• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Junk DNA Refuted

S0uljah,

Maybe Scarlatti did make inapporprate comments. But in no way, were you can you justify calling my post "manure," since I didn't insult you. Why insult me, when its scarlatti you're mad at?

Now if you would like to actually respond to my comments about the errors made by the creationist website, I'll be waiting.
 
Upvote 0

FordPrefect

WWADGD
Aug 7, 2002
377
6
Visit site
✟788.00
Faith
Atheist
The truth hurts, I think Dr. S. has hit the nail on the head, s0uljah, you have still not attempted to answer his question.

I don't want to get into a manure slinging match, so I will stop here.

And to hijack my response and this thread I think this board needs a rule/or to enforce an existing rule requiring an OP to state his/her opinion/question/motivation for cut-and-pasted text.

But I am new here so perhaps I don't understand all the nuances.
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
At the risk of providing s0uljah yet another excuse for dodging the question (and another opportunity to pad his voluminous post count at the risk of ignoring his plethora of other pressing responsibilities [and in the course of so doing evading the question again, naturally]):

Far from being inappropriate, it would appear my comments were right on target (not that I'm gloating, this is all actually quite pathetic).

As I said, in the paragraph s0uljah conveeeeniently refrained from reproducing, the present shenanigans are pure Discovery Institute.

In fact if this thread isn't evidence for what I claimed, I don't know what is. As demonstrated, s0uljah has posted 116 times since "yesterday" (and that's just in the forums that allow posts by non-christians: I won't bother dredging around elsewhere.)

83 of those posts were produced after I asked my original question of s0uljah. And then s0uljah, after starting this thread by appropriating the spurious claims of someone else, has the nerve to tell us he hasn't time to respond to such "petty drivel" and "manure."

s0uljah, if you won't (or can't) answer the question, just say so.

Don't give me this nonsense about being too busy. As I said, if you have time to bob and weave and rope-a-dope and address various ancillary issues in your trademark petulant manner, then you certainly have time to answer a simple question.

Unless of course you can't.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,813
✟319,991.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
At the risk of providing s0uljah yet another excuse for dodging the question (and another opportunity to pad his voluminous post count at the risk of ignoring his plethora of other pressing responsibilities [and in the course of so doing evading the question again, naturally]):

Far from being inappropriate, it would appear my comments were right on target (not that I'm gloating, this is all actually quite pathetic).

As I said, in the paragraph s0uljah conveeeeniently refrained from reproducing, the present shenanigans are pure Discovery Institute.

In fact if this thread isn't evidence for what I claimed, I don't know what is. As demonstrated, s0uljah has posted 116 times since "yesterday" (and that's just in the forums that allow posts by non-christians: I won't bother dredging around elsewhere.)

83 of those posts were produced after I asked my original question of s0uljah. And then s0uljah, after starting this thread by appropriating the spurious claims of someone else, has the nerve to tell us he hasn't time to respond to such "petty drivel" and "manure."

s0uljah, if you won't (or can't) answer the question, just say so.

Don't give me this nonsense about being too busy. As I said, if you have time to bob and weave and rope-a-dope and address various ancillary issues in your trademark petulant manner, then you certainly have time to answer a simple question.

Unless of course you can't.

Come on, guys. Lets get back into meaningfull dialog. Okay? :)
 
Upvote 0
"So how does the presence of structural DNA, and in particular, the results of this study, support "design" and/or contradict evolution? Please explain."

I don't see that this contradicts evolution or supports design. I only see that there is an area that, as of yet can't be explained. Too many times people see something that can't be explained and automatically assume it had to be from God. In fact I believe it all does come from God but I can't prove it. If I could then I believe it would take away the faith part of Christianity. I do at times which I could prove some things through creationism but I'm just not educated in that feild enough yet. I'm getting more educated as time goes on but as of now I can't argue only point out some things.

Thanks,

Doc
 
Upvote 0

AtheistArchon

Be alert. We need more lerts.
Feb 6, 2002
1,723
1
Atlanta
✟3,507.00
Come on, guys. Lets get back into meaningfull dialog. Okay?

- Meaningful dialog?  It can't be had with souljah.  Why is everyone so surprised that everyone souljah debates with ends up having the same hardheaded battles with him?

- Here's a hint:  It's not everyone else that becomes immature whenever they argue with souljah.  The fact that every thread he ends up posting in becomes a fiasco is because that is souljah's only goal.
 
Upvote 0

ZoneChaos

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2002
3,972
24
50
Kansas City, MO
Visit site
✟37,532.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That may or may not be, AA, but take it to the Staff, if it is such a problem, instead of in here.. now I have to give you a warning about personal attacks.

PM a staff member, before attacking in a public foirum.

ZC
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Bumping because souljah appears to be back from vacation.

Thread: Who says he's infallible?

s0uljah: Yesterday 02:16 AM

Thread: Questions about Islam?

s0uljah: Yesterday 02:45 AM

Thread: Scripture Only

s0uljah: Yesterday 03:05 AM

Thread: The Pope

s0uljah: Yesterday 02:37 AM
s0uljah: Yesterday 02:40 AM
s0uljah: Yesterday 03:17 AM


I'm kind of hurt.
 
Upvote 0
So how does the presence of structural DNA, and in particular, the results of this study, support "design" and/or contradict evolution? Please explain.

My long waited response to my fans...

(By the way, I had a great trip. Since you like to track my every move, would you like to hear what I did in South Carolina? How about what I had for breakfast today?)

The results of this study show that the widely used claim of atheists that "junk" DNA implies randomness is unfounded. They love to claim that it supports unguided evolution or that it shows "bad" design by the Creator, in order to mock Him. This is wrong because non-coding DNA has a function, to support the cell.

"The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content."

I find it comical that we can talked about coding, but you still don't ackowledge the Coder.
 
Upvote 0
Over 700 studies (over 100 in the last year) have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes. These intronic enhancers have been described for eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), the variable region of the rearranged immunoglobulin mu (IgM) gene, the alpha-globin gene, the activin beta A subunit gene, lambda 2 light chain transgenes, Human CYP1B1, a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily, immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH), alcohol dehydrogenase, 3 alpha-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, apolipoprotein A-II, beta1,4-N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase, kappa light chain gene, Alpha-1 acid glycoprotein, the T-cell receptor beta-chain, 2-crystallin, 1 tubulin gene, aldolase B gene, and many others.

http://www.evidence.info/design/junkdna.html
 
Upvote 0