GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT
[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects aggravated naiveté and little
sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I presume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

So when specific flaws are pointed out in your "theory" you
have chosen to attack the person who brings up the flaws
because you know you cannot defend your "proof". The flaws
I pointed out are facts which are not dependent on the fact
that I have a PhD and you do not (I know that bothers you but
that is the way it is).

If you could defend your work, you would. You cannot so you
just try to bluster. That is not the scientific method.

Answer the facts that point out your errors if you want to
be taken seriously. Now you are just trying to hide.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:
[Hammond]
You're disputing a well known documented public fact.
Pergamon Press is one of the world's PREMIER academic
publishers as any google search will confirm.

[John Smith, rabid atheist]
The printing company has nothing to do with the validity of the
information
it prints - **** for brains!
You've been told that FACT over and over again!


[Hammond]
LIAR.....LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
My 1994 paper was peer refviewed by 5 PROFESSORIAL RANK
REVIEWERS including the editor and was UNANIMOUSLY recommed
for publication by all 5. My 2003 paper was published by a
journal which has 10 Physicists on it's editorial review
board and the editor is a world ernouned Phd physicist
himself and recommeded the paper for publication. You don't
know what you're talking about. QUIT LYING.

You edit and add "rabid atheist" to my handle .... and call me a liar?
You know nothing about my religious beliefs - asswipe!

THE PEER REVIEW process has NOTHING TO DO with editorial review!!!!

When a scientist submits a paper for publication to a VALID scientific
journal, the paper is first sent out to other competent scientists who have
nothing to do with either the first scientist or the publication.

THEY investigate the paper, its claims and the experimental data used to
make the conclusions. Many times, they even try to recreate the experiments
to see if the results they get are the same as the original paper.

Then, and only if they find no fault with the information, is the paper
cleared for publication.

Your crap was checked for spelling errors - little more.


Were you a REAL scientist - you would have known that!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT

[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects aggravated naiveté and little
sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I presume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!


Facts are facts - no matter what the source.
The FACT is - George Hammond is nothing more than a raving lunatic.

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

[Michael Moroney chronic heckler]
I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

CURRICULUM VITAE

[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is? Every real scientist uses it when
investigating a hypothesis of theirs. They develop their hypothesis,
develop tests, run the tests, analyze their results, modify the hypothesis
and repeat before they develop a theory worthy of publication. It's a lot
of hard work, but this is what you have to do in science these days.
George, if you ever want to develop a theory and be published in a peer
reviewed journal, you're going to have to do the same. Posting on a
newsgroup bellowing "It's true because I say so!" will get you NOWHERE.

none wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT
[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects aggravated naiveté and little
sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I presume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

So when specific flaws are pointed out in your "theory" you
have chosen to attack the person who brings up the flaws
because you know you cannot defend your "proof". The flaws
I pointed out are facts which are not dependent on the fact
that I have a PhD and you do not (I know that bothers you but
that is the way it is).

If you could defend your work, you would. You cannot so you
just try to bluster. That is not the scientific method.

Answer the facts that point out your errors if you want to
be taken seriously. Now you are just trying to hide.


How do you prove the validity of the scientific method?

--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spammers is to ignore them.
But if you must reply to them,
you should at least set the followup-to header
to something other than your own newsgroup.

John Smith wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT

[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects aggravated naiveté and little
sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I presume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!


Facts are facts - no matter what the source.
The FACT is - George Hammond is nothing more than a raving lunatic.


That's an opinion.

--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spammers is to ignore them.
But if you must reply to them,
you should at least set the followup-to header
to something other than your own newsgroup.

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew of Tertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans. *

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

monkfish wrote:


How do you prove the validity of the scientific method?

You don't prove the validity as in a mathematical proof. You show the
practical consequences of science which is the engineering art that has
produced our sophisticated technology.

No finite set of empirical verifications will -prove- that a scientific
theory or hypopthesis is generally true.

Bob Kolker

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:


On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.


[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.


[Hammond]
The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
principal winds, while the church has been scattered
throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
(Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)


but like the Bicameral/2-Party System which is in fact a
representation of the 4-Gospel Canon, it is now PROVEN by
Modern Science (Hammond, 1994,2003) to be caused by the
SCIENTIFIC FACT of the quadrature cleavage of the brain
which causes 4-EIGENVECTORS to emerge at the 3rd-Order in
Psychometry Factor Analysis.
This scientific fact not only explains the 4-Gospel Canon
but also the Bicameral 22Party System and the 4-Varnas of
Hinduism.



All the best,
Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

You don't prove the validity as in a mathematical proof. You show the
practical consequences of science which is the engineering art that has
produced our sophisticated technology.

No finite set of empirical verifications will -prove- that a scientific
theory or hypopthesis is generally true.

Bob Kolker


What is the philosophical justification of the scientific method?


--
monkfish