Lunar Water

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Cabal said:
Pray you don't need it one day.

That's for sure.

If I get an ailment, I wouldn't want to have to wait until someone walks on Mars before they find a cure.

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Good --- you produce your ancillary technologies and we won't complain.

But if your programs that produce those ancillary technologies start telling us the Bible is wrong, we'll complain.

And not loudly enough.

And if a science indicates that Genesis 1 may not be literally true will you agree not to use those technologies that come out of it?

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
And if a science indicates that Genesis 1 may not be literally true will you agree not to use those technologies that come out of it?

Are you kidding me?

What science indicates Genesis 1 is literally true in the first place?

None, in my opinion.

Genesis 1 isn't science --- it is history.

A better question would be: And if history indicates that Genesis 1 may not be literally true?

In the which I would respond: history can take a hike.

Or, "you weren't there".

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

dad said:
It isn't us that is doing the squeezing on science. It is squeezing our money.

Quit your complaining, Dad. I was a government scientist for several years. Here's the stuff you don't know:

I worked for the USDA for several years. They are the folks who are responsible for many of the agricultural breakthroughs and food technology breakthroughs that allow you to enjoy living better and richer and more well fed than just about any other society that has ever existed. If you would like to see a list of USDA research accomplishments you can page through THIS LINK

Here's a brief list I'm sure you'd be happy to "live" without (and this is just the USDA research...nothing about the NIH or other research organizations):

Demonstrated that pasteurization kills toxin-producing organisms in raw milk without destroying beneficial lactic acid bacteria.

Texas cattle fever eradicated

Economical methods for producing dextran developed; first used as alternative to blood plasma in Korean War.

Vaccine developed to protect chickens from visceral lymphomatosis

Two publications reporting research on terraces and control of gullies printed. They remain the standard reference works in their field for erosion control.

DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) insect repellent developed.

Demonstrated that raw milk could transmit a bacterium, Brucella abortus, that causes brucellosis in cattle and undulant fever in humans.

Developed methods using calcium to remove strontium-90 radioactivity from wheat and milk.

Discovered molecular structure of transfer RNA.

Discovered that addition of vitamins C and E reduced levels of nitrosamines in fried bacon and nitrite-cured products; industry changed processing to minimize consumer exposure to cancer-causing nitrosamines

Eradicated screwworm fly from the U.S. using sterilization

First electron microscope image produced of virus that causes foot-and-mouth disease in infected animal cells.

Viroids discovered, the smallest known agents of plant disease.

Patented ammoniation process for detoxification of aflatoxin.

Long-term study of dairy improvement started; increased production per cow from 542 pounds of butterfat in 1920 to more than 720 pounds today.

Strain 19 of Brucella abortus developed; formed basis of brucellosis vaccine.

Discovered that selenium is absorbed from roots and carried to the foliage where it kills aphids; the first systemic insecticide.

Demonstrated that water normally lost to runoff could be used to increase growth of grasslands using diversion dams and contour dikes.

Mildew- and rot-proof fabrics and bandages developed.

First simple daily nutrition guide published.

Found that linoleic and linolenic acids were retarding process of making synthetic rubber from butadiene and styrene; solved by partial hydrogenation.

Discovered epoxidation, which allowed production of flexible vinyl

Established that clay particles are minerals with crystalline structures

Technique developed to produce high-quality frozen orange juice concentrate

Revealed that protein similarities between plant and disease organism are involved in susceptibility of the plant to the disease.

[SIZE=+1]Discovered breeding line that could restore fertility to male-sterile wheat plants.

(And they did that all before the mid 1970's! There's tons more in that link)

[/SIZE]AND the research groups at the USDA (and other government funded research) are specifically established to put that research back out to the people at almost no additional cost. In other words we didn't charge a license fee (or a nominal one) for the patents we generated.

I've had patents in both industry and government. The better deal for you the consumer are the patents from the government. That's simple economics. So every time you whine about government funded research, you should get on your knees and thank your God you don't have to pay for the same research if it came out of free-market industry! (You couldn't even begin to afford it).

So why don't you learn a little bit about what government funded science actually does before you complain?

For good things and bad. And then there is the downright evil things like so called science and the foolish fables. If you want to lump that in with science proper, then you can flush the whole thing far as I am concerned.

You know, I bet you wouldn't. I bet the truth is that if you knew what you were throwing away at the very moment you needed that science the most, you'd embrace all that science (or find a way to forget you said this).

If you needed an implantable defibrillator tomorrow to stay alive after a near-death experience, I bet your labeling of the Apollo program as "lunacy" would go right out the window.

And that's fine! Science wouldn't care what you "believed" or "thought". You'd get its benefit regardless. Just like you do every day.

Even if we just use present state knowledge to improve life in the fishbowl, you can pay for it yourself.

HAHAHAHAHA! That's funny! You have no idea. You really don't. Trust me, as one who has seen science from both sides: YOU COULDN'T AFFORD IT.

But otherwise your sentiment's so sweetly naive.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Are you kidding me?

What science indicates Genesis 1 is literally true in the first place?

None, in my opinion.

Genesis 1 isn't science --- it is history.

A better question would be: And if history indicates that Genesis 1 may not be literally true?

In the which I would respond: history can take a hike.

Or, "you weren't there".

Between you and Dad, you're like the Anti-MENSA.

Genesis 1 isn't history, it's a fairy tale.

Snow White, on the other hand. That's definately history, if actual facts and evidence say otherwise, then actual facts and evidence can "take a hike".

LULZ

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
Genesis 1 isn't history, it's a fairy tale.

Then why doesn't Genesis 1 start out: ONCE UPON A TIME?

And as I understand it, fairies don't like the Bible.

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Are you kidding me?

What science indicates Genesis 1 is literally true in the first place?

None, in my opinion.

Genesis 1 isn't science --- it is history.

What a strange, strange world. So science finds "truth", but history doesn't need to necessarily be "true"? I don't get it.

Truth is truth.

(Oh, now I note that if you are ever falsely accused of a crime that you will simply take the punishment rather than resort to the courts and forensic science which would establish your innocence. You are making a fine list of very bad things you wish for yourself, but that's apparently your choice.)

A better question would be: And if history indicates that Genesis 1 may not be literally true?

I thought you'd gone to school. My apologies. So do you not think that scientific investigations bolster historical accounts? Don't you think history leaves any "evidence"?

Oh my.

In the which I would respond: history can take a hike.

You have now narrowed your world down to such a small little cavern that I am shocked. Science and history can now take a hike.

So is this version of God so weak and this sect of Christianity such a tissue that it can't stand up to anything?

That's sad.

Or, "you weren't there".

And when you point at science and history, in the words of one great scholar; three fingers point back at you.

Or are you God? Were you there? More importantly: were you there when the book of Genesis was written?

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Then why doesn't Genesis 1 start out: ONCE UPON A TIME?

So that's the only criterion you use to assess whether a story is fictional?

You don't read much outside of the Bible, do you?

That's one of the great things about literature as art. Sometimes metaphor and fiction can be beautiful and...shockingly...give us incredible insight into reality without being literally true!

I actually find that aspect of Biblical literalists to be the most pitiable. There are parts of the Bible that really function far better as allegory. But when one tries to turn them into literal truth, at least for me, they become a parody and laughable.

As allegory things like the middle part of Job become truly beautiful stories to help us understand that sometimes bad happens to good people. But turn the whole thing into a literal story and it just seems sick.

Again, it's not my religion, so whatever floats your boat I suppose.

And as I understand it, fairies don't like the Bible.

But unicorns aren't hostile to God, if I learned anything from my studies in zoology.

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
There are parts of the Bible that really function far better as allegory.

And Genesis 1 isn't one of them.

God would not start out His Word with allegory:

1 Corinthians 14:19 said:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Allegory implies Omphalos, since allegory is useless without a real-life situation to compare it to.

We are to interpret Genesis 1 literally:

Isaiah 45:18-19 said:
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Then why doesn't Genesis 1 start out: ONCE UPON A TIME?

And as I understand it, fairies don't like the Bible.

Doesn't make it any less of a fantasy setting. It's a tale of magic, of strange magical beasts, of morals (Albeit incredibly twisted and cruel morals, but it has morals nonetheless.), a tale of miracles.

Can't say I blame them. Fairies have their heads in the right place.

Wikipedia said:
A fairy tale is a fictional story that may feature folkloric characters such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, giants, gnomes and talking animals, and usually enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events. In modern-day parlance, the term is also used to describe something blessed with princesses, as in "fairy tale ending" (a happy ending) or "fairy tale romance", though not all fairy tales end happily. Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any far-fetched story. Fairy tales commonly attract young children since they easily understand the archetypal characters in the story.

In cultures where demons and witches are perceived as real, fairy tales may merge into legendary narrativeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend, where the context is perceived by teller and hearers as having historical actuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale#cite_note-1

I've taken the time to highlight the similarities with bold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale#cite_note-1

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
It's a tale of ... strange magical beasts...

I'll call your bluff:

Show me one --- you've got 31 verses to work with.

Nathan Poe · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Then why doesn't Genesis 1 start out: ONCE UPON A TIME?

Because the writers thought "IN THE BEGINNING. . ." sounded better.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'll call your bluff:

Show me one --- you've got 31 verses to work with.

Gladly, take your pick:

Cocatrice.
Behemoths.
Satyrs.
Dragons. (Or "fiery serpents")
Leviathan.
Talking serpents.
The beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, in Revelation.
Giants.

Want moar?

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No, they're going on about NASA giving us the Slinky, and Silly Putty, and the Hoola Hoop, and Super Glue, and the Super Ball.

Now I guess it's all this medical stuff Thaumaturgy mentioned in his post that dripped PR from start to finish.

Hahaha! That's funny, AV. "dripped PR".

What? You're using a computer? Do you think computers got any improvements from the work? Didn't you used to work with computers? Suckered in by PR I suppose.

So when something is shown to go against the claims of one of your co-religionists you denigrate it as PR? Very interesting.

I wish you'd take it to your local fireman and tell them all about the "PR" that helps them come home at night to their family after protecting folks like you. How many people do you know who have implanted defibrillators? Are you going to tell them they are suckers for PR?

Hahahaha!

Would you actually say these things to those people? PR indeed. Who knows more about "talking big" than folks who denigrate science while enjoying every single advantage that technology has provably provided?

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
Gladly, take your pick:

Cocatrice.
Behemoths.
Satyrs.
Dragons. (Or "fiery serpents")
Leviathan.
Talking serpents.
The beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, in Revelation.
Giants.

Want moar?

I'm sorry --- your verse reference seems to be missing.

Let me be more specific:

Please show me mythical creatures in Genesis 1.

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
Would you actually say these things to those people? PR indeed. Who knows more about "talking big" than folks who denigrate science while enjoying every single advantage that technology has provably provided?

When I see a defibrillator with this on it:

Then you might have a point.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'm sorry --- your verse reference seems to be missing.

Let me be more specific:

Please show me mythical creatures in Genesis 1.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

First sentence, 4th word.

'Sabout as mythical as it gets.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
When I see a defibrillator with this on it:

Then you might have a point.

Why, exactly, would a defib have the NASA logo on it?

Even, if for some absud reason, NASA did invent defibs, it would still be the company that produces it that'd have their logos on it.

Nathan Poe · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'll call your bluff:

Show me one --- you've got 31 verses to work with.

Angels and talking serpents -- there's two.

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
Why, exactly, would a defib have the NASA logo on it?

Even, if for some absud reason, NASA did invent defibs, it would still be the company that produces it that'd have their logos on it.

My point to Thaumaturgy is that if NASA hadn't have invented it first, someone else would have.

Making it look like we needed the Apollo program to have defibrillators doesn't cut it with me.

Lunar Water

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency