text:
The Anderson University School of Music, Theatre, and Dance will present the annual "Candles and Carols" Christmas concert on Friday, Nov. 30 at 7:30 p.m. in Reardon Auditorium on the campus of Anderson University. The 48th annual Candles and Carols Christmas program revives many memories for those who attend each year. Feelings of togetherness, the excitement of singing traditional Christmas hymns with thousands of friends, and hearing the familiar strains of "Silent Night" echoing through the auditorium in the glow of the candlelight encourage audience members to return to Candles and Carols each year.
"Candles and Carols is a wonderful musical experience that ushers in the Christmas season for many of us," said Dr. James L. Edwards, president of Anderson University. "It shares the beauty and vibrancy of our music with an audience of all ages, and with the world. The message of the evening is always one of hope, peace and joy."
"It is a pleasure for us to give this gift to the Anderson community which faithfully supports us each year. Although it is only a small token of appreciation, I know it will be an enjoyable and memorable evening," said Dr. Jeffrey E. Wright, dean of the Anderson University College of the Arts.
More than 250 AU students from the School of Music, Theatre, and Dance will participate during the service, including the Chamber Orchestra conducted by Gert Kumi and Kyung-Nam Oh; Chorale, and Men's Choir, conducted by Dr. Richard Sowers; the Women's Chorus, conducted by Joani Brandon; the Wind Ensemble, conducted by Dr. Susan Taylor; and the Dance Ensemble, Shauna Steele and Oybek Tashpulatov, choreographers.
The audience will have the opportunity to participate in the program through congregational singing and the candle lighting ceremony at the conclusion of the evening.
Anderson University's Covenant Productions® will record and distribute the event to television stations nationwide. The program will begin airing in December of this year and will be distributed by American Public Television in the United States and by the EWTN satellite network internationally. Covenant Productions® will also produce a DVD and CD of the program. DVDs are $16 each and CDs are $12 each. An order form is available online or may be ordered by calling the School of Music, Theatre, and Dance at (765) 641-4542.
Candles and Carols is a free concert with general seating. For more information, contact the AU School of Music, Theatre, and Dance at (765) 641-4542.
Anderson University is a private Christian university of 2,600 undergraduate and graduate students in central Indiana. Anderson University continues to be recognized as one of America's top colleges by U.S. News and World Report, The Princeton Review, and Forbes. Established in 1917 by the Church of God, Anderson University offers more than 65 undergraduate majors and graduate programs in business, music, nursing, and theology.


text:
In its five years in operation, the park has been so successful that owners Teddy and Jenny Meeks are looking to expand — and bring back even more of the iconic rides and attractions from the original
And there's no room for the Starliner roller coaster in their current location.
The Meeks started off purchasing the original carousel from the old park in 2008 and have been adding to their vintage ride lineup ever since. They said the number one question patrons ask them is, "When are you bringing back the Starliner?"
Although the project is still in the planning stages, the Meeks hope to move their 11 current rides to a bigger space by next year and have the Starliner up and running by 2015.
Now, they are one step closer to doing that.
Despite a written request from adjacent property owner Simon Property Group to
The letter from Simon, the company that operates
The board's approval requires rides be no taller than 81 feet, that the park follow the same design aesthetic as Pier Park, that all rides remain operable and in good repair, and that operators ensure the roller coaster does not infringe on safety parameters for adjacent business Panhandle Helicopter, which operates a helicopter landing pad nearby.
The project also requires a traffic impact study, and planning board members determined the surrounding environment would not be negatively impacted by the park.
The Starliner, a wooden coaster built in 1963, stands about 70 feet high and would adhere to the conditions set forth by the board.
The Meeks' vision is to create not an amusement park, but a "park with amusements," focusing on the area's natural surroundings and adding unique art and landscape features.
"Our thought is that this is going to be a park for the community to come to and just enjoy with their families," Jenny Meeks said. "The one thing we hear more than anything on this beach is that what you all have done is phenomenal for families. We have created that across the street; the only thing is we need more space."
Initial plans also include the construction of a 52-foot tall iconic lighthouse attraction with a working signal light and viewing deck, and an 800-square-foot water play area with 24 interactive spray heads.
However, the Starliner would be the park's main attraction, as it was at the old
The Meeks own all of the Starliner's original parts but would need to rebuild the coaster's track.
Meeks said it would take about 10
"We knew
The Meeks said the next step is to begin conducting traffic studies and starting design plans for the park.
"Initially, we just wanted to make sure the planning commission approved the (conditional use) for the amusement park," Jenny Meeks said. "We're thrilled we jumped that hurdle, because that was a big hurdle."

subset: commoncrawl


text: Albertopolis: The Development of South Kensington and the Exhibition Road Cultural Quarter Date 10am - 5.45pm daily10am - 10pm Fridays Drawing on previously unseen objects from the V&A and RIBA collections, this display charts the development of South Kensington and the Exhibition Road Cultural Quarter from 1851 to the present day. It focuses on how the site became the architectural embodiment of Prince Albert's ambitious cultural aspirations. Fees:Free admission Booking:Contact:Victoria and Albert MuseumTel. +44 (0)20 7942 2000 E-mail: email@example.com Albertopolis: the Development of South Kensington's Cultural Quarter(Talk) 29 February 2012 Albertopolis: Exploring South KensingtonWalking tour (podcast), maps and scavenger hunt to complement the display at the V&A. Organiser:Sponsors: Design for the Victoria and Albert Museum. Architect: Sir Aston Webb © RIBA Library Drawings and Archives Collections


text:
Indianapolis Colts NFL 2014 Vizaframe 39THIRTY Cap
Made of 70% Polyester, Woven, 30% Polyurethane
This Indianapolis Colts NFL 2014 Vizaframe 39THIRTY Cap features an embroidered Indianapolis Colts logo on front, stitched New Era® flag at wearer's left side and embroidered alternate team logo on the rear. Interior includes branded taping as well as a moisture absorbing sweatband. Cap features team color piping and accents on the crown and visor. Stretch fit on closed back.
- 20619725
- Color:
- Black
- Availability:
- In Stock - Ships 1 business day
International shipping available to Canada - info


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
poohbcarrot wrote:(BTW I only started this thread coz I just noticed that Josh Kirby had done a couple of Robert Rankin early covers)
Dotsie wrote:AHA so you're the cover judger? The artwork is very nice, but I still maintain that the titles are pants
Tonyblack wrote::lol:
Oh I'd certainly recommend him to people (and have). Yes I've read about three or four of his books - some were pretty good and at least one (The Antipope I think) I didn't find particularly funny at all.
Would I go out of my way to read his books? Probably not - but if I saw one in a charity shop for less than a Pound, I'd probably buy it and read it. :P
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


text:
Some garden statuary lends a bit of extra color to the flower beds, other garden statues are meant to be cute but unobtrusive, and outdoor garden water fountains combine the beauty of a sculpture with the natural music of falling water. However, a few choice garden statues have such a spectacular bearing that they seem to fall into a category of their own. These are the statues that act as a centerpiece work of art for any garden, and are the sculptures fit to be decor in the finest of hotel lobbies and dining establishments.
We have several such works of art in our collection of resin garden statues. One of those magnificent sculptures is the Giant Scale Easter Island Ahu Akivi Moai Monolith Statue. This magnificent sculpture is carefully and closely modeled after the huge stone head statues that dot the countryside of the most remote inhabited island on the planet. Put this garden statue in the yard or in a place of business and people will be talking about it for years.
It might be tough to match the stunning appearance of an Easter Island Monolith statue but our Mombasa, the Garden Giraffe Statue comes close. This fantastic animal yard statue literally stands out in any yard on account of its eight foot height!
Find these and hundreds of other fantastic sculptures for outside at Design Toscano today.


text:
Oct 18, 2007
FLL Mission Overview Part 7 - Wave Turbine
11 comments:
- Talking Chimp said...
This mission has me perplexed. Not how to do it, but why they included it. There is nothing to do except "put something here."
It is almost as though they just want to see if you can get your bot to move from base to the beach. But even that can't be it, since there are simple ways to perform this mission without going anywhere near the beach.
Teams should receive degree-of-difficulty points for the ingenuity with which they deploy their turbine. I would love to see a team simply release the bot, and the moment it clears the base, it FLINGS the wave turbine over the house and into the ocean for a field goal.
- Oct 18, 2007, 6:36:00 PM
- Joshua Heinzl said...
I think that this mission's goal is simply to add to the sheer number of tasks that have to be performed. Coordination of a large number of simple tasks in a limited time is interesting.
Tree Planting and Wind Turbines are relatively easy as well.
- Oct 18, 2007, 7:16:00 PM
- Jonathan Daudelin said...
I agree with Josh... it seems like the challenge this year goes for more "quantity" than "quality" in the missions.
- Oct 18, 2007, 9:39:00 PM
- Jim Kelly said...
This would be a good place to mention that Joshua has posted his own mission reviews here:
- Oct 18, 2007, 11:35:00 PM
- Joshua Heinzl said...
If anyone has questions, comments, etc about anything there, feel free to send me an email at josh (.at.) nhnerds (.dot.) org
- Oct 19, 2007, 10:26:00 AM
But we wouldnt want to disagree with you Joshua. Our team is a newby team and we dont know anything. Dur Duh Dum.
- Oct 19, 2007, 10:33:00 AM
our team has found some really cool ways to do the missions.
- Nov 5, 2007, 5:30:00 AM
>But we wouldnt want to disagree with you >Joshua. Our team is a newby team and we >dont know anything. Dur Duh Dum.
That's overly arrogant from a "newby". If you act like that you certainly won't win any Gracious Professional awards!
Both this site and Joshua's site have descriptions that they took time and effort to post in order to help people. You could be a little bit more appreciative of both of the efforts.
- Nov 14, 2007, 8:47:00 AM
arrogant??? Me?????
I posted that comment because there are many on my team who feel that certain people are a little arrogant with their comments and think they know everything. No names but I think you know who Im talking about ;-)
- Nov 14, 2007, 11:17:00 AM
Actually, we did see a team fling the wave turbine over the house at our tournament in Victoria, Canada.
Once it landed in the ocean, and once it hit the floor of the gym. I didn't see their third attempt.
Fun to watch the robot throw things around the table!
- Dec 27, 2007, 9:01:00 AM
I don't understand the comments about this mission not being scored. It says in the mission that meaningful designs will be scored. I've come late to the game for mentoring a local middle school team. This is their first year to compete and they are investing time and energy to build a wave turbine based on current technology. If this isn't going to be scored then they should know so they can put their energy into the other missions.
- Jan 18, 2008, 3:06:00 AM


text:
Pronunciation: Michael Denhoff
Added on: 2013-01-18 Listened: 8 timesin: composer, classical music
Pronunciation in German [de]
- Pronunciation by Thonatas (Male from Germany)
0 votes
Could you do it better? different accent? Pronounce Michael Denhoff in German
Accents & languages on maps
- Random word: Drucktopf
Not satisfied?
Modify word:
· Add languages
· Add categories
Report word:
Is there anything wrong with this word?
Please report it here.


text:
|Home Print Page
What's in this guide?
Our written step-by-step tutorials are organized into sections. Users can work through the tutorials in order or skip through to topics of interest.
Section 1: Intro to the SAS Environment is intended for individuals who have never used SAS before. Learn how to use the the SAS user interface, create or import datasets into SAS, work with variables, and manage data.
Section 2: Exploring Data is intended for new users of SAS who have successfully worked through the material in Section 1. Learn how to examine the contents of a dataset using PROC CONTENTS and PROC PRINT, and how to produce descriptive statistics using PROC MEANS, PROC UNIVARIATE, and PROC FREQ.
All tutorials in this guide were created using SAS 9.3.
Kent State University currently has an unlimited-seat, site-wide license for SAS 9.3, which is managed by Information Services.For more information or to request a license for your University-owned or personally-owned computer, see http://www.kent.edu/is/helpdesk/sas.cfm.
Our tutorials reference a dataset called "sample" in many examples. If you'd like to download the sample dataset to work through the examples, choose one of the files below:
This page is managed by Statistical Consulting.
If you'd like to set up an appointment for consulting or request a workshop, please see the statconsulting LibGuide.
|Current authors
Past authors


text:
The Sports Network
DATE & TIME: Saturday, Nov. 3, 5 p.m. (et)
FACTS & STATS: Site: Apogee Stadium (30,850) -- Denton, Texas. Television: None. Home Record: ASU 3-1, UNT 2-1. Away Record: ASU 2-2, UNT 1-4. Neutral Record: ASU 0-0, UNT 0-0. Conference Record: ASU 3-1, UNT 2-2. Series Record: Arkansas State leads, 13-8.
GAME NOTES: The Arkansas State Red Wolves look to make it four in a row as they invade Apogee Stadium for a pivotal Sun Belt Conference matchup with the North Texas Mean Green.
The Red Wolves are one win away from becoming bowl eligible and head into this week trailing ULM by one game in the SBC standings. A victory would also transform ASU's upcoming matchup versus the Warhawks into a battle for first place. Gus Malzahn seemed to be off to a shaky start in his first season as a head coach, but he seems to have settled in as his team has reeled off three straight victories over FIU (34-20), South Alabama (36-29), and Louisiana (50-27). ASU's three losses were all by double-digit margins to tough opponents (Oregon, Nebraska, Western Kentucky).
North Texas is 3-5 overall and 2-2 in league action after a very difficult eight-game start to its season. The Mean Green lost to two teams currently ranked in the top five (LSU and Kansas State) and have faced just one opponent that currently has a losing record. UNT hurt itself last week as it turned the ball over four times in a 38-21 loss to Middle Tennessee. Coach Dan McCarney is in his second season with the team after guiding them to a 5-7 finish in 2011.
The Mean Green held the lead in its all-time series with Arkansas State before the Red Wolves won the last seven to hold a 13-8 edge. ASU does not have a longer winning streak against any other SBC foe. The Red Wolves cruised to a 37-14 victory when the Mean Green came to Jonesboro in 2011.
Arkansas State possesses one of the best offenses in the conference with averages of 33.6 points and 458.4 yards per game, including a Sun Belt-leading 220.4 rushing yards per contest. ASU eclipsed the 500-yard mark for the fourth time this season last week my generating 526 yards of total offense against Louisiana.
Ryan Aplin is one of the top quarterbacks in school history as he comes in owning 21 combined single game, season, and career school records. With the improved rushing attack, Aplin has not been relied on as heavily as in recent years. However, the senior quarterback has cut down on poor decision making. Aplin finished last season with a 19-to-16-touchdown-to-interception ratio. He enters Saturday with 12 TDs, only two picks, and 2,108 yards.
With all of Aplin's success at ASU, it was hard to imagine a reason to take the ball out of his hands. Junior tailback David Oku's relentless running style has convinced his coach and many others that he is capable of being the team's work horse. Oku has picked up 627 yards and scored eight TDs on 147 attempts so far. Rocky Hayes has also made an impact with limited touches, gaining 317 yards on only 24 carries (13.2 ypc).
Freshman wideout J.D. McKissic (50 receptions, 513 yards) will garner consideration when the league's all-freshmen team is selected as he is producing a memorable campaign. Josh Jarboe has also been a reliable target with 35 catches for 388 yards and three scores.
Last season, ASU's defense was the second best in the SBC in total defense (331.5 ypg) and scoring defense (20.8 ppg). The unit has fallen off slightly and 385.5 yards and 28.6 points to its opposition this season. The numbers are slightly skewed as the Red Wolves gave up 57 points to Oregon, 42 points to Nebraska, and held all six of their opponents under 30 points.
Nathan Herrold is the anchor of the defense with a conference-best 76 total tackles and two forced fumbles already recorded. Chaz Scales is a game- breaking defensive back. The senior made his second interception of the season last week versus Louisiana.
North Texas has stayed with the ground game even after the departure of the school's all-time leading rusher, Lance Dunbar. The Mean Green have the second best rushing offense in the SBC with 187.4 ypg. Unfortunately the aerial attack is not as potent, ranking seventh out of nine in the SBC with 217.3 passing yards per game.
Junior QB Derek Thompson has been consistent under center for UNT in his second season as a full-time starter by passing for more than 200 yards in six straight games. Thompson will be looking to bounce back after tossing a career- high three interceptions versus Middle Tennessee his last time out.
The Mean Green have a solid wide receiver tandem in Ivan Delgado and Brelan Chancellor. Delgado has reeled a team-high 32 catches for 453 yards, but he missed last week and is questionable for Saturday due to disciplinary reasons. Chancellor was held to just one catch for seven yards with Delgado missing from the lineup last week. The junior wideout is second on the squad with 25 catches for 450 yards and five TDs.
Brandin Byrd is the go-to-guy in the rushing game with a team-high 141 carries and 555 yards to go along with two rushing scores. Antoinne Jimmerson (92 carries, 499 yards, five TDs) and Jeremy Brown (52 carries, 302 yards, two TDs) provide different styles of running which keep defenses off-balance and also give Byrd the luxury of taking a few plays off to catch his breath. Jimmerson is also dangerous in the passing game (eight receptions, 175 yards, two TDs).
Despite modest defensive numbers (27.0 ppg, 403.9 ypg), the Mean Green have been up-and-down on the defensive side of the ball. North Texas has allowed only three teams (LSU, Houston, and Middle Tennessee) to surpass the 400-yard mark against it. The Mean Green's defense has surrendered only 14.6 ppg at home this season.
Junior linebacker Zach Orr has earned a SBC Defensive Player of the Week, recorded a team-high 71 tackles, and intercepted two passes while serving as the heart of soul of the defensive unit. As a team, North Texas needs to get pressure on Aplin after failing to sack the QB in each of its past three games.
This year's edition of this SBC rivalry will be much more competitive than last year's slaughter. However, Aplin and the Red Wolves should come out with more intensity than usual, as they must win to keep the dream of repeating as SBC champions alive.
Sports Network Predicted Outcome: Arkansas State 28, North Texas 20


text:
Music Storage Cabinet- GRK Manufacturing Company
Music Storage Cabinet- GRK Manufacturing Company
This attractive 9-drawer sheet music storage cabinet is available in mahogany or ebony and comes fully assembled! The dimensions are 16 inches wide, 14 inches deep and 32 inches high. A beautiful 70-pound cabinet that is a solid value and will last for years! � (Standard shipping rates do �not apply as cabinets require special delivery methods. �Contact us for details.)
Select a Product


text:
Stunning in the Spotlight™ Barbie® Doll
The "Since 1959" Collection commemorates famed vintage fashions, re-invented for a new era! Barbie® doll is always the dramatic, superlative star!
Stunning in the Spotlight™ Barbie® Doll is ready for her close up in a re-creation of the 1960's Solo in the Spotlight® fashion with a modern twist.
Fashion designed especially for the Silkstone® Barbie® doll body. Not for use with other Barbie® dolls.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
The Department administers the CDBG-R program. This funding is available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The funds are awarded to the State through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Funding available under the Recovery Act has clear purposes - to stimulate the economy through measures that modernize the Nation's infrastructure, improve energy efficiency, expand educational opportunities and access to health care. HUD strongly urges grantees to use CDBG-R funds for hard development costs associated with infrastructure activities that provide services to residents or activities that promote energy efficiency and conservation through or retrofitting of existing buildings.
One CDBG-R grant was awarded to the City of Fairbanks from this funding source. The activity selected for the use of funds is to upgrade sidewalks to current ADA standards and install additional storm drain inlets on 23rd Avenue. This activity is given preference for CDBG-R funding becuase it can be started and completed by late fall 2010. It is estimated that a total of 35 temporary positions will be created during the construction phase of the project.
Click below for your version choice of the Community Development Block Grant Information:
For More Information Contact:
Janet Davis
(907) 451-2746


