The Biggest Digital Camera in the World.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by AnOvercomer, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. AnOvercomer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/28/03 5:28 PM, in article ,
    "daytripper" <> wrote:

    > On 28 Aug 2003 22:18:54 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/28/03 4:54 PM, in article , "Douglas
    >> Whittaker" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> : Any primitive people are sure not to be announced in our lifetimes
    >>>> considering t
    >>>> : he hold
    >>>> : religion and the church still has on science.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh my goodness... Got the tin-foil hat on a little tight today? This is
    >>>> ridiculous.
    >>>
    >>> I don't think the church's control on stopping stem cell research, abortion,
    >>> teaching
    >>> evolution in schools, or any other of the things they seem to have a
    >>> powerful
    >>> hold
    >>> over are ridiculous. .......wait a minute, you are right.... that IS
    >>> ridiculous.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> STOP IT! This is OT and you are deliberately acting trollish.

    >
    > "deliberately acting trollish"
    >
    > that's hilarious!

    Glad you're entertained!


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 28, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. AnOvercomer

    neil Guest

    > >> They're probably very
    > >> advanced -- so much so that they can "hide" from us indefinitely and make us
    > >> think their planet is frozen and barren.

    > >
    > >That doesn't make much sense. Imagine trying to do that on our planet and
    > >wiping off all evidence of our buildings and technology from the face of our
    > >planet. Not even possible.

    >
    > maybe, upon seeing the potential for a technological civilization
    > appearing on Earth, they took their own cities underground thousands
    > of years ago, leaving the martian surface bare, to make us think
    > there's nobody there.


    Think about that again with trying to do that on Earth. It would be by THIS stage
    at least that we would know that the other planet had life like ours and would
    start hiding by building underground from what we have now. Impossible.

    > I mean... Those two probes that malfunctioned before they even
    > landed? Obviously shot down.


    Either that, or the government said they were down so that they don't have to show
    the pictures they are getting. If they don't say it is down, then people will
    ask and want to see the pictures.

    Just like when we couldn't see any pictures from the hubble because the lenses were
    wrong and needed to be replaced first. Now all the signals from the Hubble are
    scrambled! Why would you need to scramble the images from the Hubble? Is it a
    spy satellite, or a telescope to view planets and stars? Perhaps it is a spy
    satellite to view planets and stars.

    Remember when they made the press conference a few years ago about the satellite
    around the moon that found evidence of water on the moon? I found it odd that it
    was not a NASA press conference, but one held by the Pentagon and the satellite
    used around the moon was a spy satellite.

    > Maybe the Martians are sick of us sending out robots and are just plain offended
    > that we don't come outselves?


    I think the star wars satellites and space stations are more to protect us from
    them.

    Whatever is going on, it won't be able to be hidden from us much longer. I keep
    wondering why all of a sudden the quick rush to get people used to there being
    water on the moon and mars, telling us they found life in Martian rocks, and all
    that they have been trying to get out rather quickly as if they don't have much
    time to try and break the news gently. I feel that the rush is not something
    our governments planned, but if they don't start feeding us what they have been at
    the rate they have, when we find out the big story, it would cause another "war of
    the worlds" panic like we had a few decades ago.
     
    neil, Aug 29, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. AnOvercomer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/28/03 6:38 PM, in article , "neil"
    <> wrote:

    >>>> They're probably very
    >>>> advanced -- so much so that they can "hide" from us indefinitely and make
    >>>> us
    >>>> think their planet is frozen and barren.
    >>>
    >>> That doesn't make much sense. Imagine trying to do that on our planet and
    >>> wiping off all evidence of our buildings and technology from the face of our
    >>> planet. Not even possible.

    >>
    >> maybe, upon seeing the potential for a technological civilization
    >> appearing on Earth, they took their own cities underground thousands
    >> of years ago, leaving the martian surface bare, to make us think
    >> there's nobody there.

    >
    > Think about that again with trying to do that on Earth. It would be by THIS
    > stage
    > at least that we would know that the other planet had life like ours and would
    > start hiding by building underground from what we have now. Impossible.
    >
    >> I mean... Those two probes that malfunctioned before they even
    >> landed? Obviously shot down.

