Sermons From Science -- Jan 2013 科学布道 -- 2013 年 1 月

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2013科学布道-- 2013年1月 Sermons from Science is now published in both YouTube under the name “Pastor Chui” and also in PowerPoint slides in the website http://ChristCenterGospel.org. The contents of this presentation were taken from Dave Coppedge’s website http://crev.info. May God have all the glory. Pastor Chui http://ChristCenterGospel.org ckchui1@yahoo.com 10/14/2014 1

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • Two articles in secular science literature point to possible upsets in long-age assumptions for the earth and mankind. • Most Human Mutations Are Recent • A press release from the University of Washington states, “Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years.” The Exome Sequencing Project, a consortium of evolutionary geneticists, surveyed a million single-letter changes in the human “exome” (protein-coding genes) for 6,515 people. “Overall, the researchers predicted that about 81 percent of the single-nucleotide variants in their European samples, and 58 percent in their African samples, arose in the past 5,000 years.” 10/14/2014 2

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • The researchers were able to fit this surprise into the “out-of-Africa” hypothesis by claiming that mutations became fixed more rapidly among Europeans after they migrated. “The Out of Africa bottleneck led to inefficient purging of the less-harmful mutations,” one explained. Still, if 150 mutations are passed from parent to offspring on average, it would seem that rate of damage could not go on for many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. See also the Science Daily article on this, that states, “The researchers pointed out that the results illustrate the profound effect recent human evolutionary history has had on the burden of damaging mutations in contemporary populations.” 10/14/2014 3

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • The consortium agrees that their results indicate most harmful mutations in the human gene pool are “of recent origin, evolutionarily speaking.” Without supporting evidence, though, the researchers used standard Darwinian talking points to hope for a positive outcome, hoping that the large number of recent mutations “may have created a new repository of advantageous genetic variants that adaptive evolution may act upon in future generations.” Whatever the meaning, Science Daily said that the researchers stated, “The recent dramatic increase in human population size, resulting in a deluge of rare functionally important variation, has important implications for understanding and predicting current and future patterns of human disease and evolution.” 10/14/2014 4

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • Tree Rings Point to a Recent Cosmic Ray Event • What on earth happened in 768 A.D.? Charlemagne was busy building his empire, unaware of something happening over his head. The “Charlemagne Event” was not caused by him; something beyond earth sent a shower of cosmic rays our way. PhysOrg asks some pointed questions: • Until recently, the years 774 and 775 were best known for Charlemagne’s victory over the Lombards. But earlier this year, a team of scientists in Japan discovered a baffling spike in carbon-14 deposits within the rings of cedar trees that matched those same years. Because cosmic rays are tied to carbon-14 concentrations, scientists around the world have wondered about the cause: a nearby supernova, a gamma ray burst in the Milky Way or an intense superflare emanating from the Sun? 10/14/2014 5

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • In the article, Adrian Melott (U of Kansas) presents his argument that the spike came from a coronal mass ejection from the sun. This CME could have been 10–20 times larger than the largest spike observed in recent times (1859), called the Carrington Event. Stars beyond our sun have been observed to have very large flares. Other cosmic sources might include a gamma ray burst or nearby supernova, though the latter would have been observable in the sky. • If an extra-large CME occurred during Charlemagne’s battles, it might not have been noticed. It might have caused a slightly higher risk of skin cancer. But today if one that size occurred, it would disrupt the world’s power grid and blow out transformers over a wide area. We’d only have a few minutes warning before our civilization would become seriously disrupted. 10/14/2014 6

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • We offer these findings as stimulations for further research by asking some questions. If a CME or other cosmic source could dramatically increase carbon-14 production in the atmosphere, what does that do to the calibration profile for radiocarbon dating? What could be the impact of a large shower of cosmic rays on the atomic clocks used for radiometric dating in general? Could a cosmic event stimulate accelerated nuclear decay, lowering the activation threshold to give a false reading of longer ages (e.g., more fission tracks) than actually occurred? If not, how would we know? Open-minded physicists may want to look into this. 10/14/2014 7

Two Studies May Indicate Problems for Vast Ages两项研究表明广大年龄的问题 • Regarding the mutation rate, the finding appears to add more impetus to Dr. John Sanford’s theory of genetic entropy, that the human race could not purge harmful or nearly-neutral mutations fast enough to avoid extinction in very many thousands of years, let alone tens of thousands. The evolution-talk in the article seems concocted to rescue Darwin’s long ages rather than face the clear implication that humans have not been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. Even with lower population sizes, genetic entropy takes its toll. And if you think bullets to the genome provide a pool of variants that natural selection may act upon in future generations, good luck outrunning extinction while the bad ones add up. 10/14/2014 8

