At a large rally at Biola University June 1, the Jesus Film Project, in collaboration with the university, announced a new DVD entitled Jesus: Fact or Fiction?. Each household at the rally received a free copy. Half of the DVD contains the full length Jesus film, a project that has been translated into more languages (857) and seen by more viewers (5.7 billion) than any other movie. The other half is a “Journey” of faith, exploring frequently-asked questions about Christianity, God, science, the Bible, and philosophy, answered by 18 scholars, including Ravi Zacharias, Craig Hazen, Paul Maier, and others. It includes answers to scientific questions about evolution and design by William Dembski, Lee Strobel and more. Also embedded are true-life stories of Christians from a variety of walks of life explaining their own journeys of faith. Speakers at the event, a kick-off for a summer lecture series, included Craig Hazen, Frank Pastore, John Mark Reynolds, Lee Strobel, J.P. Moreland and others.This is a nicely-packaged, interactive, well-designed, low-key and attractive tool for discussing the important questions about God, origins, faith, the problem of pain, forgiveness, and eternity in a non-threatening way. The answers to questions are excellent. A better line-up of credible scholars could hardly be gathered. The interactive layout keeps you wanting to find out more. Watch it and you will be ordering dozens, if not hundreds, to hand out to neighbors, friends and work associates.(Visited 148 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Additional comments from the Editor:Dr. Bergman has two books in print on the persecution of creationists and Darwin skeptics, and a third is coming soon. In the Introduction to the second volume, Silencing the Darwin Skeptics: The War Against Theists (Leafcutter Press, 2016), Kevin Wirth points out the arrogance of many Darwin defenders (pp xv-xvii). After quoting Richard Dawkins, who had blasted the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson for being insufficiently intolerant of religious people, Wirth comments:Dawkins parrots a familiar refrain: no one who comes from a different field of science is qualified to offer an opinion worth contemplating. Militant Darwinists have no patience with those who disagree with them. It aggravates them to no end to have to listen to what they consider to be foolish prattle. They want dissidents to be silenced and removed from the conversation – and they want it to happen yesterday. And they are often not content to just distance themselves from dissidents, but instead often go after them with the intent to do harm. Dr. Bergman’s work makes this painfully obvious.We encourage our readers to see the evidence for themselves in Dr Bergman’s alarming books: Slaughter of the Dissidents (Vol. I, 2008), Silencing the Darwin Skeptics (Vol II, 2016), and Censorship of Darwin Skeptics (Vol III, due out this year, which will contain my JPL experience). We see the same insufferable arrogance and intolerance in Laura Geggel’s article (see David Klinghoffer’s response in Evolution News & Science Today). During the Inquisition, authorities dressed heretics in dunce caps before burning them at the stake. The comparison is apt. —David Coppedge(Visited 843 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 by Dr Jerry BergmanIn a recent article at Live Science, Laura Geggel asks, “Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?” She claims that “For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.”[i] How they could know this, since IQ tests and other means of measuring intelligence were only developed at the start of the last century, was not answered. Another problem is many kinds of intelligence exist, such as doing well on paper and pencil tests, or on performance tests, for example. Also, there exist intelligence in other areas, such as music IQ, math IQ, abstract conceptualization IQ, verbal IQ, personality IQ, even emotional IQ,[ii] and, according to some authors, 120 different kinds of IQs.Geggel continues, “researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct and those who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.” This conclusion vastly oversimplifies reality. As a professor, I have worked with, and have known, a large number of very intelligent people. In my experience, when it comes to the origins issue, creation vs. evolution, this generalization is certainly not true. Emotions and irrationality commonly surface fairly soon in these conversations, making rational discourse difficult, if not impossible.The article points to a meta-analysis of 63 studies that supposedly found religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people.[iii] According to this study, “the association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age”.This association likely has a lot to do with education indoctrination. More intelligent people are more likely to go to college and, as a result, they are frequently exposed to anti-Christian, or at least anti-theism ideas as well as pro-Darwinism beliefs. The reason has been documented by Stanford Educated Attorney Greg Lukianoff, who is President of an organization fighting censorship in colleges called FIRE. In short, he found that campus intolerance of free speech and censorship is primarily directed at Christians. He adds that a chilling discovery was that Christian groups are disproportionately more likely to be threatened on campus, adding: “If you told me twelve years ago that I, a liberal atheist, would devote a sizeable portion of my career to defending Christian groups, I might have been surprised. But almost from my first day at FIRE, I was shocked to realize how badly Christian groups are often treated.”