The new scientific Gospel according to Creationists

From: George Hammond (
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 18:34:13 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: historical science, from Payne-Miller"

    [Hammond... to M.D. earlier]
      Consider this simple heuristic explanation of how God is
    related to the brain, since you are computer literate you
    should appreciate this:

                        Brain=Computer model of
                            Hammond's SPOG

                   The Human Brain is like a computer,
                   running a program called Reality.
                   Any upgrade in the program is called
                   a law of Physics, but any upgrade in
                   the Computer is called an act of God.

    This is quite true according to Hammond's discovery of the SPOG.
    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 the world suddenly looks like it is
    getting smaller and going slower. 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 reality (Physics)". As you can see,
    there is a big difference between "God" which is the computer,
    and "Science" which is the program. Nowhere in the program is
    it written that the computer may change unexpectedly (the brain)
    and make the speed of the program (reality) suddenly change without
    any apparent cause. this then, is why physics does not know there
    is a God.
      This is the simple explanation of what "God" is. Of course it's
    only an analogy, proving all this requires some serious heavy duty
    science; and that is what Hammond's SPOG is all about... the
    rigorous scientific proof.
      And I've got some more bad news for you, not only is there a God...
    "Creation Science" is (essentially) true also. And I'm
    a graduate physicist. In the above model that I posted
    to M.D. at his request, think of the program on the computer
    as having discovered that the Universe is 15-billion years old.
    But also think of the program as not knowing that the computer
    running the program is only 6,000 years old (advent of the
    Homo Sapiens Sapiens, modern man's, brain). This is the basis
    of the argument between the Creationists who say the World is
    only 6,000 years old, and the Evolutionists who say it is
    15-billion years old. Fact of the matter is that they are BOTH
    scientifically correct. This means that science has accepted
    the scientific fact of the Evolutionists, but denies the scientific
    fact of the Creationists... and the Creationists are getting ready
    to go to court about it (Kansas City)... and guess what... they
    are going to win. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they end
    up citing my scientific discovery as their "scientific defense".

    George Hammond, M.S. Physics

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 18:25:51 EDT