Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

  • Subject: Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
  • From: "George Hammond" <>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:04:08 +0000 (UTC)
  • Approved:
  • Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,,
  • Organization: University of Ediacara
  • References: <%t3Zc.213728$8_6.141480@attbi_s04> <> <> <> <> <> <cik793$k5d$07$> <> <cinmra$27i$01$> <> <> <> <> <> <cjhc9e$ihn$04$> <> <cjhpu0$8am$04$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <cjo23s$1ijq$>
  • Sender:
  • Xref: sci.physics.relativity:302041
"Roy Schestowitz" <>
wrote in message news:cjo23s$1ijq$
> George Hammond wrote:
> > ...
> > What this means is that there is a subconscious mental activity
> > influencing and guiding us that we are barely able to notice...
> > and this is called "God" (all this is proved experimentally
> > to 2 decimal point accuracy, Hammond 2003, Noetic Journal).
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Now, it is manifest that all of human activity is motivated
> > towards increasing our growth to "full growth" (becoming God in
> > the flesh)
> I need not say anything more. George's words above prove him to be a
> lunatic.

All of this was proved years ago by the SPoG... I'm merely reiterating
it here because it provides Dembski with the missing "causal theory of ID"
that he has been so roundly critizied for not presenting.
ID, now HAS a "causal explanation"... namely Hammond's SPoG!

> > Because of this a "DIVINE SELECTION" term must be added to
> > Darwins's "NATURAL SELECTION"...
> Keep Darwin out of this please.

I've been hearing a lot about how Creationist's keep attacking Darwin and
Evolution.  I used to think they were nuts.  Turns out they are right...
there *IS* a flaw in "Darwinian Evolution".... namely, there is a
"Divine Selection" term that is missing in his theory.  SPoG proves
this.  Christ!......... Darwin is actually WRONG!

> > the bottom line is that persuing an advanced theory
> > of Intelligent Design by using Statistics and Information Theory
> > as Bill Dembski is doing could possibly (some day) yield a rigorous
> > scientific proof of God.
> You admit that there is no (rigorous) proof of SPoG yet. Finally! George
> giving up.

NO......... I'm simply saying that Dembski hasn't proved it yet.... but that
Hammond HAS, and Hammond's SPoG (God=G_uv) actually
proves that Dembski is correct about the existence of ID.
There *IS* something wrong with Darwinian Evolution!!

> Roy
> -- 
> Roy Schestowitz

Nice to hear from you Roy.

        1st mirror site:
        2nd mirror site:
     new site (under construction):

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index