Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 207 of 393 (756471)
04-20-2015 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


Cat Sci writes:
But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.
You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
But only for the first 76 episodes.
Even worse. Your criteria for your pattern is a hodgepodge of arbitrary observations for a portion of the episodes in the series.
It matches all the other episodes because you defined it into place by basing the criteria on the observations that you made.
Its no wonder that you can find patterns in that abstraction, and calculating the odds of them occurring is a worthless endeavor.
To try to pass that off as some kind of scientific argument for ID is either incredibly ignorant, or deviously dishonest.
Cat Sci writes:
And you're not looking at everything, you're only looking at things that you selected to look at.
It was looked at the complete data source.
No, I mean that your M#'s are just based on what you noticed and selected for or against based on whether it could fit a pattern or not. You don't have M#'s for things you didn't notice and you don't include M#'s that don't fit the pattern you are creating.
You're diluting the criteria for your pattern into one that can fit a lot of possibilities.
And then you're figuring out that if you start the pattern at the start of the opening scene, the pattern fits with incredible accuracy.
The opening scene is like a summation of the episode, or even a mini-episode, in its form. This is no surprise.
Cat Sci writes:
What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
The usual way is the normal way if there is no bias or cause or pattern in chance itself.
Pssh. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word you're using.
The usual way is the normal is the regular way... I'm asking you what way that is.
You said:
quote:
If chance would have been involved in the usual way, then the pattern would not fit that well and it would have only fit for example 35 out of 47 times.
The context was this:
Cat Sci writes:
The four questions show that any naturally imprinted pattern would be corrupted to a residual uncertainty below 1:10^2 through the involvement of chance.
Not really. A coincidental contribution changing the rows of appearances so that the pattern doesn't fit as well doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the pattern occurs naturally.
It does. The pattern fits 45 out of 47 times. If chance would have been involved in the usual way, then the pattern would not fit that well and it would have only fit for example 35 out of 47 times. This is a residual uncertainty of 1:10.
So, what is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
All you did was try to dodge this question by baffling me with bullshit.
That is the crux of your whole paper.
Then I will specify again: Any nontrivial pattern.
So then, it is up to you what counts as trivial or not?
Yes, but the pattern quantises rows of appearances. I doubt there is a restraint which always defines the row of appearances.
Is incredulity your only argument? Because that's a logical fallacy...
And there were 4 different series with different restraints examined, but the same pattern was found.
Obviously you have a great talent for creating patterns, that are based on TV series, that can fit other TV series.
I mean, look at that residual uncertainty!
I think I just found out why you are not open-minded about this paper.
Then you don't know me at all. That your paper is about ID has no impact on how I look at it.
Its that you can't see that your method is the reason for you madness that keeps me interested.
You posted some other rebuttals that are just more nonsense for me to correct, and this is getting laborsome. So I'm just going to answer your question:
Cat Sci writes:
And there are also M's that would totally destroy the pattern. But you don't include those.
Can you name an example or is that just your opinion?
It would be anything that qualifies as an M#, that is not included in your patter.
So, here's your M#s:
quote:
Short form Additionally observation
M1 open door, colour black/red
M2 weapon, What's that?
M3 humour, laughing
M4 fire
M5 water
M6 theft, try to get information (example: sensors)
M7 drink
M10 past
M11 unbelievable attainment
M12 temporary interruption
M13 long time
M14 short time, in a hurry, smoke, gas
If instead you used:
M1 closed window, color pink/green
M2 musical instrument, "How many?"
M3 sadness, crying
and so on
Obviously, you wouldn't have found a pattern, right?
What you did was find a pattern that you could fit into existence, that also fit with the pattern of other episodes, and then you calculated the odds of that pattern fitting. It came out incredibly low because of the way you defined it into existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 6:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2015 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2015 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 393 (756502)
04-21-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dubreuil
04-21-2015 11:41 AM


