Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

Religions > Atheism > Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"George Hammond"
Date:	06 Dec 2004 12:20:41 AM
Object:	Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

George Hammond
December 5, 2004
The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM
c/o Professor Chris Isham
Professor William Dembski
http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/index-frame.html
By email to:
Chris Isham William Dembski Stephen Unwin
Sandra Faber Owen Gingerich Richard Arnowitt
Alan Guth John F. Haught Edward Kolb
David Latham Joel Primack Bob Russell
Seth Shostak Trinh Xuan Thuan Neil Turok
Steven Weinberg John Polkinhorne John Barrow
George Coyne Bruno Guiderdoni Wm. Stoeger
Richard Amoroso Phil Hefner Lee Smolin
also posted to: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
________________________________________________________
God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
Professors Chris Isham and William Dembski are
COUNTERBALANCE members. Physicist Dr. Stephen Unwin is
author of _The Probability of God_ (see SCIAM July 2004,
p. 46 for a review by Michael Shermer).
All three have written opinions on my discovery that
God=G_uv and I wish to rebut their remarks in this
letter to the Counterbalance Forum.
Physicists are not experts in Theology nor are
Theologians expert in Physics.
It is just as doubtful that Isaac Newton understood
God is as it is doubtful that Mary Baker Eddy understood
the Principle of Least Action.
HENCE: If a scientific proof
of God is discovered we can be
certain that FEW will understand it!
Such is the case with God=G_uv
BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, I have received very pejorative
commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. They have
even suggested God=G_uv is incompetent. Therefore I
feel obliged to inform the Sci-Rel community of the error
of their opinions and of the high handed carelessness
with which they have received this remarkable discovery.
The Commentaries:
In an email letter from Prof. William Dembski, he
says:
[Wm. Dembski, 11-29-04]
"To identify God with a curvature
tensor (God=G_uv) seems provocative
without being precise. At best it
seems to me that G_uv might serve
as a locus for divine action in the
world. But even then, why should we
think that it is the sole locus?"
He got the first part right, it is provocative.
But the rest is wrong: It is "precise", and it is
in fact the central locus of World Religion.
Prof. Isham found it not only provocative, but
apparently somewhat annoying.
In an email letter to me he says:
[Chris Isham, 12-15-2003]
"If I understand you correctly, you
are invoking quantum gravity as a
way of producing large gravitational
fields inside the brain."
He certainly does not "understand me correctly", and Dr. Isham
has little or no comprehension of what the theory says or even
in what space the curvature G_uv exists!
Apparently BOTH Professors Isham and Dembski have carelessly
glossed the theory and believe that God=G_uv refers to a
curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain!
Such preposterousness is of course startling... but they are
both "too busy" to discuss the matter further!
STEPHEN UNWIN however, was a little more patient. He made
the same mistake. In an email to me he said:
[Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004]
"If God=G_uv, then... God doesn't exist
in flat spacetime where G_uv=0. In fact,
most of spacetime is approximately flat,
with the exception of singularities (black
holes). Does this mean God is nonexistent,
or at least marginal, everywhere but near
black holes?"
At least Stephen Unwin was patient enough to listen to
further explanation... whereas Profs. Isham or Dembski
quickly made themselves unavailable for further discussion.
I wrote back to Dr. Unwin and explained to him about this
all too common scientific *gaffe*:
[Hammond, 7-11-04]
"You have only glossed the paper. God is
a curvature of PERCEPTUAL SPACE not real space.
People see a "curved version" of real space, and
this curvature is caused by a "G_uv" in
Psychometry space.
For instance ungrown children 4, 8 and 12
years old, see an ENORMOUSLY CURVED WORLD.
That doesn't mean the world is actually
enormously curved!.. it just means that is
what they see because their brains are not yet
fully grown. A 9 year old (half grown) child
sees a world that is twice as BIG and twice as
FAST as it is to an 18 year old adult. This is
equivalent to a 50% time dilation and a 50% space
contraction... it is exactly "as if" he were
sitting next to a black hole and looking back
at the Earth... he would see it spinning twice
as FAST and appearing twice as LARGE!
This effect exists to a lesser extent in all
adults simply because no one ever reaches their
full growth (according to the Secular Trend in
human growth)... and it is this universal
"curvature of reality" which explains "God".
That the "perceptual curvature" is given by
Einstein's G_uv is of course no coincidence. It
is demonstrated that Psychometry space is caused
by real space vis a vis the cleavage geometry
of the brain. Thus it is that Psychometric
curvature is caused by spacetime curvature, sui
generous- via brain growth.
Psychometry and Relativity have PROVED this,
thus proving the existence of God beyond ANY
reasonable scientific question!
Dr. Unwin wrote back to me and said:
[Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004]
"Oh, I thought G_uv was in literal spacetime.
I guess then that in perceptual space, a new
born baby would be the analogy of a singularity
(big bang rather than a black hole). Very
Interesting."
Well... not only was I amazed at Dr. Unwin being such a
"fast study" as to "which space is curved by G_uv"... it turns
out his intuitive remark about babies being related to a
"big bang" was a further piece of profundity:
I hesitate to digress, but I simply must point out the
contrast between Dr. Unwin's constructive attitude in
comparison to the presumptious skepticism and negativity
exhibited by Profs. Isham and Dembski.
