It looked like the foam hit the wing about 2/3 of the way out toward the tip. The results aren't in yet, but some of the breaking news suggests that the problem was actually on the inner part of the wing.
I suspect the foam will prove to be a red herring; my bet is on structural materials fatigue. Or as a very long shot, a collision with some space junk.
> Oil deposits & diamonds: I'm not sure about how oil is made (I'm ignorant here), same with diamonds - but out position is that they were formed quickly (relatively speaking), probably within the last 4500 years.
Just curious, but why do you have a position on something you admit you know nothing about? Since you're pretending to hold a scientific position, shouldn't you say instead "I don't know how oil and diamonds are made, but if it takes more than c. 4500 years then my hypothesis about the age of the earth must be discarded"?
> You may be surprised that we can make such claims
No, you couldn't possibly make a claim that would surprise me, given those that I've already heard.
> but you may be surprised to find out how faulty many dating techniques are. What is especially curious is that these techniques have never been tested. We have not had them for long enough to date something we know for certain is, eg, 5 million years old. We only know it is 5 million years old by using a particular dating method.
Actually, a variety of independent dating methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the earth.
> But please don't post any comments about stuff there, I won't defend it on slashdot.
> > How long does it take for oil deposits to form?
> Oil deposits do not "form", they are created by God, for the explicit purpose of making us believers be able to drive our SUVs from home to church, and back.
Dood, that's Old Testament. If you followed the news you'd know that Jesus is against SUVs.
> Just as a note, I avoid that hyperspace button except in cases where it is rational to assume. Eg, such as saying the floodwaters came up miraculously because that's what the Bible describes and that's where the Creationist model comes from.
So is it rational to assume something is true just because an ancient myth claims it is? E.g., that the first humans were licked out of ice by a cow?
What is your standard for rationality, other than that your religious sect happens to believe something?
> Sure, the religous leaders of the time accepted these scientific "truths", and then saw it as blasphemy if anyone challenged them, but scientists came up with those theories in the first place.
Sorry Dewd, but science didn't even exist before a few centuries ago. Don't blame scientists for neolithic mythologies.
> It looks like the creationists aren't the only babies with the mod points... If you'll take a second look you'll see that just about everything in this thread is down to -1...
Looks like one of the "megamoderators" slapped an OT on the whole thread around 10AM EST.
> I don't know how scientific my technique is, but it's practical.:)
> Place both of your fingertips so that you feel the "bottom" of your rib cage, about 2 inches above either side of your belly button. Then move your fingers down about an inch, and then finally push in about an inch.
> If you are desparate for my to link to something, then I can link you to a book I have heard is good but have not personally read. Here it is if you like [amazon.com].
How funny. Just yesterday someone posted on talk.origins that the author of that book now has a new book that discards all the arguments from the old one, and now accepts common descent.
> actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.
You got that right. Some of my favorite people are fundamentalists. Curiously, they aren't trying to have mythology taught in science class.
> I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.
But theories of origins have their implications, and many of those implications can be tested.
> To explain...creationism describes the earth as being around 6000 years old now. The way to disprove this is clear then - demonstrate that the earth is older than 6000 years old.
Dewd, that was done 40 years before Darwin went to press.
> Score one more for the we came from a puddle of sludge team! Not that I wouldn't prefer creation over evolution. Probably wouldn't have hiccups. Thanks a lot, natural selection.
You're assuming that your creator wouldn't have a warped sense of humor. What if, say, you had a square peg instead of the hiccups?
> The article relates a new theory, nothing more. It's a promising theory, and one which can be disproven easily. If the test fails to disproove the theory, then it can be taken more seriously as an explanation. Still, it may never be PROVEN, per se.
In the natural sciences, theories are never proven, per se.
Slashdot Mirror
It looked like the foam hit the wing about 2/3 of the way out toward the tip. The results aren't in yet, but some of the breaking news suggests that the problem was actually on the inner part of the wing.
I suspect the foam will prove to be a red herring; my bet is on structural materials fatigue. Or as a very long shot, a collision with some space junk.
> I've always admired CMM level 5, having spent my entire career at level 1.
Wow - your company made it all the way up to 1? Wish I could find an employer that cared even that much!
> What good would this do against Iraq?
Wolf Blitzer won't be able to send CNN the kiddie body counts.
> Please support his OS - Plan 9.
That's the one from Outer Space, right?
> Oil deposits & diamonds: I'm not sure about how oil is made (I'm ignorant here), same with diamonds - but out position is that they were formed quickly (relatively speaking), probably within the last 4500 years.
Just curious, but why do you have a position on something you admit you know nothing about? Since you're pretending to hold a scientific position, shouldn't you say instead "I don't know how oil and diamonds are made, but if it takes more than c. 4500 years then my hypothesis about the age of the earth must be discarded"?
> You may be surprised that we can make such claims
No, you couldn't possibly make a claim that would surprise me, given those that I've already heard.
> but you may be surprised to find out how faulty many dating techniques are. What is especially curious is that these techniques have never been tested. We have not had them for long enough to date something we know for certain is, eg, 5 million years old. We only know it is 5 million years old by using a particular dating method.
Actually, a variety of independent dating methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the earth.
> But please don't post any comments about stuff there, I won't defend it on slashdot.
A well-advised policy indeed.
> > How long does it take for oil deposits to form?
> Oil deposits do not "form", they are created by God, for the explicit purpose of making us believers be able to drive our SUVs from home to church, and back.
Dood, that's Old Testament. If you followed the news you'd know that Jesus is against SUVs.
> Just as a note, I avoid that hyperspace button except in cases where it is rational to assume. Eg, such as saying the floodwaters came up miraculously because that's what the Bible describes and that's where the Creationist model comes from.
So is it rational to assume something is true just because an ancient myth claims it is? E.g., that the first humans were licked out of ice by a cow?
What is your standard for rationality, other than that your religious sect happens to believe something?
> Sure, the religous leaders of the time accepted these scientific "truths", and then saw it as blasphemy if anyone challenged them, but scientists came up with those theories in the first place.
Sorry Dewd, but science didn't even exist before a few centuries ago. Don't blame scientists for neolithic mythologies.
> It looks like the creationists aren't the only babies with the mod points... If you'll take a second look you'll see that just about everything in this thread is down to -1...
Looks like one of the "megamoderators" slapped an OT on the whole thread around 10AM EST.
> I don't know how scientific my technique is, but it's practical.
> Place both of your fingertips so that you feel the "bottom" of your rib cage, about 2 inches above either side of your belly button. Then move your fingers down about an inch, and then finally push in about an inch.
OK, but we wanted to know how males do it.
> in a fair world, Homer-centric should be a word
Yeah, like Homer Sexual.
> If you are desparate for my to link to something, then I can link you to a book I have heard is good but have not personally read. Here it is if you like [amazon.com].
How funny. Just yesterday someone posted on talk.origins that the author of that book now has a new book that discards all the arguments from the old one, and now accepts common descent.
> I neglect to mention links because I don't want to be forced into defending them - it is a waste of time and results in going around in circles.
Yep, defending creationist Web sites is indeed a waste of time.
> Articles [creationresearch.org]
Is there one of those articles that you would particularly like to defend?
> Besides, I've argued with you before, I still remember you.
Yes, I remember pointing out the folly of your arguments in the past as well.
> I remember being very frustrated at you failing to listen to what I was saying. No way I want to do that again.
Co-out noted, though I give you credit for being wise enough not to expose the bankruptcy of your beliefs again.
> actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.
You got that right. Some of my favorite people are fundamentalists. Curiously, they aren't trying to have mythology taught in science class.
I like the one where Homer discovers that he's going to die and goes in for a father-son heart-to-heart with Bart.
> I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.
But theories of origins have their implications, and many of those implications can be tested.
> To explain...creationism describes the earth as being around 6000 years old now. The way to disprove this is clear then - demonstrate that the earth is older than 6000 years old.
Dewd, that was done 40 years before Darwin went to press.
> Would you respect the opinion of someone that claimed the tooth-fairy created earth 38 minutes ago?
Hey, it's Thursday isn't it?
> I have to agree. I love that fact that on slashdot, everyone is all about respecting opinions of others,
Oh, please. On Slashdot you can get flamed for saying you're on Slashdot.
> I personally have seen a great deal of positive evidence supporting creationism, and not just arguments refuting evolution.
OK, list your 10 best bits of evidence.
Or your best 3, if you prefer.
Or even just 1, if you'd like.
> There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists.
If that's the case, why do we always hear the same old schlock instead of those coherent arguments?
> Use logic, reason, arguments.
Add "evidence" to that recipe and you'll understand why most of us reject mythomagical explanations of how the universe works.
> Creationists understand and agree with natural selection.
Actually, some do, some don't. Some, usually called "theistic evolutionists", don't even deny evolution.
> I do not think this attitude of "evolution is right" should be encouraged on slashdot.
Let's instead encourage looking at the facts, and we'll get the same result.
> All I'm asking is that we change this culture and start to respect opinions of each other.
Even when those opinions are demonstrably idiotic?
> Score one more for the we came from a puddle of sludge team! Not that I wouldn't prefer creation over evolution. Probably wouldn't have hiccups. Thanks a lot, natural selection.
You're assuming that your creator wouldn't have a warped sense of humor. What if, say, you had a square peg instead of the hiccups?
(Not that it would matter to most programmers.)
> The article relates a new theory, nothing more. It's a promising theory, and one which can be disproven easily. If the test fails to disproove the theory, then it can be taken more seriously as an explanation. Still, it may never be PROVEN, per se.
In the natural sciences, theories are never proven, per se.