Well, I'm quiet sure I don't want to comment this anymore. The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful, and I don't want to read such hate messages. The knowledge about the paper is still minimal. I have corrected Cat Scis posts often enough to know he didn't read the paper and RAZD just found out 12 hours later that he had to rethink his fit vs fail and that his 26/∞ argument was just wrong. There is also obviously on one familiar with information science. Nearly all questions didn't had to be answered if there would be some knowledge about these sciences or the paper. I probably could continue writing here for months, and the knowledge about the respective sciences and the paper would still be insufficient to write a substantiated comment about it. I really don't need this comments. The paper was already looked at by people with enough knowledge about the respective sciences. It doesn't matter to me if this paper will never be published too, I don't even like the most of the ID proponents. I really don't want to read all this hateful comments anymore. If anyone knows the proceedings in science, then he knows that it is not usual to be offensive and hateful until a different opinion was exterminated. This thread can be closed. You hate me? I hate you too.
Exactly as I predicted:
quote:
You could have spent a fraction of that time coming up with a paragraph describing what we've asked for in an appropriate format.
But you won't, because you're obfuscating. You realize that if we really knew the details about the pattern that you keep hidden behind the math, then we wouldn't waste our time discussing the math.
Your attempts to baffle us have failed, so you're just going to insult our intelligence, say you don't have the time, and then run away.
You got owned.
I'm happy to have won this one.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dubreuil, posted 04-21-2015 11:41 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 393 (756505)
04-21-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ringo
04-21-2015 12:15 PM


Dubreuil writes:
The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful....
I think you've mistaken snickering for hate.
Mistaken? Self-martyrdom is always the last ditch effort of a charlatan. Its no mistake, its all part of the plan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ringo, posted 04-21-2015 12:15 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 393 (756509)
04-21-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
04-21-2015 1:50 PM


Re: missing element
Curiously something is missing that would de facto cause an event change: a scene change.
Did he ever end up explaining how you get from one even to another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2015 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2015 9:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 393 (756618)
04-23-2015 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Dubreuil
04-23-2015 4:53 PM


I will give you an example in words what the pattern predicts.
That's still not totally using words like I mean it, but its a really good start. Thank you.
It's like this, I'll sub in the words for the symbols.
Example #1:
you writes:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Da has appeared and and then P.Tr has appeared again.
Alright, so we've got a Star Trek scene:
If Deanna Troi and William Riker appeared simultaneous and if then Geordi La Forge appeared and if then Data appeared, then Tasha Yar can't be positively affected until for example Deanna Troi has appeared and then Data has appeared and and then Deanna Troi has appeared again.
Lemme clarify that:
If Troi and Riker are together, and La Forge and Data are shown, then Yar won't be happy before Troi and Data show up again, and then they'll show Troi once more before Yar's actually happy.
Here's #2:
you writes:
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected and if then P.Da appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected again and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.LF was negatively affected and then P.Wo appeared and then P.BeC appeared again.
If Geordi La Forge appeared and if then Jean-Luc Picard was negatively affected and if then Data appeared and if then Jean-Luc Picard was negatively affected again and if then Beverly Crusher appeared and if then Worf appeared, then Tasha Yar can't be positively affected until for example Worf was negatively affected and then Worf appeared and then Beverly Crusher appeared again.
Lemme clarify that:
If LaForge is there and Picard gets mad, then Data shows up and Picard gets mad, and then Crusher and Wolf appear, the Yar won't be happy until Worf is mad and shown and then Crusher is shown..
How's that sound? Still with me?
Added by edit:
You also wrote:
@Cat Sci: I will answer your last post in one of the next comments. You still don't know how the pattern works (Message 219) and you haven't read the paper yet. It will take more time to answer your posts to explain all this to you. Expect your posts to be answered maybe every third day. I will answer your last post, although it contains a lot of bullshit. You have to remove this word in future posts, if you want me to answer to them.
I think I've got a good handle on how the pattern works, and I've read a lot of the paper. Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
One more edit:
If you actually hit reply to my actual post then I get an email notification letting me know. There's also less chance that I'll miss stuff in non-replied posts like I found for the last edit.
Its way better if you keep just one message and person to each reply and go through and reply to the individual posts rather than posting general replies and putting multiple replies to multiple posts into one submission. Just FYI.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Dubreuil, posted 04-23-2015 4:53 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 393 (756666)
04-24-2015 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dubreuil
04-24-2015 1:59 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
No.
Well that's bullshit
I will give you an other example
Hold on a second, what was wrong with the previous examples:
you writes:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Da has appeared and and then P.Tr has appeared again.
Re-written as:
If Troi and Riker are together, and La Forge and Data are shown, then Yar won't be happy before Troi and Data show up again, and then they'll show Troi once more before Yar's actually happy.
you writes:
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected and if then P.Da appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected again and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.LF was negatively affected and then P.Wo appeared and then P.BeC appeared again.
Re-written as:
If LaForge is there and Picard gets mad, then Data shows up and Picard gets mad, and then Crusher and Wolf appear, the Yar won't be happy until Worf is mad and shown and then Crusher is shown..
Is there something wrong with those re-writes? Or are they correct enough?
Because if they are, then we can get in to how the pattern you've identified came about.
Picard is the Captain
LaForge is the Lieutenant Commander
Data is the Chief Operations Officer.
Crusher is the Chief Medical Officer
Worf and Yar are both Lieutenants
So if the Lieutenant Commander and the Chief Operations Officer are giving the Captain a negative experience, and then the Chief Medical Officer and one Lieutenant show up, then the other Lieutenant won't be happy until the first one gets a negative experience.
That sounds like a reasonably expected set of events to me. One Lieutenant won't be happy until the other one that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense.
That's what I meant by stuff like this:
quote:
For example, the Captain of a ship is going to be talking to a Lt. Commander regardless of the writer of the script.
If they were all just writing a bunch of random stuff then it wouldn't be a TV show, it would be a mess.
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.
We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them.
Further:
quote:
Your pattern could just be a natural result of the TV series making process, you have not eliminated that possibility and that the chance of it happening is very low doesn't either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 5:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 393 (756712)
04-25-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 11:31 AM


