Star Trek XI Plot Holes

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:07 am

Ok, we really need a dead horse emoticon.  lol.  I can't believe this thread is still active.  My GOD, what have I started!?!?

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:08 am

Many a thread starter asked themselves that same question.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 5:34 am

I wish to chime in for a second about the religion and science for a second. Scientist would do well to read the Bible to see what it has to say about scientific matters. George Washington was bled to death by leaches because science/medicine of the time said that if you were sick you had "bad blood" yet the Bible says in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" if science had understood what that meant they many people might not have died from doctors bleeding them to death.

[Tyler]

posted on May 1st, 2010, 5:52 am

Last edited by Tyler on May 1st, 2010, 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

People died from leeches because scientists back then knew very little compared to modern ones. The Bible wouldn't do a thing; even if they understood a line of text, it's still useless if you don't know what was wrong and how to solve it.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 7:55 am

They thought they did understand that.  The reason they used leeches and lances so often is that they thought everything that was killing you was basically a poison in your blood, and the only way to save you was to get rid of it.

Hell, we still do it today with certain things.  The difference is, our 'lancing' is done with a machine and involves filters and transfusions because we know how much blood has to remain in the body for you to survive the process.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 12:47 pm

when it says that the life of the flesh is in the blood, logically when you start to take it away then the person will start to die.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 12:59 pm

You'll only start to weaken and die if you remove too much, the body won't be effected seriously unless you go below a certain level. That's why the leech thing usually failed; they wouldn't have known when to stop.

Using it for everything they attributed to 'bad blood' likely didn't help medicine much...

posted on May 1st, 2010, 1:37 pm

Especially when they got the notion from the priests from the first place - because everybody knew that evil thoughts were in the blood, so you had to drain the blood so that the evil would leave. Not science in the slightest - it didn't involve controlled experimentation, merely a bunch of old men sitting around and saying "this is how it is, because we said so.".

[Anonymous]

posted on May 1st, 2010, 9:39 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 1st, 2010, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"this is how it is, because we said so.".

whats funny, is that that is how most Christians view scientists(or Experts), and of course that is how they view the Christians.  Like I said, I know I"m right and you know you are right.

However, to be clear, on things like gravity and blaskholes, I will definitly agree that you know more about the subject. (it is obviously in your field)  That doesn't mean I can't dis-agree about how the black hole got there, or how accurately modern Science can account for them.

It does mean however that you are not exposed to the environment, which makes a world of difference  . Incidentally I do not come into the debate with any preconceived notion about your "religious nature" - it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and it should not have a bearing on the statements That being said, many quite famous and influential scientists have been or are of a particular faith or are agnostic - as long as that is kept separate from their research they do not run into any issues.

Actually, it absolutely does not mean that I am not exposed.  Infact, I expose myself as much as I can, and I enjoy being exposed to science.  All that being Religious means, form a scientific standpoint is that I look at things slightly different.  This often helps science, as having things looked at by different people with different views can often allow things to become more clear. 

And I"m glad you recognize that there can be religious scientists, however I disagree with your last point.... (thats my opinion again )


As for my opinion of proof(it is my opinion, and it obviously is different that yours)... it is hard to prove something exists, however I don't think its impossible. However, I do believe its impossible to prove 1, that something is a constant, and 2 that something has always existed because science requires observation.  Because we can observe things forever, and, as you just said there weren't real Scientists until at least the last couple centuries.  Because of this, it is impossible (for now) to prove something has always existed in the past(a problem with global warming) and no scientist can account for every variable that may effect the way things will be in the future.(again for now)

Because, as you said so many theories are flaw'd/Incomplete, we can not accurately prove things other that what is happening right now.  Like gravity.  We can say there is a thing which we call gravity that exists, but we can not prove that the laws it abides by have always been the way they are now, or that they won't change. 

That is merely my problem with proof.  Not that it is impossible, but that it is, at this point in our scientific development, unlikely that we are right.  We just can't account for everything, and to prove something, we must.

My opinion argument is where someone thinks there is enough data for proof ans someone has an opinion otherwise.  The first say the latter are being ignorant and denying facts, and the latter says their data is insufficient and they are ignorant.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion (especially when it comes to how much proof one requires to be convinced of something)

posted on May 9th, 2010, 5:33 pm

In response to one of Dom's earlier posts:
They usually managed to stay consistent within episodes, although episode to episode could be very inconsistent. With a movie, I expect that a piece of technology and the "black holes" or whatever it produces will do the same thing each time they are used unless affected by something. When Red Matter does different things every single time it's used it really irritates me. Just imagine if you saw a laser (I say laser because we actually know stuff about black holes and how they work) in one episode and it changed direction to follow a moving ship, then in the next scene in the same episode it traveled straight and exploded, then in the next it drew the ships closer together then acted as a cutting beam, with no explanation for the differences at all.

Now about the Faith vs. Experimentation debate:
Please try to stay on topic.

posted on May 11th, 2010, 5:36 pm

Now about the Faith vs. Experimentation debate:
Please try to stay on topic.

Ironic how many times Dom's actually reminded other people to do the same.  Ha ha ha!


Oh....err.... Star Trek.... ummm...  would a 22nd century bar be selling "Cardassian Sunrises?"  Dubious, though it is debatable.

posted on May 11th, 2010, 5:39 pm

Oh....err.... Star Trek.... ummm...  would a 22nd century bar be selling "Cardassian Sunrises?"   Dubious, though it is debatable.

Depends on when they met the Cardassians. They could have known about them and got second-hand merchandise before they actually met.

posted on May 11th, 2010, 5:43 pm

Okay, but at a STARFLEET bar slathered in Budweiser adverts in... was it Wisconsin?  One of those empty field states...

Though I suppose it could just be really popular too, if they had gotten ahold of the stuff.

posted on May 11th, 2010, 7:21 pm

Ironic how many times Dom's actually reminded other people to do the same.   Ha ha ha!

We all have our faults, and I don't see how correcting a statement was wrong in the first place