The Dalai Lama Controversy

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 18 April 2009
in Digital Blogs
There has been so much hype recently about the Dalai Lama's access into the country that I had to find out a little more about this person.  He was coming through to represent Human Rights and needed to know that this was a perfect man.  I cannot say I have taken too much interest in him as people tend to put him on a pedestal without really understanding too much about him.  It has been in the news so often that i felt it necessary to read a little more. 

I read the official Dalai Lama site which only says really wonderful things about him - like any official website would.  That was fine but i needed to know about Tibet, his role as Dalai Lama, what he has done (good and bad), etc etc considering his representation of Human Rights which is important in all nations.  There was one article in particular that i did enjoy and want to share, only because i believe that as humans we all have another side to us and cannot be as perfect as they say he is.  The sceptic in me suppose. 

http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/15/dalai-lama/

Tags: Untagged

DSTV Re-runs

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 17 April 2009
in Digital Blogs



http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jfa1490l.jpg
I, like most, have DSTV.  I have had it since its inception and although there are some really good programmes one can watch, it is amazing how many of these programmes they re-run.  All the time......Between the History channel, Discovery, National Geographic and now Crime & Investigation the re-runs are hectic.

I so often tell myself to cancel, and yet I am left with the same decision.  If i cancel, what else is there to watch.  I am not a party go-er or socialite and i enjoy being at home with the family, playing sports, playing board games and chatting, but by the time i get into bed, that is when i prefer to watch TV.  And that is when the re-runs start.  So I chop and change between channels.  Scarey!!

It is sad to think that we have become so reliant on TV.  I remember the days when there was no TV and we used to have so much to do.  And bedtime, was exactly that.  Bedtime.  One got into their bed to sleep.  Today, if the TV is not available most people do not know what else to do.  Sad but true........so the bottom line is....just watch the damn re-runs
Tags: Untagged

SA - The No Solution Country

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 16 April 2009
in Digital Blogs
I have to admit, i love being a South African, i love the country, the people and most of all  i admire what we have done in terms of change and integration.  Thanks to Nelson Mandela that change was all possible.  And then it changed after his term.
I have been watching every possible debate, forum and news update on where the country is going and have to say that we are slipping and becoming an international embarassment.  Pre-apartheid had its parliamentry corruption and misdemeanors, but nothing compared to what we see today.  And what is worse is that with all of the "on-goings" everybody makes statements about why things should change, but nobody puts forward HOW it will be achieved and WHAT will be done in order to achieve this change.
I constantly hear that crime will be addressed, will not be condoned, will not be accepted in all societies, will be tackled - no solution
I hear that health policies are in place to assist those who most need it and the impact it will have - but no solution on HOW and WHAT will be done
Housing, education, etc.  These have had statements made such as "we have put in place policies to deal with this".  That same statement was made 11 years ago and looking at what was promised, versus what was delivered, one has to wonder what policies they were talking about.
I wish somebody had the guts to say, bring back the death penalty and implement a judicial system that applies consistant rule - that will combat crime, healthcare will be free for the elderly, infants, etc.....,- that tackles healthcare.  Housing will be given to certain groups, houses to be built in such an area (size of houses maybe) and what the roll-out process will be and by end 2010 we should have built and provided 2 million homes for whoever.  And then stick to it.  Have a forum that monitors each strategic area, and monitors it strictly.  Monitored by independent observers - not politicians.
At the moment we pay huge amounts of taxes toward things that we dont even know where the money goes.   By the way, this gives us the right to complain, irrespective as to whether we vote or not.  It is our money and we have a right to know how it is spent (ie parties where people are flown in by helicopter (our money), road name changes (R80 million for 25 name changes) - (our money).  No referendum is provided here and yet our money gets TAKEN.  Private police for people in private office (ie  Zuma R1 million per month).  NPA courtcase - 8 years later - only to have all charges dropped - all of which was paid for by the tax payers money, including Zuma's defence, etc etc etc.........No solution given by any politician to date on how we can combat this kind of irresponsible spending of the tax payers money.  Where voting is merely a matter of choice, paying taxes provides the citizen with a right to complain about what solutions will be applied.
We need solutions, not empty talk!!!!!!!
Tags: Untagged

To Vote or not to Vote

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 16 April 2009
in Digital Blogs


I was listening to a radio presenter condemning those who were not wanting to VOTE.  At first I just listened and then realised, why should a person HAVE to vote, just because the country says it is right.  

