Yevgeni Yevchenko

I recently changed my discover card user name for added security and they sent the new username by email (yes, that's right). How do they know that my email account had not been compromised and this was the reason for changing it in the first place. Further, now I would need to CHANGE IT AGAIN (or maybe risk more trouble) and very quickly download from the server after having changed the email password (since that was the compromised account). Clearly, if you dont know the username you certainly cant logon to an account even with the right password (which I must also change again). That email sat on my server for near 20 hours before i retrieved it since im not expecting secure info to by TYPED directly in an email from a bank. NO OTHER BANK DOES THIS!!! Not even my tiny little local hometown middle of the freakin woods bank. IDIOTS!!! Other things I have noticed are that they have no sign in key like other banks and i never get security questions when i clear my brower data (in ram). No forced password entry on page changes (very dangerous if your dumb enough to login to discover at starbucks or local library which i see people doing all the time). All this adds up to problems for discover. I think they have other issue as well but cant comment on those. Luckily hackers dont seem to target banks so much as this is considered an international crime which would have probably have support and international cooperation to catch them. Now that my info is secure I'm challenging the White Hat Hackers to hack their site to force them to get off their arses and UPDATE THEIR SECURITY! Maybe Kevin Mitnick can social engineer his way in just to show them whats up. Discover, your time is gonna come!

Why doesn't god just contact us at birth and explain our responsibilities instead of using messengers to spread the word? Seems like a con to me...You know I said god said you must obey him but where is he???

Yes that's right. As every Hebrew scholar knows, this got mis-translated creating a miraculous birth myth.

What is your opinion??

I think it's obvious? Anybody agree?

Does everyone agree?

Why do so many people think that if the Big Bang Theory is disproven (i.e. replaced with an alternate and necessarily opposing theory) that this is a victory for religion. If the universe was never created then necessarily there was no creator. Thus, the universe was always here.

I saw a TV show where Glenn Beck had some kid doing a very simple calculus 2 problem (the integral test) and claiming the boy (they claimed the boy had a measure SB IQ=170 about 1 in 50,000 people) was going to disprove the big bang theory. I think the underlying assumption was that this would show that science is wrong and the bible is right. Never the less, if observable data were discovered that contradicted the Big Bang explanation and this was never resolved it would mean the end of the Big Bang Theory. Unless someone could replace the Big Bang with some other (similar theory) theory that also claimed the universe started from an infinitesimal point (of course the theory would necessarily still be required to confirm and explain all relevant scientific date including the data I just mentioned above) then this would be the end of the Big Bang and all similar theories (i.e. that propose an origination from an infinitesimal point). This is what I mean by disproving the big bang theory. Thus to disprove the Big Bang Theory is tantamount to disproving a creator. There are competing theories but they don't seem to get much attention anymore.

Isn’t it funny how people are always arguing about things but never really thinking about what they are saying (like Glenn Beck above). I find that many times it "appears" that when people argue they are just assuming something is already true and then trying to convince everyone else that it is true. Anyone who has studied logic mathematics or computer science (and many other fields) knows this is silly. I think the reason for this is because we want to believe in something so much that we just make a sort of mental leap to believing it without any scrutiny at all. There is a difference between knowing something (by way of a formal application of reason) and believing something (that may or may not be true). I have often noticed when discussing God with Christians that they use these two words interchangeably (and probably don't even notice they are doing it).

I'm hoping for a logical discussion or scientific not a religious one but Im sure to be disappointed. I also, hope that people who don't understand what Im saying will either do their homework (out of respect) or just don't comment. One should at least have a very basic understanding of things like the scientific method, inductive vs deductive reason, basic physics (like how an experiment is performed). I'm not being rude but just want to avoid conundrums like the Glenn Beck fallacy above (where does not understand the consequences of what they are saying).

Why do so many people think that if the Big Bang Theory is disproven (i.e. replaced with an alternate and necessarily opposing theory) that this is a victory for religion. If the universe was never created then necessarily there was no creator. Thus, the universe was always here.

I saw a TV show where Glenn Beck had some kid doing a very simple calculus 2 problem (the integral test) and claiming the boy (they claimed the boy had a measure SB IQ=170 about 1 in 50,000 people) was going to disprove the big bang theory. I think the underlying assumption was that this would show that science is wrong and the bible is right. Never the less, if observable data were discovered that contradicted the Big Bang explanation and this was never resolved it would mean the end of the Big Bang Theory. Unless someone could replace the Big Bang with some other (similar theory) theory that also claimed the universe started from an infinitesimal point (of course the theory would necessarily still be required to confirm and explain all relevant scientific date including the data I just mentioned above) then this would be the end of the Big Bang and all similar theories (i.e. that propose an origination from an infinitesimal point). This is what I mean by disproving the big bang theory. Thus to disprove the Big Bang Theory is tantamount to disproving a creator. There are competing theories but they don't seem to get much attention anymore.

Isn’t it funny how people are always arguing about things but never really thinking about what they are saying (like Glenn Beck above). I find that many times it "appears" that when people argue they are just assuming something is already true and then trying to convince everyone else that it is true. Anyone who has studied logic mathematics or computer science (and many other fields) knows this is silly. I think the reason for this is because we want to believe in something so much that we just make a sort of mental leap to believing it without any scrutiny at all. There is a difference between knowing something (by way of a formal application of reason) and believing something (that may or may not be true). I have often noticed when discussing God with Christians that they use these two words interchangeably (and probably don't even notice they are doing it).

I'm hoping for a logical discussion or scientific not a religious one but Im sure to be disappointed. I also, hope that people who don't understand what Im saying will either do their homework (out of respect) or just don't comment. One should at least have a very basic understanding of things like the scientific method, inductive vs deductive reason, basic physics (like how an experiment is performed). I'm not being rude but just want to avoid conundrums like the Glenn Beck fallacy above (where does not understand the consequences of what they are saying).