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

From: ZenIsWhen (ZenIsWhen_at_anywhere.com)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:33:21 -0400

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
news:U6KdnbTQd70b3P7cRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:10m3pn1bdknqk47@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:vCg8d.7287$g%5.2051326@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > >
> > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10m0e8k2p4jst60@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > 5: Anything that IS "proven" is no longer a THEORY. Again, were you
a
> > > > sceintist, you would know that.
> > >
> > > BUZZT!!! Wrong. In proper scientific language, a THEORY is
> > > an explanation. For example, the "Theory of Evolution" (the
> > > explanation of how the myriad of species could have evolved from
> > > earlier forms) will ALWAYS be an explanation.
> > > A theory might start out as a hypothesis or "speculative theory".
> > > But once it is proven, the hypothesis (or "speculative theory")
> > > becomes a THEORY.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, a LAW is a description. For example,
> > > the LAW of Gravity uses a mathematical equation to describe
> > > how masses attract each other. There is no commonly
> > > accepted EXPLANATION of how the masses attract. So
> > > there is no THEORY but there is still a LAW.
> > > A law might start out as a hypothesis or "speculative law".
> > > But once it is proven, the hypothesis (or "speculative law")
> > > becomes a LAW.
> >
> > A theory is a hypothesis with evidence....
> > A law is a "theory" that has been proven.
>
> [Hammond]
> SPoG is certainly a: "theory" since it is has evidence, sufficnet
> evidence to be published in the peer reviewed literature.

Oh. Excuse me ... I meant VALID evidence; not the garbage you invent and
pretend is evidence.
Once again, you were NOT published in peer reviewed scientific literature
..... that is merely another of your deranged lies.

> I say it is a "law", since the evidence is sufficient to prove it;
> "God=G_uv" that is.

What you say, as supported by all the other lies, and deranged claims you
constantly bellow, means nothing.

 If anyone wants to dispute me there are free to
> post their arguments to the contrary either in the peer reviewed
> literature is they are competent, or here on the internet if they
> are incompetent.

You have proven nothing - other than the fact that you can bellow loudly and
ignorantly.
Rebuttals to your garbage have constantly been posted, and, like the corrupt
fraud you are, you ignore them and insult those who dispute you.

But ... since you have shown nothing BUT irrational claims - the burden is
on YOU to support them. Offering nothing more than more irrational, and
some, totally ignorant, claims does NOT support your first pile of crap!

>
> BTW: Dembski's ID + Hammond's SPoG = Disproof of Darwin

BTW .. adding yet another dropping to your ever increasing pile still means
nothing!!!!
BTW .. neither Demski nor you have disproved Darwin by bellowing god exists.

Whether god exists or not, the process of evolution is the truth!!!!

Again ... were you a scientist .... or even if you had a rational mind ...
you would know that!!!!

Quantcast