x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

No iPad 3 this year

0. phoneArena 19 Sep 2011, 06:46 posted on

We’ve been hearing rumors about the iPad 3 launching this Holiday season since before the iPad 2 launched, but that made little sense from the get-go - why would Apple break their successful yearly launch tradition…

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 06:47 1

54. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

so.. what your saying is the "proof" hasnt been verified. I think a court would call that "circumstantial" and have it thrown out. just because 2 things appear to be related doesnt mean they are. Amazing your taking this "proof" at face value but want to debunk anything that doesnt agree with creationism.. lololol

peter, there is no point in clicking the links. your not going to change my mind. in order for anyone to believe in creationism they have to
1) believe in the Christian god.
2) believe that the bible is in fallible.
3) close their mind off to real science.

3 things i will never do.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 06:48 1

55. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

in other words, you believe your god is real and the others are made up..

just like every other religious person in history.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 09:34

57. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)

"proof hans't been verified", what are you talking about ???
There is no need to carbon 14 date footprints. When you see that they are at exactly the same spot. This has nothing to do with how old those footprints are, the point is, human footprints have been discovered together with dinosaur footprints. And either you evolutionists will have to change your theory and say that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, or your theory is false !
Seeing you write that you are not going to click on the links and watch the evidence, you are extremely unscientific. If someone finds evidence and you totally ignore it, then you are as uncscientific as you can be.
That is what i call "closing your mind off to real science".
It's sad that evolutionists totally ignore evidence that proves them wrong...

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 09:42

59. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)

And to add one thing.
you say " just because 2 things appear to be related doesnt mean they are"
that's ridicoulus. these footprints have been proved to be related. You have a dinosaur footprint, and a human footprint inside the dinosaur footrpint and it is not related.
Yeah, your body and your brain is somehow not related either then i guess based on your reasoning.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 09:45 1

60. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

seeing 2 things together is circumstance, not proof. how do u know that they didnt fake the footprints? you have no proof. your taking this at face value because u think it validates your creationism claim while demanding absolute proof for anything to the contrary... and then trying to find ways to discredit it.

they call that hypocracy peter.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:02

63. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)

Just because you see 1 dinosaur footprint and 1 human footprint doesn't mean it is true.
However, when there is lots and lots and lots of footprints of dinosaurs and humans at exactly the same place, the you understand that this is related and not faked. The footprints have been scanned with modern scanning technologies, and have been proven to not be carved and to be real samples of human and dinosaur footprints. If you had watched the links i gave you, you would have seen this yourself.
this is the problem with evolutionists, when there is evidence against evolution, they come up with the most ridicoulus fantasies of them being fake. Even evolutionist scientists have admitted these footprints are indeed related and not faked (some came up with an idea that aliens had made the footrpints, talking about fairy tales here...)
you said in your earlier comment that there were certain 3 things you would not do.
One of them was to believe in God. That is unscientific. If there is proof for a God, you must admit that. Otherwise your are unscientific.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:51

69. hepresearch (unregistered)

Carbon-14 dating is not "incorrect"... it is simply not perfect. There are too many variables that can affect the isotopic composition of carbon deposits to make it incredibly accurate AT THIS TIME, but it HAS proven to give a fairly consistent level of precision. If we could understand more about the additional variables involved, there may be ways to improve accuracy...

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:56

70. hepresearch (unregistered)

Science has not yet disproven the existence of "God". It is that simple. Science does not yet have an exact answer as to where we came from either... sorry.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:56

71. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

there is no proof of your god or any others. you see what you want to see.

lack of knowledge does not mean god is the answer. that is the whole fundamental retardation of religous people trying to play pseudoscience.
again, if a scientist doesnt see an answer, he keeps postulizing and experimenting until a decent answer is found. then other scientists repeat the same test over and over until it can be disproven .. or it can not. a scientist starts with a mind free of assumptions not answers begging for questions to fill it with. they take what is.. and figure out what it does.

a pseudoscience like creationism first starts with a core belief like "there is a god and he created the earth" and then tries to find proof of that. which is exactly what you are doing. there is no science in creationism. In order for there to be science there has to be scientific method (which there definately is not) , there has to be clear and unbiased research, and there has to be a possibility of finding answers opposite to what you believe..

man made global warming as it exists now is also a pseudoscience. it is more religion and faith than it is fact.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:58

72. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

hep, i didnt even bother debating C14 dating with him. a creationist must first disemvow any actual science as fake, and anything that isnt a 100% provable and accurate answer, as lack of proof for anything other than "god did it"

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:07 1

75. hepresearch (unregistered)

That depends on your definition of "creationism", I suppose.

Too many of us are taught in our youth that Science and Religion are two entirely different and incompatible things. We are taught that Science and Religion must never be brought together because they will contradict each other, or they will argue until their adherents destroy each other in a fit of rage. It is sad.

What, to you, is "Science"?

