@1HumanKind, lol. Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. "Moon landing was faked" ROFL! The technology wasn't around till decades later to be able to fake it, and advanced statistical analysis of the data and video that they wouldn't have even have known about at the time, shows it's authentic. Then combine the fact that billions of real dollars were spent on it and an actual craft was built, etc, you'd have to be clinically insane to buy the shit your selling.
You thought I said the "moon" landing was fake, although I did not. your ridiculous yapping proved your stupidity there. You then are so ignorant as to think some one typing stoopid does not know how to spell stupid, in an auto spell check forum. I mean fuk your dumb.
Seen lots of your type in the clinical studies I've done. And the willful ignorance is appalling.
@1HumanKind, I can't find a single cohernet point in that whole comment. You get on here saying that the moon landing was faked, then call me "stoopid" then blame me for mispelling it, then say "fuk your dumb", then call me ignorant.
The fact that you claim to manage anything is scary.
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Kennedy was a Christian... Most of the engineers and scientists (and all of the Apollo astronauts) believed in God... [Not a real argument, ad populum]
When Apollo 8 orbited the moon's surface for the first time in 68. The three astronauts at first could only see the lifeless baron landscape of the moon, when suddenly they caught the blue marble of the earth rising above the moon's horizon. They were so awe struck by that sight, that all three of them, in order, quoted the first verses of the Genesis creation story.
The awe that overcame those three men is what Schoppenhauer called the 'World Eye': Pure objective perception.
@ApocalypseNow012 your a total douche let me guess 9/11 was an inside job and little green men crash landed at roswell and obama is osama.. dont forget to wrap tin foil round your head with douche written on it to protect you from the mind controll device...yeah its only snake oil but you were stupid enough to buy it and try sell it on douche
@Funky Florist Christians burnt down the library of Alexandria and skinned the librarian alive with sea shells (to purposely be torturously slow and pain full ).The loss of the library alone cost us centuries . 5 centuries loss is conservative .
Until then I'll take the word of 'John Julius Cooper' above your own... There's no evidence whatsoever for your assertion.
In fact it was monks that tediously copied and maintained libraries of their own. They re-discovered principles of agriculture and masonry that were almost lost.
They re-discovered Geometry at the same time you accuse them of destroying knowledge!*
@Funkyflorist You have a keyboard right in front of you . Here are some key words for YOU to google for YOU to do your homework ."astronomer burnt at stake" . When the Church burns astronomers at the stake it has ramifications on making others shut up and change professions and setting back science . Shame on you to insinuate I'm lying
@Funkyflorist I dont have to cite sources about Bruno or Hyapatias death and the set back of science . This is common sense , if they are killed they stop discovering / teaching .
It is normal scholarly research, I have even looked for the source as well and I cannot find it. You still haven't responded regarding John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries...
Even if we go by a terrible source (Wikipedia) it states;
"In short, there is no evidence, ancient or medieval, textual or archaeological, to support the story of a Christian destruction of any great library in Alexandria. And yet the story has become fixed in many popular sources."
@Funkyflorist Here is another subject to google "Leonardo Da Vinci " father or geology . Da Vinci knew that mounatin seashells where not from Noahs flood . Da Vinci had to be silent for fear of retribution from the church (took almost 300 years for that to be rediscovered ) . Far more examples if you seek them out .
woops, seems that Father Nicholas Steno made more contributions to not only geology but to palentology too.
Now questions of biblical events are not on the agenda... If you think its not possible for the earth to be flooded, then please forward those concerns to the proponents of anthropogenic global warming...
@Funkyflorist Leonardo coulda,woulda ,and shoulda been the father of geology . Leonardo' s insight into geology was confined to backwards writting in his sketch books because he dare not speak out against church doctrine . Church repression kept him silent .
Your assertion gives you the 'burden of proof' you have refused to cite ANY source whatsoever, and the sources we do find (I actually named authors!) contradict your assertion.
@Funky Florist You live in lala land thinking Christians are always the good guys wearing white hats . Christians abused their power and suppressed knowledge to suit their power monopoly . Surely this cant be the first you've heard of this . We could have landed on the moon centuries earlier if you SUBTRACT all the suppression .
Likewise you make the same bigoted distinction, assuming all contributions from Christianity are negative. It is also convenient that you omit that Christianity itself was repressed for over 300 years.
@Funky Florist Here is a video on the subject of Alexandria being burnt by a Christian mob -"Remembering Hypatia - The Infidel Guy Show" And here is something for desert " Yahweh's delicious creation "
@Funkyflorist Carl Sagan said it , I believe it end of discussion . (that was humor) . Being a mob I'm sure some may have used other found items .Sagan clearly stated albloney (sp?) shells .
@Funky Florist I have seen scientific progress charts they dramatically show a dead zone when Christianity was in power . The result of burning scientists at the stake will do that .This subject is indisputable .Your just unfamiliar with it .
@Funky Florist This problem continues to this day , science teachers avoid or shorten teaching evolution in schools to avoid screaming parents that oppose it . My science school tours are often canceled to avoid offending evangelicals .
Evolution hasn't been a problem with Catholics for the past 60 years. Ironically it parallels the first chapter of Genesis perfectly.
It's true that many fundamental sects (of any ideology *cough Karl Marx*cough) are virulent and hostile to others. I agree with you that evolution should be taught anywhere and everywhere.
@Funky Florist Evolution does not parallel Genesis , Genesis plagiarism from older Babylonian Enuma Elish creation myth . The generations of Gods created in the same sequence as Genesis but predates it . John Romer explained this in his PBS series Testament .
@Funky Florist The teaching of evolution wasn't off topic .The point being is that Christianity has held back our scientific progress in the past and in the present . The Evangelical children will have a slim chance to ever be scientists , our national sci. competitiveness is harmed by creationism .
@Funky Florist Millions of evangelicals raise their children with mental conditioning to ignore /dislike /distrust mainstream science . Their children become scientificly illiterate and our nations science standards and compatibility suffer .I could go on and on .
to bad we can't have a president that is as enthusiastic about space exploration like JFK was. the closest we have gotten recently was the ISS and bushes goal of returning to the moon (with just 1bil extra to the budget) and obamas further funding for the same goal
There is no real point in going to the moon, dude. Robotic missions are the present and the future. If you are interested read into the topic, but sending humans further than ISS is a terrible waste of resources.
i have to disagree. manned missions to the moon is within our capability and explorers on the surface can make discoveries that robotic missions would pass up. i will say that any (manned mission) further than the moon with our current technology would be a waste.
Damn, misread the title as "Going to the Moon in the 30s" and got my hopes up that NASA was going to get its shit together again sometime in the next 20 years. Oh well. We can still dream.
the bible is thousands of years old. lets say the bible is God's word. That doesn't mean that man thousands of years ago could understand like modern man does. perhaps if God himself revised the bible today for modern man then perhaps it would read differently. i do not have to ponder these types of questions because i have faith that God does exist and i am part of his plan. that doesnt' mean that i have a right to see that plan or to understand why. my walk with my Lord is ours. i am happy.
saying there is no God is even more arrogant then a religion claiming that
God only belongs to them. ahtiests are such a tiny little minority. over 97% of the worlds population believes in a God. yet you arrogantly claim that basically the entire world is wrong and you are right? hmmmmm. you base this on the fact that the world is not a "perfect" place for YOU. you dont believe in a soul therefore it cannot exist? you would believe life begins only at birth as well?
Ok, so I may have been a christian and believed in god at one time in my life, but now that I don't. I am not qualified to express why I came to that conclusion? I was once just as devoted as you. That is until I actually read the bible. I would say the most damning thing to Christians is the bible. People just don't read anymore. Or they only read what they like and apologize for the rest. It is a sickness. You are no different from me.
if you were a christian then you still are. if you were a christian then you know free will exists. if you were a christian then you know God is not to blame for man being "evil". if you have lost your faith then i dont know what to tell you. i did not post to make believers or to convert people. i just basically stated that if religion flies people into buildings than science flies nuclear bombs to targets. and neither is correct. man does it. man is responsible, not God, not science.
@Dreamerx47 wasnt untill the dark ages where they thought the world was flat..before that it was common knowledge the world was round. bible even says so.
if the world was purely scientific there would be no conscious in killing. murder would be as easy to commit as tying your shoe. it is the heart of man that feeds the starving, helps your nieghbor, stops wars, kills one to save many. not science. science does not have a "heart", religion does. morals do not come from science.
MrWasp, there is a very simple scientific explanation for where we get morals: any crime we commit disrupts society, without society life is much harder, so right down in the basic insticts of the herd animal which we still posess, we favour doing things that wont damage the pack/herd/society as a whole.
that is a stretch, a big stretch. it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. not all animals are herd animals, i am refeering to mammals although not limited to, and you are clearly refeering to a self preservation instinct, which also does not support atheism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ugh. survival and pack mentality doesn't stop with death. only with athiests does it. morals are about right or wrong, not life or death. many mammals survive without being pack animals and they are far less intelligent then most humans. millions of humans even being pack animals have no morals.
you aren't surviving any more after dying, that's sort of the definition. And most humans have morals, and it there societies that infulence them, such as the army breaking the natural instinct not to kill other humans.
some species are supposed to be solitary, some are supposed to be pack animals. Those that are pack animals, they require the "Selfish Gene" in order for the group to survive. Plus, those humans that don't have "Morals" (But I wonder which morals you point to?) are highly likely to have mental illness. in fact, it's incredibly improbable that they don't have mental illness if they dont follow the way society is supposed to function.
woops, Hitler was a politician, he made face to succor Protestant votes in Germany... Privately he despised the church and wanted to CREATE his own religion...
Perhaps you should study the authors of the 'Communist Manifesto'. Engels and Marx were atheists, if we consider christian ideologies as sources of destruction in the crusades, then we can likewise blame atheist ideologies for destruction under communism...
Besides the examples I cited were to refute willgr144.
by your reasoning religion flies you into buildings but science creates weapons of mass destruction, ie. the hydrogen bomb, the atom bomb, the nuetron bomb, napalm, cruise missiles etc. science flies nuclear bombs to targets and kills hundreds of thousands, even millions and can destroy the entire world. maybe you should pull your head out of your ass you fool.
Scientist follow their science, and the religious majority takes it away and uses it. If the world was purely a scientific one the atom bomb would of just been a fascinating experiment.
Religion formed Gods, Kings, Statesmen and War. The Idea that society is a top down system and that are leaders are always right.
you are wrong God existed before religion. religion does not fly people into buildings anymore than science flys nuclear bombs to targets. did religion bomb hiroshima or nagasaki? no they did not people did. religion did not fly planes into wtc. anymore than science did. people to fly planes into buildings not religion.
The god of the bible didn't exists on earth before religion. History is long and complex before the old testament and jesus, with many gods, and so called god kings. Isn't aviation a product of science, taken by religious fanatics to make war. I am sure the Wright brothers didn't have bombing city's in mind. If religion has a heart, history has shown it to be a cold and unforgiving one. How can you deny the countless evils in the world in the name of god and blame science.
this is the problem with people who dont believe in God. you think God was invented by man. thats like saying gravity didn't exist until newton. God is eternal. things do exist even without man's puny mind grasping it. knowledge does not begin and end with man neither does existance. non-religious people telling you what religion is, is like a lawyer giving a diagnosis for brain surgery how are you qualified to say there is no God just because you dont believe?
just because man does something in the name of God doesn't mean that God sanctions it. if you knew anything about religion you would understand one of the most basic philosophies of free will. man is free to destroy and commit "evil". that is not God's fault, that is man's fault. you blame God for man's "evil" doing? just because you focus on the evils that man does, does not mean that man does'nt commit acts of goodness. its your problem not God's. we can tear it up, or make it better.
Thanks to the Biblical Creationist Werner Von Braun ,1912-1977, who oversaw the development of the Rocket program and was instrumental in putting Man on the Moon.
It is a possibility, but somewhat unlikely. The moon is a dump - habitation-wise. A big empty dry rock. Worth exploring, but not really for colonizing.
Well it does have some useful elements we can mine. Also, the moon will be used as a staging area for launching a manned mission to Mars. As there is no atmosphere to pass through, launching a craft from the moon would lower fuel requirenments. So a colony for construction of the craft and housing the crew and builders. A few mining colonies. Definitely some research colonies. Oh, and of course a few space hotels. So it is worth at least a few business based colonies.
you are wrong. maybe its not practical to colonize the moon, but maybe it is? maybe a moon base could help us launch missions to deeper space without having to break the bonds of earth. to call the moon a dump is very short sided and niave. one man's trash is another man's treasure. the view from the moon is absolutely amazing. habitate the moon now, its close and we can learn alot on how to live in space and on other planets and moons by habitating our own.
Breaking the moons gravity would be far more efficient than blasting around the Earth. The only problem being, that the moon doesn't have all the things we need to make a space ship, or a colony. So we still have to launch a bunch of heavy crap up there. The best thing to do is figure a way to get free of the earth with out using so much energy. I have heard of a space elevator, but!!! Propulsion tech, will have to advance, Realistically.
while it may be true a lot of conspiracy theories are garbage, not all theories of a conspiracy are. but the moon landing faked certainly is. just like the no-plane theorists for 9/11. as if the thousands in new york were all hallucinating. just like the thousands involved on the apollo program can't explain how the process was done. My dad was an instrument technician, no rocket scientist, but he knows because he fuckin worked on it.
"But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon! We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
You should probably send him a private message, cuz I doubt he has e-mail activation turned on for comments as he'd receive thousands of them every week.
Thunderfoot, from whta man knows of the size of the universe is billions of light years (just a rough guess) They don't know the full size. I would bet my life that man will never travel that far. Let alone one hundred light years or so.
Remember that space-time is flexible. If we were able to bend, contort and maybe even punch a whole in the fabric of space-time itself, billions of light-years could be traveled within seconds.
I'm still thinking of that line, the bit that goes "we choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
I want to go off on a rant regarding that thought, but no, I won't. Instead, in a sort of cornball way, I'll suggest that those of you reading this think about attempting something difficult. Challenge yourself, expand your horizons.
I have a certain tendency to engage in conspiracy type thinking. But I still don't understand this obsession with lunar landing conspiracies. There's nothing particularly impossible about going to the moon, with the size and power of the rocket technology we possessed at the time it was well within our capability. And.. well.. you can't avoid the evidence. I mean damn, we bounced lasers off a reflector that PEOPLE LEFT ON THE MOON.
"Religion sure never got us to the moon" Kennedy was Catholic, and modern science was developed by monks (universities also came from monastic orders) *Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD
"it's life with a cosmic despot." Self-declaration, no evidence in context
"Science and education for the win!" Science and education needs a firm foundation in society, during the Bolshevik Revolution over 90,000 churches were burned down... Was Russia better off afterward?
Science has brought us everything. EVERYTHING! Merely the computer you typed this comment on is a product of science. That nice little medicine you take when you get a cold is science. Half the food in the world is grown by science. Science gave us everything and can take everything away if religion is allowed to over.
What question about Russia? Restate it plox. Anyways...
Those spaces between the words are an innovation from a religious man is like saying "Words are from a religious man." Back then, everyone was religious.
Everything else can be summed up as "Just because an innovation made by someone who was religious who also used the scientific method does not make that said religion true.
Exactly, that is a logical fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam.
Unfortunately it works the other way around.
Person A is a scientist,
Person A does not believe in God,
Therefore God does not exist?
My argument is simply this; Religion is not the determining factor in scientific progress. My supporting example is the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia when the government burned down over 90,000 churches and suppressed religion.
A second real life example is China under the Cultural Revolution, religion was treated like a 'poison'. And China stagnated.
A third example is the French Revolution, about 5,000 churches were destroyed there, eliminating the main provider of charity through-out France. Even though there was an emphasis on scientific development, they still stagnated.
@Funkyflorist Science is a mechanism in which understanding is gained, not a tool to be used. Tools might be a product of that understanding or used to gain such understanding but NOT a tool. Any man can pick up a tool yet only a few can wield the power of science.
Engineers use well...engineering, mathematics, which are all byproducts of the super mechanism, which is in fact, science.
Wow, nice video
music is awesome with it
seen it thrice in a row
tostrong4you 1 year ago
Science, it works.
macnutz 1 year ago
Respect for the moon!
It didn't need to let us land on it, you know. That's considerate, that is!
Vectorgrader 1 year ago
This footage was all faked for the poon landing.
1HumanKind 1 year ago
@1HumanKind, lol. Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. "Moon landing was faked" ROFL! The technology wasn't around till decades later to be able to fake it, and advanced statistical analysis of the data and video that they wouldn't have even have known about at the time, shows it's authentic. Then combine the fact that billions of real dollars were spent on it and an actual craft was built, etc, you'd have to be clinically insane to buy the shit your selling.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
are you really as stoopid as your words indicate?
1HumanKind 1 year ago
@1HumanKind, Yes I'm very stoopid. And sadly I'm far more intelligent then you as your words would seem to indicate.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Indeed.
You thought I said the "moon" landing was fake, although I did not. your ridiculous yapping proved your stupidity there. You then are so ignorant as to think some one typing stoopid does not know how to spell stupid, in an auto spell check forum. I mean fuk your dumb.
Seen lots of your type in the clinical studies I've done. And the willful ignorance is appalling.
1HumanKind 1 year ago
@1HumanKind, I can't find a single cohernet point in that whole comment. You get on here saying that the moon landing was faked, then call me "stoopid" then blame me for mispelling it, then say "fuk your dumb", then call me ignorant.
The fact that you claim to manage anything is scary.
Houshalter 1 year ago
clips like this make it hard not to be filled with hubris for our species lol. We are badass
boorens18 1 year ago
Wernher Von Braun
Architect of the Saturn V rocket
Lutheran
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Wernher Von Braun
Architect of the Saturn V rocket
Lutheran
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Wernher Von Braun
Architect of the Saturn V rocket
Lutheran
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Wernher Von Braun
Architect of the Saturn V rocket
Lutheran
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Wernher Von Braun
Architect of the Saturn V rocket
Lutheran
"Far from being independent or opposing forces, science and religion are sisters. Both seek a better world. While science seeks control over the forces of nature around us, religion controls the forces of nature within us."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Then Kennedy went against the Vietnam War and the Federal Reserve and got pwned.
InsaneGoonRules 1 year ago 4
faked
ScrewAttackChina 1 year ago
faked...
ScrewAttackChina 1 year ago
also SEE...
Invasion of the Bay of PIGS
LSRochon 1 year ago
Does anyone else see the Irony?
Kennedy was a Christian... Most of the engineers and scientists (and all of the Apollo astronauts) believed in God... [Not a real argument, ad populum]
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
When Apollo 8 orbited the moon's surface for the first time in 68. The three astronauts at first could only see the lifeless baron landscape of the moon, when suddenly they caught the blue marble of the earth rising above the moon's horizon. They were so awe struck by that sight, that all three of them, in order, quoted the first verses of the Genesis creation story.
The awe that overcame those three men is what Schoppenhauer called the 'World Eye': Pure objective perception.
Spirgauks 1 year ago
I don't believe in god not because it is easy, but it is hard. Can you handle the truth?
EntranceDenied 1 year ago
song?
Notyiffhunter 1 year ago
too bad they didnt really go to the moon, you ignorant sheep. i got some eternal youth oil wanna buy it? its really snake oil but shhh you're idiots.
ApocalypseNow012 1 year ago
@ApocalypseNow012 - Are you serious? Pppffffhhhhttt! LOL! How can anyone be so thick? We went to the moon dude. Get over it.
Christheatheist1 1 year ago
@ApocalypseNow012 your a total douche let me guess 9/11 was an inside job and little green men crash landed at roswell and obama is osama.. dont forget to wrap tin foil round your head with douche written on it to protect you from the mind controll device...yeah its only snake oil but you were stupid enough to buy it and try sell it on douche
1brutaldeath 1 year ago
Now this really is a fairy tale, going to the moon, shit me.
shedendpussys 1 year ago
:24 looks like that piece of the rocket simply blew away
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
space exploration FTW.
KittyRokher 1 year ago
Due to religious prosecution /repression of science our technology is 5 centuries behind . Christopher Columbus could have landed on the moon .
flyingscience 2 years ago 17
only 5 centuries ?
actually more :)
but good point ! :D thumbsup
DarkTemp0 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Do you have any proof of that? Are you aware that the scientists that postulated the Big Bang Theory and Genetics were CATHOLIC?
The only case you can cite is Galileo, but I bet you haven't read any history...
(The Sleepwalkers, By Arthur Koestler)
This is also a logical fallacy, generalizing religions together does not critique them each on their merits. Do you want to run off ALL INDIANS too?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist Christians burnt down the library of Alexandria and skinned the librarian alive with sea shells (to purposely be torturously slow and pain full ).The loss of the library alone cost us centuries . 5 centuries loss is conservative .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Got a source? Anything non-anecdotal?
Until then I'll take the word of 'John Julius Cooper' above your own... There's no evidence whatsoever for your assertion.
In fact it was monks that tediously copied and maintained libraries of their own. They re-discovered principles of agriculture and masonry that were almost lost.
They re-discovered Geometry at the same time you accuse them of destroying knowledge!*
*Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD
Part of being a scholar is being neutral...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist You have a keyboard right in front of you . Here are some key words for YOU to google for YOU to do your homework ."astronomer burnt at stake" . When the Church burns astronomers at the stake it has ramifications on making others shut up and change professions and setting back science . Shame on you to insinuate I'm lying
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
I never asserted you were lying, also you need a more scholarly source when talking about Bruno, the alleged astronomer to be 'burned at a stake'.
Please cite better sources.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist I dont have to cite sources about Bruno or Hyapatias death and the set back of science . This is common sense , if they are killed they stop discovering / teaching .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
It is normal scholarly research, I have even looked for the source as well and I cannot find it. You still haven't responded regarding John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries...
Even if we go by a terrible source (Wikipedia) it states;
"In short, there is no evidence, ancient or medieval, textual or archaeological, to support the story of a Christian destruction of any great library in Alexandria. And yet the story has become fixed in many popular sources."
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Actually you DO need to cite sources, thats what scientists and scholars DO!
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist Here is another subject to google "Leonardo Da Vinci " father or geology . Da Vinci knew that mounatin seashells where not from Noahs flood . Da Vinci had to be silent for fear of retribution from the church (took almost 300 years for that to be rediscovered ) . Far more examples if you seek them out .
flyingscience 1 year ago
woops, seems that Father Nicholas Steno made more contributions to not only geology but to palentology too.
Now questions of biblical events are not on the agenda... If you think its not possible for the earth to be flooded, then please forward those concerns to the proponents of anthropogenic global warming...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist Leonardo coulda,woulda ,and shoulda been the father of geology . Leonardo' s insight into geology was confined to backwards writting in his sketch books because he dare not speak out against church doctrine . Church repression kept him silent .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Your assertion gives you the 'burden of proof' you have refused to cite ANY source whatsoever, and the sources we do find (I actually named authors!) contradict your assertion.
Bring a source next time.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist You live in lala land thinking Christians are always the good guys wearing white hats . Christians abused their power and suppressed knowledge to suit their power monopoly . Surely this cant be the first you've heard of this . We could have landed on the moon centuries earlier if you SUBTRACT all the suppression .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Likewise you make the same bigoted distinction, assuming all contributions from Christianity are negative. It is also convenient that you omit that Christianity itself was repressed for over 300 years.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist Here is a video on the subject of Alexandria being burnt by a Christian mob -"Remembering Hypatia - The Infidel Guy Show" And here is something for desert " Yahweh's delicious creation "
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Sea shells or pot shards? If you can't get the murder weapon right then can you at least cite your SCHOLARLY SOURCE.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist Carl Sagan said it , I believe it end of discussion . (that was humor) . Being a mob I'm sure some may have used other found items .Sagan clearly stated albloney (sp?) shells .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
This is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam.
Person A is a respected personage regarding history,
Person A supports Case C
Therefore Case C is true...
Furthermore this is an anecdotal source, under the same conditions we would have to believe the New Testament accounts!!
CITE YOUR SCHOLARLY SOURCE PLEASE!
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Comment removed
flyingscience 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience
Sources please.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist I have seen scientific progress charts they dramatically show a dead zone when Christianity was in power . The result of burning scientists at the stake will do that .This subject is indisputable .Your just unfamiliar with it .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
If it is indisputable, then cite your sources...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience
Sources please.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist This problem continues to this day , science teachers avoid or shorten teaching evolution in schools to avoid screaming parents that oppose it . My science school tours are often canceled to avoid offending evangelicals .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Evolution hasn't been a problem with Catholics for the past 60 years. Ironically it parallels the first chapter of Genesis perfectly.
It's true that many fundamental sects (of any ideology *cough Karl Marx*cough) are virulent and hostile to others. I agree with you that evolution should be taught anywhere and everywhere.
Stay on topic please.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist Evolution does not parallel Genesis , Genesis plagiarism from older Babylonian Enuma Elish creation myth . The generations of Gods created in the same sequence as Genesis but predates it . John Romer explained this in his PBS series Testament .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Strawman fallacy
argumentum ad verecundiam
Person A asserts Evolution corresponds with the Genesis story.
Person B says the Genesis story is a plagiarism of Babylonian myths.
Therefore evolution does not correspond with the Genesis story???!?!?
Do you have any knowledge of scholarly logical research?
Like I said, stay on topic.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist The teaching of evolution wasn't off topic .The point being is that Christianity has held back our scientific progress in the past and in the present . The Evangelical children will have a slim chance to ever be scientists , our national sci. competitiveness is harmed by creationism .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
If this is the case, we have a MAJOR contradiction...
Evolution relies on Natural Selection, Natural Selection requires genetic material to create the diverse traits in an organism...
The Father of Genetics is (sadly for you) a CATHOLIC MONK named Gregor Mendel. Without his work on genetics evolution itself would have stagnated.
*Check, your move*
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky Florist Millions of evangelicals raise their children with mental conditioning to ignore /dislike /distrust mainstream science . Their children become scientificly illiterate and our nations science standards and compatibility suffer .I could go on and on .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
If your assertion is "Religion causes knowledge and progress to stagnate" then tell us of the achievements of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution...
They must have progressed, they burned down over 90,000 churches, that much religious suppression should have fostered something...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Source please.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Why didn't science flourish in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@flyingscience
Do you even have a source to quantify the '5 centuries' assertion?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
to bad we can't have a president that is as enthusiastic about space exploration like JFK was. the closest we have gotten recently was the ISS and bushes goal of returning to the moon (with just 1bil extra to the budget) and obamas further funding for the same goal
better than nothing though
gobblox38 2 years ago
The recent plan may help a bit more.
While we're not going to the moon, we may go further to the asteroids.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
@gobblox38
There is no real point in going to the moon, dude. Robotic missions are the present and the future. If you are interested read into the topic, but sending humans further than ISS is a terrible waste of resources.
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88
i have to disagree. manned missions to the moon is within our capability and explorers on the surface can make discoveries that robotic missions would pass up. i will say that any (manned mission) further than the moon with our current technology would be a waste.
gobblox38 1 year ago
Damn, misread the title as "Going to the Moon in the 30s" and got my hopes up that NASA was going to get its shit together again sometime in the next 20 years. Oh well. We can still dream.
GyroCoder 2 years ago
theres a double conspiracy on the moon landing
1 conspiracy is that we found alien buildings on the moon
the other is we didnt go to the moon
lmao
CiniCraft 2 years ago
the bible is thousands of years old. lets say the bible is God's word. That doesn't mean that man thousands of years ago could understand like modern man does. perhaps if God himself revised the bible today for modern man then perhaps it would read differently. i do not have to ponder these types of questions because i have faith that God does exist and i am part of his plan. that doesnt' mean that i have a right to see that plan or to understand why. my walk with my Lord is ours. i am happy.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
saying there is no God is even more arrogant then a religion claiming that
God only belongs to them. ahtiests are such a tiny little minority. over 97% of the worlds population believes in a God. yet you arrogantly claim that basically the entire world is wrong and you are right? hmmmmm. you base this on the fact that the world is not a "perfect" place for YOU. you dont believe in a soul therefore it cannot exist? you would believe life begins only at birth as well?
MrWasp420 2 years ago
Ok, so I may have been a christian and believed in god at one time in my life, but now that I don't. I am not qualified to express why I came to that conclusion? I was once just as devoted as you. That is until I actually read the bible. I would say the most damning thing to Christians is the bible. People just don't read anymore. Or they only read what they like and apologize for the rest. It is a sickness. You are no different from me.
ffcloud321 2 years ago
if you were a christian then you still are. if you were a christian then you know free will exists. if you were a christian then you know God is not to blame for man being "evil". if you have lost your faith then i dont know what to tell you. i did not post to make believers or to convert people. i just basically stated that if religion flies people into buildings than science flies nuclear bombs to targets. and neither is correct. man does it. man is responsible, not God, not science.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
What has belief in a higher power got to do with at what point life is believed to have started for an individual? Nice strawman Mr. Wasp
In other news: how can you describe the world as inperfect when it's th only one you know of? There are more reasons for aitheism than that!
Also, claiming God only belongs to one religion is FAR more arogant than nonebelief!
willgr144 2 years ago 2
majority of the world used to think the world was flat
its not
and its not arrogant to not believe in fairys is it?
or zombies...where the fuck are all the zombies?
its all made up just like all the other religions
and dont talk about proof when all you have is "the bible is real becouse it says so in the bible"
Dreamerx47 2 years ago 24
Majority thought the earth was hollow
Its not
Majority thought demons existed
they dont
Majority thought live was spontaneous
It isnt
Majority thought prayer does something
It doesnt
So why do they believe what has been proven false or highly unlikely?
Evolution shows the diversity of life nearly perfectly(we still have a way to go till we understand everything).
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago 12
amen brother, keep preaching to these uneducated swine
cr1tterp0wer 2 years ago
@DarkZerkerX
Argumentum Ad Populum
The majority of people do not believe in God,
Therefore God does not exist...
Come back when you have a coherent argument
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
preach the truth
cr1tterp0wer 2 years ago
@Dreamerx47 wasnt untill the dark ages where they thought the world was flat..before that it was common knowledge the world was round. bible even says so.
pistolpete198069 1 year ago
@pistolpete198069
Ironically you are completely wrong, now it they were questioning the circumference of the earth, THAT was the major question during that time.
Also, may you define which years that are considered the 'Dark Ages'?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreamerx47
Argumentum Ad Populum
The majority of people do not believe in God,
Therefore God does not exist...
Come back when you have a coherent argument
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
if the world was purely scientific there would be no conscious in killing. murder would be as easy to commit as tying your shoe. it is the heart of man that feeds the starving, helps your nieghbor, stops wars, kills one to save many. not science. science does not have a "heart", religion does. morals do not come from science.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
MrWasp, there is a very simple scientific explanation for where we get morals: any crime we commit disrupts society, without society life is much harder, so right down in the basic insticts of the herd animal which we still posess, we favour doing things that wont damage the pack/herd/society as a whole.
willgr144 2 years ago 2
that is a stretch, a big stretch. it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. not all animals are herd animals, i am refeering to mammals although not limited to, and you are clearly refeering to a self preservation instinct, which also does not support atheism.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
No, I wasn't refering to a self preservation instict, I was refering to the fact we are pack animals. What do you think the cities are MrWasp?
Where's the stretch?
willgr144 2 years ago 2
why do you think pack animals are pack animals?
MrWasp420 2 years ago
because team work is a very effecient means of doing a lot of things.
willgr144 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrWasp420 2 years ago
lol, you mean like survival?
MrWasp420 2 years ago
no, I mean like hunting and foraging. can be done alone but are easier as a group.
willgr144 2 years ago 2
its called survival
MrWasp420 2 years ago
life is all about survival, and not just for individual organisms, I don't knwo what you're getting at, MrWasp420?
willgr144 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
if life is all about survival then that is counter to athiesm
MrWasp420 2 years ago
How? Survival and Athiesm aren't mutually exclusive.
willgr144 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ugh. survival and pack mentality doesn't stop with death. only with athiests does it. morals are about right or wrong, not life or death. many mammals survive without being pack animals and they are far less intelligent then most humans. millions of humans even being pack animals have no morals.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
you aren't surviving any more after dying, that's sort of the definition. And most humans have morals, and it there societies that infulence them, such as the army breaking the natural instinct not to kill other humans.
willgr144 2 years ago 2
Sometimes one culture needs to kill other's to survive. So not necessarily breaking the instinct.
Breaking an instinct would be ex: suicide.
Mrxb0x 2 years ago
you dont understand the context.
some species are supposed to be solitary, some are supposed to be pack animals. Those that are pack animals, they require the "Selfish Gene" in order for the group to survive. Plus, those humans that don't have "Morals" (But I wonder which morals you point to?) are highly likely to have mental illness. in fact, it's incredibly improbable that they don't have mental illness if they dont follow the way society is supposed to function.
SCRulerShinoda 2 years ago
how so?
cr1tterp0wer 2 years ago
French Revolution
Bolshevik Revolution
The Rise of the Third Reich
Communism (started by two atheists)
The Cultural Revolution (Communist China)
The Great Leap Forward (China Communism)
What did you say?
"we favour doing things that wont damage the pack/herd/society as a whole."
You need to read more books...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist ahh i think you are referring to hitler starting communism? well hitler was a catholic not athiest.
erkziltonz 1 year ago
@erkziltonz
woops, Hitler was a politician, he made face to succor Protestant votes in Germany... Privately he despised the church and wanted to CREATE his own religion...
Perhaps you should study the authors of the 'Communist Manifesto'. Engels and Marx were atheists, if we consider christian ideologies as sources of destruction in the crusades, then we can likewise blame atheist ideologies for destruction under communism...
Besides the examples I cited were to refute willgr144.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Human Space Exploration FTW
jrbaconuk 2 years ago
I find this a complete butcher Tartini's Sonata. I'll stick to Vieuxtemps' arrangement :(
Iwannabubbletube 2 years ago
First we go to Moon, then Mars, then Jupiter, then Get GN Drives, then THE UNIVERSE!!!!!
akumaten 2 years ago
R-E-S-P-E-C-T !
rs666sathan666pk 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I still can't believe they put a man on Mars!!!
Fantastic!!
TheTodd1977 2 years ago
china mars landing goin to be even better !!!1
BIGFACE08 2 years ago
Science flies you to the moon,
Religion flies you in to buildings.
blackjackal003 2 years ago 6
by your reasoning religion flies you into buildings but science creates weapons of mass destruction, ie. the hydrogen bomb, the atom bomb, the nuetron bomb, napalm, cruise missiles etc. science flies nuclear bombs to targets and kills hundreds of thousands, even millions and can destroy the entire world. maybe you should pull your head out of your ass you fool.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
Scientist follow their science, and the religious majority takes it away and uses it. If the world was purely a scientific one the atom bomb would of just been a fascinating experiment.
Religion formed Gods, Kings, Statesmen and War. The Idea that society is a top down system and that are leaders are always right.
Science has been it's victim ever since.
ffcloud321 2 years ago
you are wrong God existed before religion. religion does not fly people into buildings anymore than science flys nuclear bombs to targets. did religion bomb hiroshima or nagasaki? no they did not people did. religion did not fly planes into wtc. anymore than science did. people to fly planes into buildings not religion.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
The god of the bible didn't exists on earth before religion. History is long and complex before the old testament and jesus, with many gods, and so called god kings. Isn't aviation a product of science, taken by religious fanatics to make war. I am sure the Wright brothers didn't have bombing city's in mind. If religion has a heart, history has shown it to be a cold and unforgiving one. How can you deny the countless evils in the world in the name of god and blame science.
ffcloud321 2 years ago
this is the problem with people who dont believe in God. you think God was invented by man. thats like saying gravity didn't exist until newton. God is eternal. things do exist even without man's puny mind grasping it. knowledge does not begin and end with man neither does existance. non-religious people telling you what religion is, is like a lawyer giving a diagnosis for brain surgery how are you qualified to say there is no God just because you dont believe?
MrWasp420 2 years ago
just because man does something in the name of God doesn't mean that God sanctions it. if you knew anything about religion you would understand one of the most basic philosophies of free will. man is free to destroy and commit "evil". that is not God's fault, that is man's fault. you blame God for man's "evil" doing? just because you focus on the evils that man does, does not mean that man does'nt commit acts of goodness. its your problem not God's. we can tear it up, or make it better.
MrWasp420 2 years ago
+15
QFT
akumaten 2 years ago
Thanks to the Biblical Creationist Werner Von Braun ,1912-1977, who oversaw the development of the Rocket program and was instrumental in putting Man on the Moon.
hwd71 2 years ago
to Bad he was assasinated before he could do "the other things"
5pecular 2 years ago 7
I'm not TFOOT, but:
It is a possibility, but somewhat unlikely. The moon is a dump - habitation-wise. A big empty dry rock. Worth exploring, but not really for colonizing.
adparker314 2 years ago 3
Well it does have some useful elements we can mine. Also, the moon will be used as a staging area for launching a manned mission to Mars. As there is no atmosphere to pass through, launching a craft from the moon would lower fuel requirenments. So a colony for construction of the craft and housing the crew and builders. A few mining colonies. Definitely some research colonies. Oh, and of course a few space hotels. So it is worth at least a few business based colonies.
ivnuzi 2 years ago
you are wrong. maybe its not practical to colonize the moon, but maybe it is? maybe a moon base could help us launch missions to deeper space without having to break the bonds of earth. to call the moon a dump is very short sided and niave. one man's trash is another man's treasure. the view from the moon is absolutely amazing. habitate the moon now, its close and we can learn alot on how to live in space and on other planets and moons by habitating our own.
MrWasp420 2 years ago 6
You make a strong case.
UssenterprizeDv2 2 years ago 3
Very good foresight. Your absolutely correct.
Breaking the moons gravity would be far more efficient than blasting around the Earth. The only problem being, that the moon doesn't have all the things we need to make a space ship, or a colony. So we still have to launch a bunch of heavy crap up there. The best thing to do is figure a way to get free of the earth with out using so much energy. I have heard of a space elevator, but!!! Propulsion tech, will have to advance, Realistically.
ffcloud321 2 years ago
while it may be true a lot of conspiracy theories are garbage, not all theories of a conspiracy are. but the moon landing faked certainly is. just like the no-plane theorists for 9/11. as if the thousands in new york were all hallucinating. just like the thousands involved on the apollo program can't explain how the process was done. My dad was an instrument technician, no rocket scientist, but he knows because he fuckin worked on it.
Thrashaero 2 years ago 2
we went to the moon , no doubt
Daltonn0810 2 years ago
I have doubts, especially considering the van allen belts.
bicnarok 2 years ago
yet we can shoot a laser signal to a direct spot and get a response
Daltonn0810 2 years ago
Read up on the belts bicnarok, you'll find that they aren't a very significant issue at all.
studio7manga 2 years ago
cool
Heroes1234567891 2 years ago
what song is this?
do0me0nice 2 years ago
read the description.
HephaestusAtheos 2 years ago
and.....we had to confirm it wasnt made of cheese.
fantasy0coach 2 years ago 5
what was "the other thing"?
FactVsReligion 2 years ago
SST.
MajorBilly 2 years ago
Vampire Hunting
ScrewLimbBizkit 2 years ago
"But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon! We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Full speech at v=TuW4oGKzVKc
oneeyednarn 2 years ago
Hey tf00t... i wonder since a long time... do you speak any other languages?.. maybe you find the time to answer, after challenging ray ; )
greetz from norway
machineryofhate 2 years ago
You should probably send him a private message, cuz I doubt he has e-mail activation turned on for comments as he'd receive thousands of them every week.
Boy192 2 years ago
I just watched this 10 times... wtf
ralph1818 2 years ago
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Somewhere, I am not sure where, we as a people lost that and it is a very sad thing.
Sabz5150 2 years ago 2
Thunderfoot, from whta man knows of the size of the universe is billions of light years (just a rough guess) They don't know the full size. I would bet my life that man will never travel that far. Let alone one hundred light years or so.
dnwndls 2 years ago
ya never know
TheFartoholic 2 years ago
dnwndls:
Remember that space-time is flexible. If we were able to bend, contort and maybe even punch a whole in the fabric of space-time itself, billions of light-years could be traveled within seconds.
deadcommie10 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think that will EVER happen
dnwndls 2 years ago
in theory
Aprilshowersss 2 years ago
Yeah, in theory. But still, that's the current understanding of the universe.
deadcommie10 2 years ago
Thanks 82. Actually, you suggest a good video.
RSALDA00 2 years ago
I'm still thinking of that line, the bit that goes "we choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
I want to go off on a rant regarding that thought, but no, I won't. Instead, in a sort of cornball way, I'll suggest that those of you reading this think about attempting something difficult. Challenge yourself, expand your horizons.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago 2
I have a certain tendency to engage in conspiracy type thinking. But I still don't understand this obsession with lunar landing conspiracies. There's nothing particularly impossible about going to the moon, with the size and power of the rocket technology we possessed at the time it was well within our capability. And.. well.. you can't avoid the evidence. I mean damn, we bounced lasers off a reflector that PEOPLE LEFT ON THE MOON.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago 7
But that theory does have a potent to make people wander, and the ignorant just rave all they want about how it was a fucking cartoon of sorts...
WelcomeOniveraProd 2 years ago
Marilyn Monroe?
RainMan34 2 years ago
Marilyn Manson... :3
WelcomeOniveraProd 2 years ago
Going to the moon was an act of inspiration. A can-do attitude of a generation.
Technically, we could have been on mars already. All we are missing is inspiration.
henriatheist 2 years ago 2
but the moon landing was a fake......l
i love conspiracy theory's
calves009 2 years ago
LOVE the choice of music for this.
mancrushonhanksnow 2 years ago 5
Religion sure never got us to the moon, nor will it ever get us to Mars.
Religion says they can get us to heaven, but wherever that is, it's life with a cosmic despot.
Like Tf00t's subtitle goes, "Science and education for the win!"
InfidelAvenger 2 years ago 3
Actually, I recall seeing an advert on the side of (I believe) a british bus.
"Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings."
GenesisScholar 2 years ago 8
Wow - how true. Wonder what the average persoin thought of that? Probably more saw the humour in it, than would admit.
jkzl1008 2 years ago
@GenesisScholar
Logical Fallacy, Spotlight and generalization...
Most of the scientists that worked on Apollo (and all of the astronauts) believed in God, but that is another fallacy [Ad Verecundiam].
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@InfidelAvenger
"Religion sure never got us to the moon" Kennedy was Catholic, and modern science was developed by monks (universities also came from monastic orders) *Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD
"it's life with a cosmic despot." Self-declaration, no evidence in context
"Science and education for the win!" Science and education needs a firm foundation in society, during the Bolshevik Revolution over 90,000 churches were burned down... Was Russia better off afterward?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
Science has brought us everything. EVERYTHING! Merely the computer you typed this comment on is a product of science. That nice little medicine you take when you get a cold is science. Half the food in the world is grown by science. Science gave us everything and can take everything away if religion is allowed to over.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX
Science is the Devil's was of making us sin!
haha kidding. I agree 100%.
lostkid19 1 year ago
@lostkid19
OMG! lol.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX
Those spaces between the words you type are an innovation from religious men.
The fertilization process you touch on with food was developed by men that believed in God...
Television, made by a Mormon.
AC electricity, by a man that considered being a priest.
Science is a tool, it is only as good as the hands that use it.
You didn't answer my question about Russia....
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
What question about Russia? Restate it plox. Anyways...
Those spaces between the words are an innovation from a religious man is like saying "Words are from a religious man." Back then, everyone was religious.
Everything else can be summed up as "Just because an innovation made by someone who was religious who also used the scientific method does not make that said religion true.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX
Exactly, that is a logical fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam.
Unfortunately it works the other way around.
Person A is a scientist,
Person A does not believe in God,
Therefore God does not exist?
My argument is simply this; Religion is not the determining factor in scientific progress. My supporting example is the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia when the government burned down over 90,000 churches and suppressed religion.
Was science progressive in the Soviet Union?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
A second real life example is China under the Cultural Revolution, religion was treated like a 'poison'. And China stagnated.
A third example is the French Revolution, about 5,000 churches were destroyed there, eliminating the main provider of charity through-out France. Even though there was an emphasis on scientific development, they still stagnated.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX
There is also an important distinction to make. Science is a tool, it is not a set of ideologies that can be placed on a pillar.
This is not to be contested it is logical enough; you use a hammer to drive nails.
Likewise you can use mathematics to measure and design. Engineers specifically use science as a tool.
This is important because we do not praise the hammer for building a house, we praise the PERSON that USED the hammer.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist Science is a mechanism in which understanding is gained, not a tool to be used. Tools might be a product of that understanding or used to gain such understanding but NOT a tool. Any man can pick up a tool yet only a few can wield the power of science.
Engineers use well...engineering, mathematics, which are all byproducts of the super mechanism, which is in fact, science.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX
"Science is a mechanism"
And pray tell what a MECHANISM is..... Isn't that a TOOL of some sort?
Name an area of science that CANNOT be used as a tool...
Physics? nope, Chemistry? no, Biology... Tell that to a farmer...
The very foundation of all sciences, Mathematics, is a tool. You are just disagreeing for the sake of argument.
What do scientific researchers use the scientific method for?
Kind of like a tool right?
Science is a tool in EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD!
Funkyflorist 1 year ago