Science @ MindSay 
god
The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate, by Andrew Parker an introduction to natural history with a hint of Genesis thrown in.Oxford evolutionary biologist Parker does not profess to be a particularly religious man, but he is intrigued by a simple question. How did the writer of the first chapter of Genesis - the biblical creation story - basically get it scientifically correct? Never mind the seven-day part, which the author easily dismisses. Parker is astounded that the order of creation described in Genesis follows the order of geologic and life evolution as science understands it. 'Either the writer of the creation account of Genesis 1 was directed by divine intervention,' he writes, 'or he made a lucky guess.'
This mystery is the Genesis enigma. Parker believes a lucky guess to be all but out of the question, and he views the accuracy of the creation account to be a proof of the existence of God, or at least a higher being of some kind. The author takes the reader step by step through the creation story,explaining how each segment aligns with an era in the evolution of the earth and the life inhabiting it. The creation of the sun is followed by the creation of the earth, with its oceans and land masses, followed by the earliest life forms, etc. Eventually Genesis tells us that lights divide day and night, a step which Parker ties to the development of eyesight in life forms and the evolutionary revolution that ensued. Aquatic life came before land life, though the writer of Genesis had no scientific way of knowing this; birds have their own special mention in the story, and they are indeed evolutionarily distinct.
Parker raises plenty of interesting questions, but he focuses almost exclusively on natural history,barely scratching the surface of the background of the text he is highlighting. Only in an appendix does he begin to delve into the rich textual and historical research about the creation story in Genesis.
Tonight I'll be experimenting with an oscilloscope and other tools to analyze the waveform produced by my amp/speaker/cab/tonestack with scientific rigor and thoroughness.
All but the last image are the same waveform over different periods of time. Each is a note played through my guitar and amp, recorded by a mic in front of the speaker cabinet. The prominent "tornado" shape in the first waveform is a factor of the way the tubes are biased and a "ripple" in the power supply caused by the current draw of the tubes, the load of the speaker/output transformer, and the properties of the power transformer itself. The last waveform shows a note transitioning from hard, gritty, clipping distortion to a smooth, pleasing, compression(blues) distortion, and eventually fading into a clean(mostly) tone. The asymmetry is caused by asymmetric biasing on the plate voltage to the tubes and the larger(200 volt+) voltage swings. The curious thing is that the asymmetric clipping is on the wrong harmonics. Either my tubes are biased too hot, or the signal is inverted somewhere along the way. The odd harmonics(the ones on top) are being clipped too much, and the even harmonics(the ones that sound a little better when clipped/compressed) are not being clipped/compressed enough. Either that, or the signal is inverted in (A) the cathode follower, (B) the power output stage, (C) speaker is connected with wrong polarity, (D) the microphone inverts the signals it recieves, or (E) the preamp on the microphone inverts. This is important because the polarity of the signal determines whether its a compression or decompression in the air. Odd harmonics drive the speaker forward, and thus compress the air, and even harmonics pull it back, decompressing. 100% fidelity in odd harmonics and 95% fidelity in even harmonics will produce a tone that is actually more pleasing than the 100%/100% fidelity tone. As a refference, when I post all of my work/findings, I'll include some transisor-based amplifiers and their results run through essentially the same tests, as well as the results of software/signal processors designed to emulate the sound of tubes.
Do you remember where you were the first time you tried a Wow chip?
Hopefully within running distance of a toilet.
What a disaster of a product.
Remember, that fat substitute that was known to run through people?
It was called Olestra (marketed under the name Olean) and discovered by Procter & Gamble.
Some at P&G thought this was breakthrough in the food industry and expected a billion plus market.
P&G pushed hard (probably not with any Olestra in their system at the time) on Congress and the FDA to get approval and their patents extended.
On January 24, 1996, the FDA approved olestra for use in savory snacks such as chips, crackers, and tortilla chips.
I don't know - does savory have different meanings because I only remember the toilet time with those Wow chips?
Here's a statement from the FDA years ago about labeling:
" The FDA concluded that the label statement was no longer warranted because:
'Real-life' consumption studies of products containing olestra showed olestra caused only infrequent, mild gastrointestinal (GI) effects. In fact, a 6-week study with more than 3,000 people showed that the group consuming olestra-containing chips experienced only a minor increase in bowel movement frequency compared to those people who consumed only full-fat chips."
3000 people ?? I wonder what they got paid for that study? Hopefully enough to cover 6 weeks of underwear.
So why bring this up? I heard about a new application for Olestra recently.
This time the shelves of the paint department might soon have Olestra based paint. P&G calls the new chemical mix, Sefose. Sefose can be used to replace harmful ingredients commonly found in oil paints.