@Cat Sci: Your comment will be ignored. It contains:
1. expletives: bullshit, pissed
2. sarcasm: "that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense."
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will not respond to your comment until all expletives and all sarcasm were removed.
Awe, don't act like such a scared pussy. It reveals how little confidence you actually have in your paper. If you believed that your paper had merit, you wouldn't be hiding behind all the things that you are.
And I ain't removing shit. But its okay, I'll just keep pointing out all the retarded errors you are making. You don't have to reply. I already defeated your stupid paper, the rest of this is just details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:31 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 247 of 393 (756713)
04-25-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
04-24-2015 5:02 PM


You could always try ant frass, which can be quite a phenomenal product.
You sure it ain't a pheromonal product?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 5:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 393 (756742)
04-26-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 5:03 PM


You have ignored three times in a row what I asked for...
Oh boo-hoo.
Nobody is going to kiss your ass and jump through hoops so that they can be granted the opportunity to converse with you.
If one PhD would offend an other PhD with "scared pussy", then both would never talk with each other again.
Uh, no. You just made that up. It isn't remotely true.
Discussions can't work like that.
Sure they can, it happens all the time.
The only way that discussions really can't work, is when people refuse to discuss.
You are herewith added to the same list with "Coyote" and "Dr Adequate" in Message 231.
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will never respond to your comments again.
Cute. That's the easiest way to deal with refutations of your paper, just pretend that they don't exist.
Its pretty ridiculous, though, to hide behind some feigned offense to expletives and sarcasm.
Anyways, like I said, I'll do my part to keep the discussion going.
As other's have pointed out:
quote:
My claim, yet to be refuted or even addressed by you is that simply by trying to write a good story, and sticking to well accepted, and well worn conventions, human actions is sufficient to explain the relationships you observed regarding P.Ya. (Well that and your flexible rules about what constitutes an appearance). I suspect that stories that violate your observation would not pass the smell test of being acceptable stories for a largely Christian audience.
Indeed, the feedback from the audience on what are good episodes goes into editors trying to repeat those successful episodes, and the more they can do that then the more successful the series will be, leading to more seasons ...
For a tiny example of something like that, take what you wrote in Message 238:
then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Wo has appeared
"Data and Troi don't appear together until Troi and Worf have both appeared."
Worf and Troi have a working relationship and it makes sense that they're both going to appear before Troi is shown with Data. The odds of that happening by chance is a pointless calculation to compare to.
These are the kinds of things that are helping to clutter your pattern and ruin your calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 393 (756890)
04-29-2015 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dubreuil
04-29-2015 1:00 PM


