- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
by Canopus56 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Don Colton wrote: > His [Berlinski's] major thesis is that natural > selection without intelligent input is just > pure dumb luck. Bill Biesele later wrote: > Given something that we don't understand, > each of us is capable of coming up with an > intelligent argument explaining what we see.. So > given a situation we don't understand, how do we > pick among the many intelligent possible > solutions? Intelligent design theory has the hallmarks of classic reasoning by ad ignorantiam - that the absence of evidence is proof of a proposition. Reasoning by ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the classic quote from the great Sherlock Holmes . . . 'r - I mean Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "How often have I said to you [Watson] that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" From _The Sign of (the) Four_. Ad ignorantiam improperly extends "while A->B is true" into "not(A)->B". But "not(A)->B" proves nothing. Sherlock and Sir Doyle, no disrespect intended. An intelligent designer can be proven by giving affirmative direct evidence for her/his/its existence - and not by pointing to weak links in evidence supporting the theory of natural selection. A universal theory of evolution has many weak points, including our inability to explain, even with non-linear dynamics, how RNA arose from the inanimate materials. What is sufficient affirmative, direct proof of the intelligent design theory? It depends on the reader. For me, it's "give me her phone number - let's do lunch." I would like to invite her to lunch at Lamb's. If she/he/it can show me how she/he/it evolved my alaskan salmon into lamb shank, I'm in. In the meantime, I'm happy to stick with the weak fossil evidence and recent evidence for the real-time selection of beak characteristics in Galapagos birds as sufficient support evolutionary theory. It's currently the best scientific theory that fits the known, albeit sketchy, supporting facts. We all have doubts and insecurities about an large and uncertain world. Looking through my telescope at night sky accentuates just how big, grand but unfriendly a place the universe can be. (I sure hope that recurring AGN at the center of the Milky Way doesn't decide to go off soon, with the business end of the jet pointing our way.) Infering an intelligent designer provides some emotional comfort in an uncertain universe. But for me, skeptical wonder at the fact that there are dark molecular clouds, visible in my telescope, that are light years across and that contain amino acids is emotionally satisfying enough. If I am wrong and there is an intelligent designer, the small end of a light bucket is one of the best ways to celebrate her/his/its creation that I know of. - Canopus56 __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Saturday Night Observing
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

So, so far it sounds like there at least 4 of us that would like to go to the Wedge. I'm hoping to see more posts about it. I'm hoping to hear that more people do, too. Mike Bailey

