Blueprint: The First Week
Apologies for not posting for a few days. Monday was the first day of filming on "Blueprint", a new television natural history series I'm presenting, which is to be broadcast in the Spring of 2008. In three one-hour programmes, we'll be telling the story of how we (Northern Ireland) got here. How was our landmass formed over millions of years? How did we become an island? How did animals, plants and trees colonise our land? And how did human beings discover, settle and florish here? Big questions and a massive timescale told in just three programmes -- it's an enormous undertaking by 大象传媒 Northern Ireland. We've been working on the research, scripts and specialist graphics for a few months now; this week the task of translating the concept into television was begun.
Our location on Monday was Cuilcagh mountain in Fermanagh. Thankfully, Natalie Maynes, the series producer, hired a helicopter -- otherwise, we'd still be climbing two days later. Our ground base for most of the day was St Angelo's Airport in Enniskillen. To our enormous relief on the day, the weather was perfect and we'd a great day filming the pre-titles sequence. S茅amas McCracken is the lead cameraman, Sin茅ad Ingoldsby and Andrew Davidson are assistant producers, and Bryan Elliott is our sound guy -- you'll be hearing a lot more about them as the project continues. I worked previously with Natalie and Andrew on Frozen North, the first documentary I ever presented, which explored the likely future impact of climate change, so we've been enjoying the odd nostalgic moment recalling our sub-arctic filming escapades in Churchill, Manitoba.
That was Monday. It's now Wednesday and I'm typing this in the offices of the Marble Arch Caves near Enniskillen. We've been on the road, cut off from the internet, staying in hotels without wi-fi. Not that I'm addicted to blogging, of course. Anybody know of a local therapist specialising in "e-covery"?
The location on Tuesday was Streedagh Beach in Sligo. We were joined there by Emily Murray, one of our science experts on the series (the other is the distinguished archaeologist Peter Woodman), and spent a good part of the day filming a sequence explaining the science of tectonic plates. Martin and Niall constructed a camera crane on the beach and a group of sand sculptors recreated the globe. It looks terrific. It was Emily's first day in front of a camera and -- as Sin茅ad would put it -- she pulled a blinder.
We're working with a shooting script that has been drafted so many times I think we can all recite it from memory at this point. A panel of experts rom various scientific disciplines have advised us at every stage of development. Natalie and Paul McGuigan (the executive producer) have brought together an enormously talented group of producers, reseachers, computer graphics specialists, editors and other technical wiz-types. I've been having a ball working with them. And we have until December to deliver a finished series ready for transmission. End of coffee break -- Sin茅ad is now demanding that I stop typing and get myself back down the caves. Her face says, "Or else!" Which means I don't even have time to spellcheck this ...
Comments
What fun! Really looking forward to seeing this; sounds like a fascinating project.
If William says the earth is 4.5 billion tears old I bet the young-earthers will admit defeat!
any takers?
alan
"How was our landmass formed over millions of years?"
It wasn't
rd
If you think William is telling you lies just refuse to pay your licence fee and go to court and argue your case!
The island which was to become Ireland was created 6741 years, 8 months, and 22 days ago at precisely 4:54:23 PM GMT...it was on a Wednesday. It was the result of a "cosmic sneeze." And that's how the Emerald Isle came to be. Did God intend that sneeze or was it an accident? There's no way to find out because it is impossible to know the mind of God. Besides I asked him and...he isn't telling (well frankly he told me to mind my own business and leave all this creationing stuff to HIM.)
If I were to claim that the White House or Parliament buildings Westminster or Broadcasting House grew up by chance in a cosmic flash, without either architect or builder, I would be a liar as well as a deluded fool; if that were so I would have just as much reason to declare that the universe came into existence without the divine command of the great Creator GOD, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and Cuilcagh mountain, those that deny the plain teaching of scripture on the point of creation and existence are as the fools who play the lottery putting their hope in chance, GOD the Creator is not a God of chance He鈥檚 the divine Architect, Designer and Builder of the Universe, 鈥淚 am the Alpha and the Omega鈥 there is no hope for the Saturday Night fools who put their faith and trust in the probability of chance. The Saturday night fool is without excuse for GOD鈥橲 eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
I do hope William that you have catered for the fans of FINN McCOOl.
Christian Hippy
You will enjoy this!
Regards,
Michael
Christian Hippy- I can't resist responding to your remarks.
If I were to claim that the White House or Parliament buildings Westminster or Broadcasting House grew up by chance in a cosmic flash, without either architect or builder, I would be a liar as well as a deluded fool...
I agree. But evolution didn't occur in a "flash" (error 1), DNA do a couple of things that buildings like the White House do not -they reproduce and they mutate - (error 2), the architect of evolution (error 3) is natural selection and, for theists, the entire process was the creation of God.
If that were so I would have just as much reason to declare that the universe came into existence without the divine command of the great Creator GOD, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and Cuilcagh mountain...
You are using faulty logic if you have concluded that belief in evolution inevitably invalidates belief in God. What books have you been reading? (By the way, I'd be careful about 'adding to Scripture' near the end of your sentence; I've heard God frowns upon that.)
Those that deny the plain teaching of scripture on the point of creation and existence are as the fools who play the lottery putting their hope in chance...
The teachings of Scripture are far from "plain"; that much is evident from the millennia of disagreements about what it teaches and what it doesn't. And natural selection, not chance, was the mechanism by which evolution occurred; it isn't like playing the lottery at all. Even if it was, I don't have any "hope" in it as you suggest; what I think about origins is totally inconsequential and has no bearing on the facts of evolution.
GOD the Creator is not a God of chance He鈥檚 the divine Architect, Designer and Builder of the Universe...
Yes, and it appears that he did that using a process called evolution.
By the way, I have no idea what your references to Saturday night are about. What do you do on Saturday nights that would preclude you from being a believer in evolution?
Saturday night is the night that fools hang on to their lottery numbers putting their hope in chance just like the evolutionist who put their trust in the lottery of evolution, watching the idiot box in hope that their numbers come up. The same fate overtakes them both. Christless eyes have never understood the beauty of CREATION,only Zion's children know.
Christian Hippy #10
If you are right, when I die, I'm going straight to hell. There won't be any 100,000 year layover in purgatory to make the adjustment now that the Catholic Church has shut it down. Well, at least one consolation, I'll be among the most interesting people who ever lived. I hear most of the people who go to heaven are complete bores which in my book would be an eternal torture worse than anything the devil can dream up. I'll bet I'll meet up with many of the most devout Christians who ever said a hail mary as well. Lots of evangelicals too I'll wager. Seeya down there...if you're lucky. Booga booga :-)
"...just like the evolutionist who put their trust in the lottery of evolution, watching the idiot box in hope that their numbers come up."
What numbers are evolutionists watching for? What numbers are they placing their hope in? If you're saying that evolution is like a lottery, I don't see how it relates to hope or lack of hope. Our numbers DID come up. That's the point!
I don't understand the argument you're trying to make; maybe you could clarify a little.
Plain and simple CHANCE
Evolution, in whatever form, including theistic evolution is most irreverent and an insult to God, in that it attributes to "chance" what is actually the Providence of God, This belief is in defiance of the third commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." As the Shorter Catechism reminds us, this command forbids "all profaning or abusing of any thing whereby God maketh himself known" Since God鈥檚 Providence is one of the means by which God reveals Himself, to make life a "lottery" is a gross misuse and abuse of the LORDS name. Consequently, those who believe the iniquitous theory of evolution are guilty of "atheism" If they maintain the belief that the outcome of Creation is dependent on "chance", Christians, on the other hand, have consecrated their lives to God, acknowledging Him as Lord and Master, and Creator promising to be His servants. To seek to do otherwise is sinful, and to make oneself liable to God鈥檚 judgment: "the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." God is not a God of chance, but the Creator God.
I think maybe you are taking the whole hippy thing a bit too far, perhaps you've been nailing the ganja a bit too hard eh?
At least, that's the only explanation i can think up to explain your dismissal of the evidence and acceptance of the fantastic.
Cosmic man...like, far out.
As an evolutionist, precisely what numbers am I hoping for in this super psychedelic analogy of yours christian hippy?
When my numbers come up will I be able to change water into wine, or just walk on it? Will I be able to heal the lame and blind - and create matter (lets say er, loaves and fishes) from nothing??
Pass the waccy baccy dude...
Re 13
You say such and such is an affront to GOD.
Why is it OK for you to speak for this divinity? Why is your interpretation and only yours correct?
My opinion, which like it or not carries as much weight as yours, is that you are talking a load of cobblers. The difference between usis that you have no evidence to back up your position.
Such evidence as exists points to an old earth, populated with evolving flora and fauna. Where is the evidence for a Creator? If there is deliberately none, then you believe in a deceitful creator - what else has he lied to you about?
In truth though, you are deceived by your fellow man and his potent dream peddling.
sweet dreams hippy
Christian Hippy- Thanks for your response. You say that making "life a 'lottery' is a gross misuse and abuse of the LORDS name."
I fail to see how having a different understanding of the mechanism of God's creation makes it a lottery, firstly. Christian evolutionists believe that, rather than simply 'make it so' in 7 days, God set in motion a complex system of physical constants, space-time, and evolution relying on natural selection. Excuse me, Christian Hippy, but I believe THAT is a hundred times more impressive than a simplistic reading of the account of creation in Genesis. Far from being an "insult" to God, as you suggest, it's exactly the opposite; it ascribes a greater thing to him than what a literal Genesis does. I believe that you are insulting God with your rejection of a scientific understanding of the full complexity and magnificence of his creation. :-)
"God is not a God of chance, but the Creator God."
Christian evolutionists do not argue that God is a God of chance. They argue that God instituted a complex evolution relying on natural selection.
Finally, you use words like "sinful", "insulting", "forbids", "iniquitous", as though the matter of how origins occurred boils down to a personal decision in which one can be right or wrong. There is plenty of evidence for an old earth, and for evolution. You deny that this is the case. But your language suggests that, even if you were met with unequivocal evidence that simply cannot be denied, you would still call it wrong to believe in evolution, still believe it a sinful belief, and still regard it as heretical. I'm suggesting, therefore, that you simply aren't interested in truth at all. You're only interested in preserving your old-school, reformed theology at any cost, and at the cost of truth.
Let me leave you with a challenge. 400 years ago, a brilliant scientist, the best in his day, was beginning to provoke comments like the ones you made in post #13. In 1632, the scientist published a book which made some conclusions of a scientific nature. The problem was that they contradicted the church's interpretation of Scripture. Back then, people like YOU were in charge, and so his works were censored, his conclusions provoked the outrage of prominent Christians, and he stood trial for heresy. He was sentenced in 1633 to a prison sentence. After all, how dare he suggest that the bible is wrong and that he is right?
The scientist was Galileo, regarded by Einstein and Hawking and a multitude of others as the father of modern science. His discovery was that the earth revolves around the sun and therefore is not the centre of the universe. Four or five scripture verses seemed to be contradicted directly by the discovery, verses which people have since reinterpreted to match the science. Galileo was sentenced for doing no more than providing humanity the best understanding of modern science that had yet been accomplished.
I submit to you that we have two choices: pursuit of truth and openness to the results, regardless of prior belief, or adherence to certain beliefs regardless of truth. In the first, one should be open to scientific dicovery and willing to reinterpret Scripture when facts come along that prove the old interpretation false. But you've opted for the latter, and you would have been first in line to thrown Galileo in prison. Truth is not your concern... blind observance of religious tradition is more important to you.
If you'd like to tell me that I'm wrong, I'd like to know how it's any different.
Continued.....
I should have finished by saying that the theory of origins as explained by evolution is being substantiated daily by biological, astronomical, geographical, genetical, physical, paleontological evidence. With each new piece of evidence, scientists are gaining a better idea of what happened. But what if you were in charge?
You wouldn't even GATHER the evidence, would you? Because it contradicts Scripture. As the church did with Galileo in 1633, you would force us to withdraw the theory of evolution, because it contradicts Scripture. Do you know how long it took the church to admit that Galileo was right? Pope John Paul II in 1979 finally had a panel of church science-types do their own research, 400 years after we found it in science!, concluding that Galileo had it correct.
So you'll understand if you don't see many who believe that listening to religion on the topic of science is worthwhile, or, more personally, that the voices of people like you in your posts on this blog should ever deter anyone from seeking truth in science or any other discipline. If you think calling some science "sinful" is consistent with a sensible pursuit of truth then my final conclusion about you, as I've said above, is that truth is not your goal (and if it isn't your goal in the discipline of science I fail to see how it is your goal in the discipline of theology).
The name of Galileo and his astronomy is misused by the enemies of Christ and His Church to attack the teachings of the Bible because the church of the anti-christ, the Roman Catholic Church persecuted him for verifying the findings of Copernicus, which exposed the marriage between Aristotelian and Roman Catholic teachings which were anti Biblical.
Galileo鈥檚 astronomy was only used as a smoke screen for his persecution because Galileo threatened the Popish idolatrous Mass because his scientific writing on the structure of matter threatened to make a mockery of the idea of transubstantiation which was the weapon of The Jesuit Counter Reformation, so he had to be closed down before his scientific teachings took hold as his writings were in the language of the general populace Italian, and not in the language of the academia Latin, so his writings would have had a mass audience which would have been detrimental affect upon the Popish Church and their income.
Francis Schaeffer explains,
When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo, it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought the trial (Schaeffer, Complete Works. Vol. 5, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982, p.156).
Galileo was purely condemned by the Roman Catholic Church because of his 鈥渁nti-Aristotelian argument" as Aristotle was considered as of almost equal authority within the Popish Church by the Church Fathers, and not because he attacked the teachings of The Bible.
Today we have the same smokescreen that the Jesuits used some 400 years being used by the godless evolutionists and the apostate brotherhood of the Enlightment the modern soulmates of the Black Pope and his Jesuitical army who have infiltrated and contaminated the teachings of Christ from within and outside of the Church and have tried to pour their water of man's philosphies on the fire's of Hell to try and extinguish the place for which they are destined with their erroneous teachings. 鈥淏eware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,鈥 Colossians 2:8."To the law and to the testimony!If they do not speak according to this word,it is because there is no light in them"(Isaiah 8:20).
Christian Hippy- You have failed to see the point again, so I won't waste any more time trying to open your eyes. You still have not dealt with how one in your position deals with any HYPOTHETICAL contradiction between fact in science and fact per Scripture, and, therefore my conclusion about your lack of interest in truth is once again reinforced. Good day.
Re 17.
Good man, sterling stuff. We need more of this open minded, calm thinking in this crazy modern world.
A breath of fresh air in the stuffy interdenominational back biting of N Ireland.
Pour some more oil on those troubled waters....