text:
Bill Nye debated the question 'How did we get here?' with creationist Ken Ham
Bingham Student South Jordan, UTFeb. 10, 2014 10:55 p.m.
You know, This is a very difficult debate to win, because both sides have a strong side and a weak side.
Creationist theory: Weak side: Explaining the scientific evidence that shows the earth to be older than 10,000 years
Strong side: Explaining the beginning of life.
Evolutionist theory: Strong side: Explaining the scientific evidence that shows the earth to be older than 10,000 years,
Weak Side: Explaining the beginning of life.
That being said, I am definitely LDS, and Support a mixture, which I personally think is the best theory to me. For instance, 1 day on earth a thousand years on Kolob, so that offers another 7000 years, thus making the creation of the earth slightly more believable. However, One could even make a statement that the term day, translated back into original Hebrew, might have just meant periods of time. This could explain for millions of years of gaps, and the confusion.
UGradBYUfan Snowflake, AZFeb. 9, 2014 11:46 a.m.
Personally, I think that the whole evolution vs. religion conversation is irrelevant, because I believe that God works through natural law, not magic. God knows all, so He understands genetics, epigenetics, biochemistry, physical sciences, etc. I believe that because of His knowledge, He could use natural laws (possibly evolution) to create Man.
I believe that religion explains the purpose for creation, not the actual sequence and mechanisms for it. True science investigates and explains natural events in the Universe, but as any scientist knows, science cannot ultimately explain if there was a directing force in creation, because science is an empirical endeavor. There is no experiment that can be devised that could demonstrate purpose.
I believe that science and religion should be complimentary, not oppositional. Too many try to make the conversation adversarial.
worf Mcallen, TXFeb. 8, 2014 9:39 a.m.
@mark- it's an analogy
Tyler D Meridian, IDFeb. 7, 2014 5:23 p.m.
@Lagomorph – "First of all, many thanks to Tyler D…"
Thank you for the kind words.
Science will likely always be vulnerable here because it is an open ended body of knowledge – it doesn't have all the answers, and the answers it does have can often be superseded by better science (what good science is all about).
And religious folks are ever eager to "fill in the gaps" of what we don't yet know, and unfortunately when this is coupled with "because God told me" sorts of statements this carries a lot of weight for many. And let's face, we all want answers and it's very comforting to feel like you have them.
As you said, with evolution we can explain a great deal about the natural world. Without evolution everything is either a giant mystery or is only explained by a very strange and seemingly unintelligent designer (who likes to give certain creatures residual tails or gills or a whole host of other features that makes no sense)
But all the anomalies we see in Earth's life forms are explained by evolution…
Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 7, 2014 3:02 p.m.
patriot: "I can't think of one single thing that happens in a hospital that has anything remotely to do with evolution... The theory that man evolved from a monkey has nothing to help a doctor fix your heart or liver problems."
The common ancestry posited by evolution implies that humans share physiological, biochemical, and genetic traits with other species. Common ancestry makes medical testing of experimental drugs and technologies on other species as proxies for human subjects possible. Common ancestry makes it possible to transplant tissues and organs from other species (e.g. pig heart valves to fix heart problems) into humans without rejection. Evolutionary theory helps to understand the genetic relationships between species and helps researchers know which species are good candidates for research subjects. Unique special creation of species or intelligent design does not provide any of these same insights.
Medicine is all about biology, and Dobzhansky was right, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution (even if it is not directly applicable to surgery). Personally, I want doctors who understand biology-- all of it.
mark Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 7, 2014 2:22 p.m.
"I can't think of one single thing that happens in a hospital that has anything remotely to do with evolution"
I'm sure you've heard of antibiotics and vaccines.
Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 7, 2014 1:54 p.m.
First of all, many thanks to Tyler D. for thoughtfully articulating the core issues, treating the discussion with dignity and respect, and representing us sciencey types well (continuing a long string of high standard posts in this and other comment threads). Also for brokenclay, with whom I rarely agree, thanks for raising the level of discussion here.
patriot: "...the best physical proof of creation ...perfect in its design ...As an electrical engineer ...organized and perfect design..."
Yet another data point in support of the Salem Hypothesis.
What is the probability that a complex system could be sustained for long if its components were not adapted to its conditions? For example, how long could organisms whose optimal metabolic operating range was 250-300 degF prosper on earth? Of course creatures prosper in the range of conditions in which they live. Natural selection weeds out the statistical outliers. If that gives the appearance of design, so be it, but it is readily accomplished by nonintelligent agents.
patriot Cedar Hills, UTFeb. 7, 2014 1:54 p.m.
"Most everything they do is based on theories of biological evolution"
I can't think of one single thing that happens in a hospital that has anything remotely to do with evolution. Nothing. What in the world are you talking about? The theory that man evolved from a monkey has nothing to help a doctor fix your heart or liver problems. Medical science - like engineering - is all based on how things react to certain stimuli. Why those things happen science has no clue. Magnetism results from moving electrons. Voltage and resultant current occur when a magnetic field cuts through a conductor. Why does magnetism exist? No clue. This invisible field is the heart of all electrical engineering. The heart and brain respond to electrical activity in the body. Where and how those electrical fields exist is a mystery. All medical science knows is how to control things...not how to create.
mark Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 7, 2014 9:15 a.m.
Worf, I'm curious, did somebody claim your watch evolved from a stone, or a bus from a boulder? Where did you get these ideas? Do you believe that this comment of yours is somehow a response to evolution? Do you believe it is clever? Just curious.
A Quaker, while I appreciate your point, I also imagine a god could very well create us for violent tendencies and enjoy wars very much. In fact that is what most gods have been all about throughout human history. It is only the recent modern god that has been kind it would seem. Most others have taken great pleasure in war and violence and in manipulating mankind against one another. Including the one in the Old Testament.
elarue NEW YORK, NYFeb. 7, 2014 7:40 a.m.
Full disclosure - I haven't watched the debate yet, but at least from what I've heard, all of my non-religious friends claim that Bill Nye trounced in the debate, while none of my religious friends came out and endorsed Ken Hamm's performance.
The problem with Ken Hamm's postulate is it is dependent on a belief that the creation happened within six intervals of 24 hours, that it took place 6,000 years ago, and that to believe anything other than that paradigm is to succumb to the influence of secularism.
There is plenty of room within the scope of science to believe that God was involved in the mechanics of the origins of the universe. The 2.1 billion year time frame is still a lot closer to the actual age of the earth than Ken Hamm's 6,000 years (although I'm not quite sold on the 2.1 billion years either). The theory of evolution, even if not literally true, still provides valuable insights into the interrelatedness of species on the earth. So we, as believing people, should have a vested interest in the power and wisdom of science to understand the creation.
worf Mcallen, TXFeb. 7, 2014 1:54 a.m.
Of course!
My watch evolved from a rock, and a school bus from a bolder.
These things just happens.
Nobody created that.
Bebyebe UUU, UTFeb. 6, 2014 6:13 p.m.
99% of every species is extinct. God isn't very good at keeping his toys alive.
A Quaker Brooklyn, NYFeb. 6, 2014 3:23 p.m.
@TheRock: There is loads of evidence against "Intelligent Design," without even looking outside our own bodies.
Our skeletons are poorly designed, with major failure points:
Apparently we're not purpose-designed for standing upright.
The red in our red blood is basically just the chlorophyll molecule with an iron atom. If someone set out to build haemoglobin on purpose, it would look different. Probably so would chlorophyll.
Babies' heads are too big, and poorly supported, judging from the tragic number of shaking deaths each year.
We're violent creatures, full of animal fury. Why would an "Intelligent Designer" do that? Cockfighting wasn't enough fun for Him? "Oh, cool! Now I can play War!" No.
Now that we can sequence DNA and see some of our biological programming, it's curious that 98.8% of it should be identical to chimpanzees. What was up that day? The Designer wasn't feeling particularly creative so He just reused some old project?
I believe in God. I believe that God is Love. I don't believe He does sloppy work or sadistically made all these poor design choices on purpose Himself. Evolution gave us God's love. Isn't that enough?
The Rock Federal Way, WAFeb. 6, 2014 11:07 a.m.
If one were to prove that man was the result of evolution I would simply exclaim: So that's how God did it!
Atheists have no such convenience. With them it is evolution or God. In as much as they don't want to believe in God they have no choice but to believe in evolution. I have found most atheists to be closed to any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They claim that Intelligent Design is not science because it cannot be tested in a laboratory, as if any part of evolution can be tested in under 10 million years.
In fact it is evolution that cannot be tested in a laboratory. Evolution postulates that life emerged all by it's onesies, with no intervention, then they try to test it with scientists intervening. Intelligent design attributes the emergence of life to an intelligence that intervened to create that life.
It sounds to me like evolutionists are really testing Intelligent design, assuming of course that the scientists are intelligent. Unintelligent scientists are in short supply.
GreatScot Eagle Mountain, UTFeb. 6, 2014 10:56 a.m.
I you use the speed of light as the "clock" and take into account time dilation from the moment of "big bang" the bible account of each of the "days" of creation lines up quite nicely with the geological record of "epochs" of creation.
Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UTFeb. 6, 2014 10:51 a.m.
Quaggy "It's articles like this that are the very reason I do not subscribe to DN (dispite being a member of the LDS Church since 1991)."
It's the Associated Press. It is in every newspaper in the English speaking world.
Quaggy Hays, KSFeb. 6, 2014 10:09 a.m.
It's articles like this that are the very reason I do not subscribe to DN (dispite being a member of the LDS Church since 1991). Really, are there any obviously intellectually challenged individuals left in the world who still oppose the facts of evolution? I thought the neaderthals all died off a long time ago. :) Seriously, though, when supposedly religious people oppose evolution and use religion as their flimsy excuse, they only belittle and disrespect all of Sacred Writ. If they can't see that, then they haven't read the scriptures. If so, they haven't understood them. Try Genesis 2:4. That's a nice one to read. Or try comparing Genesis 6:7 & 8:4 with 3 Nephi 8:17. Have some fun with that. Come back when one has learned something and significantly increased their maturity level.
Was it not Joseph Smith who said, for us all, "The first and fundamental principal of our holy religion is that we believe that we have a right to embrace all and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men." I *love* that quote! :)
Tim Hunt AMERICAN FORK, UTFeb. 6, 2014 9:20 a.m.
Science and Religion are not in conflict, but most of the world has insufficient knowledge on either side and has taken theories beyond the facts.
LDS faith has records in the Books of Moses and Abraham that state during the creation the earth was near Kolob, which is at the center of the Universe where God dwells. 1 day on Kolob was a 1,000 years of our earth time. The earth after the fall moved away from Kolob, which supports scientific evidence of the universe expanding. Biblical evidence doesn't state how long Adam and Even where in the garden when each day was a 1,000 years.
Also the scriptures state that the earth was created from existing matter. Matter was not created, but organized by the Creator. I believe science hasn't even begun to discover how old the matter is on this earth.
Although all creatures evolve and adapt to their environment there is no clear scientific evidence to prove that man evolved from apes, plants, or amebas. On the scientific side that is pure speculation. Adam lived 930 years, which means in Kolob's time he died the very day he partook of the fruit, just as God said he would.
Tyler D Meridian, IDFeb. 6, 2014 8:50 a.m.
@Ultra Bob – "If God wanted to, he could have created this world 5 minutes ago with all the history too."
I'll buy that – only if we posit a pantheon of gods who, sitting around one day before the creation of our world, decided to dole out various planets to the group and when Earth was drawn from the hat they gave it to the god named Don Rickles.
When asked if he was satisfied with his planet, he laughed hysterically and said, "oh yeah, I'm going to have a blast toying with these dolts and watching them acquire a bunch of "knowledge" which is all bunk."
Actually, your comment reminds me of the exchange in the movie Major League where the Caribbean guy is praying to an idol before the game and one of his teammates walks by and says "why don't you pray to Jesus." The guy responds by saying "I like Jesus but he no help with curve ball," to which the Christian replies angrily, "are you trying to say Jesus can't hit a curve ball?!"
JSB Sugar City, IDFeb. 6, 2014 8:45 a.m.
The "Big Bang" indicates an intelligent being behind it; controlling it carefully. When the "big band" occurred, the rate at which it exploded had to be precisely timed. If the rate had been minutely faster, the universe would be all gasses--the lighter elements and unable to support life and a universe as it is. If it had been minutely slower, the universe would be composed of the heavier elements with no gasses; again unable to support life. Because an intelligent being controlled the rate of the "bang" we have a universe composed of the heavy and light elements resulting in planets, solar systems, constellations, etc. The "Big Bang" is further evidence of intelligent design.
Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UTFeb. 6, 2014 8:19 a.m.
If God wanted to, he could have created this world 5 minutes ago with all the history too.
A Quaker Brooklyn, NYFeb. 6, 2014 7:25 a.m.
To believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you'd have to believe God was only 6,000 years old. Otherwise, I can't imagine the Omnipotent Eternal sitting around, alone in a dark void for endless eons before deciding that was just too boring. In fact, Genesis gives us a pretty good picture of a God who was quite interested in making stuff, and not moping around or dragging His feet about it.
If you believe that God is Eternal and has always existed since before the dawn of time, then so must the universe be.
The theological premise of 6,000 years is based on a simpleton's reading of Scripture. If you want a more appropriate theological question to answer, why not contemplate what was around before the Big Bang that created all the matter that we know about? What was around more than 14 billion years ago? How old is God? Now, THERE are a couple of questions that scientists won't mind you seriously speculating about.
3grandslams Iowa City, IAFeb. 6, 2014 6:47 a.m.
I wonder if Nye ever considered that God inspires technology. In addition why would he be seeking to discredit creationism, don't scientists explore all avenues of possibilities? It is a poor scientist at best who pushes theories as facts.
Finally, the odds are far greater when considering the complexities of earth of divine design (God) than "Big Bang". If I were a scientist, I'd focus on the theory that is most likely true, not the one that is most likely false.
Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UTFeb. 6, 2014 1:16 a.m.
Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans now living on the earth. We are all from the same genetic line.
How that fits into pre-historic man or humanoid beings that are not Homo Sapiens; I have no idea. Since it is not in the Bible I have to go to science for now. Precept upon precept.
"Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we have no more need for a Bible." Counsel for the Bible scholar and the scientist.
Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UTFeb. 6, 2014 12:45 a.m.
Carl Sagan was not an Atheist in the 70's and 80's. He was considered Agnostic until 1996 when he wrote a few lines of disappointment that he could not believe in an afterlife or a bearded man sitting on a heavenly throne.
But, his worry troubles me too about people of faith. That people of faith would not take science seriously and that only atheists would pursue science. The idea that scientists and religionists should not cross lines is far more dangerous.
"The Earth is an object lesson for the apprentice gods." - Carl Sagan 1934-1996
Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UTFeb. 6, 2014 12:13 a.m.
Enuma Elish "If we could fast forward the time 200-500 years, what beliefs would be different compared to your system now."
In 200-500 years science will be far far different than it is today. If religion had every science truth it would blow everyone's mind and nobody would believe it. Science is advanced by inspired men and women.
"We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." - A of F:9
"We believe all things, we hope all things." - Joseph Smith (No hypothesis should be dismissed.)
"And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I can not speak another; for my work is not yet finished.".."Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words." 2 Nephi 29:9 & 10
Razzle2 Bluffdale, UTFeb. 5, 2014 11:34 p.m.
Science is just the facts? Facts change, seeing should not be believing.
"The Brontosaurus Never Really Existed." - Jan 8, 1986
"Pluto Is No Longer A Planet" - Aug 26, 2006
"Stephen Hawkings Wants To Do Away With Black Holes" - 10 hours ago
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process." - Carl Sagan
The same can be true of faith. Genesis can't prove Creation. So? Disproving Genesis can't disprove a Creator.
"My faith is strong I don't need proofs, but every time a new fact comes along it simply confirms my faith." - Carl Sagan (Contact 1985)
"For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept." - D&C 98:12
JSB Sugar City, IDFeb. 5, 2014 10:46 p.m.
@ Ron Hilton
How do you define death? From a spiritual perspective, death is the spirit leaving the body; but biologically, death is the cessation of metabolic processes. For example, a heart can be removed from a recently deceased human, flown across the country and put in someone else. Does the heart have a spirit? No? then it is not alive spiritually but it is still metabolizing so it is alive biologically. There could have been many forms of life on the earth prior to Adam that lived and died biologically. Adam was the first "man" with a human spirit is how I see it.
Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UTFeb. 5, 2014 9:53 p.m.
Nye spent most of the time not explaining evolution but attacking creationism. "He believes..." is a dumb way to make a point.
Neither side heard the other.
On the other hand, science has really evolved over the last century, but is still evolving. Creationism has also evolved. Some say the Creationist can't change their argument when science is advanced if they believe the bible. Why not? They are not mutually exclusive.
These debates are great to show how each side has evolved with better arguments over the years.
Red San Antonia, TXFeb. 5, 2014 8:44 p.m.
clearly the 6 days of the creation were very long time periods.
End of the debate.
Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00Feb. 5, 2014 7:45 p.m.
Lds liberal
It sounds to me that you are just playing the fence and waiting to go with whichever is the most popular belief. Fair weather sailing is what I call that. The church teaches that our distant grandparents werent fish or monkeys Bill Nye believes that they are. But social evolution is progression. Not evolution.
Furry1993 Ogden, UTFeb. 5, 2014 5:41 p.m.
@Twin Lights 8:18 a.m. Feb. 5, 2014
The "war" between science and religion is phony. Science is the how. Religion is the why.
Agreed, with one addition. Religion is not only the why, it also teaches the "who made it happen."
pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utahFeb. 5, 2014 5:36 p.m.
I think Occam's razor applies here. The simplest explanation is we don't know all the answers to our own creation because we are having to discover them from the inside out with what is a very limited set of tools, our brain and our instruments.
As brilliant as our brains appear in comparison to other cognitive beings they are really quite simple and mysterious at the same time.
Again the simplest answer is if we were nothing before and nothing afterwards you would expect the exact confusion we find. Nobody to come forward and tell us the truth and no one to come back to correct our errors. Just a bunch of folks making it up as we go. Some doing it with the aid of tools of discovery and other just making up wild unfounded stuff.
endoftimes Vernal, UTFeb. 5, 2014 5:33 p.m.
Its a silly, stupid debate...we are so arrogant.
Ron Hilton Holladay, UTFeb. 5, 2014 4:57 p.m.
It has been about 6000 years since the Fall, but the time involved in the Creation was probably far longer - likely billions of years. However, the fact that organic evolution depends upon successive generations of mortal organisms does directly contradict the Scriptural assertion that there was no death before the Fall. I personally do not believe that God used evolution as the mechanism of Creation, but only as a mechanism of adaptation after the Fall. The global flood of Noah provides an alternative explanation for the fossil record. Radiometric dating assumes a steady state environment long into the past, but that is only an assumption, not a provable fact. Both the Fall and the Flood suggest major environmental upheavals within historic time.
sharrona layton, UTFeb. 5, 2014 4:56 p.m.
RE: play by the rules. "If evolution is true then why in the world are the apes not putting clothes on in the morning."
The sense of sin brought with it the sense that life could not now go on just as it had before; that sin meant that there was a necessity to cover nakedness.
they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25).
After Adam had sinned. "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7)
and then, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them", it is evident that the purpose of clothes was to cover, even though there was at this stage only Adam and Eve.
This is why naturism, as it is called, or nudism, is a denial of the fall of man. It exists among people who don't believe man is fallen. The principle purpose of clothing, then, is a covering of nakedness.
Darrel Eagle Mountain, UTFeb. 5, 2014 4:38 p.m.
Antoine Lavoisier died before Joseph Smith was born.
However, I see the choice between Science and Religion as a false choice. Truth is truth, regardless of the source.
Nothing from the Church has said evolution could not have happened. Nothing in evolution claims there could not have been a Higher Power directing it, or setting it in motion. One side has nothing to fear about the other as long as both are seeking the truth.
Erika Salem, UtahFeb. 5, 2014 4:36 p.m.
It's ridiculous to have a debate when no common ground exists -- not even an agreement on the basic scientific method. "I'm an apple." "No, I think you're an orange." "I have evidence." "I don't believe in your evidence." "I don't believe in your opinion, which defies evidence."
It's like the old, "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing. Waste of time.
LDS Liberal Farmington, UTFeb. 5, 2014 4:27 p.m.
@John T
Scranton, PA
In the end, these debates are not much good for either side if this issue. Mr. Nye apparently has inside information that there is no God, anywhere, in the entire universe.
For crying out loud,
Why is it anytime someone studies Science - that automatically makes them an Atheist?
Bill Nye did not argue the existence of "God",
but rather Evolution.
I for one believe in God,
in Evolution.
And I wish to 2nd the comment made by;
One of a Few
Layton, UT
3:14 p.m. Feb. 5, 2014
If you don't believe in science,
stay away from hospitals,
never fly on an airplane,
refuse to take medicine,
quit driving your car,
use a candle instead of lights,
get rid of you computer and TVs,
grow your own sheep,
weave your own wool,
grow your own food,
and dig your own well.
It's always nice to slam Science,
until you benefit from it.
Mumsy57 Burnett Heads, 00Feb. 5, 2014 3:41 p.m.
I believe the two go together. If you read Genesis 1, the creation was set out in a particular order and a time period (not necessarily a day as we know it) was applied. In Genesis 2 the creation story is set out again but in a different order and with no specific time period such as a day applied. Why would this be? Was this merely repetition for repetition's sake albeit in a different order? I think not. I believe this shows us that Genesis 1 records the "planning" phase where everything was created in spiritual terms, eg blueprints, models or designs, and Genesis 2 was the actual physical creation which possibly took much longer and more required extensive processes. The only problem I see is choosing to ignore the differences between the two accounts in the Bible and trying to apply the time period spelled out in Genesis 1 to what I believe to be the account of the Physical creation in Genesis 2.
One of a Few Layton, UTFeb. 5, 2014 3:14 p.m.
They called their labors the 1st day, 2nd day...etc. They didn't say it took a day to do it. They said there was a 1st period of creation, a second period and so on. Monkey's don't wear suits because they didn't evolve to. Monkey's are doing what monkey's evolved to do. If you don't believe in science, I suggest you stay away from the hospital. Most everything they do is based on theories of biological evolution. Funny how it isn't true but it sure works well if you have the bug.
patriot Cedar Hills, UTFeb. 5, 2014 3:08 p.m.
Faith is not something you debate because the carnal mind rejects faith. I will say however that the best physical proof of creation is Mathematics. The mathematical probability that the universe exploded into a perfect ordered system is essentially zero. Every thing is ordered and perfect in its design from the life sustaining distance of the earth to the sun to micro-organisms that create our ecosystem. As an electrical engineer I spent nearly three full years taking nothing but math and I can tell you that some of those courses involved predicting probability based on physical models. When a number gets so close to zero it is essentially zero and that is the probability of having organized and perfect design result from an unorganized chaotic explosion. Darwin observed and created theories ...not laws. People tend to confuse the two. Laws are proven but theories are just unproven ideas. Theories disappear as more knowledge is gained even as the flat earth theory disappeared for good when the first satellite circled the earth and took photos. Opinions don't determine truth - absolute truth exists in spite of opinion.
FredEx Salt Lake, UtFeb. 5, 2014 2:37 p.m.
The Bible, which is considered to be the authority on the universe's and man's beginnings, is astonishingly vague in its account. On top of that, we rely upon a translation of that vagueness into whatever language we speak. It describes the creation and the placement of man on earth. That's it. No details are given other than the breath of life and using a rib to create woman, which are metaphors. The Mormon account is no clearer. This requires considerable faith and interpretation, whereas scientists rely on neither. Where I think the gulf exists is that scientists are allowed to make claims without dispute, but creationists are not allowed the same consideration. Some might say they can't both be correct. I say both ARE correct. I say God created the heavens and earth, and He did it precisely as the scientists say it was done. It's sad that those who are so dedicated to finding the truth cannot consider that possibility.
desert Potsdam, 00Feb. 5, 2014 1:55 p.m.
These people are wasting time.
Evolution is impossible, since we have no proof in real time.
Creation as interpreted by men is impossible, since we have no proof in real time.
We learn that god can change times and seasons.
We also read : And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox (II NE 21)
Now that cannot be proven in real time either.
So keep guessing. Well done.
God is the ultimate scientist and the real doctor of all professions.
If he can call it a day, we need not suppose it was our day.
If he can move the waters, we need not think that Noah was without logic.
This debate is good for fighting religion, but the real issue is what do God's children gain from all of this ?
We left our alien habitate long time ago, now we are stuck in the middle of confusion.
Bring us some frequency, some prayer, some answers to solve our daily problems.
Christ is the light of the world, thus we may evolve to some intelligent beings.
mark Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 5, 2014 1:40 p.m.
"After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, the earth was moved from this center of 'creation' out into it's present location on a spiraling pinwheel from the galactic center with a dust cloud 'veil' obscuring our view of the celestialized exalted planets near Kolob."
Haha. Wow. Mormon ideas give scientoligist's ideas a run for their money.
joe5 South Jordan, UTFeb. 5, 2014 12:44 p.m.
someone earlier pointed out that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. TylerD might be interested to investigate who first pointed out that concept. I believe you will find it was Joseph Smith in D&C 93.
As a lover of LDS doctrine, I have a couple of issues with evolutionary theory in regard to man. Primarily, I cannot accept that the sealing powers bind us to Adam whose father was a beast. Twice in the scriptures (Luke and Moses), Christ's lineage is traced through Adam to God.
FredEx Salt Lake, UtFeb. 5, 2014 12:42 p.m.
How about this: The universe was created by God using the Big Bang. So, both are correct. As to the question of the age, there is nothing in the Bible or any other writing that says how long Adam/Eve were in the garden or what took place outside. So, the Bible is correct, but only describes one small segment of history. Adam/Eve could have been in the garden, protected/quarantined, for many millions of years while evolution was going on all around them on the outside. When they emerged, they viewed the world as it was at that time, knowing nothing of time or events while inside, or at least, Moses didn't see fit to write about it.
Hard core creationists seem to ignore the fact that God was the first scientist, and there has to be a scientific explanation for our current physical state, both biologically and geologically. So, when someone says God created the universe/earth, ask them how He did it. Ironically, scientist know the answer to that question better than some creationists.
SCfan clearfield, UTFeb. 5, 2014 12:32 p.m.
Although many posting don't believe in God in general or the Bible in particular, I do find it interesting that in LDS theology in the Pearl of Great Price there are passages said to have come from either Moses or Abraham that talk of worlds without number having been created by God. Further in LDS theology it is claimed that God has put multitudes of people on other worlds, not just here on Earth. Pretty profound considering it has been only recently that science/astronomy has discovered the existance of planets orbiting around stars (suns). And the Pearl of Great Price was written a long time ago.
Tyler D Meridian, IDFeb. 5, 2014 12:12 p.m.
@brokenclay – "You can't expect methodological naturalism, with an empirical epistemology, to tell us much of anything about what may be beyond the natural realm…"
You raise some excellent points.
You're correct to point out that science maintains an unquestioned naturalist/materialist epistemology which is probably necessary to "do science" but is no doubt limiting in religion/philosophy.
That said, we're still left without an objective criteria for deciding issues of metaphysics, which is why many scientists see it as pointless or even fantasy.
As far as religions making accurate speculations about the nature of the Universe I think the East far surpassed any of the Western religions. The degree to which, for example, early Buddhist/Taoist thought parallels modern physics is uncanny.
@Twin Lights – "The large universe model filled with endless worlds envisioned in the Pearl of Great Price was certainly not in keeping with science when I was growing up."
That is interesting but it doesn't nullify my point since until science made conclusions based on evidence and testable hypotheses it had not yet provided an explanation (the speculations of Aristotle, et al notwithstanding).
Thank you both…
Rockyrd Gilbert, AZFeb. 5, 2014 12:09 p.m.
I'm a believer, but good grief, let science have it's due. I cannot argue with Nye's enthusiasm for finding out the next new thing and to keep seeking. I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, but we don't have scriptural details on how it was done. On the other hand, when some scientists think they can disprove the existence of God, that's science going to the extreme. My bottom line is that I don't know. I wasn't there at the creation. I believe someday we'll all find out and won't it be fun to see!
Twin Lights Louisville, KYFeb. 5, 2014 11:35 a.m.
Tyler D,
The large universe model filled with endless worlds envisioned in the Pearl of Great Price was certainly not in keeping with science when I was growing up. Now it is.
brokenclay Tempe, AZFeb. 5, 2014 11:30 a.m.
Tyler -- "The far more relevant question is, by what methods do we expect to find the answers?"
This is the correct question, and as is your norm, respectfully and fairly stated. The question cuts both ways. And it's not just different methodologies, it's different epistemologies. You can't expect methodological naturalism, with an empirical epistemology, to tell us much of anything about what may be beyond the natural realm-- the "super" natural.
It's also worth pointing out that science excels in inductive observation, but is notoriously bankrupt when it comes to deductive matters. In other words, the scientist makes a poor philosopher. This is where the new atheism has gone awry(esp. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris).
But Tyler, even if it wasn't religion that changed science's mind on the Big Bang, surely you must admit that it was pretty impressive for the Judeo-Christian tradition to maintain creation ex nihilo against all the detractors of history-- Ancient Near Eastern culture, Greco-Roman philosophy, science up until the 1920s, Mormonism, etc.
John T Scranton, PAFeb. 5, 2014 11:21 a.m.
In the end, these debates are not much good for either side if this issue. Mr. Nye apparently has inside information that there is no God, anywhere, in the entire universe. That gives him a strategic advantage over we Christians, who must settle for mere faith in the Bible that God did in fact create the universe, and everything in it. Exactly how He did that, or how long it may have taken according to our earthly timetable, is irrelevant. Mr. Nye has done the world a favor by simply eliminating even the possibility of the existence of any other explanation for how everything and everyone came into being. How convenient........
Ben Jones Bowie, MDFeb. 5, 2014 10:49 a.m.
As a Mormon, I don't have a problem with the age of the Earth or the Universe. If God is Eternal as we believe, and Eternity is a very long time, we should not be at all surprised to find the Universe appearing to be quite old.
On the other hand, consider this: When scientists search for evidence of intelligent life in the Universe, they are usually looking for something that stands out. The most famous example is in Carl Sagan's science fiction story CONTACT where aliens announce their presence using radio signals that contain sequences of prime numbers, which definitely stand out. But think about this: even the most "ordinary" life on the Earth is extraordinary when you think about the complexity of cells and DNA molecules. Who's to say when we are peering out into the Universe that we aren't witnessing the operations of intelligences far beyond our comprehension going about their business in the most "ordinary" ways.
Russell Spencer Boise, IDFeb. 5, 2014 10:46 a.m.
This debate presents a false choice. If you have an apple and someone says it is green and another says it is yellow, then only one of them can be right. But they can also BOTH be wrong: The apple might by red.
Same thing here. The "young earth theory" is based on a myopic reading of scripture that doesn't withstand scrutiny--even theologically. But that doesn't mean that the theory of spontaneous generation--that life just happened and is one huge cosmic accident--is correct, either. Clear-eyed scientists recognize it also doesn't withstand scrutiny, at least not in the sense that life could have originated on our planet of its own accord. (Which has renowned evolutionists like Richard Dawkins theorizing that life was seeded by higher intelligences--just don't call those higher intelligences "God.")
Yes, observable phenomena like natural selection and genetic mutation were initially seen as evidence favoring spontaneous generation. The moon's orbit was initially seen as evidence favoring Newtonian gravity. That theory also turned out to be false. That doesn't mean that the observable phenomena aren't happening; just that we need a better explanation for why they happen.
Grover Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:39 a.m.
The entire basis of the "debate" is bogus from the start. The event would have been a legitimate debate if it had included at Scripture scholar. Virtually all those whose life is devoted to the accurate translation and understanding of the Bible would be able to debunk the entire basis of the debate held yesterday...the Bible was never written as an account of historical events. Creation stories have a long tradition from many cultures whose basis was the attempt of primitive people to understand the world that they lived in. Even those steeped in ancient languages and cultures can accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, but not ever hold it out as a historical account of what happened.
Now that the Nye-Ham debate is history let's have a rematch of the Creationists vs. Biblical Scholars and then lets see how well their claims stand up.
jsf Centerville, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:30 a.m.
In the nuclear arena matter is not destroyed, it is converted to energy and reduced to its parts. When I was in elementary school they had determined atoms were made up of parts, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Since that era we learn of all kind of particles which make up the protons, neutrons, and electrons. And these particles are made up of other parts. The ultimate search is to find the "God Particle" that is the basis of all particles.
LDS Liberal Farmington, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:25 a.m.
@Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA
INVHO the analogy that most accurately describes this "debate" is:
Bill Nye = Seattle Seahawks/Ken Ham = Denver Broncos
9:30 a.m. Feb. 5, 2014
Truth be told --
Bill Nye actually IS from Settle.
jsf Centerville, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:17 a.m.
I just love when science puts an age on the universe. I am not trying to offend but really how does science make this age guess. My understanding is the universe covers everything and all things. Scientist say the universe is expanding. How can the universe expand to replace what is there. If there is something to expand into then is it not part of the universe. The expanding universe concept is similar to the argument of saying God is all powerful, but God can't make a rock big enough he can't move. Saying the big bang was the creation of the universe is the same argument.
The universe is and the universe always was, and the universe always will be, their is no edge to the universe.
As one scientist said, at some point in the universe is the God moment, and it is not the big bang, because, their had to be time before the big bang.
Owl Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:18 a.m.
If religionists stuck to matters of faith and scientists stuck to valid science, the world would be a calmer place. It is the cross-over that diminishes each discipline and makes them look foolish. Judaism, most Christian denominations (Catholic, Protestant and LDS) and many Eastern faiths do not have official proclamations on evolution other than to say it is a matter for science to explore. If legitimate scientists would only grant the same liberality to those of faith it would enhance their stature.
JoeBlow Far East USA, SCFeb. 5, 2014 10:15 a.m.
"I know of no statement by a living prophet that the earth is only 6000 years old or that the Big Bang did not happen"
OK. So, here is a related question
If "a living prophet" did say those things, would you accept their words as fact?
This is where I have a problem with trying to merge Religion and Science.
Cookie999 Albuquerque, NMFeb. 5, 2014 10:15 a.m.
It has occurred to me more than once--and I have had Seminary teachers who believed this as well--that God could use so-called evolutionary processes if He wants to, or He could just call them premature aging processes (there are plenty of diseases which age cells; take for example Juvenile idiopathic arthritis, where children's immune cells look like a 90-year-old's). Just as humans are only able to see a small percentage of the light spectrum, we are also only able to see a small percentage of what is possible in the realm of the universe. That is why we are told to learn to look with our spiritual eyes and not our physical eyes only.
Enuma Elish Sahuarita, AZFeb. 5, 2014 10:11 a.m.
The debate between religion and science will continue forever. However, as science continues to improve, theories become truth and religion becomes smaller. Maybe science hasn't proven anything yet as the credibility of the techniques has always been questioned, but its getting better and eventually it will be almost perfect. While religion is bound to the limits of the Bible and other scripture that people tend to believe. We've seen it before in history, people died for a false beliefs which was later proven by science, like the earth is flat or the the sun is a god. If we could fast forward the time 200-500 years, what beliefs would be different compared to your system now. I'm sure my great grand parents that walked the plains would say the Mormon church they sacrificed for is not the same church today.
We see it all the time, people use "God" as a crutch, if we can't explain something than God must have wanted it that way. Is it possible we just haven't figured it out yet and over time we will? As man continues to evolve, many of these questions will be answered.
happy2bhere clearfield, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:01 a.m.
Hank Pym
Glad I was sitting down when I read that one. Now. The reason it is a so called fundamenal law of science is "because" science has no other answer. That is something like the equivelent of saying that one of the fundamentle laws of religion is that God exists. And by the way, I have heard that the destruction of matter is in fact possible in the nuclear arena, but that is just something I've heard, no substantiation for you, but I'll look it up.
Reflectere Utah, UTFeb. 5, 2014 10:00 a.m.
If you believe in and follow living prophets then there is absolutely no room to believe in human evolution. If you don't, well "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship [or not worship] how, where, or what they may." But there are clear statements by living prophets refuting any claims to human evolution (I don't care what your BYU professor taught you).
In terms of the earth being only 6000 years old, I know of no statement by a living prophet that the earth is only 6000 years old or that the Big Bang did not happen. Considering the Latin translation of the bible, the creation account occurred over "periods of times" which could have lasted millions of years for all we know (not to mention the unmeasured time that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden). The 6000 years figure (for those not aware) comes from the fact that it has been roughly 6000 years since the fall of Adam - not the creation of the earth.
Dark Horse Farmington, UTFeb. 5, 2014 9:54 a.m.
I'm sorry I just can't take Ham seriously! I mean at his museum there is misrepresentations of dinosaurs, there is a scene where a t-rex is friendly! It's ridiculous! But to be perfectly frank, whatever you believe is your business. So I guess whatever floats your boat.
Tyler D Meridian, IDFeb. 5, 2014 9:36 a.m.
It is likely true that there are many more answers and things to know about a subject like evolution, so I don't know why anyone would be put off by the fact that Darwin did not explain everything – that's like expecting Hippocrates to explain DNA and concluding medicine is false when he doesn't.
The far more relevant question is, by what methods do we expect to find the answers? Religion surely has its place and I don't want to argue its merits other than as a means of acquiring objective knowledge about the natural world (i.e., answers in the Bible).
Two questions I think show clearly the problem for religion is this area.
1 - Name a fact about the natural world for which we once had a religious explanation but has now been superseded by a scientific explanation?
2 – Name a fact about the natural world for which we once had a scientific explanation but which has now been replaced by a better religious explanation?
I hope it's clear that the answers are "countless" and "none" respectively…
Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MAFeb. 5, 2014 9:30 a.m.
INVHO the analogy that most accurately describes this "debate" is:
Bill Nye = Seattle Seahawks/Ken Ham = Denver Broncos
brokenclay Tempe, AZFeb. 5, 2014 9:23 a.m.
I was raised as a young earth creationist (YEC). I didn't question the veracity of my view until part way through my bachelor's degree (as an aside, it was the issue of supernovae that really started my journey away from YEC).
While intriguing, I'm not sure that I can accept Norman Geisler's day-age theory, either. Some form of the literary framework theory seems to best represent what Genesis is trying to say. When I read Genesis in a historical-grammatical manner (i.e., literally), I don't think YEC is a viable option. YEC does not possess an adequate grasp of ancient Semitic literature, rendering their position, ironically, non-literal.
I do wish that this wasn't an issue worth fighting each other about in Christianity. Many of the early Fundamentalist pillars had no issue with an old earth, or even with evolution (check out the article in The Fundamentals).
Lamentably, the reason why science today is largely atheistic is because of the withdrawal of Christians clinging to a YEC viewpoint.
And even more troubling, how many Christians lost faith over a non-issue made an issue by their own leadership?
Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UTFeb. 5, 2014 9:14 a.m.
It is wonderful to have someone already to have done your thinking for you, your brain if thus free to think about more important things. By not having to reinvent the wheel, today's engineer can spend his time on how to make a better automobile.
Only thing is, you have to be careful to pick the right thinker for you to copy. It seems obvious by current experience that the inventor of the wheel had the reduction of work as his motive. Such is not so for the creationist, for the veil of death prevents living people from validating the truth or false of creationism.
If we would judge the creationist, we can only use the here and now actions to determine his motivation. I think the motive of creationism is to support religion in the control of people. And that the root motivation is money.
Eliot Genola, UTFeb. 5, 2014 9:06 a.m.
BYU students do learn the theory of evolution in their biology courses. In fact, there is an entire course devoted to the subject taught by the biology department. Official, doctrinal statements by the First Presidency of the LDS church are contained in the BYU Packet which was created at the behest of BYU President Rex Lee 20 years ago. It can be found on-line by doing a google search using byu evolution packet as a query. Regarding the theory itself and the evidence in support of it there has been assertion made here that very few transitional forms linking species have been found. This assertion is not true. Thousands of transitional forms have been identified, including many associated with humans. Finally, I would like to add that there are several billions of apes who do, thankfully, put on their clothes each morning, whilst a great many others happily go about their business without the benefit of such.
