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

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 19:29:57 +0000 (UTC)

"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:opupj0h9cujftj8nnpqlb2vbcblv1phulj@4ax.com...
> In alt.talk.creationism, "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <tvSdnQi3kOkzU6HcRVn-vw@comcast.com>:
> >
> >"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:2b68957a.0409060308.b4a1c59@posting.google.com...
> >> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:<CbWdnQQoCoJ5dKbcRVn-vw@comcast.com>...
> >> > "David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
> >> > message news:igknj0poeor9nts02cik9dsm196r037g57@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > I have no degree in science and no publications in the peer
reviewed
> >> > > literature, but I say without a doubt that I am qualified to
recognize
> >> > > that your ideas have nothing to do with science.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [Hammond]
> >> > Gimme a fuckin break........!!!!!!!
> >> > Is that statement supposed to be taken seriously?????
> >>
> >> Well yes. He has a point. If you look at your idea you are dealing
> >> with personality tests which arguably is not really science and then
> >> trying to shoe horn the results into something that looks a bit like
> >> physics.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Wrong. Modern "IQ tests" and "Personality tests" are based on the
> >scientific method of computerized FACTOR ANALYSIS (Linear
> >Algebra) and backed by Neuroscience results.
>
> There are things that can be learned from both, but they are not
> rigorous science by any meaningful definition of the word.
>
> > Fact is, the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) of which
> >the ROYAL SOCIETY of London and the American Physical Association
> >(APA, Physical Review Journal, etc.) are VOTING MEMBERS, voted
> >in 1982 to accept the Union of Psychological Sciences (UPsyS) to
> >FULL MEMBERSHIP in the ICSU, thus de facto ruling that
> > "Psychology is a science"
> >in particular, Psychometry, which is the backbone of modern metrical
> >Psychology, is a science.
> > So, if you as amateurs feel Psychology is not a science, the fact is
> >the majority of professional scientists in the World, DISAGREE with
> >you, officially, and have officially done so since 1982.
>
> While there are rigorous scientific methods that can be applied to
> psychology, that doesn't mean that every claim made in psychology has
> been subjected to those methods.

[Hammond]
Never said they were. Ditto for any scientific field,
includihng particle physics, brain surgery, and
proctology.

>
> >>
> >> I also have no degree in science and although have been referenced to
> >> in a few academic papers, a book on the future of artificial
> >> intelligence and from a few web sites I have published no papers
> >> myself. I am not a scientist.
> >>
> >> But then, according to your reasoning, neither are you.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >really? What does this tell you:
> >
> >B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> > Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> >M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> > Boston MA, USA
> >Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> > Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> >Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
> > at N.U.; presently Distinguished Professor at TAMU
> >
> >Peer reviewed publications:
> >
> >Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> > New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> > Pergamon Press.
> >Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> > Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> >
> >>
> >> I've pointed out what I think is a major gap in your reasoning having
> >> spent about half an hour looking at your claims.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Half an hour? With no degrees? Please... The first paper
> >above is dated 1994. the second is dated 2003, proving
> >I've spent more than 10 years studying the subject.
> >In fact the first paper cites a 10 year history of research,
> >making that more than 20 years.
> >"Half an hour".... give me a break!
> >
> >>
> >> If you want to call me an idiot again, go ahead. As it stands it is
> >> not me or David that are having problems being taken seriously.
> >> Randomly insluting people does not help your case.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Arbitriary and capricous attacks will be met with insult,
> >because they are in themselves insulting to begin with.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Stew Dean
> >>
> >
> >====================================
> > 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
> >====================================
> >
>

Quantcast