I’ve been using Google Chrome since the day the beta was release (Sept 2nd) and I feel obligated to give a brief review about it.

Summary:

Pros - Very fast (almost twice as fast as IE and Firefox), great tab system, very elegant, operates like an Operating System, runs smoothly, lots of space, great javascript controls, great URL bar options.

Cons - Limited on options to adjust style codes and features, sometimes slows while multitasking, does not have a full screen display (but doesnt need one), not all sites support it yet.

Comment - This is a great operating system, with no doubt its better than IE and Safari but is still competing for the spot from Opera and Firefox. It has the speed on both of them, but the features that Opera and Firefox offer still put of battling marks for Google to take on. I feel its a bit scary that Google is not putting out a competing browser because that puts them one step closer to taking over the metaphorical cyber-white house. Google is already a POWERHOUSE in the world and its almost scary for them to be branching out to browsers and rumors says they will have an Operating System in the upcoming years. AHH! But I must say that they really did go all out with this thing. It’s still needs some work but for a beta, this is the best browser to come in the game with such a mighty stomp.

First of all the interface -

The interface of this browser is pretty spectacular in many aspects. The ability to operate much like an Operating System in terms of its tabs, as you can easily drag a tab from one open browser into another and it moves it like if you were to drag a file from one folder to another. Its the first browser to really go all out on the tabs.

Also while operating in a maximized window, it consumes most of your view with the web page, not the browser options at the top. They managed to reduce the size of the options bar to Tabs and URL alone. No title bar, no bookmarks, no ads, no RSS feeds, just simple and to the point….

Creating new tabs are also pretty spectacular. As you click on the new tab button it gives you a screen shot and link to the 9 most used websites in your history. Also to the side of that is a search bar of your history so you can search your history to past sites you have been too… This is far better than an instructional guide page as you open up a new tab like Mozilla and IE put on.

Beta testing-

As for the Acid1 and Acid 2 tests it scores very well against competing browsers. While it has not yet passed the Acid3 test, Google Chrome scores 78/100—higher than both Internet Explorer 7 (14/100) and Firefox 3 (71/100), but lower than Opera’s 84/100.

Note that is has not been tested much against Internet Explorer 8.

Speed -

As it takes a new approach in its Javascript virtual machine it has been tested that is running about twice as fast as Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3. There is no doubt that this is one of the fastest browsers out there for the operations.

Compatibility -

While its only available for Windows as of right now, the Mac OS and Linux versions will be coming out soon. Some sites such as CNN.com’s Video page still do not support the browser and Google Chrome did not make it self suitable to run Active X.

Web Developers Capability -

The ability to have a task manager for each individual browser allows a great display of what websites are sucking out of your computer. It also allows a security issue to be cured… Since each tab is on its own process, they cannot get information off your other tabs and heighten security in many other aspects.

Also there is a great display of options for web developers to mess around with

Most likely intentional, but for some reason post number 11 and every page that has anything to do with post number 11 will not load on the main site. With that, I am also unable to delete the post nor am I able to edit anything dealing with the post….

So most likely I will be redoing the site instead of fixing what has already happened…. Unfortunately, I have no back up so that is not an option….

So blah.

             A fundamental argument for Creationist is done by the process of using the extensive research of science and searching for examples of irreducible complexity which would seem out of reach for science and could only be plausible by a superior deity. These missing links are sought out in present-day knowledge or understanding by Creationist and are called (by many philosophers and theologians) ‘gaps’. “If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians… is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”[Richard Dawkins] The misunderstanding of gaps and other mysteries of science, such as quantum- or meta- physics, that brings forth a misrepresented idea that God, by default, is the only possible explanation.

            God is easily represented as a simple way to explain the universes and there is no arguing that in many cases that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Nonetheless, it is needless to say that God is far more complex than what he’s made out to be. The idea that an all powerful, all knowing super being creating the universe is raising a far greater question that philosophers have been asking for hundreds of years, “How was God (a ridiculously complex deity) created?” This question later allowed science to ask that same question but using the Scientific Method.

            I like to refer to the Scientific Method like a game of Sudoku (a logic-based number placement puzzle. The objective is to fill a 9×9 grid so that each column, each row, and each of the nine 3×3 boxes contain the digits from 1 to 9, only one time each). When beginning this game of Sudoku, you are given a series of numbers to start the game (as displayed in the picture below).

These given numbers are what I refer to as facts in science, this would include anything that we know as laws of the universe or anything we can see touch or measure (all things that cannot be disputed). Given that information you are able to make assumptions, based on the facts that you have, that a particular box is more than likely a certain number.

(this example shows the logic used to indicate why it makes sense that this is write)

That particular show of logic is what science would call a theory, something that would go through all the rules of Sudoku (the Scientific Method) and find no evidence that contradicted the theory. After that there are many situations in the game where only a particular few numbers will properly fit into a given box.