G-Day-M8 WVC, UTFeb. 5, 2014 9:03 a.m.
I appreciate your question. There is a book by Merrill J Bateman, past President of BYU and emeritus General Authority called "Learning In The Light of Truth." It's a compilation of his addresses to students and faculty of BYU during his tenure. It explains the relationship of secular and spiritual education not the differences we just read about in the debate with Nye and Ham.
In specific answer to your first three questions, I think i'm safe in plainly saying NO. To the fourth question, who knows?
Mr_Normal utah, UTFeb. 5, 2014 8:50 a.m.
Liar Level:
Billions of Christians do not actually believe the Earth is only 6,000 yo.
Some few do but most look at that portion of the OT as figurative.
Sensible Scientist Rexburg, IDFeb. 5, 2014 8:40 a.m.
As has been pointed out, there is a distinct dividing line between religion and science that when obeyed, the so-called conflicts go away. Science is only capable of discussing the observable, the testable. Religion is only capable of discussing the divine, the supernatural, the philosophical. When either tries to cross the line, it causes problems.
Creationists cross the line when they use the Bible as a science text. Scientists like the late Carl Sagan cross the line when they say that science implies there is no God. Both try to take their respective fields into areas they are not capable of handling.
Young-earth creationists' fundamental problem is their literal interpretation of the Bible's printed words. The word "day" was mistranslated from the Hebrew word for "time." In other words, the premise of their entire ideology is flawed. For any text, translation and the passage of centuries are tricky things that all would be wise to take into account.
By the way, "random" is a statistical term that has nothing to do with causes. It is often misinterpreted to mean something that happened for no reason.
Hank Pym SLC, UTFeb. 5, 2014 8:29 a.m.
to happy2bhere...
1 of the fundamentals laws of science is "Matter is neither created nor destroyed"
Mister J Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 5, 2014 8:26 a.m.
to iron&clay
So, you are saying the earth moved? Really?
Why not just stick with its 6000 yrs old?
Twin Lights Louisville, KYFeb. 5, 2014 8:18 a.m.
The "war" between science and religion is phony. Science is the how. Religion is the why.
Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi ArabiaFeb. 5, 2014 8:11 a.m.
I don't have the answers. Science talks about how the Earth was created. Religion is about why. The Big Bang theory and geology are good models to explain the things I see in certain realms. Religion applies to the realms. It is like in physics when we talked about electrons and protons we can sometimes talk about these things being particles with mass. At other times it is better to talk about them as waves and not particles. The reality is too complicated to explain and even to understand.
Science is good in its place, religion is good in its place. If I try too hard to have one fit into the other I reach what I consider to be odd conclusions: a 6000 year old earth or there is no God and therefore, there is no right and wrong, only convention, fashion and manners.
FT salt lake city, UTFeb. 5, 2014 8:06 a.m.
Human Beings of every culture have always created some type of religon for social and personal needs. Science and the answers it provides will never fully satisfy a lot of us. Humans needs something spirtual, mythical for fulfillment. Bill Nye was debating more than creationism or evolution. He was attempting to debunk a core essence of what makes humans, human. An impossible task.
romeisn'tburning layton, utFeb. 5, 2014 8:05 a.m.
I listened to this entire debate. It was pretty weak, on both sides, to be honest with you. Ken Hamm insisted that there is a difference between "historical" science and "observational" science, while Bill Nye showed all of the scientific evidence for evolution and that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Hamm's whole argument was that the consensus of modern science believing that the earth is millions, if not billions, of years old is a belief, not a fact, because "you weren't there". While at the same time Hamm teaches kids that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, he should be embarrassed of himself.
happy2bhere clearfield, UTFeb. 5, 2014 7:58 a.m.
Until scientists can explain how something (matter) can come into existence from space (nothing), I'll go with the supernal explanation.
Chris from Rose Park Hartford, CTFeb. 5, 2014 7:59 a.m.
That is not LDS doctrine. That may be the speculation of some LDS members, but it's not a LDS teaching. I just wanted to clarify that.
G-Day-M8 WVC, UTFeb. 5, 2014 7:43 a.m.
It's interesting to me how many on both sides of this debate try so desperately to incarcerate God in their own little box and tell Him he can't come out and then defend their positions as if they are the authoritative end.
Science and religion can be as compatible as one wishes them to be and I echo eastcoastcoug's comment, "Science and Religion are both about discovering and learning all we can and not about setting limits or creating dogmas."
My experience is that spiritual knowledge and secular knowledge can and often do converge quite nicely and I have no reservation expressing my Belief in God or my Faith in Jesus Christ and the Witness of the Holy Sprit.
JoeBlow Far East USA, SCFeb. 5, 2014 7:44 a.m.
"If creationism is untrue then why do you bother getting dressed in the morning. If evolution is true then why in the world are the apes not putting clothes on in the morning."
Did you even read my post?
I said nothing about creationism or evolution.
But, to teach that the earth is only 6000 years old dictates that we just throw science out the window in favor or religious teachings.
Your question makes no sense. Are you suggesting that people who believe only in evolution can not enjoy life and find meaningful purpose?
adwight AMERICAN FORK, UTFeb. 5, 2014 7:38 a.m.
Science is there for us to understand the process. Religion is there to help us understand purpose. When trying to use religion to understand science you will fail because it is not the scope of religion to understand the process of everything. The same goes for using science to understand religion. It truly is comparing apple to oranges. There is evidence that both supports and refutes both sides of this argument of "where we came from." Having come to understand science better it has helped me appreciate religion more and gain more faith. Having gained more faith I have come to better appreciate science. The two can co-exist. You must have an open mind to both. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "6,000 years is it and there's nothing else" is the wrong way to go about doing it.
Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UTFeb. 5, 2014 7:06 a.m.
As I see it, the truth of the matter was represented by neither Nye nor Ham.
The Bible most certainly does NOT say that the earth was created 6000 years ago, so if that is what Ham believes then he is mistaken.
And if Bill Nye believes that the human mind is the product of random events, he is standing on quicksand as well, for there is no reasonable evolutionary justification for self consciousness, nor for the level of intelligence found in humans as it far exceeds what is necessary for survival. The evolution narrative contains many other fatal flaws.
Nye and Ham are both off the mark.
Eagles63 Provo, UTFeb. 5, 2014 6:47 a.m.
I believe pretty strongly in God and the creationism. But, it doesn't take a rocket science to know that things are old on this earth, but so what. Last time I read the Bible or other scriptures on the matter, I noted the following: Genesis Chapter 1 vs 28: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." I never argue about the age of the Earth, but the reality for me is that we are here to REPLENISH or as wiki defines it: "To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to."
Of course this Earth is old, how old doesn't matter to me. Our first parents replenished something. That requires that it was something before. What is was doesn't really matter. The oldest writings go back about 5,000 years. If you don't express it, did it really matter? I know Dinosaurs existed, but existing isn't that big a deal. Subduing something is much much more. Our true history is about those who replenished and seek to subdue this earth. There is no conflict in my mind with science.
EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MDFeb. 5, 2014 6:32 a.m.
A forum such as this will never increase proof of truth for either side and each argument. It is an exercise in stroking egos more than an event to foster sincerity with greater understanding, enlightenment, and the aquisition of knowledge.
The topics discussed will never have a resolution and is an apples to oranges comparison of an academic nature. For science cannot comprehend religion or diety without faith, and the inverse is true as well.
How many times does one see people from either side immersing themselves in the doctrine and practices of the other to prove for themselves what cannot be vicariously quantified in the least degree?
In reality, both science and religion / faith have furthered the betterment of humankind in their own ways and degrees. Though people like to believe they are mutually exlusive, such is an engineered pattern of contention that benefits no one. A person could spend an entire lifetime trying to prove their cause and disprove the other side, yet never really arrive at any sort of absolute truth.
Why not instead look for what both contribute to further the causes of humanity over the need to assert control over the perceived opposing viewpoints?
iron&clay RIVERTON, UTFeb. 5, 2014 5:29 a.m.
Some LDS scholars and authorities teach that the earth was organized from eternal matter near the center of our galaxy. Kolob, or the super massive dense "black" hole is at the center of our galaxy.
'Creation' took 6,000 years as measured in Kolob time. That calculates to 2,190,000,000 years. (365 x 1,000 x 6,000).
Calculated as 1 day near Kolob is 1,000 years present earth time.
After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, the earth was moved from this center of 'creation' out into it's present location on a spiraling pinwheel from the galactic center with a dust cloud 'veil' obscuring our view of the celestialized exalted planets near Kolob.
Blue Salt Lake City, UTFeb. 5, 2014 4:46 a.m.
Are BYU students taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time? That the Grand Canyon was carved in a period of days only a few thousand years ago in Noah's flood? That the universe is _not_ 13.7 billion years old?
Seriously, I want to know.
play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UTFeb. 4, 2014 11:19 p.m.
re@ JoeBlow:
If creationism is untrue then why do you bother getting dressed in the morning. If evolution is true then why in the world are the apes not putting clothes on in the morning.
You will also note that creationists note that matter has existed for millions and billions of years. It is formed into intelligent design by the God of the Universe. It is a matter of faith on whether one accepts this or not. I accept it and wish no harm to those who do not.
Cougar on The Hill Midvale, UTFeb. 4, 2014 11:02 p.m.
I don't understand how people can't believe both theories. The earth is millions of years old, and humans have been around for thousands of years ( more than 6,000). I'm sure there is some way that both evolution and creationism can come together.
JSB Sugar City, IDFeb. 4, 2014 10:24 p.m.
I have believed that evolution was the way that God populated the earth with life. There are some serious questions about evolution that I can't answer, however. The "Cambrian Explosion" of many different kinds of animal phyla without any fossil record of the animals that lead to these more complex animals was something that Darwin couldn't explain and I've not heard of any good post Darwinian explanation for it. Also, Darwin's evolution stressed a steady, slow evolution and the "Cambrian Explosion" was, in geological time, rapid. Also, I can't grasp how anything as complicated as a unicellular life form could just spontaneously develop. These developments violate the third law of thermodynamics. In effect, if you have organization, there must be an organizer. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense.
jparrish001 Burlington, NCFeb. 4, 2014 9:51 p.m.
Reading the news article posted by Deseret News, I feel that the writer of this article is themselves in favor of Creationism. How can anyone take this writer seriously, when it is very evident that they were trying very hard to back Ham and not tell the facts as they actually are. I hope that anyone who reads this post, have the intellect to read other posts on this topic that clearly show how Nye blew Ham out of the water in the debate, and show that the way this article is written, that it is without doubt, the nature of the story has conflicted with the way the writer believes, and therefore led the writer to dumb down this article in favor of their own religious belief.
eastcoastcoug Danbury, CTFeb. 4, 2014 9:38 p.m.
I don't get the either-or mentality. I believe what Science tells us about the age of the earth and evolution AND I believe God created the earth USING evolution. To ignore what we find in Geology and Paleontology is to paint ourselves into an indefensible corner. The Bible is not meant to be an exact recording of the earth's physical creation just as it is not an accurate depiction of chronological history.
I believe Science and I believe in God. I don't follow these people who say I have to choose. God is the ultimate Scientist. We need to be open and learn all we can about Science. In my view, Science and Religion are both about discovering and learning all we can and not about setting limits or creating dogmas.
The Hammer lehi, utahFeb. 4, 2014 9:07 p.m.
How about we look at theories and debate the different evidences and what merit they have. Both have answers that we just don't know or are lacking scientifically. Religiously we have our different views and these have answers that require us to have faith.
As far as Evolution, Why are there virtually no connecting animals (dead or alive) or other connecting plants that link us back together? Darwin stated we should find thousands of these linking life forms and yet I know of only two that can be quasi connecting species if you squint hard enough. Also the explanation of how chimps became more intelligent and evolved to earlier homo sapiens is a shot in the dark out how we became so sophisticated. And intelligence would tell us that a world with such details as ours distinguish us as a planet formed by a creator not by pure chance.
There is reason to doubt the theory of evolution as having the complete grasp of all the scientific principles that have brought about a planet as amazing as ours.
JoeBlow Far East USA, SCFeb. 4, 2014 7:01 p.m.
"He believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God and is told strictly through the Bible."
And when a kid with this upbringing gets to a geology class, or science class or learns about dinosaurs do they just come to believe that school is a waste of time?
How is this sort of religious indoctrination useful to anyone who has to compete in the real world?


text:
Jackson County, Indiana
Trails to the Past
Main Navigation
Thank you for visiting. Please return often.
Barbara Ahlbrand ObituarySeymour Daily Tribune
Barbara Ahlbrand, 74, of Woodridge, Ill., and formerly of Seymour, died at 2:30 a.m. Monday, May 20, 2002, at her residence.
Mrs. Ahlbrand was a registered nurse for Arvin Industries for 20 years. She also worked for Memorial Hospital and Lutheran Community Home, both in Seymour, and retired in 1987. She was a member of Trinity Lutheran Church, Lisle, Ill., and a former member of Central Christian Church, Seymour.
Born Nov. 23, 1927, in Seymour, she was a daughter of Paul Rambo and Thelma Perry Rambo, who both preceded her in death. In June 1977 at Central Christian Church, Seymour, she married Edward H. Ahlbrand and he survives in Woodridge, Ill.
She also is survived by four sons, Charles L. Barbour, North Vernon, Thomas P. (Nina) Barbour, Granger, Timothy P. Barbour, Seymour, and Paul B.R. (Nancy) Barbour, Elizabethtown; seven grandchildren, Joshua Barbour, Mary Barbour, Thomas Barbour, Andrea Barbour, Melinda Barbour, Diana Barbour and Matthew Barbour; two sisters, DeVonne Hurn, OFallon, Ill., and Joyce (William) Hostetler, Santa Ana, Calif.; and a brother, David Rambo, York, Pa.
She also was preceded in death by a sister, Pauline Ripley; and a grandson, Adam Barbour.
The Rev. Sam Davenport will conduct funeral services at 10 a.m. Thursday at Myers Funeral Service, Burkholder Chapel, Seymour. Burial will be at Riverview Cemetery, Seymour.
Friends may call from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Wednesday at the funeral home.
The information on this site may be used in personal family history research, with source citation. The pages in entirety may not be
duplicated for publication in any fashion without the permission of the owner. Commercial use of any material on this site is not permitted.
Please respect the wishes of those who have contributed their time and efforts to make this free site possible.
Template Design: Genealogy Web Creations

subset: commoncrawl


text:
PRAGUE, April 9 (JTA) — Vandals destroyed 70 headstones this week at a cemetery in Kosice, in eastern Slovakia. A memorial to the victims of the Holocaust was also damaged Monday, as were the graves of former rabbis. The head of the city's Jewish community, Ivan Kolin, said the incident was a clear case of anti-Semitism because the surrounding graves and memorials at the public cemetery were left untouched. "It's sad that something like this could happen in Kosice, which was known everywhere for the tolerant coexistence of people of all nationalities and religions," he told a Czech news service. Police are investigating the incident. A few days earlier, vandals desecrated a Jewish cemetery in Novy Zamky, in southwestern Slovakia, damaging more than 160 headstones. One of the headstones was daubed with a swastika.
News Brief


text:
The National Archives will commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation with a special display of the original document in the East Rotunda Gallery. The commemoration will include extended viewing hours, inspirational music, a dramatic reading of the Emancipation Proclamation, and family activities and entertainment for all ages.
Full schedule at http://www.archives.gov/dc-metro/events/december.html
Event begins at 10:00AM
Presented by: National Archives


text: In this article we will look at three lessons that can be learned from the existing case law in New York to prepare lenders for some of the defenses that borrowers may raise in foreclosure proceedings. 1. Wait for a payment default Whenever possible, lenders should wait to commence foreclosure proceedings until the borrower has defaulted in the payment of debt service. Not only is a payment default easier to prove than a more fact-intensive covenant default, courts have also applied stricter standards in analyzing borrower defenses in the face of a payment default. It is important that the basis of the default be a failure to pay principal or interest. If the default arises from the failure to pay taxes or assessments or from a defect in the manner of payment (as opposed to a failure to make the payment at all), the courts may not apply the same elevated level of scrutiny to the borrower's defenses as in the case of a failure to pay debt service. Where the borrower misses an interest or principal payment, courts have found that tendering payment even one day late is a valid basis for foreclosure. In fact, at least one court has allowed foreclosure based on a payment default even in the face of lender bad faith (where the bad faith was found not to be the cause of the default). 2. Don't delay While the case law supports the notion that delay by itself does not necessarily constitute a waiver of a lender's right to foreclose, there have been cases where a lender was unable to foreclose after taking no action following a default and allowing the borrower to better the collateral, only to foreclose shortly thereafter. The two cases -- the 1949 decision in Caspert v. Anderson Apartments and the 1954 decision in Rockaway Park Series Corp. v. Hollis Automotive Corp. -- each involved similar facts and achieved a similar result. In each case, the borrower defaulted by failing to cure violations against the property, but the lender provided no notice and took no action against the borrower for a substantial period of time (several years in one case and 18 months in the other). The borrower later removed the violations, and the lender allowed the borrower to complete the removal before declaring a default and commencing foreclosure. In each case, the court dismissed the foreclosure action. The lesson here is that it is best to act promptly, especially where a covenant default is the basis for foreclosure. If the delay is substantial enough and if the borrower enhances the property in the meantime, a court could find that the lender is not entitled to foreclose. 3. Watch what you say Even though your loan documents may say that they can only be modified by a written agreement signed by both parties, there are circumstances where the documents can be modified by spoken words, email or other statements or communications that do not necessarily amount to a written agreement. Generally, New York law provides that a written agreement that contains a provision prohibiting oral modifications can only be modified in writing. But there are exceptions: the doctrines of part performance, waiver and estoppel. A detailed analysis of each of these defenses is beyond the scope of this article (you can read more about them here); however, there is a common element to all three: the party asserting the defense must make detailed and specific allegations -- vague, conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of the statements or conduct constituting the oral promise are not sufficient. So in order to succeed in this defense the borrower would need to clearly substantiate the claim, for example by presenting an email in which the lender explicitly promised to extend the loan. The lesson here is to be careful what you communicate to a borrower who is in default. A prudent lender will avoid making promises or statements that might be construed as a modification of the loan documents, especially in an email, voicemail or other means that are easy to substantiate.


text:
- //Home
- //Music
- //Reviews
- //John Ellis
The presence of so distinguished a trumpeter as Nicholas Payton might suggest there's something to this CD, but he doesn't get to make that much of a contribution. Purely in terms of showing what he can do, there are hints of an amazing lyrical capacity. John Scofield also sits in on a couple of titles.
The music is light—feet are not stuck in any swamp, but on something soft and springy which allows no four-square stance, far less any digging in. On Scofield's second appearance he achieves a clarity of rhythmic articulation, remarkable under the circumstances. Nobody gets to stand still, and the general diffuseness suggests that this is music more for dancing than listening. Happy moods for dancing?
John Ellis
One Foot in the Swamp
US: 22 Feb 2005
UK: Available as import
Aaron Goldberg opens on keyboards—the first track is listed as ten seconds long and more-or-less segues into the first real performance. Roland Guerin pads along on acoustic bass and Jason Marsalis uses tambourine along with Goldberg before Ellis dithers away on a gentle sort of R&B tenor sax. Scofield takes a bluesy-cum-Wes Montgomery guitar, which Goldberg echoes with a guitar imitation. This is guitar-keyboard-tenor lightweight.
Gregoire Maret opens "Work in Progress" with chromatic harmonica, and there's more of Goldberg's guitar-ism, a touch of Ellis on soprano, and a few flashes of darting Payton and Ellis interaction are followed by Goldberg trying to synthesize mimicry of them. Ellis then solos on soprano, and the big question, as elsewhere, is what he would do without Marsalis' drumming. I want a trio set with a more purposeful hornman serving Guerin and Marsalis! I have to make do here with Marsalis having a workout with Goldberg playing various melodic figures on top. There are slight appearances with more Ellis and Payton, and the playout has harmonica and soprano.
"Country Girls" opens with Ellis sounding his most impressive on tenor, albeit briefly. He goes into a sort of country neo-funk, and the harmonica joins in to complete two and a half minutes of jazz-pop.
