Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977 
Posted on 02/07/2004 5:41:19 PM PST by bondserv
Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977
“It’s not exactly rocket science, you know.” The cliche implies that rocket science is the epitome of something that is difficult, obscure, and abstruse; something comprehensible only by the brainiest of the smart. Names that qualify for the title “father of rocket science” include Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and von Braun. But Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was mostly a visionary and chalkboard theorist, and Robert Goddard only targeted the upper atmosphere for his projects; he was also secretive and suspicious of others to a fault. Of the three, and any others that could be listed, Wernher von Braun has the prestige of actually taking mankind from the simple beginnings of rocketry all the way to the moon and the planets. His name is almost synonymous with rocket science. He is an icon of the space age. As we will see, he should be remembered for much more than that.
Von Braun (pronounced fon BROWN – and roll the R) is important in this series because he was recent enough to be in the living memory of many, and we have a great deal of documentation, photographs and motion pictures of him. Even young people (that is, anyone under 40) who did not live through the glory days of Apollo are all familiar with three of von Braun’s last great projects he took from vision to reality: the Space Shuttle, orbiting space stations and interplanetary travel. Unquestionably, he had a great deal of help. One does not do rocket science alone! At the height of the Apollo program, some 600,000 employees were involved in tasks from machining parts to managing large flight operations centers. Yet by wide consensus and by results achieved, Wernher von Braun was a giant among giants: highly regarded by his peers, respected by all who worked with him, a celebrity to the public, showered with honors, and unquestionably responsible for much of the success of the space program. Few have ever personally taken a dream of epic proportions to reality. The peaceful exploration of space! It was the stuff of dreams — dreams by Kepler, Jules Verne, science fiction novels and countless childhood imaginations, yet today it is almost too commonplace. Von Braun dreamed, but made it happen. He was the right man with the right stuff at the right time.
What kind of person was he? Many great scientists are quirkish or aloof in their personal lives, but we’re going to reveal a lesser-known side of von Braun, a spiritual side that kept him humble, grateful, unselfish, and strong. We’ll see a remarkably well-rounded individual, a family man who loved swimming and travel and popularizing science for children; a man who loved life, had charisma and energy and dignity and integrity, handled huge projects yet kept a winning smile and a sense of humor even in the most stressful of project deadlines. We’ll see a model of leadership that success-bound corporate heads would do well to emulate. Maybe you didn’t know (incidentally) that he was also a Christian and creationist. But first, a review of his record.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Is that analagous to asserting that only astrologers are qualified to comment on the validity of astrology?
Can't answer that, but I do know that the common ancestor of monkeys apes and people was able to synthesise ascorbic acid (vitamin C), but that the most recent common ancestor of gorillas, chimps and people couldn't.
You might be interested in William Calvin's research Throwing Madonna. His hypothesis is that it isn't the opposable thumb, it's the ability to accurately throw things. There are a number of reasons I find this interesting:
We do seem to be the only species that can accurately throw stones and sticks to hunt prey animals
If his claim that the number of neurons needed to accurately time the release increases as (IIRC) the square of accuracy required (eg to go from somewhere in a 50th of a second to somewhere in a 100th requires four times as many neurons), this neatly accounts for our lineage's massive brains as necessary for survival
The general ability to sequence accurately-timed events is fundamental to our ability to talk, which is arguably our most distinctive trait. It also is very similar to what's required for long strings of logic, the motions needed for making tools, etc etc.
In another post you claimed that standard biology would require us to have 'growths' that are incipient new organs. This is obviously false. Consider: what organ allows people to read and write? Was it simply growing for the last 200,000 or so years waiting for someone to invent writing? Or was it being used for other purposes during that time, and literacy is a mere side effect of other abilities (like the ones Calvin identifies)?
It's well-known that Einstein was a socialist.
You can make analogies to suit your purposes but you don't have a better explanation for the data than common descent.
