Pages

Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Why I Am an Atheist

Got round to penning my story in response to PZ Myers' call to submit our reasons for being atheists. A more detailed account is still in the works. I haven't blogged much about my brush - oh, hell it was a goddamn scrub-down - with von Danikenism and it occurs to me that I should. Consider a series examining the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis in the works.

---

Growing up in Zimbabwe presented many challenges. Calling anyone "middle class" was a joke - you were either filthy rich, struggled to make ends meet or were so poor words could not begin to describe it. My family was part of that second group - we lived comfortably, but only just. I'm an ex-fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist, which, considering that Adventism has been in Zimbabwe for about four generations is really something. One thing I can truly thank my parents for is that they never compromised on my education. My brothers and I always went to private school, even if it meant we had to cut back on a few luxuries to do so. I was also always very inquisitive, very much a nerd and had a deep love for science that my mother encouraged. I read a lot of books, particularly about physics, astronomy and dinosaurs so questions were inevitable. I was an introspective child, though, so I tended to keep those questions to myself and try to figure things out on my own.

At twelve I was baptised into the church. I think this was the turning point at which I began to come to terms with reality, because it forced me to examine what I believed and why I believed it, where previously I could just drift along and pretend there was no conflict between my faith and my aspirations to be a scientist. It wasn't an easy journey, but less than eight months later, I came to the conclusion that God as envisioned by any Earthly religion does not exist. I still thought a higher being of some kind was possible, and so became somewhat of an agnostic.

The biggest problem I had at this stage of my life was that I had nothing concrete to fill the gap my faith left behind. One practical upshot of my country and my family's financial state was that I had no access to the solid facts I needed - I had no access to the internet and what little I did know came from the now too vague books I could access from the kids' section of the library. I was growing ever more hungry for knowledge, and would gobble up any little morsel I could get, regardless of quality. In time, this led me to a brush with pseudoscience no better than the faith I had recently forsaken.

Rifling through some old books at my grandmother's house, I found a bunch by a certain fellow called Erich von Daniken. They had the words "stars" and "space" in them , so reading was a no-brainer. What I read had me instantly hooked. Soon, I was proclaiming to all my friends how aliens had visited us in ages past and imparted us with intelligence. I was rattling off every single piece of "evidence" E vD presented - the Piri Reis map, the Ica stones, the Nasca lines, Puma Punku - with the utmost confidence that I'd finally found the truth. E vD did an excellent job of pretending to have that which I had been looking for all along - good, solid facts. His book "Miracles of the Gods" also fit in with the pseudo-mystical approach I had taken, and this led into a brief but retrospectively embarrassing flirtation with the Law of Attraction.

It was this phase, in which I wholeheartedly accepted such nonsense as is contained in "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know" that led to me taking another deep look at my beliefs. I noticed that all my "positive thinking" and meditating on the things I desired was getting me nowhere, and I started really thinking about how this actually worked. I realised that all this talk of "qantum-this" and "quantum-that" was simply a different term for the magic I used to believe in when I was still Christian. It did not take long for the rest of my belief in the supernatural to disappear, and eventually any concession of the possibility of the existence of a deity went down the drain as well.

I remember the first time I ever referred to myself as an atheist. I had just moved to a new school in Botswana. We were in a class Guidance and Counselling session and the counsellor asked me what religion I belonged to. Right there and then, I realised - much as I had once reviled those who were so "close-minded" as to outright deny the existence of a god, I had become one of them. With newfound conviction in my voice, I proudly answered, "I'm atheist." This was early in 2009, and I was 16, going on 17.

Perhaps not very oddly enough, I still lent some credence to Erich von Daniken's hypotheses. I would think to myself, "Okay, maybe he got the metaphysics wrong, but some of his facts must be right." I was also very critical of vocal atheists, even once writing a letter bashing Richard Dawkins over his hope that creating a cross between a human and chimp would end religion to the South African edition of Popular Mechanics. The Internet changed both these things, however. The Skeptic's Dictionary in particular demolished von Daniken's hypotheses, while reading of all the abuses to freedom that religion continues to perpetrate underscored the importance of activism to me.

I take a pragmatic view of the circuitous route I took to becoming rational: if it weren't for it I wouldn't be who I am today. I wouldn't have experienced first hand how harmful and limiting believing in lies can be, and wouldn't be so passionate about eliminating them. It's not my lack of belief in gods that I count as my most important trait, though. I value being a rationalist because I choose to think, a skeptic because I choose to question, a humanist because I have compassion for my fellow man and have an unbridled love for the cosmos that drives me to achieve my dream of becoming an astrophysicist. It is from this dream that I draw the deepest meaning for my life: that of discovery, and questing to understand the universe we live in.

Jabu M
Botswana

Monday, September 26, 2011

Sabbath School 24/09/11 - An alternative interpretation of Matthew 24:24

As I was entering church this past Saturday (late as usual), someone was reading Matthew 24:24. I was immediately struck by a new interpretation of it I haven't heard before, and I'm wondering if any serious theologian/pastor has shat it out before. Matthew 24:24 reads:

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

And this got me thinking: the false prophets aren't literally prophets. The signs and wonders are things we're already taking for granted every day: the healing of diseases, increased longevity, technology. I mean, we all know the cause of disease is demonic - the only force outside of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that can cast out demons is the master of those demonic powers themselves. Only the devil can extend the life of a human being beyond the three score years and ten our Heavenly Father hath allotted us, and the only thing outside of prayer that can allow instantaneous communication? Surely you agree with me - it has to be demonic. Those pictures you see on the television? Demons. You are inviting demonic forces into your house the moment you turn on that infernal device.

The coup de grace of the demonic deception is yet to come (for what prophet of doom worth his salt doesn't make up his own predictions?), in the form of a cure for cancer, HIV and all other of ailments God has poured out as a curse upon the sinners, satanic agents and homos (especially the homos) of this world, brought forth by the ritual demonic sacrifice of unborn children known as embryonic stem cell research and, worst of all (cue dramatic organ music), evolution.

The point of all of this will be to divert the sight of the world from the Lord and get them trusting in their own devices and their new god science. Undoubtedly, science is the greatest force driving skepticism and atheism today and has been driven from its very foundation by a diabolical agenda. You have been warned: do not partake of the forbidden fruits of science, lest you be deceived and pulled into its web as well.

And that also means my favourite reason for rejecting claims of gods, holy books and the supernatural - that science has done just fine without them and gone a long way towards disproving them - is all part of the satanic ploy...

---

P.S. - My official Back to Blogging post is coming later today or possibly tomorrow.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Adventist Review - La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief

Three days ago, this article appeared on the site for the Adventist Review, "The flagship journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church". Some may remember the fracas over La Sierra University science faculty teaching science instead of church-endorsed myth that got a lot of people all heated up and ready to burn those evilutionist professors at the stake. Well, the university finally bowed to pressure and announced it would comply with the church's demands. The article I've linked to reports that the university has been given until the second quarter of next year to show its compliance with church dogma by the Adventist Accrediting Association.

I find it kind of ironic that people who clamor for science curricula to "teach the controversy" are so close minded themsselves when it comes to a scientific theory that has been studied, ratified and approved by the majority of biological scientists in the world. Church heads should never have the right to dictate what science professors teach in their lecture halls. Outside of church-affiliated organisations, I doubt La Sierra graduates are able to get a job anywhere.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

COMET ELENIN WILL HIT EARTH!