Firstly - if one has been following the recent news - SA is playing political games - quite an embarassment in fact.  It does not have anything to do with the people any more, but it is about the political agenda and those who are directly involved in it.  The last 14 years have been proof of that.
Secondly, the political parties have their policies and missions, some of which are good and possibly effective if carried through, and some not so good - possibly against ones moral or religious values.  Does this mean that you should vote for a party - just because you have to vote - good and bad?
Thirdly, the majority South Africans vote emotionally, not intellectually.  Irrespective of the party leaders "shady" record (ANC) or the opposing parties motives for oppossing (DA), - 2 key players - one needs to question whether THEIR (the people) needs will be accommodated over the next 4 years, and if so, will this be handled by a moral, upstanding leader with qualities and traits that can be followed by the people and more specifically by the youth.  But as I mentioned, emotional votes dont cater for role models, morality, quality leadership, service delivery, rule of law and basic ethics.
Pity as these are the traits this country so desperately needs in order to progress!!!!!
Tags: Untagged

VOTE they say - irrespective of who you select

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 14 April 2009
in Digital Blogs
Tags: Untagged

Evolution - The Final Blow

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 18 February 2009
in Digital Blogs
This blog has been created to answer some of the statements that were raised by an “evolutionist” on MDL and i felt that it was necessary for all to see what was being said, as I believe that it would benefit all of those that are seeking answers to this age old question of Evolution. I must mention I am merely a scholar on this subject and always try to seek the truth.
 
It began with the statement ...“...it enables you to copy & paste a complete load of nonsense, so littered with fallacies it is difficult to know where to start!!   I actually think it is not worth responding to a lazy copy & paste (the original piece was not even written by a biologist, but a computer programmer...).”
Let us look at this statement . It does not mean that if a person is a computer programmer he does not have the ability to put forth a logical argument (ie Pythagoras was primarily a philosopher and yet one of his greatest achievements was mathematics – Theorom of Pythagoras. I also needed to copy and paste due to not wanting to misquote. And yet the writer didn’t have a problem recently when he copied and pasted pictures misrepresenting what it stood for and refused to accept any explanation when provided with verifiable facts.
 
Another statement was “But just because we do not know that does not make the whole theory false.” ....It may mean that some rethinking needs to be done, depending on what comes out”. We agree with that, however, this method would only prove true if anything of the theory is proven. One needs to prove a theory, not the other way round. You cannot prove a negative that carries no weight. In fact there has been more to disprove evolution to the point that people have had to falsify their submissions in order to try and prove their point (eg  Haeckle fraudulently altered the embryonic stages of growth; Piltdown Man hoax, etc). Given all this evidence it is legitimate to ask why hasn’t this theory been tossed into the dustbins of history. Instead it is taught in schools today as a factual theory on par with proven theories, like Pythagoras.
 
As for genes, genetics seems to disprove evolution. See below site highlighting Darwin thinking vs Mendels experiments pertaining to genetics :
 
 
The other buzz word amongst evolutionists is “mutation” and yet there is not a single documented example of a positive mutation (ie an orange without seeds. While it may be a useful mutation, it is not necessarily a positive mutation because those oranges cannot reproduce)
 
The writer also mentioned “.....the great Ibn al-Haythem” whose scientific method is practised all around the world. We agree with this but when that observation proves that there is a problem with the theory, then the theory itself should be rejected – categorically (eg black cannot be white.  Hence the idea is repulsive). I would like to know where the writer got the statement “attack the text and disbelieve everything our ancestors tell us”? In fact, being a devout Muslim, he says “the seeker of the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them”. He wrote, “but rather, the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration”. In simple terms what he is saying is not to follow blindly. Question everything. This can nowhere be misunderstood as rejection. It says if it is true, accept it, if it is false, reject it.
 
As demonstrated, evolution is false – reject it. To end here is a test that I have done with my 8 year old who knows nothing of evolution. I took his bionical (lego type toy) and put it together without his knowledge. I then told him that it actually formed by itself. Naturally he rejected this and went on to demonstrate how he could reconstruct it, claiming that it is impossible for his bionical to be put together by itself. I would love for anyone who believes in evolution to try this simple experiment, and then notice, no matter how young or old, how quick this idea becomes unrealistic. 
Tags: Untagged

VOX ADSL Phone - get money back

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 February 2009
in Digital Blogs

I have recently subscribed to the VOX ADSL phone which is ideal for small to medium sized businesses - ideal in our case where we work from home.  It works on VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) which means that having the ADSL line does not mean you need a computer.  You are basically using the ADSL line call call.  You can however also use the line for internet access.  It is also wireless and comes with its own charging cradle.

Outgoing call rates are cheaper than Telkom and what is great is that with any incoming call received, VOX pay you rebates per minute.  Therefore the best way to break even is to get as many calls in at any time.  I think the rate is 41c if received from a cell phone and 20c if from a landline (per minute).

You can connect up to 4 handsets to this system at approximately R30 per handset and can transfer calls between these phones as you would normally do with a business switchboard.  Simultaneously while transferring you can still make 2 seperate outgoing calls.

We have a Telkom ADSL line which we use (we have 3 gigs available) and all we have done is unplug the telkom line and plug in the VOX phone.  It means your telephone number changes but for the sake of getting money back it is a small price to pay.

In total we pay for our ADSL line through Telkom (which you have to have in order to get the VOX) - R430 + R49 per month for the VOX phone + calls less rebates.  So if you receive enough incoming calls this could ultimately pay for your phone.  Great concept!!!!

VOX to VOX calls are free, despite where you are in the country.
Tags: Untagged

Evolution - A fairytale for grown ups

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 16 February 2009
in Digital Blogs
I was watching the programmes on National Geographic last night as it was Darwin Day.  After watching the two programmes there are a few things that stood out.  Give credit where credit is due - Darwin did a lot in terms of identifying different species and the research he did was invaluable.  This is where his ingenuity ends.  The rest was like watching a fantasy movie.  Still lots of talk without scientific proof.

Interestingly, a group called Science Against Evolution has come up with 75 points that they feel lead to the proof that evolution does not exist :

  1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
  2. There is life on Earth now.
  3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
  4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
  5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
  6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
  7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
  8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
  9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
  10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
  11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
  12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
  13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
  14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
  15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
  16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
  17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
  18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
  19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
  20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
  21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
  22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
  23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
  24. Cell division is a complex process.
  25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
  26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
  27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
  28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
  29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
  30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
  31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
  32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
  33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
  34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
  35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
  36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
  37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
  38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
  39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
  40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
  41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
  42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
  43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
  44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
  45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
  46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
  47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
  48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
  49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
  50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
  51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
  52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
  53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
  54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
  55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
  56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
  57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
  58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
  59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
  60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
  61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
  62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
  63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
  64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
  65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
  66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
  67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
  68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
  69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
  70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
  71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
  72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
  73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
  74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
  75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true
See a few more interesting sites :

Dr David Berlinski, mathematician and author, talks about evolution and why it is not possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A

Richard Dawkins gets tongue-tied with a creationists question and gives a very poor answer in response to the evolutionary process
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I have yet to see anything on evolution that convinces me that it is nothing more than a theory - and that is all it is - a theory.  National Geographic punts the word evolution in almost every one of its programmes, even after the publishing of the so called Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis - (
www.nwcreation.net) which was proven to be fraudulent despite the coverage it gave.  This same theory is being taught in schools, not as a theory, but as a proven science. 

From cow to dolphin, ape to man, this theory seems unrealistic.  What I see are micro changes to the same species, as we have different race groups within the same species.  Macro changes are just not possible and "half" species dont exist and have never been found.  EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY.
 

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research stated: “Evolution is a fairy tail for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
 
 
 









Tags: Untagged

Noisy Neighbours

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Sunday, 15 February 2009
in Digital Blogs
The neighbours that live behind us have had a party from Friday evening and as of today (Sunday 14h00), all we heard was singing - sounded like choir practice, loud music, kids playing in the pool but screaming on top of their voices - non stop - and then this morning at 07h45 we were woken up to a choir of voices.  After peeping over the fence, annoyed, there must have been about 20-25 people there. 

Now I dont mind my neighbours having parties - every now and again - and making a bit of noise up to midnight which i think is a reasonable time to "give it up".  But to continue with the noise the whole week-end is a little ridiculous.  And this happens almost once every 3 weeks where a week-end becomes a social spot for what seems to be a whole community.

At no point were we even told that this would happen - AGAIN - and it is becoming a little frustrating.  I wonder if there are any laws against this kind of disruption?
Tags: Untagged

Punishment of Iranian child a hoax

Posted by guardian angel
guardian angel
guardian angel has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 14 February 2009
in Digital Blogs
   

There was a recent article containing the above pictures stating that this Iranian boy was being punished for stealing bread and that this was based on Shariah Law.  Firstly they clearly do not know what Shariah law is about and if they had a clue on Islam itself, they would understand that children of this age are not punished for stealing food.  What the writer failed to show is that WHERE in Shariah law this is found. 

Now after much investigation and after seeing this I couldnt help but think of "street" performers because the child was not being held down, the male had a microphone, his arm was placed on a thick blanket, etc etc.....(knowledge, understanding and logic apply here). 

It turns out that the original pictures were taken from a 2005 Iranian weblog on peykeiran.com. They are credited to "Siamak Yari" The two-part article is no longer on line, but some sniffing around turned it up nevertheless (a good reminder that whatever one publishes on the Internet is potentially there forever!):

http://web.peykeiran.com/net_iran/irnewsbody.aspx?ID=22394 contained the first four pictures.
http://web.peykeiran.com/net_iran/irnewsbody.aspx?ID=22395 contained the last four pictures.

The second part contained three pictures that are omitted from the e-mail. These are those pictures:
Siamak Yari
Street magicians perform the well-known trick of driving a car over somebody's arm which remains unharmed.

Siamak Yari
Street magicians perform the well-known trick of driving a car over somebody's arm which remains unharmed.

Siamak Yari
Street magicians perform the well-known trick of driving a car over somebody's arm which remains unharmed.
image:46948:5::0

The publisher of this article was interviewed and he categorically stated that the reader failed to take not of the corresponding caption to these pictures.  He mentioned that this was part of a Maareke giry or street magic act.

Considering that the writer did not take time off to do research on the above article, I would be sceptical as to what other lies are published in his blog/s.  It amazes me that somebody can misconstrue something so innocent and yet lable it a religious practice without proof.  I was also told once before by the same writer that the majority of the citizens of Sweden were atheist, hence their total good, moral lifestyle, only to find out that this was also a lie - 80% are Christian (hence their good, moral lifestyle).

Free speech should be proven and honest (unlike the above).  According to the Quran (religious book), it encourages people to prove it wrong - which therefore allows freedom of speech, with proof.  I am sure the Bible has something similar.  Free speech has always been based on proof, however free speech that has been offensive and abusive in any form normally carries no proof.

One thing I have learnt is not to believe anything I read or hear until proven.  People will slander religions, cultures, races, etc for their own hateful reasons.  People must also remember that millions were killed by atheists (ie Stalin - 20 million, Mao - 23 million, Phol Pot - 3 million).

You are never going to get agreement and acceptance by any group which means free speech could potentially be detrimental to a normal society.  The one thing we can count on is TRUTH. 

I now dare the writer to apologise for the above as I am sure it would have offended many!! 
Tags: Untagged