21 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessFrom what I've seen over the last year or so, Hinds has no original thoughts. His mind appears to consist entirely of bits and pieces copy-pasted from either the Bible or YouTube. I'm resolved to boycott the videos he references and his threads, too. It's like playing tennis against a brick wall: the ball invariably bounces back, but there's no 'intelligent design' behind it.
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.
Stop feeding the troll.
Originally posted by josephwDo they? I have not met anyone making that claim.
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 then there are those that actually understand the science involved - this includes both theists and atheists.
I have to point out that the literal Genesis account was chucked out the window by most scientists long before Darwin proposed the theory of evolution. It was quite clear from geological and astronomical evidence that the universe is too old for a literal reading of genesis.
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!
I say you should stay out of taking a stand on something you don't understand and are not willing to take the time to understand. Similarly, I do not take a stand on something in the Bible until I think I understand it. I don't simply take the word of some priest - or even worse the word of some anonymous person on RHP.
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessWell, we know what he thought was fact in 2008 is all wrong today. 😏
What 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:
Nine years before Susumu Ohno, two authors wrote about “junk DNA” in a casual manner without even bothering to explain what junk DNA is.
[/ ...[text shortened]... l (so far) = 8.7%
Total Junk (so far) = 65%
Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe non-scientific agenda of the evilutionists is to prove there is no God. RJHinds has educated himself and that is why he is ...
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]
The Near Genius.
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, I am not some anonymous person on RHP. I am the Real Deal and ....
Do they? I have not met anyone making that claim.
[b]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 then there are those that actually understand the scien ...[text shortened]... 't simply take the word of some priest - or even worse the word of some anonymous person on RHP.[/b]
The Near Genius 😏
21 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusWell, you haven't seen much. If you would get your head out of your ass, you might be able to think better and see better too. 😏
From what I've seen over the last year or so, Hinds has no original thoughts. His mind appears to consist entirely of bits and pieces copy-pasted from either the Bible or YouTube. I'm resolved to boycott the videos he references and his threads, too. It's like playing tennis against a brick wall: the ball invariably bounces back, but there's no 'intelligent design' behind it.
Stop feeding the troll.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsLast updated in 2011, and as far as I know, nothing much has changed since. Even if a large percentage is still unknown, you can't explain away pseudogenes, or broken transposons. Even if they acquire use in future generations, they're nothing but junk now.
Well, we know what he thought was fact in 2008 is all wrong today. 😏
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/07/five-things-you-should-know-if-you-want.html?m=1
22 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessLaurence A. Moran, University of Toronto Biochemist and Darwin Skeptic
Last updated in 2011, and as far as I know, nothing much has changed since. Even if a large percentage is still unknown, you can't explain away pseudogenes, or broken transposons. Even if they acquire use in future generations, they're nothing but junk now.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/07/five-things-you-should-know-if-you-want.html?m=1
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Moran: "Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement."
Any scientist who agrees with the statement that heads the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a Darwin doubter. This undercuts the assertion that nobody doubts Darwin's theory, or only religious nuts do so, and so there is no legitimate controversy on evolution. We've always said that private doubts about Darwinian theory are far more widespread in scientific life than the media let on. Now on that point we have Dr. Moran's helpful confirmation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/laurence_a_mora070341.html
Careful examination of the evidence for so-called "Junk" DNA should also be examined for it relates to Darwinian theory of evolution. 😏
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusagreed, Hinds is busted!
From what I've seen over the last year or so, Hinds has no original thoughts. His mind appears to consist entirely of bits and pieces copy-pasted from either the Bible or YouTube. I'm resolved to boycott the videos he references and his threads, too. It's like playing tennis against a brick wall: the ball invariably bounces back, but there's no 'intelligent design' behind it.
Stop feeding the troll.
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am one that believes in quoting accepted authoritative sources, since people like you are not educated enough to believe a Near Genius like myself.
agreed, Hinds is busted!
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Wednesday 5 September 2012 15.03 EDT Last
Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday.
The results of the five-year Encode project are published on Wednesday across 30 papers in the journals Nature, Science, Genome Biology and Genome Research. The researchers have mapped 4m switches in what was once thought to be junk DNA, many of which will help them better understand a range of common human diseases, from diabetes to heart disease, that depend on the complex interaction of hundreds of genes and their associated regulatory elements.
4 million switches once thought to be junk DNA
"Regulatory elements are the things that turn genes on and off," says Professor Mike Snyder of Stanford University, who was a principal investigator in the Encode consortium. "Much of the difference between people is due to the differences in the efficiency of these regulatory elements. There are more variants, we think, in the regulatory elements than in the genes themselves."
Genes cannot function without these regulatory elements.
The project has identified about 10,000 stretches of DNA, which the Encode scientists have called non-coding genes, that do not make proteins but, instead, a type of RNA – the single-stranded equivalent of DNA. There are many types of RNA molecule in cells, each with a specific role such as carrying messages or transcribing the DNA code in the first step of making a protein.
However, the 10,000 non-coding genes carry instructions to build the large and small RNA molecules required to regulate the actions of the 20,000 protein-coding genes.
Birney says that the decade since the publication of the first draft of the human genome has shown that genetics is much more complex than anyone could have predicted.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindssure this is fine but moonbus is correct, its playing tennis with a wall
I am one that believes in quoting accepted authoritative sources, since people like you are not educated enough to believe a Near Genius like myself.
[b]Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Wednesday 5 September 2012 15.03 EDT Last
[quote]Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as " ...[text shortened]... ve predicted.[/b]
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode[/b]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Laurence A. Moran, University of Toronto Biochemist and Darwin SkepticWe are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Moran: "Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree ...[text shortened]... alled "Junk" DNA should also be examined for it relates to Darwinian theory of evolution. 😏[/b]
Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, if you look at the list of people who signed [Scientific Dissent from Darwin List] you'll not find very many evolutionary biologists because we all know that the IDiots will misuse this list.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.se/2013/03/the-purpose-of-scientific-dissent-from.html?m=1
You know this Klinghoffer guy is dumb, when he provides a link to the text he just quote mined. Either that, or he thinks his readers are too dumb to find out, or care. I'm gonna assume he's just dumb.