text:
First of all, it should be noted that science proves NOTHING. Science disproves. The way the scientific method works, is that we observe the world around us. Based on these observations, we formulate theories (ideas about how things work). We then devise tests to determine if the theory is valid. If the test go as the theory predicts, then we say that they support the theory. However, if even one of the test does not go as predicted, then that one instance (assuming that the test itself was performed correctly) disproves the theory and we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what went wrong. In order to PROVE a theory, we would have to test every possible situation in which that theory might apply. Even if we do test evey possible situation that we can think of, there may still be other ones that we haven't thought of. We can never be sure that we have tested all of the possiblities. Therefore, we can never prove anything. So, how does this apply to the question of God? God, being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, is beyond our ability to test. Whatever test we may devise to prove that He exists, He can manipulate to give an ambiguous answer. What one person looks at and sees as proof of God's existance, another can look at and say, "That is just coincedence." Let me illustrate this with a story. A college professor got up in front of his class and says that he will disprove God's existance. He then procedes to curse and rail against God and dares Him to knock him off the stage. After several minutes of this, one of his student (a big, burly marine) walks up onto the stage and shoves the professor off. The professor exclaims, "Why did you do that!?!" The marine replies, "God was busy. So, He sent me." The professor was knocked off the stage by someone claiming to be an agent of God. Does this prove that God exists? The marine may or may not have actually been working under the direction of Him. We really can't prove one way or the other. Even if nobody had pushed the professor and he had stayed on the stage, does that prove the God does not exist. No, He could have just decided to not respond to that self-important twit. It does not matter what tests we divise, or how sophisticated they are, God will always be at least one step ahead of us. There is no scientific test that we can conduct that will either prove or disprove His existance. The only proof is that which comes to the hearts of those that are open to Him and have at least a desire to believe. I write this as both a trained scientist and a man of faith. ******************************** Dawni_D, Prayer is a way to talk to God and to open the conduit to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost. However, these are not things that you can "prove scientifically". Therefore, they are beyond the scope of the question. ******************************** "Anonymous: science does prove things. Why else do we have equations like e=mc^2 ? This is a proof." No. it is not. It is a equation that seems to describe a characteristic of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton came up with a number of other such equations. We thought that his equations were correct for a round three centuries. Then along comes Einstein and shows us that Newton's equations don't work at velocities approaching the speed of light. At these high velocities Newton's equations need to be modified by adding relativistic terms in order to get accurate results. We accept E=mc^2 as fact because we have not found any evidence to disprove it as of yet. That does not mean that we won't in the future. I am not saying that we will, but you never can be sure. As I wrote above, the only way to prove a scientific theory true is to go to every possible point in space and time and test the theory in every possible way. Have you done this with Einstein's equation? If not, then you can't say that it has been proven. ******************************* "Anonymous: e=mc^2 proves how much energy can be obtained by converting mass to energy. This is a PROOF that is true." Rewording the assertion does not make it true. Just because we can come up with a mathematical equation that describes some aspect doesn't mean that we correctly understand that aspect. Anonymous, I hold a Master of Science degree in geology. Therefore, I have been thoroughly educated in the scientific method. I know whereof I write on this. Your continued insistence that science proves things shows that you don't understand how science works. Therefore, I suggest that you, and everybody else who thinks like you, go to the following web sites: http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Education/EDF600/Mod3/sld001.htm ******************************** Anonymous, I have stated and restated why I say that science doesn't prove anything. I have stated the authority by which I make this statement. I have also given other authoritative sources that support my side of the argument. You have not done either of the latter two. You just keep stating the same thing over and over again without telling us why we should believe you and without any sources to back you up. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I am obviously not convincing you and you are not convincing me. Therefore, I think it is time that you and I agree to disagree and let it go at that. ******************************* "Joe-Speedy: Well spoken, but doesn't an experiment that fails to meet the theory, prove that the theory is wrong?" That's the point I made in my original answer. It is easy to prove something wrong because you only have to show one instance where it is wrong. An experiment that does not meet the theories expectations proves the theory wrong. ******************************* dieboldM in an answer below, "glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. "1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... "2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? "3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? "4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?" All of these questions have been dealt with elsewhere. So, let me just give you the links instead of writing out new answers. 1. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/382991 2. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/43722 (When reading this answer, also keep in mind that free will is an important part of God's plan for us. Without opposition, there is not choice and, therefore, no free will. 3. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/948300 4. I would agree with you on this. God created all that is and all truth ultimately comes from God. So, those truths that we know about God's creation ultimately came from Him.
Science can never prove the existence of God UNLESS something is proven that disproves scripture. For example, if other gods were discovered (I'm not saying they exist), then the idea of a solitary and all-powerful god would be refuted, correct? The idea of God and religion in general is all based on faith. One accepts religion on faith. The scientific mind takes religion on faith as well. However, he or she knows that the religion they or they follow may be false, but they continue practicing it. Why? The answer is faith. In essence, religion is a grouping of ideas that is practiced by followers. One of the main reasons people do not follow religion or discontinue to follow religion is because they no longer have faith in it.
Nothing can absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God or any similar figure. That's why so many people like it (it being the concept of a god).
Scientific methods only really apply to the natural world. Most concepts of God are "supernatural" meaning outside nature. Science has no methods or tools for testing the truly supernatural. If science found some way to quantify or measure the "spiritual" dimension (whatever that might turn out to be) we could begin to discuss and formulate experiments. Until then, the answer is simply: science can neither confirm nor disprove the existence of the supernatural, including God. ______ The "experiment" suggested in the feedback is irrational. How could science confirm a message came from God? There is no test or mechanism to set up the "experiment." If you answer "the message is from God because the predicted event happens" your argument is circular and therefore meaningless.
Nice work, Mr. Blaylock. I think we might add, though, that science might certainly indicate that there is a God, or a Creator. Science has not been able to demonstrate the existence of any creative force or principle in physics. And to simply declare that science can make no reference to a god, and here we are, so there must be such a force (which quite frankly is what often passes for origins science), is unsatisfactory. Science can demonstrate that the probability of all the chance atomic interactions required to create life from non-living matter is so small as to be non-existent. It then requires more faith to blieve there is not a God than to believe there is. Glenn is right in his comment below, of course. And I want to be clear that my answer had just that point behind it. The question as stated "How would science prove the existence of God?" assumes the that science COULD prove the existence of God, a faulty premise in my mind. All science can really do is show that explanations for our natural world that disallow the existence of God have big holes in them. Origins science is not truly empirical, and none of the theories has the necessary scientific property of falsifiability. Therefore, I do believe it is scientifically valid to hold to the one with the stronger probability--that there is a Creator God. To put it another way: belief in God does not require me to become unscientific, but it does require me to recognize inherent limitations in science. We have to be careful about our definition of "science". Most people assume it is an unbiased search for truth, as it should be. But I think we will find that it frequently means "the search for a naturalistic explanation for all things, without reference to a god". Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" did a nice job of revealing that supposedly naturalistic science sometimes takes on trappings of a religion.
Why does science need to prove the existence of God when you can do it yourslef. All I did was begin to talk to Him. I told him my worries and my fears, he took care of them. I can't see oxygen, but It is exists I can't see God but I know he is there. He has shown himself to me through miracles, answered prayers, healing, etc... Why would He show me and not you? If you begin to talk to Him He will begin to show himself to you through miracles and so on... Tell Him that you feel silly talking to the air. Tell Him you have doubts, He already knows anyway. He wants to have a relationship with you. If He wants you to believe in Him he will have to show himself to you, there is no other way. Seek Him and you will find Him. I believe you need a period of about 3 months can't be certain, perhaps it can be different for everyone, but for me, it took about 3 months before I started to notice changes in my life. I think God wants to see that we are serious about finding Him. If there is one thing everyone should do before they depart this earth that's try to find God on their own. He wants you to look for Him. I found Him 15 years ago, and I haven't stopped talking to Him because whatever is out there can hear me and He is powerful. Why go another day without experiencing His power? God may have made Himself invisible to us while we are on the earth, but by no means has He made Himself UNAVAILABLE to us. He is very available to us. Continue to talk to Him, and He will show himself to you, not in the phsyical, but why does everything need to be in the box so to speak. take a look at the complex world we live in. Take a look at the duck bill platypus. God is a lot more complex then that. We don't need to see him with our phsyical eyes in order to know that he is there. Some scientists already know this, and others refuse to seek after something they can't see. It's time you start to think outside the box. Not everything is black & white, and you can Thank God for that! Science, itself cannot prove the existance of God. Science itself cannot even prove how the world began, it just offers a theory. However, I have a found a proven method that supports the existance of God. The method itself is rather simple. First you need to start by having an open mind. Everything you have heard, read or learned about God is not necessairly truth. Talking to God is KEY. Of course it sounds silly to talk to something you can't see. However if you really want to know for yourself if he exists, then you need to do it. In science when you are trying to prove something you run lots of tests. When you are trying to prove the existance of God you too, run lots of tests. Here's a test that I preformed. I was in need of $5,000, and had no idea how I was going to get it. I talked to God and told him what was going on and pleaded for help. One week later a woman who was new to our church came over to our house and told us she had been talking with God about what to do with the rest of her settlement money, and she said that she felt like God told her to give us $5,000, and she did. She had no knowledge of our financial situation. Sure you could chalk it up to coinsidence, but at some point you have to say this can't be coinsidence anymore. If God answers 2,000 of your prayers (and that's just a number I am throwing out there) at what point do you say OK. Maybe there is something out there that can hear me. I am not at liberty to share my entire method at this time. You can look for it in my book soon to be out. It's called, "Finding God Isn't Rocket Science." I am a person who believes in the existance of God. My belief is not based on what I hear, read or have been taught. I believe because of what I have seen. God is constantly answeing my prayers. I recently had a conversation with an atheist, and he said to me, "Ok if there is a God why don't you ask your God to create a 10th planet." He thought it was funny! I did exactly that, and about a month later I hear on the news that we have discovered a 10th planet. Coinsidence or God?
science can never prove or disprove god because god is an unknown,he/she /it is a theory as is any other god and he/she /it/they are theorys of origin nothing more,nothing less.If "God" created man,and the earth and the known universe and everything contained within,tell me who or what created God? I will tell you who,MAN. Why?To explain what he will never know the answer to:The true genisis. Even the big bang can only explain our universe back to the moment of the big bang,but what about before the the big bang? What was before the big bang. We will never know,as we will never know for sure how life originated on earth.It is generally excepted that we are 1 planet of at least 9(a subject of debate in itself) around 1 star of at least a billion stars in 1 galaxy of at least a billion galaxies. Most people including people of faith except the idea that life must surely exist elsewhere in the universe. To think otherwise would seem extremely arrogant.I would liken it too the time not to long ago when the scholars of the world proclaimed that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it.It is not! That in itself proposes a question- Why when god created the sun and the heavens and everything that we know to exist for our benifit would he not put us at the center of it all?It just doesn't make sense. If there is life out there on one millionth of a percent of the infinate number of other planets that surely exist. Then why would he create us and us only in his image? If life exists elsewhere in the universe and it surely must,(but that is theory also) why would god expend energy needlessly on something that we will never know?And if life is present no matter what form it takes on other worlds,then it is obviosly not impossible for it to be created under the right circumstances.Because we haven't figured out a way to do it yet,does that make it impossible? I think not! That is just man's arrogance talking. "God" exists because we need him to exist to explain that which we will never know about the beginning of our existance.We will never truly know because hey, WE WEREN'T THERE! Now I am no scientist and i am not religeous except for religion being a good guide as to how to best live a long and fullfilling life,but i am not stupid either.And whether god exists or whether his existance can be proven or not really does not matter.It is a waste of energy to even try Because we weren't there! And nobody knows except for what they feel(Faith) and their feelings might be misunderstood.What is important is how we treat one another and how we get the most fulfillment from our brief existance in life.Nobody knows what awaits us when we die but I imagine it is the same as it was before we were born. Forgive me for rambling on and i apolagize if i offended anyone.My thoughts may not be agreed with but they are I feel something to think about, and who is to say that i am any less correct than the rest of you ? NOBODY KNOWS OR EVER WILL!
The practice of science is a way of describing the world around us. The practice of religion is a way of explaining the world around us. And, the way I see it, the tools of science can aid one very little in the practice of religion; logic, however, is very useful in both endeavors. One poster cites the complexity of life as proof of god's existence, which is in no way a scientific aproach to the question, i.e. evidence? analysis? Consider this: you have a very large chandelier, on which the lights blink on and off randomly each second. So every second you have a new formation of lights. This creates an infinitely long sequence of random configurations. Surely, at some point one configuration in the sequence will resemble a smiley face - this is part of the nature of randomness, not something I have imposed [edit: I'm uncertain if this assumes something that results in the argument being circular. If we assume true randomness exists, then are we assuming that God does not?]. I submit that the appearance of a seemingly organized formation from a random system is no evidence of intelligent intervention. So the fact the our eyes are highly complex structures is not evidence of God's existence. I also suggest that interested parties read up on the anthropic principle. The (very) basic idea is that we exist here in the universe because this is the time and place where complex organisms like ourselves could exist. As I see it, science and religion are two ways of overcoming fear of our environment. Science gives a sense of undestanding that is backed by its practical applications, and, drum roll please, Religion gives a sense of undestanding that is backed by its practical applications. Science and technology make it possible to do necessary tasks quickly and easily. Religion generally makes people feel good about themselves and helps promote an enjoyable family life, et cetera - well, at least most religions do. It seems to me that a lot of people ignore one or the other, and fail to see that both are important and beneficial. If there is a single omnipotent being, and that being is truly benevolent, it probably has some degree of respect for both. Glenn Blaylock: To extend your point: John Locke said that science cannot prove something because proof requires a degree of precision that induction cannot provide. A classic example was throwing a brick through a window. In the past the window broke and the brick went through. That's the way it has always worked. But that doesn't mean a thrown brick will always go through a window. Try throwing a brick at a bank teller. A rural farmer of the 1700s has probably never been to a bank where the tellers are behind bullet proof barriers which resemble windows. We can't say something is true in all places and at all times, because we don't have knowledge of all places and all times. We lack good inductive evidence. Therefore, science can only be used to disprove theories.
There is no need to prove God exists. One just knows. Man has an eternal soul & when we leave this Earth, we go to God forevermore.
God is the answer of everything Human race cannot explain. Science will never prove the existence of God. This statement only apply while God mentioned as God the creator, all mighty, as prime cause. God mentioned above was originated from ancient believe of supernatural being above human race. God as all mighty one and as prime cause are developed from ancient Sumerian religion and become strong / main Influence of present Middle East origin religion. In which Oriental Religion Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism do not embrace to this kind of vision. God the creator, are a simple answer for somebody questioning, who create universe, who create human etc. God All Mighty is a simple answer for somebody questioning who create destiny, who direct the nature, etc (all unseen power beyond human capability). We talk about God are answer for scientically unanswered question. For sample, before everybody believe rain, storm, thunder is God creation and now science explain what cause rain, storm and thunder, so the devense of theology are goes deeper, who create all those mechanism, while science explain, Theology questioning further. Many thing works like this between Theology and Science. So since God are the answer for which science can not explain (yet). What should be questioned is "Is God created by Human to answer unexplained phenomena or to satisfy the curiosity of other human?"
Science doesn't seem to prove or disprove God, even if every creationist accepted evolution as true and every evolutionist accepted the existance of a higher power, that would not prove nor disprove God or his/her/it's/their hand in evolution/our creation. (though it'd make me wonder LOL we're not likely to agree on much are we?) I just think that this isn't something science can solve either way, and I am not sure if science will ever be the right tool for this..
Actually, God has promised that he can & will visit us individually & eventually collectively. I doubt that science could prove or disprove the existance of God because even if they broke down the very tinyest molecule it wouldnt answer the question of WHY things exist? There have only been a precious few, who have saught diligently & lived worthy enough to have God himself visit the Earth to show himself to them & it was NOT through science. I have nothing against them looking. They have helped with mans understanding & prolonging of life emencely. Its just a shame many of them think they are more intelligent than the faithfull because they know how a cow converts grass into milk! Who is of greater intellegence the man searching for God within or the man searching for God in the Dust? But how many ask themselves why does the cow exist? if its the theory of survival of the fittest why is the COW still around? & if man evolved from apes then were are the inbetweenies? & why are there still apes? I for one, will not be searching for God, through science. But Best Wishes Gentlemen.
I think Glenn pretty fairly hit the nail on the head, but I'd just like to add that scientifically, there are only what, 6 or 7 things we can truly "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt about our universe? Just because the sun has always risen doesn't mean it always will. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow is simply a theory. To truly "know" something you must be able to disprove every single possible alternative. This means all those things we take for granted can't be taken for granted. So you see, to prove the existence of God we have to be able to disprove any alternate possibilities. But we know only a handful of the most utterly general things about our universe! We don't even know for sure that we're really in this reality or whether it's a dream or weird state of consciousness where nothing is truly real! How then are we going to prove or disprove something so all-important and specific as God's existence? This is why the word "theory" is truly so important to science. If you want to know whether the existence of God is likely, try listening to some of the stuff Ravi Zecharias says. One of the points he'll hammer on is that for any true morality to exist in the universe there must have been a God to institute such a moral Law. And if there were no moral Law then all would be permissible including rape, genocide, and murder. God is also needed as the embodiment of such a moral Law for if no one meets a law how then can it exist? But we are more then mere computers, we have a yearning for justice, a tendency towards thoughts of morality, and feelings (at least in some of us) that places an emphasis on other people above their usefulness to us. Therefore, for a person to deny the existence of God, Ravi would say they then deny ultimate morality, a reason to treat others with said morality, and that they themselves are moral.
Science is the process of using observation and measurment to accuratly determine future and past events. Since God is beyond measurment and observation, he cannot be proven to exist scientificaly. God can never be used in a fomula, and can never be and end result of a question in science, because using God would never actually answer your question, and science would never progress. i.e. If you climbed to the top of a mountain and saw sea shells, you would find this very strange, and perhaps through not understanding, allocate a supernatural force to their presence on the top of the mountain. But this has not answered the question of why they are there in the first place. Scientific study would show that continental shift pushed two plates together, raising ground that was previously under the sea level to 5000ft above sea level. The actuall answer did not require the supernatural.
your answer is good but incorrect and you even admitted it in the answer when you said god is...by what logic can you say that god is something when you admit that it cannot be proven?
god cannot be proven. faith in god takes many forms and is only limited to perspective, or frame of reference. each frame of reference is unique and cannot be shared. nor will any frame of reference ever be repeated. the concept of god is a good one if he does exist and has enabled man to lead the race of life in the the quest for finding god if (he) does exist.
There is absolutely no way science can prove that the good Lord exsits. There is only 1 way top prove it & that is through people who love you.
Well as far as we know you can look at the smallest things, like atoms and electrons and yet there may still be smaller things. Also you can look at the biggest thing like the universe and it is probably part of something bigger. If you can go infinitely in both "directions" them I'm sure there is a "God" or something, and possibly we are "Godz".
Which God are we referring to? If I understand correctly, there are quite a few Gods. I think its necessary to specify which one.
The universe around you, your life, the design of the human body, the design of nature; all of these things had to have had an intelligent Designer; a Creator. There is a common atheistic theory of how life began that I call "the Soup Theory". This theory states that all life came from an inorganic soup, or basicly, that life arose from non-life. However, wouldn't this be Spontaneous Generation which was disproved quite some time ago? Wasn't it proven that life only comes from other living things? This "Soup Theory" also claims that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "Organic Soup" and then linked together to form proteins, the principle ingredients of living cells. Then, suppossedly, these proteins got together with DNA to form cells. I have done some reading on this and I've read that amino acids will not "link together" to form proteins. Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the write order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together. No proteins ever form outside of already living cells. I read this in a booklet by Thomas F. Heinze called "In the Beginning...Soup?", it's quite interesting. In conclusion, I believe that science can prove that there is a God, but if I am to choose the side of either faith or science, I choose faith over science because the Bible teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God. Also, as one person who made a comment to one of the answers to this question stated: "if you need proof, then you lack faith." I don't need what skeptics may call "proof" to believe in God, I have faith in Jesus Christ and Him saving my soul is enough proof for me that He is real and that He is God. I hope that this helps. Thank you and God bless you!
Doubt it. It could prove Biblical events though.
No not really
I believe you've put your finger on the problem. If science could prove the existence of God, then THAT could not be GOD. Quite the conundrum.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED" - "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
Answer with a question: If god can create anything and everything, can god create something too heavy for god to lift?
I hadn't really thought about it til the 8th grade, but the basic idea of existence makes no sense to me unless there was some force that defied all laws of science (that created matter in the first place). If the universe started as nothing, not even blank space (as how could that exist without being created), then (in my mind) there must be some type of being who created it. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein Call it whatever you like: the Christian God, Hindu God, the Muslim God or something entirely different, everybody has their own ideas about how things got started and I don't know why there's such a fuss.
No I don't think it can. I don't even think it can explain regular things all that well in some cases.
This question has already been pretty thoroughly discussed here (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/16188).
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? ___ YES ___ NO B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? ___ YES ___ NO C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? ___ YES ___ NO Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten. man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. George Gallup, the famous statistician, said, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity." Not to scare you but what if there were a heaven and hell? Some mathmatician said that we dont know one millionth of one percent of anything. Wouldnt you say that there is some possibility you could be wrong about there being no God?
Science does not believe in the existence of God; thus, why would science (Or anyone else in the same boat for that matter) attempt to prove the existence of something they're absolutely sure doesn't exist?
Since God is an idea developed to explain those things that man does not have the ability to explain through sceince his existance as an actually being can not be proven. Trying to do that is like proving a charecter in a fictonal book was actually a real person when they never really existed at all. They were just an idea someone had in their head. And that's what faith is. It's believing in the existance of something that can't be proven except in one's own mind. In reality God will only exist so long as man needs him too. Once that time has passed sceince will be all that is left to believe in.
While I was getting my Bachelors degree in physics and my Doctorate in math, my physics teacher wanted us to tackle that exact same question ... the best that we could do was to co-author the now famous paper called, "The Fundamental Laws of Chaos Dynamics" ... in which we proved that there is no such thing as Chaos, only increasingly complex order ... the entire universe is highly ordered, and when we think something is random, it is NOT random, we just do not recognize the complex patterns ... we were able to use math and physics equations to prove this. ... based on our work on the neat order of chaos dynamics, others have developped fractals and random number generators and all sorts of encryption algorythms that use precise order to simulate chaos ... ... but we were unable to prove that this order exists because God made it that way, or maybe the universe is just one big ordered coincidence.
It can't.. No matter the proof. Whatever "is" proved will always be up to interpretation. Which is why the request of the atheist is highly illogical.
glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. 1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... 2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? 3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? 4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?
glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. 1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... 2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? 3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? 4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?
there are things that we cant understand at least for the time being, understanding is also based on the human imagination, hence if we cant imagine heaven which was described in my religon by the prophet Mohammed that no eyes have seen or ears have heared, which in the deep meaning means that it's beyond the human imagination, how ever butiful it is in your mind it's far more than that, if we couldnt understand that, could we unerstand the scientific proof to the existence of God?
Actually the existence of God has been proven mathematically. If your not up on the current info that is your problem.
Can't (yet) yo...
Precisely like this (though I don't know if there be other ways to prove it, but certainly this leaves answers begging left right & centre): PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE, YET ASTOUNDING, BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU. EVOLUTION?? For myself, I do not just Believe 'Biological Evolution of the Species' NOT to be true, I have literally and uniquely PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. 'HOW??' you may ask … or 'WHY THEM??' They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, firstly discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon. 'WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??' you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?" In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, in order to, simply, accent differentiation of the species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. The very rule of life itself takes priority. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are, necessarily, Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in overall alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory in defining the types of life that exist. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them for His own specific purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible – Genesis, Chapter 3] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and to God!! … all the more so when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. [Genesis, Chapter 1] This recognition and acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His Great name: "The Master". OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point – is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana, as well – at 80% simlarity. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don't think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists and operates efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively within nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET'S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, "TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!" (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when 'flaccid') vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a 'hiss & a byword' vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6" – 30'] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly 'picked' and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man's (woman's in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man's is vestigially 'buried' in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the "Vestigial structures" you point out; I hadn't thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my 'work' that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of 'Opposition between Man and snake'], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol' MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also 'opposite humans'. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] 'nearest cousins' (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its 'skin' in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU.
First of all DO NOT use Deductive reasoning. Use inductive reasoning, initially. From what is, determine what did not create it. Take Japan, I didn't make it, did you? Is there really a Japan? What proof is there? Is this a George Bush inspired hoax to defray tax dollars? My point being, use science to prove the most micro level and the most macro level. DON'T deal with the intermediaries that will throw you off. If you chose to look at the macro level, try stuart clark's book DEEP SPACE. It blew me away. If we don't have a powerful god, we better find one SOON!!!! Good luck
It could be said that science shows the way in which God works, and how he built the universe.
If science was not science, but instead some kind of stupid, pointless thing that means nothing.
There is a 10 x 10 matrix, which I have named THE UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL MATRIX: The Primum Mobile. Pythagoras, Moses, Dante Alighieri and others knew of this matrix. THE UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL MATRIX can be GOOGLED. This matrix constellates on its own. It is not an invention of man. The scribes of antiquity used it to write the sacred scriptures of the world. There are many geometrical patterns in this matrix and they have been coded to the literature of antiquity. This matrix is a missive from the transcendent and the foundation of all creation: thus the existence of God is estabished scientifically. This matrix is a manifestation of the MONAD.
As Blaylock admits, there is no way to prove the existence of god(s). God, by definition, is "supernatural," outside the realm of human perception. This places God alongside leprechauns, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Puff the Magic Dragon. They all 'exist' (in your mind) if you BELIEVE they exist. . Science is knowledge. Religion is merely belief. You can believe anything you like. . â— "God is as real as I am," the old man said. My faith was restored, for I knew that Santa would never lie. . â— "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick . â— If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
since i've read none of the other answers, this one may already have been mentioned. if so, i am apologizing in advance for the redundancy. but then duplicate answers could mean we were on to something more significant than spouting arrogant bullshit: since scientific proof requires an observer, and by most religions' definition of god (he) is inclusive of everything that exists, it seems unlikely that the scientific method could ever be used to prove that there is god. i mean, if god really is (ALL), then there is nothing outside of god to observe his existence. and just like a scientist who works alone and claims he can prove anything that hasn't already been proved by others, (without detailing his methodology for others to observe), is unlikely to be believed, god can't prove his own existence outside of his...well, existence. i think you get where i'm coming from... and then there's the idea that science has no use for "faith without proof", while religion is built on "faith without proof". could destroying its opposite (as in science destroying religion by proving god's existence) really make something more meaningful? or would it just make both ideas meaningless? i'm just saying that both science and religion both gain their significance (or existence) by virtue of each others existence. i think sometimes we must be careful what we wish for, because we may just get it.
it wudnt-full stop. science cant prove that god exsists, thats our job as people of him.
>> How would science prove the existence of God? The same way that scientists would prove the existence of Superman, The Hulk, or Godzilla. They would gather all the evidence they could find, analyze it, and publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. In general, scientists don't deal with supernatural phenomena or imaginary creatures. (Imaginary means something for which no evidence is available.) For example, a legitimate doctor doesn't examine a sick patient for the presence of evil demons. However, a Christian might perform an "exorcism." If you find brightly colored eggs around the house on Easter Sunday, you probably won't get a scientist interested in proving or disproving the existence of the Easter Bunny. However, Christians believe that a man who had been dead 3 days came back to life on this day, and levitated into the sky. If you find gift-wrapped boxes under your Xmas tree on Dec. 25, you probably won't get a scientist interested in proving or disproving the existence of Santa Claus. However, you can find thousands of pious believers who claim a baby born on this day saved us all from sin-- although you won't find two people who agree on what a "sin" is. :) Some high school students who were partying in the woods saw smoke coming out of a cave and they thought they had proved the existence of Puff the Magic Dragon. On closer inspection, however, it turned out to be some lost hikers warming themselves at a campfire. But don't let reality dampen your spirits. Lots of people spend their lives trying to prove the existence of god(s). Just keep looking for evidence. :)
Organize a wrestling match between a Bishop and an atheist. Two falls, two submissions or a knockout would decide, infallible.
If scientific technology is accepted by all people because they can physically see and understand the evidence, then science can prove that God exists. Using scientific technology I can prove that God exists! This is no idle claim, this is fact; challenge me and fall.
You have to think "beyond the beyond" here. Maybe in a few hundred, thousand, or millions of years (or maybe even never), when we evolve sufficiently enough to develop the biologocial equipment, starts to be able to resonate with the multiverse that is kind of being proven today, AND
Sorry, I hit the back arrow accidently. AND we become worthy of communicating with the creative force of the Universe, will we even have a slight chance. I do however, strongly believe that religion is nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with so-called God. Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Hunduism, all just junk that has separated humanity from each other since the very first time anyone postulated the existence of "god", or "his son", or his "prophet". All garbage, all just ancient refuse that hurts people. I've developed a new saying, and it goes like this: If you want to imagine what it feels like to be in Gods presence, then feel Love. Because Love is all you need. If you want to imagine God thinks about when creating things, study quantum physics, mathematics, science, and anything else scientific. There is also the possibility that it's all nonsense and that we're here for nothing else than the reason that we're lucky to exist, and that's it. And that's what I truly feel, and believe.
No.But the more science understands about our world,the less power god has.
Not at the momoent but as the Time magazine article and several others have stated, More and more scientists are leaning towards intelligent design as the only logical explanation for the universe.
No, because the symbol "God" has no rigorous definition. As far as science is concerned that symbol is either without referent, or has too many referents- either way it's useless for constructing hypotheses or for any sort of clear thinking on the subject.
No, but at the same time, I don't think it can DISprove the existence of God. Hope that makes sense...I mean, you can never prove that something does not exist.
First you have to define: Which one? http://www.godchecker.com/ Then you'd have to formulate a way to detect the God. How would you do that? Highly unlikely. http://godisimaginary.com/
Only if Christianity is correct and not another religion.
That would be God's choice. He/she/it/they could, if they exist, perfectly well choose to demonstrate their presence in a way that science could prove. The fact that science has not done so show that either God does not exist, or God has chosen not to be discoverable.
It is possible depending on a couple conditions. - First off, assuming god exists. If there is no god, one cannot be proven. - Secondly, it is dependent upon the qualities of that god. For instance, if we are talking about a personal god (like the Christian god) who is involved with the goings on here on earth, it would be (hypothetically) possible to detect when god changes something in the world. Perhaps it is not possible with today's technology, but it is hypotheticaly possible.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC


text:
Yesterday's Heroes Album
The Adelaide Music Collective and South Australian Music Hall Of fame invite you to attend the recording sessions for the upcoming 'Yesterday's Heroes' Album.
The Album features 10 Classic Songs by 10 SA Music Hall Of Famers, rerecorded and reimagined by 10 of SA's best up and coming Singer Songwriters.
1. 9:50 - The Twilights by Max Savage
2. Pushbike Song - The Mixtures by Laura Hill
3. If you got it - Fraternity by Troy Loakes
4. Shadow Boxer - The Angels by Sam Brittain
5. We Can't be Beaten - Rose Tattoo by Tara Carragher
6. The Looking Glass - Bev Harrell by Loren Kate
7. Winter In America - Doug Ashdown by Nancy Bates
8. Last Romance - Mark Holden by Kelly Menhennett
9. War or Hands of Time - Masters Apprentices by Banjo jackson
10. The Long Run - Redgum by Tom West
The Adelaide Music Collective South Australian Music Hall Of Fame's album 'Yesterday's Heroes' is available from:
Mr V Music - 115 Semaphore Rd, Semaphore SA 5019
8341 5234
Big Star cd's and Records - 160 Magill Rd, Norwood 8362 8393
Streetlight Adelaide - Shop 2/15 Vaughan Place , Adelaide
Rock Therapy - 536 Goodwood Rd Daw Park
8357 5363
Avaliable on:
© 2018 Adelaide Music Collective - SA Music Hall Of Fame
In Memory of David 'Daisy' Day
Published by: Victor J. Marshall

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your routes, with extra wow
Customise your Strava runs, rides, and hikes to create beautiful charts. It's as free as the wind ✌
Create a map
Create a map
Your routes are too hard for default templates
This is how Wowtes works:
Pick your activity
You can choose from all your Strava activities. We even help you find your highlights!
Customise your map
Choose a theme to start with and tweak it to match your soul.
Share or download it
Show your acomplishment to the world by sharing directly to social media or saving it as a file.
Need a cool template, though?
We handcrafted map themes that tell stories of fun and passion.
Wowtes Dark
Wowtes Light
Mappe Monde
Swiss Topo
Gear Brylls
Razor Sharp
Tech Rider
Flight Plan
Tiger & Elephant
Dust & Rust
Solarized Dark
Orange Fever
Shibuya Night
Got feedback?
See anything broken?
Would do something different?
We'd love to hear you out!
Share your feedback
About us
Press Kit
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
All content © Copyright 2020
Made with love @ Quartzo


text:
Connecting with Your Star Family and ETs
I have some suggestions for channeling and connecting with your star families and extraterrestrials, please use only what resonates with you and leave the rest. I'm often in contact with higher dimensional ETs, angelic beings, and entities (usually my clients' guides) due to the type of work I do. To make this clear and easy to read, I will outline my tips numerically, so here goes:
1) First and foremost, Self protection is KEY! In the Akashic Records Reading process, I always WITHOUT FAIL clear the space around me to ensure that only the highest vibrational energies are allowed to stay. I use a white pillar of Light directly from Source to do this...I visualize it as a column of light coming in through my crown chakra and creating a protective grid around me and my client. I also do what is called the "divine heart triangle" that connects me, my client, and Source to keep only the highest vibrations in the space. You can still do this for yourself without the additional person...visually connect you and your Higher Self with Source instead. Ask for help from your favorite archangels if you feel it's needed, but that isn't a requirement.
2) Intention and state of your own frequency. It's important that you keep your own frequency as high vibrational as possible. Like will only attract like...the lower vibrational entities may try to attach, but they won't be able to if your vibration is high. No need to fear dark entities or attachments...that will only attract them to you more. Just be your lovely self and you will attract lovely beings. Intention plays a part too...if your reason for connecting is for the highest good or to help someone else out, then you will attract benevolent beings. If you are doing it out of ego or curiosity, the benevolent ETs won't be interested in engaging...they are too busy to mess around with lookie-loos. 😉
3) Keep a clear, open space in your heart chakra. Heart connections is everything with our extraterrestrial friends. They tend to prefer to connect with us telepathically, so an open pure heart is needed. You'll know when you are at the right state of being...if you are happy and at peace, it's better than being stressed or angry.
4) Trust whatever comes. A lot of times the messages you'll receive won't look like what you are expecting. You may receive visual images or sounds or music instead of the spoken word. Our ET friends are fond of using symbols and sacred geometry too. It may be up to you to interpret their communications the best you can as they don't communicate in the same way we do here on Earth.
5) Have fun...and relax! Our higher dimensional friends have a great sense of humor and love to laugh...they love to make us laugh too. You will have much more meaningful conversations if you are not taking it too seriously.
Hope this has been helpful...best of luck to you! 💗💗💗
P.S. "Divine Heart Triangle" is a terminology used by Akashic practitioners like myself to connect myself with my client's Higher Self energy and with Source simultaneously. I think Linda Howe first coined the term in her Akashic Reading books. You can use divine heart triangle to connect with your own higher self and Source when working within the higher realms.