text:
Bellina Single Armoire
We took the best features of our favorite French designs from the late 18th century and combined them to create this beautifully balanced composition. Raised molding, rosette carvings and exquisite turned feet add a genteel air.
- Crafted of kiln-dried hardwood with fine veneers using mortise-and-tenon joinery
- Vintage grey finish is heavily distressed and worn along the edges using a 15-step process to replicate the authentic look of age
- Interior features 2 adjustable shelves plus 2 drawers
- Equipped with 3 integrated outlets for charging personal electronics, or place a clock or music player inside cabinet
- Mirrored front door is backed with a linen-covered pin board for notes and pictures, with a row of small hooks below for jewelry or other small necessities
- Features 1 exterior English-dovetailed drawer detailed with raised front panel and wood-on-wood glides
- Cast-metal hardware in matching distressed finish
- Nylon glides on feet
- Furniture Tip Restraint included
- Wipe with a soft, dry cloth. Avoid direct sunlight and heat to protect the finish.
- Wood swatch is 6" square; free shipping
Bellina Single Armoire
- Overall: 32½"W x 18½"D x 70"H
- Interior without Shelves: 26"W x 14"D x 39"H
- Outer Drawer Interior: 23½"W x 17"D x 10½"H
- Inner Drawer Interior: 20½"W x 11½"D x 4½"H
- Weight: 198 lbs.
Bellina Single Armoire
Wood Swatch - Vintage Grey


text:
Welcome to FestivalFinder, the site where you'll discover the latest details on more than 2,500 music festivals in North America.
Search by your favorite genre or use the Find By feature to locate festivals by date, location or name. Search by performer is coming soon.
Rivers & Spires Festival
Public Art


text:
- Devin Tarr
- Chico, CA
- United States
Master's Student, California State University Chico
This conversation is closed.
Why should presuppose that the cause of religious experience must be natural?
As I was watching Mr. Haidt's talk, I was struck with what he categorized as the "million dollar question". He says:
"Is the staircase a feature of our evolutionary design? Is it a product of natural selection like our hands? Or, is it a bug? A mistake in the system . . . religious stuff just happens when the wires cross in the brain?"
It seems, considering the testimony of those having such experiences, that we should at least consider whether they're caused by a super-natural explanation. It struck me as odd that Mr Haidt's logic went like this:
1) People have self-transcendent experiences, through religion or other means
2) What could be the cause of these experiences?
3) They must either be a natural feature of humanity, or a delusion producing bug in our biological system.
It seems to me there's an obvious third question as well. Is there something beyond us (super-natural) that we're connecting to, or is connecting to us.
Carlin Covey
Mar 16 2012: Devin Tarr, you said
- +3
"As the cause of all space, time, matter, and energy, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and lastly personal--as that's the only way for a timeless cause to give rise to a temporal effect. Thus the origin of the universe provides strong evidence for a transcendent personal Creator."
You have crafted your argument with the appearance of scientific process, but some portions of your argument reveal that you reasoned backwards from conclusion to evidence, rather than using the scientific process of reasoning from evidence to conclusion. "spaceless", "timeless", "immaterial", and "powerful" relate to "space", "time", "matter", and "energy", but you have tacked on "personal" for no apparent reason, other than it relates to your preferred conclusion, the existence of a "transcendent personal Creator".
By the way, does it really make sense to speak of a "timeless cause"? Our notion of "causality" is inextricably bound up with our conception of time. For event A to be considered the cause of event B, not only must event B be a consequence of event A, but event A must precede event B in time.
Mar 16 2012: He's giving the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The idea behind it is that an 'uncaused causer' must have agency and must transcend the realm of causality itself, ergo personal and timeless. You can find some good comprehensive refutations of it on google.
Mar 16 2012: I would love to truly engage in this argument. I currently believe it's sound, but if it's unsound, I don't want to continue using it.
To clarify then, I'm not claiming that God "transcends the realm of causality itself". Far from it. In fact, our understanding of causality is deeper than being physical. It's rooted in the premise that "something can't come from nothing". Things don't just "pop" into being. Causality is the concept that refers to something bringing something else about. Hence, it's not rooted in our conception of time. But further Carlin, temporal causality does not require that events precede others in time. There can be simultaneous causation as well. Imagine a bowling ball that's been eternally resting on a pillow. The cause of the depression in the pillow is simultaneous with the bowling ball being there.
In regard to the universe then, the time at which God caused the universe is when time began. God's causing the universe is simultaneous with it coming into being. In fact, that's the most common sense understanding of how that would happen.
Finally, in regard to the cause being personal, there are two reasons here:
1) What kind of thing could fit the following properties? Spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging? Well, two things: an abstract object, or an unembodied mind. Seeing that abstract objects can't "cause" anything then, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind.
2) A timeless cause, if it were impersonal, would produce a timeless effect. The fact that we see that the effect began though, when the cause must be timeless, means the cause must have the ability to bring the effect about or not--making it personal.
For those two reasons then, we can be confident the cause of the universe must be personal.
Mar 16 2012: So let me address some of the points you've raised.
'[T]he cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind.'
The problem here is with the notion of an 'unembodied mind'. As far as I have been able to tell, the best explorations of what a 'mind' is absolutely require embodiment. They specify that the mind is something that either comprises or is made possible by the function of the brain, and the processes therein. As such they lie within the domain of the philosophy of consciousness, cognitive science, psychology, and neurology. I recognise that we can often identify properties of a mind - an appearance of reflection, intentionality, and agency - but I have no idea how those properties could exist outside of the substrate and process - the meat and motion of the brain - which appear to produce them.
I recognise that you could now introduce an argument that the mind is a product of the soul or some other form of mind-body dualism, but such an argument is so unsupportable from a scientific standpoint that the honest thing to do would be to renounce all appeals to science in other premises of your arguments. I also think there is a tautology lurking here, in which you claim that disembodied minds are possible because of the existence of disembodied minds.
'2) A timeless cause, if it were impersonal, would produce a timeless effect. The fact that we see that the effect began though, when the cause must be timeless, means the cause must have the ability to bring the effect about or not--making it personal. '
Since as I have already stated, the idea of a mind outside of a cognitive processing unit such as a brain makes no sense to me, nor I would wager to most expert thinkers on minds, by positing a personal causer you are offering no escape from the problem of causal regress. There is no way in which a mind can escape the need for a cause, nor have agency beyond the physical conditions that produce it.Mar 16 2012: A further point: the origin of the universe seems to be one of those incredibly difficult problems into which physicists have been able to gain some possible insight only through the use of a scientific method which is predicated upon hard materialism. If you are able to show through logic that certain cosmological theories suggest that there must be a non-material part of reality, you have shown that those theories are incompatible with the methods that produced them. Rather than revealing some important aspect of reality, you've simply revealed an error in the science.
Of course, I haven't encountered many logicians or philosophers of physics who think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is valid.Mar 17 2012: Devin,
You said "In regard to the universe then, the time at which God caused the universe is when time began."
Of course it has not been established that God caused the universe, and although that seems perilously close to begging the question, I'll set that aside for the moment.
Note that it has not even been established that time began when our universe was created. If time is viewed as one of the four dimensions that we commonly perceive, then how do we know that the time dimension did not exist prior to the three spatial dimensions? And if time is viewed as simply our perception of the sequential ordering of events, how do we know that events did not occur within other universes prior to the creation of our own?
Until those questions are resolved I don't see how any argument for the existence of a supernatural being can be based on the abstract notion of "timelessness".Mar 19 2012: Devin, you said "I would love to truly engage in this argument." [the Kalam Cosmological Argument] "I currently believe it's sound, but if it's unsound, I don't want to continue using it."
Did you mean that if you become convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound you would then question the existence of God? Or did you mean that you would then switch to some other argument for the existence of God? The former implies that you are presenting the argument because it led you to your belief in God. The latter implies that something else led you to believe in God, and you are searching for the best logical rationalization for your pre-existing belief.
I can't be certain which is the case, but I have my suspicions. Many individuals come to a belief in God early in childhood, and I doubt that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the reason.
Children are told that God, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy exist, and they believe the adults who told them these things. As the child grows older it becomes apparent that the adults don't really believe in the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but they do believe in the existence of God (or at least claim that they do). Why? I think it is simply because the existence of God, unlike Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, is not easily disproved, and provides a handy catch-all (albeit simplistic) explanation for many more of the mysteries of life. Why is there life on Earth? God wanted it that way. Why does the universe exist? God wanted it that way. Explaining away such important questions as the whim of a magical being is certainly easier than examining the evidence, formulating a theory, making predictions based on the theory, testing those predictions, and abandoning or revising the theory if the predictions are in error.
This argument has been refuted many times, here in this conversation and elsewhere.Mar 19 2012: I agree with Carlin and would like to add another point. People in general don't like uncertainty, but, as it stands, there are still many unexplained mysteries in the universe, hence the God concept helps to get rid of uncertainties (since everything that cannot be explained through science will be explained through God0.
This was already so in the past when even thunder and lightening was considered the work of God.
So hopefully, the more we understand the universe and everything in it, the less need for a God should we have.Mar 19 2012: A natural process could have caused it.
Just like evolution leading to the diversity of life doesn't need a personality although some people see god behind evolutionMar 17 2012: Those are some great points! I think this will probably be one of my last responses. I must say, this conversation has started to become somewhat exhausting. It's like debating 12 people at once, with everyone putting forward different points, lol.
On unembodied minds, I an indeed a substance-dualist. Unfortunately I haven't spent as much time investigating the philosophy behind it. I recall reading some persuasive works in the past that noted that intentionality, the awareness of ourselves, our personal identity existing through physical change in our brain, and free will are all reasons to believe the mind is an entity that uses the brain, but is its own entity nonetheless. If in fact the mind does have those properties, and is its own entity, that not all beings would require the physical substrata of a brain. But again, this is an area that I have not investigated in depth. I'm thankful you've brought this point up though as it's shown me an area I need to look into to see if the Kalam is in fact sound.
Regarding the time issue, that is also an excellent point. I'm going to have to look into that one as well. The possibility of personhood in a timeless state does seem troubling to me. I'll look into those things, and if I find anything interesting, I'll let you know.
To Carlin,
I admit that science has not closed the door that our universe may be one of many. Though there's no evidence for the multi-verse, it's possible. What's important to note though is that in 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem showed that even the mutliverse must have had an absolute beginning, which would show that a timeless cause produced a temporal effect.
Finally, to both of you, thank you for your kindness and respect. Simon, in particular I see I need to look further into whether an unembodied and timeless mind is a coherent concept.
Warmly and sincerely,
Mar 17 2012: I'm very gratified to hear that what I said has been of some interest to you. One of my favourite books discussing consciousness, personhood, and the mind is 'I am a Strange Loop'.
Once a friend asked me what I think it means to be conscious, to be a person, and to have a mind. I answered that I think that we tell a story about ourselves to ourselves. It's a story about what has happened to us, what we've done, and what we want. A narrative has a necessary temporal component: it requires a sequence of events. I later discovered 'higher order theory' and felt really good about myself ;)
Peter Law
Mar 16 2012: Hi Devin.
- +2
When I was a new Christian in the 80's the church was buzzing with the news that the Lord was going to allow the Jewish people in Russia to return to Israel. I was shown the bible prophecies etc. & could see where the idea came from, although the exact timing was unknown. God had told some folks that it was imminent , therefore the buzz.
Within a couple of years the Berlin Wall came down unexpectedly & the Jews were free to return to Israel, just as prophecied thousands of years previously.
This & many other events are proof to me at least of the existence of God. They are where the rubber hits the road spiritually speaking. The fact that such happenings are acknowledged by some, but others are totally oblivious leads me to believe that refusal to accept the very existence of the spiritual blinds them to the whole dimension.
edward long
Mar 15 2012: We should not assume the supernatural realm is myth or delusion. There are aspects of life which defy natural explanation. For example Faith, Hope and Love elude scientific explanation. I think more than two or three questions must be answered before classifying the supernatural as ecstatic fiction. I suggest seven questions. Since secular science has introduced the theory of multiple universes it is necessary to specify which possible world is intended, thus I use the nomenclature " W1" to designate the universe (world) in which the writer, and readers, share conscious, simultaneous existence.
- +2
1.Does it appear that W1 is designed, created and controlled?
2.Are there any candidates suggested to be W1's designer/creator/controller?
3.Do any of the candidates claim to possess the necessary qualifying attributes of infinite, eternal and immutable?
4.Has any candidate provided an understandable, written explanation of the past, present and future of W1 which confirms man's body of non-theoretical knowledge, i.e. archaeology; astronomy; biology; cosmogony; cosmology; geology; history; psychology; sociology; etc.?
5.Does any candidate provide and explain a way for humans in W1 to attain to everlasting, perfect existence?
6.Does any candidate actively participate in conscious, real-time, two-way, super natural communication with humans of W1?
7.Does any candidate communicate naturally and supernaturally to humans of W1 about
what behavior is expected; the consequences of disobedience; and the reward for obedience?
It seems to me that one affirmative answer constitutes sufficient doubt to demand additional discussion, research and observation.
Mar 15 2012: Edward,
I fail to see how "Faith, Hope and Love elude scientific explanation." Why do you think so?
Mar 16 2012: I guess the discipline that would take it upon itself to explain faith, hope and love would not be one of the natural sciences, which are governed by Natural Laws, but perhaps philosophy or psychology. I am unaware of any experiments conducted in accordance with the Scientific Method which explain why someone believes in God; or clings tenaciously to hope for a better tomorrow; or is driven by such unconditional affection that their own safety and comfort is sacrificed for the benefit of the object of that affection. I think that explanation will always be the "elusive butterfly of love." Do you have some suggested reading for me? Thanks Mr. Margiotis. Best wishes.Mar 18 2012: On the first cause argument, the flaws in this argument are fairly obvious in the discussion below and others. This is an old and tired argument. There are probably infinite explanations that could explain the universe around us. And the truth may be something beyond our imagination. Its very presumptuous to jump to a theistic view, and virtually ridiculous to assume any one particular religious belief system is the correct one.
I think atheists get frustrated because the flaws in this type of argument are so obvious. So obviously trying to understand the universe from a human perspective, with our limited senses and intellectual and tools.
We have a consciousness so we invent gods or creators in our image. We think the whole universe of billions or galaxies each with billions of stars revolves around homo sapiens.
Sometime we even believe this universe creator picked a desert tribe as its chosen people 14 billion years after whatever.
We simply don't know what came before, or what is beyond what we see beyond hubble's view of the universe we are in. There could be other universes outside our view.
We don't know why the physical constants are the way they are.
In the end you explain all this with a feat of intellectual gymnastics by inventing a creator that sits outside reality as we know it. Saying this entity is outside space and time, and is immaterial, but can create matter and energy still doesn't explain where the matter came from or where it came from. You just make the whole question more difficult and ridiculous by imprinting inadequate human made religious beliefs on what we may never understand.Mar 17 2012: I would say there is an obvious sixth question:
5) Are we pleading a special case for the cause of religious experience to be natural?
Even if there is "something beyond us" argument is taken to be true, one does not get a case for a prayer answering, intervening controlling super natural being. Actually it would actually refute that such a being exists.
Carlin Covey
Mar 17 2012: Devin,
- +1
You said "1) What kind of thing could fit the following properties? Spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging? Well, two things: an abstract object, or an unembodied mind. Seeing that abstract objects can't "cause" anything then, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind."
I am tempted to reply "Seeing that an unembodied mind can't "cause" anything, then the cause of the universe must be an abstract thing."
But of course an unembodied mind and an "abstract thing" (in context I assume you mean this to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging) are both abstract concepts that have no physical reality. We might as well suppose that our universe was created by the irrational number pi, which is also an abstract concept, but a darn sight more useful one than an "unembodied mind".Mar 16 2012: I think that the question 'is it possible that religious experience is a manifestation of God's existence' is perfectly legitimate, and consistent with a scientific approach. So far, there are no objective experiments that can be used to test the hypothesis of existence of the supernatural, so we are left with simply admitting we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. At that point, science backs away, and asserts that it has nothing to say in matters of faith.
Science can, however, perform experiments with drugs or brain injury that seem to produce experiences that are indistinguishable (to a given individual) from 'religious' experiences. One is then led to conclude (scientifically) that available evidence points to a very fallible brain, that is, one that can be completely fooled into believing in God through biochemical manipulation. God, and fairies for that matter, can be made perceivable, and completely convincing, by artifice. This rather strongly suggests (to many unencumbered by prior faith) that belief in God may well be a natural and very human process. This evidence is not proof, but is a very compelling argument for an alternative explanation for religious conviction, and indeed, obviates the need for the existence of God to explain man's religious fervor. Deus ex machina, all over again.
Unfortunately, and I mean that sincerely, there is still no evidence for the existence of a supernatural God-like entity, though many, MANY questions about the universe remain unanswered.
Mar 16 2012: I agree with your first paragraph whole heartedly, though the third should be edited to say there's still no demonstrable PROOF for the existence of God. Indeed, the origin of the universe does provide at least good evidence for His existence.
In regard to the second paragraph though, the responses of most individuals whose brains are stimulated report feeling like they are part of "the one", or that all reality is interconnected. This kind of expereince, brought on by artificial stimulation, is very different from teh response of the Christian believer--leading me to think it's more likely the new agey spiritual experiences are less veridical than the Christians.
Mar 16 2012: Actually, people who smoke crack have a religious experiance every time, because it stimulates the exact same portion of the brain as a deeply profound religious experiance.
Science also can disprove the existance of a god, if, and only if you adhere strictly to the Scientific Method, and Process. It goes like this: (1)Question: Does God Exist?, (2)Back Ground Research: Read Bible, Go to church, pray, follow dogma, etcetera...., (3)Construct Hypothesis: There is a God., (4) Test with an experiment. Here is where you have to strictly follow the process. Pray for god to give you something that you could not have gotten any other way. or chose any experiment that is objective, that you can measure, you should see the contradiction by now. (5) Analyze RESULTS, Draw a conclusion based on those RESULTS. (6) Record your RESULTS and (7) Try again. "Contradictions do not exist. If you believe you are facing a contradiction check your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong."- Ayn Rand
Mar 16 2012: Yeah like this mad business called The Multiverse,have they found any yet?
Wilbert Hunt
Mar 16 2012: "[P]eople who smoke crack have a religious experiance every time...."
- +1
A religious experience isn't necessarily a God experience.
"Science also can disprove the existance of a god...."
And God can disprove the existence of science.Mar 16 2012: Your test would only work if that being you're praying to must always say yes to your prayers. If it's possible for that being to say no, then unanswered prayer is not a proof that such a being doesn't exist.
Thus we should look at other possible evidence for, or against, the existence of God. I've been dialoguing extensively on this above.
Cheers! :)
Linda Taylor
Mar 15 2012: OK I am going to completely disagree with Mr. Haidt and his social science take on transcendence.
- +1
In my experience self-transcendence is a solitary journey. It is something only the self can do.
We do not transcend self INTO collective. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The whole perspective is skewed. What those collective people were doing was following a CHARISMATIC leader. He did not touch on that at all. He did not explore how that 'moth to a flame' attraction works and can mobilize a collective for good or for bad. MLK and Hitler were not that far apart in leveraging this ability. I did not see any pictures of Hitler up there. Now that might have been something to explore. The evolutionary role of the charismatic leader. But no. It was some waka pac-man game.
Those collective movements were as selfishly motivated as the greedy corporate dude with the money. They wanted to be 'in' and a part of what everybody else was doing. Herd mentality.
That type of behavior IS NOT SPIRITUALITY!
OMG! and the audience ate it up like it was food! Biggest manure eating fest I have seen in a while. The herd continues. (am so angry I copy/pasted to the video blog)Mar 15 2012: There is a obvious fourth question as well.
4) Is religious experience caused by fairies?
Mar 15 2012: none of the people claim it was caused by fairies, and without any other evidence for fairies, I think we're justified in dismissing that question. The same is not true for what I asked.
The question is how do you approach things? Are you open to evidence? Or do you close your mind to some possibilities before you even look at the evidence? The first option is truly scientific. The second is based on faith.
Mar 16 2012: I don't expect other people to understand my point. There is no evidence for fairies, it's just a matter of faith. I don't even have a valid explanation as to how fairies got involved, I just believe they did.
You should respect my view. The fact that your religion has a billion followers does not make mine any less worthy of consideration. There used to be a dozen Christians, you know.
Mar 16 2012: amen brother!
Ken brown
Mar 16 2012: Come on gerald, a billion? more like on paper rather than in reality otherwise you wouldn't see many people on the streets on a sunday.The average so called religious follower is lip service when it suits them.
- +1
It's the falling awayMar 16 2012: Well, I'll likely post this above in response to Simon as well, but the fact is we do have good evidence that a supernatural Creator exists, specifically from the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, and objective moral values. We can stick with the first one for now, but consider this:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause (something cannot come from nothing)
2) The universe began to exist (Hawking-Penrose singularity Theorem/Big Bang Model)
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As the cause of all space, time, matter, and energy, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and lastly personal--as that's the only way for a timeless cause to give rise to a temporal effect. Thus the origin of the universe provides strong evidence for a transcendent personal Creator. The same cannot be said about fairies.Mar 16 2012: Gerald, I agree with your point about fairies. I disagree with your statement: " I don't expect other people to understand my point." Why not?
Don't you write every post with the intention to be clear, to make a point that people do understand? Sure, some people might not understand, but the presumption must be that they will understand... otherwise, why not revise your text until it is presumed understandable? A nit pick, admittedly.
Harald Jezek
Mar 16 2012: Devin, the fine tuning issue of the universe is just one additional logical fallacy.
- +2
There is no fine tuning. Think about it this way.
You stay on top of a high tower with an apple, an egg, a glass sphere and an iron ball that weights 125 gram.
Now you drop all of them from the tower. Then you go and check what happened to your artifacts. You find no traces of your glass sphere, apple nor of the egg (beside some stains on the ground), but you find your iron ball.
Based on this observation you conclude that the universe is fine tuned to iron balls with a mass of 125 gram.
Can you see what is wrong with your idea about the fine tuned universe ?Mar 17 2012: Dear Harald,
You should read Oxford physicist Roger Penrose's book, "The Road to Reality" where he shows over 50 constants and quantities in nature that had to be just the way they are for the universe to sustain life. There's nothing in nature that determines they have to be the way they are, in fact string theory predicts there are 10x500power possible universe configurations. Moreover he's calculated the odds of our universe being the way it is to be roughly 10x10(123power) which is an essentially incomprehensible number.
Penrose, Roger. "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe." (2007).Mar 19 2012: Devin, your conclusion as to what the cause must be is just completely illogical.
There could be any number of causes that fit what we know. The likely cause is probably beyond our imagination.
You say the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and lastly personal. Why must it be a person or consciousness etc etc etc. How do you know this is the only universe. etc etc.
then you define the creating cause as somthing that doesn't need a cause. Its such a circular self serving argument.
Regarding the constants, it is a similar argument to saying the earth must have been created to suit humans rather than humans evolved to survive and thrive on the earth.
Perhaps there is an entity that created the universe just for us, billions of stars with billions of galaxies, just for us, waited outside time for 14 Billion years for us to evolve. Picked out a tribe of desert dwellers helped them conquer some lands, then have these lands be conquered by many other groups. Then have a guy, actually it was his disciples, change the rules so gentiles could hook up with the creator of the universe, then one view of the belief that started with the JC cult was picked up by the romans, then split between East and West, then the West split, etc etc until you have hundreds of variants of the theme. The first chosen people even say you have it wrong. Let alone all the other belief systems that evolved in the middle east, in Asia, in the Amercias, Africa, Oceania etc.
Many Hindus believe all gods are aspects of the one god. Maybe JC is part of the Hindy super deity.Mar 16 2012: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause (something cannot come from nothing)
2) GOD began to exist
3) Therefore, GOD has a cause.
Not all fairies, but some are known to be transcendental creators. You're wondering about the origin of God. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if fairies had caused it to exist.
As to where fairies come from, let's admit that some things, just a few though, just don't need a creator. Let's say that fairies began with themselves. Let's say there was no" before", because fairies created time as it came into being.
Mar 16 2012: Lets be a little serious please. There are several reasons why fairies almost certainly did not cause the universe to exist. 1) fairies are spacial beings. 2) fairies exist in time. 3) given that fairies are spacial and exist in time, but one has never been observed, we are rational to assume they don't exist. 4) fairies have limited power. On such grounds then, a fairy in all probability did not cause the universe.
God on the other hand has enormously different properties. He perfectly fits the profile to be the cause of the universe.
Moreover, on the "where did God come from" question, two points need to be considered:
1) You don't need an explanation of an explanation in order for it to be best one. For example, if scientists found some crashed machinery on mars, unlike anything produced on earth, they would be reasonable to conclude that extra terrestrials likely caused it. With that said, they don't need to explain extra-terrestrials in order to explain the machinery. In fact, requiring such an explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations that wouldn't allow you to explain anything.
2) Things either exist contingently or necessarily. God, if He exists, is a necessarily existing being, meaning His non-existence is impossible. He has always existed. Otherwise He wouldn't be God. Note: lest you think this is merely special pleading for God, it's exactly the same thing atheists have always said about the universe. The trouble for them is that both philosophy and modern cosmology have shown such an assertion to be untenable, rendering the Theist's claim much more probable.Mar 16 2012: Dear Devin,
You state in a previous comment (18 hours ago)..."the fact is we do have good evidence that a supernatural Creator exists..."
Can you please expand on that statement, and offer the "evidence that a supernatural creator exists"?
Gabo Moreno
Mar 17 2012: Hi Colleen,
- +3
He did offer proof. One, a fallacy of beginning to exist requiring a cause, as if we had any experience with things "starting to exist" in the way the universe started to exist (equivocation fallacy). Then a series of fallacies about there being a need for an "external cause," that has to be "immaterial" as if any natural cause outside the universe would have to be "immaterial," just because it has to be something other than our known universe (how would that effect our universe into existence, who knows, but so goes the diatribe of the multiple fallacies called the Kalam argument, better known as the Kalam quackery in better circles, a non-sequitur), then personal, because only personal causes, so goes the next fallacy (non-sequitur), could have something time-bounded (or some wording for that effect), started (really? do we personal causes start things in a different time-binding way? How do you get there other than by wishful thinking?). Again, where from these fallacies? From a fallacy-quackery-snake-oil salesman, who has reworded and regurgitated these creationist faeces who shall remain unnamed. One who, when called for these fallacies claims that we not having a degree in philosophy disqualifies us for arguing against his obvious fallacies, while he not having a degree in science apparently does not matter if he is to refer to scientific knowledge such as big bangs and such, with a complete sense of security, in a most fallacious equivocation game.
So there you have it. "God" exists (also it is "God," not some god or gods, but "God"), because some people are able to put a series of fallacies together and their public will not notice the problems in the slightest.
Then denying fairies? The nerve!
Best and good to see you after this long time. I know we don't agree on everything, but it is always nice to talk with you.Mar 17 2012: Dear Gabo,
Your comment shocked me. It appears you have very strong feelings about this topic if you're going to resort to 'ad hominem'. What surprised me even more is the +3 helpfulness your comment has received.
We can go through your claims one at a time...
1) We have experience of things beginning to exist all the time. By "begin to exist", I mean a new state of affairs coming about. You and I for instance have not always existed. People begin to exist when their parents conceive them. If you don't believe life begins at conception, you might say they began to exist at birth. It's no matter. Moreover, you claim premise 1 is a fallacy of equivocation saying that what's true in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe, thus saying they're the same is equivocating unlike things. However premise 1 is not rooted in infering causality from the universe, but in the metaphysical principle that being does not come from non-being. To reject that is literally worse than magic, to say things can come into being from total non-being, uncaused, out of nothing.
2) Considering that the universe (if you want to expand it to the idea of a multiverse that's fine) includes ALL material reality, then the cause of matter cannot be material. To say a material thing brought matter into being would be a logical contradiction. Thus saying the universe's cause is immaterial is not a fallacy, but eminently logical. It's the converse that's fallacious.
3) You claim the inference to a personal cause is a non-sequitur (doesn't follow) because of issues with "time-bounded"ness. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Could you please clarify?
4) You personally attack those who propose this argument. That's not showing the argument to be false. That's just bad taste I'm sorry to say.
5) I gave logical reasons why I don't believe fairies exist. I haven't heard the same in regard to rebutting the kalam yet.
Best regards,
DevinMar 17 2012: Gerarld is not speaking seriusly... He's trying to show how senseless your question sounds to an atheist. From an atheist's viewpoint, fairies and god are both the same - products of our imagination.
Your question, though, is based on a fallacy: more people don't make an argument more true. If something is true, it doesn't matter how much people believe in it, it just stays true - the same for false statements. The amount of people that believes in god/fairies do not make them more real.
Best regards, Marco.
Sorry for my english, i'm not a native english speaker.
Mar 17 2012: Agreed on all accounts Marco. :)Mar 17 2012: Ok so your argument is that my imaginary creatures lack the super powers to be responsible for the creation of a universe.
But let's consider what you say about the machinery on mars. Let's imagine we find such artifacts. What will scientists do? I'll tell you.
They'll look at it and make up hypotheses about its origin. If the spontaneous assembly of its pieces would violate the laws of physics, they might suppose that it had an intelligent designer.
Very unlike what we understand about the universe.
Lastly you define God as non-spacial and out of time. I say God doesn't exist. Aren't we saying the same thing?
Mar 17 2012: That last line is priceless!Mar 17 2012: Dear Gerald,
I don't see the inference to design being any different between the machinery on mars and the fine-tuning of the universe. In fact, Oxford Physicist Roger Penrose (who collaborated with Stephen-Hawking to develop their famous singularity theorem which has become standard today), has shown that the odds of our solar system sponatenously coming into being through a random collision of particles is mere chicken feed compared to the odds of our universe being the way it is. In that sense then, if the machinery on mars legitimizes a reference to design, the fine-tuning of the universe does the same, except exponentially moreso.
In regard to the last line, there are plenty of things that are non-spacial and timeless, for instance logic and numbers. Moreover, I'm not defining God merely in the negative. Indeed He has concrete properties. He's personal, all-powerful, morally perfect, and causally active. That's quite different from nothing.
Best regards,
DevinMar 17 2012: Dear Gabo,
I believe we agree on this topic, which has been discussed in great depth here on TED. I was curious to learn if Devin has any new information that we have not yet seen or heard. If not, his statement..."good evidence that a supernatural Creator exists..." appears to be simply blowing in the breeze, trying to prove something that cannot be proven.
I respect the fact that some people choose to believe in a god, I do not respect it at all, when those individuals think/feel that everyone "should" believe the same as they do...I think you know that already:>)
Best....Happy St. Patrick's Day, and I am going to mingle with leprechauns today...they are real you know....I have proof lad....I am one of them:>)Mar 17 2012: Devin, how do you know that the same rules of physics (and by extension cause and effect) apply to the universe as opposed to within? The universe contains the laws of physics but it is not demonstrated that it is itself bound by the laws of physics or at least our brand of physics. There are many talks on TED that consider the universe in a variety of ways. Seek them out.
I've never understood why some people find this prime mover argument convincing. Given that it takes about 13.7 billion years for the universe to come up with a human brain made entirely out of matter and energy, for there to have always existed an immesurable immaterial intelligence is a shockingly outrageous claim, no matter how you spin it. Whether true or not, the argument gives no credence to the idea. I especially don't get it when people are asked "if everything has a cause, what caused God?" why they think "he always existed" is a satisfying answer that solves the problem, that's got to be much more unlikely.
Mar 17 2012: Gods used to be about pushing the sun around and building animals out of clay...
I love the fact that science has done so well that modern theists are left with "before" the damn universe. It's like they're admitting : "OK everything kind of makes sense, everything seems to hold, evolution, planetary motion, bla bla... But if you say there was nothing before your universe, is there room for my deity then? And if everything obeys the laws of physics, may I say that my God was responsible for the laws themself?"
Could His powers get any weaker?
This is how extremely f****g well science has been doing.Mar 17 2012: Devin,
I'm sure Gabo will pop in and reflect on your comment addressed to him, and I got the notice, so I will respond as well.
You have been told by at least 3 Tedsters that I am aware of, that your preaching will not be well recieved on TED. At least one discussion you started was removed by TED for this same reason.
On this thread, you now ask people to take you more seriously, you are "shocked" and "surprised" by responses. Either you are not listening, not hearing, or intentionally ignoring information you are getting, none of which are very conducive to good discussion.
Mar 17 2012: Dear Colleen,
I really am surprised. I'm not sure how you define "preaching", but if by it you mean pontificating on matters without listening to responses or engaging in interacting dialogue, I whole-heartedly agree with you. I have no desire to simply "preach at" people. If I've somehow given that impression, I sincerely apologize.
My honest intent has been to discuss whether it's reasonable, or probable to believe that a supernatural creator exists. I view that as a philosophical question about ontology, not a religious faith claim.
That's why I haven't been quoting the Bible or appealing to any special revelation. Rather I'm genuinely curious about how the universe came to be. I've reflected a lot on it, and to me there seem to be three alternatives:
1) The universe has always existed
2) The universe popped into being out, uncaused, out of nothing
3) Something caused the universe to exist.
All of the scientific and philosophical evidence is against the first option. And the second option seems absolutely absurd. So in examining the third option, what could that cause possibly be? This is an honest question.
In regard to being "surprised" by people's responses, I haven't been surprised by the questions people have raised. I've rather been surprised at the level of hostility I've encountered in simply raising this discussion. It appears that most people on TED have already made up their mind that it's not possible for God to exist, and even if He did, that it's not relevant. Both claims, in the absence of any evidence for them, seem to me quite brazen.
I've tried hard to respond intelligently and faithfully to every question. But I can stop. I suppose my final question truly is, given that we know the universe began to exist, if you don't think a Creator is responsible, where did it come from?
Best regards,
DevinMar 18 2012: Devin, why have you ruled out option 1? As I said in a comment before, nothing can be said about the universe before the Planck instant. Is our universe in fact cycling through different phases of expansion and the Big Bang is just another one? That is what Cambridge Professor Roger Penrose seemed to suggest in a guest lecture I attended. Could it be that the pre-Planck instant infinitely stretches into the past like an asymptotic curve seems to infinitely tend towars 0 without ever getting there? That has also been suggested.
Also, why is it so absurd to imagine a fully-formed universe coming out of the void but perfectly acceptable for a much more sophisticated supreme being to have always been present (surely if it can create the universe, it would have to be more complicated than the universe)?
With regards to the third option. Why God? Aren't there other options? A master universe that itself is infinite in time and space? Some simpler force that, like evolution brought about complexity through stages of simplicity? Myriads of things our minds couldn't hope to imagine, something nothing like a man (and let's be honest, God is just like an all-powerful man)?Mar 17 2012: Yes...that's it Devin..."pontificating on matters without listening to responses or engaging in interacting dialogue"...see...you know what you're doing.
Your statements like... "but the fact is we do have good evidence that a supernatural Creator exists" does NOT demonstrate an "honest intent... to discuss whether it's reasonable, or probable".
That statement and many more of your statements demonstrate the fact that YOU have already made up YOUR mind...an accusation you make against others! There are MANY people participating on TED who believe in a god, and practice a religion. Apparently, they do not find it necessary to convince all of us to believe the same things...as you apparently do. You say you are simply asking questions, and that is not true. Do you think we are all foolish?
It seems quite "brazen" (to use your word) for you to come onto TED and comment in a way that suggests that you have all the answers regarding god/no god.Mar 17 2012: God sure is awesome at making it all look like an accident!
Comment deleted
Mar 15 2012: Sorry I should clarify. I'm using "natural" in the sense of "explainable through material causes." Most of the people who have religious experiences would say they are connecting with, or experiencing, something that transcends physical realm.
Mr. Haidt seeks to explain such claims through physical means, saying they're due to either a feature of homo sapiens as a homo duplex creature, or a bug of our biology.
My question is why should we be so quick to dismiss the claims of those who have such experiences? Maybe they are indeed connecting to a supernatural reality, such as the Creator of the universe.
Mar 15 2012: Devin,
I don't think Haidt is dismissing the idea that religious experiences are supernaturally caused on a whim; I believe that he has good evidence to reject a supernatural explanation. After all, religious claims are made time and time again, and science eventually debunks them; that is, science shows that said claims have some *natural* cause rather than a supernatural one. Isn't it logical, then, to assume that religious experiences can *also* be explained naturally? Moreover, David Hume's criticism of miracles is applicable here, I believe. What's more probable? That religious experiences are supernatural in nature, which entails a domain of existence that no one has *objectively* confirmed (and we can't assume that it exists in the case of religious experience), or that religious experience, like all of our other experiences, have a natural explanation? There are other problems, too. For instance, person A has revelation X and person B has revelation Y, and X and Y are contradictory. Again, what is the *best explanation* for this phenomenon? That a "cosmic revealer" discloses contradictory messages to some people, or that there is no such revealer and their revelations are the result of natural causes?
Mar 16 2012: Evidence Shmevidence.When did we get so grand that we thought our little selves on this pathetically tiny microdot of a dust ball in an oscure postiion in the universe can see its totality (might I add 'the known universe')? We've just begun to have confidence in scientific method within the last few hundred years. Yet we're 'there'? We 'get it' now? We can discount intuition, experience, sensitivity which we have yet to fully explore. We can do this because we've figured how to find organic cells and throw them together and watch what happens. We found energy in sub-microscopic life- again, only on this pathetically insignificant dustball - and we now understand the immensity of possibility in infinity. We discount through our self-importance and mutually agreed upon groupthink and prove we are correct to each other. And what is the result? Nothing but division. No harmony of effort. We like to be 'right' so we can destroy our 'opponent' rather than take in humility that which we can offer to each other for the betterment of all. There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist. I'll remember that when I clean a dust-mite from my floor. I'll have comfort knowing it thinks I don't exist.Mar 16 2012: RH,
- +2
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing in favour of epistemic humility. That is, you're arguing that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss claims about the world because we have only a tiny, flimsy, and very recent ability to detect anything beyond our own eyes, or explain those things we do see before our faces, for that matter.
This is an important thing to remember, for sure. But at the same time, I still think we can speak with a sort of provisional certainty about many of our recent discoveries in physics or biology. We have developed, in the short time that something recognisable as the scientific method has been around, the ability to so perfectly predict the behaviour of subatomic particles that our maths couldn't really get that much more precise. We've developed the ability to selectively activate and deactivate specific genes. In short, while we should remember our limitations, I think we can still have some justified confidence in the rigours and strengths of the scientific method, and thus we can - provisionally, with the door always open to have our minds changed - reject claims which seem contrary to our most-sound seeming understandings of people and minds. And as Paul stated earlier, some claims appear internally self-contradictory, and if there is one thing of which we can all be certain, it is the basic rules of logic: it is impossible for P and not-P to both be the case.Mar 16 2012: Dear Paul, thank you for your engagement!
First, there is in fact good evidence for a transcendent personal Creator. Consider the question regarding the Universe's origins:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause (something cannot come from nothing)
2) The universe began to exist (Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem/Big Bang Model)
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As the cause of all space, time, matter, and energy, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and lastly personal--as that's the only way for a timeless cause to give rise to a temporal effect. Thus the origin of the universe provides strong evidence for a transcendent personal Creator.
In regard to Hume, you should read John Earman's book, "Hume's Abject Failure" (2000). In it he notes how Hume's argument rests on a key oversight of probability theory; namely, that extraordinarily improbable events happen ALL the time, but we believe them because of the evidence for them. Put another way, one must not only consider the probability of an events occurance, but also the probability that we should have the evidence we do if that event did not occur. We believe the winning lottery number is accurate (even though its enormously improbable) because its even more improbable that the news should read the number as correct if it weren't true. Hume only considered the intrinsic improbability of miracles without also addressing the probability that we would have the evidence we do if it did not occur.
On contradictory religious experiences, just because there are counterfeits of something, doesn't mean the real thing is also false.
I just found it odd that Mr. Haidt would assume every religious experience only has a natural explanation (which he couldn't identify), instead of being open to maybe there being something more. That's all.
DevinMar 16 2012: Scientific theories should be plausible. There exist plausible explanations for the feeling of 'self-transcendence' that many people describe as part of their religious experiences which rely on existing understandings of human psychology, neurology, and physiology. They are plausible precisely because they are broadly and deeply supported by our current understandings of what sort of things comprise reality and what sort of interactions between those things are possible.
On the other hand, the notion of a 'realm beyond the physical' seems to make no sense given our current understandings of physics and metaphysics. I haven't even seen a methodical and comprehensive definition of what such a realm would look like, let alone a plausible explanation for how and when that realm connects to ours. Therefore I think I'm justified in quickly dismissing claims that a supernatural reality exists, at least provisionally.
Mar 16 2012: Nicely put, Simon.Mar 16 2012: R H,
Your response attacks a misrepresentation of my position(s), and it is therefore irrelevant.
"When did we get so grand that we thought our little selves on this pathetically tiny microdot of a dust ball in an oscure postiion in the universe can see its totality (might I add 'the known universe')?"—Where do I say that we can?
"We've just begun to have confidence in scientific method within the last few hundred years. Yet we're 'there'? We 'get it' now?"—Where do I say that we do?
"We can discount intuition, experience, sensitivity which we have yet to fully explore."—Where do I say that "we can discount intuition, experience, sensitivity"?
"We discount through our self-importance and mutually agreed upon groupthink and prove we are correct to each other."—Argument ad hominem.
"We like to be 'right' so we can destroy our 'opponent' rather than take in humility that which we can offer to each other for the betterment of all."—Argument ad hominem.
"There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist."—Where did I make this argument?Mar 16 2012: Devin,
For some odd reason it won't let me reply to your response to me (where you lay down the Kalam cosmological argument). What's up with that?
There are lots of issues with the KCA. First, I reject premise 2. There may be "other universes" (I question the semantics when physicists speak of "multiverses") beyond what we call our universe; that which came into existence after the Big Bang. What is beyond "our universe" is unknowable to us, and we don't know if it came into existence or if it has always been here. Second, why is the belief in a creator more plausible than, say, an infinite regress? Third, I'm not certain how you infer from a timeless cause producing a temporal effect that that which did the causing is therefore personal. Fourth, if this creator is timeless, then doesn't that mean it is unchanging (assuming that time is change)? And if it's unchanging, how can it produce a temporal effect? Producing something, after all, implies change. Fifth, I'm not sure I understand your criticism of Hume's view of miracles. Could you rephrase? Lastly, regarding your remark of Haidt excluding a supernatural explanation, let me see if I can provide an example. Recently I watched a video of James Randi about how he exposed Uri Geller. Geller claimed that he could bend spoons and Randi was able to replicate the act himself without paranormal means; e.g., he could produce the same results naturally. Now, as Randi himself stated, this doesn't prove definitively that Geller isn't bending spoons via paranormal means, but since we have no evidence for the paranormal and all of the evidence points towards a natural explanation, is it not more rational to accept the natural justification over the paranormal one? If there was compelling evidence of a supernatural realm and its influence on the natural (would it still be supernatural?), I'm sure Haidt would take such an explanation into account, but as things stand there is no such evidence.
Mar 16 2012: Dear Paul, thank you! Just going over your list then...
1) There has not been a single cosmological theory that has been able to successfully restore an infinite past. In 2003, three physicists Alan Guth, Arvin Borde, and Alexander Vilenkin, showed that ANY universe that has been on average expanding cannot be eternal in the past, but must have had an absolute beginning. This holds true even when General Relativity breaks down in the early split second of the universe.
2) Philosophers have closed the door on the possibility of an infinite regress. They're impossible for two reasons. First, the existence of an actually infinite amount of things leads to absurdities, showing that it's nothing more than an idea in our minds, not something that accords with reality. Second, you can't get to an actual infinite through a regress, because before you can even get started, you need an event before it, and then one before it, and so and so forth. This is known as the impossibility of traversing the infinite.
3) Please see my comments above.
4) That's a good point. I'll have to think about that. :)
5) Hume argued we can't rationally believe a miracle occurred, because to say you think an event occurred is to say that's the most probable event, but since miracles are (on his definition) the most intrinsically improbable event, you can't affirm them as the most probable. Thus you can never identify a miracle as what probably occurred. The problem in that reasoning is that it only considers the intrinsic improbability of a miracle occuring without considering the probability you would have the evidence for it, if it did not occur (which may be even MORE improbable).
6) I do think we should prefer a natural explanation before moving to a supernatural one. It's only when all natural explanations fail that we should consider if there might be a supernatural one. But given the subject of Haidt's inquiry, he might consider if the people DID experience the supernatural.Mar 15 2012: I think we should ask, whether being able to have religious experiences provides us with any evolutionary benefit. Or in other words: assuming religious experience suddenly disappears, would that alter in any way how our race evolves and adapts ? Would it in any way change our chance of survival as a race ?
Mar 15 2012: Yeah that makes sense. My trouble with that perspective though is it puts the primary subject of inquiry on "what will help us best survive?" My question is a fundamentally different one, "what is life truly about?" If there's something more to life than just what our senses tell us, that truth is going to be deeper than we've ever imagined. And if such a reality exists, there's no way I want to focus on the earthly question at the expense of the spiritual one. Just my thoughts though. :)
Mar 15 2012: Well, one thing is sure, reality is much more complex than what we can detect with our 5 senses, even without invoking the concept of "spiritual".
Now to the question of "What is life truly about ?": Did you ever consider that there doesn't really have to be a purpose to life's existence ? If we ask the question about life's purpose, we could as well ask about the purpose of the whole universe. Why does the universe exist ?
By the way, what do you consider "spiritual questions" and why do you think they could be important in your day to day life ?
Mar 16 2012: Certainly it could be that there's no purpose to life, but it's at least worth investigating. In my experience I've found life makes the most sense when lived in communion with the Lord.
Moreover, my relationship with God impacts my day-to-day life in every way. Indeed, with Him, no circumstances in life can take away my joy, and the blessing of a clean conscience, knowing I'm forgiven of all everything I've done wrong, is worth more than I could pay.Mar 19 2012: Fair enough Devin, but plenty of people do or have found meaning in life with other gods, or buddhism, or no gods or supernatural constructs.
Up until 1700 years ago Judaism or Christianity was only known to a very small part of the worlds population. People elsewhere have managed to find or invent meaning since we had the brain to contemplate the question.Mar 16 2012: You see Devin, I'm perfectly happy with my life without any reliance on the supernatural. I can't even imagine where faith in a God could add any value.
I always think that religion is like crutches for some people. It's just a tool to confront and deal better with life's challenges. Some people seem to need this tool and others do not, but at the end, as long as someone's faith doesn't hurt anybody, I don't really care what he believes.
Mar 16 2012: Right. I'm of the opinion that the universe didn't just pop into being out of nowhere, but that there must be a cause behind it. Moreover, when I look at the properties that this cause must have, I'm led to the traditional understanding of a Theistic God.
Then I reflect on something. I believe that morality is real. Some things are really right and really wrong. But where do right and wrong come from? If they're merely social constructs, then what's "right" and "wrong" can drastically change. Perhaps one day the holocaust would be right (if everyone alive in the world believed so). But if in fact the holocaust was wrong, independent of what everyone thinks, then how is that? Indeed, it would need to be grounded in a transcendent Person who IS good.
Then I go one step further. Will people ultimately be held accountable for their actions? I believe so. The evidence for a transcendent and morally perfect Creator leads me to believe that our lives DO have significance and value, and that we all will give an account of our lives once we die. That's what Jesus taught. And the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is actually quite good. So I put my faith in Jesus, in reason, and empirical experience. The conclusion of those three is what makes me, unashamedly, a sincere Christian. :)Mar 16 2012: "You see Devin, I'm perfectly happy with my life without any reliance on the supernatural."
I'm glad that you're "perfectly happy" with your life, as you should be, but to say that you live your life "without reliance on the supernatural," if you mean by the "supernatural" God, then you don't understand who God is.
Among other things, God is Life, God is Mind, and God is Consciousness. As such, you cannot not rely on God, and you most certainly believe in Him.
True, religion is a "tool' of a sort, establishing a direct, conscious, and deliberate way with which to engage God and to use God.
Because God is Life, Mind, and Consciousness, we all use Her as "a tool to confront and deal better with life's challenges," it's just that some of us are doing it indirectly, unconsciously, and unwittingly, while some are doing it deliberately.
Further, life has a purpose, as God has a purpose for Life. To think otherwise is to say that God is a purposeless God, which, even for non-believers, would seem out of line with the notion of a God.
Not only is it impossible not to use God, it's just as impossible not to believe in Her. If we believe in us, we believe in God.
Just as we cannot not use God, cannot not believe in God, we cannot not be about God's business, as that too would seem out of line with the notion we have of God as almighty, and all-knowing.
Our God Purpose: We're here on planet earth to experience. Think about it, what do we live and die to do (literally at times), whether vicariously or by active participation? If you say to experience, then you have answered the 64 thousand dollar question, whether adjusted for inflation or not.
We humans came from the absolute (where all things are One Thing) to the realm of the relative (where most things are measured by their opposites) for the purpose of knowing ourselves through our experiences. We can know ourselves as good, but until we do something good, and experience that, we are merely speculatingMar 19 2012: Devin, you are of the opinion that the universe didn't just pop into being out of nowhere, but that there must be a cause behind it.
Then you jump on the tired old theistic view around the cause not needing a cause through the usual mental gymnastics. Something out side and space, time, matter and energy yet able to manipulate these.
"the cause must be ...." this is such a nonsense argument, with no basis. You jump on one of an infinite number of causes, more than we can imagine.
The argument seems so obviously about justifying a belief rather than explaining what we don't understand.
If you allow for your view of god outside time and space etc then there are millions of other arguments or explanations possible. Multiple universes etc. And also infinite variants of what a first cause might be.
And then the jump to your cultural god being the first cause, not any other is almost ridiculous.


text:
Biochemistry at the 2013 Sackler Relays
Biochemistry Program Guide
Biochemistry students spend their first nine months of graduate school enrolled in the Integrated Studies Program (ISP), which coordinates both admissions and the academic program for students interested in the Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Physiology, or Cell, Molecular and Developmental Biology. Thus, students interact with and learn from faculty with broad interests in the biomedical sciences before they choose a specific Program in June of the first year.
During the first two semesters, students participate in required courses and are introduced to graduate research through four laboratory rotations, which exposes them to cutting edge techniques and potential thesis mentors. Early in the second semester of the second year of graduate school, after the students have been working in their mentor's laboratory for 8 months, they take a qualifying exam that consists of a written research proposal and on oral defense. The purpose of this exercise is to train, as much as it is to examine, a student in creating and testing scientific hypotheses.
Thesis research is then the principle focus of the student's remaining time in the program. However, additional important experiences occur during this period, such as teaching Biochemistry for one semester to study groups of medical students, leading Journal Clubs, and giving seminars on their progressing thesis research. Students are guided throughout their graduate years by a thesis mentor, three members of a thesis committee with which the student meets at least twice a year, and a Program student adviser.
Larry Feig, PhD
Program Director
Administrative Office
Jaharis 512
Phone: 617-636-6940
Fax: 617-636-2990
The Biochemistry Program and the Biochemistry Department are home to the Tufts NMR Center.
Graduation Information
Student Awards
Student Forms
Copyright © 2015 Tufts University


text:
Shutter Entry Locker
A thoughtful marriage of form and function, the Shutter Collection imparts much-needed order, be it in the entryway or playroom, media center or bedroom. All pieces are detailed with classic angled louvers and crown molding, lending timeless appeal.
- Bestows order in the mudroom or entryway
- Crafted of solid hardwood with premium veneers
- Crown molding and mortise-and-tenon joinery lend it the presence of a custom built-in
- Generously sized compartments hold hats, coats, boots, totes and leashes
- Deep drawers with angled louvers corral all sorts of miscellaneous gear
- Includes adjustable nylon levelers on feet
- Outfitted with cast-metal bin pull hardware
- Painted finish is lightly distressed to impart the warmth and patina of a vintage find
Shutter Entry Locker
- Entry Locker Overall: 54½"W x 22"D x 74"H
- Cubby Interior: 15"W x 11½"D x 57½"H
- Drawer Interior: 13"W x 17"D x 9"H
- Weight: 240 lbs.
Shutter Entry Locker


text:
Cloning Inserts into Plasmids
DNA Cloning Protocol
To clone you need the following:
Vector DNA or your plasmid constructVector DNA can be:
Vector or Plasmid DNA (which needs to be
To clone you need at least several micrograms (3-5 or more) of your vector DNA.
Insert DNA (DNA you want to insert into the plasmid or vector)
Insert DNA can be:
Oligonucleotide Insert (oligos with restriction cut half-sites annealed and phosphorylated with PNK)
Restriction Enzyme Generated Insert
PCR Insert (PCR with restriction enzyme cut sites (the whole site is needed!) in the 5' end of the primer)
If the Insert you want to clone is less than 60 bp, you can order oligonucleotides and anneal them together.
If your insert DNA size is small (less than 1000 bp), you do not theoretically need as much DNA as your vector. If your insert DNA size is tiny (10-200 bp), you need very little of this DNA theoretically.
In general you should have at least 1 microgram of starting insert DNA.
Preparing Vector DNA for Cloning : Mini-prep, Midi-prep, Maxi-prep
We found that the easiest way to prepare DNA is using a mini-prep kit (Qiagen). We use several columns for the same vector DNA construct.
For each column we add about 4 mL of LB grown bacteria (we add 2 mL of LB bacteria broth to a 2 mL eppendorf tube and spin twice = 2 X 2 mL = 4 mL)
Tip: Always grow about 5 mL of LB in 15 mL Falcon Tubes, keep the 1 mL as a glycerol bacteria stock frozen in the – 80 C freezer.
How to make a Glycerol Bacterial Stock for the – 80 C Freezer which will keep for Years (you will never have to streak plates or make competent cells again! – saves you time)
Simply add 50% glycerol to your bacterial growth LB. This does not have to be exact ie if you are left with about 1 mL of bacterial LB add about 500 uL of 100% glycerol and freeze in the – 80 C.
After eluting each column with about 50 uL of EB (elution buffer, Qiagen, Tris buffer – does NOT contain EDTA), we pool the eluates such that we have around 200 uL to 400 uL (or 4 – 8 columns per construct or vector). This is gives enough starting vector DNA for cloning.
Note: we found that the EDTA in TE inhibits subsequent restriction digestion of the eluted DNA from mini-prep and other plasmid purification kits.
Preparing Insert DNA for Cloning
Insert DNA must be
Restriction Enzyme Digestion and Cutting Your Plasmid Vector for DNA Cloning
Plasmid vector is usually cut.
Ligation of Insert and Vector
To Ligate Insert to Vector, use 200 ng of Vector as a guide (people use as little as 50 ng – N.E.B manual).
Insert ng = Vector ng
Insert size Vector size
Therefore to ligate a 500 bp insert into a 5000 bp vector you would need
Insert ng = 200 ng X 500
Insert ng = 20 ng of insert needed for a 1 : 1 ligation
For a insert 3 : 1 vector ligation you would need: 60 ng
X uL DNA vector 200 ng
Y uL Insert (calculated ng)
2 uL 10 X Buffer
1 uL T4 DNA Ligase NEB
to 20 uL H20
20 uL Total
Take 5 uL of Ligation and add to 100 uL of DH 5 alpha cells Invitrogen
(Subcloning efficiency ok, One Shot better, Max Efficiency best – for hard ligations but expensive).
Heat Shock
Add 250 uL of SOC to competent Cells
Plate ENTIRE amount on plate.
Grow overnite at 37 C display_block('dna_cloning_posts'); ?>


