Embed from Getty ImagesRonald Koeman said it is vital Everton sign a striker following their defeat at Chelsea but refused to comment on reports he could make a pre-deadline move for Diego Costa.Koeman’s side were beaten 2-0 at Stamford Bridge, where first-half goals from Cesc Fabregas and Alvaro Morata gave the champions a comfortable victory.Boss Koeman is keen for his club to bring in two players before the transfer window closes on Thursday.The Merseyside club have been linked with Chelsea forward Costa, who wants to return to his former club Atletico Madrid.Embed from Getty ImagesKoeman would not comment on whether Costa could end up at Goodison Park, but he said: “We need at least two more players but the most important is a striker and one more player.“That’s what we need. The board knows the importance of these two signings.”Koeman conceded that his team were very much second best against Chelsea, particularly during a one-sided first half.He said: “I am disappointed about the first half because the ball possession was poor and that cost us the second goal.“We had spaces to play and didn’t play. We had not enough movement to give options to the player on the ball.“You know how Chelsea press and you have to be at your best to get a result against them and we were not at our best. We lost it in the first half not the second.“The first half was not good enough but I’m proud at how they fought until the last second to at least remain a team on the pitch.”See also:Transfer gossip: Barkley prefers Spurs move over Chelsea, Sunday Times claimsConte speaks to Belgium boss about Hazard’s call-up Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Science journals and websites continue to act as if religion is a subcategory of the science department. If Stephen Jay Gould thought that NOMA was a good idea to keep peace between science and religion (see 11/05/2006), nobody paid any attention. Scientism has taken over the world. Here’s how it happened. Churches in the 19th century made a devil’s bargain: “You scientists can have all the natural stuff; we just want to focus on the salvation of souls.” Sounds so attractive a deal. After all, what did D. L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon know about boring stuff like pig embryos, fossils and geological strata? “You can have it.We don’t want it; we don’t need it.” And so the church gave away Nature to “Science”. Yeah, you’re just a phenotype, performing all the genes inside / Living things only seem designed, ’cause you can’t see how they’ve been revised / And the feedback lies in evolution’s brutal gaze / Either you have babies who have babies or get booed off stage. Was this attack against design criticized? Not in the least. Brinkman was allowed to preach a salvation message and hortatory sermon to the journal’s readers: “Converting people to looking at how evolution works and accepting it as a reality is an intellectual battle that is worth fighting.” Rap against ID: Nature raved about Baba Brinkman, “a Canadian rap artist whose award-winning show The Rap Guide to Evolution wowed UK crowds at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival during Charles Darwin’s bicentenary year.” The interviewer provided a sample of his materialistic, Spencerian-Malthusian-Dawkinsian lyrics: Next thing you know, the conspirators Huxley, Tyndall, Haeckel and others were redefining Nature. Nature is all that exists. Nature is all that is Real. Since Science now owned Nature, Science owned everything that is Real. By implication, churches dealt with things that are Unreal. Anybody living in an unreal world must be mentally ill. Religious people, therefore, became the patients of psychological scientists, who treated them like lab rats. Happiness science: Another scientific article on happiness appeared on Medical Xpress June 14 (cf. 05/19/2011, bullet 1). But do people need science to confirm that “Money can’t buy happiness”, like some New Zealand psychologists produced in “findings” published in a psychology journal? To whom should a reader look for happiness: a psychological study, or Matthew 6:33? What if the psychologists had found that money could buy happiness? Would that make it right? Can science answer such questions? Theology therefore reclaims Science from those mentally ill materialist scientists who deny Reality. Science is once again the property of the Creator. We learned our lesson. Never again will we cede our rightful territory to the conspiratorial bigots whose pilfering of Christian concepts led to intellectual atrocities like those listed above. From now on, you will practice science within the will of your Creator, and for His glory alone, like Newton and Kepler did. We will suffer non-Christians limited operation on scientific questions, provided they are observable, testable, and repeatable, and have as their goal the improvement of human life or good stewardship of the Earth (see Francis Bacon). Any time one of you tries to steal our assumptions or moral categories to deny your Creator, though, we are going to expose your irrationality and embarrass you publicly. This is for your own good. It is a form of tough love for sinners who trade in self-refuting fantasies, the outcome of which leads to evil and chaos. Now, let’s get back to the beginning of wisdom and clean up this mess.(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 It is abundantly clear that scientists and academic experts view no subject, no issue, no controversy as out of bounds. It is also abundantly clear that science journals and news sites feel no obligation to ever include the opinions of religious experts or conservatives. They have become echo chambers for godless liberals who pretend their critics do not even exist, except maybe as lab rats or targets for mockery. One can only shudder at the thought of a “marriage pantheon.” The Roman pantheon was a shrine to pagan gods. Science has its pagan gods, too: moral relativism, materialism, and evolution. What kind of marriage(s) will come out of that toxic brew? Historic marriage was instituted by our Creator. The denial of the Creator puts Man, with his Science, in charge. And now that the “gay rights” special-interest groups have co-opted so-called “scientific” experts with their presumptive authority, don’t even try to imagine what permutations of 1 + n entities will be enshrined in the “marriage pantheon.” Gay marriage advocacy: In a shocking display of NOMA violation, Science Daily advocated abandoning Father’s Day and Mother’s Day and replacing them with “Co-Parent’s Day.” Why? Because “a second parent doesn’t have to be a dad. It can be a same-sex partner, a grandparent or another caregiver.” Even though most of the article affirmed the value of fathers, clearly the program featured in the article, advocated by Philip Cowan, a UC Berkeley psychologist , is in line with the “gay agenda” of redefining marriage and family. Once again, psychologists were presented as experts with “findings” deemed scientific, therefore more worthy of reporting than the views of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, or other institutions who specialize in family issues. The science sites always give the edge to academics and psychologists because they are assumed to be scientists. Church blame: Medical Xpress accused churches of ignoring mental illness in their congregations. “Mental illness of a family member destroys the family’s connection with the religious community, a new study by Baylor University psychologists has found, leading many affected families to leave the church and their faith behind.” The article begs the question whether mental illness even exists, or whether conditions could be divided into sin problems and physical problems. Many churches have active counseling programs for those suffering depression, stress, guilt, despair and other ailments. They already cooperate with medical institutions that specialize in mental symptoms caused by physical conditions, but deny that “mental illness” is some kind of sterile category that can explain behavior apart from spiritual factors, considering the mish-mash of theories in psychological “science” and the wayward history of psychology (cf. 04/21/2011, 02/17/2010, 10/15/2009) . Would a psychologist ever diagnose any behavior as caused by sin? Who is to decide? Moral motives: One would think religious counselors would be in the business of determining the motives of sinners and saints, but psychologists made it their business. According to Medical Xpress, “People are more likely to condemn the bad behaviour of others when they sense someone else may be watching, research by a PhD student in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Sydney shows.” This conclusion was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Whether or not the psychologists’ conclusions coincide at any point with those of a preacher, priest or rabbi, it is clear from the article that the “scientific” study by psychologists intruded into non-scientific domains. “The relevance of these findings is broad including shedding light on both politics and religion,” the article said. One of the psychologists made it clear who’s in charge: “”The research is also part of Explaining Religion, a three-year, multinational project looking at religious practice and the kinds of behavior, involving moral judgement, that religion often claims to control.” While claiming that “The findings do not prove belief in the existence of a judgmental god plays a role in cooperation,” the clear message is that psychologists need no such god for their theories. They can explain human behavior simply in terms of behaviors and mental processes “While there was a significant decline across the high school years, it’s possible that teens were simply busy doing other things, perhaps a part-time job, taking part in extra-curricular activities or simply socializing with peers,” he [Andrew J. Fuligni, a UCLA professor of psychiatry] said. “Plus, kids are beginning to make their own decisions, and where attendance at religious services and activities is driven by parents earlier in childhood, parents may be allowing their teens to make their own decisions about participation as they progress through high school.” This lesson from history is disturbing and far-reaching, but there is a solution. Let’s go back and redefine Nature again. Actually, since the term is so ambiguous it is virtually meaningless, let’s define all of reality as Supernatural (we can play their word game, too). There’s even observational support for it: lifting your arm is a supernatural act, could it not be argued? Mind over matter–wow! Spooky action at a distance in the fundamental particles, fine-tuning in the universe, arguments in the conceptual realm–don’t you see? The supernatural is everywhere! Everything is supernatural. (What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.) Teen religion: In “Teens Maintain Their Religion,” Medical Xpress went beyond just stating poll results. It interpreted them as “not surprising,” and actually pretty normal that teens abandon the religious practices they were taught: Beyond gay marriage: If same-sex marriage continues its sweep, now that New York’s legislature adopted it by the narrowest of margins, what’s to stop other definitions of family? Indeed, PhysOrg asked, “Can U.S. Law Handle Polygamy?” The very question suggests it might. The press release from Washington University in St. Louis gave honor to “Adrienne Davis, JD, an expert on gender relations and the William M. Van Cleve Professor of law” to give her “expert” opinion at the PhysOrg pulpit. To Davis, whether you agree polygamy is right or wrong is beside the point. She “approaches polygamy as a problem of bargaining, cooperation and strategic behavior.” She acknowledged that “Proponents and detractors of polygamy use same-sex marriage to support their arguments,” but was only concerned whether U.S. laws can handle plural marriages. She even excused it by comparing it to families that have undergone multiple divorces, a form of “serial polygamy, or polygamy on the installment plan” (see Analogy). It was not her moral concern whether two wrongs make a right. But aren’t children harmed by polygamy? The article threw in some doubt: “it is unclear that polygamy generates more problems for children than the standard alternatives.” And aren’t women abused by it? Science and law can work it out: “She proposes some default rules that might accommodate polygamy, while ensuring against some of its historic and ongoing abuses.” There was not a tinge of moral outrage in this article at the idea of polygamy, long detested by most Americans and civilizations. Science has arrived to tell us what is moral. “Is it better to channel legal energy into continuing to root out, repress, and punish polygamy, or into admitting it into the marriage pantheon?” Davis ended this “scientific” article loaded with moral terms like better, best, rules, and fairness. “The answer may hinge on whether polygamy could be effectively regulated.” Next question: who regulates the regulators? Atheist pulpit: New Scientist, an ostensibly scientific media site, gave a very friendly interview to atheist evangelist Robin Ince. Reporter Roger Highfield appeared to enjoy it: “The UK’s funniest rationalist celebrates the world seen through godless eyes” [italics in original]. Ince characterized his views as rational while denigrating his opponents as otherwise. An avowed humanist and Carl Sagan disciple, he spoke of “looking at the universe rationally and avoid coping mechanisms like mysticism or religion”. With a sweep of the hand Ince wrote off scholars who disagree with him, mocking, “I think it is a pity to live your life in ignorance and embrace that ignorance – for instance with ideas like intelligent design.” Observers of Medical Xpress (a branch of PhysOrg) over the years know that it is practically inconceivable to imagine the site granting a comeback argument to any leader in the intelligent design community, such as William Dembski, Jonathan Wells or Stephen Meyer, all of whom have multiple PhDs. Ince was given a chance to choose his hero between Einstein and Darwin. “I love the Englishness of Darwin, the sweetness of his character. He was a man without arrogance who overturned our view of how all living things came to be as they are,” he said. There were no references to Gerald Bergman’s new book The Dark Side of Darwin, obviously. (Bergman also has multiple PhDs.)
Johannesburg, Sunday 17 May 2015 – Brand South Africa has learnt with sadness of the passing of former Chairperson Ms Anitha Soni earlier today.• Download press releaseReflecting on the tenure of Ms Soni from 2009-2012, Brand South Africa’s Chairman Ms Chichi Maponya said, “Today South Africa has lost a passionate and committed Brand Ambassador. Ms Soni was a patriot in the true sense of the word, she used her innate skills and ability to serve our country.”“Under her leadership as Chair of the Board, Ms Soni led the rebranding of the then-International Marketing Council (IMC) to Brand South Africa. It was also during her tenure that Brand South Africa began to focus on the domestic market as well as the international. This was based on the understanding that a successful nation brand is built by citizens of the country, from the inside out.”“Today we express our appreciation to Ms Soni for her active role in branding South Africa a country that Inspires New Ways. We express our deepest condolences to the family, loved ones and colleagues of Ms Soni. We share in your mourning and pray that in time, the pain and sadness that you are now experiencing, will pass,” concluded Ms Maponya.Notes to the EditorAbout Brand South AfricaBrand South Africa is the official marketing agency of South Africa, with a mandate to build the country’s brand reputation, in order to improve its global competitiveness. Its aim is also to build pride and patriotism among South Africans, in order to contribute to social cohesion and nation brand ambassadorship.Join the conversation at:Follow Brand South Africa@Brand_SAFacebookTell us how you Play Your Part@PlayyourpartSAFor more information or to set up interviews, please contact:Boitumelo MpeteTel: +27 11 712 5007Mobile: +27 (0) 82 358 9047Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
By most accounts, the ClimateSmart Loan Program administered by Colorado’s Boulder County has been popular.In 2008, voters authorized county commissioners to sell up to $40 million in bonds to finance energy efficiency improvements by residential and commercial property owners. As a recent story in the Longmont Times-Call notes, the county has already sold $12.9 million in ClimateSmart Loan Program bonds, has extended loans to 612 residential property owners for energy efficiency projects.But on Tuesday, the county’s voters, apparently wary of any mechanism that might incur further debt on a relatively large scale, decided against allowing the county to raise another $85 million through bond issues intended to expand the program. (A ballot measure authorizing $50 million in bond issues for acquisition of open space also failed, although a measure that would allow the county to issue $6.1 million in bonds to improve energy efficiency in county buildings was headed for approval.)The ClimateSmart Loan Program – which has been emulated by communities in other state and was spawned by Boulder County’s adoption in 2006 of its Climate Action Plan (PDF) and, in 2008, its Sustainable Energy Plan (PDF) – is slowed but certainly not disabled by the bond measure’s loss at the ballot box. As part of the bond authorization approved in 2008, the county still can issue another $27 million in bonds to help finance more energy efficiency improvement projects.
Social Media links MONTREAL (July 18, 2016) — News Talk Radio, CJAD 800, is proud to announce that Ken Connors is the station’s new weekend morning host, and will take over the reins of three top-rated shows from Dave Fisher, who is retiring in August.Weekend listeners will be waking up to a friendly and familiar voice, as Connors has worked in Montreal radio for over 25 years. He has hosted some of the most popular shows on several stations, including CHOM 97.7 and MIX 96 (now VIRGIN Radio Montreal).CJAD 800 Program Director Chris Bury says Connors is the perfect fit: “We were racking our brains over this position, but as soon as we thought of Ken, we knew he was the one. Ken has the versatility, the work ethic and the warmth you need to fill these very big shoes.” Advertisement Advertisement A native of Montreal, Connors is excited about the new challenge: “It’s an honour that CJAD 800 would ask me to take over a role that Dave Fisher did so well for over 32 years. I’m really looking forward to being the person that listeners can depend on for company and information when they get up every weekend.”Connors will be hosting the weekend morning show (Saturday and Sunday, 6 to 9 a.m.) as well as co-hosting THE HOME IMPROVEMENT SHOW WITH JON EAKES (Saturday, 9 to 10 a.m.) and THE CJAD 800 TRIVIA SHOW (Sunday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.).Dave Fisher’s final broadcast will be a live edition of THE CJAD 800 TRIVIA SHOW on August 14, during which he will be celebrated by friends, family, colleagues and listeners, who will have a chance to win tickets for the occasion. LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Advertisement Login/Register With: CJAD 800 ON FACEBOOKCJAD 800 ON TWITTER Facebook Twitter