Friday, April 6, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Heavenly Father Provided Us a Savior - Lesson Nine
PREPARATION
OPENING HYMN
"God Love Us, So He Sent His Son" Hymn 187
OPENING PRAYER
LESSON (For Younger Children)
CLOSING HYMN
"I Thank Thee, Dear Father" Children's Songbook 8
CLOSING PRAYER
TREAT & ACTIVITY
PREPARATION
- Piece of Paper and Marker (for each child)
- Picture of Jesus and the Children from Lesson 36 "He Is Risen"
OPENING HYMN
"God Love Us, So He Sent His Son" Hymn 187
OPENING PRAYER
LESSON (For Younger Children)
- Tell the story of the council in heaven
- Heavenly Father loves us so much to send us to earth to get a body
- Because of Heavenly Father's love for us, he sent our older brother Jesus to help us - to illustrate - tell the following story:
Michael's Danger
Michael went to the park with his family. While they were at the picnic table, he ran over to the tall slide and climbed up it. He liked to climb stairs. He had just learned how to climb. But when Michael reached the top of the slide and looked down he became very frightened. He was so high up.
Michael started to cry. He didn't know what to do. He was too scared to climb back down, but he was also too scared to go down the steep slide. Mandy, the child behind Michael on the slide, said she would help Michael back down the stairs. But Michael was too afraid to let Mandy help him.
From the picnic table, Michael's father saw Michael on the slide. He knew Michael was scared. So he sent Stephen, the older brother, to rescue Michael. Michael saw Stephen coming. Soon Stephen was standing at the bottom of the long slide. Stephen talked softly to Michael and quickly talked Michael into sliding down into his strong arms. Michael ran happily back with Stephen to the picnic table. He was glad to be safe with his father, mother, brothers, and sisters again.
Going up the tall slide for Michael is much like our leaving Heavenly Father and coming to the earth. It is new, exciting, and different. But there are dangers. Without help we would not be able to get back to safety. Not just anybody can help. The person must be able to help and must also be someone we know and trust.
Jesus is our Savior and helps us when we are in this earth life. Only he can rescue us. Our Heavenly Father loves us to much that he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to make it possible for us to come back to our heavenly home.
- Show your children the picture of Jesus and the children (lesson 36, "He Is Risen")
- Talk with them about some of the things Jesus may be asking these children to do that will help them return to Heavenly Father, such as be kind to rather other, obey your parents, and share your toys.
- Let them draw a picture of one thing Jesus wants them to do that they will try to do this week
- Post the picture where they can remind the children during the
CLOSING HYMN
"I Thank Thee, Dear Father" Children's Songbook 8
CLOSING PRAYER
TREAT & ACTIVITY
Monday, January 23, 2012
We Can Choose - Family Home Evening Lesson Eight
PREPARATION
- bowl of different colored jelly beans
- pencils and paper
OPENING HYMN
OPENING PRAYER
LESSON
Show the bowl of jelly beans. Let each child choose and eat one. Talk about the choices the make each day and how important they are. Possible compare importances of each choice.
Ask the to listen as you read the following story about a boy named Brent. Ask them to:
- THUMBS UP - Brent chooses RIGHT
- THUMBS DOWN - Brent chooses WRONG
- THUMBS TOWARD THEMSELVES - NOT SURE
After each sentence pause to note where they point their thumbs.
Brent's Day
Brent stayed in bed after mother called him twice. When he did get up, he dressed himself except for tying his shoes.
At breakfast he took a piece of bacon from his sister's plate while she was not looking. After breakfast he let Sally, his sister, play with his new truck because he felt sorry that he had taken the bacon.
He came in promptly when mother called him for lunch, even though he was having fun.
When mother told him to take a nap, he and Sally whispered and giggled and did not go to sleep.
Later, he shared half his cookie with Billy Jones.
He did not cross the street when the other kids did because his father had told him not to.
He picked one of Mrs. Brown's red tulips because it was so pretty. He gave the tulip to mother. He obeyed his mother and went and told Mrs. Brown he was sorry to have picked her tulip and asked if she wanted him to pay for it. He didn't talk back to Mrs. Brown when she scolded him for picking one of the tulips she liked so much. He felt bad and told her he would never do it again.
He brought the paper to his father when he came home. He helped mother set the table by putting the napkins on. He fed his dog.
During dinner, he tried to feed his spinach to the dog after father had told him to eat it.
When it was time to go to bed, he undressed himself and hung up his clothes. He prayed to his Heavenly Father. Then he went to sleep without whispering and giggling with Sally.
END OF STORY
Discuss the story of Brent and the many choices he made. Sometime right, sometimes wrong - but he kept trying to make right choices.
Ask the children to think of some of the choices they make every day.
Use picture to give them ideas.
Explain that some choices are more important than others but that they all have consequences. One consequence might be how they feel
Mention one good choice each child has make during the past week. Encourage them to think about the choices they make during the coming week.
During the week, give your children little opportunities that will help them learn to make choices.
At mealtime during the week, talk about the choices the children have made during they day.
CLOSING HYMN
CLOSING PRAYER
TREAT & ACTIVITY
Go get ice cream cone
Go to Deseret Book and get copy of new Friend Magazine
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Oh man...Darren Nicoll posted this on Facebook and I had to bring it over to the blog - Hahahaha.
Fotoshop by Adobé from Jesse Rosten on Vimeo.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Santa Clause Tummy
"Why is Santa Claus' tummy soo big?....Oh, I know - Is it from eating all those children's cookies?" - Rubi Grace Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:55pm
Monday, October 17, 2011
How do we know what we know?
How do we know what we know?
Take these three words and think about what they are and how they are inter-related.
TRUTH - KNOWLEDGE - BELIEF
The above picture was found on http://www.idealistarchive.com/studyarchive/e/epistemology.html.
The Scientific Method
1. Ask a question
2. Perform background research
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Experiment (text hypothesis)
5. Analyze data (form a conclusion)
6. Communicate the results
(click on image to go to original source)
Wikipedia lists the steps as follows:
Evidence: How do we know what we know?
Follow the below link and view the steps to verify scientific discovery.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/
1. What's the claim?
2. Who says?
3. What's the evidence?
4. How did they get the evidence?
5. Is there anything or anyone to back up the claim?
6. Could there be another explanation?
7. Who cares?
Take these three words and think about what they are and how they are inter-related.
TRUTH - KNOWLEDGE - BELIEF
The above picture was found on http://www.idealistarchive.com/studyarchive/e/epistemology.html.
The Scientific Method
1. Ask a question
2. Perform background research
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Experiment (text hypothesis)
5. Analyze data (form a conclusion)
6. Communicate the results
Wikipedia lists the steps as follows:
- Define a question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form an explanatory hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
- Analyze the data
- Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Evidence: How do we know what we know?
Follow the below link and view the steps to verify scientific discovery.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/
1. What's the claim?
2. Who says?
3. What's the evidence?
4. How did they get the evidence?
5. Is there anything or anyone to back up the claim?
6. Could there be another explanation?
7. Who cares?
Friday, October 7, 2011
Lucas, Cory
BIS301
Biochemistry Concentration Multidisciplinary
Paper Nutritional Differences Organic vs. Conventional Food Products
In times past, someone reading this paper might not have known what the term “organic” listed on a food item at the grocery store meant. That time has come and gone. Anyone that has spent any amount of time grocery shopping has most likely realized that it’s not just about price anymore. Another variable now exists in the grocery equation; whether to buy conventional or organic. This short writing will focus on two components of this debate. First, to define organic agriculture and secondly to show that organically grown products do not have a consistent verifiable nutritional difference from conventional farming methods.
WHAT DOES ORGANIC MEAN?
Excluding the general public’s perception of “organic”, the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission’s definition follows: “…The form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.” (Organic) Note: Notice the use of words “excludes or strictly limits. One must pay careful attention to the initial exclusion of something, followed by its re-allowance in a limited quantity. What determined the initial exclusion? What deemed it allowable in limited amounts? Who determines the limit? Most importantly, what governing body or driving force re-allowed the once excluded product? Profit driven business decisions, need constant monitoring and correcting, otherwise the actual difference between conventional foods and organic foods will slowly but surely blur into nothing more than a difference in packaging and pricing. The term “organic” in a liberal sense (liberal in order to include all possibilities) might define itself as the reduction of certain components and the inclusion of others components with regards to farming; The nutritional end goal, to minimize food deficiencies and maximize health giving components as well as to promote a more sustainable environment. With this in mind, the concept of organic agriculture maintains two premises:
1. All Synthetic products and their uses will prove harmful (either in there very nature or as byproducts of there use) and therefore their use minimized.
2. All Natural products and their uses convey a health benefit and therefore their use maximized.
The following SYNTHETIC items receive a harmful classification in a strict organic sense:
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
• Fungicides
• Herbicides
• Insecticides
• Hormones
• Antibiotics
• Food additives
• Genetically modified organisms
Interestingly enough, the same items receive a healthful classification if deemed NATURAL.
A major challenge faced by this viewpoint reveals itself in that all things natural do NOT possess an inherent health benefit and all things synthetic do not possess inherently harmful effects. The concept of organic, as viewed by the public, may require some clarification. Unfortunately, a review of the substantial studies as a whole show a need for more clear and unbiased results as well as consistently substantiated confirmations of proposed hypotheses. A larger number of well thought out studies show one result when just as many qualified scientific studies show something different or even contrary. A possible re-defining of the term “organic” may self-propagate as this occurs. In all agriculture, the general and specific environmental conditions have a considerable effect on flora and fauna. This fundamental concept applies to conventional as well as organic farming techniques. Implementation of certain environmental controls improves the quality, increases the quantity and shortens the maturation cycle of plants used for human consumption. The controls deal with increased availability or minimization of simple resources. These can include water, sun, shade, and elements like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
LIMITATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Availability or scarcity of an environmental factor has limited ability to change the plant. For example, no environmental condition exists wherein an apple tree becomes an orange tree. In similar manner, changing the environmental inputs only has the possibility of changing relative amounts of components within the plant that already exist and only in very small and limited amounts. Even that concept has very stringent limitations due to the fact that whether its molecular organization defines it as an apple, an alligator or a human, they all consist of the same basic major molecular components of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen organized in a different way. The basic components of a species and their construction do not vary significantly; otherwise any significant variance would constitute a different species. This seemingly simple concept reveals an important concept with regards to organic as well as conventional farming: Environmental controls will only go so far.
A REVIEW OF THE STUDIES
In the 2002 study Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?, Christine Williams said the following, “Despite the widespread conviction held by the public that organic food is ‘healthier’ than foods produced using conventional farming, evidence to support this perception is difficult to identify.” (Williams) A review of the studies, indeed verifies this as he case. Both sides of the argument have a compelling proposal. Organic proponents put forth the hypothesis that organically grown foods have more nutrients, and lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers. Conventional food producers argue that animal based fertilizers along with reduced synthetic “-ides” like pesticides and herbicides open a the door to greater contamination of food products by harmful microorganisms, etc. Unfortunately, both sides put forth very polarized opinions. In table 1 (Williams) 52,471 articles regarding organic foodstuffs, narrowed to just 162 studies, showed only 55 of a high enough quality for scholarly review. The conclusion stated, “…conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference surfaced for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.” (Williams) The data clearly shows no consistently verifiable nutritional difference between the organically grown plants and the conventionally grown plants (other than the nitrogen/phosphorus component). This data appears to correlate to another study of the effects of growth conditions on nutritionally relevant plan substituents.
