The Question that Stopped Hammond

Science > Physics > The Question that Stopped Hammond

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Gary Eickmeier"
Date:	27 Apr 2005 06:22:19 PM
Object:	The Question that Stopped Hammond

As most of you know, George Hammond has been pushing his theory that God
is a manifestation of brain growth deficit, and that he has proven it
scientifically in terms of physics. We have been trying to reason with
him, to no avail. His responses are usually one of three types: He will
try to answer you with more nonsense, he will accuse you of not being on
his level and try to bar you from the thread, or he will simply not
answer at all. Yesterday he snipped the majority of a very frontal
attack from me, a very on-point probe into the very heart of his theory.
We have all been searching for just such a question or series of
questions that he has no answer for. I may have stumbled upon it in that
post, so I would like to now reformulate those questions, number them,
and see which ones he can answer.
The core of Hammond's belief system, probably due to his "condition," is
that all of reality is within the human brain. There is no real external
reality, except as conceived by the brain. If we can break that down and
prove it to be wrong, Hammond is over. He says, for example:
(Eickmeier)

They believed that God is a personal supreme being,
external to us and very real,

[Hammond]
My discovery PROVES THAT HE IS BOTH
"EXTERNAL" AND "VERY REAL".

THE POINT IS........ the God I have discovered meets
ALL THE REQUIREMENTS of being "real and external".

This is because the brain DEFINES both what is "real" and
what is "external" vs. what is "internal".

So to George, the world, all of reality, and God did not exist until
created by the human brain. The universe only seems to be billions of
eons old, because it is all within our minds. Something like that.
So here are my questions:
1. Are you saying that reality is all psychology? I thought it was
science that determined what was real.
(Hammond's previous answer)

It turns out that a
brain syndrome that makes something look external when it
is not can be tested because all other people without the brain
syndrome will not see any such external object.
HOWEVER, if there is a UNIVERSAL BRAIN
SYNDROME (the growth deficit) which causes the
appearance of an "external God" (which it does)...
then there is NO WAY for anyone to demonstrate
that it is "not external" BECAUSE BY DEFINITION
it actually IS EXTERNAL by all human measurement
and perception. there is no way to "prove anything"
except by human observation, idiot!

This is where he snipped me and stopped answering. Next question:
2. Well then, you've got a real problem. The rest of us have not
observed your god or any other god. So your statement that it is a
universal brain syndrome is just not true. There is no appearance of a
god - internal or external - for many of us. In other words, if there is
no appearance of a god, external or otherwise, then how can there be a
universal brain syndrome (brain growth deficit) that causes it?

[Hammond]
The God I have proved CLEARLY "created everything
in the universe including your brain".
How stupid can you get?

This statement is key to his undoing. He is saying that the God who was
created by our brain growth deficit created our brains (!).
3. That is about as stupid as possible, George. A god that was created
by my brain couldn't possibly have created my brain. Should I lay that
out for you? I think I better:
In classical theology, God has always existed, and created the universe
and everything in it, including us. So, FIRST GOD, THEN HUMAN BRAIN.
In your theology, human brain growth deficit causes god. FIRST HUMAN
BRAIN, THEN GOD. Just the opposite. See?
And this is where he starts getting in really hot water, because without
an external, classical God theology, where did the first humans come from?
4. OK, here is a legitimate inquiry: How could God have created the
universe and us if he is just a manifestation of our human brain growth
deficit? Conversely, how could human brain growth deficit create god if
god has always existed, and we didn't appear until 100,000 years ago? If
god has not always existed, but is just a manifestation of our brains,
then where did we come from? If you ever actually answer this one, be
very careful.
And in this last question lies the trap. No matter how he answers it, it
will prove his theory wrong. Let's first see if he answers at all, and
then pursue the logical thread that I'm talking about.
Gary Eickmeier
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	30 Apr 2005 12:26:01 PM

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message news:L8Vbe.32517$_t3.3186@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

As most of you know, George Hammond has been pushing his theory that God
is a manifestation of brain growth deficit, and that he has proven it
scientifically in terms of physics.

[Hammond]
That is correct, for a short college level synopsis see:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/georgefile.html

The core of Hammond's belief system,.... (e.g. peer/published theory) is
that all of reality is within the human brain.

[Hammond]
This is proven by the fact that if "all men died tomorrow"
then the Universe would no longer exist.
Proof: With all men dead, there is no way to prove the
Universe exists: Ergo, the human mind "creates"
the Universe. The "universe" has no existence
independent of the human mind, because the
word "existence" ITSELF is de facto a property
of the human sensory system and mind.

There is no real external
reality, except as conceived by the brain.

[Hammond]
CORRECT... all "properties of reality" including the
notion of "internal vs. external" are merely manifestations
of the human sensory system and mind. No mind: ...
no reality... no "externality".... "no internality"....
no "universe"... no "existence".... no nothing!

If we can break that down and
prove it to be wrong, Hammond is over. He says, for example:

(Eickmeier)

They believed that God is a personal supreme being,
external to us and very real,

So to George, the world, all of reality, and God did not exist until
created by the human brain.

[Hammond]
That is correct.

The universe only seems to be billions of
eons old, because it is all within our minds. Something like that.

[Hammond]
Ahh... lets get it straight chief. When the human mind appeared
"time itself" (which is a sensory function of the mind) ALSO
appeared with it... (was created by the mind).. INCLUDING
the "past history" of time...
As St. Augustine put it 1,700 years ago:
"The world was created WITH time, not IN time"
(St. Augustine, ca. 300 ad)
What he meant by this is that when the human MIND appeared,
the time and space appeared at the same instant, because without
the human mind there IS NO SUCH THING as "time and space".
NATURALLY, the creation of "time" includes the creation of
all "past time" including Dinosaurs, Fossils, the Big Bang..
and everything ELSE in this newly created "time". Time itself
however, was only created 100,000 years ago when the human brain
appeared.... and the "14 billion year "past history" of time was
created at that instant also.

