Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable) 1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12. 2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written. 3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc. 4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior. 5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all. Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
This has been fun, but when did the list start discussing literary fiction? ;o)
Ron, I love a challenge. ;-) and I reall don't want to fuel a religious debate, especially in this forum, but I have a couple of comments (astronomy related) and I also believe that your post needs a correction or two: 1. I've always been fascinated by the references in Genesis to "lights." Consider also that the rainbow was apparently never observed until after the flood and you have some food for thought, indeed. Anyone have other thoughts/theories? 2. God is consistently referred to as "Father" in both the old and new testaments. I've always thought that "father" was gender-specific, i.e. male. 3. Isn't Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus Christ the offspring of God? 4. I agree - the whole Mary cult thing is a relatively recent development in Catholic theology. 5. You lost me here. And finally, back to astronomy: happy or merry Hannukah, Christmas, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti - and/or solstice. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RON VANDERHULE Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:44 AM To: utah-astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable) 1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or + name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12. 2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written. 3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc. 4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior. 5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all. Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
Book-club fiction debate. On 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Ron, I love a challenge. ;-) and I reall don't want to fuel a religious debate, especially in this forum, but I have a couple of comments (astronomy related) and I also believe that your post needs a correction or two:
1. I've always been fascinated by the references in Genesis to "lights." Consider also that the rainbow was apparently never observed until after the flood and you have some food for thought, indeed. Anyone have other thoughts/theories?
2. God is consistently referred to as "Father" in both the old and new testaments. I've always thought that "father" was gender-specific, i.e. male.
3. Isn't Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus Christ the offspring of God?
4. I agree - the whole Mary cult thing is a relatively recent development in Catholic theology.
5. You lost me here.
And finally, back to astronomy: happy or merry Hannukah, Christmas, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti - and/or solstice.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RON VANDERHULE Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:44 AM To: utah-astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or + name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations. Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Fantastical explanations were probably the only way ancient aliens had to communicate complex theories about cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. to a bunch of goat herders. ;-) Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations. Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
I guess it gets down to wether you believe the astronomers theories about origins of life or rather how the elements that make life possible form. Seems to me the creation of the universe happened billions of years before the earth existed, which really throws a wrench into the Book of Genesis. So to keep this on topic does anyone really dispute the astronomers view on the life and death of stars and the creation of our "great light" ruling the day. You can call the Sun whatever you want it won't change what it is. Absolutely we have a limited understanding of the "natural" world, but we do know much more than 2000 years ago.
"Massive stars burn brighter and perish more dramatically than most. When a star ten times more massive then Sun exhaust the helium in the core, the nuclear fusion cycle continues. The carbon core contracts further and reaches high enough temperature to burn carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, sulphur and finally to iron. Iron is the most stable form of nuclear matter and there is no energy to be gained by converting it to any heavier element. Without any source of heat to balance the gravity, the iron core collapses until it reaches nuclear densities. This high density core resists further collapse causing the in-falling matter to 'bounce' off the core. This sudden core bounce (which includes the release of energetic neutrinos from the core) produces a supernova explosion. For one brilliant month, a single star burns brighter than a whole galaxy of a billion stars. Supernova explosions inject carbon, oxygen, silicon and other heavy elements up to iron into interstellar space. They are also the site where most of the elements heavier than iron are produced. Future generations of stars formed from this heavy element enriched gas will therefore start life with a richer supply of heavier elements than the earlier generations of stars. Without supernova, the fiery death of massive stars, there would be no carbon, oxygen or other elements that make life possible." Fantastical explanations were probably the only way ancient aliens had to
communicate complex theories about cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. to a bunch of goat herders. ;-)
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you really want to start a discussion around religion? I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations. Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science. The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science. The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
Seriously, I agree that all aspects of astronomy, including cosmology, should be open in an astronomy discussion group. I love a good clean debate. (I feel the same way about talking over global warming, but that turned out to be so controversial, with such harsh rhetoric, that we decided to ban the topic.) Any way you consider it, creation is an immense mystery. It doesn't bother me at all to read the opinions of others, including religious views. Anyone who doesn't like it can just delete notes with the offending heading. -- Joe --- On Thu, 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:23 PM In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Creation is a mystery but it seems to have happened billions of years before the creation of our "Great Light of the Day". I am open to the thought of God as the creator, just not in the way it is described in Genesis. Cosmology casts deep questions on biblical explanations.
Seriously, I agree that all aspects of astronomy, including cosmology,
should be open in an astronomy discussion group. I love a good clean debate. (I feel the same way about talking over global warming, but that turned out to be so controversial, with such harsh rhetoric, that we decided to ban the topic.) Any way you consider it, creation is an immense mystery. It doesn't bother me at all to read the opinions of others, including religious views. Anyone who doesn't like it can just delete notes with the offending heading. -- Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:23 PM In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
There are literal readings of the Bible and symbolic readings. It seems useless to quibble over whether some stories are meant to be taken literally. -- Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 12/2/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From: erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:59 PM
Creation is a mystery but it seems to have happened billions of years before the creation of our "Great Light of the Day". I am open to the thought of God as the creator, just not in the way it is described in Genesis. Cosmology casts deep questions on biblical explanations.
Seriously, I agree that all aspects of astronomy, including cosmology,
should be open in an astronomy discussion group. I love a good clean debate. (I feel the same way about talking over global warming, but that turned out to be so controversial, with such harsh rhetoric, that we decided to ban the topic.) Any way you consider it, creation is an immense mystery. It doesn't bother me at all to read the opinions of others, including religious views. Anyone who doesn't like it can just delete notes with the offending heading. -- Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:23 PM In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Right, what the bible says either literally or symbolically has no bearing on Astronomical subjects. In either context Genesis omits much natural history of the earth and is the source of centuries old conflict. The useless quibble has led to many bloody wars, even today. It seems more a argument over who was a legitimate son and human claims of land ownership, not science at all.
When the bible conflicts with science I will always choose science. I kind of begs the question. How did this thread begin? Oh, yes Sun ownership. It belongs to everyone. There are literal readings of the Bible and symbolic readings. It seems
useless to quibble over whether some stories are meant to be taken literally. -- Best wishes, Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From: erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:59 PM
Creation is a mystery but it seems to have happened billions of years before the creation of our "Great Light of the Day". I am open to the thought of God as the creator, just not in the way it is described in Genesis. Cosmology casts deep questions on biblical explanations.
Seriously, I agree that all aspects of astronomy, including cosmology,
should be open in an astronomy discussion group. I love a good clean debate. (I feel the same way about talking over global warming, but that turned out to be so controversial, with such harsh rhetoric, that we decided to ban the topic.) Any way you consider it, creation is an immense mystery. It doesn't bother me at all to read the opinions of others, including religious views. Anyone who doesn't like it can just delete notes with the offending heading. -- Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:23 PM In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I was just trying to be thankful at Thanksgiving time to the owner of the Sun! --as some people wanted to charge others for Sun services. I didn't expect all to agree on everything about God or about what is in the Bible!!! Spencer Ball -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:05 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Right, what the bible says either literally or symbolically has no bearing on Astronomical subjects. In either context Genesis omits much natural history of the earth and is the source of centuries old conflict. The useless quibble has led to many bloody wars, even today. It seems more a argument over who was a legitimate son and human claims of land ownership, not science at all.
When the bible conflicts with science I will always choose science. I kind of begs the question. How did this thread begin? Oh, yes Sun ownership. It belongs to everyone. There are literal readings of the Bible and symbolic readings. It seems
useless to quibble over whether some stories are meant to be taken literally. -- Best wishes, Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From: erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:59 PM
Creation is a mystery but it seems to have happened billions of years before the creation of our "Great Light of the Day". I am open to the thought of God as the creator, just not in the way it is described in Genesis. Cosmology casts deep questions on biblical explanations.
Seriously, I agree that all aspects of astronomy, including cosmology,
should be open in an astronomy discussion group. I love a good clean debate. (I feel the same way about talking over global warming, but that turned out to be so controversial, with such harsh rhetoric, that we decided to ban the topic.) Any way you consider it, creation is an immense mystery. It doesn't bother me at all to read the opinions of others, including religious views. Anyone who doesn't like it can just delete notes with the offending heading. -- Joe
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own" To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:23 PM In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
In too many parts of the US , The Book of Genesis wants to be taught in the classroom as an alternate to evolution. If this is the case the "theories" provided in said book are fair game. Even the chronology in the Genesis is nonsense, the earth was rich in life long before man arose (hundreds of millions of years). Genesis contains some historical facts Isaac's descendants became the tribes of Israel and Ishmael's became Muslims. Life spans seem to have been much longer back then, lasting centuries.
The Book of Genesis is simply a case in point that the bible should not be taken so literally, it was written by ancient man not God. In responding to Ron's post earlier, I was only interested in having a
lively exchange of ideas, not a discussion of religion, per se. I didn't mean to challenge Ron's or anyone's beliefs or to have mine challenged in turn. Most who know me also know that I am a relatively religious person, but I don't take ancient dogma (read: Bible) at face value. Regarding the scientific value of such discussions, in a broad sense astronomy is as much about culture as it is about science. Is it not legitimate on occasion, therefore, to discuss religion in such a context?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
Absolutely, The Book of Genesis is not scientifically based, so lets keep this based on science, and not on wether Ishmael or Isaac are the chosen ones. The Sun is probably about 4 billion years old, humans have been around for about 4 million and dinosaurs existed long before humans.
This is all current science.
The Bible is not a book of science just in case you're confused. Do you
really want to start a discussion around religion?
I suggest you end it here or take it completely off line with those inclined to think as you do.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (7)
-
Chuck Hards -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Joe Bauman -
Kim Hyatt -
Robert Taylor -
RON VANDERHULE -
Spencer Ball