Discontinuing research about ID

Not really, they do follow patterns.Are you trying to stand by the claim that calculating the probability of patters in cold opening of TV shows should be based solely on chance?That's ridiculous. Like, in this episode of Star Trek, the Captain and Lt. Commander are going to find themselves in bit of trouble with the Klingons again.So let's open with the camera sitting on the ground facing up and then float an avocado into the frame with a polka-dotted helium balloon and then have a midget shoot it with a blow gun.Why would they just pick random crap to open an episode with?

So then you agree that your probability of it happening "solely" by chance is wrong and inappropriate. Well that's a particularly stupid and illogical thing to say. What makes you think that?

I did. Its still retarded to say that the involvement of chance eliminates a natural origin.

Hurray! You've finally proven that TV shows are not actually made like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5OABcNfX0&feature=youtu...

That's fine. You can add me to list of people who have rejected your paper because it has no merit. You need to be able to understand how to communicate well enough to explain you paper in English.I asked you to explain yourself in plain English without reference to your own paper and you were unable to.This stuff about it being to complicated to discuss is bullshit.We've had plain English discussion here about things that are way more complicated than the stuff in your paper, like the Big Bang and 4D cosmology and quantum mechanics and genetics and micro/macro-evolution.Hiding behind a smokescreen of "you're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" is only going to cause more people to reject your work.If you really want to discuss what's in your paper, then talk English. Forget the quantizations and mathematical stuff and use words.Or don't, IDGAF.

Well, I've lost count of how many times you've repeatedly said that "the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7".I don't care about the math behind the calculation if it isn't the right thing to calculate in the first place.I doubt that calculation is appropriate or even all that meaningful. But you won't plainly talk to me about what the pattern is, all you're willing to do is quote yourself and point to your paper.You said it was written to be reviewed, but you have to give a person a good enough reason to even start getting into the details so they know they aren't wasting their time. You don't seem to be willing to do that. Can you explain what the pattern is and why it is meaningful in plain English, without reference to your paper, and without pointing to the quantizations?Just write it out like a conversation, as if you were having one with some random person on the street.

This could be an excellent place to have your paper reviewed. But this is a discussion site and people come here to talk to you, they're not here to be pointed back to your paper. And he did a good job explaining why it wasn't worth our time to read your paper. He also explained why it was important for you to show that your paper is worth spending time and effort on before you expect people to read it. No subject is too complicated to talk about in plain conversation-style English. You can use analogies and metaphors to get the point across. As I said before, we've talked about stuff here in conversation-style format that is more complicated and harder to understand than your stuff. Totally unecessary. That's why people want you to just explain it in plain English. We don't need to get into the math until you've explained why we should actually get into the math. Bullshit. You've posted 37 messages in the last 9 days.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.

It sure would be cool if you'd be willing to describe that pattern in regular words.

I doubt that your math is wrong. I think it is wrongly applied.So we can't speak math to sort that out. That's why I need you to describe, in plain English, what the pattern is and then we can talk about how your calculation applies to that scenario.If you really understand that what and that how (and speak English), then it shouldn't take you any more time than replying to multiple messages, linking to other messages, and looking up links to provide.The lack of time excuse is bullshit. You make time for what you want to do.You're choosing not to expose the plain English explanation of your theory, because you're looking for an argument and you are better at speaking math. Plus, your math most likely isn't wrong to begin with. Its your application that is wrong. And exposing that means that you don't have an argument anymore. So you gotta avoid actually explaining the application of your theory.If you want an quick example of what I'm looking for, I'll even do this off the cuff;The Theory of Evolution describes a natural unguided process for explaining the diversity of the species that we see today. That diversity is a result of a shit ton of heritable traits that have accumulated through the random generation of mutations in the genome of each animals' DNA, that is passed on from parent to offspring. Those mutations are acted upon by nature selecting individuals for the possibility of reproduction through things like death and disease.I used my phone to time it and left it unedited, from the semi-colon above to that last period took me 3 minutes and 8 seconds. But then, I actually have a decent understanding of the Theory of Evolution.So what's your theory? And how does it work? That's what I'm interested in.Basically, why should I read your paper?Here, I'll even get more specific for you: So the human decision making process was making Star Trek episodes, and the pattern is what, exactly? How different characters enter the episode and how they're affected and also what colors appear in the scene, and other weird stuff?If you plot those out as quantized events then you start to notice some pattern, right? So then you apply a bunch of math to those numbers and:

quote:

---

The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data
basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test.

---

Isn't that the odds of getting the pattern? And aren't you really saying that you're absolutely confident that the pattern is there and you're seeing it?I'll leave that for now and see if you even reply.

