I was doing ScreenCaps to send to StarshipBuilder.com - and anyone else who might want them, just shoot me an email! - and noticed that at the closing of the Miniseries, there were two Colonial Movers ships in the RTF when we get our first glimpse of Galactica w/the RTF. So, I got curious to see what all was out there lurking w/in the confines of the RTF and noticed the above. I used Adobe Photo Deluxe Business Edition 1.0 that I picked up some years ago to first crop a section that looked sort of like a TOS Constitution, then enlarge it and play around w/the hue & contrast a bit. What I got was the above image.
Wonder what else those folks at Zoic Studios thru in to the background of the RTF? We got to see Serenity from "Firefly" in the Miniseries as it comes in for a landing in the scene where Roslin learns she's got breast cancer. Think there's another Firefly-class transport lurking in the RTF?
It's verified by one of the guys from Zoic Studios in this thread at StarshipBuilder.com. Guy's name is Lee Stringer and he says in that post that, not only are there some other ships in the RTF that we don't normally see, but that he's been waiting over two years for someone to catch that! I'm pretty chuffed right now, lemmetellya!
Yeah... I'm a geek....
I thought I'd seen it on the DVD set that a friend of mine burned for me back in February, but wasn't really sure. I figured at that time that it was just an artifact of the copy and was seeing a mis-perceived image (or however that should be properly worded). My greatest fear when I posted this thread was that someone'd pop up and say "You're just now seein' this? We've known about that for a while now!" Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Wow... interesting that they actually threw that in there. I wonder if there's a USS Voyager lurking around or a Klingon on their tail...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Looks like the ringship (of sorts) as well.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Nice work!
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Sweet!
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
I'd love to get a sceenie of the Serenity in the first ep... i never noticed that before and dont have the DVDs yet.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
What episode is that from?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
That's from the Miniseries. It's the scene where we first meet Laura Roslin when she's in the doctor's office and gets the news about her cancer.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(Firefly)
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ooh, look,everyone! Simon's hugging Firefly! Aww. Solly and Firefly sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. . .
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, it is supposed to be a nerdy spelling correction, but I'm not sure if that really reflects any better on me.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
IT IS A COMPOUND PROPER NOUN IT MUST BE CAMELCASED YOUR STYLE IS WRONG
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What, like the NetherLands? Is that what you're saying, CartMan?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
When I am elected dictator, the first thing I will do is issue a law that forces people to spell the country's name precisely like that, and grants me the right to personally break the fingers of anyone who transgresses it. Twice.
CamelCase. Shall. Prevail.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
You remember those dorky kids in Galaxy Quest - even they didn't care about some of this stuff.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
People who transgress twice, or you'll break their fingers twice?
And what about NorWay? That looks like two words, but it really isn't. Or EngLand, since it was originally two words (Angle-Land), but "Eng" isn't a word?
And, for five hundred points and the new car, what about BelaRus, which doesn't even look like two words, but does actually derive from two?
Answer that, Mr. SmartMan.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suspect this is just a trojan horse for his real agenda, which is mandatory fOuRtEeN yEaR oLd GiRl LiVeJoUrNaL sPeLlInG ^^0^^ Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If one of the individual parts isn't a word, my CamelCase rule throws an exception. Regardless of its etymology. I win (again).
Your turn, NixPicker.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I suspect this is just a trojan horse for his real agenda, which is mandatory fOuRtEeN yEaR oLd GiRl LiVeJoUrNaL sPeLlInG ^^0^^
Why have you been reading the livejournals of 14 year old girls!?! Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
He's training to become a cryptologist. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: You remember those dorky kids in Galaxy Quest - even they didn't care about some of this stuff.
Yeah, but they had those really kewel internal schematics. We don't have those for either the TOS or TNS Galactica....
Well, yet, anyhow. I'm sure somebody will make an attempt at them some day. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And when someone does, you'll be on the internet within minutes registering your disgust throughout the world?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Eh... being a cryptologist is not all it's cracked up to be. Now being a 14 year old girl well I'd know nothing about that.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
Firefly appearnce in BSG is awesome Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: He's training to become a cryptologist.
Has anyone informed him that that is NOT a Crypt Keeper?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: And when someone does, you'll be on the internet within minutes registering your disgust throughout the world?
Well, sure. If it makes your ego chuff up a bit, I guess.....
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Firefly appearnce in BSG is awesome
A tiny ship seen for two seconds through a house window is awesome?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Apparently to him it is. I thought it was pretty damned kewel myself.
'Course, you milage may vary.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
It tells us that BSG takes place in the 2500's! It also means that when the RTF finally reaches Earth, they'll find that its all used up and everyone's packed up and gone to another system....
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
"Chuff up?"
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: It tells us that BSG takes place in the 2500's! It also means that when the RTF finally reaches Earth, they'll find that its all used up and everyone's packed up and gone to another system....
Nah, not necessarily. It could be in the far-flung future of "Firefly". Maybe that Firefly-class we see in the Miniseries was an antique that someone was flyin' around.
Or it might allow for the theory of parallel development - or whatever that theory is called where two completely different civilizations achieve a lot of the exact same technological advancements at the same time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Gosh, that's a rather out-there theory, Jeffrey. Do you think it could stretch to explaining why they have Humvees and Uzis as well?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
No, but I have a theory about why you're such an attention whore....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So when's your wedding anniversary, again?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
?!
It seems our young Mr. Griffin has issues with my good self. Could be, we have a troll on our hands.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Counter clockwise.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Knight to pawn three.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Like, go play on the swings, yo.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
And here I thought trolls were confined to live under bridges. I get to go play on the swings! Weeeeeeee! Weeee, I say!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Nazi planet!
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Development.
Which they completely forgot about in TOS "Miri." Maybe Hodgkin didn't develop the law until after that episode.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
On the other hand, no one seemed all that surprised by the discovery, if I recall correctly.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In "Miri"? No, they were all aghast at the duplicate Earth. Kirk called it "astonishing" and "impossible" in his opening log.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
perhaps the "law" had only been a theory up until that point.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm pretty sure there's absolutely no correlation between two cultures developing along similar lines, and two planets having identically-shaped continents.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Nazi planet!
(Thus cleverly I turn back the clock!)
Let's remember that Kirk was shocked by the discovery of the planet in "Miri."
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Two planets having the exact same plate tectonic movements is just too wacky. I mean, everything would've had to happen exactly the same. Like, same solar system and same things impacting and- I'll stop there for the non-geologists in the crowd...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Thanks, doctor.
Worlds of the Federation postulated some sort of magical quantum phenomena which the Earth (or I guess Miri's planet) passed through, duplicating it. Which wouldn't be the strangest (or for that matter the least plausible) thing to happen in Star Trek.
Of course it also postulated direct special creation by God, so, you know.
Perhaps the Preservers were more advanced than they let on?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Star Charts has the planet as a "terraformed duplicate" of Earth believed to have been created by the Preservers. Which makes about as much sense as anything. I guess.
(These fragmented sentences are really bad English. And I should know, being an English tutor. See there, I just began a sentence with a conjunction. Scandalous.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And the same sentence has a somewhat dangling modifier, for that matter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: The Nazi planet!
(Thus cleverly I turn back the clock!)
Let's remember that Kirk was shocked by the discovery of the planet in "Miri."
Lets also remember that "Miri" was a pretty shity episode.
So were the "Nazi Planet" and the "Gangster Planet" episodes. ...most of TOS, really. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Anyone who doesn't like "A Piece of the Action" has my pity.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GANGSTERS...IN.....SPAAAACE!!! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GANGSTERS...IN.....SPAAAACE!!!
WOah. My computer just had a seizure.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GANGSTERS...IN.....SPAAAACE!!! ...and another!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GANGSTERS...IN.....SPAAAACE!!! ...and another! (and now the number three is popping up everywhere- weird).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GANGSTERS...IN.....SPAAAACE!!!
...and now a ship is coming out of the Typhon Expanse!
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Oh, somebody punch him out!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You don't think we would have done that years ago, if we could?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The love....I feel it.
Some Gold Bond Powder should relieve that though...
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
With this crowd, yer gonna want a shot or three of penicillan from The Doc, too.
Of course, seeing as you busted on TOS so hard, I think you deserve what you get. Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
But without the gangster planet episode we wouldn't have the U.S.S. Horizon to argue over.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
So... What you're telling me is that there are gangsters in the RagTag Fugitive Fleet...? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Give it time.
...of course, they'll have to throw in some sort of gender reversal thing for no good reason. Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
That's "Gangsta" to you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Gangstar" On second thought....no. It sounds like a Silverhawks villan.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
or a porn flick.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Oh, hey.. don't forget the Yangs and the Coms... at least THAT planet didn't look like Earth.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
But should have, considering they were Yankees and Comunists, had the U.S. Constitution and the United States Flag.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Another episode for the bonfire....man, I knew that sucked even when I was a kid. Shatner really sounds like he's got a bowel obstruction when he recalling the words to the Pledge of Alligance...
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
That's the Plebe Unista to you, buddy!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It will be if education standards slip any further in public schools....
Thay can call it Faith Based Reading.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
You mean like the constant spelling errors of... certain people? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, there's a diffrence between my poor spelling/typing and a general ignorance on the part of the masses.
I'm not likely to think Darwin a satanist or that the Devil planted dinosaur fossils to discredit the book of Genesis.....but thousands believe that creationist nonsense.
Thousands.
And they are more likely to vote than educated people.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Oh. So, those who believe the Creationist theory are uneducated...? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not at all- they've chosen ignorance. That's why it's so scary. "Uneducated" was not the best word- if they only lacked education, it would not be as bad- to reject science and thoudands of years of accumilated learning is...almost unthinkable.
Imagine if someone decided the world was flat- you'd think he's nuts. Evidence is abundant that his POV is not correct. Now imagine thousands of "flat earthers" spending money on campaigns, voting and influencing the government to teach that the world has as much chance of being flat as it does being a sphere.
Imagine the President was elected by such people and he and his party were beholden to them.
Also, it dpends on what you mean by "creationist theory". There is no definite "creationist" belief, so it's subjective. The term "creationist" is a bit of a catch all- some call themselves "creationist" believe simply that there is a creator of everything, others that everyone decended from Adam and Eve and that's fine. Others believe a more radical POV but still call themselves "creatoinist"- many think humans existed alongside the dinosaurs, some think all fossils were planted by Satan to mislead the faithful and that Darwin was a satanist.
Those people are....fanatics. ...and their number and influence is growing every year: I watched a televised sermon a few months back while channel surfing sunday morning wherein the Baptist pastor expounded just such nonsense, then went on to talk about how the world has been led astray by the "false beliefs" and must be "shown the light of God".
He was preaching in an ampithertre to thousands. They cheered him after he was finished- it was like watching an old film of Hitler in the 30's- people being told their way of thinking was under attack by foreigners and their beliefs, and must be stopped.
It's the doctrine of the Christian Coallition- not just some lone nut preacher.
I would not fault anyone for believing some of what's in the bible, but a strictly literal interpertation is obviously not supported by scientific facts.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: There is no definite "creationist" belief, so it's subjective. The term "creationist" is a bit of a catch all- some call themselves "creationist" believe simply that there is a creator of everything, others that everyone decended from Adam and Eve and that's fine. Others believe a more radical POV but still call themselves "creatoinist"- many think humans existed alongside the dinosaurs, some think all fossils were planted by Satan to mislead the faithful and that Darwin was a satanist.
You, sir, are quite correct. I firmly believe in creation, but I distance myself from Creationism. Some people who are creationists do not allow room in their interpretation of the Bible for similies, metaphors and illustrations. See below for more...
quote:I would not fault anyone for believing some of what's in the bible, but a strictly literal interpertation is obviously not supported by scientific facts.
As I stated above, the Bible is full of literary tools such as similies, metaphors, illustrations, examples, homilies, hyperbolies, etc... These things cannot be taken strictly literal.
On the other hand, while not a science textbook, the Bible is 100% reliable when it comes to scientific facts. Somtemes the Bible has been more reliable than the prevelant thought of science at the time. One example is the flat vs. round earth argument cited above. Centuries before man was convinced the Earth was round, the Bible plainly stated in Isaiah 40:22 that God is above the "circle of the Earth (or sphere, in Hebrew)"
Sometimes scientists take the Bible's scientific accuracy into doubt when discussing miracles. In this regard even the Bible says the event is a miraculous event. By definition miracles contradict the laws of nature: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: 'Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves.'"
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: You, sir, are quite correct. I firmly believe in creation, but I distance myself from Creationism. Some people who are creationists do not allow room in their interpretation of the Bible for similies, metaphors and illustrations. See below for more...
Agreed. I believe in creation and feel that there's plenty of room for the basic tenants of creationism and evolutionary theory to walk hand-in-hand. Hell, there's plenty of room in science for religion and plenty of room in religion for science. Why some folks take the extremist view on both sides of the coin is beyond me.
However, what I take issue with is being lumped in with Tarot Wielding Pagans, people like Pat Robertson and/or being called a "fundie moron who rides the yellow short bus" just because I'm a Christian and believe in The Bible. That's something I have a hard time letting just lie still. Maybe I should get a paint brush and start making a wide swath with it where narrow-minded aetheists are concerned....
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
Space-Nazis
Space-Gangsta(er)s
Space-Geologists
Space-Theologicians
This thread delivers.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
And to think it started out as an innocent enough cross-series spoting of ships.... Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Hell, there's plenty of room in science for religion..."
There is absolutely no room for something that cannot be falsified in a process that has the requirement of falsifiability at its very foundation.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
I have to step in here and say - Einstein put it best:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
You need some form of belief in something before you can get anywhere with science. Even an atheist has some form of belief. In that case, it's a belief that there is no God.
The Bible has been proven both right and wrong in many areas, but most often due to misinterpretation of what is written in it, but one side or the other.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Atheism IS a religion. What I find interesting is that it is OK for them to call believers wrong because they say we are narrow-minded and unaccepting of ideas outside the context of our beliefs. Typically these individuals will then say that we are wrong to call the ideas of others wrong because of our narrow-mindedness.
Ironically, they are simply doing the EXACT same thing themselves but because they are convinced that THEY are the ones in the right, it is OK for them to espouse those views.
The truth is, you will see what you are looking to find. If you want to find error, you WILL find error, either real or perceived.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You need some form of belief in something before you can get anywhere with science."
Yes, but that belief has to be falsifiable, and thus excludes all religious ones.
"Even an atheist has some form of belief. In that case, it's a belief that there is no God."
No, in an atheist's case, it's actually a DISbelief in the existence of God, which (to get dangerously Tim-like for a moment) is logically not equivalent to a belief in the NON-existence of God. Put another way, lack of belief in one thing does not constitute belief in another.
"Atheism IS a religion."
Incorrect simply by the definition of the word atheism (being the absence of theism, ie. the absence of a system of religious beliefs, which is a religion).
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
From Dictionary.com:
Atheism: 1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
A religion is a set of tenets that one operates from as a basis of belief. An atheist BELIEVES that there is no God. He can neither prove nor disprove his existence so therefor it is a belief. As a basis for his belief system then, atheism is as much a religion as any other belief system.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Is the very defintion of a religion not centered around a supernatural being? An athiest does not believe in a supernatural being, this his belief system as such is not a religion.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
hEY GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED THAT STORIES ARE JUST AS VALID AS EMPIRICAL FACTS LOLOLOL111
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
From Dictionary.com:
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Um, yeah that fourth one wouldn't describe an atheist's tenets at all!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Cartman : You're right to say that lack of belief in a god is not the same as belief in the lack of a god. The problem is that atheism is the latter. "Atheism" doesn't just mean "not theism". Otherwise, deists would be atheists. If someone's a real atheist, they believe there's definitely no god. And I have to agree with WizArtist (urgh, now I feel icky) that they don't really have room to talk, since their beliefs are just as belief-y as the other side's.
If someone doesn't believe that there is a god, but they also don't believe that there is definitely not a god, they're an agnostic. More or less. Not an atheist.
"The term 'creationist' is a bit of a catch all- some call themselves 'creationist' believe simply that there is a creator of everything, others that everyone decended from Adam and Eve and that's fine."
