GLOBAL WARMING: ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

A Research Presented to The class of Miss Jovie O. Awa-ao MANICANI NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Subject English IV

By Jose B. Amado January 2012

PREMARITAL SEX

A Research Presented to The class of Miss Jovie O. Awa-ao MANICANI NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Subject English IV

By Aisa L. Badilla January 2012

PRIMITIVE MAN AND HIS BEHAVIOR

A Research Presented to The class of Miss Jovie O. Awa-ao MANICANI NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Subject English IV

By Jonathan L. Badilla January 2012

MAN: A RELATIONAL BEING

A Research Presented to The class of Miss Jovie O. Awa-ao MANICANI NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Subject English IV

By Mariel B. Antofina January 2012

THE NATURE OF MAN

A Research Presented to The class of Miss Jovie O. Awa-ao MANICANI NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Subject English IV

By Ma. Jacinta D. Siman January 2012

INTRODUCTION

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 C (1.4 F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A] Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises). It happens when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap heat and light from the sun in the earth s atmosphere, which increases the temperature. This hurts many people, animals, and plants. Many cannot take the change, so they die. With those above mentioned situation, this study may answer the questions all about global warming. The researcher hoped to discover how threat the occurrence of the said phenomenon.

BODY

Global warming is affecting many parts of the world. Global warming makes the sea rise, and when the sea rises, the water covers many low land islands. This is a big problem for many of the plants, animals, and people on islands. The water covers the plants and causes some of them to die. When they die, the animals lose a source of food, along with their habitat. Although animals have a better ability to adapt to what happens than plants do, they may die also. When the plants and animals die, people lose two sources of food, plant food and animal food. They may also lose their homes. As a result, they would also have to leave the area or die. This would be called a break in the food chain, or a chain reaction, one thing happening that leads to another and so on. The oceans are affected by global warming in other ways, as well. Many things that are happening to the ocean are linked to global warming. One thing that is happening is warm water, caused from global warming, is harming and killing algae in the ocean. Algae is a producer that you can see floating on the top of the water. (A producer is something that makes food for other animals through photosynthesis, like grass.) This floating green algae is food to many consumers in the ocean. (A consumer is something that eats the producers.) One kind of a consumer is small fish. There are many others like crabs, some whales, and many other animals. Fewer algae is a problem because there is less food for us and many animals in the sea. Global warming is doing many things to people as well as animals and plants. It is killing algae, but it is also destroying many huge forests. The pollution that causes global warming is linked to acid rain. Acid rain gradually destroys almost everything it touches. Global warming is also causing many more fires that wipe out whole forests. This happens because global warming can make the earth very hot. In forests, some plants and trees leaves can be so dry that they catch on fire. Many things cause global warming. One thing that causes global warming is electrical pollution. Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others. In most cases, fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. Fossil fuels are made of dead plants and animals. Some examples of fossil fuels are

oil and petroleum. Many pollutants (chemicals that pollute the air, water, and land) are sent into the air when fossil fuels are burned. Some of these chemicals are called greenhouse gasses. We use these sources of energy much more than the sources that give off less pollution. Petroleum, one of the sources of energy, is used a lot. It is used for transportation, making electricity, and making many other things. Although this source of energy gives off a lot of pollution, it is used for 38% of the United States energy. Some other examples of using energy and polluting the air are:

Turning on a light Watching T.V. Listening to a stereo Washing or drying clothes Using a hair dryer Riding in a car Heating a meal in the microwave Using an air conditioner Playing a video game People are doing many things to try to stop global warming. One thing people are doing is carpooling. Carpooling is driving with someone to a place that you are both going to. This minimizes the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air by a car. Another thing that people are doing is being more careful about leaving things turned on like the television, computer, and the lights. A lot of people are taking time away from the television, and instead, they are spending more time outdoors. This helps our planet out a lot. Now, more people are even riding busses, walking to school, and riding their bikes to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. Planting trees and recycling also helps. If you recycle, less trash goes to the dump, and less trash gets burned. As a result, there are fewer greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Watch what you buy. Many things, such as hairspray and deodorant, now are made to have less of an impact on the atmosphere. Less greenhouse gasses will rise into the air, and global warming will slow down.

