Adventist Online

Response to...Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

According to certain atheist 'friends' of mine. "Science flies you to the moon but religion flies you into buildings." This is quite a sad quote when you look at the true history of NASA and the fact that it was actually Nazism that flew us to the moon. Anyone who has done any research can tell you that Von Braun was a Nazi that got off easy because America wanted his V2 rocket technology. That is the sad problem with science. The thing is knowledge has not nor will not ever evolve. Knowledge can only be created through experience. Everyone knows that the Nazi scientists 'experienced' their knowledge by doing tests on human beings to test their limits, etc. You know like freezing people to see how cold you can make someone and still be able to bring them back.

Just remember because knowledge cannot be evolved (it was created by God) the Nazis had to steal their knowledge by creating bizarre experiences like putting people in vacuum chambers to see how long people could survive. Now we know how Von Braun got his knowledge about the vacuum of space. It was stolen from the lives of his concentration camp victims. Von Braun later became a celebrity even making the front page of a then famous magazine. (Time)

Well should we really cry then when religions attack a great satan? Well I guess we should disagree, I guess. So next time you hear about the next great medical breakthrough, please offer up a moment of silence for the Africans or the Indians who had to die in order to release this knowledge. If you want knowledge I guess you will just have to be like King Solomon (of Song of Solomon fame) and pray for wisdom and understanding, Amen.

Views: 172

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Where did I confuse "conspiracy" with "conspiracy theory"? I dislike butchering English even more than you do, so please tell me. When I said "Mordecai's conspiracy", I just meant the conspiracy that Mordecai was involved in.

I think the Jews were aware of the decree. I mean, how secret can you keep a plan to exterminate an entire race? Mordecai may have discovered that Haman was behind it, but the decree itself was not a secret. Even if nobody knew who was behind the decree, Mordecai still could have stopped it. So the conspiracy in question was nothing like "the Jesuits infiltration" or "evil Nazi pharmacists".

Yes, I believe those quotes you posted. Are you assuming that because I don't believe every conspiracy theory I hear, that I don't believe in conspiracies? I certainly do believe I exist, but I'm not willing to believe them without proof.
@nishaun: I should probably clarify a few things.

1. I am not an American, nor do I generally find Americans any more trustworthy than the Chinese or Indians.
2. I find radical socialism is just as destructive as radical capitalism. Both are necessary in a balanced and well functioning society that cares about the fate of others. Good examples: Norway, Finland, New Zealand.
3. In general, scare mongering by throwing terms intended to belittle people who disagree makes one look desprate and as one with nothing of value to actually say. Shouting doesn't make you sound more intelligent.

@rush4hire: Evolutionary theory is not a useless leech with no contribution. As with all the best lies, there is a large amount of truth mixed in of course. For example, the concept of natural selection is a major component of evolutionary theory that any creationist scientist will tell you is solidly grounded in fact.

Evolutionary concepts have helped to guide biological study in combating pathogens (the theory may be crude but it can often be helpful). The concepts have also been extended to fields like computer science and electronic engineering to come up with novel solutions to problems.

Of course that doesn't mean Darwinian evolution is the truth, there are many problems when you try to stretch the theory this far. However dismissing evolutionary theory in its entirety reminds me of those Christians who insist dinosaur bones are a hoax... who in turn remind me of the flat earth society which to this day claims the earth is flat and Australia is a made up continent, I kid you not :)
Well I have never been 'downunder', but if you say so, I guess it is real.

Don't give evolution too much credit for science, driveby shootings have done 'far' more.
In some cases American army medics will actually train in urban areas. (That's so sad it makes me want to cry.)

I am also not American. I generally find Americans less trustworthy. But at least a Christian can walk around without beheadings etc. Well for the most part.
I didn't say untrustworthy. I said, no less trustworhty than the Chinese or Indians. Believe me, the fires down here right now are real. I could be part of the round-earth conspiracy though ;)

I didn't say evolution was a great scientific theory, but elements of it are based in reality and those happen to be constructive to scientific research. Other elements are based in philosophy and assumption and tend to be less usefull (though often not completely useles... generally any kind of framework even flawed, tends to be better than no framework at all).
I would say evolution is a great scientific theory. But not a great scientific reality. America is also not real, I see no evidence of it when I look outside.
Gravitation is also a theory. It can not be proven without the assumption of causality. And the only real reason to have a firm belief in causality is because of a belief in the existence of an orderly God.

Really, any scientific theory comes down to the assumptions you make. This is why the theory of evolution is limited in utility because of some incorrect assumptions (some not all).
Travis said:
Are you assuming that because I don't believe every conspiracy theory I hear, that I don't believe in conspiracies?

Are there really individuals who believe every conspiracy theory they hear? I guess anything's possible. I marvel to imagine.

Travis said:
I certainly do believe I exist, but I'm not willing to believe them without proof.

Who would believe anything without proof? I'm just curious, Travis. What do you call proof? Take for instance the World Trade Center towers and WTC7. All three buildings came down, supposedly because of fire. The first three, and the only three, steel frame buildings ever to collapse because of fire came down all in the same day. Where are our probability experts?

Do you believe that? Is there proof that it's even possible that a steel frame building can come down by fire? If it is possible, then why has it never happened ever before. These buildings have endured white hot fires for over 20 hours and have remained standing. If you can bring down a skyscraper by just starting a fire, then why do they spend tens of thousands of dollars on demolition experts? Why don't they just go up there and start a fire?

Think of how ridiculous such a thought is. And there are so many other facts, including these few:

1. The enormous heat signature that was there for months after the collapse, which is characteristic of high tech explosives, such as would be necessary to bring such a building down.
2. The "pop pop pop" sound that was heard by over 50 eye-witnesses and caught on video.
3. The 8 second collapse which could only have occurred in a vacuum, such as would have been created by the explosions.
4. The individuals who where murdered, in cold blood, for exposing the truth.

I wonder how much evidence you would need to justify an investigation.

Travis, do you love justice and truth? Or do you love evil men who will sacrifice thousands of our children for $billions in profit? Jesus said he comes to save men's lives. If we expose these wicked men, they will have to think much harder the next time they start a needless war for profit. And that will save lives.

Should we be their cattle?
You can hopefully find some answers at I'm sure that being as truth-loving as you say you will not automatically dismiss everything that any reputable person says.

So, sorry, you'll need better proof.
@rush4hire: I'm not really decided on what was behind the 11th of September attacks in NY since I don't have enough information and/or am not smart enough to work it out :) However I did want to ask about some of the points you made.

You said these were the only steel frame building to be brought down by fire. Why hasn't it happened before? When's the last time someone's landed an air liner inside a steel frame building before?

Why bring in demolition experts? Because controlled explosives are safer and neater. Because it's cheaper than dousing the building in several tonnes of jet fuel. And keep in mind the actual impact weakened the frame in a way "just starting a fire" does not.

So let's do some maths. UA Flight 175 (which hit the south tower) is a Boeing 767-200. To fly from NY to LA it requires 60498 litres of jet fuel (7991 gallons... sorry not good with imperial measurements :P). Since the plane was heading for LA it would have to have at least this much fuel.

60.5 kL of jet fuel has 1054 GJ of energy (that's gigajoules). That's the same amount of energy that's contained in 252 tonnes of TNT. (Yes, TNT doesn't pack energy very tightly... it's just able to release it very quickly). So, that's probably enough energy to bring down a steel building :)

With respect to your four points:

1. 252 tonnes of TNT. I think that's enough energy to retain heat for a long time.
2. Never heard of the popping sound, could be snapping girders after initial explosion? Would need more info.
3. Not sure what you mean here? Are you suggesting explosions force all the air out of the building or they burn up all the oxygen? How does this affect the collapse? There's not really enough air resistance to force the building to tip anyway... again don't understand.
4. Ah the politics side of things I don't know much about.

Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Only cause Travis hasn't accepted some dubious evidence doesn't mean he wants to steal lots of money and hates Jesus. Lets remain calm :)
If it was the impact, the buildings would have collapsed as soon as they where hit, not an hour afterwards. That would have been more believable, but they had the decency to give the occupants time to evacuate before they set off the charges.

And those buildings where designed to withstand the impact of airliners.

I haven't had time to gather any resources, but I guess I should. I will have to make another topic.

I didn't say Travis loved money. Where did you get that from? But Travis is out of control. He gives me nothing but opposition. No matter what I say, he either opposes it or says nothing.
Well, if they were designed to withstand the impact of airliners then they did their job, 'cause they kept standing as you say. They probably weren't designed to withstand 60000 litres of burning jet fuel though :) There's only so much you can do with steel... things may have been different if there was more cement in the structure.

And there's only so far you can overengineer a building, if we had infinite resources we'd put 2 metre steel barriers around all buildings but who could afford to do that in the real world?

You know, I've been on boths sides of the fence on conspiracy theories in the past, that taught me a lot. For example, these days I look at this twin tower collapse thing and realise my opinion carries little value unless I've studied how buildings collapse for the last 10 years of my life. You simply can not predict things that don't happen in your every day experience.

Like, take the landing on the moon thing. Conspiracy theorists claim there's a breeze in the studio which is making the flag on the surface of the moon flap back and forth. Except if you watch carefully it actually doesn't behave exactly like that... it DOES behave exactly how it should in a vaccuum as described by simple harmonic motion; this is maths I did in year 12.

As for Travis, well at least he respects your opinion enough that he thinks it's worth his time challenging it. It's an opportunity. Probably not as bad as you make it out :)
I do? I'm sorry that you feel that way (I suppose it wouldn't be appropriate to say, "I'm sorry that you're always wrong!" ;-) ) I'm also sorry that you think I'm "out of control" and want nothing more than to oppose you. I try not to oppose people so much as their ideas.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service