Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 10/20/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Newby - Don't Shoot"
- 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: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC)
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<yYKdnS7FRZ4UvuvcRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
> "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.0410191607.1d8d7cc8@posting.google.com...
> > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<p4-dnaeX2dWpwujcRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
> > > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:2b68957a.0410190547.13908f68@posting.google.com...
> > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<C-mdnXGP6rjQM-ncRVn-sg@comcast.com>...
> > > > > "TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:F8CdnfP2eayJqOncRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> > > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:2b68957a.0410180534.72277a9b@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >>>[Hammond]
> > > > > > >>>1. Birds are 4-legged animals that use their front legs to fly.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>You mean wings. Yes they used to be legs - but then that would
> require
> > > > > > >>many thousands of years to evolve.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > > Millions probably.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that I've proved you to be a troll, the fact that "millions"
> is
> > > > > > quite a bit larger than your hard and fast limit of 40K on the age
> of
> > > > > > the universe, doesn't bug me nearly so much.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > 15 Billion years of "history" was CREATED 40,000 years ago
> > > > > during the Biblical Creation.
> > > >
> > > > Okay so god is a trickster. He created universe to appear to be over
> > > > 15 billion years old and the Earth to appear to be 4.5 billion years
> > > > old because he didnt want to give the game away did he? Did he want to
> > > > make sure that his existance could not be proven? Considering we have
> > > > only known about the apparant age of the universe and Earth in the
> > > > last century why did he bother?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Hey... if you've got a beef with God you'll have to take
> > > it up with him.
> >
> > I'll have to hold fire on that one - I need to sort out Santa Claus
> > first.
>
> [Hammond]
> That's explained by the Structural Model, not God=G_uv.
What Santa Claus?
> It'll take you 5 years to learn Linear Algebra to find out
> what Santa Claus is...
Let's just savour that last sentence. Just to clarify, you are saying
you need to understand Linear Algebra to find out what Santa Claus is.
> then another 10 years to figure out
> Tensor Calculus and find out what God is....
Ditto.
> > > I'm only here to prove he exists... not
> > > to explain his choice of methods.
> >
> > Okay - and how are you going to prove he exists? So far you've proved
> > you can't put two straight thoughts together.
>
> [Hammond]
> Paste: Unsupported assertion of no interest to anyone.
Let me repeat that last statement - you can't string two thoughts
together. You can't link one idea to another without fudging it by
blusting and avoiding the subject. No amount of chest beating is going
to make up for your distinct lack of logic.
> > > Suffice it to say however,
> > > whatever diabolical machination you are idly capable of
> > > dreaming up... he can dream up one twice as bad to kick
> > > your ass with. That much is guaranteed by the nature
> > > of the case.
> >
> > I'm not plotting against you god, his god or my god. I simply don't
> > believe in a god and would be an agnostic if there was some evidence
> > that there may well be a god. Believe me it's had more than it's fair
> > share of chances to prove it exists. So far all the main arguments
> > have been 'just so' arguments, not intelligent reasons.
>
> [Hammond]
> Paste: Unsupported assertion of no interest to anyone.
So you have no answer? No suprise there.
> > Give me one good reason why god exists and I'll listen, without
> > reference to your several page brain dump.
>
> [Hammond]
> I can't think of any reason to cooperate with a political
> enemy, can you?
I'll take that as a no. And not I'm not your political enemy. I'm just
some guy trying (and failing) to get some kind of sense into you head.
>
>
> > > > Or, it could just be the universe is over 15 billion years old and the
> > > > Earth is indeed four and a half billion years old.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I don't think that is adequate to counter tax fraud, murder,
> > > child abuse, torture and poisoning quite frankly.
> >
> > Huh? The age of the universe is somehow a moral issue?
>
> [Hammond]
> God=G_uv is, punk.
Is what? A moral issue or to do with the age of the universe. Don't
tell me, it's both!
How about you answer the original question for a change?
> > > I think
> > > reality calls for something a little more sophisticated in
> > > the mechanics to provide God with options to get even for
> > > all these atrocities.... I mean something really sublime and
> > > effective.
> >
> > You've just changed the subject.
>
> [Hammond]
> I treat no account heckling adversaries willy nilly.
You changed the subject - sounds pretty willy nilly.
> > You've moved from the physical age of
> > the universe to the moral structure of socierty. How do you get rid of
> > all the things you mention? You provide a supportive and inclusive
> > society for people to live in. How do you do that? Embrase
> > multiculturalism, promote reasoned debate and intellctual persuits
> > over lowest common demoninator trash TV and teach kids that you don't
> > have to be a jock to get laid.
>
> [Hammond]
> I love it when you talk dirty.
That's mildly humourous for you.
> > > > > I know YOU can't understand that...
> > > > > but there are backwoods hillbillys and middle class housewives
> > > > > who DO understand it.
> > > >
> > > > And lots of creationists who really really want to believe.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Don't ask me why... but apparently God has decided that all of
> > > those halfwit yahoos are to be rewarded for their backhanded
> > > and blind faith.... like I say... don't ask me why... but I do suggest
> > > you duck when the time comes.
> >
> > So god is coming to kick my arse?
>
> [Hammond]
> Of course.. what else did you expect if not
> your worst fears realized?
Sorry George I'm free of sin.
> > Is that the best you can do?
>
> [Hammond]
> It's the best, period!
Let me repeat. I don't believe in god. If you are saying that he's
coming to kick my arse because I don't believe in him? As for you -
well I think you've just lined yourself up as a false prophet. I don't
believe in him but if he did exist he wouldnt be looking out to wreck
revenge on me.
> > If I
> > don't believe in god do you know how much fear that invokes in me? How
> > about none at all. You might as well tell me the easter bunny is
> > coming to firebomb my flat.
>
> [Hammond]
> Well... consider 3 or 4 billion oppressed people who detest
> loudmouth hecklers like you, finally mobilized into a unified
> global army by the discovery of a scientific proof of God...
> who's gonna stop them from getting even abusive people
> like you who tried to suppress the discovery?
You can bring on an imaginary seven nation army - it's still not real.
It's a bit like someone going into a bank and going - if I had a gun
I'd threaten to shoot you so hand over the money.
So far you can't wrustle up 3 supporters, or one even.
> > > > People can and do believe all kinds of stuff - most of it crap.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Apparently God has decided the Creationists and the Fundamentalists
> > > are not numbered among them.
> >
> > Hang on. Where are you getting you inside line on this god bloke - do
> > you have his telephone number or does he speak to you inside your
> > head?
>
> [Hammond]
> Physics proves God=G_uv.
No it doesnt George. Any attempt at physics you make is completely
distanced from you assumptions.
> That's all the
> world needs to find out to put an end to
> your loundmouth rants.
It's not going to happen George, in order for you to get where you are
going you need to be able to argue your corner. Instead you threaten
people with non existant dieties and generaly come to the table empty
handed.
Do yourself a favour - answer a question directly.
> > The fundamentalists of the world are buisy getting it on with each
> > other (and taking out quite a few innocent folks in the process. The
> > creationists have had their day and have all gathered in the last
> > chance sallon that is called intelligent design. Read all about it in
> > the new Wired magazine.
>
> [Hammond]
> The first corrollary of God=G_uv is that ID is correct.
ID is wrong - so SPoG is. QED
> I'm sure the ID movement will be overwhelmed with
> their success when the world finds this out.
And how are they going to find it out? It's not as if you're hiding
away here. You're not being censored and i'm giving you every chance
to defend your arguments, but you simply change the subject.
> > There will always be those who have strange religous ideas, often
> > brought on by some bad life choices, personaly I'm happy to be a
> > skeptic.
>
> [Hammond]
> It is rumored that both skeptics and lawyers are ...
<insults snipped>
> > > Perhaps it is the stock market
> > > speculators, the oil field owners, and the Monopoly playing landlords
> > > who are in for the real trouble.
> >
> > You've really gone off at a tangent now. How bitter and twisted do you
> > think you sound here?
>
> [Hammond]
> Different strokes for different folks.
So I take that as an admission of bitterness.
> > > > For example I don't know if I've mentioned about Chameleons - you
> > > > know, the lizards that change colour. Now I'll bet that you probably
> > > > think, like the majority of people, that chameleons change their
> > > > colour to blend into their background. Well it's just one of the many
> > > > myths of our time and both you middle calss housewives and backwoods
> > > > hillbillys will think the myth is fact, as will the majority of
> > > > people.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > No doubt there will be many "SPoG chameleons" around after
> > > the SPoG gains worldwide recognition. I'm sure the hecklers
> > > on this thread will be among them.
> >
> > George. Let me explain something to you so you can understand.
>
> Hammond]
> <snip> Yawn.....
>
> SPoG is
> > never going to be accepted, it's had it's chance, had people look at
> > it and even a layperson such as myself
>
> [Hammond]
> the opinions of "laypersons" are of no relevence.
Except when they're a middle class house wife or one of your imaginary
3 million.
> > can see it does not follow the
> > scientific process. Now you can sit there and say 'you don't have a
> > PhD, you can't possibly understand' but that's just self deception. I
> > can happily sit and listen to some of the brightest physics can offer
> > to the world, such as Lee Smolin, and you will hear him talk about
> > providing a way to disprove his own ideas. You'll hear theory,
> > hypothesis and prediction used in a common way time and time again.
>
> [Hammond]
> Your idea of bright is Smolin... my idea of bright is T'Hooft or Weinberg.
And?
> > > However the facts speak
> > > differently. Anyone who does not have at least an M.S. in Physics
> > > is not my peer, officially speaking.
> >
> > No. Your degree is worth nothing here, it's worthless.
>
> [Hammond]
> You can't pedal that to he establishment.
This is not the establishment. I am not the establishment. This is a
newgroup on the internet.
> > > > 2lot - now that is a law used by creationists. Why don't you have a
> > > > go whilst you're at it.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Creationists don't have to worry about the absurdity of some
> > > of their extreme claims....
> >
> > Just read that again. It's poetry.
>
> [Hammond]
> No halfwit... it's politics.
It's intellectual suicide.
> > > the fact is that ESSENTIALLY they
> > > are CORRECT and the SPoG proves it....
> >
> > Nope. SPoG is a load of crap.
>
> [Hammond]
> You can't publish that in the peer reviewed literature
> which is 2where the SPoG is eternally engraved in
> stone (pun on lithography).
So where are the peers - where are the reviews? Where are the people
refering to you, where are the papers inspired by your 'paper'. You
hear that silence - that's the world going - 'next'.
Incidently have you heard of Ed Conrad's invitation to speak in
Switzerland?
> > > history will not
> > > bother to hold them accountable for analytical details beyond their
> > > means....
> >
> > History has. History has shown them the way out 'nice for you to come
> > but creationism is a bit too localised for global socierty'.
> > Creationism is a bunch of bible bashers from the US not wanted to join
> > the 21st century.
>
> [Hammond]
> Obviously you are scared of their political
> power... we appreciate your fear.
Two things - their political power is nothing to do with science. You
can try and rule over science with politics but then you might as well
admit you are not a scientist. I also live in the UK. What
creationists?
Secondly you are not a creationist. You are unaware of the common
creationist arguments and generaly come across as a lone kook.
> > > especially where they were confronted by the worlds
> > > best scientific analysts who turned out to be ESSENTIALLY
> > > WRONG about the central issue.
> >
> > Creationist are just wrong all around. Their ploy is to try and get
> > creationism into schools so they don't have to get it through the
> > scientific process first. You are also refusing to use the scientific
> > process.
>
> [Hammond]
> Creationism is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT
How - why? It has not theory, no evidence and not consistancy.
> and the SPoG
> proves it. HENCE.... the Creatioists are INEVITABLY slated
> for success.
How many creationists are on your side. How about none. Why? Read up
on creationism and find out. Your views are not compatable with the
latest creationist ideas.
> Sorry, loser... you bet on the wrong horse.
You don't have a horse yet. You're standing on the starting line
horseless saying you'll beat the whole feild. Even against yourself
you'd be luck to get to the first fence.
> > > > If the universe appears as if it's billions of years old then what
> > > > evidence would there be for a god. How would the universe be different
> > > > if there was no god?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I'll forgive such a stupid and amateurish statement and
> > > simply point out that there is no coherent explanation
> > > of human behavior or "Life as we know it" without
> > > the existence of a "God" and the scientific theory that
> > > explains the phenomena associated with that God.
> >
> > That statement is wrong. There is a coherent explanation of human
> > behavour and life as we know it. The explaination, and this is kept
> > short, is as follows.
> >
> > Life appeared on this planet via a process lasting millions of years
> > and based upon chemical evolution. Life did not start at any point but
> > kinda faded in. This life, through the process of self organising
> > systems of what is scientifically known as 'complex systems' slowly
> > developed to more and more elaborate forms. The driver for this was
> > the environment. If something survived then it got to carry on
> > reproducing, else it didnt reproduce any more (mind boggling obvious
> > really).
> >
> > The process of reproduction of 'things' filtered by the environment is
> > roughly all that evolution is. The details are more indepth but the
> > essense remains the same - it's change in a population filtered by
> > environment.
> >
> > So we have a drive that leads to mammal type animals. For these
> > animals to survive you need a system of competition and cooperation
> > between animals. You'll see this in the behavour of a group of apes.
> > In humans this system is called socierty. We all cooperation and
> > compete with each other with the major emphesis on cooperation.
> > Culture is a binding force that increases cooperation and gives
> > individuals something in common. Laws are there to ensure anti-social
> > behavour is not encouraged. Etc etc.
> >
> > There you go. Sounds like a explaination to me.
>
> [Hammond]
> That's because you are TOO STUPID to understand anything beyond
> simple mechanics such as you have just reiterated which every
> SIMPLETON knows is correct.....
