news:xytZc.220812$8_6.5178@attbi_s04 by "George Hammond"
:

"Ferrous Patella" wrote in message
...
[...]
If a bunch of Scientists aren't smart enough to understand your
brilliance, what makes you think that some judge will.

[Hammond]
An army of Creationists can soon convince the scientists to get thier
feet down off the desk and hang up their cellphones and
get their ass in gear and study it until they DO understand it.

Goodness, that quite the vitiolic stereotype of scientists you have there.
Tell me, when have you ever worked with one? (Other than as a subject, I
mean.)


That's what. the Creationsists can supeonea the Scientists,

Not unless the Creationists happen to be judges, they cannot.


and when they tell the judge they haven't bothered to read
it,

Scientists *have* read it. They said it was nonsence.

the judge can tell them to read it and give him an answer,
and it better be correct. Now that's what I call action,
and I figure between me and an army of boiling mad
Creationists we ought be able to force somebody to dummy
up and speak straight and do their job.


So, how many creationists have signed up to join this army of yours?

Oh, that's right. Everybody is crazy except you.

--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)

"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"R.Schenck" wrote in message
...
"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

snip
Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
and Biblical Creation.

Why do you think proof of god (which, judging from your website, is
something that you infact don't have) equates to proof of biblical
creation? Which biblical creation by the way?

[Hammond]
Hey... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you''re not
qualified to read something you sure as hell aren't
qualified to criticize it.

The theory (discovery actually) proves that
sensory reality (what we see) is a CURVED
VERSION of actual physical reality (what
Physics measures). "Curved" as in the
sense of Einstein's Theory.
This curvature is caused by the Secular Trend
braingrowth deficit (well known, well proven).
This PROVES (rather than argues) that the
brain produces reality... and therefore, the
"advent of the brain" 40,000 years ago
was the "Creation of reality"... which is
identically the Biblical Creation.

Now there it is in simple language... but I
WARN YOU that it cannot be "challenged
in simple language" since there is a hard
scientific proof of it given on my website and
in my published papers posted there that
require ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE
which you do not have in order to challenge
it.

I doubt anybody could meaningfully challenge it, because you are simply
writing gobblely-gook. I suspect, to be honest, that you will find few
Creationists even willing to touch you. They have their standards (as
minimal as they may be), and quite frankly, even the clever ones wouldn't
want to get laughed out of court. Adopting your pseudo-science would
probably be the death-knell for Creationism in the United States.

On second thought, I'll help you fold the envelopes.

--
Aaron Clausen


WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:13:57 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
wrote:

"TMG" wrote in message
...
R.Schenck wrote:

"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

"Darrell Stec" wrote in message
...

And yet you said your theory requires one to be a polymath with an IQ
over 200.

He's heard from polymaths with an I.Q. very well into the genius range.
They all say he's flat out wrong. Stupid. Raving. Insane. A loon's loon.

[Hammond]
LOL Name one of them!

There's no point. You seem the kind of person who defines "genius" as
"anyone who agrees with me, and nobody else." Since nobody of average
or greater intelligence and judgment will ever agree with you, your
idea of genius will never correspond with reality.

Incidentally, I would quibble of the list of adjectives that TMG used.
"Stupid" is so imprecise that it functions as little more than a
generic insult, and "insane" cannot be so easily diagnosed from such a
small sample of a person's life. However, Hammond's work is clearly
raving, loony, and flat-out wrong.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"George Hammond" wrote:
An army of Creationists can soon convince the scientists to get thier
feet down off the desk and hang up their cellphones and
get their ass in gear and study it until they DO understand it.
That's what. the Creationsists can supeonea the Scientists,
and when they tell the judge they haven't bothered to read
it, the judge can tell them to read it and give him an answer,
and it better be correct. Now that's what I call action,
and I figure between me and an army of boiling mad
Creationists we ought be able to force somebody to dummy
up and speak straight and do their job.

Hauntingly familiar, isn't it folks?

[Hammond}
"Folks"? Who do you think you're talking to, the PTA?

Dan
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

"AC" wrote in message
lberni.net...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"R.Schenck" wrote in message
...
"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

snip
Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
and Biblical Creation.

Why do you think proof of god (which, judging from your website, is
something that you infact don't have) equates to proof of biblical
creation? Which biblical creation by the way?

[Hammond]
Hey... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you''re not
qualified to read something you sure as hell aren't
qualified to criticize it.

The theory (discovery actually) proves that
sensory reality (what we see) is a CURVED
VERSION of actual physical reality (what
Physics measures). "Curved" as in the
sense of Einstein's Theory.
This curvature is caused by the Secular Trend
braingrowth deficit (well known, well proven).
This PROVES (rather than argues) that the
brain produces reality... and therefore, the
"advent of the brain" 40,000 years ago
was the "Creation of reality"... which is
identically the Biblical Creation.

