Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 3:04 am
(September 30, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: He is not being misrepresented, the whole debate is about the dimensions of DNA, if the dimensions from 1953 are, as he claims, invalid, then what is his document from 1953 supposed to prove?
Do you actually think that it's the year that makes the claim incorrect, and not the content? 
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2014 at 6:02 am by Huggy Bear.)
(October 2, 2014 at 3:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: (September 30, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: He is not being misrepresented, the whole debate is about the dimensions of DNA, if the dimensions from 1953 are, as he claims, invalid, then what is his document from 1953 supposed to prove?
Do you actually think that it's the year that makes the claim incorrect, and not the content?
Seriously?
What part of this don't you comprehend? The discussion is about the correct dimensions of DNA. It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid.
He invalidated his own argument.
And you guys tout yourselves as critical thinkers.
Try removing those rose colored glasses for once.
Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 6:11 am
(October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: And you guys tout yourselves as critical thinkers.
Try removing those rose colored glasses for once.
This is precious... considering who it comes from!
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 6:27 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2014 at 6:27 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
And all of this somehow proves [a] god.
Who'd have thought?
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 6:39 am
(September 30, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: He is not being misrepresented, the whole debate is about the dimensions of DNA, if the dimensions from 1953 are, as he claims, invalid, then what is his document from 1953 supposed to prove?
Step back a minute and think, if god were real, would someone need to argue about "DNA dimensions" to prove it??
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 6:53 am
(October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Seriously?
What part of this don't you comprehend? The discussion is about the correct dimensions of DNA. It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid.
And rather than actually thinking for a moment on why he might have made that statement, you instead decided to take the most simplistic and absurd route, and effectively decided that it was the year that causes the information to be invalid, and not, say, the content.
Which is what a thinking person would conclude.
Quote:And you guys tout yourselves as critical thinkers.
Try removing those rose colored glasses for once.
Having decided to take the most simplistic, absurd course available, you then opt to chastise us for our lack of critical thinking, presenting a new benchmark in un-self aware irony. 
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
(October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid. That isn't what he said.
(September 30, 2014 at 2:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Ok blockhead, let me introduce you to a concept of original work to follow-up work. The original came up with the idea and did a measurement. The follow-up did a better measurement and tries to remove at least one assumption. I don't consider 1953 work obsolete. It was the first to provide an explanation for general structure of DNA. I consider their measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones. Hence, I use the new measurement not the original.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2014 at 9:19 am by Huggy Bear.)
(October 2, 2014 at 6:53 am)Esquilax Wrote: (October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Seriously?
What part of this don't you comprehend? The discussion is about the correct dimensions of DNA. It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid.
And rather than actually thinking for a moment on why he might have made that statement, you instead decided to take the most simplistic and absurd route, and effectively decided that it was the year that causes the information to be invalid, and not, say, the content.
Which is what a thinking person would conclude.
LOL, still trying to defend his error clearly shows the bias.
Ok, lets recap
I post DNA measurements from howstuffworks.com
He makes the assertion that the measurements are obsolete, and I quote:
"Your 34 vs 21 is a measurement done from 1953."
How he figures they are from 1953? No clue, but ok.
Now he posts two different measurements only differing in the width, with one being 1 nucleotide smaller and the other 1 nucleotide larger, my measurements were smack dab between his TWO measurements.
I call into question his second set of measurements because they were apparently done under special circumstances, measured in a "particular solution". he says and I quote:
"Which solution did the original measurement (speaking of his second set of measurements) use? I couldn't find it. Did you read the original papers? Here is a nice quote from one of them.
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf"
Guess what? From 1953.... 
You do recognize the concept of contradiction, do you not?
(October 2, 2014 at 8:35 am)Tonus Wrote: (October 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid. That isn't what he said.
(September 30, 2014 at 2:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Ok blockhead, let me introduce you to a concept of original work to follow-up work. The original came up with the idea and did a measurement. The follow-up did a better measurement and tries to remove at least one assumption. I don't consider 1953 work obsolete. It was the first to provide an explanation for general structure of DNA. I consider their measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones. Hence, I use the new measurement not the original.
That's exactly what he said,
"I consider their (from 1953) measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones."
What does that mean genius.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 9:24 am
(October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: That's exactly what he said,
"I consider their measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones."
What does that mean genius. It means that additional work has yielded additional information that makes the measurements more accurate. Not obsolete. You grasped at a pair of numbers that you felt had some sort of cosmic significance, and when shown that those measurements are not absolute you have tried to make his comment the issue instead of recognizing that you were chasing a false trail.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2014 at 9:54 am by Huggy Bear.)
(October 2, 2014 at 9:24 am)Tonus Wrote: (October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: That's exactly what he said,
"I consider their measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones."
What does that mean genius. It means that additional work has yielded additional information that makes the measurements more accurate. Not obsolete. You grasped at a pair of numbers that you felt had some sort of cosmic significance, and when shown that those measurements are not absolute you have tried to make his comment the issue instead of recognizing that you were chasing a false trail.
Seriously?
If you have additional information that makes the new measurements more accurate, you would no longer continue to use the inaccurate measurements now, would you? Making them obsolete...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete
Quote:obsolete
[ob-suh-leet, ob-suh-leet]
adjective
1.no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:
an obsolete expression.
2.of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date:
You trying so hard to defend this in the face of facts, is no different than the zealotry displayed by so-called "fundies".
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
