‘They deserve that victory!’ – James Milner praises Liverpool supporters

first_img1 James Milner playing against Borussia Dortmund James Milner has praised the Liverpool fans for the role they played in the Reds’ comeback win against Borussia Dortmund on Thursday evening.The Merseyside club were against all odds when the Germans went 2-0 up at Anfield, and it appeared as if Jurgen Klopp’s men would be falling out of the Europa League.However, a spirited second half performance brought goals from Divock Origi, Mamadou Sakho, Philippe Coutinho and Dejan Lovren, and passage to the semi-finals of the tournament.Klopp has taken a lot of the praise for the turnaround in performance, but Milner believes the fans at Anfield created the perfect atmosphere for the amazing fightback.“The way the fans were when we were driving into the game they deserve that victory,” the England international said.“The atmosphere especially in the second half when we got the second goal and drove forward means it is difficult for any team to come here.“When the crowd are like that there are not too many better places in the world to be playing and to be part of a night like that is fantastic.”However, Milner is not taking away from Klopp’s impact in the win, revealing what the German boss said at half-time to catalyse the victory against his former employers.He added: “The manager was brilliant. He was calm. He said, ‘We are not playing too badly. It is a long way back, we have lost the first half but you have nothing to lose, go out and do it’.“I think it was the perfect atmosphere created at half-time to be honest.”last_img read more

Evolutionary Predictions Fail Observational Tests

first_imgLately, some expectations by evolutionists have not been fulfilled.  Here are several recent examples of evolutionary upsets:Dinobird genes cook up scrambled eggs:  Scientists expected that the dinosaurs presumed ancestral to birds would show a decreasing genome size.  The thinking was that the cost of maintaining a large genome takes its toll on flight.  In Nature,1 however, a team found that smaller genomes evolved 230 million years ago, long before the early bird caught a worm.  Not only that, the non-avian dinosaur line (ornithischia) had sleeker genomes than the avian dinosaur line (saurischia).  Genome size was not measured directly, but inferred from a relationship between cell size and genome size.  This means that evolutionists cannot presume that genome size has anything to do with phylogeny.    Carl Zimmer in Science1a commented on this paper and on the question about genome size in general, but did not come up with any explanation for how natural selection would favor large or small genomes.  See also the write-up in Live Science which repeats the assumption that dinosaurs had feathers (but compare counterarguments from CMI). Dog beats ape:  Chimpanzees have a hard time drawing inferences about one another’s mental states by their motions.  One can point to hidden food, for instance, and the other will not get the message.  Dogs actually are much better at this, according to an article on EurekAlert.  Since dogs are supposedly farther down the evolutionary tree from humans, though, evolutionists attribute the dog’s better score to domestication: “What accounts for this piece of convergent evolution between humans and domestic dogs is nothing other than the process of domestication – the breeding of dogs to tolerate, rather than fear, human company.”  But would this mean that breeding chimps to tolerate, rather than fear, human company would produce a similar ability?  They didn’t say.Parroting humans:  Ryan Jaroncyk on Creation Ministries Intl reported about N’kisi, the wonder bird.  This parrot can speak meaningful English sentences and has a vocabulary of 950 words.  His report, based on an article in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine, implies that “birds possess a far greater linguistic capacity than chimpanzees.”  This “defies evolutionary predictions,” he said.  He devises a thought experiment: “What if chimpanzees possessed a vocabulary of 950 words, used words in context, and formulated simple sentences like N’kisi the parrot?”  The result would be predictable: “The scientific community and popular media would be in an evolutionary frenzy.”Waspish behavior:  Time to rewrite the evolutionary history of wasps, reported a press release from Univ. of Illinois.  It’s all wrong.  “Scientists at the University of Illinois have conducted a genetic analysis of vespid wasps that revises the vespid family tree and challenges long-held views about how the wasps’ social behaviors evolved,” it states (vespids include yellowjackets, paper wasps and about 5,000 species).  “In the study, published in the Feb. 21 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers found genetic evidence that eusociality (the reproductive specialization seen in some insects and other animals) evolved independently in two groups of vespid wasps.”  The article did not speculate on how difficult it was for this ability to arise by evolution, except to say that “ The evolution of eusociality in wasps has long been a source of debate.”  The take-home lesson is that assuming simple evolutionary lineages can get you stung: “These findings contradict an earlier model of vespid wasp evolution, which placed the groups together in a single lineage with a common ancestor.”    So does this cast doubt on the validity of evolutionary speculation?  Not in the slightest.  Evolutionism is actually strengthened by the finding that data contradict the prediction:“The fact that eusociality evolved independently in two groups of vespid wasps also sheds light on the complexity of evolutionary processes, [Sydney] Cameron said.    “Scientists attempt to make generalizations and simplify the world.  But the world isn’t always simple and evolution isn’t simple.  This finding points to the complexity of life.”Winged migration:  Is there a simple evolutionary tree for bird migration?  Not here, either.  A press release in EurekAlert from studies at the University of Arizona said, “A universal assumption about bird migration has been that short-distance migration is an evolutionary stepping stone to long-distance migration.  The team’s work contradicts that idea by showing that short-distance migrants are inherently different from their globe-trotting cousins.”  Seasonal food availability, not evolution, is apparently the determining factor.  “One textbook explanation suggests either eating fruit or living in non-forested environments were the precursors needed to evolve migratory behavior.” True or false?  “Not so,” is the new correct answer.  The work is published in the March 2007 issue of American Naturalist.Scrub that:  Some birds plan ahead.  The scrub jay makes a list of things to do today, apparently.  This behavior was described in Nature,2 where the authors began, “Knowledge of and planning for the future is a complex skill that is considered by many to be uniquely human…. We show that the jays make provision for a future need, both by preferentially caching food in a place in which they have learned that they will be hungry the following morning and by differentially storing a particular food in a place in which that type of food will not be available the next morning.”  This is a longer time period than similar behavior observed over “very short time scales” in rats and pigeons.  Even crows and apes don’t show this kind of foresight.  “The results described here suggest that the jays can spontaneously plan for tomorrow without reference to their current motivational state, thereby challenging the idea that this is a uniquely human ability.”  Sara Shettleworth, in the same issue of Nature, called this “food for thought.”  Although we cannot mind-meld with a bird brain, it almost seems that these raucous garden birds are able to imagine time-travel into the future to foresee what they will need. Millipedes and biologists in the dark:  Northern Arizona University reported two identical-looking cave millipedes that cannot be related.  “We knew the millipedes likely represented two distinct species because the two populations were separated by the Grand Canyon,” said co-discoverer J. Judson Wynne.  “The fact these two species belong to an entirely new genus was a great surprise to us.”  He called them “living fossils.”Neanderthal verdict:  The idea of a simple replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans, a “a topic of lively debate in human evolution,” will have to be abandoned, apparently.  PNAS3 provided confirmation that the cave layers where bones of both groups have been found do overlap and interstratify with one another.  They based this on radiocarbon, artifacts and stratigraphy.  Unless “native Neanderthal populations effectively self-destructed the moment the first modern populations set foot in their territories,” a completely implausible scenario, they say, it is now “totally inescapable” Neanderthals and modern humans knew each other and coexisted for a long time.The authors in this last item attribute criticisms of the interstratification theory to “a long-standing agenda to deny the possibility of significant chronological overlap and coexistence between late Neanderthal and early anatomically modern populations in western Europe, and therefore to deny any suggestion of potential mutual interaction or ‘acculturation’ between the two populations,” they asserted.  With so many cases like these above, one can begin to meditate on what other agendas might operate to deny the possibility of keeping observations synchronized with theory.1Organ, Shedlock, Meade, Pagel and Edwards, “Origin of avian genome size and structure in non-avian dinosaurs,” Nature 446, 180-184 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05621.1aCarl Zimmer, “Evolution: Jurassic Genome,” Science, 9 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5817, pp. 1358-1359, DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5817.1358.2Raby, Alexis, Dixon and Clayton, “Planning for the future by western scrub-jays,” Nature 445, 919-921 (22 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05575.3Mellars, Gravina and Ramsey, “Confirmation of Neanderthal/modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0608053104, published online before print February 21, 2007.The evolutionists can’t seem to get anything right.  No matter where they look, organisms aren’t cooperating with Charlie’s expectations.  What’s really naked here, the jay bird or Darwin’s little storytelling parade?  Is evolutionary theory really good for anything?  Did not Darwin foist a fruitless path of inquiry on science?  Aren’t his disciples clueless?  Don’t they deserve to be called on the carpet and reprimanded for pretending to have scientific knowledge when the evidence is against them?  We retort; you deride.(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Kingdom of David and Solomon Supported by Growing Evidence

first_imgThe evidence is coming together to support the Biblical record of David and Solomon. An Israeli publication updates the latest finds.In Haaretz, an Israeli news site, you can watch Bible stories rise from the dust. For decades, liberals critics have said that Biblical kings David and Solomon were mythical heroes invented by later Bible writers. It’s hard to say that any more. Philippe Bohstrom has done a service to those who prefer to trust the Bible over man’s changing opinions, pulling together in one place the latest findings that support the great kings of the united monarchy.The headline is: “Did David and Solomon’s United Monarchy Exist? Vast Ancient Mining Operation May Hold Answers.” Bohstrom opens his survey of Davidic archaeology by sharing the latest findings from Timna, a copper mining site dating from Solomon’s time (1/12/17). “Archaeology has provided precious little evidence for the biblical account of a powerful Judaic kingdom 3,000 years ago, but the sheer extent of copper mining in Timna, when Egypt was in a state of collapse, is otherwise hard to explain.”The opening paragraphs read as if written by a skeptic, complaining about the lack of evidence for “the grandeur described in the biblical accounts of David and Solomon.” But then Bohstrom starts putting the pieces together. (Visited 2,891 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Egyptian carving at Timna. David Coppedge, 2006.The Timna copper mining site was much larger than previously known. Located in the Arabah just north of the Gulf of Aqaba, archaeologists have recently found indications of a major operation going on when David and Solomon lived, including textiles, living quarters and even donkey dung that shows the animals lived well.Radiocarbon dates of some of the organic remains at Timna date from the 10th and 9th centuries BC, the time of Solomon.The Egyptians had been at Timna earlier, as seen from hieroglyphs found, but Egypt was too weak to manage the site when the Bible has Solomon running his empire.Additional copper mines in Edom and two other sites were also major operations. “More than 100,000 tons of slag from the Iron Age have been discovered in the area,” Bohstrom says. Think of the water, food, and equipment needed to run such an enterprise. “The sheer scale of copper production at Timna and Faynan would have required the support of a major polity, scholars studying the Aravah agree.” Moreover, a substantial bureaucracy would have been required in Jerusalem to manage the faraway operation.Edomites were involved in the mining operations, but the question is who was in control. All the other empires near the Levant in that period—Egypt, Edom, Greece, Anatolia and Babylonia, were in a downward spiral when the mines were active.A large stone building in the City of David (south of Jerusalem’s current walls) is being interpreted as King David’s palace by lead archaeologist Eilat Mazar.Stepped Stone Structure, City of David, Jerusalem. David Coppedge, 2006.The “Stepped Stone Structure” below David’s palace appears to be the “Millo” supporting the palace, as described in the Bible. It could have been started by King Saul, the article says.The Tell Dan inscription, found in at Biblical Dan in the north of Israel, marked with the words “house of David,” was the first extra-Biblical reference to David found. Incidentally, a new paper in Science Advances discusses the city of Dan and how its inhabitants handled water and climate.Solomon made extensive use of copper when building the Temple. Detailed descriptions in the Bible have the verisimilitude of truth. They would be unimportant if the narrative only had theological purposes. Archaeologist Gabriel Barkay notes, “There is no reason to specify these technical details that basically are instructions to the contractor.”Khirbet Qeiyafa, a spectacular find south of Jerusalem near where David killed Goliath, with its Judahic style buildings and Hebrew inscriptions, shows that the site was a significant fortress outpost of a powerful king, not a tribal chieftain as minimalists complain.Pottery found at Hazor, far north of Jerusalem, dates from Solomon’s golden age. The “Solomonic gates” found there, according to archaeologist Amnon ben-Tor, who has spent his career excavating the site, fit with the Bible: “Hazor is well-planned, with fortifications, gates and well-built domestic buildings that could not have been built by semi-nomads,” he says.An Egyptian inscription confirms that Shishak, described in the Bible, invaded Judah around the time of Rehoboam, the successor to Solomon.Bohstrom is careful not to overstate the case. Some of the findings can be interpreted different ways. In fact, he appears willing to believe that the Biblical record was embellished by later writers. “Apparently sometimes the Bible is right, other bits have been distorted, and often we simply cannot know,” he says. By this and other statements, we know he is not writing from a conservative view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. But one take-home lesson from his pictorial review of the archaeological evidence is that the minimalists seem to be on the run. Bohstrom gives ample time to minimalist Israel Finkelstein, for instance, to give his views. At one point he lets Finkelstein speculate about Jerusalem’s origins, then responds, “It is a convenient theory, but there is not one shred of evidence to support it.”One other argument he makes deserves attention. Why do historians have no problem with other historical figures, when the archaeological evidence is even weaker? “Today, Homeric kings such as Agamemnon, Nestor, Diomedes and Odysseus are widely accepted as historical figures,” he notes. The implication is that we should not be surprised that much of the evidence for the United Kingdom of David and Solomon has been lost, given that Israel has been repeatedly invaded and destroyed by numerous empires since those famous kings lived.Bohstrom is clearly not a Biblical conservative or apologist. He thinks much of the story of David and Solomon could be mythological. In a way, that makes his article more valuable for Bible believers, because he cannot be said to have an “agenda” to defend the Scriptures. Bible believers need to be aware of how strong or weak the evidence is at this current time, realizing that much of what we would like to see has been lost over the past 3,000 years of this war-ravaged land. Nevertheless, what we do see is consistent with the Biblical record, and nothing repudiates it as false. Be wary of skeptics who have an agenda to disprove the Bible. Arguments from silence are risky.Realize, too, that very little in the land of Israel has been excavated. Think of the revolutionary discoveries in recent years, at Khirbet Qeiyafa, in Jerusalem, at Timna, and at Tell Dan. And it’s only the earliest of the kings that are in dispute; no one doubts the historicity of Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Joash, Hezekiah and later kings. Those later kings, corroborated by extra-biblical evidence, did not pop into existence out of nowhere. They were already established in kingdoms that had founders: David and Solomon. Those kings of the United Monarchy are also book-ended by earlier archaeological evidence of the conquest by Joshua, and of the Exodus (see Illustra film at TheJohn1010Project.com). You can’t read the Old Testament without being impressed by the tremendous amount of detail about David (his movements, numerous officials named, the Psalms, etc) and of Solomon (ditto on historical details, plus Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon). You come away feeling that these writings have the ring of truth. There is no guile in the accounts, no gratuitous embellishment. No writer trying to glorify these great kings would include their dark sides, describing shocking details of their sins and personal flaws. Inscriptions by the Assyrians and Babylonians never do that, because their purpose was to exalt the glory of their rulers. The Bible is unique in the world: historically accurate, yet morally compelling, always requiring truth. We should use the Bible to validate archaeology, not the other way around.Bible believers do not put their trust in archaeology, since the word of God speaks for itself. It’s exciting, though, to watch the pieces falling into place.last_img read more

Are Tankless Water Heaters Really Green?

