It wasn’t the snow so much as the ice

December 5, 2006 | By | 5 Replies More

(In re Erich’s Snowflake Architecture) I have always been impressed by the history of snowflake photography, and all the forms of micro-, mega-, high-speed, etc. non-human-scale pictures.

But I often find many look-worthy things on human scale just walking around the neighborhood. Just walking and seeing the world around me. In this case, also listening to the tinkling and glinting chandeliers of iced trees in the breeze. Here are some digital snaps I took on a walk around the block the day after our November ice storm:

Down the street, even with brakes locked!

Down the street, whether you want to or not

Calmly watched by a bird on ice (about 500mm equiv. lens, hand-held)
Bird on Ice
A sign of how to bring a business district to a halt

How to stop a commercial district

No sign of Grant Wood or his models
Grant Wood Needs Models

Share

Tags:

Category: Whimsy

About the Author ()

A convoluted mind behind a curly face. A regular traveler, a science buff, and first generation American. Graying of hair, yet still verdant of mind. Lives in South St. Louis City. See his personal website for (too much) more.

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Limbaugh says:

    What did you heathens in Kansas do to upset God so much? It is clear that HE is mad about something. The polar ice caps are melting, the heartland is *freezing* over, the oceans are dying. Global warming is the work of an ANGRY GOD. This must be His way of telling us to stop polluting the enviroment.

    It is clear that science/knowledge does INDEED conflict with religion. For example, a person with an advanced college degree is four times less likely to believe in God than a person with only a high school education. Numbers don't lie, Christians *occasionally* do.

    -S

  2. Dan says:

    With all due respect, Limbaugh, I do ot think there is any conflict between the abstract ideas of science and religion, because of the caveat that religion is based on faith. Science is truth, religion is faith. There is no conflict there. The conflict arises when persons of scientific and religious mind clash on the specifics of each philosophy. Scientific reasoning and religious faith can exist side by side as long as the person expressing one or the other is willing to accept that the two will not mesh neatly. Of course, the problems currently facing scientists in the stem cell field and the like are due to an administration that can't seem to rectify this disjunction in their minds.

    As a side note, do you have a source for that study? I'd be interested in reading more about it.

  3. Dan Klarmann says:

    Limbaugh: I have it on good faith that St. Louis (where Erich and I got iced) isn't in Kansas.

    Isn't Kansas one of those states that periodically tries to require Biblical excerpts to be taught in science classes?

    Science and religion are different categories of philosophy. It is hard enough to get two experts in the same field of philosophy to agree on terms, much less across a divide as big as this one.

  4. Scholar says:

    Here is a link to some numbers you can try and explain away.

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristian

    What I see happening, is that the closer one comes to absolute knowledge, the less chance that there is for God to play a significant role (or any role at all).

  5. Limbaugh says:

    And here from the national academy of sciences (a bunch of 2-bit scribes)

    http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

    -S

Leave a Reply