    >
    > Either that, or the government said they were down so that they don't have to
    > show
    > the pictures they are getting. If they don't say it is down, then people
    > will
    > ask and want to see the pictures.
    >
    > Just like when we couldn't see any pictures from the hubble because the lenses
    > were
    > wrong and needed to be replaced first. Now all the signals from the Hubble
    > are
    > scrambled! Why would you need to scramble the images from the Hubble? Is
    > it a
    > spy satellite, or a telescope to view planets and stars? Perhaps it is a
    > spy
    > satellite to view planets and stars.
    >
    > Remember when they made the press conference a few years ago about the
    > satellite
    > around the moon that found evidence of water on the moon? I found it odd
    > that it
    > was not a NASA press conference, but one held by the Pentagon and the
    > satellite
    > used around the moon was a spy satellite.
    >
    >> Maybe the Martians are sick of us sending out robots and are just plain
    >> offended
    >> that we don't come outselves?

    >
    > I think the star wars satellites and space stations are more to protect us
    > from
    > them.
    >
    > Whatever is going on, it won't be able to be hidden from us much longer. I
    > keep
    > wondering why all of a sudden the quick rush to get people used to there being
    > water on the moon and mars, telling us they found life in Martian rocks, and
    > all
    > that they have been trying to get out rather quickly as if they don't have
    > much
    > time to try and break the news gently. I feel that the rush is not
    > something
    > our governments planned, but if they don't start feeding us what they have
    > been at
    > the rate they have, when we find out the big story, it would cause another
    > "war of
    > the worlds" panic like we had a few decades ago.
    >
    >
    >

    For all of you that don't understand this nynshifting "little professor":
    http://www.aspergers.com/


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 29, 2003
    #23
  4. AnOvercomer

    GCW Guest

    In the beginning, there was a solar system, and life evolved on the planet
    we now call Mars. Life was berry, berry good there. It advanced to the point
    of interplanetary space travel, and missions were sent to the planet we now
    call Earth, which also had life, but the most advanced form was the
    dinosaur.

    A colony was soon established, and after a fashion, when primates had
    evolved on Earth, there was monkey business between monkeys and Martians.
    (The Martians, by the way, would be seen as "human" by us today, except for
    the strange antennae they had in the back of their heads (ref: "My Favorite
    Martian, supposedly a TV sitcom that was actually produced by the Federation
    Council to help prepare Earthlings for the coming awareness of the existence
    of Martians). The product of this monkey business was homo sapiens, which
    led, of course, to homophobia, but that's another story.

    Anyway, when the Martians realized that Earthlings would soon be sending
    probes to Mars, they quickly enveloped their planet with a layer (think,
    Photoshop) to hide their civilization from our view. Frankly, they didn't
    want anything to do with us, and knew that sooner of later, the solar
    neighborhood would start to deteriorate.

    For one thing, Martians didn't want Earthlings to have a sub-$500 DSLR,
    which they had developed eons ago.

    Anyway, all of the above is true, and you can prove it with a simple
    "google" search, which was invented by Al Gore.

    GCW
     
    GCW, Aug 29, 2003
    #24
  5. GCW wrote in part:


    > GCW <---rethinking Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
    >
    >


    "Yeah, you give US the planet with all the monsters." -Homer J. Simpson

    --

    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 29, 2003
    #25
  6. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    George Kerby <> wrote in message news:<BB73EC2F.10375%>...
    > On 8/28/03 5:07 PM, in article J2v3b.219135$cF.71358@rwcrnsc53, "Bowser"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > And you're basing your age on a man-made book that's a couple of thousand
    > > years old?
    > >
    > > "blech" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> "Bryce" <> wrote in message

    > news:<7Mp3b.51$>...
    > >>> 6,000 years?
    > >>>
    > >>> You are a loser!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> So tell us, how old is earth? Give me the actual age, not some
    > >> estimate made with man-made measuring techniques.
    > >> It's all conjecture. His. Yours. All of it.

    > >
    > >

    > No. He's asking what's your basis for the estimate. I must admit 6,000 had
    > to be a typo on the part of the original poster. MY conjecture is that the
    > o.p. Meant "60,000 years", the estimated time that Mars last passed this
    > close to Terra Firma. But Blech's point is that none of us know nothing more
    > than man's own made-up timetable.
    >


    I'm not sure what the op's intent is/was, but there are some scientists
    who claim the earth is around 10,000 or so years old. Many theories about
    strata and how they were formed over millenia were proven false during the
    eruption of Mount St. Helen's. Layers were formed in weeks that are identical
    to layers that were formed over "millions" of years.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/caps/articles/floodstrata.html
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #26
  7. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    "Bowser" <> wrote in message news:<%Vu3b.222466$Oz4.58908@rwcrnsc54>...
    > If it's all estimates and theory, how can you logically claim it was created
    > about 6K years ago?


