Photography Contest VIII

Posted 20 June 2016 by Matt Young

Polish your lenses, dust off your tripods, search your archives (and, if you have entered before, remember that you are not limited to 3 good pictures per lifetime) -- the eighth Panda's Thumb photography contest, begins -- now!

Pierce extinction meter, still-camera version. They sold for $1.95 in 1946.

We will accept entries from 12:00 CST, Monday, June 20, through 12:00 CST, Monday, July 4. We encourage pictures of just about anything of scientific interest. If we get enough entries, consistently with Rules 11 and 12, we may assign entries to different categories and award additional prizes, presuming, of course, that we can find more prizes.

The first-place winner will receive a signed copy of Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), which has been donated by one of the authors. The National Center for Science Education will donate copies of Sahotra Sarkar's Doubting Darwin: Creationist Designs on Evolution and Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design to the second- and third-place winners.

The rules of the contest are simple:

We will consider any photograph that displays scientific interest -- biological, paleontological, geological, or astronomical, for example.
Submit photographs in JPEG format.
Reduce photographs to an information content of 600 pixels horizontally. If creationists require a definition of information, they may apply in writing to the management.
Photographs may be enhanced but may not be montages. High dynamic range photographs are, however, accepted.
Submit a maximum of 3 photographs (or 5 photographs per family) between 12:00 CST, Monday, June 20, and 12:00 CST, Monday, July 4, to thousandwords@pandasthumb.org. CST = UTC – 5 h.
Submit the photographs as attachments to an e-mail (not embedded in the body of the e-mail). The subject line to the e-mail must have the form YourLastName_PhotographyContest. The filenames for the photographs must have the form YourLastName.Descriptor as, for example, Young.Oxytropis_sericea or Young.Table_Mountain, as appropriate.
In your e-mail, identify the subject of the photograph: common and biological name, mineral type, or geological formation, for example. Provide a link that will allow a reader to learn more about the subject.
Depending on the number of photographs submitted, we may post the best submissions and ask our readers to vote for the best photograph. Likewise, we may establish several categories with separate entries and separate ballots. In particular, students 16 and under should so identify themselves; if we receive enough entries, we will establish a student category.
By submitting a photograph, you stipulate that you are the owner of the copyright and grant The Panda's Thumb a nonexclusive license to publish the photograph on its blog. The photograph will be subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives license.
Regular contributors to The Panda's Thumb are not eligible to enter the contest.
The decision of the judges is irrevocable. The judges remain irrepressibly and irreducibly irascible, irreverent, and irredeemable, irregardless.
Since we have rarely done this before, we reserve the right to change any of the rules, or add or subtract rules at any time at our discretion.

Reed Cartwright contributed to this post.

31 Comments

eric · 20 June 2016

Are there categories or themes this time around? Or is rule #1 the only limitation re: subject?

Joe Felsenstein · 20 June 2016

I have a meter rather like that. inherited from my mother who bought it for photography in the 1940s. It has a photocell and needs no batteries -- the light striking it generates enough power to move the needle. Still works. Mine is a Weston meter and uses a Weston scale that is not used today. I wondered whether it was worth big bucks so I looked it up on the web. It's worth $28.

Matt Young · 20 June 2016

1. No categories, unless we assign categories retrospectively. We were not clever enough to define any unused categories that satisfied us.

2. An extinction meter is different from Professor Felsenstein's mother's meter. That meter contained a photovoltaic cell, possibly selenium, that moved the needle when it was illuminated. An extinction meter has a series of semi-transparent numbers or letters, each slightly more absorbing than the last. You point the meter toward the subject, look at the letters through a window, and judge which is the last you can make out. Then you set the film speed (looks like ASA in this case), align a dial with the letter, and read the exposure. The film speed goes up to the (then) remarkably high value of 200. My meter is worth about $12 today; I suspect it has lost value.

Joe Felsenstein · 20 June 2016

I stand corrected (though my meter is worth $16 more than yours).

Matt Young · 20 June 2016

my meter is worth $16 more than yours

I used to have a photovoltaic meter, but it has disappeared, and all I can find is a practically modern photoconductive (battery powered) meter from perhaps the 1960's. They have an advantage over the extinction meter in that they actually work. Both became obsolete as far as I was concerned when I got a camera with through-the-lens metering around ~~1973~~ 1968.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PkZsUe11rOBbyBPTMFoa6pUDJUQQjTxv#0c747 · 23 June 2016

I'm no creationist, but I don't understand rule 3.

600 pixels horizontally - that makes my scanned photo 600 x 420 pixels and a tiny 89KB at 360 pixels per inch - it looks like a postage stamp.

Sorry to be dense, but I'm not getting it.

Matt Young · 23 June 2016

600 pixels has always been the rule; all the pictures posted on PT are 600 pixels across. I do not know what software you are using to view your picture, but you ought to be able to magnify it beyond the postage-stamp phase without changing the resolution.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 27 June 2016

Hi,

I have found a Book you might want to offer and read!:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE BIBLE and seeing reality with a sober mind!

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/using-intelligent-design-to-show-that-there-is-no-god-the-creator-915.html

That a non-perfect human eye is proof it EVOLVED?

I am not a Bible junkie! But a pure logic Philosopher and Home made Scientist.

(1) Have you been blinded ever and lost eye sight by something too bright?
So how much more sensitive do you want the human eye to be, from real complex, to nearly perfect and not so complex?

(2) Do you know the ammount of information per second or minute processed by the BRAIN and provided by this imperfect Human Eye?
For example: The eye is not static, as this would mean "FROZEN IMAGES", and has micro-movements constantly, so that your mind sees the next image immeadiatly in fractions of seconds!
Otherwise there would be bigger time lapses!

Also the human eye has a resolution of MILLIONS OF MEGA-PIXELS if not more. Also the INFINITY FOCUS is amazing up to the FOCAL DISTANCE!

(3) Can you then design a organic better eye, that we do not need! Look for it in nature merely!

Good luck with your low end non-intelligent LOGIC of Evolution!

George - pure logic - gfthomson@yahoo.com - jointquest.com

Just Bob · 27 June 2016

George, you should really meet Ray (Dembski thread below). You two would get along famously.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 29 June 2016

Sorry Bob.

Though I do have some books of Dembski, it was for understanding their reasoning and logic used.

Dembski works for Baptists Universities, and so is biased of course to a Religion, and bends his logic appropriately...!

EVOLUTION bends their logic, to a blinds mans quest to "NO REASON" AND "NO-LOGIC"...! This has similarities with "tunnel vision minded"...!

But believe me reality and pure logic, have nothing to do with blind minded so called Science Evolution!

As you guys of Evolution, are so intelligent and mix up Religion with reality and logic. Do you have something more convincing to tell us all???

Michael Fugate · 29 June 2016

Hey George, you might want to clean your keyboard; the caps lock keeps getting stuck at random intervals.

DS · 29 June 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Hi, I have found a Book you might want to offer and read!: FORGETTING ABOUT THE BIBLE and seeing reality with a sober mind! http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/using-intelligent-design-to-show-that-there-is-no-god-the-creator-915.html That a non-perfect human eye is proof it EVOLVED? I am not a Bible junkie! But a pure logic Philosopher and Home made Scientist. (1) Have you been blinded ever and lost eye sight by something too bright? So how much more sensitive do you want the human eye to be, from real complex, to nearly perfect and not so complex? (2) Do you know the ammount of information per second or minute processed by the BRAIN and provided by this imperfect Human Eye? For example: The eye is not static, as this would mean "FROZEN IMAGES", and has micro-movements constantly, so that your mind sees the next image immeadiatly in fractions of seconds! Otherwise there would be bigger time lapses! Also the human eye has a resolution of MILLIONS OF MEGA-PIXELS if not more. Also the INFINITY FOCUS is amazing up to the FOCAL DISTANCE! (3) Can you then design a organic better eye, that we do not need! Look for it in nature merely! Good luck with your low end non-intelligent LOGIC of Evolution! George - pure logic - gfthomson@yahoo.com - jointquest.com

This is from the web site that George linked to: "Evolution is the answer to the origin of the very imperfect, but very useful, human eye. Believers in Intelligent design are simply wrong." So, apparently, the article he cited disagrees with him. I can't tell for sure, since it isn't really clear what his problem is. But if he thinks that there is something wrong with evolution, he sure didn't demonstrate it.

Just Bob · 29 June 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Sorry Bob. Though I do have some books of Dembski, it was for understanding their reasoning and logic used.

Yo, Georgie, it's not Dembski you need to meet, but the guy named RAY (Martinez), who is participating (for lack of a better term) on the thread about Dembski (whose first name, BTW, is William).

Just Bob · 30 June 2016

Just Bob said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Sorry Bob. Though I do have some books of Dembski, it was for understanding their reasoning and logic used.
Yo, Georgie, it's not Dembski you need to meet, but the guy named RAY (Martinez), who is participating (for lack of a better term) on the thread about Dembski (whose first name, BTW, is William).

BTW, Georgie, if you have read "some books of Dembski", why would you think I was referring to Bill D. with the name "Ray"? Oh, but you didn't say you read them, did you? You just "have" them "for understanding their reasoning and logic used."

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 1 July 2016

Hi everybody!

I do not have to disprove EVOLUTION if they have not really proven it, and it is merely a Theory or worse Hypothesis...!

You see, the "TURING TEST" that shows clearly the difference between a "machine/computer/artificial intelligence", and it's "maker/designer/genetic/electronic Engineer", can be used for EVOLUTION!

Like, when you show me life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then I might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED!

EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...!

SO IS YOUR Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning...!

AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus!

SO PLEASE define to me EVOLUTION as different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...!

It simply amazes me, that you think I am not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...!

Dave Luckett · 1 July 2016

So, you don't know the difference between proof and evidence, you don't understand what the Turing test is, you can't tell the odds between the theory of evolution and the origin of life, and you think that no new life in a sterile vessel within a couple of months is the same as none on a planet in a billion years. And you say (I quote to savor the full rococo shambles of your prose):

AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus!

A truly stunning amalgam of incoherence and irrelevance. Biological evolution is the observed fact that living things reproduce with variation, that these variations are heritable, and that favorable variations are differentially selected by environment, causing those variations to prevail. It observes that these facts must necessarily cause speciation over time, which implies common descent. You appear to think that evolution is not to be distinguished from whatever mental construct you refer to as "MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...!" God knows what you mean by that. I very much doubt that you do. As for "Bible and Evolution freaks", you don't seem to realize that practically everyone either accepts evolution as fact, or if they don't, it's usually because of religion. As far as I can make out from your, er, prose, you're against both. What floats your particular boat? Little green men? Finally, I'm sure that you are amazed when others think you are "not as equal or more intelligent" than they. Me, I'm not amazed at it, because I understand the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up.

eric · 1 July 2016

Michael Fugate said: Hey George, you might want to clean your keyboard; the caps lock keeps getting stuck at random intervals.

Please ignore Michael; I'm quite amused by the creationist stylistic preference of using all caps at unnecessary moments. It's a handy reminder that the person I'm talking to has their thoughts stuck in the Victorian age.

DS · 1 July 2016

Hi George!

I do not have to prove EVOLUTION if you have not really disproven it, and it is a Theory not a Hypothesis...!

You see, the "TURING TEST" has absolutely nothing to do with EVOLUTION!

Like, if I showed you life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then you might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED!

EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...! Which once again has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Or did you think that no real biologist had ever heard of PASTEUR?

SO Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning to disprove it...!

AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus! Which also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

SO PLEASE define to me why you are using the term EVOLUTION as no different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...! You don't seem to know what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION actually states.

It simply amazes me, that you are not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...! They have a reason for their willful ignorance. What is your EXCUSE?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 3 July 2016

DS said: Hi George! I do not have to prove EVOLUTION if you have not really disproven it, and it is a Theory not a Hypothesis...! You see, the "TURING TEST" has absolutely nothing to do with EVOLUTION! Like, if I showed you life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then you might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED! EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...! Which once again has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Or did you think that no real biologist had ever heard of PASTEUR? SO Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning to disprove it...! AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus! Which also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. SO PLEASE define to me why you are using the term EVOLUTION as no different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...! You don't seem to know what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION actually states. It simply amazes me, that you are not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...! They have a reason for their willful ignorance. What is your EXCUSE?

Hi. Whatever your name is, if on paper or by custom, obviously you are saying I do not know what I am saying, which is completely wrong. What I doubt is if you really know what you are saying! So obviously whatever name you give it: Live has variance and limitations in reproduction! If you want to call it Biology Evolution, so be it! I do not know why a mere Theory, can only be the only one, when in pure logic, we have not published yet more theories! Now, the Turing Test proves many things not directly intended: (1) That is to this day humans cannot make life or much less another human, they are also having big issues with making an equal like humanoide machine! Meaning that we fall into disproving facts about Evolution of Origins. In other words, that what you cannot do yourself, how did "Mother Nature - Innanimate Mater - Non reasoning - Not even randomly or by Lotery" do it? (2) The Turing Test proves lack of intelligence of even Science Evolution! (3) The Turing Test proves, you need data, information, language, to be intelligent, and this barrier, questions Biology Evolution, of they understand this! (4) That as computer software has to be made, and there is no random process for this, so human language has and had a source, you wilfully ignore. And this source is none even known today! (5) Etc, etc, etc... Now Spontaneous Generation, is that something forms by itself, from a "gooo, soup, primordial junk", and comes to life by magic! Can you please elucidate more on your prose please? eÂ·luÂ·ciÂ·date ÄËloÍosÉËdÄt/ verb verb: elucidate; 3rd person present: elucidates; past tense: elucidated; past participle: elucidated; gerund or present participle: elucidating make (something) clear; explain. "work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter" synonyms: explain, make clear, illuminate, throw/shed light on, clarify, clear up, sort out, unravel, spell out... . . .

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 3 July 2016

minor editorial corrections:

DS said: Hi George! I do not have to prove EVOLUTION if you have not really disproven it, and it is a Theory not a Hypothesis...! You see, the "TURING TEST" has absolutely nothing to do with EVOLUTION! Like, if I showed you life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then you might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED! EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...! Which once again has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Or did you think that no real biologist had ever heard of PASTEUR? SO Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning to disprove it...! AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus! Which also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. SO PLEASE define to me why you are using the term EVOLUTION as no different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...! You don't seem to know what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION actually states. It simply amazes me, that you are not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...! They have a reason for their willful ignorance. What is your EXCUSE?

Hi. Whatever your name is, if on paper or by custom, obviously you are saying I do not know what I am saying, which is completely wrong. What I doubt is if you really know what you are saying! So obviously whatever name you give it: Live has variance and limitations in reproduction! If you want to call it Biology Evolution, so be it! I do not know why a mere Theory, can only be the only one, when in pure logic, we have not published yet more theories! Now, the Turing Test proves many things not directly intended: (1) That is to this day humans cannot make life or much less another human, they are also having big issues with making an equal like humanoid machine! Meaning that we fall into disproving facts about Evolution of Origins. In other words, that what you cannot do yourself, how did "Mother Nature - Inanimate Mater - Non reasoning - Not even randomly or by Lottery" do it? (2) The Turing Test proves lack of intelligence of even Science Evolution! (3) The Turing Test proves, you need data, information, language, to be intelligent, and this barrier, questions Biology Evolution, of if they really understand this? (4) That as computer software has to be made, and there is no random process for this, so human language has and had a source, you willfully ignore. And this source is none even known today! (5) Etc, etc, etc... Now Spontaneous Generation, is that something forms by itself, from a "gooo, soup, primordial junk", and comes to life by magic! Can you please elucidate more on your prose please? eÂ·luÂ·ciÂ·date ÄËloÍosÉËdÄt/ verb verb: elucidate; 3rd person present: elucidates; past tense: elucidated; past participle: elucidated; gerund or present participle: elucidating make (something) clear; explain. "work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter" synonyms: explain, make clear, illuminate, throw/shed light on, clarify, clear up, sort out, unravel, spell out... . . .

