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

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 13:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

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. 180ad)

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



[Hammond]
There is little mystery to the history of the 4-Gospel
Canon, even to people who merely consider themselves
strictly "historians". Of course more eclectic individuals
are aware that it is an encapsulation of Personality
Structure in Man; the Political Left-right and the Upper vs.
Lower class (e.g. the Bicameral/2Party system.
But even the most unaware historians are familiar with
the history of the NT, for instance it is well known there
were a dozen writings in large circulation by the mid 1st
century.... and that the "Muratorian Fragment" lists the 4
Gospels at the top of the list as early as 170.
Irenaeus was considered an authority by the Church on the
question of "how many Gospels should there be in the Bible"
wrote the above cited (famous and widely known) passage
in 180 ad.
Origen of Alexandria wrote many texts and commentaries on
the 4-gospel Canon in the early 3rd century.
And finally, Tatian's famous DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is
a historically famous Gospel harmony. In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.

The following facts are well known:

The earliest external reference to the Gospel of Mark is
Papias, dated to AD 130.

Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references
to the Gospel of Matthew as early as AD 110.

Polycarp, a famous early church leader quotes Luke-Acts in a
letter dated to about A.D. 110.

A papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been dated to
between A.D. 110 and 160.

The Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) lists all four of the
Gospels as authoritative for the early church.


So, while Irenaeus' authoritative statement which was
very well known by 200 essentially fixed the Canon as "4",
it was of course the later "canonization" of the 4-gospel
canon by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria in 367 that
"officially" sealed the creation period of the 4-gospel
Canon.


But, like I say,..... aware intellectuals have known the
4-gospel Canon was a "quadrate personality structure" ever
since Hippocrates the Father of Medicine announced that Man
had "4-Personalities" in 500 bc. (the 4-Humors)
Today of course, Hammond has not only proven the
4-Humors of Hippocrates and the 4-Gospels of Christianity,
but actually shown that they originate in the quadrature
cleavage of the brain, which in turns originates in the
quadrature (Euclidean) cleavage structure of space itself,
hence the 4-Gospel Canon has now been determined to be an
"AXIOMATIXC LAW OF PHYSICS" (Hammond, 1994, 2003)


Incidentally, it is a pleasure to be in polite company
for a change.... but surely you must realize that this
discussion thread is taking place in a war zone.

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