I think you just agreed with me. I notice you can't do it without
using insults. But thank you anyway. Yes it's that obvious. So there
you go, there is an explaination.
> WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
> is that there is ANOTHER major phenomena involving "reality"
> being the perception of the human mind....
I've already covered that in a previous email, you responded in much
the same way as above. Yes I do understand the rough relationship
between perception and reatliy (no speech marks needed).
Reality and perception is always different. Our perception is always
limited.
I also predict you're about to go off the rails again.
> and if there is a systematic
> growth phenomena involved in the perception of the human MIND
There isnt.
> then all of your "simpleminded mechanical observations" you have
> sputed out by rote are SUPERCEDED by this more fuhndamental
> phenomenon which is called GOD.
Nope. The mind does not make god - it's impossible - as god was here
first - by a few billion years if it exists. If a day was the age of
the earth mankind would be in a fraction of the last second of the
day.
<snip another pointless insult>
> > By the way did you ever find out why we dream?
>
> [Hammond]
> Depending on what you mean by "why"; this question cannot
> be answered by modern Science.
It has been. Dreaming is the time the brain needs to process the
events of the previous day (plus to refresh the body to some degree).
The brain, as can be seen via science, is just as active when we sleep
as when we are awake. It's same logic as when cleaners tidy up an
office when everyone has gone home.
> Obviously dreams are a hallucinatory state induced by the
> phenomena of sleep.
Kinda.
> But the real question is wether or not
> there is another physiological connection between the the
> phenomena of sleep and the phenomena of death?
Nope. Death is death. Sleep is life.
> If so,
> then there might be such a thing as "life after death" so
> called.
No really - there is no connection. It is connected with alien
abductions and ghosts though through sleep paralysis.
> For one thing, the SPoG has now answered the objection that
> "dead brains cannot dream",
Dead brain cannot dream. Dead brains are dead. Dead brain - not
thought - no thought no dreams. The dead are dead. Dead brain, no
mind, no mind, no thoughts.
This is a dead brain. It is not pining for the fjords.
> by showing that RELATIVITY
> is the explanation of God.
You've gone off at a tangent there. Sorry come back to reality.
> That being the case it is not unreasonable
> to believe that there might be an "enormous time dilation"
> associated with death that could "time dilate" a microsecond, or
> even nanosecond "final brain readout" at the point of death...
Nope it's very unreasonable and bad science fiction. The brain does
not go into a hyper burst of activity before it dies - it actualy
slowly closes in on it's self leading to some very strange thoughts,
like floating above yourself, your perceptoin goes out the window.
So science is against you once again.
I snipped the rest as your chain of thought has already failed you -
the rest is jibberish.
> > > > > since the SPoG proves that all multicellular life
> > > > > forms are CARTESIAN.
> > > >
> > > > But they're not - so how can it prove it? Reality disproves you by
> > > > providing many thousands of species that are not cartesian. They exist
> > > > in three dimensions but are not square.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Wrong. FAQ located at:
> > > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/BodyplanFAQ.html
> >
> > This is all wrong.
>
> [Hammond]
> Frankly your amateur opinion is of little interest.
No really - it's all wrong. The mammal body is not a cube - it's a
tube. We're all basically a tube with bits hanging off it.
> > > > SPoG cannot prove something that is not true. Step one of the
> > > > scientific process is to observe, and observe as best you can. Your
> > > > observation is deeply flawed.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The last laugh is mine:
> > >
> > > 1. You are wrong; there is a God.
> >
> > No - there is no god.
> >
> >
> > > 2. The SPoG proves it.
> >
> > SPoG is dead. Get over it.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're a laugh. A scientific truth can never die.
Exactly. Start with the first step of the scientific process...
> > > 3. It is entertaining to watch a prig like you squirm about it,
> > > especially since you were one who assumed you'd never
> > > get caught.... at least in your lifetime. Surprise, surprise.
> >
> > I'm not even trying here. You've so far not been able to prove a
> > single thing you've said.
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you try to publish that in the peer reviewed scientific
> literature where SPoG is publiished...
My demonstrating you lack of scientific credibility is not the subject
worthy of a paper, a newsgroup post is about right.
> you can't, because competent
> reviewers wouldn't listen to your halfass baloney for 2 seconds.
Could I get published if I wanted to? Well yes I could. Do I want to
- not really. I'm happy being referenced for my university work.
> > You're a nut, a kook, a loon. Logic has left and not given you a
> > forwarding address.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're simply describing yourself.... which is quite humerous.
'I know you are - but what am I'. Hoy.
Stew Dean
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Newby - Don't Shoot"
- 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 ]
Relevant Pages
|
