text:
Pro-Tec Knee Patellar Tendon Strap
Product Information:
Cut back on moderate knee pain with the Pro-Tec Knee Patellar Tendon Strap. Made with stretchable neoprene, this product comfortably stays in place while the tubing sewn into neoprene delivers gentle comfort. A plastic loop allows an easy adjustment with a hook-and-loop closure. The Knee Patellar Tendon Strap helps provides consistent pressure, stabilizing your patella and spreading stress around the knee.
- Sizing: Small 10-12"; Medium 12 1/8-13 5/8; Large 13 3/4- 15 1/2; X Large 15 5/8-17 1/2
- Circumference measured just below kneecap
- Helps reduce moderate knee pain around the knee cap
- Reduces symptoms of tendinitis, chondromalacia, Osgood-Schlatter's Disease, and other knee ailments
- Offers stability to patella, improving its tracking
- Absorbs stress to the knee, reducing vibrations in femoral groove
- Offers consistent pressure on patellar tendon
- Neoprene fabric offers gentle compression and a plastic loop ensures easy adjustment
- Strap attaches securely with a hook-and-loop closure
- Pro-Tec
Country of Origin: TaiwanWeb ID: 13089129
Customer Reviews:
Rated 4 out of 5�by 4 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5�by Runner I love it I have Patellofemoral knee pain, I'm a runner and I've searched it up it's a great brace but in order for your knee to get better do iron strength work outs on knees with your brace and go for a walk and after a week of knee workouts for great strength go out for a jog. This brace doesn't move it stays at where you want it underneath your patella. In other words it's not slippery August 8, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5�by Alice too small The knee brace was too small. I thought I would be getting the Nike brace like my old one March 16, 2015
Rated 5 out of 5�by Runner85 AWESOME! I am on my second strap and will never purchase another brand! I originally bought the doctor shock strap as soon as I saw it out of the package I said nope I am returning it. Bought this one and it has done me wonders! I suffer from patellar tendonitis and this strap has help greatly! The only reason I marked quality as good is because I can run through them in a year, I am so hard on them and they start to stretch out. January 19, 2015
Rated 5 out of 5�by cosmo64 Great product! The Pro-Tec knee patellar tendon strap is great. Fits tight, so no sliding down. I like that the strap is in a clip, last one I had just wrapped around with Velcro and I found that as it wore it would slip. So far this strap is great! February 20, 2014
1-4 of 4


text:
We're excited to announce that we've made enhancements to our website! The new improvements will enhance your experience on TravelSafe.com include a simplified enrollment process, enhanced editing capabilities and additional options for delivering quotes to your clients including via email.
In addition, you may notice changes to the Prestige plans. We will now offer two plans: Prestige and Prestige+. It is important to note that Zero Trip Cost is not allowed for the Prestige+ plans because the only difference between the Prestige and Prestige+ plans is the Cancel For Any Reason Benefit.
Another important change is there will no longer be coverage limitations for those travelers 80 or over. This means the Medical Expense/Medical Evacuation will no longer have reduced benefit limits and these travelers will be eligible for the Pre-Ex Waiver. In addition, Certificates will no longer reduce coverage based on age. Instead, it will only limit their Trip Cost and Trip Length eligibility, as it did previously. The maximum eligible trip cost remains at $15,000 and trip length is still 30 days for travelers 80 and over.
If you have any questions about these upgrades, you can leave a comment below, call us at 1-800-523-8020 or email us at email@example.com. We look forward to hearing from you!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rank: 7129
Not recently active
I have always loved animals and I believe in rights for all, both people and animals. I am a big fan of DC and Dark Horse fan, Batman, Joker, and Rorschach being some of my favorite characters. Right now I'm into comics, minecraft, and school. Currently My tumbler is full of Vegan and DC (Batman) things so if that's what your into follow me at p&t.


text:
Daniel Hudson, RHP, White Sox (Double-A Birmingham)
Tuesday's stats: 6 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 7 K
Basically, as long as Hudson keeps putting goose eggs up on the scoreboard, he's going to keep earning a mention. Now 7-0 in nine starts since his promotion to Double-A, Hudson has fired 26 scoreless innings in his last four outings, while giving up just 12 hits, walking four, and striking out 30. With above-average command of above-average stuff, he's now the best pitching prospect in the system after the Sox sent four arms to the Padres for Jake Peavy.
August 5, 2009
Kevin Goldstein on Daniel Hudson
Leave a Comment »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI


text:
Community-based non-pharmacological interventions delivered by family caregivers reduce behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia
- School of Nursing, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
- Correspondence to: Dr Ann M Kolanowski
School of Nursing, Pennslylvania State University, 106 Health & Human Development East, University Park, PA 16802, USA; amk20{at}psu.edu
Commentary on: Brodaty H, Arasaratnam C. Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Am J Psychiatry 2012;169:946–53.
Implications for practice and research
Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) should be the first line of treatment for the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD).
Multicomponent NPIs tailored to individual and caregiver needs can reduce BPSD in community settings.
Current instruments that measure BPSD lack precision, diluting the observed effect of NPIs; more precise outcome measures are needed.
Quality-of-life indicators may be more sensitive measures of NPI benefits than reduction in negative behaviours.
Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are prevalent, impose a high burden on caregivers and greatly increase the cost of care. The use of pharmacological treatments is a common practice, but these drugs have not demonstrated efficacy and they carry a substantial risk for increased …


text:
- Home
- News
- Radio / TV
- Videos
- The Word For You
- Focus Today
- Events
- Contact Us
- Job Openings
- About
Tsunami Dock Removal Work To Begin July 31st
Most of Agate Beach at Newport will remain open to the public when workers cut up and remove the 66-foot long dock that washed ashore June 5. It had been carried away from a port in Japan by the March 2011 tsunami.
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department says there will be a safety zone around the dock and portions of the beach may be temporarily closed as sections of the dock are moved. The work is scheduled to start July 31 and is expected to take three to seven days.
Ballard Diving and Salvage of Vancouver is doing the work under an $84,000 contract.


text:
Kevin Hogan passed for 211 yards and a touchdown, and rushed for another touchdown as the 14th-ranked Stanford football team upset host and top-ranked Oregon, 17-14, in a Pac-12 Conference contest Saturday. Jordan Williamson's 37-yard field goal in overtime gave the Cardinal a chance to reach the conference championship game.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, November 17, 2012, 11:06 PM
This story contains 808 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


text:
Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple
Strike, Kenichi! Fists do the Talking!
Episode 33 | TV-PG
Kenichi is taking a serious beating when Hermit shares the tragic tale of his childhood. With Honoka in real danger, Kenichi knows the time for words is over - he'll let his fists do the talking.
Official Site: www.funimation.com/shows/kenichi-the-mightiest-discipleHide Details


text:
No help from Berg
Niles Eastman, Fargo
Congress, without the help of Rep. Rick Berg, finally came together to protect the middle class.
Congress passed a bipartisan compromise that extends much needed tax cuts for middle class North Dakotans and local small businesses.
Unfortunately, Berg, who represented North Dakotans, voted, in effect, for a $2,200 tax hike on middle class families in the midst of a slow economic recovery. I regret that Berg was unable to put partisan politics aside at the end of his term.
I am excited to continue the work of North Dakota Fair Share to give every North Dakotan a fair shot. The coalition that has been built right here in Fargo will continue to work on behalf of middle class North Dakotans and small business owners.


text:
April 27, 2012
Stories this photo appears in:
It's the little things that make it work
Little things like waking up in a good mood, or a superb cup of coffee in the morning will make anyone smile, but a true mood boost ultimately occurs after making a difference in the lives of innocent animals. The admirable deeds from local residents have caused HSCAZ to thrive in a rough economy, and the lives of countless animals in our community have been positively affected by these acts.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.


text:
Applying for admission to Wayland is easy. Simply fill out the online application, print off the signature page. Please mail the signature page and the application fee to the address indicated.
All applications will not be processed until the signature page and application fee in received in the Altus office.
Tucson Site
6235 E. Broadway
Tucson, AZ 85711


text:
GoingOutGuide Bars+%26+Clubs
Subscribe: Home Delivery | Digital
Once you get past the salads and starters, the kitchen begins to reveal its flaws.
One of the most anticipated renovations on Capitol Hill is finally finished. The Hawk & Dove, closed since October 2011, will reopen to the public Thursday at 5 p.m. If you were a fan of the old Hawk — the warren of small rooms on two floors, the damp and musty smell, pitchers of beer priced for an intern's budget — then you won't recognize the place.
Xavier Cervera, the owner of six nearby bars, including Molly Malone's, the Chesapeake Room and Boxcar Tavern, has turned the rambling 1967 saloon into a wide-open room with 18-foot ceilings, a 40-foot bar and sets of French windows that open onto Pennsylvania Avenue. A long mezzanine upstairs adds additional seats, another bar, and a raised lounge area with a working fireplace. (It can also be turned into a stage for live music.)
Chef Jeremy Magnanelli of Senart's will be cooking flatbreads and sandwiches in a wood-burning oven, and the bar has 18 beers on tap, including locals Chocolate City, Lost Rhino and Flying Dog.
This sounds like a lot of change, but regulars from the old place will welcome the sight of Hawk & Dove fixture Paul Meagher, who will be behind the bar Monday through Wednesday and also working at Sunday brunch.
-- Fritz Hahn (Jan. 15, 2013)


