In The Light Of Creationism

[MikeEnders]

I've been pretty clear about what I mean by function: the specific sequence has to affect the organism in some real way. I was clear to avoid confusion with the definition employed by ENCODE -- the ones with the 80% functional claim. Their definition is "biochemically active", as noted in the piece you link to. I have no doubt that 80% of the genome is biochemically active. .

Please don't even try to fudge your way around ENCODE and no one cares about what you mean by function. Many of the scientist there are solid scientists who know more than you will ever know. You are misrepresenting what many encode scientist believe, They hold that chemically active is an indicator/suggestion (which you claim doesn't exist)of possible function NOT claiming that because it is chemically active it has to be functional. Unlike hardline Darwinist like yourself they are essentially saying - hold on a minute. lets do real science here - this IS an indicator whether or not it pans out in the future.

Therefore your claim that most is non functional cannot stand and each year you lose more ground as more papers are printed that rebut your claims. You can twist some more from papers that show you wrong but as you do you show everyone how committed you really are but not to real science

 

[Split Rock]

sorry but if you are claiming no fish are anywhere in the Cambrian and thats you above saying "fish" then its quite obvious you have no clue what you are saying.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13414.html

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontolog...metaspriggina-walcotti-origin-jaws-01986.html

and given the way you write don't try to gloss over your huge blunder. You would be all over a creationist for making such seriously erroneous claim. You might want to go back to the erroneous Darwinist site that made the claim no fish were present in the Cambrian - yet another Darwinist claim gone bust.

"Huge blunder?" Hilarious. Yes I know they were primitive chordates found in Cambrian rocks (close to modern lancets). I mean modern fish... either ray-finned or lobe-finned fish. You know, like the oceans are full of today. Where are they? You also ignored the rest of my question. Where are the lobsters, shrimp, crabs, and gastropods? You have a lot of nerve claiming I am "glossing over" things.

 

[MikeEnders]

Garbage. I know of NO scientist who claims that science provides either

You can't call anyone on garbage. You were just caught red handed suggesting no fish were present at any time in the Cambrian

 

[MikeEnders]

"Huge blunder?" Hilarious. Yes I know they were primitive chordates found in Cambrian rocks (close to modern lancets). I mean modern fish... either ray-finned or lobe-finned fish.

You said Fish not modern fish. You can try and wiggle your way out of that blunder but I will not allow it.Like I said if any creationist made such a blanket blunder they would be laughed at and scorned. You will not get off the hook that easy.

 

[sfs]

Please don't even try to fudge your way around ENCODE and no one cares about what you mean by function.

What's the point in talking about function if you don't care what "function" means?

Many of the scientist there are solid scientists who know more than you will ever know.

Your responses would be more persuasive if you left out the random and unfounded insults. As it happens, I know quite a bit about genetics.

You are misrepresenting what many encode scientist believe, They hold that chemically active is an indicator/suggestion (which you claim doesn't exist)of possible function NOT claiming that because it is chemically active it has to be functional.

Incorrect. They defined sequence that was chemically active as being functional: "Operationally, we define a functional element as a discrete genome segment that encodes a defined product (for example, protein or non-coding RNA) or displays a reproducible biochemical signature (for example, protein binding, or a specific chromatin structure)." That's what they found to be true of 80% of the genome.

 

[Split Rock]

IF you know anything about the subject you know creationists do not subscribe to all of your dating models. So what s the point of stating your claims as if they agree with you? if anything soft tissue and now protein preservation gives creationist a legitimate reason to query your dating models particularly since its dubious you can any longer claim that radioactive decays is an invariable constant

If anything soft tissue and protein preservation gives us a reason to revise our understanding of how long such substances can persist under the right conditions during fossilization. Show us the data demonstrating that radioisotope decay is not constant. Oh, and I don't mean the minor fluctuations we know about concerning the rotation of the sun's core. I mean variation that are large enough to affect radioisotope dating methods currently in use. I bet you can't.

 

[Split Rock]

You said Fish not modern fish. You can try and wiggle your way out of that blunder but I will not allow it.Like I said if any creationist made such a blanket blunder they would be laughed at and scorned. You will not get off the hook that easy.

I asked about many different organisms and just clarified what I meant by "fish." You are continuing to ignore my question and obfuscate. One more time,...where are they modern fish, lobsters, crabs, snails, gastropods, shrimp, eels, etc.?

Oh and btw, the only one I see using scorn here is YOU.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread is permanently closed due to it becoming a General Apologetic thread. I will remind everyone that it states in the Creation & Evolution Statement of Purpose:

"General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers (there are no general apologetics forums on CF)."

General Apologetic threads aren't allowed anywhere at CF.

Mod Hat Off​