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 3 July 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: minor editorial corrections:
DS said: Hi George! I do not have to prove EVOLUTION if you have not really disproven it, and it is a Theory not a Hypothesis...! You see, the "TURING TEST" has absolutely nothing to do with EVOLUTION! Like, if I showed you life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then you might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED! EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...! Which once again has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Or did you think that no real biologist had ever heard of PASTEUR? SO Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning to disprove it...! AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus! Which also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. SO PLEASE define to me why you are using the term EVOLUTION as no different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...! You don't seem to know what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION actually states. It simply amazes me, that you are not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...! They have a reason for their willful ignorance. What is your EXCUSE?

DS said: Hi George! I do not have to prove EVOLUTION if you have not really disproven it, and it is a Theory not a Hypothesis...! You see, the "TURING TEST" has absolutely nothing to do with EVOLUTION! Like, if I showed you life forming by itself, or you make life in a LABORATORY, then you might consider EVOLUTION as a reality and not something IMAGINED! EQUALLY, to the TURING TEST, Pasteur proved that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (of Life) was wrong ans not true...! Which once again has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Or did you think that no real biologist had ever heard of PASTEUR? SO Evolution, the variance of life functioning today, or the whole story, where you fail at the beginning to disprove it...! AND BELIEVE me whoever was Jesus is dead, and the Jerusalem of today is more than 15 feet of rubble above the Jerusalem of a so called Jesus! Which also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. SO PLEASE define to me why you are using the term EVOLUTION as no different from MOTHER NATURE SPONTANEOUS Generation of "LIFE"...! You don't seem to know what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION actually states. It simply amazes me, that you are not as equal or more intelligent than these Bible and Evolution freaks...! They have a reason for their willful ignorance. What is your EXCUSE?
Hi. Whatever your name is, if on paper or by custom, obviously you are saying I do not know what I am saying, which is completely wrong. What I doubt is if you really know what you are saying! So obviously whatever name you give it: Live has variance and limitations in reproduction! If you want to call it Biology Evolution, so be it! I do not know why a mere Theory, can only be the only one, when in pure logic, we have not published yet more theories! Now, the Turing Test proves many things not directly intended: (1) That is to this day humans cannot make life or much less another human, they are also having big issues with making an equal like humanoid machine! Meaning that we fall into disproving facts about Evolution of Origins. In other words, that what you cannot do yourself, how did "Mother Nature - Inanimate Mater - Non reasoning - Not even randomly or by Lottery" do it? (2) The Turing Test proves lack of intelligence of even Science Evolution! (3) The Turing Test proves, you need data, information, language, to be intelligent, and this barrier, questions Biology Evolution, of if they really understand this? (4) That as computer software has to be made, and there is no random process for this, so human language has and had a source, you willfully ignore. And this source is none even known today! (5) Etc, etc, etc... Now Spontaneous Generation, is that something forms by itself, from a "gooo, soup, primordial junk", and comes to life by magic! Can you please elucidate more on your prose please? eÂ·luÂ·ciÂ·date ÄËloÍosÉËdÄt/ verb verb: elucidate; 3rd person present: elucidates; past tense: elucidated; past participle: elucidated; gerund or present participle: elucidating make (something) clear; explain. "work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter" synonyms: explain, make clear, illuminate, throw/shed light on, clarify, clear up, sort out, unravel, spell out... . . .