    I didn't. I wrote "it's ALL estimates and theory". That means mine, yours,
    everyone's.


    > FWIW, I'll trust carbon dating and hard science over a book written a couple
    > of thousand years ago.


    Where is this "hard science"? One day carbon dating says object X is
    2 million years old, and the next a new metheod says it's 10 million
    years old. New discoveries are being made all the time and scientists have
    to "re-write" their theories and throw out the old theories that they
    claimed to be fact.


    >
    > "blech" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > wrote in message

    > news:<>...
    > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:18:57 -0500 (CDT),
    > > > (AnOvercomer) wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >Earth was created about 6,000 years ago so I doubt any man has seen

    > Mars
    > > > >this close to Earth before.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > I believe you have made an error with this figure.
    > > >
    > > > MJ

    > >
    > > How so? Tell us, without a doubt, how old earth is. Let us know
    > > the exact age, not an estimate based on a dating metheod that was
    > > devised by the estimator or someone else. You can't. It's ALL estimates
    > > and theory.
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #27
  8. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    dslr <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > blech wrote:
    > >
    > > "Bryce" <> wrote in message news:<7Mp3b.51$>...
    > > > 6,000 years?
    > > >
    > > > You are a loser!

    > >
    > > So tell us, how old is earth? Give me the actual age, not some
    > > estimate made with man-made measuring techniques.
    > > It's all conjecture. His. Yours. All of it.

    >
    > Time is an illusion - lunchtime doubly so!


    I'm paid for my lunch hour!
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #28
  9. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    Karen Weissman <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > > And you're basing your age on a man-made book that's a couple of thousand
    > > > > years old?
    > > >
    > > > Are you referring to the book that says the earth is flat and has four
    > > > corners? The book that talks about unicorns and fire breathing
    > > > dragons? That would be the Bible, and if it is right about those
    > > > things....

    > >
    > > The Bible states "as far as the East is from the West". You can head east
    > > forever and you'll still be moving east no matter how many times you
    > > circle the earth but if you head north, you'll reach a point where you'll
    > > be heading south. That can only happen on an earth that is round.

    >
    > Yes, but how do you get all of that from "as far as the East is from the West"
    > ????
    > Especially the part about if you head north you will eventually be heading south?


    Then head north. As soon as you cross the north pole, you'll be heading
    south. Head east, the is no "east pole", you'll always be heading east.



    > You remind me of some tv evangelist I saw one night who read some passage out of
    > the bible, and then said: "What God is saying here is that all heavy metal music
    > is evil."


    Except I haven't preached a single word. You're making assumptions about
    my religion and you haven't a clue. Narrow minded person, you are.


    >
    > The bible clearly states that the earth has four corners, and the part about
    > satan bringing Jesus up the highest mountain so he could see all of the earth
    > shows again that back when the bible was written, they thought the world was
    > flat, and thus that theory got written into this book.
    >
    > You DO realize it is just a mythology book don't you? Just like Greek
    > Mythology and all it's wacky creatures and gods, Christian Mythology has all it's
    > characters.


    You DO realize even atheist historians admit Jesus was an actual person?
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #29
  10. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    Karen Weissman <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > > > You are a loser!
    > > > >
    > > > > So tell us, how old is earth? Give me the actual age, not some
    > > > > estimate made with man-made measuring techniques.
    > > > > It's all conjecture. His. Yours. All of it.
    > > >
    > > > So would be your guess on the actual age of the pyramids in Egypt, but if >someone told you they were only
    > > > 200 years old, you would call them a loser too, and rightfully so.

    > >
    > > I'm not sure, but aren't the pyramids *recorded* history?
    > > We know from records that they have been around for awhile.

    >
    > The point is, we don't know exactly, that is theory, but we know they are more than 200 years old, that is
    > fact. Just as we don't know the age of the earth, but we know for fact that it is more than 6000 years old.
    >
    > > We haven't a clue about "flying reptiles"

    >
    > Birds.


    See, now you're talking about a modern animal. That has nothing to do with
    a flying reptile fossil. Nice spin though.


    >
    > > apples to oranges.

    >
    > Both fruit.
    >
    > > > You don't have to know the actual age to know what age it is not.
    > > >
    > > > I don't know your actual age, but I know you are not 2 years old and not 200 years old. How am I able
    > > > to determine that without measuring techniques and still know it is a fact?

    > >
    > > We know the average lifespan of a modern human, so that's too easy.

    >
    > But we also know the earth is older than 6000 years, that too is too easy.


    Ok, so you say. Where is the proof?

    >
    > > Once we start trying to date objects that are thousands and perhaps
    > > millions of years old, the margin for error increases. It's one thing
    > > to look at a human and have 2 people guess his age. The guesses will be
    > > fairly close. Those same 2 people might guess the age of a fossil and
    > > be thousands or more years apart.

    >
    > Right, but neither person will say the fossils are only 200 years old.
    >
    > > > For the same way we know the earth is older than 6000 years.

    > >
    > > But no one has told me how we have dated this with absolute certainty.

    >
    > No, only that we know with absolute certainty that the earth is not 6000 years old. No one can give an
    > absolute date of the earth, only what it can NOT be.


    Again, where is the proof it's older than 6000 years? I'm not saying
    it is or isn't, only you cannot prove it is either way.


    >
    > > My guess is in the thousands of years and some scientific types guess
    > > is billions.

    >
    > Thousands it is not. Billions is closer according to common sense and just looking at what we have to judge
    > that by. But if it is just a few billions, or billions of billions of years, we don't have a clue.
    >
    > > Neither one of us can give an absolute, only estimates
    > > based on what we percieve to be true.

    >
    > But we can all agree that the earth is not 200 years old, and MOST of us can agree that it is not 6000 years
    > old. The more years you add, the more harder it is to find people that can agree.
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #30
  11. AnOvercomer

    AnOvercomer Guest

    Where in the Bible does it say the Earth is flat?

    Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told
    you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of
    the earth?
    Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
    inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
    heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

    Cody H.
    =================================

    Group: rec.photo.digital Date: Thu, Aug 28, 2003, 10:40pm (CDT+5) From:
    (Jair X.)

    Are you referring to the book that says the earth is flat and has four
    corners?   The book that talks about unicorns and fire breathing
    dragons?     That would be the Bible, and if it is right about those
    things....


    http://community.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/Truth
     
    AnOvercomer, Aug 29, 2003
    #31
  12. AnOvercomer

    AnOvercomer Guest

    AnOvercomer, Aug 29, 2003
    #32
  13. AnOvercomer

    Bowser Guest

    Yes, scientists do change their "theories" from time to time. That's why
    they call them theories. But when confronted with contradictions contained
    in The Book, creationists will scoff and will not yield one bit. They are
    inflexible, and generally not open to discussing the vagaries and
    inconsistensies in their book, regardless of how vague the actual text may
    be. And the text can be not only vague, but incoherent at times.

    FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    scientists, and explains much of what we see.

    "blech" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > Where is this "hard science"? One day carbon dating says object X is
    > 2 million years old, and the next a new metheod says it's 10 million
    > years old. New discoveries are being made all the time and scientists have
    > to "re-write" their theories and throw out the old theories that they
    > claimed to be fact.
    >
    >
     
    Bowser, Aug 29, 2003
    #33
  14. AnOvercomer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/28/03 9:47 PM, in article , "Karen
    Weissman" <> wrote:

    > ????
    > Especially the part about if you head north you will eventually be heading
    > south?


    >
    >

    Dear Karen/Dana/Smitty/whateverthefuckyoucallyourselfthisminute:
    If cannot follow the above statement, you would in no way be able to
    understand breathing. Seek the proper medical help at once.


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 29, 2003
    #34
  15. AnOvercomer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/29/03 6:45 AM, in article
    c2H3b.3999$, "Bowser" <>
    wrote:

    >
    > FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    > use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    > of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    > scientists, and explains much of what we see.

    Agreed. Both depend largely on faith. Those that are inflexable will never
    be able accept others thought/ideas. Only the open-minded will be able to
    accept the unseeable and not demand "proof" of things.


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 29, 2003
    #35
  16. AnOvercomer

    daytripper Guest

    On 29 Aug 2003 14:37:10 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:

    >On 8/29/03 6:45 AM, in article
    >c2H3b.3999$, "Bowser" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    >> use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    >> of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    >> scientists, and explains much of what we see.

