There are many 'diehards' here, Ender. 

Although Zephram did change his attitude towards the end of the movie. So it all came to pass.

The thing with time travel is - Now that he knew he was going to say 'that' - why then did he say it, when he did?
It would have been obvious and 'cliche' to him by then (20 years after hearing it). But then that's only one small paradox's of the whole 'time travel' thing. 

P.S. There are a number of websites devoted to the 'Light sail' or 'Solar Sail' thing. There are apparently plans to try and get funding to build one in the UK.
It apparently would be reasonably cheap (they say around $10,000, if done by a bunch of students and enthusiasts). Also very simple in concept too.

They've even factored in a small fee from NASA to hitch a 'Piggy back' ride on another more important , commercial mission, and just have them deploy it for them.

Interesting! 

Sorry guys,  I don't know any Riker........I know Zephram from " Metamorphosis "........








For real trekkies who still don't know yet, this is one of the best links I have found to remind me of the episodes which I have let slip from my  miind.........
http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/startrek/

Now all we need is for someone to bring up food... 

Ooops!

Yea and I don't have the foggiest about Star Trek!

Quote:


Don't watch Stargate either (I seem pretty boring)  I mainly watch RPA on Channel 9.  I love that show but I also watch CSI.

I don't know what all the fuss is about between Science and The Church, Foz.

I'm a relatively intelligent chappy, with a healthy interest and good basic understanding of a number of branches of science, and I'm a good Catholic (by my standards anyway).
I believe there is room for both.

Even for those who take the 'Old Testamnet' literally, there is still room for both.

For instance, the continuing (and probably main debate) among the two 'schools of thought' regarding Adam and Eve and Evolution.
Why can't it be that the 'first man and woman' WITH A SOUL or sentience, as we can call it, were part of an 'evolutionary' process that fits in with the 'yet unproven' thoeries of Darwin.
It doesn't necessarily stand that they had to be the FIRST Humans or Homo sapiens, just the First two with 'sentience'. (It would also solve the question of 'incest' that plagues the Old testament account).

One 'sentient' male and one 'unsentient' female, produce one (or more) 'sentient chilld.

That way everyone is happy and God is in His heaven.  

I really don't know why my own Church hasn't cottoned onto this distinct possibility and used it to settle the whole thing. It's really only a very small 'concession', in that it requires an 'edict' that the Old testament is not necessarily, in every instance, to be taken 'literally'.
And that's what most people suspect to be the case anyway.

Further support to my 'way of thinking' is that there is 'incontravertible proof' and 'historical record' that the 'Great Flood' (vizaviz Noah), did actually occur.

The Earth is at a 23.5 degree tilt, it's theorised that this tilting occurred around 5000 years ago. Possibly the result of the Earth being struck by an asteroid or similar object.
The resulting activities would be weeks of 'precipitation' and a tendency for the Oceans to be 'uprooted' and flow over the Continents (African, American and Australian) into the Oceanic basin on the other side.

Sounds alot like what's described in the Old Testament.

See........ God is still in His Heaven and the Boffins are happy.........lol

Yep, all the Ark stuff is true. It has been proven to exist (in two halves) on Mt Ararat.
Most of the info I mention on the flood etc is from a scientifically based Doco I saw ages ago called "In Search of Noahs Ark".

I don't think that the idea of a 'Supreme Being' was invented to explain what were at the time 'inexplicable events'. I think the 'inexplicable events' were (and are) the work of the Universe as God created it. We just get a little closer to understanding it (although minute parts of it compared to what there is to understand) the 'older' humankind gets.
Much of this new knowledge that would have been attributed to the 'supernatural' has only come in the last 100 years or so.

As for the Adam and Eve bit, well that's just a simple explaination by me as to the origin of man as we know ourselves, where both the Evolutionists and the hardline Religious can actually both be right with the other being wrong.
I happen to think (as do many 'faithful') that the Old Testament is at least, to a degree, Symbolic in nature. Also as Ender says, it's easier to convince the multitudes that it's magic rather than sound physics or chemistry in the year dot.
Besides, regardless of whether it was truely 'supernatural' happenings or explainable scientifically based events, both are the work of God.
He just chooses to do things the way he does.

How can you look at the stars, and then at the same time an atom, and not feel there is a 'Supreme Being' at work somewhere.