So yes, Jesus if he ever was, was buried in rubble quite deep, and nobody really found anything to prove his existence other than writings, that many of the Scrolls from the dead sea tell another story, Like the Gospel of Mary or Mary Magdalene! Wah, waaaa, waaaaaaaa...! Ker_blunk! . . .

DS · 3 July 2016

Hi. Whatever your name is, if on paper or by custom, obviously you are saying I do not know what I am saying, which is completely wrong. What I doubt is if you really know what you are saying! So obviously whatever name you give it: Live has variance and limitations in reproduction! If you want to call it Biology Evolution, so be it! I do not know why a mere Theory, can only be the only one, when in pure logic, we have not published yet more theories! Now, the Turing Test proves many things not directly intended: (1) That is to this day humans cannot make life or much less another human, they are also having big issues with making an equal like humanoid machine! Meaning that we fall into disproving facts about Evolution of Origins. In other words, that what you cannot do yourself, how did "Mother Nature - Inanimate Mater - Non reasoning - Not even randomly or by Lottery" do it? (2) The Turing Test proves lack of intelligence of even Science Evolution! (3) The Turing Test proves, you need data, information, language, to be intelligent, and this barrier, questions Biology Evolution, of if they really understand this? (4) That as computer software has to be made, and there is no random process for this, so human language has and had a source, you willfully ignore. And this source is none even known today! (5) Etc, etc, etc... Now Spontaneous Generation, is that something forms by itself, from a "gooo, soup, primordial junk", and comes to life by magic! Can you please elucidate more on your prose please? eÂ·luÂ·ciÂ·date ÄËloÍosÉËdÄt/ verb verb: elucidate; 3rd person present: elucidates; past tense: elucidated; past participle: elucidated; gerund or present participle: elucidating make (something) clear; explain. "work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter" synonyms: explain, make clear, illuminate, throw/shed light on, clarify, clear up, sort out, unravel, spell out... .

Hi George (if that is your real name). Yes, I am saying that you do not know what you are saying. Neither do I. NEither does anyone else. Look up the definition of evolution if you want to know what it is. And yes, evolution is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. Now if you have evidence for any other hypothesis, it could become a theory eventually. But it will have to explain all of the available evidence better than the theory of evolution. Good luck with that. As for the turing test, nature has done many things that I cannot do myself. That in no way implies that a designer was required. And no, no intelligence is required in order for evolution to function properly, No more than it is required for molecules to diffuse from a higher to a lower concentration. You seem to be suffering under some misconceptions. I would advise you to increase your knowledge. Now if you have an alternative to evolution you would like to present evidence for, bring it on. Until then, please refrain from criticizing that which you obviously do not understand.

Matt Young · 3 July 2016

Future comments by Mr. 813f will be sent to the BW as soon as I see them. He may comment once on future threads of which I am the author; subsequent comments will most likely be sent to the BW.

Just Bob · 3 July 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Hi. Whatever your name is, if on paper or by custom, obviously you are saying I do not know what I am saying, which is completely wrong. [snipped the rest so it's not copied here yet again

George, old pal, here's some very useful advice that I used to give my high school English students: Before you turn it in (or hit 'Submit'), read it out loud. Try that with that whole post, even the "edited" version.

Alan Rice · 3 July 2016

Matt, I tried submitting photos to: thousandwords@pandasthumb.org
and received an error from my email program. I sent them to your personal email address instead, I hope that was OK.

-AR

Matt Young · 4 July 2016

I sent them to your personal email address instead,

Yes, that is fine, and I have already logged them in. You are the second person who said that submissions to "thousandwords" failed; I will notify the webmaster again, but when we tried it before, it worked. Marvels of modern computer technology!

Matt Young · 4 July 2016

Oh dearie me. I have tried to send a test e-mail to thousandwords myself, and the e-mail was not forwarded to me. It did not bounce back, so it may be in the system somewhere, but the deadline looms. Please send any late submissions to me at theopticist at-sign gmail.com.