Posts Made By: Daryl Crowley

Interesting question. What size scope do you have and what do you feel, for your scope, is the most difficult Messier object to resolve?

I have a 5 inch Mak and I have litte problem with Messier objects with the exception of M102 and M33 which both require the "right night" and then they are no problem.

But I consistently have major problems with M109. I have only seen in "clearly" one time and most times I can not make out even a hint of it.

So that's my choice for consistent difficulty - M109.

Daryl

After reading a gross misprint on the CNN Web site (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/25/space.cannibal.reut/index.html) in which they stated the the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy wss 10,000 times MORE massive than the Milky Way! No kidding!

I sent them an e-mail pointing out thier error and in a little while MORE was changed to LESS.

How does stuff like that get by journalists and editors! Think how much stuff they just report without using their brains!

Daryl

Yes, we have woman demoratic for a governor, that's a flake.

(And California thinks they got a wierd governor. I'd take Arnold over what we got!)

Daryl

I'm expecting a 4X night vision monocular for Christmas. I'm not getting it for astronomy, but I wondered if anybody has looked at the night sky with a similar instrument.

I wonder if you can see things like M31 or possibly nebula with it to any degree. I know they make eyepieces with night vision technology, but was just curious if anyone had any experience with a terrestrial monocular night vision scope.

Daryl

I am considering purchasing a 10 -13 inch Dob but I must admit I have never had the pleasure of using one. Is there anyone in the LP of Michigan that has one, and would be so kind as to let me take it for a spin? Or is there a club meeting where I could try one out? I'm just want to find out what it's like to use one, how easy it is to acquire targets and keep the target in the EP as well as get some first hand advice.

I know I'm begging and clutching at straws but I've got to test drive one before I buy.

Daryl

A point that should be kept in mind in our threads is that Creation and Evolution are two very different things.

Darwin evolution is a fact. Just look at a toy poodle and remind yourself that it's ancestor was a wolf. Evolution is all around us. We can see it we can create and control it.

But Darwin's warm pond theory of the beginning of life does not carry a lot weight with most theorist today. We cannot create life; we can only help it evolve. (At least today, maybe someday that will change and we will know a lot more than we do now.)


While some may propose quantum superpositions others may propose God. (I favor the quantum theory with an element of design, not by God but by I don't know what.)

What we believe about the beginnings of life is not my point. My point is that the Bible crowd needs to acknowledge evolution, species do change, and the pure chance crowd needs to understand that you can't make evolution alone account for the BEGINNING of life.

The origin of life is a far more complex feature than evolution. And while it may be chance and it may be a creator, we simply do not know.

But evolution and start of life are not the same issue or the same process. They are not interchangeable terms.

Daryl

It should be called the jinxed planet! Bummer.

Daryl

Why do believers in a biblical God refute evolution of both man and the cosmos? Why must God be a magician rather than a scientist?

It seems much more God-like to me to evoke a process that that takes billions of years to complete (by OUR measure) than to just say "let it be" and "poof" there it is. To me the casual manner in which believers would have God creating the universe and man seems to cheapen the whole affair, as though the whole thing was done on a whim.

I would guess the creator is a damn good scientist and not a magician. If God created man in an instant, then why did he wait so long, unless we were just something to amuse the great magician for one instant in eternity?

To me evolution seems much more god-like. Start with an inflating universe and the creation of subatomic particles and the whole thing EVOLVES! Now that is what I would imagine a God doing. The Adam and Eve thing has all the elements of a man made fairy tale.

Not trying to stir the evolution frenzy again, just trying to understand why some find a magic-like God to be more believable than a scientist-like God.

Daryl

Here's one for you. Video cameras have reportedly caught a ghost on film at a castle in England. The ghost was dressed period clothing.

In a survey on CNN.Com that asks "Do you think the picture is a hoax'", 3865 people responded NO. 3865 people think its real!

No here is question about ghosts that I've always had. "How come ghosts seem to wear ghost clothes"? OK, let's say the sprit continues on and walks this world. HOW IS IT THAT THEY ALWAYS HAVE GHOST CLOTHES? I would think a ghost would be buck naked! But no, they always seem to have ghost clothes, or ghost guns, or some other material ghost objects.

So clue me in folks, why aren't the ghosts naked?

Daryl

Assume 2 scenarios.

1. God expects us to believe and adjust our actions according to faith.

2. God appears in the heavens and lays down the laws clearly for all men.


Scenario 1: A sinner dies and stands before God. He claims that the word of God was never revealed to him. Charlatans and other evildoers destroyed any possible faith he ever could have had. He’s not lying, he just was never presented a reasonable opportunity to acquire faith. He may have been raised in a primitive tribe, a ghetto, or whatever.

He seems to have a legitimate case for not having faith. Does he burn or get another chance or what?


Scenario 2: A sinner dies and stands before God. He has no excuse. He had knowledge and he failed to act on it. He KNEW what was expected and yet he failed.

He seems to have NO excuse.


Scenario 2 seems like a much better or much more objective system for both mankind and the judgment of their works.

Daryl