Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 13 2014,21:53) | | Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2014,14:14) | Sadly, Rich's comments don't even make it to the moderation queue any more.
He started positively, trying to coax out some actual probabilities in this thread:
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ba77s-observation-many-influential-people-in-academia-simply-dont-want-design-to-be-true-n
o-matter-what-evidence/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism....vidence[/URL]
Barry gets the hump almost immediately, a get out the loudspeaker in the ceiling©.
Some of the better exchanges:
Rich: “ In my column for the Times, I wrote about the record-holding tiny genome, belonging to a microbe called Tremblaya. Its genome is a mere 139,000 base pairs. “
http://phenomena.nationalgeogr.....shrinking/....rin....rinking
....
So 139,000 base pairs = (at 2 bits per base pair) = 278000 bits = about 34k!
Barry: Rich @ 100. I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?
Rich: Barry says above “I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?”
Please help me understand what is wrong with my math.
Thanks in advance,
Rich
*crickets*
And then we have this post that didn't make it through (twice).
RichYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Editor (Barry?)
First, please be honest enough to use your name.
Second, I clearly say:
“I was googling to try and find the least information required for self replication”.
I don’t mention the cell in that post at all. In fact, I previously say:
“Also doing some research I don’t think we should be using “the simplistic cell” as the start of life. Some Evolutionists subscribe to the RNA world and that would I think require much less information. If we’re arguing that a cell was created de novo, we won’t be taken seriously.”
So I think that’s quite honest and clear. Do you have a problem with that?
So there we have it. Rich tried really hard to make them do some math. And he was positive and upbeat just like the awesome EL.
Barry, honey, we don't mind that you're shit at math and science, but you make UD BORING. The web has enough blowhard apologetics sites. Your preening, posturing, lawyering and selectively approving comments isn't really helping ID as science. Have you given up on ID as science? I suppose that's why UD and the DI is run by lawyers, not scientists... |
Somebody needs to point this out to Joey. Even his own team disagrees with him. |
In what way do they disagree with me? Why is it that all you cowards can do is make bald assertions and false accusations? Why is it that you have trouble actually making a case?
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