The equation God=G_uv when written out in full is:
God = G_uv = BGD (= Brain Growth Deficit)
This curvature is in subjective ("seen") spacetime.
Note this is entirely similar to Einstein's equation
Gravity = G_uv = MD (= Mass Density)
In other words, the "brain growth deficit" takes the place
of the source term, "mass density", when describing the
curvature of perceptual ("subjectively seen") spacetime.
Now there is a DILEMMA which had been bothering me for
several years before I received Steve Unwin's email. Namely,
what would be the mass distribution analogy to natural
childhood growth? Now.. there perhaps doesn't actually
have to be one.. but for theoretical reasons I would be a
lot more comfortable is there was!
The problem is, that "growth" represents the reduction of
the BGD towards zero. In real space, this would be the
analog of "disappearing mass density"? I simply could not
conceive of any mass distribution which would tend towards
zero as a function of time- everywhere?
Then Steve Unwin suggested that birth/growth might be a "Big
Bang"... I nearly fell off my chair. The Hubble expansion
associated with the Big Bang model causes the mass density
in the universe to continually decrease from a very high
initial value towards zero as time increases. This means
that "childhood growth" must be the subjective perceptual-space
analog of a Big Bang expansion of subjective reality!
The problem was solved.. there IS a real spacetime analog
to growth in Psychometric space. No doubt this discovery will
lead us into further discoveries of a most profound nature
concerning the physical phenomena of God!
It appears that Stephen Unwin has not only made his mark
as a Theologian with his new book... but now he has dusted off
his physics Ph.D. and made his mark as a physicist!
Now, I would like to return to professor Dembski's question
of: "Why should G_uv be the sole locus of divine action in the
world"?
Well, obviously Bill has fallen victim to the same erroneous
presumption as Chris Isham and, initially, Steve Unwin...
namely that God=G_uv refers to a curvature in real space rather
than a curvature in "subjective seen space". Once the
distinction is recognized, the answer to prof. Dembski's
question is obvious. The discovery that we see a "curved
version" of actual physical reality, due to a human growth
deficit, immediately explains what Unwin identifies as:
"The person-God of the major faiths
...[wch.] .. refers to the God of
Christians, the Jehovah of Jews, the
Allah of Muslims, the Wise Lord of
Zoroastrians, et cetera.
Although there is some disagreement
between and within religions about
the specific characteristics of the
person-God, the similarities in
beliefs outnumber the differences."
(Unwin, _Probability of God_, p.19)
Since the average person has a growth deficit, that is, part
of every man is "invisible"; becomes immediately a compelling
scientific explanation of the "invisible person-God" of
world religion- the invisible God painted on the Sistine Chapel
ceiling.
Since the BGD is the actual "percentage" of a human being
that is invisible (i.e. latent/ungrown), and this number is set
equal to G_uv; we see clearly and unequivocally that "G_uv"
physically describes the "invisible person-god" of the
major faiths... that is, G_uv mathematically describes the
curvature of reality effected by God the invisible man.
Certainly G_uv then, which describes this invisible person-god,
is the central, if not the sole, "locus of divine action in
the world"- as professor Dembski put it.
I would like to now address some further remarks made by
Prof. Isham.
Between December 2003 and March 2004 I exchanged half a dozen
emails with Professor Chris Isham about God=G_uv.
Reviewing this entire series, it is apparent that Chris
Isham NEVER was able to get over his basic error of failing to
realize the difference between "physical reality" and
"subjective seen reality"... despite the fact that I pointed
out to him repeatedly the commonly recognized fact that "reality"
appears to be MUCH LARGER and MUCH FASTER to an (ungrown)
child than it does to an adult. His "perceptual reality" is
MAGNIFIED and SPEEDED UP drastically in comparison to the
reality seen by an adult. This effect is know universally
as a "CURVATURE OF SPACETIME" in relativity theory.
As a result of this fundamental GAFFE, none of his comments
make any sense, and his conclusions are absolutely without
any validity or relevance whatsoever.
For instance, on Dec. 15, 2003 he writes:
[Chris Isham, 12-15-2003]
2. I would also remark that, as I think you realize yourself,
the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is
extremely weak: so weak in fact that it is essentially just the
Newtonian force, and the contributions from general relativity
are completely negligible. But even if that were not the case,
why should be G_\mu\nu be the quantity to use in your theory,
since there are many other tensor quantities that relate to the
curvature of space? It is true that G_\mu\nu is one of the
simplest ones (and it is the one that Einstein, finally, used)
but it is not the most simplest (arguably that is R_\mu\nu). In
the case of general relativity, it is a matter of *empirical
verification* that G_\mu\nu is the correct thing to use in
Einstein's field equations (rather than, say, R_\mu\nu) but
could you, even in principle, do anything analogous?
[Hammond]
This statement is extraordinary in that it is not only based on
his fundamental faux paux of mistaking "real" space for "seen"
space, but in addition Chris seems to be venting his annoyance
at the equation God=G_uv in that he is annoyed that Einstein
selected that symbol "G" to denote the curvature tensor of
Gravity and that appears to be uncannily fortuitous in my
equation for God: God=G_uv. I'm afraid we cannot shed tears
over the fact that both Gravity and God begin with a Gee.
Before commenting on his arguments over "which curvature tensor"
should be "God".. I will introduce a related statement of his
from a letter of Dec. 23, 2003:
[Chris Isham, 12-23-2003]
Separate from this are his [Sir Roger Penrose's] beliefs that it is
