GardenBanter.co.uk

GardenBanter.co.uk (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/)
-   United Kingdom (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/united-kingdom/)
-   -   In time (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/united-kingdom/181325-time.html)

'Mike'[_4_] 19-02-2009 06:20 PM

In time
 
What will your garden look like in 2,000,000 (2 Million) years time?

(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36 Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)

Mike

--
.................................................. ..............



moghouse 19-02-2009 06:45 PM

In time
 
On Feb 19, 5:20*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36 Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!

'Mike'[_4_] 19-02-2009 06:51 PM

In time
 


--
.................................................. ..............
"moghouse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36 Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!

------------------------------

and you think you are important?

Sorry, NO subscribers to this newsgroup are important, no matter what they
think.

Kindest possible regards

Mike



Stewart Robert Hinsley 19-02-2009 08:23 PM

In time
 
In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36 Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5
billion years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the
Big Bang have converged on 13.7 billion years.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

'Mike'[_4_] 19-02-2009 08:46 PM

In time
 


--
.................................................. ..............
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36
Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the Big Bang
have converged on 13.7 billion years.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley


Which goes to show, that no matter which figures you apply, man's presence
on Earth is nothing less than a layer of dust. So I ask again, how important
are you in the minute time we are here?

Not at all, but look how important SOME people think they are :-)))



Jeff[_13_] 19-02-2009 09:11 PM

In time
 
'Mike' wrote:

Christina Websell 19-02-2009 09:12 PM

In time
 

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


-- .................................................. .............
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36
Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)

Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the Big Bang
have converged on 13.7 billion years.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley


Which goes to show, that no matter which figures you apply, man's presence
on Earth is nothing less than a layer of dust. So I ask again, how
important are you in the minute time we are here?

Not at all, but look how important SOME people think they are :-)))

sigh
I have no idea what my garden will look like even a million years hence.
It's not anything I will have to worry about.
At the moment it's full of snowdrops and the species crocus are rearing
their heads, it's lovely and gives me hope that spring is not far away.




[email protected] 19-02-2009 09:22 PM

In time
 
In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36 Thousand
Million)

Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5
billion years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the
Big Bang have converged on 13.7 billion years.)


Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.

Personally, I like Reginald's views on evolution: "in most people
that I know, the process is far from complete." This thread merely
confirms me in by views.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

moghouse 19-02-2009 09:39 PM

In time
 
On Feb 19, 7:46*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
--
.................................................. .............
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in ...





In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36
Thousand
Million)


Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the Big Bang
have converged on 13.7 billion years.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley


Which goes to show, that no matter which figures you apply, man's presence
on Earth is nothing less than a layer of dust. So I ask again, how important
are you in the minute time we are here?

Not at all, but look how important SOME people think they are :-)))- Hide quoted text -


OK, I confess....I haven't had a big bang lately! I'm really sorry you
have such a low opinion of your self - sadly I think you may be right.

Christina Websell 19-02-2009 10:13 PM

In time
 

wrote in message
...

Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.


This is beautiful. I'm going to send it to my German friend, she thinks she
understands English. Until she saw this ;-)
LOL

Tina



Stewart Robert Hinsley 19-02-2009 10:29 PM

In time
 
In message , Christina Websell
writes

wrote in message
...

Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.


This is beautiful. I'm going to send it to my German friend, she thinks she
understands English. Until she saw this ;-)
LOL


The way I put the sentiment is that any sufficiently advanced physics is
indistinguishable from nonsense. (Tip of the hat to Sir Arthur.)

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

[email protected] 19-02-2009 10:51 PM

In time
 
In article ,
Christina Websell wrote:

wrote in message
...

Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.


This is beautiful. I'm going to send it to my German friend, she thinks she
understands English. Until she saw this ;-)
LOL


Well, I am a professional pedant :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Fuschia[_2_] 19-02-2009 11:04 PM

In time
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:39:52 -0800 (PST), moghouse
wrote:

On Feb 19, 7:46*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
--
.................................................. .............
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in ...





In message
,
moghouse writes
On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
(The Earth is reputed to be 36,000,000,000 years old. That is 36
Thousand
Million)


Just think, how important are you really? ........ ;-)


Well the real point is, Mike, all those years of evolution and
improvement have been leading up to..........me!


He could at least have got the age right. (The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old; the estimates of the time that have passed since the Big Bang
have converged on 13.7 billion years.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley


Which goes to show, that no matter which figures you apply, man's presence
on Earth is nothing less than a layer of dust. So I ask again, how important
are you in the minute time we are here?

Not at all, but look how important SOME people think they are :-)))- Hide quoted text -



OK, I confess....I haven't had a big bang lately! I'm really sorry you
have such a low opinion of your self - sadly I think you may be right.


:) :) :)

[email protected] 19-02-2009 11:07 PM

In time
 
In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Christina Websell
writes


Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.


This is beautiful. I'm going to send it to my German friend, she thinks she
understands English. Until she saw this ;-)
LOL


The way I put the sentiment is that any sufficiently advanced physics is
indistinguishable from nonsense. (Tip of the hat to Sir Arthur.)


Yes :-) Actually, that's not the thing that annoys me most about the
cosmologists - it's the way that all their evidence depends on a very
complicated analysis of the data, which can only be done by assuming
their hypothesis! It's tortoises all the way down ....

We have damn-all direct evidence of general relativity at high space-
time stresses, or even that the red shift is due to recession, and
there are alternative hypotheses that are mathematically consistent
and compatible with known physics. Yes, they're probably wrong, but
that doesn't prove the current hypotheses are right.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Christina Websell 19-02-2009 11:28 PM

In time
 

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , Christina Websell
writes

wrote in message
...

Well, given that most current cosmology would be rejected from a
fiction competition on the grounds of insufficient plausibility,
I am disinclined to criticise anyone for choosing an arbitrarily
different figure. I am not inclined to believe him, either, of
course.


This is beautiful. I'm going to send it to my German friend, she thinks
she
understands English. Until she saw this ;-)
LOL


The way I put the sentiment is that any sufficiently advanced physics is
indistinguishable from nonsense. (Tip of the hat to Sir Arthur.)


Oh, stop it!





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter