Hydrogen

Alternative Complacency III

Part I is here, Part 2 is here...

Hydrogen. The most abundant element in our universe. So abundant in fact, that we can’t begin to conceive just how much of it there really is. It’s postulated for instance, that for every cubic metre of hard vacuum (that’s deep space), there’s about one thousand atoms, give or take and it gets much thicker around stars. Did you know that Jupiter is about 90% hydrogen and in our neck of the woods, although there’s minimal hydrogen in the atmosphere, it is the third most abundant element on the surface of our planet. In short, there’s a hell of a lot of hydrogen about the place.

I was going to do an article on how there’s not enough going on in the world of hydrogen; how for all its prevalence we don’t seem to be able to get hold of much; how hydrogen manufacturing techniques are cumbersome and expensive; how it takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get out of it; how it burns to hot to use in an internal combustion engine; etc. Truth is, I can’t. Not because I can’t bring myself to do it, but quite simply because I can no longer find good links to prove it.

We’ll start with hydrogen manufacture. The traditional and cheapest production method, until recently, was the steam reformation of natural gas (heat methane under pressure in a steam atmosphere with a catalyst). That meant that hydrogen got to being rather expensive as the price of natural gas climbed from $2US MMBtu (Million British Thermal Units) to over $13US. Now however, we split water and we do it quite cheaply. CSIRO for instance, have recently come up with this little gem that can produce enough hydrogen in a day to power a car for 150km or so. That’s a “micro fuel cell” he’s holding in his hands by the way, not the unit itself (see here for more on fuel cells and the different fuels they use).

What car? Well I’m glad you asked. It seems that BMW, Ford, GM and many others I haven’t looked at as yet, have been rather busy (see the list in this here handy-dandy FAQ about hydrogen). GM developed it’s Fuel Cell car back in 2002, Ford are building dedicated hydrogen V10 engines, BMW has been busy with a “V12 power unit” and so the list goes on. Have a close look at some of the links in those and you’ll also find busses, trucks and various other means of transport discussed.

There are issues however, of that there’s no doubt. Every solution comes with its own set of problems after all. The problem with hydrogen combustion is Nitrogen Oxide or NOx which can become Ozone in the atmosphere and Nitric Acid when it dissolves in water. In atmospheric water, that means acid rain. It’s not as bad as lead or CO, but they are pollutants and need to be dealt with. It’s a good thing then that NOx reduction and capture seem to feature heavily in everyone’s research. Using pure oxygen eliminates the problem with NOx, but making and storing the oxygen reduces the efficiency of the whole hydrogen combustion process by about 11.5%, which of course, adds to the cost.

Then there’s the fact that hydrogen burns hot. Real hot. A hydrogen flame in air burns at about 2400(K – Kelvin) and  3080(K) in oxygen. Coal glows at around 1900c and a gas flame is about 1549c. I can’t seem to find anything about it, but I wonder. With that much heat, it’s my guess that you wouldn’t need anywhere as much to make steam and turn turbines.

The other thing that keeps popping up in my various searches is the phrase “Hydrogen Economy” and this is where the biggest problem of all manifests itself. Some would like to see it happen now, but it ain’t going to. Although leaps and bounds have been made in technology recently and although the US and the EU have agreed to accelerate the development of an hydrogen economy, the reality is that to much is dependant on the fossil fuel economy. The forecast in that report is for Americans to be using hydrogen by 2020.

I think that’s a reasonable target though. “Now” simply isn’t an option because so much of the major economies of the world depend on oil. Fortunes of entire countries are made and lost in the fluctuations of oil prices. To move immediately to an abundant energy carrier that can be made anywhere, by anyone, that will be cheap and have a price that doesn’t fluctuate will cause some serious economic issues. There’s also the little problem of rationalising the coal and uranium industries. These will never go away, we use them for more than energy,  but what do you do with 50,000 miners that no longer have work all of a sudden? No, this definitely needs a bit of thought.

3:48 PM - 14/4/2007 - comments {12} - post comment

Th Big Three

I’ve recently been having a discussion with Sadie Lou who as you can see, has an excellent and very popular blog of her own.

We’ve been discussing some inconsistencies I see in Genesis and it got a bit subject specific, so I thought I’d tackle the subject head-on. Before I get into my own version of a dissection of these chapters however, I should probably apologise to Ricky Gervais, just in case. I think also, that there’s a couple of things about  the nature of God that need to be addressed and taken into account before I start. They are “the big three”, so to speak; omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Omnipotent: Having absolute power.

Obviously you’d need this one if you’re going to create a whole universe out of what, it doesn’t say.

Omnipresent: Present everywhere at the same time.

I’m not sure why he’d need this, but he’s got it, so deal with it.

Omniscient: Knowing everything.

Now here’s the kicker. God knows everything that was, is and will be, or so I’m lead to believe. It does however, present a few issues for me.

So, let’s take a look at the other big three, Genesis 1, 2 & 3, bearing those three qualities of God in mind. It is in these chapters, the ones that first introduce us to God, that we find some major inconsistencies that leave me doubting that any of it could possibly be “the inspired words of God.” A God that has the qualities I’ve mentioned above would never allow such mistakes, I’m sure.

