Home / Church-State Issues / The Andromeda Strain, Yes. Jesus, No. Your Tax Dollars at Work.
Print Friendly and PDF

The Andromeda Strain, Yes. Jesus, No. Your Tax Dollars at Work.

Written by Gary North on February 7, 2013

You have heard about the need for the separation of church and state. What about the separation of science and state?

But science is neutral, we are told. Suuuuure it is.

Scientists are impartial searchers of truth. Suuuuure they are.

The space program above earth’s gravity is a Darwinist boondoggle. The money spent by the government does not pay a positive rate of return, unless you are a Darwinist who thinks life on Mars or in a nearby solar system will prove that life is not unique, mankind is not unique, Jesus is not unique, and therefore Darwinists will not go to hell. They operate in terms of a scientific formula: Life in outer space = there is no hell.

They spend our tax dollars to prove this. They force Christians to pay for it. It’s all purely scientific, you understand. No hidden agendas here. The public overwhelmingly wants NASA’s zero-payoff boondoggles to go on, we are assured. The voters have demanded that they be taxed to pay astronomers and technicians career wages at above-market rates to pursue the search for life in outer space.

The Andromeda strain is out there, waiting to be discovered and brought back to earth for further study. The public wants this.

In an article on ABC News, we read all about planets that will sustain life. These planets are beyond any power of observation on earth. But they have life on them. We are assured of the following by recipients of government funding.

“You don’t need an Earth clone to have life.”

“We thought we would have to search vast distances to find an Earth-like planet. Now we realize another Earth is probably in our own backyard, waiting to be spotted.”

“We now know the rate of occurrence of habitable planets around the most common stars in our galaxy. That rate implies that it will be significantly easier to search for life beyond the solar system than we previously thought.”

So, there are earth-like planets out there. They are habitable. And habitable planets are inhabited. How do we know? Mathematics.

No one has seen life in outer space, of course. But it is there. Yes, sir, it is there.

How do we know? Because NASA has a telescope. It’s called the Kepler. It reveals these distant habitable planets. Sort of. In a sense.

The telescope views stars. From time to time, these stars have objects passing in front of them. These are planets. The planets are habitable. There is life on some of them, statistically speaking.

Of course, the same statistics would apply without the Kepler. But funding the Kepler is crucial. If we did not have the Kepler, we would have less compelling press releases from NASA.

Here is what the Kepler really funds: NASA’s press releases.

The article goes on:

There is no saying what such a world would actually be like; the Kepler probe can only show whether distant stars have objects periodically passing in front of them. But based on that, scientists can do some math and estimate the mass and orbit of these possible planets. So far, Kepler has spotted more than 2,700 of them in the small patch of sky it has been watching.

Therefore, there is life in outer space. Therefore, there is no hell.

Is there any way to prove there is life in those distant systems? No. Does this mean that NASA should be shut down? No. It means that NASA’s budget should be increased. The search for life in outer space must go on. The press releases must continue to flow.

Whenever a federal government-funded project inherently must fail, this means that the program must be funded with more money. This is the logic of civil government. Reward failure. Tax success.

This is government-funded science.

Could they be friendly to life? There’s no way to know yet, but space scientists say that if you have the right ingredients — a planet the right size, temperatures that allow for liquid water, organic molecules and so forth — and the chances may be good, even on a planet that is very different from ours.

Conclusion: Keep the funding coming!

Would the free market support any of this? No. That’s why we need NASA. That’s why we need Congress. That’s why deficits don’t matter.

They are spending us blind. They will continue to do so until the Great Default. The spending is astronomical. (Sorry. I could not resist.)

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

66 thoughts on “The Andromeda Strain, Yes. Jesus, No. Your Tax Dollars at Work.

  1. geneww1938 says:

    When I worked on the LST [Hubble Telescope] proposal, and the first verification manager. I called it a 'Babble Telescope Boondoogle' because they wanted to prove how the universe was created apart from God.

    Well they have spent Billions of Dollars and have provided no scientific and enhanced society pay-off except beautiful, Photoshop enhanced pictures.

    Previous exploration projects provided miniaturization of electronics, improved reliability of products, improved life science and the such. That is not NASA's mission today. Sad

  2. beachtennisguy says:

    Thanks for another insight into the minds of pagan Statists at work. This confirms a suspicion I've had for some time about the endless, fruitless endeavors to find life elsewhere, partly motivated by the relentless urge to discredit the Bible. The same is true of the UFO cult. It is appalling how Judeo-Christians willingly pay for our own punishment. Now that government has metastasized at all levels, we would be better served by resisting every dollar of ours that is taken to further the pagan Statist agenda, including the corrupt government court and education systems.

  3. I am satisfied in not knowing beause the massive and never-ending costs involved in trying to find out are unimaginable! I will perhaps know this answer in my eternal life, for free, so do not wish our government to spend anything on this question here and now. We are broke as a nation and must live within our means! No thanks! Mickey.

  4. Nasa has brought to us many good things to help us in our lives . But i will agree the cost has been a big burden on all the tax payers from the time i was very young . I have watch most all those rocket go to outer space , not to miss but a few . But as with all the government projects comes one hell of a price on the head of the tax payer. When it is government , there is no end to money , they will pay anyone double , triple , and on and on , the % of the cost done by private sector. That is why it is good now that the private sectore is starting into space travel and exploration . Get government out and let the little guy spend only a bit of what the government does for the same job

  5. Hal Howell says:

    So, here we are. spending millions (billions?) to find life on Mars, Planet X or whatever, and at the same time spending money to kill babies also at government (read taxpayers) expense. Therefore, we have no problem killing life on earth but must try to find life in outer space. How stupid is that?

  6. This whole article is Shane-bait. C'mon, Shane, weigh in on this one! I'm dying to hear your take on it.

  7. Someone set me straight here. The Bible says when Adam and Eve sinned all of creation fell. Wouldn't that include life on other planets, if any? There are millions of life forms on Earth, therefore life will not be any less unique if there are also millions of life forms on other planets. Hence, Darwinists will still go to Hell. So what's the big deal? What logic am I overlooking here?

  8. This is very discouraging. I always liked the space program because I believed that exploration of space was man's destiny. Apparently, this idea has been subverted into another purpose. I believe in God and His creation of a marvelous universe. If there is life outside of our planet, God must have created it also.

  9. Jim McClarin says:

    I'm for radically smaller government and the uncoupling of science from the state but I disagree that much science is aimed at overturning our beliefs and traditions. Science often does have an agenda and indeed it does often run contrary to religious beliefs, but except in rare cases it is not the objective of scientists to defeat religion. It is to pursue theories, test hypotheses, find new truths and methods of doing things. I do agree that most biologists believe in Darwinian evolution and are aghast at literal creationism but that is not why they are anxious to see if life exists on Mars or or the Jovian moon Europa or on planets outside our solar system. Some may seek evidence of "panspermia," the seeding of space with rudimentary life that then evolves where it finds a hospitable environment.. However it is motivated by a desire to know, not a desire to refute religion. Honestly, I think religious dogmas are rarely considered by most scientists in the same way that I suppose a lumberjack and a Paris fashion designer contemplate each other's work. There are not two teams facing each other across the line of scrimmage. There are two distant universes of thought. Lament the gulf, the distance, but science is not "out to get" religion.

  10. Mike_Andrews says:

    I'm sure there are scientists that want to prove the universe was created apart from God. But I'm equally sure the majority of the scientists have no such agenda. I wish people would quit focusing on the few things they don't like and blowing them out of proportion. It's much more constructive to focus on the good and blow THAT out of proportion.

  11. Evidence of life in outer-space may bolster the confidence of some atheists, but it only means that man can't put God in a box. God is much too big for our puny little imaginations. C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy should be enough to show that.

  12. The cost of running NASA is pennies compared to the financial and human cost of the wars you religious zealots get us into.

  13. I'm sure it is. Gary's a troll.

  14. Case in point: Current NASA budget – $18.724 billion annually, $400 billion since 1958.

    Iraq/Afghanistan wars: $3,700 billion and counting.

    The economic impact of NASA has been ridiculously amazing, too. The aerospace industry accounts for over a hundred billion dollars of economic activity per year, and a quarter of that goes to over half a million American employees. NASA has given us or led to the development of hundreds of things we use every day:
    – Computer mice
    – Communications satellites
    – Cell phones
    – Cochlear implants
    – Forest fire prevention through high altitude infrared sensors
    – UV coating on sunglasses
    – Google Earth

    Just.. go read this list.

