GOD=G_uv WAS RUSSELL AN ATHEIST?
George Hammond
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
>
>
> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
> --Bertrand Russell
>
>
[Hammond]
Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old. That he was a fool is
demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
famous atheist.
Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it, and Russell
was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
In his statement, Russell can apparently understand how the world
could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
years old. Amazingly of course, Russell has answered the Creation
Paradox when he pointed out that indeed the world might be only 5
minutes old, never mind only 6,000 years or 100,000 years old.
In point of fact, we have EVIDENCE that our world (our
consciousness) began 100,000 years ago and not 5 minutes ago, because
our species (hence our brain) emerged 100,000 years ago when the
species Homo-Sapiens-sapiens first appeared.
Of course, many believe Russell only played the Atheistic fool in
public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
stupidity of atheists....... guess we'll never know..... but the above
famous quote by him indicates that he actually DID UNDERSTAND what God
was.
In fact my own version of Russell's statment goes like this:
If all men are to die five minutes from now,
then the universe will cease to exist five
minutes from now.
Thus my statement is confirmed by
Bertrand Russell's famous "5 minute argument"!
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
Sanity's little helper
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:16:44 GMT, George Hammond
> <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
>>
>> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>> --Bertrand Russell
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old. That he was a fool is
> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
> famous atheist.
>
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it, and Russell
> was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
> In his statement, Russell can apparently understand how the world
> could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
> understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
> years old.
> In fact my own version of Russell's statment goes like this:
>
> If all men are to die five minutes from now,
> then the universe will cease to exist five
> minutes from now.
> Thus my statement is confirmed by
> Bertrand Russell's famous "5 minute argument"!
>
Hammond, please do the following, in the order they are set out in this
injunction:
Fuck off from Usenet.
Learn English comprehension.
Don't come back until and unless you have done so.
Develop a taste for your own excrement, as you'll be eating an awful lot
of it.
quibbler
nowh...@notspam.org says...
> news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
> >
> >
> > ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
> > --Bertrand Russell
> >
> >
> [Hammond]
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old
And for winning a Nobel prize and for writing Principia Mathematica and
for being a member of the Royal Society where he won the Sylvester and
deMorgan medals. Too bad stupid, crazy old George Hammond will never
achieve even a fraction of what Russell did.
>. That he was a fool is
> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
> famous atheist.
His supporting argument were far superior to anything you've ever come up
with. In general, the average retard is a theist, while atheism often
requires above average intellect. The problem is that crack-head idiots
like George Bush and George Hammond don't have sufficient brain power to
understand the overwhelming evidence and compelling arguments in favor of
atheism and thus, they take the moronic theist position.
>
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it, and Russell
> was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
Despite your transparent bias, all indications were that Russell was a
first class student and a first class scholar. You've produced nothing,
aside from your irrational prejudice against atheism, to show that he was
deficient in any way, academically or intellectually.
> In his statement, Russell can apparently understand how the world
> could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
> understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
LOL. As usual, his point went way over your head. You failed to get the
joke and have thus become the joke. I'll type this slowly, so that your
lips can keep up. Russell didn't take seriously the notion that the
world was five minutes old and he likewise didn't take seriously the
notion that it was 100,000 (which is not supported by Genesis, your
idiocy to one side). His argument demonstrated why we shouldn't take
ridiculous conjectures like yours or the 6000-year-old earth of Genesis
seriously.
> years old. Amazingly of course, Russell has answered the Creation
> Paradox when he pointed out that indeed the world might be only 5
> minutes old, never mind only 6,000 years or 100,000 years old.
No, you just failed to understand what he was saying. The point is that
people can select any arbitrary date for creation and then posit that the
universe was created with fake evidence to mislead us into thinking that
it was really older than that. That's a reason for not taking seriously
some arbitrary "faith based" date that conflicts with the evidence, not a
license to just start making up dates, as you apparently think.
>
> In point of fact, we have EVIDENCE that our world (our
> consciousness)
That's fallacious equivocation. Scientists are measuring the age of the
physical earth, not the age at which anatomically modern man might have
developed consciousness similar to what one has today. In any event,
100kya is not that great an estimate for AMHS.
> Thus my statement is confirmed by
> Bertrand Russell's famous "5 minute argument"!
No, it's demolished by Russell's argument, but your delusions prevent you
from even the most elementary forms of analysis now.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
George Hammond
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e67721b3...@news.readfreenews.net...
> In article <qumqv1tepeh9d8l4d...@4ax.com>,
> nowh...@notspam.org says...
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:16:44 GMT, George Hammond
>> <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
>> >
>> >
>> > ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>> > --Bertrand Russell
>> >
>> >
>> [Hammond]
>> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
>> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old
>
> And for winning a Nobel prize and for writing Principia Mathematica and
>
[Hammond]
Hammond published the world's first scientific proof of God..
that's more than a sonorous bell canto atheistic dipshit like
Bertrand Russell ever accomplished.... him and the whole Royal
Society for that matter!
>
>
>
>>. That he was a fool is
>> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
>> famous atheist.
>
> His supporting argument were far superior to anything you've ever come up
> with.
>
[Hammond]
Says who..,. you?... pedantic candyass dickhead...establishment
booklicking brown noser suckboy.... vicious, psychotic, sadistic
stalker/heckler.. Who the phuck'r you?... you're not even man
enough to use your REAL NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
killfile: "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com>
Mani Deli
<nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>[Hammond]
>Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
>for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old.
>famous principally for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old, really?
> In point of fact, we have EVIDENCE that our world (our
>consciousness) began 100,000 years ago and not 5 minutes ago, because
>our species (hence our brain) emerged 100,000 years ago when the
>species Homo-Sapiens-sapiens first appeared.
Another jerk who learns science in Sunday school!
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated. "
Bertrand Russell
Steve Ralph
"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:5gjqv1p144re80qos...@4ax.com...
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
>>
>>
>> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>> --Bertrand Russell
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old. That he was a fool is
> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
> famous atheist.
>
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it,
You are the exception to the rule
sr
Pittsburgh
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:16:44 GMT, George Hammond
> <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:HS2Lf.103770$4l5.77175@dukeread05...
>>
>>
>> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>> --Bertrand Russell
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old. That he was a fool is
> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
> famous atheist.
Are we supposed to believe this as fact because, like so many others, it is
YOU making that claim?
A personal opinion is not fact - or didn;t you know that?
>
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it, and Russell
> was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
> In his statement, Russell can apparently understand how the world
> could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
> understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
> years old.
In both cases, they are nothing more than claims that are not supported by
the facts.
Russell, like creationists, is making an argument that were are "duped" into
believing those claims.
Russell is also pointing out the fallacy of the creationist/fundamentalist
argument, i.e. as long as "god" is going to fool us into seeing an ancient
universe, it might as well be five minutes ago as compared to creationism's
6,000 years.
Amazingly of course, Russell has answered the Creation
> Paradox when he pointed out that indeed the world might be only 5
> minutes old, never mind only 6,000 years or 100,000 years old.
>
> In point of fact, we have EVIDENCE that our world (our
> consciousness) began 100,000 years ago and not 5 minutes ago, because
> our species (hence our brain) emerged 100,000 years ago when the
> species Homo-Sapiens-sapiens first appeared.
We have evidence?
Do you know the fact that, though, our "conscioiusness" MAY have originated
100,000 years ago (which just seems to be another of your unsupported
claims), that has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or the
earth.
>
> Of course, many believe Russell only played the Atheistic fool in
> public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
> stupidity of atheists....... guess we'll never know..... but the above
> famous quote by him indicates that he actually DID UNDERSTAND what God
> was.
> In fact my own version of Russell's statment goes like this:
>
> If all men are to die five minutes from now,
> then the universe will cease to exist five
> minutes from now.
Excuse me?
The universe exists only because man's consciousness exists?
The evidence says otherwise.
There is also the rebuttal that if the universe did not exists before man,
then man could not have been "created".
> Thus my statement is confirmed by
> Bertrand Russell's famous "5 minute argument"!
Excuse me; warping what Russell said into what you want does not mean
Russell (or Russel's statement) agrees with your claims
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you apparently do not have the
mental qualities of a valid scientist.
Robibnikoff
"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:WUkLf.2218$F56...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Nym-shifting fuckhead! FOAD!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
George Hammond
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:466e9hF...@individual.net...
explainer
MEC,Middle-aged Earth Creationism.
By moving from the 6,000 to 10,000 years of YECs to a middler point
toward OECs, he has put a new blip on the creationist radar display.
Way to go George. I'll bet a recalibration of your earth age detector
will give you a readout closer to 1 x 10^7 years, the exponential
midpoint between the YEC 10^4 and OEC 10^10.
All the best, Gordon Hill
Tron
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> skrev i melding
news:466e9hF...@individual.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:WUkLf.2218$F56...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Nym-shifting fuckhead! FOAD!
> --
"When Archimedes had discovered his first scientific law, he sacrificed an
ox to Jupiter.
Since then, the entire bovine race has had an ingrained distrust of
scientific progress."
Heinrich Heine
T
Kane
TMG
> [Hammond]
> Says who..,. you?... pedantic candyass dickhead...establishment
> booklicking brown noser suckboy.... vicious, psychotic, sadistic
> stalker/heckler.. Who the phuck'r you?... you're not even man
> enough to use your REAL NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was a good one - you can SEE the flecks of foam and spittle on the
screen as [Hammond] pounds the keys and screams at the monitor. Classic.
TMG
> [Hammond]
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool,
Not to anyone with a functioning brain.
> famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old.
You should probably read more. A lot more.
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it,
And yet you haven't randomly tripped over a cogent thought. Go figure.
Even a team of monkeys, with typewriters (or in this day and age a
computer 'bot with a random word generator) would eventually turn up
something useful. You, on the other hand,... not so much.
> and Russell
> was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
Well, if you're thinking anyone'd describe you as an idiot savant,
you're half right.
> In his statement, Russell can apparently understand how the world
> could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
> understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
> years old.
Or - you have no idea what Russell meant, and you are beyond logical
reasoning.
> Amazingly of course, Russell has answered the Creation
> Paradox when he pointed out that indeed the world might be only 5
> minutes old, never mind only 6,000 years or 100,000 years old.
Or 6 billion years old. Or any randomly assigned "date". That sound you
heard wooshing over your head was his point.
>
> In point of fact, we have EVIDENCE that our world (our
> consciousness) began 100,000 years ago and not 5 minutes ago, because
> our species (hence our brain) emerged 100,000 years ago when the
> species Homo-Sapiens-sapiens first appeared.
Or THAT "evidence" was ALSO planted by a jokester god, like that pesky
fossil record.
>
> Of course, many believe Russell only played the Atheistic fool in
> public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
> stupidity of atheists.......
Who, who thinks this?
> guess we'll never know..... but the above
> famous quote by him indicates that he actually DID UNDERSTAND what God
> was.
Yes - he did. He understood it as a psychological crutch without any
basis in science, logic, or reason. He understood and described it very
well.
> In fact my own version of Russell's statment goes like this:
George, George, George, George, all worship George, George.
George Hammond
news:1140736386....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
You're a smart cookie Hill.
YES, Hammond has put a new blip on the Creationist radar screen.
It is now substantially proven that the Genesis-Creation actually
physically occurred 100,000 years ago and was concurrent with
the appearance of our species- Homo-Sapiens-sapiens.
Adam and Eve in other words, were in fact the first two
Homo-Sapiens-sapiens on Earth.
Fact is, HAMMOND'S SPOG NOW CLEARLY CONFIRMS
Bertrand Russell's long standing suspicion that Gosse's (1857)
"Omphalos Creation Theory" of Genesis IS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY
CORRECT!!!
The only thing that was missing in Gosse's and Russell's analysis
is the fact that the Omphalos-Creation actually took place 100,000 years
ago (not '5 minutes ago' or 6,000 years ago')... but occurred when
the HSs brain appeared, and thus "Omphaloistically" Created reality
as we know it.
Therefore, Hammond's SPOG has now
confirmed that
An "OMPHALOS-CREATION" actually
occurred 100,000 years ago concurrent
with the advent of the modern human brain
( the Homo-Sapiens-sapiens brain)
Thus, BOTH, Evolution and Creationism
are rigorously correct scientific theories.
Notably..... the "Biblical Creationists" are
now proven to be scientifically correct.
TMG
> "explainer" <gor...@explainer.com> wrote in message
> news:1140736386....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Come on folks, cut George some slack. He has created a new group,
>>MEC,Middle-aged Earth Creationism.
>>
>>By moving from the 6,000 to 10,000 years of YECs to a middler point
>>toward OECs, he has put a new blip on the creationist radar display.
>>
>>Way to go George. I'll bet a recalibration of your earth age detector
>>will give you a readout closer to 1 x 10^7 years, the exponential
>>midpoint between the YEC 10^4 and OEC 10^10.
>>
>>All the best, Gordon Hill
>>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're a smart cookie Hill.
Again - the whooshing sounds over your head.....
>
> Fact is, HAMMOND'S SPOG NOW CLEARLY CONFIRMS
> Bertrand Russell's long standing suspicion that Gosse's (1857)
> "Omphalos Creation Theory" of Genesis IS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY
> CORRECT!!!
So stupid it isn't even wrong.
Russell actually wrote:
"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world
sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically
necessary connection between events at different times; therefore
nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove
the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."
You are just skimming web based articles and making crap up.
Crap, crap, ummm - crap.
> The only thing that was missing in Gosse's and Russell's analysis
Retard - one is a posit, one is an anti-posit - you don't thinks so good.
> is the fact that the Omphalos-Creation actually took place 100,000 years
> ago (not '5 minutes ago' or 6,000 years ago')...
You're WAY out of your depth here George (and flat out mockingly wrong).
I'd suggest you also read Jorge Borges - but I know you're not big on
that reading thing.
> but occurred when
> the HSs brain appeared, and thus "Omphaloistically" Created reality
> as we know it.
Random words.
> Therefore, Hammond's SPOG has now
> confirmed that
[Hammond] can't read and comprehend.
lokili...@hotmail.co.uk
>> public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
>> stupidity of atheists.......
>Who, who thinks this?
I believe that Russell only played the Atheistic (sic) fool in public
and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the stupidity of
atheists.
I bleieve that it says so in his secret diary (it is pink and has a
lock shaped like a flower). WHICH I POSSESS!!
I also believe that George Hammond's Web Site has given me severe
inflamation of the lip.
This is probably due to over exposure to genius.
My lip hurts.
I will sue if it happens again.
Loki
T Wake
>
> Of course, many believe Russell only played the Atheistic fool in
> public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
> stupidity of atheists.......
You have reached a new level of lies and randomness.
All I can say George, is WOW.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
While I can't speak to Bertrand's position, I did know his son,
Conrad, pretty well, and he didn't have much to say about religion.
Lizz 'Everybody knew Conrad if they smoked' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Bryan Olson
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool,
Russell had the sense, unlike Hammond, to give his Nobel Lecture
as an actual Nobel Laureate.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7b95c659eb15bbf4?rnum=1
http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1950/russell-lecture.html
--
--Bryan
George Hammond
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:I4MLf.37407$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
[Hammond]
Like all other amateur responders, you have
been killfiled.
George Hammond
>
> "Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:I4MLf.37407$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool,
>>
>> Russell had the sense, unlike Hammond, to give his Nobel Lecture
>> as an actual Nobel Laureate.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7b95c659eb15bbf4?rnum=1
>>
>> http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1950/russell-lecture.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Bryan
>
> [Hammond]
> Like all other amateur responders, you have
> been killfiled.
[Hammond]
By the way.... my Nobel Speech is far more
relevant and interesting than Russell's, I notice!
..... what a sonorous, bel canto twit Russell was!
donsto...@hotmail.com
George Hammond
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140872656.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's amazing how jealous people can get of great achievers.
>
Truer worlds were never spoken, Don!
For instance:
We all know that Bertrand Russell is famous for saying:
> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
> --Bertrand Russell
But few people know that BERTRAND RUSSELL was
simply quoting GOSSE who published that famous theory
in a sensational 1857 book entitled_OMPHALOS_
As BERTRAND RUSSELL points out... GOSSE'S
"Omphalos Theory" is in fact correct!!
The FUNNY THING is that Gosse was attacked
by every philosopher, scientist and theologian in
the world......in one of the most sensational
controversies in SCI-REL history!
------------------------------------------------------------
GOSSE was attacked by more people than HAMMOND is!
.. and it turns out that HAMMOND has now
scientifically confirmed BERTRAND RUSSELL'S
historical suspicion that indeed, GOSSE's "Omphalos Hypothesis"
IS IN FACT CORRECT!!
------------------------------------------------------------
the only thing that was missing in Gosse's "Omphalos Theory"
is the now (proven) fact that the "Omphalos Creation"
didn't occur "5 minutes ago" as Russell suggested, nor
did it occur 6004 years ago as Ussher suggested..... it
ACTUALLY occurred 100,000 years ago when our species
(Homo-Sapiens-sapiens) first appeared on Earth.
This fact has now been PROVEN by Hammond in
his miraculous discovery of the world's first scientific
proof of God........ and of course HAMMOND is the
most PUBLICLY ATTACKED SCIENTIST SINCE GOSSE!
In the meantime, Hammond is eternally grateful to
BERTRAND RUSSELL for publicly backing
Gosse's Theory, and thus Hammond's discovery....
all of which makes for much IRONY, since
Bertrand Russell himself claimed to be an ATHEIST...
thus fulfilling my prophecy that it is probably going
to be an Atheist who discovers the world's first scientific
proof of God!!!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:lsWLf.3025$F56....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> news:I4MLf.37407$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool,
>>>
>>> Russell had the sense, unlike Hammond, to give his Nobel Lecture
>>> as an actual Nobel Laureate.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7b95c659eb15bbf4?rnum=1
>>>
>>> http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1950/russell-lecture.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --Bryan
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Like all other amateur responders, you have
>> been killfiled.
>
> [Hammond]
> By the way.... my Nobel Speech is far more
> relevant and interesting than Russell's, I notice!
> ..... what a sonorous, bel canto twit Russell was!
You've prepared a Nobel speach?
Does yout psychiatrist know you've done this?
You're so insane, it's a riot!
T Wake
news:lsWLf.3025$F56....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Like all other amateur responders, you have
> been killfiled.
Well, as [Hammond] has never been a professional physicist (i.e. earned from
his work) I can only assume he has kill filed himself.
Crank.
harbinger
doesn't exist; the Christian, on the other hand has found the cat'. -
Bertrand Russell.
'foolsrushin'
Christopher A. Lee
<in...@central-london-english.co.uk> wrote:
That doesn't sound like Russell. He knew that atheists weren't looking
for it.
harbinger
looking for it!
I think, like AE, he kept his spirituality to himself.
Kind rgds,
'foolsrushin'
Somebody help me get out of Louisiana
Just to help me get to Houston Town
There are people there who care a little about me
And they won't let the poor boy down. - Elvis, 'Promised Land'.
IS EVOLUTION STILL AN OPTION?
I do not think there is any sense in asking for an answer to such a
question. Evolution is about plausible hypotheses as to why this or
that is so, less often about implausible hypotheses, a la Koestler,
for example ( and not probablistic hypotheses, because we are not
talking about an experimental science, only about a tautological one,
incapable of falsification). However, there is no way of settling the
question as to whether 'evolution is true'. If A is to B as C is to
'X', then ... . There is a missing term! Above a certain level of
intelligence, lies, as AE well knew, a sense of mystery, though I
believe it is in the scope of everyone to share this sense of mystery.
There was a time when neither atheists nor Christians nor evolutionists
existed at all. The mystery was there, though. Kant got my attention by
saying that 'the religious impulse, even were it to prove false, calls
for explanation'. Cantor and Goedel made me think! (I notice some
primitive attemps at paradox here; ask them how they know!)
I am not a Christian. I see atheism as reactive, and with Bertrand
Russell, institutional religion as essentially unnecessary, and,
indeed, a sort of exploitation of a deep human impulse.
Just in case you are getting bored by Promethean nonsense, I am quite
human and trying to arrange tickets for the next U2 concert. If that
means human, of course!
'foolsrushin'. I do not think there is any sense in asking for an
answer to such a
question. Evolution is about plausible hypotheses as to why this or
that is so, less often about implausible hypotheses, a la Koestler,
for example ( and not probablistic hypotheses, because we are not
talking about an experimental science, only about a tautological one,
incapable of falsification). However, there is no way of settling the
question as to whether 'evolution is true'. If A is to B as C is to
'X', then ... . There is a missing term! Above a certain level of
intelligence, lies, as AE well knew, a sense of mystery, though I
believe it is in the scope of everyone to share this sense of mystery.
There was a time when neither atheists nor Christians nor evolutionists
existed at all. The mystery was there, though. Kant got my attention by
saying that 'the religious impulse, even were it to prove false, calls
for explanation'. Cantor and Goedel made me think! (I notice some
primitive attemps at paradox here; ask them how they know!)
I am not a Christian. I see atheism as reactive, and with Bertrand
Russell, institutional religion as essentially unnecessary, and,
indeed, a sort of exploitation of a deep human impulse.
Just in case you are getting bored by Promethean nonsens, I am quite
human and trying to arrange tickets for the next U2 concert. If that
means human, of course!
'foolsrushin'.
in...@central-london-english.co.uk
Bertrand Russell was a logician. What he meant was a bit ironic, I
suppose.
The atheist was obsessesively preoccupied with the Christain's claims!
That's all he meant, I am sure! He felt, I think, that they needed each
other,
but that he himself needed neither of them! [You don't know my
position!]
As regards the age of the earth, so long as pointer readings continue
to work reliably, it
does not matter if the universe is creating itself constantly to agree
with
our readings. If your aunt has the illusion she took tea at the Ritz
last Friday
and you know for sure the universe did not then exist, either you or
she ought
to be locked up - unless you understand Russell's sense of fun!
'foolsrushin'
Gary Eickmeier
TMG wrote:
Why are you people responding to him?
Gary Eickmeier
Immortalist
>>
>
>
> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140872656.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It's amazing how jealous people can get of great achievers.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Truer worlds were never spoken, Don!
>
> For instance:
> We all know that Bertrand Russell is famous for saying:
>
>> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>> --Bertrand Russell
>
[IF] the omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book,
Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the
world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains,
canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and
navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence we
can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as
reliable [AND] Russell proposed that any argument suggesting that the world
was created as if it were already in motion could just as easily make it a
few minutes old as a few thousand years, that there is no logical
impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five
minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that remembered a
wholly unreal past [AND] there is no logically necessary connection between
events at different times, therefore nothing that is happening now or will
happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five
minutes ago, [THEN] why with the other evidence of the Earths age do we
chose the weaker theory that the world was created last thursday when the
combination of the best science shows it to be billions of years old
[CONSEQUENTLY] muting the epistemological doubt about the ability of
propositions to preserve SOME truth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
I am crossing the road, I see a fast approaching car, I decide to stop in
its path because there might not be a car coming.
No one can prove that evidence for the Earths age is completely justified
therefore the evidence for the age of is uncertain and should be ignored?
Even common sense naive realists could see the flaw here loc.
George Hammond
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jZiMf.18695$_c.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Why are you people responding to him?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
killfile: Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com
===========NOTE:==============
This killfile list is updated and posted periodically to
discourage hecklers from uselessly wasting Usenet
bandwidth..
George Hammond is world famous for discovering
the world's first true "scientific proof of God". At present
the scientific establishment is trying mightily to
suppress him and publicly ridicule his discovery. This ill
conceived effort to publicly smear Hammond will not
succeed for long and soon Hammond's discovery
of the world's first "SPoG" will be world history:
In the meantime, polite and serious scientists have
an unparalleled opportunity to talk to Hammond directly
and thus leave their calling card to history on the Usenet
database.
Remember... If you want to talk to this world famous
physicist you will have to be POLITE, ON-TOPIC, and
SCHOLARLY ERUDITE. --- Note that Hammond will
not respond to "curious amateurs" or trolls and bear in mind-
just one smart-alecky remark, and you will be killfiled
permanently and will never get another chance to leave
your calling card in the historical record of the discussion
of the world's first true Scientific Proof of God..
killfile:
TMG T...@Nowhere.org
Wake taswak...@hotmail.com
ZenIsWhen here'slook...@youkid.com
Schornak nowh...@schornak.de
Stew Dean stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
Tom Capizzi etianshr...@verizon.ne
Dan Skunk dansk...@gmail.com
Toupin jtou...@telus.net
Dudley mdud...@king-cart.com
Mark Martin qed...@hotmail.com
Midjis midwinte...@hotmail.co.uk
Isham sock puppetS
JohnM eao...@cbpu.com
Don Freeman free...@sonic.net
hanson han...@quick.net
Cardinal Chunder c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com
Micheal Gray fle...@newsguy.spam.com
Nosterill r...@davinoptronics.com
Clive c...@selectron-uk.co.uk
Steve Ralph s...@steveralph.f9.co.uk
Androcoles Androc...@MyPlace.org
Demosthenes Demosthe...@looking.com
Zagan n...@jamesdunavant.comNOSPAM
Schoenfeld schoenfe...@gmail.com
A.Real Scient...@educated.com
cirejcon cirej...@yahoo.com
Murf rob_mur...@hotmail.com
Loudermilk t...@bellsouth.net
ben b...@adelphia.net
Jim Black ghytrfvbnmju7...@mail.com
Sleepyhead simonharp...@usa.net
TomGee l...@hotmail.com
Ken S. Tucker dynam...@vianet.on.ca
Bilge dubi...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
paranormal k...@s.cke
Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress
Uncle Al Uncle...@hate.spam.net
Bud news...@katxyzkave.net
softrat soft...@pobox.com
Peter Bowditch myfirstn...@ratbags.com
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid
John Baker n...@biziniz.net
Bob Cain arc...@arcanemethods.com
Burgerman burger...@ntlworld.com
francoistremblay francoistrembla...@gmail.com
John Schutkeker jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam
donstockbauer donstockba...@hotmail.com
Ian Smith uce.bin....@which.net
Dave n...@nowhere.com
Turtoni tur...@alt.philosophy
Brian Fletcher bria...@bigpond.net.au
Wizard of Odd spiritualhealing2...@yahoo.co.uk
Not Martin Stone donts...@me.com
??R.L.Measures r...@somis.org
Roger Johansson" roger4...@gmail.com
Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com
platopes plato...@yahoo.com
Jean-Paul Turcaud mining_pion...@remove.yahoo.com
Art Deco art_d...@127.0.0.1
Aratzio a6ahly...@sneakemail.com
odin ragna...@yahoo.com
Woodchuck Bill bwr...@hotmail.com
turtoni turt...@somewhere.neT
Kadaitcha Man nos...@fuck-off-and-die.com
Real Vote Ranger yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com
raving.loonie raving.loo...@gmail.com
PJR p...@NOSPAMkookbusters.org
nightbat night...@home.ffni.com
Double-A doubl...@hush.ai
Fred Hall fkh...@gmail.com
Daedalus j...@my-deja.com
John Henry j...@kookblock.insurgent.orgy
tinplated throwawa...@yahoo.com
J. Horta b...@me.spam
Michael Baldwin Bruce mbbr...@mighty.co.za
Mahatana Dick nos...@invalid.invalid
Kain Hifford kain.hiff...@rec.activism....
john_ramsden john_rams...@sagitta-ps.com
jambaugh m...@jamesbaugh.info
Michael Gray fle...@newsguy.spam.com
The Ghost In The Machine e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
graham g.ste...@shaw.ca
euroxpoo eurox...@netscape.net
bartoszszczesny bartoszszcze...@yahoo.co.uk
Christopher A. Lee c...@optonline.net
xxein x...@bellsouth.net
ą b...@c.com
Jeff_Rel M...@Privacy.NET
Nick macromi...@yahoo.com
zzbunker zzbun...@netscape.net
Pyriform nob...@nowhere.com
Steve Ralph s...@steveralph.f9.co.uk
cl c...@midsouth.rr.com
Black Knight Androc...@castle.edu
ah splifing...@gmail.com
AcesLucky acesLu...@netscape.net
sm00101010 natsumisc...@hotmail.com
Tim qw...@qwerty.com
?.R.L.Measures r...@somis.org
Bret Cahill BretC...@aol.com
Desertphile deser...@hotmail.com
Robibnikoff" witc...@broomstick.com
quibbler quibb...@yahoo.com
Sanity's little helper elv...@noshpam.net
Mani Deli ma...@sympatico.ca
Pittsburgh G...@Steelers.com!
Bob Cain arc...@arcanemethods.com
Loki Loki lokili...@hotmail.co.uk
SleepyHeed simonh...@hotmail.co.uk
Cujo DeSockpuppet cu...@petitmorte.net
explainer gor...@explainer.com
Peter J Ross p...@kookbusters.org
Daedalus ja...@netkooks.org
Lizz Holmans di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk
Lorrill Buyens buy...@interlacken.com
a_friend a_f_r_...@hotmail.com
Gary Eickmeier geic...@tampabay.rr.com
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jZiMf.18695$_c.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Why are you people responding to him?
>>
>>Gary Eickmeier
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> killfile: Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com
>
> ===========NOTE:==============
> This killfile list is updated and posted periodically to
> discourage hecklers from uselessly wasting Usenet
> bandwidth..
That's just the point, George - if the killfile was real, you would have
no one to talk to, and there would be no point in your posting. On the
contrary, we are the only reason you do it - to get attention. If these
guys would ever catch on to that and simply not respond, it would
effectively end your usenet career.
It's worth a try!
GAry Eickmeier
TMG
Why are you responding to him??
Wait, I saw this one before.....
George Hammond
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JaoMf.109699$4l5.7109@dukeread05...
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:oIZLf.3892$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:iEZLf.3885$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>
>>
>> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140872656.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> It's amazing how jealous people can get of great achievers.
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Truer worlds were never spoken, Don!
>>
>> For instance:
>> We all know that Bertrand Russell is famous for saying:
>>
>>> ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
>>> --Bertrand Russell
>>
You're an aggravated fool and an insolent amateur. Whaddau think
BERTRAND RUSSELL, 3rd Earl of Russell, grandson of the
Prime Minister of England, Nobel Prize winner, member of the
Royal Society who lived to be 97 still writing scientific
papers the day he died was a fool?
What you're too STUPID!! to comprehend is that there are:
TWO "CREATIONS OF THE WORLD"--
CREATION ONE = the creation of "reality itself" (100k years ago,
and called Biblical Creation)
.
CREATION TWO = the creation of physical objects "within
said reality" (up to 14 billion years
ago when the Big Bang happened)
WHAT YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO COMPREHEND
is the fact that CREATION ONE (called Biblical Creation)
necessarily precedes CREATION TWO (called the Big Bang),
even though 100,000 years is far less than 14,000,000 years.
This is the same as pointing out that a certain book was
only printed 5 years ago, although it may contain a story
about an event that happened 1,000 years ago.... even though
5 years is much less than 1,000 years!
Now, this is what GOSSE and RUSSELL were discussing (without
knowing WHY)..... and what HAMMOND has recently PROVED
by pointing out that "WHY" consists of the fact of the
"advent of the human brain" (100K years ago) which is in
fact, the "Creation of Reality" (the Biblical Creation), which MUST
PRECEDE the "Big Bang" even though the Big Bang is
14 billion years old!
GOSSE AND RUSSELL intuitively realized the "scientific possibility" of
this
long before HAMMOND finally discovered the scientific mechanism which
explained why THEY WERE RIGHT... namely that the "advent of the brain"
is in fact the PHYSICAL MECHANISM that actually causes Gosse's
"Omphalos Creation" to be physically TRUE.... and indeed it DOES
reconcile the Biblical Creation Story with Evolution... just as Gosse and
Russell suspected!!
And of course, Hammond's discovery of the PROOF
of Gosse and Russell's conjecture, now constitutes the world's first
Scientific Proof of God.
And by the way.... if there are any competent scientists or scholars
who would like to discuss this.... please feel free to post an ERUDITE
commentary..... however I am not about to waste my breath
arguing with half wit amateurs....
Too bad neither Gosse nor Russell is
still alive.... I SHOULD OF COURSE be talking to a scholar of
the stature of BERTRAND RUSSELL.... not arguing with half educated
line professional PhD's for chrissakes!
T Wake
>
<snip insane Hammond diatribes>
George, can I take it from the follow ups you set your last post to that you
are going to stop posting in news://sci.physics ?
