|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2008 05:53:47 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Please, can this thread be locked as it has become a mission for one or two members. Let's get back to photography!
|
There's no need to try to tell other people what to do, if they want to stop, they'll stop posting and the thread will die a natural death.
If you're done here, you can just use the "ignore thread" function and it will disappear for you.
In fact, if you would like to "get back to photography", you can simply turn off the rant section of the forums. |
Woah! Who rattled your cage??
I was hoping for a sensible discusion, but that doesn't seem likely.
Message edited by author 2008-08-28 17:54:49. |
|
|
|
08/28/2008 06:02:14 PM · #352 |
| Science and Beliefs are of the same nature until someone proves otherwise. Neither is without change. What holds true today may be wrong tomorrow. As far as six senses go I believe there are things I cannot explain that happen all around me. I believe others have the same experience. Does it make it supernatural? Hmmm I guess so if the standard is I cannot explain what just occured. It is like seeing a good majic trick with no smoke and mirrors but you cannot explain it outright. You know there is a trick in there somewhere, but you cannot explain it. So everyone go on believing in Ms. Cloe and pray to what ever God/s you believe in or don't. except science for what it is until the next scientist proves that to be wrong. And Jeb go shoot some pictures... |
|
|
|
08/28/2008 08:49:00 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Please, can this thread be locked as it has become a mission for one or two members. Let's get back to photography!
|
There's no need to try to tell other people what to do, if they want to stop, they'll stop posting and the thread will die a natural death.
If you're done here, you can just use the "ignore thread" function and it will disappear for you.
In fact, if you would like to "get back to photography", you can simply turn off the rant section of the forums. |
Woah! Who rattled your cage??
I was hoping for a sensible discusion, but that doesn't seem likely. |
You did.
Simply because you think the thread is over, there's no need to call for the discussion to be terminated. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 05:31:43 AM · #354 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Science and Beliefs are of the same nature until someone proves otherwise. Neither is without change. |
You seem to have a very flawed understanding of science.
Science is a process that allows us to obtain reliable information about how the world works. Scientific results are based on evidence, they can be reproduced, they can be tested, they have predictive power.
Yes, scientific theories are refined from time to time as we discover new phenomena. However, this does not mean that previous theories were completely wrong, but just that they didn't quite account for every possible case.
Science has been extremely successful. If scientific theories were wrong, you wouldn't be able to read this. You wouldn't be able to take pictures with you camera and upload them to the Internet (this process requires numerous scientific theories from various fields, if just one of them were incorrect, it wouldn't work). You couldn't drive a car. Your fridge wouldn't keep your groceries fresh. You couldn't fly in a plane. etc. etc. etc.
Beliefs are of a completely different nature and quality. They are mere guesses. They are not based on any evidence. And they can turn out to be completely wrong.
Think about it: Would you rather fly in a plane that was built with the knowledge of decades of scientific research and that was carefully tested or one that some inventor built in his back yard, never tested, but says "I firmly believe it'll fly."?
Originally posted by coronamv:
As far as six senses go I believe there are things I cannot explain that happen all around me. I believe others have the same experience. Does it make it supernatural? Hmmm I guess so if the standard is I cannot explain what just occured. It is like seeing a good majic trick with no smoke and mirrors but you cannot explain it outright. You know there is a trick in there somewhere, but you cannot explain it. |
When you see a magic trick you don't understand, you have three basic choices of what to think of it:
- "I have no idea how he did that. Maybe one day I'll find out."
- "This must have been a trick, there must be a natural explanation for this."
- "This guy must have supernatural powers or paranormal forces are at work."
The first is sort of the agnostic position. The second is a reasonable position based on the evidence; there is zero evidence for supernatural powers and a lot of evidence of clever magic tricks that give the appearance of something extraordinary. So it's very likely that it was also a trick in this case. The third position is quite a stretch. I don't see any reason to prefer it over the first two. But some of you obviously do. I'd like to understand your reasoning, but nobody has provided any insight into it so far. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 05:39:25 AM · #355 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Beliefs are of a completely different nature and quality. They are mere guesses. They are not based on any evidence. And they can turn out to be completely wrong.
Think about it: Would you rather fly in a plane that was built with the knowledge of decades of scientific research and that was carefully tested or one that some inventor built in his back yard, never tested, but says "I firmly believe it'll fly."? |
some people believed in god. i wish you are wrong, for the sake of those people.
these people always say, "i firmly believe in god" |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 05:42:35 AM · #356 |
Originally posted by crayon:
some people believed in god. i wish you are wrong, for the sake of those people.
these people always say, "i firmly believe in god" |
Yes, and this is also a guess lacking any evidence. And most of them cannot be right based on simple logic. At most one religious sect can be right about god, because they all have contradicting views.
But let's please not turn this into a discussion about religion, thanks. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 05:45:00 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Thanks for sharing, togtog. that's an interesting story. |
You are welcome.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Thanks for sharing, Tog. I don't doubt your story. The question is whether
- it was simply a lucky coincidence
- you somehow felt the danger (with an effect like the one described in the article  BeeCee linked to)
- paranormal forces were at work.
We'll probably never know.
Please also note the following: If the truck had hit you and you had been killed, you wouldn't be around to tell us about the experience. It's a simple fact that those who listened to their "sixth sense" and got killed, those who prayed to their gods and got killed and those who tried miracle cures who killed them are not around to tell us about it. So we only hear the good stories. ;-) |
Ah, but what about those who listened to their "sixth sense", etc. and were merely injured or made fools of? It is unfair to assume only two extremes; either life or death. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 05:54:05 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Beliefs are of a completely different nature and quality. They are mere guesses. They are not based on any evidence. And they can turn out to be completely wrong.
Think about it: Would you rather fly in a plane that was built with the knowledge of decades of scientific research and that was carefully tested or one that some inventor built in his back yard, never tested, but says "I firmly believe it'll fly."? |
some people believed in god. i wish you are wrong, for the sake of those people.
these people always say, "i firmly believe in god" |
Yes, and this is also a guess lacking any evidence. And most of them cannot be right based on simple logic. At most one religious sect can be right about god, because they all have contradicting views.
But let's please not turn this into a discussion about religion, thanks. |
you like logic, so i'm giving you a logic-based example here. and at the moment, i'm using religion as an example. please don't avoid it with the excuse of "oh-religion-is-so-holy-we-should-not-talk-about-it" because you and i know that it related directly to what we are discussing. if you can so easily dismiss sixth sense because you claim they cant be proven by evidence and science, then so is religion. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 06:11:26 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
You seem to have a very flawed understanding of science.
Science is a process that allows us to obtain reliable information about how the world works. Scientific results are based on evidence, they can be reproduced, they can be tested, they have predictive power.
Yes, scientific theories are refined from time to time as we discover new phenomena. However, this does not mean that previous theories were completely wrong, but just that they didn't quite account for every possible case. |
This is what just drives me up the wall and exasperates me about you.
I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but I just keep hoping that maybe you'll get a clue.
You make these finite and ridiculous statements.
Let's take some prior facts, shall we?
The world is flat.
The sun and stars revolve around the earth.
Man will never break the speed of sound.
You cannot transplant a human heart.
Man will never walk on the moon.
People like Edison, Da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Columbus, Barnard are famous and noteworthy because they did exactly what you said doesn't happen. They completely and totally disproved what the scientific community held as fact.
Oh, and also, most of the scientists back in the day had religious roots as well as being the great thinkers and scientists of their time.
A list of somewhat well-known scientists with strong ties to the church.
There's been exhaustive debate about the coexistence of science and theology in other threads here on DPC......you really have to watch yourself when making concrete, and patently false statements.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 06:16:35 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by crayon:
you like logic, so i'm giving you a logic-based example here. and at the moment, i'm using religion as an example. please don't avoid it with the excuse of "oh-religion-is-so-holy-we-should-not-talk-about-it" because you and i know that it related directly to what we are discussing. if you can so easily dismiss sixth sense because you claim they cant be proven by evidence and science, then so is religion. |
I agree with you.
However, some religious ideas are purposefully defined in such a way that they could not possibly be tested. This is not the case for most paranormal phenomena. As I've said many times before, a skill like telepathy could be tested extremely easily.
However, you are right that beliefs in a sixth sense, in a god or several gods, in new-age quackery, miracle cures, Santa, abductions by extraterrestrials, dowsing or any other paranormal phenomena lacking any evidence are of a different quality than scientific theories based on evidence, that can be tested and produce consistent results. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 06:30:48 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Let's take some prior facts, shall we?
The world is flat.
The sun and stars revolve around the earth.
Man will never break the speed of sound.
You cannot transplant a human heart.
Man will never walk on the moon.
|
None of these are scientific results. The first is an assumption that lacked any evidence (yes, it may have felt like it was flat, but that's not scientific evidence). The second is again an assumption, not a scientific result. The third is a prediction, a guess, also not based on evidence. The fourth is also a guess, not based on any evidence. So is the last one.
None of your examples are scientific ones. You don't seem to understand what science is. The scientific method is relatively young and has been, as I stated before, extremely successful.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
People like Edison, Da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Columbus, Barnard are famous and noteworthy because they did exactly what you said doesn't happen. They completely and totally disproved what the scientific community held as fact. |
No, they began to do proper science instead of relying on gut feelings and claims from old books. They replaced myths and guesses by reliable knowledge obtained through science.
All your examples actually show the value of science and evidence.
And yes, in ancient times many great thinkers were involved in several domains that we today assign to science and the humanities. Nowadays science has advanced so far and has become so specialized that it has become difficult for one person to understand all of it. Please note that those ancient thinkers made their discoveries in spite of their religious faith and not because of it. Many struggled with the fact that their discoveries contradicted religious doctrine.
Message edited by author 2008-08-29 06:47:31. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 07:26:29 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
None of these are scientific results. The first is an assumption that lacked any evidence (yes, it may have felt like it was flat, but that's not scientific evidence). The second is again an assumption, not a scientific result. The third is a prediction, a guess, also not based on evidence. The fourth is also a guess, not based on any evidence. So is the last one.
None of your examples are scientific ones. You don't seem to understand what science is. The scientific method is relatively young and has been, as I stated before, extremely successful. |
No, you don't have any grasp of what life is all about.
By today's standards, the facts of yesterday seem ludicrous......that's exactly my point.
It's easy to Monday morning quarterback.....not so easy to stomach the fact that things are in a constant state of flux.
You do not seem to be able to grasp that basic concept. Your dogmatic clinging to the finite "scientific method" is an example of your own fear of the unknown....science by its own definition is in a constant state of change, research, and correlation of existing theories as well as offering up new possibilites and knowledge that was unheard of yesterday.
You'll learn these things as soon as you get over the idea that you have all the answers.
Oh, and your presumption, as seems to be a really bad habit of yours, that I don't understand science is just laughable.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Please note that those ancient thinkers made their discoveries in spite of their religious faith and not because of it. Many struggled with the fact that their discoveries contradicted religious doctrine. |
Umm.....DUH!!!
That was my point.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 08:53:10 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
By today's standards, the facts of yesterday seem ludicrous......that's exactly my point. Oh, and your presumption, as seems to be a really bad habit of yours, that I don't understand science is just laughable. |
Sorry Jeb, but your examples do suggest a basic lack of scientific understanding. None of them were scientific facts. They were "common knowledge" based upon long held philosophical or religious assumptions since overturned by actual science.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You do not seem to be able to grasp that basic concept. Your dogmatic clinging to the finite "scientific method" is an example of your own fear of the unknown....science by its own definition is in a constant state of change, research, and correlation of existing theories as well as offering up new possibilites and knowledge that was unheard of yesterday.
You'll learn these things as soon as you get over the idea that you have all the answers. |
He never said he had all the answers, and scientific method is more likely the exact opposite of fear of the unknown. Its very purpose is to make the unknown known, and your use of "dogma" and "constant state of change" in the same sentence is a direct contradiction. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:24:33 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sorry Jeb, but your examples do suggest a basic lack of scientific understanding. None of them were scientific facts. They were "common knowledge" based upon long held philosophical or religious assumptions since overturned by actual science. |
Okay, you're right......a heart transplant is not scientific fact, it's common knowledge to me. Having not done one, I am ill equipped to make the statement that it's scientific fact.
I am merely trying to point out that about every time you think something is etched in stone, someone comes along with a reasonable, and possible alternate explanation.
Originally posted by scalvert:
He never said he had all the answers, and scientific method is more likely the exact opposite of fear of the unknown. Its very purpose is to make the unknown known, and your use of "dogma" and "constant state of change" in the same sentence is a direct contradiction. |
The way he represents himself, in my view, is that he DOES have all the answers and is unwilling to consider any other possibilities.
I said that HIS opinions seem to be dogmatic, and that in MY opinion, science seems to be in a constant state of change as more and more is discovered.
I don't see that as a contradiction.
Message edited by author 2008-08-29 09:33:02.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:37:02 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I am merely trying to point out that about every time you think something is etched in stone, someone comes along with a reasonable, and possible alternate explanation. |
and he's trying to make the point, reinforced by your own examples, that reasonable explanations tend to be pedestrian physics and chemistry overturning philosophical or religious assumptions etched in stone by indoctrinated belief rather than any actual evidence. There are countless examples of supernatural beliefs that turned out to have perfectly natural, rational explanations, but not one process demonstrated to be actually supernatural. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:38:21 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
You seem to have a very flawed understanding of science.
Science is a process that allows us to obtain reliable information about how the world works. Scientific results are based on evidence, they can be reproduced, they can be tested, they have predictive power.
Yes, scientific theories are refined from time to time as we discover new phenomena. However, this does not mean that previous theories were completely wrong, but just that they didn't quite account for every possible case. |
This is what just drives me up the wall and exasperates me about you.
I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but I just keep hoping that maybe you'll get a clue.
|
What on earth could you be talking about? There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of what you've quoted. Nothing. The first paragraph may look like a value judgement to anyone eager to be offended, but it is in fact a fair assessment of the atrocious understanding that would lead someone to say something as ludicrous as, "Science and belief are synonyms." The two paragraphs following are perfect textbook descriptions of what science is.
What on earth could anyone be offended by in this? |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:44:14 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You do not seem to be able to grasp that basic concept. Your dogmatic clinging to the finite "scientific method" is an example of your own fear of the unknown....science by its own definition is in a constant state of change, research, and correlation of existing theories as well as offering up new possibilites and knowledge that was unheard of yesterday. |
Your first two sentences contradict the rest. In fact, Sam defined science in precisely this way, and you have here apparently attacked him for it because he managed to make your argument regarding pre-method mistakes in "science" look weak.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You'll learn these things as soon as you get over the idea that you have all the answers. |
It is because he doesn't have all the answers that he engages in these dicussions (though he has a few more answers concerning what science really is than many people here). Your paternalistic, been-around-the-block ad hominems do not add to your credibility.
Message edited by author 2008-08-29 09:44:56. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:49:10 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It is because he doesn't have all the answers that he engages in these dicussions (though he has a few more answers concerning what science really is than many people here). Your paternalistic, been-around-the-block ad hominems do not add to your credibility. |
Yet he speaks as if he does, NOT as if he's interested in entertaining any other possibilities.
My "paternalistic, been-around-the-block ad hominems" I use to, hopefully, point out that despite experience, and an inquisitive nature, the time and experuience has led me to understand how much I do NOT know.
Do you get that?
Is that clear enough for you?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 09:53:10 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Louis:
It is because he doesn't have all the answers that he engages in these dicussions (though he has a few more answers concerning what science really is than many people here). Your paternalistic, been-around-the-block ad hominems do not add to your credibility. |
Yet he speaks as if he does, NOT as if he's interested in entertaining any other possibilities. |
Really? Maybe you can paste an example. So far, it seems to me he's offered up a lot of facts about what science is and what beliefs are, how to distinguish between the two, and the woeful lack of understanding that many people have of even the most basic principles of science. What are some examples of how he "speaks as if he has all the answers"?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you get that?
Is that clear enough for you? |
You may also wish to forego the baiting, as it makes you appear purposelessly aggressive.
edit quote fix
Message edited by author 2008-08-29 09:54:15. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:03:28 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My "paternalistic, been-around-the-block ad hominems" I use to, hopefully, point out that despite experience, and an inquisitive nature, the time and experuience has led me to understand how much I do NOT know. |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Science is accused on the one hand of "claiming to know all the answers," and on the other hand of "denying anything that it can't explain." Setting aside the contradiction, this is a mischaracterization of the way science -- and by extension scientific thinking, that is, skeptical, evidence-based thinking -- works.
Science does not claim to "know." Science is about asking the questions "why?" and "how?". Science is actually quite comfortable with "no current explanation." That is where science starts - you find a phenomenon that you aren't sure how or why it occurs (or perhaps even if it occurs) and then you investigate, gather evidence, and see if you can come to any conclusions. If you do develop a theory, others will test it and see if its correct. Perhaps they will come up with their own competing theory which is better (meaning, better fits the available evidence). If your theory holds water it will stand, but won't ever remain completely unquestioned - any new contradictory evidence that comes along may result in your theory being superseded or replaced. This is how careers are made in science. There is no dogma, there are no sacred theories. |
Very well said. |
You both agree that there's much you don't know. You only differ in your willingness to attribute the unknown to supernatural causes, which is not a function of age.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:15:36 AM · #371 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You may also wish to forego the baiting, as it makes you appear purposelessly aggressive. |
Louis, that's your take on it, and your opinion.
My perception of you is remarkably similar as the recipient of your barbed comments over a long period of time.
If you're going to paraphrase my comments in an intentionally bad light, yes, I'm going to lash out in return.
If you want me to stop getting pissed off and calling you a dick, quit provoking me.
In my experience, you seem to like to take what people say and take a negative, and uncharitable as possible spin on it. You're really good at it, too.
I am not a mean or nasty person by nature, yet every time I get in a thread where you're involved, you seem to take some sort of mean pleasure in trying to make me look stupid or pigheaded.
That's not hard to do if you constantly look for the possible negative connotation of everything......I just don't.
I also am not a pessimistic or fatalistic person by nature, so the seemingly dark side of what I say that can be interpreted never occurs to me.
Yet you seem to take great pleasure in trying to extract that kind of bent.
You're quicker, and have a lot more linear thought processes than I, and you seem to spend a lot of time dissecting every possibility so that you can.......I don't know what it is that makes you go down that road.
But you'll always be able to make me appear foolish if that's where you're going.
The only thing I wonder is why you seemingly take such enjoyment at looking at the dark side of everything.
I *HAVE* to stop getting wrapped up in these discussions.
It reallly appears that I don't add much.
My apologies.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:34:13 AM · #372 |
 NikonJeb, you mentioned the examples of Galileo, Einstein and others (Darwin could also be put in the list).
What happened in those cases was the following: People made assumptions based on their experiences or they accepted unfounded dogmas. They saw the stars and the sun move and assumed the earth was fix and the other objects moved around it. They didn't do any research. They didn't formulate any theories. They didn't look for evidence. They didn't make measurements. They didn't compare several possible explanations. They simply "felt" their explanation was right and refused to challenge it.
Along came some proper scientists. What did they do? They didn't claim to have all the answers. On the contrary, they admitted that they didn't have clear answers. So they went looking for them. Using the scientific method. Looking for evidence. Making measurements. Testing their theory. And this way they obtained reliable knowledge about how the world works. Knowledge that can now be used to accurately predict a solar eclipse, for example. Knowledge that is used to give us such wonderful things as the Internet, digital cameras, cell phones, airplanes etc. And no, we won't find out tomorrow that all of this knowledge is wrong and our cameras and cell phones will stop working.
As in the case of Einstein, we might figure out that certain theories only apply to a limited range of situations and that under special circumstances refined models are more accurate. Yes, science is refined from time to time. But there's not a back and forth between contradicting theories.
Back to our discussion about the sixth sense: Your position is similar to those of most people at the time of Galileo, for instance. You simply feel that certain phenomena are likely to be of supernatural origin. You don't do any research. You don't formulate any theories. You don't look for evidence. You don't even explain why you consider supernatural causes to be more likely than others.
I'm taking an approach more like Galileo's. I don't claim to know what was responsible for your experiences. But I would like to do some research, look for evidence, formulate theories, etc. before drawing any conclusions.
Your examples are good ones that illustrate the issue well, but they support my position... |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:38:18 AM · #373 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you're going to paraphrase my comments in an intentionally bad light, yes, I'm going to lash out in return. |
Instead of making vague and general accusations, you could provide us with a few examples where you feel [user]Louis[/user] unfairly paraphrased one of your comments. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:40:07 AM · #374 |
From my persepctive, your trouble, Jeb, is that you find it impossible to separate the opinions you have from a rational discussion about them. You emote about your opinions as though they were inviolate. This causes you to see absolutely no problem in calling Sam intractable, or calling me a pathological baiter, or a dick, or any number of other childish insults.
Your opinions, and everybody else's, are not inviolate. If you discuss them, they will be discussed. They may even be torn apart and made to look foolish. This has nothing to do with you, irrespective of your inability to see that. Sam doesn't know you, I don't know you, and neither of us cares enough about you to go following you around here making your life miserable. Come on.
This is actually very timely. At the risk of making you even angrier, you may be interested in a blog article I wrote in the wee hours of this morning. Here it is. |
|
|
|
08/29/2008 10:48:51 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by Louis:
From my persepctive, your trouble, Jeb, is that you find it impossible to separate the opinions you have from a rational discussion about them. You emote about your opinions as though they were inviolate. This causes you to see absolutely no problem in calling Sam intractable, or calling me a pathological baiter, or a dick, or any number of other childish insults.
Your opinions, and everybody else's, are not inviolate. If you discuss them, they will be discussed. They may even be torn apart and made to look foolish. This has nothing to do with you, irrespective of your inability to see that. Sam doesn't know you, I don't know you, and neither of us cares enough about you to go following you around here making your life miserable. Come on.
This is actually very timely. At the risk of making you even angrier, you may be interested in a blog article I wrote in the wee hours of this morning. Here it is. |
Since you've brought up your blog, it seems reasonable to me to quote an interesting paragraph from your "End of Happiness" blogpage:
"I think people tend to show their true moral fibre in dealing with strangers. I personally have a difficult time with strangers. I am usually suspicious of them, and it is with only a great effort that I can bring myself to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt. I seem to be predisposed to mistrusting those I don̢۪t know at all. What comes along with this is a tendency to discredit the actions of strangers, to cast their most innocent actions in a bad light, to assume the worst in people. It̢۪s a disheartening struggle, because I otherwise enjoy almost everyone around me."
This seems to bear an eerie resemblance to....
R.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:40:44 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:40:44 PM EDT.
|