So here's the next thing that's gonna kill us:


It's called C/2010 X1, dubbed Elenin after its russian discoverer. It's going to be at it's closest with Earth sometime in October and we'll pass through it's orbit's intersection with ours later in November. Apparently, the media hasn't taken to it with enough enthusiasm, so it's probably the planet Nibiru and "they"(you know, them) don't want us to know about it(genius logic, I know). There is just so much wrong with these fellows' logic that I just had to demonstrate how bunk it is. Here's a rundown of their main points and explanation of just what's bloody wrong with them.

1. Initial calculations had it passing 8.8 AU from Earth, but they've been continually revised downwards to the current estimate of at least .15 AU. (http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/comet-elenin-could-hit-earth/, para. 1)

Not amazing, really. As better data became available, the orbit got refined. Same thing happens with pretty much any moving astronomical object we find. Also, .15 AU is close on an astronomical scale, but still pretty far away on a human scale, 22,439,680 km away, 59 times the distance to the moon. But I guess their big point is...

2.The comet will pass through the Oort Belt (?), changing it's orbit (to hit Earth of course) (http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/comet-elenin-could-hit-earth/, para. 1) or pulling asteroids with its gravity to pummel earth (http://alligatorfarm.wordpress.com/comet-elenin-c2010-x1/, para. 1)

The Oort belt? Maybe you mean the Oort Cloud? But still, that couldn't be because 1. the Oort cloud is(may be) 50,000 AU away and 2. it has never been directly observed - it is still quite hypothetical. Perhaps they mean the asteroid belt? Anyway, addressing the first issue. On an astronomical scale, Earth is a very tiny target. Veeeeeery tiny. About 0.00000000569 square astronomical units* tiny. Compare that with 0.0707AU^2, the area of the circle calculated using the closest approach distance of .15 AU, Earth is 0.0000000805 times that area! The odds of Elenin being deflected towards Earth are too minuscule to even consider.

Now as to the comet pulling asteroids out of their orbit...that's rubbish. Comets weigh in around 10^13 - 10^14 kg (compared with Earth's 5.97x10^24). That's really not much, and definitely not enough to have much gravitational effect on any objects in the asteroid belt. But then there's the objection that this is no comet...more on that later.

3. We'll be pummeled to death by the material in the comet's tail when we pass through it in November (http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/comet-elenin-could-hit-earth/, para. 1)

Save for the comet disintegrating, I see no issue with the comet's tail. A comet's tail is composed of dust particles and perhaps small pebble-sized grains, definitely not enough to pose a serious threat to Earth.

But there's a whole lot more woo-woo associated with this...



tl;dw (crud like this is always tl): this vid says that when the comet, Earth and sun align sometime in March, the comet will magnetically interact with the Earth and make us flip over or something. I raised the objections I am about to share here on that video and was called a retard. Nice fellows, these catastrophist folks.

1. Magnetism is caused by iron. Comets do not have iron.

2. In-situ magnetic fields decay over time. The only reason Earth still possesses a magnetic field after 4.5 billion years is because of convection currents in its ferrous core. Comets, being cold objects cannot have molten iron. Any magnetic iron they might have had would have decayed long ago.

3.March is *around* the time of the equinox. At that point, the Earth's axis is perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. If there were any magnetic effect between the earth and the comet, you'd expect it to act on both poles simultaneously. Of course, Earth's magnetic field is slightly off center of the rotational axis, but not by much, and definitely not enough to be in alignment with the comet on the ecliptic.

4. Regarding the "3 degree shift in the south pole"...[apparently what caused the Chile earthquake last year] ??? Magnetic south? 'Cause that would have no effect whatsoever on the planet. If it were a literal shift in rotational axis we would definitely have seen muuuuch more damage. You haven't provided how long the shift took, but I can surmise it would have generated a respectable amount of radial velocity. The inertia experienced by the earth would have been *massive*, causing way more damage than just one little earthquake.

At this point, I saw the video poster's comment positing that Elenin is not just a comet, but something more. Some have said it is literally the Nibiru that has been long talked about. Some have even called it a brown dwarf. Well, there's something wrong with this. I don't think they (you know, them) could have hidden this from us. Something larger than Jupiter that far into the solar system would most definitely have thrown the orbits of all the planets into disarray. It would also be visible to the naked eye and we wouldn't need a frickin' telescope to see it.

Some suspicion seems to have been raised by the fact that the comet was discovered by an "amateur" on an 18-inch telescope and not by the larger observatories. People who raise this as an issue don't understand the workings of astronomy. Those larger observatories aren't sweeping the sky all willy-nilly looking for stuff. They are engaged in research, looking into specific corners of the sky, and are doing so for pretty much every moment of good observing time. Astronomical phenomena are being discovered by amateurs all the time - from asteroids to supernovae to - yes - comets, amateurs are nearly always at the forefront of discovery.

Another silly objetion is that the media have been too silent over this, therefore there is a conspiracy to keep knowledge of it away from us.



I don't think highly of conspiracy theories, but I'll grace this with a psy-ops agent worthy explanation. The comet will peak at magnitude 6-8...barely visible to the naked eye. So why should the media make a big hoopla about it? The media is always slow when picking up stuff like this anyway, so it may only be a matter of time. Unless, of course, they catch wind of this whole collision story, in which case they will be making quite the hoopla about it.


*(pi) x (radius of the earth in AU, approx. 0.0000426 AU)^2

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Kepler finds 1200 new planetary candidates



I don't think I can contribute much beyond the geeky zomgfest that's already been raised over this, but it makes me think: somewhere out there there is quite possibly another alien civilization looking vaguely in our direction, seeing a teeny dip in our sun's light and thinking, "Whoaaaa! We've found a Skreegl-sized planet in this star's habitable zone!" This is only the beginning for Kepler, and we can only see more planets out there.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Evidence and theory collide with galactic proportions

Courtesy of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog:

...

Astronomers using a fleet of telescopes observed over 1400 galaxies of all types, about 10% of which were classified as active. Looking at the shapes of the active galaxies (as well as the non-active ones as a control group — in that way, this was similar to a double-blind medical research study), they found that there is little or no connection between active galaxies and collisions/mergers.

This is stunning news! It goes against the paradigm that has been years, decades in the making. It’s not unbelievable, and by that I mean it doesn’t rely on weird assumptions or new science or anything like that. Something else must be making these galaxies active; perhaps instabilities inside them, or internal gas cloud collisions, or some other phenomenon. But apparently, at least for the past 8 billion years, it’s not due to collisions on a galactic scale. Mergers don’t feed the supermassive black holes and make them active in the way everyone assumed.

I imagine this will be a topic of much debate at the upcoming American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle this week. But in the end, if the observations hold up, and the conclusions are sound, a remarkable thing will happen: it will be accepted. Scientists will see that their assumptions were wrong, or at least need to be modified, and there will be a shift in the way astronomy of active galaxies is done. Perhaps there’s more to this story, perhaps more observations are needed, perhaps different populations of galaxies need to be studied. But if it holds up, scientists will change their minds...

Read more...

I can't begin to count how often I've heard the "Scientists are too stubborn and entrenched in their beliefs to accept alternatives", both from my Christian buddies and my old Velikovskian/von Danikenite internet acquaintances. But this very simply and easily proves the opposite: when actual observation shows otherwise, the prevailing scientific opinion will change. These fellows also very wrongly phrase their misgivings as: "Science has been proven wrong so many times in the past". But the fact is science has never been proven wrong, people have been proven wrong by science. Science is a framework within which discoveries are made, and those discoveries then used to create a more accurate picture of the universe than was previously painted by ancient dogma or incorrect assumptions.

So when all those scientists in ancient times believed the Earth was flat (a common creationist defence), they weren't doing science, but when a bunch of smart fellas made logical deductions from observing the sky from different places, and another even measured its circumference, the myth of the flat earth was removed from the scientific canon.

Science. It works.

Bitches.