"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:





[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G.; critic]
OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more
than
an unsupported assertion.


[Hammond]
Knowing Christianity is based on Jewish history and after
witnessing the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich you're going to
tell me the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not
"political", get real.


[Hammond]
Look, Richard Dawkins is writing best selling books
entitled _THE GOD DELUSION_ and making millions.

So?
Millions are beng made by religous zealots (and faux scientists) writing
about god (and I.D.).


Academia
in general is drowning in atheistic humanism.

Unsupported assertion (IOW crap bellowing).


No academic
scientific journal will even consider for publiscation any
paper that has "God " in the title, that's how bad it is.

No academic scientific journal will publish anything that does not follow
tried and true scientific methods - such as REAL and VALID peer review
(which you apparently are totally ignorant about).
That not only includes psychotic crap about god .... but bigfoot, alien
abductions, yetti and people who claim to be Jesus.

How bad it is, is indicated by the psychotic, asshole morons who claim that
it is all a conspiracy against them and god.


I
am refused publication of the S.P.O.G. in any leading
journal because of it and am besieged by scientific
anti-religious hecklers smearing me night and day on Usenet.

Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa..........
Trust me; the journal Physics does NOT care, one bit, about the newsgroup
response to anything. That's merely a lame, childish, and deranged excuse.
You papers are refused because your claims are crap ..... nothing more.



OBVIOUSLY this is political, in that the discovery of an
ACTUAL AIR TIGHT RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC proof of God would
blow the academic atheist ship right out of the water,
permanently.

Obviously this is nothing more than the dance of the psychotic egomaniac,
trying to get around the fact that when the rest of the world sees his
"stuff" as crap - it is because his stuff IS crap!

On Fri, 02 May 2008 19:45:12 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:30:34 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 2 mei, 18:21, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse





wrote:

[Hammond]
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.
[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps.
[Hammond]
No perhaps about it! The DIATESSARON was the standard
Gospel text of the Syria Christian Church for 200 years.
It's dating to 155ad is indisputable. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron
where you will find:
=========BLOCK QUOTE==============
The Diatesseron is notable evidence for the authority
already enjoyed by the four gospels by the mid-second
century.
Twenty years after Tatian's harmony, Irenaeus expressly
proclaimed the authoritative character of the four gospels.
The Diatesseron became the standard text of the gospels
in the Syriac-speaking churches down to the fifth century,
when it gave way to the four separate Gospels."
======END BLOCK QUOTE==============

[Peter van Velzen, innocent bystander]
Thanks for mentioning it. I did not know such a work existed!


[Hammond]
I ran across it 20 years ago, I thought Origen wrote it
around 220, but it turns out Tatian a Syrian speaking
Christian monk wrote it in 160. It's quite famous. Tatian
was a pupil of Justin Martyr in Rome. The guy must have been
amazingly bright to figure out that the 4-Gospel form was
"canonical". Diatesseron means "through four" in Greek by
the way.

[Peter van Velzen, innocent bystander]
By the way: this is not a war-zone.
Just give peace a chance :-)


[Hammond]
There is a war going on in the Middle East between Moslem
Jihadists and the U.S. military. The Jihadists claim the
U.S. is the "great Satan". If so, it certainly is a
propaganda blow to Islam that a Christian U.S. Physicst has
discovered and published the world's first and only
scientific proof of God (and allah), and is heroically
defending it against all comers on Usenet.



[Doug, PhD physics heckler]
Why do you not go over there and show them your "proof"?
That should scare them off.


[Hammond]
I've aready sent it to the CIA a couple of times with my
home address, unlisted phone number, private email address
and my website address at:
https://www.cia.gov/cgi-bin/comment_form.cgi
for some reason I never heard anything from them?
Perhaps you could contact them on my behalf, using your
secret real name of course?


