Lunar Water

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Angels and talking serpents -- there's two.

Show me angels and talking serpents in Genesis 1.

In fact, English teacher, show me talking serpents in any of the Bible.

(I love to spot rookie errors.)

dad · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
I was referring to everything I've read you post in this thread.

Oh, well, guess you no likey. OK. Long as it is true, I don't care.

woof woof.

dad · Nov 20, 2009

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

...

Pray you don't need God one day, then. If it is one or the other, Nasa can go jump over the moon. Reminds me of an old pagan philosophy.
'Let us do evil, that good may come'

So, to you, it doesn't matter it war was behind many of the advances, just as long as all keep silence, and reverence the knowledge of man, and give man all the glory. Got ya.

Well, hey, I'll take it! If we disallow all things that come from wickedness of man, then there is not much left in science to use, to get a bit of our tax money back, now is there? Use it, do not be used by it, is the way I look at science. Kind of like the way the Ruslies used to look at commie sympathizers as - 'useful idiots'!

All good things come down from the Father of lights. If some of that knowledge happens to need to go through the sewer pipes of war, or Nasa, fine with me! But they get no glory from me.

Apparently, some feel that Nasa is also involved in weapons in space..?

NASA has publicly maintained in recent years that all of their space missions are now "dual use" - meaning that each mission they launch is both civilian and military at the same time. Thus one must consider that this LCROSS moon bombing mission is likely testing the capability of Pentagon technologies to launch missiles from space that could hit targets on Earth.

Organizing Notes: NASA MOON BOMBING A TEST OF FIRST-STRIKE SPACE WEAPONS

Did you know that space nukes on a city would destroy defibulators? Think about it.

Thats a win.

dad · 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?

Relax, never happened yet, never will. Science can no more overule God, than an ant can win the heavyweight boxing championship of the world. Really.

Nathan Poe · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
My point to Thaumaturgy is that if NASA hadn't have invented it first, someone else would have.

Um... duh? That's the whole point of doing it "first."

(BTW, "inventing" something "first," is redundant. You can't "invent" something that's already been invented.)

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

Necessity is the mother of invention -- the Apollo program needed the technology. It didn't exist, so they invented it. If they hadn't, we'd have had to wait around for someone else to have needed it.

Sitting around, doing nothing, waiting for Manna to drop from heaven may have worked for Moses and the Israelites, but in actual practice, it's a poor way to get things done.

Nathan Poe · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Show me angels and talking serpents in Genesis 1.

Ah, my bad -- I thought you were talking about all of Genesis.

In fact, English teacher, show me talking serpents in any part of the Bible.

(I love to spot rookie errors.)

So do I, rookie.

Nathan Poe · Nov 20, 2009

dad said:
Pray you don't need God one day, then. If it is one or the other, Nasa can go jump over the moon. Reminds me of an old pagan philosophy.
'Let us do evil, that good may come'

Are you sure it's Pagan, dad?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
(BTW, "inventing" something "first," is redundant. You can't "invent" something that's already been invented.)

Thanks for the correction ---

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Ah, my bad -- I thought you were talking about all of Genesis.

So do I, rookie.

Show me then.

Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

Go for it --- show me talking serpents.

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

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

Then you might have a point.

Wow. Just wow.

What has been your experience doing science for the U.S. Government?

Here's a fine example from my experience. When I worked for the USDA my research wound up in a few patents. One of which was being looked at by an outside company for "licensing". I had finished my postdoc by the time all this came around so I don't know all the details, but suffice it to say that if this company made use of my research and marketed a product that would have been of beneficial use you wouldn't necessarily have seen my name on it anywhere. (Maybe if you dug down deeply enough you might find a patent number associated with it and if you were able to find the patent you could see me as the lead inventor, but it wouldn't be as simple as finding my name stamped on the product!)

It's part of the deal. We as US gov't funded scientists didn't get one red cent from our patents (in industry I see some actual cash when I file a patent and sign away my "assignment rights" to corporation). The US Government then makes these technologies either freely available for licensing or licensing for a nominal fee. (At least this is how it was a few years back when I worked for 'em.)

As a licensee of a patent, I'm sure you know, you don't have to put the original patent owner's name on your product unless the licensing agreement specifically called that out. Now I'm not sure how NASA or the USDA structure those agreements, but suffice it to say it isn't a necessary part of it that you would for-sure see a NASA logo.

In fact I believe you'd be surprised at "cross-licensing" going on within industry itself. Who makes what part would probably surprise you.

But do, please, tell us your experience in patenting as a government funded researcher and how your research group structured their licensing agreement!

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
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.

Hmmm, so if someone does something that benefits you but you have some "beef" with them you'd rather denigrate the benefit they produced?

I need to get ahold of the copy of the Bible you work from! That whole "respect" for people who help you and can do things for you that you couldn't do yourself is just astonishing!

No one said we needed the Apollo program, but we got real advantages from it that had nothing to do with the "lunacy" (Dad's words) of the program. Thus proving that the program had a benefit.

The fact that you talk like you could look one of the Apollo scientists in the eye and tell them the benefit to mankind that they were responsible for was, in your estimation, not so special says a LOT about you.

Remind me, should we ever meet, that I know how you like your life's work to be treated!

Remember Luke 6:31. That seems to be the one some Christians have so much trouble remembering. Wonder why that is?

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
In fact I believe you'd be surprised at "cross-licensing" going on within industry itself. Who makes what part would probably surprise you.

Did NASA invent the defibrillator, or, like B.A.S.F.:

We don't make the things you buy; we make the things you buy better.

thaumaturgy · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Did NASA invent the defibrillator, or, like B.A.S.F.:

Sounds like the Apollos science was leveraged by a company to make the implantable defibrillator (a la the link I provided).

Why don't you tell us what you've invented? How many patents do you have, AV?

Now I'm a late bloomer, kind of behind the curve. I've only got 2 granted with another 5 in the prosecution phase, pending approval by either the US Patent Office or one of the various European offices. (None of them particularly exciting or earth shattering)

Just curious what your experience as a researcher has been. You seem to sit in judgement of so much that government science has done, I'd really like to know what your experience has actually been in this arena.

dad · Nov 20, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Are you sure it's Pagan, dad?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

No, I am not sure, it just can't be Christian, so I figured that the bad guys used it.

God is not sinful man, if you notice. If He has to use what man sees as 'evil' for our good, that is good. If wicked man tries it, I suspect that the motives may be less than pure.

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

dad said:
No, I am not sure, it just can't be Christian, so I figured that the bad guys used it.

God is not sinful man, if you notice. If He has to use what man sees as 'evil' for our good, that is good. If wicked man tries it, I suspect that the motives may be less than pure.

You mean, "Things man sees as 'evil'" like, for example... mass extinction, via a global flood?

If "He" was both omnipotent and benevolent, then he'd never, ever, ever, ever need to resort to anything we'd consider evil. Ever. He'd simply be too powerful to need to, when he could easily think up infinite other, less twisted, alternatives.

All for the Greater Good.

"The Greater Good!"

Just doesn't cut it. If (On the off chance) God's real, and he's the God of the Bible, and I knew he was real, I still couldn't bring myself to worship someone who knowingly, and deliberately causes a mass extinction. Not to mention all the other countless atrocities he commits/permits.

AV1611VET · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
If "He" was both omnipotent and benevolent, then he'd never, ever, ever, ever need to resort to anything we'd consider evil.

Interesting word choice.

Who are "we"? The majority?

Does abortion-on-demand count? Or does infanticide, that you guys like to accuse God of, only apply after they are born?

Sanguis · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Interesting word choice.

Who are "we"? The majority?

Does abortion-on-demand count? Or does infanticide, that you guys like to accuse God of, only apply after they are born?

There are somethings that we, humanity, disagree on, abortion, euthanasia, but there are things that I'd say more or less the whole of humanity can agree are wrong. Mass extinction is one of them

If you want to get into abortions, though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbERKwNszU

Cabal · Nov 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Interesting word choice.

Who are "we"? The majority?

Does abortion-on-demand count? Or does infanticide, that you guys like to accuse God of, only apply after they are born?

To be fair, that statement needs an update.

I'm sure he genocided a fair few pregnant women in his global flood also.

dad · Nov 20, 2009

Sanguis said:
You mean, "Things man sees as 'evil'" like, for example... mass extinction, via a global flood?

Yes, like that. If you were a cow, or pig, or chicken, and had to be culled, because you had a disease that would kill all other animals like you if you lived, you may not understand you needed to be killed.

There were billions and billions and billions of people that lived since the flood. A lot more, presumably, that lived before it. We would all be dead, if man was not saved at the flood. The only reason mankind exists today, is because of the flood. God just will not allow extreme wickedness en masse. Period. Not in the latter days either. Don't ever kid yourself.

The wicked, the extreme wicked that lived pre flood had to be removed, or there could be no race of men. Period. There could come no savior, that was promised.

So don't second guess the Almighty.

If "He" was both omnipotent and benevolent, then he'd never, ever, ever, ever need to resort to anything we'd consider evil. Ever. He'd simply be too powerful to need to, when he could easily think up infinite other, less twisted, alternatives.

What man may consider good is often evil. Abortion, for example. Period. No ifs ands buts, or maybes about it. What man may consider evil (preaching the good news of salvation of man, prayer for kids, etc) is often good. What man considers any which way doesn't amount to a hill of beans!

Just doesn't cut it. If (On the off chance) God's real, and he's the God of the Bible, and I knew he was real, I still couldn't bring myself to worship someone who knowingly, and deliberately causes a mass extinction. Not to mention all the other countless atrocities he commits/permits.

When He stops all the wickedness and atrocities of man, which He surely will, the days of grace will be over. The opportunity to exercise your free will (for good or bad), will no longer be allowed to hinder His will for man on earth.

dad · Nov 20, 2009

Cabal said:
To be fair, that statement needs an update.

I'm sure he genocided a fair few pregnant women in his global flood also.

Opinion. These guys were so wicked, maybe any women that somehow didn't go with animals, or other women, that got pregnant, may have had her child sacrificed. For all we know. Maybe her as well, and a few relatives for good measure. If God had to stop the world, and get a few good men off, there were reasons. Sodom had some unnatural stuff going down as well. One wonders how many kids were being born there near the end..

Lunar Water

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency