Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Guy Svenhardt (anonymous_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: 1905 Relativity is sufficient to support GPS function"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Next in thread: Brandon Loudermilk: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Reply: Brandon Loudermilk: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:17:59 GMT
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_jk0e.2230$z.2066@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
<SNIP CRAP>
AntiSPOG:
http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm
From AntiSPOG:
"In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180
claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as
true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world
faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third
World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed
claims.
A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as
inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet
should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references
which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a
book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's
work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a
claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a
thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description
should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If -
like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved,
it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed
information where they were published.
Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It
lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be
"scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments
to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best
example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric
space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an
incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real
sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws,
errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects
that professional scientists should consider to agree with something
like his SPoG.
On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the
eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic,
the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do
respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he
insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt.
In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor
will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to
gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist
could do the same in less than two minutes... "
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: 1905 Relativity is sufficient to support GPS function"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Next in thread: Brandon Loudermilk: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Reply: Brandon Loudermilk: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