Chapter 1: Ok, God creates heaven and earth, in the dark. Then God creates light and sees that it is good and we get day and night. We get six hectic days, where God gets to show off his creative abilities and flex his all knowing muscles. No stone was left unturned, quite literally. By the end of the fifth day, we have light, the sky, land, sea, vegetation including all the seed bearing plants with fruit “according to their kind” (whatever that means), a greater light to govern the day and a lesser light to govern the night, stars, fish, all the land dwelling animals including birds, in that order.

The sixth day is the biggy, well as far as we’re concerned anyway. Firstly, the living creatures, separated by groups; livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals, each according to their kind (again.. What does that mean?) and then it’s our turn. God makes us in his image. Brilliant! Then he tells us to go forth and multiply and rule over all the animals, oh and we can eat the plants. No problems there. Everything seems to be in order and “each according to it’s kind” (can someone explain that for me please?), super.

Second chapter: Well, after spending all that creative energy and of course, being quite chuffed at what he’d achieved, and rightly so, is it any wonder he has a well deserved rest? I don’t think so. It’s just after this however, that things start to get a little sticky for me.

Genesis 2:5-7 says; ⁵and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, ⁶but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - ⁷the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There’s a problem here though. It seems that someone got confused somewhere. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he created the plants and vegetation back in 1:11. Man however, doesn’t get a guernsey until 1:26, fifteen verses after he created the plants, which in 1:30 he gives to everything to eat. But in chapter 2 he seems to have created man before the plants. Not only that, but streams had watered the “whole surface of the ground” (with no plants, I’m assuming mud would be the result here), yet God was able to find some dust.

Now, there’s probably some perfectly simple scholarly reason why it seems to get all mixed up and turned around, but I can’t work out what it would be. This is supposed to be the inspired words of God after all and God, as we’ve all been taught and/or lead to believe, is supposed to be infallible. Most books sport the odd mistake, but would an infallible God allow such mistakes? I can’t really see it myself.

Anyway, then God plants the garden and creates “Eden” and puts man there to look after it. But in 2:9 we see what seems to be another mistake. God creates yet more plants; And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. I’d contend however, that he’d already done that – see 1:11 & 1:30 – but there’s an interesting qualification here. He also creates, in the middle of the garden, two special trees; “the tree of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. He then commands man to; not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. Nothing about the tree of life though, so I guess that’s fair game.

Anyway, after that we get God’s crowning glory, woman. Ripper! Now the scene is set for chapter 3.

Things go a bit awry here though. It seems that Eve finds “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and meets a chatty serpent. It asks her if God really said they mustn’t eat the fruit of any tree in the garden. Eve, far from being surprised by a talking snake, says that no, it’s only the tree of knowledge and they mustn’t touch it or else they’ll die (just a bit of an exaggeration here, I think. God said “eat of it”, not “touch it”). Anyway, the snake sets her straight and says that they won’t die, it’s just that God knows that when they eat it, they’ll become like God, knowing good and evil. At this point, Genesis makes it very clear that Eve makes an informed decision, carefully considering all the information she has available to her, and decides to eat the fruit. She then gives some to Adam who was with her, keeping quiet, probably because it was him that told the fib about touching it, and he ate some too. Then they realise they’re naked so fig leaves become the order of the day.

Not long after this, God finds out and get’s really upset and hands out some punishments: Woman to have pain in childbirth, man has to toil the fields and the snake has to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days. Not much of a punishment for a snake, but there you go.

Now that’s all very well and good, but there are some inconsistencies here too. For instance, they manage to hide from God and he has to call out to them. Really? I thought he was omnipresent and omniscient? Then it seems that he doesn’t know how it is that they know they're naked. Really? I thought he was omniscient? Then he asks what it is they’ve done. There’s that omniscience problem again.

Then there’s the whole problem with the serpent. It seems it didn’t lie or deceive anyone. It told the truth and nothing but. This can be evidenced by chapter 3:22 where God endorses everything the snake said - And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."  - yet we’re taught that the serpent lied and deceived Eve. Well, she did say so I suppose but then, she was trying to save her own skin. The whole episode just doesn’t make sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God.

So, these inconsistencies appearing as they do, all within the first few chapters, are more than enough to make me wonder if this, or any of the rest of it, could possibly be the testament of an infallible being.

3:32 PM - 2/4/2007 - comments {17} - post comment

The need for God

Once again I’ve found myself inspired by BeepBeepit’sme’s most bodacious blog and find I just can’t help myself. Sorry Beep, if you feel plagiarised.

There has been much debate over the centuries about God and the need for him/her/it. It seems to me however, that religion(s) should have a definite starting and end point.

There was a time when man worshipped the earth or Gaia. Then there was a time when man worshipped the sun, moon and stars. Over the millennia however, people learn about the world around them and religions must either change to incorporate new knowledge or risk becoming obsolete.

For ancient man, just as it is today, sun, earth and water were all required for his continued sustenance and survival. Is it any wonder then that he would hold these things in reverence? I don’t think it is, simply because without any one of them, he would die. And if he doesn’t understand how it is these things conspire together to produce the staples required for sustenance, is it any wonder that he views the process with awe and gives thanks to what he sees as “life givers”?

Then there’s the places where nothing grows, where man and beast simply cannot survive. A lack of water, sunlight, infertile or contaminated soil is probably the reason, but if he doesn’t understand the process, how is he to know? This must simply be a place where “something else” manages to keep the life giving forces of sun, earth and water from producing their bounty, seemingly for no other reason than to make it impossible for man and the beasts he hunts. Is it any wonder then that these places are to be avoided because “bad” things happen and people and animals alike die there?