Program Date: July 24, 2009
Program Time: 2100 hours, Pacific
Topic: Forensic Investigator
Listen Live:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/LawEnforcement/2009/07/25/Forensic-Investigator
About the Guest
Esther Mckay served seventeen years in the New South Wales Police Force, attaining the rank of Detective (technical) Senior Constable. She worked in the area of Forensic Services for fifteen years, attaining expert status in crime scene examination and vehicle identification. She also worked in Training and Research, as well as Document Examination. She has a Diploma of Applied Science in Forensic Investigation (NSW Police), and was awarded the National Medal for service in 2001 and the Ethical and Diligent Police Service medal with fifteen-year clasp in 2008.
Esther Mckay was discharged from the force in 2001 with post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of her forensic work. She is the author of the best-selling autobiography, Crime Scene: True Stories from the Life of a Forensic Investigator and the upcoming book, Forensic Investigator: True Stories from the Life of a Country Crime Scene Cop.
Esther Mckay works actively in supporting traumatized serving and former Police and is the President of the Police Post Trauma Support Group. She was awarded the Pride of Australia Medal in 2007 for Community Spirit for her work with traumatized Police, and regularly speaks to various groups and schools about her life experience, writing and former forensic work. Esther is patron of the Australian Missing Persons Register and has been an Australia Day Ambassador since 2007. She lives in the Southern Highlands with her husband and two children.
About the Watering Hole
The Watering Hole is Police slang for a location cops go off-duty to blow off steam and talk about work and life. Sometimes funny; sometimes serious; but, always interesting.
About the Host
Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster was a sworn member of the Los Angeles Police Department for 24 years. He retired in 2003 at the rank of Lieutenant. He holds a bachelor’s from the Union Institute and University in Criminal Justice Management and a Master’s Degree in Public Financial Management from California State University, Fullerton; and, has completed his doctoral course work. Raymond E. Foster has been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Fullerton and Fresno; and is currently a Criminal Justice Department chair, faculty advisor and lecturer with the Union Institute and University. He has experience teaching upper division courses in Law Enforcement, public policy, Public Safety Technology and leadership. Raymond is an experienced author who has published numerous articles in a wide range of venues including magazines such as Government Technology, Mobile Government, Airborne Law Enforcement Magazine, and Police One. He has appeared on the History Channel and radio programs in the United States and Europe as subject matter expert in technological applications in Law Enforcement.
Listen, call, join us at the Watering Hole:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/LawEnforcement/2009/07/25/Forensic-Investigator
Program Contact Information
Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster, LAPD (ret.), MPA
editor@police-writers.com
909.599.7530
I fail to see why people can’t worship their own way without feeling a need to congregate, form a hierarchy, make up a lot of capricious rules, and proselytize to others who are not interested.
People tend to want to have someone to look up to, who can tell them what’s right, and what they should do in any given situation. A leader that they can turn to in times of need, who might have the answers they seek. Usually this person has a great deal of charisma, and has an air of being in control. It can be likened to a father-figure-type situation, with scared children looking to their father for guidance and answers.
As humans, we compartmentalize everything. “A place for everything...” We hate to deviate from that, so we organize, find someone to follow, and create regulations to keep people in line. Organized religion is no different.
Why does one need an “invisible deity in the sky” to tell them to do the right thing? We should all do the right thing simply because it’s right. (Personal beliefs must always be taken into account here. What do I care if you do something illicit, as long as it’s not hurting anyone?) We should do what’s decent not because we’re promised salvation if we do, or threatened with Hell if we don’t. In fact, I find that more than a bit insulting.
None of this is to say that I don’t have my own religious beliefs; they just can’t be easily labeled, and folded neatly into a box. I took some time and care to cultivate my beliefs, not to mention a lot of my own research. My beliefs are still evolving, and I’m proud of all of it. That’s what is so great about constantly learning. You’re never done! “If you’re not learning, you’re dead.”
I’ve studied a vast array of the world’s religions for years – Christianity, Zoroastrianism, various Pagan paths, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism – just to name a few, and I keep coming to the same conclusion. No one has it completely right, but no one’s completely wrong either. I believe it’s the height of arrogance for us, with our tiny human brains, to think that we have religion and the cosmos all figured out. What’s worse is “sentencing” someone to “eternal damnation” simply because they disagree with you. Haven’t you ever been wrong before?
Being a somewhat logical, carbon-based life-form, I’d be remiss if I ignored science. There are just so many things that make too much sense to dismiss. For instance, I truly believe in the Big Bang Theory. I just don’t know who or what was the catalyst, and no one else knows either. We plainly can’t comprehend it. I guess we’ll know for sure when we die, right?
I do know one thing, though. Our souls are made up of energy, and energy never dies. It only gets recycled. Where our souls go after this is really anybody’s guess. Just don’t be so quick to chastise someone else for disagreeing with your beliefs. Recognize that you’re both travelling to the same destination; you’re just on different journeys. Who cares how you got there, just as long as you show up?
Until Next Time,
Danielle
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