What, to you, is "Religion"?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:21

79. hepresearch (unregistered)

perhaps fashion-victimization IS a religion... 8-P

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:36 2

84. hepresearch (unregistered)

in fact, seeing two things together doesn't even really mean that they happened at the same time... you can thank Albert Einstein for telling us about that...

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:09 1

87. hepresearch (unregistered)

co-location is not direct proof of direct relation...

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:20

88. hepresearch (unregistered)

I can vouch for that... I served a mission for my church for two years, and the easiest people to reason with were usually Buddhist or Hindu. They were more open to things that actually made sense. The most difficult people to reason with were "Christians" of other denominations than my own... they vehemently clung to whatever their "pastor" told them to believe, even if it didn't sit with reason too well. There is a reason that the Bible has a passage in it that says, "They draw near unto me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me..."; there are so many "Christian" denominations whose leaders do just that... they put on the appearance of faith and goodness for the sake of gathering a fanatical following, and then spew forth their own false doctrines, veiled in half-truths, in order to gain power over their followers. It is that simple, and it is true of so many other faiths as well, not just "Christians". This is why "religion" leaves such a bad taste in people's mouths, and also why religions that have a lot of good in them get thrown under the bus along with the ones that have a lot of bad in them.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:26

89. hepresearch (unregistered)

and if God is not affected by our time and our universe, than what time and what universe does He exist in? If He created the universe we live in, from where did He acquire the necessary materials/energy to do so? Think before you spew incomplete answers and stupidity... that makes the rest of us who actually think these things through look bad, too.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:44

91. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

science and religion are 2 seperate subjects. like anything most people live within a shade of grey between where they have a lil science base, and a little faith base.. then their are offshoots like creationism which is an extremism no different than hacedic (yea i cant spell, shush) jews or muslims that think its ok to kill their daughter/wife for looking at another man. It may not be as violent but it is still on the same level, and it is just as dangerous. Instead of being physically dangerous to someone it is a danger to real science as laymen dont know the difference between actual scientific research and pseudoscience like creationism or man-made global warming.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:48

92. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

i dont think science is trying to "disprove" god.

A scientist always knows that there are always more questions waiting to be found and answered. There is always more.

Science is no different than a mechanic dissasembling an engine that he's never seen before, to see how it ticks and understand it.

lack of an answer or a piece of a puzzle does not denote "god". it denotes "lack of an answer".

A creationist takes any gaps in knowledge, calls it "god" and refuses to look further to see if they might be wrong or right.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:51

94. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)

Just like every evolutionist do, you start bashing and saying different untrue assumptions about creationists whenever there is evidence that proves your dear evolution theory wrong.
You have not even bothered towrite scientificly like i have been doing.
Thanks for letting me know that your theory just got proved wrong ! : )

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 13:04

102. hepresearch (unregistered)

Is it possible that there are "creationists" who believe that God did create the universe, not through some magic trick or "explosion", but through organizing what already existed there? In that case, then why not allow science to tell us how this "creation", or organizing behavior, took place? If this is not the case, then the "Creationists" have done nothing but hijack the term "creationism" and applied it to something that has nothing to do with true "creation".

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 13:42 1

105. hepresearch (unregistered)

Are science and religion truly that different or separate? I would submit that science and religion are two very similar methods of finding the truth: science and religion both require "faith", or the belief that one unchanging law of truth exists in a given context, before knowledge of the accompanying truth can be gained.

In science, we refer to "the Scientific Method" as the means by which truth is discerned; informed by a world-view, we develop a theory (which must be observable, falsifiable, and predictive), which allows us to construct models of behavior, from which we can develop a hypothesis based on existing data and models, and then we test that hypothesis through repeatable observation of a predicted phenomenon specific to that hypothesis. If the observation fails to yield the predicted action, then the hypothesis has failed. If the observed action occurs as predicted, then the hypothesis has been confirmed. Enough confirmed hypotheses lead to confirmation of a model, and enough confirmed models lead to confirmation of a theory as law within the given world-view. As laws begin to be found, and as they begin to have difficulty reconciling with other known laws, it is sometimes necessary to change the world-view slightly.

In the true practice of religion, the precise means of discerning truth is often disputed due to a vast variety of world-views... however, there is good agreement with "the Scientific Method" in most cases. One seeking truth generally may learn truth by obeying the tenets that their diety (dieties) established, and in doing so they are "blessed" to receive the knowledge they have asked for as a result of the consequences of obeying a law which is indeed true. Therefore, the consequences of obeying or disobeying said tenet are, for lack of a better explanation, the very observed evidence of the tenet as a true law. Unfortunately, many "religions" have replaced the personal application of obedience/blessings experiments with absolute obedience to "clergy" (as accepted "mediator" for diety), which destroys the use of "the Scientific Method" in religion, and refer to this blind obedience to the human, mortal clergy as "faith".

This not only happens in religion, but also among those of the "scientific community", when the most accepted scholars of their respective fields go unquestioned... for an example, one need look no further than "String Theory".

