A minibus driver was on Wednesday remanded to prison by Magistrate Fabayo Azore when he appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts charged with armed robbery and being in the possession of an illegal firearm.Thirty-three-year-old Philbert McPherson of Lot 707 Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown, pleaded not guilty to the charges when they were read to him.The Police stated that on April 20, 2018 at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Eve Leary, he had in his possession one .30 pistol without being the holder of a firearm licence.In addition, the Police said that on April 25, 2018, McPherson robbed Jagdeo Ramnauth of his mobile phone, wallet and cash totalling $246,000.The facts of the case were not presented to the Court by Police Prosecutor, Simone Payne who explained that the case file is still incomplete.McPherson will make his next court appearance on May 30.
Arguably the best-known geological landmark on the planet, Grand Canyon has been scrutinized and “geologized” for well over a century, yet remains an enigma, according to the title of a new book by James Lawrence Powell, Grand Canyon: Solving Earth’s Grandest Puzzle (Pi Press, 2005). The book was reviewed by John C. Schmidt (Utah State) in Science.1 Powell (same surname, interestingly, as the famous John Wesley Powell whose intrepid band of explorers made the first boat trip through the canyon in 1869) is a geologist now directing the National Physical Science Consortium. Overall, Schmidt liked the book and its historical glimpses: “While Darwin was developing his explanation of evolution, geologists were debunking the notion that a Great Flood formed Earth’s topography a few thousand years ago” (emphasis added in all quotes). Yet despite his optimism, Schmidt’s review sounds only a weak overtone of confidence above a fundamental tone of uncertainty regarding geological theories and their volatility. Some examples:Depending on what guide book we read or what ranger talk we listen to, we might learn that the Colorado River is perhaps 30 million years old…The author moves on to describe the observations of later generations of geologists, including the observations and reasoning that completely revised the early explanations of how the Grand Canyon formed.The evidence is scattered and incompletely preserved, and geologists today are still unclear about details of the Colorado River’s development. But these gaps are relatively minor—a few million years of missing evidence here or there…He also offers readers a taste of modern speculation and the uncertainties surrounding these generally accepted notions.Until a time machine is invented, we will never know for sure how the Grand Canyon formed. Nonetheless, we do know that the rocks forming the canyon walls are of immense age and that the cliffs and slopes exposing those rocks are features of the last instants of their history.Despite these uncertainties, Schmidt took a swipe at those who disagree with these “generally accepted notions.” He ended,In telling the Canyon’s story, Powell provides an honest and open description of geological detective work and the rethinking of ideas. At a time when the National Park Service sells a book describing a creationist explanation of the Grand Canyon’s formation little different than the ideas from which modern geology emerged more than 150 years ago, the book reminds us of the timeless contrast between the methods of modern natural science and the power of myth.1John C. Schmidt, “The Grand Question,” Science, Vol 309, Issue 5742, 1818-1819, 16 September 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1116363].The book to which he refers as “myth” is, of course, Tom Vail’s Grand Canyon: A Different View that became the center of controversy when geologists found it in the bookstores and tried to censor it (see 01/08/2004 and 10/14/2005 entries). This attractive book, filled with beautiful photographs, also contains entries by 15 PhD scientists, many of them geologists, who disagree with the “generally accepted notions.” With a sweep of the hand, Schmidt dismissed their opinions as “myth” while assuming all the paradigm shifts and uncertainties of modern geology constitute “science” – even though he confessed that, without a time machine, we could never know for sure how the canyon formed. There are many good reasons, however, for doubting the “immense age” of the canyon walls and the canyon itself. Here is a short, but not exhaustive, review:Gaps: The gaps are much larger than Schmidt admits; one gap is 10 million, another 60 million, and another 100 million. Above the Great Unconformity is a gap of over a billion years, with no soil between it and the overlying sedimentary layers. These gaps give no evidence of large passages of time between the one below and the one above, suggesting the gaps are fictional: no long ages did elapse. The ages claimed for the layers come not from the onsite observations, but from the a priori belief that they must be fitted into a pre-existing construct, a model constructed and later Darwinized in England: the Geologic Column.Flat contacts: The contacts between many layers are knife-edge thin and straight for hundreds of square miles, with no evidence of erosion between.Flat layers: The “generally accepted notions” expect us to believe that the Colorado Plateau rose and sank above and below sea level repeatedly, yet kept the layers flat and undisturbed, a preposterous notion.Gravity: The Grand Canyon traverses the Kaibab Plateau, a mile higher in elevation than the river upstream. Clearly, rivers do not flow over mountains. Something caused the canyon to scour through this region after a catastrophic period of sheet erosion and rapid downcutting.Source of material: secular geologists don’t know where all the sedimentary material came from. Some have speculated that it was transported somehow over long distances, from as far as Appalachia (09/15/2003). On the other hand, a flood could have scoured and pulverized great quantities of lime mud and sand, and deposited it rapidly underwater. The characteristic layers could represent material brought in from different directions as the currents changed. (This could also imply that the similarities to Appalachian sediments indicate that similar processes were occurring there also).No evolution: Squirrels on the north rim are subspecies of those on the south rim, with smooth gradations of varieties in between (CRS). They differ mainly in fur color. If these species were geographically isolated for at least five million years, why did they not evolve further apart? In that same length of time, evolutionists claim that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.No evolution II: Investigations of organisms inhabiting the forests of Shiva Temple, a forested butte isolated from the north rim, found no differences between species on the rim, even though they, too, should have been geographically isolated for millions of years. (CRS.)Downstream: no large river-delta deposits can be found downstream that would be expected if the Colorado River carved the canyon over a long time.Upstream: large basins that could have held enough water to carve the canyon by a dam breach can be discerned upstream. Also, portions of the canyon (Marble Canyon, inner gorge) are convincing secular geologists that it was carved quickly (see 07/22/2002) entry).Tectonics: faults intersect the canyon all the way from top to bottom at multiple points, but not part way up. This indicates the layers were deposited rapidly, then faulted together as units.Folding: The layers fold together as if they were still soft and unconsolidated at the time. Some folds, such as in Carbon Canyon, show more than 90° fold with no evidence of cracking or crumbling.Volcanos: Volcanic dikes and cones poke up through all the layers from bottom to top, but not part way up, casting doubt that millions of years transpired during sedimentation.Fluting: The inner gorge rocks are only fluted at river level, indicating the river has not been cutting downward through the igneous rocks for long.Sheet erosion: Vast quantities of rock above the canyon were swept away by sheet erosion before the canyon itself was carved. Evidence for this can be seen at Cedar Mountain and other buttes which protrude above the canyon, displaying remnants of the thousands of vertical feet of sediments that had been swept away before the downcutting of the canyon began.Sand Dunes, Not: The Coconino Sandstone, long claimed to be sand dunes turned to rock, are too fine-grained to be aeolian (wind-blown) sands, and cover too a vast an area (much of the Southwest: 100,000 square miles, with a volume 10,000 cubic miles) for this scenario to be plausible. The crossbedding could have been laid down as sand waves by deep ocean currents. The fossil trackways could have been made in shallow water and would have had to be buried suddenly to be preserved. All other layers in the canyon are indisputably water-deposited. To believe the Coconino was wind-deposited, the entire region would have had to be lifted above sea level without cracking or folding, yet the contact with the water-deposited Hermit Shale below it is flat and smooth. This indicates that deposition of the Coconino in the Grand Canyon began immediately after the Hermit formation, without 10 million years between them.Monsoons: a type of 3-D crossbedding called hummocky cross-stratification, visible in numerous places in the canyon, gives evidence of gigantic cyclonic storms on scales larger than anything observed today.Sapping: The Redwall shows evidence of sapping (rock fall occasioned by springs weakening the rock above). The large amphitheater-shaped alcoves characteristic of the Redwall suggest that the layers were still soft and unconsolidated and impregnated with water when they formed.Dam Break Redux: Large lava dams that formed in the lower canyon are known to have backed up the Colorado River into a huge lake since the canyon formed, yet broke and catastrophically drained quickly, perhaps multiple times. Why not suggest the same mechanism for formation of the canyon itself? In recent years, this idea – first proposed by creationists – has become popular among secular geologists (05/31/2002). Why have they not given the creationists credit?Lava Dates: Radioactive dates from the lowest lavas in the canyon (underneath all the sedimentary layers) show up “younger” than those on the top at Vulcan’s Throne, indicating that radioactive dating methods that yield millions of years cannot be trusted. Another falsification is that different radiometric methods applied within the same formation yield widely divergent dates. In addition, carbon-14 has been found in coal seams around the Grand Canyon. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, none should remain if the coal were really millions of years old, as claimed.(For more detail on these evidences, see Tom Vail’s book, ICR’s Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, and Walt Brown’s analysis.)You will notice that this list contains only scientific evidences – no references to the Genesis Flood. Any similarities with the Flood account have nothing to do with the point that the observational evidences suggest a very different story than the “generally accepted notions” of modern (i.e., secular, Bible-discrediting) geology. Science is not supposed to consist of “generally accepted notions” (see 12/27/2003 entry), nor indeed “notions” at all, but rather proofs rigorously demonstrated based on observation and experiment. Based on the observations listed above, it would seem more scientifically justifiable to place upper limits on the age of the canyon and its walls than to extrapolate today’s slow processes recklessly into the past by many orders of magnitude, and to introduce ad hoc scenarios when the story doesn’t fit the observations. Schmidt arrogantly applied the word myth to the creationist view, but what is the “power of myth,” if not speculating about unobservable millions of years that left no trace? If it were not that the creationist interpretation discredits uniformitarianism and hurts the feelings of the moyboys*, most of the other books in the Grand Canyon bookstore would similarly be following the evidence where it leads.*Moyboys, n. pl.: secular scientists who toss around the phrases “millions of years, billions of years” with reckless abandon, simply because Charlie & Charlie** needed the time.**Lyell, Darwin.(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Essential Reading! Get my 2nd book: The Lost Art of Closing “In The Lost Art of Closing, Anthony proves that the final commitment can actually be one of the easiest parts of the sales process—if you’ve set it up properly with other commitments that have to happen long before the close. The key is to lead customers through a series of necessary steps designed to prevent a purchase stall.” Buy Now Negative people don’t know that they are negative. They believe that they are completely rational, that they are realists.ComplainerWhen a negative person complains, they believe that something is truly wrong and that are simply reciting facts. “This isn’t right.” “This isn’t good enough. It should be better.” Their complaining isn’t done to improve things, and it’s not that are pleased but unsatisfied. They’re just perpetually displeased and make their discomfort with the world not being what they wish it were known to everyone around them.CynicThe negative person doesn’t believe they are cynic. They don’t recognize that they talk down everything and everyone, but especially anyone who is trying to do something big. It’s not just that don’t buy into an initiative, it’s that they try to point out all the things that prevent it from perfect, as if progress towards better isn’t worth pursuing. They vocalize their skepticism to bring other people to their cause.Devil’s AdvocateMany who believe they create value by playing the devil’s advocate are really just negative. They look to find reasons that something can’t be done, shouldn’t be done, or will only fail to achieve its intended outcome—and is quite likely to make things worse. The negative person who plays this role sincerely believes they are serving an honorable purpose, even if they prevent others from improving things.PessimistNegative people are pessimists. They see only the worst in everything and everyone. This is the attitude of the defeatist, those who believe they have already lost before they even start the game. They’re all doom and gloom, even when there is evidence to the contrary. They believe things are getting worse, that everything is on fire, and because they are looking through the warped lenses of the negative mindset, there is nothing positive to report.They believe that you, the positive, optimistic, future-oriented, and empowered person is the irrational one.Unless and until they are made aware of their infection, it will continue, making their life less than it should be, and failing to make any positive contribution. No positive contribution comes from negativity.
World’s 50 Best Restaurants launches new drinking and dining guide Heart Evangelista admits she’s pregnant… with chicken MOST READ With a 1-0 lead after a 109-105 win on Saturday, Victolero wants his Hotshots to stay the course knowing that the Beermen will do everything to bounce back in their 7 p.m. clash at MoA Arena.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games What ‘missteps’? View comments Alcantara, pal sweep futures WATCH: Firefighters rescue baby seal found in parking garage 1 dead in Cavite blast, fire PBA IMAGESTNT KaTropa maximized the advantage it has—a 6-foot-10 behemoth in Joshua Smith—and reversed all pre-series predictions that it was the underdog against Barangay Ginebra.Smith came off the bench and threw his weight around all night long, keying a 100-94 decision of the top-seeded Gin Kings as the Texters broke the ice in their best-of-five Final Four match-up in the PBA Commissioner’s Cup before a stunned pro-Ginebra crowd at Mall of Asia Arena on Sunday night.ADVERTISEMENT Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Scoring at will and changing every Ginebra shot inside, Smith was the immovable force in the middle for the Texters that the Gin Kings didn’t have an answer to as TNT goes into Game 2 knowing that it put a dent on the psyche of the enemy—critical in a short series.“We hope that Joshua continues to play the same,” TNT coach Nash Racela, who was brilliant in drawing the game plan that had Smith scoring in the 30s for the second straight night. “But the locals will still be crucial.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutIt was clear that Racela would ride Smith all the way, as he managed his import’s minutes splendidly by, first, not starting him and then pulling him in and out of the floor to keep Smith fresh for the stretch.Smith, who came in as TNT’s third import here, finished with 35 points and 13 rebounds in less than 29 minutes. Heart Evangelista admits she’s pregnant… with chicken Cayetano dares Lacson, Drilon to take lie-detector test: Wala akong kinita sa SEA Games The locals backed Smith up with aplomb, with RR Pogoy shooting 17 and Ranidel de Ocampo firing 12. But the biggest shot among locals came from Jason Castro, who sealed the outcome with a triple with 12.2 seconds left for what turned out to be the final score.That was the only field goal for Asia’s best point guard, as he struggled to get into a rhythm all night but saved his only basket when it truly mattered.Justin Brownlee paced the Kings with 24 points, with LA Tenorio and Japeth Aguilar shooting 15 apiece.Game 2 is slated Tuesday night also at MoA Arena.Meawnhile, Chito Victolero has described Star’s Final Four with powerhouse San Miguel Beer in just one word: Grinding.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES