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 ...
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA. It is no mystery.
The quote that follows proves nothing at all about race; but it demonstrates that racism isn't something that suddenly began with the theory of evolution (Darwin published "Origin of Species" one year after the Lincoln-Douglas debates).
I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother; but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. ... Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.Lincoln-Douglas Debates
HMmmm.
I'm not a Crevo follower, and I may even be slow, to boot, but how is the Theory of Evolution falsifiable? And when expressed in that manner, is it intended to preclude any possibility of intelligent design at any point, or is it silent on that score?
Just something I had been wondering about, prior to encountering this thread. Your tagline made me recall it.
v.
Don't you ever get tired of this straw man?
And he couldn't have been a scientist because all scientists believe in evolution.
And this one?
No, the "FRevos" don't "tell you" that. But some overly defensive creationists often misunderstand other statements that way.
The theory states (based on the verifiable evidence) that all species are descended (as a result of mutation and natural selection) from earlier species. For those that appear late in the fossil record, we find their ancestors in earlier geological strata. (Not everything has been found, of course, but what has been found fits the theory.) When we examine their genetic composition (where the evidence is available) we find in the later species the DNA markers from their ancestors. All pieces of the puzzle that have been thus far found fit neatly into a chronological, structural "tree of life" picture.
To disprove the theory, all that would be required is to find a late-developed species as a fossil in some very early stratum, prior to the appearance of its ancestors. For example, finding a mammal in the precambrian period. According to evolution theory this can't happen. And, in fact, it's never happened. But if creationism were true, then all species would be found together in the same geological stratum. For example, donasaurs and humans. This is never seen. It would be like finding a photograph of you, as an adult, holding your infant grandfather in your arms. Impossible -- if he's your grandfather.
Evolution theory makes other predictions as well. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
I'd like to point out that not only does that link lead to a lot of predictions, it also explicitly lists potential falsifications for the predictions.
For example:
Prediction 5.8: Genetic rates of change
Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.
Confirmation:
[major snippage]
Potential Falsification:
It is entirely plausible that measured genetic mutation rates from observations of modern organisms could be orders of magnitude less than that required by rates inferred from the fossil record and sequence divergence.
"I see what will be the effect of it; that it will set the whole world a-gadding. Twenty miles an hour, sir! - Why, you will not be able to keep an apprentice boy at his work! Every Saturday evening he must have a trip to Ohio to spend a Sunday with his sweetheart. Grave plodding citizens will be flying about like comets. All local attachments will be at an end. It will encourage flightiness of intellect. Veracious people will turn into the most immeasurable liars. All conceptions will be exaggerated by the magnificent notions of distance. -- Only a hundred miles off!--Tut, nonsense, I'll step across, madam, and bring your fan'...And then, sir, there will be barrels of port, cargoes of flour, chaldrons of coal, and even lead and whiskey, and such like sober things that have always been used to slow travelling -- whisking away like a sky rocket. It will upset all the gravity of the nation...Upon the whole, sir, it is a pestilential, topsy-turvy, harm-scarum whirligig. Give me the old, solemn, straight forward, regular Dutch Canal - three miles an hour for expresses, and two rod jog-trot journeys -- with a yoke of oxen for heavy loads. I go for beasts of burden. It is more formative and scriptural, and suits a moral and religious people better. -- None of your hop skip and jump whimsies for me."Source: From the Western Sun of Vincennes, Indiana, July 24, 1830, as quoted by Seymour Dunbar in A History of Travel in America, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915, Vol. III. p. 938.
Huh? Everything is, in principle, falsifiable. But we know there are mutations, and natural selection is observed and is readily understood. Even in the short time frame of our observation, we've seen Observed Instances of Speciation. I assume that you don't argue about the lack of anachronisms. Surely then, you would agree that millions of fossils, all supporting the theory, and none which contradict it, is a very significant matter.
What about the rest of my question? Does the Theory specifically argue against intelligent design at any point? And if so, is that contention falsifiable? Or does it not reference it (id) at all?
ID isn't mentioned by Darwin, and it's not supported by evidence, so it's not a scientific theory. How would you falsify the notion of ID?
Just trying to understand.
Just trying to help you.
If you enjoy that sort of thing, like I do, you might want to get a copy of this book:
(Click image for link.) I've got a copy, and it's great. It's also huge, 480 pages, containing thousands of such erroneous predictions by alleged "experts" on just about every topic.
"If the motion of the earth were circular, it would be violent and contrary to nature, and could not be eternal, since nothing violent is eternal. It follows, therefore, that the earth is not moved with a circular motion."Hey, wasn't Aquinas a noted creationist?
-- St. Thomas Aquinas, 1270
Well yes perhaps, but a lineup of all Augusté Rodin's sculptures from first to last would show a similar relationship of evolving style. One of them is clearly ID, one is less clear. The gaps in the fossil record speak far more clearly than does mere stylistic continuity. To me.
How would you falsify the notion of ID?
That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?
Just trying to help you.
You have, thanks.
v.
What do those gaps tell you? That you still have a chance of finding something -- anything -- that might give evolution a problem? Does that disprove evolution? Why is it so easy for you to sweep aside the mountains of evidence supporting the theory?
[How would you falsify the notion of ID?] That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?
No, probably not. Whenever the subject comes up, as it often does, the creationists claim that when we do something in the lab, that only "proves" that an intelligence is involved. There is no conceivable evidence that could disprove ID. If you can come up with something, I'd like to see it.
I agree, however, that producing life in a test tube would demonstrate that a miracle isn't required for the creation of life. But still, the creationists would claim that the lab experiment doesn't disprove divine intervention. (Or ID.)
In any event, once life exists, however it happens, evolution then begins.
| Try your best to avoid focusing in on the first thing you disagree with in order to rationalize your desire to ignore the evidence. |
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.