Posted on 11/17/2009 8:18:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.
Tell me, if after calling Dr. Meyer’s an “idiot” it turns out that you are COMPLETELY WRONG, and Dr. Meyer’s is 100% CORRECT, wouldn’t that mean that you are the one who fits your characterization of Dr. Meyer?
Ever hear of Digital Tape?
or Planck’s constant
ping
Bump!
“Ever hear of Digital Tape? “
Ever heard of an analog to digital converter being used to store analog music on something?
Guess what they called that something.
How does it feel to be a nose picking liar?
What is it about the truth that makes you pick your nose and post your snot here?
==Meyers use of the term digital tells me that Meyer is an idiot.
Still waiting for your reply. Would it be fair to say that it is you who are deserving of your characterization of Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???
Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.
Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.
Not currently in the Library. I think I heard the author though a few weeks ago on Prager or Medved. Very interesting.
Thanks.
Ready for that U-2 ride?
Beep!
Please a look at post 7.
It supports my contention that Meyer is an idiot.
Feel better?
Ready for that U-2 ride?
What’s that? Driving with a cat in the car?
Exactly. Liberals continue to elicit peer review arguments as if they offer some kind of remote validity.
I’ve asked the liberals on FR if a peer review of an article were done without the name attached to the work, how is it the “peers” would know if the scientist was creationist or evolutionist?
crickets.
Huh?
Why is it liberals continue to demand all these rules be met that they don’t intend to keep themselves?
Peer review...then “measurable, replicable”, etc. but when it’s pointed out no other theory like multiverse theory or string theory be required to meet these standards, we see endless excuse-making and hand waving and back-peddaling.
And now we see demands for...
“empirically verified” and “metrics” ???
Where are the...ummmm “empirically verified metrics” for life oozing out of muck all by itself? Let alone all life supposedly coming from this single-celled first organism into all the complex life-forms we know today.
empirically verified and metrics ???
GGG made that claim in an earlier post. See his phrasing.
Do you think you can simply make up claims that you have empirically verified evidence for things that there are no empirical metrics to even measure by and nobody should be able to question it?
That's where it came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.