The Kansas Board of Education is going to be re-evaluating the anti-science standards the formerly overwhelmingly right-wing crazy board had approved—they've since elected more moderate members—and the creationists aren't happy about it. When reading the stories, there was this name that kept coming up: Doug Kaufman. I don't know a thing about the man, but from all of his newspaper quotes, I'm getting an impression of a real Gumby, a fellow who has one thought in his head and who bellows it out at every opportunity. If only that thought weren't wrong…
Here's Doug Kaufman in the Kansas City Star:
"Evolution as it's taught today is bad science," said Doug Kaufman of Leavenworth. "It's unproveable."
I quite agree that evolution is often taught badly today, but it's due to the Doug Kaufmans of the world that that is so. To claim that something is bad science because it is unprovable is, well, idiotic. We don't prove things in science, ever—all knowledge is interpreted provisionally and is open to revision in the face of new data. Chemistry is "unprovable"; why is Mr Kaufman singling out evolution with a bogus complaint?
I admit that I was intrigued by this obtuse commentator, so I went looking for more Kaufmanisms and found one on KCTV5:
Doug Kaufman, a physician's assistant from Leavenworth, said if the board lets the current standards remain, science itself will discredit evolution.
"I think they are reverting back to a theory that's not good science, and I think that's a mistake," Kaufman said after speaking during a public hearing. "The current standards, the way they are … it's fair to science, and it's fair to students."
He's a PA! That's an honorable job, good for him. Unfortunately, he's repeating his mantra that evolution isn't "good science", which is news to me and all the good scientists I've talked to and all the good science I've read in the scientific literature, which is based on evolution and never on Intelligent Design or any other form of creationism.
Oh, and science doesn't care for "fair". Ideas succeed or fail on the basis of their merits; we don't believe in equal time teaching, especially since it's impractical: bad ideas greatly outnumber the good ones.
Mr Kaufman continues to feed his sound bites to the Lawrence Journal-World:
Doug Kaufman, a physician's assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution "doesn't stand up to real science."
I do wish he'd say more about what this "real science" is. He's a creationist—he's throwing marshmallows at a steamroller and bragging about his unstoppable might, and it's getting awfully silly…but it is a very Gumby thing to do.
And now I discover he is a pastor. Why am I not at all surprised?
Among them, Doug Kaufman, associate pastor of Cornerstone Church in Leavenworth, said the theory of evolution can be debunked.
"I believe that evolution is dying," he said.
I just got back from the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology meetings, and for a discipline that is dying, it sure throws a good party. Maybe if you sit in a church all day and listen to old gomers grouse about stuff they don't understand, it might look like it's dying, but anyone who reads the journals or actually does science knows that evolution is a thriving, productive, growing concern. And seriously, dude, what the pastor of a podunk church in Kansas believes is pretty much the definition of delusional irrelevance.
Then, I found the mother-lode of Kaufmanisms, a letter to the Topeka Capital-Journal:
Recent letters have criticized intelligent design while cleverly giving no scientific facts to support their position that Darwinism and the big bang theory have any science at all.
Since all Kaufman ever seems to do is claim that his real science is better than that bad science of evolution without ever even explaining what his "science" is, this is particularly ironic.
The evolutionists don't want debate of any kind but want to silence critics because they cannot defend their position with observable or reproducible science.
Wait…Intelligent Design creationism refuses to discuss the nature, intent, or mechanisms of their inscrutable Designer, while evolutionary biology is constantly referring to evidence from molecular biology to fossils, and we're the ones who can't defend our position with science?
Physics theory follows a logical progression from start to finish. Evolution lacks any progression at all: no transitional forms, no evidence of macroevolution, no fossil records, lots of gaps and adaptation of some species. There are 32 orders of mammals with no transitional or intermediate forms. Chimps and humans share 96 percent similarity of DNA but the 4 percent difference equals 120 million differences in base pairs.
It's good to know that physics is finished.
It's also interesting that of the 26 mammalian orders, 32 lack any transitional forms, and that the fossil record doesn't exist. Mr Kaufman has his eyes clamped shut and is shouting "LA LA LA LA" here.
The second law of thermodynamics and entropy state that all matter and organisms decay. Genetic mutations degenerate and never regenerate to a higher level. The chance of one amino acid meeting and combining to form any organism is 1 in 350 million.
It just wouldn't be a good creationist rant without an erroneous reference to the second law of thermodynamics and mangled probabilities, would it?
Real science is observable, such as the electrical polarity of raindrops, complexity of individual DNA and mitochondria (the workhorse of the cell), functioning of chlorophyll in plants, the human brain, complexity of the ear bones, the working of the atom and the gravitational forces that keep our solar system in perfect rotation.
Or the fossil record, or the pattern of similarities in DNA…oh, right. Kaufman denies that those exist.
All are observable but defy origin. All work perfectly — too perfectly, wouldn't you say? The evolutionists want you to believe all came from a big bang, from nothingness even though they have no science to prove it.
Perfectly? I notice from his picture that Mr Kaufman is getting up there in years, but thanks to the power of Jesus he must not have any creaky joints, plaque-filled arteries, or troublesome prostate gland, and never in his life has he choked on a scrap of food, had appendicitis or tonsilitis, back pain, or eyeglasses. Perfection!
I'm also curious about his complaint that evolutionists claim that everything came from a state in which it did not formerly exist, which seems like a fairly ordinary claim, and one that the creationists also support.
Discussion of evolution is one thing, but to teach it as undeniable science is poor science at best and preposterous at worst.
But it is undeniably science, even if the details of the science are still arguable. I'm a little disappointed that in all of his extended rantage, he hasn't yet supported his position that creationism has any science at all.
One thing you can trust about a Gumby, though, is that he'll bellow out his opinions more. Keep an eye out for more loudly proclaimed denials from this paragon of right-wing religious thought!
P.S. There is also something very weird at the Cornerstone Church: they have a prophetess. Her name is Staci.
- Log in to post comments
Funny that he should mention the "complexity of the ear bones" and "no fossil records, lots of gaps" in the same letter.
Therapsids, anyone?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Firstly, your source that lists 26 doesn't mention any of the extinct ones. With those, you could easily get way over 32.
Secondly, orders are not countable. Like the other Linnaean ranks, they are 100 % subjective. That's why splitters and lumpers exist and why nobody can stop them. If you want to measure biodiversity, you're fooling yourself if you count orders or families or genera; either you pick a species concept and then count species, or you take a phylogeny and apply something like the Phylogenetic Diversity Index.
(Well, phylogenetic nomenclature can... not so much stop as eliminate splitters & lumpers, but it does so by ignoring the ranks.)
Why does Staci the prophetess have an email address? Why would she need one?
Yes, which is why I didn't make a big deal about the number he pulled out of his ass. The intent is clear, though: he's trying to deny everything.
From the Bush School of Thought...
The prophetess needs an email address to read what you say. Her powers merely mean that she can turn off the "bing!" notification sound and still know when you've sent her email.
With persistence anyone can get a letter to the editor published, but I wonder why Kaufman, as opposed to someone with a bigger name in Kansas creationism, is quoted in those newpaper articles. Or is he the best of breed?
Ah yes, that old koan... what's the sound of one amino acid meeting and combining?
Pastor Kaufman just stopped by! He kept shouting this strange message:
'The only real science is the science of two bricks being banged together!!'
I'm not quite sure what he means, but I liked his suspenders, handkerchief head scarf, and gumboots.
You too can learn about science:
http://www.rhema.org/education/rcbs.cfm
(Kaufman's alma mater)
I just love Thermodynamics abuse.
Its not like there is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen nearby, supply the earth with energy, or anything...
I got 6 words for you:
"My Brain Hurts!"
I think this is a great point and I want to start using it in debates, but can anyone elaborate on it so I can be more specific? It makes sense logically, but chemistry was never my best subject.
It's obvious: Chemistry can't explain where atoms came from. Nor can it definitively show that elves with tiny little Bic lighters are not the cause of spontaneous combustion. It's elves all the way down, and you can't prove it's not.
Hi, I missed the stop lurking post.
Just a minor point, prophets aren't the same as psychics. Prophets are supposed to be people who God talks to and who then deliver the message to the rest of the people. Of course, if Got wants her to know she has e-mail that's his business.
Gumby sure picked some strange examples:
*complexity of individual DNA
Yeah, too complex to have been designed by a competent engineer. Why do people assume that complexity automatically equals "design," much less "superlative design?" Isn't simple elegance a hallmark of good engineering? And if one were walking on a beach and found two stones, one perfectly spherical (and consequently geometrically simple) and one completely irregular (and consequently geometrically complex), which one would seem more likely to be "designed"? Unnecessary complexity does not seem like a good design implication.
*mitochondria (the workhorse of the cell) [and] functioning of chlorophyll in plants
Both of which are probably endoparasitic single-celled organisms, each with its own genetic code, demonstrating not design but adaptation.
*the human brain
Creationists often believe that mind exists separate from the brain, making the size of our brains unnecessary. If mind does not require our large, vulnerable brains, why did the creator decide to engineer them that way? (I actually have a possible answer to that one--to punish Eve and her female descendants in childbirth, as Jehovah said he was going to--God's original plan was for a race of pinheads).
*complexity of the ear bones
Yeah, there's a good reason for their (again, inexplicable) complexity--exaptation from reptilian jawbones, documented in a well-established fossil sequence. Human hearing (the only kind creationists are likely to give a damn about, come right down to it) should not have required such fragile sensory organs. I can attest to their fragility because I am deaf in my left ear, the product of too-short Eustachian tubes getting infected in infancy, and nerve damage from loud sounds in my teens (Saffire rocks, man! Yeaaaaah!). Don't come bragging to me about your God's wonderful ear part designs.
Oh, and since sensory input does not seem to depend on sensory organs (or else how can we explain the experiences that non-corporeal spirits have?), why were such complex and fallible organs as ears (and eyes) required at all? Please don't tell me that Sting was right...we are spirits/living in a material world. All that shows is that nonsense can be catchy given the right reggae blanc beat.
'Nuff said.
I used to think gravity was "unprovable" and "bad science" and "just a theory", too. Then I fell off my bicycle; now I'm a convert.
I tell you, there is a huge segment of the population who (metaphorically, at least) have one of those tee-shirts that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", and they live their life by that. Where I live in Northern California, I'd estimate we're talking about at least 25% of the population that either metaphorically or actually has one of those shirts. It may be higher in some states.
We have to fight that, but, I tell you, getting that last 25% of the population to believe the Grand Canyon was created by something other than Noah's flood will be pretty difficult, if not outright impossible. So it's natural that, no matter what, you'll have people like Kaufman. They're everywhere. Send 'em to Patrick Henry and hope for the best, I guess.
It's a parallel universe. It's hard to get the irrational to join the rational. I'm glad I crossed back over in about 1983...
I so utterly want a job as a prophetess. I can't help but think I would make less of a botch of it than Pat Robertson. Where do I send my resume? Is Staci accepting interns?
Those seem like pretty good odds to make "any" organism. I'm going to get a jar of amino acids and make a unicorn by the end of the day!
Poseidon, it's because science of any kind does not deal in proof. What we look for is the best model to fit the available data. You can never prove that any of these models are correct, but you can disprove models which aren't correct (with falsifying evidence).
It's like: you can prove beyond doubt that 'all swans are white', because there may exist somewhere a black swan which will disprove your assertion.
From a chemistry point of view (ok, maybe atomic physics), you have the progression from the 'plum-pudding' model of the atom, the Bohr model, and the current model with its weird subshells which incorporates quantum mechanics. The interactions between different atoms to form molecules, and different concentrations of molecules in chemical reactions, are all explained using the best models that we have.
But you can't prove any of them are true.
Don't you mean 'blockhead?'
http://www.gumbyworld.com/memorylane/imagearchive/blockhead.htm
fusilier
James 2:24
Oops, I meant that you CAN'T prove beyond doubt that all swans are white. Sorry!
Hey PZ, great site! But I can't beleive you missed mentioning the Roman legionary with his "Warriors for Christ" shield on the church website. They think very highly of themselves, apparently.
I emailed this to Glenn Morton, keeper of the list of predictions of "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism" and it will become the first entry of the new year ... and here we are, just 10 days in..
I found interesting (in a manner of speaking) his inclusion of the "inner workings of the atom" as something that has been directly observed and "works perfectly". I'm no scientist, but as far as I know the only way to "observe" the inner workings of the atom is indirectly, measuring the energy from particle accelerators and so on. The way we observe evolution from its results. Also, is the atom still "working perfectly" when it decays?
As for the ubiquitous 2nd law of thermodynamics, if that law stated what these idiots claim it states, it would be running against not only evolution, but every other natural process that produces order out of disorder (formation of crystals, reproduction, etc.) Which means that the law itself would have to be thrown out.
RBH, you always have the most succinct and clever way of putting things. Coming over here from IIDB (I'm called "Extrapolation" there), it's nice to see a familiar...uh...series of letters. Rather warms the heart.