So here are my questions:

1. Are you saying that reality is all psychology? I thought it was
science that determined what was real.

[Hammond]
All of "reality" is created by the existence of humans... i.e.
the human sensory system and mind. Now if you want to call
that "psychological" you are free to do so (if you want to be
a psychologist).... but the Theologians call it "God" and
the Physicists call it "human sensory perception". So
depending on who you are talking to, you have at least 3
choices of description.

(Hammond's previous answer)

This is where he snipped me and stopped answering. Next question:

2. Well then, you've got a real problem. The rest of us have not
observed your god or any other god. So your statement that it is a
universal brain syndrome is just not true. There is no appearance of a
god - internal or external - for many of us. In other words, if there is
no appearance of a god, external or otherwise, then how can there be a
universal brain syndrome (brain growth deficit) that causes it?

[Hammond]
WRONG.... you're seeing it....... you just don't KNOW you're
seeing it. For instance there is ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC PROOF
that 20% of "normal human reality" is actually INVISIBLE to
the average person due to the Secular Trend Human Growth Deficit.
the proof of this is stated clearly here:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/georgefile.html
this SCIENTIFIC FACT PROVES THAT:
1. It proves there is an "invisible world" which you can't see...
i.e.... a substantial portion of "normal human reality" which you
were genetically "designed" to see but can't see because of
Secular Trend Deficit in human brain growth.
2. It proves the full grown man "would see" the rest of
reality and thus this (invisible) man is "God".
3. It proves that "heaven" is nothing other than this
(proven and measureable) "invisible world".
4. It proves that "miracles" are nothing other than the sudden
lifting of "repression" (e.g. mental block) which suddenly
allows someone to see MORE of reality.
5. It explains ALL of Polytheism as well as ALL of Monothism.
6. It rationally explains "Creationism" as the advent of the human
brain 100,000 years ago... thus providing the first hard
scientific explanation and PROOF of Genesis.
CONCLUSION:
------------------------------------------------------
If there is CLEAR PROOF that there is an "invisble world"
which external to Man.... then CLEARLY "God who lives there"
is external to Man. What is your problem?
What in the Sam Hill is so hard to comprehend about that!
------------------------------------------------------

[Hammond]
The God I have proved CLEARLY "created everything
in the universe including your brain".
How stupid can you get?

This statement is key to his undoing. He is saying that the God who was
created by our brain growth deficit created our brains (!).

[Hammond]
You are not arguing scientific facts... you are arguing
"metaphors".... OK... I can play that game too....
the (metaphorical) answer is simply that
"God created himself".

3. That is about as stupid as possible, George. A god that was created
by my brain couldn't possibly have created my brain. Should I lay that
out for you? I think I better:

[Hammond]
You're ignoring the well known fact that
"God created himself". That answer
cuts your objection off at the knees.
If God is "human consciousness",
then "human consciousness created
itself".... and thereby created "everything
in the universe" including the human brain.
It is only "within the purview of Physics"
that we can properly say "the brain creates
consciousness (God)". Within the purview
of Theology, we must say "Consciousness
(God) creates the brain". There is no
logical dilemma here... it is merely a matter
of "contextual definition". What you are trying
to do is utlize the strategy of "mixing metaphors",
which is one of the oldest (and most boring)
tricks in the book.... nobody is interested in
such arguments in the face of a 2 decimal
point proven scientific discovery!
You can't used "mixed metaphorical arguments"
to counter a "new proven scientific discovery".

In classical theology, God has always existed, and created the universe
and everything in it, including us. So, FIRST GOD, THEN HUMAN BRAIN.

[Hammond]
God created himself when he created "time itself", therefore
"God has always existed"... since he created himself at the
beginning of time. No problem.

In your theology, human brain growth deficit causes god.

[Hammond]
Now you are arguing within the purview of Physics.
However... even there you are inaccurate... since
both Man and God were created at the same "time"
since God created "time" at the same instant he
created Man... and since "timewise" God can be no
"older" than the beginning of "time"... he created
himself at the same time he created Man.

FIRST HUMAN
BRAIN, THEN GOD. Just the opposite. See?

[Hammond]
No.... the human brain was created "at the beginning
of time".... so was "God" (God created himself at the
beginning of time)...... and created the Universe
at the same instant also.
You do greatly err.

And this is where he starts getting in really hot water, because without
an external, classical God theology, where did the first humans come from?

[Hammond]
If there is CLEAR PROOF that there is an "invisble world"
which external to Man.... then CLEARLY "God who lives there"
is external to Man.
The "invisible world" has ALSO existed since the beginning
of time... since the Bible says that "In the beginning god created
Heaven and the Earth". But the "invisible world" IS in fact
"Heaven" and is EXTERNAL to man, and God lives there,
so God is external to man.
Yawn..........

4. OK, here is a legitimate inquiry: How could God have created the
universe and us if he is just a manifestation of our human brain growth
deficit?