A similar example like the found pattern would be: It takes you every morning 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car. This example is affected by coincidental contributions. For example wind, passers-by or rain. You can get the normal probability by watching other people getting to their cars. If it takes them 50 seconds - 70 seconds with the same distance, then you are somehow different. If the involvement of chance would preclude a time of 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car every morning, happened 45 out of 47 times, then you are maybe a godlike being. This would be a similar example.
Did I forgot anything?
Yes, he forgot the possibility that I know that he is timing how long it takes me to get to my car, and that I am trying to get there in exactly 60 seconds.
Analogously: TV show producers making awesome TV serieses that will succeed and make a lot of money.
But don't let him kid you, his pattern isn't nearly as exact as he's trying to portray. His stupid "residual uncertainty of 1:10^7" doesn't tell you anything at all about whether or not I knew about the test. And his "pattern" is so convoluted that its practically meaningless, like, RAZD can't even reproduce it (and he's given it a good shot!). So its not even so tight as to being like between 59.9 and 60.1.
Further, if you translate the arbitrary Pxx+/- crap back into an English phrase describing a Star Trek episode, then it just describes regular old stuff that you'd expect from it to happen.
The whole thing is a sham, perpetuated by a charlatan trying to baffle the audience with bullshit. All attempts at exposing the underlying assumptions of the whole thing are met with obfuscation and derision, and always pointing back to that same old nonsense: "The involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7."
This dude caught himself in a downward spiral into the mathematics. I wish he was more reasonable and spoke better English.
Maybe then he could see the error in his ways. But alas, he cannot.
It makes me wonder if this is more religion-driven than evidence-driven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Dubreuil, posted 04-29-2015 1:00 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2015 12:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 318 of 393 (757787)
05-13-2015 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Dubreuil
05-09-2015 11:10 AM


