[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[metmom]

Of course, an intelligent design paradigm would have predicted function for “junk” DNA or “junk” RNA all along, perhaps leading scientists to “investigate them further” much sooner.

I've never seen people in such denial about things simply because they don't like the reasons others have.

It was the evos who claimed that there was *junk DNA*. Creationists denied that it was junk and predicted that it would prove to be useful after all because God wouldn't create something useless.

So, evos didn't like the reasoning and deride and ridicule creationists for that and we now know who was right.

I don't see any *scientific* justification for labeling something *junk* just because scientists don't see any immediate use for it. And then they complain about creationists not having a sound basis for their rationale.

Go figure....

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Fichori]

Your average pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager thinks a Cray supercomputer is simply some sort of newfangled rock, and a byte is what happens when you run fast and Rex runs faster.
(I guess that makes me an above-average pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager)

Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder?