August 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Model rockets
by William Biesele 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

http://www.chilloutzone.de/files/05081001.html

10 10

A shower not a storm
by daniel turner 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

The Clear Sky Clock showed all blue for Thursday night only. The Satellite Infrared showed the monsoon flow turning east and missing the Salt Lake area. So I went out to the west desert at Lakeside to catch the Perseid shower. The radiant came right out of the double cluster and there were lots of bright ones that started 60 degrees from the radiant and stretched almost to the south horizon with a frequency was about one per minute. There were also a lot of very dim short ones in close to the radiant. Moonset wasnÂt until 11:30pm so I spent the early evening on double stars and bright planetary nebula. Venus and Jupiter were too low to show much more than mush. Starting at moonset, I made a tour of the Milky Way from Scorpius all the way around to Perseus. Left a 2:00 am before Mars rose high enough to show any detail. Glad I went out. DT --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

3 3

(no subject)
by Dave Gary 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

First, "evolutionist theory" has nothing to say about origin-of-life questions. This is a common misconception of those who neither understand Darwin's theory of natural selection nor understand basic biologic evolution. Instead of reading such drivel as "Icons of Evolution" maybe you should go to the University Marriott Library and check out "The Origin of Phyla" by James W. Valentine. It is, usually, a good idea to understand primary literature for yourself before accepting some convoluted thesis involving supernatural phenomena. Have you read Darwin's "Origin...", probably not, yet you have an opinion of his work based on hearsay. Many of the things you mention being taught in our high schools are being taught from an historic perspective, for example, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe as taught in science class or Lamarckian concepts as concerns biologic change. Haeckel is no exception. As a lesson from history, it is important to realize that Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia resulted in Russia falling far behind the rest of the world as concerns scientific progress in any biologic discipline. The same will happen to the United States if this nonsensical posture of infiltrating ID gibberish into the public school system is given political expediency. We are already seeing policies that stifle biologic progress. This from politicians who wouldn't know a stem cell from a toe nail. Above all things, our kids should be taught that stupidity is not a virtue. Remember, read "The Origin of Phyla" by Valentine. It will blow you away. Dave Gary On Aug 12, 2005, at 4:05 AM, James Cobb wrote: > Earlier I asked how one falsifies SETI. > > I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of > abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew. > > I was surprised to receive zero answers. I think abiogenesis > should not be taught in our schools because it is not scientific. > Is anyone else disturbed that it is, or are the concerns only > allocated to the teaching of intelligent design theory? > > Here are some other items that I think we should question being > taught in our high schools: > > o The fraudulent Haeckel embryonic images. In the march 2000 issue > of "Natural History," Stephen Jay Gould noted that Haeckel > "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and > concluded that his drawings are characterized by "inaccuracies and > outright falsification." British embryologist Michael Richardson, > interviewed by Science after he and his colleagues published their > comparisons between Haeckel's drawings and actual embryos, put it > bluntly: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most > famous fakes in biology." > > o Haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." No > research level embryologist accepts this, yet it plants an image in > impressionable minds that appears to be very persuasive toward > acceptance of evolution of species; > > o The fraudulent linkage of Haekel's images with von Baer's laws; > > o Pictures of pepper moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural > selection. It turns out that pepper moths do not rest on tree > trunks, but hidden under branches. > For this picture, the moths (dead or alive) had to be *placed* on > the tree trunks and photographed. Yet this picture is endlessly > republished to provide evidence for natural selection; > > o Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation > induced by natural selection. Someone else in this discussion has > acknowledged that this is no longer considered by biologists as a > legitimate example. Yet it remains in the textbooks; > > I'll stop the list here, but there are others. These items are > routinely taught to impressionable minds, but are not accepted by > the best biologists. Does this concern anyone? > > Note, for more on this subject I cite Jonathan Wells, "Icons of > Evolution," from which some material above is quoted. > > Jim > ---- > Jim Cobb > jcobb(a)acm.org > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > > >

3 2

Re: solstices
by James Cobb 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Kim, Using xephem I have the following for Salt Lake City. Sunrise and sunset are defined by the solar limb, and atmospheric distortion is taken into account. I used xephem's solver to compute solstice as the instant when the earth's heliocentric latitude is 90 or 270. I stepped through sunrises and sunsets near the two solstices to find the extremal rise/ set times (using the solver to view a decimal hour with better precision than is reported here in hour and minutes). The small tables below will look best in a mono-spaced font. Reported are declination, altitude, heliocentric longitude, rise time, transit time, and set time. Summer times are reported as daylight savings time. Let me know if there is further info you want. Regards, Jim _______________________________________ Site: Salt Lake City, Utah Lat: 40:45:23 Long: 111:53:26 Elev: 1338.1m Temp: 10C Pres: 1010mB June 2005: Solstice: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun 23:26:10.6 -24:35:05 270:00:00 5:56 13:30 21:03 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 6/21/2005 0:35:11 MDT Earliest sunrise: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun 23:16:30.5 -0:14:58 263:31:51 5:55 13:28 21:01 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 6/14/2005 5:55:19 MDT Latest sunset: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun 23:16:45.4 -0:15:34 276:32:04 5:58 13:31 21:03 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 6/27/2005 21:03:19 MDT December 2005: Solstice: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun -23:26:26.3 24:19:35 90:00:00 7:48 12:26 17:04 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 12/21/2005 11:25:36 MST Latest sunrise: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun -22:42:03.6 -0:16:17 104:07:03 7:52 12:33 17:14 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 1/04/2006 7:51:33 MST Earliest sunset: Dec Alt HeLong RisTm TrnTm SetTm Sun -22:41:44.9 -0:16:12 75:59:58 7:38 12:19 17:00 Limb Equ: Topo 2000.0 12/07/2005 17:00:16 MST

2 1

KSL wants meteor images
by Patrick Wiggins 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

I just took a call from KSL TV asking if I knew of anyone who plans on taking any pictures of tonight's meteor display. If you are planning on trying to get pictures, please call Wendy at 801.575.5600. Patrick

1 0

Scientists' Belief in God Varies by Discipline
by Patrick Wiggins 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion. Continued at http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html

1 0

Project for astroimagers
by Patrick Wiggins 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Here's a project for the astroimagers on the list. Once Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launches (now set for tomorrow morning) amateurs may have a chance of imaging it. This will tell you where to point your scope and CCD: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eph Where it asks for Target Body enter "MRO". Patrick

1 0

A brief history of intelligent design
by William Biesele 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

With apologies to other brief histories. Court cases: Scopes v. State, 289 S.W. 363 (Tenn. 1927). The 'Monkey Trial' Epperson v. State of Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which struck down a similar Arkansas prohibition of the teaching of evolution. In Epperson, the Supreme Court held the Arkansas law unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because its purpose was the advancement of a religious belief in the creation account found in the Book of Genesis, and the protection of such religious belief against a contrary scientific theory. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)). The Supreme Court noted that parents entrust their children to the schools “on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.” Further the court noted that because children are impressionable and public school attendance is mandatory, the courts are especially vigilant of Establishment Clause violations. from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html "Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." "Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures." "The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming -- in Dembski's words -- "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis." "As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith." "Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" -- in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science." "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work." quoting CRSC doocuments.

1 0

Non-evolution museum on channel 4
by Patrick Wiggins 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

ABC World News tonight has just started (6:00 p,m.) on channel 4. The opening spiel says one of their stories will be about an anti-evolution museum that pushes Noah and the like. Patrick

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Michael Carnes 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

colton(a)piol.com> wrote: > Rich > > How would an advanced race create another species? > They would use > existing species and genetic manipulation to create > a new species. >Chuck here. That's a HUGE assumption, Don, not a >given at all. Based on what? Our own short history >of bio-chemistry as a species? Where did the advanced race come from? Just curious.

7 22