USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
1. Compensation Management
(Original Content Only)(900 words for discussion board post) (APA citations)
(In-text citations are a must) (must integrate biblical scripture into topic)
Must list book as source: Martocchio, J. J. (2020). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Most organizations of varying sizes tend to emphasize market competitive pay systems (re-read pp.156-157). What do you believe is most important for a company’s competitive advantage with people by way of compensation and benefits: internal consistency or market competitiveness? Explain. In contrast, after reading and doing some research, can companies easily develop compensation that is both internally consistent and market competitive? What are some of the challenges to such an accomplishment? Be sure to support your answer with at least two references other than the text.
2. Cosmogony & Anthropology
(Original Content Only)(700 words for discussion board post) (APA citations)
Each student will create an initial post of 700 words.
Biblical Models of Creation
Creation & Design
Origins of Humanity
Directions for initial post:
Point of View: Write from your point of view as a pastor/minister, future pastor/minister or Christian leader.
Audience: Assume that the post will be read by Christians, but you should write it in such a way that non-Christians will be able to read and interact with the post and be motivated to consider its ideas.
Content: Your post should develop one big idea. Blog posts should demonstrate that you are thinking through the lecture content and textbook readings assigned for weeks 1–3 (for Blog #1) and weeks 1–6 (for Blog #2). Use that content as a foundation, or inspiration, to write a provocative post that will peak others’ interest in the subject matter as well, especially non-Christians.
Resources: Use of multimedia (weblinks, audio links, video, images, etc.) are strongly encouraged. Each blogging interface has a tool bar to insert files and multimedia.
Hook: Create a motivation for people to read your post. It might be a meme you saw on social media, a current news events, or a Scripture verse/passage. This should be a strong enough hook that a non-Christian would be interested in the topic as well.
Summarize: Explain what you have learned about the subject you have chosen to address based on the required lecture or reading material. Be clear and concise in your approach.
References: Blog posts should not simply be a statement of your opinion. Rather, they should include appropriate references to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal article. This is a critical feature in order to help build a bridge with a STEMM-oriented reader.
Worldview: Connect the key idea you are discussing to the Christian worldview. What essential worldview questions are answered?
Tone: Keep in mind that unless you have a background in science, you are not an expert in science. So you will want to strive to keep your post factual, and carefully worded in as neutral and objective of way as possible.
3. Cosmogony & Anthropology
(Original Content Only)(250 words for discussion board reply) (APA citations)
Interact: Provide peer feedback on other students’ posts by addressing the following issues:
Does the post have a main idea that is clearly stated?
Is this post clearly written? Does the post provide points that clearly support the main idea?
Does the argument/logic coherently hold together?
Does this post make an accurate and clear connection to the Christian worldview?
Would this post appeal to a non-Christian? How do you think a non-Christian would respond to the main idea of the post? Is there anything that is explicitly off-putting about the tone of the article that demeans scientists or skeptics? (This feedback is especially important!)
Collapse Subdiscussion
Abalo Tehoungue
The universe was created by a Divine Architect
Biblical Models of Creation
Reasons to Believe(RTB’s) Creation model arises from a theistic hypothesis, set forth in one specific source, the Bible. This model attempts to integrate all the content found within the sixty-six books included in scripture.
Any biblical model’s validity depends substantially upon the soundness of human attempts to interpret scripture. Such a model also rests heavily on human interpretations of natural data(science). So, any weaknesses of the source material itself. The RTB model attempts to take into account every biblical passage with recognized relevance to creation and evolution.
Let’s take a quick look at the Creation chronology in the four views. A century ago Bible scholar Friedrich Delitzsch wrote, “All attempts to harmonize our biblical story of the creation of the world with the results of natural science have been useless and must always be so’’. With added emphasis, such a view remains prevalent to this day. Some Bible interpreters say the Bible got the story right and scientists got it all wrong. Others say science tells the true story right and the bible story is merely poetic, or essentially silent with respect to history.
Genesis 1 also demonstrates what scientists might refer to as the Bible’s predictive power. Here’s an example. The text states vegetation (on land) proliferated prior to animal life in the oceans. Until recently, research seemed to indicate the reverse, and some skeptics enjoyed pointing out this apparent error. However, discoveries made in 2009 and 2011 verify that vegetation predated the Avalon and Cambrian explosions of animals in the oceans by hundreds of millions of years. Like, the scientific record shows that the advanced land mammals most critical for launching human civilization appeared after birds and sea mammals, as Genesis 1:20-25 (and Job 38-39) indicates.
Bibliography
Hugh Ross, Revealing a testable model for creation, More Than A Theory, Pg.60, Pg.61
4. Cosmogony & Anthropology
Collapse Subdiscussion
David Wiles
MondayJul 8 at 11:15am
Manage Discussion Entry
Compassion: A Human Only Trait?
As I have been contemplating an assortment of thoughts on the origin of the universe and humanity, my social media has been eavesdropping on my conversations (and maybe my brainwaves as well, though I have no proof). To my surprise, the above picture made its way into my view, immediately sparking my interest and providing the topic for this post. I wondered what the possible implications of this discovery could be on the relationship between Neanderthals and modern humans, particularly around the hypothesis that Neanderthals were predecessors in the line of humanity versus the contention of Young Earth Creationists that they are homo sapiens.
[1]
This recent discovery was reported in the article “The Child Who Lived: Down Syndrome Among Neanderthals?” While the article mentions that caregiving for sick and injured individuals has been postulated for a long time, the motivation behind this caregiving was uncertain.
[2]
This fossil, CN-46700, exhibited several malformations, which, when presented together, indicate Down syndrome as the likely cause.
[3]
What seems unique about this particular case is that the age at death of this individual was estimated to be no younger than six years old, indicating that the child likely received continuous care from other individuals in the community.
[4]
In the past, reciprocity is the traditionally ascribed motivating factor of the care noted for sick and injured individuals among Neanderthals. Reciprocity would have assumed that such care be reserved for individuals who may return the favor.
[5]
However, a child with Down Syndrome would have never been able to reciprocate the favor, providing evidence that reciprocity was likely not the only motive that might lead to this support. As a result of this discovery, compassion may also have been a motive for Neanderthals.
[6]
The article notes that this behavior is “very similar to that of our species.”
[7]
Other evidence in recent years has shown that modern non-Africans contain approximately 2% Neanderthal DNA, but it has been found at more significant levels in more ancient humans.
[8]
A Romanian fossil of an early modern human showed the highest level of Neanderthal DNA to date, noted somewhere between 6-9%.
[9]
Further research has uncovered multiple instances in different geographies where Neanderthals and humans interacted and interbred, leaving “hybrid” young who could procreate and pass genes on further.
[10]
As further research is done and additional data points for the Neanderthal genome are mapped out, I cannot help but wonder where the evidence will eventually lead. Will Neanderthals continue to be considered a distinctly different group that died out, as many hypothesize, or will they ultimately be found to be within an expanded early modern human category? The discovery of early modern humans with increasing levels of Neanderthal DNA may lend credence to such a thought process. Further findings suggesting higher-order social functioning, such as compassion, could also support such a conclusion, as this functioning is not seen widely outside of humanity. If it is concluded that they are within an expanded category, minor revisions to the Ross theory will likely need to be made, but it would not invalidate the model. This designation would be heralded among Young Earth Creationists, as this is their current position.
[11]
Regardless, each discovery related to the origins of humanity seems to suggest that the ancient picture is more complex than initially thought, arguing for design in either case.
