text:
Usually when a Business Analyst is working on a project the client (which I'll define as the party or stakeholder who receives the benefit of the Analyst's services) and the customer (the party who is paying for the Analyst to render the services) are one in the same, at least from an overall organizational perspective (i.e. the client and customer belong to the same organization). However, there are times when the client and customer are completely separate entities.
This sort of situation can arise in many environments. For instance, the customer may be an association who wants a new software solution that will be used by its members. Other times an entity may be required by law or regulation to provide certain services to other organizations and a project is struck to create a new solution to address these needs. Regardless of the circumstances, having a separate client from the customer can put the Business Analyst in compromising situations, typically due to divergent needs between the customer and the client.
Typically when a Business Analyst faces a situation where various project stakeholders have differing goals, agendas, capabilities or level of engagement in a project, the project's structure can usually help resolve differences that can't be worked out through other means. Within most project structures there will be a project sponsor or steering committee that is responsible for final decisions if consensus cannot be met. However, in a multi-organization project the project's structure may have little to no representation from the client base. This may not be too surprising, particularly if the project was struck based on primarily internal consultations.
Often the Business Analyst is an advocate for those who will use the end result of the project. To become an advocate one needs to empathize with the client base or else it is difficult to communicate the client's needs to the other project stakeholders. Once the Business Analyst understands the client's needs they can often want to see those needs become fulfilled by the project.
However, the customer may not have the desire, resources or mandate to meet these needs. If the customer for whatever reason doesn't believe that some or all of the client's requirements need to be met and the project structure does not lend itself to providing the client a voice at the decision table, the Business Analyst may find themselves having a hard time accepting the customer's position.
When the client and customer are not the same entity the Business Analyst ends up in a type of agency problem; they've become an agent for the client whose interests do not align for the principal (the customer). The Business Analyst was tasked with eliciting requirements for the client; if the customer in the end chooses to neglect some of these requirements it can be frustrating or disappointing to see the client's needs going unmet.
Ultimately the Business Analyst will be faced with a choice to decide how far they will go in representing the client's needs. Since the customer has the ultimate authority on the project the Business Analyst must determine what level of conflict is healthy to ensure that the client's needs are being met to the best of the customer's ability given the overall project environment. Obviously the Business Analyst should work within the bounds of professionalism, but there is a question at what point the Business Analyst should acquiesce to the customer's expectations.
I don't believe there is a simple solution or answer to this dilemma, and each Business Analyst will need to decide for themselves where the boundary lies if they encounter this situation. Have you ever been in a situation where your role as a Business Analyst put you in conflict with the project sponsors or Steering Committee? How did you deal with the situation?
Jarett Hailes Larimar Consulting Inc. http://www.larimarconsulting.com
» What is the Modern Analyst Blog and what are the Benefits of Contributing?
» Review our Blog Post Guidelines.
» I am looking for the original Modern Analyst blog posts.
brought to you by enabling practitioners & organizations to achieve their goals using:


text:
Dutch fashion label Scotch & Soda have been around since the 80s .
First with a men's collection, now it has 5 different divisions. Scotch Shrunk is dedicated to boys.
I stepped by their store in Rotterdam this week and was so exited to get some pieces from Spring Summer 2014 collection for my boys. I missed it somehow and now its all on sale . Perfect timing ;-) Scotch Shrunk has for this season some brilliant bomber jackets in tropical prints. Floral prints in general are really strong for shirts and shorts in many different color combinations. It has this urban summer vibe that you don't want to let go of. Everything looks so comfortable and soft when you touch it. The collection is called " Rio Fever" " Go Tropical"…oh yes, my boys mom's heart was bitting faster! Finally…. they even have a teener division!
" Grab your city suitcase,
your best buddies and discover a secret jungle in the big city."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Disclosure of Grant and Contribution Awards Over $25,000
On 21 October 2005, the Government announced its commitment to proactively disclose the awarding of grants and contributions over $25,000 as part of its Management Improvement Agenda.
This Web site provides information on grants and contributions awarded by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
Beginning on 31 May 2006, and every three months thereafter, this Web site will be updated to include information on grants and contributions awarded in the previous fiscal year quarter.
The rules and principles governing government grants and contributions are outlined in the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments. Transfer payments are transfers of money, goods, services or assets made from an appropriation to individuals, organizations or other levels of government, without the federal government directly receiving goods or services in return, but which may require the recipient to provide a report or other information subsequent to receiving payment. These expenditures are reported in the Public Accounts of Canada. The major types of transfer payments are grants, contributions and 'other transfer payments'.
Included in this category, but not to be reported under proactive disclosure of awards, are (1) transfers to other levels of government such as Equalization payments as well as Canada Health and Social Transfer payments. (2) Grants and contributions reallocated or otherwise redistributed by the recipient to third parties; and (3) information that would normally be withheld under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP does not have any grants and contributions programs, and therefore has no information to report.
- Date modified:


text:
Full Body Massage Chair
Showing 1–12 of 18 results
Contact us
2 Pine Street, Albion Park Rail, NSW 2527
PO Box 435 Albion Park, NSW 2527
Email: email@example.com
Fax: 4257 4232
Toll free: 1800 WARRIGAL
Volunteer with us
Warrigal was founded by volunteers and they continue to be vital to ensuring our residents happiness. From driving buses to regular visits, even assisting with our business operations, we have many varied opportunities for anyone who would like to donate their time, energy and skills to Warrigal's residents.
Warrigal Care ACN 002 392 636 Warrigal Privacy Statement
Shopping Cart


text:
Real estate agents calculate a CMA – a comparative market analysis – to help determine the selling price of a house. To generate a CMA, your agent will compare the house to similar recently sold houses in the area, looking at active, recently sold, and expired listings for houses as similar to yours as possible. Determining the value of your house is one of the most important skills your agent should possess (along with marketing and closing skills). So let's see how an agent would calculate a CMA for your house in Atlanta.
1. Neighborhood Assessment
The first thing your agent will usually do to calculate a CMA is to assess the neighborhood. A quick online check of the neighborhood will help an agent get a feel for property values. What she will look at includes:
- Proximity to amenities
- Proximity to unpleasant or unsightly things like garbage dumps
- Major curb appeal issues
2. Zillow and HouseCanary Check
Next, in order to calculate a CMA for your house in Atlanta, your agent will likely check out Zillow's Zestimates, which are based on limited tax records and agent-added data. Although these may not be entirely accurate, they are nevertheless a good starting point. Besides, homeowners many times have already consulted Zillow's Zestimates, and a good agent will need to be prepared for the inaccuracies homeowners may have picked up there. HouseCanery also provides great data for valuing your home.
3. Valuation and Value Forecast
Your agent will likely next consult HouseCanary to begin to arrive at a valuation and value forecast. Basically, this is done for the sake of thoroughness – gathering all the available information early on to calculate a CMA accurately further on in the process. One of the good things about HouseCanary is that it offers value forecasts and valuations three years out. This can then be used for negotiating leverage early on.
4. Preliminary CMA with MLS
Once your agent has assessed the neighborhood and looked into the Zillow Zestimate and HouseCanary valuation, she will check out the MLS with certain online CMA platforms. She can examine comparable listings – sold, active, expired, and pending – to get a rough idea of your home's value.
5. Comp Listings and Square Foot Price
After compiling all this information and narrowing the search criteria, your agent will then begin to calculate a CMA for your house in Atlanta. By this point, she should have pinpointed several homes in the area comparable to yours and can consider the selling prices of those homes. The job at this point is to find the average price per square foot for these comparable homes to arrive at a fairly accurate estimate for the selling price of your home based on square footage.
6. In-person Assessment
The next and last of the preparatory steps to calculate a CMA is is an in-person assessment of your house. Your agent has completed all the preliminary research, so now she needs to see and assess your house in person to see how it stacks up against what she has learned on paper. Your agent will look at the general condition of your house, will evaluate any upgrades and/or additions, and will go over the property itself considering such things as landscaping. If your agent finds any major issues, she will then have to conduct a new search for comparable listings or adjust the price per square foot.
7. Final CMA Preparation
Having done all these things, your agent will then calculate a CMA for your house in Atlanta. Often this is done in the form of a PowerPoint or keynote presentation, printed out and put together in a binder. Today, most agents rely on CMA software in order to organize the data in an attractive way. In any case, at this point, your agent will have arrived at a final determination of the fair market value of your house.
These, then, are the steps a real estate agent will take to calculate a CMA for your house in Atlanta. And it takes a good deal of expertise, knowledge, and experience to get it right. And then your agent has to know how to market your house and close the deal. We have the experience and know-how to help you with all aspects of selling your house.


text:
EDF! EDF! EDF! Just shouting out this simple phrase brings back fond memories of Earth Defense Force 2017, and now I'm pumped to share more details about the launch of Earth Defense Force 2025 in February of next year. In particular, what fans can expect from some of the upcoming weapon packs that will be available via pre-order or DLC.
We've been on tour with Earth Defense Force 2025 for the last few months, showing off all its awesome features at events like E3, PAX Prime, and New York Comic-Con. Fans continuously ask us if the DLC from Japan will be available in North America and Europe. And I can proudly say "yes!" We'll make sure all content from Japan makes it over here at some point, and we'll have more details on all of that in the near future.
In the meantime, we're pleased to announce that customers at GameStop can start pre-ordering Earth Defense Force 2025 tomorrow, and will receive a special Weapons Pack for free.
Available exclusively to customers at GameStop is the Air Raider Weapons Pack, featuring:
- Pure Decoy Launcher (Setsu) — a weapon that distracts the enemy by discharging a large balloon that takes the shape of an attractive female, but the enemies will meet their fate when the balloon unexpectedly self destructs, destroying everything in its vicinity.
- The BMO3 Vegalta Gold — a limited edition, gold-coated model that will reflect radar waves and has a combat burner to throw flames. Players will also be able to take flight for short periods of time with it equipped.
We have plans to include additional Weapons Packs that will be available via pre-order or DLC, and will include the packs below. We'll be sure to have more details on where exactly to find these packs, soon!
The Fencer Weapons Pack
- Ifrit — A cannon that launches rockets that will separate and disperse over the sea. Each rocket is equipped with multiple incendiary bombs that will ignite upon contact, causing massive damage.
- Blood Storm — A powerful cannon that will separate midair and rain down on the enemy's head and inflict damage on an entire area.
The Wing Diver Weapons Pack
- Reflectron Laser — A special laser that fires in two directions and can even shoot through narrow passageways. It's an effective weapon with giant insects, as it can maximize range without obstruction.
- Gleipnir — This super weapon silently discharges balls of energy with the ability to launch continuous attacks. Only Wing Divers can use this weapon, as it requires the Psionic Link.
The Ranger Weapons Pack
- Volatile Napalm — A military grade discharge device that sets everything ablaze and damages the target and surrounding areas.
- Pure Decoy Launcher (Mian) — a weapon that distracts the enemy by discharging a large balloon that takes the shape of an attractive female, but the enemies will meet their fate when the balloon unexpectedly self destructs, destroying everything in its vicinity.
Earth Defense Force 2025 will be available in February 2014, and we have fun plans leading up to the launch. Earth Defense Force 2025 stays true to what you liked most about Earth Defense Force 2017, but now features more than 700 weapons, dozens more missions, four-player online multiplayer (for the first time on console), high-powered vehicles, and numerous upgrades that you'll need to see to believe.
Come on over to our Facebook, as we have a great community of fans that share wonderful ideas, and we plan to do some cool reveals on there in the future. I can't wait to share more about EDF with all of you on PlayStation.Blog as we get closer to launch.


text:
Pension busting at American Airlines
By Phil Mattera, Dirt Diggers Digest
There was once a time when a bankruptcy filing by a company was a mark of shame. That stigma has fallen by the wayside, and firms now employ Chapter 11 not to protect themselves against creditors but for strategic purposes.
One of the most popular ploys is to use the bankruptcy court to undermine the bargaining position of labor unions. The latest firm to do so is American Airlines, which said it took the step to "achieve industry competitiveness." This is corporate-speak for "we're going to milk our employees dry."
Such union-busting bankruptcies are far from new. They were pioneered three decades ago by the likes of ruthless airline executive Frank Lorenzo, who used Chapter 11 to abrogate union contracts after taking over Continental Airlines in 1983. Six years later he tried something similar at Eastern Airlines, but changes in the law forced him to settle for weakening the unions rather than eliminating them altogether. Subsequently, most of the other major carriers (and various smaller ones) also went through the bankruptcy process.
Airline management has made the most of the system. In 2006 a federal bankruptcy court barred unions at regional carrier Mesaba Airlines from engaging in strikes or other job actions, prompting the company's unions to agree to management's wage-cutting demands. In 2008 a bankruptcy judge gave Frontier Airlines permission to cancel its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters, but that decision was later overruled in federal district court. The union, nonetheless, had to make contract concessions, as have workers at other carriers and in other industries.
It remains to be seen how far AMR will go in using the bankruptcy process against its unions. Yet there is little doubt that it will seek to slash labor costs, especially those relating to pensions. The head of the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has already expressed concern that AMR might terminate its plans -- the way United Air Lines did during its stint in Chapter 11.
This would put an enormous strain on the PBGC, which has already amassed a deficit of $26 billion and would have difficulty providing significant payments to the tens of thousands of people covered by AMR's pension plans.
There is good reason for AMR's unions to be concerned about management's intentions. AMR's crusade against labor began three decades ago, when Robert Crandall took control of the company in the early days of airline industry deregulation. Apparently inspired by Reagan's crushing of the air controllers strike, he was determined to get workers to bear the financial consequences of increased competition.
In the early 1980s AMR was one of the country's first major employers to adopt the pernicious practice of two-tier wages. Crandall pressured unionized pilots to accept a contract that cut the pay of new hires by a whopping 50 percent; for flight attendants the reduction was more than 30 percent, making many of them eligible for food stamps. The moves transferred $100 million a year from paychecks to company coffers.
AMR also pioneered the practice of high-tech offshore outsourcing in 1983 when it set up a subsidiary in Barbados called Caribbean Data Services. The company began air-shipping tons of used ticket coupons to the facility, where operators (mostly women) paid $1.75 to $3 an hour entered the information on computer terminals and then transmitted it via satellite to the airline's accounting center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. By 1985 the operation was successful enough in cutting costs that American shut down its data-entry operation in Tulsa.
When unions began to challenge the two-tier system in the late 1980s, AMR sued them for supposed violations of federal labor law, fired activists and threatened to shut down the airline. Eventually, Crandall had to accept a softening of the two-tier arrangement, but he pursued a relentless campaign against labor costs which prompted a 1993 strike by flight attendants that ended only when President Clinton personally intervened. Four years later, Clinton intervened again when American's pilots walked out to protest the company's rigid bargaining position.
Crandall's successor, Donald Carty, continued the company's confrontational labor relations posture. In 2003 he used the threat of bankruptcy to wring $1.8 billion in annual concessions from AMR's unions. While those negotiations were taking place, AMR management failed to mention that it was simultaneously offering lucrative retention bonuses and special pension protections to top executives at the company. When the plan came to light, the uproar was so intense that AMR's board ousted Carty and -- for a while -- adopted a less aggressive posture toward the unions. With the bankruptcy filing, the company appears to be returning to its savage ways.
When Occupy protesters or others talk about income inequality, conservatives complain that this is class warfare. The real class war is that being waged by corporations against decent wages and benefits, using the bankruptcy courts as one of their most effective weapons.
What makes this all the more galling is that severe restrictions have been placed on the ability of struggling individuals -- including young people overwhelmed by student loan debt -- to use the bankruptcy system to gain relief. Here, as in so many other areas, corporate "persons" have been given the upper hand over real people.
(Photo of American Airlines protests via Transport Workers Union website.)


text:
Links and Resources For Clients
This section contains a series of recommended links to websites. We have listed here sites we believe may be helpful to you. Some of these are divorce-related. Some are mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution sites.
- Association for Conflict Resolution – ACR is the merged organization of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM), the Conflict Resolution Educators Network (CREnet), and the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR). dedicated to advancing the practice and understanding of conflict prevention and resolution.
- Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – An international association of judges, counselors, evaluators, mediators, attorneys and others concerned about and working with family courts.
- Divorce HQ – A useful site for divorce information.
- SupportGuidelines.com is the comprehensive resource for the interpretation and application of child support guidelines in the United States.
- Custodysource.com – Child Custody & Divorce Recourses State by State.
