[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Publius6961]

It is the ultimate admission of ignorance, coupled with arrogance, to label that which he doesn't understand as "junk."

But then when the driving force is perversion, what's to understand?

[count-your-change]

I expect a flurry of denials and “we never really said it was “junk” type arguments.

[unlearner]

I can’t tell you of all the countless hours I’ve spent on this forum debating evolutionists who throw the junk argument out there.

This is usually put forward as part of a larger category of arguments that claim instances of an apparently flawed creation to be evidence AGAINST an Intelligent Creator. Usually this comes in nearly the same breath as why, they say, Intelligent Design can never be science because it does not meet Popper’s criteria of falsifiability. (It is supposedly not falsifiable and yet proven false at the same time.)

As it turns out, not surprisingly, their “junk of the gaps” logic was flawed after all. Just because we do not know the purpose of something does not mean a purpose does not exist.

[ElectricStrawberry]

OK.....what was called junk DNA due to a lack of a known function is now found to have a function.

.....and this is supposed to mean something?