Perhaps.
Perhaps not
I think it is also important to point out to people that the concepts of "faith" and "religion" are not the same.
Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
Perhaps.
Perhaps not
I think it is also important to point out to people that the concepts of "faith" and "religion" are not the same.
Being a somewhat devout Catholic, as well as an avid Sci-Fi and Science enthusiast...,
I have no problem in reconciling both to fit into a semi-logical fashion in my brain.
The Scientific Origins of the Universe and Evolution are perfectly compatible with my particular view of Religion.
It all had to start somewhere and based on what we know today, there's no way to prove or disprove that it wasn't an entity of some kind who snapped His/Her fingers and brought into being The Big Bang.
(Hell, for all I know it could have even been someone named Sheldon)
I just don't subscribe devoutly to the particular version written in the Bible.
That is just another interpretation written by folks who didn't have access to all the data we now know.
They created a collection of anecdotes based on simplistic observations of the world around them with little to no actual science involved.
It's an interesting tale, but not something I'd hold up to prove a point.
I have no problem in reconciling both to fit into a semi-logical fashion in my brain.
The Scientific Origins of the Universe and Evolution are perfectly compatible with my particular view of Religion.
It all had to start somewhere and based on what we know today, there's no way to prove or disprove that it wasn't an entity of some kind who snapped His/Her fingers and brought into being The Big Bang.
(Hell, for all I know it could have even been someone named Sheldon)
I just don't subscribe devoutly to the particular version written in the Bible.
That is just another interpretation written by folks who didn't have access to all the data we now know.
They created a collection of anecdotes based on simplistic observations of the world around them with little to no actual science involved.
It's an interesting tale, but not something I'd hold up to prove a point.
Last edited:
Yep, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of which Stephen Hawking was a life-time member.
Religion does not require belief in a deity, either. There are plenty of Jains that are highly religious but have no concept others might term deity. The same could be true of Advaita Vedanta, some forms of Buddhism (though not all) etc. Star Trek has dealt with searching for the divine for decades. I don't see how this will be any better. If you simply are dealing with a higher power beyond human comprehension, that's pretty easy in Star Trek.
But, going out on the ledge here, I think trying to develop and run society PURELY by deduction and without "Faith" , even if that faith is nothing more that there has to be something better out there, there have to be breakthroughs we can't logically explain yet, there have to be codes of ethics worth following even if we're all just nothing more than 80 year walking storage units of maggot food. The best things we believe in have to be worth something intangible but utterly necessary, and worth continuing our species onward, ad astra per aspera. What does a human need with a starship? That lottery chance of finding God, or failing that, cool stuff to show off on the news.
I've noticed on scientific forums lately a greater and greater kneejerk reaction to be the first to shoot anyone down who has a hypothesis that, while scientifically plausible, does require a challenge to the standard model, or a rethinking of current opinion on genetics, etc. It gets a herd reaction of cheers from the Greek Chorus for these would-be Randy the Magnificents who are saving everyone from dreamers. Truth is they are nothing of the sort, just pseudo-scientific bullies. Because they are not defending science. If they were these challengers would rise and fail on their own merits, upholding standard models. Those models SHOULD be challenged. They are not Laws. This "All the World is Known" mentality has crept up before, and after awhile someone brilliant capable of seeing things in knew ways tears it down. And oddly enough, those people tend to have a faith of some sort that it could be done.
But, going out on the ledge here, I think trying to develop and run society PURELY by deduction and without "Faith" , even if that faith is nothing more that there has to be something better out there, there have to be breakthroughs we can't logically explain yet, there have to be codes of ethics worth following even if we're all just nothing more than 80 year walking storage units of maggot food. The best things we believe in have to be worth something intangible but utterly necessary, and worth continuing our species onward, ad astra per aspera. What does a human need with a starship? That lottery chance of finding God, or failing that, cool stuff to show off on the news.
