Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Huggy Bear]

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 It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid.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?

---

It is HIS assertion that the measurement I gave on DNA is obsolete because it is from 1953, thereby making his own information on anything related to the measurement of DNA from 1953, also invalid.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.

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.