Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Mycoplasma genitalium and Complex Specified Information

-
First read this-

Mycoplasma genitalium- an organism all evotards should be personally familiar with and complex specified information, the concept evotards remain willfully ignorant of.

CSI has a lower threshold of 500 bits of specified information. Biological function is a specification.

Mycoplasma genitalium has 580076 base pairs, which equals 1,160,152 (d'oh) bits of information carrying capacity. Out of that 529477 bp code for proteins, ie functionality. That equals 1,058,954 bits of specified information, which is well above the 500 bit threshold.

Heck just looking at the number of protein coding genes it is obvious that the 500 bit threshold would be easily surpassed.

No need to get a perfect number for the organism, the threshold is set.

113 Comments:

  • At 4:12 AM, Blogger OM said…

    You've previously claimed that a specification is also required in order to be able to calculate SI.

    "Biological function is a specification."

    And what is the function here?

    "Out of that 529477 bp code for proteins, ie functionality."

    So there is no SI in the remaining base pairs, is that correct?

    It seems unlikely to me that all of the remaining base pairs have no function. On what do you base that?

    And is "specification" a simply true/false value then? An organism either has it or does not?

    Can you give an example of something without such a specification?

    Is "making proteins" the only example of biological specification in play here? What about what the organism *does*? Is that not relevant? It sure seems relevant.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Yes coding for and creating proteins is a specification.

    No, there isn't any evidence those remaining base pairs do anything, therefor no evidence of any specification there.

    And if it is a living organism then it does have a specification.

    But anyways your questions prove that you are an obtuse moron, just as your posting name suggests.

    Is this what you do? Sit around thinking of ways to expose your ignorance?

    Seems like a wasted life to me...

     
  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "No, there isn't any evidence those remaining base pairs do anything, therefor no evidence of any specification there."

    I thought one of the claims of ID is that "Junk DNA" really has a function, we just don't know what it is.

    Is that not the case then?

    And how have you determined that the "Junk DNA" does not really have a function? It may well have a function that you are not aware of.
    How did you come to that determination?

    And is "coding for proteins" the only possible function relevant to calculating SI? What about the function of the organism itself?

    E.G two organisms with 1,058,954 bits of specified information but one does nothing except breed and the other builds structures similar to termite mounds.

    Do both these organisms have the same value for SI then? I've seen nothing in your "calculations" that takes such things into account so far. You've just simply determined the "information carrying capacity" and not actually involved the "specification" at all.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Another question. Why 500 bits? Would something with 499 bits count as "not designed" but something with 501 count as designed?

    Why?

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why 500 bits? Would something with 499 bits count as "not designed" but something with 501 count as designed?

    Again you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    I find that hilarious.

    Why 500 bits? That is fully explained in "No Free Lunch".

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I thought one of the claims of ID is that "Junk DNA" really has a function, we just don't know what it is.

    Don't think, it is your handicap.

    And the rest of your post is also irrelevant.

    Why do evotards think their ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    For example:
    And is "coding for proteins" the only possible function relevant to calculating SI?

    No, coding for proteins is not the only possible function relevant to measure SI. However it is a specification and that is all we need.

    But anyways, waste your life, it's yours. Stop wasting my time with your ignorant rants.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That is fully explained in "No Free Lunch"."

    What page?

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Why do evotards think their ignorance is meaningful discourse?"

    Your inability to answer any of these simple questions (which you should be able to answer easily if you really could do what you claim) has been noted.

    I thought the purpose of this blog was "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning."

    It appears not.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Your inability to answer any of these simple questions (which you should be able to answer easily if you really could do what you claim) has been noted.

    Your inablity to ask relevant questions (which you should be able to do if you weren't so fucking ignorant) has been noted.

    OM:
    I thought the purpose of this blog was "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning."

    And I have. So what's your point?

    Just because you are too fucking ignorant to understand science doesn't mean I haven't done what my banner says.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That is fully explained in "No Free Lunch"."

    OM:
    What page?

    Are you saying that you are too stupid to look it up?

    Look I am not wasting my time with you. You have wasted too much of my time already. Get a life and stop being such a wanker.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And Junk DNA? That's not supposed to exist according to ID but you are saying it does.

    I'm confused! What version of ID do you believe in?

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You've just simply determined the "information carrying capacity" and not actually involved the "specification" at all.

    A simple read of the OP demonstrates I have done both- determined the information carrying capacity and the specified information.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Are you saying that you are too stupid to look it up?"

    If you provide a page then we can look at some quotes from that page to see if they back up your claims.

    I guess you don't really want to do that....

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And Junk DNA? That's not supposed to exist according to ID but you are saying it does.

    You are just grasping because you are ignorant.

    Please point to the ID literature that says absolutely no junk DNA can exist.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe

    Information carrying capacity: 1,160,152

    Specified information: 1,058,954

    What about the other 101198? Is there no specified information there at all?

    What about duplicate genes coding for the same protein? Are they counted twice towards the total or once? Why?

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Are you saying that you are too stupid to look it up?"

    OM:
    If you provide a page then we can look at some quotes from that page to see if they back up your claims.

    So that would be a "yes" you are too stupid to look it up for yourself.

    OM:
    I guess you don't really want to do that....

    No, I don't want to help you. I have done more than enough already.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203

    (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

    Does 10% Junk DNA count as "much"? And it's interesting that you claim now that ID does not say "there will be NO Junk DNA"

    What does ID say about the % of Junk DNA Joe? Is 10% much? How much would you expect to see if ID was true? 10%? 1%? What?

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What about the other 101198? Is there no specified information there at all?

    As I have already tiold you, there isn't any evidence for any specification there.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Not only that it is irrelevant.

    OM:
    What about duplicate genes coding for the same protein?

    What duplicate genes?

    Again your ignorance is hilarious but meaningless.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Dembski also said " Thus most organs should not be vestigial, and most DNA should not be "junk DNA."

    Given that 49% junk DNA would still be covered by "most" that's really not much of a prediction.

    Now that we've established that 10% is Junk DNA according to you in "Mycoplasma genitalium" is that a number you are willing to go with in general as an ID prediction of the amount of junk DNA in general?

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "As I have already tiold you, there isn't any evidence for any specification there."

    What process led you to that conclusion? How did you determine that?

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "What duplicate genes?"

    Given that duplicates make up to 80% of eukaryotic genomes it seems you know less then you think.

    Again your ignorance is hilarious but meaningless.

    Care to have a guess at the duplicate rate in the organism we're talking about?

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What duplicate genes?"

    OM:
    Given that duplicates make up to 80% of eukaryotic genomes it seems you know less then you think.

    Mycoplasma genitalium- this thread is about Mycoplasma genitalium and Mycoplasma genitalium is not a eukaryote you ignorant piece of shit.

    OM:
    Care to have a guess at the duplicate rate in the organism we're talking about?

    Yes I would love to know how many of the genes in Mg are duplicates that code for an existing protein.

    Then tell us how it was determined that gene duplications are blind watchmaker processes.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Given that 49% junk DNA would still be covered by "most" that's really not much of a prediction.

    How did you determine 49% is junk?

    Ignorance isn't a methodology.

    That 10% of Mg could have a function- we don't know. As I said it is irrelevant because the 500 bit threshold is surpassed without it.

    So now with the design inference in hand we would set out to see what, if anything, that 10% does.

    Again you are just making shit up because you are too stupid to understand anything.

    Geez you linked to a discussion board for evidence of lightning from clear skies.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Then tell us how it was determined that gene duplications are blind watchmaker processes."

    We've seen it happen in the lab. No intelligent designer required.

    Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Mycoplasma genitalium- this thread is about Mycoplasma genitalium and Mycoplasma genitalium is not a eukaryote you ignorant piece of shit."

    LOL. I guess you are not as ignorant as you pretend!

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Then tell us how it was determined that gene duplications are blind watchmaker processes."

    OM:
    We've seen it happen in the lab.

    That doesn't make it a blind watchmaker process.

    Shit I see my computer operating- I have watched the code go over the various busses.

    OM:
    No intelligent designer required.

    How did you make that determination?

    Again your ignorance is not a methodology.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I guess you are not as ignorant as you pretend!

    That you think I am ignorant is actually a compliment.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "How did you make that determination?"

    It's quite simple. We assume there was no intelligent designer involved in gene duplication events for the same reason we don't assume that pink unicorns are involved.

    There is no reason to add them, there is no evidence to add them and there is no need to add them. What we see can be explained without the addition of unnecessary complication.

    When you see a penny drop to the floor is that an example of "intelligent falling" or do you assume it's because of gravity?

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That doesn't make it a blind watchmaker process."

    So when you observe a gene duplication event what makes you think it's *not* a "blind watchmaker" process?

    What are you seeing that almost every scientist in the world cannot?

    Technologies such as genomic microarrays are used to detect chromosomal abnormalities such as microduplications in a high throughput fashion from genomic DNA samples. So far no evidence of an intelligent designer as been seen across millions of such events.

    What should they be looking for?

    Do you think that things like normal distributions are products of the intelligent designer acting and that they cannot arise without that intelligent input?

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So now with the design inference in hand we would set out to see what, if anything, that 10% does. "

    Well, go on then. What are you waiting for? I'm sure the Templeton people would fund you.

    Write it up and send it off. Dare ya.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    We assume there was no intelligent designer involved in gene duplication events for the same reason we don't assume that pink unicorns are involved.

    Pink unicorns have never demonstrated an ability to do anything. OTOH intelligent designers have. Also there isn't any evience to support the claim that blind watchmaker processes can account for gene duplications.

    So yours in a "conclusion" based on nothing but your ignorance.

    OM:
    What we see can be explained without the addition of unnecessary complication.

    So you say but can't support. Typical evotard science by declaration.

    OM:
    When you see a penny drop to the floor is that an example of "intelligent falling" or do you assume it's because of gravity?

    How did you determine gravity is due to blind watchmaker processes?

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So when you observe a gene duplication event what makes you think it's *not* a "blind watchmaker" process?

    Well just think of what has to happen. Not only does the gene need to be duplicated but so does the binding site. Then the duplication has to be in the right place so it can be transcribed. Then it has to integrated into the existing system or else you just a polypeptide floating around.

    And again I don't see any designer floating around inside my computer- therefor by your "logic" it is all due to blind watchmaker processes.

    So what do YOU have- if gene duplications are due to blind watchmaker processes we should expect to see what?

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Also there isn't any evience to support the claim that blind watchmaker processes can account for gene duplications."

    As the consensus is that gene duplications can and do happen without intelligent intervention the onus is on your to prove otherwise.

    When you've written up your proposal to the Templeton people why don't you publish it on your blog too?

     
  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So you say but can't support. Typical evotard science by declaration."

    It's supported by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Not only does the gene need to be duplicated but so does the binding site. Then the duplication has to be in the right place so it can be transcribed. Then it has to integrated into the existing system or else you just a polypeptide floating around".

    So I guess the designer does all that? I guess that the designer also takes care of unzipping and matching up duplicating DNA strands.

    The designer sure is busy! Trillions of such events every second across all life on earth.

    It almost sounds like your designer could be called "chemistry".

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "And again I don't see any designer floating around inside my computer- therefor by your "logic" it is all due to blind watchmaker processes."

    Computers are not reproducing biological organisms. I realise the "watchmaker" analogy has a firm grip on you but watches don't reproduce either. Something of a fatal flaw.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So what do YOU have- if gene duplications are due to blind watchmaker processes we should expect to see what?"

    Exactly what we see now. A process that is prone to error, which it would not be if a "designer" was taking care of every aspect as you claim.

    The second most frequent autosomal recessive disease in Europeans is called spinal muscular atrophy and it causes progressive muscle degeneration and weakness, eventually leading to death. The culprit? Duplicated genes.

    A duplicated copy of the "T-Gene" is also associated with some types of bone cancer.

    There are many other crippling conditions related to such gene duplication events. Go check it out. Go find out how your perfect designer is not so perfect after all - bit of a ham fisted designer really.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger OM said…

    There's also Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type I which is rather nasty, directly identified as a gene duplication issue.

     
  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "So you say but can't support. Typical evotard science by declaration."

    OM:
    It's supported by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

    Yes I understand that you don't understand how science operates. I don't need any more evidence for that.

    Ya see there isn't any evidence to support your claim- science works via positive evidence not just the refusal to allow anything else.

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Computers are not reproducing biological organisms.

    Right asshole but yor position can explain reproduction! Ya see moron even the most basic cell's reproduction is irreducibly complex.

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Also there isn't any evience to support the claim that blind watchmaker processes can account for gene duplications."

    OM:
    As the consensus is that gene duplications can and do happen without intelligent intervention the onus is on your to prove otherwise.

    A consensus isn't evidence. You need positive evidence to support your claim.

    You are unable to produce any. Typical.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    A process that is prone to error, which it would not be if a "designer" was taking care of every aspect as you claim.

    You are a fucking piece of shit.

    I never said anything about a "designer" taking care of every aspect- you are a twisted freak of a loser.

    OM:
    There are many other crippling conditions related to such gene duplication events.

    Not quite what your position needs to support its claims.

    However if we take a once very good design and then start inserting random errors...

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So I guess the designer does all that? I guess that the designer also takes care of unzipping and matching up duplicating DNA strands.

    It's in the program. Does your computer come with programmers or programs?

    OM:
    It almost sounds like your designer could be called "chemistry".

    Except what we observe can't be explained by mere chemistry.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "However if we take a once very good design and then start inserting random errors..."

    One definition of a "very good design" would be that it would be resistant to random errors.

    For example PAR files allow you to recover from a significant number of errors, errors making up a large % of the overall file size.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive

    So all your designer had to do was program the computer that you claim is the cell with a routine to recreate the original intended design when it became corrupted.

    After all, ID makes the claim over and over that cells are computers or factories.

    Computers suffer from random errors too, cosmic rays can corrupt the contents of ram. That's why you have EEC ram so that such errors are detected and corrected.

    All the claims that DNA is a "program" or a "code" and yet the programmer forgot to implement the most basic protections against corruption.

    Of course, Joe, we both know what you mean by "very good design" - the garden of Eden.

    And the we have "start inserting random errors".

    Whatever could that be? Oh, I know, I know. It's "the fall" right?

    If your designer could not foresee that "random errors" would be introduced and protect against that then your designer does not have the skills that most people at university learning programming have.

     
  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    One definition of a "very good design" would be that it would be resistant to random errors.

    Nope, that would be a perfect design. You are confused, as usual.

    OM:
    After all, ID makes the claim over and over that cells are computers or factories.

    ID doesn't make that claim. Some scientists have made that claim.

    OM:
    If your designer could not foresee that "random errors" would be introduced and protect against that then your designer does not have the skills that most people at university learning programming have.

    Nope- we need errors. Ya see in a perfect world there wouldn't be any freason to go discovering things.

    As for what causes errors- entropy- thermodynamics.

    Computers without agency involvement for maintenace and upgrades become useless.

     
  • At 4:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "It's in the program"

    "ID doesn't make that claim. Some scientists have made that claim."

    You are making that claim!

    Programs run on computers. Therefore *you* are claiming that the cell is a computer.

    "Nope, that would be a perfect design."

    So EEC ram and par files are "perfect" are they? I guess you are right, the designer is incapable of making a perfect design. Just not up to it I guess.

    "Nope- we need errors. Ya see in a perfect world there wouldn't be any freason to go discovering things."

    Yeah, just like we *need* cancer and HIV etc etc etc. It's a shame your designer could not have found a better balance between cancer and discovery. Just not up to the job I guess.

    "As for what causes errors- entropy- thermodynamics."

    Er, no. What causes errors is one thing, correcting them is another. The "designer" would easily have been able to correct errors in DNA with a suitable configuration. E.G multiple back up copy's all checksummed, dropping back to one that works. Or recovering using parity information as per the link I gave you.

    "Computers without agency involvement for maintenace and upgrades become useless."

    So as you claim that "scientists" claim that the cell is a computer what is the agency involved in maintenance and upgrade there? As cells have not become useless and have been around for many millions of years.

    I guess the designer spends it's time looking after each and every cell, much in the say way it guides DNA.

     
  • At 4:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I never said anything about a "designer" taking care of every aspect- you are a twisted freak of a loser. "

    You also said

    "Then tell us how it was determined that gene duplications are blind watchmaker processes."

    And

    "Also there isn't any evience to support the claim that blind watchmaker processes can account for gene duplications."

    If blind watchmaker processes cannot account for gene duplications the only option left is direct intervention by the designer. Each and every time. Billions of times a day.

    The logic is inescapable. Or do you know better?

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You are making that claim!

    No, I'm not. Just because we are programmed doesn't mean we are like computers.

    OM:
    The "designer" would easily have been able to correct errors in DNA with a suitable configuration.

    Prove it.

    OM:
    So as you claim that "scientists" claim that the cell is a computer what is the agency involved in maintenance and upgrade there?

    There isn't any. Organisms have to take care of themselves. Then they die.

    OM:
    As cells have not become useless and have been around for many millions of years.

    Don't know how long they have been around and it is evidence for the very good design that it has lasted this long. duh.

    OM:
    I guess the designer spends it's time looking after each and every cell, much in the say way it guides DNA.

    I guess you are an ignorant fuck because I never said nor implied the designer looks after anything.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If blind watchmaker processes cannot account for gene duplications the only option left is direct intervention by the designer.

    No, your ignorant response is not the only option left.

    Shit I don't see a programmer doing spellcheck for me on my Word documents.

    As I said the program takes care of that. Gene duplications would be part of the program just as command statements are part of a computer's program.

    No intervention required by computer programmers and no intervention required by the designer- set it and forget it.

    But obviously you are too stupid to understand that and obviously you are too much of an intellectual coward to support your position.

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Prove it."

    Intelligent agents have been shown to have the ability to write programs that contain error correcting codes.

    Therefore it is within the capability of any designer capable of creating a cell to build in a mechanism that corrects errors as they arise.

    And Joe, you said: "No, I'm not. Just because we are programmed doesn't mean we are like computers."

    Salvador Cordova said: I pointed out the cell is a computer with operating systems and software and compilers. I simply posed the question, "do you think Darwinian evolution can make that? You design computer systems, do you think Darwinian evolution can make something like a computer system?"

    So who is right? You or Salvador? It seems that for every ID proponent there is a different version of ID. Why don't you argue your case with Sal and let me know what you agree on?

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Intelligent agents have been shown to have the ability to write programs that contain error correcting codes.

    DNA is hardware. I would love to see someone design hardware with the ability to repair itself with 100% efficiency and over longs eons of time.

    OM:
    Therefore it is within the capability of any designer capable of creating a cell to build in a mechanism that corrects errors as they arise.

    IOW you don't have anything but your ignorance.

    Got it.

    What about designers not looking for perfection?


    As for the cell being like a computer- well there may be similarities but there are also huge differences.

    Yes the ribosome is a genetic compiler. Yes there is a program runningn the show. But there aren't any busses, there aren't any transistors, the whole computer platform of alu, cpu, etc.

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Intelligent agents have been shown to have the ability to write programs that contain error correcting codes.

    Let's see what happens to them after running for thousands of years without any outside help for maintenance.

    Ya see what we design needs that outside help.

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It seems that for every ID proponent there is a different version of ID.

    It seems that for every evo proponent there is a different version of evolution.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "DNA is hardware. I would love to see someone design hardware with the ability to repair itself with 100% efficiency and over longs eons of time."

    I guess the designer was not capable of that then. I guess we now know at least one fact about your purported designer!

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I guess the designer was not capable of that then.

    All you have is guessing. You are pathetic.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "All you have is guessing."

    I guess we're even then! Except that Darwinism's guesses come true over and over again.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "It seems that for every evo proponent there is a different version of evolution."

    And yet everybody agrees on the core. Unlike ID where even the basic fundamentals depend on who you are talking to. There are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters.

     
  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I guess we're even then!

    Nope- my position is based on the knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Yours is base on bald declarations.

    OM:
    Except that Darwinism's guesses come true over and over again.

    Then it is strange that you cannot produce any positive evidence.

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And yet everybody agrees on the core.

    No, they don't. I doubt there is a core.

    OM:
    There are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters.

    Liar.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    Your calculation of the amount of information in mycoplasma is naive at best. You are calculating the number of bits necessary to describe the specific mycoplasma sequences that code for proteins. But that has no direct correlation to what you want to call "complex specified information." You cannot assume that the whole thing as it is is necessary for the functions to be there. Remember that "function" is what "distinguishes" "specified" information from "shannon's" information" according to your rhetorical redefinition of information (and even if that were not so, you still have to define the information according to what this information is supposed to convey). You don't know if each position in the sequence has to be exactly what you see. So, each position might contain much less information than you think. This is very basic. You seem to be "confusing" the "medium" with the actual "information."

    You would have to know how many positions might code for the same protein without disturbing the process of translation, how many would allow for a similar protein that still does the same job, and a very long et cetera. SInce you don't know, what you calculated is meaningless to the point you wanted to make.

    See that I have used your own terms, and your own arguments. Yet, you will not get it. Not even if your life depended on it.

    Now, I don't expect you to understand a iota of what I wrote here. You will jump around creating a distraction or a series of distractions as usual to hide your barriers to learning (evident in your answer to OM about he being incapable of sending a photon. What a waste. And you call this blog "intelligent reasoning." Couldn't be more antithetical). However, it seems like you have attracted a few readers that might benefit from this comment.

    I know, the ignorance is all mine, blah, blah, blah ...

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    Your calculation of the amount of information in mycoplasma is naive at best.

    Could be, but it also could be taht you don't know what you are talking about.

    NE:
    You are calculating the number of bits necessary to describe the specific mycoplasma sequences that code for proteins. But that has no direct correlation to what you want to call "complex specified information."

    Yes it does.

    NE:
    You cannot assume that the whole thing as it is is necessary for the functions to be there. Remember that "function" is what "distinguishes" "specified" information from "shannon's" information" according to your rhetorical redefinition of information (and even if that were not so, you still have to define the information according to what this information is supposed to convey).

    What redefinition? You have made thta bullshit accusation before- what's your problem?

    NE:
    You don't know if each position in the sequence has to be exactly what you see. So, each position might contain much less information than you think. This is very basic.

    Strange- I have been over that.

    Read this- see the link near the bottom.

    BTW, OM, like you, cannot support his claims- so yu to have something in common.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    If you paid attention you would notice that I know what I am talking about exactly:

    You make each nucleotide into two bits of information. That is a raw measure of capacity at best. But not of actual information. What this means is that, without compression, you are giving us the number of bits necessary to describe mycoplasma's exact sequences that code for protein. How does that require any other support than you thinking of what I am saying?

    NE: But that has no direct correlation to what you want to call "complex specified information."

    Joe: Yes it does.


    No it doesn't for the reasons I explained and that you happily forgot to try and understand, as predicted.

    Strange- I have been over that.

    Read this- see the link near the bottom.


    Nowhere in that linked article do they say that each base translates into two bits of functional information.

    Prediction: You will miss the point again, as well as the support for the claims that don't require anything else but your thinking about it. Tell me Mr "Information technologist" my hard drive can contain up to 1 terabytes of information (well, less, but let's round it up anyway), and, an uncompressed description of each space in the hard drive might require that many byes (and corresponding bits). Does that mean that my hard drive actually contains one terabyte of "complex specified" information? Do we have all the elements to judge if this is so?

    Best and have a great beginning of the coming week. I have to go do some preparation for tomorrow.

     
  • At 3:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    You make each nucleotide into two bits of information. That is a raw measure of capacity at best.

    I said it was informal and if that sequence cannot be changed then it is the correct measure.

    As for "thinking about it" how much energy is in that terabyte of information?

    What is the calculation? Do you think it has more energy than a blank disk? How can we tell?

    How many bits of information does it take to power 100 IPODS? Can we use the information stored on the IPOD to power the IPOD?

    You tll other people to "think about it" yet it is obvious you don't.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still waiting on you to support your accusation of redifining information- and still waiting for your definition.

    Typical...

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Hey Joe,

    Ince I might disappear for a while now, I give you this last set of answers (last for the time being, I like you for some weird reason despite you make your best at insulting me and calling me a liar for no reason other than your ignorance):

    I said it was informal and if that sequence cannot be changed then it is the correct measure.

    Nope, you didn't. The OP does not contain the word "informal" anywhere to be seen. Nor does the one you linked right at the top ("First read this" link).

    As for "thinking about it" how much energy is in that terabyte of information?

    Decide the units you want, transform the terabytes into bits, then multiply the bits by approx "0.69 kT" where "k" would be boltzmann constant in whichever units you need to get the energy into the units you like best. "T" is temperature. If you want more precision use "kT*ln(2)" where "ln(2)" is the natural logarithm of 2.

    What is the calculation? Do you think it has more energy than a blank disk? How can we tell?

    See above.

    How many bits of information does it take to power 100 IPODS?

    I don't know. I would have to know how much energy iPods use.

    Can we use the information stored on the IPOD to power the IPOD?

    I think it would be a tad hard to extract the energy from such information. Might not be worth the effort. Remember that there's from energy to energy. There is a reason why electricity is better suited than heat to run iPods ... Well, of course you know this, after all, you know everything about thermodynamics and energy.

    You tll other people to "think about it" yet it is obvious you don't.

    Sure? Seems like the one who just won't think about it is yourself. I told you from the beginning that there is an equation that converts bits to calories (or whichever units of energy you might want). I never said it would be easy to extract such energy though.

    Best and a great week for you Joe.

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I said it was informal and if that sequence cannot be changed then it is the correct measure.

    NE:
    Nope, you didn't. The OP does not contain the word "informal" anywhere to be seen. Nor does the one you linked right at the top ("First read this" link).

    Yes I have.

    As for "thinking about it" how much energy is in that terabyte of information?

    NE:
    Decide the units you want, transform the terabytes into bits, then multiply the bits by approx "0.69 kT" where "k" would be boltzmann constant in whichever units you need to get the energy into the units you like best. "T" is temperature. If you want more precision use "kT*ln(2)" where "ln(2)" is the natural logarithm of 2.

    Is there a way to measure that to confirm the calculation?

    Do use a dipstick?

    Blank disc- more or less energy than yours?

    NE:
    I think it would be a tad hard to extract the energy from such information.

    They are (allegedly) the same thing. Now you are extracting energy from the information. More likely you are extracting energy from the CARRIER.

    It's like extracting seeds from an orange and saying the seeds and the orange are the same- the orange is the seeds and the seeds are the orange.

     
  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The Boltzmann constant (k or kB) is the physical constant relating energy at the individual particle level with temperature observed at the collective or bulk level.

    With information, what particle? The particles are carriers, they are not the information.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "The particles are carriers, they are not the information."

    Given that, then how do they carry the information?
    How do we get the information into them?
    How do we get the information back out of them?

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "It's like extracting seeds from an orange and saying the seeds and the orange are the same- the orange is the seeds and the seeds are the orange."

    The difference is that when we open an orange we can see the seeds. Where is the "seed" in the particle you say is "carrying" information?

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Given that, then how do they carry the information?

    Because the computer spits out information when it accesses the disk.

    OM:
    How do we get the information into them?

    Into or onto? Well the computer does that for us.

    OM:
    How do we get the information back out of them?

    Via a computer.

     
  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "It's like extracting seeds from an orange and saying the seeds and the orange are the same- the orange is the seeds and the seeds are the orange."

    OM:
    The difference is that when we open an orange we can see the seeds.

    Difference between what?

    Can you see the radio carrier wave- ie the energy that carries the FM information?

    Can you see the electricity that powers your computer?

    Where is the "seed" in the particle you say is "carrying" information?

    Back up- NE said that we can extract energy from information which means information is energy (unfortunately he has failed to support the claim that we can extract energy from information). So by his "logic" that we can extract seeds from a fruit means the seeds are the fruit.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Difference between what?"

    Your analogy and reality.

    "Can you see the radio carrier wave- ie the energy that carries the FM information?"

    Yes, with the right equipment.

    "Can you see the electricity that powers your computer?"

    Yes, with the right equipment.

    "So by his "logic" that we can extract seeds from a fruit means the seeds are the fruit."

    And by your "logic" we can extract an infinite amount of seeds (information) from a fruit (energy). Given that we can't the probability is that your analogy is flawed.

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And by your "logic" we can extract an infinite amount of seeds (information) from a fruit (energy).

    No perhaps by your twisted impersonation of my logic but I have never claimed, thought nor implied such a thing.

    I never said we can extract information from energy.

    You are a lying wanker.

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I never said we can extract information from energy."

    Yes you did, that is in fact your entire claim! That energy is an "information carrier" and you can extract "information from energy".

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I never said we can extract information from energy."

    OM:
    Yes you did, that is in fact your entire claim!

    No, it isn't.

    OM:
    That energy is an "information carrier" and you can extract "information from energy".

    Yes energy can be used as an information carrier. The enrgy isn't the infomation so we aren't extracting the information from the energy.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes energy can be used as an information carrier. The enrgy isn't the infomation so we aren't extracting the information from the energy."

    Then

    A) What is the upper limit to the amount of information that "energy" can carry?

    B) How does energy carry "information"? How is it stored?

    C) Can energy have zero information?

    D) Can you explain how you go about "extracting" information from energy? How do you know what is information and what is energy?

    E) When you have extracted all the information possible from a given amount of energy has the amount of energy gone up, down or stayed the same?

    F) Can you describe the process of imparting information into energy and show that the level of energy stays the same regardless of the amount of information you add?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A) What is the upper limit to the amount of information that "energy" can carry?

    I don't know- what is your point?

    B) How does energy carry "information"?

    Piggyback.

    How is it stored?

    Stored on pages and disks and personal memory

    C) Can energy have zero information?

    energy can't exist without information.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Stored on pages and disks and personal memory"

    What are those "pages" and "personal memory" made from?

    Matter.

    And what is matter made from?

    Energy.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What are those "pages" and "personal memory" made from?

    Matter.

    And what is matter made from?

    Energy.


    How do you know matter is made from energy? Energy could be made from matter and information.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How do you take some energy and add information to it?

    Machines- either biological or mechanical.

    FM radio- takes some energy and adds information to it. The air-ways are full of energy carrying infomation.

    Computers- takes some energy and adds information to it- the busses are full of information carrying energy.

    People- we take some energy and add information to it when we speak.

    WE put the two together for OUR purposes. WE tell the matter and energy to carry the informaton.

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "FM radio- takes some energy and adds information to it. "

    I understand that to you the description is the same as the mechanism by which it came about.

    So "it was designed" to you is a good answer to the question "Where does ID claim the first cell came from?"

    But the point I'm trying to make is that it's specifically how "FM radio- takes some energy and adds information to it" that's important here. Not that it happens.

    So, Joe, perhaps you can draw a diagram to show me how it works?

    A radio in the middle. Two buckets, one of information, one of energy. Somebody is taking a bucket of both and moving them to the radio and out comes "FM Radio"?

    "WE tell the matter and energy to carry the informaton."

    Obviously.

     
  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I understand that to you the description is the same as the mechanism by which it came about.

    That means you don't understand anything. I never claimed, thought nor implied the description is the same as the mechanism.

    You ae a moron taking cues from other morons.

    OM:
    So "it was designed" to you is a good answer to the question "Where does ID claim the first cell came from?"

    It is a start. As I have been telling you it matters to any given investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via design or something else.

    OM:
    But the point I'm trying to make is that it's specifically how "FM radio- takes some energy and adds information to it" that's important here. Not that it happens.

    Then use your computer and the interweb and look it up.

    Ya see, asshole, this is a perfect example of you making it personal.

    Look it up and when/ if you have a point to make come back and make it.

    I am very familiar with radio broadcast- so any time you have a point I am ready.

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "As I have been telling you it matters to any given investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via design or something else."

    IOW you've had decades. What have you discovered from the starting point of "HIV was designed"?

    "I am very familiar with radio broadcast- so any time you have a point I am ready."

    Then you'll have no trouble identifying the component that adds the information to the energy.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As I have been telling you it matters to any given investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via design or something else."

    OM:
    IOW you've had decades.

    Decades of repression. OTOH your position has all the resources and still can't produe anything.

    OM:
    Then you'll have no trouble identifying the component that adds the information to the energy.

    We do- the broadcaster.

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joey,

    Quick one because I don't have much time:

    The "particle" is the bit in this case. this is why you use that other term [ln(2)]. Also remember that when people develop equations they might end with a constant being related to something they might not have expected. For instance, this equation, which gives you the amount of energy per bit, is as well established as E= mc^2. The latter gives you the energy that makes some amount of mass of matter. Would you ask which light, or which distance and which time because it has the speed of light (c) in it? You would have to follow the equations that lead Einstein to that simple formula to see where "c" comes from. The same goes for "k" in the information/energy equation.

    Second thing. You are irrationally stubborn about this but you don't apply as much against ID. Why would you accept the bogus claims of ID so easily yet apply irrational skepticism to real scientific stuff such as this energy/information stuff? For instance, you called me ignorant when I first told you that your calculation was too naive, only to later say that it was "tentative." Yet, you presented it (read the tone of your OP) as if it is so factual and incontestable that we should just shut up and accept your wisdom.

    As for your fruit stuff. Come on. The equation tells you the energy you get from the information. If you extract the energy there is no information left. If you extract the seeds you still have the rest of the fruit.

    Bye Joe. I can do little for you, but your "readers" might find it quite interesting that you accept crap easily when it is pro-ID, but get irrationally skeptical when confronted with real science that contradicts ID.

    Best and keep enjoying your week.

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    The "particle" is the bit in this case.

    Except you aren't in any position to say such a thing and have it mean something.

    NE:
    ... E= mc^2. The latter gives you the energy that makes some amount of mass of matter.

    It tells you the amount of energy some particular mass is equal to.

    NE:
    You are irrationally stubborn about this but you don't apply as much against ID.

    Nice projection.

    NE:
    Why would you accept the bogus claims of ID so easily yet apply irrational skepticism to real scientific stuff such as this energy/information stuff?

    What bogus claims> And so far all I have is you and OM- both anonymous- disagreeing with my views on information and energy.

    NE:
    The equation tells you the energy you get from the information.

    That's what YOU say. I say it is hogwash.

    NE:
    I can do little for you, but your "readers" might find it quite interesting that you accept crap easily when it is pro-ID, but get irrationally skeptical when confronted with real science that contradicts ID.

    I am still waiting for that "real science that contradicts ID".

    If you ever come across any please come back and present it. I have been asking anyone who will listen but I am still waiting.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Anonymous? I guess your real name must be Joe G.

    That's what YOU say. I say it is hogwash.

    Say as you may. This is what the scientific community got. Not just me. I am just the messenger. Go tell the scientific community that this is hogwash. Please have some evidence with you because there your posturing as an "informational technologist" won't work as "argument."

    Man, way to miss the point. You keep saying that we don't support our points, when such support is put clearly in front of your eyes only to be ignored while you jump and isolate sentences to add your mockery and sometimes an insult or two. No surprise there. I keep seeing the name of your blog and my irony-meter keeps breaking. I must have missed the memo that instructs that mocking while avoiding any attempt at understanding the explanations given to you were part of "intelligent reasoning."

    Adios my uneducable friend. May your life be filled with happiness even if you keep yourself in that hole of ignorance.

     
  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, you are anonymous. I have supported my claims you just keep making them and using yourself as support.

    So far all I have is you and OM saying one thing. I have yet to see anything from any community that supports anything you have claimed.

    All I see- that stuff you put clearly in front of my eyes- is your unsupported bullshit. And you support your bullshit with more bullshit.

    However time and again you have avoided my questions because you know by answering them yur position will be exposed as the nonsense it is.

    And BTW, your posturing as as a pontificating authority is laughable.

    You're not a messenger. You are a confused individual.

    Get help and be well...

     
  • At 4:06 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Decades of repression. OTOH your position has all the resources and still can't produe anything."

    Here's a Wiki where you can collaborate on Intelligent Design projects

    http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org

    Except you won't, nobody will. All anybody want's to do in relation to ID is either talk about it or sell books about it. Actual hard work? Not so much.

     
  • At 4:09 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    " And so far all I have is you and OM- both anonymous- disagreeing with my views on information and energy."

    Given that your "views" don't allow you to answer even the simplest question have you ever considered that your view is incomplete or even partially wrong? I mean, if I use the example of me sending you a single photon and you say that that's impossible then perhaps it's you that needs to brush up on what's possible or not. When I asked you what the upper limit on information that a given amount of energy can carry you said "I don't know". These are not new problems to science, the fact that you don't know the answer does not mean that there is no answer out there.

    So admit for once you don't know everything.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Decades of repression. OTOH your position has all the resources and still can't produe anything."

    I take it that biothers you that your position is sopathetic it hasn't produced shit- ever.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Given that your "views" don't allow you to answer even the simplest question..

    Nice projection and your questions are ireklevnt- IOW they aren't simple questions that pertain to anything I am discussing.

    OM:
    I mean, if I use the example of me sending you a single photon and you say that that's impossible then perhaps it's you that needs to brush up on what's possible or not.

    Perhaps YOU ned to make your case. Yet you have failed.

    Demonstrate that you can send one photon.

    Make your point.

    OM:
    When I asked you what the upper limit on information that a given amount of energy can carry you said "I don't know".

    That is RRELEVANT to whether inforation is energy or not.

    Again YOU have failed to make a case. In a Court of law you would be thrown out.

    OM:
    So admit for once you don't know everything.

    I have admitted that many times. However neither you nor NE has refuted anything I have said about information nor have you supported you claims.

    So fuck yu.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who is working on blind watchmaker projects?

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So we have OM and Negative Entropy failing to make their case and using each other as a "reference".

    That is beyond pathetic.

    Nothing no links to scientists that spport their claims. No linksto peer-reviewed papers that support claims.

    All we have are these jerks avoiding my questions because those questions expose their claims for the bullshit they are.

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Demonstrate that you can send one photon."

    See recent work by G. Brida, I. P. Degiovanni1, M. Genovese, A. Migdall, F. Piacentini, S. V. Polyakov and I. Ruo Berchera. Experimental realization of a low-noise heralded single-photon source. Optics Express, Jan. 14, 2010, pp. 1470 – 1483. DOI: 133913.

    "That is RRELEVANT to whether inforation is energy or not."

    No, it's not. If you can't extract or store more information then there is energy in a given quantity of energy that says something relevant about the relationship between energy and information.

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Demonstrate that you can send one photon."

    OM:
    See recent work by G. Brida, I. P. Degiovanni1, M. Genovese, A. Migdall, F. Piacentini, S. V. Polyakov and I. Ruo Berchera. Experimental realization of a low-noise heralded single-photon source. Optics Express, Jan. 14, 2010, pp. 1470 – 1483. DOI: 133913.

    I said YOU, not them and they are using a machine.

    When I asked you what the upper limit on information that a given amount of energy can carry you said "I don't know".

    That is IRRELEVANT to whether inforation is energy or not.

    OM:
    If you can't extract or store more information then there is energy in a given quantity of energy that says something relevant about the relationship between energy and information.

    You are fucking dense. That STILL doesn't have anything to do with the claim that information is energy.

    I KNOW there is a relationship. I have a relationship with my family memebrs tat doesn't mean I am my family members.

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that neiother OM nor NE can link to a valid source to support their claims?

    NE just hand-waves away Norbet Weiner- and Norbert Weiner knew more about this topic than either NE or OM ever will.

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Do you suppose Norbert Weiner thought that the age of the earth might have been ~6000 years old like you do?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't think the earth is ~6000 years old.

    You are an ignorant fuck and a liar.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I don't think the earth is ~6000 years old."

    No, that's right, you don't. You just think that there is significant "doubt" over the age of the earth and that it is in fact impossible to tell definitively how old it is.

    I mean, those rocks in space were already old before the earth was formed right? How do we know the age of a given sample is not the age of the rock in space and not the age after it became part of the earth?

    Or perhaps nuclear decay rates were variable in the past.

    That *is* your position right Joe?

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't think the earth is ~6000 years old.

    You are an ignorant fuck and a liar.


    OM:
    No, that's right, you don't.

    I will take that as an admission that you lied.

    First step to recovery is admitting what everyone else already knows.

    The next step is up to you.

    I wish you well during your recovery.

     
  • At 4:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I will take that as an admission that you lied."

    It's noted that you don't dispute anything else in that post.

     
  • At 6:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are an admitted liar. Everything you post is suspect- meaning no need to respond to it.

    Good luck with your recovery...

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Everything you post is suspect- meaning no need to respond to it."

    Do you dispute that the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old +/- 1%?

    Is there *any* doubt whatsoever about that figure in your mind?

    If asked what the age of the earth was by, say a YEC, would you repeat that figure (4.54 billion years old) and not add *any* disclaimers?

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not only are you an admitted liar but you are so fucked up that you have to change the topic of every thread.

    What the fuck is your problem?

    Millions, if not billions of people dispute the 4.54 billion year old earth. So what?

    As I said one has to know HOW the earth was formed in order to get the age. And your position sez it was formed via multiple cosmic collisions, yet no one has produced a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence for that.

    So shut the fuck up and get busy with those testable hypotheses already. Whining isn't going to get 'er done...

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Is there *any* doubt whatsoever about that figure in your mind?

    There should be doubt in anyone's mind who is capable of critical thought.

    That leaves evotards out of the mix as they are blind parrotting followers.

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "And your position sez it was formed via multiple cosmic collisions, yet no one has produced a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence for that."

    Remind me, what's the intelligent design hypothesis for the formation of the solar system?

    "let there be light"

    ?

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes indeed- it really bothers you that your position is pathetic shit.

    Very good...

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes indeed- it really bothers you that your position is pathetic shit."

    So until you come up with

    A) A reason to doubt the accepted age
    B) A better way of determining the accepted age

    Perhaps you should keep it zipped on the topic?

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "There should be doubt in anyone's mind who is capable of critical thought."

    That is why there is a margin of error noted in the figure I gave you.

    But there's no room for the sort of doubt you've expressed.

    There is zero chance that we're going to find out that in fact the earth is 6000 years old. Zero.

    "Millions, if not billions of people dispute the 4.54 billion year old earth. So what?"

    Millions of people also believe lots of things that have no basis in fact. So what?

    Are you one of those millions of people? I think you are. On what basis do you dispute the commonly accepted age of the earth?

    Why don't you make your own calculation and submit it for publication? If you can show how the "experts" got it wrong your name will be world famous in weeks....

    On the other hand if you cannot provide any actual evidence for your claims that the experts are wrong....

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So until you come up with

    A) A reason to doubt the accepted age
    B) A better way of determining the accepted age


    I and others have provided many reasons to doubt the accepted age. And I have said what it would take to determine the age.

    Apparently you are still too stupid to understand it. You even tarted a blog about this and ate it there too.

    BTW it is very noticeable that you refuse to produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Being an admitted liar and a proven coward isn't going to get you very far in any discussion.

     
  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    There is zero chance that we're going to find out that in fact the earth is 6000 years old. Zero.

    There isn't any positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth- I have been saying that for decades.

    Again with the way your head is up your ass can you tickle your prostate by sticking out your tongue? Or is your head too far up into your colon? Can you see your large intestine?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home