Friday, May 26, 2006

93. Time Out

My computers getting fixed...the apple has a grub in it maybe. Back into it soon, Ive got so many posts to do.
Thankyou for recent encouragements..Ross

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

92: Working this site

To get the best out of this site;

Scroll thru the archives, previous months
Leave a comment
There are lots of anons,,try a name?
You can join as a member
Email it to a "friend in need"

Monday, May 22, 2006

91: Signs from God: the historic highway

I have had some weeks to reflect on the QUESTION of how we know if it is God speaking to us. (see post
I think we need more than faith, belief or knowledge.
To finish with conviction, God has historically provided a way to convince people unequivocally that he has spoken to them, and that is by way of signs.
God has both given a sign, and been asked a sign, in both Testaments.
And we have those experiences too. God sometimes lets us know by a sign, or we might ask a sign to convince us we are on the right path.
What I am not sure about is if we should regularly ask for a sign or not. Does it indicate a lack of faith or indicate a desire to please?
Is it presumptive to ask for a sign?
scripture: Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Mar 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

This has been clearly talking about wicked people, not wicked because they require a sign , but wicked people requiring a sign.

I think on balance the only danger is to ourselves psychologically: we need to develop a confidence in our service to God, but on the other hand people tell me there is no law against much praying …although as you know from earlier posts I think we pray too much if the prayer is inappropriate to our readiness.
I personally have had many signs. I can therefore easily believe in Gods will for me.
Hence my enthusiasm and zeal for this work, this site.

One thing I often wonder is, why does God conceal himself?
And Satan does too, appearing in camouflage as an angel of light..?

2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


It must be a privilege for God to speak directly to us, yet sometimes it can have the effect of …making us angry, we want to escape, we don’t want to listen, don’t want to obey…etc.

Jon 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
Jon 1:2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
Jon 1:3 But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

But once we say to God, OK I am willing, the signs suddenly become welcome, warm and fuzzy. It is with relief we can be assured of his direction and approval.
Yet the signs are not always “religious”: they might well be real life, co-incidences, songs, a word in season, strange behaviour.

So for me, how do we know it is God speaking, to me, it is about the reassurance from signs and then the belief by faith and the conviction of knowing.
For me to know if God has spoken to someone else it requires me to see the evidence of good spiritual fruit in the result. But I have to remember that fruit does not always appear in the same season as the growth of the branch or the flowering of the tree.
It might be a season on, but fruit appears following the flower. And it doesn’t appear on dead wood. So we would look for life in the branch, feeding from the root, flowering in season, and the bearing of fruit.

90: Time Perception

Lincoln sent this in...an extract from BBC website
Time Perception

However much we might try to resist its incessant march, time is central to almost everything we do, from knowing when to sleep or use the toilet, to timing our movements so that a kiss doesn't become a head butt.

Although biologists haven't been able to agree how they work, it seems clear that the body has a number of internal timing systems to help us judge the passage of time.

Sometimes, however, our natural clocks seem to run fast or slow. Not because our internal clocks themselves are faulty, but because our perception of the passing of time seems to vary with circumstances.

When time seems to fly or drag, it's nothing to do with our internal clock speeding up or slowing down. It's how the brain processes time-related information that generates the illusion.

When a person's life is in danger, a phenomenon known as 'time-dilation' can occur. This is when, during a car crash for example, time seems to slow down or become frozen.

In these cases the body's internal clock speeds up when facing a potential catastrophe, so that it can take in more information more quickly and function more effectively in an emergency.

This is also a phenomenon actively sought by elite sportspeople, when they get 'in the zone'.

Some of the chemicals in the brain, such as dopamine, can affect our perception of time. Deficiencies in these chemicals can lead to brain disorders.

In today's technological age, the body's natural clocks are being hijacked by timetables, schedules and diaries. By paying more attention to our watches, rather than our internal clocks, could we be losing touch with time as it should be perceived?


RELATED LINKS
Royal Observatory, Greenwich
Duke University: Prof. Warren Meck
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience: Dr Vincent Walsh
Keele University: Prof. John Wearden
University of Texas Medical School: Prof. David Eagleman
University of Liverpool: Dr Penny Lewis
BBCi Science
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites











Audio Help


DON'T MISS



SCIENCE PUZZLES


Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Genetics, Nature... Can you solve our Science Puzzles?



PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES


The New Antibiotics
Human Cooperation
Carbon Forests
SETI
Synthetic Life
Cilia
The Nature of Frontiers
A Theory of Everything
Human Evolution
Acid Oceans
Risk
Neuroprosthetics
Influenza
Atmospheric Dust
Ionic Liquids
Memory Enhancement
The Moon
Inflammation
Sports Doping
Before the Big Bang
Wellbeing
Future Ocean
Predicting Behaviour
Archaea
A Global Epidemic RNA Interference
Gene Therapy
Galaxy Formation
Blue Whale
Optical Tweezers
Musical Cavemen
Global Warming
Malaria
Self-organisation
Dinobirds
Gravity Probe B
Alzheimer's Disease
Back to Latest Programme


SCIENCE PROGRAMMES


Adventures in Science
Another Five Numbers
The Art of Indecision
A Brief History of the End of Everything
Connect
The Cosmic Ocean
Creative Genius
Electronic Brains
Five Numbers
Frontiers
A Further Five Numbers
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Future
In Einstein's Shadow
Leading Edge
The Lopsided Universe
Making a Human Alien
The Material World
The Mozart Effect
Publish or Be Damned
Red Planet
Relatively Einstein
Reith Lectures 2003
Scars of Evolution
Self-Made Things
The Serendipity of Science
Small Worlds
Think About It
Unearthing Mysteries
What Remains to Be Discovered?
The Zippe Type


MESSAGE BOARDS


Join the discussion:
Radio 4 Science
Let us hear your views on our environmental, health, nature and science programmes



BBC Health
BBC Science & Nature
BBC Weather: Environment

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

89: Our mission

We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: ( Luke 14)

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

88. Not Dr Seuss

Computer Jargon by Dr Suess..
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted at a very
last resort, and the access of the memory makes your floppy disk abort, then the socket
packet pocket has an error to report.
If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking icon puts
your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted cause the index doesn't hash, then
your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash!

If the label on the cable on the table at your house, says the network is connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel to another protocol, that's
repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall.

And your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in the window
are as wavy as a souse; then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang, 'cuz sure as
I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang.

When the copy on your floppy's getting sloppy in the disk, and the macro code instructions are causing unnecessary risk, then you'll have to flash the memory and you'll want to RAM your ROM, and then quickly turn off the computer and be sure to tell your Mom!

87. Boasting...a good thing?

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.




Psa 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear [thereof], and be glad.

Psa 44:8 In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah.


Isa 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: [men] shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not

Pro 16:18 Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

86. Education and the questions.

In being educated we learn to ask the right questions, and how to discover the right answers.
Education is not so much learning answers, but questions.

The previous post (scroll down) 84, about the question of the century, has a dearth of answers , although
THERE IS A BRILLIANT RESPONSE FROM WARREN WHICH I URGE YOU TO READ.

The answers will not be from the educated, the mature, but probably from the faithful.

I was disappointed in the other response, which was : I dont feel ready / willing / able.

It would be nice to get lotsa responses, yes?

Monday, May 15, 2006

85. Napoleon Bonaparte

"I know men, and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a mere man. Everything in Christ astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and his will confounds me. Between him and whoever else in the world there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by himself. One can absolutely find nowhere but in him alone the imitation or the example of his life. I search in vain in history to find a similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary."


Those words were spoken by Napoleon Bonaparte during a conversation with one of his generals while he was in exile on St. Helena. There are on record other remarkable things that Napoleon said about Christ. It is almost certain that he became a Christian during his days of exile.




Quote from R.Stedman

Sunday, May 14, 2006

84 Question of the Century

How do we know if the spirit is speaking to us?
Or the Spirit , the Holy Ghost,
or God Himself?
Or an angel?
Or our own ego?
Or is it even ever so subtly from the devil?

And why does God conceal Himself such that no-one has seen him?
Or such that WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW IF IT IS GOD SPEAKING TO US?

How do we know if what we hear is from God?
Or from the general spirit of the thing?
Or from a speakers ego?

How do we know how to discern the spirits?
How do we know if a message is of God?

How would we know if a wise saying accredited to say, Buddha, should be enlightening to us, or rejected?

What is it about our faith that that gives us confidence to accept or reject,
thoughts,
sermons,
messages,
revelations,
prophecies,
writings,
essays,
blogs,
teachings,
conventions,
culture,
beliefs,
knowledge,
sciences,
theories,
guesses,
hunches,
visions,
pictures,
books,
papers,
other churches,
dreams,
poems,
hymns,
books,
historic scrolls,
interpretations,
translations,
bible variants,
Catholicism,
Latter day saints,
various Christian denominations,
Non-denominational churches,
home fellowships,
Brethren,
JWs
preaching,
experience,
upbringing,
televangelism,
fiction,
films,
music,
songs,
friends advice,
teaching in schools,
Google searches,
Concordances,
Bible commentaries,
Bible margins,
Blue letter bible.org
answer to prayer
feelings,
scripture,
Old Testament,
New Testament,
Sayings of Jesus,
Dead Sea scrolls,
Catholic bibles,
Mormon interpretations,
extra gospels,
Paul's letters,
newspaper reports
history,
Josephus,
Greek legends,
Roman legends,
Assyrian legends,
Atlantis legends,
science fiction,
Fossil discoveries,
carbon dating,
evolution,
Darwinism,
Big Bang,
Intelligent design,
Psychology,
Freudian theory,
Jungian theory,
Quantum theory,
Stephen Hawking,
Newton,
Einstein,
Atheism,
Panentheism,
Pantheism,
Medication,
Drugs,
Prozac et al,
Alccohol,
not forgetting prayer, meditation,...


or Ross's dog?


I bring you back to faith.
But give me your reasons?




"show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works"


I know some of you, you could reduce that list by half by going "true or false"
Others could answer, rather ask, more questions?

Lady R.?
Elijah?
Geoff?
Anon?


Like , even the dog, Ross's dog , could talk about discerning the spirits, looking at the fruit of the spirits...
but what I want is where you are coming from, give some depth?

This question is important to everyone on the planet, if only they knew.



You do the post... you tell me? Please?



Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I say, that to know and be confident, is better than to have faith and believe.This is works.

83. Dog / Dogs Concordance

DOG:

Exd 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Jdg 7:5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

1Sa 17:43 And the Philistine said unto David, [Am] I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

1Sa 24:14 After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea.

2Sa 9:8 And he bowed himself, and said, What [is] thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I [am]?

2Sa 16:9 Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah unto the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head.

2Ki 8:13 And Hazael said, But what, [is] thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou [shalt be] king over Syria.

Psa 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

Psa 59:6 They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.

Psa 59:14 And at evening let them return; [and] let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.

Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, [so] a fool returneth to his folly.

Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, [and] meddleth with strife [belonging] not to him, [is like] one that taketh a dog by the ears.

Ecc 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.




DOGS:

Exd 22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat [any] flesh [that is] torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

1Ki 14:11 Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat: for the LORD hath spoken [it].

1Ki 16:4 Him that dieth of Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat.

1Ki 21:19 And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.

1Ki 21:23 And of Jezebel also spake the LORD, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

1Ki 21:24 Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat.

1Ki 22:38 And [one] washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according unto the word of the LORD which he spake.

2Ki 9:10 And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel, and [there shall be] none to bury [her]. And he opened the door, and fled.

2Ki 9:36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This [is] the word of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:

Job 30:1 But now [they that are] younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock.

Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Psa 68:23 That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of [thine] enemies, [and] the tongue of thy dogs in the same.

Isa 56:10 His watchmen [are] blind: they are all ignorant, they [are] all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

Isa 56:11 Yea, [they are] greedy dogs [which] can never have enough, and they [are] shepherds [that] cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Jer 15:3 And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the LORD: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy.

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.

Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

Phl 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Rev 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Cite This Page:
Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for 'dogs ' " . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 14 May 2006.





If you notice ,the above verses are all about dogs.
All the verses in the KJV about dog or dogs.

There was nothing ever nice to say about dogs.
They were not nice animals then.

So, has the nature of dogs changed?
I know people who consider their dogs kind, loving and loyal.

In fact they could be endowed with all the fruits of the spirit.

So much for our previous discussion about whether dogs go to heaven...
They are portrayed as eaters of human flesh.

They are vicious, scavengers, greedy, evil...

So as I am wont to do, I ran it past the dog, Ross's dog.

He said men were put on the earth to have dominion over the animals.
Conversely animals were placed under man's dominion.

So he said the glory of the animal reflects on his master, it makes the master look good to Him who has dominion over him. But should the master wish to reward it, that should be done during the mans lifetime.

Got it.
The mutt needs his tea.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

82. Science vs religion

Here is someone elses results on a similar subject as mine...looks like good sense...what do you think?





Categories: Science and Religion

Science vs. Religion: Handling Conflicts
Randall Basinger


By and large, Christians today enjoy a quite comfortable relationship with science. We cannot help but be amazed at and thankful for the seemingly endless string of scientific advances and breakthroughs. Science continues to be an important part of the education of our children whether it be in grade school, high school or college. Moreover, many of us seem to find little problem in simultaneously being Christians and professional scientists.

However, under this seemingly amicable relationship, the centuries-old tensions remain. The problem of integrating and reconciling the teachings of the sciences with religious truth continues to be an ongoing and challenging issue. The recent court battles over the teaching of evolution in public schools offer one clear and dramatic example of the continued tension.

How then are Christians to deal with the tension between scientific inquiry and religious commitment? What precisely is the Christian to do when a religious belief is challenged by an alleged insight from science? More specifically, what methods are open to the person interested in reconciling and integrating science with religion. While the main purpose of this article is to explore those general methodological questions, special application will be made to the current/evolutionist debate.

THE PRIORITY OF DIVINE REVELATION
When a current, well-received teaching of science contradicts what is held to be a religious truth, something has to give. Unless one is willing (and psychologically able) to live with contradictory beliefs, at least one of the rival “truths” has to be denied.

When faced with such a dilemma, for many Christians the proper response seems patently obvious—the teachings of science must be denied. The rationale for this move is quite clear and persuasive. It is {4} argued that science is human reflection on nature and, like all human endeavours, subject to error. Similarly, the body of scientific knowledge is in a continual state of flux. Science is a growing and changing enterprise which offers no more than tentative and provisional conclusions. No matter how successful and reliable science might prove to be, it still falls short of offering conclusive, absolute truth.

In sharp contrast to this, it can be argued that Christian religious beliefs are grounded in scripture, and scripture, being nothing less than divine revelation, is the source of unchanging, absolute truth.

Thus if there should ever be a conflict between the teachings of scripture and the teachings of science, the teaching of scripture must be given preference. Divine revelation stands in judgement over all human inquiry. In a word, faith comes before reason.

ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH
At times this approach has led some Christians to take a rather negative stance toward science, but that need not be the case. Other Christians have argued that God’s natural revelation (as explored through science) and God’s special revelation (as recorded in scripture) ultimately cannot conflict. God cannot reveal contradictory truths. So there can be no real conflict between science and religion. In any apparent conflict between science and scripture, the problem lies not with science but with poor or inadequate science. Science, at its best, will not and in fact cannot conflict with the scripture. In short, all truth is God’s truth.1

This attitude gives Christian scholars the freedom and incentive (obligation?) to move from a dogmatic dismissal of scientific teaching to a more positive and constructive response. The Christian scholar may try to demonstrate on scientific grounds the inadequacy of those scientific theories which conflict with scripture. Or he may attempt to work at developing theories which are at once both scientifically adequate and compatible with scripture. This is the method of creation-scientists who argue that evolutionary thought is wrong not only because it conflicts with scripture but also because it conflicts with good, legitimate science. They allege that proper scientific theorizing and inquiry are indeed supportive of scripture. And since creationism is a legitimate (in fact, the most adequate) scientific theory, it can and should be taught in the public school without illegitimately mixing church and state.

Thus far we have developed one possible response a Christian can make to any given conflict between science and religion. On the assumption that scripture is nothing less than divine revelation, the Christian can challenge any teaching from science that conflicts with Scripture. On the assumption that all truth is God’s truth, the Christian {5} scholar is free to attempt to show how proper scientific inquiry is reconcilable with scripture. We have also seen how this method works itself out in the context of the present creation/evolution debate. What then are we to make of this approach?

Those using this approach are on solid methodological ground. They take divine revelation seriously, placing it above human reason. Also, they recognize the fallibility of science. No scientific belief is beyond challenge and possible revision. Challenge, criticism and revision is the name of the game in science. When scientific beliefs turn into dogma, science has ceased to be science. When the creation-scientists try to challenge evolutionary theory, they are certainly within their epistemic rights. Though one might wish to disagree with their conclusions, it is hard to find fault with their methodology at this point.3 But, is this the whole story? Must science always give way to religion? Must evolution of necessity give way to creationism?

A HUMBLING LESSON FROM HISTORY
Does the sun revolve around the earth or the earth around the sun? Such a question sounds quite bizarre to the twentieth century ear, yet it was Galileo’s teaching that the earth revolved around the sun that forced Galileo into his dramatic confrontation with the church leaders and theologians.4 But why would the theological community label as heresy a scientific theory that placed the sun and not the earth at the center of the world? The answer is clear. The church leaders were convinced that the scriptures teach that the earth is the center of the universe.5 When forced to choose between God’s revelation which teaches a geocentric view of the universe and Galileo’s heliocentric hypothesis, the choice was obvious. Divine revelation must be given priority.

Behind the church’s interpretation of scripture stood the time honored Aristotelian natural philosophy and the Ptolemaic model of the universe as well as good common sense (after all the sun does appear to move around the earth). Thus in the eyes of the church scholars, science and correct reasoning supported their understanding of scripture. For them, all truth was indeed God’s truth.

Though the religious authorities succeeded in suppressing Galileo and his “heretical” and “poor” science, our own beliefs concerning the earth and the sun clearly bear witness to the ultimate triumph of Galileo’s ideas over the beliefs of his theological opponents. But what went wrong? Were Galileo’s accusers not merely being faithful to the Scripture?

At times Christians are sincerely wrong about what scripture teaches.6 The assumption that the Bible is divine revelation does not {6} automatically lead the believer to correct beliefs about what the scripture actually teaches. Humans are fallible and our interpretations of the Bible are in need of constant reexamination and possibly revision. We, like the accusers of Galileo, often forget that scripture has to be interpreted to be heard and with human interpretation comes the possibility of error. To automatically deny the teaching of science in any alleged conflict with scripture is faulty methodology. Galileo’s skirmish with the church is a solemn reminder of this.

Conflicts between science and religion are often constructed as conflicts between human understanding and divine revelation. If this is an accurate perception of such conflicts, then human understanding must always give way to divine revelation. However, the conflicts we actually encounter between science and religion are really between human interpretation of nature (science) and human understanding of the data of scripture (theology). When conflicts are perceived in this fashion, it becomes obvious that human interpretation is present in both areas of knowledge.7 And with human interpretation comes the possibility of misinterpretation. Consequently, when science conflicts with our religious beliefs, we cannot simply assume that the scientists are on the wrong track.

Does this line of thought mean that God’s revelation changes or at times must take the back seat to science? The answer is clearly no. God’s truth does not change, but our perception of divine revelation can, has, and at times must change. Human fallibility does not only apply to our exploration of nature via the scientific method. It also applies to our exploration of and attempts to understand the data of special revelation. To reinterpret and hence change one’s understanding of revelation is not to question God’s authority. On the contrary, rightly understood it can come out of a deep longing to understand more properly and grow in one’s grasp of divine revelation. This approach recognizes that new scientific ideas can be the occasion which prompts a reexamination of what we take to be divine revelation. Any new interpretation must be justified on its own grounds and must not be a quick, automatic or unreflective accommodation to what current science teaches. “Agreement with science” must not be made the guiding principle of biblical interpretation; after all, science might be wrong. By the same token, however, biblical interpretation performed in a scientific vacuum has in the past and might in the future turn out to be faulty.8

Hence, another methodological option has emerged for Christians faced with a conflict between science and religion. It may be our current interpretations of scripture and thus our religious beliefs that need modification.

The relevance of this to the evolutionist/creationist debate should be clear. While the creation-scientists might be on the right track, they {7} also might be wrong. It cannot be assumed that evolutionism as a science is wrong and that scientific creationism is right. The church once cast its lot with a synthesis of Aristotelian science and scripture and turned out to be wrong.

Those Christians who have made peace with evolutionism are on solid methodological ground when they seek a reexamination of our understanding of scripture in light of developments in science. One might disagree with the substantive conclusions of Christian evolutionists, but what they are attempting to do is not intrinsically illogical or heretical. It is not illogical because the theologian, like the scientist, must be self-critical, self-correcting, and exhibit a willingness to change if inquiry into nature and scripture so dictates. It is not heretical because it does not call into question the authority of scripture, but rather only our interpretation of scripture.9

The lesson of the Galileo incident cuts both ways. While it can be seen as a humbling lesson for the creation scientist, it could also be a humbling lesson for the Christian evolutionist. Perhaps the “modern Galileos” are the creation-scientists who, like Galileo, are challenging the scientific establishment and a church which is overly and uncritically accommodating to the prevailing views of science, i.e., evolution.10

WALKING THE TIGHTROPE
If the above analysis is correct, it would appear that there are two basic methods open to the Christian when confronting a conflict between science and religion. One can alleviate the tension by either reinterpreting science or by reinterpreting religion. In certain situations one method might be called for while in different situations the other method might apply. There is no easy answer. There is no one approach the Christian is always safe in applying. To opt for current religious belief over scientific teaching might solidify a misinterpretation of scripture. To change one’s view of religious truth in the face of any new scientific teaching is just as problematic.

The only alternative seems to be for the believer to walk a dialectical tightrope between the claims of science and religion. Both must be handled with respect and with a healthy skepticism, for we have no assurance beforehand which will have to undergo revision. In the absence of a single easy, straightforward method for resolving these conflicts, all conflicts will have to be treated individually with sensitivity and humility. But this conclusion should not surprise us. After all we are human; “we see through a glass darkly.” {8}

REFERENCES
For a thorough discussion of this theme, see Arthur Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
See Norman Geisler, “Creationism: A Case for Equal Time,” Christianity Today 26 (March 19, 1982), pp. 26-29.
The tentative, subjective nature of scientific inquiry and truth has been a major theme in recent philosophy of science. See for example P.K. Feyerabend, “How to be a good Empiricist—A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological,” pp. 319-342 and Thomas Kuhn, “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research,” pp. 356-373 in Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Baruch Brody (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970).
For an historical account and discussion of this confrontation see Jerome Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church (New York: Desclee Co., 1966) and Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1955).
Some of the passages to which the church leaders appealed are the following: Psalms 93:1; 19:4-6; 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4-5; Joshua 10:12-14; and 2 Kings 20:8-11. For a discussion of the scriptural objections to Galileo, see Langford, pp. 50-78.
See Nicholas Wolsterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 11-13 and Gerry Breshears and Robert Larzelere, “The Authority of Scripture and the Unity of Revelation: A Response to Crabb,” The Journal of Psychology and Theology 9 (Winter 1981): 313-314.
For further argument along this line see J.D. Guy Jr., “The Search for Truth in the Task of Integration,” The Journal of Psychology and Theology 8 (1980), 27-32.
Robert Jonston, “Facing the Scriptures Squarely,” Christianity Today 24 (April 18, 1980), p. 26; see also Wolsterstorff, 54-58.
This approach has been recently criticized by Lawrence Crabb, “Biblical Authority and Christian Psychology,” The Journal of Psychology and Theology 9 (Winter 1981): 305-311. See responses to Crabb’s argument in the same journal.
Geisler, pp. 28-29.
Randall Basinger is one of the editors of Direction and is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Biblical and Religious Studies at Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kansas.
© 1982 Direction (Winnipeg, MB)
This article may be printed or downloaded for personal use only. No articles may be additionally reprinted in any form without permission of the Managing Editor, kindred@mbconf.ca.
HOME About Us Site Guide Contact Us Subscribe
Current Issue Back Issues Indexes Search

Friday, May 12, 2006

81. Preaching the Gospel, door to door

Preaching the Gospel 2.
Marketing. Door 2 door

I had a visit today from 2 Jehovahs Witnesses. Knocked on the door, nice little chat, left the usual mags.