CONCLUSION

The government is doing many things to help stop global warming. The government made a law called The Clean Air Act so there is less air pollution. Global warming is making people get very bad illnesses that could make them disabled, very sick, and sometimes even die. The Clean Air Act is making many companies change their products to decrease these problems. Part of the law says that you may not put a certain amount of pollutants in the air. Hairspray and some other products, like foam cups, had this problem. Making and using these products let out too much volatile organic compounds (VOC s), ozone-destroying chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons (CFC s), and related chemicals (such as CO2) into the air. Now, almost all of these products have a label on them telling people what this product can do to the environment and many people. Although adults do many things to help stop global warming, kids can do just as much. Kids can t do hard things like making a law, but we can do easier things like not watching as much TV. You can listen to your parents when they say, turn off your lights or go play outside. Listening to them and actually trying to help can help you, your environment, and the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environment Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect. World Almanac 2000. Mahwah: World Almanac Books, 2000. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Global Warming Kids Site. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids. Last visited: December 2001. National Geographic. Is Bleaching Coral s Way of Making the Best of a Bad Situation? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/

INTRODUCTION

Taking the evolution of managerial theories into account, it clearly emerges how much the anthropological view that human beings have of themselves impresses the theory and practice of management (Argiolas, 2004). Many of the causes bringing about or fueling conflicts and/or cooperation within the organizations and particularly in the firms, can be traced back to the exercise of power and then, in the final analysis, the perspective that human beings take considering the diversity or, better still, the alteration. This point of view deeply affects relational modalities carried out in life together with others. On the aforcited situation, this study was made to determine why does man needs to be related to survive. The researcher hoped to discover the relationship between man and his environment.

BODY

The meaning of the word other may be understood in a double perspective: anthropological and metaphysical. The other not only in what appears, but also in what is beyond appearance, in his intimate substance, in his ontology, in his penny Wining-being. It is not so easy and most probably it is impossible to suggest an unequivocal definition of person . Some researchers prefer speaking of the mystery of the person (Mounier, 1947) in order to highlight all its amplitude and depth (Sheler, 1970). Aristotle states that human, in fact, is a social being by his own nature inclined to live together with the others (Mazzarelli, 1979), and more recently Heschel affirms that for the man to be means to be together with the other human beings. His existence is co-existence. He can never feel fulfilled or explain his own meaning if this is not shared, if it is not in relation with other human beings. (Heschel, 1965). Such a perspective seems to be gaining ongoing and increasing interest and space, even within the economic debate, in which the anthropological principles underlying the ontological individualism are questioned by a wider and wider authoritative doctrine (Sen, 1977). It can be noted that also the human being emerging from a complete reading of Smith s contribution is a relational being, capable of sympathy (Smith, 1966). That is, he is capable to be in the other s shoes or, as Smith himself says, he is endowed with the capacity of being one with the other (Bruni, 1997), in a perspective that goes beyond the altruist egoist dualism (Bruni and Sugden, 2000). A Communion in Unity Being in communion, living in communion means to experiment (perceive) that even though we are many (at least two, distinct) we are one (united). So that the other s joy is mine, his or her pain is mine, the other s success is mine, his or her failure is mine, what the other does I do (and vice versa, what I do is made by the other) and it is really such that, as an effect of the relationship, his or her being is inside me, I take it within me (and vice versa) and that makes us different from what we were before. In this perspective, it is important to specify how conditions of communion can be achieved. Operating for achieving Communion, it is possible to underline three different kinds of Drivers: Pillars of Communion, Instruments (or tools) of Communion, and Aspects (or dimensions) of Communion. Seasonal changes, in any case, certainly affect most living things, including man, even when the temperature and illumination are artificially maintained at a constant level. In the

most mechanized, treeless, and birdless city, just as in the hills of Arcadia long ago, men and women perceive in their senses and reveal by their behavior that the exuberance of springtime and the despondency of late fall have origins more subtle than the mere change in temperature. It is for good biological reasons that carnival and Mardi Gras are celebrated when the sap starts running up the trees, and that men commemorate their dead in late fall when nature is dying. Thus, modern man in his sheltered environment continues to be under the influence of cosmic forces much as he was when he lived naked in direct contact with nature. Similarly, he continues to react physiologically to the presence of strange living things, and especially of human competitors, as if he were in danger of being physically attacked by them. The fight and flight response, with all its deep physiological accompaniments, is a biological carry-over from the time when the survival of primitive man encountering a wild animal or a human stranger depended upon his ability to mobilize the body mechanisms which enabled him to engage in physical struggle or to flee. Seasonal changes, in any case, certainly affect most living things, including man, even when the temperature and illumination are artificially maintained at a constant level. In the most mechanized, treeless, and birdless city, just as in the hills of Arcadia long ago, men and women perceive in their senses and reveal by their behavior that the exuberance of springtime and the despondency of late fall have origins more subtle than the mere change in temperature. It is for good biological reasons that carnival and Mardi Gras are celebrated when the sap starts running up the trees, and that men commemorate their dead in late fall when nature is dying. Thus, modern man in his sheltered environment continues to be under the influence of cosmic forces much as he was when he lived naked in direct contact with nature. Similarly, he continues to react physiologically to the presence of strange living things, and especially of human competitors, as if he were in danger of being physically attacked by them. The fight and flight response, with all its deep physiological accompaniments, is a biological carry-over from the time when the survival of primitive man encountering a wild animal or a human stranger depended upon his ability to mobilize the body mechanisms which enabled him to engage in physical struggle or to flee.

CONCLUSION

God has made us to be relational beings. It is built within us. Imagine with me if you will, that you are a spectator of creation. You are there in complete and utter darkness when you hear Light Be and light were. Then another remarkable statement. God himself rates the creation. He says: It is good. As God made each part of creation his analysis was that it is good. And then one day God is looking around and He says It is not good. Everything has been made by God and yet there is something that is out of order. Something that is not right. What is it. God says it is not good for man to dwell alone. No man is an island. No one survives alone. He needs someone to be with, and to share with. He needs someone to accompany him to accomplish all his works. His success lies on his own hands, although he needs someone to do those things.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Www.google.com/relational www.google/man as relational being

INTRODUCTION

Premarital sex is a huge problem in society today; the numbers are staggering. "Among Americans who have been married, a raging ninety- three percent of men, and eighty percent of women (between ages eighteen and fifty-four) have lost their virginity before their honeymoon" (Hjelle). Teens everywhere are not waiting until they are married to have sex. "Teenagers are saying, sex is fun and everybody is doing it " (Dave). Teens are less developed, emotionally and physically before having sex, and they are not prepared for the serious problems that come along with their decision to have sex. There are always consequences when a teenager chooses to have sex. "Teenagers, according to some polls, view premarital sex as acceptable as long as two people love each other " (Hjelle). If at age sixteen a teenager tells a parent or someone older that they are in love, the parent will laugh and say that no teenager at sixteen has experienced true love. Love is something one experiences when one is mature and ready for a life-long commitment, not when one is involved in a two-year high school crush. "Premarital sex is based on selfishness, not on love" (Hjelle). If one has passionate feelings for someone, one may feel the need to have intercourse with that person. Teens need to open their eyes and see the harmful effects of premarital sex. "Premarital sex hurts you (sic), running the risk of getting diseases and it profoundly scars you emotionally, by cutting you off from God" (Evert). Some teenage girls are saying, "Oh I ll be fine, I am on birth control and we used a condom; there are no worries." "No form of contraception can prevent a heart from being broken and a soul from being lost"(Evert). This study was made for us to be aware of what are the effects of premarital sex on the human body and what are the things that we should know about premarital sex.

