- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Wheather you can weather the weather
by Canopus56 12 May '05

12 May '05

--- Jim Gibson <jimgibson00(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > No doubt you have all been watching the weather lik > a hawk, so this is probably old news by now but > Friday and Saturday nights are going to be the best > chance we have had in a while. Thanks for the heads-up, Jim. In looking through some of the updated web applications available from the NOAA to supplement the standard amateur astronomer tool - the "clear sky clock," I ran across the following link that may be of interest to group members: http://weather.gov/forecasts/graphical/sectors/conusLoop.php With this NOAA web applet, you can display a dynamic forecast map of clear skies for the next seven days - either on a continental U.S. (CONUS) scale or a state scale. To use the applet: 1) Select "Sky coverage" from the "Forecast Element" drop down. 2) Press the VCR control button to "play" the forecast loop. 3) By double-clicking on a particular state will zoom-in from the national map and display the same information for your state. I haven't used this enough to comment on the 24 or 48 hour accuracy of the NOAA forecast. Enjoy - Canopus56 (Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Wheather you can weather the weather
by Jim Gibson 12 May '05

12 May '05

No doubt you have all been watching the weather lik a hawk, so this is probably old news by now but Friday and Saturday nights are going to be the best chance we have had in a while. A hi-pressure system will move in Friday. Friday nights air should be stable. Saturday looks pretty good as well, maybe not as good as Friday. But Monday - we will be back to spring time storms again. Jim --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

1 0

what's that blue stuff up there?
by daniel turner 11 May '05

11 May '05

Weather dot gov sez: Friday night: Mostly clear. Lows in the mid 40s. We might actually get back to doing astronomy DT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Stinkin' birds
by daniel turner 11 May '05

11 May '05

A cat may be useful here. They sure are usefull for much else. DT Dale Hooper wrote: > Relating this all back to amateur astronomy ...and speaking of > birds... I am having a difficult time with starlings and my observatory. > They keep p**ping all over everything and no matter what I do they can't > seem to get it into their skulls that this is a bad place for a nest. I > can't shoot them - I'm in city limits (although admittedly at this point > - I would like to). Any ideas of how to keep them away? I've already > tried a fake owl - which worked for a couple days. I've screened off a > lot of things - which has helped. But, they keep trying to make nests > along the rail - which I destroy on a daily basis - but they just keep > coming back. HELP!! > > Clear skies, > Dale. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by South Jordan Mom 11 May '05

11 May '05

Pope John Paul II was a wise man and he did a lot of really good things for the Catholic church, in my opinion. I'm glad you posted that info about your friend the zoology professor. I think he needs to have a little meeting with some LDS neighbors of mine, however. Apparently there is some unofficial doctrine floating around among groups of LDS people that dinosaurs and other now extinct species found in the fossil record never existed on this planet. The story goes that since dinosaurs at least weren't ever mentioned in the Bible or the D & C, that means they weren't here. Their explanation for fossils is that God made this planet from remnants of other planets and the dinosaurs and these other extinct species lived on one or more of those other planets. That's why the earth carbon dates as so old even though it really isn't that old in its present form. I heard that the explanation for all the layers of rock, etc. working out so well is that God made it that way intentionally to test people's faith. OK, I know this is not official LDS doctrine. I had checked this out with my close friends who are devout LDS a while back when another friend of mine was telling me that she has neighbors who believe this as official church doctrine and her own mom even believes it. One of my LDS friends in Arizona, when I asked her about it, said "oh my gosh, that's going around up there now too?" She said some kids at her children's schools were trying to tell the class teachers and non-LDS kids in their classes this stuff and her own children had come home from school wondering what the heck was going on. Anyhow, I recently spent about an hour with a non-LDS neighbor of mine defending the LDS church and explaining to her that no, this is not official LDS doctrine and no, LDS people are really not all a bunch of whackos. Even though I am not a fan of organized religion in general, I do believe in making sure that any organization's beliefs are not misrepresented whether I agree with their beliefs or not. But anyhow, have you heard these stories going around at all? What about the human evolution element? When I was at BYU in the early 80s I remember being taught in an Old Testament class there by an LDS Professor that man has not evolved at all. Man was created and put on the earth the same as he is today. There was a quote in the manual from Ezra T. Benson saying that and the Professor said to us the teaching came directly from the prophet and so was unquestionable. Is that what is still taught now? I'm not asking to criticize or make fun, I'm simply curious. Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I believe the late Pope John Paul II said something to the effect that "Science can purify religion from error and superstition". I'll give my hearty "amen" to that. I was recently talking with a friend of mine, Duane Jeffrey, a zoology prof. at BYU, about an allegation that is brought up several times in the debate, which is the claim that "there is no direct evidence for macro-evolution", that is, one species evolving into another. He pointed out that there are, on the contrary, countless living examples, including the ones I tossed out recently about horses and donkeys and mules and ligers. In the plant kingdom for example, he said there are times when it's virtually impossible to tell where one species starts and another ends. And one example from the animal kingdom he gave me was of our own State bird, the seagull, which is found in virtually every part of the world. As you go from region to region, the gulls will vary slightly, but remain breed compatible with adjacent regions. So for an analogy, let's start in California with Gull "A". In Nevada you'll have Gull "B", which is breed compatible with A, and in Utah Gull "C", in Colorado Gull "D", and so forth; each adjacent Gull, however slightly different than the previous, remains breed compatible. But what's fascinating is where the ends meet, and it turns out that's someplace in Siberia; Gulls A and Z live in the same region, but are no longer breed compatible! Z however is compatible with Y, Y with X, X with W, and so forth on down the line, but the ends no longer are. For me anyway this is a perfect example of how the process works. The "ends" (Gull A and Gull Z) are no longer the same species. This is a simple example, but I believe it illustrates perfectly how it works. He told me there are hundreds of other examples that could be cited. -Rich --- South Jordan Mom wrote: > Point taken. The Catholics are definitely a good > example. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

