The Problem Of Homelessness And Homelessness - 1562 Words

Homelessness We have already past Stone Age and marched towards the modern where we can see fascinating technology and different invention where cancer can be a cured with different medication but homeless still exists and is on the verge of increasing day by day. We can’t imagine ourselves being lost or not knowing where to go or what to do. Spending every day and night either depending on someone else or finding a shelter where you can have a nap. Waking up with the noises of the cars and other sounds, and getting something to eat whenever you feel hungry but that does not come easy as you need to have money or find food by the garbage and the least option would be begging for other humans that look alike. Not finding where to clean yourself and take a shower would make you dirty and filthy with rag and torn clothes. Now, the same person who appears to be same, treats you no less than an animal. No matter who you were and who you are or what you do society think dirty and ho meless. It has already reached some millions all-round the world. Home is a place where you have proper shelter, security and a sense of belonging, emotional wellbeing and some kind of identification. Homeless is a state of being without a fixed place for shelter, food, and other services. There are various reason that make people homeless. The first one is economic problem, second is medical and social factors and to some extent political factors. The primary and basic needs are only fulfilled byShow MoreRelatedHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness1350 Words   |  6 PagesHomelessness There are many parts to the subject of homelessness, of course people talk about the solutions to it like The Ten Year Plan, then there is the history of it starting from the 1640’s. Also there is discussions about Homeless Shelters and more recently Anti-homeless Legislation. Then there are always the staggering statistics. The homeless is a very one minded topic for most. Most people think that the homeless should be helped, cared for, and educated for success. This is true (at leastRead MoreHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness1479 Words   |  6 Pages Homelessness Do you think the government is really doing enough to fix the issue of homelessness?According to Lee, Dozens of homeless were left with nothing after a local Seattle organization (SHARE) closed its shelters (Lee, â€Å"Dozens of homeless camp out at county building after SHARE closes its shelters†). How could the government just let these people live without shelter? It even got to the point where the homeless were camping outside a county building because they had no other options.Read MoreHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness1379 Words   |  6 PagesAlthough the numbers of homelessness in the States have decreased in the past 10 years, more than 3.5 million people each year experience homelessness, with 578,424 individuals experience homelessness each night (endhomelessness.org). Many poverty-stricken people are consistently at the risk of homelessness; there is a lack of affordable housing, many jobs provide low income, and destitute people cannot afford medical care for support. However, homelessness does not only extend to the penniless -Read MoreThe Problem Of Homelessness And Homelessness Essay1286 Words   |  6 Pagesled to homelessness. These barriers may be a numerous amount of things such as substance abuse, personal trauma, unhealthy relationships, health problems, or unemployment. No matter the barrier, goals need to be set and must be realistic. If the goals seem impossible to reach they will be. Finally, there must be a commitment to following through with the set goals and a realization that this is an ongoing process that will not change overnight. There is a misinformed stigma of homelessness, whichRead MoreHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness Essay1182 Words   |  5 PagesThe Problem: Homelessness in Auckland Homelessness is a major issue in Auckland that is increasing rapidly over time. Generally defined by Statistics New Zealand â€Å"as living situations where people with no other options to acquire safe and secure housing: are without shelter, in temporary accommodation, sharing accommodation with a household or living in uninhabitable housing†, research has also found that there are four categories of homelessness including; without shelter e.g. living on the streets;Read MoreHomelessness Is A Problem Of Homelessness1658 Words   |  7 PagesHomelessness in Society Imagine you are homeless and have no shelter, or nowhere to go. You walk through storms in the same clothes you had on a week ago. You look around for help, but there is none. What would you do? Or imagine you are one of the forgotten ones, whom people call dirty, and disgusting. Suddenly you hear footsteps, with hope filled inside you, and then a sudden sadness strikes you as the 1378th careless person walks by you and doesn t notice you. All you want is somewhere to sleepRead MoreThe Problem Of Homelessness And Homelessness802 Words   |  4 PagesConclusion Homelessness has been an ongoing problem in the United States and it cannot be decreased until each state comes up with a plan that is affective. However, in order for this to work the economy needs to recover to the point where no one is without a job and is paid a wage that is manageable. The negative stereotypes of judging the homeless needs to be stopped and people need to be educated that homelessness can affect anyone. Although there are many services available to assist the homelessRead MoreHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness1584 Words   |  7 PagesHomelessness Awareness At some point in their life, a person has seen or heard of an individual who lives on the streets. The individual who lives on the streets and holds a sign that says they need money for food is consider homeless. Sadly, these individuals are everywhere and the amount of people under this title is slowly increasing. However, in this nation we have the ability to begin decreasing that number. By providing the necessary amount of assistance required to place these individualsRead MoreHomelessness Is A Problem Of Homelessness1610 Words   |  7 PagesHomelessness is a monster. Each day, there are people on the streets suffering from homelessness. These unsheltered people litter the streets, and plead for help. There are different types of homelessness, but the most monstrous is chronic. The chronically homeless are left to endure the hardships of homelessness without hope of an effective solution. Americans disregard all homeless populations, but the most heart wrenching group that is d isregarded is the veterans. The veteran homelessness problemRead MoreHomelessness : The Problem Of Homelessness2773 Words   |  12 PagesJosh Elliott November 5, 2014 Professor Clark English 1102 Final Draft Homelessness in families has become a much more prominent problem in communities and many struggle from it as they are people who are lacking in funds causing them to be without a home. Today, homelessness among families is becoming more common and is unfortunately spreading all over the world. Most home owning people are unaware of the actuality of the conditions that the homeless people reside in and many cannot comprehend

Microsoft Case Analysis Essay Example For Students

Microsoft Case Analysis Essay There have been many arguments and issues that have been raised with the controversy over Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice’s claim against Microsoft and its founder Bill Gates of monopolistic practices in bundling its internet browser â€Å"Internet Explorer† into its popular Windows computer operating system. By doing this, Microsoft would effectively crush its competitors (it’s main rival being Netscape Navigator), and acquire a monopoly over the software that people use to access the Internet. I recently heard a listener on NPR (National Public Radio) comment about the monopoly issue between Microsoft and the U.S. D.O.J. that â€Å"Intellectual endeavors are vastly infinite and thus cannot be monopolized.† I wonder if the person who said this has ever tried telling that to Bill Gates. More importantly, is such a statement true? Does computer software constitute an intellectual endeavor that cannot be monopolized? To answer this issue, an inductive argument can be applied to determine if Microsoft truly has a monopoly over the computer industry. To say that something is infinite implies that there is an endless supply of it. Is this the case in terms of the Internet and the software that is used to â€Å"navigate† or â€Å"explore† the Internet as the two leading Internet Browsers have been dubbed by their makers? The resources of the Internet may seem infinitely vast, but it is wholly finite. There is an abundance of information out there on the Intern et that it seems unlikely that any one company or even a country like the U.S. could ever monopolize this vast data network. By the nature of how the Internet works and how information is stored and shared on the network, it is true that a monopoly cannot be held over the intellectual information stored within the Internet. On this point I will accede to the original author’s claim that intellectual endeavors cannot be monopolized, but this is vastly different from the issue that stands before Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The question that must be distinguished is not if Microsoft will gain a monopoly over the Internet, but if it will acquire a monopoly on how people access the Internet. These two are wholly separate issues. This is not a question of control of intellectual information, but the means by which people gain *access* to that information. Even if the information provided by the Internet was infinite, the tools by which to get to that information i s not. And thus a monopoly of the software to gain access to the Internet is very much possible. There are many corridors and keys that allow someone to gain access to the Internet. The real question here is whether Microsoft is seeking to widen it’s doors at the expense of others and at the same time seeking gatekeeper access to the Internet by seeking to obtain the only key that allows access to the Internet. A metaphor of this problem can be explained through a library building that has many entrances in which to reach the knowledge of books contained within. Is Microsoft seeking to close off the other entrances of other providers so that the only access is through its entrance? It would be very tempting to say yes, but that would be wholly unfair. Now that the problem and issue which is presented to us is clear, an examination of whether or not Microsoft is violating any anti-trust (anti-monopolistic) laws can now proceed. Before he installed Windows 95, John Dodge connected to the Internet using software from a Microsoft competitor, CompuServes Internet in a Box. Not anymore. Windows 95 silently disabled a key piece of his setup and made it too difficult for him to reinstall it. Dodge was not a novice. He is senior executive editor of the trade journal PC Week and so had access to the highest level support engineers. Even software professionals learn to take the path of least resistance, in this case, the path leading to Microsoft. He has become a regular user of the new Microsoft Network, though he has trouble with its Internet features. Still, he believes Microsoft executives when they deny trying to gain market share by sabotaging competitors software. He just wonders whether Microsoft has a full appreciation of its actions in the marketplace. There is reason to believe that Microsoft does (Gleick 1). If a seasoned computer expert was unable to disable the bug planted by Microsoft’s operatin g system then how are normal everyday lay people supposed to contend against any sabotage which could be silently planted into our computers without our knowledge?In another response from a computer industry leader, we get a glimpse of the power Microsoft has and the potential power which it is capable of wielding in the future. I personally believe that Microsoft is the most powerful economic force in the United States in the second half of the 20th century, says Eric Schmidt, chief technology officer of Sun Microsystems, a minicomputer and networking company whose business used to be remote from Microsofts but now finds itself under direct competitive pressure. Some of Microsofts control over computing, at all levels, is obvious. Much, however, is invisible. Even longtime insiders are just beginning to understand the nature of that power: how Microsoft acquired it, preserves it and exercises it. Schmidt is not alone in his views in the computer world. The question of what to do ab out Microsoft is going to be a central public policy issue for the next 20 years, says Mitchell Kapor, the founder and former CEO of Lotus Development Corporation, once the leading PC software company. Policymakers dont understand the real character of Microsoft yet, the sheer will-to-power that Microsoft has (Gleick 2-3). Netscape recently released its source codes. This move by Netscape caused a shock within the computer industry. These codes which are closely guarded secrets of computer programmers acts very much like a Rosetta Stone that deciphers the programming language. The owners of Netscape did this in the hopes of being able to compete against Microsoft’s Internet Explorer in the browser market. By allowing other programmers to view the programming framework, Netscape also hoped that the combined forces would allow its Internet browser to evolve much more rapidly in public hands than in private development. By doing this, Netscape made no immediate economic gains, b ut hopes its product will survive to evolve and compete against Microsoft even long after the company Netscape is gone (NPR News May 5). This was seen almost like an act of desperation on the part of Netscape as a last ditch effort to combat the threat of efforts of Microsoft to dominate the Internet browser market. Notes to Myself EssayBusiness

3 Types of Sexual Life Cycles - Evolution

3 Types of Sexual Life Cycles - Evolution One of the properties of life is the ability to reproduce to create offspring that can carry on the genetics of the parent or parents  to the following generations. Living organisms can accomplish this by reproducing in one of two ways. Some species use asexual reproduction to make offspring, while others reproduce using sexual reproduction. While each mechanism has its pros and its cons, whether or not a parent needs a partner to reproduce or it can make offspring on its own are both valid ways to carry on the species. Different kinds of eukaryotic organisms that undergo sexual reproduction  have different types of sexual life cycles. These life cycles determine how the organism will not only make its offspring but also how the cells within the multicellular organism will reproduce themselves. The sexual life cycle determines  how many sets of chromosomes each cell in the organism  will have. Diplontic Life Cycle A diploid cell is a type of eukaryotic cell that has 2 sets of chromosomes. Usually, these sets are a genetic mixture of both the male and female parent. One set of the chromosomes comes from the mother and one set comes from the father. This allows a nice mixture of the genetics of both parents and increases diversity of traits in the gene pool for natural selection to work on. In a diplontic life cycle, the majority of the organisms life is spent with most of the cells in the body being diploid. The only cells that have half the number of chromosomes, or are haploid, are the gametes (sex cells). Most organisms that have a diplontic life cycle start from the fusion of two haploid gametes. One of the gametes comes from a female and the other from the male. This coming together of the sex cells creates a diploid cell called a zygote. Since the diplontic life cycle keeps most of the body cells as diploid, mitosis can happen to split the zygote and continue splitting future generations of cells. Before mitosis can happen, the cells DNA is duplicated to make sure the daughter cells have two full sets of chromosomes that are identical to each other. The only haploid cells that happen during a diplontic life cycle are gametes. Therefore, mitosis cannot be used to make the