Then the other ones, havent been for awhile but they tend to go the same way to the casual observer.
You know, knock on doors, personal visiting.

I have thought for many years that the marketing could be improved.
That preaching the gospel is , effectively marketing, and could probably afford to go a little high-tech.
Multi-media, latest marketing techniques...

But a recent article would beg us reconsider....take a gander at this piece from "The Age"

by Ian Porter.
This is about Aussie Farmers Direct who are selling Aus made groceries, thru franchises.

"Each new home delivery franchisee was provided with 450 customers in his area....from a list compiled by its 'carpet-bombing' approach:
...This involves a combination of local newspapers, doorknocking and telemarketing to build up the initial customer list.
Door-knocking is surprisingly effective, he says..
"Direct mail gets around a 1 in 50 response, and telemarketing about 1 in 15.
Doorknocking gets about a 1 in 10 response
....


And lets face it, appearing on the internet with 39 million others hasnt got the crowds you might expect, maybe door to door isnt such a bad idea after all.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

79. Science vs Intelligent Design

--

What do you think of this??




-----------------------------------------------
"INTELLIGENT THOUGHT
SCIENCE VERSUS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT" [5.8.06]
Edited by John Brockman

NOW ON SALE!

Jerry Coyne, Leonard Susskind, Daniel C. Dennett, Nicholas Humphrey, Tim D.
White, Neil H. Shubin, Richard Dawkins, Frank Sulloway, Scott Atran, Steven
Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart A. Kauffman, Seth Lloyd, Lisa Randall, Marc D.
Hauser, Scott Sampson

Vintage | Trade Paperback | May 2006
978-0-307-27722-0 (0-307-27722-4) | 272 pages
$14.00/$18.95 (Canada)

Science is the big news. Science is the important story. Science is public
culture....Yet at the same time, religious fundamentalism is on the rise around
the world, and our own virulent domestic version of it, under the rubric of
"intelligent design," by elbowing its way into the classroom abrogates the
divide between church and state that has served this country so well for so
long. Moreover, the intelligent-design (ID) movement imperils American global
dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the
American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology
derived therefrom.

This book - sixteen essays by Edge contributors, all leading scientists from
several disciplines - is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the
ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace
it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages. School districts
across the country - most notably in Kansas and later in Pennsylvania, where the
antievolutionist tide was turned but undoubtedly not stopped-have been besieged
by demands to "teach the debate," to "present the controversy," when, in
actuality, there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a
duplicitous public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist
interests.

[...more]

78. Meekness is not weakness

A recent subject was "meekness"
I went in really wondering what was the difference between meekness and weakness.


Meekness is strength, it is a choice.
This is illustrated in that the strongest people in the bible were the meekest:....

Jesus : I am meek and lowly.
Moses: The meekest man in all the earth


Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)



And look at the wife's situation.. .doesnt that take all the strength you can muster sometimes


1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.


So where does thit fit science?
Perhaps in the psychology field, like assertiveness training.
The ability to consider another above oneself while maintaining dignity and purpose.
It is quite different from pushing your own barrow.
But in the end it IS pushing your own stuff.
I did the course at TAFE a few years ago...

But what I learned from the subject meeting , is meekness requires strength.

Could you consider the virtuous woman, the perfect wife, as meek?

Would you now think differently about those courageous women, the ones who do not fight, argue, but are subject to their ( always ) imperfect husbands. For no husband is perfect. Only forgiven.

Rth 3:11 And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou [art] a virtuous woman.


Pro 12:4 A virtuous woman [is] a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed [is] as rottenness in his bones.

Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

Pro 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

Pro 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

Pro 31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

Pro 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

Pro 31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

Pro 31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.
If you are a wife, is your husband imperfect? Or forgiven?

Comment anyone?

77. The Word and Consciousness

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.



I read a book put out by edge.com, called something like ;"The things scientists believe but cannot prove."
The book has essays by 50 I think scientists.
I bought it in Lton.

I didnt agree with much in it, other parts were rivetting

Apparently science sometimes defines life as having consciousness, and consciousness as having language.

When I find the book I will quote directly.
I remember discussing it with the dog, Ross's dog.
He was disappointed in science, because that would have classified all other dogs as being pretty droll, whereas that is not the actual case.
He said the average dog understands probably 100 words in English, so to maintain their brain, their consciousness, they go around saying things to themselves like..."here boy", and "eat that you sod".

He said that proves their consciousness by language.

Well, why the quote from John's Gospel?

When I awoke today it came to me, in the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Some interpret that the Word is Jesus,which is fairly obvious.
But what it says in terms of science is, because word denotes language denotes consciousness denotes life...
that in the beginning there was consciousness...

I find it interesting
So I shall post this in a temporary state awaiting more work.
Thankyou, Ross

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

76. Parable of Riff and all

While we are talking about the dog and trying to persuade some usefulness out of him, I want to share a "parable".
The first dog I had ,(and the last) , when I was a boy, I called Riff, after Dennis the Menaces dog , Ruff.
He was a beautiful, cream and white puppy born to sheep dog parents, the most beautiful roly poly puppy you could imagine.
And he grew to be a beautiful mature dog too.
But he was bad.
Bad in that he would not come when called.
Would not heel.
Would not obey commands
He was boisterous, overbearing, and undisciplined.
Riff was no earthly use:
He was not my dutiful friend, my loyal companion, nor, my loving servant.
He wouldn't have saved my life in a fit..lol... he would have been after rabbits or cars...
Maybe the odd lick on the face, which I hated, was his most redeeming feature.
He was pretty though...

So Riff had to go.

I knew a man who needed a sheep dog. He was good with dogs, but he was poorly presented and appeared to live well below the poverty line.
Mr Fraser had trained dogs, he had had loyal dogs, and he saw Riff and figured here was a dog he could work with.
Was Riff for sale? (youbetcha !!! )
Riff very quickly became a Fraser dog. Riff Fraser. One of the family.
He was adopted into Mr Frasers loving care and was almost as if he were reborn as a new puppy.

Riff was anxious to please, he learned his lessons, and he didnt run out on the road .
He yearned to be obedient to his master.
He stopped chasing cars, learned the sheep trade to a tee, would respond to various whistles from the master : turn left, turn right, get away back, bring 'em on, grab them stragglers...whatever Mr Fraser was going to think next, Riff could almost beat him to it.

Riff became the perfect dog.

We children used to catch the school bus on the main road outside Mr Fraser's house.
One day Mr Fraser said, you know that dog I bought from you, he is the best dog I ever had.


Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Exd 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

75. The science and religion of the dog, Ross's dog..

This Blog tries to 'marry' science and religion: while we are talking about religion,...

Somehow the dog, Ross's dog, has got thru the screen door and absorbs as lot of my posts. It is not that I like dogs so much. It is that he can often illustrate a point more succinctly than anything I could say.
A bit like a parable, a moral, or a Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale. He brings me, and others , a lesson.
There is no plan when I write about what the dog says. I have no preconception of what the dog, Ross's dog, is going to say.
There is no dog. In reality.
But there is a dog.
He has a spirit. He exists in the fact that his 'existence' speaks from a mind of his own.

They are not my thoughts, in that I have never been party to the thoughts.I have never thought that I could think the thoughts the dog has thought, nor thought to think the type of thoughts that think the things the dog has thought.

I would say that I just type, and the words appear one by one, to my amazement at the perceived wisdom and succinctness of the dog.I sort of dont like to take the credit for what he says, or what he doesnt say but still manages to communicate.
Ive never written anything in my life. But the dog gives a flow, almost a talent, that I never had.
And I think it is a good thing.

So what is this dog thing then?
Is it a spirit, or a Spirit? Or something else?
Which begs the question, do dogs have a spirit?
But more importantly, do spirits have dogs?
I mean, if this were a spirit of a (wise) dog, does that spirit really exist?
Does a spirit exist without a body?
Well, of course, but can it be a dog's body?.......

Being a figment of my imagination, is it a familiar spirit, is it my alter-ego, or is it an invention of the devil?

Since the dog's advice has usually been pure and godly, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

What do you feel about the dog, Ross's dog?

74. submission of wives , and meekness

These are not my notes, nor the dog.
They make interesting reading, nevertheless.
What is the world coming to?



. Wives' Submission to Husbands

1 Peter 3:1-6 - Repeatedly God says wives are to be submissive to their husbands. In the midst of this teaching, he requires women to be adorned with a "meek (gentle - NKJV) and quiet" spirit. Note this instruction is in the middle of the discussion of obedience to husbands. Why?

Why do many modern women deny the concept that man is head of the family? Why are so many women unhappy and rebellious toward the idea of following the will of their husbands?

There are several reasons, including the fact many husbands selfishly misuse their authority and fail to treat their wives with honor and respect (v7). But some wives have trouble obeying when their husbands do not accept their wives' view, even when husbands are respectful. And Peter said wives should obey husbands even when husbands are not obeying God's word (v1).

Why do women struggle with this? Because it is so "humiliating" to have to do what a man says. Woman has her own ideas about what she wants to do. "My ideas are just as good as his." "I've got my pride, you know." Many women are encouraged by modern humanistic psychologists to be "self-assertive" and "stand up for themselves." God says what is needed is a "meek and quiet spirit."

There are other forms of ordained authority we must submit to: children to parents, employees to employers, etc. None of us is free to do just whatever we want. All of us need to learn meekness and humility.

Note we are to submit first to God; we do not obey man when he tells us to disobey God (Acts 5:29). But we still are not doing what we want. We do what God demands first, then what those in authority demand. We do what we want only when allowed to by God and by proper human authorities.

The solution to our stubborn, rebellious attitude toward authority is meekness and humility.




Clement of Alexandria (c.200 CE):
On Equality and Inequality of the Sexes

Stromateis: Book 4: Chapter 8

Clement of Alexandria, a major early Church father, was among the most important early Christian thinkers on the subject of gender. In this passage he reveals the essential problem: he wants to both acknowledge that men and women are equally called to virtue, but that men are still in some way better than women. In the process he notes that men are better than women, but that women are better than effeminate men.

CHAP. VIII.--WOMEN AS WELL AS MEN, SLAVES AS WELL AS FREEMEN, CANDIDATES FOR THE MARTYR'S CROWN.

Since, then, not only the Aesopians, and Macedonians, and the Lacedaemonians endured when subjected to torture, as Eratosthenes says in his work, On Things Good and Evil; but also Zeno of Elea, when subjected to compulsion to divulge a secret, held out against the tortures, and confessed nothing; who, when expiring, bit out his tongue and spat it at the tyrant, whom some term Nearchus, and some Demulus. Theodotus the Pythagorean acted also similarly, and Paulus the friend of Lacydes, as Timotheus of Pergamus says in his work on The Fortitude of Philosophers, and Achaicus in The Ethics. Posthumus also, the Roman, when captured by Peucetion, did not divulge a single secret; but putting his hand on the fire, held it to it as if to a piece of brass, without moving a muscle of his face. I omit the case of Anaxarchus, who exclaimed, "Pound away at the sack which holds Anaxarchus, for it is not Anaxarchus you are pounding," when by the tyrant's orders he was being pounded with iron pestles. Neither, then, the hope of happiness nor the love of God takes what befalls ill, but remains free, although thrown among the wildest beasts or into the all-devouring fire; though racked with a tyrant's tortures. Depending as it does on the divine favour, it ascends aloft unenslaved, surrendering the body to those who can touch it alone. A barbarous nation, not cumbered with philosophy, select, it is said, annually an ambassador to the hero Zamolxis. Zamolxis was one of the disciples of Pythagoras. The one, then, who is judged of the most sterling worth is put to death, to the distress of those who have practised philosophy, but have not been selected, at being reckoned unworthy of a happy service.

So the Church is full of those, as well chaste women as men, who all their life have contemplated the death which rouses up to Christ? For the individual whose life is framed as ours is, may philosophize without Learning, whether barbarian, whether Greek, whether slave--whether an old man, or a boy, or a woman.[8] For self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it. And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue. As far as respects human nature, the woman does not possess one nature, and the man exhibit another, but the same: so also with virtue. If, consequently, a self-restraint and righteousness, and whatever qualities are regarded as following them, is the virtue of the male, it belongs to the male alone to be virtuous, and to the woman to be licentious and unjust. But it is offensive even to say this. Accordingly woman is to practise self-restraint and righteousness, and every other virtue, as well as man, both bond and free; since it is a fit consequence that the same nature possesses one and the same virtue.[1] We do not say that woman's nature is the same as man's, as she is woman. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some difference should exist between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. But if there were no difference between man and woman, both would do and suffer the same things. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping. "For I would have you know," says the apostle, "that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. I For neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord."[2] For as we say that the man ought to be continent, and superior to pleasures; so also we reckon that the woman should be continent and practised in fighting against pleasures. "But I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh," counsels the apostolic command; "for the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These, then, are contrary" (not as good to evil, but as fighting advantageously), he adds therefore, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornication uncleanness, profligacy, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, strifes, jealousies, wrath, contentions, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I tell you before, as I have also said before, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, temperance, goodness, faith, meekness."[3] He calls sinners, as I think, "flesh," and the righteous "spirit." Further, manliness is to be assumed in order to produce confidence and forbearance, so as "to him that strikes on the one cheek, to give to him the other; and to him that takes away the cloak, to yield to him the coat also," strongly, restraining anger. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable. I hear that the Sarmatian women practise war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacae besides, who shoot backwards, feigning flight as well as the men. I am aware, too, that the women near Iberia practise manly work and toil, not refraining from their tasks even though near their delivery; but even in the very struggle of her pains, the woman, on being delivered, taking up the infant, carries it home. Further, the females no less than the males manage the house, and hunt, and keep the flocks:--

"Cressa the hound ran keenly in the stag's track."

Women are therefore to philosophize equally with men, though the males are preferable at everything, unless they have become effeminate[4] To the whole human race, then, discipline and virtue are a necessity, if they would pursue after happiness. And how recklessly Euripides writes sometimes this and sometimes that! On one occasion, "For every wife is inferior to her husband, though the most excellent one marry her that is of fair fame." And on another:--

"For the chaste is her husband's slave,

While she that is unchaste in her folly despises her consort.

.... For nothing is better and more excellent,

Than when as husband and wife ye keep house,

Harmonious in your sentiments."

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if "the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman," the man, "being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman."[5] Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, "Subjecting ),ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh."[6] And in that to the Colossians it is said, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord.[7] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Servants, be obedient in all things to those who are your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but with singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as serving the Lord and not men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer shall receive the Wrong, which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, render to your servants justice and equity; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all, and in all."[1] And the earthly Church is the image of the heavenly, as we pray also "that the will of God may be done upon the earth as in heaven."[2] "Putting on, therefore, bowels of mercy, gentleness, humbleness, meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if one have a quarrel against any man; as also Christ hath forgiven us, so also let us. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which ye are called in one body; and be thankful."[3] For there is no obstacle to adducing frequently the same Scripture in order to put Marcion[4] to the blush, if perchance he be persuaded and converted; by learning that the faithful ought to be grateful to God the Creator, who hath called us, and who preached the Gospel in the body. From these considerations the unity of the faith is clear, and it is shown who is the perfect man; so that though some are reluctant, and offer as much resistance as they can, though menaced with punishments at the hand of husband or master, both the domestic and the wife will philosophize. Moreover, the free, though threatened with death at a tyrant's hands, and brought before the tribunals, and all his substances imperilled, will by no means abandon piety; nor will the wife who dwells with a wicked husband, or the son if he has a bad father, or the domestic if he has a bad master, ever fail in holding nobly to virtue. But as it is noble for a man to die for virtue, and for liberty, and for himself, so also is it for a woman. For this is not peculiar to the nature of males, but to the nature of the good. Accordingly, both the old man, the young, and the servant will live faithfully, and if need be die; which will be to be made alive by death. So we know that both children, and women, and servants have often, against their fathers', and masters', and husbands' will, reached the highest degree of excellence. Wherefore those who are determined to live piously ought none the less to exhibit alacrity, when some seem to exercise compulsion on them; but much more, I think, does it become them to show eagerness, and to strive with uncommon vigour, lest, being overcome, they abandon the best and most indispensable counsels. For it does not, I think, admit of comparison, whether it be better to be a follower of the Almighty than to choose the darkness of demons. For the things which are done by us on account of others we are to do always, endeavouring to have respect to those for whose sake it is proper that they be done, regarding the gratification rendered in their case, as what is to be our rule; but the things which are done for our own sake rather than that of others, are to be done with equal earnestness, whether they are like to please certain people or not. If some indifferent things have obtained such honour as to appear worthy of adoption, though against the will of some; much more is virtue to be regarded by us as worth contending for, looking the while to nothing but what can be rightly done, whether it seem good to others or not. Well then, Epicurus, writing to Menoeceus, says, "Let not him who is young delay philosophizing, and let not the old man grow weary of philosophizing; for no one is either not of age or past age for attending to the health of his soul. And he who says that the time for philosophizing is not come or is past, is like the man who says that the time for happiness is not come or has gone. So that young s as well as old ought to philosophize: the one, in order that, while growing old, he may grow young in good things out of favour accruing from what is past; and the other, that he may be at once young and old, from want of fear for the future."

From Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, trans in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, pp 419-421

HTML. Paul Halsall, 1997

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

73. E = mc2 update to massless energy

Janet Conrad is Associate Prof of Physics at Columbia University.
She is famous for her research on neutrinos.
This is what she said about Newton's E=mc2:

"E=mc2 is not the whole of what Newton wrote as his equation;
It is, E-mc2 being the energy of a body at rest , plus the energy of motion, the motion being at the speed of light."

"So" she says, " if you set mass = 0, we still have energy: Energy of motion.
That being the case, we have massless particles."

She says this concept is important in her study of neutrinos.
(what are neutrinos? Doesnt matter, ask the dog later)

The above is from Google search, Nova/ Janet Conrad/ massless particles should do it.

*********

Where I come in is this massless particle.
I keep harping on about primordial energy, light, Love, etc so if you read these posts you know where I am going:

Scripture:

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Luk 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.



Therefore, with tongue in cheek,:
Faith is a massless particle.
It has energy.
Einstein's equation supports it.

And my favorite:
God is Love

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.




Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light


So could we imagine , we might develop the idea that God is everything.

Never mind the dog, Ross's dog.. I wonder what Janet would say?

Monday, May 08, 2006

72. Time ..the magazine, on Beaconsfield miners

South Pacific
After the Resurrection
What does being buried alive do to the mind? For the trapped Tasmanian miners, more trouble lies ahead
BY DANIEL WILLIAMS


RON MONNIER FOR TIME



Monday, May. 08, 2006
Humor in the face of adversity is something Australians regard as a national trait. And snippets of information that reached the public from the rescue mission at Beaconsfield gold mine, in northeast Tasmania, probably pumped more life into that notion. Miners Brant Webb, 37, and Todd Russell, 34, were trapped almost a kilometer underground when a small earthquake caused a rock fall in the mine on April 25. They spent five days entombed in darkness, with only a muesli bar to share between them, before rescuers using imaging equipment made the startling discovery that the pair were still alive. Webb and Russell were still trapped eight days later, when Time went to press, but in the meantime they apparently kept cracking jokes. Spokesmen relayed that Russell had asked for a newspaper to be sent down to him: he was keen to start looking for a new job. He was also expecting to be paid overtime for his extended shift. And both men wanted to be out in time to play for their local footy team on the Saturday.

Though the rescue effort was taking longer than anyone had expected, as workers resorted to low-powered explosives to break rock that had proved impervious to hand-held tools, it seemed by the morning of May 8 that Webb and Russell's freedom was imminent, perhaps a matter of hours away. In trying to predict how the miners' ordeal may affect them, medically, in the months and years ahead, it might pay to take little notice of the levity they showed in the midst of it. Sandy McFarlane, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide, suggests that to maintain the morale of rescuers and the miners' families, mine spokesmen emphasized the pair's lightheartedness, while gathered media lapped it up because it added color to what was already a remarkable tale of survival. "I wondered," McFarlane says, "whether the story we were getting was saying more about the state of mind of the journalists than of the miners." When you get buried alive, McFarlane adds, chances are there'll be long-term consequences for your health.

These aren't likely to be physical. When the pair were found to be alive on April 30—sitting in a small cage that had protected them from falling rock—there were fears that lack of water could have damaged their kidneys, while the cramped conditions may have caused potentially life-threatening pressure sores. But the men were sustained by water of doubtful quality that was trickling down the rocks, and had just enough room to stretch their legs, though not to stand. Rescuers used narrow piping to deliver clean water, protein drinks, vitamin tablets, clothes and lighting. As the task of drilling an escape tunnel through quartzite rock dragged on, they dispatched distractions such as magazines and music players. The miners bore injuries thought to amount to stiffness and minor cuts.

The issue now is to what extent the experience has psychologically scarred Webb and Russell. Several things are in their favor. As miners—without tendencies toward claustrophobia and with a fair idea of what the rescue effort unfolding above them would have involved—there's no doubt they coped better than would a desk-bound worker in a similar crisis. Also crucial was their having each other for company. In those grim days between the accident and contact with rescuers, "these men, I suspect, would have confided in each other things they'd never previously told anyone . . . that's what the fear of death does," says Beverley Raphael, who heads a University of Western Sydney unit specializing in mental health issues arising from disasters. And as married men and fathers of three, Webb and Russell would have been sustained, Raphael suspects, by what she calls "attachment ideation"—the instinct, under stress, to dwell on loved ones and a determination to see them again.

Though all these factors would have helped the pair stay calm while trapped, they may have little bearing on whether the men experience psychological ill effects in the future. "It wasn't in their interests to lose it [while they were underground]," says University of Queensland psychiatrist Brett McDermott, "but a lot of people, once they're in a safe place, experience a more intense emotional response." The danger for Webb and Russell is post-traumatic stress disorder, whose many and varied symptoms can take up to a decade to emerge. Relative levels of stoicism aren't pointers to the onset of this illness, which has its roots in the survival instinct common to all of us. "I've had several patients who've been buried alive," says psychiatrist McFarlane, "and it's an overwhelmingly intense experience. You might do everything you can to forget it, but the simplest things can revive the memory." Even a blanket on one's body can trigger the sensation of constriction and its frightening corollary, asphyxiation; darkness can become unbearable.

PTSD can manifest as alcoholism, disregard for one's health and deteriorating relationships. Nightmares may plague the miners, says disaster expert Raphael, as might survivor guilt connected with the death of their colleague, Larry Knight, 44, who was operating the machine to which Webb and Russell's cage was attached. And while their ordeal could yield lucrative media deals, they'll have to come to grips with forever being known as the two blokes who were stuck in the mine. When hauled out of the darkness, Webb and Russell will face a new world.


From the May. 15, 2006 issue of TIME Pacific Magazine

71. Live to be 180 years old

From POPULAR MECHANICS magazine


Live To Be 180
Biologists have cracked the secret of long life, but you might not want to pay the price.

BY JIM WILSON
Illustration by Frank and Jeff Lavaty/Yuan Lee
Published on: September 14, 2004





Thin Genes: Those who live longest tend to be naturally skinny.

This is the ultimate good news story. Your odds of living to be older than 100 just got better, as many as 80 years better. In the United States, census statistics reveal that centenarians have become the fasting-growing population group. Not surprising, most people who celebrate 3-digit birthdays have relatives who have lived to be older than 100. If long life doesn't run in your family, you will be happy to learn that researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believe it is possible to chemically erase the difference between the genetic haves and have-nots.

HOW MANY CANDLES?
No one can calculate how long an individual human can live. We do know there is a biological limit, which falls somewhere between 120 and 180 years. The explanation has to do with fragments of DNA called telomeres. They extend human life in much the same way endcaps extend the life of shoelaces. The cells that make up the human body reproduce by splitting in half, a process called mitosis. When this occurs, cells make copies of the genetic material in their chromosomes. One copy goes to each new cell. Each chromosome has a protective cap that makes sure the information is successfully passed to the new cells.

Over time, the instructions contained in the chromosomes become damaged, similar to the way letters like "e" and "o" become distorted if a document is photocopied too many times. Cells run out of telomeres just before chromosomes become badly corrupted. Without telomeres, genetic instructions become too jumbled for cells to reproduce. By measuring the weight of telomeres and the rate at which cells divide, scientists have calculated the maximum theoretical human life span: somewhere between 120 and 180 years.

THE FAT CONNECTION
When 115-year-old Maud Farris-Luse died in Michigan in March 2002, headlines proclaimed her the world's oldest woman. MIT Biology Professor Leonard Guarente and his colleagues think they understand how she and other centenarians achieved their milestones. Long-lived people tend to be skinny people.

Beginning in the 1950s, biologists made a curious observation about yeast, worms and lab rats. Those who lived on the edge of starvation lived longer than their well-fed peers.

In June, Frédéric Picard, a biologist in Guarente's lab, published a solution to the starvation-longevity mystery in the science journal Nature. Predictably, the answer is genetic--specifically, it's tied to the gene that tells your body what to do with fat.

When you eat a hamburger you are digesting a combination of proteins, carbohydrates and fats. Humans and other mammals immediately convert the proteins and carbohydrates into energy. The body tucks away the fat for a rainy day, storing it in white adipose tissue (WAT) cells. If the body's minimum energy requirements cannot be met by metabolizing proteins and carbohydrates, it begins drawing on its stores of fat. The MIT discovery is that a single protein, Sirt1, controls the body's ability to store fat in WAT cells.

Researchers believe this mechanism evolved to enable humans to survive famines. To get Sirt1 to tell the body to shed rather than store fat, Guarente estimates, humans would have to cut their food consumption dramatically, to between 1000 and 1200 calories a day. "It would be like eating every other day," he says.

The payoff would be a longer life span--as much as a 50 percent increase, according to studies with rats and other lab animals with which humans share similar genes. But as the existence of the multibillion-dollar weight-loss and diet-book industry suggests, the price of calorie counting is higher than most people are willing to pay. Beyond causing chronic hunger, near-starvation diets kill the sex drive.

ULTIMATE DIET PILL
Guarente sees a less painful way to achieve the longevity-promoting ef-fects of a starvation diet. "If we could make a drug that would bind to Sirt1 and fool the body into thinking it needed to release fat, then maybe people could get the benefits of calorie restriction without the side effects," he says. To this end, Guarente has formed a company, Elixir Pharmaceuticals, that may someday bring this type of fat-blocking, life-prolonging drug to market. Will a single pill enable you to get maximum mileage from your telomeres while dining on a steady diet of cheeseburgers and supersize fries? Check back with us in 180 years.

70. Practice makes Perfect proven

From the New York Times, per Lincoln

If you were to examine the birth certificates of every soccer player in next month's World Cup tournament, you would most likely find a noteworthy quirk: elite soccer players are more likely to have been born in the earlier months of the year than in the later months. If you then examined the European national youth teams that feed the World Cup and professional ranks, you would find this quirk to be even more pronounced. On recent English teams, for instance, half of the elite teenage soccer players were born in January, February or March, with the other half spread out over the remaining 9 months. In Germany, 52 elite youth players were born in the first three months of the year, with just 4 players born in the last three.

What might account for this anomaly? Here are a few guesses: a) certain astrological signs confer superior soccer skills; b) winter-born babies tend to have higher oxygen capacity, which increases soccer stamina; c) soccer-mad parents are more likely to conceive children in springtime, at the annual peak of soccer mania; d) none of the above.

Anders Ericsson, a 58-year-old psychology professor at Florida State University, says he believes strongly in "none of the above." He is the ringleader of what might be called the Expert Performance Movement, a loose coalition of scholars trying to answer an important and seemingly primordial question: When someone is very good at a given thing, what is it that actually makes him good?

Ericsson, who grew up in Sweden, studied nuclear engineering until he realized he would have more opportunity to conduct his own research if he switched to psychology. His first experiment, nearly 30 years ago, involved memory: training a person to hear and then repeat a random series of numbers. "With the first subject, after about 20 hours of training, his digit span had risen from 7 to 20," Ericsson recalls. "He kept improving, and after about 200 hours of training he had risen to over 80 numbers."

This success, coupled with later research showing that memory itself is not genetically determined, led Ericsson to conclude that the act of memorizing is more of a cognitive exercise than an intuitive one. In other words, whatever innate differences two people may exhibit in their abilities to memorize, those differences are swamped by how well each person "encodes" the information. And the best way to learn how to encode information meaningfully, Ericsson determined, was a process known as deliberate practice.

Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task — playing a C-minor scale 100 times, for instance, or hitting tennis serves until your shoulder pops out of its socket. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.

Ericsson and his colleagues have thus taken to studying expert performers in a wide range of pursuits, including soccer, golf, surgery, piano playing, Scrabble, writing, chess, software design, stock picking and darts. They gather all the data they can, not just performance statistics and biographical details but also the results of their own laboratory experiments with high achievers.

Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. These may be the sort of clichés that parents are fond of whispering to their children. But these particular clichés just happen to be true.

Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.
Published: May 7, 2006
(Page 2 of 2)

"I think the most general claim here," Ericsson says of his work, "is that a lot of people believe there are some inherent limits they were born with. But there is surprisingly little hard evidence that anyone could attain any kind of exceptional performance without spending a lot of time perfecting it." This is not to say that all people have equal potential. Michael Jordan, even if he hadn't spent countless hours in the gym, would still have been a better basketball player than most of us. But without those hours in the gym, he would never have become the player he was.

Ericsson's conclusions, if accurate, would seem to have broad applications. Students should be taught to follow their interests earlier in their schooling, the better to build up their skills and acquire meaningful feedback. Senior citizens should be encouraged to acquire new skills, especially those thought to require "talents" they previously believed they didn't possess.

And it would probably pay to rethink a great deal of medical training. Ericsson has noted that most doctors actually perform worse the longer they are out of medical school. Surgeons, however, are an exception. That's because they are constantly exposed to two key elements of deliberate practice: immediate feedback and specific goal-setting.

The same is not true for, say, a mammographer. When a doctor reads a mammogram, she doesn't know for certain if there is breast cancer or not. She will be able to know only weeks later, from a biopsy, or years later, when no cancer develops. Without meaningful feedback, a doctor's ability actually deteriorates over time. Ericsson suggests a new mode of training. "Imagine a situation where a doctor could diagnose mammograms from old cases and immediately get feedback of the correct diagnosis for each case," he says. "Working in such a learning environment, a doctor might see more different cancers in one day than in a couple of years of normal practice."

If nothing else, the insights of Ericsson and his Expert Performance compatriots can explain the riddle of why so many elite soccer players are born early in the year.

Since youth sports are organized by age bracket, teams inevitably have a cutoff birth date. In the European youth soccer leagues, the cutoff date is Dec. 31. So when a coach is assessing two players in the same age bracket, one who happened to have been born in January and the other in December, the player born in January is likely to be bigger, stronger, more mature. Guess which player the coach is more likely to pick? He may be mistaking maturity for ability, but he is making his selection nonetheless. And once chosen, those January-born players are the ones who, year after year, receive the training, the deliberate practice and the feedback — to say nothing of the accompanying self-esteem — that will turn them into elites.

This may be bad news if you are a rabid soccer mom or dad whose child was born in the wrong month. But keep practicing: a child conceived on this Sunday in early May would probably be born by next February, giving you a considerably better chance of watching the 2030 World Cup from the family section.


Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt are the authors of "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything." More information on the research behind this column is at www.freakonomics.com.

69.Time for a blonde joke and the dog

Riddle-
How many blondes does it take to run Melbourne's legal system?

I was walking in the city today and happened to be near the Magistrate's Court, and lots of other Courts, maybe its Melbourne's Legal Precinct.
And half the people on the streets were wearing blonde wigs.
Conversely, when walking in LA downtown, half the folk were homeless.
And many were younger than me. Possibly all of them.
In both cities.

