Grom

With the shuttle program in the process of being shuttered, NASA has announced where its orbiters will be heading. If you have a chance to see any of these orbiters, do it. It's worth it. I've seen the Enterprise a few times at Udvar-Hazy and am excited that they will be getting Discovery.

NASA on Tuesday announced that museums in Virginia, New York, California and Florida - but not Houston, Texas -- will display the four retired space shuttle orbiters after the shuttle program's 30-year mission ends this June.

 

Shuttle Enterprise, the first orbiter built -- but never flown in space -- will be moved from the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York.

 

Shuttle Discovery, which flew its last mission in March, will go to the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia.

 

Shuttle Endeavour, making its last flight at the end of April, will be displayed at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.

 

Shuttle Atlantis, set to fly the final space shuttle program mission in June, goes to the Kennedy Space Center Visitor's Complex in Florida.

 

Houston, You Have a Problem: Notably not selected to house an orbiter, Houston, Texas - considered by NASA as the home of the U.S. human space flight program - felt snubbed by NASA's decision.

 

"We are really disheartened," Richard Allen, president of Space Center Houston told the Houston Chronicle. "I don't think the decision was based on the merits. Houston has a long association with the space shuttle program, of course. All flights were led out of Mission Control at Johnson Space Center, and astronauts who flew aboard the shuttles lived and trained in the community."

 

Since 1961, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, home of "Mission Control," has overseen American human space flight missions including the Gemini orbital missions, the Apollo moon landing missions and, of course, the flights of the space shuttles.

It's very unlikely that the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds difference has anything to do with the text of the Torah being written without vowels. The Hebrew is "ים סוף" (YM S?F) which may mean either "Sea of Reeds" (סוּף, SUF) or "Sea of/at the End (סוֹף, SOF)". The Masoretic text (~9th-10th century), which standardized the pronunciation with written diacritical marks, disambiguates it as סוּף (SUF) on the basis of pre-existing tradition. The translation "Red Sea" apparently first appeared in the Greek Septuagint (3rd cen BCE), which was probably trying to translate it into a location that might be understood by its readers; in that sense, it's a translation, not a mistake. Later translators, including the KJV, copied that identification. The fact that "Reed" and "Red" look similar in English is mere coincidence.

 

You can go back to arguing science and theology now.

It's also possible that the reeds themselves had a reddish tinge, and the Septuagint is repeating an idiomatic identification.

Your signiture quote would seem to contradict this. At a minimum it implies that the advancement of science is a wasted effort if theology (the study of Theo from The Cosby Show?) gets you there faster.

Yes, the quote is a little quirky, but I don't see theism and science as adversaries. I see them as complementary. Studying the creation is another way of learning about the creator.

Let me just point out really briefly that, to my knowledge, in this discussion I have neither mentioned the Bible nor the Genesis creation account. Creation science in of itself is not a religious pursuit. Obviously theists have a keen interest and are among its chief proponents, but the theory that a great being or force as a necessary first cause for all physical existence is a irreligious theory. How we relate to this being or force, if it exists, is more of a religious question.

As far as the Bible is concerned, let me state a few things as the resident "theologian." In secular terms, the Bible is a piece of literature, in fact, made up several different kinds of literature. There are narratives, historical accounts, laws, poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature, epistles/letters, just to name a few. Second, the Bible was written to select people at select times. In order to properly interpret the Bible, one must exegete (draw out meaning from) the text, that is, take into account the type of literature, how the intended audience would have understood it in its original language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the social and historical background of the text, grammar, and syntax, just to name a few. I say this because certain passages are always thrown around as proof texts for or against the Bible, when in reality, very little time has been made to understand how the recipient of the text would have understood it.

The Bible does not purport to be a modern science textbook. It does purport itself, however, to be the history of God and God's intersection with creation, primarily humanity, throughout history. This does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say about the physical realities, but that it's not the primary focus. To put it another way, the point is not, "In the beginning God created," it's "In the beginning God."

The Republican-Democrat analogy would suggest that the conclusion has already been decided and that the analysis will be tailored to support it. Again, the scientific method in reverse, a process that no good scientist would tolerate. The comparison fits religion perfectly. Religion deals in truths that can not be disputed or even analyzed -- they're just truths, and faith is all that's needed to accept them. Religion cannot be 'wrong.' There is no true analysis. If a pious man analyzes the plausibility of God, it's the same as a loss of faith. This, again, is where any meaningful comparison between science and religion unravels.

Thanks for your honesty and well-articulated viewpoint. I think the tension is not so much between religion and science, as the debate is often framed, but between the natural and the supernatural. Supernaturalism (if it exists - a point widely disputed), frustrates scientists because it cannot be measured according to conventional, natural means. Supernaturalism is, by its purported nature, not concrete, it goes against established natural laws. Naturalism, on the other hand, frustrates supernaturalists because it challenges established norms with concrete realities. No, the earth isn't flat, and it isn't at the center of the solar system.

My personal opinion is this: At no point should scientists stop learning and testing our universe. I am, after all, a Trek fan and believe that science has much more to offer humanity beyond what it already has. I also think there will be always things that cannot be explained by science. Whether a metaphysical answer is a convincing explanation to these mysteries is up to each person to decide for themselves.

<quote> That's a pretty broad stroke to paint. Scientists in general (there will always be exceptions) follow a rigid process of data collection and analysis that is designed to filter out presuppositions. Science sets out to advance our knowledge of the universe and existence, whatever that pursuit of knowledge might yield. If a scientist were to uncover compelling evidence of a divine creator, he would not try to bury it or to furiously seek out alternative explanations -- he would happily present the evidence as a leap forward in human understanding (it would be far too good for his career to do otherwise). In centuries of scientific methodology, no such compelling evidence has ever been uncovered. This doesn't suggest that findings are being molded to fit pre-existing beliefs; it just indicates that no evidence has been found. </quote>

Science, properly understood, is not a belief system, as you point out, but an investigation of observations made in hopes to better understand the universe. I'm with you, no disagreement.

Where science itself breaks down is when the human element is added. Where is the human element most present in the scientific method? Usually the analysis section. To demonstrate this, I'll use an analogy from my area of expertise. Say Gallup ran a poll today on President Obama's approval rating. Say he jumped 3 points from his last rating from 46 to 49 percent. Say that there were no major issues with the methodology (the questions asked were fair, no political party was oversampled, data was collected according to established norms) and that the margin for error is statistically insignificant. As they, the data speaks for itself. Or does it? A Democratic operative would say the data speaks for itself, that nearly half of America supports the President, and the upward trend suggests that people are more accepting of his policies. It also bodes well for his re-election in 2012. A Republican operative would also say, the data speaks for his self. A majority of Americans do not support the President, are suspicious of his policies and that few Presidents ever get re-elected with such low approval ratings.

So how can two people look at the same data and yet come to two different analyses? First, the majority of studies yield very narrow conclusions. The hypothetical poll above really only reflects what the 3,000 people sampled feels about the President. When you start considering implications, that's where humans begin to fill in the gaps. Now it may be true that these 3,000 people are fairly representative of all 300 million, but it is an extrapolation nonetheless. This is where our belief systems come into play. You state that there is no compelling evidence for a divine creator. That word "compelling" is a value judgement, it's based on your analysis of the data available. I respect your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree. For example, macroevolutionary theory depends on the first two laws of thermodynamics, rather, the suspension and breaking of those laws. How does the universe break its own laws unless some outside force acts upon it?

I appreciate the respectful dialogue, understanding that many here are not fans of religion, and by extension, me in particular. V'Roy, I'm afraid I will have to respond later to your posts. I can only write one long post per day. :)

Something like 30% of the movie going audience can't process the 3-D imagry anyway.

3D goes straight to my stomach for some reason. I can get through IMAX, but 3D is just no good for me.

Still, some theories have better predictive value than other theories. Evolution and natural selection ("Selection" is the key word. It is anything but chance.) do a better job of explaining the diversity of life than Noah's Ark which can't even account for kangaroos.

Nobody approaches the big questions of life with a blank slate. We all ultimately find something that suits the system we've built.

If I presuppose there's no such thing as a being or a force greater than myself, certainly not one big enough to create all of what we see, then absolutely, I'm going to gravitate towards a set of explanations that are more naturalistic. And they will seem very convincing because they validate my system.

The same is true for the theist. If I presuppose that a being or force greater than myself is a necessary first cause to account for the complexities of life, then I'm going to gravitate towards a set of explanations that are more supernaturalistic. And they will seem very convincing because they validate my system.

Most people seem to fall somewhere on the spectrum between naturalism and supernaturalism - evidenced by the fact that a majority of Americans, at least, believe in macro-evolution as well as some divine supernatural being, namely God.

Lots of opinions out there, with ‘factual data’ intermeshing or changing over the years to suit the modern opinions of the decades and our limits of understanding, both in the scientific and religous communities.

Absolutely. Presuppositions are always at play with any debate and the more honest we are able them, the easier it is to have a dialogue. Having spent the last decade or so working in politics, I understand that hyperbole, however, usually wins the day and any concessions are seen as a sign of weakness.

I have great respect for the scientific community and its endeavors. C.S. Lewis once said, "The universe rings true wherever it is fairly tested." This new study is just one piece of the amazing work that the community has put out over the years.

I recall that my rabbi told my hebrew school class that the Torah does not have any accent marks, so that the "Red Sea," was actually the "Sea of Reeds." In other words, the escaping slaves were able to walk across the reeds, but the Egyptians and their heavy chariots ended up sinking through them.

 

Wow, I was actually able to use something I learned in Bar Mitzvah training!!

Yes, the Hebrew word is actually "reed." The reeds still are present on the banks of the sea in some areas.

Take that you puny Creationist crackpots!

As soon as you guys have figured out how some thing came from no thing, you let us know. :)

I'm not convinced 3D is here to stay, anyway.

I won't say you're old, but what was it like siming when all you had were cave drawings?

"If you'd like a post on tonight's sim, please send ~ONE~ rock in my general direction."

"Can you please not use the sunshine yellow cave paint in tonight's sim?"

Happy B-Day A9!

Any such character is free to practice his/her beliefs however he/she chooses. Insofar as the practice does not extend to looking down on the crew from a moral perch or trying to convert the crew, two behaviors that would inevitably rub characters and players alike the wrong way, just as they do in real life. If you find the restriction offensive, by all means, choose not to participate.

 

Thanks for drawing attention to the thread, btw. We're eager to get more folks involved. :D

I was merely pointing out that within the context of a diverse community, such as STSF, not-so-subtle attacks on a major modern religion and its practices, particularly from an authority figure, should not appear on a public thread within this context. There is no, and should be no, religious litmus test for characters just as there is no and should be no racial, ethnic, or disability litmus test.

I won't hijack the thread any further. I like the concept of the new QoB quite a bit and these new character suggestions would add tremendous depth to the sim.

Spiritual Guide -- The free society of Bull's Head has attracted priests of all stripes, and one might seek to provide guidance to spaceborne mercenaries. Such a guide would largely serve a role of counselor to Qob's crew of diverse and colorful personalities. We're not looking for a preacher who will annoy everyone with constant urging to 'accept God.' We're more interested in someone who'd be willing to listen and offer sound advice without passing harsh judgement (something just about everyone on the crew would be subject to).

I get it. The character can be a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim), he just can't practice what he believes. +1 for 'tolerance' (with ironic use of quote marks!)

Sorry for the wait, but it was worth it.

 

Because this is the coolest thing ever.

 

 

I ain't no chump yo - I'm the real deal.

Ain't that something!!!

 

Chicks dig my ride. No really, just ask them, they're right in the barn over there.

W00t! Thanks Images. Here we go:

After failing to graduate the STSF Academy, Brandon attempts something new to change his luck. Unfortunately, Moose's skateboard tips aren't nearly as helpful.

Gracias A9! Do your worst peeps!

 

"Look at this picture I found of a man in a coconut bra and grass skirt!"

Happy Birthday!!

Muah-hah-hahhhh

Image to scale.

 

Have at it guys.

What dads imagine themselves doing on their daughter's prom night.

OK. been out a couple days. lets give this a shot.

USS Manticore, early concept design.

Hooray for me. . . .So, in honor of the FIBA World Championships going on in Turkey, I bring you this:

In an effort to curb steroids in professional sports, the World Anti-Doping Agency informed players that they will begin testing at any time by any means necessary.

Nose hairs are proof against Intelligent Design. Even a mediocre designer could have found a way to avoid these things.

Likewise, I've always thought the way the Borg functioned was evidence that they were less superior than they let on. For all the species they assimilated, they never decided that agility or speed would be useful, nor did they figure out how to get those easily-disabling-if-ripped-out-of-the-head tubes to be internal versus external.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of Nausicaans could take out a Borg cube.