From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sun Apr 29 19:42:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F8B17AEF for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:42:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1EF17B57 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:42:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49D917AEF for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:41:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA12524 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:41:58 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f Message-ID: <3AEC62B7.38B270CF@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> <3AEB1938.15673102@mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 160 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:41:38 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: > > > 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". > > No, if all men were dead, the universe could still be as we know it now > (when there are people alive), just without the people there > to know it. Do you see? [Hammond] Whaddau an idiot or something? the "Universe as we know it" is defined by the human body itself (it's perceptual system). If all men were dead, there would be nothing left to define "the Universe as we know it", unless you think you can write a totally comprehensive and complete written definition of "the Universe as we know it".... the very definition itself would be lost and NO LONGER EXIST. There is no way you could replicate the human machine with a computer, an encyclopedia, a movie film or something... don't be crazy. Man IS God, and when man created himself "God" created the Universe, as I have just shown. Christ... there are high school dropout Fundamentalist rolling on the floor laughing at you PhD's who can't understand what God is. Get with it. Before people knew about Pluto, it was > there. We know it was there because we can see its effect on > neighbouring planets from photographic plates taken before it > was discovered. Why not the universe as a whole. Your answer is certainly > not true by definition, although it may be true: it is safe to say that > you have not shown it. [Hammond] Baloney.... it is true, and I have proved it... see my website. QED Plonck > > Trivially, the universe would be different in that there would be no live > people in it (notwithstanding intelligent alien life), but that would make > your original response very silly: it really would be a case of you saying > `we exist => God made us,' which still is not satisfactory. [Hammond] hey don't wander around in the desert in circles until you die of thirst. Get a compass. Read my website. > > > > 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. > snip > > 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". > > I thought that was 6K years. [Hammond] 200K or 6K makes no difference when you compare that to the time scale claimed by Physics which is 14 BILLION YEARS back to the "Big Bang". Watch it sarge, the religious Fundamentalists are not a bunch of hicks, and don't ever forget it. they KNOW SOMETHING you don't know. > > > 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'm smart enough to know why what you've written isn't enough to show > this. I'm guessing you, the smartest guy on earth, are too. [Hammond] I'm a graduate physicist... I know what a scientific proof is... I'm telling you it's a scientific proof, and until some competent authority demonstrates elsewise... it will remain a "proof". snip > No it isn't. Explaining things to uneducated people successfully is the > best way of ensuring that you really understand something yourself. > [Hammond] Look... i've written a FAQ which explains it ONE PAGE: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html All you deserve from me is a written FAQ. I'm not about to sit here and dispense a charitable tutorial service for some nobody who can't be of any help anyway. If you're too lazy to read the FAQ.... then so long. I don't need you for anything. snip -- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- .