text:
Old Trafford
Barclays Premier League
(Attendance: 75,368)
Villa have made two changes for this afternoon's Barclays Premier League clash against Manchester United.
Marc Albrighton comes in for Karim El Ahmadi, who suffered a thigh strain in last weekend's 4-1 defeat against Stoke.
And Paul Lambert has given Ciaran Clark the nod ahead of Nathan Baker in Villa's back four.
Man United have made five changes from their midweek defeat to Manchester City.
Nemanja Vidic, Alexander Buttner, Shinji Kagawa, Ashley Young and Darren Fletcher all come in to the side.
The men who miss out are Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra, Tom Cleverley, Michael Carrick and Danny Welbeck.
VILLA: Guzan, Bacuna, Vlaar, Clark, Bertrand, Westwood, Delph, Albrighton, Weimann, Benteke, Agbonlahor. Subs: Steer, Sylla, Tonev, Holt, Bennett, Robinson, Lowton.
MAN UNITED: De Gea; Rafael, Jones, Vidic, Buttner; Young, Fellaini, Fletcher, Kagawa; Mata, Rooney. subs: Amos, Giggs, Chicharito, Carrick, Nani, Welbeck, Januzaj.
Access the matchday console now.


text:
We'll never post anything to Facebook without your permission
Already a member? Sign in here
Easily find the best price and availability from all major travel websites at once. We guarantee it.
Access over 5 million hotel deals from 1000s of travel sites.
Over 220 countries, over 40 languages and 120 currencies.
© 2015


text:
Hello there KoRn fans, Adam here from Dublin, Ireland. :) KoRn are my music world. Literally!
They are the band that really got me into metal/heavy music. So i've so much respect for them and what they do.
I've had the pleasure of seeing them live in concert multiple times, and meeting Jon, Fieldy, Munky, and Ray. My boys! :D
So if you're looking for a chat about all things KoRn. Look out for me! ;)
Become a member of my group on Facebook for updates on the band and more. http://www.facebook.com/groups/229146903860920/
Hey there people, KoRnBaKo here. I have a group on Facebook titled Я U Яeady?. In the group, i post all things KoRn related, old and new, as do the other members. Lately the discussion is all about the upcoming album, The Paradigm Shift. After hearing Never Never, and an awesome clip from Love & Meth, (Which is super heavy.) i am so excited to hear the album in it's...