In scientific view, these would be hypothesis, which are any hints or educated guesses that potentially hold through the discovered evidence, although does not have enough evidence to be though without a doubt.

            By this Sudoku terminology, completing the grid is the scientific goal. Steven Hawkings (one of the most prestigious scientist in the world) has many times over said that “one day I have hopes that we will discover all the mysteries of the universe and be able to simplify them in ways that can be taught to children.” However, until that we are left with a series of hypothesis and a multitude of theory that all cannot become fact until the puzzle is filled. Until then, these empty boxes get used by Creationist to help persuade a deity. The largest of these gaps today are still in retrospect the largest to ever exist; the probability of the cosmos, universe and life itself.

            The Anthropic Principle is widely introduced philosophical viewpoint of how the cosmos, universe and life itself were able to be produced under such high improbability. By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it’s easily comprehensible to believe that the chances of it being the needle seems imposable, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle seems to have to be somewhere.

In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life.

(Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids)

            Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen, and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be around to justify its existence.

            “The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” [Richard Dawkins] Although, as far as scientist know, it’s possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” [as quoted in The God Delusion]

The atheist belief of how the cosmos’s fundamentally functions can be seen, tested, and evaluated by abundant amounts of people and offer information that is normally out of reach of the everyday view. For instance, Daniel Dennett mentioned in his book Breaking the Spell that “you are normally oblivious of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don’t see colors in our peripheral vision. It seems as if we do, but we don’t, as you can prove to yourself by wiggling colored cards at the edge of your vision—you’ll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the color of the moving thing.” Science has been able to find answers that are visible to the world, with proof, ideas that an everyday person would not even consider. Undoubtedly, religion does offer a well structured argument that really throws people off perspective and to the average person seems to be lost to think there is no other answer. The complex universe has numerous variables that, if changed in the slightest, would make the universe inhabitable. Our loss of ability to view this blind spot leaves the norm to believe that all these misleading blind spots are subject of a deity. This however is not the case.

In contrast with intelligent design theory, Anthropic Principle implies that the creation (or lack-there-of) of the cosmos is a statistical guarantee along with the question of the universe and our inhabitable planet; and from the perspective of observers of this, we are subject to a bias to think the opposite. This is all in spite seeing that out of the entire cosmos, we are justifiably the sole purpose of it all; not just earth, but the human race alone.

Religion is often thought to be out-of-play to scientific study and it is often taught that science could not explain how the cosmos began. However, is this all entirely true? In regards to disproving a particular religious experience, beliefs, texts, and history, science would be seen as out of bounds to play an argument against. Although science can explain an alternative solution to how the universe works and how it began. (Or if it began at all) In this sense no religious text or believe could disprove the science suggesting the alternative. So it is safe to say that the argument that science can’t disprove religion can also be turned around on itself. Although the atheist belief of how everything works can be seen, tested, and reviewed by multiple people in its results offering information that is normally out of reach of the everyday view. For instance, Daniel Dennett mentioned in his book Breaking the Spell that “you are normally oblivious of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don’t see colors in our peripheral vision. It seems as if we do, but we don’t, as you can prove to yourself by wiggling colored cards at the edge of your vision—you’ll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the color of the moving thing.” Science has been able to find answers that are visible to the world, with proof, ideas that an everyday person would not even consider. Undoubtedly, religion does offer a well structured argument that really throws people off perspective and to the average person seems to be lost to think there is no other answer. As complex as the universe is given that it has numerous variables that, if changed in the slightest, would make the universe inhabitable. Noting this, it seems nearly imposable for an instance like this to work out so perfectly to our advantage. This is known as the anthropic principle.

By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it is easy to find itself, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle appears to be impossible to find. In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life. (Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids) Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen.

“The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” (Richard Dawkins) Although as far as scientist know, its possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” (as quoted in The God Delusion)

….This passage will be added to later on with additional content including the anthropic principle regarding to life itself and much more.

As most of you know, I consider myself an atheist and in many ways like to express that view a lot. When I am concentrating on a particular subject that I haven’t quite had enough feedback with, I like to either discuss it or post about it on my website. I have to say right now. Although, I must say that I am a lot more educated about religious topics than I was a few months ago and probably will grow more educated as time goes on. Many of the posts that I have posted on my website, as of now, I do not claim to be true or completely accurate and I do not want people to think that the particular subjects I am posting about are 100% unless I say otherwise. (And even then, I would like people to raise questions) I do not want to give people a false impression on atheist or mis-educate people at the same time. I realize now that some of my earlier post such as “The Theory of Atheist” post has many flaws that need to be fixed in order to be conceived as a followable theory and I would recommend that people don’t think this as a tested theory or reliable at all. The reason I post theories like these is merely to see all the flaws in it after its been pointed out by more educated people and grow on the ideas to better educate myself. I like to think in the sense of a scientist in the fact that I believe that I can be wrong and I can learn off of that. So basically I am only asking for raw feedback when I post things on my site and this is my disclaimer to that.