Apple Storing Location data

UPDATE 21.04.11: Wired has some information on this: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/

So I saw a link to this website on Apple keeping location data on iPhones the other day, and thought it was very interesting (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/). As I started thinking about it though, I remembered that the locations based on Wifi on the iPad also seemed to be pretty good, and I wondered if Apple was storing that information as well. So using the code here (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3085153/how-to-parse-the-manifest-mbdb-file-in-an-ios-4-0-itunes-backup) to figure out what file was the database, and the other suggestions mentioned by the site, I did some digging into my iPad backup, and lo-behold there is a Table called "WifiLocation", with fields of "MAC", "Timestamp", "Latitude", "Longitude", etc. So I punched some of the Lat-Long coordinates into Google Maps, and although some seemed to be off (i.e. I don't remember being in that location) some of them were definitely right on, actually showing my apartment building.

So not only are they storing the location using Cell towers (and maybe GPS, there is another table called "Location"), they are also storing it based on Wifi. This does not seem like a good thing. I mean location services are great, but why does my iPad need a database of past locations?

I don't know how good many of the locations are, and what exactly is going on as there are multiple entries for any given timestamp. Unfortunately, I won't have time to try and work on this until after next Friday. Maybe someone else will have it all figured out by then.

EDIT: For Windows users (everything above I did in Linux), I have also just found out about this http://code.google.com/p/iphonebackupbrowser/, combining it with an SQLite browser should allow you to see what information is being stored on your iPhone or iPad. I haven't gotten it working yet, but have no reason to suspect it won't.

Theology in Country Music

As I was driving to work this morning, I was listening to the local country station. They played two different songs that I think manage to convey completely opposite worldviews. The first was "Just Another Day in Paradise", by Phil Vassar. I really like this song, and I hope you see why from the lyrics:

The kids screaming, phone ringing
Dog barking at the mailman bringing
That stack of bills - overdue
Good morning baby, how are you?
Got a half hour, quick shower
Take a drink of milk but the milk's gone sour
My funny face makes you laugh
Twist the top on and I put it back
There goes the washing machine
Baby, don't kick it.
I promise I'll fix it
Long about a million other things

Well, it's ok. It's so nice
It's just another day in paradise
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Well, it's two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

Friday, you're late
Guess we'll never make our dinner date
At the restaurant you start to cry
Baby, we'll just improvise
Well, plan B looks like
Dominoes' pizza in the candle light
Then we'll tippy toe to our room
Make a little love that's overdue
But somebody had a bad dream
Mama and daddy
Can me and my teddy
Come in to sleep in between?

Yeah it's ok. It's so nice.
It's just another day in paradise.
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Well, it's two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

Well, it's ok. It's so nice.
It's just another day in paradise.
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

For just another day in paradise
Well, it's the kids screaming. The phone ringing
Just another day
Well, it's Friday. You're late
Oh yeah, it's just another day in paradise

They then proceeded to play Sugarland's "Something More". The outlook from this song couldn't be more opposite of "Just Another Day in Paradise":

Monday, hard to wake up
Fill my coffee cup, I'm out the door
Yeah, the freeway's standing still today
It's gonna make me late, and thats for sure
I'm running out of gas and out of time
Never gonna make it there by nine

Chorus:
There's gotta be something more
Gotta be more than this
I need a little less hard time
I need a little more bliss
I'm gonna take my chances
Taking any chance I might
Find what I'm looking for
There's gotta be something more

Five years and there's no doubt
That I'm burnt out, I've had enough
So now boss man, here's my two weeks
I'll make it short and sweet, so listen up
I could work my life away, but why?
I got things to do before die

Repeat Chorus

Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate
I believe that happiness is something we create
You best belive that I'm not gonna wait
'Cause there's gotta be something more

I get home 7:30 the house is dirty, but it can wait
Yeah, 'cause right now I need some downtime
To drink some red wine and celebrate
Hey, Armageddon could be knocking at my door
But I ain't gonna answer thats for sure.
There's gotta be something more!

There's gotta be something!

Repeat chorus

Got to be,
Got to be,
Got to be something more!

All of this just made me pause and think about my own life this morning, and whether I was truly thankful for what God has given me, or whether I thought I deserved more from God.

I hope it makes you think too.

Loving the Church

Funny, my reading and listening intersected today in a neat way. I have been listening to John Shearouse preach on Psalm 102, Loving the Dust, and then I was reading Joshua Harris's Dug Down Deep on how Christians should relate to the Church, and was struck by this particular paragraph:

But what if we saw that the church is more than a human program, more than what we disparagingly refer to as organized religion? What if we saw that it originated in the heart and mind of God himself and that his plan began before the dawn of human history and stretches into eternity? What if we learned that the church was so precious to Jesus that he was willing to shed his own blood to obtain it? What if the church is the means by which God has chosen to accomplish his purpose for us and for the world? And what if it is irreplaceable?
If we could see this, then we'd realize that rejecting the church is rejecting God himself.

