Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %

From: George Hammond (research444_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 04:20:24 GMT

"Rick Cvejic" <hybridgex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ef5b8f1.0408051842.4e11a7dd@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<_XpQc.78042$8_6.29121@attbi_s04>...
> > "Rick Cvejic" <hybridgex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6ef5b8f1.0408041751.155443c9@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<IP6Qc.74261$8_6.61417@attbi_s04>...
> > > > "Rick Cvejic" <hybridgex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:6ef5b8f1.0408031810.263655c5@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<kOTPc.206917$IQ4.182487@attbi_s02>...
> > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > electrical engineering?
> > > > > > You gotta be kidding.
> > > > > > Anyone who would say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I read stuff from this guy website and
> > > > > > couldn't see anything of any value."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is de facto a moron. The work has been published in
> > > > > > TWO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.
> > > > > > Which PROVES you're a half educated slime ball.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > <snip trash by some E.E. moron>
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Hey internet dickhead.... if you want to argue with
> > me you'll have to publish your arguments in the peer
> > reviewed academic literature where my work has been
> > PEER PUBLISHED. I don't argue with internet
> > "little big shots".
>
>
> EE? I resent that. My degree is in SE. In any case, I think we have
> successfully pointed out that:

[Hammond]
SE? Never heard of it.

>
> (a) Peer review doesnt mean that you are right. Find the right
> journal, and the peer review will accept you.

[Hammond]
Peer reviewed journal publication outranks internet publication.
So if you want to credibly challenge me you'll have to answer me
in a peer reviewed journal in paper and ink.
That's the status quo in academia.

>
> Corollary: Peer review of a "science" paper by a bunch of theologians
> means nothing to scientists.

[Hammond]
LIAR.
8 of the 25 editorial board members of the NOETIC JOURNAL
are PhD physicists, including the editor.
NO ONE on the board of NEW IDEAS IN PSYCHOLOGY (Pergamon Press)
is a "theologian". Quit your lying.

> (b) Christian science is not science.

[Hammond]
That's your opinion. Fact is, now that a rigorous scientific proof
of God has been found, it is proben TO BE A SCIENCE.
IOW, Mary Baker Eddy's statments:

1. "God is mind"
2. "Heaven is a mental state" (perceptual state, not cognitive stae)

Are now PROVEN to be scientific fact!

Ergo, Christian Science is indeed, a "hard science".
Of course, not to an uneducated *** like you.

>
> Corollary: Your publications are not scientific journals, they are
> "christian science" journals.

[Hammond]
LOL

>
> (c) Only people who are wrong need to resort to name-calling.

[Hammond]
It take a lot of attention getting to get the attention of
someone who has his head up his ass as far as you.

>
> Conclusion:
>
> Your work is unscientific, unverifiable, and wrong.

[Hammond]
easily demonstrated to be LOL

> That is not to say
> there is no God.

[Hammond]
thank Christ jerkwateer has a little caution.

> That is to say that you have not proven his existance
> (and indeed could not do so - the central tenet of faith is belief
> without possible proof).

[Hammond]
Na.... the porrige of faith has just given way to the meat of proof ,
jingleballs.
Sorry its going to expose jerks like you for the worthless wimps that you
are.

============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================

Quantcast