Author Topic: Shalom  (Read 3131 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dan Ben Noah

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Shalom
« on: October 25, 2010, 05:37:27 PM »
Shalom
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 11:47:38 PM by Dan Ben Noah »
Jeremiah 16:19 O Lord, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, "Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail!

Zechariah 8:23 So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Another Setback for 'Junk' DNA
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2010, 07:35:11 PM »
http://www.icr.org/article/5696/

Scientists believed and taught for ages that only gene-coding DNA (which is a small fraction of DNA in human and other genomes) was functional. All other DNA was "junk" leftovers from a long evolutionary past. But recent studies have shown that non-coding DNA actually carries useful and vital coded instructions.1



Look at the deceptive way they set this up with their propaganda.   They pretend as if evolution is "disproved" if introns are found to have a function (or partially).   That is a straw-man because if introns have some function that doesn't disprove evolution!  And of course it's the "big bad scientists" who called this part of the DNA "junk" DNA  - But that's perfectly logical.   IT WASN'T KNOWN TO HAVE A FUNCTION.  So they speculated about its origin and its continued presence in the DNA.   This was not a conspiracy to promote evolution.   It's the natural result that when the function is unknown people will wonder why something exists.    An evolutionary remnant is a perfectly plausible proposition given all the other things we know.

Oh, and who is it that has determined introns to possibly have some purpose (even though of course genes for transcription are not coded in them - that is the fact, not a theory, and that is why it was called junk DNA at first), well what do you know?  It's the scientists who did!    So these scientists aren't also part of the big bad conspiracy to promote evolution?   They're renegade scientists?  No!   They are researchers who uncovered something new.  (and we see that it is published even if anti-evolutionists think it helps their case - no conspiracy involved)   And this website hijacked it to promote their agenda against "the scientists"

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Another Setback for 'Junk' DNA
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2010, 07:56:42 PM »
I'm sure the atheist propagandists commonly referred to as evolutionary scientists are formulating new ideas as we speak to explain away the newfound complexity in order to comfort their flock.

The icr people are the propagandists.   The inconsistencies in their article's insinuations are glaring.   Rather than address or acknowledge them, you'd rather hurl more insult at "the scientists."   The same scientists who produced this latest finding that your icr ministers ignorantly trot out triumphantly as some sort of PR coup. 

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Another Setback for 'Junk' DNA
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2010, 09:21:09 PM »
Actually this article was pointing out the inconsistencies that the Darwiniacs have not yet explained away.  I'm sure they will soon though because they have plenty of homos and vegans counting on them, just like they are counting on them to explain why global warming is man made and homosexuality is not a psychological disorder.

If introns serve a function, why is that an "inconsistency" ?    It wasn't known to have a function before.  If scientists find out what its function might be that's great!   I don't see how that's inconsistent with anything except that we didn't know before that it had any function.