Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[narby]

I knew you were going to do that.....

[Junior]

Parallax can be measured quite accurately for some distance. A second of star movement (in the degrees/minutes/seconds system) over the measuring time (something like half a year) equals 3.26 light years.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Is it even plausible this was a better lens than, say, the objective in a good 4 inch refractor?

~RWP

These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived.

~Niles Eldredge, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History

[Right Wing Professor]

~Niles Eldredge, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History

Yeah, if I want the final word on lens technology, I ask a palaeontologist.

Got an actual checkable citation for that quote, BTW?

[Dimensio]

We are all individually different for a reason. The big bang did "NOT" bring about such a design.

No one claims that the Big Bang is responsible. Why do so many creationists think that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution?

And why do so many creationists think that "argument by assertion" is a convincing tactic? Do you really think that by waving your hands around and shouting "There is a Creator!" you will convince anyone?

[PatrickHenry]

I just checked to see if there's a freeper named "parallax." It seems there was, but he's banned. Strange world.

[Dimensio]

I thought that the creationists who touted the "300 scientists" list said that Project Steve didn't count for reasons that I can't quite recall but I suspect ultimately boil down to "I don't like them".

[Paige]

There is not any two ways about it. Then you aren't a Christian. Either you believe or you don't and I guess since you don't believe in the Bible then you don't believe in the virgin birth or the Resurrection. If you do not believe these things and believe Jesus is the son of G-d then you aren't a Christian. I am now officially finished with this discussion. I don't do theology and I don't debate the written word of G-d. Be Blessed. Thanks

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Yeah, if I want the final word on lens technology, I ask a palaeontologist.

Heh! Funny.

Agreed, paleo's aren't usually experts on lens technology and should probably stick to providing the props for the evolutionist's just-so stories. Eldredge, on the other hand, apparantly devoted a portion of his doctoral dissertation to the trilobite’s eye.

I got the quote from here (the link I provided earlier):

Link

Niles Eldredge, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History (and a scientist who devoted a portion of his doctoral dissertation to the trilobite’s eye), remarked:

These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).

[mupcat]

Only in your own mind, where apparently you think that evolution = atheism

Nope never said that! In fact I'm not too sure they both can't be believed. Too much evidence for both. I'm not about to guess how God was able to do it, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that both are true in ways far beyond my ability to comprehend.

I was simply agreeing with the poster who said we literally choose what we want to believe. It's as simple as that----a matter of choice. I mean when it comes down to it there are really only 3 choices----Creationism, Evolution or somehow a combination of the two. Maybe I'm missing a fourth choice, but don't know what it would be. If it's out there I'm sure someone will mention it.

[Junior]

I never said I didn't believe in the Bible. I did use myself as an example but it was implied it was hypothetical. You automatically reject critical thinking in regards to the validity of the Bible as the Word of God as being un-Christian.

As I pointed out before, you live in an either-or world; we get more of a range of stimulus-response when dealing with simple organisms...

[longshadow]

I should have qualified my earlier post, but I was in a hurry to finish in time to get the 1230 CourtTV update on the Jackson trial....

A requisite to visual measurement of parallax would be an eyepiece that not only has an adjustable micrometer, but also one that does not distort angular position depending on the star's location in the field of view. Perhaps the first eyepiece of this type is the "Orthoscopic" design ....

"The design of the original Orthoscopic eyepiece dates back to the 1800s [sic -- should be 1880's] when Ernst Abbe first designed them to be used for accurate measurements of linear distance on microscope slides. The term "orthoscopic" denotes an eyepiece that introduces no barrel or pincushion distortion, so that an object will have the same size when observed anywhere in the field of view. The Abbe design employs a triplet field lens and a singlet eyelens."

That pretty much takes accurate visual parallax measurement out of the game (unless you have a very accurate measuring system on the telescope Right Ascension and Declination axes, and then use a simple fixed reticle eyepiece) until well after the advent of photography.

[Right Wing Professor]

The trilobite lenses are doublets. Doublets can in principle eliminate spherical aberration at one color only. A good modern lens will have three or more elements, made from glasses with different dependences of refractive index on wavelength, so as to be apochromatic - having no spherical aberration at any wavelength. While it is interesting that trilobites (and several later species) evolved the first step in building a achromatic lens, human technology was well past this stage by 1930.

People ought to be careful about superlatives, particularly when they're talking about stuff outside their field. Any amateur astronomer knows enough about lenses to be able to contradict Eldridge's statement, assuming he made it.

And there's no excuse for McIntosh; he should know enough to consult the primary literature, and not rely on websites, particularly those with a point of view.

[forsnax5]

"...a paper I am writing last night."

There was a young lady named Bright,
Who transcribed much faster than light,
She'd write it all day,
In a relative way,
And have it the previous night.

:)

[Gumlegs]

steve-b, meet Paige..

[From many - one.]

"Lighten up a little, you'll live longer and prosper."

Not a very Vulcan idea.

I'm not sure if Fair Witnesses have much levity either. I'll check the small print.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

While it is interesting that trilobites (and several later species) evolved the first step in building a achromatic lens, human technology was well past this stage by 1930.

At least you found it "interesting." :)

I have to run, Prof. Thanks for the information and discussion.

Enjoy the Memorial Day holiday - I'm off to the desert.

[Right Wing Professor]

I love the desert. Enjoy.

[Gumlegs]

I just checked to see if there's a freeper named "parallax." It seems there was, but he's banned. Strange world.

Yeah. It means we can no longer calculate the speed of light using parallax. Back to the microwave & chocolate method.

[PatrickHenry]

That's okay (although I never thought of doing it using parallax). I've devised a brilliant method to measure the speed of light, using marshmallows and a jock strap. Details later ...