Yeah, that's what I thought.Your whole argument is flawed: You don't figure out why and how a pattern exists by calculating the odds of it existing.Your response to whether or not this is a naturally occuring pattern is to determine that the chance of it happening is very low, but that doesn't answer the question.Then you question how it actually could happen naturally. And when people offer you ideas you just scoff at them with incredulity, and point back to something you've already said as if that solves the issue.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.You also haven't refuted this counter argument: TV shows follow rules and they are going to have patterns. Quantizing events in the shows and then looking for patterns in the notations is going to make more complicated patterns that are going to have lower odds of occurring.That you can identify these patterns and calculate the odds of them existing, says nothing about how and why they exist.

Thanks for admitting it. That's a huge chunk of your argument. But I've already accepted that the pattern didn't come about by chance. I've also pointed out that this doesn't mean that it didn't occur naturally.Your only argument against that has been incredulity. That does not refute the couter argument.Try again?

quote:

---

The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.

---

Okay, but at this point I still think the complexity is a result of your method.And the odds of it occurring don't really tell us anything about it.So you haven't really said much yet.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

No, it doesn't. As you've admitted, the odds of a pattern existing don't tell is how or why it occured. Obviously, the pattern is not based on chance. But your 4 questions do not eliminate any and all involvement of chance. No, that's not true. You've not proved this.And again, the odds of the pattern existing tell us nothing about how or why it happened. You said, along with the questions, that if the answers to all questions were 'yes' then the pattern could not have come about by chance. I told you that I already accepted that the pattern did not come about by chance so your questions are irrelevant.Where it sits: The pattern did not come about by chance, but it still could have occured naturally. No, it was a statement from my Message 65:

quote:

---

The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.

---

Its left unrefuted.

No, it really doesn't. Nope, that's just a big ol' non-sequitur. It simply does not follow. You said that number was the odds of the pattern existing. The odds of something existing tells us nothing about how it came about. 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. But if your pattern, itself, is designed around something that has a pattern, then all you're doing is making a known pattern more complicated. The fact that if you deviate from the pattern then your pattern doesn't fit anymore doesn't tell us anything about how the patterns emerged. You can put me down for 4 yes's. I've already accepted that the pattern did not come about by chance.You still have to address the fact that it could have occurred naturally.And don't just copy and paste something you've already written. They didn't work the last times you did so they won't work the next time either. I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with the fact that Star Trek episodes were designed by intelligent people. No offense, but the real actual Intelligent Design movement is just a bunch of unscientific malarkey to disguise creationism. That simply is not true. The questions don't have anything to do with whether or not the origin was natural. That sounds like the thing that you are making the pattern for has an effect on the pattern itself. When its random you get randomness and when its not you don't.So, if your making your pattern on a TV show that already follows patterns, then you're just going to get a more complicated pattern.That's what I mean by the complexity and odds of your pattern occurring are an artifact of the way that you are creating it. There's nothing at all random about the opening scenes in TV shows, and they do follow patterns.So it makes sense that you are going to find patterns that fit there.If you then follow a process to make patterns out of those patterns, then you're going to get more complicated stuff that has lower odds of occurring.But that doesn't tell you anything about how those patterns emerged and you don't know if your pattern creating process has an effect on the whole thing.And the way you made the pattern involved a lot of subjective interpretation, so there's no confidence that the pattern that you've created is even accurate in the first place.How much stuff did you leave out, for instance? You're M# observations are just arbitrary.If you have to ignore a bunch of stuff to make a pattern, and then you keep ignoring that stuff when testing the pattern, then of course your going to be able to create something that fits!

But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives. And you're not looking at everything, you're only looking at things that you selected to look at.The fact that the pattern fits is a result of the way in which you created the pattern. What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series? Any pattern? No. The patter: "Scene opens and later scene closes" would fit every single time. But they have restraints. As I said before, they're not going to do this:

quote:

---

So let's open with the camera sitting on the ground facing up and then float an avocado into the frame with a polka-dotted helium balloon and then have a midget shoot it with a blow gun.

---

Yeah, well ID's claims about evolution are bullshit. I know. The opening scenes are constrained even further than the rest of the episode. And a random start could start you in the middle of an ongoing scene, so of course it would not have the same pattern as starting at the very beginning of a scene, and especially starting at the very beginning of the opening scene. And there are also M's that would totally destroy the pattern. But you don't include those. It doesn't matter how low your uncertainty is if you just looking at something that you created yourself.I'm still convinced that all this pattern stuff is just an artifact of your method. That you are really really convinced that you did in fact find the pattern does not mean that it is not an artifact of your method.