[Hammond]
That is a MIXED METAPHOR. First you use a religious
metaphor "created the Universe" and then you compare that
to a "scientific metaphor" .... "manifestation of our human
brain growth deficit".
MIXING METAPHORS is the traditional hecklers method of
producing "sham arguments" (usually because the heckler is
scientifically incompetent and can't argue the actual science
involved).
Anyway, 'God' is nothing but "human consciousness"... and
when you say "create" w.r.t. human consciousness... you are
referring to the fact that "consciousness is existence" within
Psychology/theology. However, withing the purview of
Physics (which already exists within "human existence")
then you are talking about a "creation WHITIN the creation
of existence".... and THERE you can properly say...
"god is a manifestation of the brain growth deficit".
Yawn.........

Conversely, how could human brain growth deficit create god if
god has always existed, and we didn't appear until 100,000 years ago?

[Hammond]
Simple.......... "time itself" was CREATED 100,000 years ago...
How many times do I have to say it!

If
god has not always existed, but is just a manifestation of our brains,
then where did we come from?

[Hammond]
SIMPLE............ "God created himself".

If you ever actually answer this one, be
very careful.

[Hammond]
when I'm holding all the trumph cards I
don't have to be careful.... YOU have to be
careful!

And in this last question lies the trap.

[Hammond]
There's a gaping hole in your trap!

No matter how he answers it, it
will prove his theory wrong.

[Hammond]
FALSE.

Let's first see if he answers at all, and
then pursue the logical thread that I'm talking about.

[Hammond]
Your "logical thread" is a CIRCLE because it is based
on MIXED METAPHORS in which you simply circulate
round and round between the "creation of reality itself"
and the "creation of the physical univese WITHIN
the creation of reality itself".
Your hocus pocus game is rather juvenile and
boring actually. such pseudointellectual "philawswphy
collequies" have long since been slain by a NEWLY
DISCOVERED SCIENTIFIC FACT....
Yawn.........

Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
PS: However........ I applaud your efforts... since you are the
ONLY PERSON who continues to post ON-TOPIC.
The rest of the lightweights have long since resorted to
pure ad hominem heckling.
My hat is off to you for being able to stay on-topic.
I sense from that that you are in possession of a
considerably "stronger mind" than the rest of them...
perhaps like me, you're "old enough to know better".
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.

User: "TMG"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	30 Apr 2005 10:19:46 PM

George Hammond wrote:
<a long, detail reply that he's sworn he wouldn't do>
George -
Is it that you just don't remember swearing that you were never going to
reply; that all of your posts are "read-only"? Do you just not recall
the long rant saying how very much above replying you are?
Do you recall several of us saying you had made this claim many times
before, and were simply unable to adhere?
Do you remember the words "compelled to reply", "unable to resist", and
"crank liar" being used to described your behavior?
Do you remember being mocked for making these claims, knowing you are
unable to adhere for more than a few minutes?
Why, OH WHY, are you replying?
In light of this flat out bizarre behavior, why would anyone on earth
take any stance to take seriously?
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	01 May 2005 01:38:23 AM

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:JoidnfSgNqDH1-nfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

<a long, detail reply that he's sworn he wouldn't do>

George -

Is it that you just don't remember swearing that you were never going to
reply; that all of your posts are "read-only"? Do you just not recall
the long rant saying how very much above replying you are?

Do you recall several of us saying you had made this claim many times
before, and were simply unable to adhere?

Do you remember the words "compelled to reply", "unable to resist", and
"crank liar" being used to described your behavior?

Do you remember being mocked for making these claims, knowing you are
unable to adhere for more than a few minutes?

Why, OH WHY, are you replying?

In light of this flat out bizarre behavior, why would anyone on earth
take any stance to take seriously?

[Hammond]
Get outta here McGuire, find another nite job.
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/dept/personnel/personnel_scientist_mcguire.htm
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	01 May 2005 02:08:20 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
PS:
Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.
.

User: "TMG"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	01 May 2005 11:12:49 AM

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We all
know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	01 May 2005 08:21:02 PM

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:RrSdnQtPjOv9YunfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We all
know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.

[Hammond]
You mean be sure I've got the right stalker, don't you McGuire?
It'd be easy enough to find out... all I have to do is send an email
to the personnell office complaining about McGuire and I'd
confirm your identity real fast.... your IP address is sufficient.
Better watch your step stalker... you're asking for legal trouble.
Falmouth isn't a very big town.
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	02 May 2005 01:42:58 AM

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2gfde.3319$V01.2899@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:RrSdnQtPjOv9YunfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We all
know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.

Threats - as meaningless as Hammond's scientific claims.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	02 May 2005 05:47:08 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:117bivjhv7r0097@corp.supernews.com...

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2gfde.3319$V01.2899@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:RrSdnQtPjOv9YunfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We

all

know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.

Threats - as meaningless as Hammond's scientific claims.

