´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Blueprinting Red Bay

Post categories:

William Crawley | 19:28 UK time, Monday, 19 March 2007

lifeboat1-2-03no1.jpgWeek Two of filming with the Blueprint team. We spent the day on the east Antrim coast with crews from the and stations.

Today's main film sequence related to the desertification of Ireland's landmass more than 400 million years ago, evidence of which colours the coastline around Red Bay in its characteristic hue. Seamus fixed a camera on top of the boat we worked on -- the Larne station's All Weather Lifeboat "Dr. John McSparran" (pictured).

Natalie got me kitted out in an RNLI wetsuit and I stood at the bow of the lifeboat, facing towards the camera, and from there delivered a PTC (piece to camera) linking to some terrific (computer generated imagery) to be added in post-production. Bryan fitted me out with a radio mic and fought valiantly against a pretty keen gale to gather usable audio. Then Natalie asked the coxwain to steer the boat into the gale to achieve some interesting effects. It was the best rollercoaster ride I've been on since my last visit to Barry's in Portrush.

I was extremely impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the RNLI crews and staff. Niamh Stephenson, the RNLI's media relations manager for Ireland, drove all the way from Dublin this morning to assist us. And both the Red Bay and Larne crews -- all volunteers -- threw themselves into the day with complete commitment.

We've nine RNLI stations working along the coast of Northern Ireland and 34 serving in the Republic. Each station is operated by volunteers, men and women, giving up their free time to train and work to save lives. The crew members we worked with today are a tribute to the RNLI and to their communities. I couldn't have been more impressed. And since they depend on the public's support to maintain and develop their service, you may wish to make a donation . If you live near one of the stations, you might even consider becoming a crew member.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 10:16 PM on 19 Mar 2007,
  • rubberduckie wrote:

William,

Your use of millions of years in this second post would suggest that you are not a strict 6 day creationist. Would this be right?

  • 2.
  • At 11:36 PM on 19 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

If I were living in Ireland, I would be helping.

  • 3.
  • At 12:16 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • dumbdumb wrote:

rubberduckie are you mad? why would you think someone with a brain would be a 6 day creationist!?!?!

  • 4.
  • At 12:41 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • helenanne smith wrote:

I agree with dumbdumb ... how can rubberduckie read this blog and ask a question like that!!! Bizarre.

  • 5.
  • At 01:21 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

rd
Will is hopefuly doing a scientific programme - not one based on myths which have been long superceded.
If there are as many creationists as some here would claim - why not start a campaign for non-payment of the licence fee and argue your case in court that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is misleading the public?
alan

  • 6.
  • At 03:27 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

When Ireland met Labrador.

The breakup came about 60 to 65 million sidereal years ago or about 60 to 65 fundimentalist Christian years ago. Christian fundimentalist clocks are just wound a lot slower than the rest of ours. That's why for them the earth is only about 6700 years old.

"The third major and final phase of the break-up of Pangaea occurred in the early Cenozoic (Paleocene - Oligocene). North America/Greenland broke free from Eurasia, opening the Norwegian Sea about 60-55 million years ago. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans continued to expand, closing the Tethys Ocean."

I'd expect to see comparative geology on this program showing where Ireland fit into Pangaea. Past 65 million years ago, there should be some very close matches to rock strata formations in North America.

  • 7.
  • At 08:51 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

William's use of a brain would suggest he isn't a 6 day creationist let alone a "strict" one.

SG

  • 8.
  • At 10:24 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

I like the blue-orange boat.
The dedication and enthusiasm are always impressive.

  • 9.
  • At 01:50 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • pb wrote:

mmmm

1) what percentage of the above posters have a phd or above in science?

2) what percentage of these people below have brains?

only asking!

;-)
PB

  • 10.
  • At 02:04 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • rubberduckie wrote:

Helen,

What should I have picked up about William as I read this blog?


  • 11.
  • At 02:16 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

Good question pb - what percentage of those folks have brains? A very small percentage if the vast majority of their fellow scientists are anything to go by.

SG

  • 12.
  • At 03:18 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Stephen G #11
Some people don't need brains. They have religion.

  • 13.
  • At 04:49 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

Good site for geology of N Ireland
Why wait for Blueprint?

aLAN

  • 14.
  • At 11:43 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

WORLD POPULATION OF PhD Holders.

Shocked to see PB still banging the drum about the AiG 400, I tried a google search to guage the world population of PhDs.

I found this on the Brazilian Chemistry Society page:

"There were approximately one hundred new PhD's in chemistry in Brazil in 1995. Ten years later, in 2004, there were 320."

Based on this annual turnout in ONE DISCIPLINE in ONE (albeit large) COUNTRY, this 400 number at AiG starts to look very small. I would posit a figure that there in excess of a million PhD's extant in the world at the moment. I'd like to know how others feel about this estimate. If my estimate is close, this puts the AiG 400 in the minority at 0.04%.

Any thoughts?

  • 15.
  • At 01:56 PM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • pb wrote:

SG

ref post 11,

A very subjective response from you to the question there SG; not your usual objective style I have to say...


PB

  • 16.
  • At 01:41 PM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • pb wrote:


SG

Far from your usual rational and objective thoughts this time around!

PB

  • 17.
  • At 02:24 PM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

PB- Any thoughts on post 14?

  • 18.
  • At 06:07 PM on 23 Mar 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Are you really still banging on about that pathetically miniscule list of dentists, engineers, technicians etc which represent a tiny fraction of 1% of scientists working in related fields? And of course the "scientists" on the list HAVE to sign an agreement that they MUST agree with Ken Ham's interpretation of the Bible.

None of the "evidence" they present is objective, credible, verifiable or peer-reviewed-it is complete and utter twaddle.

I already covered this in detail and named 100's of Nobel prize winners, the worlds National science academies, but still you cling on to this minute list of dentists who are are all fundamnetalists.

When you find me a Hindu Biblical creationist then I might listen.

  • 19.
  • At 06:15 PM on 23 Mar 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"2) what percentage of these people below have brains?

Well looking at it I would say 0% but bless them it does show what happens when creationists drag their knuckles of the ground.

  • 20.
  • At 06:16 PM on 23 Mar 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"Your use of millions of years in this second post would suggest that you are not a strict 6 day creationist. Would this be right?"

Can't answer for William but he is intelligent which instantly rules him out of being a creationist.

  • 21.
  • At 03:13 AM on 21 Apr 2007,
  • wrote:

Cool site. Thanks!!!

  • 22.
  • At 09:07 AM on 30 Apr 2007,
  • wrote:

Cool site. Thank you.

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.