2 2

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Lambert, Aaron 11 May '05

11 May '05

South Jordan Mom Wrote: > But anyhow, have you heard these stories going around at all? > What about the human evolution element? When I was at BYU > in the early 80s I remember being taught in an Old Testament > class there by an LDS Professor that man has not evolved at > all. Man was created and put on the earth the same as he is > today. There was a quote in the manual from Ezra T. Benson > saying that and the Professor said to us the teaching came > directly from the prophet and so was unquestionable. Is that > what is still taught now? I'm not asking to criticize or > make fun, I'm simply curious. My brother-in-law recently (a couple semesters ago) took a Zoology class at BYU and I remember him talking to me about an evolution discussion they had in class. I did a search on the web and found the statement they used for their discussion. You can read the official statement by the First Presidency of the church in 1909 here http://biology100.byu.edu/assignments/files/Readings/OriginOfMan.pdf. Note that this statement is for reading material for the Biology 100 course at BYU, so I think we can safely assume that it is currently taught. To sum it up, the official LDS church policy about human evolution is this: humans did not evolve. They are the spiritual offspring of God, created in His image. The article itself does not directly address the overall evolution issue so the official policy there seems to be that there is none currently. You might also be interested or surprised to know that I also found out that the National Geographic article I referenced in my first post on this subject is part of the course's required reading (http://biology100.byu.edu/assignments/files/Readings/WasDarwinWrong.pdf ). The third reading that goes along with those two seems to be a discussion about the relationship between science and religion (http://biology100.byu.edu/assignments/files/Readings/IHaveAQuestion.pdf ). So it seems that the students are presented both sides and encouraged to come to their own conclusions. Regarding the dinosaur theories, I have heard that one before but not for about 15-20 years. The other theory I have heard is that they were killed in the Flood (this is mentioned as a possibility in the book "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie). So as far as I know there is basically no official policy there, either. Some of these "guesses" by people seem to take on a life of their own and start to get thrown around as "official doctrine". Hope this was informational. Aaron

2 1

Some OLD time religion
by daniel turner 11 May '05

11 May '05

This weather has everyone on edge. People are starving for photons and Ive developed a taste for the really ancient ones like those that have been in flight 30 million years or more. But lately even the eight-minute-old photons are really scarce. Since neither science nor modern religion can do anything about the weather, I propose we resort to an old pagan religious practice and appoint a witchdoctor. This should be a new position as a board member and would involve wearing the skin of a road-killed badger and waving around a rattle made from the skull of a skunk. Oh and one final duty. In the event the weather does not improve, the witchdoctor will be promoted to the position of human sacrifice in order to appease the angry weather gods. I nominate Patrick Wiggins. DT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

3 2

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Lambert, Aaron 11 May '05

11 May '05

Bob Grant wrote: > After 12+ years of religious instruction, I have never heard > on any such > experiments, and can't think of any. Could you share a few examples? These examples are simply off the top of my head, but I think they will be sufficient to illustrate the point. The easiest example I can think of is prayer. Asking God about something and getting an answer is evidence for God. Other examples come from the scriptures, such as John 7:17, where the Lord says, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." He is saying the best way to see if what He taught was really from God was to try living the precepts and see if the promised blessings are granted. For the LDS or non-denominational in the group, Alma chapter 32 of the Book of Mormon contains a sermon preached by the prophet Alma along the same lines where he explains to some people how they can determine if there is a God. He explains in more detail what is required to set up the experiment so that it is successful: you must have a real desire to know the truth. If you follow God's teachings with faith, believing that you will receive the promised blessings, then when you see them you will know that your faith has been verified. I know faith experiments are not the same as scientific experiments and that is not what I am trying to claim. I am simply stating that there is a type of experiment that can be done that can develop faith. As faith grows, the evidences also grow. One of the main differences is that the data is personal and is generally difficult to translate well into words. There is the old cliche about how explaining religious experiences is like trying to explain the taste of salt. To someone who has tasted salt, they instantly understand one another. Someone who has not tasted salt cannot relate or understand what is being described without experiencing it for themselves. Scientists tend to focus on all the evidence from experiments that support their theories, and this is as it should be. I think everyone should consider the experimental data in an open-minded manner. Sometimes there are things that cannot be reconciled between the interpretation of scientific data and a person's personal religious views. That is OK. Time will sort all those things out one way or the other, or possibly in some new way that neither side has yet considered. On the other hand there are also millions of people who have conducted faith experiments and have interpreted the data to mean that there is some kind of superior being. That does not mean that everyone needs to interpret the data the same way (just as not all scientific data is interpreted the same). But I think it is unwise to just discard the experiences of all these people out-of-hand as "unimportant" or "ignorant". Just as the scientific community is asking the religious community to be open-minded about the scientific data, I think the scientific community could stand to express the same open-mindedness towards the views and "data" of the religious community. I hope this is helpful in explaining my views. Aaron

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by South Jordan Mom 11 May '05

11 May '05

Well Guy, see that's the problem. (If you are somewhat sensitive about religion, skip to the 4th paragraph) From my own personal observations and experiences during my mere 40 years of life thus far, most religions don't want kids exposed to both sides and then stand back and see what evolves, because there is a chance they (the religion) might lose out. They want the kids to be blind sheep and just accept what the religion says without question, they really don't want people thinking for themselves. Some religions superficially say that they do want people to look at everything objectively and then decide for themselves, but everything else the religions say and do contradicts that. I do know a very few people who have actually really stepped back and took a serious look at what the religion they were brought up in teaches, compared it to other religions, pure science and then decided that they still believe in their chosen religion, and you know, I really respect that. But the majority of people I know in various religions are just blind sheep who never question what they've been taught from birth and think that it is bad to ever question. I know that is not how many religions actually started out but it seems that is what they have evolved into. The jury is still out for me as to whether there may be some type of Supreme Being(s) or not, but as for organized religion, Michael is right IMHO. Organized religion is more about gaining control and authority over people and their money than it is anything else. They are all corrupt in one way or another. IMHO, organized religion exists to capitalize on most people's social and psychological needs. If there is some kind of ID behind life, I don't see how it would preclude or negate Evolution at all or how Evolution necessarily negates some type of ID. Like Michael says, the theory of Evolution is pretty solid for people who really know the science. A lot of people misunderstand and misuse the word "theory" however. In scientific terms, theory means "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena." But for most lay people the word theory means "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." I think the problem a lot of the scientific community has with these religious opponents of Evolution is that these religious opponents purposely misconstrue the meaning of the word theory as it is used in the phrase "Theory of Evolution" and they try to put their ID "guess" on the same level as the scientific theory of Evolution. From everything I've been reading over the years, this is one of the basic problems. There might be some type of ID, but right now the evidence is not there to elevate it to a level of the scientific defintion of theory. diveboss(a)xmission.com wrote: How does one generate and promote thought in todays kids, if they are not presented both sides. Subject the kids to both views, and then stand back and see what evolves... Quoting Jon Christensen : > Faith can not be proven, and schools are not the place to use as a > battleground for idealistic crusades. > > ~Jon > >> From: Patrick Wiggins >> Reply-To: Utah Astronomy >> To: utah astronomy listserve >> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings >> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 22:56:13 -0600 >> >> http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050509_scientists_boycot.html >> >> Patrick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Richard Tenney 11 May '05

11 May '05

I believe the late Pope John Paul II said something to the effect that "Science can purify religion from error and superstition". I'll give my hearty "amen" to that. I was recently talking with a friend of mine, Duane Jeffrey, a zoology prof. at BYU, about an allegation that is brought up several times in the debate, which is the claim that "there is no direct evidence for macro-evolution", that is, one species evolving into another. He pointed out that there are, on the contrary, countless living examples, including the ones I tossed out recently about horses and donkeys and mules and ligers. In the plant kingdom for example, he said there are times when it's virtually impossible to tell where one species starts and another ends. And one example from the animal kingdom he gave me was of our own State bird, the seagull, which is found in virtually every part of the world. As you go from region to region, the gulls will vary slightly, but remain breed compatible with adjacent regions. So for an analogy, let's start in California with Gull "A". In Nevada you'll have Gull "B", which is breed compatible with A, and in Utah Gull "C", in Colorado Gull "D", and so forth; each adjacent Gull, however slightly different than the previous, remains breed compatible. But what's fascinating is where the ends meet, and it turns out that's someplace in Siberia; Gulls A and Z live in the same region, but are no longer breed compatible! Z however is compatible with Y, Y with X, X with W, and so forth on down the line, but the ends no longer are. For me anyway this is a perfect example of how the process works. The "ends" (Gull A and Gull Z) are no longer the same species. This is a simple example, but I believe it illustrates perfectly how it works. He told me there are hundreds of other examples that could be cited. -Rich --- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Point taken. The Catholics are definitely a good > example. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

1 0