You have got to be kidding. J.J. Abrams have wrecked Star Trek beyond repaid.
Good. Star Trek had run it's course, was tired and boring and needed (another) reinvention.
the first trailer has been released!
true confession - i'm kind of a geek, always loved star wars and it gave me a bit of a lady boner.
anyone who knows the franchise is probably familiar with the character wedge antilles.
You have got to be kidding. J.J. Abrams have wrecked Star Trek beyond repaid.
Good. Star Trek had run it's course, was tired and boring and needed (another) reinvention.
the first trailer has been released!
true confession - i'm kind of a geek, always loved star wars and it gave me a bit of a lady boner.
anyone who knows the franchise is probably familiar with the character wedge antilles.
I have to agree with The Empire Strikes Back being the high water mark. After that it was downhill where it could've been so much better.
Still, I'm a huge fan and look forward to the new movie with anticipation. JJ Abrams did well with Star Trek, I suspect he'll do the same with this
a science stopper is " a hypothesis that makes no testable or useful predictions and therefore prevents any science from being performed based on that hypothesis.
" a common example of this would be the claim that god(s) created our universe.
having no way of telling "created" universes apart from "non-created" universes prevents the claim from ever being verified or from being debunked.
More and more theories become testable, and are refined because
the test equipment becomes more sophisticated, or
better questions were derived from previous tests.
Correct. Also, more and more theories are rejected for the same reasons.
who is to say such questions pertaining to "origins" will not come from research into the unknown?
Much that was unknown is now known due to scientific method and observable facts; we now know more than ever about our origins and the universe because of it.
Perhaps one day we will unlock the secret of our origin, and will no longer need the idea of a creator or mystery therein.
rejecting the idea of an creator might turn out to be "not even to be wrong" too.. In the meantime
Is it not a valid topic contemplating, debating?
Rejecting a creator is correct until such time as clear and irrefutable evidence proves it wrong. Everyone seems to have their own take on it, which only proves people have an opinion.
Contemplating such is as valid as speculating the number of leprechauns there are.
Debating it in scientific terms has always been and continues to be foolish. Assuming one can speak in scientific terms that is
for item #1 check out the color for trust.
totally ironic and you know the borg chose this on purpose.. .
http://goweloveit.info/entertainment/these-8-psychological-facts-will-help-you-understand-a-lot-more-about-life-5-is-a-game-changer/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral.
Now that I think about it, there was some discussion about the primary colors of light being different than the primary colors of pigment, but, again, that was 20 years ago.
The difference is additive vs subtractive colors for emissive vs reflective sources of light respectively.
For emission sources such as stars, lamps and projectors, the primaries are RGB or red, green, blue.
For reflected light such as in print and paint, the primaries are CMYK or cyan, magenta, yellow and black.
Then you get into color space to describe the mix...
.
what is your favorite music video?
after shes my cherry pie, i like foo fighters learn to fly
when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
It's a plausible account, I think.
No, it's FUBAR
i just happend to wonder if the current issue had any hidden goodies.
imagine my delight!.
a gold star to the first person to correctly identify the image!.
You gotta be kidding me...
watch the world's greatest physicists discuss the questions, the physics, the math, the ideas being tested about the formation of the universe..... .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wh179kos0.
.
lordy...
nasa discovery proves the bible scientifically accurate.
the debate.
for decades there has been a long standing debate between science and religion as to the validity of the biblical genesis account of creation.
A deist god is precisely as much use as no god.
Ignore him/her and carry on.
What "use" should god have?
i've heard it mentioned a few times.. the rotating earth graphic in the background on jwtv rotates backwards.. i've mentioned it to the active and they are not concerned at all.. my response is, "it's something they are portraying that cannot be more wrong".. .
two gb members have stood in front of it telling us to trust them.
how can you when they think the sun rises in the west.... .
They've always been backwards
I'm going with this one for the win ;)
Yes, the studio background graphic rotates the wrong way but it's correct in at least one video segment transition. Probably a mistake in post.