text:
Legacy Park Vacation Resort
Legacy Park is located in Davenport on Highway 27 near the 192 junction, and is situated just 10 minutes from Walt Disney World® and is conveniently centrally located to all the major theme parks, shops, restaurants and championship golf courses.
The community of Legacy Park comprises of 7 smaller subdivisions or 'Villages', named:
- The Estates at Legacy Park
- The Retreat at Legacy Park
- The Commons at Legacy Park
- The Towns at Legacy Park
- The Center at Legacy Park
- The Groves at Legacy Park
- Highgate Park at Legacy Park
Close to Disney, Universal Studios, Sea World, Aquatica and all the major theme parks and attractions, including world class shopping, dozens of golf courses and many local's attractions and historical places of interest. It really is the ideal location. It is equipped with every possible facility you and your family will need to ensure you have a great time. Each home is individually owned and the furnishings and décor were personally designed and chosen by the homeowner, so no two homes are alike. Each of the homes also has the luxury of a private pool many also have a spa area. Situated only 15 mins from the gates of Disney, and yet far enough away to enjoy those peaceful evenings relaxing by your own private pool.


text:
Well, we've all been there, but what's more unfortunate is that the 'Delete for Everyone' feature WhatsApp introduced two years ago contains an unpatched privacy bug, leaving its users with false sense of privacy.
WhatsApp and its rival Telegram messenger offer "Delete for Everyone," a potentially life-saving feature on which millions of people today rely to escape the awkwardness of mistakenly sending messages / pictures / videos to the wrong person.
As the name indicates, the 'Delete for Everyone' feature is intended to unsend mistakenly sent inappropriate messages—including text, photos and videos—from the recipient's phone, or from the phones of all members of a group.
In the case of WhatsApp, the feature is only available within 1 hour, 8 minutes, and 16 seconds of sending a message you want to delete, which is fine and a fair use case.
However, it turns out that WhatsApp 'Delete for Everyone' feature doesn't delete media files sent to iPhone users (with default settings) as it does from the Android devices, leaving sent files saved on the recipient's iOS device even if the messenger chat screen displays you, "This message has been deleted."
According to Shitesh Sachan, an application security consultant, who found this privacy issue and shared his findings exclusively with The Hacker News, the feature for WhatsApp for iOS has not been designed to delete received media files saved in the iPhone's Camera Roll.
On the other hand, if you use 'Delete for Everyone' against an Android user, WhatsApp will delete the sent media files from the recipient device's gallery as well.
#Telegram messenger patches a #privacy flaw in its "delete for everyone" feature that was not actually deleting shared images from the recipients' devices stored under "/Telegram/Telegram Images/" folder; instead was only deleting it from the chat screen.https://t.co/JNgfUsNYYL— The Hacker News (@TheHackersNews) September 9, 2019
The incomplete functionality concerns because WhatsApp by default automatically saves all images/videos you receive via WhatsApp to your iPhone's Camera Roll or Android's Media Gallery, which otherwise can be turned OFF from the app's settings, but very few people either knows or care about it.
There's another angle to the story that Apple policies don't allow the apps to make any changes to files saved on the users' Camera Roll without their consent, which is a good thing. But if that's the case, WhatsApp should not even falsely advertise users 'Delete for Everyone' option unless their recipients' don't manually change settings to do not save attachments to the device external storage.
Fight AI with AI — Battling Cyber Threats with Next-Gen AI Tools
Ready to tackle new AI-driven cybersecurity challenges? Join our insightful webinar with Zscaler to address the growing threat of generative AI in cybersecurity.Supercharge Your Skills
Earlier this week, a similar privacy flaw was disclosed in the "Delete for Everyone" feature of the Telegram messenger, which the company patched immediately to keep the feature useful in situations for which it has primarily been designed.
When Sachan reported this issue to WhatsApp, the company refused to address the issue or extend the feature, saying:
"The functionality provided via "Delete for Everyone" is intended to delete the message and there is no guarantee that the media (or message) will be permanently deleted—the implementation focuses around the message presence in WhatsApp."
WhatsApp Security team also argued that the "recipients may see your message before it's deleted or if deletion wasn't successful," but as far as we understand the feature was not even intended to save users from out-of-the-hand scenarios where recipients move or save the media file manually or screenshot the chat.
Though WhatsApp says "there is no guarantee a message or the attachments will be deleted," the company hinted that it might make changes to this functionality and its implementation in the future.
In a statement shared with The Hacker News, a WhatsApp spokesperson said:
"This feature is working properly, and using the 'delete for everyone' feature in time will result in media being removed from the WhatsApp chat thread. We provide simple options to help iPhone users manage the media they receive from friends and family, per the best practices established by operating systems. If a user chooses to save images to their camera roll they are stored out of reach of WhatsApp's 'delete for everyone feature."


text:
It seems like every time The Jezabels come through Chicago I have a conflict on my schedule. Wednesday night was the first time I was actually able to see them play live after 5 years of trying. Back in 2011 I interviewed the band at SxSw, and they seemed like very nice people. The fact that they also play good music is a great bonus. I was hoping to hear "Noah's Ark," the great bonus track from Prisoner, but that wasn't in the cards.
There was a good amount of cheering when Sam Lockwood, Heather Shannon, and Nik Kaloper took the stage, but the biggest applause came when lead singer Hayley Mary appeared in her Be My Holiday leather jacket. From that point on it was a pretty steady set-no lulls, no huge moment. It was a great way to spend Thanksgiving eve.
Much of the hour-plus of music came from their latest record, Synthia. I still prefer stuff from Dark Storm and Prisoner, but they take some chances on Synthia that make it an interesting listen. It's also the most accessible of their albums, so if you've never heard them before, it's a great place to start.


text:
Starting Rotation
|Ian Kennedy
|On Friday against the Cubs, Kennedy pitched four scoreless innings and was even given a two-run lead, but the long ball doomed Ian again. He left in the 6th inning, allowing three runs but still earning the win. In the season finale against the Rockies, Ian pitched much better but was once again the victim of poor run support. He pitched seven innings and gave up two runs, neither earned.
Season Line: 15-12, 4.02 ERA, 103 ERA+, 1.30 WHIP
|Trevor Cahill
|Cahill pitched his second-best game of the season Saturday against the Cubs. Trevor pitched a complete game, and didn't give up any runs until a two-run home run in the 9th inning. His whole September was a nice end to the season for Cahill.
Season Line: 13-12, 3.78 ERA, 200.0 IP, 110 ERA+, 1.29 WHIP
|Wade Miley
|Miley finally raised his stock in his final outing of the year. He pitched 7.2 innings and didn't allow a run until the 7th; one of "his" three runs was allowed by Zagurski after him. Miley struck out a career-high 10 Rockies.
Season Line: 16-11, 3.33 ERA, 194.2 IP, 125 ERA+, 1.18 WHIP
|Patrick Corbin
|Corbin ended his season on an incredibly high note. On his mother's birthday, he pitched seven innings and allowed just one run. Sadly, he didn't earn the win because of a blown save, but it was a very great night for Corbin.
Season Line: 6-8, 4.54 ERA, 107.0 IP, 92 ERA+, 1.33 WHIP
|Josh Collmenter
|It was only Collmenter's 11th start of the year, but it was a good one. For the second straight outing he was limited to five innings, but he again gave up only one run to the Cubs. He left with a lead, but the wheels came off the wagon after that.
Season Line: 28 G (11 starts), 5-3, 3.69 ERA, 90.1 IP, 113 ERA+, 1.26 WHIP
|Matt Albers
|Albers pitched a scoreless inning Friday, but all three inherited runners scored Saturday night, plus one of his own, in just one out.
Season Line (w/ AZ): 23 G, 21 IP, 2.57 ERA, 164 ERA+, 1.10 WHIP
|Brad Bergesen
|Bergesen allowed one run in one inning on Sunday, but Monday was worse. He entered in the 13th inning and left with one out, one run already in, and the bases loaded; they all eventually scored.
Season Line: 19 G, 29.2 IP, 3.64 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.21 WHIP
|David Hernandez
|The normally-lights-out Hernandez picked one of the worst times for a meltdown. He blew the save for Corbin on Tuesday, allowing two runs on three hits in one inning. He hadn't allowed a run since September 7th, including 1.1 IP scoreless earlier in the week. He struck out two in a scoreless inning this afternoon.
Season Line: 72 G, 68.1 IP, 2-3/4 SV, 2.50 ERA, 167 ERA+, 1.02 WHIP
|J.J. Putz
|J.J. pitched three games this past week, a scoreless non-save inning both times.
Season Line: 57 G, 54.1 IP, 1-5/32 SV, 2.82 ERA, 148 ERA+, 1.03 WHIP
|Matt Lindstrom
|Lindstrom pitched 1.1 innings this week, walking one, and striking one out leaving the bases loaded Friday night.
Season Line (w/ AZ): 12 G, 10.2 IP, 2.53 ERA, 170 ERA+, 1.13 WHIP
|Takashi Saito
|Saito allowed one run (a home run) in the 9th inning of in game we were already losing by a lot.
Season Line: 16 G, 12.0 IP, 6.75 ERA, 63 ERA+, 1.83 WHIP
|Bryan Shaw
|Like Bergesen, Shaw came in Sunday afternoon ahead by one and left one out later with the bases loaded, all of whom later scored. The very next day, he pitched two scoreless innings.
Season Line: 64 G, 59.1 IP, 1-6/2 SV, 3.49 ERA, 120 ERA+, 1.42 WHIP
|Tyler Skaggs
|Season Line: 1-3, 29.1 IP, 5.83 ERA, 72 ERA+, 1.47 WHIP
|Mike Zagurski
|On Sunday, big Z came in with the bases loaded and left 'em that way with a strikeout. Monday night, he came in with the bases loaded and let them all score.
Season Line: 45 G, 37.1 IP, 5.54 ERA, 76 ERA+, 1.50 WHIP
|Brad Ziegler
|Brad pitched two innings in the Rockies series, giving up a hit in each but keeping em scoreless. And, wouldn't you know it, one of those baserunners was erased on a ground ball double play.
Season Line: 77 G, 6-1, 68.2 IP, 2.49 ERA, 168 ERA+, 1.09 WHIP
Starting Lineup
|Gerardo Parra
|Parra had a fair week with some more playing time, going 5-for-19 with a home run on Monday.
Season Line: 133 G, .273 AVG / .335 OBP / .392 SLG / .727 OPS, 7 HR, 36 RBI
|Aaron Hill
|Aaron "Doubles Machine" Hill was at it again this final series of the year. He raised his average from .299 to .302 by going 10-for-22, including two home runs and four doubles. He had two three-hit games (that elusive triple...). He gets my star for not only the week but the entire season.
Season Line: 156 G, .302/.360/.522/.882, 26 HR, 85 RBI
|Paul Goldschmidt
|Goldschmidt battled a sore back and only played in the three Colorado games. He went 2-for-13 with a home run.
Season Line: 145 G, .286/.359/.490/.850, 20 HR, 82 RBI
|Miguel Montero
|Montero finished the season on a bit of a downward slide, dropping his average from .290 to .286 this last week. He was just 2-for-14, including 0-for-4 Wednesday afternoon.
Season Line: 141 G, .286/.391/.438/.829, 15 HR, 88 RBI
|Justin Upton
|Upton, meanwhile, finished on a major upswing - .375 for the week, including a 3-for-4 effort in a loss on Wednesday. He hit two home runs and drove in four.
Season Line: 150 G, .270/.355/.430/.785, 17 HR, 67 RBI
|Chris Johnson
|Johnson went just 2-for-12 in three games this week.
Season Line (w/ AZ): 43 G, .286/.321/.503/.824, 7 HR, 35 RBI
|John McDonald
|Johnny Mac hit for a .316 average this week, and some of those six hits were some of the biggest this week, including a two-run home run Tuesday evening.
Season Line: 70 G, .249/.295/.386/.681, 6 HR, 22 RBI
|A.J. Pollock
|The team got a good look at Pollock this week, who got four starts. He hit his second major league home run Wednesday afternoon, en route to a .294 week.
Season Line: 31 G, .247/.315/.395/.710, 2 HR, 7 RBI
|Adam Eaton
|Eaton was 5-for-8 in the first two Cubs games, but was hit by a pitch and broke his right hand, ending his season early.
Season Line: 22 G, .259 AVG/ .382 OBP / .412 SLG / .794 OPS, 2 HR, 5 RBI
|Jake Elmore
|Elmore went 0-for-5 in one start and one pinch-hit appearance in the Cubs series.
Season Line: 30 G, .191/.247/.250/.497, 0 HR, 7 RBI
|Tyler Graham
|Graham pinch-ran in three more games, and was 0-for-1 (a K) on Saturday.
Season Line: 10 G, 0-for-2
|Mike Jacobs
|Jacobs started all three Cubs games while Goldy was sidelined, and went 3-for-10 plus three walks. He was 0-for-2 as a pinch hitter.
Season Line: 13 G, 4-for-19
|Jason Kubel
|In very limited playing time this week, Kubel had just one hit, a double, in three games.
Season Line: 141 G, .253/.327/.506/.833, 30 HR, 90 RBI
|Wil Nieves
|Nieves ended the season going 0-for-8 in two starts against the Cubs.
Season Line (w/ AZ): 16 G, .306/.324/.417/.741, 1 HR, 3 RBI
|Cody Ransom
|Ransom was 2-for-7, including a home run, in two Cubs games.
Season Line (w/ AZ): 26 G, .269/.352/.551/.904, 5 HR, 16 RBI
|Konrad Schmidt
|Schmidt had two plate appearances in Monday's extra-inning loss. He went 0-for-1 with a bases-loaded walk.
Season Line: 4 G, 0-for-7
|Ryan Wheeler
|Wheeler went 2-for-5 in his start on Saturday and was 1-for-3 as a pinch-hitter.
Season Line: 50 G, .239/.294/.339/.634, 1 HR, 10 RBI
|Chris Young
|CY was 1-for-3 plus a walk as a pinch hitter.
Season Line: 101 G, .231/.311/.434/.745, 14 HR, 41 RBI
Disabled List
|Henry Blanco
|Season Line: 21 G, .188/.224/.281/.505, 1 HR, 7 RBI
|Willie Bloomquist
|Season Line: 80 G, .302/.325/.398/.724, 0 HR, 23 RBI
|Daniel Hudson
|Season Line: 9 G, 3-2, 7.35 ERA, 57 ERA+, 1.63 WHIP
Stats run from 9/28 - 10/03.


text:
Apneic Oxygenation: Increase Your Patient's Margin Of Safety During Intubation
Breathing room air, oxygen saturation drops precipitously to below 90% within about a minute of the start of apnea in the average healthy adult. While preoxygenation is one of the most important safety measures we can use prior to induction of anesthesia and in preparation for intubation, apneic oxygenation can allow even more time for intubation to occur. Apneic oxygenation using nasal cannula can significantly delay the onset of critical hypoxia.


text:
Win a Meet and Greet with 5SOS with the Fun 107 App
It's just pure coincidence that after a summer that went by way too fast, and now it's the first week of fall already, that 5 Seconds of Summer is going to be in the area this weekend.
The boys are currently touring with the Chainsmokers on their "World War Joy Tour,"
stopping in Boston on Friday and then heading to Mohegan Sun on Saturday. We snagged some meet-and-greet passes for you to meet the boys since they clearly bring summer vibes and we want to hold onto summer for as long as possible.
We made this super easy for you to enter to win. Just open up the Fun 107 app. Right on the first page is the 5SOS button. Click on it and simply fill in the entry form to be entered to win.
It's seriously that easy. We'll pick a winner Thursday afternoon; that way, you have time to plan on who you would take with you. One lucky winner will get a pair of tickets to the Saturday show at Mohegan Sun so you can see both 5SOS and the Chainsmokers. These tickets will include a pair of meet-and-greet passes to meet the boys of 5SOS.
In case you have never been to a Chainsmokers show, getting ready to dance your butt off and wear comfy shoes. I hear 5SOS also rocks the house. So jealous if you win these!
So why are you still reading this? Get on the app, download it if you don't have it already, and get yourself signed up.


text:
The election results are in, and no one can say that they weren't surprised. Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya Alliance, a secular grouping that in the December 2005 parliamentary elections had been relegated to fourth place, has come out on top this time with 91 MPs. Nouri Al-Maliki, the incumbent prime minister and leader of the State of Law Coalition, which had been hoping to dominate the next government by winning as many as 120 seats in the current elections, has had to settle for 89. Both groups are now furiously courting some of the elections' other winners, in particular the Sadrist movement (39 seats) and the Kurdish Alliance (43 seats) with a view to securing the 163 seats that any alliance would need in order to win a vote of confidence in parliament. Although the effort is only a few days old, it has already given rise to accusations (by the ruling party no less) of electoral fraud, to an effort to disqualify winning candidates because of alleged links to the banned Baath Party, and to the intense involvement of foreign nations (most particularly Iran) in an effort to influence the outcome.
The elections have also revived the spectacle of foreign analysts congratulating themselves at the establishment of what they are now once again claiming is the middle east's freest democracy. If only they knew how hollow their words ring in Arab ears. Just about anyone who has spent any time in the middle east has seen first-hand that Iraqis continue to flee their country, and that those who have managed to settle abroad have no intention of returning unless forced. The Iraqi dream is not to bask in the light of their new democracy, but to find some way of reaching Australia or Canada, or at least to find a way to remain in Syria, Jordan or Lebanon.
Seven years later
Although the election did manage to attract some interest from the wider Arab population, it has not been discussed in the manner which neo-conservative idealists might have hoped: Arabs are too aware of the never-ending humanitarian crisis in Iraq to see the elections as anything other than a struggle for power between rival camps, both of which have failed to deliver on their promise of a better life for the country's poor and destitute. The promise of freedom and a better life for Iraqis, by American, British and Iraqi leaders alike, have simply not been met.
"In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions", so declared President George W. Bush on 7 September 2003, six months into the occupation of Iraq. And yet, on 26 March 2010, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights has announced that that it unearthed 84 post-Saddam mass graves in the past year alone. Also, Human Rights Watch stated in a report published just over a year ago that "[a]buse in detention, typically with the aim of extracting confessions, appears common" in the new Iraq. In 2009, the US State Department itself reported that it found "credible reports of torture, some resulting in death" in the Iraqi penal system.
Leaving fundamental rights aside, Iraqis remain beset by a never-ending list of problems that render their lives miserable to say the least. In the same speech, Bush stated that "[w]e will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads and medical clinics". After all the promises that were made, and the billions of dollars that were wasted, Iraqis still only receive four hours of electricity a day, are currently suffering from a housing crisis that is sometimes forcing dozens to live under a single roof, and have some of the highest unemployment rates in the region. With its huge operating costs, and incapacity to expend the little investment money that it has, the Iraqi state has been forced to take out new loans from multilateral organizations to plug a serious budget deficit, reducing even further its ability to meet its citizens' needs. Meanwhile, the country's legal framework remains as decrepit as it was back in 2003 – a provision that allows ministers to unilaterally forgive acts of corruption by ministry staff remains firmly on the books, effectively making a mockery of any attempts to fight corruption.
Different leaders, same difference
Given all of the above, the only question that deserves answering is whether any of the winners of the March 2010 elections can resolve these ongoing tragedies in the short or medium term. Both Maliki's State of Law Coalition and Allawi's Iraqiya Alliance profess to believe in many of the same fundamental principles – including that sectarianism has no place in Iraq and that Baghdad should maintain some measure of central control outside the Kurdistan region – to the extent that the only distinction between the two Alliances that could make any real difference in the lives of ordinary Iraqis is their respective capacities to govern and to deliver on their promises.
The evidence, either way, does not look promising. To start with, both individuals suffer from an insurmountable handicap: having lived in exile for over twenty years, their understanding of the functioning of the Iraqi state and its multitude of institutions remains weak. At the same time, they both remain detached from Iraqi society and the difficulties that their countrymen have to experience daily (both men's families have remained safely abroad).
Maliki, who was prime minister for four years, far longer than any of his rivals, led an electoral campaign that was mainly based on the reduction of violence that took place in 2008, which he has taken credit for. But it is widely known that the plan that led to that reduction was not his own, and that he had very little input on its implementation. Basic services have also barely improved during his tenure, with electricity shortages being just about as bad as they have always been, and the state of hospitals so poor that Iraqis still feel compelled to travel to Damascus or Amman for basic medical procedures. Finally, corruption has only worsened during Maliki's tenure. Any progress that has been made since 2006 has been made despite his administration and not because of it, while his attempts in 2009 to protect the former minister of trade from prosecution have permanently scarred his reputation.
Ayad Allawi, who claims to represent Iraq's silent majority, the secular middle, is no better. During his short tenure as interim prime minister from 2004 to the beginning of 2005, he presided over a general deterioration in security, including the sieges of both Fallujah and Najaf. The state's incapacity to deliver on basic services such as electricity continued unabated throughout 2004, and although there haven't been any meaningful accusations of corruption against him personally, several members of Allawi's government (including the ministers of defense and electricity) are widely believed to have embezzled billions of dollars.
Allawi has spent the remainder of his time since the start of 2005 in parliamentary opposition, where he has been particularly ineffective. He was the parliament's worst truant, preferring to engage in photo opportunities with foreign heads of state in western and Arab capitals and leaving his party practically leaderless in the process. His failure to engage in the drafting of the constitution in 2005, leaving the process to be dominated by a group of parties who today represent less than 20 percent of the population and whose views are far outside the Iraqi mainstream on key issues such as federalism, was particularly damaging and illustrative of his disinterest in anything other than the exercise of sheer power. Although the formation of his expanded coalition in late 2009 gave him a new lease in life, the manner in which he shuttled between foreign capitals during the campaign trail and avoided contact with the people that he claims to represent strongly suggests that he remains as aloof and detached as always.
The country's problems are so significant, and the leaders of its two main political camps so flawed, that it almost makes no difference who becomes the next prime minister of Iraq. Iraqis may very well have to wait for a new generation of home grown public servants, more in tune with local needs and with the mechanisms that are needed to resolve them than the current group of former exiles, to reach maturity.
Read more
Get our weekly email


text:
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome affects the carpal tunnel region of a person's hand. This "tunnel" consists of bone, tendons, tissue, and many nerves, all of which work together to provide the hand, arm, fingers, and wrist with unrestricted movement. But, if inflammation within the tunnel causes swelling, the pressure will cause a number of symptoms, including hand pain, numbness, tingling sensations, and much more. The cause of the carpal tunnel swelling can vary, but it is often a sign of other health conditions, such as diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis, pregnancy, or repetitive, unnatural movements in the wrist or hands.
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome typically impacts women more than it does men. In fact, women are three times more likely to suffer from it. Although anyone can fall victim to the symptoms, those who type for long periods of time or spend a lot of time working with their hands are more prone to developing the disorder. Although the symptoms can be temporary and the syndrome can fade away on it's own, people often suffer from symptoms for years due to the repetitive stress on their joints. In these cases, the condition can persist for a long time and the symptoms will worsen with time. Here are eight of the most common signs of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
1. Hand Pain
Pain in the hand is probably one of the most common signs of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; however, pain in this area can also be a symptom of arthritis, so it is important to be able to distinguish the difference between the two disorders. Pain from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome often extends all the way to your forearm and is often triggered by repetitive motions or holding your hand in an uncomfortable position for a long period of time, such as holding a phone while driving. Using hand splints, medications, or injections can typically treat this pain. In some cases, however, surgery may be required.


