Interbane wrote:

This statement is self indicting as inaccurate. The impediments to space exploration are economic and technological, not religious or philosophical.

The boundaries are blurred when technology is impeded by religion. You can't deny the fact that you are at war with science for religious reasons.

Interbane wrote:Technology is the product of applied science. We are no longer competent participants in the space race, meanwhile anti-science YEC's work for our space agency and complain about it. Talk about a classic true to life oxymoron! You deny most of the greatest achievements of science, yet work for an agency that relies most heavily on science!

Interbane wrote:This reminds me of the comment you made a while back about how exploration a useless endeavor anyways, since you and the other YEC's already know the answers. But you're going along with it anyways! No, you have no room to complain. Just please don't teach any young people you know to hate science. Our country is already falling behind as it is.

johnson1010 wrote:Star, thanks for bringing this topic to light.

There are many people who, perhaps, are not up to date on where we stand with our space programs.

At first i thought Interbane was a bit harsh, since you brought up a valid point, star, but i am tending to agree with him on this.

It is precisely YEC and other inherantly luddite world-views that threaten to end American space exploration, and scientific progress.

booktalk.org/the-problems-in-texas-scho ... t7634.html

Again, I am not at war with science. I am not anti-science. The fact that one works for an agency with which on disagrees does not make an oxymoron. One could be a mole. An oxymoron is a definitional contradiction like; jumbo shrimp, or intelligent theist.

Interbane wrote:

Again, I am not at war with science. I am not anti-science. The fact that one works for an agency with which on disagrees does not make an oxymoron. One could be a mole. An oxymoron is a definitional contradiction like; jumbo shrimp, or intelligent theist.

You are not anti-science? What is your stance on some of the greatest findings of science? Do you think science is correct about evolution? Do you think science is correct about the age of the Earth? Do you think science is correct in it's depiction of the age of the universe and it's structure? This is like saying you're not against the Green Bay Packers, then going and screaming "bullshit" every time they score a touchdown. Don't be a hypocrite. "I'm not against them, I'm simply for the other team!" I wouldn't doubt you've decieved yourself into such apologetics.

Interbane wrote:Evolution is a fact. For you to tell people otherwise is to directly undermine scientific findings from the perspective of a faith based world view. That is the definition of anti-science. Quite frankly, it's disgusting. Evolution is true. It's settled. You simply haven't gotten the memo. To continue with this charade is as close to a sin as I can think of. You're undermining young people's trust in science. You're aborting the careers of possible scientists before they even begin by sowing unwarranted mistrust of science. You, personally, are part of the reason the country of America is falling behind in education and technological advancement.

Do you think that our country is more moral, less moral or unchanged with respect to its moraltiy over the last years?

stahrwe wrote:

DWill wrote:I saw an article in the Washington Post about the launch tower for the Aires rocket that now has no use except possibly as a giant slide for Sea World. It seems the Obama administration is turning over manned space travel to private companies. The death of the govt.'s manned program would naturally be hard to take for those like you who have invested a lot of their lives in it. But I have to think that everyone is better served by robotic exploration of space, Until there is a really practical mode of interplanetary travel, is there a point in continuing these programs? Is there a point to revisiting the moon, and is Mars at all practical?

If you promise not to tell anyone I said so I see no point in a moonbase and it is rediculous to talk about a human mission to Mars with our current technology. My argument has been for a permant orbiting space station. The ISS is not permant and is a fraction of what it was originally planned to be. The STS (Shuttle Transportation System) never achieved its goals and has inherent dangers but there are other options for near earth access. NASA planned to develop a new vehicle, the cost of which was one excuse to cancel the program. I never could get interest in my idea to just rip off the Russian design. It is proven technology and already compatible with the ISS. Ironically, now that we are retiring the STS, the Russians are talking about resuming theirs. They developed a prototype about a decade or so ago but the program died for economic reasons.

In addition to the ares tower, the VAB, at one time the largest building in the world by volume will have to me maintained or allowed to atrophy.

If you look at the countries who are planning human space launches in the near future:
China
India
Japan
Iran
Russia continuing, they will be our ride to the ISS.
I think even Ubeskistan or at least one of the 'stans'

The space race if finally over at least for the US since we just quit.