CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: geothermal energy
Next: First time: Haversian canal/blood vessels of meteorite magnified to 4000X
From: " SNIP HECKLER>" on 2 Jan 2010 16:03 X-No-Archive: Yes On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:52:55 -0800
From: Geopelia on 2 Jan 2010 16:36 "Occidental" <Occidental(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:bbf306dd-6be4-4ef6-956e-ad9d4a09a3ce(a)n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 2, 6:15 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> I find [Hammond's] theory of life after death very interesting. > > Have you seen the movie "The Matrix"? > >> But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they >> have >> gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether >> he >> is right? > > We can't of course. So it is interesting in the way a fantasy is > interesting, not in the way a scientific theory is interesting. > The traditional view of Heaven, angels and all, that we were taught as children is nice. But fortunately few people now believe in the traditional Hell. Everybody dies, so why worry about it? "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof".
From: George Hammond on 2 Jan 2010 17:07 On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:15:50 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >I find his theory of life after death very interesting. >But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have >gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he >is right? >(Geopelia) > > [Hammond] For some mysterious reason you presume Life After Death is not subject to the ordinary rules of scientific law and proof. This appears to be a naive acceptance of the atheistic line. Fact of the matter is that Science routinely proves the existence of phenomena that cannot be directly observed. For instance: 1. By using fingerprints and DNA we can solve a murder even though there is no eyewitness corroboration. 2. Dirac discovered the existence of antimatter years before it was actually observed. 3. Two thirds of the matter in the Universe is not incandescent and hence can't be seen, yet they can prove it exists. The same goes for Life After Death. If it exists it is a scientifically explainable phenomena just like everything else that exists, including "God" which has already been scientifically proven to exist (Hammond 2003, peer reviewed literature). Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove it exists without actually going there and coming back and making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists. And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now! ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Geopelia on 2 Jan 2010 20:47 "BruceS" <bruces42(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6a82844e-3be5-474b-ab15-a414e4f72865(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Dec 31 2009, 1:38 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "BruceS" <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:62ce9958-bc95-4334-bf01-b1a9934010b1(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 3:32 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:08:04 -0800 (PST), BruceS > > > <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Dec 30, 5:12 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > > ><snip lots> > > >> > [Hammond] > > >> > Sorry Geopelia, I don't volunteer ad hominem information, > > >> > especially to pseudoanonymous Usenet posters. There are > > >> > many curiosity seekers following me around but I'm a > > >> > physicist and VERY busy with important scientific matters. I > > >> > don't need a fan club nor am I interested in off topic > > >> > matters. I'm only here to discuss scientific matters, not > > >> > pass the time of day with well wishers. I'm sure you can > > >> > find someone to banter with elsewhere on Usenet. > > > >> (Geopelia) > > >> Well it's been interesting talking to you, and thanks for giving me > > >> some of > > >> your valuable time. > > > >Geo, consider how many posts Hammond makes, and how long they are. > > >Does this appear to be the occasional contribution of a busy scientist > > >trying to shed some light, or more like the constant ravings of a > > >lunatic with delusions of grandeur? > > > [Hammond] > > Screw, jackass. > > I use the latest voice dictation technology and don't > > have to lift a finger to post 1,000 words in minutes. > > Secondly, my posts are pro bono FYI scientific material > > for the benefit of suffering people being abused by fascist > > establishment scum like you. > > Third and most importantly, posting automatically > > copyright protects original scientific discovery so that my > > work can't be plagerized. Get outta here jackass, you got > > nothing to say except fascist ad hominem spute. > > ======================================== > > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > > Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond > > Mirror site > >http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > > HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto > >http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 > > ======================================= > > Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased > state of Hammond's mind than he provides on his own? I've been called > worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me > "establishment". I'm all tingly. The amusing irony of his reference > to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake. > I wonder why his state-of-the-art voice recognition software doesn't > do a better job of spelling. I expect spelling errors when I type, > but would be disappointed in software that misspelled for me. > > ---------- > > I've wondered about his spelling sometimes, especially 'w ' here and there > where I wouldn't expect it. > So it's his voice program. > But what someone has to say is more important than how he spells it. > > I make plenty of typos (sometimes very funny) but the spell checker gets > rid > of them if I don't spot them. > Geopelia Yes, typos are to be expected when one types (unless one is very careful). I was pointing out how unlikely it is that Hammond is using voice recognition software. I've written a lot of software, and don't believe any good (esp. state-of-the-art) software would create spelling errors. That was just a lie on his part to cover his lie that he is very busy. If he were as busy and important as he claims, he wouldn't have time to post so much. He responds that he can do so quickly because he has great software to post for him. Hmm, so posting time for him is mainly typing, very little spent thinking? That explains a lot. However, if that had not been just another lie on his part, his software would not have created the spelling errors. The truth is that Hammond is a mentally damaged person with no meaningful work to take up his time, so he spends it spewing inanity and venom on Usenet and pretending to be important. He's a kook, and not a very imaginative or intelligent one. -------- (Geopelia) His theory sounds interesting, but I don't know enough about cell biology to comment much.
From: Geopelia on 2 Jan 2010 20:57
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:h8dvj5djr2hf1fpv2l02n729l3vfsaqtc9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:15:50 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> >>I find his theory of life after death very interesting. >>But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they >>have >>gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he >>is right? >>(Geopelia) >> >> > [Hammond] > For some mysterious reason you presume Life After Death is > not subject to the ordinary rules of scientific law and > proof. This appears to be a naive acceptance of the > atheistic line. > Fact of the matter is that Science routinely proves the > existence of phenomena that cannot be directly observed. For > instance: > > 1. By using fingerprints and DNA we can solve a murder > even though there is no eyewitness corroboration. Unless either have been planted to get a conviction. > > 2. Dirac discovered the existence of antimatter years > before it was actually observe. It's amazing what people can prove with equations etc. But those are way above my head. > > 3. Two thirds of the matter in the Universe is not > incandescent and hence can't be seen, yet they can > prove it exists. By gravity? > > The same goes for Life After Death. If it exists it is a > scientifically explainable phenomena just like everything > else that exists, including "God" which has already been > scientifically proven to exist (Hammond 2003, peer reviewed > literature). > Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove > it exists without actually going there and coming back and > making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT > NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists. > And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now! (Geopelia) But what's the point knowing it exists, if we can't come back? It's nice to be called baby, at eighty years old. Made my day! |