general relativity that is in some way responsible for the
'collapse of the wave function'. Although this is more plausible
a priori, once again it is important to emphasize that there is
*no* actual theory that describes this effect. At the moment, it
is at best a hand-waving suggestion and plays no role in any of
the current quantum gravity or foundation of quantum theory
research programmes.
But even if there was some quantum gravity effect of this type,
and even if it could be related to brain growth in some way, why
should the latter involve the equations of *classical* general
relativity? (which you use in your equation God=T_{uv} The
equations of the (as yet unknown) quantum theory of gravity will
surely be totally different.
So it seems to me that there is no proven scientific link
between general relativity, quantum theory and brain structure.
So even if your conjecture is true that there is a relation
between brain growth and the experience of 'God', I think it is
scientifically quite wrong to say that there is a *proof* that
this is connected with general relativity. Of course, any one
is entitled to make conjectures, but that is far from being the
same thing as a proof!
Sorry to be so negative again, but I presume you do want my
honest views on your ideas rather than just a polite put-off:-)
[Hammond]
Well... adding the above two different letters together, it
is plain that Chris Isham has a totally misconceived, and in
addition, even backwards upside down understanding of the theory:
1. Again it is painfully apparent that Chris has yet to
discover his gaffe of confusing "real" space with
"seen" space. He is not aware that "God" is a
mental/perceptual phenomena whereby the less than
fully grown brain produces a "curved image" of reality.
2. Roger Penrose's Quantum Brain gravity is NOT assumed as
a HYPOTHESIS of my theory, it is deduced as a RESULT
of my theory. My discovery confirms Penrose's theory,
not vice versa! Isham greatly errs here.
3. Not only has he confused the 2 spaces of "reality", he
has conceived of the theory backwards. He supposes that
I start with Penrose's conjecture of Quantum Brain Gravity,
assume that controls braingrowth, and results in a
"classical Einsteinian curvature" in the brain.
This is TOTALLY WRONG! the facts of the matter are
actually these:
A. It is experimentally known that there are 4 dimensions
in Psychology (experimental, 2-decimal, Psychometry).
B. Hammond discovered the REASON for this in that the brain
is Cartesionally cleaved due to the (Euclidean) metric
of real space (Hammond, 1994). Hence it is XYZt that
is the physical cause of ENPg of Psychometry space.
C. Hammond discovered that Psychometry space is "curved"
and since XYZt causes the ENPg dimensions of Psychometry
space... the cause of this curvature is identified, sui
generous, as a curvature of XYZt spacetime.. e.g. Gravity.
D. The direct biological cause of the curvature is easily
proven to be the Secular Trend in braingrowth.
E. From these discoveries, Sir Roger Pensrose's Brain Gravity
(Penrose-Hameroff Microtubule theory) is identified as
"most likely" the physical source of the "gravity" in
that this mechanism would control "brain growth" and
thus could cause the classical gravitational curvature
in perceptual (subjective) space.
F. Finally, we note that the discovery is a compelling
if not overwhelming explanation of God, without even
mentioning Quantum Gravity... although obviously the
involvement of Penrose's/Hameroff's thesis is now of
compelling interest in this regard.
So, from these facts, we see that there is NO QUESTION that
the curvature tensor involved has to be G_uv and not R_uv or some
other tensor, since it is apparent that "a gravitational curvature
of spacetime" (XYZt) is the cause of the curvature of ENPg, and
Einstein has already shown that no other tensor than G_uv will
qualify as a description of this curvature.
Now, finally, in view of Isham's total failure to comprehend the
theory, we have insult added to injury with his precipitous summary
remarks such as:
December 15, 2003
So, to be honest, I do not personally
think that you have any sort of
"Scientific proof of God"
December 23, 2003
So even if your conjecture is true that
there is a relation between brain growth
and the experience of 'God', I think it
is scientifically quite wrong to say that
there is a *proof* that this is connected
with general relativity.
March 8, 2004
it seems to me that at best you could say
is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
between certain ideas in psychology and
ideas in general relativity.
None of these remarks can be supported by (a correct) factual
argument. All of them are precipitous, preemptive, and reflect
the writers hard bitten presumptions rather than any objective facts.
SUMMARY
In view of this failure of our leading authorities in Sci-Rel
to be able to diligently pursue the truth in such an extremely
important matter... I think it not unreasonable to ask the
COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION to do something to ameliorate the
situation.
There is little doubt in my mind that Chris Isham is capable
of evaluating this theory... if he but had the time to discover
that it actually is a theory (not to say a proven discovery).
Unfortunately he is too busy studying Quantum Gravity and
William Dembski is too busy studying Intelligent Design
(ironically my discovery confirms Intelligent Design!).
Isn't there SOMETHING the COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION can do
to help evaluate this discovery... a committee... a hearing...
a discussion... something?
I have already published the discovery in the peer reviewed
literature (Noetic Journal 2003) and a copy of that paper is posted
on my website at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
but I would strongly suggest you read the first 4 Large print
pages of my website before attempting to read the paper:
====================================
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
===================================
Sincerely, George Hammond, M.S. Physics (1967)
.

