Some sick bastard I would like to kill all over again has just driven an airplane into a mountain while the 140 passengers and the other aircrew died kicking and screaming.
What annoys me is that he screwed me over too. And I am am also upset that I am as upset about that as I am about all those innocent people he murdered.
There was some reason to believe that the electronic problems I had heard reports about could be an indication of a large magnitude earthquake. With that on hold in the back of my mind I cam across news of a downed airliner. So I put two and two together and made minus four.
And it shit mightily on me. I feel depressed that I fell for that turd and I feel depressed that I feel depressed for the wrong reason.
And the worst thing is that it is all down to the fact the the USA political system could result in the most powerful person in the world being a chimpanzee. Who else but a chimpanzee would pass ill considered laws supposedly against terrorism that would result in pilots not being able to take a piss?
It hurt me that they could have a nit-wit in charge of a state the size of Texas get elected president after presiding over the Tulia scandal ...but the arsehole just keeps on keeping on. ANY civilised country would at least have hauled him into a court of human rights.
But that doesn't apply to a chimpanzee nor to a country that would elect one.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Saturday, March 21, 2015
The Mistakes Monkeys Make 2
In the second part of chapter one: https://youtu.be/t29XAqff1ak the narrator of the programme, Aubrey Manning, lets the local geologist at Barbican Mountainland speak of the geological formations he found there. That the whole region is made up of slabs one atop the other.
I couldn't understand his description of "serpents" "putrified" but it obviously fit in with what the narrator wanted him to say: "Originally they would have been horizontal, they represent an history of rivers, a loooong history of deposition."
So there is the proof; the word loooong. Any fossils are missing apparently. If that is what apparent means. The narrator states that to 19th century scientists a world made up of layers didn't look as if it had been created all in one go as the bible says. (3:30)
Excuse me but it doesn't say it was all created in one go and the presentation does not look like layers of sedimentation. Have a look at the waves presented in 3:46. (You can call them fold if you like.) It must have been built up over time. I can't quarrel with that. Just remove the words built up and time. (Unless you have proof of course. A wide margin is the usual requirement if it is all subjective. A wwiiidde margin.)
What it actually looks like is an hydraulic process that doesn't look much like anything we are familiar with. "How much time?" (4:00) Piquant that the producers edited the video to include surf at this point. So much for time. In fact
what is time to anyone who believes in a miracle like the Big Bang?
I would never accept the term scientist but I am slightly sentient (to some things.) How long does it take for something to happen instantly, as in a rather large bang, not necessarily The Big Bang but something of a whopper?
How long for example would the process of mountain raising take?
Suppose a process in which the earth stood still long enough to make the moon shudder. What would happen to a large mass of semi-liquid quartz solution in water. Can you have a semi-liquid solution?
Is it possible it might wave goodbye to the "springs of the deeps"? Mr Manning doesn't mention this part of the bible: "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth". Maybe he was unfamiliar with it. Are you?
Genesis chapter 7 gives an account of a flood, a rather silly thing to put in a potted history of the world if it wasn't true, especially if the people you wanted to convince were somewhat contrary. The whole history of Moses, once he left the safety of Pharaoh's palaces, was one of contention after contention with the very people he had freed from slavery.
Maybe he thought he had a right to expect them to believe anything that he said. Look how people like Che Guevara have been able to convince their followers. Maybe the key was to keep it simple. A succinct jingle is far more persuasive than a tome of scientific mumbo jumbo. Look how many people know the phrase: “I would rather die standing up than live life on my knees” for example.
It works, except it isn't a choice most make.
Perhaps people will do and believe anything they want to, in any period of history?
So I don't think I am going to bother trying to get anyone to believe they were not born in soup, if that is what they want to think. Attempting to pour reason down someone's throat is a recipe for disaster.
I couldn't understand his description of "serpents" "putrified" but it obviously fit in with what the narrator wanted him to say: "Originally they would have been horizontal, they represent an history of rivers, a loooong history of deposition."
So there is the proof; the word loooong. Any fossils are missing apparently. If that is what apparent means. The narrator states that to 19th century scientists a world made up of layers didn't look as if it had been created all in one go as the bible says. (3:30)
Excuse me but it doesn't say it was all created in one go and the presentation does not look like layers of sedimentation. Have a look at the waves presented in 3:46. (You can call them fold if you like.) It must have been built up over time. I can't quarrel with that. Just remove the words built up and time. (Unless you have proof of course. A wide margin is the usual requirement if it is all subjective. A wwiiidde margin.)
What it actually looks like is an hydraulic process that doesn't look much like anything we are familiar with. "How much time?" (4:00) Piquant that the producers edited the video to include surf at this point. So much for time. In fact
what is time to anyone who believes in a miracle like the Big Bang?
I would never accept the term scientist but I am slightly sentient (to some things.) How long does it take for something to happen instantly, as in a rather large bang, not necessarily The Big Bang but something of a whopper?
How long for example would the process of mountain raising take?
Suppose a process in which the earth stood still long enough to make the moon shudder. What would happen to a large mass of semi-liquid quartz solution in water. Can you have a semi-liquid solution?
Is it possible it might wave goodbye to the "springs of the deeps"? Mr Manning doesn't mention this part of the bible: "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth". Maybe he was unfamiliar with it. Are you?
Genesis chapter 7 gives an account of a flood, a rather silly thing to put in a potted history of the world if it wasn't true, especially if the people you wanted to convince were somewhat contrary. The whole history of Moses, once he left the safety of Pharaoh's palaces, was one of contention after contention with the very people he had freed from slavery.
Maybe he thought he had a right to expect them to believe anything that he said. Look how people like Che Guevara have been able to convince their followers. Maybe the key was to keep it simple. A succinct jingle is far more persuasive than a tome of scientific mumbo jumbo. Look how many people know the phrase: “I would rather die standing up than live life on my knees” for example.
It works, except it isn't a choice most make.
Perhaps people will do and believe anything they want to, in any period of history?
So I don't think I am going to bother trying to get anyone to believe they were not born in soup, if that is what they want to think. Attempting to pour reason down someone's throat is a recipe for disaster.
Friday, March 20, 2015
The Mistakes Monkeys Make
When I first got holds of a copy of Aubrey Manning's work "Earth Story" I was very much taken with it. I was delighted with some of the things the video was showing me, without necessarily forcing me to believe what the monkey was telling me.
Now I think it is time to set the matters straight. At least, I am going to have a damn good try. Using the neatly clipped editions available on You Tube I am going to point out places where discussion of alternative conclusions might have been inserted to make the series priceless.
Here is the first part of Episode 1: https://youtu.be/YpbevfWrYg0
Five and an half minutes into the programme, the narrator speaks about discoveries in Southern Africa. Could the Barberton mountains be a region from before the life on earth began?
There is no reason to suppose it might not be but a body would be a fool to pass over any alternative consideration. Not that it makes any difference to any that did or didn't live way back them. They will all be dead by now. But it IS something that brings creature comfort to monkeys.
But any man who considers himself to be a monkey automatically denies he is a creature, since he no longer believes in creation. So creature comforts are thus denied him. Hence I have no problems discomfiting such.
The most obvious reason for the lack of fossils in any region is the likelihood for their not forming, not that they never could have.
So what alternatives are there?
1. The mountains were already mountains at the time of fossil formation.
2. All subsequent layering never happened, despite the presence of life in the region.
3. The fossils were all washed away somehow.
These were just ideas I came up with in the last few minutes, at the time of wring this post. What the narrator goes on to suggest is actually stupid:
6:15: Two hundred years ago, people in the western world would have believed quite literally in the story of creation. Genesis tells us that god created the earth and all the living creatures in JUST six days...
But it doesn't. And who really knows what anyone believed 200 years ago?
Since there were people willing to commit hideous crimes (just as there are today) some obviously subscribed to the idea of Survival of the Fittest.
6:30 He says that the biblical account implies earth and human history began at the same moment.
The truth is that in the western world, since the dark ages, all so called Christian beliefs were controlled by the Pope. Any that protested the hierarchy were dealt with violently. The facts are that the Catholic idea of creation was very wide of the bare statements about creation mentioned in the bible. And as for the chronology of that church's fathers, they officially believed in a geo-centric solar system and universe until very recently.
A man may be excused for his ignorance but to fail to check his facts and making such monstrous errors is a great pity. But not unusual. I don't wish to put anyone off looking for himself but here is the description Moses came up with:
Now I think it is time to set the matters straight. At least, I am going to have a damn good try. Using the neatly clipped editions available on You Tube I am going to point out places where discussion of alternative conclusions might have been inserted to make the series priceless.
Here is the first part of Episode 1: https://youtu.be/YpbevfWrYg0
Five and an half minutes into the programme, the narrator speaks about discoveries in Southern Africa. Could the Barberton mountains be a region from before the life on earth began?
There is no reason to suppose it might not be but a body would be a fool to pass over any alternative consideration. Not that it makes any difference to any that did or didn't live way back them. They will all be dead by now. But it IS something that brings creature comfort to monkeys.
But any man who considers himself to be a monkey automatically denies he is a creature, since he no longer believes in creation. So creature comforts are thus denied him. Hence I have no problems discomfiting such.
The most obvious reason for the lack of fossils in any region is the likelihood for their not forming, not that they never could have.
So what alternatives are there?
1. The mountains were already mountains at the time of fossil formation.
2. All subsequent layering never happened, despite the presence of life in the region.
3. The fossils were all washed away somehow.
These were just ideas I came up with in the last few minutes, at the time of wring this post. What the narrator goes on to suggest is actually stupid:
6:15: Two hundred years ago, people in the western world would have believed quite literally in the story of creation. Genesis tells us that god created the earth and all the living creatures in JUST six days...
But it doesn't. And who really knows what anyone believed 200 years ago?
Since there were people willing to commit hideous crimes (just as there are today) some obviously subscribed to the idea of Survival of the Fittest.
6:30 He says that the biblical account implies earth and human history began at the same moment.
The truth is that in the western world, since the dark ages, all so called Christian beliefs were controlled by the Pope. Any that protested the hierarchy were dealt with violently. The facts are that the Catholic idea of creation was very wide of the bare statements about creation mentioned in the bible. And as for the chronology of that church's fathers, they officially believed in a geo-centric solar system and universe until very recently.
A man may be excused for his ignorance but to fail to check his facts and making such monstrous errors is a great pity. But not unusual. I don't wish to put anyone off looking for himself but here is the description Moses came up with:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now
the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the
deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
It doesn't mention anything about life outside the spiritual universe. It does mention a day. But it doesn't say where.
It mentions waters but we don't know what is meant by the term "waters". If there was no light until the spirit started warming the chaos up, there is unlikely to have been any heat either since they are one and the same thing.
If there was no heat, there was no water. Not literal water, at least. But be honest, considering he was a single man working off his own bat with little of no guidance from the other monkeys, you have to admit that what Moses wrote has stood the test of time remarkably well.
Now do yourself a favour and look up the meaning of Right Ascension. Mr Manning never. But then he never read my blog, did he?
These days everyone has access to any amount of translations of the Genesis account. Here is Young's version but I have brought the language up to date:
In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth the
earth existed waste and void and darkness on the face of
the deep and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters and God said, ‘Let light be;’ and light is.
And God saw the light, that [it is] good, and God separated the light and the darkness and
God called the light ‘Day,’ and the darkness He called
‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning, day one.
I may have taken liberties but than Young did the same. For one example, the original languages used completely different forms of punctuation. Obvious difficulties existed in translation especially in his day. But since then more versions and copies of earlier versions have been found.
***
And that is the end of part One of Episode 1.
I am rather tempted to continue...
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
The Mightbe Mississippi
I have just been reading of the demise of the ports on the Mississippi and the US military's efforts to preserve them. Apparently it is losing at the rate of 1 football field every 48 minutes. While 48 minutes is further from 3/4 of an hour than a football field is from 3/4 of an acre; given the numbers and varieties of sizes and shapes of football field and the discrepancies allowed for in the data collection, we might be allowed enough leeway to wonder why they used such a woolly minded term rather than a more suitable acre/hour.
Is it because the US public has moved so far from the farm that they can no longer imagine how large an acreage an acre is?
Because I am having trouble imagining which acres are going where in any particular three quarters of an hour or whatever. Although there are some buildings in the pictures (big ones) that might be used for comparison.
One or two in the second picture might well supply images of acre sized warehousing for comparison.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85519
I can't see why they just don't dig a channel through to Lake Pontchartrain and have a new port entirely. It would be the size of Portsmouth or Poole. Is it that military intelligence requires militants to think?
Whatever the case the salient facts have nothing to do with the salient:
"Left alone, nature would probably send the Lower Mississippi River whipping back and forth across a 200-mile arc every few thousand years."
"By the 1950s, it was clear to the Army Corps that the great river was beginning to shift, as the amount of water escaping from the Mississippi and flowing into the Atchafalaya River had increased from 10 percent in 1850 to 30 percent in 1950."
"Prior to major river engineering, the combined Mississippi-Atchafalaya River system transported an average of 400 million metric tons of sediment to coastal Louisiana each year. Today the average is more like 170 million tons, a 60 percent drop."
That last fact is the key. There is 400 metric tons/year spread over 200 miles/2000 years. That's just 160,000,000, tons of clay since Noah. Nobody knows what else is down there.
You can do what you like to the surface but given an unknown depth of silt lies over anyone's guess at the porosity of bedrock. Where the river goes is always going to be up to the river. And, so far, it would appear that I am the only fool daft enough to consider it worth mentioning.
"Ten thousand River Commissions, with the mines of the world at their back, can not tame that lawless stream, can not curb it or confine it, can not say to it, Go here or Go there, and make it obey. —Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi".
It's been a while since I read that book (and if you are intending to learn any of the earth sciences, you should start with that one.) However, you should bear in mind that the guardians of the forests (man and beasts) ensured the carpet of trees was virginal until 400 years ago and still in good shape between the Mississippi and the Rockies for over half of the last 200.
Is it because the US public has moved so far from the farm that they can no longer imagine how large an acreage an acre is?
Because I am having trouble imagining which acres are going where in any particular three quarters of an hour or whatever. Although there are some buildings in the pictures (big ones) that might be used for comparison.
One or two in the second picture might well supply images of acre sized warehousing for comparison.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85519
I can't see why they just don't dig a channel through to Lake Pontchartrain and have a new port entirely. It would be the size of Portsmouth or Poole. Is it that military intelligence requires militants to think?
Whatever the case the salient facts have nothing to do with the salient:
"Left alone, nature would probably send the Lower Mississippi River whipping back and forth across a 200-mile arc every few thousand years."
"By the 1950s, it was clear to the Army Corps that the great river was beginning to shift, as the amount of water escaping from the Mississippi and flowing into the Atchafalaya River had increased from 10 percent in 1850 to 30 percent in 1950."
"Prior to major river engineering, the combined Mississippi-Atchafalaya River system transported an average of 400 million metric tons of sediment to coastal Louisiana each year. Today the average is more like 170 million tons, a 60 percent drop."
That last fact is the key. There is 400 metric tons/year spread over 200 miles/2000 years. That's just 160,000,000, tons of clay since Noah. Nobody knows what else is down there.
You can do what you like to the surface but given an unknown depth of silt lies over anyone's guess at the porosity of bedrock. Where the river goes is always going to be up to the river. And, so far, it would appear that I am the only fool daft enough to consider it worth mentioning.
"Ten thousand River Commissions, with the mines of the world at their back, can not tame that lawless stream, can not curb it or confine it, can not say to it, Go here or Go there, and make it obey. —Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi".
It's been a while since I read that book (and if you are intending to learn any of the earth sciences, you should start with that one.) However, you should bear in mind that the guardians of the forests (man and beasts) ensured the carpet of trees was virginal until 400 years ago and still in good shape between the Mississippi and the Rockies for over half of the last 200.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)