Science and Technology news... :: View topic - New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 6, 1:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.

I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.

Naturally. You are not a mathematician.

Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy.
[/quote]
That>s a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
temple prostitutes sell pantheism.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3

[quote]Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.
[/quote]
I don>t expect a prostitute to understand my argument but that didn>t
stop you from practicing your profession. You need to find a more
honorable occupation.

Anyone that doesn>t recognize Godel>s theorem and dismisses a valid
application of it by Bertrand Russell, believing it was written by a
congressman from Georgia, is not a mathematician.

Shubee

PD · Guest

On Oct 6, 7:03 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 1:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.

I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.

Naturally. You are not a mathematician.

Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy.

That>s a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
temple prostitutes sell pantheism.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3
[/quote]
And you argue that the religious fervor should be directed instead to
mathematicians, who you regard as being nearly divine, nearly angelic,
and you suggest that any worship of Einstein should instead be worship
of Hilbert. You are opposed to a "religion beyond physics" but have no
problem whatsoever with a religion beyond mathematics. You are pitting
your Baal against another>s Osiris.

[quote]
Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.

I don>t expect a prostitute to understand my argument but that didn>t
stop you from practicing your profession. You need to find a more
honorable occupation.

Anyone that doesn>t recognize Godel>s theorem and dismisses a valid
application of it by Bertrand Russell, believing it was written by a
congressman from Georgia, is not a mathematician.

Shubee[/quote]

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 6, 7:20 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 7:03 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 6, 1:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.

I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.

Naturally. You are not a mathematician.

Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy.

That>s a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
temple prostitutes sell pantheism.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3

And you argue that the religious fervor should be directed instead to
mathematicians, who you regard as being nearly divine, nearly angelic,
and you suggest that any worship of Einstein should instead be worship
of Hilbert. You are opposed to a "religion beyond physics" but have no
problem whatsoever with a religion beyond mathematics. You are pitting
your Baal against another>s Osiris.
[/quote]
This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be burning with
uncontrollable rage as you descend into your self-made pit of
irreversible insanity just because I can prove everything I say with
mathematical perfection?

"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic
Institute>s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging
mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one
thing they really couldn>t stand was a smart-ass." --The Inventor of
the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker>s Guide to the Galaxy
(1979).

[quote]Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.

I don>t expect a prostitute to understand my argument but that didn>t
stop you from practicing your profession. You need to find a more
honorable occupation.

Anyone that doesn>t recognize Godel>s theorem and dismisses a valid
application of it by Bertrand Russell, believing it was written by a
congressman from Georgia, is not a mathematician.

Shubee

[/quote]

hanson · Guest

"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
something that Ben Jacoby didn>t want hear so...
[quote]
the normally rational Jew "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:[/quote]
And you are still a moron, Andro, but it>s OK
because it>s the basis of your faith!
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
ahahaha... now, Jacoby, you have demonstrated with
stereotypical Jewish intelligence that
***Jews create Anti-Semitism**,
all by themselves, like you just did, by saying that faiths,
other then your own, is practiced by morons....
[quote]
.... much like your brother-in-faith Bob Kolker has done here[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/803ce61b6d51437e?hl=en
wherein he, the Jew
::BK:: urges in news:2rfqqdF19g17mU1@uni-berlin.de on 09-23-04,
::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
[quote]
So, Ben, can you see what you did?[/quote]
Can you fathom: *No Jews ... No Anti-Semitism*?
ahahahaha... But you must have been taught, that
if you cannot look down on others then you are not
Jewish... ahahahaha... "Trust me" -- "Go figure"...
since the superiority of being Jewish is so eloquently
demonstrated here by another brother-in-faith of yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-bVIcRTwYg
"oye-weh!" but thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson

Guest

On Oct 6, 8:40 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 7:20 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 6, 7:03 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 6, 1:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.

I don>t see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.

Naturally. You are not a mathematician.

Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy.

That>s a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
temple prostitutes sell pantheism.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3

And you argue that the religious fervor should be directed instead to
mathematicians, who you regard as being nearly divine, nearly angelic,
and you suggest that any worship of Einstein should instead be worship
of Hilbert. You are opposed to a "religion beyond physics" but have no
problem whatsoever with a religion beyond mathematics. You are pitting
your Baal against another>s Osiris.

This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be burning with
uncontrollable rage as you descend into your self-made pit of
irreversible insanity just because I can prove everything I say with
mathematical perfection?

"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic
Institute>s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging
mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one
thing they really couldn>t stand was a smart-ass." --The Inventor of
the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker>s Guide to the Galaxy
(1979).

Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn>t know what he>s talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.

I don>t expect a prostitute to understand my argument but that didn>t
stop you from practicing your profession. You need to find a more
honorable occupation.

Anyone that doesn>t recognize Godel>s theorem and dismisses a valid
application of it by Bertrand Russell, believing it was written by a
congressman from Georgia, is not a mathematician.

Shubee-
[/quote]
The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 7, 7:49 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.
[/quote]
It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 7:49 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:

The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
[/quote]
It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

[quote]Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
[/quote]
I can>t do everything by myself. This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert>s
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/

[quote]How>s your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?
[/quote]
My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies. My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.

I thank you for the many times that you have confirmed my approach to
science.

Shubee

PD · Guest

On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 7:49 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:

The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.

It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.
[/quote]
Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.

[quote]
Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.

I can>t do everything by myself.
[/quote]
You can>t axiomatize physics? Why not?

[quote]This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert>s
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.

[/quote]
The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.

[quote]
How>s your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?

My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.
[/quote]
You could consider finishing one. There isn>t a single composer that
ever achieved notoriety or recognition for having a collection of
unfinished symphonies.

[quote]My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.
[/quote]
This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
"If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
right."
This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn>t until they start
hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
mental trouble.

[quote]
I thank you for the many times that you have confirmed my approach to
science.
[/quote]
Oh, I>ve not confirmed anything for you. You are perfectly capable of
rationalizing outcomes all by yourself.

PD

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.

It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.

Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.
[/quote]
The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

[quote]Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.

I can>t do everything by myself.

You can>t axiomatize physics? Why not?
[/quote]
I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity. I have achieved my goal. It wasn>t easy to remove from
special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
amenable to experimental verification.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

[quote]This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert>s
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.

The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
[/quote]
The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/

[quote]How>s your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?

My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.

You could consider finishing one.
I have finished my first revolutionary symphony long ago. It was my[/quote]
first volume on the many-worlds interpretation of Bible prophecy.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/eschatology (also available in
pdf).

[quote]My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.

This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
"If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
right."
This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn>t until they start
hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
mental trouble.
[/quote]
This thread contains a very simple proof that I am right on a point of
fact and that you are an ignorant bigot. Fortunately, the prominent
English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician John
Barrow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow ), plagiarized
Bertrand Russell>s wonderful statement:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell. http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell

In my efforts to axiomatize the creation-evolution debate and to
illuminate the prominent role of atheism in it, I used Russell>s
statement to prove that atheism is a religion. Immediately, the
pretending mathematician Tonio attacked the famous logician
indirectly, thinking that the plagiarist author John Barrow was an
unimpressive congressman from Georgia:

"Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what talking nonsense
is..."

You also, not recognizing a legitimate application of Godel>s theorem,
condemned me and sided with Tonio, the pretending, make-believe,
sarcastic mathematician. All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense
and sarcasm. You don>t have a single particle of truth to justify your
lame accusations.

Shubee

Tonico · Guest

On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.

It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.

Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.

The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.

I can>t do everything by myself.

You can>t axiomatize physics? Why not?

I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity. I have achieved my goal. It wasn>t easy to remove from
special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
amenable to experimental verification.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert>s
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.

The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.

The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/

How>s your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?

My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.

You could consider finishing one.

I have finished my first revolutionary symphony long ago. It was my
first volume on the many-worlds interpretation of Bible prophecy.http://www.everythingimportant.org/eschatology(also available in
pdf).

My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.

This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
"If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
right."
This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn>t until they start
hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
mental trouble.

This thread contains a very simple proof that I am right on a point of
fact and that you are an ignorant bigot. Fortunately, the prominent
English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician John
Barrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow), plagiarized
Bertrand Russell>s wonderful statement:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell.http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell

In my efforts to axiomatize the creation-evolution debate and to
illuminate the prominent role of atheism in it, I used Russell>s
statement to prove that atheism is a religion. Immediately, the
pretending mathematician Tonio attacked the famous logician
indirectly, thinking that the plagiarist author John Barrow was an
unimpressive congressman from Georgia:

"Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what talking nonsense
is..."

You also, not recognizing a legitimate application of Godel>s theorem,
condemned me and sided with Tonio, the pretending, make-believe,
sarcastic mathematician. All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense
and sarcasm. You don>t have a single particle of truth to justify your
lame accusations.

Shubee-
[/quote]
***********************************************************

The only one accusing here is you, and in a rather childish, lame and
sissy way. It serves you well, I supose.
You should get yourself some good bread and cheese for all that whine,
Chubby boy.

One would think that by now, after making a huge, enormous ass of
yourself in at least three different forums, you woulr begin to learn
a little more to shut up...but I won>t bet on that.

Regards
Tonio

Guest

On Oct 7, 12:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You have posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.