Now there it is in simple language... but I
WARN YOU that it cannot be "challenged
in simple language" since there is a hard
scientific proof of it given on my website and
in my published papers posted there that
require ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE
which you do not have in order to challenge
it.

I doubt anybody could meaningfully challenge it, because you are simply
writing gobblely-gook.

[Hammond]
No.. you're a "Gobbeldy Gook" and con't read it because
you have no degrees in physics. You would'nt know
the Einstein Curvature tensor from a barbeque grille.


I suspect, to be honest, that you will find few
Creationists even willing to touch you. They have their standards (as
minimal as they may be), and quite frankly, even the clever ones wouldn't
want to get laughed out of court. Adopting your pseudo-science would
probably be the death-knell for Creationism in the United States.

On second thought, I'll help you fold the envelopes.

[Hammond]
the Internet has replaced "envlopes" in case you haven't
noticed.
What it spells is the death knell of scientific elitism
towards Religion, and the reaffirmation of the primacy
of Religion over Science.
A one dollar bill says "In God we trust" not
"In Science we trust". And that is to remain true
for the duration.

Aaron Clausen
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

"Mark Isaak" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:13:57 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
wrote:

"TMG" wrote in message
...
R.Schenck wrote:

"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

"Darrell Stec" wrote in message
...

And yet you said your theory requires one to be a polymath with an IQ
over 200.

He's heard from polymaths with an I.Q. very well into the genius range.
They all say he's flat out wrong. Stupid. Raving. Insane. A loon's
loon.

[Hammond]
LOL Name one of them!

There's no point. You seem the kind of person who defines "genius" as
"anyone who agrees with me, and nobody else."

[Hammond]
That is a fact... not a definition.



Since nobody of average
or greater intelligence and judgment will ever agree with you, your
idea of genius will never correspond with reality.

Incidentally, I would quibble of the list of adjectives that TMG used.
"Stupid" is so imprecise that it functions as little more than a
generic insult, and "insane" cannot be so easily diagnosed from such a
small sample of a person's life. However, Hammond's work is clearly
raving, loony, and flat-out wrong.

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertions from ignorant amateurs
are just that.

Mark Isaak
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

"George Hammond" wrote:
[snip]

Hauntingly familiar, isn't it folks?

[Hammond}
"Folks"? Who do you think you're talking to, the PTA?

Hee-hee!

Why, no, George. I was addressing the other members of the group, who seem
to be enjoying whacking the latest loon (that would be you, George) to
appear in the forum.

Stick around; you're like a breath of fresh hot air.
--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?" - Jiminy Glick

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:31:49 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"AC" wrote in message
lberni.net...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"R.Schenck" wrote in message
...
"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

snip
Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
and Biblical Creation.

Why do you think proof of god (which, judging from your website, is
something that you infact don't have) equates to proof of biblical
creation? Which biblical creation by the way?

[Hammond]
Hey... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you''re not
qualified to read something you sure as hell aren't
qualified to criticize it.

The theory (discovery actually) proves that
sensory reality (what we see) is a CURVED
VERSION of actual physical reality (what
Physics measures). "Curved" as in the
sense of Einstein's Theory.
This curvature is caused by the Secular Trend
braingrowth deficit (well known, well proven).
This PROVES (rather than argues) that the
brain produces reality... and therefore, the
"advent of the brain" 40,000 years ago
was the "Creation of reality"... which is
identically the Biblical Creation.

Now there it is in simple language... but I
WARN YOU that it cannot be "challenged
in simple language" since there is a hard
scientific proof of it given on my website and
in my published papers posted there that
require ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE
which you do not have in order to challenge
it.

I doubt anybody could meaningfully challenge it, because you are simply
writing gobblely-gook.

[Hammond]
No.. you're a "Gobbeldy Gook" and con't read it because
you have no degrees in physics. You would'nt know
the Einstein Curvature tensor from a barbeque grille.

I could do much the same if I wanted, go get some books on a topic, link
together various phrases and declare I have a theory. Your sick and
delusional, and thus think that it makes sense. It really doesn't, never
will, and only the most pervesely ignorant Creationist would even buy it.
On the off chance,, you might try contacting Kent Hovind, he's about the
right combination of dishonesty, arrogance and stupidity to buy into your
nonsense.

Oh, and from what I understand, you have no degree in physics either, but
nice try at an argument from authority. For that to even have a half-assed
chance of working, you actually have to some authority in some field. For a
guy that links meaningful phrases together to come up with gibberish to talk
to me about degrees is pathetically laughable. I'll probably even feel
sorry for you once I pick myself up off the floor.



I suspect, to be honest, that you will find few
Creationists even willing to touch you. They have their standards (as
minimal as they may be), and quite frankly, even the clever ones wouldn't
want to get laughed out of court. Adopting your pseudo-science would
probably be the death-knell for Creationism in the United States.

On second thought, I'll help you fold the envelopes.

[Hammond]
the Internet has replaced "envlopes" in case you haven't
noticed.

And made it very easy for netkooks to think they've got something.

What it spells is the death knell of scientific elitism
towards Religion, and the reaffirmation of the primacy
of Religion over Science.

Sure, that's what's going to happen.

A one dollar bill says "In God we trust" not
"In Science we trust". And that is to remain true
for the duration.

What are you saying? That George Washington is an authority on science?


Aaron Clausen
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Has anyone also noted that netkooks also post in non-standard ways?

--
Aaron Clausen


WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.

George Hammond wrote:
"AC" wrote in message
lberni.net...

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"R.Schenck" wrote in message
...

"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

snip

Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
and Biblical Creation.

Why do you think proof of god (which, judging from your website, is
something that you infact don't have) equates to proof of biblical
creation? Which biblical creation by the way?

[Hammond]
Hey... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you''re not
qualified to read something you sure as hell aren't
qualified to criticize it.

The theory (discovery actually) proves that
sensory reality (what we see) is a CURVED
VERSION of actual physical reality (what
Physics measures). "Curved" as in the
sense of Einstein's Theory.
This curvature is caused by the Secular Trend
braingrowth deficit (well known, well proven).
This PROVES (rather than argues) that the
brain produces reality... and therefore, the
"advent of the brain" 40,000 years ago
was the "Creation of reality"... which is
identically the Biblical Creation.

Now there it is in simple language... but I
WARN YOU that it cannot be "challenged
in simple language" since there is a hard
scientific proof of it given on my website and
in my published papers posted there that
require ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE
which you do not have in order to challenge
it.

I doubt anybody could meaningfully challenge it, because you are simply
writing gobblely-gook.


[Hammond]
No.. you're a "Gobbeldy Gook" and con't read it because
you have no degrees in physics. You would'nt know
the Einstein Curvature tensor from a barbeque grille.


I have a Bachelors degree in Physics, and a Doctorate in Astrophysics. I
expect you'll find that a number of other posters to these NGs have
similar qualifications. Every single one of us regards your theory as
utterly-vacuous nonsense, lacking even a shred of scientific validity.

As a simple demonstration, let us consider your completely unsupported
assertion that

God = G_uv

For this equality to hold, God must be a second-rank covariant tensor.
However, we all know God is invariant, and therefore a zero-rank tensor
(i.e., a scalar).

We are therefore led to conclude that -- irrespective of its other
merits -- your 'theory' is built on faulty math.

Aardpig

Aardpig wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
"AC" wrote in message
lberni.net...

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
George Hammond wrote:

"R.Schenck" wrote in message
...

"George Hammond" on 01 Sep 2004 posted

snip

Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
and Biblical Creation.

Why do you think proof of god (which, judging from your website, is
something that you infact don't have) equates to proof of biblical
creation? Which biblical creation by the way?

[Hammond]
Hey... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you''re not
qualified to read something you sure as hell aren't
qualified to criticize it.

The theory (discovery actually) proves that
sensory reality (what we see) is a CURVED
VERSION of actual physical reality (what
Physics measures). "Curved" as in the
sense of Einstein's Theory.
This curvature is caused by the Secular Trend
braingrowth deficit (well known, well proven).
This PROVES (rather than argues) that the
brain produces reality... and therefore, the
"advent of the brain" 40,000 years ago
was the "Creation of reality"... which is
identically the Biblical Creation.

Now there it is in simple language... but I
WARN YOU that it cannot be "challenged
in simple language" since there is a hard
scientific proof of it given on my website and
in my published papers posted there that
require ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE
which you do not have in order to challenge
it.

I doubt anybody could meaningfully challenge it, because you are simply
writing gobblely-gook.


[Hammond]
No.. you're a "Gobbeldy Gook" and con't read it because
you have no degrees in physics. You would'nt know
the Einstein Curvature tensor from a barbeque grille.


I have a Bachelors degree in Physics, and a Doctorate in Astrophysics. I
expect you'll find that a number of other posters to these NGs have
similar qualifications. Every single one of us regards your theory as
utterly-vacuous nonsense, lacking even a shred of scientific validity.

As a simple demonstration, let us consider your completely unsupported
assertion that

God = G_uv

For this equality to hold, God must be a second-rank covariant tensor.
However, we all know God is invariant, and therefore a zero-rank tensor
(i.e., a scalar).

Can an imaginary quantity be a scalar? I'm only a philosophy graduate.

We are therefore led to conclude that -- irrespective of its other
merits -- your 'theory' is built on faulty math.

At least...

Aardpig


--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com

God cheats