sanctification.noun
set apart for a particular purpose; consecrated; purified, cleansed
sanctify, sanctified, sanctifying, sanctifies.transitive verbs
to set apart for sacred use; consecrate; to make holy; purify; to invoke sanction to, as with an oath or a vow (sanctify a marriage; to give social or moral sanction to)
sanctifier.noun

so-called.adjective
incorrectly or falsely termed (a so-called document purporting itself as genuine)

science.noun-(behavioral science, creation science, exact science)
the state of knowing; 'we know'; science is mostly the study of effects, the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world and society, mostly through observation and experiment with methods used to discover, science classicly separates the observer from the observed, not so in quantum mechanics; science is systematic thinking directed toward the seeking of connections between our corporeal world, assembling knowledge gained with exactness; some scientists argue that western science is 'a dead body of science', for it does not observe the living invisible connections between measurable matter. Dr. John Hagelin, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf (his site), and many others then can be called true scientists

"True science requires testing of explanations against the natural world and testing requires that some variables be held constant."....Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Centre for Science Education, Inc., El Cerrito, California. 

The scientific method:
1) Recognizing a new idea or problem that needs solving.
2) Use of logical reasoning to create a hypothesis (what if we tried this).
3) Testing of that hypothesis in the physical world through observation.

Logical thinking/reasoning is our cognitive ability to think out solutions to problems from a cause and effect standpoint, is entirely a technical process, based on the amount of information we have at any one time. For example, the reason modern medicine 'misses the boat' and ends up 'killing' people is that doctors can only mentally reference what they look at with what they have been taught.

According to the Oxford dictionary, science is."the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world and society.(especially through observation and experiment)". In these terms, one named Umasankar-ji from India, is therefore a scientist, for he has dedicated his life to studying the physical and natural world through the observation of his own spiritual practice and self-experimentation.

Through his discoveries, Umasankar-ji now argues that western science is."the dead body of science".for it does not observe the living (but invisible) connections between measurable matter. Western scientists observe and measure the dead cells of living creatures, not the soul that is the life within them.

They have not found a way of measuring the soul, so they claim that it does not exist. They claim that God is nowhere, but Umasankar-ji prefers to explain that God is."now-here".existing within every living being. Without the soul the body cannot live, and without the body the soul cannot exist (for it will return to the super-soul, the Great Infinite Intelligence). So, if scientists claim that there is no soul, then surely this is proof that they are studying the dead body of science.

In order to gain true knowledge, scientists first need to study their own feelings and discover their own soul. Only in this way will they understand the life of science rather than its dead body.

"To do science is to search for repeated patterns, not simply to accumulate facts.".Robert Helmer MacArthur, Geographical Ecology, (1972), New York, Harper & Row.

Western scientists observe and measure the dead cells of living creatures, not the soul that is the life within them. They have not found a way of measuring the soul, so they claim that it does not exist. They claim that God is nowhere, but scientist Umasankar-ji prefers to explain that God is 'now-here', existing within every living being. Without the soul the body cannot live, and without the body the soul cannot exist (for it will return to the super-soul - or God). So, if scientists claim that there is no soul, then surely this is proof that they are studying the dead body of science. In order to gain true knowledge, scientists first need to study their own feelings and discover their own soul. Only in this way will they understand the life of science rather than its dead body. As Umasankar-ji says."one drop of practice is better than an ocean of books and theory". Through the practice of meditation we can feel and through feeling we can discover the soul.

Science:-for kids on the Net (clear explanations for kids) or adults www.madsci.org and www.sciencenet.org.uk and for others – www.sciencedaily.com; http://whyfiles.org/; type Nassim Haramein into YouTube (world reknown physicist with proven new information apart from classical physics

creation science.noun
scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism

exact science-(physical sciences)
a science (as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy, engineering, etc.) whose laws are capable of accurate, and reliably repeatable quantitative expression as often defined using numbers

behavioral science.noun
a quasi body of knowledge often passed off as science (psychology, audiology, biology, sociology, anthropology, etc.) that deals with the study of human beings, animals, climate, etc. through observational and experimental methods and generalizes about how these things operate (actions and reactions) in society, such as – 'in 6 out of 10 cases this is true', as compared to an exact science which interprets experience on a higher than purely descriptive level – e.g. 'this has to be true all the time (2 plus two must always equal 4), or the skyscraper won't stay up, the astronauts won't hit the two foot window to reenter Earth's atmosphere, and the submarine won't work as it should.

It would be correct to rename this misnomer of behaviorial 'science' to behavioral analysis.

Some persons trained in sciences (such as evolution) often take comfort that some future discovery is certain to confirm their quest for verification of nature minus a Creator. Other more respectable evolutionists conclude that this great Creator could have any of many ways to start life, perhaps even the big bang. After all look what one tiny cell can become, a baby with a hundred trillion different cells, all communicating with each other and each doing over a million things every second just to keep you going.

"Evolution is not an idea. It's a fact".says James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said at the launch of a conference whose theme celebrated Darwin's work.

Many of evolutionist's highest gums (because they were speaking in Chicago as they presented papers showing how evolution can be witnessed in everything from the genetic similarities between humans and Neanderthals to the way planets form and crows use tools to catch bugs.
....Wow, really! And what one thing that is true about evolution came out of it. Absolutely zilch! Lower consciousness ego motivated evolutionists evidence a cult. Talk about a group of fanatics, religiously embracing what has been proven to be still a theory. And, slapping in the face as it were, those who are true scientists, who have long since rejected the 'religiots' (religious idiots {evolution is really a religion to those close minded to further research on the subject}) who embrace the theory of evolution because they have failed to progress beyond being a behavioral scientist.

They said at the conference that the public is skeptical (and they should be) of these US scientists (the behavioral/pseudo ones) who continue to believe in the commonly indoctrinating theory of evolution.

No, folks they are not crazy, they are just adhering to that which they learned (were brainwashed) in school about. These are the unsane. They failed to put it all together which would evidence something way beyond evolution.

This is what intelligent men and women (those having studied evolution and seen it for what it lacked, unless there indeed was a quantum leap, and there may have been) call a thoroughly closed mind, unable to arrive at the truth, stopping short of putting the whole of intelligent creation together, while becoming ever more engrossed within errors along the way, and with an increasing fierceness. They are not nice to those who hold a different opinion on the subject of creation.

Whether the Great Intelligence used evolution or not is of little consequence. What matters is the soul exists and we should learn about it and how it can affect us in the present.

At the conference it was also said."It's impossible to deny evolution: the development of drug resistant microbes, pesticide resistant insects, there are abundant examples in ordinary life."
...And this is supposed to prove the commonly taught theory of evolution? Where were these people educated (indoctrinated)?

Evolution is not well taught in US schools, it was said, and thankfully this is so. There are some smart teachers out there who refuse to be hoodwinked by the unfounded plethora of errors obviously used to abuse the development of intelligent children. The ego is bent on control in those considering themselves masters of others. These are the ones trying every trick they can muster, to propagate false knowledge for their own purposes.

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, in part of the Nazi like push to shove commonly taught evolutionary teachings onto others while neglecting the vastly more important information of the soul, said that there are many more working behind the scenes to challenge or limit the teaching of evolution in the classroom. So, the time is being wasted from discovery of our true selves on bantering about how we came to be.

In 1968 the Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law making it a crime to teach evolution and ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban the teaching of evolution under the powers of the separation of religion and state.
...That's good, let's teach evolution I say. It really is a wonderful subject for exercise of analytical abilities and children need to learn how to pick it apart piece by piece, as they do other things that develop thinking.

Hey, it is the men and women's country. If they don't want evolution, then why should it be forced upon their children, unless of course you believe in totalitarianism, which it is obvious many espousers of evolution do, such as some who were at this conference; you can tell by their stance on the subject - me right, you wrong, let's get rid of your beliefs.

"The latest strategy is not to promote the frank teaching of intelligent design, but to sneak it in through the back door" Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said in a telephone interview.
...Now here's a person in a respectable position, but acting like a fool, as she accuses those who do not believe in the evolutionary fable, as being surreptitious sneaks. Sure says a lot for her credibility. What on earth is she doing in a position bespeaking science education. It sure is not true science and it is not at all education, but more of indoctrination. What's her real agenda? Who's pulling her strings?

She continues and wouldn't you like her to be teaching your kids what she holds to be true:."In the biology business we'd call that adaptation - if nothing else evolves, the creationists do. They're always coming up with ways to subvert evolution."
...Wow! Now questioning minds are 'subversives'. How did this woman every get into the job she is in? Nazi backers? No open mind on her part for anything to be wrong with the evolutionary theory and really, maybe nothing is; it's just a theory; oh, sorry, these evolutionists have progressed from it being a theory, to it now being fact, a fact they feel others must accept as true. So they fuel division over something not really that important at all. Knowing what the soul can do is important for children and all of us to know.

Another one typical of this behavioral approach and in total disregard of true science, is Barry Palevitz, professor in the Department of Botany, University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia "...everything science says is couched in probabilities – certainty isn't in our vocabulary."....'Science and the Versus of Religion, A Conversation with My Students', Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, 199, page 33. Thank God Barry isn't a aerospace engineer/rocket scientist in charge of bringing astronauts back to Earth. Thank God Barry didn't become an architectural or aeronautical engineer and design the buildings or airplanes many of us rely on as being state of the art engineering. Obviously Barry never took physics and hasn't so far learned much about absolutes even in the plant world. It's ok Barry, the time of mind opening is coming. Hey Barry! Have you considered? The crucially constituent certainty evident in mathematics is its particular connection to the physical sciences, in fact to any science which interprets life on a higher than qualitative level.

It is interesting Barry comments dogmatically on that which he obviously understands so little –."supernatural explanations are unnecessary and counterproductive...No natural phenomenon, not one, has ever been shown to have a supernatural cause based on objective, material evidence... Evolution is the accepted scientific explanation for how life arrived and it's supported by a mountain of data...the supernatural cannot be tested by the material methods of science and we should force creationists to admit it...scientists do not believe in evolution, they believe it...Scientists believe evolution because overwhelming data support it...the data since Darwin's time support evolution; it's not a matter of faith."....ibid.

Hey Barry! You confirm my belief that die hard evolutionism leads to Nazi like tendencies. And Barry, your credibility is excessively diminished by your vacuous statements (hey! did you and Ken Miller come out of the same school?), which imply unanimity of support by all scientists toward the hairbrained.sophistic. concoction commonly taught evolution has proven itself to be; that is, once one examines its plethora of inconsistencies with meticulous research methodology.

In addition, you appear to fatuously.contradict colleagues who believe that science is knowledge of the laws (laws Barry) of nature, which enable modern technology through their application toward the manufacture of material products and devices and Barry, if you're sure the theory of evolution should preempt the Bible, perhaps you should consider why so many intelligent persons believe what the Bible and other spiritual writings explaining the world of the invisible says.

Learn about both sides and make up your own mind.

Shintoism.noun
the indigenous.religion of Japan consisting chiefly in the cultic devotion to deities of natural forces and veneration of the Emperor as a descendant of the sun goddess 
Shintoist.noun-or.adjective
Shinto, Shintoistic.adjectives

suffice, sufficed, sufficing, suffices.verbs
intransitive verb use.to meet present needs or requirements; be sufficient.(these rations will suffice until next week); to be equal to a specified task; be capable (no words will suffice to convey my grief)
transitive verb use.to satisfy the needs or requirements of; be enough for
sufficer.noun

sufficient.adjective
being as much as is needed
sufficiently.adverb

sufficiency.noun, plural.sufficiencies
the condition or quality of being sufficient; an adequate amount or quantity; adequate means to live in modest comfort

Slavonian Grebe.noun
(scientific name – Podiceps auritus) 

From an original Watercolor by Robert Gillmor

sop, sopped, sopping, sops.verbs
transitive verb use.to dip, soak, or drench in a liquid; saturate; to take up by absorption (sop up water with a paper towel)
intransitive verb use.to be or become thoroughly soaked or saturated
sop.noun
something yielded to placate or soothe; a piece of food soaked or dipped in a liquid

subterfuge.noun
a deceptive.stratagem or device

secede, seceded, seceding, secedes.intransitive verbs
to withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance; to withdraw