text:
Political is a HTML template, this page is exactly that you need if you want to show information about a candidate campaign and it can be used for other websites related to politics. Even it can be used for other general purpose websites.
Political is not only a political theme also, you can use it for adapt it to your needs. It is easy to configurate, we can offer you a great support and doing easier your its use.
Examples of use:
- Responsive Layout
- Different Colors
- Based on Bootstrap 3.0
- 15 Html Pages
- Sending mail via php.
- Unique Design
- Well Documented
- Easy Custom
- Excellent support
Demo Images
if you have any question or you need support , please post your questions or suggestions in item's discussion board or email us at email@example.com
We usually get back within 24 hours . We try to give our customers the best support posiible . Please if you need any help , let us know.


text: When out-of-towners plan a visit, you have two things to say: "Summer is winter" and "You can totally crash at my place!"Save your relationships and send couch surfers to the Inn at the Presidio, opening Tuesday (but currently taking reservations).Thank the Presidio Trust for restoring the former bachelor officer's quarters into LEED Gold Certified applicant, luxury accommodations. Two-room suites (17 of the 22 rooms available) sleep four; have in-room fireplaces; and overlook the Golden Gate Bridge, Presidio woods, or handsome Funston Avenue. Most access the rocking chair-bedecked veranda.Spacious rooms retain original details (doors, crown molding, windows that actually open); historic Presidio memorabilia and locational photographs add character; amenities are top-notch (plush towels, triple-layered down beds).Rise to European breakfast and retire with wine and cheese during the nightly fireside reception on the back patio (both are free).The thanks you'll get?Priceless.Inn at the Presidio, 42 Moraga Avenue, at Funston Avenue (415-800-7356 or innatthepresidio.com), $195-$350 per night.Photo: Courtesy of Inn at the Presidio

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Stephenie Overman, contributor
FORTUNE -- Occasionally, in this era of gloomy nest egg prospects, Dallas Salisbury gets to be the bearer of good news and point out retirement benefits that people have overlooked.
"I had lunch with somebody who has worked for a large company for 21 years who was unaware that his company has a defined benefit plan," says Salisbury, who is the president and CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).
While many people are familiar with their 401(k) plans, they know next to nothing about the more traditional type of pension plan.
A 401(k) is a type of defined retirement contribution plan, financed with planned payments from the worker, the employer, or both. About 82.5 million Americans participate in private sector defined contribution plans, according to EBRI.
Defined benefit plans typically are financed entirely by the employer, with the benefit based on a formula involving salary and length of employment. Although the number of companies offering defined plans has dropped dramatically since the mid 1980s, about 42.3 million still participate in this type of retirement plan. More
|Regulators pave way for Internet "fast lane" with net neutrality rules
|What stumps Warren Buffett? Minimum wage
|Analysts offer no apologies for missing Apple's Q2 2014 earnings beat
|Facebook profit triples on mobile growth
|Apple reports its quarterly earnings for fiscal Q2 2014


text:
Young Earth creationism
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[4][5] Young Earth creationists differ from other creationists in that they believe in a strict-literal interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of the Earth. This contrasts with Old Earth Creationists, who believe that the Book of Genesis may be interpreted metaphorically and who accept the scientifically determined age of Earth and the universe.[6]
Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists starting with Henry M. Morris have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation.[7] Young Earth creationism is contradicted by scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines that shows the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, and life first appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago.[8][9][10][11]
Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the young Earth view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.[12] A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.[13]
- 1 History
- 2 Characteristics and beliefs
- 3 Compared to other forms of creationism
- 4 Criticism
- 5 Adhering church bodies
- 6 See also
- 7 Notes
- 8 References
- 9 External links
A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity, or at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BC, with later additions made by the priestly source.[14]
The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC, while the later Seder Olam Zutta (804 AD) dates it to 4339 BC.[15] The Hebrew Calendar ascribed to Hillel II has traditionally since the 4th century AD dated creation to 3761 BC.[16][17][18][19][20]
Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[4] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[21]
Calculations based on the Septuagint have traditionally dated creation to around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah produces a date around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic a date around 4000 BC.[22] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[23][24][25] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC, while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[26][27] Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.[28]
After the Masoretic text was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support.[29] Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century – 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Sørensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC).[22][25][30][31][31][32]
Among the Masoretic creation estimates or calculations for the date of creation Ussher's specific chronology dating the creation to 4004 BC became the most accepted and popular, mainly because this specific date was attached to the King James Bible.[33] The youngest ever recorded date of creation within young Earth creationism is 3616 BC, by Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller in the 17th century.[34] The oldest traditional proposed date within young Earth creationism is 6984 BC by Alfonso X of Castile.[15] However some contemporary or more recent proponents of young Earth creationism have taken this figure back further by several thousands of years by proposing significant gaps in the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 of the Book of Genesis which are used by young-earth creationists in their calculations. Harold Camping for example dates the creation to 11,013 BC, while Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in the 19th century dated the creation to 20,000 BC.[35]
Despite a long history of Christianity and Judaism with young Earth creationism, a number of prominent early Church Fathers and Christian writers, including Origen and Augustine, did not believe that the Genesis creation narrative depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true,[24] though they still thought of the Earth as something that was relatively new, made in the last 10,000 years. Several early Jews also followed an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, including most notably Philo (On the Creation, III.13).[36]
The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[37][38] and Martin Luther,[39] and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.[40]
Young Earth creationism remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era, including Shakespeare:
...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.[41]
Support for a young Earth declined from the 18th century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, and scientific paradigm shifts. Findings in geology led to a number of explanations that required an ancient Earth, such as Abraham Gottlob Werner's Neptunism. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, he maintained that the Earth was infinitely old. Hutton stated that
the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.[42]
Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. While his ideas of Plutonism were hotly contested, scientific inquiries on competing ideas of catastrophism pushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years – still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.[43]
Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism or gradualism, were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy and rhetoric of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. By this time, the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists had abandoned their earlier ideas of catastrophism related to a Biblical flood and confined their explanations to local floods. By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis.
John H. Mears was one such scholar who proposed several theories varying from a mix of long/indefinite periods with moments of creation to a day-age theory of indefinite 'days'. He subscribed to the latter theory (indefinite days) and found support from the side of James Dwight Dana, Professor at Yale and one of the fathers of Mineralogy who wrote a paper consisting of four articles named 'Science and the Bible' on the topic.[44] With the acceptance by many biblical scholars of a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in the light of the breakthrough results of Lyell, and supported by a number of renowned (Christian) scientific scholars, a new hurdle was taken in the future acceptance of Developmentalism (based on Darwin's Natural selection).[45]
The decline of support for a Biblically literal young Earth during the 19th century was opposed by first the scriptural geologists[46] and then by the founders of the Victoria Institute.[47]
Efforts for Revival[edit]
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[48] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[49] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[50] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).[51]
In the 1950s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, and other scientists,[52] Ramm influenced Christian organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.
Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[53]
This became the foundation of a new generation of young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes:
... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century.[54]
Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages. The revival of young Earth creationism has, on occasion, impacted science education in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching YEC doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy) alongside the theory of evolution.
Young earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus. A joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies lists as scientific facts that: (a) the universe is between 11 and 15 billion years old while the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual change; (b) life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve. These facts have never been contradicted by scientific evidence and have been independently established by many different scientific disciplines including paleontology, and the modern biological and biochemical sciences which continue to confirm the evolution of life from a common primordial origin with increasing precision.[8]
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[55][56][57][58][59] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[60] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[61] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[62][63]
Young Earth creationists have claimed that the lack of support for their beliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals or among professional science organizations. However, in the 1981 case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and the judge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought".[9] Creationists have, in turn, been accused of failing to submit articles to reputable journals with a 1985 study finding that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions advocated creationism.[64][65]
Young Earth creationism has also failed to make an impact in less literalist circles of Christianity. Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches, accept the possibility of theistic evolution; but, despite this, some individual church members support young Earth creationism.[66]
Adherence to young Earth creationism in the U.S. has been found to be the highest in the Western world.[69][70] A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of Americans say the Bible is the actual word of God and should be interpreted literally, a statistic which has fallen slightly from the late 1970s. The majority view is that the Bible is the inspired word of God except among highly religious Americans or those with less formal education: 54% of those who attend church weekly and 46% of those with a High School education or less take the Bible literally.[13]
A 2012 Gallup survey reports that 46% of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, a statistic which has remained essentially the same since 1982; for those with a postgraduate education, only 25% believe in the creationist viewpoint. About one third of Americans believe that humans evolved with God's guidance and 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.[71] Other Western nations with similar or more extensive public educational infrastructure and scientific institutions generally demonstrate a significantly higher acceptance of evolutionary theory than that found in the U.S., and thus are much less likely overall to hold creationist views.
Characteristics and beliefs[edit]
View of the Bible[edit]
Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. As Henry Morris, a leading young Earth creationist, explained it, "Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster."[72][73] According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all."[72] Young Earth creationists consider the account of creation given in Genesis to be a factual record of the origin of the Earth and life, and that Bible-believing Christians must therefore regard Genesis 1–11 as historically accurate.
Interpretation of Genesis[edit]
Young Earth creationists interpret the text of Genesis as strictly literal. For the majority of young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis creation narrative, the Fall of Man, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they believe that God created the world in six normal-length days, and planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of an original human couple (Adam and Eve). As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, and physical death entered the world.
The genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to the genealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age. Old Earth Creationists tend to interpret the genealogies as incomplete, and usually interpret the days of Genesis 1 figuratively as long periods of time.
Young Earth creationists believe that the flood described in Genesis 6–9 did occur, was global in extent, and submerged the highest mountains on Earth. The pseudoscientific endeavour of flood geology has been developed to suggest mechanisms that could permit this. Early ideas were that an orbiting vapor canopy collapsed, generating extreme rainfall. More recently, it has been proposed that the rapid movement of tectonic plates was responsible for the flood.[74]
Age of the Earth[edit]
Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old.[75] This depends on a literal interpretation of the internal chronology of the Bible and conflicts with the measured age of 4.54 billion years using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. While there is evidence for some variation in decay rates under certain special conditions,[76][77][78] these variations are too small to measurably affect the results of radiometric dating.[79][80] Further, radioisotope-derived ages have been verified many times using both independent and different radiometric methods, and by consistency with a number of non-radiometric dating methods.[81] Scientists also point to serious flaws in the RATE study of radioisotope dating undertaken by a team of young Earth creationists.[82][83][84]
Attitude towards science[edit]
Young Earth creationism is characterized as opposing the theory of evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics[85] and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology,[85] astronomy,[86] cosmology,[86] paleontology,[87] molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others. Young Earth creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which deviates from their literal reading of the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some young Earth creationists to criticize intelligent design, a proposal generally viewed as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer.
Young Earth creationists challenge the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which they conflate with philosophical naturalism, and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the scientific community. Instead, they assert that available physical evidence best supports original catastrophism and a young Earth. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.
Human history[edit]
Young Earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the universal ancestors of the entire human race; accordingly it is usually held that their sons and daughters married among themselves to produce the next generation of children.[88] Noah's flood is supposed to have killed all humans on Earth with the exception of Noah and his sons and their wives. All humans alive today are therefore believed to be descended from this single family, which carried the gene pool for the entire human race.[89] In contradiction to the facts of human history and prehistory, creationists assert that native Americans, Australian aborigines and all other races arose from the migration of people around the world following the Tower of Babel event in the 3rd millennium BC.[90][91]
Genesis states that, after the flood, the human lifespan dropped from around 900 years at the time of Noah to around 175 by the time of Abraham. Some young Earth creationists have suggested that this was due to the effects of inbreeding as only eight people survived the flood,[92][better source needed] while others claim that genetic and environmental changes are responsible.[93][94]
Diversification of life[edit]
Young Earth creationists believe that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Many young Earth creationists believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection.[95] The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based on hypothesized sunken land bridges or glacier ice bridges[96][97][98][99] (which formed during a subsequent ice age) between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel.
Paleontology and dinosaurs[edit]
Young Earth creationists are opposed to the evidence that the stratigraphic sequence of fossils proves the Earth is billions of years old. In his Illogical Geology, expanded in 1913 as The Fundamentals of Geology, George McCready Price argued that the out-of-order sequence of fossils attributed to thrust faults actually made it impossible to prove that one fossil was older than another. His "law" that fossils could be found in any order meant that strata could not be dated sequentially, removing the strongest evidence for evolution and instead fitting with the idea that they could all have been buried at the same time in a universal deluge, which he called "flood geology". In numerous books and articles he promoted this concept, focusing his attack on the sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis."[100]
In The Genesis Flood of 1961, Henry M. Morris reiterated Price's arguments, and wrote that because there had been no death before the Fall of Man, he felt "compelled to date all the rock strata which contain fossils of once-living creatures as subsequent to Adam's fall", attributing most to the flood. He added the "bombshell" that humans and dinosaurs had lived together, quoting Clifford L. Burdick for the report that dinosaur tracks had supposedly been found overlapping a human track in the Paluxy River bed Glen Rose Formation. He was subsequently advised that he might have been misled, and Burdick wrote to Morris in September 1962 that "you kind of stuck your neck out in publishing those Glen Rose tracks." In the third printing of the book this section was removed.[101]
The term "dinosaur" was first used by Richard Owen in 1842. As it is a modern coinage derived from Greek, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced [tanˈnin]) has been interpreted as referring to them by some Christians.[102] In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as "sea monster" or "serpent", but it is usually translated as "dragon". These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15–24) that "moves his tail like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree, creationists often identify the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs. Some of these creationists refer to "behemoth" specifically as Brachiosaurus, since the Bible says in Job, "He is the chief of the ways of God", meaning he is the largest animal God created.[102] Biologist Michael Bright suggests that the reference to the cedar tree actually refers to the brush-like shape of its branches, which resemble the tails of modern elephants and hippopotamuses.[103] Other critics contend that the word "tail" is a euphemism for the animal's penis, and that the passage should be understood as describing its virility.[104][105]
The Leviathan is another creature referred to in the Bible's Old Testament; some creationists argue that it is described as having a variety of what today would be called dinosaur, dragon, and water-serpent-like characteristics. Some scholars identify the Leviathan in Job c. 41 with the Nile crocodile, or point out that it has seven heads and is purely mythical. As with the behemoth, creationists have sometimes tried to connect the Leviathan with dinosaurs.[106]
Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[107] Usually, they claim that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the Great Flood. Most believe that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in the ark,[108] and that they gradually became extinct as a result of a vastly different post-flood environment. The Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs coexisting before the Flood. The California roadside attraction Cabazon Dinosaurs describes dinosaurs as being created the same day as Adam and Eve.[109] The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, has a "hyperbaric biosphere" intended to reproduce the atmospheric conditions before the Flood which could grow dinosaurs. The proprietor Carl Baugh says that these conditions made creatures grow larger and live longer, so that humans of that time were giants.[110]
Some creationists say that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures, such as plesiosaurs), may still survive in isolated spots (see living dinosaur (cryptozoology)), accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[111] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[112][undue weight? ] Young Earth creationists occasionally claim that dinosaurs survived in Australia, and that Aboriginal legends of reptilian monsters are evidence of this,[113] referring to what is known as Megalania (Varanus priscus). However, Megalania was a gigantic monitor lizard, and not a dinosaur, as its discoverer, Richard Owen, realized that the skeletal remains were that of a lizard, and not an archosaur.
Compared to other forms of creationism[edit]
Old Earth creationism[edit]
Young Earth creationists reject Old Earth creationism and Day-Age creationism on textual and theological grounds. In addition, they claim that the scientific data in geology and astronomy point to a young Earth, against the consensus of the general scientific community.
Young Earth creationists generally hold that, when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time; but argue that, whenever the latter interpretation is used, it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20).[114]
Gap creationism[edit]
The "gap theory" acknowledges a vast age for the universe, including the Earth and solar system, while asserting that life was created recently in six 24-hour days by divine fiat. Genesis 1 is thus interpreted literally, with an indefinite "gap" of time inserted between the first two verses. (Some gap theorists insert a "primordial creation" and Lucifer's rebellion into the gap.)
Most young Earth creationist organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms.[115][116] YECs assert that the entire universe is only thousands of years old.
Omphalos hypothesis[edit]
Many young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the "Omphalos hypothesis", today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the naturalist and science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Omphalos was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. Gosse proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. The Omphalos hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. Although both logically unassailable and consistent with a literal reading of Scripture, Omphalos was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied to them a deceitful God, which they found theologically unacceptable.
Today, most young Earth creationists argue that Adam did not have a navel,[117] and, in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but that the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still used in young Earth creationist literature.[118][119][120]
Lack of scientific acceptance[edit]
Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[121] Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young Earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll, 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process, a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.[122] Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have had time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models, such as Time dilation, to explain why we see distant starlight.
Against the young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that, while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now, it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians and philosophers.[123]
Christian young Earth creationists adhere strongly to a concept of biblical inerrancy, which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and "infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."[124]
Young Earth creationists have suggested that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are, in fact, religious believers, and that major religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England, believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by young Earth creationism. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.[125] They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and ecotheologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.[126]
Proponents of young Earth creationism are regularly accused of quote mining, the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims, while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.[127]
Few theologians take the Genesis account of creation literally. Although Christian evangelicals largely reject the notion of purely naturalistic Darwinian evolution, most treat it as a nonliteral saga, as poetry, or as liturgical literature.[128]
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in the first chapter of Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the Priestly source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy), while Genesis 2 was assembled from older Jahwist material, holding that, for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in the King James Version and New International Version[129]).
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that, where scientific or historic questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled The Gift of Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."[130][131] By contrast, young Earth Creationists contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.[132]
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).[133]
Adhering church bodies[edit]
- Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church[134]
- Lutheran Church Missouri Synod[135]
- Seventh-day Adventist Church[136]
See also[edit]
- 7 Wonders Museum
- Answers in Genesis
- Antediluvian
- Biblical cosmology
- Cosmogony
- Cosmological argument
- Creator deity
- Geoscience Research Institute
- Higher criticism
- History of creationism
- International Conference on Creationism
- List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy
- Rapid-decay theory
- Sons of Noah
- Theism
- Timeline of the Big Bang
- ^ Scott, Eugenie C. (with forward by Niles Eldredge) (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ Numbers 2006, p. 11
- ^ Freundel, Barry (2004) [2004], "26, Evolution and Life on Other Planets", Contemporary Orthodox Judaism's response to modernity, Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, p. 242, ISBN 0-88125-778-8 Freundel writes: while it is true that some important Jewish thinkers take a creationist approach-"it all began in six days of twenty-four hours"-many do not.
- ^ a b James-Griffiths, P. "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition". Creation 26 (2): 53–55. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 10–11
- ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
- ^ http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience
- ^ a b "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Retrieved 2010-12-23.
- ^ a b Overton, William R. (5 January 1982). "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education". McLean v. Arkansas. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
- ^ Planck Collaboration (2013). "Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results". arXiv:1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO].
- ^ Bennett, C.L.; et al. (2013). "Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results". arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO].
- ^ "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design". Gallup. May 2012.
- ^ a b Jones, Jeffrey M. (July 8, 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally". Gallup.
- ^ Gnuse, Robert. "The Elohist: A 7th-Century bce Theological Tradition". Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture (Sage) 42 (2): 59–69. doi:10.1177/0146107912441303. Retrieved April 2014.
- ^ a b Young's Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, 1879, 8th Edition, 1939—entry under 'Creation', quoting Dr. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, Vol. 1, 1830, p. 210
- ^ Dimont, Max I. (1996). Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People. Behrman House Publishing. pp. IX. ISBN 0-87441-391-5.
- ^ Dosick, Wayne D. (1995). Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish beliefs, tradition, and practice. San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco. p. 119. ISBN 0-06-062119-2.
- ^ Bridger, David; Wolk, Samuel (1976). The New Jewish encyclopedia. New York: Behrman House. p. 91. ISBN 0-87441-120-3.
- ^ "Definition of Jewish Calendar from". dictionary.net. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ "The Jewish Calendar and Biblical Authority". Askelm.com. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ Cherry, S (2006). "Crisis management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis". In Cantor, Geoffrey; Swetlitz, Marc. Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-09277-5.
- ^ a b Dr. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, vol. 1, 1830, pp. 210–215
- ^ A Collation of the Sacred Scriptures, Charles Roger Dundee, 1847, p. 20.
- ^ a b "Creationism and the Early Church – Chapter 3". Robibrad.demon.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ a b Chronology of the Old Testament, Floyd Nolen Jones, Master Books, 15th edition (April 2005), p. 26.
- ^ "Byzantine Creation Era". OrthodoxWiki. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ "Creation And Catastrophe Chronology". Ldolphin.org. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ The Reckoning of Time, Wallis, Faith, trans, pp. xxx, 405–415.
- ^ A Collation of the Sacred Scriptures, Charles Roger Dundee, 1847, pp. 10–24.
- ^ "Babylonian, Jewish, Muslim, Luni-Solar, Indian, Iranian Calendars". Friesian.com. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ a b "The Biblical Date for Creation". Skeptically.org. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ Batten, Don. "Old-earth or young-earth belief". Creation (Creation.com). unknown (unknown). Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ "Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation: October 23, 4004 B.C". Law2.umkc.edu. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ Dr. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, vol. 1, 1830, pp. 210–215.
- ^ Epoch of Creation according to various authorities in Pre-Adamites by Walter Winchell, 1880
- ^ "Philo's writings". Archived from the original on 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ Calvin, John (1554). Genesis. ISBN 0-8204-3992-4. "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works."
- ^ Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. ISBN 0-87552-182-7. Retrieved 17 December 2010. "Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world."
- ^ Luther, Martin (1958). Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. Luther's Works vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5. Fortress Press. "...the Decalog(Ex. 20:11) and the entire Scripture bear witness that in six days God made heaven and earth and everything in them. (pg. 6)"; "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. (pg. 3)"
- ^ Young & Stearley 2008, pp. 44–46
- ^ Shakespeare's (1599) line given to Rosalind addressing Orlando in As you like it (IV, 1:90) was an unquestioned truth in the sixteenth century.
- ^ 'Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, second edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.
- ^ Theory of the Earth full text (1788 version)
- ^ Dana, Phd. Professor at Yale, James Dwight (1856–1857). Science and the Bible, a review of and the six days of creation of Prof. Lewis Taylor. Bibl. Soc. URL: Prof. James Dwight Dana, Science and the Bible, online version
- ^ "Bible.org, Darwinism and New England Theology". 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-08.
- ^ The Great Devonian Controversy, Martin J. S. Rudwick, 1988, ISBN 0-226-73102-2, pp 42–44
- ^ McNatt, Jerrold L. (September 2004). "James Clerk Maxwell's Refusal to Join the Victoria Institute". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (American Scientific Affiliation) 56 (3): 204–215.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 51–68
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 88–119
- ^ Marston, P & Forster, R (2001). Reason Science and Faith. Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1-57910-661-4.
- ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 76–87
- ^ Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians. Asa3.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87552-338-5
- ^ (Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).
- ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula (scienceblogs.com). Retrieved 2006-11-18.
- ^ The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
- ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
- ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
- ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522
- ^ As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23
- ^ Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
- ^ Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
- ^ Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997
- ^ Isaak, Mark (2005). "CA325: Creationists publishing". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
- ^ Isaak, Mark (2004). "CA320: Scientists challenging established dogma". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
- ^ Philip Porvaznik. "Dialogue on Evolution versus Creationism". Catholic Apologetics International. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
- ^ Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7.
- ^ Jeff Hecht (19 August 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X.
- ^ Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7.
- ^ Jeff Hecht (19 August 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X.
- ^ Newport, Frank (June 1, 2012). "In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.
- ^ a b Morris, HM (2000). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-291-3.
- ^ Morris, HM (2000). Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation & the Flood. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-293-7.
- ^ John Baumgardner (2002), "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood", Journal of creation
- ^ "Evidence for a young Earth". 2006. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ Bosch; Faestermann, T; Friese, J; Heine, F; Kienle, P; Wefers, E; Zeitelhack, K; Beckert, K et al. (1996). "Observation of bound-state β– decay of fully ionized 187Re:187Re-187Os Cosmochronometry". Physical Review Letters 77 (26): 5190–5193. Bibcode:1996PhRvL..77.5190B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190. PMID 10062738.
- ^ Wang, B.; et al. (2006). "Change of the 7Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments". Euro. Phys. J. A 28 (3): 375–377. Bibcode:2006EPJA...28..375W. doi:10.1140/epja/i2006-10068-x.
- ^ Stober, Dan (23 August 2010). "The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements". Stanford University. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ "Claim CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates". TalkOrigins. 4 June 2003. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ "Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors". U.S. Department of Energy. November 2004. Archived from the original on 2 July 2008. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ "Claim CD010: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results". TalkOrigins Archive. 18 February 2001. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ Henke, K. R. (24 November 2005). "Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data". TalkOrigins. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ Meert, J. G. (6 February 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research". Gondwana Research. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ Wiens, R. C. (2002). "Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective". American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- ^ a b "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH210: Age of the Earth". 2004-10-02. Retrieved 2011-04-11.
- ^ a b "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH200: Age of the Universe". 2005-02-24. Retrieved 2011-04-11.
- ^ "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH200: Age of the Universe". 2003-06-13. Retrieved 2011-04-11. "...there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils."
- ^ Ken Ham, Dr Don Batten and Dr Carl Wieland, One Blood, Creation Ministries International
- ^ Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg (1998), The sixteen grandsons of Noah
- ^ Creation Ministries International, How long have Aborigines lived in Australia?
- ^ http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4082
- ^ Carl Wieland. Living for 900 years 20 (4). pp. 10–13.
- ^ Raúl Erlando López (2000), "Temporal changes in the ageing of biblical patriarchs", Journal of Creation
- ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/pat-robertson-creationism-earth-is-not-6000-years-old_n_2207275.html
- ^ http://www.nas.edu/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html
- ^ Morris, John D. "The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences". Icr.org. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ "NF1: Reading: The World After the Flood was Changed". Ncbible.info. 2010-12-07. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ "Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life". Nwcreation.net. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
- ^ http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (1993). The creationist. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 79–81. ISBN 0-520-08393-8.
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (1993). The creationist. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 0-520-08393-8.
- ^ a b "Dinosaurs and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity'. 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
- ^ Bright, Michael (2006). Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible. London: Robson. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1-86105-831-4.
- ^ Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-66165-9.
- ^ "CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur". Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Claim CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
- ^ Powell, Michael (2005-09-25). "In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground". The Washington Post.
- ^ "Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark: US museum". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- ^ Powers, Ashley. Los Angeles Times, August 27, 2005. "Adam, Eve and T. Rex: Giant roadside dinosaur attractions are used by a new breed of creationists as pulpits to spread their version of Earth's origins." Page 1,page 2,page 3,page 4,page 5. Retrieved on December 29, 2009.
- ^ "Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas", Roadside America.
"Creationism Alive and Kicking in Glen Rose", by Greg Beets, August 5, 2005, Austin Chronicle. Retrieved July 16, 2013.
- ^ Creation Science Evangelism – Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible[dead link]
- ^ Jerlström, Pierre; Elliott, Bev (November 1999). "Let rotting sharks lie". Journal of Creation 13 (2): 837–87. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
- ^ Driver, Rebecca. "Australia's Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?". Creation (Answers in Genesis) 21 (1). Retrieved 2007-03-14.
- ^ Russell Grigg. "How long were the days of Genesis 1?". Creation 19 (1): 23–25.
- ^ Henry M. Morris (December 1987). "The gap theory – an idea with holes?". Creation 10 (1): 35–37. Retrieved 2007-02-14.
- ^ Don Batten (June 2004). "'Soft' gap sophistry". Creation 26 (3): 44–47. Retrieved 2007-02-14.
- ^ Parker, Gary. (1996-06-01) Did Adam have a belly-button?. Creation 18:3 p6. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ Apologetics Press – Apparent Age. Apologeticspress.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ The Apparent Age Argument. Don-lindsay-archive.org (2 January 1999). Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ Appearance of Age – theology overview & web-links. Asa3.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ "History of Science: Early Modern Geology". Retrieved 2007-09-24.
- ^ "Gallup Poll 1997".
- ^ Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning?, by Robert Larmer.
- ^ "Foundational Principles". Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
- ^ [none] (1998). "Amazing admission". Creation 20 (3): 24.
- ^ See references and further information given at Objections to evolution, Atheism for support of this paragraph.
- ^ Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists. Talkorigins.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
- ^ Olson, Roger E. (2004). The Westminster handbook to evangelical theology (First ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 166. ISBN 0-664-22464-4.
- ^ "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." — KJV and "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." — NIV
- ^ Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (2005). The Gift of Scripture. Catholic Truth Society. ISBN 1-86082-323-8. Retrieved 2011-01-13.
- ^ Gledhill, Ruth (2005-10-05). "Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible". The Times (London).
- ^ Jonathan Sarfati. "But Genesis is not a science textbook". Creation 26 (4): 6.
- ^ Leeming, D.A.; Leeming, M.A. (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Paperbacks. ISBN 0-19-510275-4.
- ^ "Constitutional Documents of The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church, Article of Alliance, Affirmations No. 13". erpchurch.org. 2011. p. 3. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
- ^ "A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (Adopted 1932)". lcms.org. 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
- ^ "The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church, Fundamental Beliefs". adventist.org. 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
- Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.
- Young, Davis A.; Stearley, Ralph F. (2008). The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. ISBN 978-0-8308-2876-0.
External links[edit]
- White, Andrew Dickson (1896). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Two volumes. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company.
- National Center for Science Education. Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
- Berg, Randy S. "References for the Age of the Earth". Retrieved 2011-11-25.
- Articles from the UK


text:
Overall customer review score:
Return to Moose Racing Quick Coat Product Page
Reviews by real power sport enthusiasts...your opinion counts to us and fellow riders! Make the best purchasing decision by getting the latest reviews.
Each review submitted enters you into a $100 gift card monthly drawing, and a $500 gift card quarterly drawing!
Comments On Dec 29, 2013:packs well. keeps you warm and dry. doesn't breath very well though, so it only goes on occasionally.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Jul 17, 2013:I don't know How it handles water But it's good It's good for cold wether
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Jun 23, 2013:this is a good "quick" coat, easy to pack, and saves you from a cold ride home
good stuff, i wear a zip up padded evs dirt bike all in one protector jersey, i ordered a size bigger and i'm glad
go bigger than you think for comfort and more coverage, only used in MI, on the way home after it started raining, kept me dry and warm
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Feb 24, 2008:I returned this coat because it is cut so straight through the torso, you don't have the room to move.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Oct 29, 2007:Great LIGHTWEIGHT waterproof jacket for those unexpected thunderstorms. I always carry it with me in my back pack! Doesn't breathe, but for the price, I didn't expect it to. Bargain!
Was this review helpful?
Stay Connected!
© 2014 Rocky Mountain ATV, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use of any images, thumbnails, illustrations, descriptions, or editorial content without written permission is strictly prohibited. Prices are subject to change without notice.
See our street site JakeWilson.com for: Motorcycle Parts, Motorcycle Accessories, Motorcycle Tires, Motorcycle Helmets and more.
Take a look at our most popular areas: ATV parts | ATV Accessories | ATV Tires | Dirt Bike Parts | Dirt Bike Accessories | Dirt Bike Motocross Tires | Motocross Gear | Motorcycle Accessories | Motorcycle Exhaust | Motorcycle Helmets | Motorcycle Brakes.