1 0

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Observing report from Rush Valley (Saturday 5 March)
by astrodeb＠charter.net 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Guy, I may take you up on your offer. I've been snorkling in Hawaii but never got a chance to take SCUBA lessons. I hear the SCUBA diving is wonderful in Hawaii. Debbie > > From: diveboss(a)xmission.com > Date: 2005/03/07 Mon PM 09:46:09 MST > To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Observing report from Rush Valley (Saturday 5 > March) > > Quoting astrodeb(a)charter.net: > > > I saw Tyler's Cone Nebula on the Astromart forums I really like the > > results from the Takahashi Sky 90. I may have to buy one one of these > > days. It is also airline portable. I could take it to Hawaii. > > > > Debbie > > > > Debbie, > > Forget the Takahashi Sky 90. Take ME to Hawaii. I'm a SCUBA instructor and > will take you diving, and, I will draw you a picture of whatever objects you > wish. Within reason of course. ;) What do you think??? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] New Member - Testing the Waters
by Dale Hooper 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Your Dad is certainly a great guy! He retired from SDL right around the same time as I started (I'm pretty sure that's a coincidence <g>). I had him over to my observatory awhile ago - but I need to get back together with him now that the weather is starting to warm up a bit. How does he like his new observatory in Smithfield? Clear skies, Dale Hooper (Hyde Park) -----Original Message----- By way of background, I grew up in Cache Valley, in the town of Richmond, Utah. My father (Glenn Allred) worked for Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University, and was/is an avid amateur astronomer. I was lucky enough to have a roll-off roof observatory with a C-14 on a pier mount located in my back yard, when I was growing up. I didn't realize, until later, how spoiled I was as a youth! I have always loved astronomy. Cheers, Tyler _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Member - Testing the Waters
by astrodeb＠charter.net 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Hi Tyler, I saw your "cone nebula" on the astromart forums and also some of your other pictures. Your pictures are looking good. The Takahashi Sky 90 is looking more appealing to me every day. I am also new to the imaging game and I have been out a couple of times with a DSLR camera. I hope to move up the learning curve and get some better images in the near future. I think the hardest part for me is the tracking, focus, and getting the object centered on the chip. I may try to image the "cone nebula" this weekend. Debbie > > From: "Tyler Allred" <tylerallred(a)earthlink.net> > Date: 2005/03/07 Mon PM 08:58:32 MST > To: <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] New Member - Testing the Waters > > Hello all. My name is Tyler Allred and I am new to this list. I thought I > would test the waters by posting a message to introduce myself to the group. > > > > I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Rush Valley site, last Saturday, > with Rich and several other hearty individuals. It was a good observing > night, and it was a lot of fun too! I spent my entire night imaging the > cone nebula, but was able to enjoy several looks through other nice scopes. > I will be searching for excuses to go again soon. > > > > By way of background, I grew up in Cache Valley, in the town of Richmond, > Utah. My father (Glenn Allred) worked for Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah > State University, and was/is an avid amateur astronomer. I was lucky > enough to have a roll-off roof observatory with a C-14 on a pier mount > located in my back yard, when I was growing up. I didn't realize, until > later, how spoiled I was as a youth! I have always loved astronomy. > > > > My present interest is primarily astrophotography, although I really enjoy > visual observing as well. I also do lots of wildlife photography, but that > is another matter for another forum. I use a Takahashi Sky90 for most of my > astro-imaging work. The scope is mounted on a Losmandy G-11 with Gemini > Level III Goto, which does a wonderful job, particularly with such a small > scope. My camera is an SBIG ST2000XM with a CFW-8 filter wheel and Custom > Scientific LRGB and Ha filters. I am still fairly new to the imaging game, > and I have a lot to learn, but I really enjoy it and I am beginning to get > some nice results. > > > > I am looking forward to getting to know many of you. > > > > Cheers, > > Tyler > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Saturday Night Observing
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

So, if the weather were forecast to be clear at the Wedge, would you be interested in going there? Mike Bailey

4 4

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Observing report from Rush Valley (Saturday 5 March)
by astrodeb＠charter.net 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

I saw Tyler's Cone Nebula on the Astromart forums under astro-imaging and processing/deepsky. I liked his second post with the saturation levels turned down a bit. Rich, what mount is he using? I really like the results from the Takahashi Sky 90. I may have to buy one one of these days. It is also airline portable. I could take it to Hawaii. Debbie > > From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2005/03/07 Mon AM 07:41:31 MST > To: Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com>, > UVAA <uvaa(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Observing report from Rush Valley (Saturday 5 > March) > > There were about a half-dozen of us that braved the > cold Saturday night in Rush Valley ("Pit-n-pole") for > fairly good skies (good enough, since any late Winter > / early Spring opportunities are rare it seems) and > good company. > > It was a productive night for me -- I managed to > observe 21 more objects on my Herschel-400 list, > getting all of the open clusters in Canis Major and > Monoceros, including the cone and rosette nebulas, 4 > galaxies in Leo, and one in Cancer. > > The "problem" with finding open clusters in Monoceros > is like trying to find needles in a haystack -- most > of it is rich milky-way starfields that make it > difficult to tell where a cluster begins and where it > ends. Thank goodness for setting circles! A couple > of noteworthy clusters to look for are NGC 2506 in > Monoceros, 2204 in Canis Major (looks like the > constellation Perseus in miniature), and NGC 2360 in > Canis Major, a real beauty in a very rich starfield > that fills the eyepiece, visible even in my 9x60 > finderscope. > > One highlight of the evening was having Tyler Allred > along with his Tak-90 and CCD camera imaging the cone > nebula (NGC 2264); the result was impressive (I'm > encouraging him to join the list and post that and > some of his other very nice images in the gallery). > > Dew/Frost pretty much shut us all down about 11:30. I > suspect we will try again this coming Saturday, if the > weather cooperates. > > Rich > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

4 3

Zodiacal light
by Richard Tenney 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

I failed to mention earlier that all of us at Rush Valley Saturday night were treated to a very, very bright showing of the zodiacal light, so much so that it was a nuisance to those trying to start their Messier Marathon. I don't remember ever seeing it so distinctly before. Did those at SPOC see it as well? What are the necessary conditions that make it visible? Rich __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

1 0

New Member - Testing the Waters
by Tyler Allred 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

Hello all. My name is Tyler Allred and I am new to this list. I thought I would test the waters by posting a message to introduce myself to the group. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Rush Valley site, last Saturday, with Rich and several other hearty individuals. It was a good observing night, and it was a lot of fun too! I spent my entire night imaging the cone nebula, but was able to enjoy several looks through other nice scopes. I will be searching for excuses to go again soon. By way of background, I grew up in Cache Valley, in the town of Richmond, Utah. My father (Glenn Allred) worked for Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University, and was/is an avid amateur astronomer. I was lucky enough to have a roll-off roof observatory with a C-14 on a pier mount located in my back yard, when I was growing up. I didn't realize, until later, how spoiled I was as a youth! I have always loved astronomy. My present interest is primarily astrophotography, although I really enjoy visual observing as well. I also do lots of wildlife photography, but that is another matter for another forum. I use a Takahashi Sky90 for most of my astro-imaging work. The scope is mounted on a Losmandy G-11 with Gemini Level III Goto, which does a wonderful job, particularly with such a small scope. My camera is an SBIG ST2000XM with a CFW-8 filter wheel and Custom Scientific LRGB and Ha filters. I am still fairly new to the imaging game, and I have a lot to learn, but I really enjoy it and I am beginning to get some nice results. I am looking forward to getting to know many of you. Cheers, Tyler

1 0

fodder for the list (I do not mean to offend)
by Dave Gary 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

Concerning the on-going discussion.... Science has to have a naturalistic base. The alternative would be to admit supernaturalistic data. Science can not, by definition, validate supernatural phenomena. I find that many people are under the impression that natural selection, somehow, implies randomness. If this was the take-home lesson from one’s biology courses, then, (1) the teacher did not understand natural selection, (2) one missed the point. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. In fact, the non-randomness of natural selection appears to give some people a sense of teleologic consequence associated with common descent. Hence, to some, there appears to be a purpose. Of course, man is the pinnacle of this “creation”. The fossil record appears discontinuous because of the conditions necessary to preservation, not because of a flaw in the theory of common descent. Natural selection would get along fine without any reference to the fossil record. That we have a fossil record is just icing on the cake. Also, any reference to punctuated equilibrium as a means to bolster an argument against natural selection is unfounded. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of gradualism and in no way invalidates common descent. Irreducible complexity is insufferably anachronistic and amounts to a “biochemical Paleyism”. The major fallacy of irreducible complexity is inferring that the current utility of a given biologic feature explains why the feature evolved. For example, the homeotic gene complex is involved in specifying the pattern of segmentation in insects and assists with the proper development of the vertebrate hindbrain. The homeotic gene complex is highly conserved and did not originally evolve to regulate vertebrate hindbrain development. The complex is a consequence of co-optation by natural selection to regulate one aspect of vertebrate development. Additionally, the flagella of microorganisms, a favorite example with many who advocate “Intelligent Design” and irreducible complexity, has additional secretory functions in many bacteria and is not, solely, irreducibly, a mechanical, “created”, means of motility. Also, where does one draw the line with irreducible complexity? At the level of the organ? The protein level? The DNA level? Flagella are highly variable concerning the number of proteins that constitute their makeup. Some microorganisms have 27 proteins (Campylobacter jejuni) that make a complete functioning flagellum, some have as many as 44 proteins (Salmonella typhimurium and E. coli). Obviously, the genetic sequence regulating flagella protein numbers is not conserved. What would be the minimum “irreducible” number of proteins? This might be a question that could be investigated by “creation science”. However, if one does a Google Scholar search for all the “intelligent design” papers that are published in peer-reviewed journals one will be hard pressed to find one. “Intelligent Design” advocates “talk the talk”, but they do not “walk the walk.” If “intelligent design” is scientific, why is no one doing any research based on its precepts? For example, can one really believe that any research groups involved in the Human Genome Project used an “intelligent design” paradigm as a working model for genetic sequencing? Why not, if its “science” is as robust as a naturalistic approach? As a matter of inferring phylogenies, what would constitute the “created type”? As for an astronomic/philosophic side note. What creator is inferred by “creation science”? What if “creation science” had a logical foundation and its confirmed observations (facts) resulted in a theory of the origin of the universe that supported an origin based on the Great Turtle myth, not Judeo-Christian myth? Would any of the “creation science” proponents accept the result? There’s my feelings on the subject, Dave Gary

1 0