What you don't realize, Mark Borok, is that Kaufman is actually ahead of his time. He's really using the properties of metamaterials with their negative refractive index to view details beyond the realm of human comprehension. And many other measurements! He's a Scientist, man.
The truth is no doubt much simpler. God clearly revealed to him how atoms work. End of story.
Pi 3:14
I see you have that machine that goes, "BING!".
I, too, am a Python fan.
I know I was supposed to de-lurk yesterday, but I've never been very good at following directions.
HI PZ,
I didn't get the chance to comment on the delurking post, so I'm finally commenting here, to notify you and the world that I exist, and I occationally drop by your site to read what you have to say.
I have to say, though, that though I agree with (most) of what you have to say, I don't think answering a rant with a rant is really productive. Have you heard the saying "Don't argue with a pig...it just wastes your time and annoys the pig."
You're never going to change the opinion of creationists, no matter how much you point out the illogic and inconsistency and lack of evidence of their position, just as they are obviously never going to change your opinion on the validity of evolution.
But then, I guess there wouldn't be nearly as much to blog about, if you can't let go with a good rant occationally...
I just love the way any random illiterate gomer with a Bible (that he's incapable of reading) feels qualified to make authoritative pronouncments about biology. Is this a great country, or what?
Jade - PZ may be preaching to the converted here on his blog, but it is necessary for scientists to continue to expose creationists for what they are. These fools run for school boards (banking, in part, on the low turnout for local elections in many districts) with the intent of destroying science education. The more the word is spread about their idiocy, the better.
Besides, it says in the Bible that rants are good for you ;)
"no scientific facts to support their position that Darwinism and the big bang theory have any science at all."
I guess he missed that whole COBE thing, the evidence is literally everywhere. However, how many biologists really start with the Big Bang? I assume he mentions that since it offers a non-God origin, but why don't the crazies go for other science some time, just to shake things up. If we have to listen to their angry drivel, they might as well learn a few new tricks to keep us entertained. Why not preach about the heresy of plate tectonincs, meteorology or linguistics (tower of babel my ass). They seem so focused on beginnings they failed to note all God claimed to do after day one is well with in the domain scientific explanation.
The claim that "evolution is dying" had me worried, so I checked Science Citation Index for papers using "evolution AND species". Results by year: 1975=10, 1985=32, 1995=1887, 2005=4858. I feel better now.
Pastor Kaufman's email address is listed on his church website. I think we should all send him some emails letting him know what we think of his position and his statements.
What is a church? It's a building people visit regularly to be brainwashed and/or comforted by someone who lives in a fantasy world.
When the brainwasher decides that his fantasy tripe deserves some attention in the larger world amd, what is worse, that the world of science is not conforming to his little fantasy, his churchgoers should remind him that the little church he inhabits was built for a purpose, to contain religion within reasonable bounds, where it can't do too much harm.
My point: the only people who are going to convince Pastor Doofus to stop spouting off are his parishioners. Maybe a few brave souls who know him personally will stand up and tell him to cut the crap and let kids learn what they need to learn in school.
I forgot to correct for the overall growth of science. Papers on "evolution AND species" as a percentage of papers on "photosynthesis":
1975 4%
1985 10%
1995 110%
2005 220%
I hope photosynthesis isn't dying.
Or is he the best of breed?
Well yes, that is indeed as good as it gets for their side. You know that Seinfeld standup routine about the guy sitting in the car honking the horn as a pretty woman goes by? "This is the best idea we've come up with so far"? That's it; Kaufman's claims are the best they've got so far... but they've only had, as an online wag recently said, 6000 years with the help of an omniscient being, so you have to give them a break.
He is described as a "Physician's Assistant", yet he speaks against evolution. Um, resistance to antibiotics, anybody? Or Red Queen hypothesis?
But not the gift of spelling, apparently.
The Battle of the Kaufmans:
The Hays School District superintendent's name is Fred Kaufman. He is quoted as saying:
"I guess if it were up to me, I would leave that in the hands of the science teachers and the experts in science," he said in a phone interview. "It would behoove us all to remember that other people have opinions, and recognize them as honorable and worthwhile and not put them down, but to leave the teaching of science to science teachers. "
(Fred K. is known locally, it seems, as a pro-evolution guy, though this quote is a litte ambiguous)
The Kansas Citizens for Science (ww.kcfs.org) is the active entity down there in Ozland. The real situation is not really all that good. The rational normal people have a slim majority on the school board even after the Krazy Yahoos made a complete laughing stock out of their entire state. Do not be surprised if the board swings the other way next election!
Just read the delurker thread so I had to post.
I a chance of an originism of coming to life is one in 350 million. What are the odds of a god (you pick the qualities) of existing. It make one in 350 million look small.
"It would behoove us all to remember that other people have opinions, and recognize them as honorable and worthwhile and not put them down, but to leave the teaching of science to science teachers. "
And you say he's known as a "pro-evolution" guy. Sounds like a pro-obvious guy. Yeah, the situation there doesn't sound very good.
You know, Jade, I tend to agree: there is nothing that can possibly be said to most Creationists to change their minds.
Nevertheless, I do think rebutting them is valuable. It's important not to let their claims go unchallenged: there are more observers than the scientists and Creationists. Also, it's just possible that one or two people might be challenged enough to start looking through facts instead of accepting truisms.
At the risk of offending any true Scotsmen out there, I have never EVER seen a mainstream church with a 'prophetess' or 'prophet'; this seems to be the sort of thing you see when the congregation is devolving into a personality cult, usually with a premillinarian ideology and a persecution cult, a la Jim Jones. I would be greatly alarmed if any Christian of my acquaintance referred to any living person as such, frankly....SH
Scott Hatfield,
The Pope would seem to qualify as a prophet under the standard definitions of the word.
The Kaufmans are a prominent family here in Kansas City--normally, anyone with the last name of "Kaufman" or "Kemper" are the local celebs, regardless of their actual worth. You know, like the Paris Hilton of Kansas. Not that it makes it right.
Yes, Beren's got it quite right: just because solid convinced creationists won't listen to the truth is no reason for scientists to speak up. We're hoping mainly to convince those in the middle. In any case, silence on the issue has only served to hurt us--as some have pointed out, as these crackpots have become increasingly vocal and scientists have ignored them, they've just become more and more successful. They've managed to convince a lot of people they're right, and that doesn't seem to be getting any better. So keeping quiet on this issue is actually counterproductive.
Regarding the Fred K. quote,
It reads more like an accomplished politician who knows that the science teachers would support his personal views, but doesn't intend to alienate the people who think there may be a controversy to teach.
Welcome to political reality. I wouldn't hold it against Fred K.
MikeM said:
Why not kill two birds with one stone? Have a number of them walk off the precipice, and on the way down you can explain to them that this little experiment in which they are engaged is a reproducible example that gravity exists, even though we can't see it. Get enough test subjects, and even though you may not change their minds you'll at least get fewer objections regarding the origin of the Grand Canyon.
What does it profit
us to have a prophetess
without prophecies?
More on Pastor Doug:
Associate Pastor Doug and Mary Kaufman
Associate Pastor Doug and Mary Kaufman have been married since1984. Pastor Doug is the Assistant Pastor and oversees the Education Ministry, is a teacher in the Adult Sunday School Class and does counseling. Pastor Doug graduated from Witchita State University and Rhema Correspondence Bible School. Mary graduated from St. Anne School of Nursing in Chicago, IL.
Got that? Witchita State.
"Welcome to political reality. I wouldn't hold it against Fred K.
Please don't. Fred K. is good people, and if every school district in KS had a superintendent as supportive of teaching good science this debate wouldn't be happening here.
Kaufman just proves the First Corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Given a soapbox, creationists and ID-iots will run off at the mouth with nonsense until dead.
I wrote to the good pastor and will report back any response.
The big philanthropic family in KC is the Kauffman family, no relation.
Pastor Doug explains in his Wisdom sermon how he is trying to convert a Hindu woman to Christianity. Disgusting, manipulative bastard.
Does she get paid to be a prophetess?
Kauffman:
"The chance of one amino acid meeting and combining to form any organism is 1 in 350 million."
Is the chance of one amino acid meeting the same as the sound of one hand clapping?
Or do they show PowerPoint Slides at an amino acid meeting?
Or is PowerPoint the inhibitor that makes producing an organism so unlikely?
I'm glad I'm not the only person who googles crackpots.
A good follow-up to that "koan of one amino acid colliding"! (though doesn't the "a" count as a syllable?)
However, I suggest that it is probably profitable to call oneself a prophetess in the right circles. Psychic mediums appear to do quite nicely for themselves, and the credibility of prophetic ability is bolstered by the Old Testament, in which so many millions unquestioningly believe.
A little question for Scott, since my curiosity is now piqued, and you are probably the most informed commenter on Christianity on this blog: You mention that a congregation with a prophetess is heading down the road to cultism. Fatima and Međugorje are the only significant alleged prophecies from the 20th century (that I can recall), they are specifically Catholic, and I suspect my Catholic parents would have a similar reaction to you regarding Kaufman's prophetess (though they have travelled to Fatima and seem to trust its authenticity). Are there theological reasons why prophetic activity should have decreased so much, or is it simply the effect of a modern secular education that makes people sceptical of such claims?
Hmmm. So a mole of assorted amino acids (a modest beakerful) should produce about 1.72x10^15 organisms? Yowza!
He is described as a "Physician's Assistant",
Cleans the office at night.
How very Zen.
Is this the biological equivalent of "the sound of one hand clapping"? :|
"God's original plan was for a race of pinheads)."
(Comment by Greg Paterson)
So that explains the creationists! "God's Perfect Plan for Mankind" revealed!
Quoth John Cleese, "What a great twit!!"
Delurking. Great blog PK - apart from the excellent articles, there are all these wonderful, literate commenters. I spend way too much time here.
Matt - you may want to clarify what you mean by "Tower of babel my ass". It sounds like you might need medical attention...
Over here in South Africa, we actually have the Rhema Church itself, a hybrid cutting from a US weed. (If you'll forgive the bad biology analogy). Last time I checked, they get two hours every Sunday morning on our national broadcaster's prime channel. Which is why satellite TV and pay-TV have become very popular here.
I remember being dragged to a creationist lecture by my parents at our local Baptist church when I was about fourteen and becoming loudly atheist. I can't remember who it was who spoke, but they were definitely American. Any chance I might have actually seen Duane Gish or that Moody guy in the flesh? Anyone know? I spent the trip back home nitpicking everything he'd said - and I didn't even need science to do it. I just used logic. Needless to say, my parents remain fundamentalist. The *sad* thing is that here in SA, fundamentalism is the default religious position. These are people who don't even *know* they're fundamentalist, they just think they're being good Christians.
Sorry for the long post, but, since I'm planning on re-lurking, I thought you should all get to know me while you can.
He's never called one. Never ever.
Incidentally, how many accepted Catholic prophecies were there in the 19th century? Lourdes and?
I like how in the same sentence he says there is no fossil record and then says that there are gaps in the fossil record. Seperated by merely a comma is this mighty contradiction.
Mr. Kaufman has good reasoning behind everything he says about evolution, and i couldnt support him more, so all of you who are leaving these comments need to take a step back and realize what he is saying. you are all idiots and you have no reasoning behind what you are saying. take a step back and look in the mirror...do you look anything like a damn monkey...yup didnt think so, well i guess we both have legs and a head, thats a good reason. you are a bunch of idiots and if you want to talk about mr. kaufman the way you do then you better bring some reasoning besides your stupid opinions.
I read georges comment and i think its good that mr. kaufman is trying to convert a muslim woman to christianity. you are an ignorant "Disgusting, manipulative bastard." kiss my ass and have a shit hole day...ass hole
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
I need the e-mail or phone number of the man who sold air machine's on your show..I have been looking for it for a long time now...Also I would like your phone number of your station....Thank-you so much and God bless you all..
Carol Lincoln
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Firstly, your source that lists 26 doesn't mention any of the extinct ones. With those, you could easily get way over 32.
Secondly, orders are not countable. Like the other Linnaean ranks, they are 100 % subjective. That's why splitters and lumpers exist and why nobody can stop them. If you want to measure biodiversity, you're fooling yourself if you count orders or families or genera; either you pick a species concept and then count species, or you take a phylogeny and apply something like the Phylogenetic Diversity Index.
(Well, phylogenetic nomenclature can... not so much stop as eliminate splitters & lumpers, but it does so by ignoring the ranks.)
He's never called one. Never ever.
Incidentally, how many accepted Catholic prophecies were there in the 19th century? Lourdes and?
To commercialise in terms of high-performance rather than price, and in order to specialise consequently, you necessitate to watch the canonical format of the 4 Ps marketing plan. That is, Price, Product, Place and Promotion manifestly you recognize the heavy properties of the merchandise, and the cost, but for place you should consider about the type of individuals who are willing to pay over 4x price of competing product whereas the low-priced option may be sold where accent is on cost, your product will be suited to places/distributors where the clients will be willing to pay for quality. Thank you for this article! I've just discovered a easily full news site about panda marketing Attempt it!