text:
Please do not email me anymore, or post on my youtube, or send me inbox messages on any website affiliated with me.
(Farkas/a guy named "pat")
Im going to pre make the joke about inferring that you messaged me on a hentai website, so that when someone does say it, I do not find it funny. Or they can say it in spite of this text right here, and call that comedy in its own right, which i suppose is legitimate and therefor, possibly slightly funny.
Views: 200
yeah, i sent you a message alright........
All I want is the atnw song.
The only reason he's this offended is because everything is true.
am i the only person who doesn't care if he's a member of a hentai site? i mean, there are weirder things to be into...
i kind of liked his band


text:
"The Language of God" Book Club–Chapter 6
How should we interpret the Bible? What is the role of tradition? What is the role of science? Who gets to decide whether traditional interpretations need to change?
The Resource Finder has powerful filtering features — check out the tutorial to learn more.
How should we interpret the Bible? What is the role of tradition? What is the role of science? Who gets to decide whether traditional interpretations need to change?
"Being confronted with evolution may have been the catalyst for asking the difficult questions, but the real problem for me was not evolution – it was biblical literalism."
This is a transcript of an interview given by Dr. Jennifer Wiseman at The Faith Angle Forum Conference on Religion, Politics, & Public Life on November 5, 2013.
Once we recognize that no one takes the text literally, and that we have often failed to account for the details in the text regarding the time of day, we can begin anew to try to understand the text as an ancient text rather than as a modern one. As such, we must begin with the idea that the text operates in the world of omens, not the world of physics and astronomy.
This series, by Old Testament scholar Richard S. Hess, was first published as an appendix to Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2011).
Astronomers have many different methods for measuring the age of various objects in the universe, and they all support ages of billions of years, not thousands. Even if the assumptions of one or two methods were faulty, it is highly unlikely that all of the methods would be affected.
We need to hear stories from others who have wrestled with evolution and Christian faith. What arguments made them change their views on science? How did they hold fast to their relationship with God? The essays in this series will eventually comprise a book, provisionally titled, "Evolving: Evangelicals Reflect on Evolution."
So what then does Resurrection mean? For Benedict it represents a new dimension of reality breaking through into human experience. It is not a violation of the old; it is the manifestation of something new.
Over the next few months, with permission from Yale University Press, BioLogos will offer edited versions of chapters from John Polkinghorne's best books, Belief in God in an Age of Science and Theology in the Context of Science, in order to help readers delve more deeply into some of his most important ideas.
Although committed to the principle of sola Scriptura, Calvin recognized that the Bible would have been written in terms its original recipients would have understood. Calvin inherited the medieval cosmology of his time, a way of viewing the world heavily influenced by Greek thought and one which was about to receive shocks from astronomers such as Copernicus and Galileo. But not just yet.
The God who created the cosmos is the God who came to us as a child in Bethlehem.
In this excerpt from the book Delight in Creation: Scientists Share Their Work with the Church, astronomer Deborah Haarsma shares her excitement about recent findings about our universe from a Christian perspective.
"I flatter myself," Hume triumphantly proclaimed, "that I have discovered an argument . . . which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures."
In this talk, Professor Plantinga addresses the fact that many contemporary thinkers—including many theologians—believe that God cannot perform miracles, providentially guide history, or interact in the lives of people, as these activities would be contrary to science. Plantinga, on the other hand, makes the case that this popular view is mistaken; excluding divine action in the world is not a central feature of natural science itself, but a philosophical or theological preference that has been added on to science (and can just as readily be removed). Plantinga concludes that it is completely logical to accept the miracles of the Bible and support contemporary science.
Charles Darwin's personal struggles and ultimate rejection of Christianity are well documented, and people are eager to link his loss of faith to his evolutionary theory. David Lack, on the other hand, began his scientific career as an agnostic, but shortly after publishing his famous book on the evolution of "Darwin's finches", he converted to Christianity.
At a press conference on July 4, 2012, and with 99.99994% confidence (5 sigma), CERN announced the discovery of a particle consistent with that of a Higgs boson (a.k.a. "the God particle"). This is very exciting for elementary particle physicists. But what is the Higgs particle, and what is its meaning?
The discovery of the Higgs boson would certainly be a breakthrough for particle physics and cosmology, but would such a finding also radically redefine theology's understanding of God or challenge the existence of such a deity? Is there actually any theological or religious significance in Higgs physics at all?
Today we have a chance to witness a special moment in history as Venus transits across the disk of the Sun for people across the world to see. Not only is this process of discovery exciting for natural science, but it has profound theological ramifications as well.
I ask the question, "Why is the universe so special?" Now scientists don't like things to be special; we like things to be general, and our natural anticipation would have been that the universe is just a common specimen of what a universe might be like.
Does God need to supernaturally "intervene" in order to bring about the diversity of life that we observe today? Is that kind of action different from God's ordinary action? We begin our three-part series with Robert John Russell's description of how views of divine action have changed throughout history, excerpted from his book Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Part 2 addresses why "intervention" in the natural world is a problem philosophically, theologically, and scientifically; and Part 3 explains Russell's own theory of divine action in the natural world.


text:
VESTAL, N.Y. (Jan. 11, 2:35 p.m. ET) — National Pipe & Plastics Inc. is embarking on a $20 million plan to move into a new home and expand its PVC and high density polyethylene pipe offerings with bigger diameters. "It's probably three times the manufacturing space and the building is longer for coextrusion purposes," President David Culbertson said in a Jan. 9 telephone interview.
This in-depth report provides analysis and discussions of economic and political conditions, market trends, legislative/regulatory activity impacting supply and demand, business opportunities and threats, materials pricing, manufacturing technology, as well as strategies being implemented by thermoformed packaging companies. In addition, there are reviews of 25 leading thermoformers in the packaging segment, assessing their growth initiatives and performance metrics over 10 years.Learn more
This 75-page report features in-depth analysis of the automotive industry for the Americas. It includes discussions of market trends, legislative/regulatory activity impacting production and threats as well as design strategies being implemented by the major automakers. Detailed charts and data tables outline North American automotive production over the last five years.Learn more
This report provides in-depth analysis of the plastic building and construction market for North America, including discussions of trends, opportunities, threats and the latest developments in construction trends that impact plastics processors.Learn more
May 6, 2014 - May 8, 2014Plastics in Medical Devices 2014
May 12, 2014 - May 12, 2014Plastics News Brazil Pharma Summit
September 10, 2014 - September 12, 2014Plastics Caps & Closures 2014
February 3, 2015 - February 7, 2015Plastics News Executive Forum 2015More Events


text:
In July 2007, The International Association of Lions Clubs agreed to help the US Department of Health and Human Services disseminate information about pandemic influenza (flu) preparedness. The Association can work with health agencies in other countries to provide similar life-saving information.
Flu germs transfer through close personal contact such as shaking hands, sneezing, and the sharing of common surfaces including doorknobs and table tops. To minimize the spread of germs during a pandemic, minimize contact with others and follow these basic guidelines.
Lions can communicate this important influenza information via:
In addition, Lions can collect non-perishable food items, hygiene items, and non-prescription medications (see suggestions in the personal Lions ALERT plan below) for needy persons in the community.
Many communities already have pandemic influenza preparedness plans. If this is the case in your community, volunteer to help local government and healthcare officials prepare the public for this healthcare emergency.
In communities without pandemic flu preparedness plans, use the basic Lions ALERT plan format to develop a Lions ALERT pandemic flu preparedness plan.
Lions can share flu preparedness information through club, district, and multiple district bulletins and Web sites. E-mails provide another vehicle for disseminating information.
During a flu pandemic, Lions clubs may find it necessary to organize meetings via conference telephone calls and the Internet. This may also be necessary for Lions district and multiple district meetings and forums.
Good personal hygiene will help reduce the spread of flu germs. However, during a flu pandemic, the following preparations may be necessary.
Information about pandemic flu is available on the following Web sites:
For more information, please contact us.


text:
I have been working at PetSmart part-time for less than a year
Pros – Everyone is very nice and helpful. All employees are extremely knowledgeable in all aspects of pet care. Working and taking care of animals is very fun, and you learn new things about them everyday.
Cons – Making sure a pet goes to a good home that will satisfy both the animal and the customer can be difficult.
Yes, I would recommend this company to a friend – I'm optimistic about the outlook for this company
I have been working at PetSmart part-time for more than a year
I worked at PetSmart part-time for more than a year
Company Information PetSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PETM) As the largest specialty pet retailer of services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets, we employ approximately 52,000 associates and operate 1,278 stores and… — Full Overview
Provided by employer [?]
This is the employer's chance to tell you why you should work for them. The information provided is from their perspective.
Would you like us to review something? Please describe the problem with this {0} and we will look into it.
Your feedback has been sent to the team, and we'll look into it.
Sorry, but your feedback didn't make it to the team. Your input is valuable to us – would you mind trying again?
Your response will be removed from the review – this cannot be undone.
Copyright © 2008–2014, Glassdoor. All Rights Reserved. Your use of this service is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy & Cookies Policy. Glassdoor ® is a registered trademark of Glassdoor, Inc.
We do not post on Facebook
We do not post on Facebook


text:
Make their dreams come true - Their own little Home.
The Hideout series are little ones perfect sweet hideout . These cubbies are built with workmanship and quality materials. It includes Cedar weather boards and Cypress decking.
- 1.5(W) x 2.25(D) Incl 750mm Deck) x 1.85(H)(Elevated 1200mm)
- Manor Red Colorbond roofing
- Safe perspex windows
- Solid wooden floor
- Unique hinged windows and federation gables
- Includes 2 fixed & 1 sliding window
For anchoring to the ground
• Angle brackets (For Concrete) including Dynabolts
• Straight brackets (For ground)
Additional Information
|Cedar Sheds
Warranty & Price Guarantee:
110% Price Guarantee:
Why shop around when you know you can get the best price from SimplySheds? Even if you find a better price up to 30 days AFTER you've bought!
We know you're busy and you have better things to do than to visit every shed company in Australia when you're getting your new shed.
That's why.... SimplySheds Guarantees you the Lowest Prices with 110% Price Protection. If you find an item elsewhere (before or within 30 days of your purchase from SimplySheds) for a lower price, you will be eligible for our 110% Price Guarantee program. Find out how it works...
12 Month Structural Guarantee
Cedar Shed Industries buildings are covered by a 12 month structural guarantee. Cedar Shed Industries will supply, repair or replace (at Cedar Shed Industries option) any items found to have a structural defect within 12 months of purchase. Cedar Shed Industries aim is to absolutely ensure you are 100% satisfied with your purchase.
*Does not include freight or installation costs, minor splitting or water stains.
Cedar Shed Industries recommend that all external timber is coated with suitable stain or similar to enhance and retain the natural colour or you can paint your garden building to match your individual decor.
Just in case anything is missing or damaged on delivery call us immediately and we will express dispatch it to your home.
Price Changes or Updates
Simply Sheds ensures we offer the most competitive prices.
Product Prices and availability are subject to change without prior notice.
We will honor the item's Buy Price that was shown in your checkout page plus any shipping fees applied only on Paid and Completed transactions.
Shipping and Returns:
All orders are tracked via an individual consignment number which we will send to you as soon as your product leaves the factory, Delivery times vary from approx. 15 business days depending on delivery location (east coast of Australia, some regional and WA deliveries may take a few extra days).
We keep you informed each step of the way via SMS and email so that you know what is happening and when, and if you need anything, one of our friendly experts are happy to help.
Option 1: Delivery to a local depot.
We have a network of over 60 Transport depots across Australia where you can pick up from. Through the purchase process you will be able to choose your depot and we'll deliver it there for you to collect. As soon as your shed arrives there the local depot will give you a call to let you know it's ready for you to come in and pick it up. Your shed will come flat packed to make it easy to pick up.
Option 2: Home Delivery
When your shed arrives into the depot closest to your delivery location the home delivery company will give you a call and arrange a suitable time to deliver your shed. If you're not able to be home you can let them know where you would like them to leave it.
NOTE: Both Delivery options incur a charge, give us a call and we will get a shipping quote to you.
We want to make ordering from us as safe, and risk free as possible. If in the event that we make a mistake, or the transport company loses, or misplaces your item, we will ship you out a new product as straight away to replace the one you ordered.
In the event you change your mind, there is a 25% restocking fee (and sometimes shipping cost) to replace the shed you wanted to get. We will however offer you the best possible price on the replacement shed to make up for the difference where we can.
How To Order:
There are 4 ways to order with us (these are all selected in the checkout process or we can help you put the order through over the phone on 1300 850 823
- Credit Card (Fastest Method)
- Paypal
- Direct Debit (If doing by direct debit, the bank details will be on your invoice and also in the checkout process, please make sure you use your order # as reference)
- Check/Money Order - Checks to be made out to "Simply Sheds" and posted to PO Box 321, Oxenford, QLD 4210
(Please write your name/order reference on the back)
If for some reason you get stuck, or need hand with anything (whether it is to do with ordering or just needing help asking about slab sizes or colours), feel free to give us a call on 1300 850 823, chat to us live (you'll see the box on the bottom right of your screen if we are online) or drop us an email through the Contact Us form.
Simply Sheds will begin to process your order once payment is completed made via Paypal or Credit Card for the total amount due shown in the check out page (including shipping fees and other charges). In any case that you are unsure of your order status, pls. free to call us on 1300 850 823.
If you made a payment via Bank Deposits and Check/Money order, orders will be processed once payment hit our account.
In the event that we did not receive any payments for Order placed within 7 days, Simply Sheds reserves the right to cancel the transaction.
We will send you an Order confirmation once your order is being processed after it is verified and has passed our validation process to prevent Credit Card or Payment fraud.
We will contact you by email or phone call if we cannot process or fulfill your orders after payment is received.


text:
Home Departments Neill Public Library
Neill Public Library
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 11:07
Effective 3/10/14, balances on patron accounts must be under $10 to use the internet or borrow materials.New to Computers?
Start learning with Digital Literacy classes. Learn the basics about using computers, email and the Internet. You don't need to enroll - just take the classes.
Neill Public Library
Open Hours


text: Close FITTED SHORT SLEEVE TWO-POCKET SHIRT Style: 5578073 49.9 49.9 39.9 39.9 $49.90 $39.90 Stock Up Sale Read Reviews Crisp and cool with a very subtle sheen, this lightweight cotton two pocket shirt makes your casual day style a breeze. Pair it with some flat front shorts or lived-in jeans for an effortlessly good look. Cut slimmer through the shoulders, chest and waistSemi-spread collar, button frontShort sleeves, narrow sewn-in cuffs with button tabsButtoned flap patch chest pockets, shirttail hemCottonMachine washImported This item is no longer available


text:
Hotel Highlights
- Secret, super-stylish hideaway
- A beautifully restored castle with contemporary interiors
- Amid fabulous Rhone vineyards
The stylish Château de Massillan hotel combines the best of aristocratic luxury with cutting-edge design in Provence's Vaucluse. Surrounded by the cicadas, lavender fields and warm winds of Southern France, you'll retreat to rooms that effortlessly mix Mid-century Modern with 18th-century antiques. The acclaimed restaurant does a much more traditional, yet similarly stunning, job of pairing world-class Côte du Rhône wines with southern French cuisine.
Smith Extra
Here's what you get for booking Château de Massillan with us:
A bottle of Château de Massillan Côte du Rhône Selection
Special offers
Exclusive rates, packages and special offers at Château de Massillan


text:
Despite possessing great defensive typing, an excellent ability in Intimidate, and an undeniable cool factor, Mawile is almost never seen on UU teams. A quick look at its stats will tell you why; its Attack and Defense are average at best, and the rest are terrible. Justifying a spot on your team for Mawile is difficult when other Steel-types with much better stats are available. Luckily, Mawile does have a few tricks up its sleeve that prevent it from being entirely outclassed by Registeel and Aggron, but only in very specific roles. If you're not catering to Mawile's few advantages, you're better off using another Pokemon.
Baton Passing is one role Mawile can fill that no other UU Steel-type can. With its passable physical bulk and good defensive typing, Mawile should be able to find an opportunity to grab a Swords Dance boost and pass it on to a capable sweeper. Taunt prevents Mawile from being shut down by the opposing Pokemon's Taunt, Haze, or phazing moves, although if the opponent is faster, Mawile will have to Taunt it on the switch. In the last slot, Substitute is useful to provide a buffer from status, critical hits, and powerful attacks that would otherwise KO Mawile, and can also be Baton Passed to Mawile's teammates. However, a Pokemon with no damaging attacks can sometimes turn into dead weight, so Iron Head is a reasonable option instead as a reliable STAB attack.Team Options & Additional Comments >>>
Other Options
An offensive set that boosts Mawile's average Attack with Swords Dance or a Choice Band is the most obvious omission, but Mawile simply doesn't have the bulk, power, or Speed necessary to pull it off. A Swords Dance set will get one or two hits in at most before being KOed, while a Choice Band set just isn't powerful enough. However, if you are set on using Mawile offensively, its best attacking options are Iron Head, Focus Punch, Brick Break, Sucker Punch, Crunch, Payback, Rock Slide, and the elemental punches. Mawile can also act as a stallbreaker with a moveset of Taunt, Super Fang, Sucker Punch, and Rest. This set can consistently beat stalling Pokemon who rely on Seismic Toss and Toxic to do damage, such as Chansey and Registeel, but against most other Pokemon it will fail miserably, so it's usually not worth it.
Body Slam can go over Iron Head if you like the 30% paralysis rate, as Mawile won't be doing much damage anyway. Pain Split provides instant recovery, but it is unreliable and Mawile won't be surviving long regardless. Sing can take out a counter and give Mawile a extra turn to set up, but its accuracy is horrible and Mawile cannot afford to miss. Stockpile increases both defenses and gives Mawile another type of boost to pass, but offensive boosts are generally more useful and Mawile will rarely have time to set up both types at once. Charge Beam is even worse, since the boost isn't guaranteed, and Mawile doesn't directly benefit from increased Special Attack in any way, but it's still theoretically an option.
Checks and Counters
Mawile has a rather long list of counters. Blaziken, Moltres, Arcanine, Houndoom, Hitmonlee, and Primeape all outspeed Mawile and easily OHKO it with STAB Fire Blast, Flare Blitz, or Close Combat. Drapion and Gligar are faster than Mawile and can use Taunt to prevent it from passing its boosts. They also have enough physical bulk to take a boosted Iron Head if Mawile chooses to attack rather than switch out. Alakazam and Jumpluff have a fast Encore that will force Mawile to either switch or become setup fodder. Mawile is slow and rather frail, especially on the special side, so any offensive Pokemon with a neutral or super effective STAB attack should be able to take it down without much trouble.


