steveorino

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a line over as the canopy looked normal ... sortof. Would the tension knots still be in the lines? Would tension knots leave "burn/friction" marks on the lines themselves? steveOrino

Great tandem with big student 190 lbs. On heading deployment. However, immediately I was put into a violent spin to the right on the Icarus canopy. I looked up and cleared the toggles but didn't see anything unusual except we were spinning fast!!! I may have missed something as fast as we were spinning though. Faster than I have ever gone on a tandem even with the hardest of turns. In fact it felt like I was spinning my Stiletto. I chopped at 3.2K Canopy & free bag was easily found (good spot ) and was inspected for broken lines. We did not find anything obvious. We will look carefully at the lines to see if there are burns as we reattached main Any ideas what could have caused that? Wouldn't tension knots still be on the lines or would cutting it away allow them to work free? steveOrino

I have a few advanced degrees. I simply don't like it when people whine. When guys my age whine it embarasses me. steveOrino

Now that is a better statement than your original post and the other two threads I mentioned. The problem I have isn't what what you say doesn't have merit or a grain of truth to it, but that it comes across as whining by the older skydivers (to which I consider myself a part of of. (I'm almost 53) I don't want my generation (boomers) to be seen as a bunch of whiners that sit around and complain about entitlement generations and tandem factories. I'd prefer us to do something far more positive about it than whining on a forum thread. if we can't "do" anything about it but whine, I'd say let's shut up. steveOrino

I'm not exactly a whipper snapper. My first jump was 1977 (military) I still say it is whining. steveOrino

What is it with all this whining from skydiving's senior citizens? death of skydiving thread deteriation of skydiving This is not a PA (I'm pretty close to your age ... I'm almost 53 ... but I can't stand to hear anyone whine.) So which is it guys ... which is the downfall (death) of skydiving ... tandems or the new generation of skydivers? steveOrino

I never knew Dawkins was "pro-life" steveOrino

"skydiving" I was 46 "jumping" I was 22 (1977 jump school) I did over 100 military static line before I ets in 1980 I didn't start jumping/skydiving again until I was 46 I only count my skydive jumps and skydive years -- even though I technically have 10 years of "jumping" with over 1500 "jumps" steveOrino

Those are "plausable" theories. Obviously I don't share them. steveOrino

1000s of passages in the OT beginning with the book of Genesis point to JC steveOrino

"As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years." Writing what they understood is not what I am debating , the issue is shoudl we treat what hey understood in any special way? My opinion is they thought it was literal to the extent that is what they understood. Where they trying to record a literal account? Some say yes, some say no. We cannot know for sure. If they were, then we may ask what else did they say was true, but isn't -- fair enough. If they were not trying to write a science book, but rather a story about man's relationship with God than I think they did real good. We cannot tell which. Your own "core beliefs" will dictate then what you think is true. That is simply not true in all cases. Many theologians change their ideas when science proves w/o a doubt something recorded as wrong. However, they seldom change their concept because people "think" or hypothesis" a fact isn't true. There have been cities and other archeological sites that have been brought into question only to eventually have archeology prove the Bible was right. steveOrino

Well, I remember a few times my wife said the earth shook, after we had some "fun" but I doubt if seismologists recorded it. /flippant A retelling of what someone experinced is not a statement of scientific fact. steveOrino

Is this a case for having devices that are nice and simple and do 1 job? You can make that point. IMHO, a better point would be to don't jump a device until you know how it works. And if you have the experience -- trust your eyes & instincts over a piece of machinery. My "old man" vision is to where I can't read a regular altimeter very well, especially at night. Digital altis are MUCH easier to read. My digitude got too wet on a jump in the rain (another story) and I thought the VISO would be easy to read and affordable. It is both. steveOrino

I really have no desire to spend the time to reduce an entire concept (JEDP) to a forum thread length. Google it -- it has tons of info on the web. As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years. You can't have it both ways. You praise scientist when they discover a theory is wrong and change their hypothesis, but yet use that as evidence that the Bible is wrong. I never said I would categorically deny anything. I simply said I don't see how science can debunk the NT. If it did, I'd be open to investigate, but as we all know science doesn't always agree even when they feel confident they are right (GW) steveOrino

I've read several different and mutually exclusive explanations from Christians about how Judas both hanged himself AND died by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts). How do you explain it? I believe most scholars have no issue with this. They see it as he hung himself ... period. Another witness recorded a later event such as the branch breaking and he fell and burst open (something that would be more consistent with a dead body in a decomposing state). In fact slight variations from the same story often give more credence. One reports two angels and one spoke. Another simply reports one angel as he felt only the one speaking was the important one to mention. The slight variation gives some credence to the idea the writings weren't simply variations of one story, but different views of the same story. For instance in a court of law if two witnesses tell EXACTLY the same story the judge and lawyers think they worked together to get their facts straight. steveOrino

Great passage, for believers, but I doubt it carries weight with atheist and agnostics. About the flip and point method ... I heard a story about a guy that wanted guidance from God so he flipped through his bible randomly with the intent of doing whatever it said. His first flip and point landed on "Judas hung himself." Whoa! He thought he'd try again. This time it landed on "Go and do likewise." Creepy! One final attempt. The third passage read "Whatever thou doest, doest thou quickly." The Bible is full of wisdom for all the ages in all circumstance. However, I prefer a more systematic approach. steveOrino

While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" So therefore I don't believe science "debunked" Genesis. I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. Now that that is straight. The NT doesn't make any scientific claims I know of so what would science "debunk?" steveOrino

I was jumping my new VISO last Saturday. I had made a demo the night before w/o incident. I was messing with it and I guess I put it on speed instead of altitude. I was on a 10K tandem and once I threw the drogue I looked at the altimeter. It said 120 ??? I checked my handles and looked again. Still 120, but then I realized it said 120 MPH! I kept a close watch on the ground and pulled at what i thought was the correct altitude. My protrack (which I keep in my pocket during hot days w/o a helmet) said I pitched right on time.

It's "duality" - two different ways of looking at the same thing, each correct in its context. Thanks for the clarity, prof. steveOrino

A fundamental view (AKA literal) made the most sense to the uneducated masses that were taught to not ask too many questions. Unfortunately it wasn't always that way. The Bereans were NT Christians who were commended for not taking someone's word, but used the resources they had available to give the Apostles words authority. Alas after a few hundred years papal authority made that a not so good quality. Sadly today this still applies in many fundamental churches. They are so eager to divide over the slightest variation that they were taught in a sermon or Sunday School. I had a local pastor of a fundy church seething at me because I dare used rock n roll music in a service. Drums in a church!! Heaven forbid! Plus our staff wore black tee shirts and we threw a new bible from the platform to our guests who didn't own one. He had a list of grievances a mile long from his one visit to our Dead Men Walking Church (Romans 6:11) I guess it was easy to suffice he wasn't happy unless he was angry at some "sinner." steveOrino

You are saying that because Genesis was thought to be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world. Obviously science has debunked most of it. The NT is not thought of in that same way. So any ideas what that discovery would look like? steveOrino

More thoughts ... The key is trying to determine the "purpose" of a letter/book. That is not always easy and it is certainly not unanimously agreed upon. Everyone has core beliefs and worldviews that influence their interpretations. That isn’t to say they cannot be changed. I understand that Creationist believe Genesis is the foundation to their beliefs and while I do not agree I certainly understand why they think that way. My core beliefs entail the OT writers were conveying what they either believed to be true or what they thought to be true. I have some serious reservations … okay flat out disbelief … in a dictation theory. I believe the writers of the first 5 books were writing in the light of the knowledge they had and with a designed purpose. Whether that be to lay down some laws that separated them from other cultures or institute priestly sacraments. (google JEPD for a better understanding) When it comes to the NT, I see less evidence of putting 1000s of years of oral history into words, and more likely a purpose to tell the story of JC, a man they either knew intimately or the recent oral traditions of men/women who knew JC very well. Again, the beliefs I have do not come from one single event, book or class, but after years of study -- both personally and at higher seats of learning steveOrino

huh? Dang! I knew cheating my way through HS chemistry 35 years ago was going to come back and haunt me! steveOrino

So how do you know which parts are meant to be stories/metaphors, and which parts are "true"? If Genesis is a fable, how do you know that the life of Jesus isn't a fable? Thank you all for the kind words. I only wish I "always" deserved them. I was originally taught Genesis was literal (in Sunday School) Much of that was re-enforced when I attended a Creation Seminar. However, I was a young adult (30ish) and I still had more questions than answers. I went to some Christian Universities to get a degree in ministry & Bible. There I was taught that there were many interpretations to traditional views. Most, if not all of my professors, stated they believed differently about the Pentateuch and it's origins and purpose. This where I first learned about the JEDP principle and different interpretations besides fundamentalism. Later I earned a Masters from SNU where the Nazarene tradition teaches the purpose of the Bible is to point to JC, not to be a science or even a history book. To me it made more sense that way. No "one thing" told me this interpretation was THE way, but it was the way that the most sense to me. steveOrino

EDITED TO ADD: Define "creationist" I believe God is the creator of the universe, however I don't agree with a young earth theory or a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why don't I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? To me it is quite simple. I don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken as literal. The writers of the books & letters that made the bible used metaphors, allegories, stories, prose and other parts of literture. It begins with what you believe is the purpose of the bible. I believe it is to point us to JC. To do that Genesis doesn't have to be understood literally any more than Revelation does. steveOrino