Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

Your argument was destroyed. Sadly you did not understand that. I am trying to help you to understand how badly your argument failed.

I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect? Do i have that number backwards?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect? Do i have that number backwards?

Now you are being dishonest because that is not all that you said. You left off the part where you were wrong. That indicates knowledge that you were wrong. An honest person that was not afraid would have repeated their entire argument.

ETA: It is estimated that at least 80% of our genome is junk DNA. So far less than 10% has been shown to be of use. Sadly you have been listening to lying creationist sites.

 

[Extraneous]

Now you are being dishonest because that is not all that you said. You left off the part where you were wrong. That indicates knowledge that you were wrong. An honest person that was not afraid would have repeated their entire argument.

You seem to be engaging in logical fallacy rather than just answering my question.

I'll resubmit the question.

I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that statement incorrect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be engaging in logical fallacy rather than just answering my question.

I'll resubmit the question.

I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect?

Too late. You made a statement that you have not recanted. But just to be nice, yes at least 80% of the human genome is junk DNA.

Now can you please answer the simple question that you keep running away from?

Are you more complex than an amoeba?

By the way, please don't tell falsehoods about me. You know that I did not use a logical fallacy. What is wrong with you? Christians are supposed to be honest. It is a shame when atheists follow the Ninth Commandment more closely than certain Christians follow it.

 

[Extraneous]

Too late. You made a statement that you have not recanted. But just to be nice, yes at least 80% of the human genome is junk DNA.

Now can you please answer the simple question that you keep running away from?

Im just a lowly uneducated neanderthal bubble dweller, my friend. Please dont confuse me, lets stick to one thing at a time. WE shall address the amoeba question later.

If ToE science has classified 80% of human DNA as junk, and this classification was later refuted, doesn't that show a lack of understanding on their part? How can they possibly expect me to believe that they can look millions of years into the past, and observe mans origin, if they don't even understand DNA properly? Isn't it possible that this DNA is not necessarily junk, but instead is simply misunderstood by science? Surely this seems to be a good possibility. If they cannot understand 80% of Human DNA, how can they possibly use it to build ToE?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im just a lowly uneducated neanderthal bubble dweller, my friend. Please dont confuse me, lets stick to one thing at a time. WE shall address the amoeba question later.

Then you should admit that you had no clue when you made your previous statement. Sadly you have admitted that your statement that led to my question was dishonest.

If ToE science has classified 80% of human DNA as junk, and this classification was later refuted, doesn't that show a lack of understanding on their part? How can they possible expect me to believe that they can look millions of years into the past, and observe mans origin, if they don't even understand DNA properly? Isn't it possible that this DNA is not necessarily junk, but instead is simply misunderstood by science? Surely this seems to be a good possibility. If they cannot understand 80% of Human DNA, how can they possibly use it to build ToE?

Actually it is more properly known as non-coding and where did you get the idea that this was refuted? That never happened. Your problem is that you have been listening to creationist web sites and they are loaded with the worst sort of liars for Jesus. Tell me, if you tell a lie for Jesus is it still a sin?

 

[Extraneous]

Actually it is more properly known as non-coding and where did you get the idea that this was refuted? That never happened. Your problem is that you have been listening to creationist web sites and they are loaded with the worst sort of liars for Jesus. Tell me, if you tell a lie for Jesus is it still a sin?

I don't really listen to preachers much at all anymore. My source was Wikipedia actually. Science did at one time classify 80% of human DNA as junk, and it was only later that they reclassified it as noncoding DNA instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really listen to preachers much at all anymore. My source was Wikipedia actually. Science did at one time classify 80% of human DNA as junk, and it was only later that they reclassified it as noncoding DNA instead.

Wrong. "Junk DNA" is just the nickname for noncoding DNA. Please, you don't understand one iota of what you are reading.

 

[Extraneous]

Wrong. "Junk DNA" is just the nickname for noncoding DNA. Please, you don't understand one iota of what you are reading.

I think i do understand. I also think that perhaps you are in denial about ToE fallibility and ToE assumptions that have been made by Toe Scientists.. They called it junk because they didn't understand it purpose, later however they began to see that it did indeed have a purpose. This is the case with the human appendix as well. Both these examples demonstrate how ToE often builds theory on assumption rather than proper scientific observation.

I can understand science getting things wrong, because scientists are but mere men who are peering into an ocean of mystery. However my point is that they are fallible and are attempting to look millions of years onto the past, and have demonstrated that they are far from actually doing so. If they would just admit that ToE is fallible and has many problems, then i would not be so critical of their theory, however they seem to be arrogantly asserting that they can see millions of years into the past and teach the rest of us about mans origin.

 

[Armoured]

I think i do understand.

*sigh*

 

[Extraneous]

*sigh*

Denial

 

[VirOptimus]

Denial

Do you understand the scientific method?

 

[Extraneous]

Do you understand the scientific method?

I understand scientific assumption which is apposed to actually observation.

 

[VirOptimus]

I understand scientific assumption which is apposed to actually observation.

I see. You dont even understand the basics.

In your own words, what is "science"?

 

[Extraneous]

I see. You dont even understand the basics.

In your own words, what is "science"?

No, i do understand that science has built ToE on assumption rather than observation. You cant, in all truth, deny that this is the case, although i can certainly understand that you will anyway. This is whats known as human fallibility.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, i do understand that science has built ToE on assumption rather than observation. You cant, in all truth, deny that this is the case, although i can certainly understand that you will anyway. This is whats known as human fallibility.

Just because you really really want something to be true doesnt make it so.

Please answer my question.

 

[Armoured]

Denial

Not remotely. Science is self correcting. You seem to be the one in denial about that being one of its strengths.

 

[Extraneous]

Not remotely. Science is self correcting. You seem to be the one in denial about that being one of its strengths.

I never denied that its self correcting to an extent, however it doesn't correct all its errors. Just look at this thread. I showed that science did indeed self correct concerning its own assumptions that were made about so called junk DNA and the useless human appendix.

However, posters tried to deny that science ever corrected itself concerning these things, and instead they asserted that it was never wrong in the first place. This however is not true. This only proves that it doesn't correct itself properly, but is prone to denial and blindness

 

[Armoured]

I never denied that its self correcting to an extent, however it doesn't correct all its errors. Just look at this thread. I showed that science did indeed self correct concerning its own assumptions that were made about so called junk DNA and the useless human appendix.

However, posters tried to deny that science ever corrected itself concerning these things, and instead they asserted that it was never wrong in the first place. This however is not true. This only proves that it doesn't correct itself properly, but is prone to denial and blindness

I didn't see anyone make such a denial. Perhaps you'd care to directly quote them?

 

[Extraneous]

Just because you really really want something to be true doesnt make it so.

Please answer my question.

Yes, tell yourself that my friend. Maybe eventually you will hear it.