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

• Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
• In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:36:11 -0400

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 07:41:33 -0400, "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:bn9ql09gbl528pe56c9h8lp71pb9esec2v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:47 -0400, "George Hammond"
>> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> So, you are once again back to declaring yourself to be a career
>> criminal specialising in fraud. Are you still halucinating that this
>> enhances your credibility?
>
>[Hammond]
>Hey Nummynuts... where you been? Haven't heard from you for awhile,
>you haven't been stalking me lately....someone told me you died for
>chrissakes.

Your homosexual overtures aside, I am unable to explain why you
haven't been aware enough of your environment to not notice my posts.

>[Hammond]
>I know one thing that enhances my credibility.... I've just discoverd that
>the SPoG confirms Bill Dembski's Intelligent Design theory... so that
>makes TWO OF US who now believe that a scientific proof of God
>exists and has been found. And Dembski's a real bigshot btw, his
>_Intelligent Design_ was published by Oxford University Press!
>
>Any way, get a load of this:
>
>[Hammond]
>First of all, Dembski is not an amateur. Furthermore he has attacked the
>problem of finding a "scientific proof of God" in his own original way by
>producing a new "scientific formulation" of the old idea of "Intelligent
>Design".
> The idea of "Intelligent Design" being the basis of a "SPoG" is as old as
>the
>hills, in fact Isaac Newton is famous for saying:
>
> "In lieu of all other evidence, I take the human thumb
> to be sufficient proof of God."
> (Isaac Newton)

Did you just make that one up yourself or is that a real quote from
the homicidal maniac in question?

>which clearly shows he believed in it.
> However, Dembski has come up with something new because he is a PhD
>mathematician and an expert in Statistics. The following review of his book
>_No Free Lunch_ (1999 I believe) was written by a reviewer and is posted on
>Amazon. I suggest you read it.... and then I will explain how Hammond's
>SPoG
>actually PROVES that Dembski's theory is CORRECT... a fact that I'm sure
>WmAD will take notice of:
>
>
>------------------Amazon.com review of Dembski's _No Free
>Lunch_----------------
>
>43 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0742512975/ref=cm_rev_all_1/002-5540277-0312015?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>
>Reviewer: Lars Karlsson (Örebro Sweden) -
>
>In this book, design theorist William Dembski attempts to show that
>there is a certain kind of information that can only come from
>intelligence but which is yet abundant in nature and in particular
>in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is that
>there must be some intelligent designer (e.g. God) involved in the
>generation of biological information. Note that Dembski is not
>attacking evolution and common descent in general - what some
>creationists vulgarly describe as "molecules to man" - but he
>does claim that Darwinian and other purely natural mechanisms
>are insufficient to account for complicated biological systems
>and hence that some amount of supernatural intervention is required.
> Dembski's starting point is the concept of "specified complexity",
>which he defines as follows. An object exhibits specified complexity
>if it conforms to some independently specified pattern (specification),
>and if the probability that something conforming to that pattern should
>occur by purely natural causes - laws and chance - is exceedingly low
>(complexity). If such an object is found, then its origin must involve
>some kind of intelligent agency. In other words, specified complexity
>is defined in such a way that it should entail intelligent design. And
>that brings us to one very annoying aspect of Dembski's book. Throughout
>the book, Dembski keeps seeing specified complexity everywhere, as if
>its presence was an uncontroversial and obvious thing. One example: "ID
>offers one obvious prediction, namely that nature should be shock-full
>of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers
>to design. This prediction is increasingly being confirmed" (p. 362). He
>also cites several other authors using "complexity" and "specified" or
>similar terms as if they interpreted them in the same very strict sense
>as Dembski (most likely they did not). As a matter of fact, Dembski
>consistently fails to demonstrate the presence of specified complexity
>as he defines it in nature; he makes a single futile attemp in the book
>(see further down).
>
>Dembski then moves on into the realm of information theory, and after
>briefly presenting the more established notions of information he
>dismisses them as inadequate for his purposes. He goes on to define
>his own brand on information theory based on his own notions of
>complexity and specificity. Dembski then establishes a "law of
>conservation of information" that states: if there is CSI (complex
>specified information) in an event B and B is caused by A (A being
>a sufficient and unintelligent cause for B) then the amount of CSI
>in B is at most the same as the amount in A plus a small additional
>amount. Thus natural processes are incapable of generating any
>significant amounts of new CSI; they can just shuffle it around.
>Dembski also presents a mathematical argument for his proposed law
>(in which one can notice that the environment, i.e. nature, also
>can contribute with CSI to B). But then comes the question whether
>CSI can appear though several separate events, where the smaller
>pieces of information in each is combined to form CSI. Dembski argues
>that that is not the case and claims that CSI is holistic. He also
>presents one simple example to back up his claims. The lack of rigour
>and deeper analysis at this point is striking, and leaves a hole big
>enough for, well, lets say a Charles Darwin, to pass through. These
>shifts between mathematical rigour and sloppy hand-waving are quite
>typical for the book.
>
>
>Next Dembski addresses evolutionary algorithms and the No Free Lunch
>Theorems (NFLs) about the efficiency of search algorithms. It is
>this part of the book that caused David Wolpert, one of the
>discoverers of the NFLs(which have given the book its title) to
>write a very critical article "William Dembki's treatment of the
>NFL theorems is written in Jello" (Mathematical Review). Dembski
>discusses said theorems and their consequences in some length.
>Unfortunately, they make certain assumptions (e.g. fixed target,
>static fitness function) that do not hold for biological evolution,
>so in the end their inclusion is only marginally relevant for the
>theme of the book. Instead, the discussion declines into hand-waving
>about fine-tuning of cosmological constants, planetary conditions
>and such things, and finally about irreducible complexity.
>
>Dembski then spends a chapter trying to salvage Behe's notion of
>irreducible complexity (IC). The chapter ends with Dembski providing
>a sketch for how one could compute whether the allegedly IC bacterial
>flagellum exhibits specified complexity (SC). Unfortunately, Dembski
>fails to follow his own method for identifying SC. In particular, he
>doesn't provide any independent specification and the only natural
>explanation he considers is the spontaneous assembly of the complete
>flagellum at once. Dembski's attempt at this computation underlines
>the great difficulties involved in actually applying his definition
>of SC to real biological systems.
>
>----------------end Amazon review of _No Free Lunch_------------------------
>
>[Hammond]
>Now.... notice in the last paragraph Dembski actually concludes that it
>is likely that the "bacterial flagellum" was "spontaneously assembled at
>once
>by God".
>I believe SPoG indicates this is possible!
> So let me indicate how Hammond's SPoG supports Dembski's theory
>of ID.
> In the first place, the SPoG says that "God" or the "action of God"
>originates
>in the "Unconscious Mind" caused by the BGD (brain growth deficit). What
>this means is that there is a subconscious mental activity influencing and
>guiding us that we are barely able to notice... this is called "God".
>The "growth deficit" exists in all living organisms, including bacteria.
> Now, it is easy to see that all of human activity is motivated towards
>increasing our growth to "full growth" (becoming God in the flesh) and all
>of human activity (building the world, so called) is motivated by this
>instinct. This means that this "power" will definitely impact what we call
>"Natural Selection"... and it will influence it "invisibly" and
>"supernaturally"
>to use two common words used to describe God. What this means is
>that "Natural Selection" cannot be a purely "natural" phenomena, but must
>have
>a LARGE "supernatural component" or "invisible intelligence" component.
>This holds for any living organism, including in this case bacteria.
> Because of this "Supernatural Selection" must be added to Darwins''s
>theory
>of "Natural Selection"... and this is the explanation of the historical
>theory of
>"Intelligent Design". Some of these supernatural impacts on conventional
>Natural Selection could become sizeable. God is constantly making
>"selections"
>(intelligent selections.. more intelligent than partially grown organism
>making them)
>so that so called "jumps" in Evolution can actually appear without any
>"visible
>cause". It is entirely possible that the "sudden spontanous appearace of
>the
>bacterial flagellum" is an actual biological fact... or if it isn't there
>are other
>examples that are.
> Anyway.... the bottom line is that persuing an advanced theory of
>Intelligent
>Design by using Statistics and Information Theory as Bill Dembski is doing,
>could
>possibly (some day) reach such an advanced state such that a credible
>scientific
>proof of God could emerge from it.... HOWEVER, compared to Hammond's
>SPoG which is based on the robust 100 year data of Psychometry, and
>Relativity, it is a hard way to go. However, now that the SPoG has actually
>succeeded in explaining and proving the existence of Intelligent Design,
>I would expect progress in that field to move forward by leaps and bounds.
> Hopefully I will be able to convince Bill Dembski of this when I get to
>talk to him about SPoG in a few weeks or so.

You wuill, no doubt, discover that, like you, he is unwilling to
listen due to his own demonstrated (above, where you quoted)
incompetence.

• Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
• In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]