needimprovement

He wants us to be perfect, however He is an all merciful and forgiving God luckily for us.

God allowed these things or, for example, allowed you to be born into your state in life because it is part of His plan for your salvation...and perhaps others. I suggest don't focus on material, Earthly riches but on what really matters. Money, for example, is not how God measures our value and money is not how he shows His love for us.

We cannot have one without the other.

The problem between your idea and the idea of person you are debating with however can be viewed in a different angle. While he is discussing Christian Perfection, you may be referring to human perfection. Christian perfection is the perfect relationship with God that shows itself to be true even seeing the unimportant aspects of human life by attaining a high degree of virtue with the help of divine grace of Jesus Christ while human perfection is how man as man defines perfection for himself. But whatever man sees perfect may not last forever. As Isaiah 40:8 said, "The grass withered, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever. "Everything that man sees may wither, it may fade but only the word of God shall stand forever. So whatever you may see as perfect "MAY" wither and fade but what will stay is the Word of God. Thus there were, in the world, things perfect and imperfect, more perfect and less perfect. God permitted imperfections in creation when they were necessary for the good of the whole. And for man it was natural to go by degrees from imperfection to perfection.

We also focus on it at Christmas. Without it the Incarnation (Jesus' birth) would be no more worthy of worldwide celebration than my birthday or yours.

He's also tracked by NORAD http://www.norad.mil/about/Santa.html. Unless a scientific/gov org is lying to us.

NORAD Tracks Santa Update http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/norad_santa.html

Cypress, don't argue with animals. :lol:

A person is one who thinks and loves. Both these activities are far beyond the range of animals. Another thing that differentiates us from the animals is Super Ego.

http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/white-house-backs-nssm200-eugenics-to-african-nations-pressures-kenya-to-pass-pro-abortion-constitution/?ref=nf The link above is one of the reason why US economic has been spiraling all the way down to the bottom because Obama is giving away the taxpayer's hard-earned money to other countries. I wonder he is supporting abortion to other countries when abortion is illegal in US. it doesn't make sense giving away 2 million dollars to other countries in order to have abortion law enacted. It's kind-of-way beyond my understanding. What are your thoughts on this?

I was specifically referring to food safety hazards that can occur at any stage of the food chain. Adequate knowledge in microbiology is essential.

Please define chemical hazards and microbiology and provide examples. I wanted to learn about hazard analysis and food safety but I think it requires strong knowledge on chemical hazards and microbiology. Any inputs are welcome.

Thank you so much.

Agreed. Slightly off topic. I wonder if any heads will roll for this headline. "Bomb stokes fears Islamists expanding in Pakistan" as posted on Yahoo news story by AFP (Agence France-Presse). http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/pakistanunrestkarachi

CharonY has already explained the concept of comparing to a placebo or are in the treatment group. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. How hard would it be to prove what true or false? Who says that (whatever it is) is a myth, and why?

Are there any other accepted methods for determining the effectiveness of a treatment?

Below is an article about who has gained and lost under Pres. Obama by US News. According to article: Winners: Investors, Corporations, Home Buyers, Consumers. Losers: Undereducated, Homeowners, Low Income Americans, Job Seekers http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/whosgainedandlostunderobamasofar My question is who "lost" under Bush. (http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/October2010/26/Al_Franken_Tells_True_Story_of_a_Car__a_Ditch__and_the_Last_Two_Years.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html)

Can anyone help me do the math for risk analysis? Please follow this link http://www.a2la.org/guidance/Risk_Analysis_Z540-3.pdf I am not certain if my process that involves guard-banding measurements that have a TUR<4>1.5 to 80% to reduce false acceptance/rejection based on Dave Deaver's http://assets.fluke.com/appnotes/Calibration/ddncsl94.pdf meets the new requirements.

I guess you can either believe the science in this area or you can make up your own explanations. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2) "The development of a human being begins with fertilization..." (Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3) "The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3) Apparently the concept that life begins at conception is a fact so basic to the study of embryology that it is presented almost on the first page of these textbooks. I understand your position: a human life is not necessarily a human person. The former being a real entity, the latter a completely artificial construct with no real meaning whatever. While putting a precise definition on "life" is difficult, we can all say "we know it when we see it." Also, there are qualitatively different kinds of life, and you appear to be asserting that all life should be treated equally - when plainly that's not right. Plants are not animals, and humans are not animals or plants, bacteria are not plants or animals or humans, and neither are fungus. Sperm and unfertilized eggs might be "life" but they are not human life, which requires the union of the two. Once they are joined, you have an independent "life" that grows on its own and has its own life force independent of the mother (even if the mother is necessary to provide nourishment and support, it's clearly distinct). That's patently obvious. So, while countless sperm die with each ejaculation, and while countless eggs die with the menses of billions of women on planet Earth, - and while these might be "life" - we should mourn them no more than we mourn the death of plants when we pick from our vegetable garden. My short definition of life is any system that has a soul. Souls have different categories that are intrinsically different in quality. Human souls are immortal and are in a higher category than animal, plant, fungal, bacterial, or viral souls, and most humans are able to recognize the existence of a soul in another system, and thus are able to distinguish between mere material processes and "life." As an interesting aside, there is at least one category of soul greater than humans - of course, God Himself.

Interesting and reasonable notion. However, if one concedes (which I don't necessarily) that the Universe (big U!) is computable, then that which is outside the Universe (i.e. God) is that which is the programmer.

Thank you for the responses. It seems that designing a good medicine is difficult because you need to design a drug that binds to and activates or inactivates one single type of target in a cell without binding to and affecting any of the other millions of molecules in the body, able to cross biological barriers, easily synthesized, etc I think this is more appropriate in Chemistry forum.

Does life begin at conception? Yes, it does. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html No. From a Christian point of view, though, Human Being = Soul + Body, Psyche + Soma; the breath has gotta be there. A better question for Catholics is: "When does a fetus have a soul"?

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception. No argument can ever resolve this issue since "person-hood" has no specific meaning; it is an entirely artificial construct that means whatever someone wants it to mean. It is no more a misrepresentation to claim that life and person-hood are the same thing than to claim they aren't since person-hood is quite literally a meaningless term. I'm sorry, by my read I simply identified a factor, without arguing or evaluating. Yes, but given the state of general ignorance people in US enjoy in their culture, US having gone from 1st to 29th amongst nations in terms of educational excellence these last 20 years, I think that that point bears repeating, along with some encouragement to change. Yes, that might be useful. I wonder how it might be phrased as a question? Sir, no one's cloning. I will amend my post once human cloning is happening already.

It appears this manufacture has made light bulbs that heat up and cause fires. Just think of the heating cost savings. Link to recall below: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11001.html

There *is* a distinction, at least in part. All human persons are alive; if life is gone, so is the human person. But not all life is human, or "personal." Cows are alive, but not human, so it is perfectly moral to eat cheeseburgers. Cancer cells are alive, and have human DNA; but they are not "persons", and can be destroyed to save a "human person" from death. To have a moral baseline at all, we need the distinction of "human life."