If that was the case, and I think it’s probably close enough, then it’s hardly surprising that those ancient men, tasked with leadership within their communities, tried to devise methods to help keep those “bad” things at bay and encourage the “good” things, in the hope of bountiful harvests and good hunting.

So armed with indifference at his own ignorance, an over inflated view of his own importance and awe at the world around him, man seeks out for himself a force of such power that it can not only regulate the seasons and make the sun shine, but can create the earth it nourishes, the sky from which it shines and everything else that man sees around him, inevitably including man himself. In those places where nothing can survive we find the domain of the arch nemesis of the benign power of life, which is death. And so begins the ancient and endless struggle between good and evil that has ensued throughout the ages.

Trouble is that man is also a very curious beast. For many, the fact that there is no more evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural force than there is to suggest the non-existence of a supernatural force, is more than enough to suggest that perhaps the gods are not responsible after all. These are the people who experiment with nature, take note of what they observe and think about what conclusions can be drawn. Then they tend to suffer horribly at the hands of their “church” for daring to think. But so it is that eventually, the gods of the sun, earth, water, thunder and lightening, etc. become obsolete. We now understand enough of the processes of nature to know that there’s no point praying to the sun for a bountiful harvest. If conditions are right the harvest will be good if not, bad. It’s really quite simple.

And so we reach the end point, where the mystification of natural forces is no longer required. The obsolescence of these deities has caused them to fade into obscurity and their rituals and trappings with them, but only to a point. I say that because there are many dates in the christian calendar that have their origins in ancient pagan festivals. December 25^th for instance, is the winter solstice and evidence would suggest that it has been celebrated since times more ancient than Abraham or Moses.

We now however, understand something of the forces that created our universe. We also understand much about biological evolution and know how it is we came to be here. We also know that certain foods do not keep well or need to be well cooked. In all of this, there is no reason to suggest that some all powerful being created the universe out of nothing, or that some benign “god of life” moulded a man out of clay and breathed life into him, or that some god or other deigned that some edible and quite delicious foods are “unclean” and shouldn’t be eaten.

So is there still a “need for god” do you think? It seems that most of the mundane questions that god answers have been explained. Sure, the church had a few issues with this in the early days, but for the most part it has come to accept that you can’t just torture and kill people because they don’t agree with you.

But I’ve been told recently that our current christian god exists outside of time and space, multiple universes have even been contemplated. But apparently, belief in today’s christian god is quite different to the simple ascribing of a god aspect to something that is not yet understood. I find I cannot agree with that. For anything to exist outside of time and space, it would need to violate the laws of physics as we know them. That means that a god that exists outside of time and space is a notion we cannot possibly understand. So how is ascribing god aspects to that which we don’t understand any different in this instance than it was to the Earth, sun, rivers, thunder, lightening, planets, etc? In short, it isn’t.

And if we look back at the history of the supernatural, christian god we can see quite plainly that over time, “He” has shifted from being a ready explanation for everything, from conception to the creation of the universe, to something that can’t possibly be understood. There was a time when he was directly responsible for everything, now he’s only responsible for the forces that shape everything. It seems to me that in incorporating new knowledge, in the vain attempt that it doesn’t become obsolete, main stream christian religion has pushed god right out of this universe and into the next. It almost seems as if the end point has been reached here as well, doesn’t it?

9:20 AM - 14/3/2007 - comments {35} - post comment

El Diablo III

Here are Part I and Part II

So far in this series we’ve looked mostly at the Old Testament. In there, we have managed to find absolutely no reference to “the devil” per se. Yes, there are a few references to Satan, but I think we’ve managed to establish that Satan is an Arch Angel. He is known as “Satan the Accuser” in more benedictory surrounds and his job is to remind god of all the sins you committed while you were alive. A nasty piece of work by yours and my standards, perhaps, but God obviously felt him necessary. For me he just raises another question though. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, then why does he need someone to remind him? Hmmm…

I digress. References to entities being “cast down” from heaven seem to have been similarly misrepresented over the years. The stories we know of Lucifer and/or Satan being cast out of heaven, have actually proven to be stories about the kings of Babylon and Tyre being defeated by the Israelites.

So where does that leave us. Well really, it leaves us with the new testament. The first mention of Satan as anything other than the accuser, is Mat: 4:10. To get to someone being cast down we have to go all the way to Luke 10:18 – He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven.” But please note that a) this is meant to be Jesus speaking and b) he said “heaven”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Satan is the devil, he has no business being in heaven.

Even so, if we put this into context with the preceding verse, what he actually seems to be referring to is the 72 telling him that “even the demons submit to us in your name!” In fact, my NIV bible’s study notes say just exactly that for verse 18: “Satan fall. Even the demons were driven out by the disciples (v. 17), which means that Satan was suffering defeat.” They still seem to think that the devil exists somewhere else, but you see what I mean.

This theme continues throughout the New Testament though, where Satan, Beelzebub, the Devil, etc. become the much maligned beasties that we know today. The question I have about all this though, is why so late? What happened that caused the Judaic religions to require a devil?

For at least a couple of thousand years, or so we’re lead to believe, there was only the choice between God or nothing. There was no devil or hell to serve as the opposite of God and heaven. Yet as we move into the New Testament and beyond, the legend of the devil grows until we have the imagery (the earliest of which comes to us from the middle ages), church and dogma surrounding him that we have today.

