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: 149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes it would be inappropriate to suggest that i'm always wrong. And highly unreasonable.

So when you take the side of opposition every single time you reply to my posts, mathematically that doesn't add up. That shows that I did something to get on your bad side. Whatever that was I'm sorry. I wish you would tell me what I did.
There are some special cases where disagreeing all the time is possible and needed. I think I agree with Travis ... and this is that kind of case.

What I don't think is good .... is to have a persecution complex. We are just expressing beliefs. They do not need to be made personal.
This is why I preach tolerance for each others beliefs.

Rush has some 'wild' ideas ... but he is entitled to them.

I am sure if i met him in person ... I would like him. I don't like his views ... but I am sure i would like HIM.
I was only joking about you always being wrong, hence the smilie. :)

I highly doubt that I am always opposed to your views. If we were discussing something non-controversial such as "Is Jesus God?" or "How do you spell Seventh-day Adventist?", I would most likely agree with you. But most discussions I join are about something controversial that I have an opinion on, and often you and I disagree. You never did anything to get on my "bad side", as far as I know, except feel that you must rebuke me for believing certain things such as listening to music that you don't like and that it's okay for most people to wear simple wedding rings; both of which are non-salvation issues and should not have a big deal made out of them so that anyone feels mistreated.
You may not have noticed, and understandably so, that I often don't agree with 4Him and the other "liberal" Adventists. The reason you may not have noticed is because while they are equally vocal, they don't usually insist that I see things their way all the time, and neither do I, so the conflict usually shifts to one of the more "conservative" Adventists who pops in.
The internet is often a poor medium for discussion because people sometimes can't tell when someone is joking, or when they are angry or upset. If all of us were talking in real life, we would probably get along much better because I doubt most of us turn red in the face and scream bloody murder when someone disagrees with us, even though that's how it may appear online. That's why moderators work so hard, because often we ourselves can't tell when we're saying something that could seriously hurt someone else. That's why the rules say to treat each other with love (although sometimes people can't even agree what THAT means...).
So, I'm sorry that it seems like I'm always against you, and hopefully now you'll see that that's not the case. If we can all try just a bit harder to treat each other like Jesus would, we'll probably get along a lot better.

And maybe we should just avoid discussing conspiracy theories... ;-)
Good Post Travis. And Hey ... you do actually know how to spell Seventh 'day' Adventists.
I have to say Travis that I appreciate you here on this board. But, I had to do a double take when you called me a 'liberal'. It really stunned me. For I dont' consider myself a 'liberal'. I guess I have liberal views. But my life style is probably more conservative than 90% of those here on this site.

Travis ... I don't even like drums. Well ... I do like the light African syle drums that they have during the Andrews services. But, my belief is that I don't need others to see as I do or as I live MY life. That is why I mentioned tolerance of beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with drums or dancing ... I just don't care for them myself. And I am willing to bet that there is not another person who guards what they do on Sabbath more carefully than what I do. Well ... I could go on and on. But Travis ... I am certainly not liberal in my lifestyle ... just in my beliefs for others.
That's very interesting, because I always pictured you as a liberal. I won't make that mistake again. :P
I don't know the numbers, but jet fuel does not burn nearly hot enough to melt steel. And that fire was not very hot. The smoke was thick billowing black, indicating a low temp fire. This also shows the mechanism that isolates a fire by closing down the ventilation, was working.

Yet other such buildings have withstood over 20 hours of white hot fire, and have not collapsed. The fire was too high up for firemen to reach, so they just had to let it burn itself out.

And we are not just talking about the twin towers. You should say the WTC buildings. That would include all three buildings that collapsed, including WTC 7 which was not even hit by a plane, but suffered just a bit of damage from some debris, and had a fire. What it looks like is, there where 3 planes that where supposed to hit 3 targets, but one of them failed to reach the target for whatever reason. Yet the charges where there, which would have been damning evidence, so they had to blow it anyway.

And don't start talking about unfounded theories like the man on the moon. That's a completely different kind of thing. It's totally unfounded. Why would they go through the trouble of doing that when they could just put a man on the moon? That's really not that much of an accomplishment. That was not fake. I think some people who tell stories like that don't actually believe them. They are like guys who tell ghost stories.
You just have to decide which conspiracy theory you want to believe. The other theory that says some poorly trained Arabs high-jacked 4 planes at the same time, with box-cutters, under the command of some guy in a cave. That seems a little far fetched, to me.

Both are conspiracy theories. We have to admit that a conspiracy must have been involved in this case. Unless you can prove all this was done by one man acting alone. This is nothing like the assassination of JFK.

Speaking of Bin Laden. William Cooper had a radio show. He pointed out how odd it was, that we are told the CIA is looking for Bin Laden because he's a leader of terrorists. But an NBC news host give Bin Laden an interview in his cave. Isn't that funny? Supposedly the CIA can't find him, but an NBC news host walks right in his hide-out with a camera crew.

So he concluded that the CIA was building Bin Laden up as a patsy to take the blame for a fake terrorist attack on US soil that would give us a reason to go to war, like the Lusitania for WW1 and Pearl Harbor for WW2.

And when 9/11 happened he reminded his listeners that's what it was he had been predicting.

What happened to William Cooper? He was shot in his home 3 weeks after 9/11.

And there are similar stories of people who would not keep quiet about 9/11 who where also killed.

Here are the links for Bill Cooper's videos and some other information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7LB0oQpHYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA
http://www.hourofthetime.com/williamcooper.html
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/cooper.html
I agree, the fire could not have burned hot enough to melt steel. It is unlikely to have burned hotter than about 750C, which is only half of the 1500C needed to melt steel.

The billowing black smoke only indicates oxygen starvation. This is not surprising, the fuel mixture was not controlled and would have been very fuel rich. Closing a few small ventilation conduits on a fire of that scale with massive holes sucking in air through the side of the building is likely to be less than relevant. You might as well talk about how much hotter your stove burns when you blow air at the flame through a straw :P

The building would have come down because:
1. Some of the load bearing beams on the exterior of the building were damaged during initial impact.
2. At that temperature the steel is more maleable and its structural integrity is about halved.
3. The almost explosive spread of the fire all around the building created large temperature gradients (due to hotspots) which caused warping in the steel (particularly the steel clips holding it all together).

It only took a few beams to snap and then the remainder were no longer able to hold up the building. Unsurprisingly the building subsequently came down one floor after another.

You can not compare this to other fires that have taken place in sky scrapers. In those cases the fire would have spread slowly leading to lower temperature gradients and it would be far better managed by the sprinkler systems and control of the ventilation ducts etc.


Why you would describe 500,000 tonnes of falling debris as having potential to only cause "just a bit of damage from some [sic] debris" I have no idea. The point is skyscrapers like WTC 7 are designed to withstand winds of hurricane speed. Not the kind of ball of rushing shards of debris generated in the fall of the larger towers. This would have stressed the structural integrity of the tower immensely.


If you think putting a man on the moon is "not much of an accomplishment" then I really don't think you understand the physics involved. I agree, they did it, but that wasn't really my point at all.

How could a bunch of Arabs with wirecutters have emotionally overpowered US citizens and ultimately hijacked the airplanes? Who do you think was expecting them to commit suicide at the time? It's nice to analyse the situation from the cool comfort of your home and conclude no one would have made mistakes like that.

I don't see your point about the NBC new host. It's not like he FOUND bin Ladin, he was led there because bin Ladin wanted to be found obviously. What makes you think he'd be stupid enough to stay in the same cave? What makes you think bin Ladin even resides in a politically enough inocuous area of the world that the presence of CIA operatives would not be problematic. There's a large population of Muslims in western China. This isn't James Bond my friend.

Why were people being killed? I bet that talk show host pissed off a lot of very patriotic Americans. Since they were visible figures it wouldn't be hard for someone who thought they were fullfilling their "national duty" to off them. Emotions were running incredibly high at the time. Do you honestly think the CIA would be dumb enough to validate the opinions of these people by killing them and drawing attention to what they were saying?

Perhaps this whole WTC attack was orchestrated by a 12 year old contracted by the government who just wasn't quite as smart as the legions of conspiracy "researchers" out there, hence why he left a series of simple to follow clues to unravel the whole mystery. Hmmm? ;)

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service