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugiferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarhine stock; but it may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period; for that the higher apes had diverged from the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period is shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high or low in the scale, may be modified under favourable circumstances; we know, however, that some have retained the same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what we see going on under domestication, we learn that some of the co-descendants of the same species may be not at all, some a little, and some greatly changed, all within the same period. Thus it may have been with man, who has undergone a great amount of modification in certain characters in comparison with the higher apes.Darwin is discussing the likely reason for gaps in the fossil record. Anyone who reads this as advocating that one race should run out there and start exterminating other races is deliberately distorting Darwin's meaning. Seen in context, the quoted sentence is no big deal. He's comparing gaps in the human record to similar gaps in the monkey record, and even regarding elephants. But plucked out of context -- a favorite technique of creationists -- one can get a false impression.The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies— between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,18 will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [footnote 18 deleted]
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell's discussion,19 where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.
I don't have time to hunt down your second quote.
Just one question, though...
when one clicks on the "Human Ancestors" link you provided, one can view a 'family tree' display of the descension of special evolution put forth in this theoretical array.
In this 'tree', at several ponts, there are no actual species referenced, rather there are large, red question marks.
What do those question marks represent?
Inquiring minds want to know. For if they represent gaps in this alleged tracing of the family of Man, then that portion of the theory of evolution is only suggested by such a 'tree' and not proven. As is true of the entire "Theory."
In fact, such gaps are exactly what I was referring to when I originally suggested that I would like for any paleontologist to show me the missing, absent, alluded-to-but-as-yet-unconfirmed middle-species between Man and Ape.
I thank you for posting a link which proves my point even more clearly with easily understood and fun to look at pictures. :-)
See the difference, 666? I knew you could.
;-/
Good enough.
Check out this "rogue" scientist:
===============================
Dr. Macosko says: "If you are arguing that any science that borders on religious claims should be kept out of the classroom then Darwinism should be kept out of the classroom, too, because it's saying there was no purpose, there was no intelligence behind this and that's a very religious statement."
==============================
Along with Dr. Macosko, scientists such as Douglas Axe have done research showing Darwinism to be insufficient in explaining the complexity we see all around us. Information on ID and some peer-reviewed works that support ID can be found here:
So using a question mark is a lie?
It appears you still haven't shed those blinders.
It appears you still haven't shed those blinders, 666.
;-/
For layman purposes, instead of the word "information", replace it with the word "pattern" when you read it. It will give you a more intuitive sense of the mathematical usage.
Since everything is information, your question as stated doesn't quite make sense |
I guess I wanted to ask that if any random bits of 'information' is added, subtracted or changed in a data stream, what does that do to the overall quality of the original?Since man-made information pathways are inherantly noisy, we have 'evolved' error checking as well as error correcting methods that assure that what is sent is what is received. Do you know of any biological methods that do this?
How do you KNOW this 'fact'?
You might be interested in William Calvin's research Throwing Madonna. His hypothesis is that it isn't the opposable thumb, it's the ability to accurately throw things. There are a number of reasons I find this interesting:
We do seem to be the only species that can accurately throw stones and sticks to hunt prey animals
But sky-diving raptors can move a LOT faster and intercept prey in 3d space with a LOT smaller brains than we have; we who only have TWO dimensions to worry about.
If his claim that the number of neurons needed to accurately time the release increases as (IIRC) the square of accuracy required (eg to go from somewhere in a 50th of a second to somewhere in a 100th requires four times as many neurons), this neatly accounts for our lineage's massive brains as necessary for survival
The general ability to sequence accurately-timed events is fundamental to our ability to talk, which is arguably our most distinctive trait. It also is very similar to what's required for long strings of logic, the motions needed for making tools, etc etc.
In another post you claimed that standard biology would require us to have 'growths' that are incipient new organs. This is obviously false.
How can you say it is false?
They say that the cheetahs are endangered because the DNA of them is too much alike. Too many first cousins gettin' it on kitty style and the inbreeding will sap the strength of them soon or later.
If that's so, then HOW did each separate specie we see today ever get to be so robust and strong, if they TOO started with just a few individuals??
Did the E rules CHANGE somewhere?
Look here for the evidence of evolution in the fossil record:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.