Bible and astronomy

To You All Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
Reality is there is no evidence of intelligence design in making the
universe. Science gets the age of rocks,and religion the rock of
ages(read that cliches moons ago) Science studies how the heavens
go,religion how to go to heaven. No proof that God individually designed
the organisms that make up the world of biological cells. We are made
of star stuff. All universes are exactly the same. Took eons of time for
nature to create the first universe so that gravity could evolve it into
organic matter. Universes that came latter such as ours that came out of
a singularity(piece of the first universe) are clones. There are more
universes n the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm.

YES
Finally
Someone from webtv with much more than a handfull of braincells...K

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
To You All Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
Reality is there is no evidence of intelligence design in making the
universe.


Sometimes when I look at how the world is, I am inclined to agree that
no intelligence went into its design.


Science gets the age of rocks,and religion the rock of
ages(read that cliches moons ago) Science studies how the heavens
go,religion how to go to heaven. No proof that God individually designed
the organisms that make up the world of biological cells. We are made
of star stuff. All universes are exactly the same.


That seems to be an article of faith with you.


Took eons of time for
nature to create the first universe so that gravity could evolve it into
organic matter.


And gravity as you describe it takes on many of the aspects of a God.


Universes that came latter such as ours that came out of
a singularity(piece of the first universe) are clones. There are more
universes n the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm.


"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their
names." Psalm 147:4

Double-A

Hi Double-A when I use to get tons of email most asked this question
"What does the "G" in G=EMC^2 stand for? With me it stood for
gravity,and for billions of others it stood for God Trebert

From Bert:

Science and religion have nothing to do
with each other. Reality is there is no
evidence of intelligence design in making the universe.

Hey Bert, 'member your often repeated statement that the universe
evolved us so that it could "see itself"?
The issue became acutely apparent to Bishop George
Berkeley around 300 years ago during resurgence of the 'aether'
theories. Belief in a preexistant, all-causal Substrate or 'aether'
would inevitably lead to the same conclusion you voiced. Such a
Substrate would have the very attributes of God, embued with the
imperative to ultimately "see itself".
So Berkeley set upon the first concerted 'No Substrate'
campaign, which is found interspersed throughout his writings.
Sovereignty of the church's sky-God had to be maintained at all cost:
the sky-God, his material creation, and by tacit implication, the 'Void'
between the two became paramount. Here is found the historical roots of
the Void-Space Paradigm. It began as a theological edict. And
unbelievably, 200 years later, it burst on the scene anew, in a new
guise as the bedrock doctrine of secular science. And the rest, as they
say, is history.

Gordon Wolter believed the spatial medium to be a vast and incredibly
rich information field, that it purposefully drives evolution to its
ultimate expression as an upright biped pondering its cosmic origin.. in
essence, the same thing you said.

oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Bert:

Science and religion have nothing to do
with each other. Reality is there is no
evidence of intelligence design in making the universe.

Hey Bert, 'member your often repeated statement that the universe
evolved us so that it could "see itself"?
The issue became acutely apparent to Bishop George
Berkeley around 300 years ago during resurgence of the 'aether'
theories. Belief in a preexistant, all-causal Substrate or 'aether'
would inevitably lead to the same conclusion you voiced. Such a
Substrate would have the very attributes of God, embued with the
imperative to ultimately "see itself".
So Berkeley set upon the first concerted 'No Substrate'
campaign, which is found interspersed throughout his writings.
Sovereignty of the church's sky-God had to be maintained at all cost:
the sky-God, his material creation, and by tacit implication, the 'Void'
between the two became paramount. Here is found the historical roots of
the Void-Space Paradigm. It began as a theological edict. And
unbelievably, 200 years later, it burst on the scene anew, in a new
guise as the bedrock doctrine of secular science. And the rest, as they
say, is history.

Gordon Wolter believed the spatial medium to be a vast and incredibly
rich information field, that it purposefully drives evolution to its
ultimate expression as an upright biped pondering its cosmic origin.. in
essence, the same thing you said.

oc

I think if you rant about "void-space" another 100,000 times on usenet,
every physicist will see the light and drop all this secular science
nonsense.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka Silouen aka ...

Hi oc Have no problems with your late friend wolter's thinking. Reality
is humankind came out of star stuff,and their radiating photons of light
made the evolvement of eyes possible. With great eye sight,and it being
an extension of our brain we look up into the heavens,and that gives
mother nature a chance to see herself. It all fits. We make the universe
realistic. We make the shinning of stars not just wasted energy. That is
why without organic matter and it evolving into thinking matter "the
universe without this need not exist" It would be a waste of space.
Trebert

From Bert:

...radiating photons of light made the
evolvement of eyes possible. With great
eye sight,and it being an extension of our brain we look up into the
heavens,and
that gives mother nature a chance to see herself. It all fits.

Well said, Bert. A truth not known to the mutts that make sport of
attacking you.

We make the universe realistic. We
make the shining of stars not just wasted energy. That is why without
organic
matter and it evolving into thinking
matter "the universe without this need
not exist" It would be a waste of space.

Reality is humankind came out of star
stuff,...

..Just as Sagan said. And moreover and besides, we are "space stuff".
oc

oc you ended your post with "space stuff" and right you are. Reality is
space stuff came before the big bang (intrinsic energy of space). My
hope is string theory + GM can show how gravity can compress space stuff
and make the big bang theory one of man's greatest theory. Trebert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

oc you ended your post with "space stuff" and right you are. Reality is
space stuff came before the big bang (intrinsic energy of space). My
hope is string theory + GM can show how gravity can compress space stuff
and make the big bang theory one of man's greatest theory. Trebert

nightbat

Trebert get back to your clueless fantasy multiverse for big
bang nullified because energy cannot be point created or destroyed. Sad
your taking over Officer Bert's mind now he is doomed to sickbay, oh the
humanity. I have advised Officer Bert energy was there before the non
uniform impulse was rendered because of the nightbat found unifying
frame of latent memory. Trebert you can't fill my gravity student
Officer's Bert shoes but you can try, ha, ha, ha, ha.

carry on,
the nightbat