HOME | DD

EbolaSparkleBear In reply to ??? [2013-02-24 20:27:11 +0000 UTC]

You make a classic mistake.

You assume that because there is not definitive evidence or a working theoretical model that covers the topic that somehow means there is a god of your choice behind the scenes.

Don't you understand, every time you do that your god gets a little smaller with every advancement in human knowledge? It's a losing strategy.

The universe as we know it came into existence with the Big Bang. That is when time and space were created.
If you were informed, you would know there are several competing models
attempting to solve the riddle.

But until Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and a full understanding of the Higgs Boson are documented the task is not going to be completed.
Add to that gravity waves need to be proven or dispelled.

On top of all of that quantum mechanics and general relativity are still not unified.

That knowledge combined with observable data in the universe will help determine if the universe is cyclical, one expanse that never ends, doomed to cold death or a great tear, the result of white holes from other universes, part of a multiverse, or a computer simulation.

Simpletons and zealots seek to insert their deity of choice into the areas of science that are still not fully understood. Those people lose ground all the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gotta-love-furries In reply to EbolaSparkleBear [2013-02-24 21:59:19 +0000 UTC]

Loose ground all the time? [link] I take exception to you calling all those who have a religion simpletons and zealots. Some of the greatest minds in history had a belief in a creator, including Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton.

And as for the Big Bang, I doubt you can give a scientific reason for why it happened in the first place. When it comes down to it, me believing in an omnipresent creator that created the world we live in is no more illogical than you believing in an event that has no scientific backing as to why it happened. Do you see?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EbolaSparkleBear In reply to gotta-love-furries [2013-02-24 23:37:20 +0000 UTC]

Your whole second paragraph is so uninformed it's laughable.

First off, right in the first sentence you immediately prove your inability to read (and think) has a major affect on your reply.

I already covered that, pay attention.

You ended again with something that only could come from a simpleton.
The Big Bang is not in question. It's the mechanics and processes that are being investigated.

Like I said, gods are for people who do not understand anything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gotta-love-furries In reply to EbolaSparkleBear [2013-02-24 23:50:27 +0000 UTC]

You are honestly going to tell me that the mechanics and processes are more important to a belief than the actual root of it? That's like saying you know how a computer works, because you know it has wires and circuitry in it; what is that belief based upon? But, very well. I shall move to a different subject.

Here is a phrase that may be new to you: The THEORY of Evolution. Evolution has never been proven. It has never been observed, it has no eye witnesses, and this means it is not a proven fact. In a sense, it is just as much of a religion to you as my God is to me. You accept it purely by faith. Frankly, I don't see how random chance could make a world so beautifully complex. And in the arguments of evolutionists, the rule of irreducible complexity and the second law of thermo-dynamics are never considered. (Amazing how my simple brain actually grasps the concepts of these two things, isn' it?)

But all in all, as I said, you essentially accept evolution on faith that the scientists who teach it are right in their guess. It pretty much comes under the heading of religion, in a way. Welcome to the club of simpletons and zealots.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EbolaSparkleBear In reply to gotta-love-furries [2013-02-25 00:32:05 +0000 UTC]

Science requires no belief. Only understanding.
Science is not a religion. Nor is it like a religion.

You do not understand that is why you have so many issues with the subject.

The Big Bang is not disputed. The mechanics and processes are.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means it's a functional model.
Evolution is proven. It is observable.
Evolution is happening right now.
Evolution is not disputed except by religious people.

If you knew anything about anything you would know two shark species are merging int he waters off Australia as the ocean temperature changes alters their habitats. The hybrid species is new. It is evolution is action.

Inuit people have a mutation that prevents about 40% of their population
from developing wisdom teeth. The downside is they're not mating outside their population enough to pass on the benefit.
Humans never evolved their teeth to make up for cranial changes.
Neanderthals didn't have problems with their wisdom teeth, humans do.

Blue eyes are going extinct. Globalization is to blame.

The reason why you're so uniformed about evolution is because you're a simpleton. You need easy answers instead of exploring the world around you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gotta-love-furries In reply to EbolaSparkleBear [2013-02-25 01:57:09 +0000 UTC]

What you have just described is micro-evolution, the tiny changes in the dna of animals, humans and plants, cuased by small changes to the gene pool, and/or outside influences. And in the case of the sharks, interbreeding. Macro-evolution is the change from one species to another, and that had never been observed or documented. Only guessed at.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

gotta-love-furries In reply to gotta-love-furries [2013-02-26 23:00:21 +0000 UTC]

How mature. Blocking me. Anyway, I'll state my reply here:

Took you a while to reply. I didn't realize wikipedia was that difficult to navigate. You've brought up some good points, I will admit. I reconcile the natural world around with the explaination that it was created by an all-powerful creator, because that makes much more sense to me then a THEORY which goes against one of the LAWS of science. Explain to me how, in light of the second law of thermo dynamics, evolution could possibly be true. (And by the way, the pope as a codgering old man who uses his status as a politician to sway his followers views. He holds no authority that average Christians recognize.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EbolaSparkleBear In reply to gotta-love-furries [2013-02-26 22:23:37 +0000 UTC]

You've been told genesis is a historical event and the gospel is a scientific document and that's where you stop thinking. From that point forward you no longer pay attention to details. You no longer use the ability to think unless it involves making up excuses to defend your faith and your untenable position.

You illustrated that when you failed to understand something so simple as the Big Bang. You completely ignored my response and regurgitated your initial statement, only using different words. You then tried to straw man the debate into scientific 'religion' versus the blind faith requirements of religion.

Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. -Austin Cline

Science does not worship supernatural beings. Science is the study of natural phenomena. There are no sacred sites, no holy texts, no prayers, no rituals, moral codes, no worldviews, no prophets, no prophecies, and no congregations.
Stupid people try to reduce science to a religion in an attempt to reduce critical thinking to the same level as the blind faith in unsupported unsubstantiated claims of religion.

Good thing you've only been taught to parrot the opening statement, because you never got much further than that.
Not that there is much space to work with, the concept is very thin when it comes to content.


You showed you do not know what the scientific theory of evolution is.

You made the mistake of claiming evolution has never been observed. That's something only naive people say.
Again, you quickly and willingly reveal you're not educated.

There is no way to interpret endogenous retroviruses using a special theory of creation, if you know anything about endogenous retroviruses at all and how they recapitulate what we already know about primate evolution.

"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence." -Mark Issac

'Macroevolution' does not mean toads turn into frogs. Again, you're not up to date with reality.

Four major gaffes
You did more then strike out.

It's unfortunate. If you put as much energy into learning and understanding the world around you as you do
in making up excuses, dodging facts, and ignoring knowledge you could actually be a smart person.

You're not actually stupid, you simply choose to be.

Because you cannot reconile the natural world around you with your religion you automatically choose to rail
against the imaginary threats you create.

Even the Pope says evolution is true and real. The majority of the large christian sects accept evolution as reality.
It's only the limited minds of creationists, fundies, and literalists that fail to understand the fact that the bible is
not a historical or scientific document. It's a religious text.

Your religion, like your god, shrinks every year. People like you speed the process up.
Instead of reconciling the natural with the supernatural you make the constant mistake to
try and undermine the natural with deflection, deceit, and outright lies.
When you have to lie for your religion, what does that say about you and your religion?

I implore you, get your head out of your ass and join the real world. Stop running to the safety of religion's no-thought zone.
Stop lying about the accomplishment's of human knowledge. Stop being a scared simpleton.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lmomjian In reply to crazy-micka [2013-01-22 21:54:39 +0000 UTC]

god built them haha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AlinaCristina In reply to Lmomjian [2013-01-23 20:35:34 +0000 UTC]

you got that right..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

masterofthenothing In reply to ??? [2013-01-22 08:47:49 +0000 UTC]

these shots are great! i saw some single flakes with my naked eye a day or two ago and reached for my 4MP digital camera but its focus settings didn't work in natural light from a distance of about 3inches. Bummer

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MBKKR In reply to MBKKR [2013-01-17 14:53:07 +0000 UTC]

Amazing what nature brings and amazing how you bring nature!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Alexey-Kljatov In reply to OliviaMichalski [2013-01-15 16:23:57 +0000 UTC]

Many thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CNunes In reply to ??? [2013-01-11 18:49:56 +0000 UTC]

So beautiful!!! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Stariva In reply to ??? [2013-01-09 17:47:57 +0000 UTC]

this is a really special snowflake. I've never seen one like this before.
btw, the middle looks like the empire logo from star wars

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Alexey-Kljatov In reply to JosephTimbury [2012-12-21 11:50:51 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! It is handheld shot? I almost never got any good shots of snowflakes, if i touch camera by hands while shooting. Maybe small tripod for desk or something similar can help? And small and bright snowflake, especially at relatively dark background, often looks complete overbright with default camera settings. I use Canon's spot exposure metering mode for snowflake shots. Then camera calculates exposure only by small rectangular area in center of picture. Alternatively, negative exposure compensation or manual exposure time setting can be used for same result. If you interested, i wrote a small post about my snowflake shooting process: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JosephTimbury In reply to Alexey-Kljatov [2012-12-24 00:17:46 +0000 UTC]

yes, it is a handheld photograph. I do have a tripod, but it's an older heavy tripod that is often an inconvenience to carry around, but maybe I should bring it with me more often. Thanks for the advice and link.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Alexey-Kljatov In reply to ??? [2012-12-13 05:36:03 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! I think it's my best snowflake shot for 4 winters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sugaredchaos In reply to ??? [2012-12-12 17:39:27 +0000 UTC]

very nice! i cant wait till i can start getting macros of snowflakes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IceFlame1019 In reply to ??? [2012-12-12 17:03:33 +0000 UTC]

i could stare at these all day, your photo quality is amazing *-*
i love the center of the flake

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jemgirl In reply to ??? [2012-12-12 07:47:21 +0000 UTC]

You aren't joking?

This is a real snowflake?

No CGI in the shaping of this? A really, real, natural snowflake?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alexey-Kljatov In reply to jemgirl [2012-12-12 07:55:28 +0000 UTC]

Yes, it's real snowflake. Medium sized, around 4-5 millimeters. All i do with this shot is focus stacking for better DOF and blue color toning (originally it was almost gray).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jemgirl In reply to Alexey-Kljatov [2012-12-12 07:57:26 +0000 UTC]

Wow... snowflakes aren't fluffy are they?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alexey-Kljatov In reply to jemgirl [2012-12-12 12:22:32 +0000 UTC]

It's threads of background (dark gray fabric).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dansch In reply to ??? [2012-12-11 19:51:13 +0000 UTC]

what a beauty!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0