User: "Ike"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 07:20:09 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

George Hammond
December 5, 2004

The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM
c/o Professor Chris Isham
Professor William Dembski

http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/index-frame.html

<snip>

[Chris Isham, 12-15-2003]

"If I understand you correctly, you
are invoking quantum gravity as a
way of producing large gravitational
fields inside the brain."

The gravitational fields in side my brain are pulling me away!
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 08:18:24 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Why?
No one paying any attention to you in your own private sewer ..... I mean
news group?

________________________________________________________

God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

Professors Chris Isham and William Dembski are
COUNTERBALANCE members. Physicist Dr. Stephen Unwin is
author of _The Probability of God_ (see SCIAM July 2004,
p. 46 for a review by Michael Shermer).

All three have written opinions on my discovery that
God=G_uv and I wish to rebut their remarks in this
letter to the Counterbalance Forum.

Physicists are not experts in Theology nor are
Theologians expert in Physics.

All except you? By using a collection of your posts - you, and ONLY you, are
THE perfect expert in everything!

It is just as doubtful that Isaac Newton understood
God is as it is doubtful that Mary Baker Eddy understood
the Principle of Least Action.

HENCE: If a scientific proof
of God is discovered we can be
certain that FEW will understand it!

No. If you have a REAL "scientific proof of ANYTHING" real scientists will
be able to understand it.
Since you have nothing but CRAP - real scientists tell you that!

Such is the case with God=G_uv

BECAUSE OF THIS FACT,

Once again, as has been repeated over and over again - just because YOU make
a claim - it is NOT fact!
I have received very pejorative

commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. They have
even suggested God=G_uv is incompetent.

It is .... only you're too stupid to admit that!
(snip remaining, standard hammondcrap)
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 01:57:33 PM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

March 8, 2004
it seems to me that at best you could say
is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
between certain ideas in psychology and
ideas in general relativity.

That was my assesment as well after spending time reasearching the idea.
There was an analogy between physics and psychology, then God was thrown in
out of nowhere. There was no logical connection made between the ideas.
That was a *long* time ago.
At least we can say that Mr. Hammond is persistant.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 08:41:18 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eR2td.134$xk3.93@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

March 8, 2004
it seems to me that at best you could say
is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
between certain ideas in psychology and
ideas in general relativity.

That was my assesment as well after spending time reasearching the idea.

There was an analogy between physics and psychology, then God was thrown

out of nowhere. There was no logical connection made between the ideas.