What is it about these young Melbournites, that they want to be blondes.
Does being blonde give you power?
Or Riches?
Are the wearers like Superman who wears his undies over his clothes because he is a fighter for justice?
Do the blonde wigs indicate a love of justice?
Or indicate one who has succumbed to greed?
Some need to be above their fellow men and women?
Yes , some of the blondes were women, my learned friend.

I have to profess, I am not anti-justice, I just havent found it clothed as either blonde , or with undies outside trousers.
In fact, I did not find justice amongst the homeless in LA either.

So where is justice to be found?

But the original question, the blonde joke?
Well, I asked the dog when I got home, Ross's dog.
Typically he side-stepped the question: He said he actually likes blondes, because one patted him one day...

He said that he is not the first non- human to like blondes, he pointed me to the bible, as usual.
Is wise, this dog.
I read:

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,


Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.


Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.




So I guess the fair have been popular for a long time.
Good dog.

But the answer..I dont know, maybe someone can tell us.

68. National Geographic's Unanswered Science Questions

Journal Ranks Top 25 Unanswered Science Questions
John Roach
for National Geographic News
June 30, 2005
What is the universe made of? What is the biological basis of consciousness? How long can the human life span be extended?

These are just some of the as-yet-unanswered scientific questions pondered in tomorrow's special 125th-anniversary issue of the academic journal Science.
To make the cut, questions had to be "tough enough and challenging enough and inviting to people who read them" to inspire readers to think about "what the solution[s] might be," Kennedy said.

Highlights from the top 25:

What Is the Universe Made Of?

In recent decades, scientists have discovered that the ordinary matter that makes up stars, planets, even human beings, accounts for only 5 percent of everything in the universe. The rest belongs to dark matter and dark energy, phenomena that scientists are just now learning about.

What is dark matter made of and where does it reside? What is dark energy? Researchers hope to find answers.

What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?

In the 17th century, French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes declared that mind and body are entirely separate, leaving the debate over the nature of consciousness to other philosophers.

Today scientists are challenging that notion with a view that consciousness arises from the properties and the organization of neurons in the brain. Experimental work to unravel those properties and processes has only just begun.

"If the results don't provide a blinding insight into how consciousness arises from tangles of neurons, they should at least refine the next round of questions," Greg Miller writes in the Science special issue.






How Long Can Human Life Span Be Extended?

Life-span extension experiments in yeast, worms, and mice have convinced some scientists that humans may soon routinely coast beyond their hundredth birthdays. Other scientists say the human life span may be more limited. Whether possible or not, the prospect of an extended human life span "could have profound social effects," Jennifer Couzin notes in a related Science essay.

How Does Earth's Interior Work?

The revolutionary theory of plate tectonics—that the Earth's crust is broken up into fragments that jostle about our planet's surface—is only so deep. "There's another 6,300 kilometers [3,900 miles] of rock and iron beneath the tectonic plates whose churning constitute the inner workings of planetary heat engine," Richard A. Kerr writes.

As scientists probe the interior with ever more sophisticated instruments, researchers are finding that the Earth's engine is intriguingly complex beneath the hood. Advances in seismic imaging, the study of minerals, and computer modeling may provide clues to what makes Earth tick.

Are We Alone In the Universe?

The mathematical odds say no: There are hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. Close to home, scientists have already discovered 150 planets orbiting nearby stars.

In short, scientists say the universe is likely full of places where the conditions are ripe for intelligent life to evolve. "The really big question is when, if ever, we'll have the technological wherewithal to reach out and touch such intelligence," writes Richard A. Kerr.

How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?

Recent experiments suggest that Earth's earliest life-forms could have been based on RNA—not the DNA and proteins essential to all free-living organisms today. (A single-strand molecule, RNA is similar to DNA, a double-stranded, helix-shaped molecule encoded with genetic information.)

As scientists gather around this origin model, other scientists are focusing on how the lifeless chemistry of a pre-biotic Earth gave rise to a RNA world. Other researchers debate where these primitive building blocks came together. Was it in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, tidal pools, oceans covered in glaciers? Or "perhaps Martian microbes were carried to Earth 4 billon years ago," Carl Zimmer speculates in Science.

Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?

Researchers identified the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) two decades ago. Since then, the search for an effective vaccine to the deadly infection has received more funding than any other vaccine effort in history.

And the search, employing ever more innovative strategies, continues. Skeptics say no vaccine will ever be found. Whether successful or not, "the maps created by AIDS vaccine researchers currently exploring uncharted immunologic terrain could prove invaluable," writes Jon Cohen.

How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?

Scientists know that the world is warming and that humans are the cause behind most of this global climate change. Researchers are much less certain about how warm the Earth will become in response to the doubling of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that is expected in this century.

Modeling studies suggest Earth will warm by at least 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) and maybe by as much as 19.8 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius). A better understanding of the climate system and more robust models will be needed to better forecast the temperature increase.

What Can Replace Cheap Oil? When?

The price of oil and the demand for energy are increasing. Oil supplies are dwindling, and the polar ice caps are melting. So the time is ripe for humans to transition from oil to a new source of energy. Alternative energy sources are available but need to be scaled up and made more cost efficient to replace oil. Advances in nanotechnology may be the answer. But will they come soon enough to avoid an energy crunch?

Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

In 1798 English economist Thomas Malthus argued that human population growth will always stay in check, policed by war, famine, disease, and other blights. More than two centuries later, the global population has increased six-fold to more than 6 billion—without the large-scale collapses Malthus predicted. Demographers expect the global population will reach 10 billion by 2100. Can catastrophe continue to be avoided? Challenges will include a shift to more sustainable patterns of consumption and development, notes Erik Stokstad.
How Long Can Human Life Span Be Extended?

Life-span extension experiments in yeast, worms, and mice have convinced some scientists that humans may soon routinely coast beyond their hundredth birthdays. Other scientists say the human life span may be more limited. Whether possible or not, the prospect of an extended human life span "could have profound social effects," Jennifer Couzin notes in a related Science essay.

RELATED
Industrialist Gives $100M to Solve Science's Biggest Questions
Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?
Mars Water Discovery Spurs Deeper Questions
"Dark Side" of the Universe Is Coming to Light
Anti-Aging Drug for Humans Hinted at by Worm Study
Alien Life? Astronomers Predict Contact by 2025

Sunday, May 07, 2006

67. E=mc2

Let me quote that correctly, E = m x c squared.
My keyboard doesnt seem to have a squared sign button. Memo...talk to Steve about that..
E = energy
m =mass
c = speed of light, in distance per time.

The way Einstein wrote it was m = E over c squared.
So what you say?

Ive just been listening to 10 eminent scientists explaining it.
I am not a scientist, so I will ask one of our rocket scientists to comment, you know who you are.

What Einstein was saying is that energy and mass are interchangeable.
But the way I read it, there is also an interchangeability between:
energy
mass
speed of light.

Now speed of light is TAKEN to be a constant.
C, the speed of light / or other energy / is distance per time.

So if we alter the distance over time, we alter the energy or the mass or both.
So if we conduct the experiment on a moving vehicle we alter the result. That is the basis of the theory of relativity.
So , the earth is spinning, right?
At a different speed at the poles than at the equator?
And the solar system is also moving?

So the whole thing is variable.
So when the speed of light is reduced, by a black hole syndrome, problems?
That is, that the escape velocity is exceeded by the effect of the mass of the planet/ star, is that right?

So if c = 0
the thing stops?

If time alters, energy / mass alters?
If the distance alters because we are moving, it all alters
If energy is interchangeable with mass, energy doesnt take up much space does it?

And maybe time did alter as the constants fell into place.

So in the beginning, Gen 1, the energy was LIGHT.
And it wasnt taking up space.

Then creation of matter began. Energy was changed into mass.

Perhaps this works for Christians to consider, God is Love. He was that energy, Light.
He was the Light of the world....quotations...
He became mass, he became creation.

He is omnipresent.
There is no place where God is not in it

I find it easy to believe that He is the energy of the universe.
And the mass.
It really all follows, yes?

I think I could go on to show that the energy of the atom is from the Holy Spirit.

Comments?
Maybe Geoff or Elijah can rewrite the post to make sense?