Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jun 2006 14:25:19 -0700
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151264745.209051.68930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151203301.139320.257380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151036645.919004.209740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150948187.143564.284130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Horse wash. It predicts that detectable artifacts may be left over
from
the engineering.
Detectable? But you keep forgetting to tell us how to detect them. You
have
put forth no specific empirical consequences.
Alas! You had once been specific. You said to test for a conventional
bitmap
of the Mona Lisa. I showed that prior searches would almost certainly
have
discovered any such a pattern. Your contention was found false that no
one
has used search methodology likely to have found such patterns.
If it has, then you would have presented the situation or paper, now
wouldn't you? If X happened, then show evidence that X actually
happened. Your "must have" stance is just playing lame.
Finding Mona is just such a test - done at your own insistence. I
published
the results and made the code available for public inspection. It's
written
in VBasic so it is easy to understand. There is no conventional image of
a
Mona Lisa hidden in the genome examined.
Come on, now. You offered no evidence that past researchers have
actually followed up on any statistical outliers.
Your continued handwaving is irrelevant. There is no conventional bitmap
image of the Mona Lisa (or just about any other such image) in the genome
examined.
Would you also suggest that SETI give up after the first star on the
first frequency tried?
Nor did you analyse
that bright spot in the middle to see if it had some other image, pi,
primes, or languages.
I certainly did examine it for images. I then explained two different ways I
analyzed it. Then you waved your hands.
Where are your framing tests? I didn't see your framing tests on that
spot.
-T-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- From: Zachriel
- Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- 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: 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
- Prev by Date: Re: I've decided to become an IDer.
- Next by Date: Re: Beneficial mutations (Was: Re: Challenge for Darwinists)
- Previous by thread: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Next by thread: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|