Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/04/04 

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:06:47 -0400

"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:hd22m0998g58lfd0a3vtktltc43ifigsh3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 03:49:41 -0400, "George Hammond"
> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
> >"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >news:jnsul050gmdt05atatdgmqehbu6rfk40qu@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 07:41:33 -0400, "George Hammond"
> >> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
> >> >"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn9ql09gbl528pe56c9h8lp71pb9esec2v@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:47 -0400, "George Hammond"
> >> >> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:

<large snip>

> >[Hammond]
> >I have a funny feeling you're wrong. One... Dembski is a serious and
> >qualified scientist... not a crackpot. Second, unlike any other
scientist
> >I have ever appealed to, he's got the same crowd of kooks attacking
> >him that I do. My guess is that if he scents "scientific truth" in the
> >SPoG, which given his qulifications is likely, he is going to bother to
> >dig to the bottom of it.
>
> You stated that he was a mathematician, and a statistician. The later
> can be generally ignored, because statistical theory has gotten most
> of its important advances from people in other disciplines who need
> some statistical mechanism that haasn't been developed yet so they
> went ahead and developed it. (Most frequently from biologists,
> actually.)

[Hammond]
No... actually from psychologists.... for instance both Pearson
and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence
Tests (IQ tests) when Pearson discovered the "correlation coefficient"
and (Sir) Ronald fisher founded statistical theory.

>
> You quoted NO physical or bilogical science credentials whatsoever

[Hammond]
TMG dicovered that Dembski besides having 7 college degrees in
other subjects, has actually done post graduate work
in PHYSICS at the University of Chicago:

  http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19115

(which contains an excellent photo of Dembski btw.)

> (mathematics and statistics are branches of linguistics, and deal with
> a language so abstract that it dopesn't even have sociological
> overtones like linguistics of human languages do), and your reference
> goes into detail in some cases explaining why the book is, at best,
> wrong.

[Hammond]
Hey... I've got "insurance" remember.... it doesn't matter if Dembski
turns out to be just another "hostile witness".... fact is the only
legitimate
criticism of Dembski's ID is that it is a "default theory"... IOW it claims
to eliminate all scientific explanations of Evolution so therefore "by
default" ID must exist. Obviously this can never be a "proof" of ID
since you need a "causal explanation of ID" to prove it.
Hammond has now DISCOVERED THE CAUSAL MECHANISM OF ID.
therefore, even if Dembski chooses to be a hostile witness... the fact
is the word is out that the "causal mechanism" of ID has been found
by Hammond.
  The point is, all these people want is one thing... to "disprove Darwin"..
that's REALLY ALL THEY WANT TO DO. And the fact is,
Hammond has given them the superweapon that does that....

                ID + SPoG = Disproof of Darwin

so in the end... they will have to overlook their jealousy of Hammond
in order to "get Darwin".... which is the only thing they're really
interested in doing.... and I predict they're going to do it... and the
SPoG will ride that tidal wave to fame and glory. ROFL

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence ... (which contains an excellent photo of Dembski btw.) ... SPoG will ride that tidal wave to fame and glory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about God=G_uv
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... > I sent this email to Dembski yesterday: ... > Best regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics ... > Let me indicate how Hammond's SPoG ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... what Dembski says does not matter. ... Compare and contrast it to SPOG. ... Let's see a cogent [Hammond] analysis of the two theories, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... > George Hammond wrote: ... That should give Dembski and i something ... >> the following shows how SPoG confirms Dembski's Intelligent ... you can't make the term "crank" stick to Dembski. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... > god to be a phyisical thing as well and not a supernatural entity. ... context and totally in agreement with the SPoG. ... one of the world's leading academic publishers where ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)