On the longer "Bonus Round" the harmonica opens and Ellis joins in on tenor. He toys with a range of phrases (his usual procedure in a solo on this set) while the bassist works hard and Marsalis adds weight and even a sense of direction. They're not intrusive, they don't stand out so much as they are just a standout. They deserve a bigger fee than anybody else for all of this.
John Scofield's presence makes a whale of a difference on "One for the Kelpers", where he sounds like an impatient Wes Montgomery dancing with an electronic baby elephant. Ellis' tenor solo ends with a fade, which might almost be an editorial comment . . .
"Ostinato" has Ellis playing bass clarinet over the slightly swallowing noises emanating from Goldberg's apparatus. He's joined by harmonica and Payton sounding actually saxophonic on what is probably a fluegelhorn. Maret's chromatic harmonica does some cooking bebop, with bass and drums, before Goldberg comes in.
"Michael Finnegan" is that very song about the old man who grew whiskers on his chin-agin, the ones the wind came out and blew in-agin. Ellis and Goldberg play phrases more or less obliquely from that nursery rhyme while Guerin pumps and Marsalis toils, before about two-and-a-half minutes when they all play an excerpt from the Brahms Lullaby. Guten Abend, gut' Nacht, indeed! It's an encore and a playout to send revellers home, skippingly at peace.
"Chalmette Shawarma" opens like softly phrased hard-bop. Hard-bop needs more solid ground, but while you can dance or stand still on solid ground it's necessary to stay relaxed on this sort of footing. Goldberg maintains the soft and elastic for a bit and then introduces some swelling punctuations as Ellis does more of his playing around on tenor. Solo-building may not be his bag here, but you try piling up toy bricks on a bouncy castle. Payton's probably incapable of maintaining the same pure drift (not a fault on his part) and his trumpet solo actually does develop a cumulative force. He is a master, and with the bassist and drummer he actually manages to build a measure of tension. Somebody feature just these three as a trio, please!
"Sippin' Cider" features tenor, guitar, keyboards and the two-man New Orleans Revelation Brass Band maintaining the sort of Rampart Street Boogaloo with which some lion cubs made the Rebirth Brass Band actually just that a number of years back. The gyrating marching-band performance does suffer an interlude as Goldberg modulates into a funky keyboard solo, but even there the bass doesn't stop dancing. There's a false ending and then (as in Lionel Hampton live performances, and sometimes on every number during one of his concerts) a sort of reprise cum encore—very pretty piece, and lit up by Ellis on ocarina, piping like a pocket calliope, repetitively if you're listening rather than dancing. This could have been nice light relief if there had been much substance to the performance. Back when there wasn't that much jazz on issued records in Britain, long gone old-timers like Max Jones grew up and into the best of jazz writers by sifting through Paul Whiteman records for snatches of the real thing (Bix Beiderbecke for this set's Nicholas Payton?). You don't however have to wait for more of a sustained, concentrated real thing these days.
Rising Appalachia 'Alive' (album stream) (premiere) // Music
Lost Bayou Ramblers "Allons a Lafayette" (video) (premiere) // Music
Jean Caffeine "Winter of Hate" (video) (premiere) // Music
"No Dollars in Duende": On Making Uncompromising, Spirited Music
// Sound Affects
"On the elusive yet clearly existential sadness that adds layers and textures to music.READ the article


text:
Speak with a lighting specialist
Weekdays 8am-7pm
Light Bulbs
Ballasts & Drivers
Lighting Fixtures
Light Control Products
Horticultural Lighting Products
Projector Lamps
Smart Lighting
Our easy-to-use BulbFinder will let you find the correct bulb, step by step.
Select a bulb category to get started
The LED Authority
SKU: AE26R16WW60 | Ordering Code: AE26R16WW60
Array Lighting Brand DIMMABLE 2.6 Watt lamp replaces R16 traditional incandescent lamps. Can smoothly dim down to 10% power.
Perfect to use anywhere you are using a 25 watt R16 incandescent lamp
3000K "Warm White" color very closely resembles the incandescent it replaces
No lead or mercury means easy and environmentally safe disposal
165 Lumens initial light output is comparable to many R16 incandescent lamps
VERY long life - rated to still put out 70% as much light after 50,000 hours of operation as it does when brand new
CHECK PRODUCT FIT BEFORE INVESTING IN MANY-Product May Not Fit in Your Fixture. Also, NOT RECOMMENDED for use in enclosed fixtures because heat buildup can shorten life. DO NOT "hot swap" this lamp. Turn off fixture before replacing existing bulb.
Energy Used
Bulb Shape
Bulb Color
Color Temperature (Kelvin)
Brightness (Lumens)
Bulb Technology
Average Rated Life (hr)
Beam Angle (°)
Length (in)
Width (in)
Product Notes: Excessive or Continuous Heat Build-up will Drastically Reduce the Life of LED Products. Well Ventilated AND Open Fixtures Are Required for Proper Light Output and Product Life. DO NOT HOT-SWAP THIS BULB-Turn Off Power To Fixture Before Installation. If Your Fixture Already Has a Lens, Remove It (If Possible) for Best Optics and Heat Exchange. NOT DESIGNED FOR OUTDOOR USE NOR FOR USE IN WET LOCATIONS.
(based on 1 review)
Reviewed by 1 customer
Displaying review 1
Back to top
I like em!
By Edickent
From MD, USA
About Me Elec Engineer, Non-green tryin2do right, Quality Oriented
See all my reviews
Best Uses
Comments about Array Lighting 2.6 Watt, 120 Volt DIMMABLE LED R16 Warm White Reflector Style Wide Flood Bulb.:
Replaced most of house's lights now, CFL's were a disappointment versus incandescent color, ambiance, and brightness... but gotta say I'm pretty happy with these LED's performance. Lights come on immediately (unlike CFL), light is closer in color to incandescent than any CFL I've tried yet, and these bulbs were actually BRIGHTER than I expected. Light-output was as-bright (or brighter) than R16-30W incandescents I replaced (perhaps a tad more white than original).I've got a ton (30?) of 4" pot-lights in my house, most have down-baffles (diffusers) but I've got a few that are eyeballs. The 4" eyeballs are kind-of unique, in-that you can only use a 2.0"-diameter bulb (R16, PAR16), while the 4" baffles can handle an R20. These LEDs were a perfect replacement for my R16's in all of my eyeballs (though these LEDs are considerably shorter than the R16's, see attached pictures).The only negative (which you can't really blame the bulb) is that my Eaton/Lutron 600W dimmers have too much leakage, and have trouble dimming one-or-two bulbs! The dimmers work fine In circuits of my house where I had 2-LED and 2-CFL, or 3-LEDs installed... but with only 1-or-2 of these LED bulbs installed, the dimmer leaked enough (when turned on) to continue lighting the LED bulbs at near full-brightness. It's not the bulb's fault that they're so energy-efficient, though... the dimmer-manufacturers never expected them to have no load! These LEDs dim perfectly (and probably over a greater light-range than the incandescents dimmed) when the dimmer is working properly.I will be ordering more of these, maybe after a couple more paychecks!
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Images shared by Edickent
LED is MUCH shorter than R16
Tags: Picture of Product
Face of bulb
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review
Do you have questions about this product?
Get answers from real customers and in-house experts with AnswerBox.
Know the answer? Answer this question
2 answers
Do you have a question about this product?
Sign up to receive our best offers
Stay connected with Bulbs.com
Accepted Payments


text:
(CBS/WBZ) WAYLAND, Mass. - A 13-year-old Massachusetts girl who has been missing for over a week may be in Brooklyn, police say.
CBS station WBZ reported that Alexandra "Allie" Loftis went to Boston and boarded a Peter Pan bus to New York City on Friday Nov. 4th. She was last seen on a surveillance video at the Port Authority Bus Terminal late last Friday night, reports The New York Daily News.
Authorities believe the girl may be somewhere in Brooklyn, as her father, who grew up there, had taken his daughter there to visit family several times. However, none of her family there has heard from her.
Local police in Wayland, a small rural town outside of Boston, are working with the NYPD and volunteers to scour the city to find her.
"As time goes on we're more and more concerned," said Wayland Detective Ruth Backman. "We're just hoping that maybe she goes somewhere she feels safe and somebody might see her."
Her father, 47-year-old Tony Loftis, said he was stunned she had run away, but ascribed it to teenage angst. The Huffington Post reports her father saying Allie had been unhappy at school recently.
"She's a teenager and thinks the grass is greener on the other side. She's dealing with the same things I think all teenagers do," he said. "She's had a pretty sheltered and well-loved life."
Tony Loftis and her family are turning to social media like Twitter and Facebook to aid the search for Allie. "We've tried to leave messages on her Facebook page. We've created a new 'Find Allie Loftis' Facebook page. We have left voicemail messages on her cell phone until it got filled up. We've tried every method we think possible but haven't heard from her," he said.
Allie Loftis is described as 5'4", 130 pounds, biracial, with black hair and braces. She has long, brown hair and brown eyes. "She is walking with a crutch from a knee or leg injury that she had sustained, so she has one crutch with her," said Wayland Police Detective Jamie Berger.
Anyone with information can call the NYPD Missing Persons Squad at 212-694-7781.


text:
peachconcealer's review of Smashbox Photo Finish Light
461 reviews
55% would repurchase
Package Quality: 4.0
Price: $$$
Package Quality: 4.0
Price: $$$
INGREDIENTSWater, Cyclopentasiloxane, Polysilicone-11, Butylene Glycol, Ethylene/Acrylic Acid Copolymer, Methyl Methacrylate Crosspolymer, Carbomer, Hydroxyethylcellulose, Triethanolamine, Decyl Glucoside, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol, Hexylene Glycol, Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate, Oligopeptide-10
Age: 30-35
Skin: Combination, Medium, Not Sure
Hair: Black, Other, Other
Eyes: Black
The 1st foundation primer I've ever bought. So far it hasn't disappointed me. I have a very oily T-Zone especially on the tip of my nose & the area above my cupid's bow. My makeup on these areas never stay longer than 2 hours. I was suprised with this primer, the 1st 4 hours = no shine at all and makeup is still there.......later in the day, I only needed to touch-up with some powder but I don't have to use bloting paper like usual. The only problem is the price. It's quite pricey at $76 here in New Zealand. I would save up and buy a new one when this's run out.