    NASA has advanced America more than *anything* you can think of.

  15. No taxpayer money ever goes to abortions. This is a fact.

  16. The bigger burden is the $3.7 trillion in unpaid wars, not the $18.7 billion spent on NASA each year.

  17. I think you're living under a bubble, dude. LOL.

    NASA and spinoff projects are doing things people wouldn't have dreamed of 5-10 years ago.

  18. spaceracecase says:

    Poor Mr. North, whom I enjoy when he sticks to economics, is apparently convinced that space exploration can somehow comment on Christian theology. This merely shows that he has no idea what science is even about. Yes, an individual scientist can be an atheist or agnostic, and no doubt many of them are, but her beliefs or lack of them regarding the afterlife have no bearing whatever on the question of life or the possibility of life off-Earth.

  19. Well, not directly. Our taxes fund Planned Parenthood, and they do the dirty work..

  20. Good then privatize it and see how it works when they have to justify their expenditures AND NOT be funded by my tax dollars. If it is as good as you believe then pay for it privately. After all this is the same organization, that during investigation, showed us that political correctness and CYA'ing your career was more important than the 7 Astronauts that were killed on the Challenger never mind the one that lost its wing for a total of 14 dead and don't forget Apollo 1 with 3 more dead.

    Don't mean to sound too critical but NASA's hey day is over. Have it function as a private enterprise. We haven't gone to the moon and beyond since Apollo 17. We never built a moon base, never went to Mars, etc. All we have been doing is orbiting around the earth. God John Glenn did that when Kennedy was President and that was over 50 years ago. I do not need to fund with my tax dollars a jobs security program or one more government boondoggle.

    As much as I detest Obama I have to concur with his "killing" the shuttle program. Now "kill" the rest by defunding them and make them EARN their money in the private sector.

  21. Then privatize the search for life on other planets. Do not expect me to pay for "grants" to fund research. NASA is a business running on tax dollars so some can make names for themselves. So if you believe as you do then why cannot you have and others have these "scientists" compete in the private sector AND NOT live off of taxpayer dollars?

  22. The NASA budget is half a penny per tax dollar.

    Without NASA there would be no satellites.
    There would be no weather satellites. How many hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved
    since the first weather satellites was launched in 1960.

    There would be no GPS systems.
    There would be no satellite phones.

    We wouldn't be able to communicate right now with each other because there would be no internet.

    There would be no cell phones.

    Think of all the jobs that have been created.

    We would be living the same lives today as the people in the 1950's.

    NASA has paid for itself many times over.

    Increase NASA's budget to one penny per tax dollar and cut $1 trillion in all the other federal agencies.

  23. and what about the 17 lives lost by NASA??? And the endless grants given to others that do not show up in NASA's budget? Privatization of NASA is long overdue. I watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon. We haven't done squat since. I watched John Glenn orbit the earth over 50 years ago and THAT is all NASA can do and has been doing!! Time to shut down taxpayer funded NASA.

  24. What planet (given your NASA comments) do you live on? Planned Parenthood DOES get taxpayer money. Go check out the U.S. Budget but you will have to dig and it is BORING to read.

  25. Gee I bet a Gary Troll sells for a higher price than a Shane Troll. Can you even give away a Shane Troll? Just asking.

  26. The wars are the result of international bankers who control governments and markets. The military/industrial complex works quite well with a steady stream of conflict. 9/11 was a false flag event to create an Islamic Monster that required us to go to war and create a Homeland Security and a Patriot Act to enslave Americans. Shane, you are great on iddy bitty details but have missed the big picture badly.

  27. spaceracecase says:

    No let's not. Space exploration and other primary research is an area where government needs to be involved. Why? Because the profit motive alone won't let us see what's out there. But even so, SpaceX and other private ventures will be more and more involved in space and we'll see increased efficiencies and cost savings because of their involvement…BTW, I notice you put "scientists" in quotes, so I guess you don't consider them real scientists if they work for the government. What other requirements do you have for real scientists? How about engineers?

  28. I don't see how the presence of life on other planets (or practically any other discovery concerning the physical universe) would preclude the existence of Hell or God.

    If the Bible were being written today, some of the writing would take advantage of scientific (and other) concepts and knowledge that have only become known in the last 2000 years.

    If astronomers' understanding of stars is at all true, the Sun will explode and/or burn out in about 15 billion years. (I realize that this is an unimaginably long time compared to all of human history to date.) If humankind survives for that length of time, future survival will quite possibly depend on humanity being able to migrate itself to a different planet. We understand this in our bones and it adds some urgency to our curiosity about how the universe works.

  29. I am a fiscal conservative and would like to see the govt space program operated as cheaply as possible (and largely privatized going forward). Much of the expense to date, however, is justified by the military/national-security role, and this expense is tiny compared to the euphemistically-named "non-discretionary" spending that is ruining us. Many of the technological, managerial, (and other types of) advances occurring in our modern life have fallen out of the space program (electronics, computers, telecomm, biology, medicine, etc) and I'd guess that the investment has paid off, but these things are hard to measure..

  30. "NASA has advanced America more than *anything* you can think of."

    Baloney. Steve Jobs had more creativity and vision in his little finger than NASA has in its entire bureaucracy. He changed American far more than NASA ever did.

    And NASA attempting to take credit for things like cell phones is like Al Gore claiming to have helped invent the internet.

  31. "There would be no GPS systems.
    There would be no satellite phones.
    We wouldn't be able to communicate right now with each other because there would be no internet.
    There would be no cell phones.
    We would be living the same lives today as the people in the 1950's"

    All of your statements are false. NASA is not some magic bureaucracy where technology is conceived that otherwise would never occur to mankind. Your thinking is a complete nonsensical fallacy.

    Internet is hooking computers together so they can talk to each other. To claim that no one was going to think of that unless we had NASA shows how little you understand technology or human creativity.

    NASA likes to take credit for things that are actually the creative works of others. They would take credit for the wheel if they could.

  32. Gary North and friends are religious nuts and can't handle the fact that there may be other planets capable of supporting life? Aw, poor babies. Once again shows how people highly skilled in one area are hopelessly incompetent in another area and think their opinions count as facts.

  33. Seymour Kleerly says:

    This article could have been written by the early Church trying to stop Galleleo from proving them wrong. Imagine if they could have prevented the manufactuer or use of the telescope.

  34. I enjoy about 90-95% of Gary North's writing, but his falls squarely into the "didn't enjoy" category. I fully admit to being an out-and-proud follower of reason (read atheist), and I don't need proof, or even evidence, of extraterrestrial life to support my conclusion that god does not exist.

  35. "Is there any way to prove there is life in those distant systems? No."

    Actually, there is. If we can observe one of these planets directly and find oxygen in the atmosphere, then it is likely that there is life there. Without life generating oxygen, any oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly turn into carbon dioxide or be bound into rocks.

  36. burtfisher says:

    This is all true. And I would like to put a finer point on it, if I may. There is no humanly way possible for me or my children to know about anything that is farther away than, say, 50 light years from the Earth. So for that reason alone, I do not accept NASA or anyone taking my tax money to go find it.

    I might be willing to donate a few bucks to a private company to go find it, and I know ahead of time that I won't find the answer before I die. But to be forced to fund this, at the point of a gun (which is what happens when government steals my paycheck, as currently in the USA), it not acceptable to me.

    This is not the role of government. I don't know how much more simply this can be stated.

    And it doesn't need to be said, but I will do so here: I am not a religious person, probably what you folks would even call an atheist. But I deeply respect your beliefs and convictions, as my neighbors and fellow travelers on this blue marble. I do NOT respect those who are elected to office and then fail to live up to their sworn oath, including the part "so help me God". These people are not my friends.

    I do not care what elected officials think about the possibility of life on other planets. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB. I care more about life (and death) on this planet, for example, my mother, age 92 in Calif. Why is the government spending one penny more on NASA than they are spending on her and her generation? Humans need it more, especially since she and they are the ones who paid into the system?

  37. J. Keen Holland says:


    by: Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)

    THE MICROBE is so very small
    You cannot make him out at all,
    But many sanguine people hope
    To see him through a microscope.
    His jointed tongue that lies beneath
    A hundred curious rows of teeth;
    His seven tufted tails with lots
    Of lovely pink and purple spots,
    On each of which a pattern stands,
    Composed of forty separate bands;
    His eyebrows of a tender green;
    All these have never yet been seen–
    But Scientists, who ought to know,
    Assure us that is must be so…
    Oh! let us never, never doubt
    What nobody is sure about!

  38. Jim McClarin says:

    Of course the phenomenon of countless reports of Earthly visits by ET's is not broached at all here.

    Any student of 20th century history has heard of the cargo cults that sprang up on remote Pacific islands where pilots had landed in association with military operations during WWII. The strangers came down from the heavens, had magical devices and abilities, and dispensed amazing gifts. When the wondrous strangers left at the war's end there was a great angst, a longing for their return. On a number of islands effigies of planes and radios were made and airstrips were maintained in hopes that these strangers from the heavens would visit again.

    If such a thing were to have occurred in our own past there should be some record of our efforts to entreat the strangers to revisit us. Indeed, the vanished civilizations in many parts of the globe left abundant evidence of such hopes and expectations. Besides their use of superior weapons one reason the Conquistadors had such an easy time vanquishing the Incas and Aztecs was the initial impression that they were the returning "gods" that so much of their belief and ritual anticipated. Were they imagining a time when wondrous, magical strangers visited them? It is a phenomenon that is repeatedly found by archaeologists and anthropologists, often with very explicit descriptions and even statues, reliefs, and drawings of the visitors from the heavens and their flying machines and other devices.

    The Old Testament contains many descriptions of visits and events that, if they were to happen today, would be attributed by many to alien visitation and advanced technology. Yet we are told by religious authorities what to think of these passages. Alien visitation is not considered.

    Those who believe that God's creation is so simple that we can understand it completely after even a lifetime of scriptural study run serious risk of underestimating the Creator. When we accept our understanding of the moment as holy doctrine we limit our appreciation of God's wonders. Let's keep the channel open for new appreciation.

  39. Stuart Shepherd says:

    Are you for real, JamesKing?

  40. Stuart Shepherd says:

    If God doesn't exist, Ken, then:
    1. Where did YOU come from?
    2. Is there a difference between right and wrong, good and evil?
    3. Who were all those people and events recorded in the Bible, that seem pretty real and are actually corrorborated by other historical accounts?
    4. What about the "man" named Jesus, who the great many experienced in the flesh and recorded His activities and teachings? It was just a coincidence that He actually existed and fulfilled all of the prophecies written of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God? All the thousands of martyrs that gave their lives because they were so "irrational" rather than deny Him to men like you? What about the empty tomb? What about the thousands (500 in one day, I think) who saw him after the resurrection and those who saw Him ascend to heaven and gave their lives as witnesses rather than renounce these eternally powerful truths? There was really a conspiracy of right-wing Republicans over 2000 years ago that wanted to set up the political landscape in America when it came to be and made sure the Bible got put together to delude the masses? I think they "planted" Billy Graham, too! I'm pretty sure of it!

    It must be nice to have that superior intellect of yours, Ken!
    Stuart Shepherd

  41. Stuart Shepherd says:

    Let's keep the channel open with YOUR money- how 'bout?!!! I was taught to worship the Creator, not the creation. I shouldn't have to fund YOUR worship!!!!!!!

  42. Really? You’re going to put up 17 lives in NASA to the tens of thousands lost in wars? You’re an imbecile. I’ve already posted links to the hundreds of things NASA has done for us in the last decades, it’s not my fault you’re too blind to read them.

  43. Yes, they get federal monies, but none of that goes towards abortions. The public donations they get goes towards that, and it makes up less than 5% of what Planned Parenthood does. Check your facts, buddy.

  44. Lol. You can’t just say “your statements are false” and have it be true. You need to back it up with facts, and you have none.

  45. Gary Trolls are money whores. Shane Trolls just do it for fun. 😉

  46. Steve Jobs Stole half of his ideas from rivals, and his company puts out the same stupid products with one or two added features every cycle, while stupid consumers keep falling for it. It’s hardly revolutionary. Also, his company is tanking. Check their stocks.

    NASA can’t take credit for a whole cell phone, but their technologies are used in all of them, and if NASA hadn’t developed them, we wouldn’t have cell phones. At least not the ones we have today.

  47. I don’t know about you, but I had a mother who gave birth to me. God had nothing to do with it.

  48. Lol.

  49. Ban KKiller says:

    The Earth is flat. The Sun revolves around the Earth. The Bible is all we need to know about so-called science. Let us join the folks who want to destroy scientific curiosity. Earth is only 6,000 years old and fossils are faked. Oh, my religion is the only true religion. My religion is peaceful and I will be glad to convert you at the point of a sword.

  50. awkingsley says:

    I fail to see how finding life somewhere else in the Universe or in other Universes discredits the Bible. God created everything – "the heavens and the earth". Why would an infinite God create only one Universe? God could have created life simultaneously on all habitable planets at one time or at varied times. What possible difference does it make? Christians need to become literate in ancient history, so they can point to the ancient historical records, in order to end the arguments. They are fighting these battles with too little knowledge or understanding to win the arguments.

    Judeo-Christianity inherited a tidbit of Vedic knowledge in the Creation Story in the Holy Bible. We all had all of the Vedic knowledge at one time, but through the passage of 10s of thousands of years, and with the coming of Jewish Prophets and our own Christian Jesus Christ, we deemed it important to remember only the Holy Bible because Jesus Christ’s spiritual knowledge superseded all prior spiritual knowledge. This has come back to bite us in many ways because of the controversies surrounding the Creation Story and the origin of man, to which Christians usually have inadequate answers. However, the answers were passed down for millions of years as an oral record by Vedic Pundits who memorized the Vedas, passing them father to son. That was their job. Punditry was an occupation, just as we have carpenters and metal workers today. The Vedas predate Hinduism and are our earliest human record. Pundits began writing down the Vedas approximately 10,000 years ago. Hinduism is built on Vedic knowledge, and the Hindus are the current conservators of Vedic knowledge, but not the progenitors. The Vedas are non-chronological historical records. Here are some very interesting URLs stating the facts of a separate creation for modern man and the evolution of an ape-like man, Neanderthal who died out. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/out_of_africa_theory

    Information in the Vedic Ramayana describes an elephant that lived 2 million years ago and construction of the Land Bridge between India and Sri Lanka 1,700,000 years ago. http://www.oocities.org/trueworldhistory/ramayana

    The world was created in 6 Days means in 6 "God Days", days of "Brahma the Creator", our God. (It should be noted here that the Hindus tend to call all enlightened people or Avatars "gods". Even renunciates who are on a spiritual path but have not yet reached enlightenment are called “godmen”. They use the term "god" very liberally.) http://www.webonautics.com/mythology/brahma2.html

    The major reason Christians are determined not to use the Vedas to support their arguments is because they are still trying to support the Aryan invasion theory in India, which appears to be a flawed theory. Christians need to accept the realities of the world, even where it hurts, and become more literate. The founders of our country were very brilliant, knowledgeable, moral people. They did not immerse themselves in only television and the Bible. The Christians of today did not pick up the mantle of Our Founding Fathers, and our country is in a moral and economic mess because our knowledge and education are inadequate.

  51. ,,The Bible is all we need to know about so-called science. Let us join the folks who want to destroy scientific curiosity''.

    Read more: The Bible

  52. I am still for manned space exploration and for tapping extra terrestrial resources. Thanks to the bammunist, we have no manned space program anymore and our shuttles are museum pieces. NASA's objective, per bo, is to make muslims feel good about hor their pagan mentality has dimmed scientifc nowledge.

  53. Nasa has been hijacked by atheists and has become a black whole for money. Also, in Europe there is the $18 billion accelerator looking for the "god particle". Read Romans 1:16-32. Godless men thinking they are wise will become fools and turn into homosexuals with mental illness. Now we see that all last 50 years of Godless education has turned our citizens into mentally ill mass murderers with liberal ideology. If you take the time to research you'll discover all the school, Fort Hood, VA Tech, Co theater, Sandy Hook, Columbine, American Family Assoc. shooting and even the x-cop they are man hunting today are Democrat families, Obama, Pelosi, Reid supporters that hate Christians. Liberals are to often home grown terrorists. Let America be a Christian nation again. Before it is to late. Innocent human life is sacred only because there is a God. I rest my case. Peace.

  54. "Steve Jobs Stole half of his ideas from rivals, and his company puts out the same stupid products with one or two added features every cycle, while stupid consumers keep falling for it. It's hardly revolutionary. Also, his company is tanking. Check their stocks."

    None of that changes the fact that Steve Jobs has more creativity and vision in his little finger than NASA has in its entire bureaucracy. FYI, I am not a fan of Apple products for the most part myself and I don't buy their stock.

    "NASA can't take credit for a whole cell phone"

    This is true.

    "but their technologies are used in all of them,"

    This is not.

    "and if NASA hadn't developed them, we wouldn't have cell phones"

    Neither is this.

    "At least not the ones we have today."

    Smile, and here Shane admits we would have cell phones without NASA, thereby contradicting Stan below, and conceding to my argument. I graciously accept your concession Stan.

    Read more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/02/07/darwinist

  55. Jim McClarin says:

    Peace to you, Cory, and wisdom too. Learn the difference between hole and whole, between to and too.

  56. 'You can't just say "your statements are false" and have it be true.'

    Smile, I don't use your methods Shane. Stan's statements are false because they are false. That Stan would state and you would imply that without NASA we would all be living as if in the 1950's is pure laughable nonsense.

    " You need to back it up with facts,"

    The next time Shane backs up his statements with facts on this website, will be the first.

    "and you have none."

    Wrong again Shane.

    The internet comes to us through computers hooked up between UCLA and Stanford Research Institute, with the government ARPA/DARPA(not NASA) developing communication protocols and the first commercial Internet provider was Telenet(now Sprint).

    The cellphone traces back through Motorola, Bell Labs, AT&T and of course inventors Bell and Reginald Fessenden.

    Ditto for satellite phones, which also trace back through Motorola, Bell Labs and AT&T and the inventors.

    Roger Easton is largely responsible for GPS, and he worked for the Navy at NRI, not NASA.

    You can thank me later Shane for correcting your ignorance on these matters.

  57. Tasha, are you daft? We had manned shuttles as recently as 2011.

    Go learn something.

  58. Your post is null and void without references, David. You failed hardcore.

  59. Once again, David, without citing your sources, you fail.

  60. Dark Patriot says:

    So what? Almost all of those aborted kids would have been a liberal. No where near enough abortions to suit me.

  61. "Your post is null and void"

    Wrong again Shane, my post refuted your erroneous argument.

    "without references"

    References were provided in the other comment branch Shane. That you pretend to ignore them only shows when you can't deal with an argument you stick your head in the sand and engage in denial.

    "You failed hardcore."

    Shane describes himself here. I am still chuckling over his ridiculous argument in claiming Steve Jobs is not more creative than NASA because Apple's stock dropped AFTER Steve Jobs died.

  62. "Once again, David,"

    Once again I succeed in correcting Shane's ignorance, refuting Shane's arguments and exposing Shane's folly.

    "without citing your sources"

    Shane wants a source for Alexander Graham Bell inventing the telephone, how amusing.

    Everything I provided are basic facts which you can easily find on the web. If you are too lazy to look them up Shane, that is your problem, not mine. The comments section will eat a post with too many links.

    "you fail"

    No Shane I don't have your problem. I succeed while you fail.

  63. Me thinks the Emperor has no clothes. Did he consider that there are many telescopes out in space similar to the ones that NASA runs? And I guarantee that you won’t be able to find all the tax dollars spent on them too. Vastly more than NASA spends. And they don’t even point toward the sky.

    This discussion forgot that there are two types of science: basic and applied. NASA does a little of both, but mostly basic (manned space flight is mostly applied research, looking at stars is basic). Private enterprise funds very little basic science, but most of the important discoveries come out of it. If the government didn’t fund basic research we would have lost many more men in WW II taking Japan. In fact, we were behind in this research and only the great scientists running away from the dictators and coming to this country saved us.

    The real problem is that science is now very politically driven, although it was to a certain extent in the past. Not to worry anyway because the current administration is not very friendly to NASA.

  64. SapientHetero says:

    What a sad commentary this ignorant rant is on the narrow perspective of some who dare to call themselves "conservatives". It's repulsive to read people object to the excesses of the radical left while proposing their own oppressive measures to force others to live the way THEY want. Those who do so are pathetic hypocrites.

    Freedom knows no ideology; we're either free to make our own choices or we're not free at all.

  65. Paul Nordin says:

    Good catches, Jim McClarin!

  66. I will right away grab your rss feed as I can’t in finding your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me recognise in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.