Random Chit Chat

[sniperviper21]

Anyone else excited for NHL allstar game ?

Team Chara ftw

 

[foothead]

i don't see the problem.
but then again i don't care about human origin

Umm, because they're replacing science class in public schools with religious mythology. There is absolutely no evidence supporting creationism, versus evolution which is established fact. Also, it's totally illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled on this a number of times in the past. I really don't get what they think they're accomplishing, since if it passes, all that's going to happen is a court battle which will result in the case being thrown out and the state losing a bunch of money on legal fees.



I'm seriously considering picking up a 4x5" rangefinder camera and dropping the smaller formats altogether. Am I crazy?

 

[Cabbs]

I'm seriously considering picking up a 4x5" rangefinder camera and dropping the smaller formats altogether. Am I crazy?

Not in my eyes, I'm too lazy to shoot anything other than digital

 

[Dngrsone]

... versus evolution which is established fact.

No, not really. Darwin's evolution would take far too long. Unless and until the mechanisms behind the Cambrian explosion, et al are established, Darwin's theory remains just that-- a theory largely unsupported by observed fact. Just because a few island birds show differentiation doesn't equate to random mutations changing a monkey into a human.

Regardless of whether any particular god has dominance over another, or whether our essence evaporates after death is irrelevant to the discussion; what is relevant is the use of law to dictate what will and will not be taught in a school.

Darwin is neither god nor law, and teaching kids to question both dogma and doctrine is a good thing.

 

[foothead]

Not in my eyes, I'm too lazy to shoot anything other than digital

Haha. I have an Olympus E-410 that probably hasn't been used for anything serious in six months. I hate digital, it just feels... wrong. The lack of camera movements drives me nuts.

No, not really. Darwin's evolution would take far too long. Unless and until the mechanisms behind the Cambrian explosion, et al are established, Darwin's theory remains just that-- a theory largely unsupported by observed fact. Just because a few island birds show differentiation doesn't equate to random mutations changing a monkey into a human.

Are you serious? Evolution is absolutely supported by observed fact. It's a very long process for animals like humans, but we can observe it over a relatively short period of time in things like flies, yeast, various bacteria, viruses, etc. I read an article a while back about scientists basically forcing single-celled yeast to evolve into a new multi-cellular organism, which was once thought of as one of the largest hurdles in evolutionary theory. (article here)

Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, how does that exclude evolution? What happened was a relatively rapid (over 70-80 million years) appearance of new species, most likely due to a sudden change in the environment, which would support evolution.

Regarding the humans-> monkeys statement: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. We shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. This ancestor resembled neither modern humans nor modern monkeys. The closest living species to human is actually the chimpanzee, which shares 95% of our DNA sequence. If you need further evidence, just look at human chromosome 2. As you may or may not recall from high school biology, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, versus 24 in chimpanzees and other hominids. Closer investigation revealed that human chromosome 2 is actually a fusion of two earlier chromosomes. It has two centromeres, as well as two extra telomeres in the center where the fusion occurred. Studies of the chimpanzee genome have showed that the sequence of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b are nearly identical to human chromosome 2.

Darwin is neither god nor law, and teaching kids to question both dogma and doctrine is a good thing.

You know that isn't what will happen here though. It allows schools/teachers to choose to teach creationism instead of evolution. They're not going to teach reasons why it should be questioned, because there is literally no evidence supporting it. I don't know about you, but I'd be irate if I found out they were teaching that nonsense to my kids in place of science. The whole point of this is so they can indoctrinate other people's children into their religion. It's disgusting.

 

[sniperviper21]

they should be able to choose what class they take. Or take both.
let them decide.

 

[foothead]

That isn't how schools are supposed to work. They're supposed to educate children, not promote scientific ignorance to avoid challenging anyone's beliefs. Should they also teach palm-reading instead of statistics if a student requests it? What about all the other religions' creation myths? There's just as much evidence for them. Besides, as I said before, it's totally illegal.

Evolution is fact. I find it sad that we're still having this debate in 2012.

 

[jmacavali]

Ok, so I don't read this thread at all and I'm not going to take the time to catch up but I didn't think this deserved it's own thread so:

When you look at this: does it look like it's rocking back and forth, or it is actually going all the way around and "rolling". I can see both ways but am wondering what you see.

 

[foothead]

Back and forth.

Graflex Speed Graphic. Should I?

 

[jmacavali]

Back and forth.

That's one way to figure it out I guess. I guess if the mouth was at the bottom in layer 3 it would be rolling.

So am I going to have to start saying rbafl?




That's: Rocking Back And Forth Laughing.