Read all 461 reviews of Photo Finish Light
Popular Primer/ Correctors
1033 Reviews
444 Reviews
1814 Reviews
98 Reviews
640 Reviews
72 Reviews


text:
Results 1 to 5 of 13
Thread: Alexandria
October 5th, 2012 06:06 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Posts
- 182
Okay, this has long been one of my favourite names, but I've spent the last few months poking around the internet and am noticing that it gets very mixed responses. I only found out that there was a city called Alexandria in the United States about a month ago, although of course I am well acquainted with the one in Egypt.
I love the name Alexandrina, but worry that it sounds a bit over-the-top. It was the first name of Queen Victoria, but it has fallen out of use since the last century. I also love the name Alexandra, but with Alexandria and Alexandrina it seems incomplete. So I would like to know - what is your opinion of Alexandria?
In my mind, I put Alexandria in a category with Victoria, Lavinia, Ophelia, Cordelia, and Octavia - pretty, feminine names that end in -ia. Is this where you would put this name, or do you find it stylistically too different (or, worse, too modern)? What do you think of Alexandria, and the names that you would categorize with it?
Thank you.
Last edited by selenea; August 2nd, 2013 at 11:07 AM.
October 5th, 2012 06:21 PM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 388
i like Alexandria a lot! So cute!
teenberry, writer, feminist, geek.
amelia hazel, charlotte elaine, tierney ray, cadence hermione, genevieve linden.
hugo nathaniel, kieran benedict, larkin willoughby, gabriel frost, henry bonaventure.
October 5th, 2012 06:30 PM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- London, England
- Posts
- 5,334
I get a very strong and royal feel from it. I would categorize it with Victoria, Katharine, Octavia and Lavinia, all very powerful names in my opinion. Alexandria is prettier in my ears, not sure I like the -drina sound.My darling Marian Illyria Aphrodite, March 2013 & Little Bunny (a girl!) due 9th of February 2014
October 5th, 2012 06:56 PM #7Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 1,226
I prefer just Alexandra but Alexandria is nice . Alexandrina is a bit over the top IMO. I find Alexandra and Alexandria to be very powerful and "royal".~*~Ames~*~
Proud mommy of three beautiful girls:
Delaney Brooke (6-27-05)
Ryley Kate (4-16-07)
Quinn Michaela (6-1-13)
October 5th, 2012 06:58 PM #9
I absolutely love Alexandria! If I never get to have a boy Alexander, I'll have an Alexandria. I think it sounds very royal, like Victoria, Octavia etc and it has great historical significance.http://www.amazon.com/Angel-Blackwood/e/B00SARZLFY -- My Amazon Author Page
Represented by:
Persephone Elysia Willow -- June 5th, 2013
Amelia Lorien Sophia -- December 2015.


text:
Best of Boston
BEST Sandwich
This Brookline Village spot refers to itself as "Home of the skillfully crafted sandwich." Every entry on the menu, from the meat to the condiments to the bread selection—is obsessively chosen. The "Roast Beef 1000," for instance, contains a perfectly… read more»
Sam LaGrassa's
Whether it's the "Famous Rumanian Pastrami," simple turkey, or a grilled sandwich, these handmade creations hit the spot every time. Though there are vegetarian options, meat is the focal point of most sandwiches here, particularly the pastrami cooked with brown… read more»
Parish Cafe
It's hard to compete with a sandwich joint that's tapping into the culinary genius of just about every megachef in Boston. Among the delicacies on the roster of almost two dozen sandwiches: Chris Schlesinger's smoked ham and cheese with mango… read more»
Zaftigs Delicatessen
Oy vey, they're not supposed to make corned beef or pastrami this good outside of the Lower East Side. Despite the high prices and yuppie decor, Zaftigs is as close as you'll get in Boston to the traditional Jewish deli… read more»
Parish Cafe
What if great Boston chefs such as Todd English of Olives, Lydia Shire of Biba, Jody Adams of Rialto, and Chris Schlesigner of East Coast Grill designed sandwiches? Well, they have, and they're on the menu here, along with other… read more»
Kettle Cafe
The variety may not be the most extensive, but Kettle Cafe wins the taste test by a mile. In addition to muffins, croissants, and biscotti at the Kettle, there are only five sandwiches, but each of them is guaranteed to… read more»
Parish Cafe
This bistro doesn't dub its sandwich selection "The Great Ones" for nothing. Some of the city's best chefs have contributed recipes for lavishly layered concoctions sure to make your mouth water. Steer clear of the calzone, and instead sink your… read more»
Parish Cafe
Truly our town's most creative sandwiches, designed by area chefs. A sampling: the Chan Chan, a flour tortilla wrapped around duck confit and julienned vegetables designed by David Chan of Ginger Bistro; Diane's Steak and Blue, blue-cheese bread topped with… read more»
Manny's Pastries
Stuff Cuban bread with roast pork, smoked ham, and Swiss cheese, put it in a sandwich press, and voila—Cuban sandwich heaven. read more»
Black Goose
Delicious grilled thick slices of honey-baked ham on focaccia, with lettuce, tomato, and Dijon mustard. Comes with a side of potato salad. We'd eat this three times a week and never complain. read more»
Artu's sandwiches are big, bold, and meaty. The roast lamb is overflowing with succulent, thinly slices meat, enough for two meals. The fresh mozzarella, tomato, basil, and prosciutto is an ideal blend of tastes and textures. read more»


text:
Vancouver, B.C. – Vancouver Canucks President & General Manager Michael D. Gillis announced today that the Canucks have signed centre Brad Richardson.
Richardson, 28, appeared in 16 regular season games for the Kings in 2012.13, recording six points (1-5-6) and 10 penalty minutes and played 11 playoff games, collecting one assist.
Over the span of his eight-year NHL career with the Kings and Avalanche, the Belleville, Ontario native registered 105 points (43-62-105) and 183 penalty minutes in 391 games in addition to 10 points (5-5-10) and 14 penalty minutes in 45 playoff games. Richardson was a member of the LA Kings Stanley Cup championship team in 2012.
The 5'11", 191-pound centre was originally drafted 163rd overall by the Colorado Avalanche in the fifth round of the 2003 NHL Entry Draft.
Source: Vancouver Canucks Media


text:
WOOHOO right now you can score a Kindle FIRE + Bonus $5 credit for $169 with free shipping. One of the best prices I have seen so far, but there are a VERY limited amount of these available!
Here's how:
– Go HERE and get the FREE $30 Voucher in AmazonLocal (total = $0).
– Go to "Your Vouchers" page for your voucher (takes about 5 minutes).
– Then Go HERE and add the Kindle to your cart.
– Enter your unique code from the voucher at checkout
– Pay only $169 with free shipping.
Click here to get this deal!
This is a deal to share with friends and family – these DON'T go on sale very often! The voucher must be used by 6/15/12. The $5 credit will be emailed to you within 48 hours of your order shipping.


text:
PhD in Social Welfare
Berkeley Social Welfare develops doctoral scholars who challenge conventional wisdom and make significant contributions to the field of social welfare and the profession of social work through excellent research, teaching, policy development, and administration.
Our doctoral graduates are prepared to tackle the most difficult social problems we face, contributing to new knowledge in areas as wide-ranging as poverty, severe mental health, racial and ethnic inequalities, and health. They form a cadre of researchers who are developing new ideas about service systems that can help children, families, and communities to develop and thrive.
With over 300 graduates of our doctoral program, our School produces top-notch professors and researchers for some of the best social work schools and policy centers throughout the country and around the globe.
Meet Berkeley Social Welfare Doctoral Students & Candidates
Berkeley Social Welfare Doctoral Program Brochure [PDF]
Doctoral Study in Social Welfare
Doctoral students in Social Welfare pursue an individualized program of work tailored to their intellectual interests and aligned with specialized research areas of faculty mentors and supervisors. In reviewing applications to our doctoral program, we seek to determine whether the applicant's particular objectives can be met in our program and at Berkeley.
Click on a link below to learn more about the specialized research areas at Berkeley Social Welfare and the faculty currently conducting research in these areas:
Systems of Care for Children/Families/Elderly
Focuses on the provision of services to meet the developing needs of children, families and the elderly. Spectrum of needs include safety, health, education and well-being.
Behavioral Health and Prevention/Intervention
Focused on advancing understanding of mental, emotional and behavioral health problems. Emphasis on informing prevention, intervention and recovery services.
Community, Organizational and Policy Development
Addresses macro-level issues in developing systems and policy. Emphases include social security reform, service delivery systems and international comparative studies.
Violence and Victimization
Designed to advance understanding of violence and inform strategies that promote safety. Specific emphases include bullying, self-harm, domestic violence, crime and social conflict.
Health and Healthcare Disparities
Addresses how population groups differ in health, access to care and quality of care. Focuses on social and economic opportunities that help explain why some groups are healthier than others.
Race, Class and Gender
Specializations above are woven together by cross-cutting population emphases — on race/ethnicity, gender/sexual orientation/sexual identity and socioeconomic class.
Program of Work
Berkeley Social Welfare's doctoral program is designed to inspire independence and originality of thought in pursuit of knowledge. Students design their academic pursuits in consultation with individual faculty from the School of Social Welfare and additional distinguished departments across the Berkeley campus.
Doctoral course work includes seminars in research methods, statistics, theory and other related courses, along with individual tutorials with faculty. Required courses for doctoral students focus primarily on research methodology. In addition, students enroll in elective courses, seminars, and independent tutorials useful for mastering selected fields of study, preparing papers and bibliographies for the qualifying examination, and developing competence in research methods. Students are also encouraged to select courses from the rich and varied offerings in other University departments.
A minimum of three years is necessary to complete the program (two years of full-time course work and one year for the dissertation) although most students require a longer period. In Social Welfare, it is expected that all doctoral students will complete the PhD degree within 10 semesters, having taken the Qualifying Exam by the end of the 3rd year and filed the dissertation by the end of the 5th year.
- For complete details please see the current Doctoral Student Handbook.
- For more information on courses in Social Welfare and other departments at Berkeley, please visit the Berkeley Academic Guide.