first_imgFirst, limit hot water useNo matter how the water is heated, using less of it conserves energy. That’s a no-brainer. But posters differed on the best ways to accomplish that seemingly simple end, especially when children and teens live at home.That’s simple, Riversong says: “The only ‘green’ way to save water heating energy is to use less hot water. Unfortunately, that requires imbuing our children with the old-fashioned ethics of forbearance and limits – and no piece of technology is going to do that. It’s part of the responsibility of parenting.”Besides, he adds, people seem hung up on taking frequent showers in the first place. With water shortages expected to become a major problem, it’s better for health as well as the environment to bathe less often. After all, that strategy served our forbears just fine.Lucas Durand came across an interesting conservation approach when he visited his brother in South Korea. The brother’s small apartment was served by a tankless hot water heater, but it could be activated only by pushing a button on a control panel. That got you 10 minutes worth of water. If you wanted more, you had to press the button again. The “big catch” was that you could press the button only five times in a 24-hour period, and that had to cover all hot-water needs, not just showers.“This set-up may not have been typical of every home in Korea, but it does show that concepts of hot water use vary widely even within the developed world,” Durand wrote. “In other words there are many, many people living in civilized parts of the world that do just fine on what some North Americans might consider a water ration.”Danny Waite had another suggestion: an $8 ball valve installed on the hot side of the water heater. It could be shut off whenever a shower went on too long. “My teenage sons quickly learned to limit shower times to under 5 minutes after instantaneously having their hot water eliminated,” he says. “Cold water seems to awaken the senses and get one to think ‘green.’” Pros and cons of tankless heatersWelch writes that according to the Department of Energy, a tankless heater should save between $100 and $150 per year when compared to an Energy Star storage heater. But, he adds, the savings aren’t significant and they probably don’t factor in the long-shower problem. Moreover, tankless units cost two or three times as much as the best storage units, require a stainless steel flue, are difficult to install and cost more to maintain.You got it, answers Robert Riversong. “You’re quite right that the super-sized burners on high-volume tankless heaters make no ecological sense,” he says. In addition to high initial costs and higher maintenance costs, Riversong adds, hard water can leave mineral deposits in the heat-transfer coils, which may force the purchase of a water softener. RELATED ARTICLES Storage vs. Tankless Water HeatersWater Heating Q&A: How do I reconcile an electric, tankless water heater and low flow faucets?Solar Hot Water: Heating Water With the Sun Isn’t CheapSolar HeatHot-Water Circulation GREEN PRODUCT GUIDE Tankless water heaters have one advantage over conventional storage units: no standby losses. Instead of keeping water hot around the clock, regardless of whether it’s actually needed, tankless units heat water only when a tap or an appliance is turned on. By rights, this should mean lower energy consumption, a decidedly green advantage.But, as Ed Welch asks in a Q&A post, where are the savings when he can’t get his kids out of the shower? “I know we waste more water, as a result waste more energy heating that water,” he writes. “And the kids are not even teenagers yet!”In addition to arguing the merits of tankless vs. tank heaters, Green Building Advisor readers had plenty of suggestions on the most economical ways of heating water and how to reduce consumption.center_img Water Heaters, Fuel-Fired ResidentialYes, says Michael Chandler, a builder in Chapel Hill, NC, on-demand hot water heaters are “more of a luxury than an energy conserving solution,” but keep in mind that most gas tank-style hot water hears are only about 60% efficient. Electric heaters can be even worse from an efficiency point of view. If the source of utility power is a coal-fired plant, only about a third of the energy potential of coal is actually available at the panel, making it “practically criminal” to use one of these appliances.“One thing not mentioned in this discussion is that a tankless HWH is a great solution for some, not all,” writes Richard. He lives alone, is frequently away from home and doesn’t see the point of keeping 40 gallons of water hot around the clock. “I use cold water for laundry and quick hand washing,” he says. “My only hot water use is showers, dishwashing and washing up.” Looking for economy water heatingIf on-demand heaters are not a shoo-in for most economical, what is?Riversong’s suggestion is an indirect hot water tank connected to a high-efficiency boiler. Indirect heaters have no heat source of their own but tap into the boiler via a heat exchanger. The arrangement, he says, provides nearly unlimited hot water as it heats the house with very low standby losses. Fuel consumption is a fraction of what a large tankless unit would use.Chandler proposes using a tankless heater to heat water in a tank, in much the same way an indirect system uses a boiler, and adds a link to an illustration (with a warning that while he’s a licensed plumber, there’s still something of a “mad scientist experimentation” at work).Solar hot water collectors are another possibility, but here opinions were divided on whether the sizable investment they require is going to pay off.While Chandler thinks solar collectors will reduce energy consumption, fellow GBA senior editor Martin Holladay writes that most people won’t see a payback for between 30 and 60 years. In particular, he cited a 2006 study by Steven Winter Associates that examined a $7,800 solar hot water system in Massachusetts and a $6,500 system in Wisconsin.In the case of Massachusetts, annual savings were a measly $135 with a payback of 58 years; in Wisconsin, savings were even lower, $86 years, with a payback after 76 years. “Finally,” he adds, “it should be pointed out that the researchers assumed zero maintenance costs — and we all know that’s not going to happen.”Stephane Boisjoli suggests the installation of a drain water heat-recovery system, which captures transfer heat from the water draining from a shower to the incoming water supply. These passive devices are installed vertically to replace a section of conventional drain line. There are no moving parts, and no maintenance. Savings can be considerable.Finally, there are on-demand hot-water circulation systems in which hot water is pumped to its point of use after a button is pressed or a motion sensor in the bathroom goes off. As the water warms up, it’s recirculated so none of it is wasted. After a short wait, when the shower or tap is turned on, hot water is available right away. For long plumbing runs, such a system might make sense.last_img read more

India and Sri Lanka: Road to final

first_imgThey were the favourites for the World Cup title and both India and Sri Lanka have made it to the finals after eight matches. Here’s how the two teams progressed.IndiaDateMatchVenueResultSat 19 FebIND vs BANShere Bangla National Stadium, MirpurIND won by 87 runs Scorecard | Match reportSun 27 FebIND vs ENGEden Gardens, KolkataMatch ends in tieScorecard | Match reportSun 06 MarIND vs IREM Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru (Bangalore)IND won by 5 wicketsScorecard | Match reportWed 09 MarIND vs NEDFerozeshah Kotla, DelhiIND won by 5 wicketsScorecard | Match reportSat 12 MarIND vs SAVidarbha Cricket Association Ground, NagpurSA won by 3 wktsScorecard | Match reportSun 20 MarIND vs WIMA Chidambaram Stadium, ChennaiIND won by 80 runsScorecard | Match reportThu 24 MarIND vs AUS2nd Q-finalSardar Patel Gujarat Stadium, MoteraIND won by 5 wktsScorecard | Match report Wed 30 Mar IND vs PAK 2nd Semifinal Punjab Cricket Association Stadium, Mohali IND won by 29 runsScorecard | Match reportSri LankaDate & TimeMatchVenueResultSun 20 FebSL vs CANMahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium, HambantotaSL won by 210 runs Scorecard | Match reportSat 26 FebPAK vs SLR.Premadasa Stadium, ColomboPAK won by 11 runsScorecard | Match report Tue 01 MarSL vs KENR.Premadasa Stadium, ColomboSL won by 9 wicketsScorecard | Match reportSat 05 MarAUS vs SLR.Premadasa Stadium, ColomboMatch abandonedScorecard | Match reportThu 10 MarSL vs ZIMPallekele International Cricket Stadium, KandySL won by 139 runsScorecard | Match reportFri 18 Mar 02:30 PM ISTNZ vs SLWankhede Stadium, MumbaiSL won by 112 runsScorecard | Match reportSat 26 MarSL v ENG4th Quarterfinal (D)R.Premadasa Stadium, ColomboSL won by 10 wktsScorecard | Match reportTue 29 MarSL vs NZ 1st SemifinalR.Premadasa Stadium, ColomboSL won by 5 wktsScorecard | Match reportadvertisementlast_img read more