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

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:56:14 +0000 (UTC)

"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:ci9sj3$8hk$07$1@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> >bv_schornak wrote:
> >
> >>No, George. As others already told you, ...<snip>
> >>
> >
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Before you start telling me about Physics, why
> >don't you correct an elementary MISTAKE
> >in your website:
> >
>
> You mismatch something. It's the SPoG site where those errors
> can be found...
>
> >[Hammond]
> >By the way
> > let me point out an error in
> >your website. You say:
> >
> >[Quote from Bernies website at: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm ]
> >
> >"Opposite to his statement, both graphs in Hammond's diagram
> >(see http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/index_files/img2.gif )
> >start at zero with no visible difference at the zero point. Both graphs
> >diverge from each other with growing distance from the zero point.
> >Reading Hammond's diagram, the "brain growth deficit" (BGD)
> > - whatever that is - definitely increases with growing age."
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >This statement is WRONG.
> >The BGD is the difference between 100% and the value of the
> >curve (either curve) at any point.
> >Thus for the "genotypic curve" the BGD starts at 100%
> >at birth, and slowly goes to 0 at adulthood.
> >
> >For the "Phenotypic curve" the BGD starts at 100%
> >at birth, but only decreases to about 15% at adulthood.
> >
> >You have TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD what the BGD
> >is, and your statement above is WRONG.
> >
>
> No, George, _you_ have shown you have absolutely no knowledge
> about simple math. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to correct one
> grave error with an even worse error.
>
> To help you understand the graphs you've painted:
>
> The x-axis of your diagram is time (in years)
>
> The y-axis is growth of _all_ parameters related to the human
> body - as you've published - height, weight, intelligence and
> strenght (in percent)
>
> The upper graph is "genotypic growth" _guessed_ by you (it is
> a speculative, hypothetical curve, as we already have seen in
> the discussion in this NG)
>
> The lower graph is "phenotypic growth" _guessed_ by you (real
> human growth follows this curve
> <http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Anatomy/brain%20growth.jpg>)
>
> Your definition for "BGD" - it can be found in several places
> of your homepage - is:
>
> "The difference between genotypic and phenotypic growth."

[Hammond]
THAT'S TRUE FOR ADULTS (the plateau part of the curves).
Most of this discussion is about ADULTS.
Obviously it's not true for children.]
Even for the theoretical curve, there is a LARGE BGD for anyone
under 18.

>
> If x is age and y is growth in percent, then "BGD" is defined
> as
>
> "BGD" = y_genotype(x) - y_phenotype(x).
>
> So far this was okay, except you have misinterpreted your own
> diagram in the text passages of SPoG. Now you have added some
> very stupid arrows to your diagram which tell us "BGD" is the
> difference between 100% and (genotype - phenotype) growth. As
> every 3rd class pupil could tell you - this is mathematically
> impossible. Or did you meanwhile invent your own mathematical
> system, too?

[Hammond]
Your remarks are scientifically incompetent. It is obvious to
any one wht a "BGD" is.... it's full growth minus actual growth.
For ADULTS this is genotype-phenotype because for ADULTS
the genotype curve = 100%. Sheesh....

> >Likewise, just about everything else in your A-SPoG
> >website is wrong too.
> >
>
> Seems you never would understand the things one learns in the
> Kindergarten over here - most of your errors are _violations_
> of the stuff 10 year old children learn at school.

[Hammond]
Baloney... and I've got 2 degrees in Physics to prove it.
BTW... there is no such thing as a "statement so stupid that
it can confound me"... don't waste your time trying.

>
>
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak
>

====================================
   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
    ... > 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)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >> success. ... with the SPoG. ... Jim Jastrzebski actually came out in favor ... "This section is dedicated to George Hammond, the first scientist who, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Jastrebski, Schornak & McDermid.
    ... > George Hammond wrote: ... for your critisims of SPoG. ... JASTREBSKI UNEQUIVOCALLY ... while Schornak is a scientific amateur and his credulous ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM
    ... > George Hammond wrote: ... Get endorsement for SPOG from Pontifical Academy. ... encountered on Usenet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... SPoG now supports it 100% and SPoG is a "proven" theory. ... > intelligent design is merely nothing more than a religious catch-phrase ... Let me indicate how Hammond's SPoG (Scientific Proof of God) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)