text:
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — In a misty rain that African officials said symbolized the departure of a great leader, mourners wept at South Africa's state memorial for Nelson Mandela, but also sang, danced and ululated to celebrate the man President Obama eulogized as a giant of history.
Leaders and dignitaries from more than 100 countries attended the service, where Obama invoked Mandela's spirit in impassioned remarks that urged young Africans and world leaders alike to "search then for his strength, for his largeness of spirit, somewhere inside ourselves."
Clouds hung low over the soccer stadium in Johannesburg's Soweto township, but the atmosphere was full of joy, as many in attendance sang old liberation struggle songs extolling Mandela, who died Thursday at 95.
"It was electrifying," one young mourner, Tumi Simelane, said later. "It was more of a celebration." She said she attended the service because she wanted to honor Mandela and witness one of South Africa's momentous events.
"I thought yesterday about Nelson Mandela and I realized it's actually history being made, and I wanted to be part of this," she said. "I want to be able to tell my kids that I was there to send a hero back to heaven."
In South African culture, rain is seen as a blessing symbolizing major events. The deputy president of the ruling African National Congress, Cyril Ramaphosa, opened the memorial, saying that "if it rains when you are buried, it means the gods are welcoming you and the gates of heaven are opening."
"In many ways we are here to tell Madiba that his long walk is over, that he can finally rest. His long walk is over, but ours is only beginning," Ramaphosa said, referring to Mandela by his clan name.
Tuesday's service began with rousing cheers and the words, "Comrades! Long live the spirit of Nelson Mandela! Long live!"
The Mandela family, which has been deeply divided in recent months, looked ashen and strained as they arrived and took their places. Mandela's widow, Graca Machel, regarded as the peacemaker in the family, embraced his second wife, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.
When President Jacob Zuma entered the stadium, he drew a hearty cheer from ANC members, but then, little by little, some in the crowd began booing. The boos died down when Zuma addressed the gathering.
The 95,000-seat stadium was far less than full, perhaps because of the rain. Authorities had also urged people from provinces besides Gauteng, which is home to Johannesburg, to stay away, fearing that so many people would turn out that there could be a crush or disorder.
Mandela, the leader of the movement to end South Africa's brutal apartheid system of racial discrimination and the nation's first black president, died Thursday night after having contracted severe pneumonia in June, from which he never fully recovered. South African media reported that he came down with a new infection shortly before he died.
The former president, who in the 1960s was sentenced to prison on charges of sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the government, had battled recurrent lung infections since becoming ill during his 27 years of incarceration, which ended in 1990.
South Africans revere him for the sacrifice of spending nearly three decades in prison and for his triumph in negotiating a peaceful end to apartheid. But to many in the South African ruling party, the tough, uncompromising younger Mandela, who advocated violent struggle to answer the violence of apartheid, is just as important.
"The world is here," a South African newspaper headline read as leaders jetted in Tuesday from around the globe, a logistical, diplomatic and security nightmare. Obama was caught in morning traffic, arriving after the memorial had begun, and there were complaints that members of the public underwent no security screening as they entered a stadium in which dozens of world leaders were seated.
With some of the world's autocrats listening, Obama said that too many leaders claimed solidarity with South Africa's liberation struggle while falling short of the democratic values Mandela espoused.
"There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba's legacy of racial reconciliation but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba's struggle for freedom but do not tolerate dissent from their own people," Obama said.
The crowd repeatedly burst into cheers during Obama's impassioned eulogy, at times almost drowning him out.
Obama compared Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, to Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and to America's Founding Fathers.
In a week of obituaries that often endowed Mandela — who was president from 1994 to 1999 — with a saintly, iconic status, Obama rejected the view of him as "smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men."
"Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait," Obama said. "Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears, his miscalculations along with his victories. 'I'm not a saint,' he said, 'unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.'
"It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection — because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried — that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood — a son and husband, a father and a friend."
After speaking, he approached Mandela's widow to offer his condolences.
Also at the memorial were former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
In a gesture some took as a symbolic nod to Mandela's spirit of reconciliation, Obama, while greeting world leaders, shook hands with Cuban President Raul Castro, although the countries have not had diplomatic relations for more than five decades.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that although the Soweto stadium held tens of thousands of people, "even an arena as big as Africa could not contain our pain. South Africa has lost a father. The world has lost a beloved friend and mentor."
"Nelson Mandela was more than one of the greatest leaders of our time. He was one of the greatest teachers," Ban said.
Among those in the crowd was Tyson Mbanjwa, who said he attended the memorial to bid farewell to a legend.
"He was a very, very good person. We love him and we are going to miss him. He taught us humanity and he taught us to love people and not to commit crimes," he said.
Johannes Funeko went to the memorial to "bless my father because he worked very hard to get freedom for everyone. It felt right. I feel so good because now I could see that everything went well, everything went right, my father is just sleeping." South Africans often referred to Mandela as "Tata," or father.
Mandela died at his Houghton home in his bedroom, which had been set up to provide him with round-the-clock intensive care from a team of more than 20 doctors. With tubes in his throat to drain fluid from his lungs, Mandela was unable to speak in the final months of his life, and family members said he was fragile and prone to infection.
His death resulted in an outpouring of grief from South Africans, with people of all racial groups making pilgrimages to his home, and flowers, cards, letters, gifts and candles piled deeply outside the front wall of his home.
Obama urged people to draw inspiration from Mandela, who struggled for change even when it seemed impossible, comforting himself that he was captain of his own soul.
"What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply," he said. "May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela."


text:
Business Performance (BPer) is a measure of key performance indicators over a period of time. Within that period, we indicate there is BPer if the anticipated metrics and KPIs are exceeded by the actual KPIs.
For this to happen, Business Processes need to have been identified and engineered appropriately to achieve business goals measured by the KPIs.
The underlying Services that are orchestrated to produce the Business Processes should be selected or identified using a rationalized Service Identification method
(e.g., SOMA -- Service Oriented Modeling and Architecture) that encompasses the needs of various aspects of granularity, performance, agility, flexibility and complexity.
The Business Architecture should follow an agile and adaptive model to incorporate changes needed to accommodate sustained business performance and allow for continuous optimization.
Having an underlying Service Portfolio that allows the selection and combination of those services in nex contexts into Business Processes is one of the key factors in achieving and maintaining sustainable Business Performance.
I will discuss other factors in my next entries.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Flea Theater to Present Tommy Smiths' NECTARINE EP, 2/8-17
The Flea goes audio with the upcoming workshop production of Tommy Smith's NECTARINE EP. A sonic reverberation of Homer's The Odyssey - filtered through the lens of downtown artist Tommy Smith - the audio-fueled "extended play", NECTARINE EP, de-stimulates the audience's perception through visual and auditory manipulation. This experimental production is both written and directed by Tommy Smith and features The Bats, the resident Acting Company at The Flea. (PLEASE NOTE: This production is not open for review.)
NECTARINE EP features additional direction by Tom Costello and Benjamin H. Kamine. Original Music by Julian Hill, John Osebold, and Michael McQuilken. Sound Design by Michael McQuilken, and Lighting/Projection Design by Sarah Lasley. The cast features Jamie Bock, Jenelle Chu, Jessica Frey, Marlowe Holden, Christine Lee, Cristina Pitter, Michelle Silvani, Lulu Ward and Mari Yamamoto.
The production plays February 8 through 17 at 9pm on Friday and Saturday and at 7pm on Sunday. All tickets are $20 and are available at www.theflea.org or by calling 212-352-3101.Tommy Smith's work includes LOTUS EATERS EP (IRT Theater), PIGEON (Ensemble Studio Theatre; dir. Billy Carden), THE WIFE (Access Gallery; dir. May Adrales), WHITE HOT (HERE Arts Center; dir. May Adrales), SEXTET (Washington Ensemble Theatre; dir. Roger Benington), PTSD (Ensemble Studio Theatre; dir. Billy Carden), AIR CONDITIONING (Eugene O'Neill Playwrights Conference; dir. Steve Cosson), among others. His work has also appeared at PS 122, The Ontological Theatre, Soho Rep Writer/Director Lab, The Yale Cabaret; internationally, he has been produced in Prague, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Montreal, Berlin and Athens. His award-winning theatrical collaborations with Reggie Watts have played at The Public Theatre, Lamama, The Warhol Museum, MCA Chicago, ICA Boston, On The Boards and PICA: TBA, among others. He is the recipient of the PONY fellow at The Lark, a two-time winner of the Lecomte du Nouy Prize, a recipient of the E.S.T. Sloan Grant, a winner of the Page73 Productions Playwriting Fellowship, and a recipient of the Creative Capital award. Publications include PIGEON for Dramatists Play Service, WHITE HOT in the New York Theatre Review. Recently, his feature film FIGMENT was optioned by Ridley Scott's Production Company ScottFree. He is a graduate of the playwriting program at The Juilliard School. He lives in New York City.
The Bats are the resident Acting Company members of The Flea Theater. Each year over a thousand actors audition for a place in this unique company. The Bats perform in extended runs of challenging classic and new plays. The Bats have recently appeared in premieres by A.R. Gurney, Will Eno, Adam Rapp, Beau Willimon, Mac Wellman, Elizabeth Swados, Thomas Bradshaw, Itamar Moses, Sheila Callaghan, Julian Sheppard, Ken Urban, Tommy Smith, Jonathan Reynolds, Trista Baldwin, Laurel Haines, Qui Nguyen, Sean Graney, and Amy Freed.
The Flea Theater, under Artistic Director Jim Simpson and Producing Director Carol Ostrow, is one of New York's leading off-off-Broadway companies. Winner of a Special Drama Desk Award for outstanding achievement, Obie Awards and an Otto for political theater, The Flea has presented over 100 plays and numerous dance and live music performances since its inception in 1996. Past productions include the premieres of Anne Nelson's The Guys, seven plays by A.R. Gurney (O Jerusalem, Screenplay, Mrs. Farnsworth, Post Mortem, A Light Lunch, Office Hours and Heresy), Cellophane and Two September by Mac Wellman, Ashley Montana Goes Ashore... and The Oldsmobiles by Roger Rosenblatt; JABU and Kaspar Hauser by Elizabeth Swados; Return of the Chocolate Smeared Woman by Karen Finley, Bingo with the Indians by Adam Rapp, Oh, The Humanity and other exclamations by Will Eno, Dawn and Job by Thomas Bradshaw, Love/Stories (or But You Will Get Used to it) Itamar Moses, The Great Recession, Girls in Trouble by Jonathan Reynolds, Parents' Evening by Bathsheba Doran, Looking at Christmas by Steven Banks, the Drama Desk nominated She Kills Monsters by Qui Nguyen, the Drama Desk nominated These Seven Sicknesses by Sean Graney, I Hate Fucking Mexicans by Luis Enrique Gutiérrez Ortiz Monasterio and Amy Freed's Restoration Comedy.
NECTARINE EP runs February 8-17 at 9pm on Friday and Saturday and at 7pm on Sunday. The Flea is located at 41 White Street between Church and Broadway, three blocks south of Canal, close to the A/C/E, N/R/Q, 6, J/M/Z and 1 subway lines. Tickets start at $20, and are available by calling 212-352-3101 or online at www.theflea.org.


text:
Latest most popular hd and wide desktop background photos gallery download. New wallpapers in high quality for laptops, mobile and computer resolutions. Most famous best latest images. Free super latest pictures in 720p and 1080p resolution. Amazing latest pics gallery. hdfinewallpapers.com provide total: 5578 glorious superb Latest Wallpapers.
Page 552 of 558
Visit Facebook Page
Visit Google+ Page


text:
While the people from this particular planet are packing up their Wii consoles and preparing to trade them in for the next big thing, the last survivor of the planet Gallifrey is having a wonderful time flailing about in front of the television. In yesterday's episode of Doctor Who, Matt Smith shows Wii Sports Tennis how it's done.
For a man that's seen the entirety of time and space, spending any substantial amount of time stuck on one planet must be incredibly boring. Luckily companions Rory and Amy have a Wii in their living room, or the good Doctor might have wandered off in the TARDIS instead of helping save the world from a series of tiny black cubes.
You'll note that he's not wearing his wrist strap, either. It's that sort of carelessness that's brought us to the 11th Doctor instead of still being on the 4th or 5th.
The clip comes from episode four of the latest season, "The Power of Three".


text:
Celebrate Waitangi Day with family and friends at this commemorative event. Join us for a day of ceremony, education, culture, fun and activities along with free kids' rides and live performances by some of Aotearoa's top artists!
Waitangi Day Family Celebrations 2013 is proudly presented by Toi o Manukau in commemoration of our national day.
The South Auckland celebration is Auckland region's largest Waitangi Day event. The event aims to raise awareness and understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi through the sharing of arts, crafts, music and food.
This alcohol and smoke-free event is proudly supported by Auckland Council, The Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Niu FM.
Live stage times:
11am: Zkabby Jams;
11:25am: RubberBand;
11:50am: Sammy J;
12:15pm: Oceania Storm;
12:55pm: Awa & PNC;
1:50pm: Maisey Rika featuring Tama Waipara;
2:55pm: Pieter T and band;
3:45pm: Aaradhna and band;
4:50pm: Three Houses Down;
6pm: Event closes.


text:
Entertainment Untethered: What it's like to ditch TV
Before we begin, let me backpedal for a second and set the stage for "ditching TV".
Here's how I'd word it:
• Watching TV is the actual act of sitting down in front of one to consume entertainment
• Ditching TV is removing all those setbacks that come from viewing
What I'm trying to convey is the difference between being a zombie in front of a TV set versus having an a la carte choice in what shows and movies you watch. Instead of getting stuck with commercials and waiting for shows during primetime – you're cutting those setbacks so you can binge.
You can follow us on Twitter and Facebook for content updates. Also, sign up for our email list for weekly updates and check us out on Google+ as well.
Posted in: Entertainment, Television
Tags: Amazin Instant Video, Apple TV, Boxee, cord cutting, ditching TV, Hulu Plus, Netflix, Roku, set up box


text:
LITTLE ROCK (AGFC) – The annual public meetings concerning the state's hunting seasons have passed, but there's still time to send any comments or concerns to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Just visit Regulation Survey to take a quick online survey.
The following considerations are being surveyed for the 2013-14 season:
• Change the checking time from 24 to 12 hours for bear, deer and turkey.
• All cervid carcasses entering the state must follow cervid carcass importation restrictions. This will include all states, Canadian provinces and countries not currently listed in the code.
• Implement 12-inch inside spread or 15-inch main beam length antler restriction on Dr. Lester Sitzes III Bois d'Arc, Hope Upland, McIlroy Madison County, Scott Henderson Gulf Mountain and Shirey Bay Rainey Brake WMAs.
• Implement 15-inch inside spread or 18-inch main beam length antler restriction on Dave Donaldson Black River WMA.
• Change the WMA deer permit process from two drawings to one and extend the payment period from two to four weeks. Permits not paid for will be available for purchase online.
• Include deer zone 3 in the private lands antlerless only modern gun deer hunt.
• Modify boundaries of deer zones 11 and 13.
• Allow the harvest of one doe in deer zone 11 for the entire muzzleloader and modern gun seasons.
• Prohibit mentors from carrying firearms for their hunting purposes during any youth hunt.
• Re-instate the bear quota for zone 2 of 150 (125 for October and 25 for November).
• Move the opening day of bear archery season in bear zone 2 from Sept. 15 to Oct. 1.
• Allow squirrel hunting with dogs except for the first nine days of modern gun deer season on Ozark National Forest, Piney Creeks and White Rock WMAs.
Written comments may be mailed by Feb. 28.


text:
Catch up on the big wave session from Dec. 17, 2018 at Half Moon Bay.
Mavericks Paddle Session
Up Next
Mick picks four surfers to surf the Padang Cup, Evan Geiselman scores before Ballito, Bali bans single-use plastics, and Occy has a vision.
More Videos
Conner Coffin releases a new edit, Paris 2024 Olympics discussed, and Eithan Osborne chooses Team Israel.
Mick picks four surfers to surf the Padang Cup, Evan Geiselman scores before Ballito, Bali bans single-use plastics, and Occy has a vision.
USA Surfing U18 Champs Crowned, Sound Waves show preview, Josh Kerr wins Soft Top Soiree, and a birthday shout to Sofia Mulanovich.
The next generation of the Brasilian storm enjoys a day in the lineup.
Gear up for another big year in Oceanside, California, for the 2019 Super Girl Pro QS 6,000.
The Los Cabos Open of Surf delivered a one-of-a-kind contest and all those involved left with nothing but smiles.
Filipe Toledo and Sally Fitzgibbons win the Oi Rio Pro, Slater gives a shoutout to fans, and we receive an update on Sunny Garcia.
Kolohe Andino Post Heat Interview SF
Catch up on all the top action as Filipe Toledo and Sally Fitzgibbons claim victories at the Oi Rio Pro.
Electric crowd, Andino vs. Medina, John Florence's injury, Moore vs. Gilmore and Toledo vs. Slater are just some of the highlights.
After defeating Jordy Smith in the Final, the Brazilian wins the Oi Rio Pro in front of his hometown crowd.
It was a Finals day to remember as Filipe Toledo and Sally Fitzgibbons claim the Oi Rio Pro in front of a massive crowd.
The Australian's love affair with Brazil continues as she wins the Oi Rio Pro over Carissa Moore in the Final.
Current World No. 2 builds momentum towards his first event win after defeating Gabriel Medina in the Quarterfinals.
After possibly re-injuring his knee in the Round of 16, the current Jeep Leader plays it safe and withdraws from the remainder of the event.
Barrinha barrels on tap in Rio, JJF goes big, Slater and Toledo rematch, Stephanie Gilmore shines, and Rising Tides inspires.


text:
See Jane reach. See Jane reach for power and be denied.
It might not yet be a full-blown theme, but that story line has made for one of TV's more culturally intriguing narratives of this presidential election year.
"Game Change" and the first season of "VEEP," both made in Maryland by HBO, offered two very different takes on the topic. The former looked at Sarah Palin through the harsh lens of docudrama as an ill-prepared and over-reaching 2008 GOP candidate for vice president, while the latter took a lighter, satirical look at the way that office itself continually frustrates the ambitions of Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus).
And tonight comes "Political Animals" on...


text:
NY Times Drops "Illegals," As Fox Continues To Cling To Slur
Blog ››› ››› SOLANGE UWIMANA
In a post on his blog yesterday, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, currently an op-ed columnist for the paper, answered readers who have repeatedly criticized him and the paper of record for their incessant use of derogatory term "illegals." Keller shared a handful of emails from readers, including from one who noted that the term "reduces human beings to a status label, and a morally loaded one at that."
The reader's email continued:
It reduces the essence of a person to an act of violation, an offense. When you use "illegals" as the object of a sentence it literally erases the human beings who the sentence is about and makes the grammatical object of the sentence an abstraction, a label of condemnation.
Keller was particularly criticized for using the term in his Monday column, which he did no less than four times. In defending himself to readers, he wrote:
Just to be clear, I used the word only to refer to people who are actually in this country illegally. I was careful not to apply it to families, which are often of mixed legal status. And I used it in a context where the subject was their legal status.
After consulting the paper's style book, which advised Times journalists to use "illegal immigrant ... rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien," Keller contacted the Times' "arbiter of style and taste" Phil Corbett who explained that " 'illegals' as a shorthand noun has an unnecessarily pejorative tone, and it is routinely used by the anti-immigration side." Corbett added: "I think it's wise to steer clear."
Keller concluded:
Well, vigilant readers, the good news is, you seem to have gotten the style book updated. And I'll resist that particular shorthand in the future.
Indeed, the Associated Press Stylebook explicitly instructs journalists not to use "illegal or illegals." In its entry for "illegal immigrant," the AP Stylebook cautions journalists against shortening the phrase to exclude the word "immigrant." Michele Salcedo, an AP political desk anchor and current president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists explained the problem to the Poynter Institute:
Salcedo ... doesn't agree with the AP's style. "Illegal immigrant," she said, oversimplifies the complexities of immigration.
"Using the word 'illegal' to describe an immigrant puts journalists in the position of being judge and jury," she said via email. "It casts all immigration cases as black and white: legal or illegal. That leaves little room for this most complicated law's nuances."
There's a tendency to carelessly use the term "illegal" when reporting on immigration, Salcedo said: "In every other legal context, whether criminal or civil, journalists are scrupulously taught, and editors keep a close eye on copy, to make sure someone accused of a crime or violation isn't convicted in the story, that they have a right to the presumption of innocence," she said. "The coverage of immigration is the exception to those journalistic standards."
NAHJ uses "undocumented" instead of "illegal," and has urged others to use it, too. Similarly, the Society of Professional Journalists voted earlier this fall to recommend that media outlets stop using the term "illegal alien" and re-evaluate "illegal immigrant."
One news outlet which still clings to the pejorative shorthand is Fox News. On the day Keller posted his comment, Fox hosted conservative radio host Lars Larson to rail against "illegals" and "illegal aliens" as a silent Alisyn Camerota let the epithets fly by. Everyone from "straight news" anchors to show hosts uses the word on a weekly basis. Fox News also routinely affixes the slur to headlines, even changing the headlines to articles to include the word. The word is also used in purportedly neutral Fox News articles.
While Fox News' emphasis on using the word has not gone unnoticed, perhaps it's time the news network -- which is apparently on some kind of "course correction" from its "hard right turn" -- follow Keller's and the overall media's advice and stop skewing the public debate over immigration.
- Posted In
- Immigration, Immigration Reform
- Network/Outlet
- Fox News Channel, The New York Times
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Monitorix"
(→General: - updated value of $OSTYPE to "Linux-Arch" as Monitorix supports this now)
|Line 160:
|Line 160:
Revision as of 01:59, 7 July 2010
Monitorix is a free, open source, lightweight system monitoring tool designed to monitor as many services as possible. At this time it monitors from the CPU load and temperatures to the users using the system. Network devices activity, network services demand and even the devices' interrupt activity are also monitored, and more. The current status of any corporate server with Monitorix installed can be accessed via a web browser[1].
- 1 Installation of Monitorix
- 2 Configuration of Monitorix
- 3 Start Monitorix
- 4 Configure a Webserver
- 5 Using tmpfs to Store RRD Databases
- 6 Related Links
Installation of Monitorix
There are three dependencies for this package -- all of which are in the repos. Install them before you attempt to install the package you will build.
# pacman -S rrdtool metamail terminus-font
Visit the AUR and grab the tarball for the [monitorix package] and build/install it.
$ tar monitorix.tar.gz $ cd monitorix $ makepkg -s # pacman -U monitorix-<TAB>.tar.gz
Configuration of Monitorix
Before starting the monitorix daemon, be sure to adjust the Template:Filename to your liking. For a complete list of options and features, see the [official website] or the included man page for monitor.conf.
$ man monitorix.conf
Most if not all of the user settings are self explanatory based on the commented text within the conf file itself.
our $TITLE = "My Company"; # your company name our $HOSTNAME = "myhostname"; # hostname of this server our $OSTYPE = "Linux-Arch"; # choose your OS type (see below) our $SAMBAVER = "3"; # Samba version (2 or 3) our $MULTIHOST = "N"; # Enable multihost feature our $MULTIHOST_FOOTER = "Y"; # (multihost) display URL in image our $MULTIHOST_IMGPERLINE = "2"; # (multihost) # of images per line our $REPORT_LANG = "en"; # Report language our $THEME_COLOR = "black"; # Default is "black", none is "white" our $REFRESH_RATE = "150"; # Web stats' refresh rate in seconds our $ENABLE_CROND_MAIL = "Y"; # Error messages are sent by crond
Common settings to tweak here include company name, hostname, and theme color.
Select Which Data Gets Graphed
our $ENABLE_CPU = "Y"; # Enable/Disable CPU graph our $ENABLE_KERN = "Y"; # Enable/Disable KERN graph our $ENABLE_PROC = "Y"; # Enable/Disable PROC graph our $ENABLE_DISK = "Y"; # Enable/Disable DISK graph our $ENABLE_NET = "Y"; # Enable/Disable NET graph our $ENABLE_SERVU = "Y"; # Enable/Disable SERVU graph our $ENABLE_PORT = "Y"; # Enable/Disable PORT graph our $ENABLE_USER = "Y"; # Enable/Disable USER graph our $ENABLE_NGINX = "N"; # Enable/Disable NGINX graph our $ENABLE_INT = "Y"; # Enable/Disable INT graph our $ENABLE_LMTEMP = "N"; # Enable/Disable LMTEMP graph our $ENABLE_ZOOM = "Y"; # Enable Zoom feature our $IFACE_MODE = "graph"; # Interface mode: graph or text
Toggle which of the data gets displayed.
CPU Stats
our $CPU1_RIGID = "1"; # rigid level our $CPU1_LIMIT = "1"; # CPUs max value our $CPU2_RIGID = "0"; # rigid level our $CPU2_LIMIT = "100"; # NPROC max value our $MEMORY = "4096"; # MB of memory
The default values here are fine. Adjust the memory variable to the amount of RAM on your system.
Temperature monitor
Monitorix optionally reads the info from lm-sensors and from hddtemp and logs CPU, MB, and HDD temps as well as fan speeds. See the lm_sensors wiki article to setup sensors on your box. See the hddtemp wiki article to setup hddtemp on your box.
To setup monitorix to read your specific sensors data, simply run sensors on the box and make the appropriate substitutions in the Template:Filename
For example:
ur %SENSORS_LIST = ("MB" => "temp2", "CPU1" => "Core 0", "CPU2" => "Core 1", "CPU3" => "Core 2", "CPU4" => "Core 3", "FAN1" => "fan1"); our @HDDTEMP_LIST = ("/dev/hda", "/dev/hdd", "/dev/hdc"); # max 9 hard disk drives
Again, you'll need to change the values for each variable based on your own hardware and based on what you want to capture in the rrd databases.
Set up to seven mount points. The root partition is included by default and need not be implicitly specified.
For example:
our @MNT_LIST = ("/home", "/media/data"); # max 7 mount points our $DISK2_RIGID = "2"; # rigid level our $DISK2_LIMIT = "1000"; # IOCount max value our $DISK3_RIGID = "2"; # rigid level our $DISK3_LIMIT = "1000"; # Sector max value
Additional sections
The rest of the config file includes data that most users won't want or need to customize. Feel free to tweak the file to your liking.
Start Monitorix
Monitorix is started like any other daemon. Data collection will occur once per minute triggered via a cron job (Template:Filename). When running monitorix for the very first time, it is necessary to restart the crond. On any subsequent start or restart this step is not necessary.
# /etc/rc.d/monitorix start # /etc/rc.d/crond restart
To view your system stats, make sure your webserver is running (see the next section if you do not have a webserver) and browse to [http://localhost/monitorix] to see the data.
Configure a Webserver
Monitorix has minimal requirements for webservering the data. Arch has several options in the main repos for web serving, two of which are listed below. Lighttpd is recommended since its system resource footprint is minimal compared to apache (0.94 MB vs. 6.52 MB). Alternatively, Apache will work, but it is overkill!
# pacman -S lighttpd
By default, cgi support is not enabled in lighttpd. To enable it, uncomment the following lines in Template:Filename:
Under the server.modules section, uncomment the following line:
Under the CGI module section, uncomment the following two lines:
cgi.assign = ( ".pl" => "/usr/bin/perl", ".cgi" => "/usr/bin/perl" )
Save the file and exit.
Start lighttpd like any other daemon:
# /etc/rc.d/lighttpd start
# pacman -S apache
Make sure the hostname appears in Template:Filename and in Template:Filename or apache will not operate.
Start apache like any other daemon:
# /etc/rc.d/httpd start
Using tmpfs to Store RRD Databases
Have a look at the following package which provides a script that will make use of tmpfs to store your RRD Databases for Monitorix. Doing so will greatly reduce hdd reads/writes.


text:
The Obama administration on Thursday said people enrolled in some small, government-sponsored healthcare plans will not face a penalty under Obamacare in 2014, even though their coverage does not meet the healthcare reform law's minimum requirements.
In proposed rules released by the Internal Revenue Service, the administration said narrowly defined government coverage including programs limited to family planning or tuberculosis-related services through Medicaid do not meet minimum essential coverage standards.
Ordinarily, President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would require someone who lacks minimum coverage to pay a penalty.
But the IRS is proposing that individuals in certain plans pay no penalty for failing to have minimum essential healthcare for this year. These individuals may be eligible for a premium tax credit to get healthcare coverage on a state or federal health insurance marketplace, the proposed rules said.
The exemption includes people deemed medically needy due to crippling healthcare costs, enrollees in special Medicaid demonstrations and military personnel enrolled in programs with limited eligibility.
The announcement comes on the heels of an administration decision to offer hardship exemptions to people who had their individual policies canceled last year because they fail to meet Obamacare's standards for minimum coverage. That decision was part of the administration's response to a public outcry that devastated Obama's poll numbers and worried Democratic lawmakers.
But Thursday's proposed rules, which would affect a small but undetermined number of people, have been in the works since at least last August, when the IRS published regulations on the individual mandate.
Obamacare requires most Americans to be enrolled in health coverage by March 31 or pay a 2014 penalty of $95 or 1 percent of annual household income, whichever is higher. The penalty is scheduled to rise in subsequent years.


text:
Also in Slate, Chris Wilson explains how to win your NCAA pool and Will Oremus breaks down what would happen if the NCAA Tournament were a fight to the death between mascots. Plus, you can download Holly Allen's printable 2012 school color and mascot brackets.
Hang Up and Listen host Josh Levin, college hoops stats maven Ken Pomeroy, and Basketball Prospectus and ESPN.com writer John Gasaway were on Slate's Facebook page on Tuesday to chat with readers about the start of March Madness. The following transcript of the discussion has been edited for length and clarity. To see the full conversation, click on this link.
John Gasaway: Greetings all. My name's John Gasaway, and I write about college hoops at ESPN and Basketball Prospectus. If this is a gathering of Slate readers who love college hoops, I must be in the right place. What's on your mind?
Ken Pomeroy: Hey everybody, Ken Pomeroy here. You can call me KenPom, or preferably just Ken. I do ratings and analysis at kenpom.com and am ready to talk hoops and brackets.
Amy Childs Reichardt: Could you post your color/mascot brackets this year?
Josh Levin: Amy, we posted our color/mascot brackets this morning.
Wade Fasano: Syracuse is gonna be down without Melo, boosts chances for UK?
Josh Levin: I have a question for John and Ken about the Syracuse situation: Given Fab Melo's suspension, does UNC-Asheville have the best chance—even if it's not that big a chance—of any 16 seed in recent years to knock off a 1 seed?
Harry Johnson: I want to know how serious Ken Pom is when he says that a 16 seed will beat a 1 seed this year. Also, does Syracuse still count without Fab Melo?
John Gasaway: Wade and Josh, with regard to Syracuse and Melo, it's amazing how the absence of a player turns that player into Lew Alcindor overnight. Melo is a terrific interior defender, but the Orange will still be able to score points—an aspect of their performance that tends to be underrated. As for the 1-16 chances, Ken has that covered. Ken? …
Ken Pomeroy: @Harry I am serious in the sense that this crop of 16's is the strongest in the history of the tourney. Chances are still slim, just less slim than usual. And yes, I still consider the 'Cuse a 1-seed.
Josh Levin: Here's Ken's post on this being the year that a 16 loses to a 1.
Ken Pomeroy: I'm with John on Melo. Fab was on the bench for 15 minutes every game, and Boeheim actually has guys to fill his role that have played in meaningful games this season. A rare luxury for him. It hurts, but isn't a killer by any means.
John Gasaway: The takeaway is this: Next year on Selection Sunday eve when Syracuse says "Big Man X is healthy and eligible!" take it with a grain of salt. After Arinze Onuaku in 2010 and now this, it seems they like to be coy about their personnel until after the brackets come out.
Josh Levin: I am less bullish on Kentucky than many people because I'm convinced that the Wildcats' point guard, Marquis Teague, is going to drive them into a ditch. I'm envisioning a UK loss in the Elite Eight or the Final Four in which Teague scores 0 points and has a lot of turnovers. Am I being overly pessimistic? Do you guys think his shortcomings are overcomable?
Ken Pomeroy: Funny how nobody is talking about Teague. Kentucky is outstanding, but personnel-wise, the point guard is the weak link. Wouldn't surprise me if the Cats overcame it because they are so good at a lot of things, but yeah, their point guard issues are going to get attention in opposing game plans.
John Gasaway: Teague might not be the new Cousy, but his mates are pretty good. What's impressive to me about UK is their offense has been stellar across all categories, including, most crucially for your concern, turnovers. I think they've been overcoming Teague pretty well to date. We'll see, though.
Jake Burgers: Which double digit seed has the best chance to reach the Sweet 16?
Ken Pomeroy: I'll vote for N.C. State.
Josh Levin: I'm starting to believe the St. Bonaventure hype. They've got a star player in Andrew Nicholson and a first-round opponent, Florida State, that's struggled with consistency all year. If they can get through that game, I like their chances against either Cincy or Texas.
John Gasaway: Sign me up for Purdue.
Ken Pomeroy: I suppose if you call UNLV a mid-major, which would offend every Rebel fan in the country, they are a solid option, too.
John Gasaway: Josh, FSU had disastrous outings, obviously, against Princeton and Boston College. Also lost, less disastrously, to Harvard. Basically any opponent that's an Ivy or in close proximity to one is an issue. With the Bonnies safely ensconced in Western, N.Y., that shouldn't come up. The 'Noles certainly seemed alert and focused in the ACC tourney.
Chris Jagalla: Do you think teams winning in the "First Round" (like BYU) suffer a disadvantage going into the real first round ("Second Round")? How big of a disadvantage?
Ken Pomeroy: I do think it's a disadvantage, although in BYU's case maybe not much of one since it's merely a long cab ride from Dayton to Louisville. The good news for the Cougars is that they had 10 days or so between their conference tournament and yesterday's game. So fatigue is less of a factor.
Josh Levin: I think the matchup with Marquette is going to be a bigger problem for BYU than any possible hangover from Tuesday. The Golden Eagles are a bigger, stronger, more defensive-minded version of Iona. I'm thinking it'll be like last night's first half, but for the whole game.
David Storm: We'll say that 130 miles from Olean to Ithaca isn't close enough for the 'Noles. How about Missouri; can Frank Haith lead them to the Final Four? With as much history as that program has, is it surprising they haven't reached that level even once?
John Gasaway: What's more surprising, David, that Mizzou's never been to the Final Four or that they went as far as they've ever gone under Quin Snyder? (2002 Elite Eight.) This group has a great shot at equaling or exceeding that high standard. Yesterday I wrote that if KU's Thomas Robinson is smart he'll tell his grandchildren simply, "I won Big 12 POY in Marcus Denmon's senior year." What a season.
Josh Otis: Missouri had a ridiculous season, with the only blow-out losses coming against Kansas State (who it seems like they just can't match up with). Are there any teams that present similar matchup problems for them in the bracket? It seems to me like they have one of the easier paths to the Final Four (not that any are easy).
John Gasaway: The team that wants to score more points than Missouri will have to seize the advantage presented by an average Tiger D. So that would be more Florida, for instance, than, say, Virginia, from my chair at least.
Kevin Morris: Is Georgetown one of the more disrespected 3 seeds in recent memory, or is Belmont just a very good team, underseeded, and (potentially) a bad match for the Hoyas?
Ken Pomeroy: Belmont is very good and Georgetown is very good. Second year in a row the committee didn't give the Bruins a break with their matchup. If the Hoyas can sneak by, they have the skills to go far. That said, Belmont is going to be a pain for them.
Josh Levin: Georgetown lost to Davidson in 2008, Ohio in 2010, and VCU in 2011, so if you pick them losing to a small-conference school in this year's tournament then maybe you're rating them properly. I think Belmont was everyone's Cinderella before the start of the season, since they did well last year and had everyone coming back. They were a little disappointing in the regular season, but they certainly have the ability to beat Georgetown if they make threes.
Thomas Laughlin: Ken, does Jeff Goodman actually hate A) you or B) actual objective data, or is it mostly shtick? Ken and John, I know both of you are rather bearish on Baylor (no pun intended) and think that SDSU has more than a snowball's chance to pull an upset. Have you considered that the Bears are finally playing more man to man (as appropriate) and won't be as susceptible to SDSU as they would if they played 2/3?
John Gasaway: Although I do think Baylor was overrated by some observers during the season, I also think the Bears received a very nice draw. I will be stunned if they're not in the Sweet 16 and merely surprised if they don't reach the Elite 8.
Ken Pomeroy: Goodman truly hates objective data (he likes to watch the games, you know) but not me. As for Baylor's defensive metamorphosis, I'm not completely sold that man is the way to go for them. Their zone was always pretty aggressive and a pain for non-conference teams to prepare for.
John Gasaway: I don't hate Ken, objective data, or Jeff Goodman. I save my hate for intrusive officiating and people who recline in front of me on airplanes.
David Storm: All this time and no questions about Harvard? Anyone think Harvard will knock out Vanderbilt?
Ken Pomeroy: Their chances are overrated by 5 percent or so, but a 12-15 percent chance for a 15 seed is still mighty impressive. Lehigh's combo-guard C.J. McCollum does just about everything a basketball player can do except block shots.
Josh Levin: I don't give Harvard much of a shot. And here's John's analysis from ESPN Insider: "Harvard, goodness knows, is an unusually strong Ivy representative, and if Festus Ezeli is thinking he'll have an easy time against these scholars from Cambridge, a few possessions against an interior beast like Keith Wright will correct that impression. But the last time we saw the Dores, they were beating Kentucky and, not to put too fine a point on it, the Wildcats are better than Harvard."
John Gasaway: The tough thing about being an Ivy is that you have one of the best teams the league's ever produced and the reward is an opponent that just beat Kentucky.
Whit Alexander: Any chance WVU, led by Big East POY-snubbed Kevin Jones and essentially playing at home in Pittsburgh, can get through Gonzaga and then OSU?
Josh Levin: Whit, I like West Virginia's chances against Gonzaga and do not like them much at all against the Buckeyes.
John Gasaway Whit, the 'Eers can absolutely get by Gonzaga but I wouldn't call it a sure thing. I do like the Buckeyes coming out of that foursome. A lot.
Ben Wiles Belmont coach Rick Byrd said the biggest concern he had about Georgetown was "their ability to defend 3s" (opponents shoot about 27 percent against them). Should your findings about 3-point defense give Belmont fans even more confidence going into Friday?
Ken Pomeroy: Yeah, I think 3-point-percentage defense is an overrated stat. Maybe the most overrated. The Hoyas were merely average in that category the last two seasons, and now suddenly lead the nation. The good news for Belmont backers is that the Hoyas give up a normal amount of three-point looks, so the Bruins will have opportunities to score from beyond the arc.
Josh Levin: Ken and John, can you guys talk about what makes Wichita State such a great team? John, you've been high on them all year, and Ken's log5 system has the Shockers with the ninth-best shot to win the tournament.
John Gasaway: One thing I like about the Shockers is that they are almost equally mighty on both offense and defense. Often a hot mid-major specializes at one of those. Gregg Marshall's team can beat you even on a bad shooting night or even if a star has a great offensive game against them.
David Seitz: Am I crazy to think Creighton has the potential to go on a Butler-esque run this year?
John Gasaway: No crazier than you would have been last year, David, to say, "My hitherto listless 9-9 UConn team is going all the way!"
Josh Levin: Creighton plays no defense and seems likely to get blitzed by North Carolina if they can beat Alabama in Round 1.
Brian Shea: I like Kansas State in a matchup against Syracuse because they are great on the offensive glass and a solid defensive team.
Ken Pomeroy: A great offensive rebounding team against a historically bad defensive rebounding team sounds like a recipe for an upset. However, Syracuse will enjoy a similar, though less pronounced, advantage when they have the ball.
John Gasaway: Brian, that's a fair "like," the question I'd have would be whether even with those offensive boards the previously average K-State offense could score enough points against a D that doesn't foul very much.
Josh Levin: Ken and John, let's wrap this up with your Final Four predictions, if you'll indulge us …
John Gasaway: ESPN already pried Final Four picks out of all of their scribes on Sunday night (pre-Melo!), so I am on the record for better or worse: Kentucky, Michigan State, Ohio State, North Carolina.
Ken Pomeroy I'll go with Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, and Ohio State. I'll take the Buckeyes to win the whole thing.
Josh Levin: And I'll pick Wichita State, Missouri, Ohio State, and UNC. Someone has to back the Shockers!
John Gasaway: I like the spirit, Josh. After last year, Ken and I look way too conservative, you're right.


text:
Tonight, we continue in our series on "Is the Bible Believable?" and we come to the study of science and the Scripture; and I think this is such an exciting thing, because science is discovering what the Bible has been saying for centuries. One of the great proofs, one of the great products of Biblical inspiration is the fact that it is scientifically accurate.
Aldous Huxley made this statement. He said, "Modern science makes it impossible to believe in a personal God." Bertrand Russell, who was in the habit of making irresponsible statements said, quote, "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving. That his origin, his growth, his hopes, his fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocation of atoms. That all the labors of the ages are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand." End quote. Christianity rejects all of that and has stood a lot longer than Bertrand Russell.
Others have said that as science finds explanations of natural phenomena, God becomes smaller and smaller. As science advances, and we realize that everything can be verified in a test tube and ultimately resolved to scientific fact, the necessity of God is eliminated; and once God was the Almighty, and now science is the almighty. You know, as Christians, I think we are constantly whipped this point. Believers are faced with a supposed conflict between science and the Scripture. We are told that Christianity is scientifically unrespected, that it doesn't gain the respect of a scientific world, because it makes nonscientific statements and scientific blunders; and the worldlings say that you have to choose either science or religion. You can't have both. Either the facts of science or the fantasy of Scripture, but not both; and, really, the clash goes on; and it's based on the fact that both science and the Scripture claim total authority. There's no question in our mind that the Bible claims that it is right, that it claims total authority, totalitarian authority; but science does too. G. H. Clark says, "The scientific method is the sole gateway to truth."
The scientists demand that science have absolute authority, and faith comes along and demands that revelation have absolute authority. Science says, "You can only know truth as you discover it," and the Christian says, "You can't really discover ultimate truth on your own." Romans 11:33, "How unsearchable are His judgments. His ways are past finding out." And so we say, "No man by empiricism can discover ultimate truth." It only comes when ultimate truth is revealed by God Himself. You can't trust experience. You can't trust experiment. "You can only really trust the Word of God," says the Christian; and so there's a basic dichotomy. Science says, "If it isn't in the test tube, and if it can't be done in experiment, and if it isn't an empirical, proven thing, I can't buy it. Only that which is observable to me, only that which is scientific can be acceptable." The Christian says, "Only that which is revelatory can be acceptable," because even your senses can fool you, right?
Now, there are some scientific facts that we accept, but not in contra-distinction to the Scriptures. Lemme hasten to add this thought. Science does not necessitate God. Science has figured out that everything came from a one-celled thing floating in a pond. Nobody knows where the pond came from or where the one-celled thing came from, but that's how it all started; and that thing began to change. It divided. It split again. It split again and continuously, continuously until here we are. You don't need God in that kind of system. Christianity postulates a creator God. Both of them claim to be right; and, in that, the supposed conflict lies. Lemme hasten to add this. There is no real conflict between science and Scripture. There is none.
R. N. Williams says, I quote, "A great difference exists between science and what may be called scientism, by which we mean the theories of a scientist who is wearing spectacles with philosophically-tinted lenses." End quote. There's really no real conflict between the Bible and science. You can be a Christian and still be very, very capable as a scientist. For example, you have such Christians as Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, and on and on. It is true that the Bible doesn't use scientific jargon, but that doesn't make it nonscientific. The Bible talks in everyday language. We do not disparage the Word of God and say it's nonscientific because it doesn't use current scientific terminology. The fact is, there is no contradiction, there is no real conflict between science and Scripture. The conflict comes when science stops being science and starts being religion. You see, science, by its very definition, can only deal with that which is observable, that which is reproducible; and whenever it gets outside of reproducible, experimental fact and starts trying to talk about origins and destinies, it becomes religion, because it can't be observed; and there the conflict lies.
You know, all this whole movement known as neo-orthodoxy, they've already bowed to this concept. The Bible's full of scientific error. They've already given up. So the typical neo-orthodox statement is this, "The Bible is only authoritative when it speaks on spiritual matters. When it speaks on science matters, we have to handle it allegorically and spiritually, because it's prone to error." Which means the God who wrote the Bible knew a lot about spiritual things. Didn't know anything about science, which is a very interesting thing if you believe the God who wrote the Bible also made everything.
You see, to say that the parts of the Bible that talk about spiritual things are true, and the parts that talk about science are false is ridiculous for two reasons. No. 1, it denies the inspiration of God in the Scripture. If God is God, then He knows as much about science as He does about spiritual things, right? The second thing it denies is the inerrancy of Scripture. That is, that it's properly recorded. If God wrote this book, and if God wrote it correctly, that's inspiration and inerrancy, then it'll be just as right scientifically as it is spiritually. Right? Has to be. For God can only speak truth. The New Testament says, "God who cannot lie." He knows equally the truth of salvation and the truth of science. There is no thing that He does not know.
When science sets itself against God's revelation, it ceases to be science. It becomes ignorance. It becomes an ignorant religion, and there's the conflict. You see, the scientist isn't content to just observe what's going on now. He's gotta extrapolate everything into the past and everything into the future and discuss origins and destinies, but he can't do that, because it isn't science, because he can't put it in a test tube. It isn't reproducible.
Now, watch. Science can only observe the present. That's all. The observable activity of a microscope or a telescope or a test tube, now is all he can deal with; and, of course, he's got some past records of tests and experiments and so forth that he can lean on; but when you get into pre-history, when the scientist starts going back behind recorded history and starts telling us, "You got this think happening and that thing happening in evolutionary cycles, and such and such is happening, and such and such is happening," that is not observable. There is no record of it ever written. It is not reproducible; therefore, it cannot be made a scientific test. Consequently, it becomes a matter of faith. So the scientist speculates about prehistoric origin, and he speculates about eschatological futures; but neither of those things have any record of observation. Neither of those things are test tube items. Now, if you're gonna know anything about prehistoric fact and eschatological fact in the future, the only way you're gonna know is if somebody told it to us; and somebody did; and here it is; and if you deny this, you've got nothing else but just imagination.
The word science is simply the word knowledge, that's all. It's synonymous with the word knowledge. That's how it's used in Scripture. It can only deal with present things, natural present processes. When it attempts to interpret the past, prehistory, when it attempts to interpret the future, it can't. It has to be faith.
Lemme tell you how science works. Science basically has postulated a theory that we call uniformity. Now, the theory of uniformity says that everything going on in the present at the present rate has always gone on at the same rate and will always continue to go on at the same rate. In other words, from the origins to the absolution, everything is an absolute, uniform constant. That's the theory of uniformity, so the scientist goes through his little experiment of natural processes today, and he says, "It takes so-and-so long to do this, to do this. Therefore, if we go backwards, and it took the same and the same and the same," and he extrapolates his uniformity way, way back; and, consequently, he's gotten man millions of years ago. He's got the earth billions of years ago, because he has postulated a theory called uniformity that everything goes on at the same pace in the past and the future that it's going on now.
Does he know that? No, he doesn't know that, because he has no information about it. He has absolutely zero information about it. There isn't even anything written very much further back than the Old Testament period, and people were people then, not hanging in trees by their tails or not in process of becoming people. There is nothing back there. There is no record. Man just takes the natural process of sequence today and extrapolates it into the past and then keeps pushing it back and back and back at the same constant level that he observes it today.
Well, that's fine if he wants to believe that. That's defined in 2 Peter chapter 3 verse 4. Here is the typical theory of uniformity. The false teachers taught it in Peter's day, and they're teaching it today. They say, "Where is the promise of His coming? You keep talking about Jesus is coming. Where is He? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Now that is a statement of the theory of uniformity. Why, they're extrapolating the present processes back from the beginning of creation. Everything's always gone along the same way...
Now, if a scientist wants to hold that theory, that's fine. He can do that. He can actually hold that, and he can defend it. He can say, "You see? When I go back and I see the processes today, and I go back and I find a bunch of rocks, and I know how fast the changes take place, and I see the changes in the strata of the rock, I figure they've gotta take this many million of years, and this many million more years, and this many million more years to make those changes when I calculate it off the basis of change that takes place in my observations today." And so he fits everything into this limitless past and limitless future. He's figuring everything will always go like it's going now. Everything always has gone like it's going now. That's uniformity; and he puts everything into that - the evolution of life, the evolution of galaxies, the evolution of chemical elements, the evolution of everything; and you can't really prove he's wrong. I mean you can't go up to the guy and say, "You're wrong, fella. I wanna prove to you you're wrong." The reason you can't is because those events are not reproducible. You can't reproduce those things. There's no way. They're not subject to scientific checking. He only believes in uniformity because he's got the faith that that's right, not because he can ever defend it. No way. It is simply a matter of faith that uniformity has been constantly true.
You say, "What's the scriptural view?" Well, look at it here. "Ohhhhh," they say in verse 4, "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation...Oh, really?...For this they are willingly are ignorant of it: by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water...Now watch...By which the world that then was was overflowed with water and perished. The heavens and earth, which are now, by the same Word, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
He says, "Those people who are saying all things continue as they were have forgotten that that's not true. Have they forgotten the Flood?" And those people that think that all things are gonna continue as they were at the same pace. Have they forgotten the fiery Day of Judgment? You see what the Bible says? The Bible says you better believe in catastrophism. You could explain all the strata. You can explain all the scientific facts and data and fit it beautifully into the system that God has set forth in His Word, so it boils down, folks, really to whether you wanna believe in a uniformity theory that you can't prove, or whether you wanna believe in catastrophism, which the Bible defends.
Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no conflict between science and the Bible. There's only a conflict on a moral basis between a man and God. You can't argue either case. You can't argue catastrophism, 'cause you can't reproduce it, but you can argue that a man is really fighting against God. I'll tell ya, the guy who is the uniformitarian, who's got all that constant going, in my mind, he's got greater faith than the man who believes the Bible, 'cause he hasn't got anything to believe. At least we have the Bible. The conflict, then, is not science and the Scripture, but scientism, philosophical science. Science as religion and the Word of God. One scientist said on the science newsletter that I read, he said, "I reject the idea of a transcendent God, so what other option do I have? That's why I believe in it."
The final decision is moral. Henry Morris says, and I quote, "The Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding physical processes. It serves well as a textbook on science within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. The issue is not - the issue is not between science and the Scripture. The issue is whether a man wants to submit to the Word of God or does not, and it boils down to Romans 1:28, which defines man in these terms: "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge." And so having dumped God, they had to come up with some explanation. Having rejected His revelation, they came up with the only other option. If God didn't make it, then it just happened...
You say, "Well, then there really is no conflict? What about all of the scientific things that we've learned? Does the Bible say those things? Aren't there scientific errors in the Bible?" Lemme show you some things in the Bible on the subject of science. Now, get in mind that the Bible's ancient, and we're gonna be dealing in the Book of Job, which goes way back; and we're gonna be dealing with some things that were spoken in the Word of God that are just astounding when you think about how late in man's history man discovered them scientifically.
Now, let's look at several things. First of all, the basic principles of science. Now, all scientists agree, and I say that somewhat hesitatingly, the majority of them do, that several things are necessary as basics. First of all, science must deal with things, and that is matter. Science secondly must deal with happenings. That is energy, and, thirdly, science must deal with a matrix in which those things happen. That is space-time, hyphenated. So the basics of science are matter, energy, and space-time. That's a fairly simple catalogue. Any respectable scientist would agree to that. The universe, in essence, then, now mark this, must be a continuum of space-time, matter, and energy. Science tells us that one of those cannot exist without the other. You cannot have matter existing without energy and existing without a place for it to exist. Do you see what I'm saying? All three have to be together. The continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning of life, says science.
You know something remarkable? In Genesis 1:1, you have it all right there. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," includes all those things. It includes the space-time matrix, energy, and matter. The very first verse in the Bible has God creating the three basic dimensions of science simultaneously, and all scientists of respectable quality would agree that those three things are basically necessary. Once the universe had been created, its processes, say scientists, were designed to operate in an orderly fashion. All the different phenomena of nature was ordered by and sustained by these forces, and science says the forces continue and continue and continue and continue. No further creation was needed, and, you know, that's what the Bible says, too? You know, there is a block of matter and energy that is created, and it continues and continues and continues and continues and continues. It takes different form, but it continues. Energy is never totally lost. Matter is never totally lost. The same continuum goes on and on and on. There's no need for later creations, and that's exactly what it says in Genesis 2:2, "God ended His work which He had made." God, in the right simultaneous beginning, put all the right things together; and when He put it together, He stopped and creation ended right there; and science agrees that there was the initial beginning of these things; and then, out of that, came the cycle of reproduction; but energy and matter have continued.
The complete cessation of creative activity has been inadvertently recognized by modern science as the first law of thermal dynamics. It's the law of the conservation of mass and energy, that the universe converses mass and energy. It is the most universal and the most certain of all scientific principles. Science has shown that there is nothing being created in the known universe now. There are things changing and energy affecting matter and matter affecting energy and so forth and so on, but nothing is being created now, and the Bible says that when God ended His work, He ended it, and it fits the scientific fact...
Lemme show you a couple of interesting verses. Isaiah 40:26, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, who bringeth out their host by number. He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for He's strong in power...listen to this...not one faileth." There is the law of the conservation of mass and energy. When God made it, He said, "It will not cease to exist. It will not cease to exist." Conservation, the first law of thermodynamics; and Nehemiah 9:6, "Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, all things that are in it, the seas and all that is in them...now watch...and Thou preservest them all." You see again the statement that the continuation of the existence of mass and energy is part and parcel of God's creative work. Scientists, as I said, inadvertently thought they discovered the first law of thermodynamics. They really just discovered Isaiah 40 verse 26.
Lemme give you another one. Back in the Old Testament in Ecclesiastes 1 verse 9, listen to this. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be." You get that? "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun." Did you get it? There again is the continuation of all of this. "Is there anything whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' It hath been already of old time which was before us." That's right. When God created the totality of mass and energy, and science says it was in a unit. Of course, they it occurred evolutionary cycle as a unit. We say God made it, but notice the agreement at that point. Ecclesiastes 3:14, "I know that whatsoever God does, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it. That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been." Isn't that amazing? The Word of God is absolutely accurate in defending and defining the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass and energy. Spontaneous generation can't happen. It never has. It never will.
Then there's the second law of thermodynamics, and this is the law of increasing disorder. It says that, though there is never the loss of mass and energy, its ability to produce and to make productive contribution breaks down and breaks down and breaks down, and finally becomes random. Disorder instead of order. All processes finally will cease, and the universe will be dead, science tells us. You say, "Does that fit Scripture?" Sure does. Do you know God didn't make the world with the second law of thermodynamics operating? God made the world, and He look at it and said, "It is...what?...it is good." But when man sinned, the second law of thermodynamics came into being. Science has never been able to figure out how that law works or where it came from. We know where it came from. It came from the fall of man. When man sinned and fell, Genesis 3:17, God said, "Cursed is the ground," and that was simply the symbol of the curse that stretched everywhere. The heavens have even been cursed, and you know who runs around up there with all of His angels. Safe.
Lemme show you something in Romans chapter 8 if you want a good explanation of where the second law of thermodynamics came from. It's Romans 8:20. "The creation was made subject to vanity, not willing, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now."
There we have basically that law, that the whole creation is in disorder - that it is breaking down. This is the law known as entropy, the breaking down of the productivity ability or capacity of matter and energy. I hasten to add, however, folks, that, because of that passage right there, it says the breakdown's only temporary. Say, "What do you mean by that?" Well, the Lord's gonna come and create a new heaven and a new earth with no curse. Are you ready for that? No more curse. No more death. No more tears. No more sorrow. No more crying. No more pain. No more regrets. No more exile. No more trouble. No more hurting. No more destruction. No more decay. No more unrighteousness. No more sea. No more temple. No more night. No more sinners...A lotta no mores.
God's gonna end the breaking down random disorderly character of the universe and recreate a new heaven and new earth just like the one He made the first time before the fall, and it'll have not operating in it the second law. But notice, the second law of thermodynamics is completely explained by the curse that came upon man; and from the very beginning, the fact of earth's disorder and random and breaking down is clearly outlined in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. Amazing.
Lemme give you another interesting area, and those were just generalities. Have you ever studied the area of hydrology? Well, I hadn't until I got out all the encyclopedias and started studying it, 'cause there were some interesting Bible verses that I knew must be related to it. Hydrology is basically the science that deals with the waters of the earth. Water is evaporated up into the atmosphere, collected in the clouds, and then redeposited on the earth in the form of rain and snow, and then certain amount of it evaporates again, and goes through the same cycle. Other of it flows into the runoff, into the lakes and the streams, winds up in the ocean, evaporates from the ocean, and the cycle just keeps going on and on and on. Part of the rain and show that falls seeps into the ground and, therefore, we have the water table that's in the ground which provides water, as well.
So this whole cycle of hydrology and the hydrological cycle of water being carried up and dropped back down and so forth and so on really puzzled the world until the 17th century. In fact, until the 17th century, people believed in subterranean reservoirs - that in the middle of the earth, there were huge inexhaustible reservoirs of water. That that's where springs came from, just kept bubbling and bubbling out of these reservoirs. They didn't believe that water could seep through soil and create those reservoirs. They didn't believe there was any way to replenish them, so they figured they must be mammoth things. Men like Mariotte and Perrault and Halley from England came along in the 17th century and opened up the modern concept of hydrology where water is taken up into the clouds, redeposited, seeps into the earth, creates the reservoirs of water in the ground, as well as runs off and fills the seas, etc., etc. Science had discovered and studied this. Evaporation, transportation, and precipitation, etc.
Well, you know, if they'd just read Isaiah 55, they'd had the whole thing. They didn't need to wait till 17th century. Listen to Isaiah 55:10. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth." Now wait a minute. It says, "They do not return there." There's the cycle, isn't it? They don't return there until they've done their job. God deposits the rain. It saturates the earth. It's recollected, evaporated, and brought up from the seas and from the dry land and cycled back to the clouds again. So he says, "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven and they don't return without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout and furnish seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be which goes forth from My mouth: It shall not return to Me void, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." He says, "The Word is gonna have the same kind of seed-bearing cycle that rain does before it's talked back up into the clouds." Scientifically accurate.
Ecclesiastes 1 verse 6, "The wind goes toward the south, turns about unto the north; it whirls continually, and the wind returns again according to its circuits; and all the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full." Isn't that amazing? You know why all the rivers keep running into the sea, and the sea isn't full? 'Cause it's the same water, just keeps going around and around and around. It's the same water. There's really no loss, ultimately, of the mass or the energy. The same cycle is going on. Ecclesiastes, Solomon said it. Nobody picked up on Solomon for a long time. In Job, the first book ever written in Scripture, Job 36:27-28 says this. "For He draws up the drops of water; they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, and the drip upon man abundantly." The oldest book in the Bible described the process of evaporation and precipitation, percipitation.
Psalm 135 verse 7, "He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain." Vapor goes up and rain comes down. So the Scripture gives the hydrological cycle and the features of evaporation. You can read Job 26:8 and find about condensation. You can read Job 28:10 and find about runoff. You could read Psalm 33:7 and find about the ocean reservoirs. Job 38:22 says, "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail?" Clouds store those things, said Job. Something that man in his own day really never understood. You see, God made the whole hydrological cycle. He could explain it, couldn't He? There's no conflict with science there. Absolute accuracy.
Lemme give you another one - astronomy. Astronomy's fascinating. I guess because we can all look at it. We all see the wonder of it. It's just staggering; but modern astronomy, which is the study of the solar systems, didn't even begin to replace the old ideas until the 17th century or so. You remember the old idea that the earth was a flat disk like a record? It was a flat thing, and it was surrounded by the world river called Oceanus, and they used to say, "That if you're dumb enough to sail through the gates of Pericles...which is the Rock of Gibraltar...you'll fall off into nothingness." And then some people sailed around the Cape of Good Hope on South Africa, and all the way up the coast of Africa, and that theory was on shaky ground.
Well, you know, that idea of a flat disk-shaped earth just sitting there and the whole solar system, stellar, Heaven's going around and around and around while this flat disk just watched it go, that particular view lasted a long time. In the Ptolemaic view, which, of course, was the famous view until the Copernican theory came along, the Ptolemaic view as that the Greek philosopher said that the earth is a flat thing, and it's in a hollow globe. It's like the inside of a big bubble, a big ball. Of course, they never got into the question of what's outside the bubble, which is a tough question. But, anyway, they had this hollow globe, and the stars were stuck in the inside of the globe like little jewels; and the globe just kept going around, and the flat earth just watched it go around. That was the whole ballgame right there. The sky was supported, you see, because there was a stick, a big one...that was stuck clear through the big ball sky and right through the little flat disk, earth. Like that, and the whole sky was able to revolve on this stick. Boy, don't think about that too long.
But, believe me, that was popular till 1472 to 1543 when Copernicus lived. He came along and presented the fact that the earth was in motion. They thought he was out of his mind. Then came men like Brahe, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo in the 17th century, and they really gave birth to modern astronomy. The most amazing fact of modern astronomy is the essentially infinite size and variety of the physical universe. The thing that they discovered was that there's no end to it. That it isn't a little ball with a bunch of things stuck on the inside of it. That it is endless. This is the staggering thing about modern astronomy.
Well, you know, Isaiah 55:9 said that? Do you know Job 22:12, the oldest book in the Bible, Job says, "Is not God in the height of Heaven look also to the distant stars, how high they are?" The recognition that it's far off. Jeremiah made such allusions himself to the fact that the solar system was a vast and distant thing. In Jeremiah, let's see, I think it's 31:37, "Thus saith the Lord, 'If Heaven above can be measured and the foundation of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done,' saith the Lord." Ooh, I like that verse for two reasons. It tells me that Heaven can't be measured. It also tells me that Israel can't be cast off.
When somebody comes along and says, "You know, I'm not too sure about Israel. I...I believe it's sort of a covenant position, and I think Israel's been set aside permanently." I say, "Oh, really? Well, then tell me how big the heavens are." Because the day you measure the heavens is the day God sets aside Israel." Oh, really? That's what it says. Jeremiah 33:22, interesting to deal with that. "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand or the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David, My servant." And, again, you have the idea that there's no way to number the stars. There's no way. It's vast. It's innumerable.
But, you know, before...before the telescope was invented in the 17th century, Departa said there are a 1,022 stars. Final. Ptolemy said, "You're wrong. There are a 1,056." Today our scientists tell us there are over 100 billion in our galaxy, and how many billion galaxies are there? The Bible knew all that. You can't measure 'em. They're innumerable. They're more innumerable than the sands of the sea. Imagine how many sands you could gather from all the seas of all the globe and you don't have the number of how many stars there are. It's a long way out there. Can't be measured. Can't be measured. The Bible said it couldn't be measured, couldn't be counted. And, you know, science has recently discovered that stars are all different, too. There are tremendous varieties of them, that they're not all the same. The early scientists believed they were all the same thing. Whatever they were, it was the same thing. They found today that there are infinite numbers of varieties and sizes, and scientists are busy today cataloging these sizes and varieties. You realize 1 Corinthians 15:41 said that? First Corinthians 15:41 says, "There's one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars...listen to this...for star differs from star."...
Now, all the Bible had to do was one time say, "All stars are the same," and you could throw it away, right? It would've been wrong. It doesn't say that. It never makes a mistake. See, God knows as much about stars as he does about salvation. Yeah. Another thing that's interesting is orbits. It always fascinated me. I remember I was a little kid in classes, teacher had some big ball with a bunch of little balls going around it, you know, and, boy, I used to think that's amazing stuff. And then when you stop and realize that everything is in orbit around something, and everything is in orbit in the whole universe and the whole thing is going around in a mad panicky thing, it's staggering. Everything in the universe is going somewhere. Amazing.
Science has charted that these orbits are so absolute that they can predict them to the very hour. You know that? They can predict an eclipse, can't they, to the very hour? You know why they can do that? Because the orbits of those planets are absolutely constant...Science was staggered when it realized this. Oh, it shouldn't be. Jeremiah 31:35 and 36, "Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun or light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and stars for light by night...Listen...if this fixed order departs from Me, then the offspring of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me." The fixed order of the stars, and God says it won't change...
I'm telling you, folks, you can measure that stuff, because God is upholding all of those things at an absolutely perfect pace so that they can be charted mathematically. Staggering. It's all there in Jeremiah. They should've known there was a fixed orbit for everything...
You say, "Did Jeremiah understand what he was saying?" Of course, he didn't know all that he was saying. Boy, what a vindication of Scripture. Hum. Here's an interesting one. Just comes to mind. Psalm 19:6. Scientists used to have kind of a little fun with this one, laughing. It's talking about the sun. Regarding the sun, it says in verse 6, "His going forth is from the end of the heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it. There's nothing hidden from the heat thereof." The old view, of course, the old, false view was that the sun revolved around the earth. Remember that? That was the old view. The sun was going around the earth; and they say, "See, look at this Bible statement. His going forth from the end of heaven, his circuit to the ends of it, nothing." They've got the sun going in a circuit around the globe, and they used to laugh, "Ha-ha, isn't it funny? The sun's going around the earth."
But the Psalmist word took on some new meaning, because you know what science has discovered in recent years? They have discovered that the sun, watch this, with our entire solar system actually does move through space in orbit. It says there that it's going forth is from one end of heaven to the other. Science has calculated that our entire solar system dragged along by the sun is going at 72,000 miles an hour in a gigantic orbit that takes 2 million centuries to complete. Folks, we are moving from one end of Heaven to the other at 72,000 miles an hour, as well as spinning on the way and rotating around the sun.
You know, not many years ago, scientists believed that the moon was a great luminous body. They actually thought that the moon was a luminous body. Centuries ago, Job said in Job 25:5, "Look to the moon. It shineth not." Years ago, Job knew the moon wasn't a luminous body. So, you see, the Bible is right in its general principles. It's right in it's astronomy. It's right in its hydrology.
Lemme give you another one. Geology. When the Bible talks about scientific things regarding geology - incidentally, geology is the science of the earth, and I can talk a lot about this. There's all different kinds of things - geophysics, geochemistry, and everything else; but just to pinpoint a couple of things. I got an interesting study. I was reading Encyclopedia Britannica. I got into the study of something called isostacy, and this is the study of the balance of the earth, and this whole study really never came into full understanding till 1959. But it deals with the fact that the earth is perfectly balanced, that there is equal weight to support land mass and mountains and valleys and water, that the whole thing is perfectly balanced, that its equilibrium is astounding, and they came up with this as the foundation of geophysics. Do you know that the...the water in the oceans exerts a pressure against the shore that keeps the mountains up? It's a staggering thing, and the...the earth has different weights of rocks at different places to balance it out. Amazing.
Listen, what's amazing? Isaiah 40 verse 12. "Behold the Lord God who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, marked off the heavens with the span...that's half a cubit...and...listen...calculated the dust of the earth by the measure, weighed the mountains in a balance and the hills with a pair of scales." Now listen to Psalm 104. "He established the earth on its foundation so that it will not totter." Isn't that fantastic? "He established the earth on its foundation so it will not totter. The mountains rose. The valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them." God said in the Old Testament that, "I've made the earth so that it's balanced."
I'm telling you, folks, the Bible doesn't make mistakes scientifically. There's no contradiction between science and the Bible. The same God who wrote the Bible is the God who made the world and all the worlds in the universe. Geology has a sub-science called geodesy, and this is the study of the shape of the earth, and it is clear that the earth is spherical, that it is basically round. Now the ancients taught that it was what? Flat. They said, as I told you, if you sail far enough, you'll plunk off into nothingness. That was really dumb, because Isaiah told 'em what it was. Isaiah 40:22, I just love it. It says, "It is He that sits on the circle of the earth." Can you believe it? Chug, C H U G, translated is a Hebrew word. Means sphere, and Job 38, the oldest book in verse 14 says, "The earth is turned as clay to the seal." What does that mean? It refers to small clay cylinders the ancients used to write. While they were still soft, they ran a stick through them, and they would roll them across the impression like that. Job said, "It rotates on an axis." Isaiah said, "It's a sphere." Everybody thought it was flat.
You take, for example, gravity, dealing...dealing again with geology. Take gravity. Wasn't till Newton in the 17th century that the gravitational laws were really finalized, and Job said in Job 26:7, "He hangeth the earth on nothing." There's gravity. Well, there are other things we could talk about, but, you see, that generally the area of specifics like hydrology and astronomy and geology, the Bible is accurate.
