On Tue, 06 May 2008 20:26:21 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:26:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:53:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Michael Moroney wrote:
George Hammond writes:

Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.

Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high
frequencies
decreases with age. Google "mosquito ringtone" to see how kids take
advantage of this in schools and elsewhere.

[Doug, alleged physicist, SPOG heckler]
Maybe that means that god is a very young person when he listens to
things and a very old one when he watches things. That cannot be
right though since light travels faster than sound.


[Hammond]
Don't be ridiculous. You've been told a thousand times
that children are only an EXEMPLAR of the effect that
actually causes "God" in the population, and that is the
Secular Trend in Human Growth, which causes the average
person in the human population to only reach about 80% of
full growth...... and this is WHY there is a "God". Stupid
huckster.

Unsupported (insane, psychotic and unscientific) assertion ............
where's the EVIDENCE, ********??????



[Hammond]
For the tenth time jackass, the eivdence is cited
meticulously by (author, year) in my peer published papers:
Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html



For the 100th time, **** for brains (posted by me and others) Those are NOT
"Scientific Peer reviewed journals".
Even THEY admit to that!


[Hammond]
LIAR LOL LIAR LOL LIAR LOL LIAR LOL

New Ideas In Psychology is premier academic journal strictly
peer reviewed and says so inside the front cover where
instructions for submissions are listed.

QUIT YOUR LYING

The Noetic Journal is also peer reviewed by their editorial
board and says so right on the front cover of the journal.
The editor is also an internationally known physicist and
physicis textbook editor himself.
QUIT LYING HECKLER


=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 20:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:34:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:37:05 GMT, "John Smith"

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
No.
When was yours tested?
By whom?
Where is their report?
Where is this "evidence" that connects earlier work to supporting your
spoc


[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in the bibliography.



[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
You did not answer THE question!


[Hammond]
Answered 10 times, you're repeating yourself heckler.

[Hammond]
I've answered your question dozens of times:
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in their bibliographies.
Copies of the published papers are posted on my website.
Stop posting repetitive crap when it has been answered
dozens of times.


[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
NEVER answered, liar!





[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
What experiments DID YOU DO?


[Hammond]
Hammond didn't do any experiments, Einstein didn't do any
experiments, and Dirac didn't do any experiments, we are not
experimentalists, dip****, we're theorists.


[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
First thing, Einstein and Dirac did REAL scientific work.
You are not Einstein.
You are no Dirac.
You, and your bogus claims, cannot be compared, in ANY way, to either
scientist or the REAL and VALID scientific work THEY did.


[Hammoond]
WILD UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

Then show some VALID evidence!
You won't.
You haven't.
You can't!





[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
Their thories, were tested BY OTHERS - even after their death.

[Hammond]
Hammond is not dead yet, sorry to disappoint you.

Just your brain.

As usual ... George does a psychotic song and dance rather than answer
points made.

I was down by the Montlake cut yesterday ( Seattle ),
where the big wigs' megayachts cruise by at 7 knots, mere feet from me,
when I found a laté ( espresso ).. so I took a few sips.

I got so high I felt like I was God, ruler of the cosmos.
What was my first job, as the newly crowned king ?
I took a dump at the “ Dempsey Indoor � ( track and football field ).

Here's a map of where I was:
“ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/CampusWalk.PNG �.

So yeah, God does ( or did ) exist ( ha ha );
but, like George's random metaphysics, it doesn't matter much.

What matters most is the “ rent � you pay to your “ land Lord �;
e.g. the “ rent � you pay in the form of taxes and regulations
so that you can live in a civilized society.

As can be seen my the way the U.S. “ evicted � Saddam Hussain
( off the face of the Earth ) the U.S. is the “ land Lord � of Iraq,
and Saddam wasn't paying his “ rent �.

Going up a level, every landlord is a tenant.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 03:25:12 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:






[Hammoond]
WILD UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
Then show some VALID evidence!
You won't.
You haven't.
You can't!



[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in their bibliographies.
Copies of the published papers are posted below for your
eading convenience.
Stop posting repetitive crap when it has been answered
dozens of times.

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html

=====================================
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
=====================================

On May 5, 4:40 pm, "Varekem" wrote:

(brevity snip)

Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?

No. I am saying that what he says is _partly_ correct, that humans
are capable only of observing that which we are capable of observing.
That would be a simple tautology except for the BGD (Brain Growth
Deficit)* issue; different humans are capable of observing different
amounts of reality due to their state of development in terms of how
accurately their DNA had the opportunity to be expressed as they grew
to adulthood, limited by in-utero and later nutrition and so on.