DEEPER THAN ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL
Table 1 shows one example where the relationship between nutrients and growth conditions appears much deeper than just organic vs. conventional farming methods (Woese) Here, a relationship between ascorbic acid (vitamin C), beta-carotene (vitamin a precursor) and nitrogen availability at the time of planting reveals itself. Nutrient levels in plants show a dependency on the nitrogen up-take availability at the time of planting. In addition to this dependency, the data presents and inverse relationship of ascorbic acid to beta-carotene. Both nutrients do not increase or decrease based on the same environmental stimulus. Also note that as the nitrogen levels decrease from the first year to the second year, the beta-carotene levels decreased, whereas the ascorbic acid level in the plants increased! This relationship would exist regardless of organic or synthetic fertilizers. (Woese) A plant would not differentiate an organic nitrogen molecule from a synthetic nitrogen molecule. Stress components also triggered increased ascorbic acid content in the plants not organic or conventional controls per se. Oxidative stresses such as full sunlight, low nitrogen availability or herbicides increased the vitamin C content. Conversely, optimum conditions that promoted growth increased the beta-carotene content. In conclusion, a significant disparity exists between the public perception and the reality of what the term organic means with regards to food products. Performing more, high quality studies will bring to light more specific environmental factors that influence certain nutritional components of plants.
Bibliography
Dangour, Alan D. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: a Systematic Review." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Web. 26 Sept. 2011..
"Organic Certification." U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.
.
"Organic Farming." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 25 Sept. 2011.
.
Williams, Christine M. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Food:
Shades of Grey or Shades of Green?" Cambridge Journals. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. .
Woese, Katrin. "A Comparison of Organically and Conventionally
Grown Foods—Results of a Review of the Relevant Literature." Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 13.S1 (1962): 1-56. Web.
BIS301
Biochemistry Concentration Multidisciplinary
Paper Nutritional Differences Organic vs. Conventional Food Products
In times past, someone reading this paper might not have known what the term “organic” listed on a food item at the grocery store meant. That time has come and gone. Anyone that has spent any amount of time grocery shopping has most likely realized that it’s not just about price anymore. Another variable now exists in the grocery equation; whether to buy conventional or organic. This short writing will focus on two components of this debate. First, to define organic agriculture and secondly to show that organically grown products do not have a consistent verifiable nutritional difference from conventional farming methods.
WHAT DOES ORGANIC MEAN?
Excluding the general public’s perception of “organic”, the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission’s definition follows: “…The form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.” (Organic) Note: Notice the use of words “excludes or strictly limits. One must pay careful attention to the initial exclusion of something, followed by its re-allowance in a limited quantity. What determined the initial exclusion? What deemed it allowable in limited amounts? Who determines the limit? Most importantly, what governing body or driving force re-allowed the once excluded product? Profit driven business decisions, need constant monitoring and correcting, otherwise the actual difference between conventional foods and organic foods will slowly but surely blur into nothing more than a difference in packaging and pricing. The term “organic” in a liberal sense (liberal in order to include all possibilities) might define itself as the reduction of certain components and the inclusion of others components with regards to farming; The nutritional end goal, to minimize food deficiencies and maximize health giving components as well as to promote a more sustainable environment. With this in mind, the concept of organic agriculture maintains two premises:
1. All Synthetic products and their uses will prove harmful (either in there very nature or as byproducts of there use) and therefore their use minimized.
2. All Natural products and their uses convey a health benefit and therefore their use maximized.
The following SYNTHETIC items receive a harmful classification in a strict organic sense:
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
• Fungicides
• Herbicides
• Insecticides
• Hormones
• Antibiotics
• Food additives
• Genetically modified organisms
Interestingly enough, the same items receive a healthful classification if deemed NATURAL.