Gloria Deo 愿荣耀归上帝 10/14/2014 9

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • Scientists are only people, and most people do or say dumb things sometimes. You can decide how to classify these “scientific” ideas. • Overhyped Martian claims of the past: While the world eagerly awaits NASA announcing “something big” about Mars next week,* Clara Moskowitz reminds us on Space.com that there were at least five overhyped claims in the past: (1) the canals on Mars, (2) flowing water on Mars, (3) the face on Mars, (4) microbes in a Martian meteorite, and (5) claims of possible life from Vikings 1 and 2. Many of these were taken very seriously by renowned scientists of the day. 10/14/2014 11

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • Alien Breck: A long time ago in a beauty salon far, far away: We may be able to detect aliens by their hairspray, Charles Q. Choi announced on Space.com: “Alien hairspray may help us find E.T.” Presumably space babes would wish to keep their locks in place with chloroflurocarbons, which astronomers might detect in a planetary atmosphere. That’s probably enough said, except to note that NASA considered this story newsworthy enough to give it good press on their Astrobiology Magazine website. 10/14/2014 12

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • Organized ignorance: When you don’t know what you are talking about, does it help to organize your ignorance? Apparently Claudio Maccone thinks so. Astrobiology Magazine said Maccone took another look at the Drake Equation for calculating how many aliens inhabit the galaxy. • But the Drake equation must not be evaluated only by the numerical values it produces. Some say the Drake equation is a way to organize our ignorance. By exposing the extraterrestrial intelligence hypothesis mathematically, we limit the real possibilities to each term and approach the final answer: how many alien civilizations are there? 10/14/2014 13

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • Maccone massaged the ignorance with new inputs and came up with a new estimate of how many alien civilizations there are, which nobody can check. He simultaneously solved another problem of organized ignorance: why hasn’t SETI detected any aliens yet? Answer: the average distance of these unknown civilizations might put them too far for our current detectors to find. How convenient; maybe we can use that method to explain why we haven’t found ghosts. 10/14/2014 14

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • Minds by mistake: Someone didn’t think this through. Maybe Darwin made him do it. Take an ape brain and zap it: instant intelligence! That seems to be the gist of a story on Science Daily, “Origin of Intelligence and Mental Illness Linked to Ancient Genetic Accident.” What does the prestigious University of Edinburgh think of one of their own, Seth Grant, proposing that a genetic accident led to his brain? He proposes that a mistake caused a gene to make multiple copies of neurons, which led to both intelligence and mental illness. This makes mental illness the flip side of intelligence, leading readers to believe that Grant may not be able to tell one from the other. • *We learned later the latest Mars hype was due to a misunderstanding; see Live Science’s explanation. 10/14/2014 15

Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity? 科学家能够愚蠢吗？ • What’s disturbing is that nobody in the press called these people on these claims, although Clara Moskowitz came close. • Evolutionary scientists have the gall to declare their critics ignoramuses. We simply show you what they say; you decide. 10/14/2014 16

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • A historian tells science teachers that “To Teach Evolution, You Have to Understand Creationists.” Should that advice apply both ways? • In The Chronicle of Higher Education last month, Adam Laats seemingly advised a kinder, gentler treatment of creationists than the usual outrage from the secular Darwinian camp. There was no name-calling of them as ignorant, anti-science flat-earthers (or worse) from this historian and author from Binghamton University: instead, he urged that science teachers try to “understand” them. Cool your jets, he advised; attack-dog responses to creationist comments are uncalled for, as are the even milder (but no less virulent) comments from the likes of Bill Nye the Science Guy (see 8/27/2012). 10/14/2014 19

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • Laats’s reasons for moderation seem open-minded. He acknowledges that some creationists are not ignoramuses: U.S. Rep. Paul C. Broun Jr., Republican of Georgia, for instance, who took a “ferocious” beating after criticizing Darwinism and the Big Bang (he called them “lies from the pit of hell”), has a bachelor’s in chemistry and is an M.D. (Secular scientists are up in arms that he sits on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the House). A number of leading creationists have scientific credentials, Laats pointed out. He even praised William Jennings Bryan as a well-travelled man of letters with many degrees, who remarked that he had never been called an ignoramus “except by evolutionists.” 10/14/2014 20

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • The “snarky” remarks by some scientists who are “flummoxed by the durability of creationism,” he says, can’t on the one hand claim Broun is unqualified for his position, and on the other “demand that an elected official not fight for the ideas in which his constituents believe”. It’s time for carrot, not stick, Laats advises: • As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect. 10/14/2014 21

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • Laats also rejects the notion that creationists belong to a right-wing fringe. “As Berkman and Plutzer demonstrate, the creationist beliefs of teachers embody the creationist beliefs of Americans in general,” he said. “The teachers are not ignorant of evolution, yet they choose to reject it.” Remarkably, Laats is also willing to concede that some students who turn to embrace evolution might have done so not because of the facts of biology, but for personal moral failings or other motivations. Here, though, Laats reaches the limit of his tolerance for creationists: 10/14/2014 22

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • If we hope to spread the science of evolution, it does not help to charge forward in blissful ignorance about the nature and meanings of creationism. Broun may be wrong about evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang. But his scientific errors do not instantly disqualify him as a representative of the American people. Nor can they be explained away as a product of ignorance. • Rather, those of us who care about promoting evolution education must admit the hard truth. It is not simply that creationists such as Broun have not heard the facts about evolution. Broun—along with other informed, educated creationists—simply rejects those facts. Evolution educators do not simply need to spread the word about evolution. We need to convince and convert Americans who sincerely hold differing understandings about the nature and meaning of science. 10/14/2014 23

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • So in the end, Laats continued to hold that evolution is a matter of science, facts, and being right. Even if he allows that creationists are not ignoramuses, he implies that they hold “differing understandings” (by implication, misunderstandings), about the nature and meaning of science. More of the same presentation of the “facts” of evolution, therefore, is not going to convert those who reject “facts”. He didn’t go any further, but others have suggested forms of mind control to influence those with false beliefs (see 9/27/2012). Given the limits of his toleration, others could well propose such measures as more effective than name-calling; for example, see 12/21/2005, “How to Overcome Student Objections to Evolution.” 10/14/2014 24

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • If you are a Darwin doubter, as you read this, you must guard against the tendency to want to leap up and hug Adam Laats for his tolerant attitude. Yes, it is refreshing to see someone in the secular journals actually say that Darwin doubters are not all ignoramuses. After being hit by that rock on the head for so long, it does indeed feel good when it stops. Your response, instead, should be, Why were you hitting me with that rock in the first place? What right do you have to call me an ignoramus when you believe everything in the universe, including your reason, emerged from nothing by an unguided process? 10/14/2014 25

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • This is not just tit-for-tat. You need to reason with the evolutionist that his very use of reason shows that evolution is self-refuting. The evolutionist believes that reason emerged in the human mind by an unguided natural process; it did not exist before that. Therefore, he has no basis for trusting its validity (some very good treatments of this “argument from reason” in the new book The Magician’s Twin discussed in the 11/20/2012 entry). Laats needs to see that evolutionists are the ones who have denied the facts. They are the ones who have misunderstood the nature and meaning of science. 10/14/2014 26

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • That being the situation, there is no reason that an articulate creationist could not write the very same article in inverted form: “To Teach the Science of Creation, You Need to Understand Evolutionists.” That spokesperson could employ the same arguments: admitting that not all evolutionists are ignoramuses, and that some who believe simply reject the facts of creation. Some even believe it for non-rational reasons. The person who should be cowering in shame for promoting a self-refuting worldview (which, by definition, cannot possibly be true), is Adam Laats and his fellow science teachers who promote it. 10/14/2014 27

Understanding Creationists (and Evolutionists)了解创造论者（和进化论者） • If, and only if, Laats is willing to acknowledge, “you have a valid point there,” and that evolution could be the view that is factually wrong and unscientific, could there be a true meeting of the minds toward progress in mutual understanding. Anything less is a mere feint in a pitched battle. It just means the evolutionists will be kinder when they take creationists prisoner. Demand the evolutionists drop their arms and surrender the castle they have unrighteously usurped. 10/14/2014 28

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • Before you see, your retina has done multiple digital transformations on the incoming signal. • A new study by opthalmologists at the University of Tübingen, Germany has confirmed that the eye goes digital. Bipolar cells at the base of the retina, long thought to send continuous analog signals to the retina, have been shown to generate action potentials, or spikes, that represent on-or-off conditions (the basis of digital programming). The paper in Current Biology is technical; the interesting part is in the press release from the university, entitled “The end of a dogma: Bipolar cells generate action potentials.” The article explains the advantages of digital processing: 10/14/2014 31

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • Action potentials allow for much faster and temporally more precise signal transmission than graded potentials, thus offering advantages in certain situations. • Even more amazing is how the eye massages its digitized information for the brain. The description sounds like a computer system: 10/14/2014 32

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • The retina in our eyes is not just a sheet of light sensors that – like a camera chip – faithfully transmits patterns of light to the brain. Rather, it performs complex computations, extracting several features from the visual stimuli, e.g., whether the light intensity at a certain place increases or decreases, in which direction a light source moves or whether there is an edge in the image. To transmit this information reliably across the optic nerve — acting as a kind of a cable — to the brain, the retina reformats it into a succession of stereotypic action potentials – it “digitizes” it. Classical textbook knowledge holds that this digital code – similar to the one employed by computers – is applied only in the retina’s ganglion cells, which send the information to the brain. Almost all other cells in the retina were believed to employ graded, analogue signals. But the Tübingen scientists could now show that, in mammals, already the bipolar cells, which are situated right after the photoreceptors within the retinal network, are able to work in a “digital mode” as well. 10/14/2014 33

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • The researchers were able to classify bipolar cell patterns into at least eight classes. “Therefore, the systematic projection pattern of BCs provides distinct temporal‘building blocks’ for the feature extracting circuits of the inner retina,” the abstract of the paper states. Could this be analogous to bits being organized into bytes for a kind of visual code? If nothing else, it improves reliability of the signal: “To make information transmission to the brain reliable, the retina first has to ‘digitize’ the image,” the press release began. • Why is this the end of a dogma? Action potentials had been noticed before, but were considered rare exceptions. “The results from Tübingen call a widely held dogma of neuroscience into question — and open up many new questions,” the press release ended. 10/14/2014 34

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • As could be predicted, none of these articles mentioned evolution. How could they, when talking about computer cables and digital codes? • There are two take-home messages from this paper. One is that the closer science looks at life, the more intelligently designed it appears. The autonomous bipolar cells cannot “know” what the brain needs. They had to be pre-programmed to send the most valuable information so that the brain can respond appropriately. They have to “format” the signal, using a code the brain can understand. And they have to get it there fast; that’s why digital is the way to go. The exquisite interaction of parts here, sending digitally-encoded information down a “cable” of sorts, is really mind-boggling. It’s not just a camera chip; it’s a whole Photoshop! 10/14/2014 35

Eye Retina Is Analog-to-Digital Converter 眼睛视网膜模拟到数字转换器 • The other take-away message is that we don’t really see what’s “out there” in the world as it really is. What’s out there are just photons bouncing off objects. Before we see what we think we’re seeing, a long series of intermediaries (the cornea, the aqueous humor, the lens, the vitrious humor, the rods and cones, the bipolar cells, the retinal ganglion cells, the optic nerve, and who knows what else) has massaged, transformed and formatted the signal from the initial impingement of photons on the cornea. Philosophers can have fun with this (see David Chalmers discuss the “hard problem” of neuroscience on Evolution News & Views). Creation apologists can also use this information as a response to skeptics who say they only believe what they see with their own eyes. 10/14/2014 36

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • A geologist rejects the idea that an ancient lake spilled and carved Grand Canyon, but maybe he misrepresents the theory. Besides, how can geologists “hindcast” an unobserved event without philosophical assumptions? • “Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says No,” reads a headline on Live Science, but the URL is stronger: “Megaflood debunked as Grand Canyon cause.” Debunked is a strong word. It implies permanently laid to rest, or falsified, by a concurrence of geologists. In the article by reporter Becky Oskin, however, it appears that the debunking is just the opinion of one geologist, Bill Dickinson, an emeritus professor of geology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who could provide no better explanation. 10/14/2014 39

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • Tracing the history of the Grand Canyon is controversial. The deep gorge exposes a billion years of Earth history in its candy-colored cliffs, but geologists can’t agree when it formed, or exactly how. • A long-standing hypothesis by both creationist and secular geologists places a vast lake, called Hopi Lake, to the southeast of the current canyon, proposing that a dam breach carved at least much of the canyon rapidly and catastrophically. The Painted Desert and other remnants called the Bidahochi Formation would be remnants of the old lake bottom. 10/14/2014 40

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • Dickinson doesn’t believe the dam breach is a valid story, so he said “my main purpose is to dismantle it.” He argues that the lake would have been too shallow, and that the waters could not have climbed over the Kaibab Upwarp. This argument, though, overlooks the proponents’ scenario that the upwarp and the dam breach were tied together. Dickinson and others mentioned in the article additionally argue that there’s no way the lake could have existed for 10–20 million years. Creation geologists, however, do not need the millions of years, while secular geologists have no agreement on the sequence of events in the region, begging the question that the lake required the time. 10/14/2014 41

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • It would seem hard for Dickinson to triumph over a competing theory when he is admittedly baffled by the origin of the canyon: • Knocking down Hopi Lake leaves a major puzzle: What was the course of the Colorado River before the Grand Canyon deepened? Some geologists think the early Colorado River flowed south into the lake.… • “One of the hardest things to hindcast is to know how big a river you’re looking for in Grand Canyon country,” he said. “What was the river like up in Utah? I hope that if people would just abandon the Hope Lake spillover game, their thoughts would lead them on to worrying about Utah.” 10/14/2014 42

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • Although Dickinson presented a proposal that the ancestral river flowed northwest across northern Arizona, his idea hardly accounts for many features of the canyon, including its crossing the Kaibab plateau. Oskin implied that no other geologist is likely to come up with a better idea any time soon: “Part of the challenge of solving the Grand Canyon’s history is that so much has changed in the ensuing millions of years: climate was different then, the topography has changed dramatically, and tectonic forces continue to reshape the plateau.” 10/14/2014 43

Hindcasting the Grand Canyon: Geologist Rejects Dam Breach Theory后报大峡谷：地质学家拒绝溃坝理论 • It seems hardly appropriate for Oskin to say the megaflood theory has been “debunked” when all the other theories have just as many or worse problems. Oskin misrepresented the megaflood theory by assuming the millions of years as part of the story. It’s the millions of years that are a large part of the problem with competing theories. This was no debunking; it was rather a story of a man on a mission to discredit competition so he could present his own fallible hindcast. 10/14/2014 44

Globular Clusters Look Young and Old: Is This Scientific Explanation?球状星团看起来年轻和老：这是科学的解释吗？ • Globular clusters supposedly all formed at the same time long ago, but some look young. How do astronomers rescue the belief that they are ancient groupings of stars? • Live Science (echoed on Space.com) introduced, once again (10/05/2003, 7/12/2008), the problem of “blue straggler stars” (BSS) – blue supergiant stars in globulars that appear too young to inhabit such old clusters (the hot blue stars are thought to form and explode in too short a time to exist in ancient clusters that supposedly formed soon after the big bang). Reporter Mike Wall personified them thus: • While such star clusters are many billions of years old, some of them manage to stay young at heart while others speed along toward decrepitude, astronomers found. 10/14/2014 47

Globular Clusters Look Young and Old: Is This Scientific Explanation?球状星团看起来年轻和老：这是科学的解释吗？ • Given this range of incompatible ages, how can astronomers explain it? One way is to tweak the “evolutionary rate” dial: • “By studying the distribution of a type of blue star that exists in the clusters, we found that some clusters had indeed evolved much faster over their lifetimes, and we developed a way to measure the rate of aging,” lead author Francesco Ferraro, of the University of Bologna in Italy, said in a statement. 10/14/2014 48

Globular Clusters Look Young and Old: Is This Scientific Explanation?球状星团看起来年轻和老：这是科学的解释吗？ • The astronomers used an analogy of sediment sinking in a tank to classify clusters with blue stragglers concentrated near the center of some clusters, while others appear more homogeneous. It’s not clear, though, that astronomers can simply tweak a dial to keep theory intact. Why would some clusters evolve faster than others? 10/14/2014 49

Globular Clusters Look Young and Old: Is This Scientific Explanation?球状星团看起来年轻和老：这是科学的解释吗？ • A few clusters had blue stragglers distributed throughout, making them appear young. Some seemed old, with the stragglers already clumped in the center. And others were somewhere in between. • “Since these clusters all formed at roughly the same time, this reveals big differences in the speed of evolution from cluster to cluster,” said co-author Barbara Lanzoni, also of the University of Bologna. “In the case of fast-aging clusters, we think that the sedimentation process can be complete within a few hundred million years, while for the slowest it would take several times the current age of the universe.” 10/14/2014 50

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2013 科学布道 -- 2013 年 1 月

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2013 科学布道 -- 2013 年 1 月

Presentation Transcript

Funding Year 2013: Completing form 470

DTC Management Board Meeting 24 th January 2013

LUNG TRANSPLANTATION

PCE PRESENTATION OF THE 2013/14 2nd QUARTER PERFORMANCE (Quarter ending 30 September 2013)

‘ SIS goes MaD ’ Oct. 7-11, 2013 Activity Booklet Years 8-10

Its Almost All Systems go for the new financial Year – All the Best to all From the Branch

Sermons From Science -- March 2013 科学布道 -- 2013 年 3 月

E-Rate 2013: Completing form 471

Sermons From Science -- Sept 2012 科学布道 -- 2012 年 9 月