Peter van Velzen
(born 1950)
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 22:52:39 -0400, monkfish
monkfish@nowhere wrote:

none wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
There is a war going on in the Middle East between Moslem
Jihadists and the U.S. military. The Jihadists claim the
U.S. is the "great Satan". If so, it certainly is a
propaganda blow to Islam that a Christian U.S. Physicst has
discovered and published the world's first and only
scientific proof of God (and allah), and is heroically
defending it against all comers on Usenet.


[Doug, alleged PhD physicist and nosey heckler]
Why do you not go over there and show them your "proof"?
That should scare them off.


[Monkfist]
People normally don't taunt others
they presume to be mentally ill.
What's going on here?


[Hammond]
Yeah, sorry monk, I've been trying not to taunt Doug who
has obviously had a post partum PhD meltdown of some kind,
probably related to the fact that he can't find a job or his
girlfriend dumped him or something (he seems to have a lot
of time on his hands).
I'll try to be kind to the guy, but as you can see he
can't keep away from the SPOG because the subject of God
mystefies and ticks him off so much he's beside himself.....
he certainly is a no-content, off-topic and boring sob-job
however.
=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 19:44:19 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



[Hammond]
Caution Roger, Doug claims he's a "Physics PhD",
however, the low intellectual, and decidedly non-scientific
content of his posts indicates that he is an applied physics
technician at best, and OBVIOUSLY is an aggravated and
snooty anti-religious heckler.

In other words, we point out your silly mistakes and you do
not like that.

UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


Again, my long experience with this type of personality
shows them to be utterly INCORRIGIBLE and resistant to any
logical or factual argument.

We point out your mistakes because we understand logic and
factual arguments. You do not. You have no understanding of
the scientific methods and, when asked, just post your cv
which proves nothing. As indeed your "proof" does not.


UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

The fact that he is unable to read and comprehebnd the
S.P.O.G. which has been peer published and copy posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
demonstrates theat he is NOT competent in graduate level
physics.... in fact, lacking any verification of his
credentials or even his real name, odds are that he is in
fact a CRACKPOT and a COMPLETELY FAKE and an IMPOSTER.

I have read it, laughed and marveled that you could actually
put this kind of nonsense out where people might see it.
It is hilarious but has no relation to a god, to science
or to a proof.


UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION



=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 19:41:06 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


[Doug, fake Physics PhD imposter and heckler]
They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. Someone

[Hammond]
HEY PHYSICS JERK, IT'S SPELLED GOSPEL NOT GOSPHEL

had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)

[Doug, Fake Physics PhD imposter and heckler]
The fact is that the gosphel of Thomas was not included. There are

[Hammond]
HEY PHYSICS JERK, IT'S SPELLED GOSPEL NOT GOSPHEL

=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 19:46:54 -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 Sat, 03 May 2008 03:35:21 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:





[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G.; critic]
OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more
than
an unsupported assertion.


[Hammond]
Knowing Christianity is based on Jewish history and after
witnessing the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich you're going to
tell me the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not
"political", get real.


[Hammond]
Look, Richard Dawkins is writing best selling books
entitled _THE GOD DELUSION_ and making millions.

[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]]
So?
Millions are beng made by religous zealots (and faux scientists) writing
about god (and I.D.).


[Hammond]
I've talked to William Dembski (ID author) several times
by private email. The guy has 7 college degrees (none of
them in physics btw) and is a complete nincompoop.
Hey, the SPOG is going to kick BOTH the scientists and
the religious nuts in the butt- both at the same time......
I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of BOTH of
them abusing the public trust, misleading youth and
jeopardizing national security and American prestige, and
making millions doing it!
A bona fide scientific proof of God is going to remedy
the situation and put them back in uniform where they
belong!
=====================================
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 3 May, 03:41, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
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.

This is an interesting assumption. *Why would you insult them to suggest
this? *...

Come, this won't do. *You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. *Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

You made a bald assertions that such a vote was impossible. You made
that without support. (assertions snipped)

Indeed so. That is because I have some idea of what sort of things
the councils were interested in. In fact I made it in response to
your bald statement which was actually historically wrong.... :-)

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. *Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. *Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. *:-)

The fact is that the gosphel of Thomas was not included.

At Nicea? The canon was not discussed at Nicaea...

It's not really relevant, but the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (there are
others) was never accepted as gospel by any Christian church in
antiquity. It is only referred to once in antiquity, by Hippolytus,
who calls it a fake used in Egypt.

There are also others in the Nag Hamadi scrolls that were ignored. These all
date from the time of the council of Nicea.

I'm very sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to
say here (The Nag Hammadi texts are in codices, not rolls, by the way,
not that it matters). The physical manuscripts are later than Nicaea
by some 50-100 years. The texts contained in them mostly predate
Nicaea; since one of those texts is part of Plato's "Republic",
predates Nicaea by 6 centuries!

Composing pseudo-gospels in the names of apostles has been a cottage
industry from the second century down to our own. The church has
sometimes compiled lists of them, mainly as a warning, but otherwise
they mean nothing. They were never accepted as canonical.

Just guessing... are you working with some sort of idea that there was
a time for some centuries when there was no NT, and loads of different
gospels were accepted by the church, and then someone came along and
threw out most of them? Because if so, that isn't how it happened.
The church only used the four gospels -- indeed some parts of it tried
to reduce that to one, Tatian's Diatessaron -- and the composition of
others by outsiders merely hardened this view.

How did books get considered special? Well, the churches were founded
by apostles and their henchmen or sidekicks. Naturally any texts left
behind by the founders were considered special. Over time this
hardened into 'scripture'. As 'scripture' began to take the place of
direct memory, people also started to create forgeries in their own
interests. This caused lists of books which were genuine to be
created. Over time these lists coalesced. But they were never
wildly different in the first place, naturally enough.

This is all very general, and probably irrelevant, but I am trying to
engage with your comment.

... 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.
Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)

None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

I notice the very dishonest snipping of support for the comments I made
about differences in the books. *This is the operation of a coward who
does not want to lose a discussion. You cannot argue with what was
posted so you snip it.

You asked for discrepancies, I provided them. [religious comments snipped]

Hey!! Whatever did I say that deserved that??

I think perhaps you have got confused here? I didn't ask you for
these, actually. Such stuff doesn't matter to the argument which, if
you remember, is about whether the gospels were made canonical at
Nicaea.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
*Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): *ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

* *1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
* *2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
* *3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. *At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.

Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 03:35:21 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:





[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G.; critic]
OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more
than
an unsupported assertion.


[Hammond]
Knowing Christianity is based on Jewish history and after
witnessing the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich you're going to
tell me the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not
"political", get real.


[Hammond]
Look, Richard Dawkins is writing best selling books
entitled _THE GOD DELUSION_ and making millions.

[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]]
So?
Millions are beng made by religous zealots (and faux scientists) writing
about god (and I.D.).


[Hammond]
I've talked to William Dembski (ID author) several times
by private email. The guy has 7 college degrees (none of
them in physics btw) and is a complete nincompoop.

Unsupported assertion.

Anyway - you admit that even a person with seven college degrees MAY not be
all that smart (intelligent).
In case you haven't noticed - you just blew away your OWN argument that your
"degrees" - and the lack of them in others - actually carries ANY weight.

Quit posting your claimed CV's - as though that give you an automatic pass
when it comes to rebuttal challenges!
It just is another example of your fraudulent egomania.




Hey, the SPOG is going to kick BOTH the scientists and
the religious nuts in the butt- both at the same time......

Diarrhea never kicked the butt of anything.


I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of BOTH of
them abusing the public trust, misleading youth and
jeopardizing national security and American prestige, and
making millions doing it!

Bwahahaaaa ........ and you suggest that your pile of outrageously insane
crap is better????



A bona fide scientific proof of God is going to remedy
the situation and put them back in uniform where they
belong!

Even if it ever came, there is no telling what it wouldl do.

YOU certainly haven't shown anything other than your psychotic ignorance!