« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 30, 2005
I am prepared to believe in Creationism
Creationists keep making claims that they will support evolution if independent scientists can prove with full scientific support that God did not create the universe some 600 odd (very odd) years ago.
Ignore for a minute that such a question is like telling someone that you will support apples if you explain oranges, I would make a corollary challenge to creationists.
I will believe in creationism if groups of biblical scholars working independently (this is a point I will have to insist on - please see my footnote for my definition of independently) can reach an agreement as to how long ago the Universe was created.
Since we are talking about a matter of 6000 years or so and the fact that the research matter comes from a book they claim to be the Holy word of God almighty and as such should be immune from alteration (altering God's Holy word would be blasphemy wouldnt it?), these independently produced dates would have to agree to within a decade.
If they can do that and give me their solemn word on the Bible (may God strike them down if they lie) that they adhered to my rules, then I would be willing to give credence to their beliefs.
It's only fair that we ask them to adhere to their own logic if they ask us (non-believers, scoffers, sniggerers etc...), using our own logic (and scientific method) to prove that Creationism is a load of bollox.
Note: 'independently' means:
1. that the Biblical 'scholar' will be cut off from contact from any peers outside the group that is compiling the information for an estimate on the exact day that said 'the word'.
2. Ideally the 'scolar(s)' will indulge in abstinence, fasting, prayer/meditation, within an isolated retreat (mountainous or not, their preference...)
3. In addition to finding the date that God spake his spoke, the 'scholars' should also pinpoint major milestones such as when fossils were placed in the mantle, the date that the last dinosaur died out (must be in the Bible somewhere eh?), what colour Jesus' eyes were, the exact location of the Ark (they must include proof in the form of wood, nails, dinosaur poo, or whatever...) and most importantly the exact date that the first Bible was written (old testament), because if its the word of God then it must have been created all of a piece, just like his other creations.
4. The 'scholars' must forward logically (their logic or ours, but must be internally consistent) sound alternative for all scientific 'theories/beliefs' currently 'en vogue'
Posted by dottie at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)
Apple innovation magic
Oh my god - Apple just invented right click! Fantastic!
Posted by dottie at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)
August 19, 2005
Einstein
This year is the 100th anniversary of Einstein's big year. In 1905 Einstein produced four physics papers that were to change the face of modern science.
The paper's were at first ignored, due mostly to the fact that Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who had been refused a promotion as his superior felt he needed to gain a better grasp of basic mechanics.
I'm dissapointed that in my physics course in college we never studied Einsteins original papers. In fact, we never studied any original papers from any source. All our learning derived from the scientific equivalent of Cliff notes. All our test books were interpretations of the theories of the greats. We only used distillations of the work to manipulate mental / mathematical models of specific situations.
Einstein had no such help and yet managed to create great work. In fact most of the greatest scientists had very little in the way of interpreted material to help them along.
Maybe we should ban textbooks from science classes and go from first principles?
Anyway, happy birthday to E=mc2
Posted by dottie at 1:31 PM | Comments (0)
August 13, 2005
Photo fortnight
This is a great site set up by some Irish ex-pats living in the US. The idea is that every two weeks a new theme is chosen and you have two weeks to find a photograph something that fits the theme, no archive photos allowed.
Then folks can vote on your photo - which is displayed with your name taken off.
I have a photo in for the 'Garish' theme. I'm quietly confident... that it won't win ;) I dont care though. I will be entering each theme (or at least trying) using it to improve my camera skills.
Wish me luck!
Posted by dottie at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)
August 3, 2005
Fabulous Flickr photos
Flickr has just introduced a new feature to its list of services. It is a list of interesting photos. Its automatically produced.
Flickr uses some sort of algorithm that combines the viewings of a photo with the number of people who tag it for themselves and come up with a short list of interesting photos.
The thing is people may eventually just want to check out the interesting photos - forget about cruising the tags (choose a random word and search for it on Flickr - interesting :D ) just give me the good stuff.
I had a look at it earlier and wow are there some great shots. The problem is that this will create a huge gap between photos that are listed as interesting (generating ever more views and tags) and those that didnt quite pass the muster.
Is this a good thing? Possibly. What better editorial process is there than the visceral response from seeing a photo and being able to give feedback straight away.
But the problem is that if everyone is looking at the list of 'interesting' photos produced by Flickr then who is looking at and tagging the photos from the original photosets in the first place?
Will this unwittingly create an 'elite' of photographers who happened to get in on the first (few) waves of ineterest of the 'interesting' feature leaving other equally talented photographers out in the cold simply because of dumb luck? Are we about to see an amateur photographer get jump started as a professional because someone thought his photo of a sunflower was cool?
Excellent - sunflowers, sunsets, naked girls and kittens. I'll be in my darkroom if you need me....
Posted by dottie at 7:56 AM | Comments (0)