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

From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 10/24/04 

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC)

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<4NSdnW4qzLCAfOfcRVn-ig@comcast.com>...
> "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.0410230035.4aabc2fd@posting.google.com...
> > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<IfednYpgRM2tquTcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>...
> > > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:2b68957a.0410212334.4f0b91ac@posting.google.com...
> > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<KPidnUj3ZMC-pOXcRVn-og@comcast.com>...
> > > > > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2b68957a.0410210952.348f5d7c@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's because it has no predictive powers and cannot be tested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you're right how can I independently preform a test to prove
> you're
> > > > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > SPoG is an EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN THEORY,
> > > > > therefore the tests have already been done, and
> > > > > published.
> > > >
> > > > The therefore here is not valid. For your theory to be a theory it has
> > > > to have predictive qualaties that are independently varifiable. This
> > > > is why Einstein's relativity took so long to be validated. Also bear
> > > > in mind many other theories have looked good on paper but their
> > > > predictions have been false.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The SPoG makes MANY predictions, and ALL of them
> > > have ALREADY been experimentally verified by existing
> > > published experimental data.
> > >
> > > It predicts for instance:
> > >
> > > 1. There is a God
> >
> > Unproven and you provide no mechanism to prove this.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have obviously not read the published paper, which
> shows your comment to be a falsehood.

I have read the paper you have on your website. I stand by my
comments, I have not seen any comments that contradict my view other
than your own so I hold the peer review is very negative.

> > > 2. God is caused by Gravity
> >
> > This has not been shown and also illogical.
>
> [Hammond]
> It would not be published in the peer reviewed
> literature if it was "illogical".

I see no peer review. This is an argument from authority anyhow and is
invalid.

> > If god created the universe
> > he created gravity, he can't be caused by gravity. It would require
> > god to be a phyisical thing as well and not a supernatural entity.
>
> [Hammond]
> The word cause is ALWAYS context dependent.

All words are context dependent but in this case cause has a meaning.
It means that because of A, B happens.

> In this case the word "cause" is used within the
> context of conventional physics, where the
> statment "god is caused by gravity" has a clear,
> well defined, unambiguous, and totally obvious
> meaning.

Yep and it's wrong. The word cause has much the same meaning in
conventional physics but is more clearly defined. The word Theory, on
the other hand, has a place in the scientific process and you have not
used this word correctly.

> "the word "cause" within the context of theology,
> means something else.

It can also mean the same thing.

> Within Theology we,
> obviously and properly say that "God causes gravity".
> BOTH STATEMENTS are "correct within their
> context and totally in agreement with the SPoG.

Sorry but in the physics use you are incorrect. The causual arrow does
not point from geometry to physical reality - it's the other way
around. The fact the world works in three dimentions that are at right
angles to each others causes the cube AND the maths involved with a
cube. The maths DO NOT cause the cube and the cube DO NOT cause the
maths. The nature of our universe CAUSES both of them.

<snip usual 'you know nothing rhetoric'>

I know the scientific process. No matter how often you say I don't
does not change that. Also calling anyone an idiot does not make them
an idiot in a forum such as this. I will continue snipping examples
of where you use this and avoid answering.

<responces to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are non answers, appeals to authority and
'you know nothing' rehetoric>

> > > 8. The 3-dimensions of Personality + IQ form a
> > > Lorentz Metric.
> >
> > Proven incorrect by the above statement - there is no one model for
> > personality, any personality is a abstraction (and indeed a model) but
> > not a exacting descriptoin of personality, its an aproximation at
> > best.

No answer provided.

> > > 9. The Biblical Creation occured 40K years ago.

<snip appeal to authroity>
 
10 and 11 where removed by George.

12 - is just nonsense.

 
> > > 13. SPoG predicts the existence of "Intelligent Design".
> >
> > Except one small thing - Intelligent Design does include God,
>
> [Hammond]
> It certainly implies it by default.

Incorrect. It implies an intelligent designer. Now many IDers are
creationists trying to do science (and so far have very little in the
way or progress considering the time and money so far put into this)
so some will try and crow bar in god. But if you talk to IDers the 'on
message' responce is this is not about god in anyway but attempting to
show the flaws (i.e. gaps) in darwinian theory (i.e. evolution) by
showing that natural process cannot create certain aspects of
complexity.

So quite frankly Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise but for
it to be science there is no god involved.

So to repeat...

> > and most
> > IDers are adamant that it should not (probably until the point it
> > because universaly accepted).
>
> [Hammond]
> They've got a far, far, far weaker case than the SPoG...

Actual its about a million times stronger and it is at least trying to
do science. So far there are some hypothesis about being able to
detect design but these are currently subjective - how complex is
complex - how special is special etc. The work of Behe and Dembski is
based upon the argument that something is so amazing that no one can
explain how it possible can have evolved.

What you then have is a gap, something that is not explained. This
DOES NOT mean that you can then put an intelligent designer in the gap
as first you have to have some way to show that that intelligent
designer exists. Now you'll say it's god and SPoG proves it but,
quite frankly, it doesnt. Your paper fails at the first step as any
argument with multiple steps must make sense at each step (something
you've argued against but is logically sound).