[Hammond]
Isham's statement is easily proven ridiculous in my
post... since he doesn't even understand the theory
to the point of knowing in which space G_uv exists.
Your opinion is of course so moronic its not worth
mentioning.
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 09:33:54 PM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:iL8td.7550$Va5.6825@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eR2td.134$xk3.93@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

March 8, 2004
it seems to me that at best you could say
is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
between certain ideas in psychology and
ideas in general relativity.

That was my assesment as well after spending time reasearching the idea.

There was an analogy between physics and psychology, then God was thrown

out of nowhere. There was no logical connection made between the ideas.

Nevertheless, I'm honoured you felt it worthy of a reply. :)
I must be bored, as I went and looked at the website again.
[Hammond]
So, we have answered the question "why is psychology 3-dimensional"- the
answer is "because space is 3-dimensional". This then, is the beginning of
the connection of Psychology to Relativity. Relativity is the study of
4-dimensional space, what is called "spacetime". We have just seen how
Personality is Related to XYZ the 3 dimensions of space.
There's the analogy of which Isham speaks. We have not demonstrated any
connection. Only that we have 2 different things that involve the number 3.
That is not a relationship. It is at best, an analogy.
I read over the first 3 pages again. To me, you're doing more to disprove
the existence of God by equating him to a deficit in brain growth.
That's enough of that. :P
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	06 Dec 2004 11:19:15 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6x9td.178$xk3.29@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:iL8td.7550$Va5.6825@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eR2td.134$xk3.93@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:ZSSsd.7807$714.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

March 8, 2004
it seems to me that at best you could say
is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
between certain ideas in psychology and
ideas in general relativity.

That was my assesment as well after spending time reasearching the

idea.

There was an analogy between physics and psychology, then God was

thrown

out of nowhere. There was no logical connection made between the

ideas.

the connection of Psychology to Relativity. Relativity is the study of
4-dimensional space, what is called "spacetime". We have just seen how
Personality is Related to XYZ the 3 dimensions of space.

There's the analogy of which Isham speaks. We have not demonstrated any
connection. Only that we have 2 different things that involve the number

That is not a relationship. It is at best, an analogy.

[Hammond]
No you're just a lazy amateur ignoramus who is too lazy
to read. Isham is a genius who is too busy to read.
Same difference.
The CAUSAL CONNECTION between real space
and Psychometry space is FULLY PROVEN in
SECTION V of my peer/published paper located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
Just because you are too lazy or ignorant to read it, and
Chris Isham is apparently to desperately busy to read it,
DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN
AND PUBLISHED!

I read over the first 3 pages again. To me, you're doing more to disprove
the existence of God by equating him to a deficit in brain growth.

[Hammond]
"To you"?! ... who the h--- do you think you are?
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	08 Dec 2004 12:46:49 PM

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human brain to be
3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis Cartesian
(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real space
that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we see that for
the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.
Neither relationship has been demonstrated. Doesn't take much knowledge to
determine that.
If you could explain the process by which real space causes psychometry
space, you would be much further ahead.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	08 Dec 2004 09:28:34 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human brain to

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis Cartesian
(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real space
that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we see that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah pihsnoitaler rehtieN
.taht enimreted
yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc uoy fI
.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	08 Dec 2004 11:03:39 PM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:CDPtd.11848$714.6823@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human brain to

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis

Cartesian

(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real space
that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we see that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah pihsnoitaler

rehtieN

.taht enimreted

yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc uoy fI
.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

That's not an answer. How do the dimensions of real space cause the same
number of dimensions in psychometry space? Or more precisely, how does the
fact that space has 3 spacial dimensions cause there to be 3 factors to
determine a person's personality?
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 10:42:04 AM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h1Rtd.437$xk3.265@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:CDPtd.11848$714.6823@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human brain

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis

Cartesian

(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real

space

that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we see

that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah pihsnoitaler

rehtieN

.taht enimreted

yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc uoy

.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

[Hammond]
You're too lazy to read. The answer has been given a million times.
For the million and wunth time, the answer to your question
is given in full in SECTION-5 of my PUBLISHED PAPER
located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
READ IT AND STOP ASKING ME NEWBIE QUESTIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED A MILLION TIMES
ON THE INTERNET ALREADY.
BTW I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH IGNORANT
AMATEURS
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 11:19:24 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:wf%td.5894$0r.4750@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h1Rtd.437$xk3.265@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:CDPtd.11848$714.6823@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human

brain

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis

Cartesian

(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real

space

that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we see

that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah pihsnoitaler

rehtieN

.taht enimreted

yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc uoy

.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

That's not an answer. How do the dimensions of real space cause the same
number of dimensions in psychometry space? Or more precisely, how does

the

fact that space has 3 spacial dimensions cause there to be 3 factors to
determine a person's personality?

Your answerais are no less crap than your ignoranat theories.

BTW I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH IGNORANT
AMATEURS

Then go back to your closet and fiddle with yourself.
You are the only one spreading ignorance here.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 06:11:45 PM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10rh28rjulubd0d@corp.supernews.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:wf%td.5894$0r.4750@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h1Rtd.437$xk3.265@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:CDPtd.11848$714.6823@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human

brain

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis

Cartesian

(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of real

space

that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we

see

that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature of
psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah pihsnoitaler

rehtieN

.taht enimreted

yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc

uoy

.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

That's not an answer. How do the dimensions of real space cause the

same

number of dimensions in psychometry space? Or more precisely, how does

the

fact that space has 3 spacial dimensions cause there to be 3 factors

determine a person's personality?

Your answerais are no less crap than your ignoranat theories.

BTW I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH IGNORANT
AMATEURS

Then go back to your closet and fiddle with yourself.
You are the only one spreading ignorance here.

[Hammond]
Get off this thread moron.
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 11:55:05 PM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:5R5ud.6834$0r.377@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10rh28rjulubd0d@corp.supernews.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:wf%td.5894$0r.4750@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h1Rtd.437$xk3.265@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:CDPtd.11848$714.6823@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X_Htd.377$xk3.216@fe51.usenetserver.com...

[Hammond]
The human body is a Cartesian Machine and this causes the human

brain

3-axis Cartesian, which in turn causes psychometry to be 3-axis

Cartesian

(see Hammond 1994 for details). Hence, it is the geometry of

real

space

that causes the geometry of psychometry space, and from this we

see

that

for

the same reason a curvature of real space can cause a curvature

psychometry space.

[Hammond]
Your (backward) statement has been corrected as follows:

ot egdelwonk hcum ekat t'nseoD .detartsnomed neeb sah

pihsnoitaler

rehtieN

.taht enimreted

yrtemohcysp sesuac ecaps laer hcihw yb ssecorp eht nialpxe dluoc

uoy

.daeha rehtruf hcum eb dluow uoy ,ecaps

That's not an answer. How do the dimensions of real space cause the

same

number of dimensions in psychometry space? Or more precisely, how

does

the

fact that space has 3 spacial dimensions cause there to be 3 factors

determine a person's personality?

Your answerais are no less crap than your ignoranat theories.

BTW I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH IGNORANT
AMATEURS

Then go back to your closet and fiddle with yourself.
You are the only one spreading ignorance here.

[Hammond]
Get off this thread moron.

Oh? You rule the internet now?
Quit posting this CRAP, and I'll quit calling it crap - and you a psychotic
***** for posting it.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 03:12:52 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10riehnf5vqd1c3@corp.supernews.com...
?won tenretni eht elur uoY ?hO
citohcysp a uoy dna - parc ti gnillac tiuq ll'I dna ,PARC siht gnitsop tiuQ
..ti gnitsop rof elohssa
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 01:59:37 PM

Your ability to argue with knowledgable experts also appears to be lacking.
This is one of 2 fundamental flaws in your logic that is preventing your
theory to be accepted.
In section 5, you take a corrolation between unrelated theories as proof
that they are causally related to each other. You have not described any
physical mechanism connecting the two theories.
An analogy for your thinking would be:
Every colour of light can be reproduced by a combination of the 3 primary
colours, red, green and blue, in different intensities. By placing these
three variables on a 3 dimensional cartesian coordinate system, we can see
that every colour can be described as a point in this 3 dimensional colour
space.
Real space also has 3 dimensions that describe the position of an object in
3 dimensional space; therefore, we can see a corrolation between the 3
dimensions of colour space, RGB, and the 3 dimensions of real space, XYZ;
therefore, the 3 dimensions of colour space must be caused by the 3
dimensions of real space.
Obviously there is a flaw in that argument. I have not proven causality,
only a corrolation.
You are making the same error, Mr. Hammond.
Untill you can demonstrate the physical causality between space and
psychometry, your "proof" of God will continue to be dismissed as the
irrational nonsense that it is.
I feel sorry for you that you can not see this.
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 11:45:16 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c92ud.511$xk3.75@fe51.usenetserver.com...

Your ability to argue with knowledgable experts also appears to be

lacking.

This is one of 2 fundamental flaws in your logic that is preventing your
theory to be accepted.

In section 5, you take a corrolation between unrelated theories as proof
that they are causally related to each other. You have not described any
physical mechanism connecting the two theories.

An analogy for your thinking would be:

Every colour of light can be reproduced by a combination of the 3 primary
colours, red, green and blue, in different intensities. By placing these
three variables on a 3 dimensional cartesian coordinate system, we can see
that every colour can be described as a point in this 3 dimensional colour
space.