text:
Qt3 Movie Podcast: The Avengers
We mostly aren't into the whole comic book thing, but we really liked The Avengers. Well, most of us did. Listen to reveal the secret identity of this week's wet blanket! Or avoid spoilers by fast forwarding to the 42-minute mark for this week's 3×3 of unanswered questions in movies.
Next week: Dark Shadows
Podcast (movies): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS


text:
Open data site generations
To contribute to the best practice discussion, I recently engaged in an exercise to compare open data sites based on their functionality and data quality and realised that they could be grouped into a spectrum by 'generation', with distinct generational levels from a basic data index with variable data format and quality up to a highly sophisticated cross-jurisdictional platform embedding visualisation, error correction and community data sets.
I've formalised this thinking into five generations and published it as 'Mapping open data site generations' in my blog: http://egovau.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/mapping-open-data-site-generations.html
It could be useful to jurisdictions asking the question 'what next for our open data site?' or who are considering setting one up and want to deliver a good solution.
Feel free to reuse and share under the Creative Commons license :)
Active Group topics
- | Last comment 3 weeks ago
- 14 comments | Last comment 1 month ago
- 5 comments | Last comment 2 months ago
- 1 comment | Last comment 2 months ago
- | Last comment 3 months ago


text:
The Stockton
Sold Out
The Stockton is that nostalgic mixture of reclaimed-looking canvas materials reminiscent of old military tents and mail bags, combined with leather accents from repurposed-looking leather. An authentic piece, the Stockton features a large zippered interior pocket for carrying your essentials, and two exterior pockets that buckle closed with leather straps for your smaller items. Vintage postal service insignia on canvas create a unique, weather-worn look that is both stylish and rugged.
The over-the-shoulder mail satchel carried important, personal letters or post on designated routes beginning in the 1800s. The original satchels were leather until the US Postal Service determined that canvas was much lighter to carry.
Stockton is one of the most ancient Anglo-Saxon names to come from Britain. The first association with the name was found in Cheshire where the Stockton family held a family seat from ancient times. Old and established, the name Stockton is for one who is patriotic, original, and successful, while being personally zany, insightful, and happy. Stockton works hard and plays hard.
The Barrel Shack's Stockton works hard and plays hard, too. Whether you're using it to commute back and forth to work or class each day, or just as a tote for a weekend get-away, the Stockton can keep up with whatever adventure you toss its way.
- 17in long x 14in high x 5.5in deep
- Two large interior convenience pockets
- Two front pockets with leather and metal buckle closures
- 8in drop handle
- 32in adjustable shoulder strap


text:
Keeping Your Pet Safe
Losing a pet is always a stressful time for the whole family, pet included! Below are some tips on keeping your pet safe.
*Properly fitted collars and leashes are a MUST when you own a dog! As a groomer, I see dozens of dogs a week with ill fitted collars, chewed up leashes or wearing nothing at all. No matter how "well trained" your dog is, they should never be taken in public without a properly fitted collar and flat nylon or leather leash. Retractable leashes are for park play or potty time, not safe restraint. Also, TAGS! There is no excuse for not having an engraved tag on your pets' collar. City and vet tags are useless for immediate identification purposes.
*Padlock gates. Don't depend on others to respect your yard gates. Repair men, delivery people, utility people, neighbor kids, all may enter your yard and not close the gate. Eliminate this possibility by keeping gates padlocked and people out of your yard without you present.
*Check fences regularly for damage. High winds, vandalism, digging, etc can all damage fences without you realizing it until your pet is gone.
*Before putting your pet in a carrier to take to vet or groomer or boarding, be sure all the bolts are tight and secure. I've seen many pets, especially cats, escape from carriers that are falling apart.
*Secure your pet when in a vehicle, even if inside a kennel. Many pets bolt out of kennels or cars and run off before their owners can react. With a properly fit collar and secured leash, this is less likely to happen. There are many dog seat belts out there, as well as pet barriers.
*If your pet tends to run out doors when doors are opened, take a minute and secure them in a room or kennel when you have company. Don't trust others to be aware of or watch your pets when in your home.
*Keep cats inside (with the exception of farm cats). It is illegal to let your cat roam outside in the city, and dangerous for them. If you want your cat to be outside, be responsible and build a secure outside coop for them to get fresh air without roaming.
*If you tie your dog up outside, be sure their collars fit securely and the tie up is not chewable. Don't leave them outside unattended. If you have a breed that is hard to fit a collar on without slipping, check out martingale collars or harnesses. Microchip your pets in case they do slip out of their collars.
*If you own a pet bird, keep their wings clipped so they cannot fly properly if they startle or get loose from your home.
*If your pet is scared of loud noises, secure them inside in a room or kennel during storms, road work, or celebrations. Be proactive and do this when the event starts. They will feel more secure in a darkened, familiar and secure room than allowed to roam agitated and potentially bolt.
*Fix your pets!! Unfixed male pets can smell females in heat from miles away. Unfixed dogs and cats instinctively roam. If your female is in heat, do not leave her outside unattended to entice male pets Fences are no deterrent for a male dog that smells a female in heat.
*Never think it won't happen to your pet. Even the most well trained dog can't be trusted to never react to a squirrel or decide to wander off. Protect your pets and keep them secured when outside fences areas.
By Seri Dukart - Groomer
Leave a Reply.


text:
Why Buy a Vinyl Set vs Wood?
Although we love our wood sets from Gorilla, wood sets do require maintenance such as sanding, staining and sealing. Buying a vinyl set means NO MAINTENANCE! Vinyl is Final, all you need to do is hose it down to clean! You can expect a beautiful finish that does not crack, peel or fade. Lastly, since there is no wood exposed, wasps and bees are not interested in nesting in your set.
Why would I want a Swing Kingdom Set vs. Gorilla?
One of the best things about Swing Kingdom is that you get to design your own set. Let Fenceworks help guide you and your kids into building the set of their dreams! You can also use their Exclusive 3D Design center to play around with your own design ideas. Swing Kingdom offers many options that are just plain amazing, like warped walls, salmon ladders and playhouses with lofts!
How durable are Swing Kingdom's playsets?
Vinyl has five times the tensile strength and four times the flexibility of wood. By combining the performance of vinyl with the strength of Wolmanized treated wood, Swing Kingdom creates a swing set that is built to last.
Why is a vinyl clad playset so much better then a traditional wood playset?
The vinyl acts like a shell protecting the playset's wood under structure from environmental elements resulting in a longer service life.
Will my swing set fade from exposure to the sun?
Swing Kingdoms products contain an extremely effective UV inhibitor that offers protection from harmful UV rays. Although light fading may occur.
Will my swing set rust?
No. To guard against rust and corrosion they use powder coated stainless steel components.
Will my swing hangers squeak when in use?
No. The extra-duty stainless steel swing hangers are designed to be squeak free and resistant to rust.
What makes your slides so much better?
Swing Kingdom manufactures their slides to be double walled, making them physically larger and much stronger than industry standards.
How are your playhouses constructed?
Swing Kingdom's playhouses are built from the same high quality building materials that are used in new residential home construction.
Can the carpet in the playhouses get wet?
Yes. They use outdoor carpet in our playhouses that is made to stand up to water and moisture.
How well does the rubber coating on the swing chains hold up to weather?
Swing Kingdom's rubber coated chains are treaded to resistant mold, mildew, and harmful UV rays. They will not get sticky, fade, or crack.
How do I clean my swing set if it gets dirty?
Swing Kingdom playsets are extremely low maintenance. You can easily revitalize your playset's appearance with a garden hose, glass cleaner, and soft brush to wash away dirt and debris.
What sort of warranty does Swing Kingdom offer?
Swing Kingdom offers a 20 year warranty on the main structure for Residential use, and a 5 year warranty on all small components like swings, slides and plastic pieces. Commercial sets are warrantied for 10 years.


text:
Successful replacement investment at Ante-Holz in Somplar (Germany)
Ante-Holz GmbH in Somplar decided at the end of last your to exchange the ejection unit and the cross-transport unit in the existing sawmill infeed. Holtec convinced with an integrated concept and supplied 4 independently driven disc ejectors at the existing chain conveyor as well as a new step feeder which transfers the short logs into an either new log allocator.
Special task were the short time frame as well as the existing space conditions. The latter was solved by integrating the step feeding and allocating unit in one machine unit. The complete mechanical modification could be made between Christmas and New Year's Eve. The close cooperation between Ante-Holz and Holtec made this possible.