I am saying that he is partly _incorrect_ not in that the above is
false (for it is obviously not) but in so far failing to analyze the
meaning of "perception" to see that it breaks finally down to physical
photon-driven interactions between fundamental particles.

George built the SPOG on a correspondence between the BGD and
Relativity* in that a fully developed human would "see" a "flat
psychometric* universe" such that nothing would be hidden beyond its
curvature analogous to how we cannot see into the past beyond a
certain point no matter how good a telescope we use; the Universe
simply is so big that some things are too far away for their light to
ever get here.

Since the causes of what happen around us are observable, and the
more you can observe, the more causes you can correlate with effects,
the more you will attribute to "God" when you cannot perceive but a
little of reality. A fully developed human brain would support a mind
without such limitations; it would "know the mind of 'God'".

What he has not so far accepted (I think) is that _all_ physically
real entities are subject to similar general rules except that
inorganic entities are not subject to a developmental BGD but rather
to situational limitations in their range of perception. Get down to
the level of electrons and it's obvious that a free electron can
"perceive" much more than can one confined in an orbital; the latter
is completely "blind" to photons that do not correspond to allowed
transitions. Of course electrons can change their situation so there
is no direct analog of "growth" for them, but they are extremely
simple systems- something as complex as a human brain is time-
direction-limited and cannot be "ungrown" from a given point then
"regrown" with more nutrients etc. to improve their functionality.

Hence the SPOG is not only congruent with Relativity but Quantum
Mechanics as well; if George will recognize and develop the latter
congruence fully he will have done what Einstein tried and failed to
do; unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This will make it simply
impossible for an educated person to reject the SPOG in part or in
whole.

It is my suspicion that George resists my points due to his strong
orthodox Christian upbringing which places Humanity at the apex of
Creation, and completely discounts the possibility of other
sentiences. It is this sort of thinking that informs the "observer
effect" in the infamous Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment- that
only a human can "observe" the outcome of an event. Yet when pressed,
a proponent of that view will admit that an observer isolated in a
laboratory with the apparatus CANNOT "collapse the waveform" for the
universe exterior to the lab until he tells someone outside, WHICH IS
BLATANTLY RIDICULOUS. AN OBSERVER IS AN OBSERVER, BE THEY HUMAN, CAT,
OR A SINGLE ORBITAL ELECTRON IN THE RADIATION DETECTOR APPARATUS.

OTOH one could argue that the perceptions of an electron are simply
not relevant to any sort of "God" concept humans would be interested
in, but I point out that the SPOG is a PHYSICAL theory which CANNOT
afford to ignore the physics it is rooted in. It is my contention that
George is IGNORING one of the major roots of the SPOG. Without it the
SPOG is fatally incomplete just as current physics is and for the
exact same reasons; the elaborate developments of Relativity and
Quantum mechanics separately describe beautifully and deeply many,
many aspects of reality; but until they are combined successfully
NEITHER IS ADEQUATE ON ITS OWN for there are many phenomena each
CANNOT ALONE describe or predict. Hence the SPOG is HOBBLED from
explaining and predicting many phenomena of the human brain and mind
until George buckles down to COMPLETING the SPOG by FULLY quantizing
it. I will point out that he has started to by realizing that the
ancients had already split the idea into what I called eigengods
except they called them members of a pantheon. Now George must reach
down into the guts of the SPOG and see that it must ALL be similarly
quantized.

(There is also the possibility that George thinks that what I write
may simply be elaborate mockery. However I say let what I write stand
on its own merit. I have no stake one way or the other save this; I
believe that if the SPOG becomes generally known and accepted, a large
proportion of the population will be relieved of the usual anxiety and
guilt over their intellectual status which gives religions the control
used to manipulate them into becoming tools of "smarter" people
leading to wars and mass deaths.)

Again I emphasize that this will make the SPOG completely
INDISPUTABLE ON ANY BASIS TO AN EDUCATED PERSON.

At one time I had suggested that George break the SPOG's components
down into a set of "baby steps" that an uneducated person could follow
from one to the next so that any person who could read would be led
inexorably to accept the SPOG but George seems to think this to be
unnecessary. I suggested it as a way to bypass "authoritative"
arguments against the SPOG by educated persons with an agenda to
defend; currently to grok the SPOG one must be at least passingly
familiar with many separate disciplines from General Relativity to
neurophysiology. Most people simply glaze over at detailed
descriptions and accept the pronouncements of "authorities", and
perhaps George is right; most people would simply glaze over at the
prospect of even a single volume version of "baby stepped SPOG".

* These and other terms' relevance to the SPOG are better explained by
George; I spell them out just for clarity in this limited context.


Mark L. Fergerson

On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:26:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt"
wrote:

On May 5, 4:40 pm, "Varekem" wrote:

(brevity snip)

Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?

No. I am saying that what he says is _partly_ correct, that humans
are capable only of observing that which we are capable of observing.
That would be a simple tautology except for the BGD (Brain Growth
Deficit)* issue; different humans are capable of observing different
amounts of reality due to their state of development in terms of how
accurately their DNA had the opportunity to be expressed as they grew
to adulthood, limited by in-utero and later nutrition and so on.

I am saying that he is partly _incorrect_ not in that the above is
false (for it is obviously not) but in so far failing to analyze the
meaning of "perception" to see that it breaks finally down to physical
photon-driven interactions between fundamental particles.

George built the SPOG on a correspondence between the BGD and
Relativity* in that a fully developed human would "see" a "flat
psychometric* universe" such that nothing would be hidden beyond its
curvature analogous to how we cannot see into the past beyond a
certain point no matter how good a telescope we use; the Universe
simply is so big that some things are too far away for their light to
ever get here.

Since the causes of what happen around us are observable, and the
more you can observe, the more causes you can correlate with effects,
the more you will attribute to "God" when you cannot perceive but a
little of reality. A fully developed human brain would support a mind
without such limitations; it would "know the mind of 'God'".

What he has not so far accepted (I think) is that _all_ physically
real entities are subject to similar general rules except that
inorganic entities are not subject to a developmental BGD but rather
to situational limitations in their range of perception. Get down to
the level of electrons and it's obvious that a free electron can
"perceive" much more than can one confined in an orbital; the latter
is completely "blind" to photons that do not correspond to allowed
transitions. Of course electrons can change their situation so there
is no direct analog of "growth" for them, but they are extremely
simple systems- something as complex as a human brain is time-
direction-limited and cannot be "ungrown" from a given point then
"regrown" with more nutrients etc. to improve their functionality.

Hence the SPOG is not only congruent with Relativity but Quantum
Mechanics as well; if George will recognize and develop the latter
congruence fully he will have done what Einstein tried and failed to
do; unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This will make it simply
impossible for an educated person to reject the SPOG in part or in
whole.

It is my suspicion that George resists my points due to his strong
orthodox Christian upbringing which places Humanity at the apex of
Creation, and completely discounts the possibility of other
sentiences. It is this sort of thinking that informs the "observer
effect" in the infamous Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment- that
only a human can "observe" the outcome of an event. Yet when pressed,
a proponent of that view will admit that an observer isolated in a
laboratory with the apparatus CANNOT "collapse the waveform" for the
universe exterior to the lab until he tells someone outside, WHICH IS
BLATANTLY RIDICULOUS. AN OBSERVER IS AN OBSERVER, BE THEY HUMAN, CAT,
OR A SINGLE ORBITAL ELECTRON IN THE RADIATION DETECTOR APPARATUS.

OTOH one could argue that the perceptions of an electron are simply
not relevant to any sort of "God" concept humans would be interested
in, but I point out that the SPOG is a PHYSICAL theory which CANNOT
afford to ignore the physics it is rooted in. It is my contention that
George is IGNORING one of the major roots of the SPOG. Without it the
SPOG is fatally incomplete just as current physics is and for the
exact same reasons; the elaborate developments of Relativity and
Quantum mechanics separately describe beautifully and deeply many,
many aspects of reality; but until they are combined successfully
NEITHER IS ADEQUATE ON ITS OWN for there are many phenomena each
CANNOT ALONE describe or predict. Hence the SPOG is HOBBLED from
explaining and predicting many phenomena of the human brain and mind
until George buckles down to COMPLETING the SPOG by FULLY quantizing
it. I will point out that he has started to by realizing that the
ancients had already split the idea into what I called eigengods
except they called them members of a pantheon. Now George must reach
down into the guts of the SPOG and see that it must ALL be similarly
quantized.

(There is also the possibility that George thinks that what I write
may simply be elaborate mockery. However I say let what I write stand
on its own merit. I have no stake one way or the other save this; I
believe that if the SPOG becomes generally known and accepted, a large
proportion of the population will be relieved of the usual anxiety and
guilt over their intellectual status which gives religions the control
used to manipulate them into becoming tools of "smarter" people
leading to wars and mass deaths.)

Again I emphasize that this will make the SPOG completely
INDISPUTABLE ON ANY BASIS TO AN EDUCATED PERSON.

At one time I had suggested that George break the SPOG's components
down into a set of "baby steps" that an uneducated person could follow
from one to the next so that any person who could read would be led
inexorably to accept the SPOG but George seems to think this to be
unnecessary. I suggested it as a way to bypass "authoritative"
arguments against the SPOG by educated persons with an agenda to
defend; currently to grok the SPOG one must be at least passingly
familiar with many separate disciplines from General Relativity to
neurophysiology. Most people simply glaze over at detailed
descriptions and accept the pronouncements of "authorities", and
perhaps George is right; most people would simply glaze over at the
prospect of even a single volume version of "baby stepped SPOG".

* These and other terms' relevance to the SPOG are better explained by
George; I spell them out just for clarity in this limited context.


Mark L. Fergerson



[Hammond]
Mark,...... whew..... I'm glad to find out that "Dr.
Hotsalt" is actually you!
For Christ's sake Ferguson you scared the **** out of me!
You know BTW; just pigeon holing our names, if we were
flying a B-24 in WWII you would have been the pilot and I
would have been merely the navigator.... its against
regulations for pilots to be scaring the **** out of
navigators ya know!
What I mean is, I read through the first few paragraphs of
your post and thought I was listening to an all time record
breaking genius, whom I thought must be some internationally
known polymath posting under a phony name and was absolutely
floored by the guy's understanding of the SPOG.
Frankly, from what I remember of talking to you back in
2000, I didn't recall that you had so much of a handle on
the SPOG... but I guess we're all 8 years older and wiser
now!
Unfortunately you didn't post until 2:30 in the morning
and it's now after 3 am. So, I'm going to print out your
post and will study it tomorrow morning over breakfast at
the local town coffee shop. It is a long and penetrating
post and I want to study it thoroughly, and will post a full
reply tomorrow afternoon.
Meanwhile, thank Christ for people like you who can still
think on their feet and who have the savvy to notice a
discussion like this and know what it is about.
Thanks for making my day.
George Hammond
=====================================
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
=====================================

George told us where he lives and how his rent gets paid.
How about you ( near Pittsburgh ? ), how does your rent get paid ?
Why would I hire you ?

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:52:12 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:11:53 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
And that proves god?


[Hammond]
You bet your ass it does, and the faster you find out
about it the less egg you'll wind up with on your face.
[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.
No. This is not true.


[Hammond]
You don't know your ass fom your elbow.
In this world famous paper (I know Lehrl personally) you
will fined halfway through it the following statment:

"By a similar method, called ‘picture fusion’, Riedel (1966)
demonstrated that the time shortens as children mature. By
this method, which is explained in the next section, he
investigated children from 7 years (10 frames/s) onward to
15 years (15 frames/s).
It is remarkable that critical flicker fusion (30-50 Hz)
has nothing to do with the picture fusion (mean = 15-16 Hz).
Theoretically and empirically this was demonstrated by
Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). Their findings are affirmed
by the fact that picture fusion is related to intelligence,
whereas, according to Jensen’s (1983) results, critical
flicker fusion has virtually no correlation with
intelligence."

This fundamental fact, that trhe PFF (frames/sec)
increases linearly with age in children, and linearly with
IQ (mental speed) in adults, is a well known and well
documented fact and has been known in the movie industry for
decades.
You don't know what you're tlking about.

[Doug, physics pretender, SPOG heckler]
I never said that fusion frequency was not true,

[Hammond]
Well that saves us all some precious time doesn't it
heckler?

[Doug, physics pretender, SPOG heckler]
I said it
had nothing to do with your claim. You carefully snipped the
explanation of what was said. You are being very dishonest
in your editing of posts that show you to be wrong. You are
afraid to confront the truth.


[Hammond]
The only truth is that you're a lazy arrogant horse's ass
and a heckler.
When you have no facts, you have to resort to insults and
dishonesty.

FYI, the leadership of the world (which you don't belong
to) have known for thousands of years that poorly developed
people cannot "see" reality as well as highly developed
people, which is WHY highly developed people are in
leadership positions in the first place.

Therefore blind people are poorly developed?

Today, the scientific explanation, measurement and PROOF
of this has been found, and it is most directly demonstrated
by the variation of PFF vs. growth.
You're supposed to be a PhD physicist, then surely you
know what a FOURIER FREQUENCY SPECTRUM is, and if so you
should realize that the PFF is a direct measure of the
FOURIER JSPECTRUM CUTOFF FREQUENCY of the Fourier
Transformed spectrum of VISUAL MOVEMENT in the human visual
field. If that cutoff frequency (PFF) is 50% less for one
person compared to another person, then that person sees
HALF THE MOTION of reality that the other person sees.

This is not true. When you do the fourier transform of the
view of the real world, you get a spectrum of the motion.
With varying cutoff frequencies in this domain, the retransformed
image can be seen to have been affected. However, the
amount of high frequency spectral content in the transform
for our normal world situations is very low. This is why
mpeg video compression works well. Most changes in our
views happen slowly. Thus someone who sees things 50%
slower may still see 99% of the scene contents or more.
The picture of a rock on the ground is the same for
everyone.

The fusion frequency has developed through evolution to be
adequate for our world. Attaching any further significance
to it is pure speculation.

Also, since you cannot see the blades of an airplane engine
when it is running, does this mean that the blades are
god? Or does it mean that engine that drives the propellers
is god?

Now, if you can't understand that simple effect
(identical in all respects to the audio dog whistle version
of the effect), then you are a COMPLETE FAKE as to your
claims of being a PhD physicist.

This analogy you have made explains why no one can see god
when they are young and no one can hear him when they are
old. Maybe he needs to talk to the kids (slowly) and
hold up signs (in large print) for the older people.

FURTHERMORE, it is obvious that this MAJOR EFFECT in
vision, causes what can be called and INVISIBLE WORLD for
some people, since this part of reality is nothing but a
BLUR to them. This blurred and invisible world is
historically referred to as HEAVEN.

So a spinning propeller is heaven? Somehow I though it
would be a nicer place.

SCREW, YOU'RE A FAKE PHYSICIST.

I know it bothers you that I did not fail graduate school
like you did but that is the way it is.

=====================================
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
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:56:00 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?



[Hammond]
WRONG..... there IS NO ILLUSION.....!!!!
Our lack of growth creates a REAL GOD, the actual God of the
Bible. It has nothing to do with "thinking"it has to do
with actual "SEEING".

So man created god through his ignorance? That kind of insults
the christian god doesn't it? Why would it be the christian
god and not Odin or Zeus or Baal or some other god? You see
now the leaps of faith you are using to get to your desired
conclusion.


[Doug, alleged PhD physicist, SPOG skeptic]
So this means that the christians have slower reflexes than
the hindus and buddhists?


[Hammond]
WRONG.... obviously..... Unicef, WHOI and academic
research has well documented the fact that the SECULAR TREND
GROWTH DEFICIT is much larger in Third World countries than
it is in the Chrisitian West....

This is an astonishingly biased statement rooted solely in
your prejudiced world view. So if a third world person becomes
a christian, they automatically become smarter? Or is coming
to our country sufficient to become smarter or are people who
are born here but not christians not as smart as native born
christians?

.. which literally means that
"God, Heaven and the invisible world" are LARGER in the 3rd
World than they are in the Christian West.

Among other things, this statement, by itself, disproves
your spog speculation.

That however, means that the wrath of God is much greater
towards the irreponsible Christians who sit by while the 3rd
World starves to death.

Not by your logic since you see them as inferior.


By the way...... you're a fast study and a plain
speaker.... I know PdD physicists who see less than you do
and can't even talk!
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 May 2008 03:25:12 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:






[Hammoond]
WILD UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
Then show some VALID evidence!
You won't.
You haven't.
You can't!



[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in their bibliographies.
Copies of the published papers are posted below for your
eading convenience.
Stop posting repetitive crap when it has been answered
dozens of times.

and torn apart, as a NON-ANSWER each and every time.
I do NOT want a list of what YOU (frauduletly) claim are references.

I want a showing of THE WORK YOU DID that shows the CONNECTION between these
other works and your SPOCRAP!.

That YOU "claim" they are supportive MEANS NOTHING WITHOUT EVIDENCE!

Were you a real scientist - you would know that!

(snip regurgitated lies and psychotic dancing )