Real space also has 3 dimensions that describe the position of an object

3 dimensional space; therefore, we can see a corrolation between the 3
dimensions of colour space, RGB, and the 3 dimensions of real space, XYZ;
therefore, the 3 dimensions of colour space must be caused by the 3
dimensions of real space.

Obviously there is a flaw in that argument. I have not proven causality,
only a corrolation.

You are making the same error, Mr. Hammond.

Untill you can demonstrate the physical causality between space and
psychometry, your "proof" of God will continue to be dismissed as the
irrational nonsense that it is.

I feel sorry for you that you can not see this.

Don't you know George's "Rule No. 1"?
If George says so - then it is absolute and undeniable fact!
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 03:17:43 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10ridva9qf4b310@corp.supernews.com...
?"1 .oN eluR" s'egroeG wonk uoy t'noD
!tcaf elbainednu dna etulosba si ti neht - os syas egroeG fI
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 08:54:08 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:XQdud.7147$0r.2379@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10ridva9qf4b310@corp.supernews.com...

?"1 .oN eluR" s'egroeG wonk uoy t'noD

!tcaf elbainednu dna etulosba si ti neht - os syas egroeG fI

Just more examples of George going, further, off the deep end.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 01:23:29 PM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10rje4cfmntedd9@corp.supernews.com...
[Hammond]
Your impudent BACKTALK has been corrected:
..dne peed eht ffo ,rehtruf ,gniog egroeG fo selpmaxe erom tsuJ
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 04:06:31 PM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10rje4cfmntedd9@corp.supernews.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:XQdud.7147$0r.2379@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10ridva9qf4b310@corp.supernews.com...

?"1 .oN eluR" s'egroeG wonk uoy t'noD

!tcaf elbainednu dna etulosba si ti neht - os syas egroeG fI

Just more examples of George going, further, off the deep end.

Heh. That appears to be the case.
He's rather isolated himself in his own little world that no one else can
understand.
He obviously wants to be able to interact with others, still has that human
need for social interaction; unfortunately he has lost the ability to do so.
Without that human contact needed to preserve his sanity, he's likely only
to get worse and worse.
It's sad, really. I feel sorry for him; but I don't think there's anything I
can do to help. :(
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 05:38:16 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:c6pud.83$8%6.76@fe51.usenetserver.com...
[Hammond]
Your ignorant BACKWARD and OFF TOPIC post has
been corrected as follows:
..esac eht eb ot sraeppa tahT .heH
nac esle eno on taht dlrow elttil nwo sih ni flesmih detalosi rehtar s'eH
..dnatsrednu
namuh taht sah llits ,srehto htiw tcaretni ot elba eb ot stnaw ylsuoivbo eH
..os od ot ytiliba eht tsol sah eh yletanutrofnu ;noitcaretni laicos rof deen
ylno ylekil s'eh ,ytinas sih evreserp ot dedeen tcatnoc namuh taht tuohtiW
..esrow dna esrow teg ot
I gnihtyna s'ereht kniht t'nod I tub ;mih rof yrros leef I .yllaer ,das s'tI
(: .pleh ot od nac
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Azrael Nightwind"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	11 Dec 2004 12:09:27 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6pud.83$8%6.76@fe51.usenetserver.com...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10rje4cfmntedd9@corp.supernews.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:XQdud.7147$0r.2379@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10ridva9qf4b310@corp.supernews.com...

?"1 .oN eluR" s'egroeG wonk uoy t'noD

!tcaf elbainednu dna etulosba si ti neht - os syas egroeG fI

Just more examples of George going, further, off the deep end.

Heh. That appears to be the case.

He's rather isolated himself in his own little world that no one else can
understand.

He obviously wants to be able to interact with others, still has that

human

need for social interaction; unfortunately he has lost the ability to do

so.

Without that human contact needed to preserve his sanity, he's likely only
to get worse and worse.

It's sad, really. I feel sorry for him; but I don't think there's anything

can do to help. :(

Yes, it seems that he has equated turning our posts around in reverse to
disproving them...
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	11 Dec 2004 04:59:23 PM

"Azrael Nightwind" <azraelnightwind@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rJGud.8668$sr2.746@trndny02...

Yes, it seems that he has equated turning our posts around in reverse to
disproving them...

[Hammond]
Say that again?
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 02:47:38 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ridva9qf4b310@corp.supernews.com...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c92ud.511$xk3.75@fe51.usenetserver.com...

Your ability to argue with knowledgable experts also appears to be

lacking.

primary

colours, red, green and blue, in different intensities. By placing these
three variables on a 3 dimensional cartesian coordinate system, we can

see

that every colour can be described as a point in this 3 dimensional

colour

space.

Real space also has 3 dimensions that describe the position of an object

3 dimensional space; therefore, we can see a corrolation between the 3
dimensions of colour space, RGB, and the 3 dimensions of real space,

XYZ;

therefore, the 3 dimensions of colour space must be caused by the 3
dimensions of real space.

Obviously there is a flaw in that argument. I have not proven causality,
only a corrolation.

You are making the same error, Mr. Hammond.

Untill you can demonstrate the physical causality between space and
psychometry, your "proof" of God will continue to be dismissed as the
irrational nonsense that it is.

I feel sorry for you that you can not see this.

Don't you know George's "Rule No. 1"?

If George says so - then it is absolute and undeniable fact!

I challenge that assertion! :P
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 01:21:01 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:dpdud.11$8%6.10@fe51.usenetserver.com...
[Hammond]
Your impudent BACKTALK has been corrected:
dna ecaps neewteb ytilasuac lacisyhp eht etartsnomed nac uoy llitnU > >
eht sa dessimsid eb ot eunitnoc lliw doG fo "foorp" ruoy ,yrtemohcysp > >
..si ti taht esnesnon lanoitarri > >

..siht ees ton nac uoy taht uoy rof yrros leef I > >

?"1 .oN eluR" s'egroeG wonk uoy t'noD >

!tcaf elbainednu dna etulosba si ti neht - os syas egroeG fI >
P: !noitressa taht egnellahc I
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 06:16:52 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c92ud.511$xk3.75@fe51.usenetserver.com...

Your ability to argue with knowledgable experts also appears to be

lacking.
[Hammond]
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Isdemunwin.html
This proves you wrong. If I've made fools of Isham and
Dembski what makes you think an ***** like you knows anything?
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	09 Dec 2004 11:46:42 PM

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:UV5ud.6838$0r.6798@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c92ud.511$xk3.75@fe51.usenetserver.com...

Your ability to argue with knowledgable experts also appears to be

lacking.

[Hammond]
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Of course. George doesn't have the inellectual ability - OR the integrity to
argue with ANYONE.
That's why his response, here, is all he has.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 03:14:48 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:10rie20114rda51@corp.supernews.com...
ot ytirgetni eht RO - ytiliba lautcelleni eht evah t'nseod egroeG .esruoc fO
..ENOYNA htiw eugra
..sah eh lla si ,ereh ,esnopser sih yhw s'tahT
====================================
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
===================================
.

User: "Dan Skunk"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 02:46:08 AM

Hardly.
That's just a copy of the thread you posted here.
Calling people fools because they don't understand or agree with you proves
nothing.
You did not prove your arguments in that article; that's why I challenged
you to do so.
You only repeated yourself.
You evade every challenge brought against you; dismiss the people who
challenge it; you never logically defend your theory.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin	10 Dec 2004 01:17:48 PM

"Dan Skunk" <danskunk@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:Qndud.10$8%6.4@fe51.usenetserver.com...
[Hammond]
Your impudent backtalk has been corrected:
..yldraH
..ereh detsop uoy daerht eht fo ypoc a tsuj s'tahT
sevorp uoy htiw eerga ro dnatsrednu t'nod yeht esuaceb sloof elpoep gnillaC
..gnihton
degnellahc I yhw s'taht ;elcitra taht ni stnemugra ruoy evorp ton did uoY
..os od ot uoy
..flesruoy detaeper ylno uoY
ohw elpoep eht ssimsid ;uoy tsniaga thguorb egnellahc yreve edave uoY
..yroeht ruoy dnefed yllacigol reven uoy ;ti egnellahc
====================================
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
===================================
.

Page 1 of 8

Post reply

Ann Coulter's Lies and William Dembski's Cowardice
William Dembski all but Laughed off the Stage
Re: Dembski: "...if God does not exist, then evolution is the only
Dembski
Dembski Replies to ID Critics
Dumbshit Dembski says Genesis 1 contains lots of wisdom
Dembski on Human Origins
Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"

Re: Dembski's latest on irreducible complexity
Wm Dembski's blog
Dembski disproves Christian God!
Dembski: "Darwinian magic gig is now up"
Wm Dembski - Darling of the ID Movement - Wrong Again
Re: Dembski: "...if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility"
Re: GOD=G_uv vs UNWIN'S P(god)=67%

Topics

Bible

Abortion

Atheism

Depression

Physics

Education

Philosophy

Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus

Politics-USA

Politics

Politics-Misc

Politics-Republicans