text:
Circa 1910
A neoclassical bronze lantern in its original age-darkened patina, glazed with leaded amber glass panels. From a Cleveland, OH office tower. Signed by the Chicago foundry The Ray Co.
Current height: 144 cm
Minimum height: 88 cm
Overall: 30 cm w. x 27 cm d.
CE wiring available, contact sales for a quote.
CE Lamping: ES/E27 socket, maximum 100 watts.
1 fixture total available.
On display at our Greenwich showroom.


text:
Woodbridge Area Car Dealer Offers Stellar Used Cars
We not only stock new Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles, but also maintain an extensive inventory of high-quality used cars for Chantilly Jeep Chrysler Dodge shoppers at our Woodbridge area car dealer! Each used car at Safford Chrysler Jeep Dodge of Warrenton has been through a detailed inspection by our auto technicians to ensure the superiority of our pre-owned vehicles.
If you value extraordinary service, great prices, and high-quality used cars, Safford Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Warrenton is the place to shop for used cars and you can even browse our used car inventory using the Power Search tools below. You can filter by Year, Model, and Body Style. If you are not finding the specific used car, truck, SUV or van you want, our Woodbridge area car dealer can track it down for you with our CarFinder system. To help save money, Chantilly Dodge Jeep Chrysler Ram customers should check out the current used vehicle specials at Safford Chrysler Jeep Dodge of Warrenton.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Some people — even self-proclaimed Christians — today have one basic belief about the Bible — that it shouldn't be believed! But things didn't used to be that way. Prior to the late 20th century, virtually all people who claimed to be Christians understood Scripture to be inspired and preserved — in other words, sacred. They believed God had given us His Word and that these Scriptures were to be followed. The Bible is supposed to judge us, but some people would like to judge the Bible instead.
However, the Bible is trustworthy, and that trustworthiness begins with the core truth of inspiration: The Bible was written by God through men.
Many skeptics have pointed out that the Bible is not proven to be God's Word just because some of its verses say so. Then we come to The Da Vinci Code, a novel by Dan Brown that mixes historical fact with fiction to confuse people about the authenticity of the Bible. The book raises a number of questions: "Is it true that man wrote the Bible hundreds of years after Jesus lived?" "Did people really fight over what the Bible was going to say?" "What if the things that ended up in the Bible weren't what God really meant the Bible to say?"
Christians have answers because the Bible's divine origin is supported by compelling evidence.
The entire Bible was written by about 40 individuals over 1,500 years. These writers included a farmer (Amos), a doctor (Luke), ministers (such as Ezra and James), political leaders (David, Solomon), political prisoners (Daniel, John), a musician (Asaph), a fisherman (Peter) and a tax collector (Matthew).
Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, grew up wealthy in Egypt, became a fugitive, herded livestock, then eventually led a nation. Paul, who wrote 13 books of the New Testament, was professionally trained in religion, theology and philosophy, and before he became a Christian led a movement to hunt down the followers of Jesus Christ. The Bible writers were rich and educated, poor and not-so-educated; they came from a wide variety of social backgrounds.
Yet the Bible contains a unified, consistent message. It could be summarized as "God's Savior, and how you may know Him" or "The kingdom of heaven, and how to get in."
The agreement woven throughout all 66 books written by different people at different times strongly points to the Bible's heavenly origin. Though humans did the writing, the Bible is the product of one author: God.
Churches and Christians didn't choose the books they wanted to put in the Bible. They eventually recognized the books that God had chosen. Bible expert J. I. Packer puts it this way:
The church no more "gave us" the canon than Sir Isaac Newton "gave us" the force of gravity. God gave us gravity by the work of His creation, and similarly, He gave us the New Testament canon by inspiring the original books that make it up.
Though the Bible is not just a history book, the events and people recorded in its pages are historical. Over the past couple of centuries, the science of archaeology has advanced our knowledge of the people, places and culture of Bible times. In the process, archaeology has proven, over and over, that the Bible is accurate in its historical facts.
For example, proof of King Jehu (see 2 Kings 9-10) was discovered on an obelisk (a column of stone) found in 1846. The obelisk contains words and pictures recording Israel's conquest by an Assyrian king. The obelisk's information perfectly confirms what was recorded in the Old Testament.
Fulfilled prophecy distinguishes the Bible from any other religious book. The Bible accurately predicted events hundreds of years in advance because God was the author.
Some time between A.D. 30-32., Jesus predicted that the Jewish temple would be reduced to rubble (Matthew 24:1-2, Luke 21:5-6), an unthinkable occurrence for the Jews of that day. Religious leaders would have ridiculed the idea that their massive temple could be razed. Yet in A.D. 70, the temple was indeed destroyed.
Additionally Isaiah 11:11-12, which was written more than 700 years before Christ, predicted that the Jews would one day return to Israel, after having been dispersed to points all around the world. At one time, skeptics pointed to this prediction (and a similar one in Ezekiel 37:21) as a prophecy that had never come to pass. Yet since the rebirth of the Jewish nation in 1948, Jewish individuals have indeed returned to Israel "from the four quarters of the earth."
Because the Bible is God's Word and what it says was true when it was written, it is still true today and will be true tomorrow and forever. In the most crucial issues of life — like God, human nature, right and wrong, sin, forgiveness, death and eternity — you can't afford to guess what is true. Your life depends on whether what you believe is, in fact, true.
The origin, accuracy and relevancy of the Bible are important to each of us. Fortunately, the evidence strongly indicates that the Bible is indeed God's Word, preserved for us to read, understand and follow. Nearly 500 years ago, the great reformer Martin Luther gave us his take on God's Word:
In the Bible God speaks. The Scriptures are His word. To hear or read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God himself.
You could spend your entire life, as some scholars have, researching the evidence in support of the Bible's accuracy. However, as Luther said, if you want to hear the voice of God, open your Bible. A good, easy-to-understand starting point is the gospel of John in the New Testament.
You may want to pray the words of Psalm 119:18 as you begin to seriously study the Bible: "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law."
On average, more than 50 children make a decision for Christ every day as a result of the ministry we do at Focus on the Family.Focus on the Family's ministry is 87.5% donor-funded.
The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." —Matthew 28:5-7
Jesus Christ isn't in the tomb. And get this: The guards are lying on the ground like dead men, and the stone has been rolled away.
Some of the guards get up and race to the chief priests with an amazing story. "There was a violent earthquake at the tomb, and this angel — WHOA! He was bright like lightning and actually rolled away the heavy stone!"
What do the priests do? They bribe the soldiers to lie!
"Tell everyone that you fell asleep and that those pesky disciples stole the body. Above all, don't even mention the stuff about the earthquake and the angel!"
(Check out Matthew 28:1-15 for the full story.)
For centuries people have acted like those stubborn priests and have tried to disprove — even ignore — the resurrection of Jesus Christ. After all, if our Lord didn't rise from the dead, then everything He said and did would be a lie, right? What's more, anybody can claim to be God — psychiatric hospitals are filled with such misguided people. But to say you're God and then prove you're immortal — that's another matter.
Christ's resurrection was the proof, the seal of authenticity. And not only have people failed at disproving it, but during their research some have actually become Christians!
Yet the heart of man is often blind. Just look around and you'll spot lots of skeptics. That's why it's important that Christian guys be prepared to talk about the greatest event in history. So read on, and let Breakaway show you how to lay some groundwork for guiding others to the truth.
Let's take a look at the top three arguments people use — along with some solid answers.
"Maybe Jesus wasn't really dead, and He just rolled away the stone himself."
Right. A man who has been beaten, tortured and mutilated for hours is going to lie unattended for two cold nights in a tomb and suddenly find the strength to roll away a 2-ton rock, fight off all the Roman soldiers guarding it, then show up convincing everyone that He has a glorious resurrected body. That would be pretty hard to believe.
And while we're talking about His body, let's not forget the blood and water that flowed from His side when the soldier speared it on the Cross. If He were alive, the wound would have spurted red blood. But in a dead body, the blood separates into massive red clots and watery serum, just as John described it. (See John 19:34.)
"Maybe the disciples moved Christ's body."
Hmmm, let's consider the facts: A group of men who have dedicated their lives to a teacher who insisted on truth and honesty are suddenly going to turn into liars and swindlers. And each of these self-seeking no-goods will be willing to face poverty, incredible hardship, torture and even death to perpetuate that lie. Not a chance.
Then there are the Roman soldiers. Considering that they were the best fighting machines in the world, it's not likely that the disciples could overpower them and knock them all out. But even if they could, why didn't they hurry and race off with the body before the soldiers came to, instead of painstakingly unwrapping all of the burial clothes and neatly folding the facecloth before making their getaway?
"OK, so maybe the soldiers stole the body."
Hardly. Think about it: The very people who have been assigned to make sure that Jesus' body isn't moved decide to move it. What a neat practical joke to pull on their superiors. Of course, it would mean their execution for becoming traitors, but what's a little death for a laugh or two?
While we're looking at evidence, let's not forget that His resurrection was something Jesus had predicted time and time again. Then, of course, there were all those Old Testament prophecies.
Once we've looked at all the facts and carefully examined the arguments, we would need more faith to believe that Jesus did not rise from the grave than to believe that He did.
In spite of the shortcomings of the hit movie, The Matrix, the first film in the trilogy raised important questions about human knowledge.
For example, how did Neo know when he was in the Matrix and when he was in the real world? If his experiences before taking the red pill were produced by the Matrix, how could he be sure his experiences after taking the red pill weren't also produced by the Matrix? In other words, how could Neo be certain he ever left the Matrix? How could he be certain that his experience of leaving the Matrix wasn't itself produced by the Matrix?
Much more importantly, if Neo could never be sure that he wasn't in the Matrix, how can you and I be sure that we're not in the Matrix? And if we can't be sure — if we can't offer an airtight argument for the conclusion that we're not — how can we claim to know anything?
Let's call this line of questioning "skepticism." In this article, I'll critique skepticism by showing that it makes indefensible assumptions about knowledge.
We can distinguish two different questions relevant to the human quest for knowledge.
Question (1) asks about the specific items of knowledge you possess; answering it gives you a picture of the extent and limits of your knowledge. Question (2) asks about the specific circumstances in which a belief would count as knowledge — it asks what all instances of knowledge have in common with each other.
Now suppose you want to appraise the intellectual respectability of your worldview and, in order to do so, decide to sort all of the beliefs that compose it into two groups: those that count as knowledge and those that do not. How should you proceed? Can you sort your beliefs with any accuracy if you don't know what the criteria for knowledge are? If not, then it seems that you should start by answering question (2). But the only way to answer question (2) is to look at instances of knowledge and see, first, what they all have in common and, second, how they differ from beliefs that don't count as knowledge. But you can only do this if you've already answered question (1).
So you can't answer question (1) if you don't first have an answer to question (2), and you can't answer question (2) if you don't first have an answer to question (1). And if you can't answer either (1) or (2), then how can you know anything at all? This predicament is what philosophers call the problem of the criterion. 1
There are three main responses to the problem of the criterion. First, there is "skepticism." The skeptic claims that no good solution to the problem exists and that we therefore can't know anything. Second, there is "methodism" (no connection to the denomination). According to the methodist, we can know things, and the solution to the problem starts with an answer to question (2). Moreover, methodists claim that a belief can only count as knowledge if you first know (a) what the criteria for knowledge are and (b) that the belief in question meets these criteria.
Unfortunately, methodism leads to serious problems. If knowledge of any belief requires prior knowledge of (a) and (b) — as methodism claims that it does — then the skeptic can ask the methodist how he knows (a) and (b). And since (a) and (b) are themselves beliefs, answering the skeptic will require the methodist to make further knowledge claims. But defending these knowledge claims will require him to make even further knowledge claims, and these will need defense as well, which will require yet more knowledge claims ... and so on and so forth to infinity. 2It would seem, then, that methodism is in trouble.
The third response to the problem of the criterion is called "particularism." According to particularists, you know many things without being able to prove that you do and without understanding how you know them. Thus you can answer question (1) without having to possess or apply any criteria for knowledge — i.e. without first answering question (2). Moreover, reflecting on your answers to question (1) will allow you to develop criteria for knowledge consistent with them. This criteria can then be used to make judgments in borderline cases of knowledge. 3But note that these criteria are justified by their congruence with specific instances of knowledge rather than the other way around, as in methodism.
Of course, the skeptic objects to particularism as well. First, he'll claim that particularism begs the question 4by simply assuming the very thing in need of proof — that some of our beliefs count as knowledge. Second, he'll try to force the particularist into methodism — and all of its problems — by asking him such questions as "How do you know you've picked out the right beliefs as instances of knowledge? Isn't it possible that you're wrong? And if it's possible that you're wrong, shouldn't you have to prove that you're not?"
Fortunately, particularism offers a good response to both of these objections. Regarding the charge that particularism begs the question, the skeptic claims the particularist must prove that some of our beliefs count as knowledge. But if the skeptic doesn't offer any reason for thinking this, his skepticism can be dismissed as arbitrary, rooted in personal preference rather than a substantive position or argument. If, on the other hand, his skepticism is the result of an argument, this argument must be reasonable to be taken seriously. But how can an argument be reasonable unless its premises count as knowledge? 5And if its premises do count as knowledge, then it can't reasonably conclude that none of our beliefs count as knowledge. Unbridled skepticism is not a rationally defensible position; it cannot be rationally asserted and defended without presupposing that some of our beliefs count as knowledge.
Regarding the skeptic's attempt to push the particularist into methodism, the particularist can resist by reaffirming that he can know things without being able to prove that he knows them. For example, the particularist could say "I know that mercy is a virtue even though I can't prove that I know it. Moreover, why think I have to prove I know it before I can know it?"
Further, the particularist argues that, just because it's possible that he's mistaken about the beliefs he counts as knowledge, that doesn't mean he is mistaken; nor does it mean he has good reason to think he's mistaken. For example, suppose I claim to know that I first visited Disneyland in 1985 and a skeptic points out that it's possible that I'm mistaken. He's right; it is possible. But it doesn't follow that I first visited Disneyland in some year other than 1985, or that I never visited Disneyland at all. Unless the skeptic gives me good reasons to think that I didn't first visit Disneyland in '85, the bare possibility that I might not have isn't sufficient to call into question my claim to know I did.
The particularist and skeptic have very different approaches to knowing. Of the two main tasks in the quest for knowledge (obtaining true beliefs and avoiding false ones), the skeptic elevates the latter over the former, whereas the particularist thinks obtaining true beliefs is at least as important as avoiding false ones. For the skeptic, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims to know something. For the particularist, the burden of proof is on the skeptic; he requires the skeptic to make a good argument for skepticism before he allows the skeptic to bother him about knowledge. And given the fact that the skeptic can only make a good argument for his skepticism by assuming the very opposite of his skepticism — that he actually knows things — the particularist sees no reason to deny what's obvious to all of us: that we know many things after all.
THE ISSUE: Can we know for sure that God really exists?
WHAT SKEPTICS SAY: It's foolish to believe in an invisible, impersonal God without empirical proof that He exists.
WHAT CHRISTIANS SAY: God's existence can't be proved. (At least scientifically.) Yet the weight of evidence not only makes it possible to believe in God's existence—it makes it very hard to ignore. The Holy Bible, as well as the accounts of reliable men and women through the ages, testify to the reality of God.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: "You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you" (Nehemiah 9:6).
While Christians can't give skeptics empirical proof of God's existence, we also can't prove the existence of some of our heavenly Father's more famous human creations—people like C.S. Lewis, George Washington or King Tut. Photographs, dollar bills and ancient artwork provide evidence that these humans existed—but not proof. Evidence points to fact. Proof asserts a fact irrefutably.
On the other hand, we can put a droplet of blood under a microscope and, through observation, give irrefutable proof (what scientists call empirical proof) of the identity of this fluid. We can even match it to a specific human or animal.
But we can't give empirical proof that C.S. Lewis, George Washington or King Tut ever existed. However, the weight of historical evidence indicates that they did exist.
The same is true of God. In fact, evidence exists in the records of all world civilizations. From prehistoric times, the idea of God has existed in the mind of humanity. Perhaps that's because, as author Bob Hostetler points out, "The idea of a Supreme Being who made the world makes sense. The concept of God is what scientists call a highly convenient hypothesis."
In other words, the concept of God fits—almost as if our minds have a feel for God. So much so, in fact, that when people reject God, they invariably substitute something else.
So, what should Christians say to a skeptic?
I doubt that all the arm-twisting or eloquent speeches can convince a nonbelieving friend that all of creation belongs to God. (In fact, arm-twisting and eloquent speeches aren't exactly God's style.) Transforming a hardened heart is actually the work of God himself. Besides, proving His existence isn't as important as telling the world what you know of His awesome nature:
For a complimentary copy of the Gospel of John, visit www.pocketpower.org.
THE ISSUE: Does current scientific data support the theory that the universe was created with intelligent design?