No it's not. Believeing in Adam and Eve (i.e. Yahweh created two primogenial Homo sapienses in their current form with no help from any damn dirty apes) is no different than those other ludicrous ideas you mentioned.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I wish I could remember where I heard this, but a comedian had a bunch of jokes involving religion and was telling this story about his friend the aetheist and that he was an agnostic. A third friend asked "What's the difference?"
"A aethist has a firm belief that God doesn't exist. An agnostic isn't really decided one way or the other. As for me, I'm agnostic - just in case."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sounds like my own belief: "Hope for the best- expect the worst."
Or the old bit about how "no one's an aithest in a foxhole."
"The term 'creationist' is a bit of a catch all- some call themselves 'creationist' believe simply that there is a creator of everything, others that everyone decended from Adam and Eve and that's fine."
No it's not. Believeing in Adam and Eve (i.e. Yahweh created two primogenial Homo sapienses in their current form with no help from any damn dirty apes) is no different than those other ludicrous ideas you mentioned. [/QB][/QUOTE] It all gets pretty diversive from that point on though as to what people using the term believe though. While I would not group all "crationist" onto the short bus, the vocal minority of them are certifiable.
It's up to other believers to reign them in -or distance themselves from the term- an unbeliever's opinion wont carry the same weight as one of their own.
Any way you cut it, the creationism/Intelligent Design bit is not science. I can see them adding other "alternate theories" to science classes, like "an invisible hand holds up the plane" or "the stars are only small lights in the heaveans".
Religion as scientific theory does not work because science is always trying to refute itself and establish an observable cause and effect relationship. The "Inteligent desgn" bit does not- can not- do this: it would be heresy.
I cant say that Aithiesm is a religion- or even a faith. How do you define something by it's absence?
Science however has it's own "beliefs" but they rank lower than theory- the so caled "string theoryies" are not observable so they are just a premise on which to build a case for other work- also not something faith based beliefs can do- unless someone finds an artist's signature at the cellular level someday. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Atheism IS a religion.
Isn't that like saying a perfect vacuum IS an atmosphere?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I prefer a Eureka Dust Devil, myself.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: C And I have to agree with WizArtist (urgh, now I feel icky)
Somehow...it feels like the Earth has shifted off its axis. Come on Tim, I ain't THAT bad.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ugh...what happened to the nice discussion about the appearance of a fictional spacecraft from a 40-year-old television series alongside fictional spacecraft in a current television series?
I LIKED THAT BETTER. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Oops. Scrolling back, it seems that
a) Jason happened, and b) I was too damn busy trying to bi) earn a living bii) find a screencap of that map of Voyager's route home to do anything about it.
How about redirecting this RTF to the Flameboard?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That having been done, I'm going to have to disagree with this atheism = religion business.
The religious point of view is, roughly, this: see this space where you can't see anything? Well, there's something there, which we have learned about through any number of indirect/nonempirical means (which boil down to tradition and revelation, essentially). Whereas the atheist counterpoint is: I'm going to go ahead and assume this empty space actually is empty.
There is, if you want to really get down to basics, a leap of faith involved here from both angles. But they are qualitatively different leaps, namely: faith that your observations fundamentally map to some exterior reality (that we aren't just brains in a jar, as the old saw goes) versus faith that despite being unobserved an entity or realm exists.
But, despite assertions by the Pope, atheism v. theism has nothing to do, at least intrinsically, with creation v. evolution.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Tim: huh. I thought the more common view of atheism was that it represents the conscious rejection of all beliefs in the existence of a God (which doesn't imply a belief in the negation of the existence of one), whereas deists just deny the interference of a God (but not the existence of one) and agnostics don't reject any belief in the existence of a God but aren't committed to one either. At least, that's how I've always heard it defined.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: But, despite assertions by the Pope, atheism v. theism has nothing to do, at least intrinsically, with creation v. evolution.
What assertions? Or are you making that up? And in case you didn't know, the Catholic Church believes in evolution, although I guess it's more along the "intelligent design" lines. Stephen Hawking even had an audience and an intelligent discussion with Pope John Paul II.