gametes. Instead, the process of meiosis is what creates the haploid gametes from the diploid cells in the body. This ensures that the gametes will have only one set of chromosomes, so when they fuse again during sexual reproduction, the resulting zygote will have the two sets of chromosomes of a normal diploid cell. Most animals, including humans, have a diplontic sexual life cycle. Haplontic Life Cycle Cells that spend the majority of their lives in a haploid phase are considered to have a haplontic sexual life cycle. In fact, organisms that have a haplontic life cycle are only composed of a diploid cell when they are zygotes. Just like in the diplontic life cycle, a haploid  gamete from a female and a haploid gamete from a male will fuse to make a diploid zygote. However, that is the only diploid cell in the entire haplontic life cycle.   The zygote undergoes meiosis at its first division to create daughter cells that have half the number of chromosomes compared to the zygote. After that division, all of the now haploid cells in the organism undergo mitosis in future cell divisions to create more haploid cells. This continues on for the organisms entire life cycle. When it is time to sexually reproduce, the gametes are already haploid and can just fuse with another organisms haploid gamete to form the zygote of the offspring. Examples of organisms that live a haplontic sexual life cycle include fungi, some protists, and some plants. Alternation of Generations The final type of sexual life cycle is a kind of mix of the two previous types. Called alternation of generations, the organism spends about half of its life in a haplontic life cycle and the other half of its life in a diplontic life cycle. Like the haplontic and diplontic life cycles, organisms that have an alternation of generations sexual life cycle begin life as a diploid zygote formed from the fusion of haploid gametes from a male and a female. The zygote can then either undergo mitosis and enter its diploid phase, or perform meiosis and become haploid cells. The resulting diploid cells are called sporophytes and the haploid cells are called gametophytes. The cells will continue to do mitosis and split in whichever phase they enter and create more cells for growth and repair. Gametophytes can then once again fuse to become a diploid zygote of the offspring. Most plants live the alternation of generations sexual life cycle.

Indiscreet and Indiscrete - Commonly Confused Words

Indiscreet and Indiscrete - Commonly Confused Words The homophones indiscreet and indiscrete are not synonyms. Indiscreet is the more common word. Indiscrete is a technical term primarily used in scientific writing. The adjective indiscreet means imprudent, lacking good judgment, or carelessly talkative. The noun forms of indiscreet  are  indiscreetness  and  indiscretion. The adjective indiscrete means not separated into distinct parts. The noun form of indiscrete is indiscreteness. See also: Discreet and Discrete Examples The lawyers indiscreet remarks to the media provoked an angry response from the judge. Dr. John Watson: One word, Sherlock! That is all I would have needed! One word to let me know that you were alive!Sherlock Holmes: Ive nearly been in contact so many times, but I worried that, you know, you might say something indiscreet.Dr. John Watson: What?Sherlock Holmes: Oh, you know, let the cat out of the bag.(Martin Freeman and  Benedict Cumberbatch in The Empty Hearse. Sherlock, 2014) The indiscrete nucleus does not have a nuclear membrane and is therefore not separate from the cytoplasm. Practice(a) Questions are never _____; answers sometimes are.(Oscar Wilde, An  Ideal Husband)(b) Topology aims to formalize some continuous, _____ features of space. Answers to Practice Exercises Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words200 Homonyms, Homophones, and Homographs Answers to Practice Exercises: Indiscreet and Indiscrete (a) Questions are never indiscreet; answers sometimes are.(Oscar Wilde,  An  Ideal Husband)  (b) Topology aims to formalize some continuous, indiscrete features of space. Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words

Nazism Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Nazism - Research Paper Example The acceptance of the German public of Hitler and his government though irrational, was not unexplainable. The horrific actions of the Third Reich are well documented. The end result of the Nazi’s evil ideologies included the occupation of most European nations and the ‘final solution,’ the annihilation of over six million Jews. During this the rise of Nazism, the ethnic and romantic ideals of ‘Blood and Fatherland’ gained impetus. According to this notion, German blood and the German fatherland were holy and those ethnic minorities within the country that did not belong to the German race were seen as contaminating German blood and tarnishing the German fatherland. This stream of thought brought to bear an enormous influence on the Nazi ideology, which viewed â€Å"the spilling of blood as part of a holy crusade† (Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, 1991: 189). In his rise to power, Hitler garnered support by holding rallies but his oratories were hardl y credible or persuasive on an intellectual level. Usually, his speeches were predictable, repetitious and lacked substantive arguments. The influence of minds was spawned by the delivery of the speeches which possessed energy and a hypnotic, rhythmic pulse to them.

Are Events Particulars Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Are Events Particulars - Essay Example He also critiques Chilosm's contention that there are recurring events - he gives an example of dropping a saucer in mud one day and doing it again the next. So how does one classify such an event, is a particular event How can we make these discrete events as one, one might talk of same event continuing but then in case of a continuous event recurring after a break, what if the event occurred with separate participants, two persons got married and two others did the same. Will this count as a same event or event sum! Even if one were to allow unrepeatable events, how can one solve the paradox of same event happening more than once, perhaps resumption of the event after a pause might suffice. Only he says if there are particular unrepeatable events than same event can occur on more than one occasions (Donald, essays). Davidson believes that events are particulars, so that same event can be cross referenced from more than representation, further physical event even though these might be causally related; he classifies mental events as those rationalized by reasoning. This does not mean that correlations do not exist, it is only that such correspondences cannot be rendered in the precise mathematical form outlined by strict laws. Regarding equivalence of events and if events are indeed particulars he says that events should be similarly causal for them to be identical and also that the concerned events should occupy the same spatial location (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The differentiation between mental and physical events is quite amorphous they are really two ways of looking at the same things viewed from two different perspectives. The question to ask is whether this event is constituent of or composed of event which is purely physical, a mental event might have hidden aspects, properties which are not immediately discernable, but by using exemplifications the associations might become clearer. (Helen Steward, ontology of the mind) Helen Steward discusses Jaegwon Kim and Jonathan Bennett's theories on events in his book "The Ontology of Mind". Events according to Jaegwon Kim, he says, are to be represented canonically such that their inherent metaphysical character is kept intact; events have a structure, its constituents are object(s) and time (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Any event can be represented by the expression [S, p, t] where S is substance, p is property and t time. Kim's events exemplify properties, but the property exemplified is the constitutive property while any number of non constitutive properties is exemplified (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Two events are identical only if the three variables match in the respective events and the concerned Events 4 event is a "dated particular" (Helen Steward) and event's identity is tied to a particular property. The issue is using event describing sentences using explicit times cannot be mapped on a particular event and

The Infallibility of the Bible: Astronomical Errors

The Infallibility of the Bible: Astronomical Errors 03/12/2017 There is overwhelming support for inerrancy from history. The idea that the Bible can contain errors is a relatively new belief. Author and scholar Harold Lindsell stated, Apart from a few exceptions, the church through the ages has consistently believed that the entire Bible is the inerrant or infallible Word of God[1]. You need a transition here The presence of observable and falsifiable[J1] scientific evidence is perhaps the most compelling reason for the conclusion that the Bible is not free from error. Because this evidenc[J2]e clearly yields certain conclusions that are contradicted by direct statements from biblical authors, we can safely say that the Bible is an imperfect book containing flaws of [J3]human origins. Due to the overwhelming amount of scientific errors the book possesses, you [J4]should have great comfort in deciding that there was no divine inspiration or intervention in creation. Furthermore, the vast categories of errors contained in the Bible demonstrate that the mistakes are not confined to a single author or field of study, a realization that should question the foundation and intent of the book as a whole. This paper will focus considerably on the first chapter of Genesis, astronomy, and biology because each of these topics unmistakably contributes to the faux pas of apologetics. THE BEGINNING: Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as a complete lie. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.[2] Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below seas and the water above sky, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a firmament (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using expansion, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is rakia, which the KJV more accurately translated as a solid body.3 Why is the KJV translation more in line with the authors intent? First, its the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that its the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that theres a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2). Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because theres an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we can conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect. God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. Its unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges[3]. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, theres no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurren t periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols to divide the day from the night (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called light (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the suns creation. In addition to the sun gaffe, the scientifically ignorant author commits the mistake of listing the moon as a light (16). If we were to be rigidly technical about the Bibles claim, this verse is another scientifically erroneous notion because the moon merely reflects illumination from the sun. Isaiah and Ezekiel also make this mistake in their prophecy accounts (30:26 and 32:7, respectively). Again, we often take our modern knowledge about the universe for granted, yet such a gift was completely unforeseeable to the ancient Hebrew. Another problem arises from the sun not appearing until the fourth day when you consider that plants suddenly appeared on the third day (11-13). While its definitely possible, even very likely, for plants to survive without the sun for a single day, many apologists have attempted to rectify the obvious timeline problems in Genesis by altering the meaning of a day. Once they consummate this amendment, theyve created a timeline in which the plants exist without sunlight for however long these days are to them. In most cases, a biblical day must necessarily be no less than a period of millions of years in order to be congruent with scientific data. While the general Hebrew term for day, yom, doesnt necessarily mean a twenty-four hour day, we still understand it to be a short time period based on every contemporaneous instance of its use. Millennia simply do not qualify using this unbiased criterion. Furthermore, the author provides us with the precise definition of yom in every creation instance: morning and evening. Naturally, well revisit these creationary intervals in the upcoming Thousands Or Billions. For now, lets return to the problem of the plants thriving without the suns existence. Most vegetation requires sunlight to undergo photosynthesis, the process of using light energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into nutrients. I wouldnt bet on plant survival much more than a month without the sun. While its true that the biblical creation has this mysterious light existing prior to the arrival of plants, the only thing we can conclude about its existence is the probable lack thereof. The sun, on the other hand, is fully compatible with plant life. Once again, this obtuse blunder can be justified by the limitations of the ancient Hebrews knowledge because he obviously wasnt aware that plants were feeding off sunlight for their survival. As one final minor point on plants for now, God says he has given us every plant for food (29). However, were now aware of plants with qualities poisonous enough that make us avoid physical contact with them. Such disturbingly reckless advice hardly seems to be the kind likely given out by an omniscient deity. God allegedly created the stars on the fourth day (16), but what were they, and what was their purpose? Biblical authors believed that stars were small sources of light contained within the imaginary firmament covering the earth. In other words, they exhibited no divine inspiration, whatsoever, telling them that stars were actually unfathomably enormous gaseous spheres seemingly countless miles away. In short, the authors celestial hypothesis was incorrect on location, number, and size.[4] Verification for the location part of this position is quite easy to demonstrate. After God made the sun, moon, and stars, he set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth 6(17). So along with the sun and moon, the stars are apparently housed in this imaginary physical boundary separating the sky ocean from the open air above earths inhabitants. The Bible also remarkably claims the outdated belief that stars were extremely small in size. After the disclosure of their location in the firmament, and after God tells Abraham several times that his people would be as numerous as the stars (which is also impossible, yet its claimed to have been fulfilled in Hebrews 11:12), the next clear reference to size and position of these celestial bodies is found in the book of Isaiah. Here, the prophet speaks of exalting a throne above the stars of God (14:13). Likewise, Job says, behold the height of the stars, how high they are (22:12). Stars are not high; they are distant. One would expect these two divinely inspired individuals to make this distinction in their records; instead, they boldly demonstrate that they shared the popular yet erroneous belief that God fixed the stars at the skys apex. The book of Psalms states that God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names (147:4). Thats quite an impressive accomplishment considering scientists estimate that there could be as many as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the known universe. If God truly told anyone how many stars surrounded our planet, the ridiculous firmament belief should have ceased without delay.[5] Daniel speaks of a vision that he had concerning a giant goats horn knocking the stars down to the ground where the goat stamped upon them (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth. Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them? More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous? In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both record Jesus foretelling of an era when the stars shall fall from heaven (24:29 and 13:25, respectively). Jesus, a supposedly perfect human being who was supposedly the only son of a supposedly perfect god, wasnt immune to scientific ignorance either. Revelation was the grandiose vision of John, yet another man who God allegedly inspired, but John also thought that stars were bright objects of insignificant size directly above the earth. In this record of his dream-like hallucination, he claims to see Jesus holding seven stars in his right hand (1:16). While John may have seen what looked like seven stars in Jesus hand, this is not what the text clearly states. The passage unambiguously says Jesus was holding seven stars in his hand. Thus, Johns statement is certainly in error. In addition, John mentions a dream in which the stars of heaven fell unto the earth and compares this event to a fig tree shaking off its leaves (6:13). Furthermore, he describes a great star falling into the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters (8:10). If a star were to fall to our planet as John indicates, it would annihilate the earth upon impact because these bodies are generally hundreds of times larger than our world. Finally , John sees a dragon swing its tail around, consequently knocking a third of the stars in the sky down to the ground (12:4). Theres no need to discuss how enormous such a hypothetical tail would have to be in order to accomplish this impossibility. After all, Revelation was only a vision. On the other hand, we must expect Christians to accept that this man had a unique foreknowledge of humankinds imminent future. In other words, these ridiculously fantastical events must remain futuristic certainties to biblical apologists. At this point, we can safely say that anyone attempting to harmonize the scientifically determined position, size, and number of our celestial neighbors with a literal interpretation of the Bible is veraciously wasting his time. Another embarrassing tale of biblical nonsense is the construction of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. According to the bogus legend, everyone on earth spoke the same language when the erection of the tower began. Because the people of earth had a great desire to catch a glimpse of God, they built this supposed tower intending to breach the sky. As God didnt like the possibility of people spotting him, he confused their languages to prevent the architects from understanding one another. Unable to continue construction, everyone with different languages went separate ways. This story is unfeasible for many reasons.[6] The first problem with the incredulous account is the incongruency of the common language theme. We know that many different languages existed centuries before the storys setting around 2500-2000 BCE. Not only that, but another Pentateuch author had said Noahs sons separated according to their own tongues in the previous chapter (Genesis 10). At the very least, we have a major timeline discrepancy in need of an acceptable resolution. Furthermore, the notion that nineteenth century man had the architectural knowledge to build a tower even a mile high is ridiculous. To fathom that a group of ignorant ancient Hebrews could make an equivalent accomplishment is ludicrous. Interestingly, no divine inspiration is available as a possible excuse for the illogical story because God wasnt siding with his people on this occasion! If he didnt wish for the people to see him, he wouldnt have provided the means for them to do so. Of course, the most obvious blunder is Gods supposed fear of us actually reaching him in the sky. To suggest that an omniscient god would destroy a building because he felt he was in danger of humans catching a glimpse of him is an equally ludicrous proposal. The aspects of this story once again go back to the ancient Hebrew belief that God eternally resided on top of a dome covering the earth. Since an omniscient deity would know that the people could not possibly reach him, he would not have stopped the towers construction for the specific reason provided by the Bible. The story cries of a myth.[7] We also have fanciful tales about giants roaming the earth during the Pentateuch era. Theres a lot of room for interpretation here because the exact nature of these mysterious giants is unknown. However, we understand that the Bible has them living both before and after the flood (Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33). Some Christians have argued these giants are the dinosaurs, but this proposed explanation fails to be consistent with the flood caused the dinosaur extinction hypothesis offered by others in the same crowd. While the text is most likely referring to a race of people, archaeologists have found no reliable evidence that these creatures existed. Given the track record of the Bible thus far, its reasonable to conclude that the Genesis giants are, at best, an exaggeration of an otherwise normal species of life. Jesus also commits another scientific blunder when he declares the mustard seed to be the smallest seed of the earth (Mark 4:31). There are, in fact, many seeds smaller than the mustard, such as the South American orchid, but the Hebrews were obviously ignorant of most everything outside of their homeland. Had God presented this bit of information to the author of Mark, it seems unfeasible that the writer would portray Jesus as a man so careless with his diction. This example is clearly another biblical error on the growing accumulation that arises from the same limitation of divinely uninspired perspective. The suggestion that the Bible is lacking a scientific foundation is nothing less than a colossal understatement. The Bible has failed fair, impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple fields of science. If God truly is the inspiration behind this purportedly divine declaration to the world, he shows absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology, geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other disciplines not covered in this chapter. In fact, the Bible handicaps those who use their God-given talents of reason and logic to settle blatant biblical problems. Nothing can be more detrimental to the authenticity of a statement than contradictory phenomena that we readily observe and experience. With no other evidence to consider, these natural manifestations should always override what we might hope and think to be correct explanations for unignorable discrepancies. Such is the power of science and r eason. They are the impartial pursuit of an answer to a question, not the search for supplements to a predetermined answer. These are just a few examples of how it is useless and counterproductive even for fundamentalists to try to extract concepts from the Bible that they do not have as well as try to argue that they possess any technical and scientific knowledge beyond their time. The Bible is a religious, spiritual, moral and mythological book, and as such is subordinate to the world view of its time and place. It is perfectly possible for Christians to be at peace with their religion and their holy book even though they are aware of their primitive conceptions of the Universe and the World, even as Frei Betto would say in his text The Bible in 12 Steps: Just as no one fails to take a remedy because there is an error of agreement in the bull, Jews and Christians do not care if they find a historical misconception in the biblical texts, and in their eyes they are, rather, religious texts. There are notions of science or history and they know that the biblical authors did not intend to reach methodological and scientific precision.We interweaved religious, historical and scientific references according to the knowledge of the time.While the quality of the wiring, the electronic conduits, the post or the lamp , For who seeks light to see better? FREI BETTO The Bible in 12 Steps That is, a fable does not have its essential content invalidated by the fact of describing fantastic things, like Talking Foxes. In the same way, a myth should not be devalued by its physically absurd elements. If I do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, it is rather by many other factors, such as those quoted in Is the Divinely Inspired Bible ?, yet it does not invalidate its cultural value. The biblical apologists are even lucky that, thanks to the early Catholic Church, only the 3 synoptic gospels and the gospel of John were considered canonical. What in themselves already present myriads of errors conception about nature. Otherwise, it might be utterly impossible not to see Biblical Geocentrism, which although present is not so explicit. In Hebrews 11, the apostle Paul refers to the translation of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, which is not described in the Old Testament, only vaguely suggested in Genesis 5:22. Pauls knowledge certainly came also from other gospels, such as the apocryphon Enochs Book of Secrets, which tells the story mentioned by Paul, which makes this book a little more trustworthy than the other apocryphal even Because it is most probably from him that Paul also removed the mention of the angelic hierarchy of Thrones, Dominions, Principalities and Powers, as quoted in Colossians [1:17], and in other excerpts from his New Testament epistles. Well, this book, written at the same time as the other Gospels by some scholar who knew Aristotelian Geocentrism, explicitly describes the mechanisms used by angels to move the Sun around the Earth, in addition to the other celestial spheres Of the trio Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, were accepted by most scholars, and yet were far more advanced than the primitive idea of a Flat Earth lost in an Abyss. Probably the incompatibility of Hellenistic geocentrism, which already knew the sphericity of the Earth, with the much more primitive concepts of the Bible, was one of the factors for the disqualification of the apocryphal book of Enoch. It is certainly lucky. For fundamentalists already have a tremendous work to hide and omit blatant biblical naivety about the reality of nature, and to distort and decontextualize verses. Turning the affirmation of the apologists: Many errors were indeed stated, but conservative biblical scholars have always been able to find solutions to these problems. Perhaps they have forgotten to say that these solutions only satisfy even the counselors who have solved their rationality within Religious Fanaticism. [1] Zondervan, (The Battle for the Bible, 1978) [2] Long, Jason (Biblical Nonsense, 2015) 3 Ibid [3] William Henry Burr (Self-Contradictions of the Bible, 2016) [4] C. Dennis Mckinsey (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, 1995) 6 Ibid [5] Long, Jason (Biblical Nonsense, 2015) [6] Bart D. Ehrman (Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer, 2009) [7] Bart D. Ehrman (Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer, 2009) [J1]Word is not used in the right context. [J2]Which evidence? [J3]about [J4]one