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, 14:02

108. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

peter thats because you are trying to find a smoking gun.. a magic jump. truth is, there isnt one.. it happens over time. micro IS macro if you take 100 generations of humans, you can tell genetic differences from the start to the beginning.. if you zoom out to 1000 generations then you are looking at new species.. if you zoom in to 5 generations you barely see any difference.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 15:40

121. hepresearch (unregistered)

ummm... microevolution implies an overarching macroevolutionary mechanism whether it has had time to take place or not. And, put simply, there are people who can look at "evidence" and not see it for what it is. This happens all the time

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:46

67. hepresearch (unregistered)

Who here can't understand evolution? I think everybody sees evolution on some scale that is discernible, but mostly we see it play out on a societal level, and not so much on the physical level (unless you go to visit Chernobyl from time to time...). Now, why in the world would anyone need to dispute evolution?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 10:43

66. hepresearch (unregistered)

okay, now you guys have hit my buttons...

Who here believes in the "Big Bang Theory"?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:06

74. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

it was a decent show, but the theory has been disproven. :)

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:18

78. hepresearch (unregistered)

Be more specific. Which theory has been disproven? How was it disproven?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:53

95. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

im at work so i cant look up the specifics.. but you can!

basically as they have found atoms that are smaller than atoms, quarks, quazars, and all sorts of other items they began to understand different energies better and have a more well though theory than the big bang. its still.. big bang like, but with a lot more understanding now.

also there was an article in.. wired i think.. the other day where they have all but proved the existance of the edge of the universe where it intersects with another.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 13:54

106. hepresearch (unregistered)

I already studied the specifics a long time ago, and I keep up from day to day with the preprints coming from ArXiv and SPIRES; I just wanted to hear it from you...

Atoms smaller than atoms? Understand "different" energies better? More "well thought" theory than the Big Bang, but still "Big Bang like"? Alright, you really have just told me nothing useful...

Proved the existence of the "edge" of the universe where it "intersects with another"? You read way too much into that article... they have not "proved" anything... they have hypothesized that it is that way, and what they have "seen" causes them to get excited and think that they CAN prove it, but it is not direct proof. The article hypes up the idea so that the average reader will excitedly read it and think that it is all but proven already.

Be more careful of where you get information, and how you read it.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:05

110. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

lol i wasnt trying to be inciteful, i was typing between customers.. lol.

and i said "all but proved". :) as in not proved but getting close.

all science is is 95% theories and only a few "laws" which even the laws have changed or been broken over time. nothing is ever 100%.

The only way we will ever know if those spots are truely the end of the universe is to send something right through them and have them continue to transmit data.. we are eons from that type of technology and even further away by far from an answer just by the distance that would need to be traveled.

i am quite aware of the science if i make a good case for it or not.. i am at work.. lol

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 15:53

124. hepresearch (unregistered)

nothing we understand ever is 100% true, but there is truth out there... so don't ever stop looking for it! Without a leap of help, we can never get to 100% in a finite amount of time. This is where religion, if true, ought to excel, while science will have to travel in finite steps.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:22

80. darth8ball (Posts: 520; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)

If you can say there can't be an explosion out of nothing how can you say there could have been a being existing in nothing to create EVERYTHING.
Science has gone beyond the big bang being an explosion from NOTHING creating the Universe.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:32 1

82. hepresearch (unregistered)

Pete... if there cannot be a "Big-Bang" explosion ex-nihilo (out of nothing), then there cannot be a "creation" ex-nihilo either... if God does exist, He is not, and never was, a God of cheap magic and parlor tricks.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:34

83. darth8ball (Posts: 520; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)

I couldn't have said it better myself, oh wait I did say it...LOL

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:45

86. hepresearch (unregistered)

yes, you did... but sometimes two witnesses are better than one... ;-)

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:57 1

98. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

love that arguement. dont know why i didnt throw it up there earlier.. lol.

oh yea,
because the standard answer is
god exists outside of time, and therefor rules dont apply to him because its the god of all things and was just always there..

or some nonsense. ;)

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:13

76. hepresearch (unregistered)

ummmm... how exactly does believing in evolution mean that you have an "evolutionist bias" if you are still open-minded?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 11:16

77. hepresearch (unregistered)

Only the "brainwashed" believe in evolution? Dinosaur and human footprints together? Where is your "evidence", Pete?

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:57

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

I wrote this to remixfa earlier, too se picture evidence please watch the links.
There has been found footprints of humans and dinosaurs in exactly the same geologic layer, at exactly the same place.. They have been found side by side, and even some where the human footprint has been inside that of a dinosaur footprint.
Here are the links.​/index.php?option=com_content&​task=view&id=48&Itemid=24 (don't worry, this link is safe. It will take youtowww.creationevidence.com)
And here is a very detailed video of the footprints.
I recomend you start watching at 23 minutes and 40 seconds (that's when the evidence for the footprints are showed)
they have also been trough scanning, and proven to be real human footprints, not faked.
Also, there has been found for example a old hammer buried inside lower cretaceous rock !

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:57

99. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

again, without some kind of verification, there is no proof.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:58

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

Just gave you verification.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:04

109. hepresearch (unregistered)

First link... garbage. The first link is broken, and the reference location where it links to is not about "creation evidence" at all; it is nothing but a search engine for advertisments. A non-answer...

Second link... has been removed from YouTube. First of all, seriously? A YouTube video is your evidence? Do you know how often YouTube videos are faked? The video is gone now, anyway, so I can't even find out if it was real or faked. A non-answer... again...

The rest of what you have said I cannot confirm anywhere, and have never heard mentioned before either, except by you. I cannot confirm or deny anything you have just said, and therefore, the answer is null. You have proved absolutely nothing except that you are not very careful about where you get information and which information you are willing to accept as fact without asking questions.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:08

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

I can't check the first link at the moment, but it should lead to a good site (at least if you are in sweden).
the second link the youtube video is about a professor giving a lecture so it is valid. I just cheked and the video is not removed. i think you clicked on the wrong youtube link. the first one i gave you was something wron with, however look at some comments further down and you'll see that i gave you a new link that works. That might have been why you couldn't see the video.


Check this link, this will work. This will show you all the evidence you need to see dinosaur footprints together with human footprints.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 12:59

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

seems like there was something wrong with the link.
Here i post them again.

Please jump to 23 minutes and 40 seconds in this video for the evidence.


posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:25

113. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

ok, i looked at your picture on the "creationism is real" page.. lololol

1) because they did an xray of it doesnt prove any authenticity. an Xray is not a timestamp, nor has it ever been.

2) find me a human that has that exact footprint. from the looks of it the big to was elongated and curled in, hense the deeper depression. look at the length of those toes and how they are formed at the foot.

IF and this is a big IF, this is somehow authentic.. which its not, that is not a modern human's footprint. Thats my take on it. humanoid at best, but not human. congrats peter, you may have just proved evolution...l lololololol

oh, except for the fact, that thats the worst dino impression ive ever seen. its nearly flat with no signs o weight impressions in it where the dino would have leaned as the dino was ambulating as well as the fact that foot print is extreeeeeeeemley well preserved for how old it SHOULD be.. lol

that video that you keep posting.. NONE of the tracks they are showing look so clear and concise. That should raise a flag to you.. lol.

"and he bulldozed 6 layers deep and magically uncovered many human foot prints". so.. he bulldozed without hurting those foot prints huh? lol.

its also amazing that those footprints cross over each other without ever touching.. infact the dinosaur tracks perfectly "leap" over the human tracks if you look at the picture with all the trails in it.
also, if it was a dinosaur, by looking at the picture, it must have been 2 legged, not 4.. there isnt enough footprints for a 4 legged animal. if it was a 2 legged dinosaur it had a tail.. why is there no tail marks? lots and lots of unanswered questions by those "footprints" peter. only a fool would take that at face value as its being presented. Most humans also invented foot coverings of some sort to protect their feet from barbs and such. even this guy makes mention of the fact that human tracks that show toes are a rarity.

your making your case worse, not better.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:27

114. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

also, i forgot to mention, look at the depth of those tracks. that dinosaur must have been anorexic because the depth is nearly the same as the human tracks. more weight = deeper prints.

my guess? a guy walking around with funny shoes on.

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 05:08

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

Now that you arguments are bust, how about trying to figure out how we see so many galaxies that we do ?

As you know galaxies wind themselves up over time, thus the galaxies would not be recognizable over a period of time.

Galaxies, like our own Milky Way. We’ve observed that they rotate. The stars on the inside are moving much faster than those on the outside. If our galaxy – or others – were more than a few hundred million years old, they should be discs of featureless stars. But instead we still have very distinct arms. In an old-age model, the Milky Way should be at least 10 billion years old. A few hundred million years falls orders of magnitude below the time the old-earth theory needs. This upper limit destroys the age needed. But it’s not a problem for us; 6,000 years falls easily under the upper limit of hundreds of millions of years. We don’t know how wound-up our galaxy was when it began. No problem.

Quote from Dr John Morris PhD from the university of Oklahoma.

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 20:32

131. hepresearch (unregistered)

And what did Dr. Morris get his Ph.D. in, Pete?

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 21:24

134. hepresearch (unregistered)

Alright I'm getting impatient...

If you do not want to spoil the suspense, then you may stand upside-down with your head in a bucket full of piranha fish... otherwise, I am typing the answer to my last question below:

Dr. Morris has a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering.

So, if you wanted to find out about something going on in the Milky Way galaxy or somewhere else in space, who do you ask about it? A geologist? Think about it...

It is also interesting to note that Dr. Morris, after receiving his Ph.D. in 1980, was a Professor of Geology at the University of Oklahoma until 1996... when he became... you guessed it! A Creationist! After initially slamming the "evidence" from Pete's beloved "Paluxy River" site as controversial and ambiguous, Dr. Morris made an overnight "silent conversion" to Creationism, resigning from his professorship at the University of Oklahoma, after receiving a hefty sum from his retiring father, Henry Morris, at the same time.

Who was Henry Morris? The very "father" of Creationism, himself! So, Dr. John Morris left his post at the U of O to begin supporting creationism at the same exact time that his father, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, retired from being the president of that organization. And, you guessed it... Dr. Morris, in 1996, became the new president of the I for CR! The creationists "bought" the scholar son of their beloved founder in an act of sublime cronyism...

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 21:50

135. hepresearch (unregistered)

"As you know..."

Ummm... do we? You assume that everyone "knows" these supposed "facts" you spit out on here...

"... galaxies wind themselves up over time, thus the galaxies would not be recognizable over a period of time."

Bulls***! Read "The Trouble With Physics: the Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next?" by Dr. Lee Smolin (whose credentials are real and verifiable, and has his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Harvard University!). Galaxies do NOT "wind themselves up" over time... in fact, it has been found that galaxies rotate quickly at their center, slow down a little as you move out from the center, but then go FASTER again as you approach their edge! Ever heard of the "Dark Matter" question? Our galaxy would have to have about 60 times its visible mass to account for the rotation speed of its outer arms! And, just in case you are about to say that this is because of God Himself slapping the edge of our galaxy with His Hand every time we pass by (like some little kids like to do with bicycle wheels...), there actually appears to be an empirical explanation in the data... the "evidence" (a.k.a. actual data from measurement and observation) suggests that long-range gravity in deep-space consistently reaches a minimal acceleration level in the interstellar space between galaxies... a predictable magnitude that appears to be the same (a constant...) throughout intergalactic space. So, along with the "Dark Matter", we appear to have "Dark Energy" as well. Do we have all the answers? Not yet, but we don't need to fill it in with some sort of magical explanation and write it off as solved, either.

Yeah, Pete, you may think I'm the one telling fairy tales now, because Dr. Morris told you that galaxies "wind themselves up" and that apparently 6,000 years is a better fit to a "100 million year limit" than 10 billion years is... when any statistics major could tell you that is not the case, as these things are compared in orders-of-magnitude... but what you are trying to tell us about how you "believe" things work is, at best, no less of a fairy tale.

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 05:20

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

But this comes down to one thing as you said yourself earlier. You don't and are not going to believe in God. That is the very reason the theory of evolution was invented in the first place, to have another option than God for those whom simply don't want to believe in God.

That is fine for me, there is freedom of religion for everyone (evolution is a religion). However the evidence is still against the evolution and for the creation, and you should at least acknowledge that, and stop twisting the evidence to try and match your failing evolutionist theory.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories