RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (324) < ... 207 208 209 210 211 [212] 213 214 215 216 217 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5130
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2013,12:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51)
Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Yes, science competition gets brutal, but where it does not get past blog war I'm still hopeful for the future of the planet.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2013,15:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51)
Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Yes, science competition gets brutal, but where it does not get past blog war I'm still hopeful for the future of the planet.

Gary, you don't even know what science is ("theory!") so stop talking about it.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,04:55   

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,13:07)
I know that A and B may coincide. I also know that A and B are two separate sets.

Hahaha. I enjoyed that one. Moar!

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,04:58   

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,13:22)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,07:21)
Everyone can be wrong. What sets Joe apart is that can be spectacularly, massively, and frequently wrong.

Nice projection, faggot.

Probably wrong on this too, but I'm a "faggot" Joe, if it helps you make your scientific case.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,08:40   

Joe, replying to olegt, still having trouble with set theory:
Quote
And asshole YOU were the one who said that any set is a superset and a subset of itself. Are you really that fucking retarded?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,09:26   

Because I'm bored and tired and this takes minimal effort.

From Joey's blog-o-crap.

Quote
Living organisms are chck-full and replete with CSI because they are chock-full and replete with biological specifications.


"chock-full" is apparently some Intelligent Design technical term meaning... something.

"biological specifications"... OK Joey, name one.  Name one biological specification and how you determine if it is present or not.

Quote

That is they consist of and contain functional systems and subsystems that depend of sequence specificity.


Really?  These systems DEPEND on sequence specificity?  Let's get some numbers Joey... how specific do the sequences have to be Joe?  

In DNA, there are 64 combinations of codons, but they only generate 20 amino acids (and three STOP codes).  So, do some math and tell us how specific the DNA strand has to be.

For proteins, the picture is much more complex.  Except for the active site, the vast majority of the protein is only involved in shaping the active site.  Often, it doesn't matter what amino acid is in a particular spot as long as it's hydrophobic or hydrophilic or capable of bonding in a certain way with another amino acid.  What's the range of specificity needed here Joey?

Be specific.  Show your work.  Give us a value, explain what it means and how you determined it.

Quote

And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning. Heck the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria requires some 250 specific proteins.


CSI = Shannon Information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits).

How do you calculate the function/meaning?  Give an example.  Show your work.


Quote

This pisses evoTARDS off so they have to attack the concept because they know they cannot demonstrate unguided processes producing such a thing.


No one cares what you think biology does, doesn't, can do, or can't do.

The question is, can you do the things that you claim to be able to.  

We all know that you can't Joey.  And that's what makes this so much fun.  You bluster and scream and threaten and try to pin it on 'unguided processes' and all this other stuff because you can't do a simple calculation.

You have claimed to have done it dozens of times, but you never provide a link.  

This is on your blog Joey... I have a screen shot.  So, when you change the above text because you keep getting called on it, then we'll all have a good laugh about you chickening out.

Remember Joey, this has nothing to do with biology, evolution, materialists, Darwinism, guided or unguided processes.  This is very simply, can you do what you say?

My money is on "nope".

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
stevestory



Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,15:55   

Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Please please please answer this JoeG.

Edited by stevestory on May 16 2013,16:55

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2543
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2013,21:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,13:24)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:51)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,12:36)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51)
Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Yes, science competition gets brutal, but where it does not get past blog war I'm still hopeful for the future of the planet.

Gary, you don't even know what science is ("theory!") so stop talking about it.

Don't cross the streams.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,02:36   

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 16 2013,07:26)
Because I'm bored and tired and this takes minimal effort.

From Joey's blog-o-crap.

 
Quote
Living organisms are chck-full and replete with CSI because they are chock-full and replete with biological specifications.


"chock-full" is apparently some Intelligent Design technical term meaning... something.

"biological specifications"... OK Joey, name one.  Name one biological specification and how you determine if it is present or not.

 
Quote

That is they consist of and contain functional systems and subsystems that depend of sequence specificity.


Really?  These systems DEPEND on sequence specificity?  Let's get some numbers Joey... how specific do the sequences have to be Joe?  

In DNA, there are 64 combinations of codons, but they only generate 20 amino acids (and three STOP codes).  So, do some math and tell us how specific the DNA strand has to be.

For proteins, the picture is much more complex.  Except for the active site, the vast majority of the protein is only involved in shaping the active site.  Often, it doesn't matter what amino acid is in a particular spot as long as it's hydrophobic or hydrophilic or capable of bonding in a certain way with another amino acid.  What's the range of specificity needed here Joey?

Be specific.  Show your work.  Give us a value, explain what it means and how you determined it.

 
Quote

And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning. Heck the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria requires some 250 specific proteins.


CSI = Shannon Information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits).

How do you calculate the function/meaning?  Give an example.  Show your work.


 
Quote

This pisses evoTARDS off so they have to attack the concept because they know they cannot demonstrate unguided processes producing such a thing.


No one cares what you think biology does, doesn't, can do, or can't do.

The question is, can you do the things that you claim to be able to.  

We all know that you can't Joey.  And that's what makes this so much fun.  You bluster and scream and threaten and try to pin it on 'unguided processes' and all this other stuff because you can't do a simple calculation.

You have claimed to have done it dozens of times, but you never provide a link.  

This is on your blog Joey... I have a screen shot.  So, when you change the above text because you keep getting called on it, then we'll all have a good laugh about you chickening out.

Remember Joey, this has nothing to do with biology, evolution, materialists, Darwinism, guided or unguided processes.  This is very simply, can you do what you say?

My money is on "nope".

I'm positive that joey can't do it.

At joey's blog-o-crap post he quotes you:

"Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits)."

And responds with:

"If it must be then please show your work demonstrating that claim. I say function and menaing are observations- you know why we do science in the first place."

So, as joey has claimed before, meaning/function (CSI) is an 'observation' that cannot be measured/calculated even though he and other IDiots also claim that it can. joey claims that Shannon information is simply a measure/calculation of "information carrying capacity" that doesn't care about meaning/function. According to joey, meaning/function is "differentiated" from Shannon information.

Also according to joey (at least when he's not contradicting himself) "CSI" is meaning/function, biological information, complexity, specificity, and some other terms that he and the other IDiots put under the CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, dFSCO/I umbrella.

When joey or any other IDiot says that CSI is Shannon information with meaning/function, and that CSI is measurable/calculable in bits, but also that meaning/function cannot be measured/calculated, then what 'bits' are they saying can be measured/calculated? The bits in the Shannon information or the bits in the meaning/function? And if there are no 'bits' in meaning/function because meaning/function is just an observation, then how can meaning/function (CSI) be measured/calculated?

If the bits in the Shannon information are the only thing measurable/calculable, and are the only thing being measured/calculated, and if that measure/calculation is only of the "information carrying capacity", then how can CSI (meaning/function) be measured/calculated and what the fuck is 'CSI' other than 'It looks designed to me, therefor allah-yhwh-jesus-mohammed-holy-ghost-did-it.'?


joey says:

"...ID does not deal with Shannon info as Shannon info is not concerned with meaning or content. CSI (in ID) is all about content and meaning."

He also says:

"IOW ID is an observation, which can be used as an underlying assumption from which to start the research."


Well, joey, what have you got to say?

And joey, exactly how would biological/evolution research change if that underlying assumption were employed? Be specific.

Have you ever discussed complexity and specification with dumbski? If so, what did he say about your understanding of and claims about CSI? Do you agree with his claims about CSI? If not, which parts do you disagree with? Be specific.

Do you think that I've misrepresented your claims, joey? If so, I hope that you will say so, here. Really I do.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
k.e..



Posts: 3840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,07:05   

hahahahahaha

Dembski talk to the Hoi Polloi?

The great unwashed?

JoeG?

It would be a bit intellectually one sided wouldn't it?

Can you imagine  Dr2™ Buy MY (fucked up math) "GOD is a Function of (x)" Book........ having a conversation with him?

(Que grand triumphal music)

.
..
...
....
At some Mega Church bookshop.
A long time ago.
In a land God forgot.



Who shall I dedicate it to sonny?
Mr Leathers?....uh huh.(aside - hmmm funny name for turnip farmer..oh well)
OK, NEXT!
...yes Mr Leathers, I expect so.
Look other people are waiting, sorry.
Cussin' won't get you anywhere around here.
...security!

...no I can't either.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,07:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51)
Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Yes, science competition gets brutal, but where it does not get past blog war I'm still hopeful for the future of the planet.

You don't even know, what a "hypothesis" is. So STFU.

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,07:26   

Thanks Whole Truth.

We both know that Joey is too chicken to come here and actually discuss the concepts that he brings up on his blog.

Dear Joe "too chicken to talk in a neutral forum" G,

When you said
Quote
And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning.


Then YOU are the one who says that CSI = shannon information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is measured in bits (according to IDists);
We know shannon information is measured in bits;
therefore to add two quantities and get a third quantity, then the third, by definition, must be the same measurement.

So, who says function/meaning is measured in bits?  JoeG does.

But thanks for the backpedaling.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, if there is an upper bound of 500 bits, then how can you determine if something passes the upper bound if you can't measure (or determine) all the values that go into that measurement (or determination).

In other words Joey, you guys are just making shit up.  We all know it, but it's nice to hear you say it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,08:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 17 2013,05:26)
Thanks Whole Truth.

We both know that Joey is too chicken to come here and actually discuss the concepts that he brings up on his blog.

Dear Joe "too chicken to talk in a neutral forum" G,

When you said
Quote
And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning.


Then YOU are the one who says that CSI = shannon information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is measured in bits (according to IDists);
We know shannon information is measured in bits;
therefore to add two quantities and get a third quantity, then the third, by definition, must be the same measurement.

So, who says function/meaning is measured in bits?  JoeG does.

But thanks for the backpedaling.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, if there is an upper bound of 500 bits, then how can you determine if something passes the upper bound if you can't measure (or determine) all the values that go into that measurement (or determination).

In other words Joey, you guys are just making shit up.  We all know it, but it's nice to hear you say it.

You're welcome and thanks to you too. Actually I should say thanks to a lot of tard fighters who, over the years, have analyzed, dissected, discussed, questioned, debated, and opposed IDiotic 'CSI' claims, and helped expose the IDiots' claims about 'CSI' for the bullshit they are.

Maybe I should thank joey too, since his own words are the best ammunition against him.

It looks to me that you and I are pretty much on the same track in our questions and challenges to joey, and I'm sure that you're right that he's too chicken to come here and actually discuss his BS.

I'm hoping that joey will say that I'm attributing words to him that he never said. Then I can show, yet again, that he's a liar. I'm saving some quotes and links for just such an occasion.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,08:07   

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2013,15:55)
Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Please please please answer this JoeG.

Sadly but unsurprisingly revealing:
 
Quote
Joe G

What does it mean to be the same size? They cannot/ do not contain the same number of elements. In your scenario (super)set b contains more elements than its subset a.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,08:26   

Joe is at the height of his game: shoot first, ask questions later. Well, he did ask the right question:
Quote
What does it mean to be the same size?

The next logical step would be to look up the definition. But you can't expect that from Joe.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,09:12   

Quote (The whole truth @ May 17 2013,08:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 17 2013,05:26)
Thanks Whole Truth.

We both know that Joey is too chicken to come here and actually discuss the concepts that he brings up on his blog.

Dear Joe "too chicken to talk in a neutral forum" G,

When you said
 
Quote
And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning.


Then YOU are the one who says that CSI = shannon information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is measured in bits (according to IDists);
We know shannon information is measured in bits;
therefore to add two quantities and get a third quantity, then the third, by definition, must be the same measurement.

So, who says function/meaning is measured in bits?  JoeG does.

But thanks for the backpedaling.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, if there is an upper bound of 500 bits, then how can you determine if something passes the upper bound if you can't measure (or determine) all the values that go into that measurement (or determination).

In other words Joey, you guys are just making shit up.  We all know it, but it's nice to hear you say it.

You're welcome and thanks to you too. Actually I should say thanks to a lot of tard fighters who, over the years, have analyzed, dissected, discussed, questioned, debated, and opposed IDiotic 'CSI' claims, and helped expose the IDiots' claims about 'CSI' for the bullshit they are.

Maybe I should thank joey too, since his own words are the best ammunition against him.

It looks to me that you and I are pretty much on the same track in our questions and challenges to joey, and I'm sure that you're right that he's too chicken to come here and actually discuss his BS.

I'm hoping that joey will say that I'm attributing words to him that he never said. Then I can show, yet again, that he's a liar. I'm saving some quotes and links for just such an occasion.

get screenshots.

Joe has changed stuff on his blog before.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,10:26   

Ogre, here are some tidbits of joey tard that you and others might enjoy:

Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 12:38 am

"No one uses Shannon information to describe anything in biology. Shannon information was only for transmission and storage. Content & function are not even considered. Biological information is obviously concerned with content & function."


Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 9:57 am

"The criteria for complexity, specification and information are more rigorouly laid down than the anti-ID position."


Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 8:53 pm

"ID predicts IC and CSI. Both can be tested for and both have the potential to be falsified."


And for laughs:

"I have over 25 years of investigation under my belt. I will take my knowledge and experience against any one of those anti-EF article writers in a public forum and embarrass them."

And:

"I understand evolution and that is why I am an IDist. As a matter of fact I will take my knowledge of evolution over yours any and every day."

And:

"You don't substantiate something by assuming it and then using that assumption as part of the process." (Like assuming 'ID', 'IC', 'CSI', and 'It looks designed to me therefor allah-yhwh-jesus-mohammed-holy-ghost did it.', joey?)

All of the above are excerpts from comments made by joey at:

http://telicthoughts.com/57....5....7....57

He also commented as ID guy in that thread toward the bottom.

And there's this:





From here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-of-csi

The linked threads at telicthoughts and UD are a wealth of tard, and not just from joey.

By the way, in case anyone doesn't already know it, if you don't want to go to UD and spend a lot of time there, just go to the page you want to read, right click on it somewhere, click save as, and save the web page to a folder. Then you can read it offline at your leisure.


There's also this from joey:

"Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-412471

And:

"Complexity is measured with probability.

That is how one can tell it is complex."

From here: http://pro-science.blogspot.com/2007.......ld.html (I think that you'll find that whole thread interesting.)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,10:33   

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 17 2013,07:12)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 17 2013,08:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 17 2013,05:26)
Thanks Whole Truth.

We both know that Joey is too chicken to come here and actually discuss the concepts that he brings up on his blog.

Dear Joe "too chicken to talk in a neutral forum" G,

When you said
 
Quote
And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning.


Then YOU are the one who says that CSI = shannon information + function/meaning.

Since CSI is measured in bits (according to IDists);
We know shannon information is measured in bits;
therefore to add two quantities and get a third quantity, then the third, by definition, must be the same measurement.

So, who says function/meaning is measured in bits?  JoeG does.

But thanks for the backpedaling.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, if there is an upper bound of 500 bits, then how can you determine if something passes the upper bound if you can't measure (or determine) all the values that go into that measurement (or determination).

In other words Joey, you guys are just making shit up.  We all know it, but it's nice to hear you say it.

You're welcome and thanks to you too. Actually I should say thanks to a lot of tard fighters who, over the years, have analyzed, dissected, discussed, questioned, debated, and opposed IDiotic 'CSI' claims, and helped expose the IDiots' claims about 'CSI' for the bullshit they are.

Maybe I should thank joey too, since his own words are the best ammunition against him.

It looks to me that you and I are pretty much on the same track in our questions and challenges to joey, and I'm sure that you're right that he's too chicken to come here and actually discuss his BS.

I'm hoping that joey will say that I'm attributing words to him that he never said. Then I can show, yet again, that he's a liar. I'm saving some quotes and links for just such an occasion.

get screenshots.

Joe has changed stuff on his blog before.

I'm getting screen shots and saving whole web pages, especially at his blog. :)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,10:35   

Quote (olegt @ May 17 2013,06:26)
Joe is at the height of his game: shoot first, ask questions later. Well, he did ask the right question:
 
Quote
What does it mean to be the same size?

The next logical step would be to look up the definition. But you can't expect that from Joe.

Don't forget joey's baseball 'size' episode.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,12:03   

There's plenty more that shows that joey is full of shit but these two comments alone crush joey's claim that CSI is measurable/calculable:





joey states that it can't be CSI without the "specification", and that the thing to be measured is the information, but that the information is Shannon information. He also says that if that information is also specified it does not change the measurement/calculation, which confirms that it's only the Shannon information that is being measured/calculated. The "specification" (which is synonymous with biological information, biological specification, meaning, function, etc.) is not being measured/calculated.  

In the second comment he says that "you go about determining it (CSI) is present by counting bits and determining a specification is present.", and "that you need to be dealing with something readily represented as bits."

Well, since there are no bits in specification/meaning/function/biological information/etc., that are measured/calculated or that can be measured/calculated (that stuff is just an 'observation') then there are no 'bits' in CSI except in the Shannon information, which according to joey is "differentiated" from meaning/function (specification, etc.), so the 'added' crap called 'CSI' is exactly equivalent to 'It looks designed to me therefor allah-yhwh-jesus-mohammed-holy-ghost-sky-daddy-designer-creator-god did it!'

According to joey's own words, the 'CSI' 500 bit crap is bogus and so is any claim by him that ANY 'CSI' can be measured/calculated in 'bits'. According to joey's words, the only thing that IDiots can measure/calculate is Shannon information, and Shannon information is not 'CSI'.

It "isn't looking so good", joey. And that's putting it mildly.



ETA: I reworded the next to last paragraph.

Edited by The whole truth on May 17 2013,11:49

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Henry J



Posts: 4687
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,13:36   

How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,14:03   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,11:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

joey will probably ask if those sets have the same mass ('size', to him).

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,14:52   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,13:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

We should add, although it is obviously implied, that this question should be answered using the standard definition of set size.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,18:30   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,13:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

 
Quote
Joe:

Not.


Ready, Fire, Aim!


  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,18:33   

One of two things: (1) he didn't read the definition. (2) he didn't understand it.

The answer, Joe, is yes.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
JohnW



Posts: 2816
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,18:34   

Quote (socle @ May 17 2013,16:30)
Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,13:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

 
Quote
Joe:

Not.


Ready, Fire, Aim!


Ha Ha!

The fail.  It is epic.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
k.e..



Posts: 3840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,20:44   

Jesus F Christ Joe is a case.

He wouldn't know how to calculate the probability of the outcome of coin toss.

He can't comprehend simple set theory concepts especially the identity of set members and YET he spouts off on Shannon's theorems mixing dimensions with subjective religious descriptions.

How many  bits are in a Mol Joe?

What's the Shannon Entropy of the alphabet Joe?

BTW Joe if you had any idea what you are talking about, you should be able to answer that question WITHOUT looking it up and produce the answer in 1/2 a second!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,21:11   

Quote (socle @ May 17 2013,19:30)
Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,13:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

 
Quote
Joe:

Not.


Ready, Fire, Aim!


Ha! Well, we now know Joe's understanding of math is pretty limited.

Like his knowledge of science in general, of course.  

Hey Joe, instead of trying to argue about evolution, which is very obviously beyond your ability, spend a few months trying to understand why {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} are in fact exactly the same size. Ask for help, 'cause you'll need it.

Seriously. Don't take our word for it. Just ask anyone in the world with a math degree.

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,21:52   

Joe,

What would you say about these two sets:

A = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...}

B = {0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, ...}

You can see that A is a proper superset of B.  Do they have the same cardinality?

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2013,22:04   

I see what you did, socle. ;)

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
  9716 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (324) < ... 207 208 209 210 211 [212] 213 214 215 216 217 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]