Beyond doubt? Hardly. There may be yet be a beneficial effect of all those transposable elements/repeats (LINEs, SINEs etc.) which make up over 50% of the human genome, but Gore's assertion that they play a direct role in gene transcription is highly unlikely. The intronic enhancers Gore3000 speaks of have been known for almost 20 years and this is not a new contribution to the field of gene regulation. Also the genome is filled with a ton of leftover vestigal-junk from our past called "pseduogenes". These are genes that were presumably important during some point in our evolutionary history, yet are currently not expressed due to the accumulation of mutations (they are no longer under any selective pressure). There GLO gene (vitamin C metabolism) is an example of this. Not only that but often the same error (or very similar type of error) is seen in related species - strong evidence for a common ancestor.
The genome is chock full of similar kinds of (what can only be referred to as) "mistakes" which lead to only two interpretations....either organisms evolve, or a creator purposely designed patterns in the genome for what would appear to be evidence for evolution.
You are consistent. You allow as you are the sole possessor of certainty.
Repeats are used at histone binding sites which are indirectly involved in regulation of transcription.
Look, I don't support the nonsense that that Gore3000 spouts on these threads, but he culls information from other sites which occasionally get it right. So-called "junk" DNA is an issue about which I have had my hackles raised number of times. The creationists don't want to call anything God made "junk" and the evolutionists on these threads are, somehow, tied to the view that this "junk" represents an important Darwinian history carried around in every organism. In my view, both are incorrect. The term 'junk' used to be applied to regions outside of obvious ORFs and covers an enormous amount of DNA in many species, including humans. There are tons of papers describing uses for specific sequences within these regions. Telomeres, and their effects in aging are an obvious example. Don't forget that many pseudogenes and many repeats are transcribed. nuclear RNA concentrations have an affect on transcription of other genes. It's simply naive or ludicrous to write these regions off as useless historical baggage. Genomes as a whole, but particular the protein coding regions, (because we know more about them) give an evolutionary history of the organism. Junk isn't necessary for the narrative. And some of the protein coding regions isn't even critical for survival. Organisms (like mice) with huge chromosomal deletions that include protein coding genes survive. Yet, we wouldn't call those regions junk. Rather, such redundancy in the code is feature which allows an organism to be as robust as it is.
Anyway, welcome to the forum.