GOD = RAP
(Relativistic Anthropic Principle)

The Anthropic Principle is well known to Science today.
Carter, Barrow, Tipler, Wheeler and even Hawking and Penrose
and Weinberg have written extensively on the subject.
What Science DOESN'T KNOW...

You cant see the forest for the trees.
You are looking at humanity through an electron microscope.

The only goal of any religion is to control all humanity
on the Earth and if possible the Entire Universe.

Science is an evolutionary step above Religion
but has been dominated by religion for religious ends.

Maybe one day Raw Science will recognize the HUMAN as
being a sacred animal then we can eliminate religion
all together and together we can understand
the universe in a nice and comfortable way.

Religion is ancient forms of Government that originated
prior to the Scientific Methodology.
We alive today are doomed to suffer because it will not die easily.
It seeks control by overpopulation as well as force and deception.

It ( the religious ) used to use poison to murder non-religious persons
until the 1800s when forensic science came along
and could hold such people accountable.
The crime of poisioning was punished in Roman times
by feeding the offender to the wild beast.

On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

[snip rest of crap]

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

On Apr 20, 6:14 pm, George Hammond notspam.org> wrote:

snip

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htm
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2004-10/6530.html
http://www.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

"George Hammond" notspam.org> wrote in message
news:degn045gkevf0ni0hkohcfigd0keflcgj9@4ax.com...

I'm curious, George.
What would make you constantly come into these news groups (and all the
other arenas) to bellow your outrageous lunacy - when all it does is show
everyone you're and insane fool?

On Apr 20, 2:11 pm, George Hammond notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
hate.spam.net> wrote:

If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable

Humans must exist for determinability to be possible.

Therefore All possibilities of determinability require humans to be
possible?

On Apr 20, 3:11 pm, George Hammond

A Crackpot:
One writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a
particular subject, often in science, based on false or
even ludicrous beliefs. The rise of the Internet has given an outlet
to people well outside
the mainstream who may get labeled crackpots through internet
postings promoting particular beliefs

The universal characteristics of crackpots include:
Crackpots overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and
underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Crackpots insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently
important.
Crackpots rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how
trivial.
Crackpots love to talk about their own beliefs, often in
inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners,
and often
appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.