From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sat Apr 28 20:16:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B48517AB7 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:16:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B85317AB9 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:16:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5F317AB7 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:16:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA20050 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:16:19 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f Message-ID: <3AEB1938.15673102@mediaone.net> From: George Hammond X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,alt.athiesm,alt.sci.natural.phenomena.unusual,alt.sci.physics,alt.talk.creationism,bionet.biophysics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,talk.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright X-Priority: 1 (Highest) References: <3ae7e476_2@news01.one.net.au> <3AE81A39.DCB403E7@mediaone.net> <3AE84A63.91AF7B61@ozone.ch> <3AE879D7.DE3494E1@mediaone.net> <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AE8B9E2.A73DB51B@mediaone.net> <1127_988344536@GANDALF> <3AE9B280.8406B3B2@mediaone.net> <3AEADE18.6CDCEC04@mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 181 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 19:16:00 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net Organization: Road Runner To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Mr J R N Austin wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, George Hammond wrote: > > > Eros wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I went to the web site to. It's garbage > > > and unless you already assume there is a god it proves nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > > You aren't scientifically qualifed to repair automobiles > > > > > > much less evaluate a scientific proof of God based on > > > > > > Factor Analysis and Relativity. You're a pile of puke, > > > > > > nevermind garbage. > > > > > > > > > > Nice ad hominems and insults George. What part of the scientific method > > > > > are you applying here? > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > Moral superiority, General intelligence, human experience > > > > and greater learning. In short, a knowledge of the scientific > > > > explanation of God. > > > > > > Really! I'm glad you said "general" intelligence. Since you are so learned > > > and experienced in this so-called "knowledge of the scientific explanation > > > of God", perhaps you'll be able to answer this simple question;- > > > Without refering to the Bible, what is the single most compelling piece of > > > evidence that DIRECTLY supports the hypothesis of Divine Creation? > > > > [Hammond] > > No problem: > > The fact that if all men died tomorrow the Universe > > as we know it, would cease to exist. > > I have a two questions I would like to respectfully advance to George > Hammond: > > 1) How do you know that it would cease to exist? [Hammond] I said "the Universe as we know it would cease to exist". My answer is true "by definition", since if all men were dead, there would be no one to "know it". > 2) How is that evidence for divine creation? [Hammond] If the Universe "as we know it" only exists because Man is alive to "know it", then ergo, the Universe "as we know it" came into existence when Man came into existence. This is the "Religious" concept of "Creation" and obviously happened say 200K years ago when Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared.. this is the so called "Biblical age of the World". This is to be sharply contrasted to the "Physics" definition of "Creation" which happened 15 Billion years ago. Surely you're smart enough to figure that out.... I mean backwoods fundamentalist religious hillbillies are smart enough to figure it out and they're sitting there laughing at the whole academic community.... and moreover, the Public and the Supreme Court knows about it too. It's only the Physics Department who has their heads so buried in mathematics books that they don't know what the common man is talking about. > > I move that you cannot know 1), although I suppose that you say this on > the basis of the special position of the observer in quantum mechanics. If > that is the case, then we really ought to be careful about what we mean by > `observation:' I have no reason to suspect that it has anything to do with > consciousness in all that I have read on the subject. It strikes me that > any interaction between particles is just as much an observation as me > looking at it, and most of the Schrodinger's Cat style paradoxes seem to > collapse into dangerously solipsistic personal universes. > If 1) were true, why is that evidence for divine creation? Again I suppose > that you say this because you think that something wants the universe to > be the way it is, `as we know it.' This is just one dubious (as far as I > can see, which to be fair is as far as you have explained it) logical step > away from saying `The universe was divinely created because something must > want human life to be exist;' which is manifestly not a satisfactory > response. [Hammond] Wake up. Why do you think Fundamentalist Religious groups are so powerful? They KNOW SOMETHING that the academic community can't understand. The Government (authorities) realize it, the public realizes it, and of course they have to use legislative power and the ballot box to decide how to handle it. However, it's high time the academic community realized that the Public and the common man actually know MORE about human Psychology than academia does... because academia in general is sheltered from the rough and tumble world of human psychological interaction and conflict... whereas the poor and the uneducated are not. > > > > I will also be interested to see your reasoning as to how your "scientific > > > explanation of God" explains the observed diversity of life on earth better > > > than any existing scientific theories. > > > > [Hammond] > > Until you understand phenomenologically (NB: scientifically) > > what "God" actually is, you're not even qualified to ask > > a coherent or meaningful question. > > Then please, wait no longer, tell us what this God is! If it is difficult > to explain without invoking lots of your own technical terms which a > reasonably educated audience would have trouble following, perhaps it > would be better to deal with the following: > > Is God personal? > > Did God create the Universe > > Does God know and/or care about us? If so what, if anything, does he want > from us? > > Is God moral? If so is he good? > > Where is God? > > What is his relationship to current and past religions? > > > > Good luck! [Hammond] Look.... there are hundreds if not thousands of people who do not understand the theory of Relativity spending years endlessly debating riddles about Relativity (check sci.physics.relativity for instance). It is a waste of breath for someone who DOES understand Relativity to even bother talking with them. The SAME THING is true about the scientific explanation (proof) of God. Until you take the time to actually read and comprehend the scientific explanation of god (posted on my website), it is a waste of time for me to discuss "riddles about God" with you. There is no royal road to learning.... if you want to know what the scientific explanation of God is you'll actually have to read the explanation (on my website). I'm not a private tutor. > > > > [Hammond] > > You're the one who needs luck, I know what God > > is and you don't. That makes you an ignoramus > > compared to me. By discovering the scientific > > explanation (and proof mind you) of God, that > > de facto makes me the most knowledgeable man > > on the surface of the Earth. You're privileged > > to even talk to me. > > Is your intention to spread this knowledge, or simply to spread the fact > that you have this knowledge? If the former, then please consider this > your opportunity. If the latter, then an ignoramus as I am, I consider you > a fool. [Hammond] I certainly would be a fool if I let you con me into private charity work in the form of tutoring you. Either read it at my website or take a hike. I don't care if you ever know about it. It's not important that you know about it. People who have an actual "need to know" will study the website and find out what it is. you're just academic royalty who thinks that I'm obliged to give you comfortable spoon fed private lectures. I don't think so. > > Jez. -- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------- .