For chess aficionados out there! Here's some free (and legal I think) chess softwares to improve your game. If you want to improve your game and not spend a cent read on. The short list includes playing softwares, database, and training softwares.
Playing Softwares
1.) Arena 2.0.1
Arena is a graphical user interface. You can organize engine tournament in this software. Most importantly you can play against chess engines (both Winboard and UCI). Arena have the features other commercial softwares have like position set-up, limiting engine strenght, opening books, and others. You can also use this software to analyze games (but make sure you use a strong engine). You can also install engines in this software. I currently have 17 engines in my Areana. This is really a must have (especially if you don't want to spend money like me).
2.) Crafty
Crafty is a chess playing software with its own graphical user interface. But you can still play Crafty in Arena or other shell. The GUI of Crafty is very good looking. And Crafty is (as I have read and heard) one of the strongest engines out there. This software also have some features like you can see on other playing chess softwares. Crafty is good for the serious-type-chess player and club players alike. And you can download this engine for free.
3.) Nagasaki (version 5)
Nagasaki is a chess playing software similar to Crafty. This playing chess software includes basic features seen in the Crafty GUI. The downside of this chess software is that its GUI is not that good looking (for me) and that the engine is not that strong (for analysis and for strong players). But this is very good for club players, novices, and beginners. You can also limit the playing strenght of the engine to meet your level.
4.) Fritz 5.32
This is one of the best free chess softwares out there. Chessbase gave out this version of Fritz for free. This engine is very strong but you can also play in sparring mode/hadicap mode. You can add opening books and this software also includes a lower version of Chessbase database (with no games included). Fritz 5.32 can also open files in Chessbase format. This is also a must have.
Database
5.) Chess DB
Chess DB is a free chess database. Aside from its database use, you can also save your own games in a way where the right game can be quickly found, a very time-efficient method to study, which will give the maximum improvement in the minimum time, and access to statistics about both your own games and of GMs, which would be impractical to collect without a computer based chess database. You can save, annotate, analyze (with strong egines), create tournament crosstables, and play (also) in this software. The only thing I don't like in this software is that it is not really a user friendly software. I had a hard time learning to open and save a database.
6.) Chessbase Light 2007
This is also one of the best free chess softwares out there. Chessbase light is a crippled version of Chessbase 10. This is also a database software wherein you can access to game collections and allow you to manage them with ease. Very user friendly. This is also a must have.
Training
7.) Chess Position Trainer
Chess Position Trainer is a software that focuses on chess opening, training, and reportoire management. This software is very good (although I prefer to study opening the traditional way) and very free. You can use this software to study openings and you can create your opening reportoire in this software. You can also train tactics in this software. You can also download openings in their website for training and study.
8.) Chess Tactic Sever
CTS is not really a software but a website. This website is for tactics training. You can train your tactics in this website. Once you register (ofcourse for free), you'll have your own rating. Your rating will increase as you solve more tactics problems. This is a very good site for training. I train in this website almost everyday and it really helps my tactical vision.
So these are just some of the free chess softwares I can recommend. These are good softwares and they are free for download. And these softwares are all legal copies. BTW, these softwares are good especially for club players or intermediate players. But for the serious-type-chess player (GMs), I think they need the commercial programs because these programs are much way more stronger. Just click the links above and download. There are also other websites on the internet like Zakron Fischer's site. There are lots of softwares in that site.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Memory Remains (Metallica)
Memory Remains (Metallica Live S & M)
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane
But the memory remains
Heavy rings on fingers wave
Another star denies the grave
See the nowhere crowd
Cry the nowhere cheers of honor
Like twisted vines that grow
Hide and swallow mansions whole
In light of an already
Faded prima donna
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
But the memory remains
Heavy rings hold cigarettes
Up to lips that time forgets
While the hollywood sun sets
Behind your back
And cant the band play on
Just listen, they play my song
Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Dance little tin goddess
Nananananana nananada nananananana nanananadana
Nananananana nananada nananananana nanananadana
Drift away
Fade away
Little tin goddess
Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
But the memory remains
Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black...
But the memory remains
Faded prima donna
Dance little tin goddess dance
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Discussion w/ a Believer
I recently had a discussion with a believer on the internet (Friendster forums). He is a proud ADD member. We discussed about religion, faith, existence of God, and science. And it was not really a good one because he had a hard time understanding what I was saying and because of this, we were going in cirles. But I had fun. I had fun because of his replies. He is claiming that he and his denomination is rational yet the way he talked and presented his arguments were very fallacious and illogical. He even said that he believe that there's a "Spiritual Force" behind the magic of David Blaine. LOL. Does he even know what rational is? I guess not. He can't even identify magic from illusion.
So here's some part of our discussion.
Kuya Frank:The most rational proof of God's existence can be found in the bible and that is written in Romans 1:20.
(Romans 1:20) Sapagka't ang mga bagay niyang hindi nakikita buhat pa nang lalangin ang sanglibutan ay nakikitang maliwanag, sa pagkatanto sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa niya, maging ang walang hanggan niyang kapangyarihan at pagka Dios; upang sila'y walang madahilan:
Hayag na hayag na ang ebidensiya sa tao ng katunayan na merong Dios sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa ng Dios. Malawak ang uniberso at sa loob ng unibersong yan ay maraming mga nakapaloob na mga planeta at mga bituin. Paano ba lumitaw ang mga yan? Aksidente lang ba ang napakahusay na balangkas ng mga yan? Sapat na sapat na ang mga bagay ng makikita natin sa langit na maniwala na meron ngang Dios na pinangglingan ng lahat ng bagay.
(Awit 19:1) Ang kalangitan ay nagpapahayag ng kaluwalhatian ng Dios; at ipinakikilala ng kalawakan ang gawa ng kaniyang kamay.
That is written in the bible and that is rational.
Me:How can that be rational????
Ok your argument is like this Frank..
Frank: "God must exist."
Jobo: "How do you know."
Frank: "Because the Bible says so."
Jobo: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Frank: "Because the Bible was written by God."
It does not follow that it was written or that it is said in the Bible that God exist, eh naga exist na si GOd. I mean why should we believe in the Bible? Why should we believe in an ancient book full of errors,absurdities, and contradictions? Is that book based on critical thinking or magic lang? (I'd appreciate if you'll answer these)
You know Frank, your reasoning is fallacious because you just assumed that your conclusion is true. Not because the Bible says so eh, totoo nayan. Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Begging the question yan Frank. (I guess hindi mo na intindihan ito so just click the link)
You call your argument rational Frank? Do you even know what is rational? Quoting in a book full of errors, absurdities, contradictions and use that as an argument is irrational.
Balik ka lang dito kung may maganda kang isasagot. Ok? And please dont quote Bible verses again. Use your head and think. You just did what Eli did in his blog about atheism.
------------------------------------------
Frank:Up to now Evolution remains a theory the same with the Big Bang Theory. It simply means that they are not accepted as absolute truth in Science because they don't have strong proof.
[then he gave these links :How Great is God of the Bible (1st Part) and How Great is God of the Bible (2nd Part) saying that these answer what I posted. This do not answer the points i raised. Its like I'm asking a bread and he gave me a shit. ]
Me: You misunderstood "theory" here Frank. As ive said earlier, the word theory there is not used in common usage or in layman's term.
Here's what theory is..
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Frank:It is not a fact. It is still a theory.
Me:Again Frankie, read what "theory" is. The word theory in layman's term is different in scientific terms. Mag basa ka naman ng dictionary or encyclopedia. Mag research kanaman din.
Also saying na "It is still a theory" is not enough. Prove it.
Tapos, look at your answer. It doesnt answer my questions/arguments. Tsk.
------------
Frank:Through deductive reasoning alone it crumbles down pieces beyond repair. If man evolved from apes under certain circumstances and conditions - at one time or another will evolve to become Homo Sapiens. And thus, will occur continuously and consistently. However, no such things was recorded in history to be happening elsewhere in the world. Not a chimpanzee or baboon from Asia finally succeeded to become a full-pledged human. Not even an orangutan or gorilla from Africa was officially proclaimed as a graduate from the animal ape kingdom, welcomed and promoted to enter man's civilization as a totally new human being.
Me:
Evolution do not happen in a short time Frank. It do not happen overnight. Have you seen the pictures ive posted? That was recorded Frank and it do not happen for a short time. The basis of that are fossils that were found. Its really time to update yourself to science Frank.
Wait for a couple of thousand years and see what'll happen to us.
Frank: How many thousand years more? Man have existed thousands of years already. How come there are no recorded evidence in history that it happened? It still remains a theory and for Christians it is a hoax.
Me:
What do you mean not recorded? Nakita mo ba pictures na pinost ko? Ano pala tawag mo dun? Do you think galing lang yun sa imagination ng author/scientist? Merong physical evidences yan frank. From skulls and bones ng animals and tao.
Also, please do understand what theory is. Hanggang ngayon hindi mo parin alam kung ano ang theory when used in science. Mahina ka ba sa English?
Lastly, Christian Apologists and RCC alike accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. I mean, Ive saw and heard catholics and christians apologists defend the Theory of Evolution against creationism.
----------
Frank:Why don't you look in the dictionary yourself. Pick a dictionary of your choice and prove to me that it supports your claim that a theory is a fact like what you are doing with the theory of evolution. I challenge you to that and I assure you that you cannot prove it.
Me:Hahay Frank. Did i say na theory is a fact? I said na ang Theory of Evolution is a fact. And the word theory there is not used in common terms but in scientific terms. Mahirap bayang intindihin?? Did you understand my example(the word black)?
the⋅o⋅ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
So here it is. Do you think number 7 lang ang definition ng theory Frank? Again, it depends on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it is number 1. Tsk. Update yourself in English Frank. I just prove that you wrong.
Evolution as theory and fact.
-------------------------------
Frank:sn't it a fact that your physical appearance can be copied by a sculptor?
Isn't it a fact that scientist can imitate a cell but they cannot give life to it?
There are no contradictions in the words of God in the bible.
Have you not seen the magic of David Blaine. How could he behead a chicken and then put it back and the chicken is still alive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fkckEXVYTc That is not an illusion. There is a spiritual force to that. If someone like him can do it, more so with God.
THEN AGNOSTICS, ATHEISTS, AND SKEPTICS LAUGH AT THIS POST. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
Heck, spiritual force behind David Blaine's magic tricks??? LOL. WTF. Here's the whole discussion. I think this is still going on. As you can see, he can't even identify magic from illusion. He call himself (and his denomination) rational but look how he writes, look at his arguments. He don't even know what 'theory' is when used in science. Maybe he is just using a pocket dictionary.
So here's some part of our discussion.
Kuya Frank:The most rational proof of God's existence can be found in the bible and that is written in Romans 1:20.
(Romans 1:20) Sapagka't ang mga bagay niyang hindi nakikita buhat pa nang lalangin ang sanglibutan ay nakikitang maliwanag, sa pagkatanto sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa niya, maging ang walang hanggan niyang kapangyarihan at pagka Dios; upang sila'y walang madahilan:
Hayag na hayag na ang ebidensiya sa tao ng katunayan na merong Dios sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa ng Dios. Malawak ang uniberso at sa loob ng unibersong yan ay maraming mga nakapaloob na mga planeta at mga bituin. Paano ba lumitaw ang mga yan? Aksidente lang ba ang napakahusay na balangkas ng mga yan? Sapat na sapat na ang mga bagay ng makikita natin sa langit na maniwala na meron ngang Dios na pinangglingan ng lahat ng bagay.
(Awit 19:1) Ang kalangitan ay nagpapahayag ng kaluwalhatian ng Dios; at ipinakikilala ng kalawakan ang gawa ng kaniyang kamay.
That is written in the bible and that is rational.
Me:How can that be rational????
Ok your argument is like this Frank..
Frank: "God must exist."
Jobo: "How do you know."
Frank: "Because the Bible says so."
Jobo: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Frank: "Because the Bible was written by God."
It does not follow that it was written or that it is said in the Bible that God exist, eh naga exist na si GOd. I mean why should we believe in the Bible? Why should we believe in an ancient book full of errors,absurdities, and contradictions? Is that book based on critical thinking or magic lang? (I'd appreciate if you'll answer these)
You know Frank, your reasoning is fallacious because you just assumed that your conclusion is true. Not because the Bible says so eh, totoo nayan. Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Begging the question yan Frank. (I guess hindi mo na intindihan ito so just click the link)
You call your argument rational Frank? Do you even know what is rational? Quoting in a book full of errors, absurdities, contradictions and use that as an argument is irrational.
Balik ka lang dito kung may maganda kang isasagot. Ok? And please dont quote Bible verses again. Use your head and think. You just did what Eli did in his blog about atheism.
------------------------------------------
Frank:Up to now Evolution remains a theory the same with the Big Bang Theory. It simply means that they are not accepted as absolute truth in Science because they don't have strong proof.
[then he gave these links :How Great is God of the Bible (1st Part) and How Great is God of the Bible (2nd Part) saying that these answer what I posted. This do not answer the points i raised. Its like I'm asking a bread and he gave me a shit. ]
Me: You misunderstood "theory" here Frank. As ive said earlier, the word theory there is not used in common usage or in layman's term.
Here's what theory is..
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Frank:It is not a fact. It is still a theory.
Me:Again Frankie, read what "theory" is. The word theory in layman's term is different in scientific terms. Mag basa ka naman ng dictionary or encyclopedia. Mag research kanaman din.
Also saying na "It is still a theory" is not enough. Prove it.
Tapos, look at your answer. It doesnt answer my questions/arguments. Tsk.
------------
Frank:Through deductive reasoning alone it crumbles down pieces beyond repair. If man evolved from apes under certain circumstances and conditions - at one time or another will evolve to become Homo Sapiens. And thus, will occur continuously and consistently. However, no such things was recorded in history to be happening elsewhere in the world. Not a chimpanzee or baboon from Asia finally succeeded to become a full-pledged human. Not even an orangutan or gorilla from Africa was officially proclaimed as a graduate from the animal ape kingdom, welcomed and promoted to enter man's civilization as a totally new human being.
Me:
Evolution do not happen in a short time Frank. It do not happen overnight. Have you seen the pictures ive posted? That was recorded Frank and it do not happen for a short time. The basis of that are fossils that were found. Its really time to update yourself to science Frank.
Wait for a couple of thousand years and see what'll happen to us.
Frank: How many thousand years more? Man have existed thousands of years already. How come there are no recorded evidence in history that it happened? It still remains a theory and for Christians it is a hoax.
Me:
What do you mean not recorded? Nakita mo ba pictures na pinost ko? Ano pala tawag mo dun? Do you think galing lang yun sa imagination ng author/scientist? Merong physical evidences yan frank. From skulls and bones ng animals and tao.
Also, please do understand what theory is. Hanggang ngayon hindi mo parin alam kung ano ang theory when used in science. Mahina ka ba sa English?
Lastly, Christian Apologists and RCC alike accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. I mean, Ive saw and heard catholics and christians apologists defend the Theory of Evolution against creationism.
----------
Frank:Why don't you look in the dictionary yourself. Pick a dictionary of your choice and prove to me that it supports your claim that a theory is a fact like what you are doing with the theory of evolution. I challenge you to that and I assure you that you cannot prove it.
Me:Hahay Frank. Did i say na theory is a fact? I said na ang Theory of Evolution is a fact. And the word theory there is not used in common terms but in scientific terms. Mahirap bayang intindihin?? Did you understand my example(the word black)?
the⋅o⋅ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
So here it is. Do you think number 7 lang ang definition ng theory Frank? Again, it depends on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it is number 1. Tsk. Update yourself in English Frank. I just prove that you wrong.
Evolution as theory and fact.
-------------------------------
Frank:sn't it a fact that your physical appearance can be copied by a sculptor?
Isn't it a fact that scientist can imitate a cell but they cannot give life to it?
There are no contradictions in the words of God in the bible.
Have you not seen the magic of David Blaine. How could he behead a chicken and then put it back and the chicken is still alive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fkckEXVYTc That is not an illusion. There is a spiritual force to that. If someone like him can do it, more so with God.
THEN AGNOSTICS, ATHEISTS, AND SKEPTICS LAUGH AT THIS POST. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
Heck, spiritual force behind David Blaine's magic tricks??? LOL. WTF. Here's the whole discussion. I think this is still going on. As you can see, he can't even identify magic from illusion. He call himself (and his denomination) rational but look how he writes, look at his arguments. He don't even know what 'theory' is when used in science. Maybe he is just using a pocket dictionary.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Truths or Lies: What Happened This Morning
What would you prefer, a comforting lie or a biting truth?
They say that truth hurts. But why hurt yourself with the truth when you can have a comforting lie? The answer to this question would vary from different people and depends on different cases/scenarios. Some people would prefer the comforting lie rather than the biting truth. Some would not.
Well I got the unfortunate chance to choose between these two this morning. I actually liked to solve or respond to these kind of ethical dilemmas but this morning was (I guess) a little different and a little serious (for me at least). When I was in college we have this subject called Philo 107 (Moral Philosophy) and we got the chance to solve different ethical dilemmas and situations and I really liked it. But we were in the classroom that time solving. This morning was different. It was real.
So here's what happened.. I just had my final interview for the company I am applying for this morning. I did my preparations before the interview. I did a little research about the company and I tried to anticipate and rehears some answers to some possible and common interview questions the night before the interview. Meaning that I already had prepared some answers even before the interview started. Then it was 9am and it was time for the interview. I was very relaxed and confident because I knew that I really prepared for that. The questions were really common (and I guess easy than I anticipated) and I had prepared answers to each of them.
BUT suddenly, there's this one question that made me think and ponder for a while. "What is your weak point?", the interviewer asked. I knew that I prepared an answer to that. But I also knew that the answer I prepared was a "strategic weakness". Meaning a lie. The night before that, I decided to prepare a "strategic-weakness-answer" when I would be asked by that question. It's because I don't want to expose my weaknesses so that no one could exploit it (WTH, oh the paranoid me). Also I knew and anticipated that if I would tell truth about my weakness, the interviewer (he's the Plant Manager btw) would not like my answer. Thus risking my application.
Two things ran into my head that time, "truth or lie". Should I tell the truth and risk my application or should I just stick to my plan and answer my strategic-weakness-answer? Well I cannot really imagine myself to lie to a such serious and good man and being labeled by my conscience as unethical so I told the truth. I told him my true weakness (w/c is I sometimes easily loose my temper). And as I anticipated, he (the way I see it) didn't liked it although I reasoned out that I am working hard on that weakness. He really asked a lot of questions about it. I really felt that my chance of landing that job just went from big to small. Heck.
As of now, I am still pondering and thinking if what I did was the right thing. I chose the biting truth over the comforting lie and risk my chance of landing that job. Well I could have chose to answer my strategic-weakness-answer but I didn't. I chose not to. I don't really believe in the existence of heaven and hell (meaning I'm not afraid of them) and I could have told a lie and know that I would not end up in hell yet I chose to tell the truth. But why? I guess I'm just too ethical that that could be considered as one of my weaknesses. LOL. I'm still pondering on that experience.
So if you were in my shoes, what would you choose? Comforting lie or the biting truth?
They say that truth hurts. But why hurt yourself with the truth when you can have a comforting lie? The answer to this question would vary from different people and depends on different cases/scenarios. Some people would prefer the comforting lie rather than the biting truth. Some would not.
Well I got the unfortunate chance to choose between these two this morning. I actually liked to solve or respond to these kind of ethical dilemmas but this morning was (I guess) a little different and a little serious (for me at least). When I was in college we have this subject called Philo 107 (Moral Philosophy) and we got the chance to solve different ethical dilemmas and situations and I really liked it. But we were in the classroom that time solving. This morning was different. It was real.
So here's what happened.. I just had my final interview for the company I am applying for this morning. I did my preparations before the interview. I did a little research about the company and I tried to anticipate and rehears some answers to some possible and common interview questions the night before the interview. Meaning that I already had prepared some answers even before the interview started. Then it was 9am and it was time for the interview. I was very relaxed and confident because I knew that I really prepared for that. The questions were really common (and I guess easy than I anticipated) and I had prepared answers to each of them.
BUT suddenly, there's this one question that made me think and ponder for a while. "What is your weak point?", the interviewer asked. I knew that I prepared an answer to that. But I also knew that the answer I prepared was a "strategic weakness". Meaning a lie. The night before that, I decided to prepare a "strategic-weakness-answer" when I would be asked by that question. It's because I don't want to expose my weaknesses so that no one could exploit it (WTH, oh the paranoid me). Also I knew and anticipated that if I would tell truth about my weakness, the interviewer (he's the Plant Manager btw) would not like my answer. Thus risking my application.
Two things ran into my head that time, "truth or lie". Should I tell the truth and risk my application or should I just stick to my plan and answer my strategic-weakness-answer? Well I cannot really imagine myself to lie to a such serious and good man and being labeled by my conscience as unethical so I told the truth. I told him my true weakness (w/c is I sometimes easily loose my temper). And as I anticipated, he (the way I see it) didn't liked it although I reasoned out that I am working hard on that weakness. He really asked a lot of questions about it. I really felt that my chance of landing that job just went from big to small. Heck.
As of now, I am still pondering and thinking if what I did was the right thing. I chose the biting truth over the comforting lie and risk my chance of landing that job. Well I could have chose to answer my strategic-weakness-answer but I didn't. I chose not to. I don't really believe in the existence of heaven and hell (meaning I'm not afraid of them) and I could have told a lie and know that I would not end up in hell yet I chose to tell the truth. But why? I guess I'm just too ethical that that could be considered as one of my weaknesses. LOL. I'm still pondering on that experience.
So if you were in my shoes, what would you choose? Comforting lie or the biting truth?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Theory of Evolution: just a theory?
Many [ignorant (forgive the word)] people really misunderstand the Theory of Evolution. These people (especially Christian Fundamentalists and blind believers) argue that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact because it is just a theory. According to these people, if Darwin's Evolution is really a fact then it must be called the Fact of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution. Thus for them, the Theory of Evolution is invalid.
Well in reality this is not really true. This only shows that the minds of these people are very limited. Now, the word 'theory' have many definitions depending on how the word 'theory' is used. The word 'theory' is defined differently in layman's term/common usage and in scientific terms. Below are the definitions of the word 'theory' from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition..
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]
As you can see, the word 'theory' have different definitions/meaning depending on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, the word theory there is defined in item number 1 (the words in red) since it is used as a scientific term. This is also the same with the 'theories' of gravity (in Law of Gravity). Many people misunderstand the word 'theory' in the Theory of Evolution and they defined it as (just) an assumption based on limited information or knowledge (item number 6 [in green]). Many believers use this term and construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution not knowing that they misuse and misunderstand the word theory.
So is the Theory of Evolution just a theory? Well not really (so stop flattering yourselves).
I hope this clears this misconception on the Theory of Evolution. More about this topic here (wikipedia.com) and here (talkorigins.org).
Well in reality this is not really true. This only shows that the minds of these people are very limited. Now, the word 'theory' have many definitions depending on how the word 'theory' is used. The word 'theory' is defined differently in layman's term/common usage and in scientific terms. Below are the definitions of the word 'theory' from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition..
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]
As you can see, the word 'theory' have different definitions/meaning depending on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, the word theory there is defined in item number 1 (the words in red) since it is used as a scientific term. This is also the same with the 'theories' of gravity (in Law of Gravity). Many people misunderstand the word 'theory' in the Theory of Evolution and they defined it as (just) an assumption based on limited information or knowledge (item number 6 [in green]). Many believers use this term and construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution not knowing that they misuse and misunderstand the word theory.
So is the Theory of Evolution just a theory? Well not really (so stop flattering yourselves).
I hope this clears this misconception on the Theory of Evolution. More about this topic here (wikipedia.com) and here (talkorigins.org).
Sunday, March 22, 2009
(Untitled)
My memory of you is like the rain
Loud, disturbing, and cold
And every raindrop is a picture of you
Scattered all around disturbing nature
Keeping the birds to their nests
Forcing the flowers to sleep
And making the rational irrational
I can't really think of a title to this. These words just popped into my mind in one rainy afternoon thinking of her and drunk a long time ago. Love really can make one irrational. Good thing someone invented alcohol and chess and DVD and internet. LOL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
