Glass In Spaaaaace

AnKsT wrote to mention an article on NASA's site about creating and manipulating glass in space. From the article: "In microgravity...you don't need a container. In Day's initial experiments, the melt--a molten droplet about 1/4 inch in diameter--was held in place inside a hot furnace simply by the pressure of sound waves emitted by an acoustic levitator. With that acoustic levitator, explains Day, 'we could melt and cool and melt and cool a molten droplet without letting it touch anything.' As Day had hoped, containerless processing produced a better glass. To his surprise, though, the glass was of even higher quality than theory had predicted."

Comments

Re: Your sig (OT)

[dustinbarbour]

There are over a thousand predictions in the bible. All predictions come true 100%.

I should think so. I mean, they're all in the same book. What else could one expect?

Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day

[fmobus]

What? No shark-mounted lasers? This is just not right.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Tony Hoyle]

*All* of them?

Wake me when lions & lambs start shacking up together and trees start clapping their hands.

Should make good TV....

Re: Your sig (OT)

[CrazyJim1]

Please mod this and the parent down, if the poster wants to find a reply, he'll know where to dig.

Please take religious discussions off the Slashdot board, and email me directly at James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com

I don't think its appropriate to talk OT on Slashdot. I'm more than willing to create an email correspondence for weeks or years about God if you want to, but not here. I'll do this for anybody, who knows, you may make a friend in the process.

And finally to answer your accusation, the bible isn't one book, its a collection of sixty six books, written by different people, but all guided by God.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[scotch]

The why is called "the good book", smarty-pants. And if it's a collection of 60 independent books, I should be able to find all of those books independently, in a form that predates the thousands of years and editing, translation, transcription, politicizing, and anthologizing that produced the bible we have today. You know, like the one called "good news" you have on your bookshelf.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[CrazyJim1]

Even though I'm clearly winning this argument. I still suggest someone mod all these OT posts down.

Your argument may have held water in the early 1940's, but all doubts were cast aside when the Dead Sea Scrolls surfaced in 1947. The Dead Sea Scrolls scientifically date to the first century BC. In them are the same words that were in the Old Testament. Most notably is that of Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 was written 800 years before Jesus' birth. It predicts the Messiah in specific point by point detail. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, some scholars believed the Old Testament was edited heavily after the New Testament was written. So maybe your argument would have held water in the early 1940s, but we know today that the bible hasn't been changed.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[chriso11]

So, it says "He was placed in a grave with evil men". Errr - where does that happen? Please, since he was buried by himself in all 4 gospels...

And the part "And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life". So, then, who was Jesus' wife? And what where their children's names?

And after all that he does, all he gets is "And so I will give him a place of honor, a place among great and powerful men". Huh??? Is that all that the son of god gets to do?

Of course, you probably have some way to weasel out of that. But those phrases are not a prophecy of the son of god.

Yes, I know this is offtopic.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Eideewt]

Well, at least it's as true as it ever was.

obligitory...

[ianguy]

I for one welcome our new insect-killing overloards.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Vo0k]

Yeah, "will be called Immanuel" and quite a few more. You need really serious "stretching of the facts" to make them agree 100%.
Please debunk all this. 100% of these please.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Cerberus7]

I've done some cursory looking over of those "contradictions," and find that there is a lot of "stretching of the facts" going on to make them look like contradictions. For instance, number 143, where certain scriptures are quoted about the breaking of bones. The references point to instructions to not break the bones of the sacrificial lamb, and about righteous people not ever having broken a bone, both of which are appropriate references to Jesus. While not prophecies in the sense that they say "the Messiah will not have any bone broken," both of the referenced passages would be common knowledge to a Jew who studied the Scriptures and, given the path Jesus's ministry took, should be expected to be adhered to by the Messiah.

Also, item 144, where Jesus supposedly implies he will return during John's life. No, he does no such thing. He merely tells Peter to mind his own business. I find it hard to trust a source that pulls such tricks of semantics for the express purpose of refuting another source.

In reference to the name Immanuel, Jesus is referred to as Immanuel and Emmanuel by people even up to this day, so that prophecy turns out to be true. Determining whether it was self-fulfilling or not is left as an exercise to the reader.

No, I'm not going to sit here and go through every one of those line by line. It's quite obvious what the writer's agenda is and that they are willing to compromise their own integrity for the sake of refuting a source they have a personal stake in refuting. Seeing it, though, makes me wonder if I shouldn't make a rebuttal page and make this a long-term project. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this has already been done, though, which would save me a lot of work.