I've noticed on scientific forums lately a greater and greater kneejerk reaction to be the first to shoot anyone down who has a hypothesis that, while scientifically plausible, does require a challenge to the standard model, or a rethinking of current opinion on genetics, etc. It gets a herd reaction of cheers from the Greek Chorus for these would-be Randy the Magnificents who are saving everyone from dreamers. Truth is they are nothing of the sort, just pseudo-scientific bullies. Because they are not defending science. If they were these challengers would rise and fail on their own merits, upholding standard models. Those models SHOULD be challenged. They are not Laws. This "All the World is Known" mentality has crept up before, and after awhile someone brilliant capable of seeing things in knew ways tears it down. And oddly enough, those people tend to have a faith of some sort that it could be done.
My stance is and always has been: I won't know until I die and I'm not in a hurry to die.
I have no idea if Cryptic got this from CBS, or made it up themselves, but the USS Walker, name ship of the Class, is given a registry of NCC-1202 in the newest lore blog.
It also says it was launched in 2221.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/11006533-jayce's-interstellar:-walker-class-crash-mobilization
Edit: The Registry number was made up by the writer.
CBS gave them a chart of all the ships were in Season 1, and apparently some of the ships that appear in Episode 2 are the Prototypes of their class.
It also says it was launched in 2221.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/11006533-jayce's-interstellar:-walker-class-crash-mobilization
Edit: The Registry number was made up by the writer.
CBS gave them a chart of all the ships were in Season 1, and apparently some of the ships that appear in Episode 2 are the Prototypes of their class.
Last edited:
One thing perplexed me about the Walker class: The ship's good on it's own standpoint but the nacelles could be different. Would the design be better off having a sort of "Proto-Oberth" type nacelles instead?
Seems like the Walker Class is on the old side. Georgiou wasn't kidding about the Shenzhou. It must be a refit version. Likewise, I've also always thought this about the Grissom, since its registry number is NCC-638.
Last edited:
Registry numbers in Trek are not all that consistent. I wouldn't take them as a indication of when they were built.
I see that B&N now has DSC Season 1 on DVD, with a November release date, and a price that isn't all that outrageous. I guess I'll finally be able to see it.
AMAZON has it listed for $41.19 at the moment.
Still a bit to pricey for my budget.
I forgot how long we have to wait for those to happen, but I'm guessing I'll be beyond caring about buying anything by then.So by the time we get to the Bell Riots, it'll be $20 or less.
I forgot how long we have to wait for those to happen, but I'm guessing I'll be beyond caring about buying anything by then.
2024. Just six years. Kind of crazy when you think about it.
Oh...
Hummmnn...
It's kinda weird that in a way, our current President is helping to form "segregated districts", but on a State Size scale, with his Immigration policies. (among other things)
I've never counted how many Trek stories involve Ego Maniacs taking over and creating havoc, but I'd be willing to guess it's a very large percentile.
I guess "Family Guy" wasn't the only one to predict the coming of "The Donald", it just did it more specifically than Star Trek did.
Barnes and Noble has it for $39.80 on DVD, or $47.77 on Blu-ray.
Line they should've had in "Lethe" when Cornwell was in Lorca's quarters, at the end, right before she leaves.
Lorca: "I'm not in danger, Katrina. I am the danger. I'm the one who knocks!"
Lorca: "I'm not in danger, Katrina. I am the danger. I'm the one who knocks!"
L'rell has hair in Season 2, no images
https://twitter.com/TrekCore/status/1048669980353597442
Check TrekCore's twitter for more live tweets from the NYCC panel.
Their excuse for Bald Klingons was because of the war. Though that makes no sense since we saw bald Klingons before the war started.
https://twitter.com/TrekCore/status/1048669980353597442
Check TrekCore's twitter for more live tweets from the NYCC panel.
Their excuse for Bald Klingons was because of the war. Though that makes no sense since we saw bald Klingons before the war started.
Similar threads
