NAFTA - Managerial Economics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

NAFTA - Managerial Economics - Essay Example In addition to labor concerns, opposition to NAFTA was strong among environmental groups, who contended that the treatys anti-pollution provisions were inadequate. To ease concerns that Mexicos low wage structure would cause U.S. companies to shift production to that country, and to ensure that Mexicos increasing industrialization under the Treaty would not create environmental pollution to a harmful degree, special side agreements were included in NAFTA. Under those agreements, the tri-national grouping agreed to establish appropriate commissions to handle labor and environmental issues. The commissions had the power to impose steep fines against any of the member governments that failed to consistently impose its laws. There have been criticisms regarding NAFTAs implementation of environmental protection provisions. Mexico, together with Canada, has been repeatedly cited for environmental malfeasance. Also, many observers have charged that the three governments have been lax in ensuring environmental safeguards since the agreement went into effect (Wikipedia). The NAFTA members are autonomous states that have yielded some of their sovereignty to establish and effectuate a treaty that would economically benefit some 365 million people in the region, but they have retained their power to determine their principal economic and social policies. In other words, the free trade arrangement does not include a supranational government that would enforce policies from the center. Consequently, each state is free to determine its policies, subject only to agreements it has committed itself to implement. An important consideration in this analysis is the fact that Mexico, unlike the United States (and Australia), is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which aims to limit greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The Kyoto protocol is concerned with the reduction of global pollution but requires less

HRM Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 2

HRM - Essay Example Case analysis GS plumbing, owned by Greg Smith has been gaining unusual reputation for the recent past. Alan Arrowsmith, for his experience with small businesses was appointed as the HR manager at GS. His teaching experience in the trades section of the local technical college, where he handled subjects related to health and safety, risk management etc also made him proficient of HR manager post. GS plumbing underwent tremendous expansions such as contracts with several buildings and companies over the last ten years. GS takes up both planned tasks like plumbing installations for new homes as well as unplanned works despite the threat the unplanned works cause to the security of the company. GS Plumbing maintains strict regulations on workers on record keeping, maintenance of accounts etc. The rising demand for plumbing staffs compels GS plumbing to offer better financial and non-financial assistances to its employees. However, GS Plumbing has not been able to cope up with these dema nds and it has intensified the problem of employ turnover in the company. The senior management team of GS plumbing company includes Greg, Alan, Gail, and Jane. The company receptionist role is efficiently handled by Greg’s sister-in-law Gail White. However, she often finds her responsibilities increasing her stress level despite the company’s growth. ... In fact, audit is an essential part of organizational management because the examination of policies, procedures, documentation, and practices with respect to the HR functions of an organization can be effectively done through the audit activity1.. This activity provides opportunity for the HR manager to reveal his potency and achievements which would further encourage him to exhibit his abilities in the future. From the organizational perspective, audit will also evaluate HR managerial activities; and thus the matters demanding resolution can also be brought to notice. Alan often feels that the extra administrative tasks are frustrating. However, an audit would give him opportunity to express his grievances. To illustrate, the audit would enable Alan to bring his concern about the increasing absenteeism into Greg’s notice. It would allow better discussion on the frequent occurrences of injuries in the workplace and the remedies that should be adopted to minimize risks. Conduc ting audit at intervals of two or three years would enable the firm to identify unwritten practices and associated risks.2 In addition this activity would permit to examine the record-keeping practices and would identify additional training and communication required for better compliance. By initiating on time audit, the GS Plumbing can identify the user friendly procedures, practices, and the necessary changes required. The audit of HR function should involve staff members, members of middle and upper management, and all other individuals responsible for HR functions. The firm can seek the assistance of an external consultant for audit who would guide and provide better suggestions. How to address unplanned absence? Unplanned absence of staff members at GS

