Discontinuing research about ID

The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million. The pattern is not about the plot as for example "the new ensign in the red shirt that beamed down to the planet with the main characters is going to die". The pattern is about appearances and affected persons. Appearances are mostly coincidental triggered and depend on camera positions and environmental conditions, for example a tree that covers a person. There are also offscreen voices that coincidental add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearances, as in 1x01 ST:TNG. Because the pattern quantises coincidental appearances that emerge to a pattern that was not created by chance with a probability of 1:10^7 it is assumed that there is a bias or an intelligent agent in chance itself.

I'm not the only one who realizes this is an analysis of a television show, am I?

He seems to think that the TV show qualities he's chosen should be random and that therefore any patterns he finds indicate an outside influence on chance. The fact that patterns repeat in TV shows (and indeed in all human activities) over and over again hasn't seemed to have occurred to him.--Percy

Calculations of improbability mean nothing unless you have included ALL the possibilities. See the old improbable probability problem for common mistakes. In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years. Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

So God was a writer on Star Trek.........When the Discoveroids won't publish, you know there is either too much science or a nut allergy is involved.

Poor Max Planck.Not being a scientist you probably have no idea of the brutal amounts of energy it takes to get a dead person to turn over, let alone spin, in their grave. ...or the writers and directors set the appearances specifically to further the plot but to the artistically ignorant these appearances seem coincidental. So to translate, since the appearances show the specific pattern of the writer's and the director's intent and not chance, you assume there is an intelligent agent operating in chance. OK.Let me get this straight now. You take a few episodes of a television program in which the character appearances are specifically determined by the writer and director and determine that the appearances do not match some obscurely determined chance probability (whatever that means). This you hold as proof that your specific flavor of god operates the universe.Hey, I'm sold! I am flabbergasted that no reputable science journal would snap this up for publication in a heartbeat. It has "Stockholm" written all over it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

There are actually patterns that repeat in human activities. If there are 10 fanatic ID proponents and only one of them can reconsider his or her own opinion, then the fanatism is a repeating pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10. To distinguish important and unimportant patterns a discovery is defined with at least 5 sigma. The found pattern has a probability of 1:10^7 and 5,3 sigma. If you are not familiar with the maths about the paper or if you don't want to address these sciences in your post, then I suggest that you don't post comments about it. I'm not interested in opinions. Opinions are not science. Anyone who is not familiar with the sciences about the paper should not comment here, it's a giant waste of time to bother with pure opinions. I agree. There were also a few mistakes in the paper before we got comments about it some time ago. ID supports an old earth. Have you forgotten about that? Page 13It is unlikely that ST:TNG was produced with the intention to let people always appear and be affected in a similar way. Even if a few writers had decided to consciously write all episodes in a similar way, this series heavily relied on fan scripts, who were certainly not informed about any secret guideline. It is not known of any writer of series plots to have once included intentionally a complex pattern like the found one (table 4). There are no cultural differences. Other series were examined and the same pattern was found. The series Mr. Bean, produced in England, does fit for all 14 episodes (Appendix C). Different intentions, different series, and different cultures (USA, England, Japan, India) don't change the pattern.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

Yea but it is possible that people are wired to tell stories in a similar way. You may have just found the pattern we use to tell stories.Wfrom what i gether you want to show that random data is not random ie god made it nonrandom. What about Pi a never ending stream of numbers never repeating.And how the hell do you get the Christian god mixed up in this oh picard is associated with 3, storries where god that have god in them also associate him with the noubmer 3, ergo holy trinity i mean cmmon really u sure that that does not point to the tree little pigs creating the universe?If there is a pattern assuming you are not lying for Jesus, there are plenty of simpler and better explanations for it then god, and it might be worth further study, not worth publishing at this point.

In this case it would still be a discovery. That there is one significant pattern in every told story hasn't been shown before. The found pattern contains patterns on its own with E11 and E13 being virtually identical and E12 being triggered by a temporary interruption. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes. Even if a unconscious determined pattern would be imprinted with a low error rate, the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. That contradicts the high quality of the pattern with 1:10^7.The reference about the triune God comprises over 20 pages. The results are summarised on page 15The pattern itself contains information, for example the person P.Ya appears related to the number 3. Appendix F proves that the number 3 is part of P.Ya. If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called God could always appear as P.Ya. For this purpose it was looked for series that include God at the beginning. If God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design.
Series that include God at the beginning are difficult to find. Two series were found, first Bible stories for kids that includes Jesus as person and God as voice from above and second Superbook that includes the Bible speaking like a person. The Bible itself states to be the word of a triune God. Appendix G proves that the Bible can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix H proves that Jesus can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix I proves that God can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix D and Appendix E show all episodes fitting with the pattern and these persons. There are 13 persons these three persons can appear as. Assuming chance as cause for all the three persons to appear as P.Ya only has a probability of 1:2197 ((1/13)^3). For 1x09 Bsfk (Appendix I) the persons Abraham, Sarai and God must appear as P.BW, P.Wo and P.Ya. The pattern is highly definite and for 1x09 Bsfk no other persons are possible. That God, Jesus and the Bible always appeared as P.Ya is an unique intrinsic characteristic of the pattern.

No, not just a writer, but rather the Executive Producer: The Great Bird of the Galaxy!

Maybe it's just Q.

Q was a fictional character. The Great Bird of the Galaxy was real. In case you did not follow that link, that was fans' nickname for Gene Roddenberry, based on a referenced made by Sulu in The Man Trap, the very first Star Trek episode that ever aired.Though funny that you should bring up Q. The solution he offered once to La Forge for a problem was, "Simply change the laws of physics." What Faith keeps trying to do.

Let me apologize for hitting the "submit" button before my post was complete. These are not my statements. Please correct their attribution. Good, however, you still make one big one as I shall show below. I am, however that was not the point I was in the process of developing when I accidentally hit the "submit" button instead of the "preview" button. Allow me to proceed with my argument:In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed in 1954 CE from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years.Dendrochronology

quote:

---

The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further.

---

This chronology was again updated and extended in 1972 to 6,291 BCE:(see Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine Prior to 4000 BC (PDF))Question A: what is the probability of those rings forming in exactly that pattern for a period covering 8262 years by purely random random variations?If we simplify the data so that consecutive rings are either (A) wider than the previous ring, (B) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (C) narrower than the previous ring^{^(a)}, would you not agree that the probability of that specific pattern occurring by purely natural random variations is 1 in 3^{^8262} = 9.510^{^3941}?How would you test that it was a non-random pattern?In 1973 another chronology was developed from trees on a different mountain -- totally independent of the original "Methuselah Master Chronology" Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale

quote:

---

... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values ...
... Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony.

​

A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronology comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. The Methuselah chronology very probably contains no dating error, at least back to 3435 BC.

---

There is an 18 year offset between the begining point of these two chronologies, so the period of overlap is (5403 - 18 =) 5385 years.The difference found was that two rings were missing from the second chronology and they matched two rings in the older chronology that were narrow growth rings rather than extra rings. Inserting a 0 width ring at these two dates resulted in a 100% match between the two chronologies.Question B: what is the probability of those rings forming in exactly the same pattern for 5383 of the 5385 years by purely random natural variations?If we use the same simplification of the data (so that consecutive rings are either (A) wider than the previous ring, (B) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (C) narrower than the previous ring)^{^(a)}, would you not agree that the probability of that specific pattern occurring by purely natural random variations for the period of overlap is 1 in 3^{^5383} = 2.210^{^2568} for each chronology and thus that the probability of both occurring is ((2.210^{^2568})^{^2} =) 4.9x10^{^5136}?Question C: Do you not agree that a probability of one in 4.9x10^{^5136} is smaller than a probability of one in 9.510^{^3941}? and that both are much smaller than one in 1.063x10^{^7}?Just because a pattern can be found does not mean that the pattern was intentional. To do that you have to be able to predict the pattern with an explanatory hypothesis. IE -- the plot/s. IE -- stock plot gimmicks. Do you realize that the probability that a post hoc ergo propter hoc observation of a pattern will be the pattern that occurred (was observed) is always 1?To show you have something of scientific merit you have to have an explanatory hypothesis, then make a prediction of what will occur and what will not occur and then test those predictions. The falsification test is a prediction that should not occur if your predicted pattern occurs.From Message 8:

quote:

---

Can you state what your falsification test is? Can you excerpt where you have done this testing and what the results were?

​

​

Without scientific testing to validate or invalidate your hypothesis you are not in a position to publish, according to standard scientific protocols.

---

Do you understand that all your math adds up to is an observation of a post hoc ergo propter hoc pattern and argument from incredulity?You have no prediction, no test, no science.On the other hand I can hypothesis that the ring widths observed are related to the climate for that year of growth. This hypothesis would predict that a second independent chronology would be virtually identical to the first, a prediction that would be invalidated by observing a totally different pattern from trees on another mountain.I can further predict that a pattern of 14C levels would be found within the tree rings that would relate to (A) the decay of 14C with time and (B) the amount of 14C present in the atmosphere at the time the ring grew (a subset of climate parameters). That pattern is: And I can further predict that the same 14C pattern would be found in other dendrochronologies from other places in the world, such as with Irish oak and with German oak chronologies. They do - the image above is a combined correlation.These three (3) predictions are all validated, and as a consequence I can have a very high degree of confidence that this a real pattern caused by natural phenomena, climate and radioactive decay, and not by some design intent.Please note that I do not need to calculate the relative (im)probability of this occurring to show that this observed pattern is caused by natural phenomena.That is how science works.Enjoy________
notes:
^{^(a)} -- even using 5 categories { (A) More than twice the width of the previous ring, (B) wider than the previous ring but less than twice the width, (C) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (D) narrower than the previous ring but wider than half the width, and (E) narrower than half the previous ring width } would still be a simplification and the probability calculation would be even more damning for your argument.

Q was a real entity that inserted itself into a fictional story. Flexible laws of physics ROCK !!Faith has created her own world in the Q Continuum.

Maybe the moral is not that people should give up on doing ID research, but that they should give up on doing lousy ID research. Personally I was already convinced that Star Trek was intelligently designed. Now try proving the same thing about, for example, genomes.