So, are you done here?*
You stopped replying to me but you've mentioned my name, I think, twice now since then.
As I said in the just previous reply that I posted to this website:
(new members should consider the fact that I can set it so that I get an email when you actually hit the reply button on a message of mine, and you should realize that it's different than using the General Reply button in ways that help us all as users)
*Did you get an email for this reply?
You're using the General Reply button, so I don't get said email. And you're also grouping multiple replies into one message. That breaks the chain, or "thread", that links our messages back trough each other that others can use to go back through the conversation. They do that to get a better sense of the context of the quotes of each other's that we're using.
That just helps with "flow".
Anyways, here's where you left me in my argument, I still don't see how I could be wrong. From Message 207:
quote:
Your criteria for your pattern is a hodgepodge of arbitrary observations for a portion of the episodes in the series.
It matches all the other episodes because you defined it into place by basing the criteria on the observations that you made.
Its no wonder that you can find patterns in that abstraction, and calculating the odds of them occurring is a worthless endeavor.
quote:
your M#'s are just based on what you noticed and selected for [snip] . You don't have M#'s for things you didn't notice and you don't include M#'s that don't fit the pattern you are creating.
You're diluting the criteria for your pattern into one that can fit a lot of possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Dubreuil, posted 05-09-2015 11:10 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 393 (759370)
06-10-2015 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by GaryG
06-10-2015 7:44 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Are you here to discuss this with us or are you just spamming links?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 7:44 PM GaryG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 8:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 323 of 393 (759378)
06-10-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by GaryG
06-10-2015 8:25 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?
Yes, some:
From your first link:
quote:
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.
Considering that you're posting a claim of "the only ID theory" in a thread that was started with another different ID theory, how do you feel about the other ID theory and what it says?
You called the OP "Martin", do you know them?
Are you familiar with their theory?
Again from your first link:
quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:
Come on now; that's the Christian Holy Trinity. Why should a scientific paper suppose that the Trinity best explains the intelligent cause of a certain features of the universe?
I'm already wondering if your religious beliefs are causing a bias in your research.
Before I do a deep dive into your work, how can I be sure that this is all isn't just a big convoluted exercise in The Sharpshooter Fallacy?
Can't you just explain the whole theory in a single sentence?
Like, if I was explaining the Theory of Evolution in a single sentence, I'd be like:
The diversity of the species here can be explained by a process of decent with modification, where random mutations that are passed on from parents to offspring are acted upon by natural selection, where the environment impacts the reproductive success of the population.
So, what's your theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 8:25 PM GaryG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by jar, posted 06-10-2015 9:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 325 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 9:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 337 of 393 (759454)
06-11-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by GaryG
06-10-2015 9:55 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
quote:
Again from your first link:
quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:
Come on now; that's the Christian Holy Trinity. Why should a scientific paper suppose that the Trinity best explains the intelligent cause of a certain features of the universe?
It's not the "Christian Holy Trinity" but it's certainly ironic how it turned out this way:
Pssh it says "in each other's image, likeness"; that's straight out of the Bible!
quote:
Before I do a deep dive into your work, how can I be sure that this is all isn't just a big convoluted exercise in The Sharpshooter Fallacy?
I guess there is no way to know until you are able to understand it. But it helps to have some experience in computer modeling, electronics and cognitive science.
Okay, well, what is the hypothesis? And how was it tested?
FWIW: I've modeled Brownian Motion in electromagnetic fields using computer simulations.
quote:
Can't you just explain the whole theory in a single sentence?
No. There is way too much vital information to fit in one sentence (unless it's a couple of pages long then maybe).
That's a cop-out. Scientific theories should be able to be summarized fairly succinctly. If it can't be summarized in a couple lines, then it probably isn't a scientific theory. Aren't you familiar with the concept of an Abstract?
quote:
Like, if I was explaining the Theory of Evolution in a single sentence, I'd be like:
The diversity of the species here can be explained by a process of decent with modification, where random mutations that are passed on from parents to offspring are acted upon by natural selection, where the environment impacts the reproductive success of the population.
That does not explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works. You are using generalizations that oversimplify the origin of species and are unable to explain the origin of life, or intelligence. So yes you only need one sentence, while I need 50 or more just to get started.
You've completely misunderstood. I wasn't saying anything about the orifin of life or intelligence. I was providing you with an example of what I was looking for: A short succinct summary of a scientific theory. The theory I summarized was the Theory of Evolution - which also gets pretty detailed and complicated. But it can be summarized pretty shortly like a good scientific theory should.
That you cannot provide a summary of this theory that you've proposed causes serious doubts that its scientific.
Alrighty, I've read the big copy n paste that you provided in Message 330.
This is not a scientific theory.
At best, it looks like a proposal. Some properties, behaviors, and processes of matter were re-described in terms that made them sound like they had some kind of intelligence behind them. But there is no null hypothesis, and no hypothesis testing has been shown. Basically, the "theory" is that natural spontaneous processes can be talked about as if there was an intelligence behind them. But that doesn't provide any reason to suspect that there actually is an intelligence behind them.
And the author seems to have failed to realize that chemical reactions occur spontaneously and require no intelligence to happen. Of course that doesn't stop them from talking about them like there is an intelligence behind them, but making stuff up is not a compelling reason to believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 9:55 PM GaryG has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 344 of 393 (759508)
06-12-2015 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by GaryG
06-11-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
That's an interesting suggesting. After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory, then wait for a possible reply.
Wait, in Message 322 you told me:
quote:
I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?
So which is it?
From Message 341:
quote:
Percy writes:
Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory,
And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page:
Me writes:
They appear to be attempting to find evidence that a theory is possible, not present a theory of ID.

So, what do you think about their attempt? They failed pretty miserably, no?
And why do you think that they thought that they actually had presented a theory on ID? They say that their results indicate that ID does exist, and also that the patterns they found support a triune God. From their abstract:
quote:
The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. The found law-like pattern supports a triune God with a residual uncertainty of 1 : 10^3.
Do you think its just coincidence that this ID "theory" and your ID "theory" both have references to the trinity?
You said that you weren't religious, but when I look to that other thread you linked to, in the message posted on Oct. 31 2012,14:51 you have the following image:
That's similar to another image you posted here except that instead of arrows pointing you have the God character from Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.
That makes you look religiously motivated, just like the Martin guy who posted the OP. Do you think they are religiously motivated?
Why would you use religious iconography, like God from a painting, and concepts, like a trinity in its own image/likeness, to explain your "theory" if you are not motivated by religion?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make small version of diagram a little larger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM GaryG has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024