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 13:58

107. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

" we develop a theory (which must be observable, falsifiable, and predictive)"

that is the exact opposite of religion right there.

if religion demanded its claims be observable, falsifiable, and predictive, the religion would end.

that is the difference between science and faith. science is not based on faith. we have "faith" that our theories are correct as we test them, but that is not the same type of faith one has when they "give themselves" to a higher power.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:11

112. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)

Science should not be based on faith. however evolution is based on faith, since there is no science to support it (except disproved carbon 14 dating).

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 15:30

118. hepresearch (unregistered)

If you think about it, every religion is based on a slightly different set of religious "theories" than the next religion... and, in fact, a true religion would be quite okay with the idea of falsifiability.

If you "obey" a "commandment", you are "blessed" with the appropriate consequence that is attached to that "commandment" (or law). If you "disobey", you also receive the consequence for not following a law. The prediction comes from "prophets" who are spoken to by said diety, and who then "preach the word" to those who are willing to listen. If they are true prophets, they will not demand that people obey their words, but will encourage people to "experiment" upon their words. That way, the hearer makes their own choice whether to carry out the "experiment" or not, and when they do they either a) see the promised results, or b) do not see the promised results. From this simple theo-scientific formula, any religion can be tested for its adherence to true principles. It really is as simple as testing a hypothesis, gathering data to determine which "theories" are, in fact, law, and then trying to live or exercise the resulting personal world-view which you find.

False religions often demand that their adherents NOT question the theories of religion that are put forth to them, and so, although they remain accepted theories in a given religion, they are not properly tested by the adherents who believe them to be true law.

If you want to find a true religion, then you must seek for one that offers claims be observable, falsifiable, and predictive, and that its adherents test the veracity of said claims by honestly practicing them in daily life. If the religion were false, it would, indeed, cease to exist in time as its former adherents discover which tenets are false. If the religion were true, then it would grow in time as its adherents found its precepts to be true, and then shared their experience with others who seek truth.

So, you say science is NOT based on faith? Did Enrico Fermi believe that the neutrino existed before it was ever discovered? If you say yes, then that is faith. If you say he did not, then you have not read much about Enrico Fermi or about neutrinos. To have "faith" is to believe in something that you do not yet know for sure, and then to act accordingly. Enrico had "faith" in this new particle, the "neutrino" (which he himself named), even though no one had ever before proposed its existence or measured the presence of one; in having true "faith", he researched, and experimented, and made mathematical models that could help him to figure out how to find one. His work was not completed in his lifetime, but in 1996 the first neutrino was properly isolated and measured, and turned out to be an almost exact fit to Fermi's prediction. Now, if that is not "faith", then I do not know what is. It is the same type of "faith" I exercise in my religion.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 15:33 1

119. hepresearch (unregistered)

All science IS based on faith! Read about any scientist and how they came to their ideas, and then found the results of their conclusions.

Charles Darwin... the scientist who developed the Theory of Evolution... yes, he claimed Christianity as his religion. When properly understood, they (science and religion) work together quite well.

posted on 19 Sep 2011, 07:18 2

5. wolfordtw (Posts: 16; Member since: 17 Aug 2011)

We all know how it's gonna turn out......omg a new iPad.....omg a 3g variant on Verizon.....omg only 900 dollars.....omg another device to add to my apple collection that's thinner and lighter and prettier....where can I stand outside for 3 Weeks to buy this?

posted on 19 Sep 2011, 07:41 2

7. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)

Down rotten Apple no more Samsung chips for you. Apple will be looking for other companies components and rotten Apple lovers have to wait longer to save more money for more expensive Apple products.

posted on 19 Sep 2011, 08:01

9. remixfa (Posts: 14324; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

i think android will take a strong #2 position for the next 2 years as windows 8 catches up.. both will be eating away at ipad sales though more than each other. We'll see from there.

posted on 19 Sep 2011, 08:07 1

12. dancore (Posts: 4; Member since: 01 Sep 2011)

Im with PETERFROMSWEDEN for once, this picture is blasphemous, every religion deserves respect. PA I though you were more professional than this.

posted on 19 Sep 2011, 08:50 2

18. hepresearch (unregistered)

What do you define as "blasphemy"? If I spent all day, every day, trying to stop people from making fun of Jesus, or from burning copies of The Bible or The Book of Mormon, everywhere in the world, then I would certainly be quite unable to accomplish that task and quite unsuccessful. Though I may define that as "blasphemous", should I be all angry and upset with people who do that, or try to stop them by force? Why should I take so much offense? Yeah, I would not like what is being done, but it is not my place to force others to observe my beliefs. We are the ones who "take offense", and therefore we ourselves may choose whether to be "offended" or not. Yeah, I don't think it is classy to make fun of or intentionally try to offend any one from any religion, but I choose not to let others "offend" me when they have no way to force me into submission.

Is the blasphemous picture with the illuminated Steve Jobs offending you? I'll agree it is disrespectful, but I would not take away their freedom of expression in response.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories