Source 1 - Popular Mechanics article, January 2015
Source 2 - Lefty troll rant that cites the January article above but that was pre-dated back to Christmas day, 2014
Popular Mechanics published an article about a project to use forensics to reconstruct what the face of Jesus might have looked like.
The
second article linked to above is by a chap trolling Christians on Christmas
day on the subject. Presumably the author would dislike that the image of Our Lady of
Guadalupe looks like an Aztec woman, or that Japanese art depicts the
Holy family with Asian features. Well, we have to surmise that; his ire
is expressed only for white people - or, as the author put it,
right-wing racists.
The Popular Mechanics article
remarks that had our Lord looked the way He is popularly depicted in
Western art - i.e. taller and leaner and with different hair than His
contemporaries - then "surely the authors of the Bible would have
mentioned so stark a contrast." This is chicanery: the Bible doesn't go
in for descriptions of the physical attributes of individuals unless
there was a spiritual significance (e.g. Jacob's limp); an ancient Greek
storyteller might have done so, but the old Jews as a rule were sparse
in such descriptions. The article later adds, "It is clear that his
features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era." Presumably, but
saying something is "clear" when it is actually just assumed is not good
science, is it?This quote from the Popular Mechanics
articles is telling: "our tendency to sinfully appropriate him (Jesus)
in the service of our cultural values." It is sinful to alter the record
in support of one's preferred outcome - that is a species of prejudice -
but how is it sinful to reference a historical event when it does in
fact support one's cultural values?The Norton article
would have done well to mention the qualifier included at the end of the
original Popular Mechanics article: said Richard Neave - the medical
artist retired from The University of Manchester in England who
performed the forensic exercise that produced the portrait above - this
"re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place
and at the same time as Jesus. As might well be expected, not everyone
agrees." The article continued, "Forensic depictions are not an exact
science...The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle,
and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique...some
artists pay more attention to the subtle differences in such details as
the distance between the bottom of the nose and the mouth. And the most
recognizable features of the face—the folds of the eyes, structure of
the nose and shape of the mouth—are left to the artist..."
Finally,
this forensics reconstruction was done based on three well-preserved
skulls from Palestinian men who were contemporaries of our Lord. I think
it's an interesting exercise to perform; still no word, however, on the
same exercise being done on the remains of people born of only one
parent. Would that influence the outcome? Scientifically, we must
reserve judgment.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, February 8, 2013
Protungulatum Donnae
From the NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/science/common-ancestor-of-mammals-plucked-from-obscurity.html?_r=0
Note the use of "anticipates" in "the animal had several anatomical characteristics for live births that anticipated all placental mammals and led to some 5,400 living species, from shrews to elephants, bats to whales, cats to dogs and, not least, humans."
Structural similarity, yes -- but anticipates? Are we witness to correlation being conflated with causation?
Let's allow our scientists to explore possibilties and see how well hypotheses hold up to scrutiny. Let's avoid attempting to insert a cube into the coin slot.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Evolving View on WMDs
I think we're more likely to find WMDs in Iraq than we are to find the missing link.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Of Talking Animals
The other day I was perusing YouTube videos of debates between Christians and atheists about whose position was more in accord with sound reasoning.
In the debates I saw, the Christians relied on logic and reason (naturally, as atheists would accept no argument from authority) and formulated correct and reasonable syllogisms in support of their positions.
The atheists, meanwhile worked in their normal claim of appealing to logic. But then they generally turned -- without any warning or explanation -- to moral arguments for why Christianity is wrong. Interestingly, they used a Christian moral code to fault the position of their opponents. It's certainly reasonable to appeal to moral considerations when evaluating a belief system, but one needs to first lay the groundwork for the moral code in a rational, logical way. This they failed to do; instead, they simply accepted certain things as given and went from there. Christian philosophers of the moderate realist school who know their stuff don't, as a rule, make this fatally flawed mistake.
One atheist chap said that he simply would not even attempt to have a discussion with someone who believes in a talking snake (c.f. the Garden of Eden). It was a flippant remark, which deserved a dismissive answer -- perhaps one like this: if you believe humans are kin to apes and other primates, and humans can talk, why will you allow the world to be inhabited by nearly seven billion talking apes, but not allow a single talking snake?
Or this: yes, not only a snake, but a talking donkey too (c.f. Balaam's tale).
For the record, nobody was suggesting a normal snake began to spontaneously talk. Rather, the Devil in the form of a serpent deceived Eve. It was a miraculous event, without precedent, and as far as I know without repetition.
Consider 14th entry in the Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, a saint of the second century AD:
How is it possible to say that the serpent, created by God dumb and irrational, was endowed with reason and speech? For if it had the power of itself to speak, to discern, to understand, and to reply to what was spoken by the woman, there would have been nothing to prevent every serpent from doing this also. If, however, they say again that it was according to the divine will and dispensation that this [serpent] spoke with a human voice to Eve, they render God the author of sin. Neither was it possible for the evil demon to impart speech to a speechless nature, and thus from that which is not to produce that which is; for if that were the case, he never would have ceased (with the view of leading men astray) from conferring with and deceiving them by means of serpents, and beasts, and birds. From what quarter, too, did it, being a beast, obtain information regarding the injunction of God to the man given to him alone, and in secret, not even the woman herself being aware of it?
The point being that many factors converge in support of the fact that the encounter between Eve and the serpent was an exceptional one, an event that cannot be explained by materialist notions.
To insist on materialist limitations and then fault non-materialists for not being slaves to materialists assumptions is contrary to reason and logic. In discussions about miracles, one must first determine if miracles are possible. If no, then any miraculous event is going to have to be explained away. If yes, then events which claim to be miraculous can be examined on the merits of the case. The religious man is simply open to the possibility of supernatural events -- he is not obliged to uncritically accept every claim of amazing events. The person who is constrained by unreasonable limitations is the atheist, who argues a priori that such things cannot happen (he never explains why), and therefore a given miraculous event in history did not happen. He does not logically and reasonably consider the evidence; he merely, in unscientific fashion, adheres to the dogmatic notions of his ideology.
In the debates I saw, the Christians relied on logic and reason (naturally, as atheists would accept no argument from authority) and formulated correct and reasonable syllogisms in support of their positions.
The atheists, meanwhile worked in their normal claim of appealing to logic. But then they generally turned -- without any warning or explanation -- to moral arguments for why Christianity is wrong. Interestingly, they used a Christian moral code to fault the position of their opponents. It's certainly reasonable to appeal to moral considerations when evaluating a belief system, but one needs to first lay the groundwork for the moral code in a rational, logical way. This they failed to do; instead, they simply accepted certain things as given and went from there. Christian philosophers of the moderate realist school who know their stuff don't, as a rule, make this fatally flawed mistake.
One atheist chap said that he simply would not even attempt to have a discussion with someone who believes in a talking snake (c.f. the Garden of Eden). It was a flippant remark, which deserved a dismissive answer -- perhaps one like this: if you believe humans are kin to apes and other primates, and humans can talk, why will you allow the world to be inhabited by nearly seven billion talking apes, but not allow a single talking snake?
Or this: yes, not only a snake, but a talking donkey too (c.f. Balaam's tale).
For the record, nobody was suggesting a normal snake began to spontaneously talk. Rather, the Devil in the form of a serpent deceived Eve. It was a miraculous event, without precedent, and as far as I know without repetition.
Consider 14th entry in the Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, a saint of the second century AD:
How is it possible to say that the serpent, created by God dumb and irrational, was endowed with reason and speech? For if it had the power of itself to speak, to discern, to understand, and to reply to what was spoken by the woman, there would have been nothing to prevent every serpent from doing this also. If, however, they say again that it was according to the divine will and dispensation that this [serpent] spoke with a human voice to Eve, they render God the author of sin. Neither was it possible for the evil demon to impart speech to a speechless nature, and thus from that which is not to produce that which is; for if that were the case, he never would have ceased (with the view of leading men astray) from conferring with and deceiving them by means of serpents, and beasts, and birds. From what quarter, too, did it, being a beast, obtain information regarding the injunction of God to the man given to him alone, and in secret, not even the woman herself being aware of it?
The point being that many factors converge in support of the fact that the encounter between Eve and the serpent was an exceptional one, an event that cannot be explained by materialist notions.
To insist on materialist limitations and then fault non-materialists for not being slaves to materialists assumptions is contrary to reason and logic. In discussions about miracles, one must first determine if miracles are possible. If no, then any miraculous event is going to have to be explained away. If yes, then events which claim to be miraculous can be examined on the merits of the case. The religious man is simply open to the possibility of supernatural events -- he is not obliged to uncritically accept every claim of amazing events. The person who is constrained by unreasonable limitations is the atheist, who argues a priori that such things cannot happen (he never explains why), and therefore a given miraculous event in history did not happen. He does not logically and reasonably consider the evidence; he merely, in unscientific fashion, adheres to the dogmatic notions of his ideology.
Friday, August 19, 2011
National Aviation Day
Today, August 19, is National Aviation Day in the U.S.
In 1939, FDR established this holiday – the birthday of Orville Wright – to promote interest in aviation.
The web site of the Engineers’ Club of Dayton, OH has a 6.5 minute video of snippets from some of the early flights by the Wright Brothers -- see http://www.daytoninnovationlegacy.org/
In 1939, FDR established this holiday – the birthday of Orville Wright – to promote interest in aviation.
The web site of the Engineers’ Club of Dayton, OH has a 6.5 minute video of snippets from some of the early flights by the Wright Brothers -- see http://www.daytoninnovationlegacy.org/
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Fibonacci Numbers
Leonardo da Pisa was an interesting chap. He also gets credit for introducing Indian-Arabic numerals to the west. Up until then, Roman numerals were in common use, and it was painfully difficult to do advanced algebraic calculations with the Roman system (it makes the marvels of Roman angineering and science all that more impressive!).
The Fibonacci numbers are fascinating as well. Plenty of smart folks have pointed out that with such a frequently recurring pattern in so many unrelated places throghout the universe, to say that all of it happened randomly or through chance is simply too great of an improbability; that the universe is the deliberate work of an great intelligence is the better explanation than a long series of evolutainary accidents.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9MwNm0gXd8&sns=em
The Fibonacci numbers are fascinating as well. Plenty of smart folks have pointed out that with such a frequently recurring pattern in so many unrelated places throghout the universe, to say that all of it happened randomly or through chance is simply too great of an improbability; that the universe is the deliberate work of an great intelligence is the better explanation than a long series of evolutainary accidents.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9MwNm0gXd8&sns=em
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Heart of the West
Source
In this post I listed a number of outstanding individuals of science and medicine who were also solid -- and in many cases canonized -- Catholics. A key point of the essay was that the Catholic Church has historically been an exemplary sponsor of the sciences. Objectors that say the way the Galileo affair was handled illustrates an inherent hostility for science, I empirically demonstrated, ignored mountains of evidence to the contrary. The Galileo affair, it turns out, was a one-off case, an outlier, an exception. Then how do we explain what happened to Galileo, the modern critic of the Church will ask? The answer is that it had far less to do with the science than it did with the personalities. Galileo was an agitator and a polemicist for views that he had not adequately demonstrated scientifically; though many of his observations and some of his conclusions were valid, a number of his proofs and explanations have long-since been refuted scientifically. When the weakness of his explanations were scientifically demonstrated to him, he abused, humiliated, and denigrated his fellow scientists and Churchmen for differing with his genius. In short, Galileo was told to shut up and stay in his country villa not so much for his science as for being a supreme jerk.
But today the Galileo affair is a side-bar. The source link above to the Iona Institute's web site leads to a report coming from modern China: the reason for the West's success, say China's best thinkers, is due to Christianity.
The source is a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences:
"One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.
"We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.
"Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.
"But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.
"The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible...We don’t have any doubt about this."
For the record, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic.
The speaker, true to his Marxist stripes, attributes the ultimate success of the West to "the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics." Thus, like Galileo, though some of his reasoning is off, his chief conclusion is sound.
From the article: "It has long been accepted that Christianity is one of the core elements of Western civilisation; it is too little understood that it is also one of the secrets of the stunning success of that civilisation."
This success story is the by-product of Christendom. Wherever Catholicism is the Faith of the land and the Social Reign of Christ holds sway, there you see the spread of culture and the rise of civilization. Anything else devolves into barbarism and tyranny.
In this post I listed a number of outstanding individuals of science and medicine who were also solid -- and in many cases canonized -- Catholics. A key point of the essay was that the Catholic Church has historically been an exemplary sponsor of the sciences. Objectors that say the way the Galileo affair was handled illustrates an inherent hostility for science, I empirically demonstrated, ignored mountains of evidence to the contrary. The Galileo affair, it turns out, was a one-off case, an outlier, an exception. Then how do we explain what happened to Galileo, the modern critic of the Church will ask? The answer is that it had far less to do with the science than it did with the personalities. Galileo was an agitator and a polemicist for views that he had not adequately demonstrated scientifically; though many of his observations and some of his conclusions were valid, a number of his proofs and explanations have long-since been refuted scientifically. When the weakness of his explanations were scientifically demonstrated to him, he abused, humiliated, and denigrated his fellow scientists and Churchmen for differing with his genius. In short, Galileo was told to shut up and stay in his country villa not so much for his science as for being a supreme jerk.
But today the Galileo affair is a side-bar. The source link above to the Iona Institute's web site leads to a report coming from modern China: the reason for the West's success, say China's best thinkers, is due to Christianity.
The source is a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences:
"One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.
"We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.
"Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.
"But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.
"The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible...We don’t have any doubt about this."
For the record, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic.
The speaker, true to his Marxist stripes, attributes the ultimate success of the West to "the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics." Thus, like Galileo, though some of his reasoning is off, his chief conclusion is sound.
From the article: "It has long been accepted that Christianity is one of the core elements of Western civilisation; it is too little understood that it is also one of the secrets of the stunning success of that civilisation."
This success story is the by-product of Christendom. Wherever Catholicism is the Faith of the land and the Social Reign of Christ holds sway, there you see the spread of culture and the rise of civilization. Anything else devolves into barbarism and tyranny.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Who is the Brain Dead Person Here?
Source
If a man or woman is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, is he or she dead?
According to a great many physicians and medical "experts" who benefit from the lucrative organ harvesting business, the answer is yes.
Think I over-state the matter? Consider: in February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers denounced "brain death" as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters.
"Brain death" is a euphemism for profitable euthenasia.
If a man or woman is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, is he or she dead?
According to a great many physicians and medical "experts" who benefit from the lucrative organ harvesting business, the answer is yes.
Think I over-state the matter? Consider: in February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers denounced "brain death" as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters.
"Brain death" is a euphemism for profitable euthenasia.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Conspiracy Junkies II
In this post I covered the topic of conspiracy junkies. In that entry I:
(1) showed how the claims of one Fred Leuchter regarding the Nazi's gas chambers were demolished;
(2) provided a reference to the solid science of a Popular Mechanics article demonstrating that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes;
(3) concluded with plausible explanations for why some people were inclined to pursue the chimera of conspiracy notions.
One reader of this blog wrote to say that "Firemen, military men, and others are not onboard with the official story of 911." No names or examples were provided. As phrased, the meaning of my critic's remark is that not a single fireman, military man, and other person is on board with the official story. Perhaps what was meant that some persons don't accept it? But how many? Who? Absent any examples or evidence comparable to what was provided by the other side of the discussion, the best response to a sweeping generalization is often a categorical denial. But I will add that the vast majority of firemen, military men, and others recognize that it was two airplanes that brought down the Twin Towers; the ones who think otherwise are few and far between, and their differing accounts can be readily explained by the chaos and confusion of the day.
My reader added, "As for what happened in Germany, well, let's just say we can't even question it so what are they hiding?" I'm reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with another Holocaust denier who said that what was needed was a thorough investigation of the matter. I pointed out that numerous reliable investigations had already been conducted, and that a thinking man would see that the findings were thorough, conclusive, and satisfied all reasonable doubts. The other chap said that we still needed more investigations. It seemed clear to me that facts were not the answer to such an attitude; about all one can do is tell them they're unreasonable and move along.
That is, unless they are in positions of influence and seek to publicize and win support for their calumny. In that case, I think lawsuits for defamation of character are entirely appropriate. After all, this is a matter of bearing false witness against the victims of Nazi atrocities, and a man is entitled to his good name.
At about this point my critics will sometimes talk about other atrocities that are given a free pass -- why do only the Jews get to complain about what was done to them?
For example, the Ottoman Turks inflicted genocide on the Armenian Christians, murdering upwards of a million innocent souls. Adolf Hitler, commenting on the silence surrounding this great crime, said that if nobody talked about the Armenians, nobody would talk about the Jews either. The Turks of today say that there was collateral damage inflicted on both sides during that time; world opinion has been slowly turning against them, but the denial of the genocide is still considered acceptable in many quarters.
Long-time readers will recall the numerous blog entries I've written about the 100+ million innocents murdered by the Soviet Russians, Maoist Chinese, and other Communists in the 20th century. Beware the useful idiots who say that socialism is a viable system and that certain tyrants just gave it a bad name! And the popular press has long looked the other way regarding the evidence of the outcome of what happens when the flawed notion of "separation of Church and state" is consistently applied. Secularists, not religionists, have caused the most suffering in human history, bar none -- another point where our "watchdog" media is a no-show.
And it was from Iraq that the neologism "genocide" was coined in 1943. The author was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland. Lemkin was describing the systematic extermination of Assyrian Christians carried out in the 1930s by the Muslim governors of the new nation of Iraq that had been born after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Silence is the order of the day here as well. And yes, it is another injustice.
Should lawsuits be brought against all these entities? The answer, I think, is a prudential one: if you think you can win the case, then yes. Otherwise, you just have to walk away from it.
Just like you have to walk away from conspiracy junkies who won't permit themselves to be persuaded by credible evidence.
(1) showed how the claims of one Fred Leuchter regarding the Nazi's gas chambers were demolished;
(2) provided a reference to the solid science of a Popular Mechanics article demonstrating that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes;
(3) concluded with plausible explanations for why some people were inclined to pursue the chimera of conspiracy notions.
One reader of this blog wrote to say that "Firemen, military men, and others are not onboard with the official story of 911." No names or examples were provided. As phrased, the meaning of my critic's remark is that not a single fireman, military man, and other person is on board with the official story. Perhaps what was meant that some persons don't accept it? But how many? Who? Absent any examples or evidence comparable to what was provided by the other side of the discussion, the best response to a sweeping generalization is often a categorical denial. But I will add that the vast majority of firemen, military men, and others recognize that it was two airplanes that brought down the Twin Towers; the ones who think otherwise are few and far between, and their differing accounts can be readily explained by the chaos and confusion of the day.
My reader added, "As for what happened in Germany, well, let's just say we can't even question it so what are they hiding?" I'm reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with another Holocaust denier who said that what was needed was a thorough investigation of the matter. I pointed out that numerous reliable investigations had already been conducted, and that a thinking man would see that the findings were thorough, conclusive, and satisfied all reasonable doubts. The other chap said that we still needed more investigations. It seemed clear to me that facts were not the answer to such an attitude; about all one can do is tell them they're unreasonable and move along.
That is, unless they are in positions of influence and seek to publicize and win support for their calumny. In that case, I think lawsuits for defamation of character are entirely appropriate. After all, this is a matter of bearing false witness against the victims of Nazi atrocities, and a man is entitled to his good name.
At about this point my critics will sometimes talk about other atrocities that are given a free pass -- why do only the Jews get to complain about what was done to them?
For example, the Ottoman Turks inflicted genocide on the Armenian Christians, murdering upwards of a million innocent souls. Adolf Hitler, commenting on the silence surrounding this great crime, said that if nobody talked about the Armenians, nobody would talk about the Jews either. The Turks of today say that there was collateral damage inflicted on both sides during that time; world opinion has been slowly turning against them, but the denial of the genocide is still considered acceptable in many quarters.
Long-time readers will recall the numerous blog entries I've written about the 100+ million innocents murdered by the Soviet Russians, Maoist Chinese, and other Communists in the 20th century. Beware the useful idiots who say that socialism is a viable system and that certain tyrants just gave it a bad name! And the popular press has long looked the other way regarding the evidence of the outcome of what happens when the flawed notion of "separation of Church and state" is consistently applied. Secularists, not religionists, have caused the most suffering in human history, bar none -- another point where our "watchdog" media is a no-show.
And it was from Iraq that the neologism "genocide" was coined in 1943. The author was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland. Lemkin was describing the systematic extermination of Assyrian Christians carried out in the 1930s by the Muslim governors of the new nation of Iraq that had been born after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Silence is the order of the day here as well. And yes, it is another injustice.
Should lawsuits be brought against all these entities? The answer, I think, is a prudential one: if you think you can win the case, then yes. Otherwise, you just have to walk away from it.
Just like you have to walk away from conspiracy junkies who won't permit themselves to be persuaded by credible evidence.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Corrected Maternal Death Count
Source
A few months ago the WHO reported that annual worldwide maternal deaths were at about half a million. This number was used to support efforts to gain $169 billion in new funding for UN maternal health initiatives.
An independent study at The Lancet contradicted the WHO conclusions, saying that the number was actually 350,000. After initially trying to get the Lancet researchers to modify their findings, the UN was obliged to corrected its previous report.
From the article:
"UN researchers and women’s rights groups confronted the authors of the Lancet study at a meeting in Washington last June, asking them to get in line with UN statistics so as not to confuse the media and big donors,"
and
"UN scientists say they have to balance publishing their findings with gaining support for UN policies."
Nothing like cooking the books and then silencing dissenting voices from the prevailing ideology.
A few months ago the WHO reported that annual worldwide maternal deaths were at about half a million. This number was used to support efforts to gain $169 billion in new funding for UN maternal health initiatives.
An independent study at The Lancet contradicted the WHO conclusions, saying that the number was actually 350,000. After initially trying to get the Lancet researchers to modify their findings, the UN was obliged to corrected its previous report.
From the article:
"UN researchers and women’s rights groups confronted the authors of the Lancet study at a meeting in Washington last June, asking them to get in line with UN statistics so as not to confuse the media and big donors,"
and
"UN scientists say they have to balance publishing their findings with gaining support for UN policies."
Nothing like cooking the books and then silencing dissenting voices from the prevailing ideology.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Brains on the Brain
Source
Two Johns Hopkins professors say they found one of Michelangelo’s rare anatomical drawings in a panel high on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel: they maintain the artist hid a drawing of the underside of the brain and the brain stem on the neck of God.
Two Johns Hopkins professors say they found one of Michelangelo’s rare anatomical drawings in a panel high on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel: they maintain the artist hid a drawing of the underside of the brain and the brain stem on the neck of God.
The Brain in God's Throat?Yeah, I couldn't see it either.
The Vatican, as near as I can make out, wasn't bothered for a comment.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
See Saturn
Saturn will be shining brightly in the night sky on Sunday, when it closest to earth. Read more here and here and see photos of the sixth planet in our solar system here.
Saturn
The ringed planet is only one of two solar satellites mentioned in Scripture (Amos 5:26), when it served as a symbol for apostate Israel, who kept company with the human-sacrificing priests of Moloch.
Saturn was the Roman name for the Greek god Kronos, the titan father of Zeus who toppled his father Uranus and suffered patricide at the hands of his own son in turn.
Symbolically, Saturn is an apropos banner for our day as well, given as it is to unthinking revolutionary jingles that goad men to build little but reflexively demolish what they do not comprehend.
"The Revolution is like Saturn--it eats its own children...the people are like children: they must smash everything to see what is inside..."
- From Danton's Death, by revolutionary playwright Georg Büchner, who ought to know
SaturnSaturn was the Roman name for the Greek god Kronos, the titan father of Zeus who toppled his father Uranus and suffered patricide at the hands of his own son in turn.
Symbolically, Saturn is an apropos banner for our day as well, given as it is to unthinking revolutionary jingles that goad men to build little but reflexively demolish what they do not comprehend.
"The Revolution is like Saturn--it eats its own children...the people are like children: they must smash everything to see what is inside..."
- From Danton's Death, by revolutionary playwright Georg Büchner, who ought to know
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Real vs. Imaginary Problems
The deep-freeze winter storms of the past several days led me to wonder where global warming was when you needed it.
At the bogus Copenhagen summit a few months back, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus said, "I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not a matter of temperature. Global warming is a new religion, a religion of climate change...This religion tells us that people are responsible for very small increases in temperatures, and they should be punished...The role of man is very small, almost negligible. Politicians, their fellow travelers, and the media understood that this is a good topic to take on, because talking about the world in the years 2050, 2080, and 2200 is an excellent way to escape from current reality."
Then there's Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote, "Man's natural ingenuity can create new technologies that will lessen any impact that mankind has on the planet's environment."
There's plenty of pollution and environmental nastiness to be cleaned up. Pity that the frauds who cooked the research books to create the worldwide panic about global warming, melting glaciers, and the extinction of cute polar bears have now made it more difficult to get real environmental problems addressed. Way to go, Team Green.
At the bogus Copenhagen summit a few months back, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus said, "I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not a matter of temperature. Global warming is a new religion, a religion of climate change...This religion tells us that people are responsible for very small increases in temperatures, and they should be punished...The role of man is very small, almost negligible. Politicians, their fellow travelers, and the media understood that this is a good topic to take on, because talking about the world in the years 2050, 2080, and 2200 is an excellent way to escape from current reality."
Then there's Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote, "Man's natural ingenuity can create new technologies that will lessen any impact that mankind has on the planet's environment."
There's plenty of pollution and environmental nastiness to be cleaned up. Pity that the frauds who cooked the research books to create the worldwide panic about global warming, melting glaciers, and the extinction of cute polar bears have now made it more difficult to get real environmental problems addressed. Way to go, Team Green.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Known Universe
This film shows our quaint little universe as mapped through astronomical observation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
Every satellite, moon, planet, star, and galaxy is represented to scale and in its correct, measured location according to the best scientific research to date.
Source: the American Museum of Natural History as the Digital Universe Atlas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
Every satellite, moon, planet, star, and galaxy is represented to scale and in its correct, measured location according to the best scientific research to date.
Source: the American Museum of Natural History as the Digital Universe Atlas
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Watermelon Economics
Source
From the source above (scare quotes are in the original):
A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The "Team", as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in "research" grants from the Team’s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a "decline" in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was "a travesty". This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that "global warming" science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their "research" was either honest or competent.
=======
Reflection: One wonders why they would go to the trouble? Control of political and economic machinery, of course -- but to what end? Perhaps there's something to the thought that environmental groups engage in watermelon economics: green (i.e. superficially organic and natural) on the outside, red (i.e. socialist, communist) on the inside.
From the source above (scare quotes are in the original):
A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The "Team", as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in "research" grants from the Team’s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a "decline" in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was "a travesty". This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that "global warming" science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their "research" was either honest or competent.
=======
Reflection: One wonders why they would go to the trouble? Control of political and economic machinery, of course -- but to what end? Perhaps there's something to the thought that environmental groups engage in watermelon economics: green (i.e. superficially organic and natural) on the outside, red (i.e. socialist, communist) on the inside.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Natural History
Last week my friend Patti of Minnesota sent me the note below:
"Okay, city boy, time out for a refreshing look at nature.
"For a view alone see: http://shots-of-the-wild.blogspot.com/
"And for a learning experience see: http://the-outdoor-kid.blogspot.com/
"The first one has a couple of pictures that I got this morning and the second one has an awesome picture of a deer standing on its hind legs, so take a moment from your computer work to see what you think. Nothing like a look at nature to refresh the brain, eh?"
Though I normally describe myself as a guy with a green thumb that can kill kudzu, I will hazard a "yep - delightful" in response.
"Okay, city boy, time out for a refreshing look at nature.
"For a view alone see: http://shots-of-the-wild.blogspot.com/
"And for a learning experience see: http://the-outdoor-kid.blogspot.com/
"The first one has a couple of pictures that I got this morning and the second one has an awesome picture of a deer standing on its hind legs, so take a moment from your computer work to see what you think. Nothing like a look at nature to refresh the brain, eh?"
Though I normally describe myself as a guy with a green thumb that can kill kudzu, I will hazard a "yep - delightful" in response.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Orionid Meteors
Orionid MeteorJust to the Right of Venus
Source
The Earth crosses the dust of Halley’s Comet twice each year -- the next instance being tomorrow morning. The Comet itself won't be on display again until 2061, but early tomorrow one will be able to see the Orionid Meteor Shower, caused by Halley. When a comet's dust particles collide with the Earth’s upper atmosphere at nearly 150,000 mph, it incinerates in a brief, brilliant flash of light -- a meteor.
In 1909 Mark Twain -- who was born two weeks after Halley's passed closest to Earth -- said: "I came in with Halley's Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don't go out with Halley's Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: 'Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"
The prediction was accurate: Twain died one day after the comet's closest approach to Earth in 1910.
The Earth crosses the dust of Halley’s Comet twice each year -- the next instance being tomorrow morning. The Comet itself won't be on display again until 2061, but early tomorrow one will be able to see the Orionid Meteor Shower, caused by Halley. When a comet's dust particles collide with the Earth’s upper atmosphere at nearly 150,000 mph, it incinerates in a brief, brilliant flash of light -- a meteor.
In 1909 Mark Twain -- who was born two weeks after Halley's passed closest to Earth -- said: "I came in with Halley's Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don't go out with Halley's Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: 'Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"
The prediction was accurate: Twain died one day after the comet's closest approach to Earth in 1910.
Halley's Comet - 1910Twain had an elder sibling named Orion Clemens. Judging by the literary advice Hannibal, MO's most famous author gave his brother on how to pen an autobiography, I don't get the impression that Twain thought much of him. Anyway, Orion is also the name of the constellation from which the Orionid Meteor Shower takes its name -- the shower is located near the ancient celestial hunter.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Assumption
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Assumptio Mariae
(by Giovanni Battista Piazzetta , 1735)
Today marks one of the ten Holy Days of Obligation in the Catholic Church: the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. At the end of her life her body was assumed directly into Heaven -- a testament to what will happen at the end of the world for everyone who will be counted among the blessed in Heaven. This feast is the most significant and the most ancient of those dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God.
The Gospel from the day’s Mass is Luke 1:41-50, which describes the meeting of the Blessed Virgin and her cousin St. Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard the voice of Mary, the child leapt in her womb, she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she declared, “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (these words form part of the Hail Mary).
The part about the child leaping in Elizabeth’s womb reminded me of a recent conversation with a friend who does not understand why Catholics object to NFP and birth control. One problem with the latter, I pointed out, is that artificial birth control can act as an abortifacient.
My friend just about hit the roof when I said that. An abortifacient, after all, causes an abortion by bringing about the death of the zygote, embryo, blastocyst, or fetus after conception has occurred.
Note that the point is not that contraceptives directly kill an embryo. Rather, contraceptives suppress ovulation, but they do not entirely eliminate it – that is why there is occasionally breakthrough ovulation, which can result in a fertilized egg.
An additional effect of the oral contraceptives is that they prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting on the uterine wall – and when that happens, the ovum dies. It is this fact of an ovum not being able to implant itself because of the effects of the contraceptive that constitutes the abortion.
Some researchers maintain that because the contraceptive only prevents implantation and does not directly kill the fertilized egg, that therefore “abortion” is the wrong term to describe this operation. But that’s like saying that if I withhold food and water from you I haven’t killed you, you just died from malnutrition. At best that’s delusional.
U.S. Law, for the record, marks the beginning of pregnancy at implantation, and not at fertilization. Such are the sad times we live in that plenty of healthcare providers are willing to promote that devious notion.
To each doctrine a particular morality corresponds. The same Mary who concluded her time on earth with her bodily assumption into Heaven began her sojourn by being immaculately conceived: from the first moment of her existence she was preserved from original sin, and it clearly follows that all of us also began to exist as human beings from the first moment of our existence.
When the scientists and lawmakers let us down for political or financial gain, it’s good to know that we have the dogmas of Holy Mother Church to remind us of what’s true and reliable.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu.
Assumptio Mariae(by Giovanni Battista Piazzetta , 1735)
Today marks one of the ten Holy Days of Obligation in the Catholic Church: the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. At the end of her life her body was assumed directly into Heaven -- a testament to what will happen at the end of the world for everyone who will be counted among the blessed in Heaven. This feast is the most significant and the most ancient of those dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God.
The Gospel from the day’s Mass is Luke 1:41-50, which describes the meeting of the Blessed Virgin and her cousin St. Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard the voice of Mary, the child leapt in her womb, she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she declared, “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (these words form part of the Hail Mary).
The part about the child leaping in Elizabeth’s womb reminded me of a recent conversation with a friend who does not understand why Catholics object to NFP and birth control. One problem with the latter, I pointed out, is that artificial birth control can act as an abortifacient.
My friend just about hit the roof when I said that. An abortifacient, after all, causes an abortion by bringing about the death of the zygote, embryo, blastocyst, or fetus after conception has occurred.
Note that the point is not that contraceptives directly kill an embryo. Rather, contraceptives suppress ovulation, but they do not entirely eliminate it – that is why there is occasionally breakthrough ovulation, which can result in a fertilized egg.
An additional effect of the oral contraceptives is that they prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting on the uterine wall – and when that happens, the ovum dies. It is this fact of an ovum not being able to implant itself because of the effects of the contraceptive that constitutes the abortion.
Some researchers maintain that because the contraceptive only prevents implantation and does not directly kill the fertilized egg, that therefore “abortion” is the wrong term to describe this operation. But that’s like saying that if I withhold food and water from you I haven’t killed you, you just died from malnutrition. At best that’s delusional.
U.S. Law, for the record, marks the beginning of pregnancy at implantation, and not at fertilization. Such are the sad times we live in that plenty of healthcare providers are willing to promote that devious notion.
To each doctrine a particular morality corresponds. The same Mary who concluded her time on earth with her bodily assumption into Heaven began her sojourn by being immaculately conceived: from the first moment of her existence she was preserved from original sin, and it clearly follows that all of us also began to exist as human beings from the first moment of our existence.
When the scientists and lawmakers let us down for political or financial gain, it’s good to know that we have the dogmas of Holy Mother Church to remind us of what’s true and reliable.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tonight's Meteor Shower
Source
Every August the skies above the Northern Hemisphere are peppered with little bits of space debris from Comet Swift-Tuttle that create the Perseid meteor shower. The debris is ancient, tiny (the size of a pea), fast, bright (it vaporizes on entering the atmosphere), and occasionally leave persistent trains or even spark into cosmic fireballs.
The Perseid's are so named because they appear to emanate from the constellation Perseus.
Constellations Perseus and Andromeda
Every August the skies above the Northern Hemisphere are peppered with little bits of space debris from Comet Swift-Tuttle that create the Perseid meteor shower. The debris is ancient, tiny (the size of a pea), fast, bright (it vaporizes on entering the atmosphere), and occasionally leave persistent trains or even spark into cosmic fireballs.
The Perseid's are so named because they appear to emanate from the constellation Perseus.
Constellations Perseus and AndromedaThe best time to watch is between 12:00-5:00 a.m. on Wednesday.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Atlantis, Hubble, and the Sun
French astrophotographer and engineer Thierry Legault used his SBIG STL-11000M CCD camera to capture the only images ever taken of space shuttle Atlantis and the Hubble Space Telescope transiting the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