[Hammond]
Hey.... C.I.S. Miami is one of my favorite programs.
They uncover stalkers, serial harrassers, psychotic perps all the time.
I think it's high time the anonymous stalker "TMG" who has been
stalking, harrassing and threatening me for 3 -4 years was EXPOSED.
I think his name is Jeffrey J. McGuire, that's just a GUESS... as
I picked his picture out of 100 mug shots on the WHOI website
based solely on his Internet behavior and my (lengthy) personal
experience with criminals, psychos, abusers etc.
His profile matches the claims he's posted over the years:
1. PhD in geophysics, M.I.T. 2000 (brags about it all the time)
2. MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
and Planetary Science which he mentioned.
3. WHOI staff scientist (mentioned)
4. Resident of Falmouth MA (mentioned)
5. Married (mentioned)
6. 33 years old (mentioned)
7. Travels a lot to symposiums (earthquake wank fests)
his CV confirms that, which he has bragged about.
8. Looks like a psycho.. (Lee Harvey Oswald) type:
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/dept/personnel/personnel_scientist_mcguire.htm
9. Has a "known wiseass" surname (McGuire).
10. Has published papers on "tensors" which he bragged about
in one of his posts.
8. Outdoor enthusiast.. mentioned his 10 speed bike once
... see picture of him in hiking gear:
http://obslab.whoi.edu/~jeff/
Yeah... I think it's him all right... I'll be surprised if it isn't...
however, it
won't be hard to confirm it, and/or find out who he really is, that's for
sure!
Once we know who he is... he'll crawl back into the woodwork.. because
it is necessary for someone like him to be "anonyomous" because
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutution is a VERY prestigeous,
conservative (not to say uptight) institution... and if they ever found out
about his dirty little "nite job" of being an anonymous Internet stalker and
harrasser they'd doublessly take a very dim view of it.
Anyway... one thing is clear.... if he keeps on comin with the non-stop
ad hominem and off topic abuse....... he's headed for SERIOUS LEGAL
TROUBLE! I hope the ***** a word to the wise is sufficient.
If I ever get the idea he's a danger to me personally, he's going to be
talking to the Falmouth police, the FBI, the Homeland Security people
and the State Police so fast it'll make his fuckin pinhead spin!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "TMG"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	01 May 2005 11:32:21 PM

George Hammond wrote:

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:RrSdnQtPjOv9YunfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We all
know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.

Assumptions and conjecture.
If you're happy with your assumptions, so be it. Just want to be clear
that I don't think you're correct.
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	02 May 2005 05:06:59 AM

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:otGdnXY7G8QjMejfRVn-jA@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:RrSdnQtPjOv9YunfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:zP_ce.2399$7F4.1898@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

PS:

Besides, I like talking to Eickmeier because unlike you, he
actually posts ON-TOPIC McGuire.

You should be certain you're stalking the right person [Hammond]. We all
know how your conclusions have all been wrong before.

Assumptions and conjecture.

If you're happy with your assumptions, so be it. Just want to be clear
that I don't think you're correct.

Won't be hard to check. Keep on comin stalker.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	04 May 2005 07:31:38 PM

George Hammond wrote:

I for one think you have no proof. As has been pointed out to you many
times - there is no strong link between the secular trend for human
growth (there is no deficit on the end by the way) and mental ability.
There definitly is no one to one relationship between IQ and how tall
someone is or potentialy could be.
Anyway let's take a look to see how you've got from point A - the
undesputed secular trend in growth and B - people perceiving different
amounts of reality.
Had a look. Where's the proof? You make the same mistakes that people
have corrected you on time and time again. Where is the proof George?

this SCIENTIFIC FACT PROVES THAT:

Do the proof bit first and you might be able to go on from there. At
the moment there is no evidence there is a brain growth definict at
all.
Please no more leaps of faith and actualy do some joined up thinking.
And no 'get out of here' stuff, it just tells everyone you've run out
of answers.
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	04 May 2005 09:22:25 PM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115253098.512650.22760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

George Hammond wrote:

I for one think you have no proof.

[Hammond]
Stop posting "unsupported assertions" it is a waste of
bandwidth. My assertions are backed by evidence and
have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature,
along with said evidence, yours statments on the other
hand have NO FACTUAL SUPPORT.

As has been pointed out to you many
times - there is no strong link between the secular trend for human
growth (there is no deficit on the end by the way) and mental ability.

[Hammond]
LOL. A major component of the "Flynn Effect" in human
intelligence is caused by the Secular Trend.
Furthermore... to say that there is no "growth deficit" is DISPROVEN
by the existence of the Secular Trend.... if there was no deficit the
Secular Trend COULD NOT EXIST.
Your statement is therefore, INCOMPETENT.

There definitly is no one to one relationship between IQ and how tall
someone is or potentialy could be.

[Hammond]
IDIOT. "Height" is only one small factor in the Secular Trend
in human growth. It also includes the "size" of the entire body
including every organ therof, including the BRAIN.
Your staement is eauivalent to saying the only difference between
a 5 year old and a 10 year old is "height"...... DON'T BE STUPID!
Stop being STUPID.

Anyway let's take a look to see how you've got from point A - the
undesputed secular trend in growth and B - people perceiving different
amounts of reality.

[Hammond]
Look... a MORON can see the path from A to B.
Here's the step by step reasoning:
1. The "Secular Trend" in human growth is simply a recapitulation
of ordinary human childhood growth. I.e. a man of the 20th
century is "more fully grown" than a man of the 5th century in
exactly the same sense that an 16 year old is more fully grown
than a 15 year old (same biological principle).
2. We KNOW that a 16 year old is more intelligent than a 15 year old
due to brain growth (i.e. Intelligence increases linearly from age
0 to 18, when the brain finally stops growing).
3. Intelligence is known to be predominantly caused by the 'mental
speed" of the brain.... which of course increases with growth.
4. The mental speed of the brain determines how much of "normal
adult human reality" is actually INVISIBLE to you.... the picture
fusion
frequency test, for instance, PROVES this.
ERGO: There is a direct connection between the SECULAR TREND
in human growth, and how much of the world is INVISIBLE to the
human race population at large. Of course the actual amout that is
invisible depends on the individual's growth deficit, which VARIES
from person to person......... but has some fixed average in the
population since the Secular Trend growth deficit has some fixed
average value in the population.
NOW STEW......... if that kind of ELEMENTARY SCIENCE is
over your fuckin head..... you might as well hang up your Bongos
and get the hell outta here!

Had a look. Where's the proof?

[Hammond]
I just gave you a BLOW BY BLOW, SPOONFED
tutorial.... If you can't UNDERSTAND it... then you
should go back to selling shoes or where ever you
belong.

You make the same mistakes that people
have corrected you on time and time again.

[Hammond]
Only morons like you who are UNQUALIFIED in simple
elementary science can't understand it. Or hypocritical,
disinterested, and envious glossers like Prof.Chris Isham
who are simply trying to repress the discovery out of
aggrevated rage and jealousy.

Where is the proof George?

[Hammond]
Published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
where it belongs:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

this SCIENTIFIC FACT PROVES THAT:

Do the proof bit first and you might be able to go on from there. At
the moment there is no evidence there is a brain growth definict at
all.

Please no more leaps of faith and actualy do some joined up thinking.
And no 'get out of here' stuff, it just tells everyone you've run out
of answers.

Stew Dean

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	05 May 2005 02:47:35 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115253098.512650.22760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

George Hammond wrote:

I for one think you have no proof.

What evidence? My fact is you have no evidence. I've dealt with you for
a few months and in that time nothing that appears in the above url
pans out. There arnt three dimentions to pshychometric space for
example as there is no such thing as psychometric space and also a
variable of magnitude is not a dimension any way!

As has been pointed out to you many
times - there is no strong link between the secular trend for human
growth (there is no deficit on the end by the way) and mental

ability.

[Hammond]
LOL. A major component of the "Flynn Effect" in human
intelligence is caused by the Secular Trend.

That is not a fact. Most litrature on the subject says the opposite,
that the flynn effect is related more to social change than dietry
change. Any dietry change that is measurable is a local thing and not a
secular trend.

Furthermore... to say that there is no "growth deficit" is DISPROVEN
by the existence of the Secular Trend.... if there was no deficit the
Secular Trend COULD NOT EXIST.

Deficit is you own addition. The secular trend in height is not about
deficit - it's your own perspective that is not in the original
material. You are adding stuff that is not there to try and match your
own agenda - that's psuedo science at it's worse.

Your statement is therefore, INCOMPETENT.

My statement is correct.

There definitly is no one to one relationship between IQ and how

tall

someone is or potentialy could be.

[Hammond]
IDIOT. "Height" is only one small factor in the Secular Trend
in human growth. It also includes the "size" of the entire body
including every organ therof, including the BRAIN.

No it doesnt - the secular trend that is most commonly refered to
refers to height and weight alone. You've added lots of other stuff
that has nothing to do with it.

Your staement is eauivalent to saying the only difference between
a 5 year old and a 10 year old is "height"...... DON'T BE STUPID!

Stop being STUPID.

My statement is about the secular trend in human growth, something
you've been using to support your argument. As it stands (pun intended)
it comes up short of what you say it says.
You statement about 5 and 10 year olds is a completly different
subject, which if you are not an idiot should be very clear.

Anyway let's take a look to see how you've got from point A - the
undesputed secular trend in growth and B - people perceiving

different

amounts of reality.

[Hammond]
Look... a MORON can see the path from A to B.
Here's the step by step reasoning:

1. The "Secular Trend" in human growth is simply a recapitulation
of ordinary human childhood growth.

Not correct. You're confusing the growth pattern of an individual with
the overal trend of adults. All those adults go through the growth
pattern - the trend is about the height and weight they reach after
that pattern.

2. We KNOW that a 16 year old is more intelligent than a 15 year old
due to brain growth (i.e. Intelligence increases linearly from

age

0 to 18, when the brain finally stops growing).

Half correct. The agreed range is also no 0 to 18 but more like 0 to 16
and the change is NOT linear. The statement of intelligence is correct.

3. Intelligence is known to be predominantly caused by the 'mental
speed" of the brain.... which of course increases with growth.

Not correct. Mental speed is a factor in some areas of psychometrics.
In the feild of artificial intelligence speed is about sensory
perception NOT intelligence. A person may not have very good sensory
preception but be very intelligence. World perception is commonly about
knowledge not speed of perception, two people will see a shape, one
will know it's a cow about 5 years old and is about to give birth, the
other will see a black and white animal.

4. The mental speed of the brain determines how much of "normal
adult human reality" is actually INVISIBLE to you.... the

picture

fusion
frequency test, for instance, PROVES this.

Speed of perception is one factor in making sense of the world around
you and it's related to sensory perception, after all a footballer with
average intelligence with have a better sensory perception of the ball
than a physicist. There are too many examples that disprove this even
on a casual level.

NOW STEW......... if that kind of ELEMENTARY SCIENCE is
over your fuckin head.....

It's not over my head and it's not science. Everything you've said here
can be explored and found out to be incorrect (Save that on average 16
year olds are a bit smarter than 15 year olds).
I know science - I respect those who do it. The scientific method is
simple in it's logic and designed so ideas are fully tested before
anyone can say the might be true (not are true). You've made up your
own mind and most of it, when checked, is simply not true. You can't
stop people checking for themselves and finding your knowledge to be
out of date and full of convenient holes.

you might as well hang up your Bongos
and get the hell outta here!

How many times have you done that corny gangsta impression now? You
know it only riles people - probably why you do it.

Had a look. Where's the proof?

[Hammond]
I just gave you a BLOW BY BLOW, SPOONFED
tutorial....

Nothing new here George. It was incorrect the first time I heard it and
it's incorrect this time, and just like the first time there is no
evidence for what you say.
Game over George until you can come up with some kind of proof. Proof
being, as you don't appear to understand, independent objective
evidence that does not rely upon one of the many falacies, such as
selective quoting, appeals to authority, begging the question, non
sequitas or anything even remotely personal.

You make the same mistakes that people
have corrected you on time and time again.

[Hammond]
Only morons like you who are UNQUALIFIED in simple
elementary science can't understand it.

The whole qualification thing has been more than covered. You've had
people with PHDs telling you the same thing as I've been saying. So
quite frankly you've lost on this count. It's also an appeal to
authority so looses you face under standard baloney detection rules.

Or hypocritical,
disinterested, and envious glossers like Prof.Chris Isham
who are simply trying to repress the discovery out of
aggrevated rage and jealousy.

None of this is even remotely true. Chris says you have no evidence. He
has no reason to be jeaous given is standing in life. It would be a
gross misunderstanding of scientists to say they are not interested in
new radical ideas, they will be very sceptical but give them a way to
test it for themselves and the sceptics will - after all that's what
science is about. If the sceptics can't disprove it they will accept
it.
As it stands you have no way of confirming any of your ideas as the
base facts are all incorrect, many are bad inferences, and you have not
stated your views in anything resembling a scientific theory.

Where is the proof George?

This is not proof George, I've covered this and others have covered
this. This is the start of a peer review process that failed. You
incorrectly infer (a word I'll be using a lot with you in future) that
publishing of your ideas is official confirmation of those ideas. A
respected magazine like nature or new scientist publishing your ideas
would not indicate they are officialy confirmed as correct.
So once again I ask for your proof - references, independenty
confirmable experiments and measurements etc. I have no reason to
believe you other than your word, which is worthless in scientific
terms (and that would be true even if you where a respected scientist)
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	05 May 2005 09:09:08 AM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115279255.791428.236210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[Hammond]
Yes there are, Eysenck's E,N,P are the three leading Factors
in Psychometry and have been for years. And now my discovery
CONFIRMS the axiomatic physicis origin of the 3 dimensions.
Thus, PROVING that Eysenck is correct.

as there is no such thing as psychometric space

[Hammond]
Absurd statement. The entire field of Psychometry
(100 years old) confirms it.

and also a
variable of magnitude is not a dimension any way!

[Hammond]
Another absurd statement. X,Y, and Z the 3 dimensions
of space in Physics, are "variable magnitudes".
Everything you say testifies to your
SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE,
which is not surprising, since you have no
SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS.

As has been pointed out to you many
times - there is no strong link between the secular trend for human
growth (there is no deficit on the end by the way) and mental
ability.

[Hammond]
LOL. A major component of the "Flynn Effect" in human
intelligence is caused by the Secular Trend.

[Hammond]
STUPID!
I'm not going to argue trivia with an amateur who isn't
even familiar with the literature. The convergence of evidence
is from MANY phenomena.... such as the FACT that:
"Intelligence increases linearly with growth
for the first 18 years of human life".
1. THIS IS AN UNASSAILABLE FACT.
2. THIS IS A PROVEN FACT.
3. THIS IS THE "FIRST FACT" OF INTELLIGENCE.
4. THIS FACT HAS BEEN PROVEN FOR 100 YEARS.
THEREFORE: It is proven beyond all argument that
"intelligence increases with growth".
GIVEN THEREFORE: The unassailable, undeniable FACT,
that "intelligence increases with growth" it is
de facto OBVIOUS that the "Secular Trend
in human growth" WILL produce a secular
trend in human intelligence, which of course
is EXACTLY what the Flynn Effect *is*..!!
NOW:
1. Quit your lying.
2. Quit posting STUPIDITY.
3. Admit you are INCOMPETENT in Science.
----------------------------------------------------
snip rest of argumentative INCOMPETENCE
by Stew Dean
----------------------------------------------------
Sorry Stew.... you've admitted before that you
are simpl;y a "harrasser".... but what you failed to
mention is:
1. You're stupid.
2. You're incompetent
3. You have no credentials in Science
4. You're boring and repetitive.
So once agin, get the ***** out of here, STUPID HARRASSER!!!!!!!!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	06 May 2005 08:16:14 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115279255.791428.236210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

What evidence? My fact is you have no evidence. I've dealt with you

for

a few months and in that time nothing that appears in the above url
pans out. There arnt three dimentions to pshychometric space for
example

[Hammond]
Yes there are, Eysenck's E,N,P are the three leading Factors
in Psychometry and have been for years.

We've been here before - that's one system amongst many. Also
phychometry is used for measuring the brain - not explaining how it
works.

And now my discovery
CONFIRMS the axiomatic physicis origin of the 3 dimensions.

What exactly have you discovered again - how do you prove it to others.
By the way this is reverse logic.

Thus, PROVING that Eysenck is correct.

Talk about arse about face.

as there is no such thing as psychometric space

[Hammond]
Absurd statement. The entire field of Psychometry
(100 years old) confirms it.

Let me repeat - there is no such thing as pshychometric space. Now
explain why you think this is absurd (clue - you havnt so far).

and also a
variable of magnitude is not a dimension any way!

[Hammond]
Another absurd statement.

Mental speed = time? Nope. Think about it for a second.

As has been pointed out to you many
times - there is no strong link between the secular trend for

human

growth (there is no deficit on the end by the way) and mental
ability.

[Hammond]
LOL. A major component of the "Flynn Effect" in human
intelligence is caused by the Secular Trend.

That is not a fact. Most litrature on the subject says the

opposite,

that the flynn effect is related more to social change than dietry
change. Any dietry change that is measurable is a local thing and

not a

secular trend.

[Hammond]
STUPID!

Nope.

I'm not going to argue trivia with an amateur who isn't
even familiar with the literature. The convergence of evidence
is from MANY phenomena.... such as the FACT that:

"Intelligence increases linearly with growth
for the first 18 years of human life".

1. THIS IS AN UNASSAILABLE FACT.

It is not a fact. It is wrong. Objective testing has shown it's more
like 16 AND it's not linear.
I went through this before - gave you references etc.
The rest of this post is just you calling me an idiot. There is a
phsychological bevour, I think it's called projection, where if you
keep on thinking everyone is something the changes are it is because of
an internal fear.
So if you think everyone is ugly it is because you fear you are ugly.
In effect you are attacking them before they can attack you. For
example Ed Conrad would call everyone a psuedoscientist because that is
what he feared people thought he was.
So you appear to have deep seated fears about you qualification as
being a scientist - this is traced to you professional carrer. You
appear to also be terrified of being in control of your own brain, your
faith in god and that you may not quite be as smart as you think you
are.
To put you out of your fear you have lost control as this behavour
manifest but it is possible to grab the controls again if you can get
over the denial. There is no god in my view and no, you're not as smart
as you think you are.
And sure I have doubts about my own capabilities - but I'm not the one
claiming to be smarter than the rest of humanity here.
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	06 May 2005 11:39:47 PM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115385374.706702.168990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
Stew Dean has formally ADMITTED that he is only posting to
this thread for the purposes of "HARRASSMENT".
He has demonstrated that he is intellectually and academically
UNQUALIFIED to discuss the theory. He has no actual
credentials in Science for instance.
He has nothing of interest or relevence to say about the
discovery.
GET OFF THIS THREAD HARRASSER!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 04:38:24 AM

George Hammond wrote:

I am harrassing you but far less than you are harrassing myself and
others. You where banned from talk.origins for harrassing and spamming
the same message afterall. If this was a moral battle you would have
lost on these ground alone.
So let's go back to the stuff you're trying to avoid and try and ignore
your usual barrage of insults.
In essence you have been accused of not having any evidence for any of
your 'facts' and getting key 'facts' incorrect. Two things in the post
you edited out.
First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear. For
example the brain growth slows after the age of three:
http://www.classbrain.com/artread/publish/article_30.shtml
Tried to find references to either support or refute your point of view
- run out of time. I'd like you to have a go yourself.
Secondly the idea of 'psychometric space' - as much as I tried I cannot
find anything that agrees with you. I'm at a loss to know where you got
the idea from and where you got your three dimensions - most of the
stuff I see refers higher numbers of factors, often five.
I'm interested to know where you got your ideas from but can't find
anything on the web that supports you ideas. So when you claim:
"The entire field of Psychometry (100 years old) confirms it."
It's odd nothing I find supports it. Incidently Psychometry is hardly
ever used for the world of Psychmetric testing as psychometry is more
commonly used for the esoteric feild of getting the history of an
object by touching it.
Without external confirmation no one can agree with you. You can't take
someones word for it in science - that's not how it works.
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 07:28:38 PM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115458704.536600.195890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear.

[Hammond]
LOOK.... people are only interested in robust, proven facts,
such as:
1. Human growth STOPS at around the age of 18
(this is called "reaching adulthood"). This fact has
been known for 100,000 years.
2. Human INTELLIGENCE increases from 0 to 1800
and STOPS at age 18 (hence: 1800/18 = IQ 100). This
fact has been KNOWN BY SCIENCE for 100 years.
3. The whole world, including the entire field of Science,
has concluded long ago, that the reason Intelligence
STOPS growing at 18 is because the BRAIN
STOPS GROWING at AGE 18.
Now you can sit there and argue all you want, post megabytes
of Google searches, wet your pants, or pull any other kind of
coniption fit you want to, BUT NO NORMAL PERSON will
ever disbelieve the above conclusion is A UNIFERSALLY
KNOWN....AND OBVIOUS FACT.........!!
You haven't posted an argument against the SPOG yet that is
even worth talking about!
Shouldn't you be in the kitchen washing dishes or something?
You know, if you don't wash the dishes after dinner all the
food gets hard and stuck to the plates.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	08 May 2005 04:05:53 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115458704.536600.195890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear.

Not very robust or proven. Growth does not stop at 18. There you go -
that's disproof of your ideas at your level. That's what everyone says
- it's a fact and everyone knows it. You are an idiot if you think it
stops at 18 and you should go back to mopping floors in an abitoir.
That's a direct example of your arguement style.
I beg you to please think about coming up with some kind of proof for
your ideas.
<rest is a repeat of the above>
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	09 May 2005 01:33:52 AM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115543153.072127.95000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear.

Not very robust or proven.
Stew Dean

[Hammond]
Baahahahah hahahah baahahahah hah hah hah ha ha
Hah hah hah ha ha ha ha haaahaaa haaahhaa
Baahahahah hahahah baahahahah hah hah hah ha ha
Hah hah hah ha ha ha ha haaahaaa haaahhaa
Why don't you put your fingers in your ears, close your
eyes, stick out your tongue and go "na na na na... na na na"...
Baahahahah hahahah baahahahah hah hah hah ha ha
I read your "Harrasser's concession speech above"...
I hope you'll stay the ***** outta here from now on!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	09 May 2005 07:32:42 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115543153.072127.95000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear.

Not very robust or proven.
Stew Dean

You're killin' me here! I'm on the floor! Have you thought about writing
for Letterman, George?
Gary Eickmeier
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	09 May 2005 08:42:53 AM

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message news:KLIfe.7021$w15.640@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115543153.072127.95000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear.

Not very robust or proven.
Stew Dean

You're killin' me here! I'm on the floor! Have you thought about writing
for Letterman, George?

[Hammond]
"Letterman".... boy... moron... he must be "the apogee, the penultimate,
of power and influence for you".... you numb *****.... I wouldn't cross
the street to talk to a nerd icon of working class t.v. you friggin moron.
I'd give Albert Einstein 15 minutes ... the Pope 10 minutes... George Bush
5 minutes. "David Letterman"....... you gotta be kiddin.... ROFL.
Bahhaaa baha ha ha ha ......... hah hah hah............
Baaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...... baaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........

Gary Jerkmeier

Get the f--k outta here........
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	09 May 2005 07:31:57 PM

George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
"Letterman".... boy... moron... he must be "the apogee, the penultimate,
of power and influence for you".... you numb *****.... I wouldn't cross
the street to talk to a nerd icon of working class t.v. you friggin moron.
I'd give Albert Einstein 15 minutes ... the Pope 10 minutes... George Bush
5 minutes. "David Letterman"....... you gotta be kiddin.... ROFL.

Bahhaaa baha ha ha ha ......... hah hah hah............
Baaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...... baaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........

Gary Jerkmeier

Get the f--k outta here........

Stop... stop -
Gary... he he... Eickmeister... no, Eickarama... no, he he...
.

User: "Mark Martin"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 07:33:47 PM

George Hammond wrote:

Shouldn't you be in the kitchen washing dishes or something?
You know, if you don't wash the dishes after dinner all the
food gets hard and stuck to the plates.

And you ought to know, since... that's probably what you do for a
living.
-Mark Martin
.

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 01:06:15 PM

wrote:

I am harrassing you but far less than you are harrassing myself and
others. You where banned from talk.origins for harrassing and spamming
the same message afterall. If this was a moral battle you would have
lost on these ground alone.

So let's go back to the stuff you're trying to avoid and try and ignore
your usual barrage of insults.

In essence you have been accused of not having any evidence for any of
your 'facts' and getting key 'facts' incorrect. Two things in the post
you edited out.

First you claimed brain growth is linear to the age of 18. I looked
into this before and the age was more like 16 and it's not linear. For
example the brain growth slows after the age of three:

http://www.classbrain.com/artread/publish/article_30.shtml

Tried to find references to either support or refute your point of view
- run out of time. I'd like you to have a go yourself.

Secondly the idea of 'psychometric space' - as much as I tried I cannot
find anything that agrees with you. I'm at a loss to know where you got
the idea from and where you got your three dimensions - most of the
stuff I see refers higher numbers of factors, often five.

I'm interested to know where you got your ideas from but can't find
anything on the web that supports you ideas. So when you claim:

"The entire field of Psychometry (100 years old) confirms it."

It's odd nothing I find supports it. Incidently Psychometry is hardly
ever used for the world of Psychmetric testing as psychometry is more
commonly used for the esoteric feild of getting the history of an
object by touching it.

Without external confirmation no one can agree with you. You can't take
someones word for it in science - that's not how it works.

Stew,
I'm afraid it is like trying to dance with an alligator. We're dealing
with a guy who thinks God is a figment of our stunted brain growth, that
20% of reality is invisible to us because we aren't fully developed yet,
and the universe popped into existence 100,000 years ago complete with a
history, God, and the human brain.
I think I'll wait for the movie. That is, if my fusion time can keep up
with it...
GAry Eickmeier
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 07:06:36 PM

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rs7fe.3693$VH2.129@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

....................................We're dealing
with a guy who thinks God is a figment of our stunted brain growth, that
20% of reality is invisible to us because we aren't fully developed yet,
and the universe popped into existence 100,000 years ago complete with a
history, God, and the human brain.

[Hammond]
Excellent synopsis of the discovery. You have to realize Stew Dean
isn't even COGNIZANT that this is what the SPOG is about! He's
still sitting there debating whether the legal age of maturity is 16 or
18.... for chrissakes.... what a friggin bore!
At least you can "comprehend the SPOG", which is more than Stewie
is able to do. But again, your problem is that you can't mount ANY
plausible, fundamental scientific objection to any of it!

GAry Eickmeier

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 07:27:12 PM

George Hammond wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rs7fe.3693$VH2.129@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

....................................We're dealing
with a guy who thinks God is a figment of our stunted brain growth,

that

20% of reality is invisible to us because we aren't fully developed

yet,

and the universe popped into existence 100,000 years ago complete

with a

history, God, and the human brain.

[Hammond]
Excellent synopsis of the discovery. You have to realize Stew Dean
isn't even COGNIZANT that this is what the SPOG is about!

How many times have we debated all the stuff above Goerge?
Stew Dean
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	07 May 2005 07:48:08 PM

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115512032.819317.44780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rs7fe.3693$VH2.129@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

....................We're dealing
with a guy who thinks God is a figment of our stunted
brain growth, that 20% of reality is invisible to us because
we aren't fully developed yet, and the universe popped into
existence 100,000 years ago complete with a history, God,
and the human brain.

[Hammond]
Excellent synopsis of the discovery. You have to realize Stew Dean
isn't even COGNIZANT that this is what the SPOG is about!

How many times have we debated all the stuff above Goerge?

[Hammond]
There is no such thing as "debating" a proven fact.
Tthe discovery has
been PUBLISHED IN THE PEER REVIEWED
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, which is de facto
taken to be evidence in formal scientific discussion that
the claim exists, has evidence, is competent, and that any
unsupported statement such as "it does not exist" or
"there is no evidence" is DE FACTO A LIE.
SORRY STEW, THOSE ARE THE
OFFICIAL RULES
abide by them or get out, harrasser!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: ""
Title: Re: The Question that Stopped Hammond	08 May 2005 03:55:31 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<stewdean@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1115512032.819317.44780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

George Hammond wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier&qu