| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2007 02:49:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:59:09 -0600,
Amused_2_Death_@webtv.net (It's a Miracle) wrote:
Problem is you can't go against intelligent design unless you like
shooting yourself in the foot.
[Hammond]
Intelligent Design is actually true.... but it's such an
EXCEEDINGLY WEAK EFFECT that it's virtually useless to try
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
I've talked to Dembski himself about this by email....
problem with Dembski is that while he has 7 college degrees
(yup seven, count em)... not one of them is in Physics!
PS.... Richard Dawkins is educated enough, bright enough
and famous enough to comprehend Hammond's SPoG... one of you
flea bitten atheists ought to tell him about it!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
| User: "Vigyazat" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 09:04:52 AM |
|
|
From George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org>:
Intelligent Design is actually true....
Oh, well, that's okay then. Why didn't you tell us before?
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
I've talked to Dembski himself about this by email....
problem with Dembski is that while he has 7 college degrees
(yup seven, count em)... not one of them is in Physics!
Problem with Dembski is the same problem you have with everyone else,
HAMMOND: he doesn't buy your pseudo-scientific claptrap. For the
moment, it looks as though you're still amiably-enough inclined towards
him to spare him the abuse you reserve for many scientists. I imagine
that may change.
PS.... Richard Dawkins is educated enough, bright enough
and famous enough to comprehend Hammond's SPoG... one of you
flea bitten atheists ought to tell him about it!
Yeah - or, get this, you could tell him yourself. But, as we've already
discussed, such appeals aren't really intended to get us to bring
Dawkins' attention to your SPOG, are they, HAMMOND? What they're
intended for is to try to persuade us 'flea-bitten atheists' that you
think you're capable of playing science with the big boys.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otto Bahn" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 09:40:07 AM |
|
|
"Vigyazat" <vigyazat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
Intelligent Design is actually true....
Oh, well, that's okay then. Why didn't you tell us before?
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
That's patently false.
--oTTo--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigyazat" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 10:11:01 AM |
|
|
From "Otto Bahn" <ei@eio.com>:
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
That's patently false.
Do tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otto Bahn" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 01:34:43 PM |
|
|
"Vigyazat" <vigyazat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
That's patently false.
Do tell.
Darwin fish.
--oTTo--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigyazat" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
24 Feb 2007 09:15:23 AM |
|
|
From "Otto Bahn" <ei@eio.com>:
Darwin fish.
Come back to me if you manage to get a whole sentence together, and I'll
see if we agree on whatever it is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 02:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:11:01 -0600, Vigyazat
<vigyazat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
From "Otto Bahn" <ei@eio.com>:
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
That's patently false.
Do tell.
[Hammond]
Look.... do you have any idea how totally ignorant the
average PhD physicist is of the phenomenon of "God", or of
the phenomena of Psychometry?
I'll answer the question for you...... about as ignorant
as the average clergyman or psychologist is of mathematical
physics; that's how ignorant!
THEREFORE I submit that there is ONLY ONE physicist in
the entire world who is ALSO competent in Theology and
Psychometry at the PhD level-- namely GEORGE HAMMOND.
THEREFORE.... it is not a matter of finding someone who
AGREES with Hammond.... rather it is a matter of finding
someone who is qualifed to TALK TO HAMMOND!
Now, as soon as the public finds out that Hammond has
discovered the world's first scientific proof of God.... you
can JOLLY WELL BET that somebody WILL BE FOUND....even if it
is a COMMITTEE..... who can competently assess the
scientific proof of God that Hammond has discovered, and
published in the peer reviewd academic literature!
Meanwhile this day of reckoning as it were will probably
occur after the 120 page BOOK I am wrinting is released some
time this year:
THE
SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
George Hammond
(13 digit ISBN 9780940915091)
(10 digit ISBN 0-940915-09-X)
Until that time, the hubub continues in the media
(Internet, journals, folk music, rumor mill, etc) and will
continue until public demand finally knocks on the door of
academia and demands a competent opinion.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 09:54:07 PM |
|
|
George Hammond with a straight face bleated:
THEREFORE.... it is not a matter of finding someone who
AGREES with Hammond.... rather it is a matter of finding
someone who is qualifed to TALK TO HAMMOND!
It's a ***** when everyone on your level is chained down in a
rubber room hoping for the red Jello with supper.
You're an idiot. An Internet Whack Job. You're the Mensa of Village
Morons. If you had an original thought it would concern the proper
position to ***** a chicken.
Face it, Spanky.... You're cast off with all the flotsam of
superstitious shitheads that haven't a clue about reality. Just
another dumb ***** on his soapbox shouting at the wind.
Pathetic.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vigyazat" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
24 Feb 2007 09:21:17 AM |
|
|
From George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org>:
[Hammond]
Look.... do you have any idea how totally ignorant the
average PhD physicist is of the phenomenon of "God", or of
the phenomena of Psychometry?
I'll answer the question for you......
I suspected you would. After all, I might give an inconvenient answer.
THEREFORE I submit that there is ONLY ONE physicist in
the entire world who is ALSO competent in Theology and
Psychometry at the PhD level-- namely GEORGE HAMMOND.
You are, we know, the cleverest man on Earth. You've told us enough
times.
THEREFORE.... it is not a matter of finding someone who
AGREES with Hammond.... rather it is a matter of finding
someone who is qualifed to TALK TO HAMMOND!
Yes, HAMMOND - this is your defence mechanism. By definition, anyone
who does not agree with your decrees and show the appropriate deference
is not qualified.
Now, as soon as the public finds out that Hammond has
discovered the world's first scientific proof of God.... you
can JOLLY WELL BET that somebody WILL BE FOUND....even if it
is a COMMITTEE..... who can competently assess the
scientific proof of God that Hammond has discovered, and
published in the peer reviewd academic literature!
Sorry, George? I thought one of your basic arguments was that SPOG had
ALREADY been published in the peer-reviewed literature (namely the
indiscriminate Noetic Journal, whose mission statement itself outlines
the publication's rejection of the scientific method as too binding)?
Are you now saying that SPOG has NOT been published in the peer-reviewed
literature?
Until that time, the hubub continues in the media
(Internet, journals, folk music, rumor mill, etc) and will
continue until public demand finally knocks on the door of
academia and demands a competent opinion.
The hubbub continues here on Usenet, in these few groups, and nowhere
else. This is because you, George, while clearly possessing the
intelligence to be a potentially beneficial and thought-provoking
poster, instead continue your campaign to generate support for your
theories by alienating and abusing everyone you meet online.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
24 Feb 2007 07:10:56 PM |
|
|
In article <90kut2h8ek9d8dh77d69kvfj0oh27babus@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
(13 digit ISBN 9780940915091)
Good to see you followed my advise on the ISBN13. Will make it easier of
the masses to get you book in the long run.
--
Ferrous Patella
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
24 Feb 2007 07:28:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:10:56 -0800, Ferrous Patella
<ferrous@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <90kut2h8ek9d8dh77d69kvfj0oh27babus@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
(13 digit ISBN 9780940915091)
Good to see you followed my advise on the ISBN13. Will make it easier of
the masses to get you book in the long run.
[Hammond]
I don't follow advice from you or anyone else, *****...
13 digit ISBNs are AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED from old 10 digit
ISBNs:
10 digit ISBN........ 0-940915-09-X
13 digit ISBN..... 9780940915091
I didn't have to lift a finger.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rpa-ody, Student" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
24 Feb 2007 08:08:59 PM |
|
|
Peace and Greetings, Friend George Hammond.
Some of our contacts have expressed interest in seeing the comments
from the editorial board when you submitted your paper to the Noetic
Journal.
~~~~
Blessings to Your Mind
R'pa-ody, Student
http://geocities.com/cosa_msu/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 09:44:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:04:52 -0600, Vigyazat
<vigyazat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
From George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org>:
Intelligent Design is actually true....
Oh, well, that's okay then. Why didn't you tell us before?
Tryin too!
and develop a scientific proof of God using it....... on the
other hand, Hammond's SPoG is a powerful, robust, simple,
elegant, ditrect and overwhelming classic by the book
scientific proof of God that NO ONE can competently
challenge.
And that no-one, anywhere, except HAMMOND himself, believes is any of
the above.
No one believes a tsuanami tremor before the tidal wave
hits either.
Hammond's Scientific Proof of God is an earthquake tremor
on the screen right in front of you dork and when the
tsuanami tidal wave hits the religious people are already on
high ground while the atheistic science community is still
partying down at the beach.
I've talked to Dembski himself about this by email....
problem with Dembski is that while he has 7 college degrees
(yup seven, count em)... not one of them is in Physics!
Problem with Dembski is the same problem you have with everyone else,
HAMMOND: he doesn't buy your pseudo-scientific claptrap. For the
moment, it looks as though you're still amiably-enough inclined towards
him to spare him the abuse you reserve for many scientists. I imagine
that may change.
Demski is not a physicist.
PS.... Richard Dawkins is educated enough, bright enough
and famous enough to comprehend Hammond's SPoG... one of you
flea bitten atheists ought to tell him about it!
Yeah - or, get this, you could tell him yourself. But, as we've already
discussed, such appeals aren't really intended to get us to bring
Dawkins' attention to your SPOG, are they, HAMMOND? What they're
intended for is to try to persuade us 'flea-bitten atheists' that you
think you're capable of playing science with the big boys.
[Hammond]
Guess what nincompoop... the discoverer of the world's first
scientific proof of God is DE FACTO one of the big boys!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigyazat" |
|
| Title: Re: = IN GOD WE TRUST= |
23 Feb 2007 10:19:15 AM |
|
|
From George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org>:
Hammond's Scientific Proof of God is an earthquake tremor
on the screen right in front of you dork and when the
tsuanami tidal wave hits the religious people are already on
high ground while the atheistic science community is still
partying down at the beach.
Ah - is this a breakthrough I see before me? No, HAMMOND - I don't mean
your supposed proof of God. I mean that I think I've just see you imply
that you consider yourself a religious person. I thought God was the
subject of science now, rather than religion, George?
Demski is not a physicist.
And if he was, you'd be complaining that he wasn't qualified to comment
because he didn't have a degree in something else. That's why you put so
much effort into telling us what a cross-disciplinary genius you are.
We've seen it all before, George.
[Hammond]
Guess what nincompoop... the discoverer of the world's first
scientific proof of God is DE FACTO one of the big boys!
Really? Strange, then, that you've got so much time to spare skulking
around on Usenet throwing childish insults around while all those others
are out there getting results and making progress.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