That would truly be a day for celebration.
(Follow ups returned to Hammond's preference)
goozlefotz
George Hammond wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:16:44 GMT, George Hammond
> <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > ".how can we know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago? "
> > --Bertrand Russell
> >
> >
> Bertrand Russell was of course a legendary fool, famous principally
> for the fact that he lived to be 97 years old. That he was a fool is
> demonstrated by the fact that he was at one time the world's most
> famous atheist.
>
> Fools of course often speak the truth without knowing it, and Russell
> was famous for his legendary ability to portray the "idiot savant".
> could be "only five minutes old" but was apparently quite unable to
> understand how Genesis could argue that the world was only 100,000
> Paradox when he pointed out that indeed the world might be only 5
> minutes old, never mind only 6,000 years or 100,000 years old.
>
> consciousness) began 100,000 years ago and not 5 minutes ago, because
> our species (hence our brain) emerged 100,000 years ago when the
> species Homo-Sapiens-sapiens first appeared.
>
> public and was actually a devout person who couldn't abide the
> famous quote by him indicates that he actually DID UNDERSTAND what God
> was.
>
> then the universe will cease to exist five
> minutes from now.
> Thus my statement is confirmed by
> Bertrand Russell's famous "5 minute argument"!
>
> --
> ========================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> ========================================
I did not tumble until now to the fact that this is the very George
Hammond who has that idiotic web page about proving the existence of
God! Does anyone actually believe the concatination of buzzwords that
Mr. Hammond calls a proof? ROFL!!!
Lorrill Buyens
Agent of the sci.skeptic Illuminati, gifted us with these words of wisdom:
I think Georgie meant that the poster was an amateur crank.
--
"One does wonder why God went to the trouble of making Man
rational, since there's evidently no bloody use for reason
whatsoever."
- Alan Hope, in a religious discussion in misc.writing
foolsrushin
'foolsrushin'
foolsrushin
Mani Deli
<nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
> George Hammond is world famous for discovering
>the world's first true "scientific proof of God".
Total Bullshit.
Gary Eickmeier
Mani Deli wrote:
THAT got him! Take that, George!
GAry Eickmeier
ZenIsWhen
The only "reality" that mades any sense is (as a preschooler); nothing was
here until I was born and saw it.
No matter what my parents told me about the World Wars and the Depression,
were just their fables and fairy tales.
Which, though no big surprise, is parallel to George's claims.
ZenIsWhen
Russel? A "scientist"?
Maybe in the extreme, broadest, liberal senseof the word.
But, then again, you've ALWAYS been confused about what constitutes a REAL
scienbtist!
> What you're too STUPID!! to comprehend is that there are:
You cannot be stupid if you cannot comprehend the unproven.
However, you are VERY stupid if you claimeve that your bellowing, and
nothing more, MAKES things proven.
>
> TWO "CREATIONS OF THE WORLD"--
>
> CREATION ONE = the creation of "reality itself" (100k years ago,
> and called Biblical Creation)
> .
> CREATION TWO = the creation of physical objects "within
> said reality" (up to 14 billion years
> ago when the Big Bang happened)
Physical objects do not exist in reality?
WOW ............ what an INSANE delusion!
Snip outrageously, and further, psychotic warping of reality
Immortalist
"ZenIsWhen" <one...@clapping.com> wrote in message
news:1205av2...@corp.supernews.com...
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which
exists', or 'My mental states are the only mental states'. However, the sole
survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of
these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore
more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, 'existence' means
for me my existence and that of my mental states. In other words, everything
which I experience - physical objects, other people, events and processes,
in short, anything which would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the
spatio-temporal matrix in which I coexist with others - is necessarily
construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm
How would this self-theory help us decide when the percieved external world
came into existence?
The following arguments and counters to solipsism are the highlights of
anti-solipsist thought:
Only of a living human being and what resembles (behaves like) a living
human being can one say
it has sensations; it sees; is blind; hears; is deaf; is conscious or
unconscious. (Wittgenstein, § 281): The intersubjective world in which we
live with other human beings, the public language-system which we must
master if we are to think at all, these are the primary data, the
proto-phenomena, in Wittgenstein's phrase (§ 654). Our psychological and
non-psychological concepts alike are derived from a single linguistic
source. The solipsist would only marvel at the ability of his unconscious to
script such a rich set of experiences.
People die
However, the objector has not died, and therefore has not disproved it. The
solipsist cannot 'die', because when he 'dies', the entire universe ceases
to exist. Therefore, death is another illusion of the solipsist's
unconscious. Since the being who has 'died' is only a phantom of the
solipsist's imagination anyway, the elimination of that phantom proves
nothing.
Life causes pain
Why would a solipsist create pain for himself? One response to this is that
there may be some reason which he has decided to forget on purpose, such as
the (unconsciously created) law of Karma, or a desire not to be bored.
Another response is that the category of 'pain' is a perception assumed with
all of the other socio-cultural human values the solipsist has created for
himself. A solipsistic value system may or may not recognize pain, or the
alleged fact of personal death, as 'true.'
The practical solipsist needs a language to formulate his thoughts about
solipsism
Language is an essential tool to communicate with other minds. Why does a
solipsist universe need a language? Indeed, one might even say, solipsism is
necessarily incoherent, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical
evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing in
which he purportedly refuses to believe: the 'reality' of intersubjectively
valid criteria, and/or of a public, extra-mental world. Possible responses
are similar to the last objection; that is, to keep from becoming bored,
perhaps the solipsist imagines "other" minds, which would actually be only
elements of his own mind, and which he has chosen to forget control of for
the time being, inventing an elaborate language in order to interact with
these more isolated segments of his mind, or even to dialog with his
conscious self (i.e., talk to himself). A more telling question might be,
why does the solipsist need to invent so many and such a variety of
languages?
Realism vs. solipsism
An objection, raised by David Deutsch, among others, is that since the
solipsist has no control over the "universe" he is creating for himself,
there must be some unconscious part of his mind creating it. If the
solipsist makes his unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g.,
by conducting experiments), he will find that it behaves with the same
complexity as the universe offered by realism; therefore, the distinction
between realism and solipsism collapses. What realism calls "the universe",
solipsism calls "one's unconscious mind." But these are just different names
for the same thing. Both are massively complex processes other than the
solipsist's conscious mind, and the cause of all the solipsist's
experiences; possibly merely a labelling distinction. The solipsist would
claim that "only" oneself exists and the apparent independence of real world
events is just an illusion. The real world may be every bit as complex as my
unconscious, but when I die (if there is meaning in that phrase), the entire
universe ceases to exist. (See also, Le Guin, Ursula K. Lathe of Heaven Eos;
Reprint edition (April 1, 1997))
Philosophical analysis
Some philisophers hold the viewpoint that solipsism is entirely empty and
without content. Like a 'faith' argument, it seems sterile, i.e., allows no
further argument nor can it be falsified. The world remains absolutely the
same- so where could a solipsist go from there? Viewed in this way,
solipsism seems only to have found a facile way to avoid the more difficult
task of a critical analysis of what is 'real' and what isn't, and what
'reality' means. The solipsist would hold that further argument is
meaningless and there are limits to what can be known about 'reality.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Objections
>
>
Immortalist
The red and blue shifts indicate that all observed objects are moving out
from a central position. This is the main evidence for the big bang and when
it happened.
What is your main evidence that the time is much shorter than the time it
would take for these objects to move to their current positions shown by the
red and blue shifts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
lits...@hotmail.com
George Hammond wrote:
> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Once again, college drop-out George Hammond replies to someone in
his "killfile".
> donstockbauer donstockba...@hotmail.com
Immortalist
<lits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141070431.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
(1) Did he claim they were killfiled or did he claim that he never
communicates with them?
(2) Did he mean that when he uses the term killfiled that he means to never
communicate with the killfiled?
(3) Did you assume that he meant (2) since that is part of and his behavior
would converge upon the common definition of killfiled?
Therefore if (3) is true, then your claiming that Hammond is normal but
not-normal since he did something again?
[boored logic 4 lunch]
George Hammond
FIRST.... let me congratulate you on being the only responder
who is actually NOT KILLFILED (yet). This is because I still feel
that there is some small hope that you might not be a wiseguy.... and
might actually have something on-topic and useful to say.
ANYWAY..... YES..... the "Hubble Age" of the universe is
known to be about 14-billion years old (as measured by the
Hubble redshift).
HOWEVER, is is also an equally solidly known "proven fact"
that OUR SPECIES, namely Homo-Sapiens-sapiens (HSs) is
in fact only 100,000 years old.
Therefore, since 100k is LESS THAN 14-billion
it is therefore a PROVEN FACT that the Gosse-Russell
OMPHALIC-CREATION
which is only 100k years old
is MUCH YOUNGER
than the
BIG BANG-CREATION
which is 14-billion yrs old!.
any other questions?
Immortalist
>>> necessarily precedes CREATION TWO (called the Big Bang),
>>> even though 100,000 years is far less than 14,000,000 years.
>>
>> The red and blue shifts indicate that all observed objects are moving out
>> from a central position. This is the main evidence for the big bang and
>> when it happened.
>>
>> What is your main evidence that the time is much shorter than the time it
>> would take for these objects to move to their current positions shown by
>> the red and blue shifts?
>>
> known to be about 14-billion years old (as measured by the
> Hubble redshift).
>
> HOWEVER, is is also an equally solidly known "proven fact"
> that OUR SPECIES, namely Homo-Sapiens-sapiens (HSs) is
> in fact only 100,000 years old.
>
> Therefore, since 100k is LESS THAN 14-billion
> it is therefore a PROVEN FACT that the Gosse-Russell
> OMPHALIC-CREATION
> which is only 100k years old
> is MUCH YOUNGER
> than the
> BIG BANG-CREATION
> which is 14-billion yrs old!.
>
> any other questions?
>
Yes, it appears that if The omphalos hypothesis claims necessarily that in
order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with
mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair,
fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel") [all at once not
over time], and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed
age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable, then I must agree
that if the omphalos hypothesis is true then necessarily the information
about the age of the Earth that doesn't support the theory must necessarily
be false, therefore, in the case the hypothesis is true then geology and the
theory of evolution by natural selection of mutations is false.
Hence some might wonder why the world could only be functional if the God
created it complete all at once, when there has not been any evidence
brought forth to eliminate the geological theory of evolution. If the
omphalos hypothesis is true then necessarily geological evolution is not
possible. Could you show how this hypothesis has made geological evolution
by natural selection of mutations is necessarily not possible then?
As an aside, if there was a God could it create the Earth and life by the
theory of evolution by natural selection of mutations, or would that be
beyond his power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
------------------------------
"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:9aKMf.4163$F56...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
ZenIsWhen
If that were your criteria for anyone who posts, you would have killfiled
yourself years ago!
The truth is:
anyone who points out the real insanity, and mental corruption, of George -
bets killfiled.
Anyone who tries to force George to answer real and valid rebuttals, gets
killfiled.
Anyone who reminds George of his own blatant lies, gets killfiled.
Anyone who brings up ALL of the important organizations rejections of
Georges claims, gets killfiled.
Anyone who insults George as much as he insults others, gets killfiled.
Anyone who points out REALITY, to George, gets killfiled.
>
> ANYWAY..... YES..... the "Hubble Age" of the universe is
> known to be about 14-billion years old (as measured by the
> Hubble redshift).
>
> HOWEVER, is is also an equally solidly known "proven fact"
> that OUR SPECIES, namely Homo-Sapiens-sapiens (HSs) is
> in fact only 100,000 years old.
No, it isn't.
In the process known as evolution, the beginning" or "end" of a species
(other than the complete extincrion of a species) is only created by man's
decision of a border.
If "man" decided "language" made the difference ... that would be a
subjective decision, NOT a fact!
>
> Therefore, since 100k is LESS THAN 14-billion
> it is therefore a PROVEN FACT that the Gosse-Russell
> OMPHALIC-CREATION
> which is only 100k years old
> is MUCH YOUNGER
> than the
> BIG BANG-CREATION
> which is 14-billion yrs old!.
>
> any other questions?
It is, also, a proven fact that my (childhood) observation that the universe
began the moment I was born, is much younger than the actual universe.
That does NOT make my observation scientifically correct or based in
reality!
BTW there is no such thing as the "Gosse-Russel" anything!
Russel was pointing out the fallacy in "Gosse type" arguments!
You, in your usual insane way, warped the whole concept to agree with your
psychotic claims!
Immortalist
But mans decision about the definition of species is based upon empirical
data and observations of instruments and currently is the best explaination
of those observations.
The idea is that the animal probably didn't want to have sex with a cousin
that looked a particular way or got seperated from relatives, genetic drift
then accumulated to the point where they could not reproduce together
anymore, another similar example;
It has been noted that when certain primates learned to swim out further
into the water as an culturally passed on trait through learning, all
subsequent members of those local groups began swimming out further than
other primate groups and altered their entire future history since any
mutations and crossovers that favored swimming were favored by this
rudimentary culture and these abilities. In this way cultural domestication
was incorperated into genetic structure by selection of particular
individuals who could traverse this culturally impose bottleneck of
artificial selections.
But the example Darwin used was very good. He found all these related birds
around a chain of islands and they had all different shapes and sizes of
beaks for exploiting various food sources. Around this circle of islands the
birds nearby or on neighboring islands could breed with each other but
further along the chain they couldn't, usually because of the change in the
object that stimulates sexual arousal.
http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html
>
>
>>
>> Therefore, since 100k is LESS THAN 14-billion
>> it is therefore a PROVEN FACT that the Gosse-Russell
>> OMPHALIC-CREATION
>> which is only 100k years old
>> is MUCH YOUNGER
>> than the
>> BIG BANG-CREATION
>> which is 14-billion yrs old!.
>>
>> any other questions?
>
> It is, also, a proven fact that my (childhood) observation that the
> universe began the moment I was born, is much younger than the actual
> universe.
>
> That does NOT make my observation scientifically correct or based in
> reality!
>
But the possibility continues that the universe could have been created
after the time you would have been born but accourding to your memories was
created before you were born and the memories put there by some advanced
technology, 5 minutes before your adult body with memories was created?
The Perfect Counterfeit Reality
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/c0d61536e2d1fca/24cf352493d36b34
> BTW there is no such thing as the "Gosse-Russel" anything!
> Russel was pointing out the fallacy in "Gosse type" arguments!
Sounds right, but in that case evolution is just another Grosse type
argument? I personally think Russell was using his best response to the idea
he disliked that the world was created 6000 years ago accourding to
scriptural interpretations. If he could weaken all theories about the "when"
then he could add more weight to the warrent of concepts about available
evidences. This would make some standard arise such that;
the extent of increase in simualtainious explainatory power
of differing explainations decreases the likelihood of any of
them being the best explaination and hence forcing us to
depend upon increasing explainatoriness of conceptions
arising from perceptions which explain those
perceptions in increasingly abstract ways.
Help me refine the wording of this principle while maintaining its range of
extension to particular examples.
> You, in your usual insane way, warped the whole concept to agree with your
> psychotic claims!
And yea responded to it?
>
George Hammond
Look, BOTH Evolution and Omphalic-Creation ARE TRUE !!
I'm pointing out to you that the advent of the human brain
exactly 100,000 years ago, CONSTITUTES AN
OMPHALIC-CREATION OF REALITY and does in fact
explain the Genesis-Creation as an "omphalic creation of reality".
Meanwhile, this in NO WAY denies Evolution, Fossils, the
Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or the fact that Man is decended from
monkeys!
ZenIsWhen
>> In the process known as evolution, the beginning" or "end" of a species
>> (other than the complete extincrion of a species) is only created by
>> man's decision of a border.
>> If "man" decided "language" made the difference ... that would be a
>> subjective decision, NOT a fact!
>>
>
> But mans decision about the definition of species is based upon empirical
> data and observations of instruments and currently is the best
> explaination of those observations.
>
> The idea is that the animal probably didn't want to have sex with a cousin
> that looked a particular way or got seperated from relatives, genetic
> drift then accumulated to the point where they could not reproduce
> together anymore, another similar example;
The only scientific criteria that passes muster is the fact that one species
cannot reproduce with another - even on the same branch.
That "time", as far as I know, has never been scientificaally discovered.
As for the rest - it's as I said, man makes the decision when a boundary
(man set up himself) is crossed.
Though I have nothing aginst that happening, it is George's insane lie that
it is a proven fact.
Only when I'm bored ................
ZenIsWhen
Warping religion AND science to fit your deranged claims again?
Immortalist
Very good. Bullet proof response, let me think on it.
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KB1Nf.110405$4l5.105075@dukeread05...
>>
>> "ZenIsWhen" <one...@clapping.com> wrote in message
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> In the process known as evolution, the beginning" or "end" of a species
>>> (other than the complete extincrion of a species) is only created by
>>> man's decision of a border.
>>> If "man" decided "language" made the difference ... that would be a
>>> subjective decision, NOT a fact!
>>>
>>
>> But mans decision about the definition of species is based upon empirical
>> data and observations of instruments and currently is the best
>> explaination of those observations.
>>
>> The idea is that the animal probably didn't want to have sex with a
>> cousin that looked a particular way or got seperated from relatives,
>> genetic drift then accumulated to the point where they could not
>> reproduce together anymore, another similar example;
>
>
> The only scientific criteria that passes muster is the fact that one
> species cannot reproduce with another - even on the same branch.
>
Can you describe something that "passes muster" and give reasons why we
should accept when something does or does not pass muster? Can you eliminate
the possibility that environmental influences and animal intentions could
create a situation where particular mutations would work better and makes it
parts of the creatures nature?
--------------------------
No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking
About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:
Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
When considering this argument in a context of rhetorical logic, this is a
fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually
contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if
the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make
the rebuttal work.
Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and
therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a
beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted
definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a
(present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value
judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian"
cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In
logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy
Continuum fallacy, also called fallacy of the beard is a logical fallacy
which abuses the paradox of the heap. The fallacy appears to prove that two
states are not different, or do not exist at all, because there is a
continuum of states between them; that there is no difference in quality
because there exists a difference in quantity.
The fallacy is often described in form of a conversation:
Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do three grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
...
Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have
a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist!
Other examples of this fallacy prove that no one has a beard, no matter how
long it is (or that everyone has a beard, no matter how cleanly shaven),
because a beard can have varying lengths, that no one can be bald (or that
everyone is bald) because there are people with varying quantities of hair,
or that languages don't exist because they are in a dialect continuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
> That "time", as far as I know, has never been scientificaally discovered.
> As for the rest - it's as I said, man makes the decision when a boundary
> (man set up himself) is crossed.
> Though I have nothing aginst that happening, it is George's insane lie
> that it is a proven fact.
>
Can you describe how many theories it takes to make a proven fact, if there
is such a thing? Or do you know any proven facts? If not I see your point.
Are you saying that if a "time" of this speciation is not discovered then it
eliminats the possibility that it happened but is very hard to find scarce
evidence for it because of the size and depth of the Earth and the length of
time it takes to happen and other factors like quick predation. What about
punctuated equalibria all at once? I mean are you saying that if we can't
find certain kinds of evidence of the time of speciation that it is not
logically possible that it happened? If so how could you show that it was
not possible when we are surrounded by different species?
Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological
species arise. There are three main ideas concerning the emergence of new
species (Modes of Speciation), each based on the degree to which populations
undergoing this process are geographically isolated from one another
(allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, parapatric speciation).
During [allopatric speciation], a population splits into two geographically
isolated allopatric populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation or
emigration). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or
phenotypic divergence as they a) become subjected to dissimilar selective
pressures or b) they independently undergo genetic drift. When the
populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are
reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.
In [sympatric speciation], species diverge while inhabiting the same place
(sympatric). Examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects which
become dependent on different host plants in the same area. Increased ploidy
levels, i.e. Polyploidy, is a mechanism often attributed to causing some
speciation events in sympatry. Polyploidy is observed in many plant species,
a well studied example being that of wheat. However, it should be noted that
not all polyploids are completely reproductively isolated from their
parental plants, so an increase in chromosome number may not result in the
complete cessation of gene flow between the incipient polyploids and their
parental diploids.
In [parapatric speciation], the zones of two diverging populations abut but
do not overlap. There is only partial separation afforded by geography, so
individuals of each species may come in contact or cross the barrier from
time to time, but reduced fitness of the heterozygote leads to selection for
behaviours or mechanisms which prevent breeding between the two species.
All forms of speciation have actually taken place over the course of
evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative
importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity.
There is some debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over
geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation
events have remained relatively constant over time, some palaeontologists
such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species
usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation
occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated
equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
ZenIsWhen
claim that "such and such" is a fact, completely false.
IOW In a beauty contest, it is NOT a fact that Miss America is more beutiful
than all other contestants, since the qualifications of "beauty" are
man-made opinions.
Immortalist
You are a human and so are likewise limited by this standard if it is true,
by necessity. Therefore by necessity it is not true, by your very standard,
because you are a human making up standards. Talk about shooting oneself in
the foot!
But you need to show how a human can decide these such and such things
before you tell me he can't do it but your entitled to do it.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose justification
does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a reason
why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive possession
of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he believes
with justification the premises from which it follows that the belief is
likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends on the
justification of at least one other empirical belief, contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of any
and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness of human
beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress" of one belief
depending upon another which depends upon another and so on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on steroids)
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of distinct
justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite system of
justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from within, by birtue of
the relations of its component beliefs to each other. Coherence theory is of
the variey (3) seemingly circular if veiwed in an linear fasion, merely
indicated by whatever "property" (or complex of properties) is requisite for
the justification of such a system of beliefs. Degrees of justification
emerge out of the relations of groups of beliefs.
> IOW In a beauty contest, it is NOT a fact that Miss America is more
> beutiful than all other contestants, since the qualifications of "beauty"
> are man-made opinions.
>
Evolutionists think that animals and humans are driven to standards of
beauty. They think what is beautiful is symmetrical or balanced;
Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively attracted
towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of "health" in a
potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the appreciation of symmetry in
nature and art?
<quote>
Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body, is
important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the face should
be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a far more
symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is considered better
looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy Thornhill and his
colleagues at the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque have shown that
people with symmetrical faces generally have symmetrical bodies.
Bodily symmetry is an esthetic cue used to assess the biological fitness of
potential mates among other species. For example, research on swallows,
which have forked tails, has shown that females prefer to mate with males
having symmetrical tails. Asymmetry is caused by interference with normal
development, which might be due to poor nutrition early in development or
might reflect the impact of viruses. Symmetrical animals have superior
biological qualities either because they experienced a favorable early
environment or because their immune systems were effective at warding off
viruses and other pathogens. Swallows and people attracted to mates with
symmetrical bodies acquire a superior immune system for their offspring.
This explains why women should be attracted to highly symmetrical men.
Thomhill and his colleagues have discovered that symmetrical men have more
sex partners, and even that women get more excited during intercourse with
these physically attractive men. Symmetrical men produce a pheromone (or
airborne hormone) that is more attractive to women than the secretions of
less symmetrical men, suggesting that women's attraction to men is based on
assessment of biological fitness through different sensory channels. Men's
biological quality declines with age, which is reflected in declining facial
symmetry, for example. This may have important implications for off- spring.
Thus, declining sperm quality of older men increases the risk of Down
syndrome and other chromosomal disorders.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
So the purpose of beauty instincts is to judge a potential partners
reproductive fitness?
>
George Hammond
>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Look, BOTH Evolution and Omphalic-Creation ARE TRUE !!
>>
>> I'm pointing out to you that the advent of the human brain
>> exactly 100,000 years ago, CONSTITUTES AN
>> OMPHALIC-CREATION OF REALITY and does in fact
>> explain the Genesis-Creation as an "omphalic creation of reality".
>>
>> Meanwhile, this in NO WAY denies Evolution, Fossils, the
>> Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or the fact that Man is decended from
>> monkeys!
>>
>
> Very good. Bullet proof response, let me think on it.
>
>>
[Hammond]
Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
Even Bertrand Russell agrees with it (posthumously).
Go figure.
T Wake
> [Hammond]
> Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
Well only because you are so incredibly dense....
> Even Bertrand Russell agrees with it (posthumously).
And you know this, how?
> Go figure.
Figure what? How you can speak to the dead or why you are allowed internet
access when you are plainly insane?
Mani Deli
<nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>[Hammond]
>Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
>Even Bertrand Russell agrees with it (posthumously).
>Go figure.
TOTAL BULLSHIT!
ZenIsWhen
> true, by necessity. Therefore by necessity it is not true, by your very
> standard, because you are a human making up standards. Talk about shooting
> oneself in the foot!
>
> But you need to show how a human can decide these such and such things
> before you tell me he can't do it but your entitled to do it.
I never said he couldn't do it; he just couldn't claim it as a fact.
In man's evolutionary history, there have been many "grand leaps":
Walking upright, tool making, complex speach, crop cultivation, clothing,
etc.
These are actions that man, himself, uses as criteria for deciding "homo
sapien" status.
Since, that a particular fence has been crossed, has been what man has
decided as "the" boudary - that makes the boundary a Common, and accepted,
Belief - NOT a scientific fact.
In much the same way, we have set value and descriptions on money, time,
space, distance and many other things.
There are twelve months in the year because WE decided there would be twelve
months in the year - NOT because it is a fact..
>
> http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
>
> 1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
> beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose justification
> does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
Justification = fact?
>
> 2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
> reason why it is likely to be true.
A fact IS true, not just "likely".
That's why Geoorge's claim isn't based on a fact
>
> 3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
> possession of such a reason.
>
> 4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
> believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
> belief is likely to be true.
>
> 5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
> empirical premise.
>
> 6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends on
> the justification of at least one other empirical belief, contradicting 1.
>
> 7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
>
> This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of any
> and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness of
> human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress" of one
> belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so on:
>
> If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
> emperical beliefs, then it must either:
>
> (1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
What about "generally agreed" beliefs? I keep hearing about "the truth", and
"facts" from christians - when their who religons is based on nothing more
than beliefs.
THEY may agree that what they are spouting is fact ....... but it doesn't
pass muster outside of thier belief system.
>
> (2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
>
> (3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
> steroids)
Are you getting a a headache?
>
> If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
> other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of distinct
> justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite system of
> justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from within, by birtue
> of the relations of its component beliefs to each other. Coherence theory
> is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if veiwed in an linear fasion,
> merely indicated by whatever "property" (or complex of properties) is
> requisite for the justification of such a system of beliefs. Degrees of
> justification emerge out of the relations of groups of beliefs.
>
>> IOW In a beauty contest, it is NOT a fact that Miss America is more
>> beutiful than all other contestants, since the qualifications of "beauty"
>> are man-made opinions.
>>
>
> Evolutionists think that animals and humans are driven to standards of
> beauty. They think what is beautiful is symmetrical or balanced;
>
> Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively attracted
> towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of "health" in a
> potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the appreciation of symmetry
> in nature and art?
??? To put in a point in a less than scientific way - then why are women
attracted to the "bad boys" ........... those with a more than healthy dose
of testosterone?
>
> <quote>
>
> Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body, is
> important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the face
> should be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a far more
> symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is considered better
> looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy Thornhill and his
> colleagues at the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque have shown that
> people with symmetrical faces generally have symmetrical bodies.
Which plays hell when your trying to get pants made for an expensive,
custom, suit.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:shaNf.111144$4l5.9357@dukeread05...
>>
>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Look, BOTH Evolution and Omphalic-Creation ARE TRUE !!
>>>
>>> I'm pointing out to you that the advent of the human brain
>>> exactly 100,000 years ago, CONSTITUTES AN
>>> OMPHALIC-CREATION OF REALITY and does in fact
>>> explain the Genesis-Creation as an "omphalic creation of reality".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, this in NO WAY denies Evolution, Fossils, the
>>> Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or the fact that Man is decended from
>>> monkeys!
>>>
>>
>> Very good. Bullet proof response, let me think on it.
>>
>>>
> [Hammond]
> Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
In's 'nothing but hot air - of course a bullet does nothing to it!
> Even Bertrand Russell agrees with it (posthumously).
> Go figure.
YOU cannot decide what Bertand Russell (or Einistein or anyone else) agrees
with!
That's nothing more than pompous (and deranged) arrogance .............but,
then again, I forgot who I was talking to.......
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rHpNf.112749$4l5.2278@dukeread05...
>>
>> "ZenIsWhen" <one...@clapping.com> wrote in message
>> news:120bgnq...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>
>> You are a human and so are likewise limited by this standard if it is
>> true, by necessity. Therefore by necessity it is not true, by your very
>> standard, because you are a human making up standards. Talk about
>> shooting oneself in the foot!
>>
>> But you need to show how a human can decide these such and such things
>> before you tell me he can't do it but your entitled to do it.
>
> I never said he couldn't do it; he just couldn't claim it as a fact.
>
Is that like censorship or political correctness intervention? I agree that
the skeptic seems to always win.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
C) New Knowledge as Undefeated Justification:
A Revisionist Alternative to the Skeptic
and the Epistemist
Let us reflect on the dispute between the skeptic and the epistemist. The
skeptic has proven that our perceptual beliefs and corrigible beliefs
generally are not completely justified in any way that guarantees the truth
of those beliefs and excludes all chance of error. Must we concede the day
to the skeptic? The arguments_of the skeptic are formidable. What have we
learned from her? We have learned that all justification runs some risk of
error. Any justification for what we believe is fallible. When we seek a
justification for what we believe, the best we can find will inevitably fall
short of guaranteeing the truth of what we believe. Justification can aim at
truth but cannot eliminate the risk of error. If our search for knowledge is
the quest for complete justification and a guarantee of truth, we must admit
our ignorance and concede the day to the skeptic. There is another way,
however.
We can revise our conception of knowledge. We may redefine knowledge without
committing the redefinist fallacy by admitting that our new conception is a
revision. We can construct a new conception of knowledge and make this new
knowledge the object of our philosophical quest. How can we do this? We
begin by admitting that our justification for what we believe remains
fallibIe and falls short of a complete justification. We continue by noting
that the fallible justification we do have tor our beliefs, the sort
appealed to by the internalist, for example, may prove a trustworthy and
reliable guide to truth. Such justification may lead us to truth without
being based on any false premise or assumption. These reflections show us
how to revise our conception of knowledge. The revisionist takes fallible
justification rather than complete justification as the basis of knowledge,
and affirms that when fallible justification for our beliefs does not depend
on error and leads us to truth, we attain a new kind of knowledge. This kind
of knowledge based on fallible justification becomes the legitimate object
of philosophical and scientific inquiry. In this way, revisionism transcends
epistemism and skepticism, combining the insights of both. We have not been
able to prove the skeptical hypotheses to be false. We believe, however,
that those hypotheses are fanciful, false constructions of the imagination,
rather than a truthful account of our world. We believe that our perceptual
beliefs about the objects we see, hear, and touch inform us in a trustworthy
way about the truth of those objects. We believe, therefore, that beliefs
that are justified by our internal standards of justification, though those
standards be fallible guides to truth, are also externally connected with
truth in a trustworthy and reliable manner. We believe all this.
Suppose, in fact, that our fallible internal justification for our
perceptual beliefs and other corrigible beliefs does not rest on error but
instead leads us to truth in some trustworthy and reliable manner, as the
externalist maintains. Then a revised conception of knowledge lies shining
before us. One component is fallibilism, which we take from the skeptic.
Another component is internal justification, which we take from the
epistemist and the internalist. The final component, which we take from the
epistemist and the externalist, is that of justification that is undefeated
by error and that connects us with truth in a trustworthy and reliable
manner. It is easy to assemble the components, as we have seen, to obtain a
revised conception of knowledge. Undefeated fallible justification is the
new knowledge that we seek.
It is the object of our inquiry. We cannot prove, as the skeptic has taught
us, that our justification is undefeated by error. We have learned from her
that some forms of error are invincible and beyond detection. If some
skeptical hypothesis of invincible deception is true, then our justification
is defeated and our perceptual beliefs are errors. In that case, our
situation is epistemically desperate, and we must remain ignorant. If,
however, we are right in thinking that our perceptual beliefs will lead us
to truth in a trustworthy manner, as our internal standards of justification
tell us, then our fallible justification is undefeated, and we have new
knowledge, If there is an appropriate match between our beliefs about
ourselves and our perceptual relation to the external world, then internal
justification matches external justification, fallible justification goes
undefeated, and we obtain a new kind of knowledge.
We must, in conclusion, thank the skeptic for undermining our dogmatism and
our arrogance. She has shown us our fallibility. We may, nevertheless, seek
reasoning and justification that lead us to truth in a reliable manner. The
nobility of the goal of truth sustains the undertaking. We enoble ourselves
in seeking truth, even when we realize that we may fail to obtain that noble
objective. If the justification we find does not rest on error and enables
us to reach the truth, we shall have attained our revised kind of knowledge.
This new knowledge is based on a fallible quest for truth without any
guarantee of sucess; we may attain it, though we cannot prove that we will.
To the skeptic who asks for proof that we shall succeed, we must put our
hands over our mouths in silence. We have no proof. We may, however, invite
her to join our quest for truth and the new kind of knowledge we seek. Once
we admit to the skeptic that she is right and we have no guarantee of
success, she, being a woman of insight and character, who has, moreover,
freed us of our dogmatism and arrogance, may join as a sympathetic friend in
our noble undertaking. We may say to her, "Let us reason further with one
another to find some fallible justificafion to lead us to the truth in what
interests us, concerning freedom, mind, God and morals," and she, our
brilliant adversary, will become a friend to our philosophical undertaking.
The modesty resulting from a recognition of our own fallibility becomes us,
opens the road to inquiry and removes the roadblocks to understanding.
Revisionism combines the insights of skepticism and epistemism in harmony.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
> In man's evolutionary history, there have been many "grand leaps":
> Walking upright, tool making, complex speach, crop cultivation, clothing,
> etc.
> These are actions that man, himself, uses as criteria for deciding "homo
> sapien" status.
I am interested in those accentable instincts too.
> Since, that a particular fence has been crossed, has been what man has
> decided as "the" boudary - that makes the boundary a Common, and accepted,
> Belief - NOT a scientific fact.
>
We still use "fact" to mean "as far as we know." Skepticism won during the
English Enlightment and David Hume.
> In much the same way, we have set value and descriptions on money, time,
> space, distance and many other things.
I like those instincts too;
ON TERRITORIALLITY & RESIDENCE REGULATION
The flexibility displayed by the Great Basin tribes parallels that occurring
among other populations and species of mammals. In both men and animals its
expression is correlated with the richness and spatial distribution of
themost vital resources within the home range. But the range of expression
is a characteristic of each species, and the total range of human
beings,although unusually broad, does not encompass all of the animal
patterns combined. In that sense human territorial behavior is genetically
limited in its expression.
The biological formula of territorialism translates easily into the rituals
of modern property ownership. When described by means of generalizations
clear of emotion and fictive embellishment this behavior acquires new
flavor - at once intimately familiar, because our own daily lives are
controlled by it, and yet distinctive and even very peculiar, because it is
after all a diagnostic trait of just one mammalian species. Each culture
develops its own particular rules to safeguard personal property and space.
Pierre van den Berghe, a sociologist, has provided the following description
of present-day behavior around vacation residences near Seattle:
Before entering familial territory, guests and visitors, especially if they
are unexpected, regularly go through a ritual of identification, attention
drawing, greeting and apology for the possible disturbance. This behavioral
exchange takes place outdoors if the owner is first encountered there, and
is preferably directed at adults. Children of the owners, if encountered
first, are asked about the whereabouts of their parents. When no adult
owners are met outdoors, the visitor typically goes to the dwelling door,
where he makes an identifying noise, either by knocking on the door or
ringing a bell if the door is closed, or by voice if the door is open. The
threshold is typically crossed only on recognition and invitation by the
owner. Even then, the guest feels free to enter only the sitting room, and
usually makes additional requests to enter other parts of the house, such as
a bathroom or bedroom.
When a visitor is present, he is treated by the other members of the
[vacation residence] club as an extension of his host. That is, his limited
privileges of territorial occupancy extend only to the territory of his
host, and the host will be held responsible by other owners for any
territorial transgressions of the guests . . . Children, too, are not
treated as independent agents, but as extensions of their parents or of the
adult "responsible" for them, and territorial transgressions of children,
especially if repeated, are taken up with the parents or guardians.
The dirt road through the development is freely accessible to all members of
the club who use it both to gain access to their lots and to take walks.
Etiquette calls for owners to greet each other when seeing each other
outdoors, but owners do not feel free to enter each other's lots without
some ritual of recognition. This ritual is, however, less formal and
elaborate when entering lots outdoors than when entering houses.
On Human Nature (1978)
by Edward Osborne Wilson:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/
> There are twelve months in the year because WE decided there would be
> twelve months in the year - NOT because it is a fact..
>
Some chronobiologists believe that our instinctual drive to divide the year
up into 30 day months evolved with mutations drifting in line with lunar or
moon cycles and others believe even biological processes like menstration
evolved in sync with the moon, many moons ago loc.
Several exogenous influences on the human female's menstrual cycle length
have recently been demonstrated. Previously, sexual behavior and pheromonal
influences have been described. This report evaluates lunar cyclicity
patterns. A relationship is demonstrated between the onset of menstruation,
among women who have 29.5 + 1 day menstrual cycles, and the onset of full
moon. Four separate prospectively gathered sets of data are presented from
different years and seasons. It is demonstrated that these women tend to
menstruate in the full of the moon with a diminishing likelihood of menses
onset as distance from full moon increases.
http://www.athenainstitute.com/lunarmpl.html
http://www.tcn.net/~opticom/Biological_Clock/
>
>>
>> http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
>>
>> 1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
>> beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
>> justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
>
> Justification = fact?
>
>>
>> 2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
>> reason why it is likely to be true.
>
> A fact IS true, not just "likely".
> That's why Geoorge's claim isn't based on a fact
>
You might be building a straw man for beating on here. George has never
admited that he can or cannot completely justify any beliefs about facts.
>>
>> 3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
>> possession of such a reason.
>>
>> 4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
>> believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
>> belief is likely to be true.
>>
>> 5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
>> empirical premise.
>>
>> 6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends on
>> the justification of at least one other empirical belief, contradicting
>> 1.
>>
>> 7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
>>
>> This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of any
>> and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness of
>> human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress" of one
>> belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so on:
>>
>> If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
>> emperical beliefs, then it must either:
>>
>> (1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
>
> What about "generally agreed" beliefs?
Yes, that is like one of the few remaining alternatives since facts may or
may not ever be shown to be true or false.
Coherence theory: "An empirical belief is realatively true if and only if it
coheres with a system of other beliefs, which together form a comprehensive
account of reality."
Stephen J. Gould, the Harvard Paleontologist, offers this definition: In
science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Succesfully Competitive Inductive Cogency:
Depends upon the evidential and conceptual ("context") of reasoning. An
inductive argument from evidence to hypothesis is inductively cogent if and
only if the hypothesis is that hypothesis which, of all the competing
hypothesis, has the greatest probability of being true on the basis of the
evidence. Thus, whether it is reasonable to accept a hypothesis as true, if
the statements of evidence are true, is determined by whether that
hypothesis is the most probable, on the evidence, of all those with which it
competes.
Cornman, Lehrer, Papas;
Philisophical Problems & Arguments;
Page 33, Fourth Edition, 1992.
Epistemologists find a number of problems with finding an meta-justification
standard for justifying emperical beliefs.
> I keep hearing about "the truth", and "facts" from christians - when their
> who religons is based on nothing more than beliefs.
> THEY may agree that what they are spouting is fact ....... but it doesn't
> pass muster outside of thier belief system.
>
Then you should learn how to talk about facts?
For instance
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not really
the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth that
evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law of
evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course evolution is
a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity, right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're talking
about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to fall.
That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that
observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what
whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by
the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins and
theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are somewhat
different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally confirm
evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists Square
off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
>>
>> (2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
>>
>> (3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
>> steroids)
>
> Are you getting a a headache?
>
Non-linear dynamics before non-linear dynamics was cool (AKA coherence
theory of justification)
The initial problem is whether and how a coherence theory constitutes even a
prima-facia solution to the epistemic regress problem. Rejecting most
regress terminations coherence theorists accept that the regress of
emperical justification must move in a circle - or more plausibly, some more
complicated and multi-dimensional variety of closed circle.
But if that inferential justification is essentially linear in character,
that it involves a one-dimensional sequences of beliefs, ordered by the
*relation* of epistemic priority, along which epistemic justification is
passed from ealier to later beliefs in the sequence via connections of
inference, it is just another linear conception of which generate the
regress problem in the first place. This is why we need to think in local
and global dimensions of justificatory support.
(justificandum/justification)
Beliefs are justified by being inferentially related to other beliefs in the
*overall_context* of a coherent system. There are two different levels at
which emperical justification can be raised (cognitively_confronted). On the
local level justification of single or very small groups of emperical
beliefs will be the issue. It is possible to raise the issue of the overall
justification of the entire system of emperical beliefs, which may be called
the global level of justification.
It is only at the local level of justification that inferential
justification *appears* linear. But we must develop an *pattern* of
inference. Although reference within the context of support appears to
regress this is an illusion because the emerging combined support gains
strength and confrontational properties of justification. In the pattern of
inference there is only mutual or reciprical support. There is no ultimate
relation of epistemic *priority* amoung the members of such a system and
consequently no basis for a true regress. By chaotically moving around for
emperical justification where it is need the confrontatlional nature of this
complexity becomes **resilient** or resistent to efforts aimed towards
weakening by demolition of single premises.
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/ipa/Klein.html
>>
>> If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
>> other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
>> distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
>> system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from within,
>> by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each other.
>> Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if veiwed in an
>> linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever "property" (or complex of
>> properties) is requisite for the justification of such a system of
>> beliefs. Degrees of justification emerge out of the relations of groups
>> of beliefs.
>>
>>> IOW In a beauty contest, it is NOT a fact that Miss America is more
>>> beutiful than all other contestants, since the qualifications of
>>> "beauty" are man-made opinions.
>>>
>>
>> Evolutionists think that animals and humans are driven to standards of
>> beauty. They think what is beautiful is symmetrical or balanced;
>>
>> Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively attracted
>> towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of "health" in a
>> potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the appreciation of symmetry
>> in nature and art?
>
> ??? To put in a point in a less than scientific way - then why are women
> attracted to the "bad boys" ........... those with a more than healthy
> dose of testosterone?
>
I hear its like a Peacocks tail in that the one with the biggest and hardest
carry tail and survives is likely to have good immunes systems and health.
Likewise the theory goes that women have some instinct to recognize a
condition where men are beating down their health but still competing
indicating that they have good health and resistence to germs and diseases.
There are much better explainations of this though.
Mind, a software peacock's tail?
The mind is an entertainment system, evolved only for the purpose of
stimulating other brains. (((A software peacock's tail.)))
Why the human mind evolved? Intelligence is not a by-product of surplus
brain size, it actively evolved, like the peacock's tail, for courtship and
mating, and thereby shaped human nature.
