism C. And the latest kerfuffle we will call G for genome. Now in its original form it was always a case of: If G then not C. It was never: If not G then not E. Right now it is still in a form of: If G then Not C Since there is far too much non-coding DNA for creationists to account for. And even if that remaining 20% is found to be functional they still need to explain ancient genes in the genome and ERV's. Two topics that we see Maz running from with her nasty blue waffle flapping away. At best Maz can only hope for is a Not G situation. And of course Not G does not imply C in anyway. |
Try some researched history then- Simon Sebag Montefiore bookuh. A little hard to follow the tree branches sometimes but worth the read...alll the way to the LAST pages. Even Bill Clinton supposedly gave it a big thumbs up. |
|
and do notice, just the mention of the actual author and his work is sufficient, for those of us who realize--MANY can and DO, think for themselves, and need no further dribble, on things that are already WRITTEN by someone else. Mostly because book reviews are a dime a dozen--almost anyone can do one--so best to read anything for ones SELF, because no one can think for anyone else!! |
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated: |
|
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.
242
Users are viewing the
US News Forum
right now
Search the US News Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Irs Scandal: Agency Targets Tea Party, Ignores ...
|
4 min | vertigo | 137 |
|
The President has failed us
(Jun '12)
|
5 min | Ghost Rider | 121,645 |
|
It's the Guns, Stupid
(Apr '07)
|
10 min | crawlfish | 100,789 |
|
Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs
(Jun '09)
|
13 min | joe | 109,631 |
|
Video: Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excel...
|
13 min | whitesally01 | 168 |
|
Safety experts say Okla. school was ready for t...
|
15 min | PURELYCANADIAN | 1 |
|
Trayvon Martin Shooting Death Sparks Outrage on...
(Mar '12)
|
17 min | Jumping Jim | 47,286 |
|
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate
(Oct '10)
|
36 min | Join the party | 89,846 |
|
Barack Obama, our next President
(Nov '08)
|
1 hr | frontporchreactionary | 839,379 |
|
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting...
(Jan '09)
|
4 hr | Grand Birther | 138,074 |
|
Tea party group files lawsuit against IRS
|
5 hr | Lawrence Wolf | 26 |
Related Topix Forums:
US Politics
Daily Horoscope for May 21
Virgo
It's a rather low-key day with a few disappointments to cope with along the way. If you were looking forward to a social event, such as meeting up with friends, it may fail to live up to your expectations. It might even be delayed or postponed through no fault of your own. There could also be problems about how much something is going to cost, forcing you to scale down your plans to make them more affordable.
Copyright ©2013 Topix LLC
