From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Mon Apr 30 20:40:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8136117A85 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:40:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E6617B77 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:40:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643F217AA6 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:40:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA07526 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:40:16 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: Mr J R N Austin 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 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:39:23 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 181 Message-ID: References: <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> <3AEC62B7.38B270CF@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <3AEC62B7.38B270CF@mediaone.net> X-X-Sender: mauyr@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, George Hammond wrote: > 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. A system which has not been defined by an intelligent agent is no diffent to the same system which has been defined by an intelligent agent (save the presence of the intelligent agent). For example, if there are two identical boxes, one containing a philosopher who has gone to the trouble of defining his box and one which is empty, is there any difference between the boxes (apart from the presense of the philosopher in one)? This is common sense, so not necessarily true. However, if you propose that it is false, you must demonstrate such. I have no need or desire for a tutorial from you, but if you fail to answer this point you will have to retract the `single most compelling piece of evidence that directly supports the hypothesis of 'divine creation' that you know. > 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 My comment applied to your alleged evidence for divine creation, not anything to do with your theories about God, which shows how much attention you pay to your correspondence. > > 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. 14 billion years is 70000 times longer than 200 thousand years, but is about 2300000 times longer than 6 thousand years. I think that's a big difference. Orders of magnitude different. > > > > > 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". The difficulty for me is the direction of causation. You claim that 4D space-time causes the 4D psychometric. Any supporting evidence for that (specifically for causation over correlation, and the direction of the alleged causation). > > 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. You are a child. Jez. .