Why does our species tell jokes, build monuments, compose sonatas, give to
charity, compete in sports, follow fashion? Our endless inventiveness, our
elaborate culture, seem to defy Darwinian explanation. They are our sexual
ornaments, our peacocks' tails, displaying our value to potential mates.
Consciousness, morality, creativity, language, and art: these are the traits
that make us human. Scientists have traditionally explained these qualities
as merely a side effect of surplus brain size, but they are rally sexual
attractors, not side effects. This argument is based on Darwin's theory of
sexual selection, which until now has played second fiddle to Darwin's
theory of natural selection, and draws on ideas and research from a wide
range of fields, including psychology, economics, history, and pop culture.
Sexual selection theory rather than natural selection-- is a theory about
how the human mind has developed the sophistication of a peacock's tail to
encourage sexual choice and the refining of art, morality, music, and
literature. Mate choice, male or female may be the reason we have art and
possibly even the (self).
Why human brains have so much capacity for creativity, language, and
consciousness-- are not fully explained by Darwinian natural selection, but
sexual selection by mate choices for and by breeding brutes. Sexual
Selection, Darwin's 'other' theory, has finally come in from the cold and is
now one of the hottest topics in modern Darwinism. The idea that the human
mind evolved as a sort of software peacock's tail has been mooted before,
usually to be dismissed in favor of some alternative theory.
That large personalities can be as sexually enticing as oversize breasts or
biceps may indeed prove comforting, but denuding sexual chemistry can be a
curiously unsexy business, akin to analyzing humor. As a courting display of
my own arogent intellectual plumage, though, my ideas are an
agent-provocateur an chest swelled with ideas and articulate conjecture.
While occasionally my magpie instinct may loot fool's gold, overall it
provides an accessible and attractive insight into modern Darwinism and the
survival of the sexiest. Join me now as we go down in spectacular flames.
http://tinyurl.com/pwb6
http://tinyurl.com/pwbo
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/miller/miller_p2.html
http://tinyurl.com/pwd7
http://tinyurl.com/pwd9
>
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body, is
>> important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the face
>> should be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a far more
>> symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is considered better
>> looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy Thornhill and his
>> colleagues at the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque have shown that
>> people with symmetrical faces generally have symmetrical bodies.
>
> Which plays hell when your trying to get pants made for an expensive,
> custom, suit.
LOL
>
Immortalist
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:81qNf.5080$F56....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:shaNf.111144$4l5.9357@dukeread05...
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> Look, BOTH Evolution and Omphalic-Creation ARE TRUE !!
>>>>
>>>> I'm pointing out to you that the advent of the human brain
>>>> exactly 100,000 years ago, CONSTITUTES AN
>>>> OMPHALIC-CREATION OF REALITY and does in fact
>>>> explain the Genesis-Creation as an "omphalic creation of reality".
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, this in NO WAY denies Evolution, Fossils, the
>>>> Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or the fact that Man is decended from
>>>> monkeys!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very good. Bullet proof response, let me think on it.
>>>
>>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
>
I thought it was bullet proof as concerns a particular thesis but the
exactly 100,000 years ago I don't agree is determinable yet. His point
stands and I suspect you'll have a hard time dealing with it if he sticks
with it properly.
Someone could at first claim that "creation" is used in both premises in
different ways and constitutes an act of equivication or the fallacy of two
terms as one term but that is irrelevant to a stipulative conformity which
could be easily achieved by saying that our concepts of the scientific
theories about the origin of the universe are very similar to the concepts
that we evolved these concepts and scientific theories about the origin of
the universe came to be through the activities of particular nerve cells at
an undeterminable but distant time. Good luck.
George Hammond
>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> Look, BOTH Evolution and Omphalic-Creation ARE TRUE !!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pointing out to you that the advent of the human brain
>>>>> exactly 100,000 years ago, CONSTITUTES AN
>>>>> OMPHALIC-CREATION OF REALITY and does in fact
>>>>> explain the Genesis-Creation as an "omphalic creation of reality".
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, this in NO WAY denies Evolution, Fossils, the
>>>>> Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or the fact that Man is decended from
>>>>> monkeys!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very good. Bullet proof response, let me think on it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Hammond's SPOG is bullet proof.
>>
>
> I thought it was bullet proof as concerns a particular thesis but the
> exactly 100,000 years ago I don't agree is determinable yet. His point
> stands and I suspect you'll have a hard time dealing with it if he sticks
> with it properly.
>
> Someone could at first claim that "creation" is used in both premises in
> different ways and constitutes an act of equivication or the fallacy of
> two terms as one term but that is irrelevant to a stipulative conformity
.................................................<snip rest>
[Hammond]
Look.... anyone who would use terms such as:
1. "act of equivocation"
2. "fallacy of two terms"
3. "stipulative conformity"
Is obviously an UNEDUCATED PERSON.
Because.... any educated person knows full well that the
argumentative material to which those terms belong (nee logic)
is of LITTLE OR NO CONSEQUENCE to any realm of
practical knowledge, and certainly irrelevant to the
hard sciences, which this discussion is about.
In fact, I feel it safe to say that anyone who would even
mouth such nonsense with a straight face , is incapable of
understanding the SPOG.... and in all likelihood intellectually
incapable of understanding what God is, sui generis. Proof
of the latter assertion is perhaps evidenced by the fact
that Bertrand Russell was a lifelong Atheist... a remarkable
crown of ignorance for such a reputedly educated person.
At any rate.... since YOU TOO see fit to mouth such
pseudointellectual stupidity.... I feel it is safe to conclude
that you likewise are intellectually incapable of comprehending
the Scientific Proof of God, and probably congenitally
incapable of understanding what God is in the first place.
You see, real intellectual achievement and discovery
DOES NOT require erudite language or recondite
philosophical argumentation.
REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
is amazingly simple, powerfully straight forward,
and as crystal clear and convincing as a punch in
the nose. That's what Einstein's Theory is, that's
what Maxwell's theory is, and that's what Hammond's
SPOG is. True scientific discovery has no need of
"fancy fencing"... it only needs "plain language".
--
TMG
George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> Look.... anyone who would use terms such as:
>
> 1. "act of equivocation"
> 2. "fallacy of two terms"
> 3. "stipulative conformity"
>
> Is obviously an UNEDUCATED PERSON.
Look - this why some people think you're an insane troll.
The writer you're replying to was the only one in this thread who didn't
say you're an insane wackjob.
You, being an insane wackjob, decide to turn on said supporter.
Ergo - you are an insane wackjob.
Flawless logic, I win!
No, No, No - I SAID I WIN (it _must_ be true - I saw it in USENET).
Actually, I think you can't remember what you're doing, and mix posts
up. I also have a pretty good idea about what's causing this.
> Because.... any educated person knows full well that the
> argumentative material to which those terms belong (nee logic)
> is of LITTLE OR NO CONSEQUENCE to any realm of
> practical knowledge, and certainly irrelevant to the
> hard sciences, which this discussion is about.
Clearly insane statement.
> In fact, I feel it safe to say that anyone who would even
> mouth such nonsense with a straight face , is incapable of
> understanding the SPOG....
Now, that's hard to refute - as the SPOG is gibberish.
> and in all likelihood intellectually
> incapable of understanding what God is, sui generis.
As we're previously discussed, you don't know what that term means, and
you're misusing it.
> Proof
> of the latter assertion is perhaps evidenced by the fact
> that Bertrand Russell was a lifelong Atheist... a remarkable
> crown of ignorance for such a reputedly educated person.
Profoundly stupid statement.
>
> At any rate.... since YOU TOO see fit to mouth such
> pseudointellectual stupidity.... I feel it is safe to conclude
> that you likewise are intellectually incapable of comprehending
> the Scientific Proof of God, and probably congenitally
> incapable of understanding what God is in the first place.
S/he's exposed you as a fool. Now you'll do the silly dance we've seen a
hundred times.
>
> You see, real intellectual achievement and discovery
> DOES NOT require erudite language or recondite
> philosophical argumentation.
> REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
No - Made-up, random wank.
> is amazingly simple, powerfully straight forward,
> and as crystal clear and convincing as a punch in
> the nose.
Now, that's a fine idea. That should be acted on.
> That's what Einstein's Theory is, that's
> what Maxwell's theory is, and that's what Hammond's
> SPOG is.
Hmmmm - two "theories" and YOUR PROOF!
Maxwell is a theory?
Einstein is a theory?
But your insane level of personal delusion says [Hammond] is a proof???
> True scientific discovery has no need of
> "fancy fencing"... it only needs "plain language".
Fucking retard.
Post the maths proof of quantum entanglement in "plain language".
>
ZenIsWhen
What's the problem, George; couldn't find the terms in your primer
dictionary?
>
> Because.... any educated person knows full well that the
> argumentative material to which those terms belong (nee logic)
> is of LITTLE OR NO CONSEQUENCE to any realm of
> practical knowledge, and certainly irrelevant to the
> hard sciences, which this discussion is about.
Science without logic is like swimming without water, you blooming idiot!
ALL of your claims are based on logic (warped and deranged, but logic) -
nothing else.
You have NEVER offered, in the original or in the form of answers or
rebuttals, ANY valid scientific evidence to support your claims!
> In fact, I feel it safe to say that anyone who would even
> mouth such nonsense with a straight face , is incapable of
> understanding the SPOG....
IOW one has to have their mind in your deranged, uneducated, deluded and
psychotic realm.........
and in all likelihood intellectually
> incapable of understanding what God is, sui generis. Proof
> of the latter assertion is perhaps evidenced by the fact
> that Bertrand Russell was a lifelong Atheist... a remarkable
> crown of ignorance for such a reputedly educated person.
Isn't this the same guy, on your previous posts, that YOU claimed agreed
with some of YOUR assertions?
Of course, once again we have you flip-flopping on "who understands" spoC
.........
Here you claim only the educated (though you have yet to find or produce one
of them that supports you) ........and a few short weeks ago, it was the
uneducated masses............... and you seem to have trouble finding
support there too.
>
> At any rate.... since YOU TOO see fit to mouth such
> pseudointellectual stupidity.... I feel it is safe to conclude
> that you likewise are intellectually incapable of comprehending
> the Scientific Proof of God, and probably congenitally
> incapable of understanding what God is in the first place.
Being "intellectually incapable" of understanding something that is nothing
more than a pile of insane crap, is actually praise.
>
> You see, real intellectual achievement and discovery
> DOES NOT require erudite language or recondite
> philosophical argumentation.
> REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
> is amazingly simple, powerfully straight forward,
> and as crystal clear and convincing as a punch in
> the nose. That's what Einstein's Theory is, that's
> what Maxwell's theory is, and that's what Hammond's
> SPOG is. True scientific discovery has no need of
> "fancy fencing"... it only needs "plain language".
Oh ......... it doesn't need FACTS and EVIDENCE?
THAT must be why you think your right!
What ever happened to the people YOU claimed couldn't understand spoc
because it was too complex for their "little minds"????
Your multiple personalities are arguing with each other, again; aren't they,
George!?!?!?!