Article Review Essay Example for Free

Article Review Essay Conducting their study as the transitional funding attached to the peace process in Northern Ireland is reaching its end, the authors examine the role of aid in conflict resolution particularly with regards to intangible outcomes such as identity formation. The idea behind this funding is that it reduces economic disparities between the conflicting groups and that the economic growth started by this funding will continue into the future. These funds come from the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), which addressed unemployment and poverty in Republican / Loyalist communities; the Peace I funds, which promoted social inclusion, cross-community contact, and economic development; and the Peace II funds (ended in 2006), which had similar goals to Peace I but targeted local, grassroots (nongovernmental) organizations. The authors also consider the role of external agencies as they intervene in ethnopolitical conflict and the importance of community development in the peace process. The authors are careful to note that economic aid is not a magic cure for conflict as this aid, if improperly administered, can at times heighten underlying conflicts. Indeed, in Northern Ireland, the approach has had mixed results. In designing their study, the authors took both a qualitative and quantitative approach. For the qualitative portion, the authors interviewed 98 community leaders, civil servants, and development officers from Belfast, Londonderry/Derry, and the Border region (Northern Ireland). These interviews consisted of semi-structured questions, including those attached to the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale: â€Å"What are your best wishes and hopes for your personal future? What are your worst fears and worries about your personal future? What are your best wishes and hopes for the future of your country? What are your worst fears and worries about the future of your country? † (page 166). The quantitative data was drawn from the summer 2006 Northern Ireland Public Opining Survey. The sample consisted of 1,023 adults representative of Northern Ireland’s adult population. The study as a whole was designed to look at the respondents hopes and fears about Northern Ireland’s future. Through the inclusion of qualitative data, the authors hoped to demarginalize voices that are often not heard in the official discourses of the peace process. This study yielded numerous tantalizing findings. First, the authors found that more Nationalists than Unionists imagine a future where conflicting groups are able to perceive a sense of shared community. Second, the authors found differences based on gender: more females than males saw the opportunity for building new relationships amongst communities in the future. Third, the authors found two common fears / concerns that extend across religions, genders, and ages: the fear that violence in changing the social fabric of Northern Ireland and the belief that politicians are disingenuous and not interested in serving the needs of their constituency. Fourth, the authors found that more Nationalists than Unionists saw the modernization of the economy and the political structure as means by which to support the peace process. Finally, the authors found that younger adults were more concerned about the potential failure of the peace process and the economy than older adults The authors consider numerous theories about identity formation. In designing their study, they took into consideration geographic differences in identity formation: i. e. Londonderry/Derry vs. Belfast and urban vs. rural locations. They also consider how the Irish view immigration and the infiltration of outside values. In general, this article is not convincing. Its primary strength is the detailed background to the conflicts in Northern Ireland, with a focus on the economic causes and effects of this conflict. This strength does not mitigate the effects of the article’s numerous weaknesses. First, the authors do not explicitly state their hypothesis. While exploratory studies such as this one can potentially reveal valuable information, the authors nowhere state the reasons behind the study. When questions such as identity formation are being explored, the readers need to know the authors’ relationship to the issue. For example, are the authors somehow involved in this ethnopolitical conflict? Or, are they looking at it from the perspective of an outsider? If they are outsiders, does their perspective have a bearing on how the respondents answer their questions? Second, the authors explicitly state that they wish to demarginalize those voices that are not typically heard in the official peace process discourse. However, in selecting the respondents for the qualitative portion of the study, the authors chose community leaders, civil servants, and development officers. It would seem that these are precisely the voices that are heard in the official discourse. Readers are left to wonder why the authors did not include a more representative sample of the population of Northern Ireland for this portion of the study. Third, this does not seem to be a study that was designed specifically to answer certain questions. As noted, the authors nowhere state a hypothesis. For the reader, it appears that the quantitative and qualitative data seems to have been mixed together ad hoc. In other words, the study does not seem to be designed to fit a specific question. Rather, the authors appear to have attempted to answer questions based on the information they had at hand. Fourth, as the basis for this study was largely to examine economic role of the peace process, it seems like a gross oversight that the authors did not provide data on their respondents’ demographics. In the discussion section, the authors indicate that they collected background demographic information (political party, religious views, age, gender, socioeconomic status) on the respondents, but this information was not included in the results section and does not appear to have been considered in any significant way. Finally, the analysis of the qualitative data seems a bit lacking. It would perhaps have been stronger to indentify the common themes and subthemes of the responses, rather than using the responses as illustrative examples. Because of these specific weakness as well as the authors’ failure to mention the limitations of their study and to provide specific recommendations for how their results can be used to generate future studies and/or to impact the peace process, this article is not convincing.

