- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] On the other hand...
by Michael Carnes 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

>LOL yes fungus works. ;) You've heard about the woman who dated a mushroom because he was a fungi to go out with.. Sorry. I'm surprised Guy didn't beat me to this one.

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Kim Hyatt wrote: > Aaron, would you mind sharing with me/us what you do for a > living? I'm > always a bit in awe of really smart people such as scientists. Though your question sounds a little facetious, I'll assume it is genuine. I am a software consultant. I have a degree in Computer Science. In another email you wrote: > I know of no observations of this kind that support any > religious hypothesis. There are millions of people around the world with observations that support religious hypotheses. The simplest example involves receiving answer to prayer. Aaron

4 5

Evolution still being debated in Kansas
by Patrick Wiggins 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Evolution still being debated in Kansas Board Chairman Steve Abrams told the Kansas City Star he expects the standards to be approved and sent to an education laboratory in Denver for review, with a final board vote likely in October. A majority of the 26-member committee that drafted the standards objected last week to changes made this summer by conservatives on the board, the newspaper reported. The changes use "intelligent design-inspired language," and intelligent design has no scientific basis, the committee wrote in a reply to the board. Aside from calling for a more critical look at evolution, the new language also changes the definition of science. The new definition no longer would limit explanations of the world to "natural" phenomena. Supporters of the intelligent design theory insist some aspects of the universe are too complex to be explained by natural causes. Copyright 2005 by United Press International

2 2

science and religion
by Kim Hyatt 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Wow. I go away for a few hours and my computer is jammed with email about my earlier note. I know this is an emotional debate, but that's also part of the problem. I plan to get involved much more politically to defeat Representative Buttars and others who propose that creationism be taught in Utah public schools. Thanks, though, for all your thoughts on the topic. I enjoy a lively debate now and then, but this thing really set me off. I shouldn't be so naive, however. Politicians, by definition, haven't the sense to keep this issue out of public education. (Apologies to all rational politicians, whoever she may be.) Kim

11 32

Re: Regarding Design
by James Cobb 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > SETI is based on extrapolation from the probable > frequency of habitable planets that it is a reasonable > thing to look for electronic emmissions evidencing > possible inhabited planets. It does not presuppose > that ET exists and allows for the falsification of the > hypothesis that ET does exist. > > ID exploration is not based on the falsifable > hypothesis that a divine being does not exist. It > allows only that her or his existence may be proved by > further inquiry. If not proved, then the "researcher" > will simply continue with their faith based belief > that a divine being does exist. That is not > scientific reasoning; it is religious based-faith. Yes! Being falsfiable is fundamental for a scientific theory. Please tell me, how is SETI falsfiable? How is the theory of the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew falsfiable? Regards, Jim

1 0

Eyepieces
by steve.nielsen＠comcast.net 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I have a dilema. I have a 12.5" f 8 I made in one of Brent Watson's workshops. You know, the one where 8 or 9 people in trench coats wait for the sun to go down and then they all drive seperately to an airplane hanger to grind mirrors. Sounds like something from a Dick Tracy cartoon. Oops, I'm off topic. The mirror and the scope turned out really well. I'm pleased. My dilema is with the eyepieces. I can't find the next eyepiece to fit in to what I already have and I don't understand why. I have my starter scope, a 6" reflector from Orion and 3 eyepieces. The eyepieces are 1.25", 25mm, 17mm and a 10mm Explorer II's from Orion. They cost $28 a piece. My 12.5" scope has a 2" focuser. I bought a 50mm and a 32mm eyepiece from Orion. Optiluxe, $139 and $149. They both work great. The lagoon and swan nebula's looked great, but I wanted more power. Something in the 15 to 20mm range. I looked around and couldn't find that many that are reasonably priced, so I bought a 17mm Lanthanum from Orion. $245. It's a 1.25" that fits a 2" focuser. I tried the new 17mm and compared it to the old and inexpensive 17mm a saw no noticeable difference. I looked at the moon, nebulas, clusters and M31. Not in that order of course. So I'm sending back the new 17mm. I'm within the 30 day period for a refund. Why was there no noticeable difference? Does a 2" eyepiece give you better views and clarity than a 1.25" of equal size? It seems like it should to me. More glass surface in the lens. Please explain this to my tiny little brain. If a 2" eyepiece in the 15-20mm range is where I should go, please give me suggestions on which one to get. Do I need to spend more money for a good lens? I've thought about this and just can't reason it out. Any help would be most appreciated. PS. Thanks for helping me with the mirror Brent.

5 5

Regarding Design
by James Cobb 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Many in this discussion have taken the dogmatic view that the design inference cannot be part of science--it's religion and the two cannot be mixed. I would be interested to know where those who are so strongly inclined against even considering the design hypotheses stand on SETI. Does not SETI consist of combing through EM signals looking for sign of intelligence? Does not ID consist of combing the signals embedded in DNA searching for sign of intelligence? By all means, do not teach in the high schools as certainty that ET exists. Is it OK to mention in that venue that the search for ET is an ongoing activity? Regards, Jim

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Regarding Design
by Michael Carnes 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

>I would be interested to know where those who are so strongly >inclined against even considering the design hypotheses stand on >SETI. Does not SETI co Good and fair question, Jim. As one who is completely comfortable with the general framework of evolution (and one who believes that ID is absolute hoo-ha) here's my take. We have increasing proof that complex organic molecules exist all around the universe. I expect that we may eventually find that simple life is an almost inevitable process of the chemistry. BUT THAT IS NOT PROOF. As far as the famous Drake equation (the equation wherein you calculate the number of possible planetary systems * number of habitable planets * time needed for a civilization to evolve, etc), it's all fun and interesting speculation. BUT THAT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT PROOF. A great many people find it appealing to believe there are other civilizations out there. Maybe so, maybe not. Nobody wants to be alone, and some people use a God to keep them company, while others use alien civilizations. But we don't even have evidence of those civilizations, much less irrefutable proof. In other words, we don't even have a hypothesis, much less a theory. I think it's fine to search for signals from other civilizations. At the very least, we've learned a lot about information theory from the process. But no reputable scientist could claim we know whether or not anyone's there. Michael

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Michael Carnes 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

>That's where David Berlinski and other mathematicians come >into the argument. Their claim is that blind evolution is wildly >improbable and that some other mechanism or intelligent design is far >more probable. Yet another straw man argument Don. No one says there's any such thing as "Blind Evolution". There is Natural Selection (you really ought to actually READ Darwin). Natural Selection means than the less effective mutations get eaten or die from being less fit in some other way. What's left over (the critter with superior DNA) gets to reproduce. The ID Creationist crowd loves to win arguments nobody is having. It's easier than dealing with facts.

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I see where you are coming from now, Chuck. You said: > Religion IS inherently unscientific. Religion is > above science, apart from it. Science can never > approach religion and remain science. Science is > concerned with the physical aspects of the natural > world, religion is the human interpretation of the > spiritual world. The two exist on incompatible > planes, unrelated, apart. Science is a tool to > understand mechanics, religion is a tool to understand > the soul. To me, science and religion are not that different. Both are tools to discover "truth". I do not believe that there is one truth for science and another truth for religion. I do generally believe that (as someone posted here) the religion answers "why" and the science answers "how", but to my mind, that does not preclude the two from mingling. It seems to me that a scientist who believes in God, but chooses to ignore that set of data when making interpretations is not using all the pieces of the puzzle available to him or her when trying to decide what the picture is supposed to look like. Therefore, I would consider myself unwise to accept everything proposed by the current theory of evolution. Again, that is a totally separate issue from what should be taught in public schools. I am a strong believer in democracy and allowing local people to decide what is best rather than the federal government, but I think it would be unwise to introduce a fundamentally religious concept as part of a science class. Aaron

2 1