Re: Hammond sees the obvious?

From: ZenIsWhen (ZenIsWhen_at_anywhere.com)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:20:38 -0400

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41pWc.170748$8_6.60125@attbi_s04...
>
> "Puck Greenman" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
> news:db1ki0909ljsqpcc9rb6tt8jm8nvjjh9dr@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:40:02 GMT, "George Hammond"
> > <research137@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >When you push your ignorance... you eventually run headlong
> > >into a brick wall.... that's what happened this time:
> > >
> >
> > Are you excusing your self, or are you trying to insult Scot, again?
> >
> >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >I just stated it above. Physics (all of establishment Science that is)
> > >AGREES that "only OBSERVABLES exist"
> > > OK.... you can't have an OBSERVABLE, unless you have an
> > >OBSERVER. And as I point out.... the OBSERVER is Man
> > >and Man only came into existence 40,000 years ago.
> > >Ergo...... "existence" of the entire universe suddenly "blinked
> > >into existence" 40,000 years ago.... and it "blinked into existence"
> > >with a BUILT IN 15-billion year history.
> >
> > Are you stating that animals are incapable of making observations, or
> > are you stating that man is the only creature that has ever existed
> > in the whole universe, capable of making observations?
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm saying Man is the only living thing that can
> observe the "Universe as we know it".
> I'm sure a frog does not see the same world we see.
> He certainly can't read a physics book for instance.

But, swiss cheese brain, you ARE saying that the WHOLE universe will not
exist if we die!
You are, by implication, saying the universe that teh frog see is DEPENDANT
ON HUMAN OBSERVATIONS!

Again .... once you start a fruadulent claim - you just have to keep
defending it with even more, and more insane, fraudulent claims!

> > > Now this "philosophical argument' has been KNOWN for
> > >1700 years at least and it could never be PROVEN.
> > >But now, HAMMOND, has terminated the argument and
> > >PROVED IT TRUE by finding an experimentally confirmed
> > >scientific proof of God (i.e. GOD=G_uv).
> >
> > All I see you offering here, is a variation to that old question, "If
> > a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to witness it; Does it
> > make a sound?", and your own assertion, "No, it does not".
> >
> > That is philosophy, as you say, and not science.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes... but this thread is a discussion of the
> FACT that Hammond has made a new scientific
> discovery (experimentally proven) which
> ENDS THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE
> after 1700 years.

No. This thread is a discussion in the outrageous insanity of your bellowed
ignorance.

And it proves among other
> things, that YES, the Biblical Creation is
> a true scientific fact. END OF THE DEBATE,
> both Evolution and Creationism are true,
> proven, scientific facts.
> THAT is what we are here to talk about.

You cannot end a debate merely because YOU say so, *** for brains!
Particularly when what you say it TOTALLY insane, irrationsal, illogical,
and unscientific.

>
> > From my own POV, having as much qualification in philosophy, as you
> > have in physics, philosophy, is simply BS. in a Xmas wrapper.
> >
> > > There is no use stating and restating "what you believe".
> > >You have to address the scientific proof which proves that
> > >YOU ARE WRONG.
> >
> > All that you have given, is a hypothesis, which must be tested.
>
> [Hammond]
> LOL... please stop posting lies.

IOW .. George can't handle the rational truth!

> > As a scientist, can you suggest a method, by which your hypothesis can
> > be tested?
>
> [Hammond]
> A. they are not "hypotheses"
> B. They are already PROVEN by existing data,
> all of which is cited in my peer/published papers
> which are also posted online on my website,
> and which you cannot probably even read.

Your claims about support are just as corrupt as any of your other claims!
IF you were a scientist - and had a VALID claim - you would be able to
answer the question ...instead of doing your usual fraudulent, song and
dance!

I'm still remember, and am laughing, about the time I quoted a dictionary -
and showed you how INSANELY wrong you were about "I.Q." ...... and your
response was that a dictionary is inapropriate source in a debate.

>
> > You have demanded that science takes you seriously, and tests your
> > offering, but you give no hint as to how that might be achieved.
> > You admit that you have made no attempt to test it; how are the rest
> > of us supposed to test it, if it's originator does not know how?
>
> [Hammond]
> all we need is a qualified scientist to read it.
> the experimental proof has already been done.

People qualified to find fault with you and your claims have ALREADY read it
.... and shown you hundreds of those flaws ... yet you ignore them.

WHAT experiments?
You've been asked that several times .. and have NEVER answered honestly!

> > > and that is what this discussion
> > >is all about.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Actually George's version of existence is quite a bit different
> > >> from the "idealism" version. George seems to admit that
> > >> an objective reality [objectively] exists but he seems to
> > >> assert that objective reality is irrelevant to humans.
> > >> ..... oh nevermind... I'm getting tired of this.
>
> [Hammond]
> We don't need to define any pseudointellectual terms
> like "idealism". there is no need to go beyond
> plain english in this discussion... and my assumption is
> that anyone who dies is merely trying to "concoct
> counterfactuals to the truth", as usual with all
> pseudointellectual activity.
>
>
>
> > Confusing; aint he? (:-)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >Sure you are... the whole world is TIRED of philosophical
> > >arguents that can't be proved....
> > > SO I'VE FINALLY PROVED ONE OF THEM
> >
> > Philosophically, perhaps, but objectively, no.
> >
> > Not only that, but you are demanding that the rest of us do your
> > research for you.
>
> [Hammond]
> No, I'm merely demanding that qualified people
> stop screwing off and recognize it so that
> billions of people can stop suffering.

And the very second someone disagreeds with you (and points out an
OUTRAGEOUSLY insane flaw in your bellowing) - you call them "unqualified".

Nice, but totally corrupt and warped, mind game you have going there!!!

Quantcast