> which is why they can't claim ID is a "proof of God".
> Fact is, SPoG is the first hard scientific proof of ID.
> I just wrote to Dembski again asking him if he's read
> my papers yet btw.

I have have made a prediction here. You will either get no responce or
a 'constructive critism' responce basically saying 'I can't agree with
this' but pointing you in the direction of common ID references.

Fact is you don't have anything approaching hard proof, you have based
you work on fragments of other peoples work in what appears to be a
surface way. Those bits of work in themselves are not invalid, it's
your incorrect use that is invalid and misuderstanding of what they
mean. None of their predictions are predictions of your own work, you
need your own predictions.

> > Intelligent Design is not science, it's a political movement that is
> > only really prevelent on the US. As it is not real science in any
> > traditional sense it's exponents are forgoing the task of making it
> > formaly science by trying to get it taught in schools. Or rather they
> > are trying to get school children to doubt evolution, saying it has
> > flaws etc, most of which have already been addressed by the IDers are
> > unaware/unable to accept.
>
> [Hammond]
> SPoG is a rigorous hard scientific

>From now on I'm going to snip all the claims that SPoG is fact or
science as it is neither.

> > IDers remind me of supporters of Bush. They think they are fighting
> > the good fight and they have support. They honestly believe that the
> > world wants Bush back in whilst all surveys say the exact opposite -
> > the world is yelling at the US, don't be idiots - get rid of Bush - we
> > kinda like you guys but that Bush guy really has to go.
>
> [Hammond]
> Bush was a fortuitious accident for the U.S. He got elected by
> a fluke and was spoiling for a fight (mainly about taxes) when
> he got in. He is lightning fast and can't be beaten to the punch.

You support Bush - goooooood.

Guys this guy supports Bush! Look.

> Luckily for us he happened to be president when the terrorists
> attacked New York City.... boom... what happens... Bush finds
> the fight he was looking for and sends the U.S. army to Iraq. Very
> bad timing on the part of the terrorists.

How is 9/11 connected to Iraq? There is no connection. Also the
terrorists where a small force connected to no government - this was
not country A attacking country B. It was some extremists attacking a
culture they dispised (and thanks to Bush is despised even more now -
leading to a hightened danger, not a reduced one).

I live in London - I have heard three bombs go off since living here -
yet we have not invaded southern Ireland.

> But, I agree with you,

Huh?

> Kerry would probably be more effective in
> winning the peace because he was a major player in the whole
> "Vietnam affair" and you can be sure he will never let Iraq turn
> into another Vietnam because of that experience alone.

He he, he can kick but. He knows of killing. He he.

> But the fact is... it doesn't matter who or what party gets in,
> the Iraq military action is going to go on for years because no one in
> the world wants a bunch of terrorists to get their hands on the Iraq
> oil fields..

Yes it will go on for years. These are not terrorist but now a
resistance movement, that's different. It's all down to where you put
the white hats and the black hats. In the case of Isreal, for example,
the Jews, in the eyes of the world, are the terrorists and the
Palastines are like the resistance in France.

> and the U.S. army is going to have to sit there for as
> long as it takes to form a stable and law abiding gov't there.... which
> may be 5 or 10 years or longer.

Yep. Not what Bush thunk about when the descided to have a go at the
guy who tried to kill is papa.

>
> > > All of these "predictions" (or "results") of the SPoG have
> > > already been PROVEN by 200 years of published experimental
> > > (and heretofore unexplained) data from Biology, Psychometry,
> > > Neuroscience and General Relativity.
> >
> > None of these are supported by any kind of experimental data!
>

<snip usual appeal to authority - ie 'look someone published it - it
must be true'>

> <snip rest of Dean tautologiy>
>
> [Hammond]
> BTW, I have decided to go ahead with the moderated newsgroup.
> What do you think of this for a name:
>
> alt.sci.relativity-god.moderated

I would say that's obscure enough.

> I will btw invite you to post there if you cut the argumentum ad hominem
> and back up some of your criticisms with scientific arguments.

I don't use ad hominem. I am crisicising you for not using the
scientific process. I am also snipping all your ad hominem and appeals
to authority and unsupported statements.

I would like to see you start to answer my questions instead of avoid
answering them or when you do you get things incorrect. The only real
answer you gave was to a political question (rules change there as
there is subjectivity involved in the very nature of politics).

Stew Dean

Relevant Pages

  • Bush vs. the Laureates
    ... "Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue" ... out of government have criticized the Bush administration, ... political action by scientists has not been so forceful since ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: The President and "Intelligent Design"
    ... It is a war over the integrity of science itself, ... Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists ... are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: WE STILL GOT TO SEE
    ... I am a person mistreated by Bush Administration without ... Mr. (President) Bush personally attends to me via laser and rays ... Satellite tortures are not a channel for science communication. ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Turning Back Our Future
    ... WASHINGTON -- The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush ... Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in ... conclusions that don't support policy positions. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Objectivity: The Science, Art, and Religion of sycophancy, patronization and self interest
    ... von patronization und von Selbstinteresse ... Science is about the box, ... In this case the box is the scientific process - there are no surfaces ... The 'cognitive framework of science' is about being objective about ...
    (talk.origins)