Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Richard Ottolini: "Re: Time, bangs and quantum physics [was Re: Evidence for Big Bang]"
• Previous message: jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""

In article <491@landmark.iinet.net.au>, gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
> In article <23APR199517035218@rosie.uh.edu>, JAMES BENTHALL (st26h@rosie.uh.edu) writes:
>>In article <1995Apr21.143347.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>>In article <D7Bp5K.J1I@crash.cts.com>, roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) writes:
>>>> OK, I'll bite. What's the difference between nature and God?
>>>
>>>One is a human invention?
>>>
>>
>>Great repost! I love it!
>>
>
> Yes quite remarkable isn't it. Here we have an astronomer coming out
> to proclaim Nature as a human invention, while God reigns eternal.
>
> Or is he? Hard to tell, one way or the other . . .

Whooooooooosh! (In case you haven't caught on, you missed it.
Apparenly went right over your head).

For the intellectually impaired, the implication was that god was a
human invention. Do you get it now?

• Next message: Richard Ottolini: "Re: Time, bangs and quantum physics [was Re: Evidence for Big Bang]"
• Previous message: jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""