[/quote]
Well PD, if it is off-topic, then it>s outside your field of
expertise...

Which means everything coming out of your mouth is pure garbage...

PD, wear a bib.

[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz · Guest

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:42:32 -0400, "Spaceman"
<spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

[quote]jerry wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Tonico wrote:
It>s an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
"accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.

Hmm?
So an athiest does not "believe" that God does not exist?
LOL

Proposition A: There exists a god or gods.
Definition of a theist: a person that believes Proposition A
is true.
An atheist is by definition anyone who isn>t a theist. That
doesn>t at all mean an atheist believes Proposition A is false.

To not believe, you must not believe.
That is a belief.

[/quote]
Person 1: "There is a God."
Person 2: "Maybe so, maybe not; I don>t wish to guess."

--Lynn

PD · Guest

On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.

It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.

Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.

The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
[/quote]
Which is of course not so compelling to physicists. You may also find
that it isn>t so important to mathematicians as you think, despite
your willingness to have Hilbert speak for all mathematicians.

[quote]
Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.

I can>t do everything by myself.

You can>t axiomatize physics? Why not?

I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity. I have achieved my goal.
[/quote]
Then publish it. Someplace other than a personal web site. What are
you afraid of?

[quote]It wasn>t easy to remove from
special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
amenable to experimental verification.

This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert>s
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.

The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.

The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
[/quote]
That doesn>t make creation/evolution a topic for physics.

[quote]
How>s your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?

My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.

You could consider finishing one.

I have finished my first revolutionary symphony long ago. It was my
first volume on the many-worlds interpretation of Bible prophecy.
[/quote]
Have you published it? Anywhere other than your web site, I mean.

[quote]
My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.

This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
"If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
right."
This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn>t until they start
hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
mental trouble.

This thread contains a very simple proof that I am right on a point of
fact and that you are an ignorant bigot.
[/quote]
A bigot in what way?

[quote]Fortunately, the prominent
English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician John
Barrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow), plagiarized
Bertrand Russell>s wonderful statement:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell.http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell

In my efforts to axiomatize the creation-evolution debate and to
illuminate the prominent role of atheism in it, I used Russell>s
statement to prove that atheism is a religion. Immediately, the
pretending mathematician Tonio attacked the famous logician
indirectly, thinking that the plagiarist author John Barrow was an
unimpressive congressman from Georgia:

"Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what talking nonsense
is..."

You also, not recognizing a legitimate application of Godel>s theorem,
condemned me and sided with Tonio, the pretending, make-believe,
sarcastic mathematician.
[/quote]
I didn>t side with Tonio at all. I mocked your statement that he was
not a mathematician, all on my own.

You have apparently made the presumption that if you have many
detractors, then the detractors must all be allies. I think you will
find this is not a mathematically or logically sound conclusion. It
may be that you are simply an outcast of your own making, and you are
capable of turning just about anyone against you.

[quote]All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense
and sarcasm. You don>t have a single particle of truth to justify your
lame accusations.
[/quote]
What accusations to you attribute to me?

PD

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 7, 10:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.

Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.

I>m sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.

It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert>s philosophy of physics.

Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.

The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.

I can>t do everything by myself.

You can>t axiomatize physics? Why not?

I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity.
[/quote]
Why? Minkowski - A MATHEMATICIAN - axiomized special relativity a
century ago. You are a bit more than a day late and a dollar short.

Your presentation is confused and has no intersection with experiment
or modern physics.

I>ve been telling you this for years and you are curiously unwilling
to discuss it.

[quote]I have achieved my goal.
[/quote]
If being a Grade A USENET crank and a failure of a mathematician was
the goal, spot on!

[quote]It wasn>t easy to remove from
special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
amenable to experimental verification.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
[/quote]
That>s because there is nothing in special relativity that falls under
that heading. On the other hand, there is *lots* in your presentation
that qualifies.

Squeeze more blood from stone, shooby.

[...]

Shubee · Guest

On Oct 7, 5:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.

Which is of course not so compelling to physicists.
[/quote]
I understand very well that prostitutes have other priorities.

[quote]I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity. I have achieved my goal.

Then publish it. Someplace other than a personal web site.
[/quote]
If I want to promote everythingimportant.org by giving away my insight
for free, what is that to you? Do I advise you that you need to start
charging your colleagues for the generous way that you prostitute
yourself for their benefit?

[quote]The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.

The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.

That doesn>t make creation/evolution a topic for physics.
[/quote]
A debate on the physics of http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists
belongs in sci.physics.

[quote]All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
You don>t have a single particle of truth to justify your
lame accusations.

What accusations to you attribute to me?
[/quote]
You lie and malign incessantly. Everything you spew is from your
bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.

Shubee


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6