On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:35:24 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 Thu, 1 May 2008 13:03:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

none ""doug\"@(none)" writes:


We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

CURRICULUM VITAE

[snip]

If you cannot answer the question, just say so. He asked
a question and you posted your CV. He did not ask for your
CV, he asked if you understood the scientific method. It
was, however, a rhetorical question since it is clear you
do not understand it. Hints: bluster and swearing are not
part of it. You can look up the rest.


[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.
=====================================
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 Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

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.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.


[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.
=====================================
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 Thu, 01 May 2008 08:38:37 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 Thu, 1 May 2008 06:42:17 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 08:51, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
wrote:
On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
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)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

[Hammond]
* *In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.


[Roger Pearse]
I believe so.


[Hammond]
Actually I was being charitable, having forgot that on
Usenet to give them an inch is to give them a mile.
To be quite accurate, the history of the emergence of the
4-Gospel Canon is quite well known and not considered a
mystery as you suggest, so that your statement:

"....we don't actually *know* for certain how
the 4 gospels came to be generally accepted
during the late first/early second century..."

is actually an erroneous gloss. Fact is, it is well known
how the 4-Gospels came into being in 1-2 ad since Irenaeus
has left a 2nd century account of the matter in his famous
book _Against Heresies_, (c 180).



[Roger Pearse]
As you rightly note, this is tangential to the point
that you are making, on which, of course, I have nothing special to
contribute.


[Hammond]
The existence of the 4-Gospel Canon is hardly
"tangential" to the scientific proof of God that I have
published, since said proof now shows that the quadrature
structure of the Canon is in fact ordained by an axiomatic
law of Physics
I will however grant you without debate the fact that you
have no competence or responsibility in this area.


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

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.

Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it? Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG? You and I both
know that no *real* scientist would *ever* claim to have a scientific
proof of anything without verifying the process with the scientific
method. No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific method.

On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:44:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

[Hammond]
Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.

[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it?


[Hammond]
Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.
I'm simply asserting that there is no percentage in
explaining the obvious to heckling morons.
remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is is the majority opinion
of the legitimeat scientific community (e.g peer reviewed
academic journals, universities, professional societies, the
APA, courts of law, licensing boards, etc. etc. etc.).I
don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!


[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?


[Hammond]
I have of course, as judged by it's publication in 2 peer
reviewed academic journals.


[Michael Moroney, heckler]
No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific method.


[Hammond]
and since I HAVE published it in TWO peer reviewed
publications, that proves you are WRONG.


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

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).

"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.

Once again, empty claims, based on psychotic delusions, mean nothing.
Your crap is rejected because it has no relationshiop to eiether physics,
science or reality - NOT because of politics!

Science would no nothing more, were a REAL "proof of god" discovered, than
add "god" to their base of facts and acceptable theories.




We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.

Whew ..... as someone else said ... be careful, George, or they're going to
take away your computer privleges at "The Ward".




snip crap

On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:24:11 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.



[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
Once again, empty claims, based on psychotic delusions, mean nothing.
Your crap is rejected because it has no relationshiop to eiether physics,
science or reality - NOT because of politics!

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.


[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Science would no nothing more, were a REAL "proof of god" discovered, than
add "god" to their base of facts and acceptable theories.


[Hammond]
Na, scientists are aggravated atheists, therefore they
will use every trick in the book, such as egging on
mentally disturbed Usenet hecklers like you, to suppress the
discovery and continue their unrestrained immoral
explaoitation of science and technology.



[Hammond]
We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.

Whew ..... as someone else said ... be careful, George,


[Hammond]
I don't have to be careful, unlike you, I'm not a
notorious 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
=====================================