utidjian
Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
| Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2011,06:14) | Irony, Gordon is your name:
| Quote | | I notice that Mathgrrl has not returned, and that she has yet to demonstrate her calculating prowess. Until she gets her hands dirty with some raw numbers, and attempts to perform some real calculations, I shall remain skeptical of her claim to be mathematically proficient. |
Tard. |
Right you are.
Of the few equations and calculations I have ever seen in Dembskis books and online and on UD I have never seen anything that took much "mathematical proficiency." For the most part it could be handled with a scientific calculator (if that) and a college algebra level of math. Heck not even that... it is just arithmetic: Punch in the numbers and out pops an answer.
The equations that Tulse posted in #317 are more "mathematically challenging" than any of Dembskis. None of the values in those equations are particularly tricky to determine because they are clearly and unambiguously defined. None of the values in those equations are particularly difficult to measure... well it might be kind of difficult to measure the exact number of molecules (N) in a sample of a gas but one can get close enough.
The UDtards seem to be stumbling on several things... but mainly a clear definition of CSI and how to measure it.
On the one hand, it seems to me, that calculating the CSI (or whatever) for Mathgrrls first scenario should be simple. A simple gene duplication... however that is measured, will increase the CSI... BUT they don't want to admit that this is possible.
The UDtards seem to be frantically throwing objections at the use of their own methods to show that their conclusions are wrong.
-DU-
--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory
|
