On 2024-06-27 01:08, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-06-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:17:42 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and
>>>>> experiments (e.g.
>>>>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in
>>>>> morphology and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to
>>>>> various factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination,
>>>>> natural selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>>>>
>>>> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
>>>> changing, but that's different!"
>>>
>>> When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't have a billion years to observe the progress.
>
> According to scientists the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So if it
> takes a fruit fly a billion years to "eventually" turn into something else,
> what does that say about the odds of so-called evolution and its explanation
> for the supposed origin and variety of all life on our planet?
>
> Of course you could go the Carl Sagan route. Once, when they discovered that
> our solar system was much younger than was earlier believed (and therefore
> the origin and branching of all life had to take a much shorter time), his
> response was that this made evolution "even more likely" because "it
> happened" so it had to happen in less time than we originally thought.
> (paraphrased)
>
> This is how evolution "science" works these days.

The fruit fly example Darwinists use as proof of evolution is not that,
it's _adaptation_.
<https://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600>

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

TMI

--
I think we are in Rats' Alley where the dead men lost their bones.
-- T.S. Eliot

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:13:27 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
>>> -- Carl Sagan
>>>
>>> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.
>>
>> Heidegger asked the real question. Why is there something rather than
>> nothing?

No "why" about it. It just is.

> It seems like a lot of people think the "Big Bang" is the starting point of
> the universe... but what caused the "big bang" and where did the material
> that got "banged" come from? It's another supposed "scientific explanation"
> that explains nothing. Another attempt at escaping from belief in God.

Who created God?

You ought to read Steven Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes". You'll find a
lot more detail there than some handwaving about "God".

As an aside, one religious guy at college wore this shirt:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/God-Said-Maxwell-s-Equations-Integral-Form-Geeks-T-Shirt/5085227396

--
Beware of Bigfoot!

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:37:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Evolution is faith-based. No one knows *how* evolution actually
>>>>> happened, but they believe by faith in the "fact" of Evolution. (They
>>>>> might as well capitalize the word "Evolution" because it has all the
>>>>> creative powers of God.)
>>>>
>>>> At least evolution doesn't create a god who stacks the deck, creates
>>>> original sin, necessitating a redeemer somewhere down the line. Talk about
>>>> guilt trips.
>>>
>>> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite God
>>> but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the universe.
>>
>> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>>
>> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
>> -- Carl Sagan
>>
>> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.
>
> You miss the whole point of God. He was not created. He simply *is.* "I am
> who am." And Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
>
> This is called faith or religion, although Aristotle (and St. Thomas Aquinas)
> used philosophy to prove the necessity of God. (See their arguments for the
> "Unmoved Mover.")
>
> The cosmos may not give a rat's ass about humans, but God does. But the fact
> that you oppose your belief in evolution to my belief in God, just makes it
> clear that evolution *is* your religion — you believe by faith.

Faith buttressed by a lot of physical evidence.

Again, the universe simply *is*.

--
You mentioned your name as if I should recognize it, but beyond the
obvious facts that you are a bachelor, a solicitor, a freemason, and
an asthmatic, I know nothing whatever about you.
-- Sherlock Holmes, "The Norwood Builder"

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:17:42 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and
>>>> experiments (e.g.
>>>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in
>>>> morphology and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to
>>>> various factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination,
>>>> natural selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>>>
>>> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
>>> changing, but that's different!"
>>
>> When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have a billion years to observe the progress.

You don't have to wait that long. Fruit fries evolve pretty rapidly if you
change their environment.

As for them changing into something that isn't a fruit fly.... that's a canard.
It does not need to happen in order to "prove" evolution.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/rapid-adaptation-fruit-flies

--
You will meet an important person who will help you advance professionally.

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> rbowman wrote:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"
>
> Not even close to that, but thanks for playing.
>
>>Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
>>concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
>>inerrant words of a god.
>
> It's accepted theory, vetted by countless experts. You know,
> intelligent, educated people.

That doesn't prevent woefully misinformed articles like this one:

https://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/

Heh heh:

--
You need no longer worry about the future. This time tomorrow you'll be dead.

On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:37:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Evolution is faith-based. No one knows *how* evolution actually
>>>>>> happened, but they believe by faith in the "fact" of Evolution. (They
>>>>>> might as well capitalize the word "Evolution" because it has all the
>>>>>> creative powers of God.)
>>>>>
>>>>> At least evolution doesn't create a god who stacks the deck, creates
>>>>> original sin, necessitating a redeemer somewhere down the line. Talk about
>>>>> guilt trips.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite God
>>>> but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the universe.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
>>> -- Carl Sagan
>>>
>>> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.
>>
>> You miss the whole point of God. He was not created. He simply *is.* "I am
>> who am." And Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
>>
>> This is called faith or religion, although Aristotle (and St. Thomas Aquinas)
>> used philosophy to prove the necessity of God. (See their arguments for the
>> "Unmoved Mover.")
>>
>> The cosmos may not give a rat's ass about humans, but God does. But the fact
>> that you oppose your belief in evolution to my belief in God, just makes it
>> clear that evolution *is* your religion — you believe by faith.
>
> Faith buttressed by a lot of physical evidence.
>
> Again, the universe simply *is*.

Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track of
the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:17:42 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and
>>>>> experiments (e.g.
>>>>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in
>>>>> morphology and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to
>>>>> various factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination,
>>>>> natural selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>>>>
>>>> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
>>>> changing, but that's different!"
>>>
>>> When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't have a billion years to observe the progress.
>
> You don't have to wait that long. Fruit fries evolve pretty rapidly if you
> change their environment.
>
> As for them changing into something that isn't a fruit fly.... that's a canard.
> It does not need to happen in order to "prove" evolution.
>
> https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/rapid-adaptation-fruit-flies

Actually it does because no one denies adaptation (so-called
"microevolution") it's the interspecies "macroevolution" and the gaps in the
fossil record where the evolution dogma fails.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"
>>
>> Not even close to that, but thanks for playing.
>>
>>>Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
>>>concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
>>>inerrant words of a god.
>>
>> It's accepted theory, vetted by countless experts. You know,
>> intelligent, educated people.
>
> That doesn't prevent woefully misinformed articles like this one:
>
> https://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/
>
> Heh heh:

I didn't read it. (No need to. Not a big fan of ICR.ORG.) Macroevolution
(i.e., evolution proper) is made up of numerous "just so" stories — not
facts. Gould took a look at the fossil record and decided it was inadequate,
so he came up with a theory that "proved" his version of evolution by
relying the *lack of evidence* of transitional fossils. Pretty good trick
if you can get away with it. Of course he frustrated the "orthodox"
(gradualist) evolutionists who were also busy trying to explain away the gaps
in the fossil record.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)

Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:49:19 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I didn't read it. (No need to. Not a big fan of ICR.ORG.) Macroevolution
> (i.e., evolution proper) is made up of numerous "just so" stories — not
> facts. Gould took a look at the fossil record and decided it was
> inadequate, so he came up with a theory that "proved" his version of
> evolution by relying the *lack of evidence* of transitional fossils.
> Pretty good trick if you can get away with it. Of course he frustrated
> the "orthodox" (gradualist) evolutionists who were also busy trying to
> explain away the gaps in the fossil record.

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the
Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen
by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast,
the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to
see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth
bothering with, but as one who should not be publically criticised because
he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not
matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false
picture of the state of evolutionary biology."

John Maynard Smith

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)

:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!

> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.

I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.

--
The better part of valor is discretion.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:48:47 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than that
> an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then exploded to
> start the next cycle of universe generation.

He didn't expand on it but Nietzsche might have been on to something with
his idea of eternal recurrence. Are you ready for a cosmic Groundhog Day?

On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>
>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>
>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>
> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.

Try visualizing eternity.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>>
>>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>>
>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>>
>> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
>> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
>> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.
>
> Try visualizing eternity.

I just did!

--
You will soon forget this.

On 2024-06-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>>>
>>>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>>>
>>> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
>>> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
>>> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.
>>
>> Try visualizing eternity.
>
> I just did!

And what did you see?

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>>>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>>>>
>>>>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>>>>
>>>> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
>>>> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
>>>> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.
>>>
>>> Try visualizing eternity.
>>
>> I just did!
>
> And what did you see?

An endless sequence of expanding strings. ;->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Three_Minutes

Early in the book, Weinberg explores the origins and implications of the
Hubble constant, that the red shift of galaxies is proportional to their
distance, and how this is evidence for the expansion of the Universe. He
introduces the Cosmological Principle, that the universe is isotropic and
homogeneous. He then tells the story behind the discovery of the cosmic
microwave background by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965.[3] After
giving the reader a basis of understanding of astrophysics and particle
physics, in chapter 5, Weinberg lays out the makeup of the Universe after
its origin in a series of frozen frames. Weinberg shows how the Big Bang
can account for the relative abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the
universe.

--
Give him an evasive answer.

