Category: "Debunking"

Questions for "Evolutionists" part 2

I had a comment posted on my original Questions for "Evolutionists" post by someone called Eli, they make some highly effective arguments.

Something that evolutionist can not answer is why are there planets that spin in the opposite direction? Remember now..Conservation of Angular Momentum? Now your answer has to be a fact not a guess.

Ignoring the minor detail that "evolutionists" study biology, not stellar and planetary formation. Young solar systems are chaotic places. There are more forces at work that you haven't taken into account, solar system bodies interact with each other, sometimes extremely violently. A small moon having a retrograde orbit isn't hard to explain, many moons especially irregular ones are captured after their formation, and as such can be orbiting in any direction. Planets revolving different to other planets also isn't hard to explain with large impacts that were common in the early Solar System.

Also I find it interesting they believe in the atom, yet they can't see the atom, but they see its effects. God is the same way.

Except of course we can't put god in a clock so he can tell us the time, caesium atoms work quite well.

Many many evolutionists keep saying "The fossil record proves evolution." Yet those same "scientists" will later say.."Throw out the fossil record it doesn't prove a thing." Which one is it?

Its the one that you didn't just make up.

Sounds like a bunch of confusion to me.

Argument from ignorance, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Daily Mirror fails big time - Moon hoax nonsense

The Daily Mirror seems to have found out about the Moon hoax nonsense, and of course - are republishing the nonsense, with just some minor token sceptisism thrown in. So let's sort em out, again.

But were the Moon landings really mankind's greatest scientific leap or the most fantastic hoax ever pulled?

Well I wouldn't call it mankind's greatest scientific leap. I'd call it humanity's greatest engineering triumph.

But anyway on with the nonsense:

In 1979, when the first suggestions began to emerge that NASA might have been up to some dirty tricks, six per cent of Americans thought the Moon landing was a hoax. In 1999, the number had risen to 11 per cent.

When they counted again recently, they discovered no fewer than 22 per cent believed that the Apollo 11 Moon landing never happened.

OK, but that's two different polls. One asking if the Moon landings were a hoax, and the later one asking if Apollo 11 landed on the Moon - there could be genuine ignorance about that particular mission - maybe it was one of the orbiters. Either way the figures aren't comparable.

Ever since President John F Kennedy pledged at the start of the 60s that man would travel to the Moon and back within a decade, the Americans were desperate to beat the Russians in the space race.

The Americans had already lost the space race on April 12th 1961. Surely you can only consider something a race if the other side is competing in that race.

That summer of 1969, Moscow was only a month from launching its own manned Moon shot.

False. "Moscow" didn't even have a rocket capable of such a mission, let alone the lander and everything else you need, all of which existed only on paper. Development of a rocket capable didn't even start until 5 years after the Saturn V. The N-1 was designed to launch heavy cargos into Earth orbit, like space stations and large military satellites, sure the N-1 could have been adapted to use for a manned lunar mission, that's certainly what Mishin would have liked but let's face it, after Korolev died in 1966 that was that, Mishin had no chance of getting funding for any serious lunar attempt, Brezhnev just wasn't interested. The N-1 was under-funded and never worked, it was scrapped in the 1970s and development on the Energia superbooster started instead.

The USSR did however launch a series of robotic missions to the Moon, including sample returns and even rovers, perhaps they're getting manned and unmanned mixed up?

Technology then was positively primitive. The computer developed for the Apollo programme had only a tiny fraction of the power in a home PC today. The satnav that guides your car is many times more sophisticated than the machine which, so we are assured, steered a mission 250,000 miles to a few square yards of the Sea of Tranquility and back.

...And you can fly a plane with no windows with a map, watch and a compass, so what? The biggest technological hurdle were the engines, not the onboard calculator.

Even recently, when President George W Bush announced the USA's ambition to return to the Moon, he was told it would take 11 years to put the engineering together.

If NASA had a proper budget they could do it in 10 years, if the United States kept science and engineering education up to a civilised level - and education wasn't bogged down fighting creationism and religious fundamentalism. They could probably do it in 5 years.

How, for example, could an astronaut (below) be walking through a shadow, or have the sun at his back, and yet be brightly lit from the front, showing off all those bits of his spacesuit, especially the Stars and Stripes flag, in technicolour?

Err because the lunar surface reflects light surprisingly.

If you were posing this in a studio, with so-called in-fill lights blazing from every angle, you couldn't have produced a better result. The response from NASA? Well, you have to understand that on the Moon light can behave in odd ways.

Light on the Moon works the same way as light on the Earth. It's just these dumbasses don't even know how it works on the Earth - light reflects off things and illuminates things. That's why shadows aren't infinitely black, because there's light coming around from their environment, off walls, the floor or anywhere else - just like on the Moon where you have a big white Lunar surface reflecting light at the astronauts.

There isn't the atmosphere to spread it around like on Earth, but there is an open surface to reflect it where you might least expect it. So where are the stars? In every photo, the sky was ink black, with nothing at all twinkling out there.

That's because they were taking photos of the Moon - not the stars. They used fast exposure times on their cameras because it was day time on the Moon - the Sun was up lighting everything up. Even standing on the Moon with the Sun up you won't see stars unless you hide the bright lunar surface and the Sun from your view - then if you give your eyes some time to adjust to the lower light levels you'd be able to see stars.

To capture the stars you'd need exposure times of several seconds, and the lunar surface would be massively over-exposed.

The lunar surface during the day is very bright. It's been compared with ice or snow on the Earth.

And how come, when the spidery landing vehicle hovered above the surface and fired blasts from its retro-jets to lower itself down, it didn't even appear to have disturbed the very ground underneath it.

Because the thing had a throttle - if they were firing the engines at full blast they'd be taking off not landing.

Secondly unlike the Earth there is no atmosphere, therefore the actual flame from the engines would have to touch the lunar surface to disturb it.

And the flag planted by Armstrong and Aldrin. The sceptics say the shadows cast by the astronaut, the lander and various rocks seem to go in all directions when they should be parallel, while the flag doesn't cast any shadow at all.

Look at shadows running over some bumpy ground on the Earth, they all change direction slightly (none of the lunar photos show shadows going in all directions), as the shadow follows the contours of the ground.

Perhaps most outrageous of all conspiracies is that three men did indeed go to the Moon but there was not the technology to bring them back. They were sacrificed for US pride. The Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, who reappeared on Earth were lookalike actors

I'm sure their wives would of noticed something a bit different after 40 years!

Today only Aldrin, now 78, keeps a high public profile. He was confronted two years ago by a TV reporter who demanded he swear on the Bible that the landing wasnt a hoax. Aldrin's response? He punched the guy on the nose and narrowly escaped prosecution. More proof, said the HBs, of the pressure of keeping a 40-year secret

He wasn't just asked to swear on a bible - he was called a "coward and a liar, and a thief". Here's the video:

Bart Sibrel has been harassing the Apollo astronauts for years - it's about time he got what he deserved. Nice punch Buzz.

That small step begins to look even more mysterious than ever.

Nah - you're just dumber than usual.

Einstein did not believe in your "creator", so stop saying he did

As some of you may remember I touched upon one of the comments left on the Boston Globe's HST advent calendar last month.

Some of the comments however I found quite disturbing, and some were just plain out whacky. Here's one of the more moderate ones:

So beautiful, so complex, there are physical interactions to numerous to count every second in the universe and yet it holds together, in balance, exploding here, imploding there.

The universe holds together? Actually its doing quite a bad job of that with its continuing acceleration, come back in 100 billion years and see the combined mess of the merger of the local group, massive black holes, the burnt out remains of stars, the cold frozen remains of planets, and see that the rest of the universe has gone over our horizon never to be seen again. Then take another look in say a trillion years and see the mix of elementary particles thinly spread around, with a temperature a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. They went on to say:

Einstein said the complexity of the universe demands the existence of a creator, but we may never know Him. The joy of this season is that we can.

Wrong, Einstein never said that. Here's a few things Einstein did say in relation to your so-called creator:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to Eric Gutkind, 1954

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Letter to an atheist, 1954.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein writing in the New York Times Magazine, 1930.

