Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
yeah i slowed down and whistled at hte train wreck too
fuck Joe really is this stupid
in response to "how the fuck and what the fuck is this CSI thing you fuckfaces are yammering about"
| Quote |
249
Joseph
03/09/2011
7:57 am
Dr Boy=t and mathGrrl-
Until either of you provide a dfined metric with matematical rigor for your poition thre isnt any need for you to whine about CSI.
Ya see until we know t you accept yourwhining is meaningless and makesyou both look like little cildren who cant get their way.
So have at it- no one is impressed with your whining.
We need somthing that you accept from your position we can compare CSI to.
Are you up to it?
My prediction is you are not and will continue to whine- that prediction is based on the fact I have asked mny times and have not received.
And that tells me your complaints are without merit. |
pssstt Joe Tard you really wanna relive the 30s and 40s again? you dumb shit
then bornagain pisses all over hisself *right there in the thread*. cue embarassed crickets. no one talks to that lunatic do they
| Quote | 254
jon specter
03/09/2011
9:29 am
I think it is pretty clear that Mathgrrl doesnt have anything. That point has been made abundantly clear. So, lets get on with showing her that our side has the rigorous calculations she says we dont. |
christ that happens over and over in this thread doesn't it. hilarious
joe forgets where they started
| Quote | | Shannon didnt really care about information: |
| Quote | 259
bornagain77
03/09/2011
10:43 am
it is every 10^14 sequences that will produce a meaningful word in the English language,,, You can use that for a ballpark figure to ascertain information (Functional information bits) from Szostaks equation,,I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)] ,,, but since we are dealing with proteins, you must find rarity of proteins in sequence space,,, to which I referred to Axes work. But none the less Mathgrrl the crushing point or information to you, which you will deny the validity of anyway because of your atheistic bias, is that quantum entanglement is found in molecular biology!
260
bornagain77
03/09/2011
10:45 am
correction,, it is every 10^14 sequences that will produce a meaningful 10 LETTER word in the English language
261
bornagain77
03/09/2011
10:52 am
MathGrrl, put it this way, you want to establish the legitimacy of neo-Darwinism right? And neo-Darwinism is built on materialistic presuppositions right?? And materialism (local realism) is falsified by quantum entanglement right??? And quantum entanglement is found in molecular biology right??? Thus neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for quantum entanglement in molecular biology!!! Probability calculations, on which neo-Darwinism would depend if it were true, do not even apply for this highest dimensional information displayed by entanglement!! |
neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for quantum entanglement in molecular biology. <shrug> OK BA. Hey, dude, your recess is over here come those guys in the white coats are just around the corner better finish that smoke
anyone want to bet that Joe has a tiny penis?
| Quote | 264
Joseph
03/09/2011
11:11 am
MathGrrl-
We say we have met your challenge. That you refuse to accept that is your problem, not ours.
And to prove my claim that we have met your challenge you have failed to produce something you position offers that also fulfills your requirements so that we can compare.
That we we can see if you are just a troll or do you really have an valid criticism.
Also even if CSI didnt exist as a concept you still wouldnt have any positive evidence for your position- just look at this thread- the best you have is T-URF 13, which is next to nothing.
So until you provide something from your position as a standard you will always be in the position to say that just aint good enough, which is childish. |
i am sure he is grateful for the distraction from abraham and isaac and nekkid adams lol
anyone else think that thread is locked? lol
epitaph
cue faggy music
| Quote | 266
bornagain77
03/09/2011
11:20 am
MathGrrl, I gave you a rigorous probability calculation for determining functional information bits in a sequence! That you want to falsely say it is metrically different than Dembskis CSI matters not one iota for me, for functional information as defined in the equation of Szostak, does in fact contain complexity, and specification, in its arrival of functional information bits (FITS). You have been given papers that derive FITS for various protein families in various scenarios! But your blatant unreasonableness, just to support your atheism, is all beside the point anyway for it is IMPOSSIBLE, even in principle, for neo-Darwinism to explain the higher dimensional information of quantum entanglement in biology! That you ignore this central point clearly demonstrates that you are not concerned with finding the truth of the matter in the least, but are instead primarily concerned with trying to establish the legitimacy of your atheistic/Darwinistic beliefs no matter how many deceptive tactics you have to repeatedly employ!!! And exactly what for MathGrrl??? Do you think that your shallowness is not clear for all to see? Do you somehow think that hiding in lies will make life better for you??? I just dont get, why in the world would you put your eternal soul in so much jeopardy with such childishness ??? |
Amen
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
