George Hammond wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:39:28 -0800, doug
xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:42:11 -0800, doug
xx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 04:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Nosterill
>>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:02 am, George Hammond
notspam.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Prefatory note from George Hammond, MS Physics:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Professor Steve Carlip
>>>>>>>Physics Dept, Univ. California
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear Steve:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have noticed that you have taken an active part in the
>>>>>>>scientific battle against incompetence in Creationist
>>>>>>>Science. However I have checked your publications and have
>>>>>>>learned that you have a competency liability of your own. To
>>>>>>>wit: A little known American scientist G. Hammond has in
>>>>>>>fact discovered, proven, and published the world's first
>>>>>>>actual scientific proof of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is really low - even by your standards. Fabricating an
>>>>>>endorsement from a greatly respected physicist, who is in no position
>>>>>>to refute your nonsense, is both pitiful and despicable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Carlip is a frequent poster to
>>>>>sci.physicis.relativity and we can be sure he's read my
>>>>>post... he seems to have plenty of time on his hands and
>>>>>posts frequently under his own name. You can check his
>>>>>Google posting history. I would certainly be polite and
>>>>>cordial to him. If he wants to refute anything I've said
>>>>>he's free and able to do so. I predict we'll hear nothing
>>>>
>>>>>from him, but we can be jolly well sure he's read it.
>>>>
>>>>> After all, this is a personal "FYI" message... not a
>>>>>solicitation since the SPOG is a fait accompli and there is
>>>>>really nothing to discuss. It is simply a warning to him to
>>>>>cover his behind a little better when dealing with coy and
>>>>>savvy Creationists who actually know what God is lest he end
>>>>>up making Physics look bad.
>>>>> What I mean is; the true Creationists ALREADY KNOW:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. That the "Biblical Creation" refers to the
>>>>> advent of the Human Mind thousands of
>>>>> years ago, not to the Big Bang billions of
>>>>> years ago.
>>>>>2. That the Anthropic Principle that the physicists
>>>>> have recently discovered is nothing more than
>>>>> the physicists realization that "GOD IS MAN".
>>>>>3. What the physicists don't know is that Man is
>>>>> half invisible, and therefore God is invisible.
>>>>>4. That this "invisibllity" is the first fact of life
>>>>> and the cause of religion, despite the fact
>>>>> that Physics is totally ignorant of it.
>>>>
>>>>Of course the other possibility is that he is laughing
>>>>so hard it is hard to type. Or, he feels you are not
>>>>worth responding to since you are immune to science.
>>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> He's scared witless of the discovery of a scientific
>>>proof of God like every other academic in Sci-Rel and is
>>>pretending it doesn't exist.
>>
>>No, that is not it. You have no proof, scientific or
>>otherwise and are only a source of amusement for the readers
>>in usenet.
>>
>> remember I've already talked
>>
>>>to Prof. Chris Isham who did nothing but whine about his 86
>>>year old mother dying in a nursing home and making
>>>handwaving statements about "no one can prove there is a
>>>God". Carlip would be no different, nor even John
>>>Polkinghorne and his drinking buddies at the ISSR.
>>> Can you imagine what an embarressment the discovery of
>>>the world's first SPOG by an unknown amateur would be to the
>>>stuffshirts if the ISSR who are making a fortune publishing
>>>books .... take a look at these people:
>>
>>Since there is no god to have a scientific proof of, you
>>certainly have done nothing.
>>
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Unsupported assertion. Liar.
You do not understand english very well. Even if it were an
unsupported assertion, that is and assertion, not a lie.
>
>>
>> If you try to work on the
>>Hindu gods, you have a better chance to try to prove something
>>since there are a lot more of them.
>>
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Been there done that. The Hindu demigods are merely the
> 30-1st order eigenvectos of the psychometry correlation
> matrix as fully proven and detailed in my peer published
> papers.
>
No you just babbled on and are about a few million gods
short.
>>
>> You badly messed up your
>>trial at the Greek and Roman gods so you should leave that
>>alone to avoid further embarrassement.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Pendantic recitation of an unsupported assertion. In fact
> the Greeko-Roman "Dodekatheon" is STUNNINGLY explained by
> the fact that they are the 13 SYMMETRY AXES of a cube and
> therefore CAUSE the 13 cubically intercorrelated 2nd order
> eigenvectors in Psychometry. Go back to your beer and
> pizza.
>
This was where you tried to tell us that the Greeks and Romans
were too stupid to know the difference between 12 and 13.
The correct answer is that they did know and your "explaination"
is just more meaningless babble.
>>
>>>
http://www.issr.org.uk/index.asp
>>> This is the world's most powerful and elite society for
>>>Sci-Rel with 200 "elected by nomination only" members. They
>>>wear out printing presses publishing books about God and
>>>giving speeches and prizes to each other. They could care
>>>less is some unknown researcher has actually DISCOVERED the
>>>world's first s.p.o.g. Sci-Rel is merely an old boy society
>>>for scientists who have reached their doatage and are now
>>>allowed to pontificate their private ideology on religion.
>>> Steve Carlip isa high ranking academic just like these
>>>people, who do you think you're kidding? It would be just
>>>as sensible to tell Jesus to go talk to the Sanhedron as it
>>>is to tell me to talk to Steve Carlip!
>>>
>>
>>He is well thought of and is well aware of the difference
>>between proof and delusion.
>>
>>
>
> He's not well thought of by the Young Earth society, or
> by Creationists. Fact is he's probably just another
> physicist atheist or agnostic who is hostile to
> Fundamentalists which doesn't make very well thought of by
> religious people in general.
>
Being disliked by the Young Earth Society is an endorsement
and shows that they think you are too reasonable to believe
the junk that they are supporting.
>>
>
>