B.J.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Ugh...what happened to the nice discussion about the appearance of a fictional spacecraft from a 40-year-old television series alongside fictional spacecraft in a current television series?
I LIKED THAT BETTER.
I've been asking myself that question since Page Three, about the time I gave up trying to re-rail this train wreck.... Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: What assertions? Or are you making that up? And in case you didn't know, the Catholic Church believes in evolution, although I guess it's more along the "intelligent design" lines.
That's been my line of thinking for quite a few years, as well. There really is plenty of room in there for what I consider to be an intelligent Intelligent Design/Evolution cross-mix. How long is exactly is "One Day" in God's point of reference, anyhow...?
quote: Stephen Hawking even had an audience and an intelligent discussion with Pope John Paul II.
Kewel! [Ed MacMann]I did not know that![/Ed MacMann]
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
OK... I just saw a repeat of an Enterprise episode where the Rommies were testing some Stealth vessel via remote control. I have not seen more than a handfull of episodes of E and don't know how this is going to end.
To be honest, the ship looked like it was from some X-men/Shi'ar empire hopped up on some Babylon 5. The ship could alter its appearance to resemble any type of ship and fire weapons from any race supposedly. This seems way advanced even for TNG era science. The vessels appearance also didn't fit with what TOS ships would look like either. Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad thing?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Too late, WizArtist II. You might want to start a new thread about that.
quote:He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."
"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.
Moreover, B.J., you seem to have misunderstood my point, which was not "that dumb Pope believes in creation," but, rather, that the Pope recently implied that the underpinnings of modern biology were derived from an atheist ideology.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Tim: huh. I thought the more common view of atheism was that it represents the conscious rejection of all beliefs in the existence of a God (which doesn't imply a belief in the negation of the existence of one), whereas deists just deny the interference of a God (but not the existence of one) and agnostics don't reject any belief in the existence of a God but aren't committed to one either. At least, that's how I've always heard it defined."
The definitions, as I understand it, and rather simplified, are :
atheism : belief that there is/are no god(s)
agnosticism : assumption that, whether there is/are (a) god(s) or not, we can't really tell, so there's no basis for a firm belief either way
theism : belief that there is/are (a) god(s) because it says so in holy books and such
deism : belief that there is/are (a) god(s) because it just seems like there ought to be
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Timism?
The belief that someone is out there posting and watching all the forums 24 hours a day?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You forgot "correcting".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Too late, WizArtist II. You might want to start a new thread about that.
quote:He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."
"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.
Moreover, B.J., you seem to have misunderstood my point, which was not "that dumb Pope believes in creation," but, rather, that the Pope recently implied that the underpinnings of modern biology were derived from an atheist ideology.
Yeah, because the fourth century was a time of enlightenment that should be revered. This is the guy that wrote:
quote:We will start, my children, by considering this human life as absolutely worthless. And anything that is useful to us only for this life we do not regard as good at all or worthy of the name. ...Our hope extends much further. We do everything we do with a view to preparing ourselves for another life. And anything that can be useful for that life must, we say, be loved and sought out with all our strength. ...
That gets back to the whole head-in-the-sand notion that anything can be answered by saying "because God wills it", so why bother trying to explain anything? After all- it's all just dress rehersal for the afterlife...who cares about silly biology when the only goal is to sit at God's right hand in a non-coporeal realm? We now return you to The Dark Ages (already in progress).
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Oops. Scrolling back, it seems that
a) Jason happened, and b) I was too damn busy trying to bi) earn a living bii) find a screencap of that map of Voyager's route home to do anything about it. Timo Saloniemi
I do that sometimes, sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: There is, if you want to really get down to basics, a leap of faith involved here from both angles. But they are qualitatively different leaps, namely: faith that your observations fundamentally map to some exterior reality (that we aren't just brains in a jar, as the old saw goes) versus faith that despite being unobserved an entity or realm exists.
Untill you get to Quantum Theory, anyway. Then you get a whole gaggle of scientists basing their careers on the possible existance of an unobserved realm of existance (String/Loop/Vibrational Attunment Theories).
I dig Darwin's rationale- that any discovered complexity and diversity only further glorifies God.
...though, I'm a supporter of Loki, myself, of course.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)