Originally posted by RJHindsThat's your big creationist scare? So she has a Phd but spends her research with a creationist goal in mind, bending the truth to fit her idea of the world. And this pathetic video is 4 minutes long and she just SAYS the mutation clock runs faster, therefore the world is 6000 years old.
[b]The Terrifying Message within DNA
Comparing mutation rates between human Mitochondrial DNA has yielded a terrifying hidden message. You'll have to have some brains to understand Dr. Purdom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Lc8N63UM8[/b]
I can say all sorts of fool things, and often do, but I don't try to use an advanced degree to bend people's wills.
The weak minded ones there go 'she has a Phd, she MUST be right, PRAISE THE LORD'.
19 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonhouseMany evolutionists do that all the time and you fall for it all the time because they agree with your worldview. Try to think back a minute or two and I am sure you can think of a couple of frauds by evolutionists with advanced degrees that you have fallen for. If your amnesia is to bad, perhaps I could refresh your memory if needed. We have already discusssed many of these past frauds by Evolutionists in old threads on here. The most recent is the 2% coded DNA and the evolution fraud that the remaining 98% had no function and was "junk" DNA and a proof of evolution.
That's your big creationist scare? So she has a Phd but spends her research with a creationist goal in mind, bending the truth to fit her idea of the world. And this pathetic video is 4 minutes long and she just SAYS the mutation clock runs faster, therefore the world is 6000 years old.
I can say all sorts of fool things, and often do, but I don't try to ...[text shortened]... e's wills.
The weak minded ones there go 'she has a Phd, she MUST be right, PRAISE THE LORD'.
ENCODE has shown that the rest of the genome – the non-coding majority – is still rife with “functional elements”. That is, it’s doing something.
It contains docking sites where proteins can stick and switch genes on or off. Or it is read and ‘transcribed’ into molecules of RNA. Or it controls whether nearby genes are transcribed (promoters; more than 70,000 of these). Or it influences the activity of other genes, sometimes across great distances (enhancers; more than 400,000 of these). Or it affects how DNA is folded and packaged. Something.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by josephwI've stopped listening to RJ's videos. With the exception of precious few, they're filled with misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies and sometimes flat out lies. They're kindof like visual and psychological tools of lobotomy. I actually feel more apathetic now, than, say, a year ago, so they're obviously working, in a very painful and slow manner.
It's a curious thing that the resident scientists in this forum haven't found the time to respond to the OP.
It only takes a straw to break the camels back. I think the evolutionist scientists are deathly afraid that real science will topple their tower of science babel. It's only a matter of time!
But if Purdom says anything that you think challenges modern science, would you save us from listening to another propaganda piece, and give us her core argument in text. I'm not saying it's your duty, or anything, just that I can't sit through yet another one of RJ's idiotic videos.
Originally posted by josephwI never bother watching YouTube videos posted by RJ.
It's a curious thing that the resident scientists in this forum haven't found the time to respond to the OP.
If however you wish to discuss this particular video, let me know and I will watch it. I do however have some requirements first:
1. That you have watched it yourself.
2. That you understand its contents and agree with what it says.
3. That should I demonstrate that it is wrong, that you admit as such.
It only takes a straw to break the camels back. I think the evolutionist scientists are deathly afraid that real science will topple their tower of science babel. It's only a matter of time!
Bring on the straws. My only requirement is that you actually stand up for your straws instead of throwing straws you don't actually believe in like RJ does.
Originally posted by C HessWhatever you evilutionists want to call it now, it is not proof of evolution. All of it together is more like evidence of the Creator.
Not junk, but non-coding. You just never quit, do you?
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
Ever since Stanley Miller's experiment produced some amino acids with a spark in 1953, evilutionists have claimed that lighting strickes caused amino acids and they came together on their own in a primordial soup or pond to make proteins. But amino acids will not link together to form proteins! It was a bit like claiming that if bricks formed in nature they would get together to build houses. Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells.
Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells and no proteins at all will form outside of cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things.
Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator.
Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”
Yet Atheist EVILutionists call creationists anti-science and having blind faith. Atheists EVILutionists look like hypocrites to the Near Genius. How about you?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNot now, scientists always called it non-coding, as in not coding for proteins, and ever since the early 60's it's been known that non-coding DNA contains regulatory DNA and junk DNA. No news there. Still holds true.
Whatever you evilutionists want to call it now...
21 Jun 15
Truely a "terrifying" video!
The entire convoluted argument rests on the factor 600 vs 10 000. This is referred to as "several orders of magnitude", when it is actually only "one-and-a-bit". This is the first falsification.
The ratio of 10 000 to 600 is 16,7. When one applies that factor to the first appearance of H.sapiens, which is between 2 and 6 million years ago, (and we take the lower figure of 2M years) then we get roughly 120 000 years, still way too much for YEC's to be comfortable.
So this is again all smoke and mirrors.
Originally posted by C HessEvilutionists called it junk DNA when it was supposed to be 98% of the DNA.
Not now, scientists always called it non-coding, as in not coding for proteins, and ever since the early 60's it's been known that non-coding DNA contains regulatory DNA and junk DNA. No news there. Still holds true.
“The term ‘junk DNA’ became popular in the 1960s (e.g., Ehret and de Haller 1963). It was formalized by Susumu Ohno in 1972.”
A 1963 paper by Charles Ehret and Gérard de Haller entitled “Origin, development, and maturation of organelles and organelle systems of the cell surface in Paramecium.” The paper which was published in Journal of Ultrastructure Research is huge—42 pages and 86 figures. On page 39 it is written:
“While current evidence makes plausible the idea that all genetic material is DNA (with the possible exception of RNA viruses), it does not follow that all DNA is competent genetic material (viz. ‘junk’ DNA), nor that all Feulgen-positive material is active DNA.”
http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/64504735261/the-origin-of-the-term-junk-dna-a-historical
😏
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat that thing of limited capacity you call your intellect obviously doesn't realise, and failed to absorb from that very link you gave (Judge Starling is a proponent of the idea of junk DNA, by the way) is:
[b]Evilutionists called it junk DNA when it was supposed to be 98% of the DNA.“The term ‘junk DNA’ became popular in the 1960s (e.g., Ehret and de Haller 1963). It was formalized by Susumu Ohno in 1972.”
A 1963 paper by Charles Ehret and Gérard de Haller entitled “Origin, development, and maturation of organelles and organelle syste ...[text shortened]... ://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/64504735261/the-origin-of-the-term-junk-dna-a-historical
😏[/b]
Nine years before Susumu Ohno, two authors wrote about “junk DNA” in a casual manner without even bothering to explain what junk DNA is.
Allow me to provide you with the explanation, yet again. Junk DNA is the part of DNA that has either been proven not do anything for the organism carrying it, or for which we don't yet have an explanation of what it does. The rest of DNA (protein-coding or non-coding) is not, and never was considered junk, obviously.
Here's an estimate of the amount of junk in our genome, by Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, Canada:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.se/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna.html
Total Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7%
Total Junk (so far) = 65%
Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessWell, you know I'm not a scientist. I won't pretend to understand any of it beyond a sixth grade level. If that!
I've stopped listening to RJ's videos. With the exception of precious few, they're filled with misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies and sometimes flat out lies. They're kindof like visual and psychological tools of lobotomy. I actually feel more apathetic now, than, say, a year ago, so they're obviously working, in a very painful and slow manner.
But i ...[text shortened]... 's your duty, or anything, just that I can't sit through yet another one of RJ's idiotic videos.
But I'm astute enough to wonder why scientist call each other liars. Who am I to believe? Some Christians believe the science behind evolution and believe God created the process. Others don't.
What we believe about that one way or the other doesn't much matter in the real world of day-to-day living, but it will after this life is over. I'm not sure how it will matter, but I'm sure it will.
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by josephwThen maybe you should stay out of it?
Well, you know I'm not a scientist. I won't pretend to understand any of it beyond a sixth grade level. If that!
But I'm astute enough to wonder why scientist call each other liars.
Because some have a non-scientific agenda.
Who am I to believe?
You shouldn't. Science shouldn't become a religion. Either learn enough to tell who is correct, or don't make a judgement either way. What you absolutely mustn't do, is try to promote things that you don't understand for religious reasons - which is what RJ does. He actually knows he is wrong most of the time, and the rest of the time simply doesn't understand it (and knows that he doesn't).
Some Christians believe the science behind evolution and believe God created the process. Others don't.
It shouldn't be a belief. You should either understand it, or leave it to the scientists. Forming a belief without understanding it is not wise.
What we believe about that one way or the other doesn't much matter in the real world of day-to-day living, but it will after this life is over. I'm not sure how it will matter, but I'm sure it will.
Why are you sure it will? Surely even in Christian mythology, there is nothing that says 'if you believe in evolution you are going to hell'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSuch a quandary.
Then maybe you should stay out of it?
[b]But I'm astute enough to wonder why scientist call each other liars.
Because some have a non-scientific agenda.
Who am I to believe?
You shouldn't. Science shouldn't become a religion. Either learn enough to tell who is correct, or don't make a judgement either way. What you absolutely mustn't ...[text shortened]... stian mythology, there is nothing that says 'if you believe in evolution you are going to hell'.[/b]
Some say that evolutionary science proves that God doesn't exist because the Genesis account of creation is made nil and void by evolutionary science. Then there are those that believe the science of evolution, and are able to reconcile Genesis with it. And still again there are those who believe in the literal account of Genesis and toss the science of evolution right out the window.
And you think I should "stay out of it" because I'm not a scientist. Well, ok, but maybe you should stay out of the Bible because you're not a believer!