Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: "Zachriel" <angelmailSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:53:40 -0400
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151295078.570287.172140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151283145.745253.169680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
<snip>
In addition, we can closely examine the patterns and see that
they were not due to image, but were artifacts of how the eye creates
patterns even when none exist.
You don't know this until you do frame shifting.
Mona didn't look like
mona, but a brown worm.
A close look revealed that Mona was a brown-green strip along a single
line,
distinctly non-random.
Okay, a brown-green worm.
Finding Mona was a statistical test. I provided the image to show how small
the image was in relation to the genome, and how easy it was to overlook.
Nevertheless, a close examination reveals Tiny Mona to be non-random. Your
purported anomalies disappear on close examination.
Maybe the bright spot would appear into some
recognizable image if it was put together right.
They were bits and pieces in different lines. They are the sorts of
patterns
the eye creates in random patterns.
Yes, yes, but we don't know for sure until we actually *do* alignment
testing. Just because it *looks* coincidental does not mean it really
is. With enough time I could probably fashion a similar looking spot
that actually did contain an image to show it possible.
Almost anything is possible. But science is a method of matching theory to
observation. You have failed to do that. You have failed to even try to do
that. You don't even want to try to do that. Hence, your assertions have no
scientific validity.
You are more than welcome to speculate without interference from me.
However, do not conflate your speculation with scientific hypothesis.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
-T-
.
- References:
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: bryce . topmind . jacobs
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: bryce . topmind . jacobs
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: Zachriel
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: Zachriel
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: Zachriel
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: Zachriel
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: topmind
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Prev by Date: Re: God: a failed hypothesis?
- Next by Date: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Previous by thread: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Next by thread: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|