Not science, but rather ideology.

[Roy]

I didn't say evolution was "a" science. In fact I said just the opposite. I think you didn't read Klaus' and my posts very well.

I didn't say you said that.

Omniskeptical said evolution is not "a" science. You are now saying that evolution is not "a" science. Can you explain how that makes Omniskeptical stewpid, but you not stewpid?

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

I didn't say you said that.

Omniskeptical said evolution is not "a" science. You are now saying that evolution is not "a" science. Can you explain how that makes Omniskeptical stewpid, but you not stewpid?

Roy

AFAIK you've never had reading comprehension issues before. First time for everything I suppose.

[klaus54]

Wouldn't that be the result of Israel's Iron Dome?

How about this interpretation?

"God USED the Iron Dome to protect Israel."

This points out one of the major issues with Jorgian Theology. If God works THROUGH nature, this mediation is still God's work. E.g., origin of species via evolution (Let Earth bring forth life) or natural star formation or ....

I'm not asserting that's what's happening, rather that Jorge dismisses the possibility of intermediate divine causes.

And how on Earth would he consider direct divine intervention as "science"???

K54

[klaus54]

Not if you ask Hamas. Iron Dome has had success but the defensive results appear to be statistically greater than what Iron Dome is able to account for (hence the remark "... God changes their path.").

Jorge

How is this Biblical "Science"???

Where did you get the statistic that the Iron Dome can't account for the paucity of Hamas missiles striking a strategic target?

You've really pulled a boner this time...

K54

[Roy]

AFAIK you've never had reading comprehension issues before. First time for everything I suppose.

You're employing the technique?

Roy

[Jorge]

"Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'."

Prediction fulfilled!!!

WOW!!!

I just finished reading the responses to my post above. Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY! I'm certainly not going to waste my time seeking the many posts (if the old TWeb posts were still here, these would number into the hundreds) where historical vs. operational science was ridiculed and called a "Creationist invention". Now, as if by magic, that never happened ... now it has to do with OTHER things that I've talked about.

Yes, of course, now why didn't I think of that?

I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much.

Jorge

Another issue that I have posted about here on TWeb a number of times is that of "Junk DNA". In many previous posts (including the old TWeb) the RHH (Revisionist History Howlers) here either denied or revised the actual history of "Junk DNA". Then came the ENCODE results and the denials/revisions continued. Points for consistency, I guess.

Today I came across this study from Oxford University that should put an end to the denials and history revisions since the Oxford researchers flat-out, explicitly say what I had been reporting, namely, that Evolutionists use "Junk DNA" as evidence for the Evolutionary history of all species. Below is the article link with a few excerpts.

I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow.

DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds...
"'We found that 8.2% of our human genome is functional,' says Dr Lunter ... The rest of our genome is leftover evolutionary material, parts of the genome that have undergone losses or gains in the DNA code -- often called 'junk' DNA ... He adds: 'The fact that we only have 2.2% of DNA in common with mice does not show that we are so different. We are not so special."

"We are not so special" -- talk about religious ideology passing for science!

In summary: these "intellectuals" are explicitly telling the world that 91.8% of the human genome is 'non-functional junk' that was left over from its Evolutionary history. Okay you deniers and revisionists - be sure to remember that.

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724141608.htm

Journal Reference: Chris M. Rands, Stephen Meader, Chris P. Ponting, Gerton Lunter. 8.2% of the Human Genome Is Constrained: Variation in Rates of Turnover across Functional Element Classes in the Human Lineage. PLOS Genetics, 24 Jul 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525

Jorge

[phank]

I don't know if this noise even deserves any attempt at clarification.

--The term "junk" is widely regarded as an unfortunate selection, when "purpose as yet unknown" would have been much better.

--The notion of "function" has been used in wildly different contexts, from one extreme where "no function" and "unknown function" are equated, to the opposite extreme where "transcribed at all" is regarded as a "function" even if it can be shown to play no other role (that was the ENCODE definition of "functional"). Some genes build proteins, some carry messages, some throw switches, some DNA "functions" as spacers to line up chromosomes during replication to prevent frame shift errors. But the jury is pretty well in on pseudogenes, and on short sequences repeated millions of times.

--One measure of the utility of a DNA sequence is how well it is conserved over time. Big chunks of the genome are regarded as essentially nonfunctional since these chunks are not conserved, and mutations degrade them fairly rapidly without influencing the phenotype. A related measure is the fitness of offspring lacking some specific large chunk of DNA, which is quite common. If the offspring (and their offspring, for multiple generations) show no visible effect of any kind, chances are good the missing DNA sequence(s) served no useful function.

[Jorge]

I don't know if this noise even deserves any attempt at clarification.

--The term "junk" is widely regarded as an unfortunate selection, when "purpose as yet unknown" would have been much better.

--The notion of "function" has been used in wildly different contexts, from one extreme where "no function" and "unknown function" are equated, to the opposite extreme where "transcribed at all" is regarded as a "function" even if it can be shown to play no other role (that was the ENCODE definition of "functional"). Some genes build proteins, some carry messages, some throw switches, some DNA "functions" as spacers to line up chromosomes during replication to prevent frame shift errors. But the jury is pretty well in on pseudogenes, and on short sequences repeated millions of times.

--One measure of the utility of a DNA sequence is how well it is conserved over time. Big chunks of the genome are regarded as essentially nonfunctional since these chunks are not conserved, and mutations degrade them fairly rapidly without influencing the phenotype. A related measure is the fitness of offspring lacking some specific large chunk of DNA, which is quite common. If the offspring (and their offspring, for multiple generations) show no visible effect of any kind, chances are good the missing DNA sequence(s) served no useful function.

Just as I had said (/ predicted) in my previous post:

"I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow."

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Just as I had said (/ predicted) in my previous post:

"I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow."

Jorge

Pointing out your misunderstanding or general ignorance is not 'backpedaling', nor is it a 'distortion'. Although IF one is naive enough to believe that necessarily they understand everything correctly, then it will appear that way.

IOW, to simplify down to your level: Your own conception of the concept is flawed. Howver, given you believe that to be impossible, any corrections appear as distortions.

Imagine a fellow that believes himself to have perfect vision yet actually he sees at 20/400. Give him a pair of glasses, and he complains that the eye-ware is 'distorting' his world and presenting a 'false' version of reality.




Jim