text:
There are many breastfeeding benefits for both you and your baby. Breastfeeding can be challenging at first but we offer many breastfeeding services and resources to help you successfully breast-feed your baby.
To help breastfeeding get off to the right start, we encourage you to hold your baby skin-to-skin as much as possible in the hours and days after birth. Rooming-in, keeping your baby in your room during your hospital stay, also helps establish a good start with breastfeeding.
When mother's milk isn't available, donor human milk may help your baby thrive and grow. To learn more about human donor milk, how to donate milk or how to receive donated milk, visit our donor human milk web page or the Mother's Milk Bank.
Our lactation support brochure also has some helpful information about breastfeeding resources.
If you have any breastfeeding questions or concerns, we can help through a variety of programs. The following resources are open to all mothers who deliver their babies at MCR or PVH.
We offer all new mothers the opportunity to schedule a free appointment with a certified lactation counselor within the first week of your baby's life. This is a great chance to ask questions and discuss any infant feeding issues.
If you experience breastfeeding difficulties after you go home, you may call to speak to a certified lactation counselor about your specific concerns. Your concerns may be resolved over the phone or by appointment.
PVH and MCR both have Breastfeeding Support Groups that provide an opportunity to receive help from certified lactation counselors and support from other moms in a comfortable, friendly setting. Children are welcome.
The MCR Support Group meets every Tuesday at 10 a.m. on the lower level of MCR (2500 Rocky Mountain Ave., Loveland). Questions? Call 970.624.5100.
The PVH Support Group meets every Wednesday at 1 p.m. at Westbridge Medical Suites (1107 S. Lemay Ave., Fort Collins, across the street from PVH) in the Westbridge Conference Center. Questions? Call 970.495.8283.
Welcome to Motherhood meets from 2-3 p.m. every Wednesday. This is a time for new moms to meet and share experiences, form new friendships, and learn. There will be lots of time for mom-to-mom sharing and the opportunity to discuss topics important to you. Moms and their babies from newborn to crawling age are welcome.
We encourage you to meet with a lactation counselor to prepare you for breastfeeding success after returning to work. During this visit, the lactation counselor will:
PVH has a Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit which means that most critically ill infants born as young as 26 weeks gestation can be cared for at PVH. If your baby is a patient in the NICU, a lactation counselor will meet with you to answer your questions, ensure that pumping gets started and provide information on realistic expectations for breastfeeding.
If you are interested in donating breast milk, please read more or contact the PVH WeeSteps office at 970.495.8283.
WeeSteps - MCR Lactation ProgramMedical Center of the Rockies2500 Rocky Mountain AvenueLoveland, CO 80538970.624.5100
WeeSteps - PVH Lactation ProgramWestbridge Medical Suites (across from PVH)1107 S. Lemay Avenue, Suite 160Fort Collins, CO 80524970.495.8283
University of Colorado Health employees dedicate themselves to providing patients and other customers with world-class care and service. Outside organizations recognize that, calling University of Colorado Health's hospitals some of the best in Colorado and even the best in the nation. Some of those accolades are listed below:
University of Colorado HealthFort Collins, email@example.com


text:
Item not rated
Must have an account to rate and/or review.
Sign in
or register.
To purchase the entire set click Add to Cart on the left.
To purchase individual images in JPEG or slide (where available) format, select the check boxes to the right of each image in the list below and click Add All Selected to cart. Click the image title to view image details.
From the illusion of space to acknowledging the flatness of a surface, painting can be expressed in many different ways through a variety of media. Explore the ways in which paintings have been created from ancient to contemporary art. Set includes an Education Guide for use as a teaching resource or for independent student study.
Must have an account to rate and/or review.
Sign in or
Note: Add items to cart or wishlist before clicking next or previous.


text:
Housing & Dining
Move-In Schedule for Returning Students
Spring 2014 Check In for Returning Students
For students who are not returning to their fall 2013 assignment (changing rooms, returning from an External Program, etc.) and need keys, check in will take place on Sunday January 12 from noon-8pm.
For students who are returning to their fall 2013 assignment and do not need keys, residence halls will open on Monday January 13.
Please contact the Office of Housing and Residence Life at firstname.lastname@example.com with any questions.
Here's what a single room looks like at Emerson College.


text: Your feathered friend is your lifelong companion. Good health and a long life begins with proper nutrition. Provides lots of beak exercise. Round Corn, Wheat, Oat Groats, Soybean Meal, Cane Molasses, Dried Whole Egg, Corn Gluten Meal, Dicalcium Phosphate, Ground Limestone, Iodized Salt, Dl-Methionine, L-Lysine, Choline Chloride, Zink Oxide, Manganese Oxide, Vitamins A-D3-E-B12 Supplement 5 POUNDS


text:
LINCOLN — Election Day has come and gone, but Gov. Dave Heineman isn't ready to say whether Nebraska should run its own health insurance exchange.
"We know one piece of the puzzle," he said. "There's a lot of factors that are going to go into that."
Heineman said Nebraska does not have to decide until Nov. 16, the deadline in the new health care law for states to submit plans to operate their own exchanges or partner with the federal government. He wondered whether the deadline might be pushed back.
For states that do not submit plans, the federal government will create the exchange.
The governor, an opponent of the federal health care law, has held off making commitments on a Nebraska exchange.
Initially he said he wanted to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the law in June.
Then he said he wanted to wait for the outcome of the election, in hopes that Republican candidate Mitt Romney would win and the law would be repealed.
Although President Barack Obama's re-election makes repeal almost impossible, Heineman has not announced a timetable for a decision. Neither has Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a fellow Republican.
State Sen. Jeremy Nordquist of Omaha urged the governor to put politics aside and make a decision in the best interests of Nebraskans.
"The fact of the matter is we're going to have an exchange in Nebraska one way or another," Nordquist said.
If the deadline is pushed back, he said, it would be only for a few weeks.
The centerpiece of the 2010 federal law, the insurance exchanges will be one-stop shops where people can compare and buy the private health insurance or enroll in Medicaid if eligible.
Contact the writer: 402-473-9583, firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
4inkjets.com sells remanufactured laser and copier toner cartridges for IBM Network printers that allow you to save up to 50% off retail prices without sacrificing quality. These cartridges are rebuilt in a factory that produces the highest quality and longevity. Browse through our inventory (updated daily) by using the printer model lists and menus below.
If for any reason you can not find the product you are looking for our dedicated and knowledgeable customer service team is standing by to assist you. Just call 888.321.2552.
Apple, Brother, Dell, HP, IBM, Lexmark, Canon, Epson, Xerox and other manufacturer brand names and logos are registered trademarks of their respective owners. Any and all brand name designations or references are made solely for purposes of demonstrating compatibility.