[iv] He then reviewed some of his experiences, noting in the last few yearsdozens of colleges across the country threatened or derecognized Christian groups because of their refusal to say that they would not “discriminate” on the basis of belief. These colleges included, to name a few, Arizona State University, Brown University, California State University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University, Tufts University, the University of Arizona, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, the University of Mary Washington, the University of New Mexico, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Washington University.[v]One major contributing factor to this intolerance—as reported by a 2007 study from the Institute for Jewish and Community Research—is that, of all groups, “faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicals.” The study added that only one group elicited high negative feelings among faculty, namely evangelical Christians:faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicalsOnly 30% ranked their feelings toward evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians. Faculty feelings about evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors.[vi] Another study found that an amazing 71 percent of all faculty believe that Americawould be better off if Christian Fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics … [only] Twenty-four percent disagreed and 5% were not sure. The public agreed, but at far lower percentages than faculty—54% agreed, 39% disagreed, and 7% were unsure. … About 92% of liberals agreed that fundamentalist Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics, as did 66% of moderates, and 23% of conservatives.[vii]One reason for the censorship is many people feel, as Professor Karl Giberson wrote, that “Young Earth creationism is a threat to American survival.”[viii] This and similar articles amount to hate literature and have produced the perception that the censorship is fully justified. Ironically, Giberson teaches at Stonehill College, a private, non-profit, co-educational, Roman Catholic Liberal Arts college located in Easton, Massachusetts founded in 1948. Lukianoff found from his work defending free speech that on college and university “campuses today, students are punished for everything from mild satire, to writing politically incorrect short stories, to having the “wrong” opinion on virtually every hot button issue, and, increasingly, simply for criticizing the college administration.” Here are some examples. One student waspunished for publicly reading a book; a professor labeled a deadly threat to campus for posting a pop-culture quote on his door; students required to lobby the government for political causes they disagreed with in order to graduate; a student government that passed a “Sedition Act” empowering them to bring legal action against students who criticized them; and students across the country being forced to limit their “free speech activities” to tiny, isolated corners of campus creepily dubbed “free speech zones.”[ix]We should be asking whether America would be better off if atheists kept their own anti-religious beliefs out of politics. The study also found that, whereas amajority of faculty believe ethnic or religious minority students at their institution are reluctant to express their views, seven percent of faculty very often “perceive that ethnic or religious minority students at [their] institution are reluctant to express their views because they might be contrary to those held by faculty,” another 14% said fairly often, and 38% said occasionally—a total of 59%. Only 30% said never or almost never, and 12% did not know.[x]The researchers in the study quoted above assumed that nonreligious people were more rational and thus better able to reason that there was no God, but instead “found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.” This bias blind spot occurs when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, in their own thinking. Ironically, “a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,”[xi] This conclusion agrees with my review of academia and the intolerance against evangelical Christians, and may be one reason why studies indicate theists score lower on tests compared to those with more advanced education, especially in the sciences.[i] Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | June 5, 2017 study published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science under the title “Why is Intelligence Negatively Associated with Religiousness?” Springer International Publishing. http://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html.[ii] Sally Bennett. 2017. Emotional Intelligence. Geneva Publishing[iii] Miron Zukerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith Hall. 2013.The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17(4) 325–354[iv] Greg Lukianoff, 2012. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of the American Debate. New York: Encounter Books, p. 163.[v] Lukianoff, 2012, p.169.[vi] Lukianoff, 2012, p. 12.[vii] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. and Aryeh K. Weinberg, 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research p. 10.[viii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/young-earth-creationism-threat-to-american-survival_b_2192491.html.[ix] Lukianoff, 2013 pp. 4-5.[x] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. Aryeh K. Weinberg 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research, p. 11.[xi] West, Richard F.; Meserve, Russell J.; Stanovich, Keith E. 2012. Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3): 506-519. September.Dr Jerry Bergman is the author of 40 books and monographs, and is also a science professor and public speaker. He is a frequent contributor to Creation-Evolution Headlines. See his Author Profile and previous articles here.
Table Mountain towers spectacularly over the city of Cape Town. The mountain is one of three natural South African sites in the running for the seven natural wonders of the world. (Image: Walter Knirr, South African Tourism) New7Wonders founder Bernard Weber with Portuguese soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo at the ceremony in Lisbon announcing the new seven wonders of the world. (Image: New7Wonders of the World)Janine ErasmusSouth Africans have the chance to vote for one of three of the country’s top natural landmarks in the New7Wonders of Nature campaign, the first phase of which is open until the end of 2008.The Kruger National Park, the Cape of Good Hope, and the iconic Table Mountain are all in the running for nomination as one of the world’s seven outstanding natural sites.The Cape of Good Hope, a rocky headland on South Africa’s Atlantic coast, has been a maritime landmark for centuries and is referred to by sailors as “The Cape”.The Kruger National Park, which celebrated its 110th anniversary in June 2008, is South Africa’s largest game reserve and is now an integral part of the 35 000km² Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, a peace park with no internal borders that joins the Kruger to Zimbabwe’s Gonarezhou National Park and the Limpopo National Park in Mozambique.Table Mountain is one of the country’s major tourist attractions. Part of the Table Mountain National Park on the Cape peninsula, the flat-topped mountain towers impressively over the city of Cape Town.Searching for seven natural wondersIn July 2007 the New7Wonders of the World were announced after an extensive global campaign in which more than 100-million people cast their votes. The second campaign, also organised by the non-profit New7Wonders Foundation, turns the focus to the natural world in the search for the seven greatest natural sites on earth.There are three criteria for selection – only a natural site, natural monument or landscape can be nominated. Natural phenomena such as the Northern lights are not eligible.After the first round of voting a panel of architectural experts will short-list 21 options from the 77 top-ranked sites, based on the number of votes received. The short list will be announced in January 2009. The panel is headed by Prof Federico Mayor Zaragoza, scholar, politician, and former director-general of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.South Africa’s Aziz Tayob, the first non-white architect in the country, was a member of the expert panel which selected the New7Wonders. Tayob graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand in 1969.The second round of voting will determine the final seven sites, which will be revealed in the second half of 2010. Nominated places must be backed by an official supporting committee to qualify for the second round. Forms are available on the site for those wishing to establish a committee for their chosen landmark.At the time of writing none of the South African sites were in the top 77, which is updated twice a day. Voters are encouraged to vote for their favourite South African natural site to ensure victory against some stiff competition from elsewhere on the African continent. East Africa’s Great Rift Valley, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Zimbabwe’s famous Victoria Falls, and the Serengeti National Park, also in Tanzania, are just a few of the natural African sites vying for a place in the top 21.However, voters may participate only once in each round and must cast their votes for seven sites per round. Only one of the seven sites may be located in the voter’s home country.Safeguarding world heritageEstablished in 2001, the New7Wonders Foundation and its two campaigns are the brainchild of Swiss-born Canadian filmmaker, author, aviator and adventurer Bernard Weber. Weber’s intention in inaugurating the campaign is to help protect the world’s human-made and natural heritage, as well as to unite people by encouraging them to respect earth’s cultural diversity.These philosophies are particularly applicable to South Africa, which possesses an extraordinary wealth of natural and cultural heritage.“I feel very strongly that world heritage, as the name says, belongs to the people of the world,” says Weber. “Over 100-million votes from every corner of the world very clearly legitimises the New7Wonders of the World. And we are estimating over one-billion votes for the New7Wonders of Nature. These are choices made by the people of the world.”The New7Wonders of the World, as voted by 100-million people, are the Great Wall of China, Petra in Jordan, Chichén Itzá in Mexico, the Statue of Christ Redeemer in Brazil, the Colosseum in Italy, Machu Picchu in Peru, and the Taj Mahal in India.The New7Wonders of Nature campaign aims to increase awareness of and respect for the natural beauty of the world and the need to take care of it. Increased awareness, says Weber, will boost the tourism industry and contribute to the care and preservation of important natural sites.Half of all revenue raised by the project is allocated towards monument conservation and documentation. One of the project’s success stories is the high-definition 3D model of the 4th-century Bamiyan Buddha, a cultural treasure that was destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. The 3D model will enable the people of Afghanistan to rebuild the giant statue.“The more we know about each other, spread across continents and time zones, and the more we share, the more we actively create a peaceful and prosperous future for us all,” says Weber, adding that the sites chosen as the New7Wonders have experienced a boost in tourism of up to 40%.Once the New7Wonders of Nature is complete Weber plans to find the New7Wonders of Technology.Useful linksNew7Wonders of NatureCity of Cape TownKruger National ParkTable MountainCape of Good HopeUnited Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationDepartment of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Michael Quoc How a Modern Gaming Engine Can Supercharge Your… Related Posts Few Industries will not be Transformed by AR an… AR And VR: Which is More Important to Emerging … How AR and VR Will Enhance Customer Experience Michael Quoc is the founder & CEO of Dealspotr, an open shopping platform bringing together up-and-coming brands, influencers, and savvy shoppers around today’s best deals. He was previously the Director of Product Management for Yahoo’s media lab, spearheading the launch of several innovative live video and mobile social networking services. Michael has been awarded nine patents relating to mobile and social network applications and technology. Follow him on Twitter at @michaelquoc. Before AR, shoppers had two options: they could go to a physical store, or order online and hope for the best. Return policies were heavily used as many found the product didn’t live up to their expectations. The fit was off, the color wasn’t right, or it just looked different in real life.Now, imagine a world where e-commerce is enabled by AR. Users enjoy the ultimate “try before you buy” from their comfort of their own home. As long as they have their phone, shoppers can envision themselves wearing a new pair of jeans, trying on a new shade of lipstick, or adding a new ottoman to their living room. AR delivers virtual dressing rooms and showrooms to the user, wherever they’re located and whenever they’re ready to shop. It may sound futuristic, but that vision of e-commerce is now upon us. With the release of Apple’s iOS 11 this fall, AR is available to anyone who has an iPhone 6 and above. As Apple’s SVP of Software engineering Craig Federighi said, “With iOS 11, we’re delivering the biggest AR platform in the world.” Here are three ways Apple’s ARKit will revolutionize e-commerce.1. Fewer returnsInternet Retailer estimates that 30 percent of apparel bought online is returned. AR should bring that number way down. Returns aren’t the only cost of e-commerce, either. Sure, shoppers get their money back, but there’s still a cost in overall customer satisfaction, as they have to deal with the hassle of returns, and find themselves questioning whether next time, they’ll experience a similar disappointment. Over time, these subpar experiences slowly chip away at customer loyalty. With AR, customer confidence will increase as products meet expectations, and overall customer satisfaction will rise.2. Bigger checkoutsAR will bring other, unexpected benefits to e-commerce, like the ability to charge more. 40 percent of shoppers said they would pay more for a product if they could test it with AR first, according to a study by Retail Perceptions.AR can increase sales for other products, too. Instead of simply offering the shopper similar items based on their previous purchases, users can virtually “try” them on right then and there. They might layer a necklace over their new dress, or consider how a coffee table might look next to their new sofa. 3. An app renaissanceAs responsive websites have become the norm, standalone apps have become less important for online retailers. But now, thanks to the capabilities of AR, there will be a new use case for apps, bringing them back into the fold. With ARKit, app developers can offer something unique to shoppers on their app. They can try products on using the app, or unlock special deals in-store. Plus, having an app on a person’s iPhone gives brands another opportunity to further enmesh themselves in their consumers’ lives.ConclusionIf done right, AR will solve many problems for e-commerce, and bring new benefits. Our next post will take a look at how e-commerce brands are already changing the game with ARKit.Michael Quoc is the founder & CEO of Dealspotr, an open shopping platform bringing together up-and-coming brands, influencers, and savvy shoppers around today’s best deals. He was previously the Director of Product Management for Yahoo’s media lab, spearheading the launch of several innovative live video and mobile social networking services. Michael has been awarded nine patents relating to mobile and social network applications and technology. Follow him on Twitter at @michaelquoc.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
FILE – In this July 28, 2017, file photo, United States’ Simone Manuel smiles after winning the gold medal in the women’s 100-meter freestyle final during the swimming competitions of the World Aquatics Championships in Budapest, Hungary. (AP Photo/Petr David Josek, File)LOS ANGELES (AP) — Olympic champion swimmer Simone Manuel of Stanford won the Honda Cup on Monday night for collegiate woman athlete of the year.It’s the second time Stanford has had back-to-back winners. Katie Ledecky, Manuel’s Olympic and collegiate teammate, won last year. Swimmer Tara Kirk won the award in 2004, followed by volleyball player Ogonna Nnamani the next year.Manuel, of Sugar Land, Texas, received the trophy at the Galen Center on the Southern California campus.She became the first black woman to win an individual Olympic gold medal in swimming at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games, where Manuel also won another gold and two silvers.She finished her collegiate career with six American records and seven NCAA records and was a member of two NCAA championship teams and two Pac-12 Conference title squads. Manuel won 14 NCAA titles over her career, including six at this year’s championships.In the classroom, Manuel was a two-time Pac-12 Academic honoree and a CoSIDA first-team Academic All-American as a communications major.Manuel, track and field star Maggie Ewen of Arizona State and basketball star A’ja Wilson of South Carolina were the top three finalists from a field of 12. They were selected in voting by nearly 1,000 NCAA member schools.The Honda Inspiration award was presented to cross-country runner Megan Cunningham of Missouri. The Division II Athlete of the Year award went to cross-country runner Caroline Kurgat of Alaska-Anchorage and the Division III Athlete of the Year was tennis player Eudice Chong of Wesleyan.
President Abdul Hamid addresses closing ceremony of the national children competition 2019 organised by Bangladesh Shishu Academy at its campus on Wednesday. Photo: Courtesy/ UNBPresident Abdul Hamid on Wednesday urged the guardians not to impose anything on their children and force them to engage in unhealthy competition as it hinders their natural development, reports UNB.”Don’t push your children into bad competition. Don’t run after GPA-5 or Golden GPA. Give them opportunity to learn from nature and build them up as human beings with human values. You will see that they will become invaluable resources for the nation.”The president said this while addressing the closing ceremony of the national children competition 2019 organised by Bangladesh Shishu Academy at its campus.The president also urged the children to practice patriotism being imbued with the spirit of the Liberation War and independence.”The birth centenary of Bangabandhu will be celebrated in the year 2020 with due respect. You will be a partner in celebrating the birth centenary. You will know about Bangabandhu. In particular, you will know about his principles, ideologies, leadership qualities, and reflect those in your own lives,” he said.”Bangabandhu did not just bring us freedom. In order to spread the benefits of independence among common people, regardless of religion and caste, he took all steps to create a hunger and poverty-free prosperous country. But the anti-liberation force tried to stop it by killing him,” he added.The country is on the track of prosperity and progress, he said adding “You (children) have to take part in the journey of progress. You must prepare yourselves as qualified partner.”Emphasizing on learning to love the country and never compromise with wrong and untrue. “If you follow the path of truth, fair and just, then you will become successful in your life,” the president said.Women and children affairs secretary Kamrun Nahar presided over the prize giving ceremony while chairman of parliamentary standing committee on women and children affairs ministry Meher Afroz Chumki, writer Selina Hossain, director of the academy Anjir Liton were present at the ceremony.
“It’s very easy to capture videos,” says Magisto CEO Oren Boiman, “but it’s hard to create something worth sharing.” Boiman’s 2-year-old Israel-based firm (with offices in San Francisco and New York City) wants to help rectify this with a smartphone app that automatically edits mind-numbing iPhone or Android footage into a snappy clip.Users upload up to 10 minutes of video from their phones to the app, choose a template and music to create the mood they want and let the software’s object-oriented algorithms do the rest. The result is a cut–up to one minute and 15 seconds–that will linger on a face for a romantic clip or highlight the action at a sporting event.In our testing, we found that Magisto can make the lives of business owners easier by allowing them to shoot, process and share high-quality videos right from their phones, ideal for capturing house or property tours, dynamic performances, fashion shows and product demonstrations. Magisto responds to movement, facial recognition and speech, but don’t count on it to distill a static PowerPoint presentation or a panel discussion down to its most salient moments.But overall, considering that Magisto is free, with a premium service available for just $5 per month or $18 per year, it can become another tool in your video-marketing arsenal–no director’s chair necessary. 2 min read Enroll Now for Free November 9, 2013 This hands-on workshop will give you the tools to authentically connect with an increasingly skeptical online audience. This story appears in the October 2013 issue of . Subscribe » Free Workshop | August 28: Get Better Engagement and Build Trust With Customers Now