Monday, September 29, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Sunday, September 14, 2014
First Scientific Proof Of God Found - WIT
Linguistic professors at Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor, began to attempt to translate the decoded segments that W.I.T. was providing. The structure was notably and demonstrably human in nature. The coding language found, which utilized sequences of twenty-eight independent values, fell easily into the incidence range of known alphabets. Sequences of independent connected values likewise mirrored the structure of word composition in human languages. The Linguistic and Philology team at Bob Jones began an extensive comparison of the quizzical script found in the “Junk DNA” with the catalog of every recorded human language; hoping to find similar lingual threads so that they could begin to formulate translations of the message laying hidden in the DNA. Professors were rocked with sheer awe when they found that one existent language, and one language alone, was a direct translatable match for the sequential DNA strands.
The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes.
On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.” This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people.
Matthew Boulder, chief linguist for the project and professor of applied creation sciences at Bob Jones University, issued this statement: “As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day. And the beauty of it, that God would lay down the words of truth in our very beings, shows his love and The Miracle.”
Scientists at W.I.T. await replication of our own research extracting and sequencing “Junk” DNA and verification of translation into Aramaic by independent sources before we move forward on the peer review process and the release of our total research and discovery to date.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Article: 4 Strategies For Remembering Everything You Learn
If you're going to learn anything, you need two kinds of prior knowledge: • knowledge about the subject at hand, like math, history, or programming • knowledge about how learning actually works The bad news: Our education system kinda skips one of them, which is terrifying, given that your abilit...
How to Ruin a Perfectly Good Relationship | Psychology Today
The second behavior that predicts divorce with over 90% accuracy, according to John Gottman's research and the experience of most couples' counselors, is stonewalling. Different from an occasional timeout to calm down or collect your thoughts, stonewalling is absolute refusal to consider your partner’s perspective. If you listen at all, you do it dismissively or contemptuously.
The common songs of the stonewaller are:
The other divorce-predictive behaviors – criticism, defensiveness, and contempt - are gender neutral, i.e., men and women do them more or less equally. Stonewalling, according to the research of Gottman and others, as well as the experience of most couples' counselors, is far more likely to be a male thing. When women stonewall, it’s typically a function of temperament – they’re shy, inhibited, or introverted. More commonly, it’s a learned behavior – engaging in conflict or emotion-laden conversation has exposed them to put-downs or abuse in the past.
Stonewalling is more natural to males. In general, males - of all social animals - have a more rapid arousal level – stonewalling is a way of shutting out stimulation that spikes arousal. They also have a smaller corpus calossum, the tissue that connects the brain’s hemispheres and facilitates communication between them. It’s easier for males to cut off information from the emotional part of their brains when things get hot, a practice they begin as little boys.
Of course, cultural reinforcement plays a large part, as the icon of the “the strong, silent male,” reinforces stonewalling.
Men are less likely than women to know when they stonewall, because it seems so natural for them. A sure sign that a man is stonewalling is if he believes his partner nags him. That means he’s not listening. The nagging partner is an unheard partner.
Frustrating vs. Painful
The experience of being stonewalled tends to be different for men and women. Men who are stonewalled feel frustrated – their goal of resolution is blocked by the stonewalling. But the experience is downright painful for women who are stonewalled, as they are apt to feel isolated – a sense that no one cares about them. To understand the effects of stonewalling on most women, a man need only think of how bad humiliation feels. That’s how isolation feels to his partner, which is why she tries so hard to break through the stone wall
Aggressive vs. Defensive Stone Walls
In aggressive stonewalling, the stonewaller knows that the silence, cold shoulder, and emotional isolation hurt his partner. He stonewalls to gain leverage or power. This is a common tactic in battering relationships, in which the more powerful partner systematically controls or dominates the less powerful one.
In defensive stonewalling, conflict seems overwhelming to the stonewallers. It seems that their only choice is to shut it out (stonewall) or crush it with aggression. So shutting it out seems the better of the two. Of course, treatment teaches them that there are other choices, such as emotion regulation, engagement, and connection.
Looks Different on the Outside
While stonewalling can look aggressive, mean, or childish from the outside, if feels very different on the inside. The defensive stonewaller feels like he’s trying to protect himself. He can also think that he’s protecting his family. Not only have I observed this countless times in my clients, I experienced it my personal life. For about 10 years or so, before becoming a therapist, I regularly stonewalled my wife when things got hot. I was afraid of my anger, having grown up in a severely violent home. I never wanted my wife or daughter to see that kind of rage or know that kind of chaos. In truth, I never had that kind of anger, but there was always the fear.
I had to learn, as all stonewallers need to do, that we need to step outside ourselves to see our behavior more objectively. We stonewall to avoid feeling inadequate. We’re convinced that we’ll fail if we try to engage - fail as communicators and, more important, as husbands and boyfriends.
Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it. Thus the more we do it, the more it seems that we need to do it.
The trick in overcoming feelings of inadequacy is to realize that everything we’ve ever done (that required a certain level of skill), we were inadequate at doing when we first started. The discomfort of inadequacy motivated us to learn to do the task, at which point we gained a feeling of competence and mastery. We can use feelings of inadequacy in love in the same way, as motivation to learn how to be better partners and parents.
The common songs of the stonewaller are:
- “Just leave me alone…”
- “Do whatever you want...”
- “End of conversation…”
- “Stop talking...”
- “Get out of my face…”
- “That’s enough…”
- “I’ve had it!”
The other divorce-predictive behaviors – criticism, defensiveness, and contempt - are gender neutral, i.e., men and women do them more or less equally. Stonewalling, according to the research of Gottman and others, as well as the experience of most couples' counselors, is far more likely to be a male thing. When women stonewall, it’s typically a function of temperament – they’re shy, inhibited, or introverted. More commonly, it’s a learned behavior – engaging in conflict or emotion-laden conversation has exposed them to put-downs or abuse in the past.
Stonewalling is more natural to males. In general, males - of all social animals - have a more rapid arousal level – stonewalling is a way of shutting out stimulation that spikes arousal. They also have a smaller corpus calossum, the tissue that connects the brain’s hemispheres and facilitates communication between them. It’s easier for males to cut off information from the emotional part of their brains when things get hot, a practice they begin as little boys.
Of course, cultural reinforcement plays a large part, as the icon of the “the strong, silent male,” reinforces stonewalling.
Men are less likely than women to know when they stonewall, because it seems so natural for them. A sure sign that a man is stonewalling is if he believes his partner nags him. That means he’s not listening. The nagging partner is an unheard partner.
Frustrating vs. Painful
The experience of being stonewalled tends to be different for men and women. Men who are stonewalled feel frustrated – their goal of resolution is blocked by the stonewalling. But the experience is downright painful for women who are stonewalled, as they are apt to feel isolated – a sense that no one cares about them. To understand the effects of stonewalling on most women, a man need only think of how bad humiliation feels. That’s how isolation feels to his partner, which is why she tries so hard to break through the stone wall
Aggressive vs. Defensive Stone Walls
In aggressive stonewalling, the stonewaller knows that the silence, cold shoulder, and emotional isolation hurt his partner. He stonewalls to gain leverage or power. This is a common tactic in battering relationships, in which the more powerful partner systematically controls or dominates the less powerful one.
In defensive stonewalling, conflict seems overwhelming to the stonewallers. It seems that their only choice is to shut it out (stonewall) or crush it with aggression. So shutting it out seems the better of the two. Of course, treatment teaches them that there are other choices, such as emotion regulation, engagement, and connection.
Looks Different on the Outside
While stonewalling can look aggressive, mean, or childish from the outside, if feels very different on the inside. The defensive stonewaller feels like he’s trying to protect himself. He can also think that he’s protecting his family. Not only have I observed this countless times in my clients, I experienced it my personal life. For about 10 years or so, before becoming a therapist, I regularly stonewalled my wife when things got hot. I was afraid of my anger, having grown up in a severely violent home. I never wanted my wife or daughter to see that kind of rage or know that kind of chaos. In truth, I never had that kind of anger, but there was always the fear.
I had to learn, as all stonewallers need to do, that we need to step outside ourselves to see our behavior more objectively. We stonewall to avoid feeling inadequate. We’re convinced that we’ll fail if we try to engage - fail as communicators and, more important, as husbands and boyfriends.
Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it. Thus the more we do it, the more it seems that we need to do it.
The trick in overcoming feelings of inadequacy is to realize that everything we’ve ever done (that required a certain level of skill), we were inadequate at doing when we first started. The discomfort of inadequacy motivated us to learn to do the task, at which point we gained a feeling of competence and mastery. We can use feelings of inadequacy in love in the same way, as motivation to learn how to be better partners and parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