Couple of letters critical of religious organisations:

I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.

Letter, 1954.

The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.

Letter to Sigmund Freud, 1932.

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups.

Letter, 1954.

And I'll chuck this in here too (good for the current economic climate), it might put some of those right-wing religious people off Einstein a bit.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor - not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

The World As I See It, 1949.

National Geographic's science standard falls into a black hole

What a joke. I've had to endure these stupid headlines and TV programs for the last couple of years now.

Yes you guessed it about the Large Hadron Collider. The BBC led the pack with a false premise that a black hole could form and destroy the Earth - despite the fact that one of the scientists on the very program said that would not happen - but we'll just ignore what the expert says and make up our own BS.

National Geographic's headline reads:

Worst Case: Collider Spawns Planet-Devouring Black Hole

And how is it going to do that? Oh wait, it can't.

Most physicists respond that the collider is safe and even necessary for the advancement of humankind.

Of course its safe. The worst thing that could possibly happen is the magnets could break, and then they'd have to be replaced.

But what if they're wrong?

What if anything is wrong? What if we're living on a giant beach ball being tossed into a fire? What if we're really all living in the Matrix?

What if they're wrong... Lame attempt at making a story.

What exactly would happen if the 17-mile (27-kilometer) circular tunnel under pastoral France and Switzerland opened up a black holeā€”or black holes?

Well we'll just ignore the fact that it won't, and assume it will.

Absolutely nothing.

The trouble with a tiny weeny little black hole is it will evaporate instantly due to Hawking Radiation, it won't be maintained because it is so small nothing can fall into it, it won't effect anything around it because its gravity would be no greater than that of a proton or two. A proton hanging around is more dangerous, heck that can kill you with more than just gravity - it can come after you with gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Oh noes! Run for the hills.

I expect this kind of scaremongering-anti-scientific crap from the mainstream press, I don't expect it from National Geographic. Get real, let somebody who actually knows something do your science pieces from now on.

Other pet peeves:

1) Calling the LHC the Big Bang experiment - it does NOT recreate the Big Bang. It's just a particle accelerator, the top thing on its list of things to do is to find the Higgs boson, the last particle we haven't found yet that is predicted by the Standard Model.

2) Calling the Higgs boson the "God" particle.

3) Calling the 6 billion dollars spent on the experiment (over the last 15 years) a waste of money, go talk to the US government who spend 500 billion dollars per year on their military.

Good luck to those at CERN and the scientists who have been working on this project for most of their lives, hopefully today's tests will go without a hitch and it'll be up and running and returning data later this year.

For the attention of TheDailyCreationism

For those who read my blog a couple of years back you no doubt remember a series of posts I did countering the mis-information spread by somebody who went under the handle thedailycreationism and bigbangisamyth, he ran a few different blogs and often moved around between them (I have no idea why). But after a while all the posts dried up, much to my disappointment as he was a good source to use for topics to write about.

Well I was searching for his name the other day and came across a post he had made on somebody else's blog back in 2006 saying he would like to arrange a debate with an atheist. Funnily enough I offered to debate him back in December 2006, but never had a response.

But after seeing his request, I'd like to remind him again that I am willing to debate him. I can make time in August onwards, and I'll debate anywhere that has good rail connections with Yeovil.

On a related note, I've had a couple of requests asking if I could debunk the film 'Expelled the Movie'. Well I can't yet, I haven't seen it, but when I do I'll write up something to address whatever points are made in the film.

Men don't have fewer ribs than women

Let's clear this little thing up, as I heard it again today - somebody claiming men have one less of rib (I assume they mean a pair) than women.

This is false, we both have 12 pairs of ribs.

This myth is probably even more widespread than the 10% of our brain nonsense - the same nonsense that is used to claim the existence of whatever paranormal ability anybody cares to come up with.

Today, unlike people back in the dark ages, we don't just guess at how many legs, teeth or ribs something has. We do some science, and do an experiment - like counting whatever it is we're claiming something to have or not have.

1 2 4 ...6 ...7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 13