A major challenge faced by this viewpoint reveals itself in that all things natural do NOT possess an inherent health benefit and all things synthetic do not possess inherently harmful effects. The concept of organic, as viewed by the public, may require some clarification. Unfortunately, a review of the substantial studies as a whole show a need for more clear and unbiased results as well as consistently substantiated confirmations of proposed hypotheses. A larger number of well thought out studies show one result when just as many qualified scientific studies show something different or even contrary. A possible re-defining of the term “organic” may self-propagate as this occurs. In all agriculture, the general and specific environmental conditions have a considerable effect on flora and fauna. This fundamental concept applies to conventional as well as organic farming techniques. Implementation of certain environmental controls improves the quality, increases the quantity and shortens the maturation cycle of plants used for human consumption. The controls deal with increased availability or minimization of simple resources. These can include water, sun, shade, and elements like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
LIMITATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Availability or scarcity of an environmental factor has limited ability to change the plant. For example, no environmental condition exists wherein an apple tree becomes an orange tree. In similar manner, changing the environmental inputs only has the possibility of changing relative amounts of components within the plant that already exist and only in very small and limited amounts. Even that concept has very stringent limitations due to the fact that whether its molecular organization defines it as an apple, an alligator or a human, they all consist of the same basic major molecular components of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen organized in a different way. The basic components of a species and their construction do not vary significantly; otherwise any significant variance would constitute a different species. This seemingly simple concept reveals an important concept with regards to organic as well as conventional farming: Environmental controls will only go so far.
A REVIEW OF THE STUDIES
In the 2002 study Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?, Christine Williams said the following, “Despite the widespread conviction held by the public that organic food is ‘healthier’ than foods produced using conventional farming, evidence to support this perception is difficult to identify.” (Williams) A review of the studies, indeed verifies this as he case. Both sides of the argument have a compelling proposal. Organic proponents put forth the hypothesis that organically grown foods have more nutrients, and lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers. Conventional food producers argue that animal based fertilizers along with reduced synthetic “-ides” like pesticides and herbicides open a the door to greater contamination of food products by harmful microorganisms, etc. Unfortunately, both sides put forth very polarized opinions. In table 1 (Williams) 52,471 articles regarding organic foodstuffs, narrowed to just 162 studies, showed only 55 of a high enough quality for scholarly review. The conclusion stated, “…conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference surfaced for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.” (Williams) The data clearly shows no consistently verifiable nutritional difference between the organically grown plants and the conventionally grown plants (other than the nitrogen/phosphorus component). This data appears to correlate to another study of the effects of growth conditions on nutritionally relevant plan substituents.
DEEPER THAN ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL
Table 1 shows one example where the relationship between nutrients and growth conditions appears much deeper than just organic vs. conventional farming methods (Woese) Here, a relationship between ascorbic acid (vitamin C), beta-carotene (vitamin a precursor) and nitrogen availability at the time of planting reveals itself. Nutrient levels in plants show a dependency on the nitrogen up-take availability at the time of planting. In addition to this dependency, the data presents and inverse relationship of ascorbic acid to beta-carotene. Both nutrients do not increase or decrease based on the same environmental stimulus. Also note that as the nitrogen levels decrease from the first year to the second year, the beta-carotene levels decreased, whereas the ascorbic acid level in the plants increased! This relationship would exist regardless of organic or synthetic fertilizers. (Woese) A plant would not differentiate an organic nitrogen molecule from a synthetic nitrogen molecule. Stress components also triggered increased ascorbic acid content in the plants not organic or conventional controls per se. Oxidative stresses such as full sunlight, low nitrogen availability or herbicides increased the vitamin C content. Conversely, optimum conditions that promoted growth increased the beta-carotene content. In conclusion, a significant disparity exists between the public perception and the reality of what the term organic means with regards to food products. Performing more, high quality studies will bring to light more specific environmental factors that influence certain nutritional components of plants.
Bibliography
Dangour, Alan D. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: a Systematic Review." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)