text:
Hotel B&B Puerta del Sol
We are Puerta del Sol Hotel, a 3 star hotel located just 3 miles from the international airport and 5 from San Jose city. With a personalized service in a very calm and safe area you will find here a piece of our beautiful country. Visit us; it will be a pleasure to serve you!
You will also have easy access to drugstores, supermarkets, theatres, souvenir stores, banks, gyms surrounding the hotel and of course, the ease of move to any tourist attraction (city, mountain or beach) in our amazing country.
Availability & RatesTo view availability and prices please select dates and click 'Update Dates'
Hotel Facilities & Policies
- 24 Hour Reception
- 24 Hour Security
- Air Conditioning
- Airport Transfers
- Free Breakfast
- Cable TV
- Cafeteria
- Ceiling Fan
- Child Friendly
- Currency Exchange
- Direct Dial Telephone
- Telephone/Fax Facilities
- Free City Maps
- Free Internet Access
- Free Parking
- Free WiFi
- Hair Dryers
- House Keeping
- Internet Access
- Laundry Facilities
- Luggage Storage
- Non Smoking
- Outdoor Swimming Pool
- Outdoor Terrace
- Parking
- Pet Friendly
- Safe Deposit Box
- Shuttle Bus
- Swimming Pool
- Taxes included
- Tea & Coffee Making Facilities
- Tours/Travel Desk
- Wheelchair Friendly
- Wi-Fi
Cancellation PolicyThis property has a 1 day cancellation policy. Failure to cancel within this time will result in a cancellation charge equal to the first night of your stay.
DirectionsShow MapHide Map
Coming on the highway to San Jose city, after approximately 3 miles from Juan Santamaria international airport you will find a bridge called J.J. Orlich, immediately you are passing it, take your right and keep on the small road, here you will pass in front of the Herradura Hotel and Country inn suites, after them, you keep going 200 meters and you will find on your right our white signal Hotel BB Puerta del Sol next to a small lake, you just follow the arrow.
Located Near
El hotel se encuentra localizado especficamente en la zona hotelera en San Jos, Costa Rica, Residencial los Arcos, Rotonda N1 - N 17.
Recepcin disponible 24/7 para servicio de ubicacin en caso de ser necesario.


text:
Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Bush and Obama 'lucky' not to be in jail for drug use
Posted on 03/24/2013 1:07:20 PM PDT by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush could have "conceivably been put in jail for their drug use, ruining their lives and impacting their getting elected to office.
"Look, the last two presidents could have conceivably been put in jail for their drug use and I really think - look what would've happened, it would've ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky and they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for some of these things and I think it's a big mistake, the Kentucky Republican said on Foxs Fox News Sunday.
"Actually, I think it would be the last three presidents, but who's counting?" host Chris Wallace said with a laugh, referring to former President Bill Clinton.
"There you go," Paul said.
"But he didn't inhale," Wallace quipped.
Paul said that he doesnt support people using marijuana but said he also doesnt necessarily support putting them in jail for extended periods of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Good grief.
there's a guy in federal jail for 40 years due to drug possession along with a 'dangerous weapon' (he had a gun on him when busted).
That is ridiculous.
Yeah, it's a real shame Hussein wasn't tossed in jail. Damn our luck.
Um, that argument doesn't resonate much with me, considering I could easily done without both Bush and Obama having political careers.
I wasn't aware that Bush admitted to anything.
So if you remove the gun he would be in jail for 40 years?
I think I'd have to know a lot more about the case and his history.
Please don't resort to logic and truth with such an emotional issue! /sarc
There are dozens of these cases where they get 40, 50 years.. sometimes due to repeat offense or 'having a dangerous weapon'. The judges have no discretion because of Congress and their federal minimum sentences:
What illegal drug did George Bush use? Rand Paul is going off the deep end if he is accusing GW of having used illegal drugs. GW was a drinker and alcohol isn't illegal.
You are right, he also expressly denied using 'hard drugs' which, of course, means to many an admission of using other drugs. I'm afraid Rand has been reading some of his daddy's propaganda sources.
Here you go.
Dude got 55 years!
Just the kind of psycho-babble I'd expect from the son of Ron Paul!
The infamous "Bush did cocaine because we think he did".
For a rookie Senator, Paul may be letting his ego get out of hand, this was a stupid thing to claim about Bush, it was an ugly smear to promote drugs.
Sounds like Rand Paul is going the fair and balanced route which the Libs love.
Exactly what drug did Bush use?
I know a guy with 3 different marijuana possession arrests over a 30 year period. The 4th time it was manufacturing with intent to distribute and he still didn't go to jail.
He says they don't send him to jail because he's a good source of money for the state.
He has admitted on Doug Wead's tape to "trying" marijuana:
Bush refused to answer questions about past marijuana use. In a taped conversation with a friend, Bush said "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? 'Cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
He has admitted on tape to "trying" marijuana and refused to deny snorting cocaine.
Paul can't help but show his Libertarian side. Nuttiness usually walks hand-in-hand with libertarian political leanings. I'm sure there are some level-headed libertarians, I just haven't met one yet. It attracts some really whacked out people.
Neal Boortz is probably the notable exception.
"He's falling for the fantasy that people are in jail for the drug use when the reality is that they end up in jail over other crimes with drugs being an associated crime."
Perhaps a falicy many voters fall for as well. Maybe we should let this and all future reference pass?
In any-event the Federal government has no business making or enforcing laws against drugs except when those drugs are in the act of crossing an international or State line.
Even then it should be our States that do the bulk of the enforcing. The Federal constitution contains no authorization for such domestic laws.
Refused to deny.
There is a wobbly hook to hang your hat on.
So you think an automatic 55 year sentence is proportionate to his "crime" or do you agree with Rand that the judge should have discretion to cut that to say, 8 years?
He didn't get 55 yrs for smoking a joint.
He admitted trying pot and refused to deny snorting coke before 1974. He was very specific about that.
He's not wrong.
Oh, how lucky we are.
[Little irony and sarcasm there. Imagine an America with presidents who had not been on drugs.]
Correct... it is the associated crimes of drug use that get people locked up
Yet have I heard of anyone get arrested for flunking an employer drug test. Even the military sends a serviceman/ woman to rehab instead of jail
And, the way Rand has been going liberal in recent times, he would give Obama amnesty....
Yes the associated crime of having a firearm... and locked up for 55 years? Please. That's ridiculous.
No, he's also a drug addled, packer-loving, baby-killer.
That and we aren't talking about getting rid of sexual assault and harassment laws just because Clinton was president.
Rand is 100 percent correct once again.
Drugs are a part of Obama's gay lifestyle, and the accusation that Bush did drugs is wishful thinking on the part of his enemies. Rand should distance himself from his daddy's nonsense.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again I don't give a rats tush how many of you PaulBOTS post snotty responses Rand Paul is as nuts as his father, and doesn't qualify to be anywhere near that WH in a day, and age we the people need sane, as well as gutsy leadership.
The girlfriend's cousin and the cousin's boyfriend held large quantities of pot and other drugs for a dealer. Someone ripped them off and executed them both. My coworker's girlfriend missed being caught up in the action by minutes.
Flash forward 6 mos. the employer notifies us that we will be drug tested in 3 mos. On the day of his drug test Sean stands up and says "Been nice working with everyone, see ya later".
Apparently he smoked a lot of weed and wouldn't / couldn't quit for a few months in order to pass a drug test and keep his job even though he had a 6 month old son.
I guess that would depend if you felt that having an oz of pot, deserves jail time.
I do know people who have gone to jail over this issue, now was it long, no, always less than two months and most just got probation.
I have heard of Clinton and Obama using drugs but not Bush -what have I missed.
What is it people are smoking? Dubya had a drug problem? Really? All the time he was flying a Delta Dagger in the Nat. Guard?
President Bush took drugs? I don't recall ever hearing that.
From what I've been told, the pot ban was only the result of some Democrat pol making it his main election point, something to carry him. Before that, it wasn't even an issue.
Even if that story is true, "using" and "trying" are not the same thing. This story indicates that Rand Paul is not so different from his father, who is a nutcase.
Paul seems to have forgotten that Bill Clinton's brother said he has a nose like a vacuum cleaner and hedged on the "did not inhale" comment about smoking pot.
Bring forth those who said they snorted coke with Boosh. You stand a better chance to find someone who went to college with Obammy and few if any character witnesses have stepped forward.
Rand Paul should pick his battles.
Ask Willie Nelson how minimum sentences work. He carries enough pot and mushrooms to be categorized as a dealer and he continually walks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
W. Choong Foong
Dr. Foong teaches and directs graduate and undergraduate pharmacology courses in nurse anesthesiology, physician assistant, dental hygiene and dentistry programs. He also actively participates in clinical teaching providing chair-side pharmacology and therapeutics education to dental hygiene and dentistry students. Dr. Foong received his BSc (Hon) and PhD in Pharmacology from the School of Pharmacy, at Portsmouth University, England. His areas of interests and publications focus on cancer biology, drug delivery systems and dental education. He is also a consultant to the National Dental Examining Board of Canada. Dr. Foong joined the University in 2001


text:
Directions to Shri Ram Heritage Hotel--A Unit Of Rao Bikaji GrouAddress: A-228 Sadul Ganj, Bikaner, India
Average rating: 0%
Rooms from: US$ 47.29
Directions to Shri Ram Heritage Hotel--A Unit Of Rao Bikaji Grou
Situated in a very calm and quite residential Area of Bikaner .Recognised by goverment of rajasthan tourisume. We have our own camel safari company in name of Rao Bikaji camel safari www.raobikajicamelsari.com near Jaipur/National Highway 15 & R.T.D.C (RAJESTHAN Tourism Office Dhola maru /Dungar collage Bus stop & rail station 2.5 KM . FREE PICK UP FROM RAILWAY / BUSS STATION for room booking only


text:
Alera - Extra Shelves for Wire Shelving Units, 36 x 18", Black - 2 Pack
About this item
Ideal storage solution for industrial and commercial use. Snap-together design assembles in minutes. Strong welded wire construction provides exceptional strength and stability. Open design allows air circulation and reduces dust build-up. Includes two shelves and shelf clips.
Search our entire assortment of Alera Wire Shelving:
Search optional items for Alera Wire Shelving:
Assembled Country
Component Country
Member reviews & questions
Ask & Answer
Policies & plans
Shipping Information
Shipping Information
Standard - 2 to 6 business days
Warranty Information
Alera 5-Year Limited Warranty: Except as otherwise provided, Alera promises to repair or replace any Alera® branded furniture products, component or part that is found by Alera to be defective in material or workmanship within five (5) years from the date of original purchase so long as you, the original purchaser, still own it. Fabric, vinyl and/or leather is warranted for two (2) years from the date of original purchase.


text:
First, listen to this 9-minute clip:
Launch Player | Download | Full Sermon
Here's the topic for today's discussion:
Maybe it's the legacy of 150 years of evolutionary theory; or maybe it's the basic human need to find an authority source in the vacuum of secular society. Whatever the reason, science is way out of its depth when it comes to questions of origins.
So, answer and discuss these questions: What is at the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology? For scientists who are professing Christians, how should they think about the relationship between science and theology?
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
Q-What is at the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology?
A-Man's desire to be in control: wanting to "know & understand it all."
How is that any different from Adam & Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? satan tempted Eve with gaining knowledge & understanding to BE LIKE GOD. And isn't that what man is still doing today? Trying to BE LIKE GOD? Be our OWN gods? Because God makes the rules, so if man can become like God, then he can make his own rules. And the alternative is to be in subjection to God, & just like satan rebelled against being in subjection to God, we too, in our sinful nature, rebel against our Creator & reject the idea of being in submission to anyone else. So in summary, I would say the answer from my perspective is rebellion of God.
Q-For scientists who are professing Christians, how should they think about the relationship between science and theology?
A-Well just as psychologists have commandeered corners on theology & the church, & now "management-types" have commandeered corners on theology & running the church, scientists are no different. We each want to contribute to our society & surroundings, & as Christians we want to contribute to our faith/belief system, & we each feel our called profession has something to contribute. This comes from the mother who diapers & disciplines & teaches in the home, to the accountant who serves on the church staff by using his expertise in financial management, to the school teacher who uses her training in serving in teaching small groups, etc. But Pastor John's audio blog here is excellent in pointing out that creation can't be duplicated, & as a supernatural occurrence, can't really be understood in HOW it took place as it is outside of natural causes which we CAN observe & recreate. So how should Christian scientists view their relationship between science & theology? I believe they can contribute in any ways that they can in TRUE science (that which IS provable & for which we have REAL evidence) drawing our focus on the awesome power & glory of our Creator, & then witness for Christ that what is unknown & improvable about the Bible should be taken on faith, which is a foundational element of accepting Christ & calling oneself a Christian. This requires a submissiveness which we all need to practice in our realization that we are subjects to a King, Our God & Creator, & His Son, Christ Jesus, Our Lord.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
People who do not want to believe in creation, those calling themselves Christians, have a serious lack of faith. They do not want to believe in something they can't explain. I don't know if it's pride that pushes them to want to be able to come to a complete understanding of every miracle. Some people just can't come to grip with the fact that they cannot understand everything, that God left some mysteries for him alone to understand. It is part of faith to accept what God says in the Scriptures, even the parts we can't explain. Some people just can't cope with the fact that they can't explain the Trinity, so they come with the strangest explanation for it, when all they have to do is realize they can't fully understand it. God's mind is infinitely greater than ours, which is just something we need to accept. So much effort is wasted in trying to convinced people that are beyond reach, without saving faith most evolutionists will perish denying creation no matter what argument we can come up with. Like everything else these people need true saving faith, and then they can use things such as these blogs and related sermons to solidify their faith, knowing that God is the only explanation for everything.
I thank God for ministries that stay true to the Word of God without being influenced by the world, they are becoming very hard to find. Thank you John for your unwavering faithfulness to Scriptures and thanks also to the entire GTY.org team.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted
"What is at the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology?"
I think Calvin summed up the desire on the part of all mankind to understand the transcendent realm as such:
"Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone." John Calvin The Institutes Volume I
Man's quest for knowledge in the empirical realm alone leaves him short of fulfilment. So, in an effort to satisfy the deep longing in his soul for truth and understanding man (even scientists) turns to the transcendent...whether consciously or not.
Calvin said that man is homo religioso...the religious one. Like it or not that is who/what man is. Without a relationship with God his creator man is empty and destitute.
"For scientists who are professing Christians, how should they think about the relationship between science and theology?"
God created man with dignity, value, and purpose. One of the purposes God gave mankind was to subdue the earth and be in dominion of its inhabitants of a lesser order (beasts, birds, etc). Science is a part of man's structural makeup and should be used for God's glory as it was originally intended.
Hi Folks:
Today I want to stir the "pot" a bit. Science has always had foundations which move with the times. "Spontaneous generation" mentioned by John at the beginning of one of the blogs is an example of this phenomena. And while we should expect scientific thought to change as new knowledge comes to the forefront, as in the case of "Steady State" vs. "Big Bang" (along with a number of variations). What we see is an "ABSOLUTISM" of scientist regarding changing science. How odd that those who know that thing change over time, and hold to no absolutes, are absolutely certain that there that they understand the beginnings of something as miraculous as Genesis one and two describe for us.
And it then occurred to me that there is an assumption by secular science; "If God had told us in scientific terms how he did "it" we could believe, as long as it is "naturalistic" I mean." But for God to show man how he did "it", there are certain problems he would need to deal with. For instance to God there are no miracles, no supernatural, nothing in which his power is limited. A true miracle only shows us how limited we are, and how limited our power is. Secondly, were God to write down in a manual so that we could read how he did it, detail for detail, we would not be able to reproduce it, do experiments to test data so that we could empirically verify "it". As a matter of course sinful man would reject God's own hand book as non-sense. I don't think we would understand for at least two reasons. One, our sciences are imperfect expressions of reality as is, but these imperfections would be held as "true" in spite of the fact that God has shown what he did. Number two: Since we probably would not be able to reduplicate the "creation" or any part there of, it would beheld as a ruse, a hoax by some superior being. A cosmic joke perpetrated on the hillbillys of a backwater planet in the smallest of galaxies.
And in point of fact this is what secularism has done with the narrative given to us by God. God just shortened the manual so we could understand it. Just a thought.
Do you really realize the magnitude on what is on the stake?
Do you realize the consequences of proclaiming a false message, having a weak foundation, build on sand and having a wrong attitude?
Are you able to even grasp the meaning of the Holiness of God or His Glory?
The Pharisees was condemned by Jesus. (John 8:43-47). Why?
They were the highly educated elite, the privileged ones. They were by their high position and education responsible for care, leading and teaching of the rest of the people in the society. And they got it all wrong, and as a result, nobody or at least only a minority, had a right relation to God and their neighbors. They had replaced Gods word with mans traditions, and made themselves gods. They were never living for the honor of God.
Let me give you an example of this subject about attitude and basic understanding:
There was an argumentcabout comparing similarities between human and chimp DNA.
I have some basic questions to that subject:
1) Why do you do that?
2) What do you expect to find?
3) What do you really know about the objects you are looking at?
4) Who supplies the data to test, and are they sufficient?
5) What are you doing with that gained knowledge, supposing you got it right?
See my blog post #24 here: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100519%2324
Then ask yourself this:
Are you recognizing God the Creator and are you looking for more reasons to love and glorify Him or are you seeking for some way out of responsibility to God?
Do you see design similarities or are you trying to read your presuppositions into the data, discarding the facts, that there have been a lot of experiments within thousands of generations of fruit flies, bacteria and other so called "low" life, and they are still the same and do still have the same amount of information? (The ones that survived the treatments)
Should you not be a little bit humble about the fact that despite some vocal hype and somewhat premature conclusions, there are lacking real knowledge about how even the "simplest" cell is working?
Literally thousands of the most brilliant brains of this world have spent decades trying to reverse engineer and decipher the enormous complexity of even the "simplest life". This is, at least for me, clearly the fingerprint of the Almighty.
See this link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18206-simple-bacterium-shows-surprising-complexity.html
When you have figured that "simple" life out, then come back again and talk qualified about the human DNA. (The whole idea of "simple" life is an evolutionary presupposition. All God's creation is mindboggling complex)
About the data to compare, to my knowledge the amount of genes in human and chimps are different, so you just can't run a byte by byte comparison. Therefore there was a selection of some almost similar genes chosen for comparison. And guess what? The selected almost similar genes turned out to be – surprise – almost similar.
There was someone proclaiming the evolution theory was in no way in crisis. Is this a joke? I'm not laughing but crying. There is not even a start of it, the only one proposed for 80 years are now discarded. See this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
Millions of people have abandoned the faith because of that lie throughout the last century, and have made God a liar. They are now without a savior. What a heartbreaking reality.
Someone asked if God seems to deceive people? Please read Romans 1:18-32, and realize they are deceiving themselves by not given heed to the truth, and are abandoned because of their evil doings.
God sent Jesus to save his people from their sins.
I can only say with the Apostle Paul: Please repent and receive Him as savior and Lord. I beg you.
To clarify, I think Rudi is speaking to those who believe in evolution.
Clarification to #1 "from my perspective is rebellion of God." I meant to say "rebellion toward God/ or/ of God's supreme authority."
And I like Paul Tucker's "Just a thought"s. :)
Along his thinking lines, I too have thought about, "What if God had spelled out everything about creation explicitly?" I think man would still reject God's word. After all, hasn't a majority of mankind rejected God's Son, though His substitutionary sacrifice is clearly spelled out in 4 gospels & predicted in a number of the prophets? Didn't Jesus tell of the rich man in Hades who asked Father Abraham to allow poor dead Lazarus to go warn his brothers? But Abraham said "If they do not hear Moses & the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Luke 16:19-31. Someone earlier on this blog strand mentioned the idea of aliens having established/planted mankind on the earth. That has been my view of what might replace evolution IF it should ever be discredited enough or fall from favor – but the majority of mankind will still reject the Bible's account/accuracy in lieu of ANYTHING that would prevent them from being dominated/created/ruled by a God with rules.
And another thought:
It's not just scientists or theistic evolutionists who appear to deny God His credit & His glory by seeking answers via man's wisdom & understanding – we ALL do it. For instance, God is responsible for ALL of creation: all that we see & hear & can understand, yet I'm sure we each have taken credit for things which perhaps we've achieved or accomplished, but have we really taken the time (to think & thank) to recognize God's hand at work in our lives? If not for His provision of talents, skills, abilities, and opportunities – both educational & situational – we really couldn't achieve anything & therefore should not take credit for anything we've accomplished. "Every good gift & every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with Whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." James 2:17-18. So, should we be the person who constantly says, "Praise the Lord!" for every accomplishment? Well, not if it is insincere, but shouldn't that be our thought pattern? A true recognition & a thankful heart for all He's provided to us? He didn't just create the universe, He created each day, each person, each moment, each situation, & His purpose is for us to glorify Him in each of those opportunities! So let's recognize His glory in His marvelous creation which He describes in the Bible. Let us also glory in each sunrise & sunset He allows us to behold, and let us glory in each opportunity to share His love & majesty with others, & seek to glorify & praise Him & not ourselves! Thanks for letting me share.
#6 you're right. I was trying to make it absolutely clear the two worldviews is mutually exclusive, but was by mistake posting in the wrong place. Sorry about that.
But about today's topic, I have these comments:
What is the purpose of miracles? – John MacArthur has done several excellent expositions on that topic. They serve as a sign to validate and authenticate the message and messenger, and in some instances pure grace and love.
But notice Jesus call sign seekers evil hearted, and I think it is about the nature of love. Why do you need signs and miracles to love God? Isn't it enough to know how who He is and that He loves us? I think of it as spoiled kids, who desire stuff, but have no gratitude for the giver.
But how do you study miracles and using science in theology? That's a tuff one, because of the nature of science, which is to observe and test how things operate, but cannot answer why they operate.
Rightly applied it is still an excellent servant. As an example are the many prophecies in the bible. Science as historians and archaeologists can test the observable facts given in the scripture, but only the theologian can answer the why. That seems to make the different disciplines dependent on each other for the full picture.
What is at the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology?
Seems to me that folks are trying real hard to disprove our Creator! I only have one thing to say for that; the day is approaching when every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
For scientists who are professing Christians, how should they think about the relationship between science and theology?
The bible should be the authority! Use science as a means of glorifying our Creator!! Why are these folks trying to prove or disprove God? Aren't we saved by grace through faith? Ephesians 2:8. Therefore, being justified by faith we have peach with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Once the opportunity for faith has passed so has the opportunity for salvation. I'm fearful that those who just don't trust the Word of God really aren't born again! Sorry for being intolerant!
You're wrong. Science does have a role to play in understanding creation. Science will bow to what we see in the Genesis account of creation. God's not "testing" us in Genesis 1, He's informing us, for His glory and our pleasure. True joy springs from knowledge.
Aren't you interested in knowing how God's work of creation fit together--which properties of the universe God set in place first, and how he built on them?
What I see in Genesis 1 is not God building miracles on miracles. That's nonsense. "Miracle" means an alteration of a natural law.
The first miracle Genesis makes clear: God made something from nothing: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...[which was] formless and void." God made stuff with natural laws that He decided, then he performed miracles on the stuff.
Science when correct will bow before the Bible, harmonizing with it in every instance. We will know in the end how the earth is indeed 6000 years old and how we can see the stars millions of miles away. There is an answer to the question.
Doesn't it glorify God to seek it?
We can feel free to abdicate the question if we're uninterested, but we ought not to feel free to shake-the-finger at believers for being interested and studying it.
Now if the "conclusions" they form contradict the Bible, we should shake-the-finger at them, because we can know they're wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong for the conclusions, not for the asking. If the question asked remains, it remains. We don't throw the question away as not worth asking. We study more, until we see the right answer.
The right answer will line up with the Bible.
Let us reason together, that we may glorify God in seeking to understand His creation.
By the way, I love you for opening this up to discussion. May iron sharpen iron. The fact you're open to discussion on this shows that you can be trusted as a teacher of truth. Let the one who is incorrect be persuaded to words of the one who is correct. This is my prayer.
Thanks for joining the discussion Jonathan and being willing to bring a different point of view. In order to better understand your position, can you point out what part(s) of Genesis 1 follow natural physical laws and can therefore be studied?
When I read Genesis 1, I don't really see anything natural in there. Everything that God did, He did by divine fiat, by the word of His power. All the living creatures were created at His command, particularly the land animals were made from the dust of the ground. Adam was also made from the dust of the ground, and Eve from Adam's side.
So to me it seems like the miracle extends far beyond the initial creation of matter.
The point in this and previous articles is not that God doesn't want us to explore His creation and discover what He has done. Rather it is that when God tells us that He miraculously brought all things into existence, we are foolish if we think we can explain what God did scientifically and naturalistically.
When you read Genesis 1, YES YOU DO see a lot of natural things in there. Evening, morning, light, the firmament, blood pumping through Adam's veins, ... the number of things following natural laws is as countless as the number of miracles God performed.
Do we see Newton's equations working today? Do we see Einstein's equations working today? When did those laws start working--only after day 6 was over, or as they were created?
On day five, when the birds took to the air, did they float into the air by a miracle, or did they fly, by pushing air God had made past the wings God had made? On day 6, did the creatures that crept on the ground stick to the land by a miracle, or by gravity?
Think of it: every time God created something, it sprung forth into following the natural laws God instituted. The number of things following natural laws is as countless as the number of miracles God performed.
Indeed! What I meant was that there is nothing in God's act of creation throughout the six-day period that was natural. However once God created, as you said, everything functioned according to God-ordained natural laws.
So perhaps I misunderstood your original post because I thought you meant, as many do, that we should study evolution to discover natural explanations for God's act of creation. But now it sounds like you're saying that we can conduct scientific study on the basis of natural laws, but that study will not help us understand God's act of creation. Is that right?
# 7 - Carol. "It's not just scientists or theistic evolutionists who appear to deny God His credit & His glory by seeking answers via man's wisdom & understanding – we ALL do it." Thank you so much for your comment. I agree, we creationists can be so proud as to ignore that we are (in our own) nothing better than any other people.
The more I read, be this blog and the subject at hand or any other discussion, I can clearly see pride in our lives, and it hurts me so much to see it in mine, and there's also this awareness that even when I am not seeing pride, it's still there, wrapped beautifully as a new gift, clothed in self-righteousness. It's pride that leads people to twist the Word of God, to make it fit their intellectual reasoning; it is pride that demands that everything that God is and does must make sense in our "rational" minds else be discarded. We are proud creatures.
Grace and peace,
#13 Gabriel
That's true--Every one of God's acts of creation are miracles, but that's not the thrust of what I'm saying.
There are questions that arise when reading Genesis, that in the end, we know true science will answer.
To be clear, the question is not "did evolution happen;" we understand what the theory of evolution puts forth: that death happened before the fall, when clearly by the Bible it did not. Therefore evolution is a theory proven false by God's revelation.
Now with that clearly stated, there is another question that arises when reading Genesis 1 that I've considered and that I'm prepared to answer.
1. We know from Genesis that the earth experienced six days, evening and morning, during which God built the cosmos and the earth. So therefore the earth is about 6000 years old. And
2. We know that we can see light from the stars that appears to have traveled millions of years to get here. And
3. We know that God created the heavens and the earth simultaneously, at the start of day 1.
Did the light we see from the stars that are over 6000 light-years away (the majority of stars) really originate from those stars?
Light takes time to travel. The speed of light is just as valid a law as gravity. Does the law of the speed of light fit into the creation account?
My point is: It's okay for a believer to conclude they don't care to answer questions like this, but if you do conclude that, you should still allow for other believers to do what is better: to try to understand what God did there; to put a possible mark on where the miracle was.
There are several explanations for how the law of the speed of light did indeed operate, even as much as gravity, during day 1 through 5. Are you insterested? (You don't have to be.)
I can only speak for myself in that when I was saved, born again of the spirit of God, a miracle in itself, I believe every single word in the bible and I still do 28 years later.
I do not know that you can be saved and not believe God's word, since Jesus is the living word -- the Word made flesh.
If you haven't already you should go back and read previous posts in this lengthy series. We've had a number of good discussions in the comment threads about the points you are making.
In a nutshell, true science cannot tell us about the past the way people think it can. True science is based on observation, testing, repeatability, etc. Obviously science cannot observe creation, it cannot test creation (except what we see today), and it certainly cannot repeat creation.
The light from the stars was created fully mature (as seen from earth) in the same way that God created Adam as an adult. In other words, in the same way that God did not create an embryonic universe, embryonic planets, embryonic animals, and embryonic people, the light was created fully mature along with everything else. Some have complained about that explanation saying that the light, in that case, is not real. But that is silly unless they also believe that Adam wasn't real just because he was created mature.
Scientifically, it is also helpful to keep in mind that as certain as scientists claim to be about the distance of stars, they really don't know how far away they are. What they say is the distance is calculated based on known variables of closer stars, but for the stars that are seemingly infinitely farther away they don't know what variable are at play. Scientists just assume that they know more than they actually know and make claims on that basis. So until we find a way to reach those stars we will not actually know how far away they are. Nevertheless if they were discovered to be millions of light-years away, that does nothing to harm God's revelation that He created light before He created the sources of light.
I'm sure there are indeed several explanations as you say, but I'm satisfied with God's explanation that He created the light as we see it today.
It drives me crazy when people ask, "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" Even when I was young I would think, "that is a stupid question." The Chicken! It isn't even remotely logical to think that the earth was not created completely and wholly mature.
#19 - Darla.
I couldn't answer that question before I was born again. =) I know, it's stupid. It looks even worse when I think that I always believed that God created everything. Sometimes is the most obvious and simplest things that don't get our attention.
Several weeks ago I was going through Genesis (the creation) with my kids (8 and 13) and after reading, explaining, discussing the subject and answering their questions, I proposed the chicken/egg question and they right away answered me: the chicken! =)
I love the Proverb quotes after we log in, I've changed my mind about commenting here 1/2 dozen times. I've been following this open forum off and on (mostly on)since its inception last autumn and feel like I've come to know the participants and their biblical perspectives somewhat intimately. I have a degree in Biology but I'm hardly a scientist, so I was brainwashed since high school in the early 70's that we evolved from apes. That perspective changed not after believing in solo scriptura, solo Christos, etc. in the mid 80's but after listening to JM's radio broadcasts of the universe's creation from a biblical perspective in the early 90's. Now, I love to challenge young and old Christians to an understanding of the "old" earth paradigm (less than 10,000 years)by debating and believing in a literal understanding of Genesis.
I really don't think one can disprove evolution unless they're saved, so although these posts are entertaining and educational, evolutionists will undoubtedly never come to understand our side unless they're saved.
I think the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology is simply mankind trying to grasp with feeble minds the near infinite complexity of life with the subsequent folly of ignoring a creator's hand.
Finally, I was a bio major because I wanted to know the answer to the question, "what is life"? Coming from a R Catholic background, the last place I thought I'd find the start of the unraveling of the answer would be found in John 14:6.
Darla & Elaine,
Funny, I had the same "chicken vs. egg" thought earlier in this blog & though I always believed it was the chicken, it finally struck me, "if it was the egg, who sat on it to hatch it?" ;)
#20- Elaine,
I am just a simple minded girl, not very bright, perhaps that is why the answer was easy for me. I actually thought it was a joke, but people would argue and fuse so that I finally realized they were serious. In Mk 10:15 Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
On a lighter note: Why DID the chicken cross the road?
#21- Larry,
I love science in that you can learn about God's creation, but I never bought the whole "ape" thing. I marvel at the simplest of God's creation. In HS I knew I did not believe we evolved from monkey's; however,I could not explain why I did not believe that. Since I did not grow up in a religious home, only having been inside a church less than a dozen times by the time I was saved at age 18, perhaps it was easier for me to believe in the bible, God, Jesus and creation having nothing else to compare salvation to.
Read the story in the link below. It is from Moby Dick by Herman Melville. This story, in an abstract fashion, tells about the pursuit to gain comprehensive knowledge of God, represented by the white whale...very interesting read and as one will see very pertinent to the discussion at hand in that modern evolution scientists are on a similar journey:
Make sure you get the last two paragraphs...
Melville confessed to his friend Nathaniel Hawthorne regarding Moby Dick: "I have written a wicked book, and feel spotless as the lamb."
You know one of the things I like so much about this blog site is how so many contributors to these topics spawn my brain to think more critically; I LOVE IT!
I spoke to a neighbor acquaintance yesterday. She told me her son had married a Jewish girl. Well she's concerned about that because she's a Mormon. OK….. That has me thinking, "We cannot add to or take away from Holy Scripture." So, this issue of believing in evolution (which is CLEARLY NOT spelled out in Scripture, so can only be "inferred" = thus "adding to Scripture") is really no different than any of the false religions which also "add to Scripture" via additional "revelation" or writings which are NOT God inspired. I know this was the basis for an earlier thread but it just seemed to really "click" yesterday how very dangerous this thinking is because it is a rejection of the completeness & accuracy of God's Holy Word!
Carrying this question further there is a unique parallel to evolution scientist's efforts to control the present theological landscape, in terms of the account of creation, with that of the story concerning the ark of the covenant found in 1 Samual chapter 5. The story reads as follows:
"Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the temple of Dagon and set it by Dagon. And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again. And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. The head of Dagon and both the palms of its hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon's torso was left of it. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor any who come into Dagon's house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day."
Even though evolutionism keeps getting knocked down by creation science (as did Dagon by God's hand in the story above) the practitioners of the evil ideology keep propping it back up trying feverishly to challenge God in His role as Creator...just like the Philistines challenged God in His diety with their pagan idol god Dagon. The efforts to mix evolution with the creation account found in Genesis is merely an effort to once again presume upon God in His diety and prop up evolutionism in one final stand off...finish reading 1 Samual for the outcome of the story above...evolutionism faces a very similar fate.
#18 Gabriel,
I completely agree with you here about the maturity of the universe as created. I think it's important for people to recognize this when considering the evolution/creation debate.
Others- I would like to point out that there are many things that do not seem to fit the "natural" laws that we see in science, such as the lack of antimatter in the universe, the force that keeps all electrons from flying off their nucleus, etc. For those who are under the presumption that all things can be naturally measured or observed, I've often wondered how someone would "see" LIFE. What I eman is this- if you were to take a man and send 30,000 volts from one temple to the other, it would kill the man. But what has changed in a physiological sense? He still has blood, a heart, a brain, etc... his physical makeup has not been altered, and all of the proteins, aminos and nutrients necessary for "life" still exist- so what is it that left him? Can we observe or measure that thing which was removed from the body, so that it no longer lives?
Hi Folks: This whole series of blogs has been interesting. I am also glad for the spell-check. An interesting thing about spell-check, it corrects my errors, (dah- right?) I am a person prone to all sorts of errors. Errors of conscience, mind, judgment, and so forth, an so on. I wanted to get that out of the way first- so everyone knows that I know where I stand. But what is true of me, myself, and I is also true of us all.
"Science" tries to make subjective errors less possible through experimentation, and verification. However that does not mean that the results of any experiment, even if verified, can lead us to a "true" understanding of the nature of the thing studied. And so we try and come up with an explanation which fits what we see. This often will make any result useful for what we will use it for in a broader context such as manufacturing, etc.
When it comes to "cosmologies" it is much different because at this point we do not "see" all that is going on, and we do not have the tools to do the types of experimentation required to let us understand what we are seeing. So we create "models" to accommodate our lack of understanding. These models are based upon our understanding of what is and our rejection of what we believe is not. And not necessarily because it conforms to reality. We trust that we can understand and that we model correctly.
It is the same as my query regarding how many light years there are between objects. There were three different answers. Two of these were essentially the same from different points of view, the other based upon a different understanding. Both can not be true, but both can be false. Before Einstein folks thought that light speed was not in fact absolute (Newtonian Physics). Light was only slowed down by the "ether". Today we think of the "progress" that we've made because of modern Science and hail our successes. The problem is that tomorrow some, maybe many, of those views will change because of some new "thought experiment" used to help clarify what we do not understand. What can be known for certain? (Without trying to sound cheesy-or pedantic) I know my redeemer lives and I shall one day stand with him in glory. I know that his promises are true, and he has proven himself by answered prayer, by changed circumstance, by blessing after blessing, as well as a correcting hand. I know he is real because when I called, he answered. While some say that this is only subjective and that no experiment can show this to be true. I say that the reason that I hold to Genesis one, as well as the rest of scripture is because he has proven himself true. I trust him to show me what only he can know. Just a thought.
I've heard this sermon before. Very thought provoking. I need to settle this in my head; did creation occur via supernatural events as J.Mac says or did we have a natural origin? This is the crux of the matter. I think the evidence supports the latter. Assume that we can't study a miraculous origin, but that we try to anyways. Why, when we do this, does it seem to fit so perfectly with a natural origin? That is what I'd like Dr. MacArthur to answer.
On a related note, I wanted to thank the person that is running this blog for not beating around the bush; your choice of topics/audio clips/lead in questions is excellent. I've been thinking about these matters more or less constantly for the last few weeks and I hope I've gotten closer to the truth. I'm also considering taking an Answers in Genesis online course in biology just to make sure I understand YEC arguments completely. I don't want to simply react to one extreme (Hovind) with another. Thanks to Don, Gabe, Frank, and Carol for helping me to thoughtfully reconsider my position. You've shown me that YECs can be very thoughtful, rational people, rather than blind and dogmatic. Thanks for interacting with my thoughts.
The need for modern/postmodern man to legitimize his beliefs scientifically, which now more than ever is the quickest way to credibility. Prove Genesis is scientifically accurate and you've upheld biblical authority. A truly misguided effort since it rests the authority of unchanging scripture on the shifting sands of science, which is always in progress.
Entire books can/have been written on that question. As a Christian who studies the biological sciences, I tend to lean toward the two books notion as laid out in the Belgic confession. I also find the handmaiden analogy helpful. God's works complement God's word, though special revelation takes precedence over general revelation and science should serve as a handmaiden to theology, helping us understand the implications of the bible in the natural world and occasionally weeding out poor interpretations.
Dr Werner Gitt at http://www.answersingenesis.org, are with his book "In the Beginning was Information", talking about how evolution violates all natural laws, and specifically can give no answer to the "Law of information", because it is not material. (There are an online 3 part video webcast)
DNA is both software and hardware, but you can't give a materialistic reason for information, because all information is nonmaterial by itself, but can always be traced back to an intelligent source.
#29 Garrett League, I can see you are honestly struggling with deep convictions. I have myself learned a lot from Jean D. Pitman at http://www.detectingdesign.com. He is not avoiding any tuff questions, but dives right in to the pitfalls with rationality. But above all - remember love is better than knowledge. God gives access in His kingdom to all who will recieve His gift.
#29 - Garret.
There we go with "the evidence" again. Somehow I don't think that you would believe even if God Himself showed you how He did it. Why? Because of your fallen condition (and mine too, I am not excluding myself, although I believe every word the Bible says).
I think it was Augustine who said "I believe in order to understand". You are working backwards, you need evidence so you can believe.
May God bless you and give you the faith you need in order to understand.
#32 and #7 - Right on the spot.
There is no lack of knowledge or evidence. All is laid open to all men. We do willfully choose to fully trust or reject God, and we are responsible for that choice.
What is it all about? – You already know that. God is more important than anything else in the whole universe. He wants to win your undivided heart, your true love and adoration. He gave His only begotten son. What more could he give?
Would you reject so great a gift, because you don't understand all things? Then you are really in danger, and maybe that wonderful gift will be given to another.
# 32 and 33, please correct me if I am wrong, but your posts could be understood as saying that Garrett (post # 29) is lost. I personally do not know him, so I cannot judge one way or the other, and I do not think that we should be so hasty to judge (assuming that such was indeed your intent). Actually, he does seem to have a legitimate question.
As for you, Garrett, you say: "Assume that we can't study a miraculous origin, but that we try to anyways. Why, when we do this, does it seem to fit so perfectly with a natural origin?" Your preface actually leads to the answer to your question. Since science deals with the workings of the material world and cannot test the immaterial, if science comes up with an answer at all, it will inevitably be material. However, the evidence does NOT really lead to a material origin, despite what secular schooling might have taught you. The complexity of life actually tells us that there is a design. Logic dictates that for a design, there must be a designer. However, science cannot tell us WHO the designer is or HOW he did it. That is an answer for history, and the only reliable source of the relevant history is Scripture. It is a question of whether you will believe the history to be reliable or not.
From the rest of your post, it seems that you are really looking after the truth, and you are not far afield at all:
"'What is at the heart of the incursion of science into the territory of theology?'
The need for modern/postmodern man to legitimize his beliefs scientifically, which now more than ever is the quickest way to credibility. . . . A truly misguided effort since it rests the authority of unchanging scripture on the shifting sands of science, which is always in progress.
'For scientists who are professing Christians, how should they think about the relationship between science and theology?'
. . . God's works complement God's word, though special revelation takes precedence over general revelation and science should serve as a handmaiden to theology, helping us understand the implications of the bible in the natural world and occasionally weeding out poor interpretations."
As God promised: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5 KJV)
# 34 - Shawn.
Wouldn't you agree that he needs faith in order to believe Genesis the way it was written?
Since I do believe the Word of God, and I believe in the whole counsel of God, I also believe that the Holy Spirit gives us conviction. Wouldn't you agree? We all know that many professed Christians will be surprised on that day (Matt. 7:22).
We will always find what we look for. Garret is looking for evidence in science. He will find what he's looking for, but that doesn't mean it will be Truth. And that's the same for all TE. All the rational arguments, I could care less about them, I am not in the business of trying to disprove God and make Him a liar and/or a deceiver.
Creation is NOT a secondary issue. And if we have to call TE to doubt their salvation so they would look into themselves and question what they really believe, so be it.
#34 Oh no. No way. Absolutely not. I consider Garrett a brother in Christ with theological questions. We are arguing about theology and importance of what to do with our lives. But I do now see your point. In #31 I meant convictions, not about salvation, but about science and evolution as the source. In #33 Garret was not in my thoughts.
Assume that we can't study a miraculous origin, but that we try to anyways. Why, when we do this, does it seem to fit so perfectly with a natural origin?
Well, John probably won't be answering on here, so I'll take a stab at it. It really isn't that complicated. I've given you, at least twice, the analogy of the scientist studying the bread and fish Jesus created. There will always be a natural explanation (with limitations, just like evolution is limited in what it can explain) because what God creates is real and natural in its properties. Once you take God out of the picture, the scientist can construct any theory that fits the evidence. Because the theory fits the evidence, the theory sounds true. Obviously if a theory did not fit the evidence no one would believe it.
The scientist rejects a miraculous creation on the basis that it doesn't fit the evidence. But what the scientist is actually doing is rejecting the most important evidence of all, namely, God's inspired revelation. In other words, science has created a theory not on the evidence, but only on the evidence that it accepts. If science allowed for any and all evidence, then evolution does not fit all the evidence because that which has the most evidential authority (Scripture) won't allow for evolution.
Remember how Gordon Clover in his videos asked the rhetorical questions of "what if there was a receipt, and what if the wine-maker had memories, etc." Well those are nice questions, but the fact is there was no receipt and no one had memories. Gordon asked those questions as if evolution had such eye-witnesses to verify its theory. While such eye-witness accounts would greatly bolster the case for evolution, no such accounts exist. So evolution is extremely limited in the type of evidence it can interpret and from which to create a theory.
So evolution appears correct because 1) it explains the limited evidence at our disposal, and 2) there are no accepted eye-witness accounts that contradict it. The testimony of the supreme eye-witness (indeed the Creator Himself) is not allowed in the courtroom, so for those inside the court the case seems air tight. But it is far from it.
Regarding the concept of natural revelation (aka, the book of nature), this is a misnomer. Man has created this concept of "natural revelation" to permit him to make his interpretation of nature on par with Scripture. But Scripture has no such concept. The only natural revelation Scripture refers to is limited to revealing God and some of His attributes (Psalm 19 and Romans 1 being examples par excellence). Scientists of various kinds have stolen that concept to exalt man's wisdom, but the way scientists use the term it is completely a man-made concept.
I need to expand on my first paragraph. Every time God has made a material object (the universe, wine, bread, fish, body parts, etc.), the final product of what He makes conforms is natural and conforms to that which God has already created. In other words, bread created ex nihilo is of the same substance as bread grown, harvested, and baked. So when you study the former the natural explanation is just like that of the latter. The only way to know what was created miraculously and what was created naturally is to have external testimony as to how it came to be. In other words, you need to go outside the object to understand how the object came to be.
Evolution has the appearance of truth (to some) because it explains the internal evidence of creation on certain assumptions of external factors (namely, that there were none). The only way to have external evidence is for something/someone outside of the created world to reveal how it came to be. The internal evidence is interpreted a certain way on the assumption that the external evidence is invalid.
God created an ordered world. My explanation for why the internal evidence can appear to lead to evolution is because God's natural creation is such that there is order, not chaos, in the material world. Some, like Gordon Clover, call that unnecessary illusion. I call that order. Would it be better if material creation were chaotic and there was no possible explanation for the function of the material world except God's sustaining power? The Bible's teaching on the natural heart is that it would find an anti-supernatural explanation even in chaos.
So glad you're still wrestling with this issue & haven't given up on YEC totally! Remember Jacob wrestled all night with God & wouldn't let go until He blessed him. Gen 32:22-32. I'm sure He will grant you the truth you seek if you continue to desire that with all your heart. You are still in my prayers, as are the many Garretts like you who are struggling with this issue & even questioning its spiritual importance.
Q : When evaluating your scientific "evidences" which you say always "appear" to support Old earth/evolution, why not ask yourself this question, "COULD this be explained Biblically?" (Modern evolutionary scientists will give you their own explanation, but for a moment, throw THEIR explanation out.) As Gabriel has pointed out, the wine at Cana, & the bread & fish that fed the 5000 CAN be explained Biblically IF you don't throw out the miraculous variable. Since science cannot study or prove the miraculous, it throws that variable out, but as Christians, we cannot do that, for God's word gives testimony of many miracles, namely Jesus Christ's resurrection!
Example: God's word says Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, remained in its stomach for 3 days, was spit back out & survived – I take that literally. It was a miraculous event even though we can explain it naturally; after all, we don't know of anyone else every being swallowed by a great fish & surviving. From a scientific point I'd ask, "Why didn't Jonah drown in there? Suffocate? Be eaten alive by gastric acids? Be nibbled on by other life forms also swallowed by the fish?" So I believe this was miraculous even though it CAN be explained NATURALLY.
As you search for the truth, include the POSSIBILITIES OF MIRACLES (INCLUDING THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE & OF MANKIND). I believe you will conclude that you will find what you are looking for (as someone else stated: if you are looking for a material/naturalistic answer – you'll find that, but if you are looking for God's handiwork & His miraculous power – then you will find that!) May God grant you His truth!
or browse by Topic or


