4th season was certainly better than that temporal cold war nonsense, which was just a horrible idea and never made much sense. It did lack good standalone episodes about exploring new worlds though (which in my opinion has always been a central part of Star Trek), but then I thought Enterprise was disappointing in this regard in general (some standalone episodes were really horrible, I really disliked the one where Phlox could cure a planet's population but decides to let them all die so some neanderthal species has its chance at evolution - got the workings of evolution badly wrong in my opinion; some others like the one about 19th century humans having been enslaved by aliens were also pretty bad).

That kind of BS "science", especially with all the "meaning (or rather NON-meaning) of life" crap (neo-Darwinism, brain and behaviour, machine conciousness / emotions and all the other Frankensteinian BS) is what made me stop watching Star Trek as far back as 1990 when TNG came around. Worst far leftwing, commie friendly, "anti-spiritual" crap propaganda I've ever seen, excepting "Seaquest DSV" (remember that shite?), apparently Gene Roddenberry was on real "Richard Dawkins" trip at the time and hoped his ST:TNG would "cure" the human race of "irrationalism" :D..... oh for the innocent (and hippier) days of the 1960's ST!

I kind of agree with you about that, even though I think TNG was still quite good (and certainly not as ridiculously pc as some episodes of Enterprise were). But there was certainly a marked difference in tone between TOS - which was liberal, but above all self-confident, classical Americanism - and TNG.
The "science" part of Trek was probably always pretty bad. TNG also had a ridiculous episode (with a moral about "prejudice") in which an entire species evolved into energy beings, with individuals suddenly transforming into their new form. That's not how evolution works, which was obvious even to me as a layman.

Star Trek: Discovery to begin filming in January

source: treknews.net

Well - as long as it isn't a platform for "scientific indocrination" (as in "hey viewers you're all just biological automata programmed only to replicate your genetic material - oh and watch ST : TNG) , then it can only be x10 better than TNG.

:D
Aye, does even science itself fully understand evolution. I certainly believe Darwinism is flawed, and the now accepted "neo-Darwinism" more so. However I could never accept the many religious ideas on the subject neither. Those that claim to know most I think know least, on both sides, such as Dawkins on the Darwin side and some fellow called Hamm on the Creationist side (raves a lot of sites like Answers in Genesis). They're all rather "extremeist" IMO. But hey, can I offer any really system-bucking alternatives that will turn the world's view upside down? Mmmmm, not really! :D

Still, have to be careful talking such as this, many see it a heresy, hang the barsteward grade heresy even! Puts me in danger of both militants from atheist and religious camps trolling me! Others will just see it a being "healthily skeptical" of the whole hog! :D

Ah well..... peace bro!

Must be full moon today or something.

Your condescending attitude towards posts you disagree with is pretty annoying. Why can't you just ignore posts that seem nonsensical to you?

Because sometimes I don't feel like it. Sometimes I feel like being condescending when I read something like
"Well - as long as it isn't a platform for "scientific indocrination" (as in "hey viewers you're all just biological automata programmed only to replicate your genetic material - oh and watch ST : TNG) , then it can only be x10 better than TNG."

which literally makes less then no sense.

You can always take your own advice and ignore my posts. I tend to ignore yours :)

I don't read or write here that often, but whenever I come here I see you whining about some post you dislike in some dismissive tone as if you were super-smart. Not an attractive character trait.
Concerning TNG I'd actually disagree with it being propaganda for scientific materialism or whatever (I'm irreligious myself), but its understanding of evolution (and presumably other science issues) was certainly deficient.

Breja, you are simply a troll, and a very typical Richard Dawkins troll at that. Or even worse, a Sheldon-type troll. Grow up little troll boy - and stick your little troll's peanut back into your copy of "The God Delusion". Don't lose that little thing amongst all those heavy pages! I didn't even go far as to praise Creationism or anything, I said that was a load of old balls too. But oh no, Mr Supreme Intellect Sheldon Dawkins Mega Brain Breja just seemed to totally not regard that bit info for some reason. Doesn't fit in with your immediate smug assumption I'm a Young / Flat Earther huh? Jackass.

To quote your Jackass #2 comment "literally makes less then no sense". RLY? As in less than absolute zero? As in less than total vacuum? Your logic makes less sense than no logic or sense mate. Spock would kick your balls.
Maybe watching Peppa Pig instead of Star Trek might cool your glitchy head's core temp. Dump the wolly Xmas hat! That may also help!!!!!

Congrats to being the first moron I wish to put on ignore on GOG. I've never even had to even look at that facility till now, up till you arrived! Never had a need to! I can't even see a block user option..... damnit!

From what morolf says, I'm guessing you're one of GOG's serial idiots? With a rep of 1000+?!!!!! Must be a rephacker too.

Ah well - as I'd said, I expected some Dawkins, or religious, nut to come trolling - just not that quick, or it being the actual OP'er!

Well, at least that post was coherent. I guess that's progress :D

On a less funny note- you find a thread I started to have fun discussion with fellow fans of Star Trek, and you start posting some completely nonsensical, convoluted word soup about... I don't even know? Evolution not being real? That sentence of yours I quoted? I seriously haven't the faintest idea what it was even supposed to mean. And I'm the troll. Riiiiight.

Listen, I don't want to argue. I'm an arrogant, condescending asshole, that's all true (at least around people like you), but I don't want to argue this, and certainly not here. I would just be grateful if you could start a thread of your own to fight... whatever that dragon you're fighting is. The evil of science or books that are too hard for you or whatever.

Sonequa Martin-Green bagged the main protagonist role "Number One".

Recently watched ST: Beyond. It was a pleasant surprise. They even managed to have dialouges while not everything was exploding and dying around them. Feels like the best Trek experience out of the three new ones; in my own personal small opinion it feels like the first Trek experience out of these 3.

Thanks for reviving the thread, Ben.

I'm glad they're not going for a Mark Lenard-lookalike. I'm ambivalent on putting Sarek on the Trek map again, because I'm mostly not interested in the woes of prequelitis (Star Wars has done it to death). Still, I did love the character and in particular that wonderful heartwarming Spock-Sarek reconcilation in Star Trek IV. Lots of manly Vulcan tears there. :)