WHAT SKEPTICS SAY: Belief in an intelligent designer is a religious theory that has no basis in science. Scientific data supports evolutionary theory, and everyone knows it.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1).
"A big, fundamental question, like belief in God (or disbelief), is not settled by a single argument," said physicist-turned-theologian John Polkinghorne in Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity. "It's too complicated for that. What one has to do is to consider lots of different issues and see whether or not the answers one gets add up to a total picture that makes sense."
That's the approach I took in my investigation. I probed six different scientific disciplines to see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer.
When I opened my mind to the possibility of an explanation beyond naturalism, the theory denying any supernatural existence in the universe, I found that the design hypothesis — that says there is a purposeful, intelligent, created order to the universe — most clearly accounted for the evidence of science. Consider some of the facts from my investigation:
The Evidence of Cosmology
Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last 50 years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: First, whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Second, the universe had a beginning. Based on the data, virtually all cosmologists now agree the universe began in the Big Bang at some specific point in the past. Craig stressed that even alternate theories for the origin of the universe require a beginning.
The conclusion then follows from the two premises: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Even once-agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
The Evidence of Physics
One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, said physicist-philosopher Robin Collins, gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.
The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bull's-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. One expert said there are more than 30 physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.
The Evidence of Astronomy
Similar to the fine-tuning of physics, Earth's position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live.
For example, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards said it would take a star with the highly unusual properties of our sun — the right mass, the right light, the right age, the right distance, the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right location — to nurture living organisms on a circling planet. Numerous factors make our solar system and our location in the universe just right for a habitable environment.
What's more, the exceptional conditions that make life possible also happen to make our planet strangely well-suited for viewing and analyzing the universe and our environment. All of this suggests our planet may be rare, if not unique, and that the Creator wanted us to be able to explore the cosmos.
"If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence," said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O'Keefe of NASA. "It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
The Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.
More than just a devastating challenge to Darwinism, these amazing biological systems which far exceed the capacity of human technology point toward a transcendent Creator. "My conclusion," said Behe, "can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science. I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent."
The Evidence of Biological Information
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contain a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Cambridge-educated Stephen Meyer demonstrated that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.
On the contrary, he said that whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function such as books and computer code, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence.
"Information is the hallmark of a mind," Meyer said. "And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own — a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative."
The Evidence of Consciousness
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J.P. Moreland defined consciousness as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs and free choices that make us alive and aware. The "soul" contains our consciousness and animates our body.
According to a researcher who showed that consciousness can continue after a person's brain has stopped functioning, current scientific findings "would support the view that 'mind,' 'consciousness,' or the 'soul' is a separate entity from the brain."
As Moreland said, "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious, "how, then, do you get something totally different — consciousness, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures — from materials that don't have that?" But if everything started with the mind of God, he said, "we don't have a problem with explaining the origin of our mind."
Recently, I was watching a debate on television between an atheist and a believer. The Christian had presented several arguments to support the idea that the physical universe of space, time and matter had not existed forever, but rather came into existence a finite period of time ago. He went on to argue that the best explanation for this fact is that there is a First Cause — God — who caused the universe to come into being.
At that point in the debate, the atheist responded, "If you say that everything needs a cause and so there must be a cause for the beginning of the universe, then what caused God? And if you say that God is the first cause and nothing caused Him, then why not just say that the universe itself is the first cause and nothing caused it? Postulating a God is both unhelpful and unnecessary."
Fortunately, the believer was prepared to give an answer to this response, but would you have been ready? What would you say if presented with this argument? Let's see if we can make some progress in formulating an answer.
The first thing to notice is that there is something wrong with the question, "Who or what caused God?" To understand the problem, I need to introduce a simple notion in logic called a category fallacy. A category fallacy is the mistake of ascribing the wrong feature to the wrong thing. For example, asking, "How many inches long is the smell of a rose?" or "What does the note C taste like?" seems to assume that smells have length and sounds have taste. Both assumptions commit a category fallacy.
You can commit a category fallacy about something even if that thing does not exist, as long as you have a concept of what the thing would be if it were to exist. For example, unicorns do not exist, but we have a concept of what a unicorn would be if it were to exist, namely, a one-horned horse. Given this concept, the question "How many iron filings does a unicorn attract?" commits a category fallacy (it falsely assumes that unicorns have magnetic properties which, given our concept of a unicorn, is a confusion of categories).
Now, the question, "What caused X?" can only be asked of things that by definition — by their very concept — are causable sorts of things. I can ask, "What caused the Earth to come into existence? What could cause unicorns to exist if there were such things? What caused the universe 1to come into existence?" because all these things — the Earth, a unicorn, the universe — are things that by their very nature have, in fact, come into existence. So it is not a mistake to ask a question about what caused something if the object itself is the sort of thing that could be, or in fact, was caused to exist.
But the very concept of God in the world's monotheistic religions is a concept of a necessary being, "the uncausable Creator of everything else." Given this concept of God, the question "Who or what caused God?" becomes this question: "Who or what caused something which, given a widely shared concept of God, whether He exists or not, is an uncausable thing?" Or more briefly, "Who caused God which by definition is uncausable?" It is a category fallacy to ask about the cause of something that by definition is not causable. You can only ask such a question of causable things. So the question, "Who caused God?" is like the question "What does the note C taste like?" It's a pointless mistake.
"Hold it just a minute," you may be thinking. "Though I can't quite put my finger on it, this response seems to be cheating. It's too nifty, too quick." If you are thinking this way, I believe you may be having one of two worries about my answer.
First, you may be thinking that my answer assumes that God exists, but that is precisely what we are debating. So I can't assume the existence of God to respond to the objection, "Who or what made God?" If you are thinking this way, you're wrong.
Remember, when atheists and theists debate the existence of God, most of the time they agree about the topic of debate. They both agree about the concept of God, about what God would be if there was such a thing. Otherwise, they would be talking past each other and wouldn't share a common concept of God, which is a requirement to have such a debate in the first place! They simply differ about whether there is anything real to which the concept applies.
Two people debating the existence of unicorns share a common concept of a unicorn even if they differ about the reality of unicorns themselves. The believer simply points out that, given this common concept of God we share in this debate "the uncausable Creator of everything else," one cannot ask what caused such a being without committing a category fallacy. And this point holds even if there is no God.
Second, you may be worried that the concept of God as "the uncausable Creator of everything else" is itself arbitrary. What if some people have a different concept of God? In the next section, I'll show that this concept of God is far from arbitrary, but for now, let's grant that it is and that there are other concepts of God people use. The only rival concept relevant to our topic would be a concept of a finite god; one that itself needs a cause.
Now, I admit that if someone holds to such a concept of god, then the question of who or what made a finite god is, indeed, a legitimate one. But that's their problem not mine. I don't hold to such a concept. When I talk to others about God; I am interested in arguing that the Christian God, not just any old god, exists. So while advocates of a finite deity need to answer the question about who created the god in which they believe, I don't because I don't share that concept of God. Given the Christian concept of God, the question of whom or what made this God is a category fallacy. I don't make this point to show that there is such a God. I make it to show that the question is not one I need to answer given the sort of God in whose existence I am interested.
To see that the Christian concept of God is not arbitrary, consider the following example. Suppose Fred owes Bill money. Fred, who has no money in his checking account, writes Bill a check to cover the debt. Fred gets a check from Harry to cover his check to Bill, but sadly, Harry has no money either, so he get a check from Robert (who also has no money) to cover his check to Fred.
Now this chain of check writers cannot go on forever like this. If it does, Bill will never receive the money he is owed. This is because Fred, Harry and Robert are borrowing lenders! They can't give what they don't have. If the chain doesn't eventually reach someone who has money in his account, there will be no money passed down the chain to poor old Bill.
Similarly, one thing — let's call it "A" — can't be the ultimate cause for the existence of something else — call it "B" — if "A" first has to come into existence before it can cause "B." Like the chain of lenders, one has to stop with a First Cause — something that does not need to borrow existence from something else to loan it to the next link in the chain.
At some point there has to be something that exists in itself — a necessary being, a being that is the uncausable cause of everything else. Thus, the concept of such a being is not arbitrary, but is required by reason.
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" 1 Corinthians 15:17,19.
I set out as a young man to debunk Christianity. I met a young Christian woman who challenged me to intellectually examine the evidence for Christianity, and I accepted her challenge. I aimed to show her—and everyone—that Christianity was nonsense. I thought it would be easy. I thought a careful investigation of the facts would expose Christianity as a lie and its followers as dupes.
But then a funny thing happened. As I began investigating the claims of Christianity, I kept running up against the evidence. Time after time, I was surprised to discover the factual basis for the seemingly outlandish things Christians believe. And one of the most convincing categories of evidence I confronted was this: The resurrection accounts found in the Gospels are not the stuff of fable, forgery or fabrication.
I had assumed that someone, or several someones, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible mythmaker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. As much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first-century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently:
I would wait a prudent period after the events before "publishing" my account.
Few historians dispute the fact that the disciples of Jesus began preaching the news of His resurrection soon after the event itself; in fact, Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) occurred within 50 days of the Resurrection. And textual research indicates that the written accounts of the Resurrection, especially the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, are astoundingly early in origin, possibly within two years of the event. Such early origins argue against any notion that the Resurrection accounts are legendary.
I would publish my account far from the venue where it supposedly happened.
Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "One of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian faith did not come to exist in some distant city, far from eyewitnesses who knew of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies."
I would select my "witnesses" very carefully.
I would avoid, as much as possible, using any names at all in my account, and I would certainly avoid citing prominent personalities as witnesses. Yet at least 16 individuals are mentioned by name as witnesses in the various accounts, and the mention of Joseph of Arimathea as the man who buried Jesus would have been terribly dangerous if the gospel accounts had been faked or embellished. As a member of the Sanhedrin, a Jewish "Supreme Court," he would have been well-known. J. P. Moreland writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case."
His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted. Perhaps most important, I would avoid citing disreputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances-to women-since in that time and culture women were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law. If the accounts were fabrications, the women would never have been included in the story, at least not as first witnesses.
I would surround the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens.
As Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide writes, "We do not read in the first testimonies [of the Resurrection] of an apocalyptic spectacle, exorbitant sensations, or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event. . . . According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood, its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to 'improve upon' or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthiness."
I would painstakingly correlate my account with others I knew, embellishing the legend only where I could be confident of not being contradicted.
Many critics have pointed out the befuddling differences and apparent contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. But these are actually convincing evidences of their authenticity; they display an ingenuous lack of collusion, agreeing and (apparently) diverging much as eyewitness accounts of any event do.
I would portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically.
Yet the Gospel writers present strikingly unflattering portraits of Jesus' followers (such as Peter and Thomas) and their often skeptical reactions (Mark 16:11, 13; Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:19, 25, 21:4). Such portrayals are very unlike the popular myths and legends of that (or any) time.
I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account.
If I were creating a resurrection legend, I would keep the tomb's location a secret to prevent any chance that someone might discover Jesus' body, or I would record in my account that the angels sealed it or carried it off into heaven after the Resurrection. Or I might have taken the easiest course of all and simply made my fictional resurrection a "spiritual" one, which would have made it impossible to refute even if a body were eventually discovered. But, of course, the Gospel accounts describe the owner of the tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) and its location ("At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41), and identify Jesus' resurrection as a bodily one (John 20:27).
I would try to squelch inquiry or investigation.
I might pronounce a curse on anyone attempting to substantiate my claims, or attach a stigma to anyone so shallow as to require evidence. Yet note the frequent appeal of Jesus' disciples, to the easily confirmed-or discredited-nature of the evidence, as though inviting investigation (Acts 2:32, 3:15, 13:31; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6). This was done within a few years of the events themselves; if the tomb were not empty or the Resurrection appearances were fiction, the early Christians' opponents could have conclusively debunked the new religion.
As Dr. Edwin Yamauchi says of the citation of the resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people in 1 Corinthians 15, "What gives special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' "
I would not preach a message of repentance in light of the Resurrection.
No one in his right mind would have chosen to create a fictional message that would invite opposition and persecution from both civil and religious authorities of those days. How much easier and wiser it would have been to preach a less controversial gospel—concentrating on Jesus' teachings about love, perhaps-thus saving myself and the adherents of my new religion a lot of trouble.
I would stop short of dying for my lie.
Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.
"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."
These are not the only reasons I believe in the truth of the Bible and the reality of the Resurrection. But these were among the "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3) that I encountered in my attempts to prove Christianity wrong, which eventually led me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be and that He really did rise from the dead. It didn't happen immediately, but eventually I gave in to the truth, and on Dec. 19, 1959, the Risen Christ radically changed my life. I've seen Him do the same for countless others, and I pray, if you haven't done so already, you will let Him do the same for you.
At one point in the classic book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, an exasperated professor utters the words, "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?" 1Lewis not only believed in truth, but also in our ability to use logic as an aid in determining truth.
Although it is true that logic studied as a formal discipline can lead to challenging formulas and diagrams, in a basic sense we all use it regularly. In reading this article, for example, you are using logic to interpret the words you see. Without logic, you could not make sense of this sentence. Interpreting a rational sentence requires a rational mind with the ability to comprehend words that are structured in a way that makes sense — in short, words that are organized logically.
Historically, Aristotle was the first to explore logic as a formal discipline, but he did not invent it. The underlying principles of logic are readily discernible. We use them every day to get through some of the simplest decisions and actions in life.
Logicians generally offer four broad principles or laws of logic.
First, the law of identity makes the obvious observation that something is itself and, therefore, cannot be something else (A is A).
Second, the law of non-contradiction deals with the concept of antithesis and states that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense (A is not non-A).
Third, the law of excluded middle is often presented as "either A or non-A." For instance, God either exists or He does not exist.
Fourth, the law of bivalence assesses propositions as either being true or false. "God exists" is either a true or a false statement. 2
Furthermore, the Bible is not against logic. In fact, biblical Christianity encourages the use of the mind. In Isaiah 1:18 (NIV) we read, "'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD." In the New Testament Jesus is clear that we are to love God — not only with all our heart, soul, and strength, but also with our mind (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27).
Christians are also called to defend the truth by appealing to reason and evidence (Acts 26:25; 1 Peter 3:15). Acts 1:3, for example, says Jesus "gave many convincing proofs" as evidence for His resurrection. In Acts 26:25-26, after the Apostle Paul gives his testimony and outlines the gospel message, he is accused of being insane. Paul replies: "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner."
In Acts 26, Paul uses logic to make his case for Christianity. He appeals to his own experiential testimony (noting how he used to persecute Christians), makes mention of the resurrection of Christ, and implies that many are aware of the events surrounding the gospel of Christ. Logically, Paul believes the Christian message because of the evidence, both experiential (his encounter with Christ) and evidential (the case for the resurrection, for instance, and the testimony of witnesses).
First Peter 3:15 also appeals to logic: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." The Greek word translated as "answer" is apologia and was used in reference to giving a legal defense. In this passage, Peter calls readers "to give the reason for the hope that you have." Reasons presuppose the validity of reason and logic.
The appeal in Acts 1:3 to "many convincing proofs" again relates to logic because a reasonable appeal is made to the evidence for the resurrection. In other words, Luke, the author of Acts, is not asking for blind faith, but faith founded on logical inferences. The New Testament records that many people saw Christ after his death, that Christ proved he was raised bodily by eating food and by inviting doubting Thomas to touch him (John 21:12-13; Luke 24:38-43). These are all logical appeals to evidence and reason.
As a former atheist, C.S. Lewis was well aware of the role that reason played in his conversion to Christianity. That's why he offered reasonable, logical arguments in support of his beliefs. In doing so, Lewis often utilized what is known as abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is similar to reasoning used by the scientific community in that it uses reasonable evidence to come to the best explanation.
In making his case for Christianity, Lewis used abductive reasoning to argue that the Christian explanation of reality — the Christian worldview — is more reasonable and probable than the alternatives.
In part two of this article, I describe two of Lewis' key arguments that use abductive reasoning: the argument from Christ and the argument from longing.
As I mentioned in part one of this article, C.S. Lewis used abductive reasoning to argue that the Christian explanation of reality — the Christian worldview — is more reasonable and probable than the alternatives. (Recall that abductive reasoning is similar to reasoning used by scientists in that it uses reasonable evidence to come to the best explanation.)
Now I'll take a closer look at two of Lewis' key arguments that use abductive reasoning:
Jesus once asked his disciples, "Who do people say I am?" After hearing a few replies, he put forth a more pointed and personal question: "'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'" (Mark 8:27-29).
In exploring the alternatives regarding the claims of Christ, Lewis used abductive reasoning to conclude that the most probable explanation is that Jesus is who He said He was. In Mere Christianity, Lewis provides a brief presentation of his argument: "I'm trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." 1
Beyond some biblical hints at such reasoning (John 8:48-49 and John 10:33), the core of this argument goes back to Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339), who outlined it in Demonstratio Evangelica ("Proof of the Gospel"). Lewis popularized the argument in Mere Christianity. Since then, several apologists have expanded it to include other alternatives beyond the traditional "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" options. 2Based on the evidence and the truth of the Bible, these apologists, like Lewis, conclude that the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus is who He claimed to be.
Another line of reasoning Lewis used is called the argument from longing or desire. In it, he not only makes the case for God, but also the case for heaven.
Lewis believed that everyone experiences sensations of desire and longing. We may spend a lifetime trying to fulfill these desires by pursuing earthly pleasures such as taking vacations, moving from one sexual partner to another, or trying different hobbies — "always thinking that the latest is 'The Real Thing' at last — yet always ending up disappointed."
Our experience tells us, Lewis continues, that "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex." 3
How, then, can we explain deep inner longings that we have that nothing in this world seems to satisfy? Of course, it would make sense to begin by demonstrating that human beings do indeed have these longings. Some might argue that not everyone does have these desires or that they really do not point to God. Lewis disagreed, though, arguing that our longings for the 'other' — even though they may manifest themselves in different ways, such as material pursuits — are really longings for the transcendent joy that is found in God alone. 4
The fact that we have this longing, combined with the fact that nothing on earth can truly satisfy it, led Lewis to this reasonable conclusion: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." 5
In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the professor concludes that a little girl named Lucy is telling the truth about her claims to have visited a world called Narnia. He does this by using abductive reasoning. The professor rationally explores the alternative explanations and concludes that they are unlikely. "For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up," argues the professor, "we must assume that she is telling the truth." 6
In making the case for Christianity, we, too, can use logic such as abductive reasoning. If we can provide arguments and evidence that Christianity is more reasonable and probable than other explanations of reality, then it is rational to conclude — "for the moment and unless any further evidence turns up" — that Christianity is, as the apostle Paul said, "true and reasonable" (Acts 26:25). 7


text:
- 1 Boy, 4, drowns in Tucson apartment pool ID'd
- 2 Border agent shoots, kills man southwest of Tucson
- 3 UA basketball: O'Neill says Cats in glory days
- 4 Tucson man checks off milestones after devastating diagnosis
- 5 Tucsonan found guilty fatal marijuana deal
- 6 Tales from the Morgue: A jet crashes in Tucson
- 7 Hansen: Palouse finally warms up
- 8 Final Southern Arizona high school football scores
- 9 UA football: Can Cats weather Pullman voyage?
- 10 Ironwood Ridge runs past defending champion Salpointe
High school volleyball: I-Ridge set for quarterfinals - Comments
We welcome your comments. Commentary and photos submitted to StarNet (azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)
No short set of guidelines such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.
Most Popular
Follow the Arizona Daily Star
Featured businessesView more...
Deals, offers & eventsView more...
Homecoming dresses, cocktail dresses, bridesmaids dresses, and tons of accessories! Use the promo code, SDB for 10% off your order of $100 or more! Shop Satin Doll Boutique online today! Click here!
Looking for the latest styles in dresses and jewelry? Satin D…
Schools Out for Summer! What are Your Kids Doing for Summer Fun!? Come to Creative Juice, We're Offering Kids Camps and Classes!
We have several options for kids and families!
Party dresses for prom, homecoming, quinceaneras, bridesmaids, and even lots of jewelry! Satin Doll Boutique has the best online store in Tucson! Click here!
Not sure where to find your next party dress? Satin Doll Bouti…
Save! New Customers - Refrigerator repair $12 off! at Dependable Refrigeration LLC call 520-888-7039
Good for Repairs Only. Cannot be combined with other offers.
Be sure to prepare your trees for winter! Arapahoe Tree Surgeons is your licensed and insured tree specialist of choice! CALL TODAY! 520-883-7727
Not sure who to turn to your tree needs this year? Arapahoe T…


text:
Every element of this wall sconce - the backplate, arm, armback, cup, and bobeche - shares the same language of detail: a crisp rib and flute pattern. Constructed of cast bronze and tooled brass.
FINISH: Medium Antique Brass
overall: 10" h. x 10-1/2" w. x 7" d.
backplate: 8" h. x 4-1/4" w.
Please contact your local showroom about viewing this item.
All Sample Sale items are sold AS IS. No Refunds or Exchanges permitted.
Manufactured using 95% recycled brass


text:
The Best D.C. Restos For Diners Who Like To Try, Well, Everything
0 comments
Photo: Via Zagat
Please upgrade your browser for the best Refinery29 experience. Read more.
0 comments
You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you just might find — wait, we got off track. You can't always get what you want, and on Thursday, September 11, such was the case for disappointed young Madison, a student at Washington, D.C.'s Inspired Teaching School. She had been told that a special read
On one special night of the year, the men and women in D.C. trade in their pocket protectors and ID lanyards for pocket squares and custom gowns to attend the White House Correspondents' Dinner at the famous Washington Hilton Ballroom. As I mingled through the pre-parties last week, the conversations focused not around read


text: Bulgaria bomb victims flown home Add to ... Reuters Video Published Friday, Jul. 20 2012, 3:20 AM EDT Last updated Friday, Jul. 20 2012, 3:22 AM EDT Five coffins draped in the Israeli flag arrived at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv in the early hours of Friday morning after a suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed seven people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Watch More Video: Monica Lewinsky speaks about 'shame' around her affair with Bill Clinton 'Cadaver dogs' specially trained to sniff out human remains Oscar Pistorius sentenced to five years in prison Delta police officer charged in 2012 shooting Family condemns RCMP response in de Groot manhunt Stephen Harper defends Canada's Ebola aid response GoPro footage captures intimate moments of B.C. grizzly families Sweden says reports of foreign submarine in its waters are credible Search crews looking for missing Virginia student find human remains Anti-Islamic State fighters claim control of Kobani neighborhood Social media video shows chaos as New Hampshire pumpkin festival devolves into riots Quarantine expires for Ebola victim's Texas fiancée, family members Church should not fear change on views of homosexuality and divorce, Pope says Rob Ford asked to leave advance poll Ryan Reynolds and Rachel McAdams celebrated on Walk of Fame Deadly Himalayan blizzard caught on camera Hong Kong activists recapture streets after police crackdown Philippine militants free two German hostages Obama says Ebola travel ban could make things worse 16 dead after falling through ventilation shaft at South Korea pop concert Comments AA More Related to this Story Raw video: Bulgaria bombing suspect spotted on camera Video: Explosion shreds Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria Follow us on Twitter: @globeandmail


text:
The Office of the Secretary functions as the administrative arm of the Secretary of the University. The Office maintains custody of the seal, charter, and bylaws of the University and is responsible for ensuring accurate records of the proceedings of the Board of Trustees and the University Senate.
The Office also serves as the administrative liaison for the University with the Board of Trustees and the University Senate, arranging and providing notice of Board and Senate meetings as well as other matters affecting the memberships of these bodies.
Cara Terzulli
Manager of Operations, Office of Secretary & Chief of Staff
Laura A. Russo
Administrative Coordinator, Office of the General Counsel & Office of the Secretary


text: USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford Connects your iPod to select 2005-up Ford factory stereos with the satellite tuner installed Zoom Front Photos Videos Does it work with my system? Item #: 581P15FRD2 Review Summary 9 people say In Stock Free Crutchfield lifetime tech support Free Shipping Your price $159.99 Add to cart + Add to wishlist Email me alerts for this product Buy this item and earn up to 160 Rewards points See more offers and ways to save Special Financing Available x By buying this product you'll earn up to 160 Rewards points. When you sign up for a Crutchfield account, you'll be enrolled in Crutchfield Rewards. You'll earn one point for every dollar you spend on gear from us. You can turn your points into Rewards Cards that you can use toward future purchases. You can sign up for an account now, or after you complete your purchase (you'll get credit for the points either way). Sign up for a Crutchfield account Overview Details Customer Reviews Q&A Our take on the USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford by Zak Billmeier You can take it with you. Just because you've got a factory radio in your Ford, doesn't mean you have to leave your iPod (and the hours and hours of music it contains) at home. Just install USA Spec's iPod interface it not only allows you to listen to all your favorite tunes through your car's speakers, it even lets you control song and playlist selections right from your radio. And with your iPhone® connected, you can even stream music from popular Internet services like PANDORA®, Livio Radio, iHeartRadio, and more. Just mount the compact interface box in a hidden location in your vehicle, and connect the adapter cable to your compatible Ford factory radio. Plug your iPod into the interface you can control volume, source, song selection, and up to five different play lists right from the radio. USA Spec's Direct Mode lets your passenger control the tunes using the iPod itself. The interface charges most iPods while connected, and you'll get a handy auxiliary input for connecting an MP3 player or another source. You'll get a handy auxiliary input for connecting other sources, such as a satellite radio or another type of MP3 player. Please enter your vehicle information or call an Advisor at 1-888-955-6000 to find out if this adapter is compatible with your vehicle. Compatibility Note: Be sure to check "Details" for specific iPod model compatibility with this iPod adapter. See more info on this item Highlights:iPod connection adapter for select 2005-up Ford factory stereos with an active satellite tunermanage the iPod via your radio's satellite radio controls, but you'll retain the use of your satellite radioadjust volume, track up/down, fast forward/rewinduse up to five playlists (select five favorites, or Auto Playlist will let you choose from the first five on your iPod)when iPhone is connected, you can stream tunes from popular Internet services like PANDORA®, Livo Radio, and iHeartRadioHybrid Mode allows you to control everything via the iPod itself, giving you access to all playlistswarranty: 1 yearOur 60-day money-back guarantee Hands-on research from the Crutchfield Labs (what are the Labs?) What's in the box? | In-depth notes Product Research What's in the box? Download owner's manual PA15-Ford2 iPod-to-Ford interface module CB-PA105 6' iPod interface cable (with an Apple iPod connector on one end and a proprietary 10-pin connector on other end) 16' Vehicle harness (CDL-FORDx) Preliminary Owner's Manual Our Product Research Team At Crutchfield, you'll get detailed, accurate information that's hard to find elsewhere. That's because we have our own in-house Product Research team — they open the box, verify contents, check the owner's manual, and record dimensions, features and specs. We stay on top of new products and technologies to help people make informed choices. Features Overview: The USA Spec PA15-FORD2 iPod-to-Ford car stereo interface allows a compatible iPod with a dock connector to be connected to and controlled by the factory radio (with Satellite Radio tuner) in select Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles. If you vehicle is not equipped with a Sirius Satellite Radio tuner, the USA SPEC PA15-FORD1 (581P15FRD1, sold separately) must be used. Vehicle Compatibility: This interface enables a compatible iPod to exist with a Ford/Lincoln/Mercury factory radio (with Satellite Radio tuner) and control your iPod via the vehicle's factory radio and steering wheel controls, or the iPod's click-wheel/touch-screen. Non-navigation radios must have both Aux and Text buttons for the PA15-FORD2 interface to function properly. Please consult the Crutchfield Car Selector to see if your vehicle is compatible. iPod Compatibility: The PA15-FORD2 is "Made for iPod/iPhone" compatible and supports the following iPod/iPhone model features when connected to a compatible Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury factory radio (as of 10/2/2013): iPod/iPhone Model Generation Tested Version Media Type Control Type Display Type Charge Audio Video Head Unit iPod/iPhone Song/Artist Text Track Info video 5th 1.3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y classic 80GB 1.1.2 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 120GB 2.0.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 160GB 2.0.4 Y N Y Y Y Y Y nano 1st 1.3.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 2nd 1.1.3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 3rd 1.1.3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 4th 1.0.4 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 5th 1.0.2 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 6th 1.2 PC Y N Y Y Y Y Y 7th* 1.2 Y N Y Y Y Y Y touch 1st 2.2.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 2nd 4.2.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 3rd 5.1.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 4th 6.1.3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 5th* 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y iPhone 2G 3.1.3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 3G 4.2.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 3GS 5.1.1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 4 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 4S 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 5* 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 5C* 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y 5S* 7.0 Y N Y Y Y Y Y iPad 1 5.0.1 N N N N N N N 2 7.0 N N N N N N N 3 7.0 N N N N N N N 4 7.0 N N N N N N N mini 7.0 N N N N N N N Notes: *Requires Apple Lightning to 30-pin Adapter cable (472LTN230P, sold separately). Apple iPod/iPhone software updates may change functionality results. If you download a newer software version, you may need to reset the head unit and your iPod/iPhone to regain functionality. If this doesn't work, you may need to wait until a newer software update is available. iPod Control: The USA Spec PA15-FORD2's on-board software translates commands from your factory radio's Sirius control into commands that will control your connected iPod. There are two modes of controlling your iPod: Folder Mode: Access four folders (Playlist, Artist, Album, All Songs) on your iPod from your factory radio's Sirius Satellite Radio presets 1-4. Direct Mode: All the controls on the iPod are unlocked, giving you total control remotely; the radio still has basic controls; track up, track down, fast forward, and fast reverse. Direct Mode is accessed from your factory radio's Sirius Satellite Radio preset 5. Note: Direct Mode allows you to play music streamed from Pandora.com and Sirius/XM Online from a connected iPhone or iPod touch through your factory radio. iPod Text: The Artist name, song title album name, and playlist text can be displayed on the radio when using the Folder control mode. Battery Charge: The PA15-FORD2 charges iPod battery when connected. Charging stops automatically half-an-hour after your iPod is paused. Auxiliary Input: In addition to the iPod input on the PA15-FORD2, there is an auxiliary input (RCA) for use with another source, such as a DVD system, satellite radio, etc. This aux input can be used with or without the iPod connected. The aux input is enabled by setting the DIP switch #1 on the side of the interface adapter to the "On" position. The auxiliary source is accessed on the factory using Satellite Radio preset 6. Review this product Submit a review and then enter to win a $500 rewards card USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford Reviews Average Customer Review: 9 people say: Review this product: Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences about this product. Please be sure to focus your comments on the product itself. Read our Review Guidelines for more information. Review title * Email Your email won't be visible. Please use the email address that is associated with your order. Display name (e.g., JohnD) Your review will be signed using the display name and location * Your location (e.g., Charlottesville, VA) * Your rating Click on a star to rate the overall product on a scale of 1-5 1500 characters left * Your review Attach a YouTube Review Crutchfield Video Review Guidelines Only submit videos that you made or are authorized to use. Do not submit videos that contain music, video or visuals that are copyrighted and belong to someone else. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. Submit the URL of your YouTube™ video review or product demonstration. e.g., "http://www.youtube.com/v/o79TWHh598U" 500 characters left Pros 500 characters left Cons * Agree to Terms By checking this box you agree your review becomes the property of Crutchfield, that you are over 18 years of age, that you own or have owned this product, and that you are located within the United States or its territories. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. We reserve the right (but are not obligated to) review all submissions and edit or remove any review in any manner which we deem necessary. Your review should be posted within seven days. Filter by rating: 5 Star: (0) 4 Star: (0) 3 Star: (0) 2 Star: (0) 1 Star: (0) 5 out of 5 Excellent Written By 2008 Mustang Bullitt GT, North Carolina on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Excellent product. Bought the one for a Shaker 500 w/o the Satellite tuner by mistake, Crutchfield sent me a return shipping address and switched it out for the correct version, no problem. 5 minute installation, sounds great. Wrapped everything in bubble wrap and put it in the fender well above the satellite tuner in the trunk. Pros: Easy installation, sounds great. Shows the track name on the stock radio. Cons: None. Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford Written By MikeMc, St. Louis mo on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Works great! Very, very easy to install Pros: Easy install Cons: None Was this review helpful? Yes | No 1 out of 5 Not great! Written By ChrisS, Kansas City, MO on Friday, April 19, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) The product works okay if you don't care what song you are on. After installing this item I wanted to change songs using my seek button on the steering wheel of my truck and unfortunately it skips to the next playlist instead of the next song on the playlist. The whole reason I was purchasing this product was for integration with the options on the truck so I wouldn't have to replace the factory stereo. Crutchfield's customer service was excellent and allowed me to return the product for a full refund. I highly recommend Crutchfield but do not recommend this ipod interface. Cons: Integration into the factory system is a joke. I don't know anyone who wants to switch playlists from the steering wheel control. Was this review helpful? Yes | No 4 out of 5 USA Spec IPod interfacr Written By tony t, Oakland, NJ on Monday, December 31, 2012 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Purchased as a gift for my daughter... She saw a similar unit on another web site... I returned it to Crutchfield as the USA Spec unit does not support "bluetooth" as the other unit does.... My daughter wanted the bluetooth connectivity. Pros: Price and crutchfield Cons: No Bluetooth Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Perfect Written By Ed, Deep East Texas on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Installation was a simple do it yourself in my 06' F150. One hitch. After I plugged everything in my satellite radio was disabled. Called tech support - quick answer - unplug the factory lead - wait two minutes - turn on the ignition - plug in the factory lead - perfect. Works just like it should. 2 out of 2 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great for a F150 Written By xcape, Austin, TX on Saturday, September 10, 2011 Just put this in my truck.. No tools were needed at all.. 1 - Snapped of the panel that surrounds the radio (be careful with the pins.. ease it off from the top down) 2 - The Sirius receiver is right below the radio with the cable connections facing you. 3 - Unplugged the Sirius and put the USA Spec in line, 4 - Ok, may be a bit ghetto, but I just wedged the USA Spec between the radio and the Sirius, it hasn't made any noise in the past 7 days, but we'll see.. 5 - Ran the iPod cable out through the driver (right foot) kick plate, it pops right off when pulled, and snaps back on.. Ran the cable down the between the seat and console and done.. You can improve your install as you'd like but this is fine for me.. All functions work right from the radio..NICE.. Only thing it doesn't do is allow you to hear the phone or voice mail thought the radio.. its not a speaker phone.. You'll have to do true bluetooth for that... 2 out of 2 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Finally, something that works. Written By Bob of West Haven, West Haven, CT on Thursday, December 02, 2010 This guy installed in my 05 Focus just as advertised. Everything fit and it worked perfectly. A few easy steps - disconnect battery, remove face plate (easy, pops right out), remove radio (4 screws), connect the harness and gizmo as illustrated (90 seconds), put the radio back in, put the face plate back on, reconnect the battery and that's it. I was amazed at how easy it was! I highly recommend this product if you have a 05 to 07 Focus. Was this review helpful? Yes | No 4 out of 5 USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford Written By TP, ASHBURN, VA on Saturday, October 02, 2010 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Very good product and pricing. Just wish I could chose my specific genres of music on my ipod while using the factory radio. Overall, excellent product. Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Music and Books on the go Written By Anonymous, Chicago, IL on Thursday, January 21, 2010 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) What's to say, easy to install and easy to use. In my 2006 Ford F-150 I didn't even need to use any tools. All access panels were snap off and back on. I use this with an iPhone and when I plug it in, it starts playing my audiobook right where I left off. The navigation of the iPhone menus using my factory radio is easy and displays all the information I could care to see. By using the preset radio buttons you can switch between playlists and artists easily. There is a direct mode (radio preset 5) available so I can use the iPhone touch screen. I canceled my satellite radio and in direct mode, I can stream Pandora directly to my radio. The Sound Is GREAT! 5 out of 7 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No For a more in-depth review and enhanced detailed information on the USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford, please visit the Crutchfield website product page (/ISEO-rccbcspd/p_581P15FRD2/USA-Spec-iPod-Interface-for-Ford.html ). × Front Searches related to the USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford Connects your iPod to select 2005-up Ford factory stereos with the satellite tuner installed USA Spec USA Spec iPod® Adapters for Factory Radios iPod® Adapters for Factory Radios under $200 USA Spec iPod® Interface for Ford reviews


text:
Shop By Designer
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join Us
Get your pup ready for Halloween with the Pumpkin Pup Sweater - 8". The sweaters are 100% acrylic and machine wash and dry very nicely.
To determine the size - measure from the base of the neck to the base of the tail. For dogs with a little more weight or fluff, go up a size.
Enter your zip code or sign in to view shipping information. For more detailed information see our shipping page.


text:
OK, not my best showing in choosing which movies would get Oscar nominated but not my worst.
Here's how the Oscar Nominations went.
(green = correct picks)
(red = incorrect picks)
(blue = totally missed it)
Overall I got 63% of my picks right. Sigh.
Looks like the French movie Amour got me. I have yet to see it, but there's still time before the Oscars are awarded on Feb 24th.
Best Actress in a Leading Role: 80% Correct
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Naomi Watts - The Impossible
Helen Mirren - Hitchcock
Quvenzhane wallis - Beasts Of The Southern Wild
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Best Actor in a Leading Role: 60% Correct
Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
Jack Black - Bernie
Bill Murray - Hyde Park On Hudson
Daniel Day Lewis - Lincoln
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserable
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
Denzel Washington - Flight
Best Animated Feature: 60% Correct
Wreck It Ralph
Rise Of The Guardians
The Lorax
The Pirates! Band Of Misfits
Best Director: 40% Correct
Kathyrn Bigelow - Zero Dark Thirty
Wes Anderson - Moonrise Kingdom
Ben Affleck - Argo
Ang Lee - Life Of Pi
Steven Speilberg - Lincoln
Behn Zeitlin - Beasts Of The Southern Wild
Michael Haneke - Amour
David O Russell - Silver Linings Playbook
Best Picture: 77% Correct
Zero Dark Thirty
Moonrise Kingdom
Les Miserables
The Impossible
Django Unchained
Life Of Pi
Silver Linings Playbook
Beasts Of The Southern Wild
Here's the rest of the nominations. Coming soon...who will win and who should win.


text:
UM-Dearborn named third-safest campus in Michigan in 2011, according to StateUniversity.com.
January 18, 2012
UM-Dearborn named third-safest campus in Michigan in 2011
DEARBORN / Jan. 17, 2012 Hundreds of trucks, vans and sedans canvass University of Michigan-Dearborns parking lots on a daily basis. And in 2011, those vehicles exited campus with their rightful owners. Not a single motor vehicle theft was reported to UM-Dearborns Department of Public Safety last year.
The same can be said for assaults, robberies and burglaries, according to the Universitys 2011 crime statistics.
Zero thats a hard number to meet, said UM-Dearborn Police Chief Rick Gordon.
Especially when it comes to motor vehicle thefts, he said. Three such thefts were reported on campus in 2010, with another 11 in 2009 and eight a piece in 2007 and 2008.
Larceny complaints also are on a gradual downswing, as the department received 36 larceny complaints in 2011, many of which involved electronic devices. Gordon said popular items include iPods, GPS units, laptop computers and cellphones, some of which were taken from the Mardigian Library when left unattended. But 36 thefts is a far cry from the 62 reported larcenies in 2009.
Gordon, in part, credits the dwindling crime statistics to increased patrols on campus.
We want to make ourselves more visible so people think twice before committing crimes on campus, he said. We put a real emphasis on high visibility.
Public safety officers patrol campus 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Alex Mich, a UM-Dearborn senior studying history, can confirm that.
Mich works at the Universitys Wellness Center and often sees patrol vehicles on campus, even when he punches in at 6 a.m. Its just another reason why Mich said he feels safe on campus.
Certainly, with their presence, its going to curtail crime quite a bit, Mich said. I feel just as safe as I have been before, but its nice to know there has been an improvement.
And although officers often can be seen driving through campus, they also are required to leave their vehicles and walk through academic buildings to expand their presence.
Theyre on foot all the time, Gordon said.
Gordon said officers often approach students at the library to remind them about protecting their valuables if they decide to step away from their workstation.
These students just have to make sure their stuff is secure, he said.
The department works closely with the City of Dearborns Police Department on certain investigations, and Gordon also emails public safety advisories across campus when officers detect an ongoing crime trend.
If things crop up, like an epidemic of a certain vehicle being stolen, we put an advisory out for that, he said.
The departments increased visibility and mission to ensure campus safety played a role in UM-Dearborn being named the third-safest campus in Michigan in 2011, according to StateUniversity.com. The website devoted to providing information about colleges and universities throughout the country also named UM-Dearborn the third-safest campus in Michigan in 2010.
The University received a safety rating of nearly 96 percent based on various crime statistics from 2011, including burglary, larceny and aggravated assault. The only two institutions ranked ahead of UM-Dearborn, in regard to safety, are Oakland Community College and Delta College, located near Saginaw, Mich. To see where other colleges and universities in Michigan rank, visit www.stateuniversity.com/rank_by_state/safety_score_rank/MI.html.
Founded in 1959 with a gift of just over 200 acres of land and $6.5 million from the Ford Motor Company, University of Michigan-Dearborn is a metropolitan university serving southeastern Michigan, committed to excellence rooted in strong academics, innovative research and programming and civic engagement. The University has nearly 8,900 students pursuing more than 100 bachelor's, masters, doctoral and professional degrees in liberal arts and sciences, engineering, business and education. A top-ranked university with a faculty devoted to teaching, and students committed to achievement, UM-Dearborn has been shaped by its history of partnering with local leaders and communities, and is committed to finding solutions for the challenges that face the region.
Beth Marmarelli
313-593-5542 / email@example.com


text:
On the welcome page of the dictionary, three major sections are shown: Normal tissues, Cancer and Cell structure. Below the image of each section are links to introductory texts for i) normal tissue histology, ii) hallmarks of cancer, and iii) cell structure overview. For the cancer-section there is also a link to current cancer statistics (incidence, survival, etc) for Sweden and the rest of the world. Within each section there are direct links to histology descriptions of different tissue types and tumor forms as well as descriptions of cell structures.
For the 'Tissue & cell types' and 'Tumor' sections, tissue-slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) are shown at three different levels of magnification. On the top level, an overview of the whole tissue-sample is shown with boxes in black indicating where zoomed-in representative parts of the tissue are available for viewing. Clicking on these boxes will zoom in on that part to show tissue structures, cells and features in greater detail. Throughout these sections, arrows indicate relevant tissue structures, cell-types and other features.
For the 'Cell structure' section, immunofluorescent images of formaldehyde-fixed cell lines are shown. The various cell structures that are demonstrated are always shown in the green channel using an antibody found in the Human Protein Atlas. The antibody name is linked to the subcellular location summary page of the target gene. The other channels: nucleus, microtubules and endoplasmic reticulum, are always shown in the blue, red and yellow channels, respectively. The channels can be toggled on and off by clicking on the respective coloured button above the image. When applicable, the immunofluorescent images are complemented by immunohistochemically stained cells where the location of the particular cell structure is shown in brown.
A common feature for all sections is that a general descriptive text about the tissue, tumor-type or cell structure is provided when browsing a particular topic.
The mitochondria are responsible for the cellular energy production, a process that is generally known as the respiratory chain, in which oxidative phosphorylation of nutrition molecules lead to the generation of ATP. Unlike the other organelles, the mitochondria contain their own DNA, which codes for some of their proteins, but the mitochondria is also dependent on proteins translated from nuclear genes and imported into the organelle. The mitochondria has not only one, but two membranes of which the inner membrane plus the matrix are the major working parts. The inner membrane area is increased by a series of foldings of the membrane, thus optimizing the ATP production.
Mitochondrial stainings are most often easy to recognize as they have a long, thread like pattern. They are spread throughout the cell, starting centrally, close to the nucleus and stretch all the way out to the edges of the cell. Depending on the cell, the mitochondria can also be stained as shorter threads, separate from the others, and need not be continuous.
Examples IF
Examples IH


text:
Timothy Mahapatra
Managing Director, Corporate Finance
|Timothy is the Managing Director of the Firm's Corporate Finance business in the UK. He has overall responsibility for the Transaction Services business and has extensive experience of providing transaction services support to both Private Equity Houses and Corporates. His main Private Equity clients have included KKR, Terra Firma Capital Partners, 3i, Carlyle, TPG, Candover, CVC and Sun Capital. In addition, he has worked with a range of Corporates including FCC, Ferrovial and the WPP Group.
Recent experience
- Acquisitions of Enterprise Group plc and Inspicio by 3i;
- Acquisition of Volvo Cars for Geely Motors;
- Acquisition of Waste Recycling Group by FCC;
- KKR's acquisition of Selenia SpA ($1bn) from Vestar; and
- Acquisition of Findus Italy by Birdseye Igloo.
Career highlights
- Timothy joined Arthur Andersen in London in 1987 becoming a partner in 1996.
- He joined Deloitte in 2002 as part of the Deloitte/ Andersen transaction in the UK.
Professional membership
Timothy is a Fellow of Institute of Chartered Accountants of England & Wales and he has an MBA from Manchester Business School.
Contact information
Tel: +44 (0)20 7007 0870
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
- Antique Jewelry
- The Ages
- Engagement Rings
- Antique Rings
- Diamond Jewelry
- So Much More
Colorful Art Deco Cockatoo Silver Brooch
Without a second glance the cockatoo with its showy crest and curved bill is immediately recognized, admired and loved. Perched inside a sterling silver hoop set with white pastes, the fanciful little avian displays its jazzy plumage of color with a green paste set head, yellow paste head, red breast and green crest with matching green feathers. The flighty little creature boasts black enamel eyes, beak and feet. All set in a sterling silver brooch.
Date: Circa 1925.
Measurements: 1-3/4 inches (4.5 cm) in length from crest to tail by 1-3/8 inches (3.4 cm) in width. Weight of 9.6 grams (6.2 dwt).
Hallmarks: "Sterling".
Condition: Very good; one minute area closest to the circle is missing very top of the head feathers.
Forms of Payment
- VISA and MasterCard, Discover and American Express credit & debit cards.
- Personal checks drawn on U.S. banks only - Please allow 7 business days for clearance.
- Money orders, cashier's and traveler's checks - Please allow 7 business days for clearance.
- PayPal.
Other Forms of Payment
Bank Wire - For international orders and orders of $5,000 and over. Please contact us for more details.
Layaway information and for full details see Payment Methods.
Same Day Shipping - Order by 1 pm CST M-F!
FREE for All U.S. Orders - Standard 2 Day Shipping.
FREE for All International Orders - Standard 2-7 Day Shipping.
Full details at Shipping & Insurance.
Complete Money Back No-Risk Guarantee
Our Guarantee
If for any reason whatsoever you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, we will refund the FULL purchase price including U.S. shipping if charged. Remember, there is no charge for our regular shipping service!
International Orders - Due to customs and paperwork requirements, return shipping charges cannot be reimbursed.
Return Procedure
- Notify us of your intention to return the item within three (3) days of receipt. You may contact us by email or by telephone.
- Please ship back to us within another two (2) days after we receive notification from you.
- As soon as the item is received, a full refund is issued to you that same day.
More details at Full Guarantee including gift giving options.


text:
Share |
May 08, 2012
By Maggie Avants
Doctors this week are scheduled to perform a procedure that is hoped to solve a rare disease suffered by 9-year-old Ricky Martinez of Murrieta.
Medical staff for months have been searching for a bone marrow match for Ricky, who was diagnosed with severe aplastic anemia in August 2011. The Martinez family has even reached out to the community in hopes of finding a match through donor drives.
Now an unexpected find—blood donated from the umbilical cord of Ricky's own birth–will be transfused into the 9-year-old this week, said Dr. David Buchbinder, a hematologist at Children's Hospital of Orange County.
The cord blood was located when Buchbinder and his staff, who have been administering weekly blood transfusions to Ricky for six months, searched a cord-blood database and came back with a match.
"We search registries for bone marrow as our first choice. As a second choice we look for cord blood," Buchbinder told Patch Monday. "So when we found this one and looked a little closer, it turned out to be an exact DNA match."
Buchbinder explained that cord blood is still an unconventional way to treat aplastic anemia.
"We don't typically use cord blood to treat this disease. There are probably a handful of cases in the U.S. and internationally," he said.
But in Ricky's case, it has its advantages, he said.
Bone marrow from a sibling is preferred, but since Ricky does not have any siblings, it would have had to come from an unrelated donor.
"The dangers of toxicity (from Ricky's cord blood) are going to be minimal compared to using an unrelated person's. Stem cells you get from an unrelated person can attack the immune system. I think this is less risky," Buchbinder said.
Locating the cord blood has come as a "Godsend" to Ricky's parents, Oscar and Cynthia.
"This is the miracle we have been praying for. It's just phenomenal," Oscar said. "It is so rare that no one else in the world has needed Ricky's cord blood."
Oscar explained that his wife donated Ricky's umbilical cord to science at birth. The family could not afford to "bank" it, so they chose to donate it instead, he said. It was then shipped off to be frozen, and the couple hoped it would help save someone's life someday.
Fast forward to the present, when Oscar said Children's Hospital of Orange County called them in for a "911 meeting" to share the good news with them.
"They didn't want to just keep giving him more tranfusions," Oscar said.
Severe aplastic anemia, also known as bone marrow disease, affects only three in every 1 million people. Having the disease means Ricky's body does not make stem cells, which produce red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.
Buchbinder does not believe Ricky was born with the disease, but that he acquired it.
Because the body does not produce blood at normal levels, Ricky's immune system hangs in delicate balance, keeping him home from public school and his mother away from work.
Buchbinder said inserting the cord blood into Ricky will be a simple 15-minute tranfusion—it's the follow-up care that will be crucial. He expects Ricky to be in the hospital for at least four weeks.
"A huge team" will immediately begin to monitor how his body is taking the cord blood, and how quickly it starts to populate and prompt new cell growth, he said. All the while, they will ensure he stays healthy.
"I think it's amazing," Buchbinder said. "He has an extraordinarily rare disease that has affected his family tremendously. Hopefully he does great and it is a very short stay."
Buchbinder noted the use of the cord blood brings up a "very important question."
"Should people bank their cord blood more? It is a very hot debate. In theory it makes great sense and it seems there will be less risk."