"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew of Tertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans.

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.
This is an interesting assumption. Why would you insult them to suggest

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.
No, there were some severe differences. And the sects still do not

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

Matthew for instance, is the jewish book as it plays to jewish

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.

You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:06:01 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP RANT

[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
concludeare a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a charity
degree in some lamebrain Natural Science field, at best.

You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated amateur
speculation. Get off this thread.

=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse



roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.
The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
[Hammond]
The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
principal winds, while the church has been scattered
throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
(Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).
This proof demonstrates clearly that the 4-gospel Canon is
NOT an arbitrary convention, but in fact originates in the
axiomatic existence of a 4-eigenvector symmetry in
theoretical Physics and Psychometry. This has been
overwhelmingly experimentally confirmed.
Therefore, in all scientific fairness, it is now accurate
to say that:

The 4-Gospel Canon is based
on an axiomatic law of Physics

I'm sure Irenaeus would be overjoyed to find out that his
historic conclusion 1900 years ago was in fact correct!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

SNIP RANT


[Hammond]

SNIP RANT


[Hammond]

none <""doug\"@(none)"> writes:


We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you shittin me Moroney..?

CURRICULUM VITAE

[snip]

If you cannot answer the question, just say so. He asked
a question and you posted your CV. He did not ask for your
CV, he asked if you understood the scientific method. It
was, however, a rhetorical question since it is clear you
do not understand it. Hints: bluster and swearing are not
part of it. You can look up the rest.


[Hammond]

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you shittin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.


[Hammond]

SNIP RANT


[Hammond]

On 1 May, 08:51, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.  

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture.  The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

[Hammond]
   The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

  "But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
   more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
   are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
   principal winds, while the church has been scattered
   throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
   of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
   fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
   incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
                (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

[Hammond]
   In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.


[Roger Pearse]
I believe so.


[Hammond]

[Roger Pearse]
As you rightly note, this is tangential to the point
that you are making, on which, of course, I have nothing special to
contribute.


[Hammond]

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Hammond]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:44:40 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it?

Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.

remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

I don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!

Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?

I have of course, as judged by it's publication in 2 peer
reviewed academic journals.

No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific method.

and since I HAVE published it in TWO peer reviewed
publications, that proves you are WRONG.

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

[Hammond]
Are you shittin me Moroney..?

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.

[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it?


[Hammond]

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?


[Hammond]

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific method.


[Hammond]

Peer reviewed publications:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).

On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.

We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.

snip crap

"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:9mti14h52tv7mie6u1j6umqgo8moi38raq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.



[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
Once again, empty claims, based on psychotic delusions, mean nothing.
Your crap is rejected because it has no relationshiop to eiether physics,
science or reality - NOT because of politics!

[Hammond]

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Science would no nothing more, were a REAL "proof of god" discovered, than
add "god" to their base of facts and acceptable theories.


[Hammond]

[Hammond]
We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.

Whew ..... as someone else said ... be careful, George,


[Hammond]

=====================================