Amen... wish I knew this before tossing a mirror and spattering up a lens or two. And you'd think I'd known better, I used to work in lens manufacture.

I live in California and we have had a few things happen to very good camera/equipment due to excess heat.

The lens can got what looks like little tree sap spots on them, behind the uv filter and on the lens components. This is due to the lubricants within a zoom heating up and gassing off or migrating a bit and collecting on the surface of the lenses.

Also on a Canon 5d the mirror heated up, one time too many and got so weak that during a wedding shoot it finally weakened and snapped off when flipping back and forth.

Thankfully the camera was still under warranty and as well there was a back up camera body and lenses.

This was despite their being stored in a very expensive pelican photocase.

It might be what you personally feel is science, for instance I do not agree with various theories, but that does not discredit them as sciences. For instance what some has said respecting creationism, I do not agree with, since it is out of harmony with the Bible, but they are still sciences... What you are proposing, the theory of evolution, I do not agree with, but, that does not mean it is not a scientific discipline either.

The definition is as follows : sci·ence   

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Yes that is one of them.

But, in it's original raw form it was notshiny, but very rough and a bit longer and had two electrodes one on each end.

The electrodes were about 3/4 to a bt over 1 inch wide and maybe two inches long [dunno, I am going on memory] and a little longer than the one in the picture.

Bell labs was inside the Western Electric plant on route 125 in Andover MASS. It was a very big place. Their security was very tight then.

I was in and out of there often years ago. Thanks for sharing the picture.

Western Electric really over worked it's Bell Labs people... so much so, that they bought out the controlling interest in Baldpate Mental institution since their people were always having nervous breakdowns.

That was a walk down memory lane... thank you

Glenn

I'll try...


Now you have me curious, Glenn. What is the Jehovah's Witness position on evolution? (We try to go according to what the Bible says, at times we get it wrong, but, when we do mess up, we own up and change course, to reflect, once again as best as we can what the bible says. I have already stated why it could not have been according to the ‘young earth’ ideas put out by many so called fundamentalist creationist, earlier) It seems the majority of those cited are JWs. (I have talked with many in the science community some of whom are witnesses and some who are not. Many times a person will not come out publically, since he may have his funding severed. Myself, I do not see where science, that is known science, and not just ‘I suppose’s and the bible are at odds with each other, as best as I can see known science is in harmony with what the Bible says… however, the Bible was never intended to be a science book, but, where it touches on science it is in harmony. For instance in Isaiah it mentions; ‘Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he being abundant in power, he being vigorous in power not one of them is missing… speaking of the universe. )

The arguments are not very compelling since they all seem to be arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. ( I am using these instead of what I normally use, brackets, since I think brackets might mess with this web sites software)

Meadows and his "Everything I Observe Has a Cause” is interesting. As a physicist I would have thought he'd be aware that causality has been kicked out the window when quantum theory came through the door. What is the cause of a particular radioactive particle decaying? (Too me, it would seem that radioactive decay would be just that, radioactive decay… It seems to me that this would argue against the concept of the ‘young earth’ thesis though, case in point the half-life of uranium into lead… for us to have any lead would seem to indicate to me that this earth has been around for a very long long time.)
We can measure the half-life and know that half the particles will have decayed during that interval, but, as yet, no one can tell you why one particle decayed and another didn't. It is a thing we can observe that doesn't have a cause.
(dunno)

Time's arrow does not exist in the quantum world and a Feynman diagram of particle interactions can be viewed non-temporally. Reaction A can be considered as reaction B if A is moving backwards in time. From the Wiki on Feynman Diagrams:
Quote:
Feynman diagrams are a pictorial representation of a contribution to the total amplitude for a process which can happen in several different ways. When a group of incoming particles are to scatter off each other, the process can be thought of as one where the particles travel over all possible paths, including paths that go backward in time.


Other examples include the electron. An electron, after absorbing a photon jumps to a higher energy state (case in point we have the LED… electronic covalence is interesting to me as well).
It will eventually emit a photon and drop back to the lower energy state. When it will do so can be given through probabilities but no one can say when this will happen to a particular electron. (wouldn’t it be grand if one day could do so… think of the size of computers then.)

(I remember when my ET instructor when expounding on the virtues of the old tube diodes, made the statement that transistors were really neat but, would never be of any real good use in real life, but, look at what science has been able to accomplish since the 1960’s. A friend of mine Nick Rowe, one of the engineers of Bell Labs, in North Andover MA was one of the ones who discovered how to grow man made quartz by means of the proper chemicals coupled together with a couple of eletrodes, and look at what we are able to do now, since that advent, he was a witness, a very intelligent sensitive man. Now look at what we are able to do with the advent of chemically relative pure quartz, lacking the impure striations of mined quartz. Nick knew many who worked with him who were hesitant to truthfully speak their minds since the research grants would mysteriously dry up in punishment for taking a stand on believing in a creator rather than blind chance.)

(To me the concept of time is a very intriguing one… Time seems, to me, to have been created, in concert with the material universe… everything we see or hear or interact with is governed in part with it’s interaction with time. The space time continuum is weird since time is the fourth dimension, as opposed to the three dimensions of space. Time does weird quirky things, in my mind, any way.)

Here are some articles written by acredited scientist, who are highly respected within their fields that show that there are intelligent scientists who are willing to stand up to the ridicule and insults that are at times heaped upon those who dare to challenge the status quo.

Here are some brief articles written by Scientist who choose to believe in the creation rather than the theory of evolution

Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some are not. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? You may find their comments interesting.

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”
▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.
The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.
“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS
PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”
▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA
PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”
▪ PAULA KINCHELOE
PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”
▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS
PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs.

However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

This conversation was beginning to look as though it was just an excuse to debate and I do not wish to enter into endless debatings.

But, I claim to be christian, and the concept of a hellfire doctrine appalls me.

When I was very young, to be honest, it used to frighten me, that is until I started letting the Bible dictate what the Bible says rather than the traditions of man, even though they might claim to be Christian. ie Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, for instance...

If we wish to be called Christian We should advocate what the Bible says and not the dictates and traditions of men.

The Bible does not advocate the hellfire roast - toast - sizzle - fry concept... I was raised with the hellfire and brimstone philosophy and am so very grateful to learn, from the Bible, that God has not originated this fiendish concept.

If you want to see where this concept came from do a little research and you will see that the word 'hell' in the Bible is taken from the Hebrew word 'sheol', which basically means the common grave of mankind not a burning place of eternal torment. Look it up for yourself.

God put life and death before mankind, not eternal torment for disobedience...

To get a true idea of what the Bible says of God's viewpoint on the roast - toast - sizzle - fry theology, we should let the Bible dictate what the Bible says and not tradition ladened religions, even though they may claim to be Christian.

Look up : Jeremiah 32:34,35/ The concept of burning people in hell for ever is not a true 'Bible doctrine. It is a doctrine created by men to enslave people in fear to obey the dictates of men.

(Jeremiah 32:34, 35) . . .And they (that is the very people who claimed to be worshipping God) went putting their disgusting things in the house upon which my own name has been called, in order to defile it. 35 Furthermore, they built the high places of Ba′al that are in the valley of the son of Hin′nom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] to Mo′lech, a thing that I did not command them, neither did it come up into my heart to do this detestable thing,

Eccles 9:5, 10.... 5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all,

What good would it do God,that is, if he were fiendish enough, to roast someone forever if the individual was not even conscious that he was sufferring?

I hope this does not offend anyone.

2 timothy 3:1 - 5

I totally agree with you on this, but, I have read of arguments to the contrary. To me, it would makes as much sense to ascribe fire to be a living entity. And I am sure both of agree fire is not, it is nothing but, rapid oxidation, in most cases.

Hey, we agree on something

I have read with regard to virus, and virion, that

some have dna mostly animal targeted virion.

Some have rna, mostly plant activated virion.

and some have both,

and some start out with rna and then when transistioning from a virion to an active virus.convert to having dna. I am not sure but, I think this what the HIV virus does.

This is an interesting subject to me. I took a lot of life sciences and biology when going to school as this is one of my favorite subjects.

And yes, I was taught by teachers and professors who ascribed to and taught the theory of evolution to bring this subject back full circle, I just happen to disagree with them on this for reasons already stated.

As it has been quoted by Einstein (This time with reference to quantum mechanics) ... an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He (that is God)does not throw dice. in a letter to Max Born (4 December 1926)...

Einstein said variants of this quote many times during his life. In 1943, for instance, conversation with William Hermanns he said once again; "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."

This kind of summarizes my thoughts as to evolution.

Nature tends to go from order to disorder and not the other way around. Entropy;

I think it would be far more likely for an explosion in a printing factory to create an up to date encyclopedia than for all the complexities of know life to have merely come about by chance. And to top this off for the varied life forms to be able to reproduce so as to propagate their different 'kinds' successfully.

There are many posits regarding chaos, heat and energy losses, entropy and etc, to justify what I am saying.

Case in point, there are vast deposits of lead which is the result of uranium, half lifing itself, depleting itself over probably millions of years. This argues successfully for the earth being a lot older than a few thousands of years.

Does uranium to lead argue against creation? According to the Bible?

No way, since the Bible starts off the creation process, prior to the 6 'days' or 6 time periods, by saying the heavens and the earth were already existing in Gen 1: "In the beginning (that is before the start of these creative days) God created the heavens and the earth..." and then it goes onto describe the 6 time periods many mistakenly conclude as being 6 literal 24 hour days. In Genesis 2:4; . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. Here those creative days or time periods are spoken of as being done in one day, not plural as in days. So the word day in the Bible is here used as we sometimes use in English "In my day... this or that"

What is considered alive? Crystals can be grown. Some could almost equally ask; are crystals alive? they grow and replicate themselves.

That question is a good one...


You tell me. I don’t know too much about them but to continue to ask more questions.

They have been described as a 'living organism’ lacking even the basic cellular structure.

It has been said that a virus lies in a total ‘lifeless state’ until it is around a favorable cellular host then the ‘virion’ is able to replicate itself using the host’s metabolism.

They lack even the most basic of structure which most characterize as life. They are acellular. In order for a virus to replicate it must successful react and hi-jack the proper host cell to replicate itself.
Some have felt that they are a more complex biochemical mechanism than ‘living organism’ and some do not.

"Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant for long periods of time or as some would say ‘non living’, nothing more than a mere static ‘organic’ particle many refer to as a ‘virion’.

However when a virion comes into contact with a suitable host, even though not a ‘living organism’ it displays the characteristics of what some characterize as a ‘living entity’.

The debate as to whether or not they are a living structure continues.

At times they display life like properties, and at times it doesn’t. You tell me, I don’t have the where-with-all to answer this one.

This about the cloned sheep named Dolly. The article does not show that they created anything. cloned not created. There is a big difference between cloning, and lab controlled gene splicing and creating. So, far, even after looking up your article on the cloned sheep, I still have not seen any proof that man has 'created life'.

Amen! I can say faith... Hebrews 11:1 says; faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. This I wholeheartedly believe

In reality men have not created animals in the laboratory, they have taken already existing snippets of life and tweaked them. There is a big diference between creating life and using life to produce or alter life