On 2024-06-29, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>>>>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>>>>>
>>>>>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
>>>>> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
>>>>> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.
>>>>
>>>> Try visualizing eternity.
>>>
>>> I just did!
>>
>> And what did you see?
>
> An endless sequence of expanding strings. ;->
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Three_Minutes
>
> Early in the book, Weinberg explores the origins and implications of the
> Hubble constant, that the red shift of galaxies is proportional to their
> distance, and how this is evidence for the expansion of the Universe. He
> introduces the Cosmological Principle, that the universe is isotropic and
> homogeneous. He then tells the story behind the discovery of the cosmic
> microwave background by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965.[3] After
> giving the reader a basis of understanding of astrophysics and particle
> physics, in chapter 5, Weinberg lays out the makeup of the Universe after
> its origin in a series of frozen frames. Weinberg shows how the Big Bang
> can account for the relative abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the
> universe.

So, in other words, you're visualizing short, expanding strings and
"assuming" they go on forever. You're not actually "seeing" eternity, you're
limiting it to the breadth, width and length of finite "strings." Humans are
limited in time and space so we can't "see" (visualize) eternity or
infinity, we have to believe in it by faith.

But in response to Weinberg, if the universe (or "Universe" as Weinberg
capitalizes it?) is constantly expanding, what is it expanding into?

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-29, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-27, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then the "Big Bang" didn't create the universe? (It's hard to keep track
>>>>>>>> of the latest dogma in these cultish religions.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>:-D Physics = cultish religion. How fscking ridiculous!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell which direction Francis will head in next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it's a lot easier to believe that God had a Big Bang than
>>>>>> that an eternal universe eventually became a singularity and then
>>>>>> exploded to start the next cycle of universe generation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try visualizing eternity.
>>>>
>>>> I just did!
>>>
>>> And what did you see?
>>
>> An endless sequence of expanding strings. ;->
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Three_Minutes
>>
>> Early in the book, Weinberg explores the origins and implications of the
>> Hubble constant, that the red shift of galaxies is proportional to their
>> distance, and how this is evidence for the expansion of the Universe. He
>> introduces the Cosmological Principle, that the universe is isotropic and
>> homogeneous. He then tells the story behind the discovery of the cosmic
>> microwave background by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965.[3] After
>> giving the reader a basis of understanding of astrophysics and particle
>> physics, in chapter 5, Weinberg lays out the makeup of the Universe after
>> its origin in a series of frozen frames. Weinberg shows how the Big Bang
>> can account for the relative abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the
>> universe.
>
> So, in other words, you're visualizing short, expanding strings and
> "assuming" they go on forever. You're not actually "seeing" eternity, you're
> limiting it to the breadth, width and length of finite "strings." Humans are
> limited in time and space so we can't "see" (visualize) eternity or
> infinity, we have to believe in it by faith.

You don't know about string theory?

We don't need to visualize eternity/inifinity to determine its existence.

Granted, a human cannot imagine, say, an aleph-null of numbers. But it can
be defined by the rules it follows.

> But in response to Weinberg, if the universe (or "Universe" as Weinberg
> capitalizes it?) is constantly expanding, what is it expanding into?

Nothing. It simply means that the diameter, as measured, is expanding.

--
You fill a much-needed gap.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 14:19:44 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> You don't know about string theory?

https://logjampresents.com/2024/03/12/the-string-cheese-incident-
announces-two-nights-at-kettlehouse-amphitheater-in-2024/#

Same thing?

Crump needs another can of Pepsi, & little more.

He doesn't need to know if "you want fries with that?".

Nor does he need to know anything about evolution . . . or entropy.

rBowman wrote:

The Big Bang theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Einstein believed in a steady state universe and introduced a
cosmological constant to make his math come out right.

He ate some crow over that.

Cosmology is schizo.

SAMHSA - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (.GOV):

Schizophrenia usually involves delusions (false beliefs),
hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that don't exist), unusual
physical behavior, and disorganized thinking and speech. It is common
for people with schizophrenia to have paranoid thoughts or hear voices.

"Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:

>Crump needs another can of Pepsi, & little more.
>
>He doesn't need to know if "you want fries with that?".
>
>Nor does he need to know anything about evolution . . . or entropy.

What?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Different strokes for different folks.

Not everyone needs to be both a brain surgeon _AND_ a rocket scientist;
for some of us, sucking our thumbs is quite enough.

"The garden of Eden" is simply one's childhood, Nothing more.

Once you learn about sex ("the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"),
go out and find your own "nest" (tent), if you can.

We're all dying for other people's sins.

We can pick our "knows" but REAL choices (Trump|Biden) don't exist.

rBowman: Heidegger asked the real question.
Why is there something rather than nothing ?

-- Your "everything" is someone else's "nothing" and vice versa.

-- As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse,
"residual eXergy" (potential entropy) fuels both "life" & gravity.