Science

Yesterday I blogged about evil blog promotion ideas, and I mentioned breeding enormous cats. Well, dear reader, there is no reason to breed them; they’re breeding themselves and there is no way to stop them! Australia now has feral cats the size of leopards. Soon they will be the size of buildings, perhaps even of skyscrapers! What will stop them from taking over our cities?

KILLER ASTEROID UPDATE: NASA would love to track possible killer asteroids, but it has run out of cash.

PURE EVIL UPDATE: Matthew Newton wants employers to treat their employees like dogs.

HYBRIDIZATION EXPERIMENTS UPDATE: Scientists have successfully cross-bred humans with squid.

You have probably been wondering “When is this stupid cat website series going to deal with quantum physics?” That day is today.

Schrödinger’s cat (click for nice pics) refers to a thought experiment from mad scientist Erwin Schrödinger. The experiment is run as follows: a radioactive substance is hooked up to a Geiger counter. If the Geiger counter senses decay, it releases poisonous gas. This contraption is then placed inside a box with a live cat. There is a 50% chance that the radioactive substance will decay within an hour, thus releasing the poisonous gas and killing the cat. (If you have ever done this experiment for real, let us know.)

Clearly Schrödinger needed to be locked up in a padded cell.

Hear is where it gets interesting: according to quantum theory, after an hour the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously. Yet, we only see one or the other, not both. Why is this? My theory is as follows: Quantum theory does not apply to cats!

Someone nominate me for a Nobel Prize.

In perhaps only the second recorded instance of immaculate conception in history, a virgin komodo dragon has given birth to no less than five children. So which one is the messiah? Tom Cruise is an early candidate. This blog will notify you of any further developments.

SCIENCE EDUCATION UPDATE: If you’re wondering how that’s even possible, this primer on ubiquitination makes it perfectly clear. Suitable for ages five and up.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion recently. As you could guess from the title, he is an atheist. He also wrote an article online called “Why there almost certainly isn’t a God”, which I will respond to rather than the book because you can read it online for free.

It is important for an atheist to shut the logic door on God completely. If the existence of God is possible, then divine revelation and miracles are possible, a state of events that is anathema to an atheist.

There are two questions that Dawkins fails to answer sufficiently. The first is the argument from experience. Dawkins dislikes the argument from experience, which is fine, until you realise that if he had experienced God himself, he wouldn’t be dissing the argument.

The most perplexing question for an atheist to answer is “How did the universe come into being without God?”. Dawkins throws his considerable intelligence at this question, but his answer left me flabbergasted. I could not believe the answer he gave for this foundational question of atheism.

Dawkins’ answer to the question is simply this: instead of a God, there are lots and lots of other universes out there. We happen to be in this one simply because it is capable of sustaining life, whereas the other universes are not. This is his alternative to an “improbable” God. Pity it has no evidence.

Which is more improbable, dear reader? The existence of God, or the existence of an almost infinite amount of alternate universes?

The atheist claims to have no evidence for God. In reality, there is tonnes and tonnes of evidence, enough to fill many books, but it is all anecdotal so the atheist won’t accept it. Incidentally, holocaust deniers won’t accept anecdotal evidence either, not even that of thousands of eyewitnesses. (Hardly a fair comparison I know, but you’ll notice that hasn’t stopped me from making it.)

I don’t think the existence of all those other universes would sufficiently answer the question anyway. If they were all there, the question would have to be asked: How did they all get there? Something like that doesn’t just happen, after all. What caused all those universes to come into being?

Is there an acceptable atheistic answer to the question? Perhaps, each universe gives birth to another as it dies, and so on, until the last universe gives birth to the first one, in an infinite loop. Thus we would have a closed system of universes with no divine loose ends. Which is fine, until someone asks, “Who or what set that up then?” and we are back where we started.

Ultimately there is only one logical end point to all this, or “beginning point” if you will. There is, as improbable as it may seem, an uncaused Creator.

Some people are very worried about global warming. Not me! Why is it a problem anyway? We might not be able to farm Europe, but we WILL be able to farm Greenland and the frozen Siberian tundra. Hell, we’ll farm the South Pole if we have to. And what’s wrong with more days at the beach?

In any case, the U.S. has a great solution to global warming under development right now. It’s called the militarisation of space. They will have the power to fry anything on earth at the touch of a button. Hasn’t been any rain lately? Call the Pentagon, and they will get to work on the nearest ocean. More rain, less pain. Ocean levels too high? Call the Pentagon and evaporate the Pacific! Problem solved. Too many cyclones or hurricanes? Call the Pentagon and have ‘em diverted to Cuba.

Al Gore needs to learn that there are no problems, only opportunities.

The majority of evolutionists have long thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but until around a decade ago, there were very few transitional forms that could be used to establish this. That has changed dramatically with the finding of a large number of dinosaur fossils in Liaoning Province, China. The clincher? Many of these fossils have what appears to be feathers – feathered dinosaurs!

Unfortunately, Liaoning Province is also notorious for fossil fraud.

Am I saying that the evidence for these creatures has been fabricated? Nay, far be it from me! What I will say, though, is that these creatures look rather silly.

I have long been sympathetic towards Answers in Genesis. I am not quite ready to throw my lot in with them completely, but I share their scepticism towards evolution as well as their view of the trustworthiness of the Bible. Yet I highly doubt they have got it all right.

In fact, it is impossible for them to have it all right, as different sections of their website contradict each other. They spend a lot of time trying to prove the universe to be 6000 years old in the Q&A: Astronomy section of their site, but they have also embraced Dr Russell Humphrey’s cosmology, which calls for a young earth in an old universe.

I can’t be the first person to have noticed this discrepancy, but I haven’t seen any commentary on it.