Lemme give you another thought. Meteorology. This is amazing. The basic principle of meteorology is the circulation of the atmosphere. Galileo discovered in the 17th century that wind had circuits. He discovered that winds go in a circuitous pattern. If he'd have read Ecclesiastes 1:6, he'd have read this, "The wind goes toward the south, turns about to the north, whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to its circuits." You see, the Bible knew what it took meteorologists a long time to find out. Do you realize that before Galileo, no scientist ever knew that air had weight? That wasn't until Galileo that it was determined that air had weight. Job 28:25 says, "He imparted weight to the air." Again, accuracy.
Lemme give you one other thought. Physiology, and you could really go on and on about this, but just take the science of physiology. The Bible is so accurate on that. It wasn't until William Harvey, 1628, discovered the circulatory system as the key to life, that man really understood that blood was recognized as the thing that kept you alive. Before that, whenever you got sick, they took your blood out. Remember? They bleed you. Now, when somebody gets sick, we give 'em blood. We know that makes for life. It took till 1628 for William Harvey to get it straight. Leviticus 17:11 says, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." You say, "Oh, that's a spiritual saying." You're right. "It's a sacrificial saying." You're right. It's also scientifically correct, isn't it? Bible doesn't make mistakes.
In 1953, a medical book came out entitled Personality Manifestations in Psychosomatic Illness. It really became an important book, and today we know a lot about psychosomatic illness, and this book discussed how emotions can cause debilitating and even fatal illness. The book had diagrams in it of the emotional center of the brain from which nerve fibers descend to every area of the body, and because of these intricate connections with that emotional center of the brain sending out all those nervous impulses through that system, it is understandable that any emotional trauma, any emotional stress, any turmoil in that emotional center can send out impulses through the fibers of the nervous system, can cause anything from headaches to foot itch and on into serious things. The book recorded, and it's, of course, a recognized accurate book, that the emotional center produces illness in three ways. No. 1, changes the amount of blood flow. You can get a good illustration of it by somebody who gets mad. Automatically, the blood rushes to his face. In many cases, he gets red or he gets embarrassed, and he gets red. Emotional stress can increase the amount or decrease the amount of blood flow and, consequently, cause disease.
Secondly, emotional stress at the center of the nervous system can affect secretions of certain glands. Have you ever been very nervous before you giving a speech and have your mouth dry up? The very emotional thing that's going on in your brain sends certain impulses through your nervous system that dries up the glands that provide the fluid in your mouth. Now, when it...what happens is, for example, when you get an excess pressure on the emotional stress, for example, excess thyroxin is produced by emotion. It is poured into the bloodstream. It produces goiter and even fatal heart disease, all as a matter of emotion.
Not only that, the third way that emotion changes physical health is by creating muscle tension. The nerves affect the muscles, and the muscles tighten up and become tense. You say, "Well, that's...that's nice that they discovered all that. What does it have to do with what you're talking about?" Well, I want you to know the Bible anticipated all of that. The Bible knew that your emotions were very, very important in terms of your health. Listen to Proverbs 16:24. "Pleasant words are like a honeycomb...now, listen, beautiful...sweet to the soul...are you ready?...health to the bones." You see, God knew that emotional stress, that anger, that criticism, that whatever it is that were the sour words, could affect physical health, and that's right there. There's no way those people could've clinically discovered that. God revealed it. Proverbs 17:22, "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones." Now, a happy person is a healthy person, right? An unhappy one is an unhealthy one.
I'll tell ya, lemme add something just in conclusion. The little book that McMillan has written called None of These Diseases had some interesting things. I'm just gonna read you a thought or two here. Listen. "For many hundreds of years, the dreaded disease leprosy had killed countless millions of people in Europe. The extent of the horrible malady among Europeans is given by Dr. George Rosen, Columbia University Professor of Public Health. Quote, 'Leprosy cast the greatest blight that threw its shadow on the daily life of medieval humanity.' Fear of all other diseases taken together can hardly be compared to the terror spread by leprosy. Not even the Black Death in the 14th century or the appearance of syphilis toward the end of the 15th century produced a similar state of fright. Early in the Middle Ages, during the 6th and 7th centuries, it began to spread more widely, and Europe became a serious social and health problem. It was endemic, particularly among the poor, and reached a terrifying peak in the 13th and 14th centuries. What did the physicians offer to stop the ever-increasing ravages of leprosy? Some taught that it was brought on by eating hot food, pepper, garlic, and the meat of diseased hogs. Other physicians said it was caused by malign conjunction of the planets. Naturally, their suggestions for prevention were utterly worthless.
"Another plague that made the Dark Ages really dark was the Black Death. In the 14th century alone, this killer took the lives of one out of every four persons, an estimated total of 60 million. It was the greatest disaster ever recorded in human history. Sweeping everything before it, this plague brought panic and confusion in its train. The dead were hurled pell-mell into huge pits hastily dug for the purpose of putrefying. Bodies lay about everywhere in the houses and streets. The sexton and the physician were cast into the same deep and wide grave. The testator and his heirs and executors were hurled into the same cart, into the same hold together. What brought the major plagues of the Dark Ages under control?" George Rosen gives the answer.
"Leadership was taken by the church, as the physicians had nothing to offer. The church took as its guiding principle the concept of contagion as embodied in the Old Testament. This idea and its practical consequences are defined with great clarity in the Book of Leviticus. Once the condition of leprosy had been established, the patient was segregated and excluded from the community. Following the precepts laid down in Leviticus, the church undertook the task of combating leprosy. It accomplished the great feat in methodical eradication of disease. The procedure came from Leviticus 13:46...quote...'All the days wherein the plague shall be in him. He shall be defiled. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Without the camp shall his habitation be.' Other historians credit the Bible for the dawning of a new era in the effective control of disease. The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation." That's a quote from Arturo Castiglioni, who has written The History of Medicine. You see, the Bible knew the solution to those problems.
There are other problems, physiologically, that the Bible solves. If you're to read that little book, None of These Diseases, you can read more and more of them. Just some samples for tonight. We could add biology, archeology, anthropology, etc., and, again, we would find that every time the Bible touches on these things, it is absolutely accurate. Friends, there is only one way this truth could have been known, and that is the God who made the world revealed it. Is the Bible believable? My friends, science tells me that it is. Science has never yet refuted the Scripture, but rather confirmed it. In the final analysis, I submit the truth is won and Jesus said this, "Thy Word is truth." It's true on any subject it ever touches. Therein lies the product of its inspiration.
Our Father, we are thankful tonight for just the joy and the privilege of being able to share and just have our hearts lifted to...to a new and a fresh confidence in Your Word. Oh, Father, how grateful we are for the fact that the more science discovers fact, the more that it charts the present processes, the more the Word of God is vindicated. This Book is Your truth. God, give us a fresh new confidence, a fresh new boldness to stand for the Book. Praise You in Jesus' name. Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
The WMS40 Mini Single Vocal Set is a true plug�n�play wireless solution providing crystal clear audio sound. The included HT40 Mini handheld transmitter features a dynamic cardioid capsule for maximum gain before feedback. It's extremely long battery life of 30 hours off a single AA battery saves money in day-to-day use. The receiver comes in an ultra compact housing and offers a 1/4" jack output
The WMS40 Mini Single Vocal Set package includes:
1 x SR40 Mini receiver
1 x HT40 Mini handheld transmitter
1 x Universal power supply with EU/UK/US/AU adapter


text:
Conrad Martens Apsley Falls 1874 (detail), Art Gallery of New South Wales, commissioned by the Trustees and purchased 1874
Australian prints, drawings and watercolours
Support the Australian prints, drawings and watercolours acquisition fund by joining the Prints, Drawings and Watercolours Benefactors
The collection of Australian prints, drawings and watercolours at the Art Gallery of NSW is one of the most important in the country.
An Australian watercolour – Apsley Falls by Conrad Martens – was the first work acquired by the Gallery. Commissioned by the NSW Academy of Art in 1874, it marked the start of the state's art collection. From this modest beginning, significant gifts and purchases have led to the Gallery's current collection of over 10,000 Australian prints, drawings and watercolours.
This extraordinary collection is richly varied and wide-ranging. There are classic works by Louis Buvelot, Julian Ashton, Tom Roberts, Arthur Streeton, Hans Heysen, Lloyd Rees, Margaret Preston, Thea Proctor, William Dobell, Russell Drysdale, Arthur Boyd, Fred Williams and John Olsen, to name just some of the best known.
As well as being a central part of the Gallery's exhibitions and programs, the works can be viewed year-round in the study room by interested members of the public, artists, students and scholars.
Australian prints, drawings and watercolours remain a fundamental component of the Gallery's collection, with an active policy of acquiring works of historical and contemporary significance.
Give your support
Contact the Foundation for more information – or join and pay now, either online or download a form (right).
The Foundation is the Gallery's major acquisition fund and the umbrella organisation for all Gallery benefactor groups and funds. Read more
Contact the Foundation
Jane Wynter
Tel 02 9225 1818
Fiona Barbouttis
Tel 02 9225 1684
Join and pay
For credit card, pay online
For cheque and EFT, download form


text:
Herceptin for Pre-Menopausal Women
Dear OncoLink "Ask The Experts,"
I would like to know the reason that Herceptin is not appropriate for breast cancer in premenopausal women?
Kevin Fox, MD Assistant Director, Clinical Affairs and Associate Professor of Hematology/Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania responds:
Recommending for or against herceptin has nothing to do with the patient age or menopausal status. The recommendations regarding herceptin are based on the biopsy report that specifically evaluates a marker called HER-2/nue. Patients that have over-expression of this marker are candidates for herceptin therapy. It has thus far been used in patients with metastatic breast cancer and high risk locally advanced breast cancer. There are ongoing studies evaluating the best combination of herceptin with chemotherapy and the appropriate timing of administration. The safety and effectiveness of herceptin has not been evaluated in patients as treatment for "early stage" breast cancer. This is part of a current research trial.