- Divorcelinks.com – State and Federal Divorce Law Directory Center.
- www.divorceNet.com – One of the major sites for divorce information.
- www.divorceSource.com – Another major site for divorce information. Has information on state divorce laws.
- Divorceinfo.com –Lee Borden, a Southern divorce mediator, puts his opinions out there.
- Kelley's Blue Book – Car values.
- www.irs.gov/publications/p504 – The IRS Publication 504, "Taxes for Divorce or Separated Individuals."
- Edmunds.com – Edmunds used car prices.
- www.zillow.com – Help with determining a fair market value for your home.
- www.equifax.com Information on your credit history.
- The National Mediation Training Registry – The National Mediation Training Registry provides mediation training, mediation jobs, and mediation career information.
- Mediation Information and Resource Center (MIRC) – This is the major on-line resource page, with articles on mediation, training information, directories of mediators, etc.
- World Mediation Forum
- www.MediationNOW.com – Has a directory of mediators.
- National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM) This is the national organization for community mediation centers.
- Search for Common Ground
- Victim/Offenders Mediation Association – The national organization working in the area of restorative justice.


text:
(KIDS) Aquatic Amigos 6-Pack
Socktopus socks are designed to be comfortable, colorful, fun socks that help protect our oceans.
With your purchase, you will not only be getting one of these fun characters, but you will be joining us in making a real environmental impact.
85% Repreve*
13% Nylon
2% Spandex
Ages: 5-8 years
Care: Machine Washable
Sizing: 11 - 1
Customer Reviews
Moisture Wicking
Keep your feet feeling dry even when you're running, jumping or playing while wearing your Socktopus Ink socks.
Soft, Breathable Woven Fabric
They just feel good on your feet. This light weight fabric keeps your comfy no matter where and when you're wearing them.
Seamless Toe
No weird, awkward bumps from toe seams here. Just a smooth, ocean-friendly sock that your feet will love to be in.
1 Water Bottle
At Socktopus Ink, our mission is to deliver a positive message to children and parents, while informing everyone that a cleaner future is in their hands. Every sock made prevents a water bottle from entering the ocean!
Put Your Best Foot Forward
Each pair of socks features one of our fun characters: from Bobtopus the Octopus to Finley the Shark and Bubbles the Whale, their personalities jump (literally!) off your feet; our characters hope to inspire everyone who wears these socks to put their best foot forward... by saving the ocean, one sock at a time!
What People Are Saying
Jen Strathmore
"Just got my Socktopus socks for my daughter (who is the world's pickiest child when it comes to clothing), and she will not take them off! She loves the knee high style with the cute and unique designs! Once I told her that the socks were made from recycled plastic and are helping to keep the ocean clean, she told me to go and buy more!"
Jesse Cunningham
"By producing Socktopus socks we are helping eliminate ocean plastic by using 100% recycled plastic bottles to create our flexible, durable, and fun socks for kids."
Charlie Partridge
"These socks are fun and durable for all ages. Knowing that these socks also help save the ocean made this purchase a no brainer!"
Save the Ocean, One Sock At A Time
When you support ethical clothing companies like Socktopus Ink, and make sustainable purchases, you automatically lower your average impact as a consumer, and inspire your kids to do the same. Let's work together to save the ocean, one sock at a time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Socktopus Ink?
Socktopus Ink is a brand that is trying to create cleaner oceans for future generations. Located and founded in San Diego, California, Socktopus Ink focuses on ocean conservation and general global climate awareness to set ourselves on a path toward a cleaner tomorrow, today. Our current mission is to "save the ocean, one sock at a time." Our first product line of bright, playful, and quirky socks are manufactured using upcycled materials so that every purchase from Socktopus Ink prevents a plastic bottle from making its way into one of the world's oceans.
We know that no one is too small to make a difference. That's why we're working to inspire millions to take a stand for our oceans and to make a difference in any way possible. By creating a proprietary upcycled material, called repreve, out of plastic bottles, we are helping people make an impact through their Socktopus Ink purchase. This special recycled material is then blended with nylon and spandex to create our final sock designs that are bright and colorful—making them perfect for our customers of any age. From babies to adults, we believe that no one is too young to help fight for the future of our planet.
What sizes do your socks come in?
If you are over the age of 6 months old, we probably have a sock that will fit you! At Socktopus Ink, our goal is to help parents start the conversation with their children about protecting the planet. To help them do that, we've crafted our product in a full range of sizes for every age, from babies to adults. We specifically offer socks in baby, toddler, kid, young adult, and adult sizes so that anyone can wear our products.
Do you ship internationally?
Yes! We provide global shipping options. Our mission to fight for our oceans isn't limited to just one place or country. We're proud to provide worldwide shipping for our customers so that anyone, anywhere can join our fight against plastic pollution. Our goal is to help people everywhere step up for tomorrow, today, and we're happy to help people do that around the world. By spreading our cause to the far reaches of the world through our playful socks, we hope that we can get millions of people to help make a difference against plastic pollution. Every change, no matter how small, makes a difference—including purchasing a pair of Socktopus Ink socks.
At Socktopus Ink, we're a mission-driven company that is fighting back against the plastic in our oceans. Though we are based in San Diego, California, we are working with customers around the world to realize our ultimate goal: cleaner oceans for everyone, and especially younger generations. By developing socks that help prevent more plastic bottles from entering into our waters, we hope to build a community that is working together to protect our planet. Our company and our customers think carefully and thoughtfully about the products they purchase to protect our future.
Do all your socks have grip on the bottom?
At Socktopus Ink, we create products that are perfect for customers of any age. That's why we've outfitted our baby and toddler socks with a grip on the bottom of each pair to help increase safety. Our products of other sizes do not come with a grip on the bottom.
Whether with or without grips, each pair of our socks also features one of our characters for a fun take on our eco-friendly values. Bobtopus the Octopus, Finley the Shark, and Bubbles the Whale are our cartoon characters that help parents introduce the topic of pollution and recycling in a stress-free and fun way.
We offer our products in a range of sizes: Baby, toddler, kids, young adults, and adults. All of our socks are made from a proprietary blend of materials and with our own special fabric called repreve that is made from upcycled plastic. All of our socks, including the designs with grips on the bottom, are made from 85% repreve, 13% nylon, and 2% spandex. This blend of materials means that the socks aren't just made from recycled fibers, but also that they are the perfect blend of stretch and support to make them comfortable enough to wear all day.


text:
"Materialism requires adherence to its rules
especially if that means getting the
biggest questions completely wrong."
-Bob Enyart on the Greatest Possible Bias
Real Science Radio takes on all atheists, with:
- Five irrefutable observations disproving the atheist belief that they even have a theory of origins
- Ten atheist clichés each refuted in under ten seconds
- No symbolic logic functions in the classical laws of physics and chemistry
- Methodological naturalism requires adherence especially if that means getting the biggest questions completely wrong
- Bob Enyart vs. Bertrand Russell
- Materialists vs. everything
- Materialists vs... matter?
- Our "Does God Exist?" debate with the psychologist Zakath, TheologyOnline's resident atheist
- Ten atheists we've interviewed and debated include Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, Aron Ra, Michael Shermer, and we've sparred with others including PZ Myers, NASA's Mary Voytek, Phil Plait, and Jerry Coyne
- Bonus resources including a cure for atheism, our debates with accomplished opponents including a geophysicist and a theistic evolutionist, and our $23,000 grant offer to Jurassic Park famed paleontologist Jack Horner to carbon date a bone.
* Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins? Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. The following pattern shows that atheists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these five irrefutable observations:
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinists begins with existing complex reproducing life.
This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also:
- Plate tectonics theory begins with plates already in existence, and has no mechanism for the initial breaking of the crustal plates.
- Water as the key to originate life ignores what NASA's senior astrobiologist Dr. Mary Voytek admitted to us that because water is the universal solvent, it is not the solution but the abiogenesis problem because it ruthelessly dissovles "prebiotic" molecules. The list of abiogenesis killers, that is, the resources that are vital to maintain life but that are destructive of prebiotic molecules, includes water, sunlight, ions, and oxygen.
- Just the right chemicals could come together for life to arise, allegedly. Yet at every moment around the world quintillions of dead organisms at every stage of decomposition provide all the chemicals needed in astounding abundance yet as predictable from the foundational law of biogenesis, life does not arise.
- Even the origin of planets and stars are extremely difficult for physicists to account for without beginning first with already existing protoplanets and protostars or with the explosion of already existing stars.
* The Laws of Physics and Chemistry Have NO Symbolic Logic Functions: Therefore, any biological scheme that uses symbolism cannot arise by any material means based on classical physics and chemistry. So the genetic code, and the visual data that is encoded and transmited to the brain's optical cortex for deciphering and interpretation, etc., cannot evolve. Consider from Bob's presentation at Pepperdine University...
Consider also the origin of something as relatively simple as the eye's trochlea (click or just Google: PZ trochlea), for which famed evolutionist PZ Myers admits that a lifetime of studying Darwinism gives him no insight into how such utter simplicity could have evolved. Then how about something complex? In very general terms, how might a material process originate to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule as an instruction set for building that protein? Atheists have nothing. And they will forever have nothing, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.
Here is another way of stating this: Not a single journal paper has ever proposed even a vague theoretical method of how a scheme of biological information could have arisen by material processes. Such a scheme minimally includes three parts: 1) a protein or other life-enabling device 2) an information molecule containing the instructions for building that protein, and 3) a mechanism that implements the instructions. Materialists cannot answer this question because it is unanswerable. Consider the inventor of ASCII who arbitrarily assigned the letter "A" to the number 65, and explained that the system should render an "A" whenever it encounters the value 65. A scheme is not a physical system and thus cannot arise by materialistic means. Atheists have been unwilling to appreciate this fundamental reality because it is an enormous threat to their belief system. (See our video on this below.)
Ten Atheist Clichés Disproved in Eight Seconds or less!
From Bob Enyart's Does God Exist debate here's a list of ten atheist clichés that can be disproved in eight seconds or less.
Atheist Cliché 1: There is no truth!
Theist Rebuttal: Is that true? [1 second]
Okay, well then...
Atheist Cliché 2: Truth is unknowable!
Theist Rebuttal: How do you know? [1 second]
Well then, for certain...
Atheist Cliché 3: There are no absolutes!
Theist Rebuttal: Absolutely? [1 second]
Well, okay, but...
Atheist Cliché 4: Only your five senses provide real knowledge!
Theist Rebuttal: Says which of the five? [2 seconds]
Ouch. Got me there. Okay, well at least...
Atheist Cliché 5: Logical arguments are not "evidence."
Theist Rebuttal: What is your evidence for that? [2.5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 6: Only the physical realm is real!
Theist Rebuttal: That claim itself is not physical, so it's self-refuting. [3 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 7: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose. [4.5 secs]
Atheist Cliché 8: Atheism is scientific, because science does not allow for a supernatural interpretation of an event!
Theist Rebuttal: This circular reasoning tricks atheists into assuming that which they thought they proved. [5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 9: Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate. [6.5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 10: If theists claim that the universe could not have always been here, then God couldn't have always been here either.
Theist Rebuttal: The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics. [7.9 seconds]
Alex Rosenberg in his Atheist's Guide to Reality argues that "Words have no meaning." To this bonus atheist cliché we reply, "But what do you mean?" If your worldview can be dismantled within eight seconds, then get a better one. (For more, see Bob Enyart's Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? at TheologyOnline.com.)
* In Case You Skipped the Video Above, Really, You'll Want to See It! Trading Genesis: No Atheistic Theory of Origins Even Exists. Atheists say that God doesn't exist, but what actually doesn't exist is an atheistic theory of origins. See Bob Enyart detail this in his talk in Malibu on the Pepperdine University campus:
* Famed Materialist Richard Lewontin Makes the Creationist Case about Materialism: Famous atheist, evolutionary biologist, mathematician, and geneticist Dr. Lewontin (doctoral student of Theodosius Dobzhansky) confirmed Bob Enyart's observation at 34:10 into the above video, that atheism is not based on any law of science or scientific discovery but instead on mere assumption:
We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... - Richard Lewontin
The New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable stating that, If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. Materialism provides the ultimate bias. Most rules of investigation are designed, at least superficially, to discover the truth. Contrary to that, says Bob Enyart, "Methodological naturalism requires adherence to its rules especially if that means getting the biggest questions completely wrong." So when an atheist claims that atheism is more scientific than theism or that science affirms atheism, he is showing his ignorance, or fear, or he's just lying. And as it turns out, as at rsr.org/sayings, the most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face. Frank Turek, an apologist who's appeared on RSR, has asked, "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" The atheist and others who answer, "No" tell you all you need to know.
Today's Resource: Please browse the Science Department
of our online store and help keep Bob Enyart's
Real Science Radio program on the air!
* Bob Enyart vs. Bertrand Russell: One of the leading atheists of the 20th century, and the most intelligent, Russell, similarly to the above examples, contradicts himself constantly. When asking, "whether we really know anything at all," Russell alleges that, "All knowledge is more or less uncertain and more or less vague." He seems contentedly oblivious to the observation that his statement is self-refuting, for if it were true, it would be uncertain, which of course would invalidate the very claim he was making. Contradicting himself yet again, also in Russell's Theory of Knowledge for Encyclopedia Britannica, the first half of his concluding paragraph is completely falsified by what follows, evidently unrealized by Russell:
Logic and mathematics on the one hand, and the facts of perception on the other, have the highest grade of certainty; where memory comes in, the certainty is lessened; where unobserved matter comes in, the certainty is further lessened; beyond all these stages comes what a cautious man of science would admit to be doubtful.
Bertrand seems oblivious to the fact that his claim itself would be doubtful. He could offer no mathematical proof for it. (In fact, he can't even prove mathematically that mathematics exists.) The laws of logic don't require it. And neither logic nor math are of any use without memory, which again undermines his claim, which itself is not made of matter, and certainly not of any "observed" matter, so the doubtful nature of his claim has multiplied yet again. So, by both standards, by Bertrand's own standards that he had just listed, and by the biblical standards that he seeks to undermine, his own claim is nonsense. Yet he continues:
The attempt to increase scientific certainty by means of some special philosophy seems hopeless, since, in view of the disagreement of philosophers, philosophical propositions must count as among the most doubtful of those to which serious students give an unqualified assent. [Enyart: Again, Russell is blissfully unaware that he is offering a philosophical proposition, all of which propositions, he says, must be "among the most doubtful".] For this reason, we have confined ourselves to discussions which do not assume any definite position on philosophical as opposed to scientific questions. -Atheist Bertrand Russell thoroughly contradicting himself
Without God all is nonsense. Further, on any of ten thousand topics, it is not humility to claim that, "No one can know for sure." Rather, that statement often amounts to a claim of virtual omniscience. Bertrand Russell above has presented not a belief established by scientific experimentation but a philosophical proposition which he simultaneously claims should not be given any credibility. And this is someone whom the culture ranked as among the most intelligent atheists in the world. Undoubtedly.
Compare Russell's ignorance to the brilliance of the father of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, who said, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind." Further, in the same speech in Florence, Italy, Planck said that he's not afraid to call this creator "God." Compare Planck's intellect, and that of Isaac Newton, considered the greatest scientist and among those with the highest IQ ever, to Bertrand, who's rebellion against God brings him to contradict himself relentlessly. And see at our Creationist Fathers of the Physical Sciences show page our trivial rebuttal to Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
* RSR's Materialists vs. Everything List: (see this also at rsr.org/information#is-not-physical)
- Numbers are not physical.
- Math is not physical.
- Information is not physical.
- Grammar is not physical.
- Logic is not physical.
- Reason is not physical.
- Ideas are not physical.
- Science is not physical.
- Concepts are not physical.
- Morality is not physical.
- Truth is not physical.
- Souls are not physical.
- Spirits are not physical.
- Codes are not physical.
- The square root of negative one is not physical. Knowing where the truth leads, some atheists are afraid to acknowledge that numbers are not physical. In their fear, they throw a temper tantrum and insist that numbers, such as the number 3, are made of matter. One wonders what they'd think about the number googol, which is 1 followed by a hundred zeroes, a quantity greater than the number of particles in the known universe. For that matter, exponentially, they should be able to realize that a googolplex, 10 to the googol power, also cannot be made of matter because there too that much matter doesn't exist. And next we could ask the same atheist, "Are imaginary numbers, such as the square root of negative one, physical?" An imaginary number is a concept and as such, obviously, and like all concepts and all numbers, it is not made of matter. Yet scientists use imaginary numbers to better understand electric circuits and quantum mechanics. A strictly materialist big-bang universe though would be incapable of using an imaginary number, because imaginary numbers are not physical. Therefore, the square root of negative one reveals the intellect of the Creator! When He designed the function of quantum mechanics, like our own designers, He conceived of and implemented optimal designs using an immaterial concept that has no parallel in the physical realm. See more including what Wigner and Einstein thought about such things, at rsr.org/math#sq-rt-neg-one.
- Infinity is not physical. Yet it is real. Don't believe us? Then believe Vsauce...
- Consciousness is not physical. The best an atheist can make of a physical explanation for consciousness comes from one of the world's leading mathematical physicists, Roger Penrose, who wrote of the brain that it somehow has harnessed, "details of a physics that is yet unknown to human physicists." Other atheists including Daniel Dennett and Jerry Coyne argue that consciousness is an illusion. Why? They intuitively recognize consciousness, that is, awareness, as evidence against their materialism and for non-physical reality. Ironically though, even if it were an illusion, an illusion, being a concept, is non-physical, so that they can't even argue against such reality, since arguments too are non-physical. (See also above #no-origin-theory-exists and rsr.org/consciousness.)
- Genomes are not physical. They are information, that is, a genetic code, and can be losslessly copied onto different media; and while nothing physical can hitch a ride on a photon, a genome's information can be transported on fiber cable, for example at light speed, which is just another indication of its nonphysicality; etc.
- Pain is not physical. Non-sentient plants feel no pain; brain surgeons operate with a local anesthetic for the skull but without anesthetizing the brain, for the brain is the organ that feels no pain, yet ironically, it is the only organ where pain is "felt"; emotional pain is far greater than physical pain, for example, the excruciating pain of childbirth can be overcome in hours whereas even years often minimally mitigate the emotional pain that comes from the loss of a child; for physical pain first must to be translated into to the non-physical realm of awareness before being "felt"; etc.
- Your mind is not physical. Minor observations consistent with this include that when neurosurgeons magnetically or physically stimulate the part of the brain that causes a patient to lift an arm, and the patient says that while he is completely aware that his arm lifted, he is also aware that "he" is not the one who made the decision to lift his arm. Whether or not all (or even most of) the atoms in your brain are replaced over your lifetime, that does not replace you or your mind.
- Laws are not physical. This is true of perhaps all laws and certainly of criminal laws, civil laws, social rules, house rules, etc. Yet consider even the physical laws. Are they made of matter? Apparently not. Are they made of energy? Apparently not. As one consideration, quantum laws are probabilistic, and probability is a concept and not physical.
- And God is not physical.
And Materialists vs... Matter??? Perhaps, yes. So, how about matter itself? There still remains the very difficult question, "What is matter?" What if it turns out that matter is not physical? That is, would it matter if matter was not made of matter? Some scientists suspect that matter is information based, such that matter itself may not even be material. If so of course then, materialism is deader than a doorknob; it's less than a zero, after it's been erased. But that wouldn't even give most of them pause. They'd just become godless spiritualists. Consider though how leading physicists have wrestled with the fundamental nature of matter, and even whether it might be information based. Renowned physicist John Wheeler (1911-2008), a strong advocate of information theory, coined the terms "black hole" and "wormhole", collaborated with Einstein and Bohr, and advised graduate students Everett, Thorne, and Feynman. Wheeler described his career, and hence, his growing understanding of the universe, in three stages. First, "Everything is Particles." Second, "Everything is Fields." And finally, "Everything is Information." (To illustrate the uncertainty, see CIT's Sebens over at Aeon explains the raging uncertainty about whether electrons, etc., are actually particles or fields.) And over at BigThink in a 2017 article, The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information, they quote Wheeler's 1989 paper for the Santa Fe Institute:
"every it--every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
And Philip Perry at BigThink continues:
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos. Although this line of thinking emanates from the mid-20th century, it seems to be enjoying a bit of a Renaissance among a sliver of prominent scientists today...
If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it.
There is much in quantum mechanics that supports that. And the scientific origin even of the (absurd) multiverse/many-worlds belief was exactly an effort to avoid the implied requirement of consciousness which appears to many brilliant minds to be at the heart of physics. (See rsr.org/mutliverse#princeton.) Of course though in his article, like in that excerpt, Perry skips the conscious Mind that would first be on the transmitting end.
IBM's Phil Tetlow, writing of MIT, CIT, CMU's Edward Fredkin, sometimes Feynman collaborator, sometimes physics professor, quotes him saying, "I've come to the conclusion that the most concrete thing in the world is information" and as Wired puts it, Fredkin insisted that "everything we see and feel is information."
Tim Malden's 2019 text on Quantum Theory published by Princeton discusses "quantum information theory" in which physical changes in a system can occur based on "what someone believes about the system." On the first page of his book he asks, "What is matter?" Malden answers his own question, "The best theory of matter presently available is quantum theory. Our main task is to understand just what quantum theory claims [yet] no consensus at all exists among physicists about how to understand quantum theory... Instead, there is raging controversy." Perhaps then science will finally arrive at the New Testament teaching in Hebrews 11:3 that "the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" for "In the beginning was the Word, and... all things were made through Him" John 1:1-3. After all, God didn't generate, but He "said, 'Let there be light.'"
TOL's Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? Bob Enyart debated TheologyOnline.com's resident atheist and psychologist Zakath on the question of Does God Exist? We reproduce here the debate's Table of Contents and two excerpts:
Table of Contents
Introduction & Moderator Begins the Debate
Round 1: Definition of God; Potential cost of atheism and theism; On evidence for the Creator from physics and biology
Round 2: On the existence of truth; On the existence of right and wrong; On the origin of the universe; On the origin of biological life
Round 3: Evidence for truth from multiple frames of reference; On morality; On the origin of the universe; On the origin of biological life; On disagreements over moral values; On the origin of consciousness
Round 4: On absolute morality; On the God of the Gaps; On universal conscience as evidence for absolute morality
Round 5: Implication of widespread evil; On absolute morality; On the God of the Gaps; On falsifiability of natural origins
Round 6: On God as the standard of morality; On falsifiability of natural origins; On disagreements over religious beliefs; On the falsifiability of Christianity; On the physics of creation; On scientific progress and religious faith; On the nature of physical and spiritual laws; On evidence for the Creator from the Solar System
Round 7: On conscience and sociopaths; On guilt as a cause of religious disagreement; On whether God's nature can theoretically define an absolute moral standard; On the absolute nature of laws; On the effect of conscience; On the possibilities inherent in eons of time
Round 8: Accusations against the God of the Bible; On absolute morality; the mathematics of probability; On evidence for the Creator from human behavior; On atheist morality
Round 9: On evidence from higher biological functions like vision and flight; On natural selection as a conservative force
Round 10: On seven atheist sayings; On the Transcendental proof for God; On atheism and sodium pentothal (truth serum); On the scientific statements in the Bible; On prophecies in the Bible; On the non-prophecies of the Bible; On an offered conclusion
Moderator Ends the Debate
READ THE DEBATE: You can read this entire Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? debate for free online in the 'Center Ring' in the 'Coliseum' at TheologyOnline.com or you can call 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) or just click to purchase a comfortable paperback to read in bed or while at the park or sitting in your favorite arm chair! Here at Bob Enyart Live, we promise: You'll love this book, or your money back! (Now, how many authors make that offer? Our standard, no-small-print, five-word practice is: 30-day money-back guarantee!)
Russian Translation: If you have a Russian friend you'd like to share this with, thanks to Olga Nellis of Texas who is originally from Ukraine, you can download our translation of the initial rounds in Russian! (If you are fluent in Russian and would like to help Olga continue the translation, please email email@example.com!)!
TWO EXCERPTS: Higher Biological Functions & The Transcendental Argument
Excerpt 1: Higher Biological Functions
I will show that it is irrational to believe that irreducibly complex higher biological functions like for example, vision, flight, echolocation, and even a giraffe's neck, could arise by chance. Science makes awesome progress in describing how things work. The entire cosmos, and especially biological life, is much more complex than what mankind had previously imagined. Remember the honeymoon period of atheism? As long as atheists still agree that complex functioning systems cannot appear by chance in one single step, then the more complexity science discovers, the more difficult it becomes to fathom a chance explanation for origins.
Vision: Consider vision systems, and the supposedly primitive brains with which evolutionists think eyesight evolved. Science has taught us that vision systems are wildly more complex than unscientific men may have imagined. For example, when photons strike the rods and cones in our eyeballs, the images they illuminate are communicated to our brains using symbols that do not correspond to the image itself. Look at my picture to the right. [Note, on TheologyOnLine, a member can have a graphic image called an avatar appear with each of his posts.] This picture format is called an Avatar. Yes… that picture, showing me in a suit and tie. Now, imagine that a primitive creature, say a mosquito, can use vision to increase his chances of survival, since it would help if he bites my neck rather than my shirt. Functioning vision systems provide extraordinary survival benefits to organisms. But that handsome picture of me (I'm bragging about the picture quality, not my looks), is not nearly as instructive (or as good looking) if you look at the actual data in the .GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) file that contains that picture. Most readers can right-click on the photo and then from the shortcut menu that pops up, select "Save Picture As…" and save it to your desktop as Bob.txt. Then, most readers can right-click on that file and open it with a text editor like Microsoft Notepad. By doing this, you can see what that picture data looks like to a word processing program like Notepad. That rubbish looks much more like what a bug would see when trying to decipher the information coming to his brain as a visual image. Here's what I look like when encoded as a stream of data:
Now, how does the supposed evolving bug brain begin to decipher such a data stream to identify in the above symbols, say, my nose? Can you spot my nose in the above image data? You couldn't spot Jimmy Durante's nose in those symbols. But the job for the bug is way more complicated. The above gibberish interprets the data in my photo as though it were ASCII and ANSI (computer text) characters. We could view the same information in hexadecimal characters (base 16), or in a binary series of bits (but then we'd have to look at about 4K, or 4,073 bytes, i.e., 32,584 bits of zeros and ones), but at least the above is a single, unchanging, defined set of information. For the bug, the stream of electrochemical signals is continuous, and constantly changes. Get that?
By the way, an eyelid could close to give the bug time to think about the last image he saw, but would that lid have evolved prior to the brain evolving sufficiently to interpret the data sent to it by the forming eye? And while we're at it, a broadband optic nerve with sufficient data transfer rates must develop by pure chance. I know the atheists in the Grandstands are particularly obtuse about this, thinking that atheism does not depend upon pure chance to create such new functions. But by atheism, there is no directing force to develop sight in a blind creature. And natural selection could not preserve sight (eyes, nerves, processing, comprehending) until its component parts operated together at least as a rudimentary vision system.
So the bug needs to develop (by chance) a method of interpreting the symbolic vision data stream. But if every atom in the known universe represented a trillion ways per second of interpreting the above data, and we enlarged that universe by a trillion, trillion, trillion times, and let such an inquisitive bug live a trillion years, that poor slob of a bug couldn't begin to touch the possibilities of chance coming up with the correct way of interpreting that data. The primitive bird brain or bug brain would have no conception that the incoming stream of electrochemical signals could indicate the look on my face. How would it even begin to analyze the data? Would the data represent heat, sound, touch, taste, or smell? If it represented an image, would the picture appear as a series of lines (vectors) or arrays of pixels? Would pixels be arranged row by row? Column by column? Columns of what length? 640 x 480? 1024 x 1024? Color or B&W? How many bits (or millivolts) per pixel? Would it store the image for processing as vector (lines & shapes) or bitmapped (dots)? And remember, the bug brain is not even trying to interpret the data. It just has to fall upon this ability by chance! Yes, natural selection will preserve the living daylights out of the first bug to come upon sight by chance. But natural selection can only preserve the functioning system once it begins to give its host a survival advantage. In churning through the possible ways of interpreting vision data (which itself is an inexplicable and functionally meaningless concept for randomness), an evolving bug brain would happen through a googolplex of complex algorithms before it randomly fell upon one that might give it some semblance of a valid interpretation. For example, while the above vision data actually encodes a photo of me in a tie, as far as the bug knew, it might represent:
• The sound of thunder
• A predator's mouth
• The taste of mold
• Zakath's fingers in ten splints
• The heat of a flame
• A spider's web
• The smell of ozone
• Nothing
The atheist shows himself irrational by suggesting that a non-directive force of chance can begin to correctly interpret symbolic data. The irreducible complexity of higher biological functions like vision cannot arise by chance. For, any vision system must convert photons reflected by an object into a symbolic data stream, and the functions of processing, encoding, storing, and interpreting that data (all before the system yields any survival benefit) cannot happen by chance. This is just one of millions of ways to refute evolution as contrary to reason, math and science, and based upon blind faith. The symbolic nature of any vision system by itself damns the atheist. Regarding the object to be viewed, to avoid reducing it into a series of symbols, you would have to put the entire object inside the collector (the eye) of the organism. That is, if you want to avoid symbols in a creature's sight, you will have to put the object itself into the creature, that is, a mosquito would have to suck an entire Tyrannosaurus Rex into its eyeball, and physically feel and touch it to identify it. But of course, that would no longer be a vision system. Thus, a vision system cannot avoid the processing of encoded symbolic information. And the nature of symbolic representation is that there is an almost infinite variety of ways to symbolize data. During WWII, the Allies worked strenuously to decode the transmissions of the Japanese and the Germans, and we knew what the goal was, we knew the data streams contained linguistic content, we knew the parameters of the meaning of that content, we presumed where the data streams started and stopped, and we systematically worked through algorithms using an enormous base of knowledge about the people doing the encoding. A bug brain could not by chance decode and identify Midway as the destination of the Japanese fleet. A bug brain, without goal-oriented direction, could not accidentally happen upon a way to decode symbolic data. No conceivable series of chances could accomplish such a feat. Not once! And yet, all the diverse species, genera, families, orders, classes and six phyla of sighted organisms have backed almost all atheists into assuming that vision evolved repeatedly, many times over! Paired eyes exist in three phyla: vertebrates, arthropods and mollusks, and ninety-five percent of all animal species have sight, and so far, eleven different eye types that have been identified, including most recently the telephoto lens of the chameleon. So, evolutionists believe that eyesight can so readily evolve, that it is not surprising that it has evolved multiple times! What foolishness. Here's a message to decode, from science itself to the atheist: the physical laws have no symbolic logic function!
Life is as much based upon information as it is upon chemicals. Atheists are fond of imagining that an innumerable variety of completely different proteins can accomplish specific tasks. That is not true. And of googols of possible algorithms for interpreting the above vision data, only the smallest percent (close to zero) can realistically interpret such symbols. But wait! How about the initial development of vision to begin with? For, before the brain can begin to unravel the symbolic data, that data stream must be delivered to it. How does that happen? Well, the pre-sight creature could not possibly comprehend that harvesting photons could improve his chances of getting a meal, or avoiding becoming one. So, he must develop his eyes by a fluke, by a fortuitous accident. Many evolutionists have imagined that perhaps a sunburn, or a pimple, introduced light sensitivity and then vision into organisms. (Can you say: sun chariot?) But of course, if you get sunburn, your next baby won't feel the sting. Atheists constantly forget the difference between the phenotype and the genotype, i.e., between the actual features of an organism and its genetic code, for genetics control reproduction, not experience. You can jump until the cows come home and your offspring will not inherit springy knees; a horse can stretch his neck all he wants to eat from tree branches, and his great-great horse-son will not become a giraffe. Such a gaffe is about as embarrassing a blunder as one could make in biology. Yet such ideas abound in our public-schooled society with its atheistic curriculum. And belief in evolution is the cause of the prevalence of these genetically-challenged, anti-intellectual ideas.
Since the genetic code determines the offspring, and not a creature's need or experience, consider then what happens to the probabilities when atheists expect that random mutations will bring about improvements in interconnected, interdependent, complex systems. As an example of complex systems that interface with one another, consider banks that wire funds internationally while adjusting for real-time currency exchange rates: any changes that add new functions to that system must be carefully coordinated by the banks and clearing houses, and integrated into all related subsystems. Random changes in one system will eventually break the entire system. When highly interconnected systems enhance functionality, the complexity increases geometrically as compared to systems with fewer connections. [That's partly why PC operating systems from Apple and Linux run more stably than those from Microsoft, because they both interface with far fewer third-party hardware and software goods.] With the non-directive forces of atheism, a single protein will not arise by chance. And the absurdity of hope in the impossible multiplies when atheists believe that systematic improvements frequently arise by chance in the multitude of families of diverse creatures in our world. The human eye has millions of rod and cone receptors which encode visual data, and the wildly complex, very high-bandwidth optic nerve transmits that data to the brain, and different centers in the brain process and decode the symbolic data, and even give executive summary reports of that information to the conscious mind.
Remember, an ambitious pimple with hopes of becoming a receptor cone will not be preserved by natural selection until:
• that pimple starts improving survival;
• and such a cone wannabe can't help sight until it is serviced by a compatible optic nerve;
• and this aspiring cone and nerve can't help sight until the brain can decode their symbolic output.
But forget all that. Really. Let's consider just enhancing an existing black and white system into color vision by granting the atheist the first, say, 1,000 rods, a serviceable optic nerve, and brain circuitry for seeing. The DNA that describes these functions and reproduces them into the offspring is wildly complex. And now an organism begins to develop color sight by the random chance appearance of cones (an absurdity). But wait! The appearance of those cones means nothing without a parallel improvement in capacity and compatibility of the optic nerve (an absurdity squared times a googol). And of course both these must begin in parallel by pure random chance, because until color sightedness actually begins to improve survival, natural selection will not preserve any color components. [And here we find another absolute! Atheists are in absolute denial of this basic function of their own theory.] But wait! Neither the cones nor the nerve mean anything without the integration of a new brain capacity by which it processes light wavelength symbols to yield a dimension of data previously unfathomable to it (an absurdity cubed times a googolplex). For the creature's evolving brain has no hint that color even exists! And before natural selection can even begin to help, the color collectors, encoders, and symbolic decoders all have to occur by pure and utter random chance without the slightest inkling of any goal whatsoever. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 50:1). Thus, while the probability of a single function first arising, like a new enzyme, is less than would occur in a trillion years with the entire universe as a laboratory, the mathematical probability of non-directed improvements to interrelated complex systems is non-existent. And the more science discovers about biological life, the more we learn that everything is interrelated and wildly complex.
[Here is a personal note to any unbeliever still reading: If you are a committed atheist or agnostic, then the more clear evidence you see that proves the existence of the Creator, most likely, your heart will become increasingly hard and bitter against God. Therefore, I think you should skip the rest of this ninth round. Really. For, shoving truth into someone's face does not tend to produce a humble admission of error. But as for me, I will continue to do my best, and let the results occur as they may. -Bob] KGOV Note: For more, just read the debate...
Excerpt 2: Transcendental Proof for God
As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here's why:
God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. Unbelievers require theists to provide evidence for God which is not circular, which does not beg the question, that is, they insist that we do not assume that which we should try to prove. They claim that faith puts theists at a disadvantage, because we trust in God. Contrariwise, they claim that they reject faith, and constrain themselves to the laws of logic and reason. Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. For if atheists attempt to justify "logic and reason" by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph.
On the other hand, as a last-ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a know-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen successfully used the transcendental proof for God while debating a leading atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California at Irvine.)
A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines "faith" as accepting "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of one answer) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. So, in an atheist's attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist's ability to persuade.
Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said "surely!" I've used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ's statement that, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.
Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). So naturally, the atheist community is most ready to admit to the moral consequence of atheism that denies the possibility of ultimate righteousness. But as the intellectual ramifications of atheism continue to work their way into mankind's corporate thinking, eventually, atheists will lose their hesitancy and admit the same effect regarding logic. Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance.
With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein's Gulf: "If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial."
What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner's point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical!
So try this: go and find an unsuspecting atheist, and ask him two questions. First, Q1: Is atheism logical? Second, Q2: Are the laws of logic absolute or has society only agreed upon them by convention? He will be happier with the first question than with the second. To the first, a typical atheist today will answer, yes! A1: Atheism is logical. (Why that answer? Atheists crave a foundation and so they are still substituting an indefensible, reasonless rationalism for the reasonable God whom they rebel against.) But for the second question, the atheist's fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: "No, the laws of logic are not absolute!" as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. (When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: "What validates logic?" What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can't be done. And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today's atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible, and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God's existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis.
Partial List of Atheists who have Debated Bob Enyart:
- Anti-creationist Eugenie Scott of the Nat'l Center for Science Education, exhumed 2005
- Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) with evidence against the big bang 2012
- Aron Ra, popular YouTube anti-creationist who repeated denied that Isaac Newton was a creationist 2011 & 2012
- Reginald Finley, aka The Infidel Guy, whose family appeared on ABC's Wife Swap show 2007
- TheologyOnLine's psychologist Zakath in a 10-round moderated written online debate and available in soft cover
- John Henderson who wrote the book God.com 2006
- Freedom from Religion Foundation founder Dan Barker (put the atheist sign near the Nativity at the capitol in Seattle) who was involved with the ministry of Kathryn Kuhlman, one of a group of so-called faith healers. 12-11-08 (See a BEL listener who initially compared Bob to Benny Hinn until...)
- Carlos Morales, Fox News, Huffington Post, pres. of Atheist Agenda, U of Texas Bible-turn in program 2010 on TTL
- I Sold My Soul on eBay author Hemant Mehta talks with Bob about gullibility 12-14-10
- Michael Shermer, an editor with Scientific American and the Skeptic Society who in this famous 73-second excerpt on BEL denied that the sun is a light, illustrating that it's tough debating atheists when they're hesitant to admit to even the most obvious common ground. rsr.org/michael-shermer-denies-that-the-sun-is-a-light
And we've sparred with many including:
- PZ Myers on why Darwinists can't even give a rough algorithm for how the simple trochlea could evolve
- NASA's Mary Voytek on water being the enemy of abiogenesis
- Phil Plait on astronomy's use of "evolution"
- Aron Ra on atheism, earth's age and evolution
- Jerry Coyne on his claim that the genomes that just don't fit Darwin's evolutionary tree are common only within bacteria.
Do They Really? Atheists hate God. Also...
- Atheists Believe in the Supernatural
- Atheists Just Want to Fornicate
- Atheists Say the Darndest Things
- Atheists Admit Being Angry at God
- Atheists Lead People to Jesus.
- Bob's Age of the Earth Debate against a geophysicist and a mathematician from the University of Colorado.
- Paleontologist and technical advisor for Jurassic Park movies Jack Horner turns down Bob Enyart's $23,000 offer to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex.
- Bob's debate with Christian evolutionist James Hannam who later wrote, as quoted by PZ Myers, "For a start, I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, Bob Enyart was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant..." -Well-received British author and Darwinist James Hannam
- Richard Dawkins proving Bob Enyart right for in 1997 on national television Bob made the extraordinary claim against the perception of millions of Darwinists regarding Dawkins promotion of evolution: "Read any of his books, and you will see that he is not a scientist who is laying out evidence." Many years later, Dawkins himself confirms this by saying, "My previous books have all been about evolution but not the evidence for it, they've assumed evolution is true."
- From rsr.org/pascal: "The immortality of the soul is a matter which is of so great consequence to us and which touches us so profoundly that we must have lost all feeling to be indifferent about it." Pensées III, 194
- And see Bob's Cure for Atheism: Belief in the true age of the earth (as at our youngearth.com) is an effective 100% cure for atheism as indicated over at realscienceradio.com/list-of-not-so-old-things.
Cite this article as: Enyart, Bob. 2010 - 2018. Real Science Radio vs. Atheism. rsr.org/atheism


text:
Beverly Hills Cactus Garden - 10/17/21 (Sunday) 6:00pm | Mini Sess
Location: Beverly Hills
25 minute mini session for up to 7 people.
15 high resolution digital photos can be downloaded in the online gallery, which consist of typically 30-50 photos to choose from.
Typical turnaround time: 7-14 days.
This location is dog-friendly.
Upgrades available:
Full gallery in high resolution (Typically 30-50 images): an additional $100
Expedited Turnaround (1 business day): an additional $50
These options are available after the session
A photography agreement will be sent to you once the photo session is booked. The detailed time and location will also be sent out electronically.
Non-refundable deposit
A $100 non-refundable retainer will be kept for the mini sessions if you deicde to cancel the session after booking.
If you would like to reschedule for another time that you signed up for, please email Joanne 48 hours prior to your session date, and you will be rescheduled to another time slot based on availability.Bad weather
If the severe weather would interefere with Photographer's capability of taking photos, including but not limited to heavy rain and heavy fog, the session can be reschuduled for another time without additional fees.


