"Roy Schestowitz" <roy-at-schestowitz-dot-com@use-address-before-at.com>
wrote in message cjrgq8$4h1$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:cjrgq8$4h1$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> Thanks for the reply, but you have not defended your words. [see below]
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> >
> > "Roy Schestowitz" <roy-at-schestowitz-dot-com@use-address-before-at.com>
> > wrote in message news:cjo23s$1ijq$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > All of this was proved years ago by the SPoG...
>
> Nothing was proved. What you do the entire time is try to convice everyone
> that SPoG is yours. You now deceive people but supporting your claims,
> based on non-existent proofs. Naughty, naughty!
>
> 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.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I've been hearing a lot about how Creationist's keep attacking Darwin
and
> > Evolution. I used to think they were nuts.
>
> 'Creationists' _are_ nuts, from a scientific point-of-view anyway.
>
> > Turns out they are right...
>
> So you in fact used to be an atheist before changing your mind. Swinging
> back and forth like that wounds your credibility.
[Hammond]
Didn't seem to wound St. Paul's credibility.
>
> > 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!
>
> No. That's a term you added. It's almost like shoving words in someone's
> month and then attacking him/her.
[Hammond]
Hey.. your just giving us your loudmouth unsupported
OPINION.... nobody is interested in opinions here,
least of all yours. I've published a proof in the peer reviewed
literature and it's posted on my website.
>
> >> > 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
> > is
> >> giving up.
> >>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > NO......... I'm simply saying that Dembski hasn't proved it yet.... but
> > that Hammond HAS
>
> You didn't say that. You say that now to defend yourself. It still raises
> doubts regarding your own confidence in your own 'proof'.
[Hammond]
Quit posting no-content OPINIONS.
>
>
> > , 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
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Nice to hear from you Roy.
>
> Sure you like the attention.
[Hammond]
No, I enjory hearing bigshots like you squeal when I step
on their toes with a scientific proof of God.
>
> --
> Roy Schestowitz
> http://schestowitz.com
>
>
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
|