 There have been a number of ideas put forward as to why. There’s the ancient and obvious reason that you can’t have “good” without “evil”, “ light” without “dark” because they are opposite sides of the same coin, as it were. Then there’s the mythological reason that all Gods have their enemies. But my favourite runs a little deeper.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that because there was no real alternative, no hell and the devil to torment you, the church started to lose it’s congregation. Maintaining a temple with priests takes quite a lot of resources that could probably be better used elsewhere.

First commenter get’s make comment number 666, so don’t be shy…:-)

4:01 PM - 27/2/2007 - comments {8} - post comment

God and Conservatism

I was just poking around at GIFS, as is my want from time to time and I stumbled across this sentence: “Adding sense to Evolutionists’ fanatical hatred toward God, conservatism, and anything that represents them.” No, it wasn’t from one of the GIFS lads or lasses, it was a quote from the subtitle of a blog called Weapon Of Mass Destruction. As you can see, it’s an ID fundamentalist blog that makes some very “interesting” claims. As I read that, something struck me. It struck me in the back of the head, just above the neck and it did it quite hard. God and conservatism… Hmmm. Sounds a bit christian far right to me.

But wasn’t Jesus really a bit of a lefty? I mean he preached all that charity and “love thy neighbour” stuff and lived in poverty didn’t he? He was really a bit of a peacenik too, or so it seems to me. Sure, god’s been known to do his share of smiting, but he’s only ever really done that for the Israelites. I mean he never smote Rome for killing his boy did he? Come to think of it, I don’t think he’s ever done any smiting at all in the name of Jesus and I’m sure that Jesus wouldn’t want him to. All those heathens can be saved after all.

I’m also sure Jesus was a firm believer in only taking and keeping what you need too. Easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven and all that. Why say it if you don’t mean it? The guy was supposed to be “Mr. Truthful” after all. So if that’s the case, why do serious christians horde wealth? They’ll tell you it’s to do with stewardship and that christians make the best stewards, but there’s no scriptural basis for that argument at all, except that Paul says that you should be a good steward with what god gives you. Most rich people get that way either because of honest hard work, or like Sylvia Browne, by being complete crooks and shysters and god really has nothing at all to do with it.

So now I’m wondering what right the right have to hijack a religion that was started by and based on the teachings of a lefty. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no evangelist and there’s really not much love lost between god and I, especially when I look around at the state of the world he’s supposed to have created. Let’s face it, if this was what he wanted all along - and it seems to me that an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient god would have to have known from the very beginning and planned it that way – then he’s probably not a very nice bloke.

But Jesus was a serious lefty who pandered to the minority. In fact, he was the minority. The very embodiment of the underdog. Preaching love, peace and happiness, right under the noses of both the Pharisees and the Romans whom I might add, don’t seem to have been very happy about it, if what the bible says is any guide. I know it’s not much of a guide, but it really is the only document from that time, well almost that time (actually, the first books about him weren’t written until about 70 years after he’s supposed to have died – Luke was first) that mentions the man himself, so I guess we’ll just have to go with it for the moment.

So how did the neo-conservatives and the ultra rich of this world, who seem to have some serious representation in  the “religious right” and don’t seem to be at all averse to the idea of a bit of a war or some killing and destruction to protect their financial interests, ever come to think that they understood what Jesus is supposed to have said and stood for in the first place? It seems a tad hypocritical to me. You only have to listen to George for a minute or two and you’ll almost certainly hear about god and how fantastic and important Jesus is. I know the poor boy had an upbringing that indoctrinated him at an early age, but if he wants us to believe that he’s intelligent enough to be the president of the U.S., then that’s really no excuse.

9:05 AM - 2/2/2007 - comments {18} - post comment

A Thirst For knowledge

Water. A precious and expensive commodity, or a basic building block of life? Well, let’s just ignore the rhetoric for a moment and think about water.

I’ll start with a lesson in chemistry because it was one of my favourites and I remember it clearly. Mr. Patterson taught us this in form three (year nine for all you whipper-snappers out there). For those that have read Deena’s excellent blog and this article in particular, you’ll see my inspiration. I was at school in Wendouree at the time - Ballarat and Queens Anglican Grammar School - have to sneak in a quick plug, it really is a very good school and yes, I’m still an Old Grammarian. No, mum and dad couldn’t afford it. I was a smarty pants on the trombone back then and managed to get  myself a scholarship with it. Yes, I was a boarder, not a “day scrag”, as we used to say.

So, to the lesson:

H₂+O = H₂O

When you think about it, It doesn’t really look right, does it? There’s a good reason for that though. ‘O’ doesn’t tend to exist much in a natural form so it is, in fact, completely wrong. ‘O₂’ exists in abundance however and this is what we need to be able to make water. So, to make water you actually need four molecules of H to bond with two molecules of O. That means that the correct equation is:

2H₂+O₂ = 2H₂O₂

But as with all things mathematical, numbers cancel. The 2 on the front cancels the ₂ on the end and we’re left with H₂O. That combination doesn’t actually exist in nature, but you get the picture. Nice one Patto..:)

Another thing about water is that in nature, water is neither created nor destroyed. That means that the water this planet has accumulated (lakes, rivers, oceans and clouds), has come to us from space in the form of comets, etc. It could even be that our beautiful planet is just a comet with too much rock and mass to behave like one. So all the water, in the oceans, in lakes and rivers and in the air, is being recycled constantly and has been for about 4 billion years. Yep, that’s right! We’re already drinking recycled water and have been all our lives.

It’s true however, that we live on the driest continent on earth. It’s also true that it has it’s foibles. Back in the 90’s for instance, while NSW was burning and suffering massive water shortages, crypto sporidium outbreaks and other drought related woes, Queensland and Victoria were in flood. I was living in Sydney at the time and remember it well. It was during the bushfires that I moved back to Melbourne and I had to drive through it.

This event, the starkness of the dusty brown reality I was driving through towards the washed out reality of Victoria, made me think about the way we treat water, where it comes from, how we get it into our homes and what we do with it once it’s there.

In contrast, a little more than ten years later, the entire nation is caught in the grips of what is now being called a 1000 year drought. Well we’ve only been keeping records for a little more than 200 years, so I guess we’ll never really know if that’s true, but there’s no doubt that it’s a bad one. But this too has made me think.

I keep hearing these words: “Water shortage”. I think that this can be best described by these words: “False statement”. There can be no such thing. This planet does not have the room to house the number of people it would take to use all it’s water. True, not much is falling on top of us, here, but take a look around at the bigger picture. Two thirds of the surface of the planet is more than a mile deep in the stuff. Every land mass has aquifers and a water table if it doesn’t have rivers and lakes. We don’t have a “Water shortage” we simply have a problem with logistics. We are, as they say, “Logistically Challenged.”

Admittedly, I’m talking some serious logistics but the way I see it, it’s just a matter of getting it from where it is, to where it needs to be. I can hear you saying “Do you know how expensive it is to desalinate water?” Yes I do. But I also know how cheap it is. It seems to me, that like alternative fuels and energy sources, it only becomes expensive when governments and business stick their beaks in, in the hope of turning a quick buck.

I did a short spell in the Navy many years ago. Do you know that ships and submarines don’t carry fresh water? They used to, but now they make it. Do they use expensive filters that cost millions and need to be maintained? No. They use their engines, both the electric ones and the diesel ones. Did you know for instance, that an obsolete Oberon class submarine produces more fresh water than the crew can use. The water it makes is so pure, that salt needs to be added before it’s drinkable (your body requires sodium to absorb moisture). Three stage evaporation is what it takes, that’s all and with a reasonable sized plant, we can easily produce more than we need because it’s a fast process. Much faster than running it through expensive filters that need constant cleaning and replacement. Just evaporate off the water and dump the salt out the bottom, keeping some to put back in.

I’m not just dreaming here you know. I’ve also tried to think through the problems:

1. Heat source to evaporate the water.
2. Energy required for 1.
3. Transporting the water to where it’s required.

Trouble is, that’s about all I can come up with. I think we can take care of 1 and 2 with the sun. As my mate said the other day, sunlight’s free. The only problem with that is finding somewhere where there’s both ocean and sunlight 100% of the time. Still, we could pipe the water in to somewhere where that happens and every continent that has water problems, has a place like this.

Which leads us into number 3. The ideal solution would be to refill the rivers and let it all flow into the lakes. That way, everything get’s to benefit, not just us, but that’s a hell of a lot of pipes, pumps and syphons which of course, will add to the cost of our water. So how do we do it cheaply? Don’t know… That’s where I’m stuck.

Don’t worry though. My boy wants to do science/engineering, so I’ve talked to him about this little conundrum. He thought it had merit, but that there were a few issues, but he assures me he’s going to go to uni and learn what he has to learn, invent an ultra efficient heat source, design and manufacture the evaporation equipment and make an absolute killing….:)

In Saudi Arabia, they don't have any issues with any of this though. Why? My guess is because the prince makes his money with oil and uses it to look after his people. How interesting is it do you think, that John Howard treats water desalination and energy generation as two seperate issues? Seems to me that if you're more interested in providing water and energy to your people, than you are in making money out of your people with water and energy, the easier it is to find solutions.

Here's the biggest Suadi evaporation plant. It also produces quite a bit of electricity:

And here's one to some independant info about it:

3:25 PM - 19/1/2007 - comments {14} - post comment

Part VII - Jesus leads to Superman

Or, If Jesus is real, then so is Superman.

The good name of Superman has recently been used to make an argument for Jesus, in comments to a previous post (Religion Leads to Atheism) where we were discussing the doubt of Thomas. It went like this; ‘Superman is Clarke Kent. if Lois Lane doubts the existence of Superman, does she therefore doubt the existence of Clarke Kent? Of course not. She doesn’t understand their identity.’ It’s inapplicable as an analogy here of course. Apart from the fact that Lois (or anyone else) never doubted Superman's existence, the doubt of Superman’s identity, is integral to his story and one of the things that makes him anathema to the bad guys and set’s him apart from the rest of us. He doesn’t want the bad guys to know who he might be or where he might turn up and he gives anonymous help because he doesn’t want glory, he just wants us to know he’s “out there somewhere”. The risen Jesus on the other hand, requires the exact opposite, glory be, praise god and there you are in heaven...