Two different things to look at, but both very much about how Christians are to love the church.

I know I have not always loved the Church as I should have. Have you?

Thoughts on Evolution Part 3: Natural Selection

Having examined the literalness of the creation account and the age of the earth, let us now turn to the issue of the evolution of life via natural selection. Keep in mind, that due to how we should regard the creation account and the age of the earth, there is no way a Bible believing Christian should regard this as remotely possible. However, because our secular culture and many Christians take the creation of life by evolution and natural selection as a given, we will examine some of the problems with the theory here.

First, let us define two terms, natural selection and evolution. Natural selection can be described as

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations

(http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection). Evolution is a little trickier, because there are actually two definitions that are used, and although they imply two completely different things, many will use them interchangeably. The first is the scientific literature definition: 

any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next

 The second is the one generally held by the general public:

The process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.

 The first is frequently observed occurring in natural and laboratory settings via natural selection or another method. The second has yet to be observed.

Many people, Richard Dawkins included, want to believe that the same natural selection that results in antibiotic resistant bacteria, has also allowed very similar creatures to those bacteria to accumulate enough information to eventually become creatures like you and me, otherwise known as "goo to you" evolution. 

What are the problems with this view? The first and foremost is that natural selection works at the level of information. The DNA sequence in every cell is not just a random sequence, but rather a highly specific set of instructions on how to make everything a cell needs to live, including more copies of itself. When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it does so either through mutation of the target, or by acquiring a beneficial protein from another type of bacterium. As a mutation almost always results in a loss of function, it will only remain if the selective pressure of the antibiotic continues to be applied. This is also true of any acquired protein as well, as these are often encoded in packets of DNA that are not integrated into the bacterial genome (or original set of instructions), but are only kept and transmitted to progeny as long as the selective pressure is applied.

In addition, as far as I am aware, no one has answered the problem of increasing information required for evolution. In fact, most known mechanisms of evolution actually decrease the information content in the genome. Imagine a book, wherein letters, words or entire paragraphs may be deleted, copied, or transposed. Now, is there more or less information in the book before or after the modifications? Now imagine that this book contains the instructions for building an extremely complex machine, in which every piece has to be built with painstaking attention to detail. 

The true complexity involved is even greater, in that the book; our genome, contains the instructions for building a new printing press, and the energy generator to build and run the printing press, and even make the paper and ink that will be used in printing a new copy of the original book. The DNA in our cells is even more complex than this, and it turns out that additional information is encoded at levels above the DNA sequence in chemical modifications on some DNA pieces, and the packing of the DNA. This is much like the way language works, in that information is encoded at multiple levels, namely letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Doesn't all of this sound like an extremely well designed language?

All of this ignores the obvious problem of getting the first bit of DNA and a cell that could replicate the DNA together in a way that they can actually do what our cells currently do. These, and many other reasons are why I do not accept the current scientific consensus that life arose through naturalistic processes and became more complex via evolution. I believe that 6000 years ago, God created the universe, the earth, and all life on it in a single act of creation over 6 literal days. Man sinned and rejected God's rule, and God then sent His son Jesus Christ to be a propitiation for sin. Those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior will live for eternity in Heaven, and those who do not will suffer for eternity in Hell. This is the message given to us by God himself in the Bible.

For more resources and information, please see creation.com.    

Thoughts on Evolution Part 2: Age of the Earth

In the first part, we came to the conclusion that the creation account in Genesis should be taken literally. This of course brings up the age of the earth. Last time I looked, almost any way you add them up, all of the genealogies in the Bible add up to approximately 6000 years. Therefore, as a Bible believing Christian, I have to believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. 

Now, some might rightly wonder, what about all of the scientific studies that claim the oldest rocks on the earth are on the order of 4.5 billion years old (byo). First, almost all of the dating methods start with the assumption that the earth is ancient, and that the various processes producing the elements of interest have never changed. There is no way to truly validate this assumption, nor to verify what the starting conditions in the rocks of interest actually are. 

Second, many of the rock dating methods do not agree with each other, and the magnitude of the disagreement can be huge. In addition, there are many other pieces of evidence that do not appear to agree with the earth being as old as claimed (see here for some). One that I find particularly interesting is that there are certain rocks that contain helium gas. The helium in these rocks is leaking out at a known rate, and there is a theoretical maximum amount they could hold. However, if the rocks from which this helium is escaping were really as old as claimed, then there should be absolutely no helium left in them! (see here).

Some might point to the Grand Canyon as evidence for an old earth. The proposition is that the many layers of rock were laid down slowly over millennia, and that subsequently the river carved out the canyon over many more. The eruption of Mount St. Helens has demonstrated on a smaller scale that the processes both of sedimentary layer deposition and erosion can occur extremely quickly, especially during various catastrophes. What bigger geologic catastrophe do we have recorded for us by the very words of God but that of a worldwide flood?

So, even though we must as Christians consider the Bible as a witness to time, there are actually many other attestations to it's veracity in scientific fields, if one does not start with the presupposition that the earth is much older than is claimed by the Bible.

Thoughts on Evolution Part 1: Literal Genesis

As someone who spends a lot of time examining biological problems and has a PhD in chemistry, many people tend to be surprised when I profess unbelief in evolution. This position is not one that I have held for very long, and in fact for most of my life I was an ardent evolutionist and atheist. Even after becoming a Christian, I still believed that there was room in the Genesis account for the long ages required for evolution to work, and that God could work through evolutionary processes if he so wished.

However, the first seeds of doubt were actually planted during the latter part of my undergraduate and my masters when I spent a good portion of my days staring at the structure of a protein. Which protein is not important for our discussion (those who are curious can look up acetylcholinesterase), but what is important is that this protein catalyzes a reaction that requires the precise arrangement of amino acids in the protein with the chemicals undergoing the reaction. Only three amino acids are actually responsible for carrying out the reaction, but they are part of a long chain of 500 amino acids that fold around them and position them perfectly to carry out the reaction.

This type of precise arrangement is found in many different biological systems, even at the relatively simple level of viruses and bacteria, both of which are much more complicated than many give them credit for. As I encountered this and other examples of apparent design, I began to question my long held position of atheism. However, even after I accepted Christ as my Lord and savior, I still believed that it was possible that God had only started life, that the creation account in Genesis was not to be taken literally, and therefore something akin to directed evolution occurred under the direction of God.

What I didn't realize was that this view actually forced me to conclude that parts of scripture are not to be interpreted in context. All of the alternative methods of interpreting Genesis cause one to interpret it as something other than literal history. However, Jesus and all the OT and NT writers treat Genesis as literal history. If there were not a literal "first Adam" by whose fall sin entered the world, then what need is there for a "last Adam" to redeem us from sin?

A literal reading also precludes a process such as evolution via natural selection being responsible for life due to the requirement of death. How could God declare that creation was "very good" if it was the result of millions of years of death? Especially when death did not enter the world until the first sin of Adam and Eve? If one does not treat the creation account as literal, at what point does Genesis then become literal history, as it must for redemption to make any sense. And who is the arbiter in making that decision? Can any other parts of the Bible that we don't particularly like also be turned into nonsense? Essentially one must pit man over and against God's word.

At this point, many reading this are likely thinking, what about all of the various scientific evidences for an old earth and for evolution? We will examine these in the next two parts.

Thoughts on my first mega-chuch experience

For those who know, Sarah and I recently moved to Louisville, KY. Before we moved here, we found out that the sixth largest church in the US, Southeast Christian Church, is here. Although we have found a new church home, I decided that I wanted to experience at least one service at Southeast, and see how one does a church service with 6000 people. So I attended the Saturday evening worship service.

I'm going to divide this into two parts. The first will examine the logistical aspects of being in a worship service with 6000 other people, and the second will examine the content of the worship service itself.

So first, how do you have a church with 6000 people in attendance? Well, you have a really, really big building. But first, you have to have a place to put all of their cars (really bad public transit in Louisville), so there is a really big parking lot. And to get those cars into the parking lot, there were actually people outside directing traffic into the driveway, and they looked like police officers (I saw one badge that said Louisville correctional services). I should mention at this point that there were a lot of staff, from greeters to people handing out the elements of the Lord's supper, which isn't that surprising.

Upon entering the church itself, I found a very large information center, and a coffee shop. Although I had read the many jokes about various mega-churches and coffee shops, I was still surprised to see a coffee shop in a church building. I guess people need their jolt of caffiene to be able to worship God, and where better to get it than the church itself? There was also a lot of doors and hallways leading every which way.

Then there was the sanctuary. Outside, there was a main entrance, and stairs going up to the two upper levels, although I found out that there are actually 5 levels. Inside, it was just huge. I think many conference centers are smaller than the sanctuary here. And the seats, they just go on and on. I counted at least 4 video cameras focused on the stage (there may have been more I didn't see), and then there were a bunch of large video screens, and at least four banks of speakers feeding audio out. It was impressive, and massive. On stage there was a setup for a full band, and off to one side a small pool sized baptism tank.

During the service, they had the Lord's supper, with what looked like an army of people going around to hand out the bread and the juice. There was also the same army (from what I could tell) doing the collection of the offerring.

What about the service itself? Listening to the worship music felt like being at a concert, and people actually applauded after each song. The music was so loud I often couldn't hear myself or others around me singing along. And the words on the screen were superimposed over video of the worship team. The songs weren't any worse than many hymns theologically, but they were loud. There was a video spot where one person talked about a recent story in the NYPost involving a homeless man saving a woman, being stabbed to death, and then no one helping the homeless man while he dies. This was then tied to Jesus dying for the ungodly.

The sermon was on "Goodness and Kindness" as fruits of the spirit. The text was 2 Sam 9:1-11, where David is looking to make good on his promise to Jonathan to protect Jonathan's family, and David's treatment of Mephibosheth. The whole sermon built up to three points regarding kindness: (1) We need to show kindness to family and friends; (2) We should show kindness to someone who can't return the favor; and (3) we should show kindness when it may not be deserved. Now, I will admit, these are things we should do, and I would agree that Christians need to be reminded of these types of things. But in building up to this, I felt there was a lack of emphasis on Christ showing us this kindness himself, and therefore this should be our response as those who have been saved. This may have been due to the shortness of the sermon itself (I forgot my cell phone, but I would judge it was ~30 min), but I also think the time spent telling everyone about the ways that people in the church have/will show(n) kindness to others could have been better spent on examining David as a type of Christ, but don't take my word for it. Don't get me wrong, there was some stuff about Christ's and God's kindness to us, but given the imagery in 2 Samuel 9, this could have been brought out a lot more. Then again, I don't write sermons. For those who want to verify what I am saying, the date I attended was May 15, so go to the church website and see if the sermon archive has it.

So would I go there again? No. Would I recommend the place? Not with just one visit, but not likely ever, either. Even if you don't agree with the Presbyterian view on covenants, I'm sure there must be some more solid churches in Louisville with better expository preaching. But man there was a lot of people, if that's what you think is the best indicator of a church.

Follow Up:
I was speaking with someone after our church service today about the services at Southeast, and he made a really good point that in a seeker sensitive type church you are not using the service to necessarily feed the sheep, but rather to bring the goats in from the outside and make them comfortable, and get them into programs where they can get more learning. But in my mind this goes completely against what the purpose of church should be, which is worship of God and feeding the sheep so that they can better understand their relationship to the shepherd. If any goats do come in, they should not be comfortable, because they do not yet know the shepherd, and don't even know that they need a shepherd. If they come in, they need to know that they are seperated from the flock, and that the only way to become a part of it is through repentance and knowing the shepherd.

Living it up in Louisville!

So a quick update. In December 2009, I applied for a Post-Doc position at the University of Louisville for microarray bioinformatics. I had a phone interview, and the next week I was on a plane for Louisville. Two days after that interview, they told me they were going to offer me the position. A month of waiting, and I had a job offer, and we were getting our stuff together to come to the US.

We've been in our new apartment 2 weeks, in Louisville for 1 month, and I've been working at my new job for 3 weeks. It has been a bit of a whirlwind, and honestly we are still getting our bearings. It is a new experience for both of us, especially as Sarah adjusts to being a homemaker, and I adjust to bringing home all the bacon. This will be the situation for a while between our Visa situation and a baby on the way July 8th.

God has been good. We had enough money to get ourselves set up (and a small allowance for moving, and wonderful family and friends to store our extra stuff), we have an apartment, food in our fridge, and are getting to know a wonderful church family.

Deadly Storms?

So I was watching The WeatherNetwork this morning before I head off to work, as I do most mornings to get an idea of how I should dress for the day and see what to expect for weather for the next few days. Following the local forecast, the news feature started. Now for those who don't know, southern Ontario had some very severe thunderstorms on the weekend. I had seen some coverage of those storms on The WeatherNetwork, and yesterday they reported that one, that is one person, a woman from Sarnia, had died from the storms. Understand, I think that it is tragic that anyone died from the storms.

However, imagine my surprise this morning to hear of the "Deadly Storms" in southern Ontario on the weekend. Wow! There must have been many more people killed during the storms than I thought! It should be all over the major newspapers and news websites in Canada! Nope. The only reported death I can find is still one, mentioned as another item in both these stories:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/08/10/hydro-one.html
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090810/thunderstorm_Torono_090810/20090810?hub=Toronto

Yes, The WeatherNetwork is correct, the storm was deadly in that someone died. And again, I'm not trying to make light of the fact that someone died, however, "deadly storm" implies that there were many more deaths than one, and that from a lightning strike. I actually think it is amazing that with all of the toppled trees, downed power lines, and the amount of lightning strikes that only one person died.

I wonder how many people are dying from the typhoons and related weather in Asia? How many unborn children die every minute from abortions? Lets have a little bit of perspective.

Free Speech Conference

As you can see from the above banner, there is going to be a conference on Free Speech and Human Rights in Canada in Halifax, September 25 and 26, 2009. If the current state of affairs regarding these interests you, then I encourage you to come out.