Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: Big Bucket: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Raymond E. Griffith: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:48:24 +0000 (UTC)
"Raymond E. Griffith" <rgriffit@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:MrWdnUzjO9mJrKrcRVn-oA@ctc.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zGxZc.222320$8_6.107767@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "Alan Jeffery" <observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:2pnadeFmkil1U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:68tZc.220667$8_6.131642@attbi_s04...
> > > >
> > > > "Alan Jeffery" <observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:2pmsktFmmrhiU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:e2qZc.98389$Fg5.88061@attbi_s53...
> > > > > >
> > > > > <snippage>
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gravitational curvature of the brain"? I think you have
something
> > > wrong
> > > > > with your brain alright. The brain, because of its location (the
> > brain
> > > > > case) and its make up, has got to "curve". You're just making up
> > stuff
> > > in
> > > > > some sort of weird self-referential logic. In other words, you're
> > just
> > > > > another netkook.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan Jeffery
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > ROFL Hey Jeffery... this isn't the first grade. "curved" doesn't
> > > > refer to a line curve like a coathanger. Notice this is crossposted
> > > > to sci.physicis.relativity..... we're talking about a RELATIVISTIC
> > > > CURVATURE.... you know, like "EINSTEIN'S THEORY"....
> > > > a "curvature of spacetime".
> > >
> > > I know what the "curvature of spacetime" means.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I don't think so. I don't think you know what
> > a "2nd rank tensor" is.
> >
> >
> >
> > > But evidently you don't,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Really Jeffery... I've got 2 degrees in physics, remember.
> >
> >
> > > because we all "suffer" from it, but at a scale we don't notice unless
> we
> > > are to close to a black hole. I was simply pulling your chain in case
> > > anyone was taking you are all seriously.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You really are dense.... the curvature is in "perceptual reality"
> > not "physical reality". "perceptual reality" is what you
> > actually SEE. "actual reality" is what physics MEASURES,
> > and yes, there is damn little curvature in "actual reality"...
> > but you don't SEE actual reality, you SEE "perceptual reality",
> > and guess what Jeffery.... there is a HELLUVA CURVATURE
> > in perceptual reality..... so much so that they call it "GOD".
>
> Hmmm. So you reduce the "Creator" to nothing more than a "perception" of
the
> Creation? God isn't "actually real"?
>
> How very interesting.
[Hammond]
Oh cripes Griff... don't start with the down on the farm jokes.
The Bible isn't changed one iota by this discovery.
The discovery of a "Einstein Curvature" in perceptual reality
is a profound and historic hard scientific discovery... that provides
a scientific basis for explaining the God of the Sistine Chapel
ceiling.
>
> > Doesn't it embarress and piss you off that someone like
> > me KNOWS THAT (actully discovered it)
>
> How very bright of you. How many converts do you have to your religion? Of
> course, you might not have too hard a time of it. People seem drawn to
> things they can't understand.
[Hammond]
Hey... a number of people have compared Hammond to
Galileo. There was an outbreak of it a year ago and I've
seen it again recently. Galileo was universally attacked by
kooks and finally tried at the Inquisition. He was of course
scientifically right. Do you think just because 100 Internet
kooks are attacking Hammond that this is some kind
of scientific argument against Hammond. I don't think so.
>
> > and someone
> > like you is TOTALLY IGNORANT of it... and can't figure out
> > what God is because of it.... doesn't it keep you awake at night...
> > doesn't it burn you up, doesn't it raise the hackles on the back of your
> > neck.... to know you're a MORON compared to me!
>
> It is my experience that those who continually harp on about how very
smart
> they are and how moronic everyone else is are usually the morons in the
> group. Oh, they may have some intelligence in a field others do not, but
> they do not know how to communicate what they know with any kind of
respect.
[Hammond]
I rather favor the Galileo hypothesis. Mainly because
it is a religious controversy. How many other "harping
geniuses" are putting forth a scientific proof of God?
Are you going to compare me involved in THE fundamental
religious controversy of all time with one of those kooks on
sci.phsics.relativity who claims he's found a disproof of
Einstein's theory, for chrissakes?
>
> Call me crazy, but I rather think that if you expect me to think that you
> actually have a "proof" of God, then you ought to be able to explain it,
> rather than simply tell people they are too moronic to appreciate your
> brilliance. If the topic is difficult, then put the effort into making it
> understandable. Be patient. Build the background. Don't underestimate the
> teachability of the audience. After all, we have several people here with
> doctorates, scientists, mathematicians, biologists and other professionals
> here. We didn't arrive at our positions with nothing. So with your
> brilliance you should find it easy to explain your proof so that everyone
> can follow it. A "proof" isn't a "proof" unless it is understandable.
[Hammond]
You can't esplain something to people who are only interested
in arguing for argument's sake. that covers most internet posters.
> And if you have a "proof" of God, I would expect you to be more respectful
> of others. After all, we are all made in God's image, James reminds us. Or
> is your relationship with God simply intellectual with you in the superior
> position? That would explain why you feel free to be abusive. Faith
without
> works is dead, being alone, James tells us. If you have a proof of God,
then
> you should obey Him. Otherwise you are simply deceiving yourself. Which is
> what I personally think you are doing.
[Hammond]
Hey... Jesus was the "political" proof of God.
This is the "scientific proof of God".
I'm not a commanding social figure... I'm a
scientist.
>
> Don't you realize that insulting others does not make them think better of
> you, but only worse? And don't you realize that you cannot make yourself
> look good while trying to make others look bad? And your insults do not
> affect my perception of myself or my perception of others. But they do
make
> you look bad in my eyes. Your net results by using insults are negative
> credibility.
[Hammond]
I don't insult anyone until they insult me first.
Anyone woo would insult me does not have the
intellectual capacity to discuss the subject in the
first place. Nor are they interested in doing so.
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
> >
> >
> > > <PLONK>
> > >
> > > Alan Jeffery
> >
> >
> > <PUNK>
> > George Hammond
> > ====================================
> > 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
> > ====================================
> >
>
>
- Next message: Big Bucket: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Raymond E. Griffith: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
