How to Reach the People In Your Community with the Evidence of Creation

There are two basic approaches to reachjng the people in a community with the evidences of creation. They are the slow approach and the fast approach . The fast approach is the one that is most common and is characterized by events in which people come and hear the evidence of creation (a debate, a large event of some kind, or a big seminar). At such a meeting between 200 to 1000 people may be reached. The effort is good and well worthwhile, but the fast approach is limited in that it only reaches a very small percentage of the community with a lot of effort and it only happens once. Although the slow approach takes longer, it can reach more people in the long run with the evidence of the Christian faith . The Caleb Campaign has chosen to utilize this slower approach through what we call The Caleb Journalism and Discipleship Class . Before we discuss the class, we will look at the resources and the culture to understand why the slow approach can be more effective in reaching the people in a community. In almost any community, whether it is a big city or a small town, there is a hub in which the community centers around. This hub is the public schools , particularly the high school and the junior high, but this also includes the elementary schools. In this approach we will look specifically at the high schools where the students are together in a small area of the community for three years. Every child passes through this time period like sand through an hour glass and during this time they are particularly thinking about origins. As they become adults , they will spread out throughout the whole community going into many fields and occupations . As a strategist, or a general in the army, it is always best to attack an issue at the point of weakness or at the point in which you will reach the most people with the least effort and expense. This is why the high school is the greatest mission field for creation evidences in the world. This group is growing together in a small place for a short time period. The next problem that arises with the question of how do you reach this group of students with the evidences of creation since it seems that they are not able to take creation into the schools? There is only a small group of creation educators who are able to do a good job. We must also understand that creation is the basic issue in all fields of education. The foundation of law is based either in creation or evolution. The foundation of social studies, literature, philosophy, and every other field is based either on creation or evolution. Therefore, creation is an issue in every field in the public school, not just in the science class. Again, many times creationist s have limited their arguments to the scientific arguments, and therefore are limiting their scope of impact upon the culture

Comparison of multiplex meta analysis techniques for understanding the acute rejection of solid organ transplants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Combining the results of studies using highly parallelized measurements of gene expression such as microarrays and RNAseq offer unique challenges in meta analysis. Motivated by a need for a deeper understanding of organ transplant rejection, we combine the data from five separate studies to compare acute rejection versus stability after solid organ transplantation, and use this data to examine approaches to multiplex meta analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We demonstrate that a commonly used parametric effect size estimate approach and a commonly used non-parametric method give very different results in prioritizing genes. The parametric method providing a meta effect estimate was superior at ranking genes based on our gold-standard of identifying immune response genes in the transplant rejection datasets.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Different methods of multiplex analysis can give substantially different results. The method which is best for any given application will likely depend on the particular domain, and it remains for future work to see if any one method is consistently better at identifying important biological signal across gene expression experiments.</p

Advances of genomic science and systems biology in renal transplantation: a review

The diagnosis of rejection in kidney transplant patients is based on histologic classification of a graft biopsy. The current “gold standard” is the Banff 97 criteria; however, there are several limitations in classifying rejection based on biopsy samples. First, a biopsy involves an invasive procedure. Second, there is significant variance among blinded pathologists in the interpretation of a biopsy. And third, there is also variance between the histology and the molecular profiles of a biopsy. To increase the positive predictive value of classifiers of rejection, a Banff committee is developing criteria that integrate histologic and molecular data into a unified classifier that could diagnose and prognose rejection. To develop the most appropriate molecular criteria, there have been studies by multiple groups applying omics technologies in attempts to identify biomarkers of rejection. In this review, we discuss studies using genome-wide data sets of the transcriptome and proteome to investigate acute rejection, chronic allograft dysfunction, and tolerance. We also discuss studies which focus on genetic biomarkers in urine and peripheral blood, which will provide clinicians with minimally invasive methods for monitoring transplant patients. We also discuss emerging technologies, including whole-exome sequencing and RNA-Seq and new bioinformatic and systems biology approaches, which should increase the ability to develop both biomarkers and mechanistic understanding of the rejection process