Ed Conrad wrote:

> <
> <
> Here again is that majestic, magnificent, mindboggling
> Hubble Telescope Ultraview photo, taken last year of
> a totally blackened sky that reveals a spectacular view 
> as if seen through an eight-foot-long straw.
> <
> http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-1024.jpg
> <
> Galaxies upon galaxies upon galaxies, and each galaxy
> containing multi-millions of stars and trillions of planets
> and moons, much like our own Milky Way.
> <
> Astonishingly, no one -- if living on a planet in one of these
> galaxies -- can see their closest neighboring galaxy with the
> naked eye. And each star in each galaxy is light years from its
> closest neighboring star.

It's beautiful isn't it.

But are you suggesting that OUR planet is the OLDEST object in the 
ENTIRE universe, according to genesis? (gen 1:1)

Of course your answer would have to be "yes" since the rest of the 
universe, "he made the stars also", was made on day four. (gen 1:16)

Those scientists need to find a way to make the EARTH the oldest thing 
in the universe, wouldn't you agree?

> 
> Imagine, too, that the universe looks like this is ALL directions,
> and there evidently is no end in sight.
> <
> Let the Establishment astronomers and space scientists
> -- the heathens -- downplay the significance of this breathtaking
> photo, crediting it  to a happenstance occurrence called the Big
> Bang. But the Big Bang is getting to look more and more like
> the Big Bang Bust every day.


Oops. But wasn't it SCIENCE that brought you the picture?


> <
> One honest opinion that an Intelligent Designer -- or Intelligent
> DesignerS -- definitely had a hand in construction of the universe
> makes more a lot more sense than the nonsense proposed by
> know-it-all "scientists," the overly educated folks with the alphabet
> soup at the end of their names.

Science starts with the honest understanding that "we DON'T know" and 
the point is to "find out the truth" about what we don't know. It's done 
through the scientific method, and by testing, testing, testing.

By the way, because science is not dependent on belief, ANYBODY can get 
in on knowledge. It's not bias. That's why a Russian scientists can 
build a nuke, just like an American.

But why are you mixing Intelligent Design with science? One has nothing 
to do with the other. Science seeks to know "what" the design IS, how it 
got that way, and how to utilize it for improved knowledge about the world.

(For others to sit back and say, "well, God did it" is perfectly fine. 
But it doesn't answer scientific inquiry, like "what" or "how".)

> 
> Their biased opinion is that life is an accident  wrapped snugly
> around their desire to protect their vested interests. Here, too, is
> mountains of deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy,
> the same accusation as so well fits their physical anthropological
> brethren.

Nooooooooo. That's a misunderstanding. Science is constantly seeking the 
best explanation based on the knowledge we currently have, which is 
constantly changing, and improving, I might add.

What explanation does "God did it" give, in terms of understanding the 
world around us? It answers none of the important questions, like "how 
does it work" and "how can it be used to benefit humankind?"

You seem to be afraid of science while constantly using it. I'll bet you 
a buck you use the Internet, and probably have a cell phone.

Listen, when the Pope got sick, he didn't go to Benni Hinn, did he? He 
went to a doctor; probably one of the best in the world.


> <
> I say it's high time science moves out of the Dark Ages, comes
> to grips with the false doctrine of evolution and concludes that
> ajj sadsack theories -- none based on facts and physical 
> evidence -- had better get out of the way of Intelligent Design,
> or they''ll soon get steamrolled over.

Ed. Facts and physical evidence? Do you really want to go there?

>  
> Ed Conrad
> 
>>http://www.edconrad.com
>