Categories: "Science"

Questions for "Evolutionists" part 4

Continuing the series on answering crazy questions from crazy creationists (see here).

Why are the atheist and evolutionist worried about global warming?

Because rebuilding our coastal cities would be expensive, as would redeveloping our agricultural industries. The sooner we have control over our climate the better.

If speaking in your terms that there is no Christ or God, everything is meaning less etc... Than why are you worried about your air supply, war all around you, energy shortage, etc...

Newsflash: life isn't meaningless just because one doesn't believe in whatever intergalatic cosmic dictator you subscribe to.

Shouldn't you be turning into some kind fish (to accommodate your surroundings) or waiting for another big bang to happen? Can you explain to me why you care, all your going to do is die, right?

Yes because of course, we can choose to become a fish at any point we want to. Waiting for another Big Bang is even less of an option than the fish thing.

Yes all we're going to do is die in the end. But that doesn't mean we should try and shorten the length of time between then and now, not only for ourselves in this generation but for future generations, and not only for our species but for the habitability of the Earth in general.

Questions for "Evolutionists" part 3

I stumbled upon a question on Yahoo Answers today, its related to a bit of confusion creationists have with evolution. The same sort of confusion you can see in my original questions for "evolutionists" post.

Soldier for Salvation asks "Why do evolutionists always try to separate the Big Bang from their other ideas?"

Where to start, as always I object to the term evolutionist, like Darwinist, its used to discredit people who accept evolution. Are you a gravitationist? No, because The Theory of Gravity is not a belief system, or a political system, or an ideology, or what somebody does, etc. It's a scientific theory explaining why matter is attracted to other matter.

Somebody who studies evolution is a biologist. They study the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, because it explains the diversity of life on Earth and how that life is related to each other.

Using the word evolutionist, is a cheap shot. But then, being in the position they're in they've got little else. Anyway moving on.

Whenever someone mentions the Big Bang, or anything occuring anywhere in the universe besides here on Earth when they challenge Evolutionism, Evolutionists always roundly tell that person that evolution only deals with things here on Earth. Why is this?

It's because you're getting the terms mixed up. Evolution was a word before Charles Darwin came along. There's the original meaning of it in English which Collins defines as:

Evolution "a process of gradual development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time."

And in biology nowadays it is short for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and explains the origin of species - it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe, or how life started, it deals with how life evolves.

When an astronomer uses the term stellar evolution, or planetary formation or whatever, and not all scientists do use the word evolution in this context, they're referring to "a process of gradual development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time" they're not referring to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They're talking about how the universe is aging, or developing. Not how stars are reproducing, undergoing mutations and how nature is selecting them - that would be silly.

Are you clear on that?

If you study astronomy you'll see the world "evolution" mentioned a LOT. there's talk of steller evolution, evolution of planets, evolution of galaxies, and many other mentions of it.

So how can you do this, Evolutionists?

/facepalm. Again two definitions, read above. One refers to change over time. A galaxy evolving, is just how it changes over time, not how or why it is, just that it is, or a person evolves from a child into an adult, it is used the same in this context as aging or growing up.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains why and how species change from one thing into another.

One is a word describing change over time, and one is a scientific theory explaining how and why species evolve into other species.

It is rather comical watching creationists try and argue against Darwin, and Evolution by Natural Selection and seeing them extending that argument to the word evolution in general, I guess the city of London hasn't been evolving over the last 2000 years, because Darwin is wrong and things can't evolve!

Astronomers DO NOT say binoculars help with viewing the Perseids

The BBC was trying to do an article covering the Perseid meteor shower. Well they did a largely fair job on it, well almost.

No special equipment is required to watch the shower, which occurs when Earth passes through a stream of dusty debris from the comet Swift-Tuttle.

Yeah that's fine.

The meteors appear to come from a point called a "radiant" in the constellation of Perseus - hence the name Perseid.

Yup that's fine.

Astronomers say up to 100 meteors per hour are expected to streak across the sky during the shower's peak.

One person won't actually see 100 per hour, maybe three or four people looking at different parts of the sky might see closer to that sort of number.

But this year, light from the last quarter Moon will interfere significantly with the view.

Yes it will.

Astronomers say binoculars might help with viewing the spectacle, but will also restrict the view to a small part of the sky.

No sane astronomer would ever say that, you'll never see any meteors through binoculars. Don't bother even bringing binoculars with you, unless you plan to have a look at the Moon (best to do once you go outside so it doesn't ruin your dark adaption), or some of the open clusters in the region.

Clearest image of Betelgeuse yet

Astronomers have a fairly good rule of thumb for identifying planets and stars. We say planets appear as a disc, while stars always appear as a point of light.

While being good generally, there are a few exceptions, obviously we can see the Sun has a disc as its so close to us compared to other stars. And assuming you have a large telescope, something like the Very Large Telescope in Chile, you can resolve about a dozen other stars as discs, R Doradus is one of the larger ones and so is Betelgeuse, the bright star in Orion's shoulder. Here's the new image taken by the telescope, I've drawn on Earth and Jupiter's orbit to give a sense of scale.

Betelgeuse compared with Earth and Jupiter orbits

Over the 20 years or so we've been able to see the disc of Betelgeuse, we've noticed its shrunk in diametre by about 75 million kilometres. Discovered in the image above is the halo of gas surrounding the star. Confirming what many have suspected, its getting on in years and has started its collapse, meaning it could go supernova within a few thousand years, ideally it'll go supernova in about 6 months time - but I doubt I'm that lucky. When it does it'll be visible in daylight for weeks and at its peak it'll be brighter than the Moon.

Company to create advertisements on the Moon? No thanks

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Not happy with ruining the Earth, the advertising industry now looks to expand into space.

A new company is looking to sell advertising on the Moon, by using robots to carve out patterns in the lunar regolith. Bidding starts at $46,000.

Their website claims "twelve billion eyeballs looking at your logo in the sky for several days every month for the next several thousand years".

Well for starters it's a little grim they expect humanity to only be around for several thousand years. In reality the vandalism they would commit upon the Moon would be there for billions of years.

The next obvious problem is rights. No nation, company or individual can own the Moon, let alone have the right to vandalise it for billions of years.

Frankly, I think the people behind this little project should be sent packing, and hopefully nobody is dumb enough to bid on their malicious little project.

Apollo landing sites imaged

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which entered lunar orbit a few weeks ago, has imaged five out of the six Apollo landing sites. Which was a tad earlier than I was expecting. They were taken when the Sun was low in the sky so the decent stage of the lunar module would cast a long shadow to make them easier to spot.

Anyway check this out:

When it enters its lower mapping orbit, the images will get even better with two or three times the resolution.

1 2 4 ...6 ...7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 36