Times of Change

Have you stopped lately and considered what amazing times we live in? I’m talking about our material culture; our technology. When’s the last time you really gave it some deep thought?

If you go back to the beginnings of recorded human history, which we cannot reliable extend further then about 2000 BC (I would place Noah’s flood in the 3000 to 5000 BC range, certainly no further back then 8000BC +/-), you will find a world much like the world that would exist for thousands of years afterwards. Let’s take Hammurabi’s Babylon, circa 1800 BC, or thereabouts. In Hammurabi’s Babylon, people heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. War is fought face-to-face, with weapons of bronze.

Fast forward almost 2000 years, to 334 BC when Alexander the Great overthrows the mighty Persian Empire. Other than a few language issues, a man from Hammurabi’s Babylon would pretty much be right at home in the world of Alexander’s Macedonian Empire. People still heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. “Hey,” our fictitious Babylonian time-traveler might say, “your iron is a bit better then my bronze, where can I get some?”

Continue our fast forward journey through time, and we see that, through the Roman times, the Dark Ages, the High Middle Ages, even into the Renaissance, technology remains pretty much the same. Let’s have out time traveling Babylonian land in Colonial Williamsburg in the 1750s, almost 4000 years from when he began. What does he find? People still heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. And, “Hey, those muskets are kind of neat! Where can I get one?” (I’m not saying that gunpowder had not already changed warfare, but the sword was still a viable weapon on the battlefield. And, let’s face it; a musket in the 1750’s was mostly just a one-shot spear…)

But now look at the 260 years since 1750. Steam engines provided power to ships, trains, and vast factories. The automobile, the airplane, even spaceships. We’ve gone from muskets to B-2 Bombers armed with nuclear bombs that can wipe out entire cities in one pop. Our Babylonian time traveler stayed in a mostly recognizable world for 4000 years, but a guy born just 100 years ago would be lost today. He’d have seen automobiles and airplanes by 1910, but you set him down on the south side of LAX by the freeway and his brain would flip out!

I’m old enough to remember life when there were only 3 television channels. Now, I’m not so old as to remember life before television, that is my parents’ generation, but I’ve been around for a while. Who knows how many channels are in existence, now. More than any of us want to watch, I’d wager.

The first computer I ever worked on had 8 kilobytes of RAM. The year was 1980, and I was able to take computer science in high school. And our school had four computers! Wow! I remember telling my Dad that one day computers would be like televisions & most every house would have one & that they’d all be hooked together. He scoffed and said that he’d never own one; yet, within 3 years, he had bought one for Mom to use keeping the books for his construction company. (It was an IBM AT, and had a 1 megabyte hard drive. I told Mom that hard drive was so big that she’d never fill it up…)

What’s the point in all this? Am I leading up to some deep theological zinger? No, not really. Just taking a little time to be amazed at the world we live in & wondering what new & wondrous things tomorrow will be bringing. (Me? I still want my flying car!)

Were The Moon Landings Faked?

Fred Butler at Hip and Thigh posted a link today to a clip from the television talk show The View in which Whoopi Goldberg expressed some doubts as to whether or not the Moon landings were faked.



Oh, wow! I almost feel sympathy for Goldberg. It is horrible to have to display your ignorance on national television that way. “Who took the pictures?” have you ever heard of a tripod, Whoopi? And then Walters has to cap it off by trying to explain that Mike Collins, still in orbit aboard Columbia, was some of taking the pictures. And people watch this show?

Okay, about the flag, when they set it up it began to swing, not from air resistance but from gravity and inertia. Without air to slow it down, the bottom corner of the flag kept swinging like a pendulum for quite some time. This is been replicated in vacuum chambers more than once. Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel recently did a whole show debunking many “the Moon landings were faked” myths.



Several years ago, I was sitting in my office and I had a picture from Apollo 15 on my computer desktop. A really nice color shot of one of the astronauts standing by the flag in front of the lunar module with the lunar rover parked close by. A guy came into my office, saw the picture, and remarked, “You know that was all faked, don’t you?” Initially, I thought it was joking, but it was soon evident that he was quite serious. After a few minutes, it was also quite apparent to me, that no amount of discussion would change his mind. This was my one and only personal encounter with a Moon-landing Denier.



The main “evidence” that was brought up that day, the same “evidence” that such Moon-landing Deniers always point to, was; #1) the waving flag; #2) the lack of stars in the background of the photographs from the Moon; and #3) the shadows of objects in the photographs from the Moon. The waving flag we have already dealt with. The lack of stars in the backgrounds of the photographs is easily explained when we understand that the camera’s aperture was set to take photographs in full daylight. Compared to everything in the foreground, the dirt, the rocks, the lunar module, and the astronauts, all standing in full sunlight, the stars are too faint to show up in the photographs. The problems with the shadows disappear when you realize that the surface of the Moon is not flat and uniform. Shadows cast on a sloping surface will seem to be pointed in a different direction from shadows cast on a flat surface.

The fact that so many people believe that the Moon landings, all six of them, were faked, and denying the Moon landings while using personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, and watching satellite television, is just another testimony to the total inadequacy of the American education system!

For detailed refutation of the "Moon myths" see here and here.

Has It Really Been 40 Years?

Exactly 40 years ago today, at 20:17:39 GMT (3:17 PM EST,) the first manned spacecraft to ever visit another world landed on the Moon. I was only four years old, but I remember my dad getting me out of bed when, almost 7 hours later, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the Moon. I have a very vivid memory of sitting in my pajamas with my sisters on the green carpet in the den in front of the television.

To get into the mood for this anniversary, Mrs. Squirrel and I watched The Right Stuff on Friday night, and then HBO’s From the Earth to the Moon on Saturday. (Mrs. Squirrel drew the line and would not let me watch Apollo 13 today. (Well that’s not quite true, but I could tell that it would not have pleased her.))



Here are some interesting facts that you may not known about that first Moon landing:

Because Neal Armstrong diverted from the primary landing site and landed manually some distance away, Mike Collins was never able to spot the landing site from orbit.

While Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 ½ hours on the surface, they only actually walked outside for 2 hours and 36 minutes.

The "dashboard" of the Apollo 11 command module had 24 instruments, 566 switches, and 71 lights. The command module also had approximately 15 miles of wire, enough to wire about 50 houses.

Mechanical problems with the command module’s water filtration system caused hydrogen bubbles to build up in the drinking water supply, resulting in some rather odiferous “out gassing.” It affected all three crew members, so at least no one could point fingers. (From all reports, after a few days in space without any kind of shower facilities, an Apollo capsule wasn’t the most pleasant place to be. I understand that things are much better now aboard the space shuttle and the international space station.

When Armstrong and Aldrin came back inside from their moonwalk, their suits were coated with a fine powder of Moondust. Armstrong said that it smelled like “wet ashes in a fireplace” while Aldrin described it as a “spent gunpowder” smell.

Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) that directed Eagle, the Apollo 11 lunar lander, to and from the surface of the Moon, had 74 kB of memory and 4 kB of ram! Oh, and it cost $150,000+… (my cell phone has over a gigabyte of memory, and cost about $100…)

Before they left the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin threw their boots, EVA backpacks, and garbage out the hatch and left it all on the Moon.

The Apollo 11 crew only spent 21 ½ hours on the Moon. The last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, would spend the longest time on the Moon, at just over three days.

NASA's Apollo 11 40th Anniversary page
Wikipedia's Apollo 11 page
Apollo 11 Fact Funs
More Fun Facts



Mankind is visited the Moon only six times, and each time only two men walked on its surface, and all that took place in three short years 40 years ago. We haven’t been back since. In total, in the entire history the world, 12 men have spent a total of 300 hours on the Moon. That is less than two weeks.

Maybe it’s a result of such early exposure to space travel, but I’ve always been nuts for outer space. The vast majority of my recreational reading is science fiction, and I’m talking the hard, technically oriented stuff. Honestly, growing up, I figured that there would be all sorts of space based industries by now. But all that we have is one itsy bitsy collection of components without a commercial application on board; about the equivalent of a dozen or so shipping containers held together of baling twine.

But 40 years ago, expectations were much, much higher. If you watched the television coverage or read the newspaper reports from the time, it’s easy to see that they expected us to have permanent settlements on Mars by now. Even with the turmoil and social unrest of the late sixties, there was a much higher level of optimism in the future then we see today.

The space shuttle, now almost 30 years old, is slated for retirement some time in 2010. And the Constellation program, with its Ares rockets and Orion crew vehicles, essentially updated 5-man Apollo-type capsules, which is the manned space vehicle that is supposed to replace the shuttle, now faces an uncertain future due to possible NASA budget cuts.

If NASA’s budget will allow it, the Constellation program plans on returning man to the Moon by the year 2020, 48 years since our last visit. Plans are then to establish a permanent base on the Moon, and push on to Mars.

So today as we look back it that achievement 40 years ago, and salute Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins, let’s see if we get our imaginations going about the future again.

Missing Link? Again?

It’s been all over the news this week. The search is over! The “Missing Link” has been found! Sure it has…

Before we get all excited, there have been “Missing Links” found before this, that, after time, have turned out to be nothing more than monkey business. In the 60’s & 70’s, the paleontological world was abuzz with the discoveries that Dr. Louis Leakey had made in the Olduvai Gorge of East Africa. Australopithecus boisei, also known as “Zinjanthropus” and “Nutcracker Man,” was proclaimed far and wide as the “Missing Link.” But, today, none of the members of the Robusta group of Australopithecines is considered part of mankind’s family tree.

By the time I was in college, Australopithecus afarensis, commonly known as “Lucy”, had replaced Au. Boisei as what was considered the “Missing Link.”

Donald Johanson discovered “Lucy” in 1974, and, through the 80’s and 90’s, “Lucy” was pushed as the “Missing Link.” But, by the middle of the first decade of the 21st Century, “Lucy” was losing her place in the family tree. Slowly, like others before her, “Lucy” has drifted from the Human-ancestor column fully into the Ape column.

Now, they give us “Ida!” “Ida” has been identified as Darwinus masillae (yes, named after Charles Darwin in this, the 200th anniversary of his birth), and appears to be a fossilized lemur monkey. And, of course, they’ve dated the fossil at 47 million-years-old. Of “Ida” Sir David Attenborough has said, “"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them. Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'. The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing.”

Of course, actual scientific articles do not make the same sensational claims that we’re seeing on Fox News and reading in National Geographic (SkyNews was the most fawning that I’ve seen so far, saying things like, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.”.) The conclusions in the scientific article states, “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past.” The phrase “Missing Link” in not found in the article published at PLoS ONE.

Time, I’m sure, will, in a matter of a few decades at the most, cause “Ida” to also fade out of the spotlight, as new candidates for “Missing Link” are brought forth. Meanwhile, here are a few things from Answers in Genesis to keep in mind:

Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.

A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood.4 Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”

If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.

Because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

It turns out that the publicity surrounding this fossil is the result of a concerted campaign, "including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site," orchestrated by the History Channel. Looks like the Link is still Missing!

Has It Really Been 29 Years?

I was reminded this morning by Julie at Herding Grasshoppers that the Mt. St. Helens volcano erupted 29 years ago today.


In the memories of all who were living in the Pacific Northwest at the time, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980 will always loom large.

I remember mid-afternoon, Dad and I were out by the corral, doing something with the horses, looking west across the valley, and seeing the cloud approaching. Dad said that there must be a bad thunderstorm coming, while I said that it must be the ash from the volcano. Dad thought I was nuts, as Mt. St. Helens was hundreds of miles away.



I was right, and the air turned a weird green color, and it started getting really, really dark. It got so dark that the street lights came on in town. It was one of the eeriest things I've ever witnessed.

All together, I guess we got about a half inch of ash here. Everyone was warned to stay inside, and not to breath the ash. Do not drive, we were told, as the ash would get sucked into your car's engine and damage it. They closed schools for a week, until the ash had settled. (I remember well, because we had to make that week of school up before we could start our summer vacation!)

Since 1980, the scientific study of volcanism has vastly increased our understanding of what happened that day. Studies of Mt. St. Helens have also yielded vast evidence that supports Young Earth Creation.

But, for those of us who lived through it, it is a memory that will never fade.

Now, I'm Worried...

Sometimes you read a headline that just makes you go, "What? Oh, you've got to be kidding me!" The headline is: Nuclear-Warhead Upgrade Delayed; Government Labs Forgot How to Make Parts. All I've got to say is, "Didn't somebody think to write it down?!?!"

What is Wrong with Most Science Fiction Films?

“Science really doesn't exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation.”
—James P. Hogan

It really, really drove this squirrel nuts.

Our intrepid heroes are “on the other side of the galaxy” while listening to a battle on their handy-dandy “faster-than-light” radio. The Forces of Good are losing. Suddenly, unable to stand it anymore, the captain, in violation of the orders he has been given, takes his ship, at top speed, to Earth, where they arrive just in time to avert disaster.

So, what bugged me? Instantaneous interstellar communications? Well, maybe a little; but that’s not it. Faster-than-light travel? Nope, hard to have interstellar travel without some form of FTL (Faster-than-light) flight. What bugged me was the fact that they arrived back at Earth before the battle was over!

You see, their ship, while capable of speeds much faster than those allowed by Einstein’s theories, still had to travel at a finite speed. The battle would have been long over before they could have possibly arrived at the battlefield.

Think it through with me – The fastest boat in the world has a top speed of just over 300 miles-per-hour. Let’s say that you have that boat and are floating just off of the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, listening on your radio to a battle that is taking place in Tokyo Bay. It is 4784 miles from Seattle to Tokyo in a straight line, and that’s close enough for our purposes. In the fastest boat in the world, it will take you 16 hours to get to Tokyo, far too late to help (not that that sort of speed boat would have the range to make such a journey.)

I hear the question, “Ah, Squirrel, your thinking about this all wrong! Don’t think “boats,” think “airplanes!” Ok, I’ll play…

The fastest plane in the world is Lockheed’s SR-71, and it can fly at 2,200 mph. Not counting take-off, landing, and aerial refueling times, you could go from Seattle to Tokyo in 2 ¼ hours. Fast, but not fast enough. Again, the battle would be over before you could get there.

Nobody really expects absolute realism out of Hollywood. When it only takes Jack Bauer 12 minutes to get from Fontana to Glendale, we chuckle knowingly and enjoy the show. But we wouldn’t be so willing to suspend our disbelief if he took 20 minutes to drive from Barstow to Fresno! (I’ve been waiting for the season where Jack spends 2 whole hours stuck on the 405, trying to keep up with the action on his cell phone.)

“But, wait, Squirrel! 24 takes place in the ‘real world,’ you’re talking about Sci-Fi! It’s not supposed to be real!”

I beg your pardon! We’re talking about Science fiction. It’s supposed to be scientific! You know, science. [sci·ence (noun) – the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment - Encarta Dictionary On-line 2009] Science fiction is supposed to be scientifically plausible. Unfortunately, the film and television industries think all you need is a few ray-guns, robots, and rocket ships to make a good science fiction film. “Who needs good writing? Heck, a pretty girl, some wiz-bang special effects, a robot or two, and we’re on our way!”

Now, I know that some things are simply the dictates of the practicality of film making. Star Trek originally came up with the transporter device because it would have been cost-prohibitive to manufacture the special effects needed to show them landing and taking off every time they visited a planet. The vast majority of space ships in film and television also have artificial gravity, because it would be cost-prohibitive to film in the zero gravity of space. (And wire work just looks really cheesy – can anybody say Moonraker?) But none of that excuses sheer nonsense in writing.

(Science fiction books, in general, don’t seem to have this problem. Most (but, unfortunately, not all) people who write books expect that their audience is, at least, literate. But really good books can be turned into really bad movies – can anyone say Starship Troopers?)

This is more than just a pet peeve with me. I see it as a symptom of a much larger problem: the lack of critical thinking skills among people. I’ve seen this trend referred to as “the dumbing-down of America.” What’s “real” doesn’t matter anymore. In a word, it’s postmodernism, and it doesn’t affect science alone, but also history, economics, politics – indeed, every endeavor of mankind.

Since Biblical Christianity is a reasonable faith, people's lack of reasoning skills are a problem.

Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not defending modernism as a worldview. There is more truth than can be ascertained by scientific reason alone. And I’m not at all prepared to get into the religion of naturalistic materialism, which masquerades as science; at least, not today. But, dagnabit, films about science should be scientific!

I like science fiction. I like it a lot. I've been a space nut since I was a kid, and science fiction is probably at the top of the list for recreational reading material. There are good books and good films out there. And I'm willing to ignore pervasive materialism, blatant atheism, and ever-present evolutionary bias in an effort to enjoy a good story. But I've got a problem with pure irrationality.

So, Hollywood! If you want to make science fiction movies, can we go for a little more realism? Please?