Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:52:31 +0000 (UTC)

"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104084862.136866.184680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>

> > > Anyway let me ask my question again.
> > >
> > > Using your theory how do I prove the existance of god?
> > > Or perhaps this question is too trivial?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No the question is too tongue in cheek for me to bother with.
> >
> > The SPOG *IS* a scientific proof of God.
> >
> > 1. You don't need to "use" Newton's theory to prove F=ma,
> > it *IS* a proof that F=ma
>
> You are saying a theory is proof of it's self. This is known as a
> tautalogy. It is not how science works - something you should be aware
> of. You are saying X is because X is.

[Hammond]
Hey ***... Hammond's God=G_uv is a PROVEN DISCOVERY,
it is not a "theory".... I only use the word "theory" as a bend over
backwards
pandering to ignorant halfass pedants like you.

>
>
>
> > 2. You don't need to "use" Einstein's theory to prove that
> > Gravity is caused by spacetime curvature... it *IS* a
> > proof that gravity is caused by spacetime curvature.
>
> Caused by? Did you do a degree in physics? Gravity is not caused by
> spacetime curvature!

[Hammond]
Hey ignorant pedantic uneducated ***.. the word cause is dependent
on the context used.... of course COMPETENT SCIENTISTS know
in which context it's used (classical physics).. just because YOU DON'T
and are asinine enough to believe that you can discuss an advanced
physicis topic without any degrees in the subject by using a
DICTIONARY... is a pice of asinine preposterousness that only a half
educated aggravated slobbering nitwit pedent like you would believe.

<snip>

> > 3. You don't have to "use" GOD=G_uv" to prove the
> > existence of God, it *IS* a proof of the existence of God.
>
>
> Keeping it simple. Your theory claims to be proof of god, so therefore
> it should be possible to use it to 'see' god. Otherwise it's an
> untested hypothesis.

[Hammond]
You're an uneducated aggravated nitwit. The "Standard Model"
is a proof of Partical Physics... that doesn't mean anyone can
"see" a quark.... whaddaru nuts?
  You're such a stupid and aggravated stumble bum you're not
even worth talking to.

<snip nonsensical amateur crap>

[Hammond]
YOU PROBLEM IS THAT YOU ARE UNQUALIFIED.
AN UNQUALIFIED PERSON IS NOT CAPABLE OF
"ARGUING" WITH SOMEONE WHO IS QUALIFIED.
YOU ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF "INQUIRING"...
HOWEVER, SINCE YOUR INTENT IS TO "ARGUE"
LIKE THE ASININE HECKLER THAT YOU ACTUALLY
ARE, THERE IS NO POINT IN BOTHERING TO
ANSWER YOU WITH PRECIOUS, VALUABLE, HARD
WON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

                          REMEMBER:

        "NEVER CAST PEARLS BEFORE SWINE"

AND YOU CERTAINLY ARE A "SWINE"... in fact
you are not big enough to be considered a swine... you're
merely a PIGLET.

> <snip usual insult stuff>
>
> Stew Dean
>
====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

Quantcast