    >Agreed. Both depend largely on faith. Those that are inflexable will never
    >be able accept others thought/ideas. Only the open-minded will be able to
    >accept the unseeable and not demand "proof" of things.


    [..../]

    Bullcrapometer
     
    daytripper, Aug 29, 2003
    #36
  17. AnOvercomer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/29/03 10:15 AM, in article ,
    "daytripper" <> wrote:

    > On 29 Aug 2003 14:37:10 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/29/03 6:45 AM, in article
    >> c2H3b.3999$, "Bowser" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    >>> use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    >>> of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    >>> scientists, and explains much of what we see.

    >> Agreed. Both depend largely on faith. Those that are inflexable will never
    >> be able accept others thought/ideas. Only the open-minded will be able to
    >> accept the unseeable and not demand "proof" of things.

    >
    > [..../]
    >
    > Bullcrapometer

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Need I say more?
    I rest my case...


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 29, 2003
    #37
  18. AnOvercomer

    daytripper Guest

    On 29 Aug 2003 15:41:02 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:

    >On 8/29/03 10:15 AM, in article ,
    >"daytripper" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 29 Aug 2003 14:37:10 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/29/03 6:45 AM, in article
    >>> c2H3b.3999$, "Bowser" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    >>>> use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    >>>> of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    >>>> scientists, and explains much of what we see.
    >>> Agreed. Both depend largely on faith. Those that are inflexable will never
    >>> be able accept others thought/ideas. Only the open-minded will be able to
    >>> accept the unseeable and not demand "proof" of things.

    >>
    >> [..../]
    >>
    >> Bullcrapometer

    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >Need I say more?
    >I rest my case...


    Yes, indeed one can only hope you will cease your feeble attempts to drive
    physics down to the level of a bunch of wine-crazed shepherds...
     
    daytripper, Aug 29, 2003
    #38
  19. Charles Robinson, Aug 29, 2003
    #39
  20. AnOvercomer

    blech Guest

    daytripper <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 29 Aug 2003 15:41:02 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 8/29/03 10:15 AM, in article ,
    > >"daytripper" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 29 Aug 2003 14:37:10 GMT, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On 8/29/03 6:45 AM, in article
    > >>> c2H3b.3999$, "Bowser" <>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> FWIW, the scientists and the religious crowd can peacefully coexist if they
    > >>>> use just a little thought. Of the four cosmological proofs of the existence
    > >>>> of God, one, the one I like to cling to, dovetails perfectly with the
    > >>>> scientists, and explains much of what we see.
    > >>> Agreed. Both depend largely on faith. Those that are inflexable will never
    > >>> be able accept others thought/ideas. Only the open-minded will be able to
    > >>> accept the unseeable and not demand "proof" of things.
    > >>
    > >> [..../]
    > >>
    > >> Bullcrapometer

    > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > >Need I say more?
    > >I rest my case...

    >
    > Yes, indeed one can only hope you will cease your feeble attempts to drive
    > physics down to the level of a bunch of wine-crazed shepherds...


    So you're a physicist?

    I wonder what a real physicist would say about this?

    "So, many if not most of the major branches of science were founded by
    Bible-believing Christians. As a physicist I also find it intriguing
    that the five greatest physicists in history--Newton, Faraday,
    Thompson, Maxwell, and Einstein--were each outspoken in their belief
    that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Furthermore, four of
    the five were staunch Christians with firm convictions that the Bible
    is the authoritative Word of God." Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.


    Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of
    gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy
    conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and
    invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ
    as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on
    these topics.

    Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all
    time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism,
    invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the
    field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his
    church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible
    and in prayer.

    John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which
    revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing
    Christian.

    William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the
    all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal
    scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and
    second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian,
    opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In
    1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement
    that, "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms
    creative power.

    Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He
    wrote, ."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our
    belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to
    understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a
    superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to
    comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

    I doubt you were taught any of this in college.
     
    blech, Aug 29, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Blinky the Shark

    Re: What's the biggest ATA hard disk in the world now?

    Blinky the Shark, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    583
  2. Fred McKenzie

    Photos from the World's Biggest Digital Camera

    Fred McKenzie, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    384
    Eric Gisin
    Aug 30, 2003
  3. Sosumi

    Biggest Santa in the World, caught by D300

    Sosumi, Dec 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    292
    John McWilliams
    Dec 20, 2007
  4. my
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    787
  5. Graham.
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,104
    Woody
    Jun 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page