Anyway, all this got me to thinking that Superman is probably a much better role model and hero than Jesus can possibly hope to be. Just consider it for a moment. He was always putting himself in harms way for people he’d never met and would never meet again. Well, not really harms way, he was Superman after all, but the point is that he was always there to help. Stop that train, catch that plane, be the shield, rescue those astronauts, stop that earthquake, you name it. Did he ever ask for thanks? No! Did he ever take anyone or anything for granted? No. Was he “not from this world’”? Yes. Could he fly through space? Yes. Did he treat us inferior humans with respect? YES! Well, apart from the bad guys, but he always caught them in the act, so they got what was coming to them, I reckon. He never, ever treated anyone with contempt though. Even the bad guys always got the fair trial they were entitled to and he was never so presumptuous as to  tell anyone how their life should be ordered.

Now let’s face it, Superman could have done anything he wanted. He had everything going on, what with x-ray vision and being faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings, etc. The world was truly his oyster. He could have taken anything he wanted, but no, not Supe! He had morals and that sort of thing was wrong!

But nothing was to much trouble, from stopping Lex Luthor or Solomon Grundy perpetrating their various crimes against humanity to helping an old lady across the street. This was a man of integrity. A gentleman of the highest order.

Now I know that The Crash Test Dummies aren’t everyone’s cup o’ tea, but I think they’ve summed up superman quite well with “Superman’s Song”

Tarzan wasn't a ladies' man

He'd just come along and scoop 'em up under his arm

Like that, quick as a cat, in the jungle

But Clark Kent, now there was a real gent

He would not be caught sittin' around in no

Junglescape, dumb as an ape, doing nothing

[Chorus:]

Superman never made any money

For saving the world from Solomon Grundy

And sometimes I despair the world will never see

Another man like him

Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job

Even though he could have smashed through any bank

In the United States, he had the strength, but he would not

Folks said his family were all dead

Their planet crumbled but Superman, he forced himself

To carry on, forget Krypton, and keep going

Tarzan was king of the jungle and Lord over all the apes

But he could hardly string together four words: "I Tarzan, You Jane."

Sometimes when Supe was stopping crimes

I'll bet that he was tempted to just quit and turn his back

On man, join Tarzan, in the forest

But he stayed in the city, and kept on changing clothes

In dirty old phone booths till his work was through

And nothing to do but go on home

Now they say he’s fictional, but on closer inspection, I think that might just be part of the enigma. You know, keep them guessing and all that. I mean, there’s  video footage of him and everything! I used to have more literature concerning Superman than our local church has concerning Jesus too. Multiple copies of the same book don’t count. I had comics, novels, literature concerning his upbringing on the farm, his home planet of Krypton, the works. Now if books are all you need to trust in the existence of something, if you can’t trust that sort of evidence, what can you trust?

6:20 PM - 1/12/2006 - comments {16} - post comment

God, you bastard!

Did you like the title? Well it’s wrong. Religion in general is the problem because God doesn’t exist. Here, I’ll prove it!

Picture this. A woman spends her life being a good God fearing Christian. Goes to church every week and frets about it if she can’t. Helps to run the Op. Shop, serves on the vestry and various committees, bakes the seminal cake every year, helps out those around her and does everything that both the church and the book require of her, including years of contributions to the collection plate.

Time goes by as it always does, and eventually this woman’s joints start to give out. Eventually this becomes chronic arthritis and constant, excruciating pain. It’s a familiar story.

Why then, in her hour of need, would God simply forsake her if he exists? Is it because he no longer has a use for her? I mean she can’t run around and do all those things anymore and now that she’s been hospitalised, she can no longer manage the church’s finances, so I guess she’s served her purpose. Even her priest can’t be bothered visiting, or so it seems.

I listened to her today while she beseeched god to intercede and help. No, she didn’t want to be “cured” or even have all her pain taken away, just the edge taken off would have done. Just enough that she could sit in a semblance of comfort for a short while. “What have I done? What do I need to do?” were the questions I kept hearing. Ridiculous questions for someone of such stature both in life and in her community. Not so ridiculous for one of her religious conviction though. Eighty years is a long time to hold a belief.

The worst thing about this is knowing that those questions are not going to be answered in any meaningful way, although she hopes fervently that they will. Sure, the priest may give her some guidance, if he ever bothers to visit, and her friends may offer some advice. Some will say that these things are God’s answers but please note that they all come from people, not God.

Her pleas of “please help me with this pain” were answered though. They eventually gave her a shot of morphine which did the trick. Please take note, that once again the help came from a person, albeit wielding science, not God and no, there was no “divine” inspiration involved. I read her chart and spoke to the director of nursing and told her that I’d be letting the insurance company know that they’re not getting what they’re paying for.

Funny how all of a sudden, this poor woman went from having to call outside the hospital to get someone to ring the nurse’s station for her so she could get the help she needed because they were ignoring the buzzer, to having almost constant attention and her needs dealt with promptly and professionally.

So all you Christians out there, answer me this. Where will your God be when you need him? Right there lending a hand, or in the syringe filled with science?

My guess is that the real god will be the person with the syringe and the science. Your god will be the one snivelling in the corner peddling nothing but false hope like the slimy little bastard that he is!

Sorry, I had to vent. The woman in question is my mum and I see absolutely no evidence of god being in the least bit interested in her predicament.

6:57 PM - 8/11/2006 - comments {15} - post comment

Baal-Habad - El Diablo Pt II

Baal, Ba’al zebub, Beelzebub, Satan, the devil.

Of all the Gods available to choose from during the early stages of the development of the Judaic tradition, Baal seems to have taken the worst beating in the old testament. He’s obviously important, so I guess we’d better take a look at him, just to see where he comes from and who he is exactly.

Baal-Habad, Canaanite god of storms and fertility. Tablets dating from as early as the fourteenth century BCE tell us of Baal, his parentage and his battle with Lotan (called Leviathan in Hebrew, but more about that later). Baal lived at home with his dad El (the top Canaanite god) and his mum Asherah (El’s wife). This is just the upper echelon of the pantheon that most ancient Israelites living in Canaan had to choose from if Yahweh didn’t do it for them. It’s even suggested by some scholars(1) that it was actually El who was the god of Abraham, not Yahweh. In the Hebrew texts, he is introduced to the patriarchs as “El-Shaddai” (El of the Mountain; one of El’s traditional titles – Genesis 4:26, Exodus 6:3), which in most modern bibles is translated as “the name of the Lord” and “God Almighty” respectively.

Some may be thinking that tablets from the fourteenth century BCE aren’t terribly old considering the common perception of Yahweh being about 6000 years old (4000 BCE), but it’s an invalid argument historically. The problem with that argument is that the earliest writings of Genesis date only to the eighth century BCE, tenth at the oldest and there are only two versions of those, both written around the same time. One calls it’s god ‘Yahweh’ (originating from the southern kingdom of Judah) while the other call’s it’s god ‘Elohim’ (originating from the northern kingdom of Israel). So we’re talking about tangible historical facts here, not esoteric scriptural anecdotes or “evidences”, as some might call them.

Anyway, when we consider that Abraham believed that Canaan was the “promised land” and when Sarah dies he ends up buying a slice of Canaanite land in Hebron (so he could use the cave to bury her - now on the West Bank) thereby gaining a toe hold in the area, then it’s hardly surprising that El would figure in the equation somewhere. But it’s “Asherah poles” and “alters to Baal” that get torn down and destroyed throughout the old testament, and from Numbers through to the end of the old testament and well into the new, Baal is vilified and demonised by almost every king and prophet while they barely seem to work up a sweat over Asherah.

Throughout Joshua, Judges and various Samuels, the people are extolled to give up “the gods of their forefathers”, generally considered to be El, Asherah, Baal, Anat, Mot, Yam, etc, and worship Yahweh as the one true and only God. In most of these stories, Baal is severely and harshly dealt with. Eventually, in 1Kings 18:20-40 Elijah has had quite enough and organises a face-off between Yahweh and Baal on Mt. Carmel. Despite the prophets of Baal’s best efforts and most zealous appeals, Baal says nothing and does nothing. Of course, when it’s Elijah’s turn to elicit a response from Yahweh he just says something like “Ok dude, you’re on!” and God dutifully sets fire to everything including the ring of water that Elijah conveniently puts there just before he starts (personally I reckon it reads more like someone understood a little more about the wily ways of naphtha than he was letting on, but anyway). After that, Elijah dutifully sets about having all the prophets of Baal slaughtered in a special place called the Kishon Valley. Nice fella that Elihaj…

But why so much about Baal? Well, according to the Canaanite myths, Baal was accorded an exulted position. It was he who in one version of the myth, as mentioned above, defeated Lotan (Leviathan in Hebrew remember), the seven-headed dragon who symbolises chaos. In another version of the myth Baal defeats Yam-Nahar, nasty god of seas and rivers who also symbolises chaos. In both stories, Baal creatively uses various magical tools to defeat chaos and stop the slide back into the formless void. For his efforts he is afforded an exulted position and a palace of his own, but he’s never put in charge, that’s always El’s job.

After all this however, Baal dies because Mot gets hold of him. Anat (Baal’s twin sister and lover) finds Baal’s body, kills Mot (god of death and sterility – more chaos) then winnows, burns and grinds him like corn and sows him as seed in the ground. A bit later on, we don’t know how long or how it’s done because the records are incomplete, Baal is brought back to life and restored to Anat and his rightful place in the pantheon. The fertility rites of the Canaanites grew out of this myth which was perpetuated every year with ritual celebrations.

Interestingly, in Psalms 74:13-15, the act of killing Leviathan (or Lotan) is squarely attributed to Yahweh, fertility symbols and all:

“13 It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.

14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

15 It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever flowing rivers.”

So it seems from these ancient stories that perhaps Yahweh isn’t the only god with the power to hold back the “formless void” and defeat chaos in the form of the “dragon”, Lotan or Leviathan. There may even have been a god or two before him that had already done just exactly that. Either that, or Yahweh is also Baal.

Now if you’re a young god trying to make a name for yourself, how do you go about it when you’re among such experienced, popular and powerful company? I guess one way to do it is to steal their stories and make them your own, then have your prophets demonise them. Ba’al Zebub may mean “Lord of Zebub”, but Zebub is never mentioned as a place, or more likely, “Lord of things that fly” because Zebub is a Hebrew collective noun for “Fly”, and this is where Beelzebub stems from.

All references to Beelzebub in the bible are purely new testament (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and it would appear the name is used completely out of context, possibly without any understanding of its origin. Baal was not present on Mt. Carmel, as attested to in 1Kings and as far as Elijah and Yahweh were concerned, was a false god who simply didn’t exist.

So there you go, Beelzebub doesn’t seem to be the devil either. So if he’s not Lucifer (can’t be, that’s a fourth century Latin noun that means “Venus”), Satan (can’t be, he’s an arch angel, has never been thrown out and still has a job to do) or Beelzebub (can’t be, he doesn’t exist), then who the hell is he?

