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

From: TMG (TMG_at_Nowhere.org)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 04:44:03 +0000 (UTC)

George Hammond wrote:

> "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.0410041518.5b497aa1@posting.google.com...
>
>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<l5-dnUVpYd8LFfzcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
>
>>>"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:2b68957a.0410040238.23ae42ae@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:<GsKdnYViRIwGXsLcRVn-gg@comcast.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Isaac Newton was often wrong, again I mention Alchemy. Also the
>
> above
>
>>>>>>is an argument from incredibility. Or to put it another way -
>
> that's
>
>>>>>>so amazing it must be designed! Not an arguement but a lack of
>
> one.
>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>Yeah well you're just a techonerd who doesn't know the metphorical
>>>>>symbolism of the thumb e.g.:
>>>>>
>>>>>thumbing a ride
>>>>>under ones thumb
>>>>>thumbs up
>>>>>green thumb
>>>>>all thumbs
>>>>>thumbnail sketch
>>>>>rule of thumb
>>>>>Tom Thumb
>>>>>thumb thru a book
>>>>>twiddling your thumbs
>>>>>suck your thumb
>>>>>thumbscrews
>>>>
>>>>I'm trying to see your point here. Everyone has thumbs so they are
>>>>used as the basis of a lot of cultural references. Is there a point
>>>>other than that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Newton could have used the human eye, the semicircular canals,
>>>>>or any of a dozen more amazing examples than the thumb.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly, the eye has been used a lot by IDers. Go to talkorigins and
>>>>see the argument from both sides.
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>You're fulla crap too.
>>
>>George can you start an argument without shooting yourself in the
>>foot?
>>
>>
>>>Do you realize the rectus muscles of the eye are
>>>precisely "Cartesian".... there are two muscles which move the eyeball
>>>Righ-Left, and two muscles which move the eyeball Up-Down... set
>>>in a perfect "crosshairs structure" and this cross-structure (Cartesian
>>>structure)
>>
>>Well yes - that's how it evolved because it is the best solution. If
>>you need to move something in two axis then right-left, up down is how
>>you do it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>is connected to and physically aligned with the 3-axes of the
>>>semicircular canals which measure head movement Left-Right and Up-down,
>>>.... for christs sake any designer of military gun tracking or guided
>
> missle
>
>>>design would recognize this immediately as "inertial guidance vision
>>>control". It is a far stronger candidate
>>>for "intelligent design" than the Thumb for chrissakes
>>
>>You're right, it is a stronger candidate for intelligent design, the
>>whole eye is, but it's been refuted more times than I care to mention.
>>Evolution happily explains it.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I'll take issue with that. I (along with Dembski) do not believe that
> "blind Evolution" is sufficient to explain it. I claim that there is
> a "Supernatural Selection" operative in Evolution besides the
> mere "Natural Selection" cited by Darwin. IOW I would replace
> the statement"
>
> "Survival of the fittest"
> (Darwin)
>
> with the new (post SPoG/ID) statement:
>
>
> "Survival of the Godliest"
> (Hammond)
>
> The SPoG shwos that especially in higher animals, there is a significant
> "growth deficit" in all animals, and that this causes "God" which is the
> functioning of this ungrwon (partially grown) part of the brain, and
> therefore contributes a "supernatural intelligence" to the behavior of any
> animal. This "Supernatural Intelligence" dramatically impacts "Natural
> Selection" so called, and causes the "apparently supernatural appearance
> of unexplained jumps" in Evolutionary development. and this is what
> explains the historical belief that "clever mechanisms" such as the eye
> are "divinely Created".... in fact THEY ARE.... in fact.... the
> FIRST EXAMPLE of actual "real physical miracles" are the so
> called "gaps in the Evolutionary record" and "unbelievable"
> occurances such as the "eye", "vistibular system", "Krebs cycle",
> "bacterial falgellum" etc. etc.
>
> THE "MISSING LINK" OF DARWINIAN THEORY
> IS IN FACT THE EXISTENCE OF
> "SUPERNATURAL SELECTION"
> OR "GOD", SO CALLED.
>
>
> <snip rubbish heckling>
>
> [Hammond]
> And BTW... I'll tell you another thing. "Supernatural Selection" is
> simply a "corrollary" of the SPoG. IOW ID is simply a "corrollary"
> to SPoG. Of course I can only prove this on the macroscopic
> (brain) level. However, if it can be established at the "biomolecular"
> level which Dembski seems to believe.... it would strike me as
> an OBVIOUS "first detection" of the existence of "Life After Death"
> so called. I have a funny feeling that this is where Dembski is
> headed (he's only 44) and is going to leave his calling card to
> history.... just a funny feeling.
> I do know for instance that a "bacterium" has a "Secular Trend"
> growth deficit (so do plants for instance)... which means the
> "phenomena of God" is active in bacteria and plants... very low
> levels (almost purely molecular) living organisms. If ID is active
> at that level, it means there must be some form of "bimolecular
> intelligence" which can be identified. This would indicated that
> there must be "biomollecular intelligence" active in the human brain.
> so far the SPoG only suggests that "Life After Death" may
> be a "immense time dilation" at the moment of death so that
> Life After Death would actually be "life before death" which only
> APPEARED to extend beyond death. But for this to be true,
> there would have to be a biomolecular mechanism which could
> read out, say 10 years of information, in a fraction of a
> second (say a nanosecond.. which is the fastest that death
> could physicially occur... speed of light). This mechanism would
> have to be biomolecular at a minimum to obtain such information
> speed of transfer.... and like I day... if Dembski is right about
> "biomolecualr ID"..... he may be the first one to actually detect
> such a mechanism....... cripes.......... and actual detection of
> LIFE AFTER DEATH may be on the horizon!!!
>
>
>>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
> ====================================

Totally insane, but emailed to Dembski.

Each and every word (as has the last few days of your ravings).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about God=G_uv
    ... Dembski has come up with something new because he is a PhD ... Best regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics ... Let me indicate how Hammond's SPoG (Scientific Proof of God) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about God=G_uv
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... > I sent this email to Dembski yesterday: ... > Best regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics ... > Let me indicate how Hammond's SPoG ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... >>George, it is common knowledge. ... Dembski has come up with something new because he is a PhD ... Better read that review you're posting Sparky, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about God=G_uv
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... > Hammond's SPoG confirms Dembski's ID. ... No - I doubt even Dembski will go there. ... Btw - the Southern Baptists indicate he has post-doc work in physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)