On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:18:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"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).


[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.


[Hammond]
Sorry heckler, I've already published the discovery of the
Structural Model and the Scientific proof of God in two peer
reviewed copyright academic journals and they are sitting on
the library shelves in Universites around the world. This
secures my priorities in the discovery for the duration.
That is to say nothing of 50,000 posts to usent about it,
all archived by Google and half a dozen other data bases and
witnessed by 50,000 Usenet responders plus another 500,000
people who have hit my website in the past 9 years.
Sorry, you're not going to do anything to interfere with
my priorities. Screw.
=====================================
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 1 May, 18:09, George Hammond wrote:
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).

Um, perhaps you would care to post whatever passage you think says
this? As far as I know, it remains unknown.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On 1 May, 20:18, "John Smith" wrote:
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

Come; if he were really lonely, old and psychotic, surely the least we
could do is give him good language? If only out of kindness?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 20:18, "John Smith" wrote:
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

Come; if he were really lonely, old and psychotic, surely the least we
could do is give him good language? If only out of kindness?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Look, Roger.... being polite to hecklers is for amateurs,
I'm not an amateur.
Hecklers are in general incorrigible psychotic
personalities, a personality trait that typically lasts for
decades if not a lifetime. So, don't feed hecklers unless
you are intent on merely practicing your typing or
something. They have NO intention of saying anything on
topic or constructive, their SOLE intent is to destroy the
reputation of their (political) opponant.
And by the way, the same goes for atheists, so if you
happen to be an atheist, please tell me up front before I
waste time talking to you.
Politely, 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 Hammond writes:

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

George Hammond writes:

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?

Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.

So why don't you? Or better yet, why didn't you? Any real
scientist would have done so from the beginning automatically, and
if you did, and if what you claim is true, your work would be in peer
reviewed journals and you'd be famous. But no, you're just bellowing
on usenet where everyone can laugh at your foolishness.

remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

Maybe "knew", not know. You probably haven't used the scientific method
or even thought of it for the last 40 years. You certainly didn't use
it for your SPOG crap.

I don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!

If you ever want your work to appear in a peer reviewed journal, you'd
better start working on applying the scientific method to your work!
Just think, George. Some college kid could be sitting here, quietly
taking notes, reading your website, and then *he* could apply the
scientific method to *your* ideas, change it a little, and if it works
out, then *he* could get "his" work published in peer reviewed journals,
and *he* will get all the credit and become famous, because *he* did
all the hard work! But don't worry, George, that will never happen,
because as we all know, the SPOG is crap, and there's no college kid
out there that's that dumb.

Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?

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

What experiments have you performed, that other scientists can also
perform, that would prove or disprove your work? The answer is NONE!
No experiments, no scientific method, no peer review, no "proof".

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

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

No you haven't.

I hope those vanity journals didn't rip you off, err, I mean charge you
too much for their pretend "peer review".

On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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

George Hammond writes:

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?

[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.

So why don't you? Or better yet, why didn't you? Any real


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


scientist would have done so from the beginning automatically, and
if you did, and if what you claim is true, your work would be in peer
reviewed journals and you'd be famous. But no, you're just bellowing
on usenet where everyone can laugh at your foolishness.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

Maybe "knew", not know. You probably haven't used the scientific method
or even thought of it for the last 40 years. You certainly didn't use
it for your SPOG crap.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


I don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!

If you ever want your work to appear in a peer reviewed journal, you'd
better start working on applying the scientific method to your work!
Just think, George. Some college kid could be sitting here, quietly
taking notes, reading your website, and then *he* could apply the
scientific method to *your* ideas, change it a little, and if it works
out, then *he* could get "his" work published in peer reviewed journals,
and *he* will get all the credit and become famous, because *he* did
all the hard work! But don't worry, George, that will never happen,
because as we all know, the SPOG is crap, and there's no college kid
out there that's that dumb.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?

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

What experiments have you performed, that other scientists can also
perform, that would prove or disprove your work? The answer is NONE!
No experiments, no scientific method, no peer review, no "proof".


[Hammond]
All the necessary experiments have alreaqdy been performed,
confirmed and published in 10,000 experiments over 40 years
and ALL cited in my published papers.


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

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

No you haven't.

[Hammond]
Yes I have:
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


I hope those vanity journals didn't rip you off, err, I mean charge you
too much for their pretend "peer review".


[Hammond]
Peer reviewed academic journals are not vanity press and
do not "charge anything" for peer review or publication.
=====================================
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 Thu, 01 May 2008 08:40:51 -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.
My degree is not subject to your verification. It is a fact.
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.
This has the same level of reasoning as your "proof". You are
just as wrong on this.

You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks.

You carefully snip the scientific arguments showing that you
are wrong.

Get off this thread.

Not your choice.


=====================================
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 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 your counting skill are not very good. First you
claim that 12=13 and now you are claiming that 1=2. You
claim to have an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree.
That makes ONE graduate degree. Is this why you failed out
of graduate school?

obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling.

However, you have shown from your "proof" that you know
nothing of the scientific method. You prefer the hope
and bluster method.

Get
off this thread.

Not your choice.

My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

Oh good, things on websites must be correct.

=====================================
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 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
No, your random phrases strung together do not constitute
proof. Where is your derivation and verification. All we see
are assertions, which you know are not part of the scientific
method since you have _______ (insert number here) of degrees.

I will however grant you without debate the fact that you
have no competence or responsibility in this area.

A polite person gets this kind of treatment. If you had
any sense of shame you would be embarrassed. But, of course,
you do not.

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 wrote:
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!

The fact that everything you have posted is wrong does not
enter into it in your view?


[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.


You seem to feel that repeating unsupported assertions will
somehow make them correct.


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