text:
Skip to comments.Santorum endorses one-time rival Romney
Posted on 05/07/2012 8:41:01 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) Rick Santorum is endorsing his one-time bitter rival Mitt Romney in a late-night e-mail to his supporters.
Santorum on Monday urged his supporters to join him in working with the effective Republican nominee to deny President Barack Obama a second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Rick, you idiot.
That's not the smartest move Rick has ever made.
Yup, he's exactly right.
No sale.
This is good news. We need to heal these primary wounds asap.
What part of ABO do you not grasp?
I feel like I'm in the movie "Invasion of the body snatchers". Come come, go liberal, come and join us. It's just a slight pinch. And when you awaken everything will be different. Come join Ann Coulter, Rick Santorum and Ted Nugent. They have seen the light. Their old bodies have beeen disposed of and replaced with eggplant. Come and join us!
"This isn't a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan... it's "a choice between Romney and "the most radical, leftist president in American history."
Newt Gingrich
If he thinks this'll get him the VP nod, he's delusional.
The same way the Newt dead-enders rationalize his endorsement of Mitt.
"rationalize this."
Obama MUST BE DEFEATED, or we won't recognize the U.S.A. in 4 years.
It's heart breaking that Romney is the nominee, but there are future elections, and we need to slow down the bleeding until then.
I haven't heard much from ardent Newt supporters since Newt endorsed Romney.
BTW, I'm so glad Free Republic has given us "permission" to express ourselves in this regard.
Isn't that special!
We will no doubt get a lot of posts from our haters on this one.
Santorum did the right thing but that won't matter to the anti Romney cult here, hang on.
Gee, unexpected...
Oh Noes!
Commence the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Interesting he made Romney wait rather than endorse at their meeting. I guess Romney had to get with his people and see if they'd agree to Ricks price. Looks like they did.
Ricks been back seat driving this since he dropped out. Was just a matter of time and price.
Bingo! and we have ourselves to blame.
Rick has always been too nice for his own good, another pol down the drain.
He didn't say he released his delegates though did he?
I just posted this over on the Freep a Thon wondering why none of the Santorum supporters got Ricks message or put it up....he 'announced his support for Romney via E-mail to his supporters.
Must be not many here got the message it would seem.
Totally expected.
Another socialist with an R behind his name!
"..I guess Romney had to get with his people and see if theyd agree to Ricks price. Looks like they did. .."
If Mitt did agree with Rick's terms, it will be a much better country.
IMHO we were so Heartless that now we are gonna get "feelings" jammed up our hinders for the next 4.5 years
Oh just knock it off bill...you know comments like that ,calling people haters, is exactly why it's impossible to have reasonable dialogue. Sheesh...some of you guys just don't know when to quit.
rationalize this.
Obama MUST BE DEFEATED, or we wont recognize the U.S.A. in 4 years.
Its heart breaking that Romney is the nominee, but there are future elections, and we need to slow down the bleeding until then.
Well said.
Akin to crony politics.
Very disappointing,.
It wasn't about Ricks terms....it was about what Romney's going to give for Ricks delegates...and why they met her in Pittsburgh. Interesting though he didn't say he released his delegates..just gave his endorsements. As I've been saying Ricky's the back seat driver in this and has been since he dropped out.
We shall see if Rick gives Romney the delegates with the endorsement....those are the bottom line.
I am a big Rick supporter and this disappoints me quite a bit. I mean, Senator, if you are just going to endorse him in an email, c'mon ... why do it at all? Why does everyone cave?
Quite frankly, our only hope for the Conservative movement is if Romney loses. If he is voted into our camp ... it is over.
Go Obama! /s
Yay Ricky! Proved I was right all along...
Yep....Ricks been holding out for just the right price. Am thinking Romney's pretty much going to give him what he wants as to position, and probably money to pay his debt off. Rick had nothing to loose in this race....and much to gain in his political career. So he'll be set. We knew he'd stop at Pa. ...there wasn't a welcome mat for him here and he knew it and why.
I don't know if he has specifically directed his delegates to vote for Willard (and they're under no obligation to do so and absolutely should not). I supported Santorum as a last-ditch effort, but I don't follow his instructions to support someone antithetical to the Conservative cause and destructive to the GOP. Stopping Willard at the GOP convention is of paramount importance.
Hard to say just yet who the running mate will be. Could be anyone from Bachmann to Pawlenty. In the end, I don't think it's going to matter anyway.
It's Probably all about campaign debts.
Yep...like.."Toto we're not in Kansas anymore".
You have heard from me in regards to Newt's endorsing Romney. From the very beginning of this election..Newt stated that any candidate on the stage (in the debates) would be better than Romney. He repeated that more than once on national tv.
Where have you been? as for Santorum..this is the 2nd time he endorsed Romney for president.
You may as well include Jim Robinson in that list....He has posted a very lucid direction of what needs to happen
Santorum isn't going to accept a VP position even if Romney were to ask.....all we're really seeing happening now is verbal endorsements to support Romney....no different then when the other candidates said they would from the beginning....and they're all doing just that. It should be expected. Though Rick could barter more than others obviously.
Let's see what he's going to do with his delegates now.
Of course he does...heck it took a lot of work for him to get Romney past Newt......Mission Accopmplished!
Now he is free to go back to his East Coast Moderate Country club, go along to get along, roots.......Rick Santorum the villian in the unfolding Republican Primary election clown charade version 2012.......
Hey I've been a Newt supporter and commented on Newt's endorsement as well. They're just doing what they all said they would do from the beginning. It's the arena they play in.... Though Rick has some bartering chips in his court..that's just how Rick plays the game.
Thank you.
"Bingo! and we have ourselves to blame."
~ ~ ~
There was hope and a chance for goodness with Santorum, now there is only evil, BHO and Romney.
I will never forget Mitt praising his own mother for her support of the greatest evil, abortion (#1 reason for God's just judgement).
I am so sad. Pray for a "miracle."
Rick will be on Jay Leno's show tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Get in-depth analysis of current trends in the legal community, profiles of fascinating professionals, academic issues and lifestyle discussions for law school students, and a few out-of-the-ordinary goings on in the world delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time.
Newsletter Subscription
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
The Castle Law Group and Aronowitz & Mecklenburg are being sued by attorney general investigators in the state of Colorado, according...
Summary: There is one thing that attorneys can fall short in that will ruin their career. Don't let yourself be one of those attorneys. Everyone knows that being an attorney takes dedication in time and money but no one fully […]
2017 State of the Lateral Law Firm Market


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The trick is that you've gotta used frozen Crisco that's been shredded into little pellets. Then you've gotta mix fast and gently so that the frozen shortening pellets get evenly distributed throughout the dough. When you cook the dough, the shortening melts and creates layers in the voids where the frozen pellet once resided.
Good description Steve thanks.As for shredding Crisco? a cheese grater?


text:
"The military calls it a 'force multiplier'…that's what business aircraft have been for FedEx. "
Lexus LS600hL hybrid
With the LS600hL, Lexus has given the hybrid propulsion system popularized by the Toyota Prius some serious muscle and cloaked it in luxury robes. The "h" stands for the hybrid V8/electric motor powerplant that drives all four wheels and the "L" is for long wheelbase, which describes the expansive but not quite Maybachian rear passenger area.
Perhaps unsure about whether to flaunt the power delivered to the wheels or the vehicle's claim to greenness, Lexus has chosen to affix "hybrid" badges so small and out of sight (on the bottom of the rear doors) that they border on invisible. The trunk deck spells out LS600hL, but its message is probably lost on most.
Speaking of messages, one has to wonder what this car's statement is. A luxury hybrid will strike some people as absurd, given the premise that a $120,000, 438-hp, 2.5-ton vehicle can't be seen to be treading lightly on the planet. Another perspective is to view this vehicle as providing the ride of a luxury guzzler on the energy budget and atmospheric footprint of a lowlier vehicle. Another verdict might be, "It's new, it's the top Lexus, it's clever as sin and I want one."
Compared with a similarly equipped LS460L that comes only with a gasoline-fueled V8, the LS600hL hybrid carries a premium of $32,660, so clearly this vehicle will not recoup its higher cost in gas savings. My local Lexus dealer told me his first LS600hL buyer wanted the car for three reasons: it is the most expensive Lexus; it has all-wheel drive; and his would be the first in the neighborhood. The dealer predicted that the thought process behind most LS600hL sales would be similar.
Over the course of three days in a prototype LS600hL that Lexus lent me in August, I searched for this undeniably ingenious car's message by driving it 900 miles. Since our household includes a 2007 Prius, a 2002 LS430 and a 1991 LS400, I was able to compare the LS600 hybrid with both its propulsive inspiration and its forebears in the luxury sedan lineage.
Much as I admire how the Prius fulfills its mission, it is of course a lumpy little wheezer beside the LS600, but after a slow start it has suddenly become mainstream because its unique body style needs no badges to proclaim its greenness. As of late summer, Toyota has sold more than 110,000 Priuses in 2007, and it was the best-selling car in the U.S. in July, with sales of 16,062, up 44 percent over the same month last year. How mainstream is the Prius? The other day, I saw a black one sporting skull-and-bones and flame decals. Behold, the eco-badass.
As a driving experience, the LS600 is a marked improvement over the already silky and adequately powerful (290-hp V8) LS430. The new car's electronic steering is more precise, and its three suspension modes offer taut ("sport"), the bland LS430 standard (a nameless intermediate switch setting) or "comfort" (which produces a more wallowing motion than the masterfully damped original LS400). As the driver, I preferred the LS600's sport mode; a dozen people who rode as passengers in the car unanimously preferred the intermediate mode over the comfort mode.
A BMW enthusiast hoping to convince me to buy his 530i recently dismissed the Lexus LS as being "designed by Japanese anesthesiologists." Granted, the BMW is more exhilarating to drive, but there should also be no disputing how difficult it is to engineer a car as smooth and silent as an LS and how well Lexus has succeeded in its mission.
The right rear seat in the LS600 is for the alpha passenger, since its comforts (once the front passenger seat has been motored fully forward) include a retractable leg-rest, swiveling table, recline and massage. The left rear seat offers recline, and either throne is comfortable for watching a DVD in the screen that swings out of the headliner. With the touch of a button, sunshades emerge from the door structure and parcel shelf to cover the glass to the sides and rear. The interior appointments in our test car-from the alabaster leather and ash woodwork to the buttons and chromed handles-were flawless, making this passenger compartment a fine place to cover the miles to and from a business jet's cabin.
Brilliant Systems
The driver has at his disposal the expected array of gadgetry, plus some peculiar to this hybrid. As well as such brilliant systems as distance-maintaining cruise control (alerted by a signal transmitted through the radar-transparent Lexus grille emblem) and self-parking, the LS hybrid presents the driver with pictograms and bar charts that show what is driving the wheels and how efficiently. In a nutshell, the "hybrid synergy drive" captures energy that would otherwise be lost overboard during coasting and braking and stores it in nickel metal hydride batteries behind the rear seats that not only drive the electric propulsion motor but also encroach significantly on trunk space.
Each 50 watt-hours of recaptured energy earns an E on the consumption bar graph, which is updated every minute (every five minutes in a Prius). Long stretches of powered cruising on the level earn no Es, but the coasting and braking of driving in traffic do create energy to be recaptured. In the absence of downhill coasting or braking, the gas engine will occasionally drive the motor as a generator to top up the NiMH batteries.
Even on the gas-powered LS, the engine is inaudible when idling, with only the tach to confirm that it is running. Pull up at a stoplight in the Prius, however, and the noticeable automatic shutting down of the gas engine screams "engine failure" to the pilot in you. Like the gas LS, the hybrid Lexus keeps its mechanical noises to itself, too.
Both the hybrids initially move from a standstill on electric propulsion, but the kicking in of the gas engine with sufficient demand from the right foot is prominent only in the Prius. In the LS, it is so subdued as to pass almost unnoticed were it not for the rev counter jumping off the pin and a stronger push in the back. The Prius has no tachometer, sending word of internal combustion to its occupants' ears instead.
The LS600hL is ingenious, spacious and luxurious, but its "hybridness" somehow seems less relevant than the Prius'. On a quiet Sunday night, I was able to set the cruise control of the LS600hL on 60 mph in Syracuse, N.Y., and maintain that speed almost the entire 287 miles to home in central New Jersey. The car returned 31.01 mpg, beating only narrowly the 30.5 mpg my LS430 achieved from its 4.3-liter, 290-hp V8 when left to saunter along the same trip undisturbed at the same speed. The difference is that the LS600hL is hauling more weight (5,049 pounds versus the LS430's 4,000) and has a lot more power to unleash if mpg is of secondary interest.
For the whole test, which included one 126-mile round-trip commute to work (some high-speed segments, some crawling in traffic) and local stuff running errands and scouting photography locations in upstate New York, the LS600hL returned an average of 24.52 mpg, again about the same as my LS430 manages on similar runs.
One of the pleasures of driving a Prius is the feeling of being in a small sailboat rather than a powerboat and getting some free propulsive help (a debatable point given the mystery surrounding the price of replacement NiMH batteries). The reward for a light touch with your right foot is instantaneous, displayed on the energy consumption/ regeneration screen. While it was satisfying on the LS600 to see the mpg-per-minute bars peg out at 40 for eight or nine consecutive minutes, the hybridness was less apparent than the superb comfort of the ride.
The most direct comparison of all is with the LS460L, which is almost the exact same car with a 4.6-liter, 380-hp V8 solo under the hood, driving only the rear wheels through an eight-speed transmission. The hybrid weighs 717 pounds more, is 0.1 seconds quicker from zero to 60, gets 20/22 mpg EPA city/highway versus the non-hybrid's 16/24 and costs $32,660 more. According to the EPA's standard formula, the LS600hL hybrid and (in parentheses) LS460L compare thus: the cars will burn 16.3 (18.0) barrels of oil a year and emit 8.7 (9.6) tons of greenhouse gases. Perhaps this explains the tiny, obscurely positioned "hybrid" badges. The LS600hL is a fiendishly clever and comfortable car, but its hybridity makes it the greenest luxury car by only a surprisingly small margin.
Add your comment:
By submitting a comment, you are allowing AIN Publications to edit and use your comment in all media.


text:
Want to find a way to use all of your Epiphany Crafts punches and settings? I had fun playing with this project posted on the blog HERE today. I pulled out all my punches and DCWV paper and just had fun layering... Began by creating the fabric, lace and burlap portion of the wall hang. Then used Papertrey Ink's button card die cut to create the squares and stitched them onto the fabric layers. Then...punch away!A complete list of supplies can be found on the Epiphany Crafts blog today, along with an amazing necklace that I will have to try. Hope you are enjoying your day and be back tomorrow with another fun project.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
so square...
7 comments:
- Marlou McAlees said...
love this :)
- April 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM
- Mandy said...
Andrea, this looks amazing! Such a beautiful project.
- April 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM
- augcott said...
These are lovely!!!
- April 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM
- Dyane said...
Lovely! So cute!^_^
- April 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM
- Kate @ Songs Kate Sang said...
Oh!! This is my favorite one yet! I love it!
- April 17, 2012 at 5:09 PM
- Clair said...
Ooh, just found this via Pinterest. It's a little beauty!
- February 24, 2013 at 7:11 PM
- Julie GM said...
I absolutely love this!
- May 17, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Expert Q & A Answers About ED and exercise
I have an enlarged thyroid and I can't maintain an erection. What can I do?
I have an enlarged thyroid, and I'm being treated for hypertension and high cholesterol. To top it off, I have trouble maintaining an erection. I seem to have severe numbness or loss of penile sensation. What's the problem? What can I do?


text:
- Reviews
- Gear
- Rig Rundowns
- Artists
- How-to
- Lessons
- Premier Blogs
- Win
Photo by Frank White
How would you say your playing has evolved in the last decade or so?
I've learned a lot from being around great guitarists like Eric Clapton and Carlos Santana. Us young guitar players—people like Derek Trucks, Jack White, and all these young guys—we've all sort of grown, evolved, and gotten better, and most of us had time to be around legends like Buddy Guy, Clapton, Santana, or Kirk Hammett. One thing I appreciate about these older guys is they see us as the next group of guitar pioneers, and it's great for them to be critical and tell us how to get better. I learned a lot from them in terms of really trying to stay original and do whatever inspires me to have that excitement at the beginning and keep that same vibe.
Speaking of Santana, you have a track with him on the album called "Brand New Wayo," right?
Yeah. It was funny, because the chorus you hear was done after the music was recorded. We put up a mic and were doing the vocals while the music was playing back. We just left it all happening at the same time and there was this bleed of playback going into the microphone.
Do you get nervous when Santana's watching you play?
I enjoy it. One thing I learned from these guys is that they're watching you because they appreciate what you do. They want to see you rise, just like you want to see them. It's great, because those guys don't watch everybody.
Are you a gut-level player or does theory play a part in what you do?
I don't even know theory, so for me it's all about what goes together. In the studio, everything happens on the spot. I can never play the same thing twice the same way, really. We spent a lot of time with the great Eddie Kramer, and he said that Hendrix used to be the same way. Kramer said he always had to roll the tape when Hendrix was playing, because he would always forget what he played or it was never the same when he tried to play it again. That's what happens with me.
What made you decide to record a cover of the Ohio Players "Love Rollercoaster"?
I had my iTunes going and the Red Hot Chili Peppers' version came on, and I said, "Hey let's see if we can beat the Chili Peppers' version." It came out really funky and punchy and dirty at the same time. I wasn't even going to put it on the album, but people from the label heard it and said "You gotta put this on the album—this is cool!"
Is there a such thing as a sad Robert Randolph song?
[Laughs.] I don't think I have any sad songs.
"Welcome Home" is sentimental, but it carries a positive message for veterans, right?
My house in New Jersey is by one of the armories. I talk to the guys there when I'm in my backyard, and I wrote that song in my living room after talking to them about what's going on. Everyone's starting to come home now, so that's the story behind that song.
Let's talk about your instruments. Are you still playing your 13-string pedal steel?
I have a new stand-up pedal steel now. It's my original idea—it's a 6-string Jackson Steel Guitar Company signature Robert Randolph pedal steel.
Has it been fun to switch from a 13-string to a 6-string?
It's all relative, but the stand up looks a little more rock 'n' roll—it makes me look sexier. [Laughs.]
You can't kick your chair back now, though.
Yeah, but now I can kick the guitar around, y'know—like a regular rock 'n' roll person.
This 2009 show is chock-full of shredding rock solos, call-and-response funk breakdowns, and intensely soulful jamming.


text:
NYPA Board Approves Low-Cost Niagara Allocation For Western New York Company
WHITE PLAINS—Low-cost hydropower will help support nine new jobs and a capital investment of over $350,000 at Surmet Ceramics Corporation in Buffalo.
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) Trustees Tuesday approved an allocation of 900 kilowatts (kw) from NYPA's Niagara Power Project to this Western New York manufacturer of advanced materials and coatings. The power will come from a block of 445,000 kilowatts known as replacement power, which helps support more than 43,000 jobs at over 100 companies in the region together with a second, smaller block of Niagara Power called expansion power (250,000 kw).
The Western New York Advisory Group, consisting of NYPA, Niagara Mohawk, the Empire State Development Corp., and the Buffalo Niagara Enterprise, recommends the new allocations of hydropower. In late 2003, the members of the group signed a Memorandum of Understanding for allocations of available Niagara power on a continuous basis.
Since the agreement, the Power Authority has made allocations to a total of 34 Western New York companies, including this allocation to Surmet Ceramics, approved at the trustee's monthly meeting.
Surmet Ceramics is planning to create nine new positions as it purchases and refurbishes equipment to increase its manufacturing capabilities, in return for this lower-cost power. The company also plans to install a high-temperature heat-treatment furnace. In addition, it will be refurbishing manufacturing space throughout its plant.
Surmet manufactures advanced materials and coatings for Fortune 500 firms, technology-based enterprises and U.S. government agencies. Its products are used in the semiconductor equipment, biomedical, aerospace and defense industries.
The 2,400,000-kw Niagara Project, in Lewiston, about five miles downstream from Niagara Falls, is one of the largest generating plants in the country. It provides some of New York State's lowest cost power, along with a second NYPA hydroelectric project, the St. Lawrence-Franklin D. Roosevelt Project in Massena.