"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:54:58 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:

[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

Evidence is based on facts - not YOUR outrageously insane, psychotic crap!
You are the crazy one - as everyone else has pointed out!



[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.

Obviously your psychotic blinders kept you from seing the dictionary
definition I provided, which contradicted your ****!

You make this claim as though it were fact - when it, like everything else
you post, is outrageously unscientific and unsupported garbage.


Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

That is not a proof, asshole; it's merely more of your insane ramblings.



2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.

Gee ... you agree with your own insane crap!
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID, dip****!


3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.

Paragraph 1 was nothing more than your own mentally corrupt, and
unscientific, assertions.
You cannot use your own, previous, insane and unsupported assertions to come
to a conclusion that actually means anything .......... twit!

Were you a REAL scientist (or even sane), you would know that.

THERE IS VALID EVIDENCE that the universe existed before man came along.
That is a FACT!
It is also a fact that scientifically, you don't know your ass from a hole
in the ground!




[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".

Flushng crap, again.
There is no "proof" above ... only your deranged ramblings.

How about this, amoeba brain ..................
"Confirmation" of the existence of something IS NOT THE SAME as the actual
EXISTENCE of that object!
Or is that too tough for you to comprehend!?!?!?!


In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!

In short ........... you're a turd pretending to be human!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...

| On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:54:58 GMT, George Hammond
| wrote:
|
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
| wrote:
|
| [Andy F.]
| There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
| been around for billions of years.
|
| [Hammond]
| There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
| deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
| then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
| throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
| certifiably either crazy or incompetent.
|
| [Andy F.]
| This means the universe existed before
| humans did.
|
|
| [Hammond]
| WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.
|
| 1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
| sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
| of the word "existence" that is independent of the
| action of a HUMAN observer.
| Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
| would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
| if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
| "existence" has no meaning whatsoever
| without the existence of human beings.
|
| 2) But what your statement above says, is that
| circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
| conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
| a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
| that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
| agree with that statement.
|
| 3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
| did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
| 1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
| a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
| if anybody was around to see it.
|
| [Andy F.]
| So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.
|
|
| [Hammond]
| Wrong again.
| The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
| "caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
| HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
| In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
| people, no existence, of anything!
| =====================================
| 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
| =====================================
|



I guess I've heard all now. This thinking is along the same lines as " does
refrigerator light really go out when the doors closed " and " the tree
falls in the forest and nobody's around

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...

| On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:54:58 GMT, George Hammond
| wrote:
|
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
| wrote:
|
| [Andy F.]
| There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
| been around for billions of years.
|
| [Hammond]
| There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
| deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
| then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
| throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
| certifiably either crazy or incompetent.
|
| [Andy F.]
| This means the universe existed before
| humans did.
|
|
| [Hammond]
| WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.
|
| 1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
| sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
| of the word "existence" that is independent of the
| action of a HUMAN observer.
| Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
| would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
| if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
| "existence" has no meaning whatsoever
| without the existence of human beings.
|

|



Your theory is along the same lines as " if a tree falls in the forest, and
no one is around to hear it, did it really make a sound ". If every human
died at 9:00 and the universe ceased to exist, then everybody was suffering
from the same mass delusion. This would mean humans are not individual but
part of a collective with a single mind in order to perceive a single
universe. On the other hand, if there was one single human that observed the
universe and that one single human died at 9:00 there would be no way to
prove the Universe exists after the one single human ceased to exist.



So your logic is circular. Man perceives the universe therefore the universe
must exist. The universe must exist because man perceives it.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.

An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
of years ago.

3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.

[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!

But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it exists.Which
would make it logically impossible for anything to come into existence.

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:46:13 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

The Egyptian pantheon had approximetely a dozen demigods.

About 60, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pantheon.

Na.... the 12 "canonical gods" (personality types) were
graphically depicted as men with the heads of various
animals:

You _did_ say a dozen _demigods_, a term which technically excludes the
full-blown gods and godesses. But if you get to pick and choose which
are on and not on your list, it's hard to argue with that. It is rather
interesting that despite making it up as you go along, you choose 12 and
not 13, thus disproving yourself.

The Roman Pantheon had approximately a dozen demigods and

Easily several dozen.

Na....the 12 "canonical Roman gods" a

Again, you did state demigod, not god, and you chose 12 and not 13.

the Greek Pantheon had approximately a dozen demigods, and

Easily several dozen.

Na....the 12 "canonical Greek gods" a

Once again, you did state demigod, not god, and you chose 12 and not 13
by chosing one grouping of the Dodeketheon.

We're not interested in "small fry" gods made up by Joe
Blow some local artist.

So why did you specify 'demigod'? Besides, all those gods were as much a
part of the Greek religion as Apollo.

the REASON for this is that there are PRECISELY 13 SYMMETRY
AXES IN A CUBE.

Except three times in a row, you come up with 12 and not 13 gods.
Or do you redefine the word "twelve" to mean "thirteen", just like you
redefine the word "exist" to try to prove your point?

The ancient GREEKS were actually one god short. 7%
accuracy was good enough in their day.... modern science
requires greater accuracy, so 13 is the correct number of
demigods.

No answer to the rest of my post? Does that mean you realize I am correct
and just want to argue who should/shouldn't be on the list of demigods?
No list of religions with 30 demigods? Won't share your scientific
sounding gibberish generation technique with us?

On Apr 23, 1:46*pm, "Andy F." wrote:


An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
of years ago.


Ouch! waiting in anticipation for GH to respond to that.

The universe around us is created by human perception. I agree with
this in the sense that humans "conjure" the universe out of a chaotic
background of overlapping interference patterns and through the act of
observation, give form and solidity to this reality, but why do we
create a history that according to GH does not exist. This is a bit
like the preacher who, when confronted by evidence of dinosaur bones,
claims that god put them there, already pre-aged at several hundred
millions of years old.

Start thinking GH

On 2008-04-23, John Smith wrote:

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

Evidence is based on facts - not YOUR outrageously insane, psychotic crap!
You are the crazy one - as everyone else has pointed out!

Have *you* been immortalized in song by Casey B and Interröbang
Cartel? I didn't think so. Keep moving along.


--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]

George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:30:16 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

No they looked at the proof, had a good laugh and went back to
doing useful science, not the babble you are producing.


[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who've gone cutsie
on me.

People only reply to you to watch you spout your silly
meaningless babble. But, in this current thread, you
have absolutely surpassed yourself by arguing contradictory
positions and making up even more bizarre assertions that
have no basis with reality.

You were getting dull for awhile but your entertainment
value is increasing. Everyone I show this to gets a
huge laugh out of it.


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

"Mani Deli" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:51:51 GMT, George Hammond wrote:

Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?


God is the stupid answer to any question.

Nobody 'discovered' God because there is no
God to discover. God is a human construct,
created by humans to enslave other humans.

On Apr 20, 6:14*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

* * * * * * * * * GOD = RAP

[snip rest of crap]

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. *How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Holy cow!





Idiot.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:00:42 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:30:16 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


No they looked at the proof, had a good laugh and went back to
doing useful science, not the babble you are producing.


[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who've gone cutsie
on me.


A somewhat below ignoramus like Hammond represents a good part of the
American public. He is superstitious and incapable of critical
thinking. His knowledge of math and science is due to an educational
system run by the rich in order to keep the average person ignorant of
how they are being ****ed by the upper one percent.

Those who share his ignorance are a good part of the reason so many
countries are surpassing yours.