Re: Question about God=G_uv

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:23:23 +0000 (UTC)

"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0410010448.3520860d@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
news:<g-KdneptHaUFwcHcRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
> > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2b68957a.0409292249.4f5ff927@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<m62dneOZ4M0A-cbcRVn-ug@comcast.com>...
> > > > "Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:earle.jones-D91AAE.21062628092004@netnews.comcast.net...
> >
> > > > > George: If you keep sucking up to Dembski, you might even be
> > > > > rewarded with a review of your 'theory'.
> > >
> > > I do hope so.
> > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Fact is if HE wrote a review of it he could get it published in
> > > > Nature magazine... or at least a leading high impact journal.
> > > > I haven't overlooked that fact.
> > >
> > > You've used the word fact twice there for something that doesnt make
> > > sense. If he agrees with your work you may be in business, this is, as
> > > others have pointed out, very unlikely. I know you don't think so but
> > > then you havnt got the experience of some people around here,
> > > especially when it comes to the working of those associated with
> > > intelligent design and the seperate feild of creationist science (so
> > > far there hasnt been any).
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Look Nature Boy, I know more about people, politics and
> > science than you do.
>
> How can you possibly know that?

[Hammond]
Bigger, faster, older, more dedicated, more motivated,
more common sense, less privileged, less mollycoddled,
more self reliant, more serious, .... I could go on forever.

> Simply answer is you don't.

[GH] You're a simpleton, I'm not. You spend half your time
writing insipid ad hominem attacks of no interest to anyone...
simply talking to yourself.

> There are
> things I know you don't and vica versa. That's life. There's always an
> expert who knows less than you and a amatuer who knows more. It's best
> to listen to everyone and where things tie together independently
> that's where the 'truth' is likely to be. Extreme views are
> interesting but somehow they need to inteface with what has been
> observed.
>
> > I know exactly what Dembski is going to
> > to.... and I know exactly what everybody else is going to do, and
> > when where and why.
>
> Quite simply George this is not true, nor can it be true.

[Hammond]
I'm the only person on the face of the Earth and in the
history of the world who actually knows what God is,
and you doubt a simple assertion like that?

>
> I can predict the following. You will not get a responce from Dembski
> as he has nothing constructive to say.

[GH]
Possible but low probability. Remember he's already sent me
three emails. If he was going to ignore me why would he
bother to do that.. why bother to go on record as saying
that he would read the papers and respond?

> Alternatively the responce you
> get is polite but ultimatly something along the lines of 'I don't
> think I can agree with you'.

[GH]
Possible, and more likely than your first guess. On the other hand,
bear in mind that he is under attack by the same flock of trash that
is attacking me and it is causing him some problems. If I've
really got the antidote to his career problem... unllike the others
who are natural born enimies (like Chris Isham for instance) he
may not act the same way Chris Isham did.

> I could go through my resoning but I'll
> just get the usual 'That's gibberish' from yourself. I illustrated
> what I meant by the example of what would happen if Ed Conrad asked
> for advice.

[GH]
As far as I know Ed Conrad only has a high school diploma.

>
> Dembski may trying to prove the impossible but at least he's aware of
> the scientific process.

[GH]
He has no degrees in Physics, I do... that makes me more aware
of the "scientific process" than him and gives lie to your statement.

>
> > > > > However you should know
> > > > > that his goal is not to prove anything scientifically (the
> > > > > creationist community has long since given up on competing on a
> > > > > scientific basis) but to take the case to the court of public
> > > > > opinion -- the masses of the great unwashed -- the voting public.
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Well what do you expect me to do... since the "scientific community"
> > > > is deliberately ignoring me... the only option I have is to sue
their
> > > > ass in the same court of public opinion.... and as a matter of fact
> > since
> > > > my theory "confirms Biblical Creation"....
> > >
> > > Actualy it doesnt.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > LOL ACTUALLY IT DOES......... PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
>
> No it does not.
> Your paper only attempts to prove a god - anything
> else is further and extra work.

[Hammond]
LOL again. the scientific esplanation of "Biblical Creation" is on
page 241 (Section 6) of my PEER/PUBLISHED paper in the
Noetic Journal.
QUIT YOUR LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>
> > > Even if your hypothesis is true and you prove 'god'
> > > your next job would be to prove which god.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No Nature Boy... that''s just one of your "cherished delusional hopes"
> > it has nothing to do with reality.
>
> Try again. You prove god you would have to prove if that god was the
> same as currently identified by any known religion or somethign
> totally new. You assume that this god would be the same one as
> taught about in sunday schools. That's a big assumption with no
> grounding. It's bad philosophy, non logical and is not science in any
> shape or form.

[GH]
LOL again... you're simply grasping at straws like a gurgling and
drowning man.... fabrication one easily disproved lie after
another in your folorn attempt to stay afloat.

1. The SPoG fully explains ALL the demigods of the
     Ancient religions, including Hinduism.
2. the SPoG unequivocally proves the existence of the
     God of monotheism.
3. the SPoG scietifically explains and proves the God of Christianity,
     Islam and Judiasm, as well as Hinduism and all the other major faiths.

QUIT YOUR AMATEUR LYING

>
> > > You try and fudge that by
> > > having lots of gods (really doesnt help) which means you would have
> > > multiple creation myths. Result is, well, a mess.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You couldn't hold your own in a competent scientific discussion
> > for 2 seconds.
>
> This isnt science - this is basic logic.

LOL

> You say all trees are apple
> trees for example.

LOL

> I do some tests and discover that it is possible to
> prove trees exist. This does not prove the existance of apples.

[GH] gibberish

>
>
> > > Also if you prove god exists it would not prove the bible is correct,
> > > unless we asked him/her/it.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Unsupported gibberish
>
> Unless you prove god wrote the bible scientifically then it is not
> gibberish.
>

[GH] gibberish

>
> > > > I find it mighty convenient
> > > > that a large standing army of Creationists is already on the scene
> > > > already trying to kick their ass.
> > >
> > > And so far universaly failing.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > really... that isn't what the Kansas Board of Education thought.
>
> See directly below - already answered that one.

[GH] gibberish

>
> > > Some argue they win in 'debates', they
> > > even have had some minor wins in politics. But on scientific terms
> > > we're still waiting for a theory. And no you don't have one,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Oh yes I do....
>
> Oh no you don't.

[GH] gibberish

>
> > and that's where you're goonna get your ass kicked
> > by the Creationsts...
>
> This group has existed for many years. I've been debating here for, I
> don't know, about five years. So far no creationist has won a formal
> debate, convinced anyone or put forward a scientific theory.

[GH]
1. The SPoG now gives them a "formal theory"
2. They can use it to kick your ass anytime they please.
3. They can use it to kick the ass of the Scientific Establishment
      any time they please.
4. Given that "there has never been a weapon built that hasn't been
     used"... it is simply a matter of time before the Creationists drop the
     SPoG on Science.

>
> That's something you can google away if you want and something others
> will also tell you independently to me.
>
> Creationists currently can only win their arguments outside the realm
> of science, that is via politics.

[GH]

1. That is the first step.
2. The second step is to piss on the scientific atheists grave by
     advancing the SPoG as the scientific proof of Creationism.

>
> Intelligent design is the last chance saloon for some creationists and
> so far no drinks have been delievered to sell.

[GH]
Not only is "Intelligent Design" true,
BIBLICAL CREATION is true.
The SPoG proves both.
Not only that it proves a "40k B.C. Creation".

>
>
> > believe me, they aren't going to be as charitable
> > as me when this is over....
>
> It's almost over - you've missed the main battle here. Once upon a
> time this place was teaming with creationist all using many of the
> same arguments. See talkorigins.org for the main points. It's all
> kinda dried up. Then we get the random kooks like yourself and Ed.
> Neither of you are creationists but just unconnected spirits.

[GH]
1. Ed Conrad is a kook.
2. George Hammond is a Physicist.
3. Now that the flotsam and jetsam of Creationism
    has died off from 40 years of wandering in the desert
    Moses and Joshua (Hammond and Dembski) are here
    to lead the survivors into the promised land.

>
> I'll end it there due you using the N word.
>

[GH] You can give up anytime you want. You're just
another witless sleaze bag with nothing of content to say.
Hecklers like you are a dime a dozen. If you quit posting
today you'd be forgotton by tomorrow... both you and
Ed Conrad.

> 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
====================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questions for the Next Manifestation
    ... With all this as a backdrop I'd like to share some thoughts about the harmony of science and religion, why we should delve into questions related to both branches of knowledge in spite of not being scientists. ... God has created all this and the Writings show us the He created the Perfect Man, the Manifestation of God who resides in a separate realm of that of God and His Creation. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Questions for the Next Manifestation
    ... With all this as a backdrop I'd like to share some thoughts about the harmony of science and religion, why we should delve into questions related to both branches of knowledge in spite of not being scientists. ... God has created all this, and the Writings show us the He created the Perfect Man, the Manifestation of God, who resides in a separate realm from that of God and His Creation. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Response to OEC webpage (long)
    ... Down below he is going to declare that the Christian God is the ... the creation of the natural laws of ... the universe, and a special act of God's power that violates the ... science and is never used in the study of science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Religion
    ... The Bible is the Written Word of God, ... Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation ... The great Flood described in Genesis, ... We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > George Hammond wrote: ... The actual scientific explanation of the "Biblical Creation" ... "God" according to Theology is in fact a fully grown ... Now, in point of fact, I think most scientists, once this ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)