Life Style Inventory Essay Example for Free

Life Style Inventory Essay As I look at my results from the Life Style Inventory my primary thinking style that I scored the highest in was the affiliative style at 83%. As I looked deeper at this style it fit me to a tee. I have always been warm and sincere because I always try to see the best in other people. My interpersonal relations with peers and subordinates alike have allowed me to be trusted and liked by others. This has helped me to be both diplomatic and tactful in my decisions as a manager. My genuine concern for people and ability to accept change easily has placed me in a leadership position many times just because I am able to listen and feel that people are more important than things. Next we will be looking at my backup personal thinking style and I had a two way tie between Self- Actualization and Humanistic- Encouraging at 75%. In the Humanistic-Encouragement thinking style I love to teach and enjoy sharing knowledge with others. I am very supportive of others and encourage others to strive for excellence and to think for themselves. As a good listener I am supportive of others and always willing to take time with people. Now with Self-Actualization I am a creative thinker and can communicate easily and very aware of my own feelings. I tend to be optimistic and realistic with my judgments and I have a high level of personal integrity. As I look at these three thinking styles I completely agree with them as my strengths. I have always been the equalizer and the manager called upon to best deal with conflict. I value my employees, focus upon perceptions, and know their needs. Honor and Integrity direct my morale fiber and I hold respect as being the most important element that people need in their lives. These styles are all important for training and developing a strong working team and have made me valued as a good leader and well thought of by my peers. When I at look at any of these thinking styles that may be limiting me I would have to turn towards Approval. I feel that I can be overly trusting too fast and too agreeable with others opinions. Whether you are overly seeking approval or accepting others values too much this style can work against you and be called being too generous to a fault. I feel that I would like to have better control upon being overly sympathetic with people. I have the ability to give people too many chances to improve or correct their behavior when in all actuality it would have been better to have cut our losses after the first counseling session failed. Giving an employee a fair chance is fine but when I go too far it can appear like favoritism or special treatment. If the employees know that you are overly sympathetic they will also play to this weakness to get out of the hot seat. The team likes you and shows approval on the surface but really they do not respect you and view you as a push over. I sometimes fight this behavior because there is a fine line between the perception of not caring and being not sympathetic enough and being overly sympathetic to a fault. I always know that you cannot please everyone as a good leader and some may even oppose you, but if upper management sees you as being too soft and overly sympathetic then you are not taking care of the business. Impact on Management Style: Planning When I think of my primary and back up styles of thinking I can see the affiliative style having me motivate my team through using praise and friendliness. This can help me in the planning phase by getting valuable input from my team through building trust and meaningful relationships that are reciprocated. This helps us to feel like a team and make informed decisions from data collected by our team and helps us to build a sound plan of action. Through self-actualization I would use my sound judgment and optimistic and realistic nature to set solid goals. When making company plans my humanistic-encouragement style would have me utilize my knowledge of the company’s needs and the teams needs to make good plans. Being a good listener also makes planning a lot easier. Organizing With my ability to develop and teach others and listening to my team while easily adapting to change I am able to better organize my team by setting SMART goals and using my communication skills to keep my team well informed. By thinking outside of the box and using my creative and original thinking skills I will be able to keep all of my team on the same page with our eye on the target of success. Leading My primary and backup styles give me an excellent leadership skillset in that I listen and set own goals, but I also understand how people feel and make sound judgments. My genuine concern for others and communication skills not only give me great leadership skills but my ability to use my intuition to read people allows for proactive decisions to be made. Perhaps it is my ability to be diplomatic and tactful and see the best in others that allows for me to be respected and well thought of as a leader. Controlling Some people use intimidation and threats to control their team but giving them respect and a sense of ownership of their job allows my coaching and development style to allow peer pressure to control our team. The ability to set common goals and encourage our team to think for themselves, gives ownership and control through respect, honor, and integrity. Never asking my team to do what I am not willing to do myself and giving them the resources and tools needed to be successful keeps the respect and lines of communication open. Genesis of Personal Style: If I was to critically evaluate what has contributed the most to my personal styles it would have to be my family and growing up in the restaurant business. Always being in the public eye and dealing with guests face to face gave me a comfort at an early age of being in front of people and taking the time to listen and enjoy people. I was in the entertainment business and learned how to set goals and run a business by watching the controllable costs and giving quality service so that our guests would return. I developed understanding, humility, confidence, and personal integrity from my family. Growing up in my community and having great friends and families really made a big difference with being sincere, warm, and open. It was sports and Boy Scouts that offered discipline, commitment, and goals to my life. From my relationships built in high school and the Navy to the relationships built in business I continue to learn and strive to improve my styles to compliment my ability to lea d. Conclusion and Reflection: As I look at my Constructive skills I see how my developments of Affiliative, Humanistic-Encouragement, and Self-Actualization styles have all contributed to my ability to be a good leader. My intuitive ability to read behavior and develop teams is second nature to me and my ability to listen and be real to my team has earned me their respect. Now my Passive and Defensive styles show me that dependent and conventional may be an area to watch out for but I felt that approval was the area that concerned me the most. Specifically it may be too easy to become overly sympathetic and this could lead to being overly generous to a fault. Looking at my Aggressive and Defensive Styles I look at oppositional and competitive styles and giving me the ability to question everything and always inspect everything before making a decision, be the best at what we do, and set the benchmark of our industry. I feel that the LSI shows us our strengths and opportunities and while we are always striving to improve our behaviors we must look at our beliefs in why we find our behavior acceptable and seek to make changes here, because in order to improve one’s behavior we must change our beliefs first. I feel that I would like to improve upon being less sympathetic and watch my procrastination by setting clear boundaries a staying to the specific rules. It is important for me not to put things off for tomorrow if I can do it today. I also would like to not get overly involved in team members personal issues that are affecting their work. This exercise helped me to look closely at how other styles can overshadow the positives of other styles and be counterproductive. This has helped me because as I see that several of my styles help me to be a good leader but now I have a better understanding on what other styles can limit my constructive styles ie, if I have a high affiliative and a high power style then I would desire to have close friendships but try to control and dominate these friendships which will result in a negative relationship. Overall this has been a great tool for my future in management and beter understanding my thinking and behavior process.

The Creation of God and the Universe

The Creation of God and the Universe Does God really exist? How can we know? If God made everything, who made God? In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe. So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely â€Å"Where did God come from?† The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end—He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent. Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator? The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding . The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of Gods existence are: The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason. The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are: The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that â€Å"verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.† Matthew G. Easton How to recognize intelligence Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence—a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents heads on Mt. Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design—the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence—in the man-made objects all around us. Similarly, in William Paleys famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position? Design in living things Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded: Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states: We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully â€Å"designed† to have come into existence by chance. Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bibles explanation that God created all. However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added): All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his minds eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind†¦ It has no mind†¦ It does not plan for the future†¦ it is the blind watchmaker. Selection and design Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selectionand mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things. Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind. One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist! Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new information? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book: In this chapter Ill bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased But in all the reading Ive done in the life-sciences literature, Ive never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cant make money by losing it a little at a time. Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process. [For further information, see: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer] More problems! Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called biochemical machines. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell cant function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated. Since life is built on these machines, the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term irreducible complexity in describing such biochemical machines. †¦systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing machinery to start with when he states: The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex machines of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start! A greater problem still! Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like BAT.So given long time periods, why couldnt even more complex information arise by chance? However, what would the word BAT mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful! In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldnt work either. The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the letters in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those machines that needs to be fully-formed or life wont work. Can information arise from non-information? Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence: A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. What is the source of the information? We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence. However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless . Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isnt this what the Bible indicates when we read, In the beginning God .? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else. So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science? The answer seems obvious, so why dont all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers: Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just dont want there to be anything beyond nature. They dont want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words . they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior. The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment. But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord. [Watch The HOPE on-line (streaming video)] So who created God? By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed—no one created God. He is the self-existing one—the great I am of the Bible.19 He is outside of time; in fact, He created time. You might say, â€Å"But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I cant understand it.† We read in the book of Hebrews, But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6). But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance. Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see? Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence. Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your receiver (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm. Learn more about God and his plan for your life Adapted from author Ray Comfort See these information sources for evidence of God and the accuracy of His Word†¦ The Christian faith is not a blind faith; it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). For a more in-depth article, read: Who created God? Who created God? A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married? So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: If the universe needs a cause, then why doesnt God need a cause? And if God doesnt need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnt need a cause. In addition, Einsteins general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesnt have a cause. In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didnt think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity. IN SUMMARY The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Romans 1:20 teach. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesnt need a cause. OBJECTIONS There are only two ways to refute an argument: Show that it is logically invalid Show that at least one of the premises is false. Is the argument valid? A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises. Are the premises true? 1. Does the universe have a beginning? Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2 Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe. Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch. Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thats the end. 2. Denial of cause and effect Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes: spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9 But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research. Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe cant have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnt have any properties until it actually came into existence. Is creation by God rational? A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning. But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of Gods creative act and of creations simultaneous coming to be. Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics cant have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway. A final thought The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called â€Å"eternity.† God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book. Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of Gods eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum. Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort Further Reading More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adams sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture. Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984). Craig, W.L. online article â€Å"The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe† http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976). How does archaeology conclusively demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions? Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments. When compared to other religious books, the titles, and events mentioned in the Bible; and the language and literary formats used to compose the Bible. Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology (i.e. misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible. How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life? The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The places, and events of the Bible are real. What Gods Word? Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God. These discoveries fall into three categories: Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible. The Bibles message of a salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology. Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men. Where did Cain get his wife? We dont even know her name, yet she was discussed at the wife in history? Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith. For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about [3] lawyer Clarence Darrow. The worlds press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the biblical record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the biblical record is indefensible! The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book ContactContact,† which was based on Sagans book, also used it. In the book, the fictional character Ellie could not get answers about [6] Sagan cleverly used common questions—such as â€Å"Who was Cains wife?†Ã¢â‚¬â€questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended. Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions! And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are lacking in the teaching of 1 Peter 3:15). Why is it important? Many skeptics have claimed that, for New Testament doctrines depend. Defenders of the Genesis 4:1-5:5.) Before we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel. The first man Therefore, even as through one man Romans 5:12). We read in God did not start by making a whole group of men. The sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants. Since return to God! Because a man brought Romans 3:23). What is the solution? The Last Adam pay the penalty for sin: â€Å"For since by a man came [8] God. Since the Bible describes all human beings as gospel could not be explained or defended. The Hebrews 2:11-18). Thus, only descendants of the first man saved. All related Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the Genesis 2:7). This also means that Adams descendants. The first woman In Eve—she was the first woman. marriage of one man to one woman. Also, in animals, he could not find a mate—there was no one of his kind. All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Eves descendants. If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including gospel and all that it teaches. Cains brothers and sisters Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth. Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born. During their lives, Adams children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.† The Genesis 1:28). The wife If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations! We are not told when marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history. But what about Gods Laws? Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Gods law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Remember that Moses laws that forbade such marriages. Biological deformities Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be d

METAPHORS :: Essays Papers

METAPHORS I have usually found writing papers to be a stuggle, but this paper was different. At first I was intimidated by the fact that it had to be an analysis of ones own writing pertaining to a specific discourse, but then once I saw the opportunity for creativity, the paper seemed fun and interesting. It gave me an opportunity to focus on the things I like about writing, the things that to me make writing an art form containing beauty and freedom. Words are groups of mixed and matched letters which create sentences. The above words and analagous words are silly-putty that one can maneuver into any shape, size, or form one chooses. Manueuvering these words to express ideas in a different way would describe a metaphor. Metaphors can help convey a thought, or make a transition among ideas smoother; like a football that glides through the air from one player to the next. I find there is an excitement in taking words, as Webster's Dictionary puts it, taking, "units of language...typically seen as the smallest such units of space...distinguished phonetically...", and making metaphors; creating words into brief moments for someone else to experience. Everyone in his/her life, at one time or another has had a moment when they have been left speechless. A moment on a cliff overlooking fierce, untamed waters, a sunset that sends blinding sparks off urban buildings, or a basketball game in which the underdog triumphs in the final seconds -- there is at least one time that everyone sees or perceives a sight that to them, is awesome. Something that in one's mind is distinguishable from any other moment and is too breathtaking, scary, or cool to describe in common vocabulary or phrasiology, for the emotions or feelings involved in that moment would not recieve due justice. People behold scenes differently, so metaphors can vary greatly in the degree of imagery and the amount of emotion they elicit. This implies that they appeal to a larger discourse community rather than academic writing, unlike Jennifer Gebelein's term paper, "Giardia", which because of its nature has a more selective community. The discourse community, the writers and reader of metaphors may range from a seventh grade reading class to the C.E.O. of an international company. This emphasizes the freedom that is allowed with metaphors, the fact that metaphors hold no boundaries on audience or creativity. As with any form of freedom, risk is involved.

Symbols and Symbolism in Hawthornes Scarlet Letter - The Symbol of Pearl :: Scarlet Letter essays

The Symbol of Pearl In Nathaniel Hawthorne's, The Scarlet Letter, Pearl, is the human symbol of the sin of adultery in the fact that she leads her mother, Hester Prynne, and Arthur Dimmesdale to accept and admit to their sin. Pearl is the beautiful daughter of Hester and Dimmesdale. She is the living symbol of the scarlet letter and has unique traits that make her sometimes appear as a demon. Her love for nature and freedom, her spirit, her wildness, her loneliness and separation from the world, her curiosity, and her innocent but symbolic comments reveal her distinct personality. Pearl senses and knows things she should not, making her a symbol. Pearl is also the living symbol of Hester and Dimmesdale's connection, as displayed in the following passage. "In her was visible the tie that united them. She had been offered to the world, these seven years past, as the living hieroglyphic, in which was revealed the secret they so darkly sought to hide, -- all written in this symbol, -- all plainly manifest, -- had there been a prophet or magician skilled to read the character of flame! And Pearl was the oneness of their being"(Hawthorne 141). Pearl is a beautiful, misbehaved child. The first thing that Pearl ever notices is her mother's 'A' across her chest. As a child, Pearl throws rocks at the scarlet letter, making a game out it. Growing up, Pearl is not accepted by anyone. She screams at other children, knowing that they do not accept her. Not knowing what a true friend is, she makes imaginary enemies to fight with. In The Scarlet Letter, Pearl is referred to as "one of those naughty elfs or fairies or...a little bird of scarlet plumage" (Hawthorne 97). The comparison of Pearl to an elf or fairies adds a sense of alienation and myster y to her personality. When she is compared to a red bird, the emphasis of color increases the visual sense of Pearl's character, and the comparison to a bird indicates that she is full of wild energy. (Chiquita) Initially Pearl symbolizes the shame of Hester's public punishment for adultery. Then as Pearl grew older, she symbolizes the wreck of Hester's life and mental state by harassing her mother over the scarlet 'A' which is embroidered on her dress (Yang). Pearl is a symbol for Hester's scarlet letter.