Notes and references:

(1) A History of God. From Abraham to the present, the 4000- year quest for God; by  Karen Armstrong

Atlas of Empires; by Karen Farrington

TalkOrigins

The NIV Study Bible

Online NIV Study Bible

BibleGateway for various versions and translations.

3:24 PM - 21/10/2006 - comments {18} - post comment

El Diablo Part I

A biblical history of the devil.

The devil is an enigmatic creature, steeped in history, superstition and controversy. He has graced many a page of history with his so called influence and has been blamed for the crimes and atrocities of men and women alike throughout time. Over the years we’ve devised tests to reveal his presence and procedures to punish and banish him and his minions. But who is he exactly and where does he come from?

Anyone reading this who has had any sort of exposure to mainstream Christianity will probably answer the above question with the story of the Arch Angel Lucifer, who coveted God’s throne. The story goes that when God (Yahweh) was away doing something or other, Lucifer got uppity and sat on the throne. Yahweh saw him, got jealous and like a petulant child threw a hissy fit and booted Lucifer out. Sorry guys, but I’m going to have to have a crack at shattering that myth for you.

Lucifer is just one of the names given to “The Prince of Darkness” and it seems as though he’s always been with us. As you work through the bible however, you find that this is not necessarily the case. Were you to look for the devil’s influence in the Garden of Eden, Babylon or Egypt for instance, you would simply draw a blank. In fact, you’d have to get all the way to Job before you find Satan mentioned at all and even then it’s not quite the “devil” you’d expect. It seems then, that El Diablo hasn’t been around for quite as long as some would have us believe.

In Genesis of course, we have the appearance of the serpent, which some have argued is in fact the devil in disguise. Well, Eve says it “deceived” her after all. This is clearly not the case however. It seems, upon closer study, that the serpent told Eve nothing less than the complete and absolute truth about apples, a truth which God had denied both her and Adam, so any suggestion that this was the work of “The Great Deceiver” and that the serpent is anything more than a talking snake who liked to chat is simply wrong. You could even argue that it was God who lied by omission. God even goes so far as to punish it though and at the end of it all we end up with something that can only be described as a snake.

The first real references we have to Satan are in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2 where Satan is a member of God’s court. It is his job to accuse humans before God (hence “judgement”) and he is in no way depicted as an enemy of Yahweh. He doesn’t rule over his own personal minions in his own personal domain or actively involve himself in the lives and affairs of people, trying to win followers to himself through deceit and possession. In Job, although Job certainly get’s the rough end of the stick in my opinion, God is only trying to prove to Satan “the accuser” that Job is just righteous because he is, not because God is protecting him more than he does anyone else. When it’s all said and done, God proves himself right and Satan goes away satisfied that Job is indeed, one heck of a righteous dude. In Zechariah, he’s prophesying about Joshua and Satan is rebuked in God’s court because God is putting Joshua’s sins behind him so he can start fresh. Well, he did need someone to go and smite the Canaanites and Josh was a logical choice after all. There’s no banishing from heaven though, or casting to the earth, it’s just the Arch Angel Satan doing his job.

The popular story of Lucifer is taken or interpreted from Isaiah 14:12-17. As you get to verse 17, it becomes plain that we are actually talking about the king of Babylon here, not an Arch Angel called “Lucifer” after all. In the link above, the word “Lucifer” doesn’t even appear. The NIV study notes, on the Literary Features of Isaiah say the following about these verses; A taunting song against the king of Babylon is found in 14:4-23. If you are a rival nation with a rival God who’s been held in exile, then taunting songs about the ex-king of Babylon, treating him as if he’s a fallen minor deity are probably fairly common. The king’s of Babylon, like their Egyptian counterparts, were after all considered to be God-Kings and deities in their own right. When they fell from grace, god’s fell in a very real sense in so far as the imagery and idols, (statues, paintings, etc.) were often pulled down and destroyed or reshaped into something else.

The word Lucifer itself comes to us from the original King James version. It is simply a 4^th century Latin name for Venus and only appears in those translations. The plural, luciferum, also appears in other works in reference to astral constellations. It is translated from the Greek heosphoros which in turn comes from the Hebrew noun Helel, the term for the “morning star”, which is said to vanish with the light, hence the analogy. Later versions of the King James don’t include the word at all.

Ezekiel 28:13-19 speaks similarly about a fall from grace and has been used to lend credence to the Isaiah passages. It is also plain here however, as you get through verse 18 and into 19, that we are actually talking about the king of Tyre who God kills and reduces to ashes so he “will be no more” which doesn’t exactly describe the devil as we know him. So it seems that nearly all of chapter 28, from verse 1 to 19, is simply a prophesy against the king of Tyre and has nothing to do with the devil either.

All of the references I’ve mentioned so far are quite late as far as the establishment of Judaic monotheism is concerned. About 600bc at their earliest. It would appear then that the earliest traditions of Judaism did not include the concept of hell or the devil, that Lucifer never actually existed in the original texts and that any reference to Satan is referring to the angel Satan who was a member of Yahweh’s court. That means that back then, the only real alternative to the Judaic God was no God or some other god and it appears that the devil as we know him has somehow been incorporated into the popular faith much later on.

In Part II we’ll take a look at some of the other gods that were available and in competition with Yahweh in the area at the time and how Yahweh, his priests and prophets go about vilifying and demonising them in one way or another.

3:46 PM - 19/9/2006 - comments {21} - post comment