text:
All Natural Halloween Kosher Salt Mix - A Spooky Blend!
Snowy River cocktail salts add the perfect taste combination to any cocktail. From the first hint of all natural sea salt through to the lingering sweet overtones of the finest sugars, Snowy River salts add a new dimension to any margarita or cocktail. The perfect drink is not complete until finished with Snowy River all natural cocktail salt rimmers.
Here at Snowy River we love our sugars and what our customers can do with them. We use the finest sea salts and natural sugars to ensure even application to the rim of any glass - dress up your favorite margarita - your favorite cocktails - or add flair to any party. And dont forget to add our chocolate or party treat rimmers to your kids parties or to turn a an average desert into a masterpiece.
Key Cocktail Salt Product Features include:
All natural fruit and veg based coloring
The finest grade salts and sugars
GMO Free
No synthetics or preservatives
Made in USA
Snowy River cocktail sugars are available for wholesale and retail sale as well as in bulk and private label custom orders. International enquires also welcome.
To apply Snowy River cocktail rimmers, apply some rimmer syrup, lemon, lime or egg white evenly around the rim of the glass and then dip the glass into the cocktail rimmer. For a deeper effect, coat the top 1 inch of the glass and then dim in cocktail rimmer, or simply play around to get your perfect look. Snowy River cocktail sugar rimmers are used in professional bars and pubs, but are also great for the home or anytime you need to add some real spark to your glass!
Additional Details
- SR-CS-Hln-3oz
- Weight:


text:
This lightweight interior has aluminum shelving, toolbox cradles, full-length drawers, and a full line of customizable accessories. The aluminum is 30% lighter than steel with the ability to support a comparable capacity. Our aluminum shelf modules are made in the U.S.A.
When it comes to choosing high quality, professional grade commercial vehicle equipment, Masterack is an industry leader with over 40 years of experience in product design, manufacturing, and installation. Our large selection of steel and composite van interiors, pickup equipment, ladder racks, and accessories are available as pre-designed trade packages or can easily be mix-and-matched to customize your vehicle.


text:
Help / Site Map Order Pet Portraits Online or Call 214-356-9695
Client Proofs
We offer a wide variety of color combos and layout options for a variety of tastes. Check out our custom pet portrait styles and then click here for pricing. All you need to get started is a pet snapshot. Order a one-of-a-kind custom pet portrait for you or your loved ones today. Check out our newest videos and see some great examples of pet portraits in the home. You can also follow Rebecca's artdog blog to see what new projects we have going on.
Dog and Cat Art Portfolio from Rebecca Collins on Vimeo.
Choose between the 2 pet portrait styles below Each style has a wide variety of looks and possibilities. No cookie cutter commissions around here!
Painterly Style
#1 Painterly Pet Portrait Style This fine art style incorporates hand drawn lines and traditional painting techniques which are implemented on the computer. Rebecca Collins creates all of the painterly pet portraits herself. With these highly layered works she elevates digital pet portraiture to a fine art status. This style has become our most popular choice. We have been told that our painterly portraits look more like an actual painting than any other digital offerings on-line. View samples>
Warhol Style
#2 Warhol styled Pop Art Pet Portraits Our custom pop art pet portraits inspired by Andy Warhol have been a big hit around here since 1998. We were the first on the web to offer "warholized" dogs and cats and we continue to have the largest selection. We can create 4 paneled pop art prints or 3 paneled pop art prints in bright colors or soft colors. We even have some terrific single panel 60 & 70's retro pop looks for your cool canines and futuristic felines. This style is sure to please. View samples>
Paws for thought ... Art Paw has been creating custom cat portraits and decorative dog portraits for the past 13 years. We started off with a few styles including our own take on Warhol. Over the years we have seen many digital studios getting on board to pay tribute to Andy and pop art portraits remain one of our most popular pet portrait styles. Rebecca Collins has gone on to develop her own unique painterly style of working that has become quite popular here at Art Paw by both dog lovers and cat lovers. Rebecca strives hard to capture the unique spirit of her portrait subjects and create modern works of art that will be cherished for years to come. Art Paw has always tried to stay ahead of the pack by offering the largest variety of styles and the highest quality materials available. All of the artwork is printed in-house so that every single step of production has the highest possible quality standard. Shop around and compare portrait services if you like. You will find that Art Paw's goal is not to be the cheapest game in town, we just want to be the very best. We hire only talented artists that understand the difference between fine art and quickie digital service work. A trained eye makes all the difference when it comes to originality and capturing that spark that makes a piece of art jump of the wall.
You know your pet deserves the best!
As seen on NBC Channel 5 News
Be Sure And Book Mark Our Site!
Below is our FAQ Video on sending photos at the proper file size:
Home/ Catalogue / Contact / About / Press / Site Map / Locations / Privacy
Celebrating our 13th year in business!
Dallas Texas 888-225-4278 Site Design: Rebecca Collins ©1998- 2005 artpaw.com All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the Art Paw Terms of Use.


text:
Divine Guidance Card of the Day - #HEALTH
By Roop Lakhani - 08:30:00
Divine Guidance Cards made after extensive study of 20+ years.
I have Developed by study of 20+ years and tried tested with thousands. The best self explanatory cards. No need to visit any psychic or reader. Each card is uniquely researched to suit every single person seeking advice. MESSAGE me to order your full set today.
Single Card Reading.
There are 78 cards in each deck. The interpretation of each card is based on the original Rider Waite Tarot Deck® based on the association with symbols & images of each card.
All 78 cards are given their interpretation based on the questions regarding general reading, work, finances, health, relationships & empowerment.
The cards are designed to do a single card reading. You can ask question based on, only name of each deck.
ASK these kind of questions and then read the card answer.
GENERAL: 1) Guide me generally for the day/week/month. 2) What do you want me to know for today/week/month? Etc. They should be general questions based on your daily or weekly or monthly life. 3) How will be my forth coming vacation? Etc.
WORK: 1) What do you advise me for my work for today/week/month? 2) Guide me how my work will happen? 3) Will I be successful in work I plan to do today/week/month? 4) will my project get completed today/week/month? Etc.
FINANCE: 1) How are my finances today/week/month? 2) What do you advise me for my finance? 3) Will I be able to have smooth finance for today/week/month? Etc.
HEALTH: Ask questions ONLY if you have real health problems. 1) How do you see my health today/week/month? 2) Guide me how my health will remain today/week/month? 3) How will my operation go? Etc.
RELATIONSHIP: Relationship questions are put separately for others. Use different relationship to check for romance, love, family, friends, office colleagues... 1) How is my relationship with ___ (Full Name). 2) Will i get married to__? 3) How to improve my relationship with__? 4) Does my ___ love me? Etc.
EMPOWERMENT: 1) What do you want me to take back with me? 2) What do you want me to empower with? 3) How do I remain happy? Etc.
How to use this decks?:
Select the deck pertaining to guidance you are seeking for. Remove & put your cards on a silk cloth. Sit in a quiet place. Use candles, incense stick or crystal around you. This environment will allow the right energy to flow between you & cards. Shuffle the cards randomly. Spread them on silk cloth. Ask anyone question as given above either loudly or in mind to the deck. Randomly choose one card with your non dominant h&. (The h& which you don't use for writing) Read the instructions on back of card. See what suits your mind from the interpretation.
There are times you will have all related messages for you. There are times when one or two messages relate to your questions. DO NOT REPEAT THE SAME QUESTION SAME DAY AGAIN. It may so happen, you may get insights or inspiration while you read this card. Give special attention to this when you complete reading.
Once done, tap your h& on the top of gathered cards & with the sense of gratitude say "Thank you Divine Guidance" Gather cards, shuffle them lightly & wrap them back in silk cloth. Once in a while energize these cards by putting them in sun rays for 10-15 min or by putting them in any of your religious place like temple or mediation area.
Why Use this Divine Guidance Cards: By using this cards, you will be inspired for self analysis & self improvement of yourself. You will get self awareness about your self. This will open up new horizon for you in areas of relationship, work, health, finance & personal fulfillment. By tapping this energy into the moment, you are actually tapping your own psyche. You will start seeing different new side of your own spiritual & psychic nature.
Message me or call me on +91 9821612031 to order your this unique 6 deck set of Divine Guidance Cards TODAY.