J. wrote:
>
> I have always believed that Science tells how and the Bible tells why. I
> had to do a paper (long ago) on evolution in school. I was the only one
> in my class to take the stand of creationsim.
[Hammond]
Thanks for your email. Unfortunately in this battle I do not
have time to talk to people privately. However I would sincerely
welcome any posts to the above newsgroups. (alt.philosophy,
alt.politics.religion, rec.org.mensa, alt.talk.creationism,
alt.religion.christianity, alt.philosophy.debate, sci.physics,
etc., etc., etc.)
You are of course right, that, "Science tells how and the
Bible tells why". I am of course amazed that you figured this out
while you were still in high school. Obviously you do not come
from a culturally deprived background like so many of us, me in
particular. It is up to people like you to lead the way. You
have to realize that there are tens of millions of working and
middle class kids in this country who's circumstances are so
barren of any early intellectual guidance that know nothing about
Life beyond securing a weekly paycheck and watching the submarine
races. I know, I was one of them.
Of course my discovery of a scientific proof of God will finally
explain to such children of God, such as I was for instance, in
simple and unsophisticated terms, exactly why it is that
"Science tells how and the Bible tells why". Eventually, in the
hands of capable educators simple explanations will be hammered out,
much as simple explanations of Relativity have been developed.
In fact, recently a writer from Croatia named Danijel Turina
has suggested an interesting analogy to my discovery; as he puts
it:
Hammond's SPOG
The Human Brain is like a computer,
running a program called Science.
Any change in the program is called
a Law of Science, but any change in
the Computer is called an Act of God.
This is quite true according to Hammond's discovery of the scientific
explanation of God. According to the Secular Trend, the human brain
is growing all the time, in spurts and jumps. Every time this
happens, it is like upgrading the computer with a faster processor
and more memory... it starts running faster and has more power.
This is called a "miracle". On the other hand, every once and awhile
a discovery in science is made, and a few more lines are added to the
program, this is called a "new law of science". As you can see,
there is a big difference between "God" which is the computer,
and "Science" which is the program.
In fact, it brings up the question of exactly how old "the World"
actually is. According to the OEC's, they refer to the program
which says that the World is 15-billion years old. On the other
hand the YEC's point out that the computer (the Homo s. sapiens) brain
is only a few thousands of years old. Which one is causing "reality",
the computer or the program? Well, it turns out BOTH are correct
within their domain of relevance. Fact of the matter is, that the
correct description of the situation is that the whole 15-billion
year history was "created" ten thousand years ago when the computer
was created. The CREATIONISTS understand this, and the SCIENTISTS
don't, and Science is in for a big surprise when they find
out about the Scientific Proof of God, which proves that the
Creationists are talking about a proven scientific fact.
> I remember asking my
> pastor at the time what he thought and I will never forget his reply. He
> said, "When they find the missing link, they will find a whole new
> chain." I wish I could better understand your writings but since I am
> not a scientific scholar it makes it difficult. I am glad to see though,
> that science and theology are finally shaking hands.
[Hammond]
I hope the above explanation helps to explain my discovery.
>
> Saw a cartoon once where it showed scientists climbing a mountain only
> to come to another plateau. There were a bunch on theologians sitting
> there saying, "What took you so long?"
>
> Thank you for your post.
[Hammond]
Thank you for being part of the solution rather than part of
the problem.
HAMMOND
>
> J.
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Creation-Evolution Supreme Court Challenge
> >
> > PRESS RELEASE (5-25-2001)
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > My latest position is that the discovery of a
> > scientific proof of God (below) is going to be used by
> > the religious Fundamentalists to deliver the
> > biggest and most embarrassing kick in the pants that
> > Science has ever received, and that it's going
> > to happen when the Fundamalists, or Creationists
> > use the scientific proof of God as a legal defense
> > in a Supreme Court showdown over the exclusive
> > teaching of Evolution. The supreme Court will rule
> > that Creationism (and God) can be taught as a
> > "scientific subject", along with Evolution.
> >
> > ==========================================================
> > Note: The original target post to which this thread refers
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Creationcall.html
> > ==========================================================
-- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 31 2001 - 23:27:28 EDT