x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






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 21 Sep 2011, 04:53

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


No, my references are not completely killed at all, they only tried to disprove it with lies.
That's what evolutinists do, whenever they get proved wrong, they start bashing and saying every evidence is fake blah blah blah...
If i'll do the same thing i'll simply say EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED, ALL YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAKE NEVER HAPPENED ! (after all evolution did not happen).
There, now evolution is disproved ! : )
That's how remixfa is trying do disprove my evidence. That simply doesn't work. To disprove evidence you need to disprove it scientificly, not by bashing and saying it is fake when they have not even examined the evidence.

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 05:02

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


Why do evolutionists start bashing everytime they get proved wrong ?
I don't get that, you have to go by the evidence you have and not start bashing and saying the evidence is fake, when you don't have any proof to back up your claims at all. All you say it is fake, but you can't really claim what is so called fake with any of the evidence i gave you.
You write "why is there no tail marks?"
This is so ridicoulus it can get. First, how do you know that the dino did not hav it's tail in the air ?
second, if it did have it's tail on the ground, it would not have created any deep tail marks at all, and they could easily have been eroded (if there was any tail marks at all) while the footprints due to them being deeper, was not eroded.

You write "that is not a modern human's footprint. Thats my take on it. humanoid at best"

How can you say that ?

Everyone can see that this is a human footprint. What do you think it is, a ape ? a alien ?

Different people have different footprints, but there are certain things that makes human footprints differ from animals footprints. And you can easily see that this is a human footprint, not a animals.

When it comes to x-ray it is not a timestamp at all, and that is not the point either. the point with x-raying the footprint is so you can more easily determine wether it is a human footpring or not (by looking at the different pressure points and checking that everything looks like a normal human footprint).

Your arguments are bust !

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, 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.

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 20:25

130. hepresearch (unregistered)


ummm... Pete, the references in the two links you posted were not "bashed" by any paper from the scholarly community that I am aware of, and I did not need to show you any "evidence" of any contrary principle... the problem is that the references in the two links did not need to be "bashed" at all; they collapsed under their own weight, my friend. The source (Dr. Whoever whose name I currently forget... who was speaking in the video...) pretty much exposed himself as a fraud without anyone having to try to hard to find out that his credentials were faked or non-existent, and he told stories to support his "research" that involved non-verifiable communications with known scholars, and even the mention of fake "fellow researchers" and fake "experts" alleged to be from other institutions.

The problem is that you, Pete, have decided to take this stuff at face value, without questioning it, because these are the "experts" you have been taught to trust implicitly, and that anyone who tries to say otherwise MUST be wrong.

All that said, it is never too late to start looking up this stuff for yourself... intellectual independence is a great skill, and as long as you live you still have the opportunity to give it a try. Kind of like a little experiment... it takes effort and work, but when was the last time you ever gained anything that was truly good without having to work for it?

Pete, try your hand at a little independent research. You won't regret it, I promise.

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, 20:48

132. hepresearch (unregistered)


"You don't and are not going to believe in God."

Have I ever said anywhere that I do not believe in God? And, who are you to be trying to ram your religious views down remixfa's throat? So what if he doesn't believe in God? It is NOT YOUR JOB to "make sure" that remixfa, or anyone else, "believes"... and, who are you to tell someone that they cannot change, either? People can believe what they WANT to believe, because they were MADE to be free (and even change their minds sometimes)!

"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."

Ummmm... like they "needed an option"... haha! People can see something right in front of them, incontrovertible and definitive, and still deny it. If I see the sun rising in the east, am I unable to say to the person standing next to me, "Hey man, I don't see the sun at all... it's so freakin' dark out here!" And by the way, it has already been mentioned here, but the guy who came up with the Theory of Evolution was, in fact, a devout Christian himself... yes, it is true, and if you do not believe me, all you have to do is Google it or Wiki it, like anybody else who doesn't truly care enough to really work for an answer...

Twisting evidence? Who here is twisting evidence? I have not seen any evidence-twisting, but rather, what I have seen is the mindless spewing of third-party ideas being presented as "evidence". And Evolution is not a religion... it is a Theory that can be tested by both religious and scientific means, whichever the "researcher" prefers at a given moment... but right now many of the "religious" have been trapped by their "pastors", and taught to close their minds against anything other than what the "pastor" tells them...

posted on 21 Sep 2011, 20:56

133. hepresearch (unregistered)


Pete @ remixfa - "How can you say that?"

Pete, you just don't get it yet... remixfa can say whatever he wants! If you don't like it, you don't have to look or listen or reply or anything!

"Everyone can see that..."

Whatever. That is a HUGE generalization, because there is absolutely no way in heck that you, Pete, can possibly know what "everyone can see"...

"And you can easily see that this is a human footprint..."

I can easily see that its "big toe" is unusually short and round, and that it is uncannily flat-footed... to borrow (and brutally edit) a line from Ghostbusters, "No human would make footprints like this!"

"Your arguments are bust !"

chuckle... chuckle... snort!

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 19 Sep 2011, 19:05

52. stealthd (unregistered)


Yep, Apple isn't really facing enough competition to necessitate iPad 3 this year. Probably would have been good for sales for it to come out before Christmas but oh well.

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 13:26

103. Mooooo (Posts: 212; Member since: 27 Aug 2011)


I am being mesmerized by his hypnotic smile.

I can't resist

I must spend my time in a tent overnight at my local mall for the new iphone.

I must get a chain and wear the new iphone around my neck with apple emblem showing.

lol

posted on 20 Sep 2011, 14:50

116. hepresearch (unregistered)


I'm going to get an Apple-emblem nose-ring for Steve to tie a rope through...

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories