The CSI of a baseball?
How pathetic and moronic are the anti-IDists?
Well Rich Hughes and others, have asked for the CSI of a baseball.
The CSI of a baseball.
Did you get that?
Let me explain- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.
IOW Rich Hughes and his band of mental midgets have some doubt in their pointy little heads pertaining to how baseballs came to be the way they are.
I understand their position. Heck if chance and necisssity can bring about something as intricate as a living organism, something as plain (in comparison) as a baseball should be a piece of cake.
However I digress.
To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.
So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.
And I also see that countinmg would also be a problem for Richie and his minions...
Well Rich Hughes and others, have asked for the CSI of a baseball.
The CSI of a baseball.
Did you get that?
Let me explain- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.
IOW Rich Hughes and his band of mental midgets have some doubt in their pointy little heads pertaining to how baseballs came to be the way they are.
I understand their position. Heck if chance and necisssity can bring about something as intricate as a living organism, something as plain (in comparison) as a baseball should be a piece of cake.
However I digress.
To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.
So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.
And I also see that countinmg would also be a problem for Richie and his minions...
posted by Joe G @ 5:25 PM
25 Comments:
At 8:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I see you don't calculate the CSI of a baseball. Because you can't.
At 7:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie,
Thank you for continuing to prove that you are both pathetic and moronic.
At 10:00 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way."
Actually Joe, I'm interested in the null hypothesis of design detection and the confidence intervals.
Its patently obvious you can't calculate the CSI of a baseball, or anything really. Your empirical measure in (for you at least) incalculable and therefore worthless.
At 8:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Its patently obvious you can't calculate the CSI of a baseball,
And yet I have posted exactly how to do just that!!!
To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.
So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.
What part of that don't YOU understand?
IOW it is patently obvious that Richie Hughes is a pathetic moron.
I will also say that CSI is NOT the only way to detect design and as a matter of fact CSI is a way to confirm a design inference.
Now if one wanted to calculate the CSI of a compuetr program- same thing- get the source code and COUNT THE BITS!!!!
So now the question is what prevents Richie from understanding this very basic and simple concept?
To find out why Richie Hughes cannot calculate CSI (ie count to 500) just click on the following:
Richie Hughes looking for CSI.
At 8:30 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe says "And yet I have posted exactly how to do just that!!!"
Joe is a sophist. He was asked to calculate, not to describe how to calculate. I want to check the veracity of his math and logic.
If you have the recipe, Joe, bake the cake. Don't try and force the burden of work on me, I don't think it can be done - you claim it can (but I suspect know it can't) and the only way you'll prove that wrong is by actually doing Joe. So let's have some honesty from you for a change...
At 8:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich is ignorant.
And what is the best way to deal with ignorance?
Education.
As in I educated little Richie on how to do what he is asking so that he can do it for himself.
Ya see Richie it is YOU who is trying to put the burden on me.
If you want me to do work for you then you will have to pay me.
OR you could just do it yourself by using the method I gave you.
But seeing tat you are too stupid and too lazy to do the work you try to get me to do it for you.
Ya see Richie not only do I claim it can be done I described the methodology to do it- and that means YOU can do it also.
So all YOU have to do is follow the methodology I posted- that is if YOU really want to know the answer.
And BTW it isn't a calculation- it is a MEASUREMENT.
Do you calculate the distance you drive?
No you measure it in miles.
Do you calculate your height?
No you measure it.
So about that honesty Richie- when do you plan on having some?
At 11:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie,
If something cannot be done then how could I have provided a way to do it?
But anyway I have posted the following before so here it is again:
What can be done is to calculate the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.
How to make a baseball
"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."
The more specifications required the more information required-
First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)
1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread
That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-
How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.
After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.
All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.
That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.
One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.
The CALCULATION that CSI = design is something else.
At 2:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Once again, you haven't done it, Joe. It seems you just can't do it.
HOW MUCH CSI DOES A BASEBALL HAVE?
GIVE ME THE NUMBER.
I want an enumerated example, not hand waving. Again:
Joe is a sophist. He was asked to calculate, not to describe how to calculate. I want to check the veracity of his math and logic.
If you have the recipe, Joe, bake the cake. Don't try and force the burden of work on me, I don't think it can be done - you claim it can (but I suspect know it can't) and the only way you'll prove that wrong is by actually doing Joe. So let's have some honesty from you for a change...
At 5:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Right Rich.
I haven't done it.
I don't see any reason to do it because it is senseless work.
That being the case I gave you the methodology to do it.
That way the only cheater is you.
IOW I gave YOU the knowledge to alleviate your ignorance and all you can do is keep asking the same nonsensical question over and over again.
So if I am going to do senseless work for a worthless fuck like you, it will cost you.
One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.
At 6:00 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I don't see any reason to do it because it is senseless work."
A rigerous example would go a long way to moving ID from beyond conjecture to hypothesis, but you, nor anyone else, can do it. At least be honest - if you could, you would, eh?
At 11:15 PM,
Unknown said…
Joe,
You can't even show us, by calculating the CSI, that a frickin' baseball is designed, and yet you expect us to take you seriously when you claim that biological structures are also designed?
Get real.
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Valerie,
I showed YOU and anyone else, how to MEASURE the INFORMATION of a baseball.
It is NOT a requirement that EVERY designed object contain CSI.
CSI is NOT the ONLY way to determine whether or not something is designed.
As for biological organisms MEASURING the CSI is easy- just count the number of nucletides required to make the functional part.
Now to refute that premise- that said biological function contains CSI and is therefor designed all YOU have to do is demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for it.
IOW to refute the design inference in biology all YOU have to do is substantiate YOUR claims.
And seeing neither you nor anyone else on this planet has been able to do so why shold anyone believe the theory of evolution?
At 7:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
I have given YOU the methodology on how to MEASURE the INFORMATION of a baseball.
So all I can take from this is that YOU cannot do it.
YOU are the one who wants it sooooo bad.
So what is it, exactly, that is preventing you from counting the number of bits in the information required to make a baseball?
That said rigorous examples have been provided pertaining to biology.
And all YOU need to do to refute those examples is to actually substantiate YOUR claims!!!!
Imagine that- the power to refute ID is in the hands of those who don't like it.
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
And Valerie,
If you think that a baseball is the result of nature, operating freely (ie not designed) then you are totally clue-less.
The ONLY importance of CSI is that of design CONFIRMATION- that is when design is in doubt.
IOW it appears that neither you nor Richie believe baseballs are designed.
Ya see the rigorous investigation is over. And that investigation determined baseballs are designed.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.
So be honest you two- if you could count the number of bits required to make a baseball you would, but it appears you can't and you want someone to hold your hand and do it for you.
I will do it for $10,000.
I don't work for free...
At 7:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Measuring the CSI of a cake:
Given the following recipe:
• 1 cup cornmeal
• 3 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 1/3 cups white sugar
• 2 tablespoons baking powder
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 2/3 cup vegetable oil
• 1/3 cup melted butter
• 2 tablespoons honey
• 4 eggs, beaten
• 2 1/2 cups whole milk
• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C), and grease a 9x13 inch baking dish.
• Stir together the cornmeal, flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a mixing bowl. Pour in the vegetable oil, melted butter, honey, beaten eggs, and milk, and stir just to moisten.
• Pour the batter into the prepared baking dish and bake in the preheated oven for 45 minutes, until the top of the cornbread starts to brown and show cracks.
A simple character count reveals there are over 650 characters.
Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit.
At 8:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Well Rich Hughes and others, have asked for the CSI of a baseball.
The CSI of a baseball.
Did you get that?
Let me explain- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.
IOW Rich Hughes and his band of mental midgets have some doubt in their pointy little heads pertaining to how baseballs came to be the way they are.
I understand their position. Heck if chance and necisssity can bring about something as intricate as a living organism, something as plain (in comparison) as a baseball should be a piece of cake.
However I digress.
To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.
So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.
The question is what part of that don't you understand?
At 9:51 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I see you're not promoting all my posts, Joe. That's a shame. 'The CSI of a cake' is perhaps the most retarded thing I've seen on th internet. We're going to laugh and laugh and laugh at it on AtBC. Why don't you put it up on UD?
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie Retardo,
I have published every one of your posts that have made it into my moderation cue.
EVERY ONE.
'The CSI of a cake' is perhaps the most retarded thing I've seen on th internet.
I take it you haven't read your own comments.
Ya see Richie Retardo, YOU are the most retarded thing ever.
And retarded people usuall laugh at things they cannot understand. So laugh away retard...
At 10:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie Retardo,
Do you think a cake can arise without information?
If you do then that is the problem- you ARE retarded.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
AtBC:
Assholes that Beat Chicks
Assholes touching Boy's Crotches
Atrociously tasteless brutal cocksuckers
Anti-Thought Babbling Cretins
At 10:24 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"shakespeare sits down and writes all his books with a pen"
Wow - 'the complete works of shakespeare' has much less information that previously thought.
LOL@Joe. It's great you're fighting for ID, Joe. You *really* cripple them.
Still no CSI of a baseball? Thought not.
Go and post your CSI of a cake on UD. Puh-lease!
At 10:31 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I'm sure your local schoolboards wont approve of that already archived comment, Joe.
*mwah*
At 10:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie proves that he is retarded:
shakespeare sits down and writes all his books with a pen"
He used a pen?
Doubtful.
And I also doubt that is all he did.
Ya see Richie Retardo, as I have (tried) to explain to you if you are given something with bits that can be counted- a book/ play by Shakespeare, then all you do is count the bits as presented.
On the other hand, if you are given an object without those bits present, then to figure out the information it contains you have to figure out how to make one and then count the bits of information involved.
I have meade this very clear.
So that means that YOU are about as retarded as one can get.
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Still no CSI of a baseball?
Still can't follow instructions? Thought not.
Still can't think? Thought not.
Still a woman beating child molester? Thought so.
It is also laughable that you think that a cake can arise without information.
I am sure you would be a hit at a culinary arts school.
<< Home