BODY

While contraceptives may lessen the chances of disease and unwanted pregnancy, birth control is not always dependable. According to Dr. John G. Sholl, "safe sex" is a "misleading, incongruous combination of words" (Ferriss 16). Teens who engage in premarital sex are more likely to suffer negatively from long-term physical, emotional, social, and moral effects, than teens who choose to wait. "Jennifer was seventeen when she gave her virginity to Brian, the love of her life. One month later she developed painful blisters around her sexual area. She was devastated when her doctor told her she had herpes. By passing this infection on, Brian has made it possible for Jennifer to join the ranks of twenty million other Americans who have herpes, a sexually transmitted disease. This is not the only disease that Jennifer lives with though. She experiences great emotional pain, especially guilt for the last three years" (Herpes: The Gift That Keeps on Giving). The world is plagued with over thirty-nine sexually transmitted diseases. "Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) infect three million young adults annually, out of Americas (sic) total of twelve million sexually active youths" (Hjelle). These dangers should be painfully obvious to many of today s youth. "Among fourteen to twenty -year -olds chlamydia is the most common STD." (Fledman 1). Chlamydia has no obvious symptoms and can even cause infertility if left untreated. "Up to twenty -nine percent of sexually active adolescent girls have been found to be infected with chlamydia" (Premarital Sex The Situation). Another common disease is herpes, which causes sores and painful swelling of the genitals. "One in five Americans have herpes, yet at least eighty percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it" (Herpes Statistics). There is no cure for herpes, but it can be treated. Another STD Gonorrhea, not uncommon among teenagers, causes pelvic pain and painful urination. Gonorrhea is one of the most frequently reported sexually transmitted disease among teenagers. This disease may leave victims sterile. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a deadly virus that kills the immune system. AIDS is a growing danger, and is by far the most serious sexually transmitted disease. "AIDS, for which there is still no cure, is spreading faster among teenagers, than among any other group" (Hjelle). AIDS is one of those viruses that takes a long time to develop, which is why it so deadly and so easy to pass on. " Kids don t take AIDS seriously, said Dr. James W. Curran. One thing they do is have sex. They have sex. They have sex. They have sex" (Ferriss 16). Sex is the number one way AIDS is spread. "Cases among teens have grown sixty two percent in the past two years, and the number of teens with AIDS doubles every year" (Evert). Premarital sex is the one reason that "AIDS is the sixth leading cause of death, among fifteen to twenty- four year olds" (Evert). This is hard to believe that teenagers are still engaging in premarital sex, and are aware of these frightening statistics. Teenagers today are more vulnerable to any STD infection due to their poor self -images and poor morals. "One fourth of all people with an STD are adolescent, who received their disease through premarital sex" (Byers 28). That comes to show you that it is very easy for these diseases to be transmitted. "It takes only one sexual who have an S.T.D. are not aware of it yet" (Evert). Once you have received the disease the outlook for future relationships is not good. "People blame each other for bringing the disease into the relationship, and each may doubt the others faithfulness" (Byers 21). This is an example of how the negative physical effects of premarital sex can lead to negative emotional effects.

Premarital sex is riddled with many emotional problems and mental consequences. The emotional scars are the most painful and most overlooked aspect of premarital sex. " Sex, especially for the first time, can leave you feeling very emotional and very vulnerable, says child and adolescent psychologist Joan Kinlan" (Rodriguez 52). Many people have tremendous regret after sex, which leads them into depression. They begin to feel used and simply "unclean." "The most severe consequence of premarital sex is psychological, the guilt that occurs is so acute that many teens look to drugs, alcohol, and suicide for relief" (Hjelle). Guilt has long-term effects on future relationships and it haunts a person. "Guilt is an awareness of having transgressed a standard of right and wrong" (Tant). He or she may feel moral guilt, which makes them live with the pain knowing that, he or she has disobeyed social standards that religious people believe in. "God teaches that our body is the dwelling place of God. Described in 1 Corinthians as, a temple of the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality disgraces Gods temple" (Tant). Today s society is plagued with this type of guilt. After someone experiences premarital sex there is often feelings of disappointment and feelings of regret over lost virginity. These feelings can cause tremendous problems in the relationship. "When we lose something we know is valuable, we feel regret" (Tant). People begin to question their love when they feel regret over a past sexual experience. So many people say, "I wish I had waited." God knew that His people would have this feeling of regret, so therefore He had a way to protect them from heartache. He simply reserved intercourse for marriage. "God s design to limit sex to marriage protects us from hurting each other, and provides the proper setting in which to express love through sex" (Tant). People would be better able to establish a bond of trust and love with the person they marry, if sexual intercourse was reserved. Confusion is another emotional effect of premarital sex. This often comes from being ignorant of the differences between lust and true love. "As Christians we are to develop agape love, the kind God has for us that gives with no exception of getting something in return" (Tant). When one mixes lust and love, the concepts of giving and taking are confusing. "Love is primarily an act of the will, but has tremendous emotional overtones because it has to do with how we relate to people" (Tant). Intercourse is so powerful that it creates a bond, often when there is little common ground between a couple. "Sex outside of marriage turns the relationship upside down and mixes emotions to the point of misinterpreting feelings" (Tant). For this reason sexual intercourse should be reserved. Teenagers feel that before they engage in intercourse, they will receive no emotional effects. Many teenagers who have sex before marriage have complicated and unsatisfying marital relationships. "Studies have shown that premarital sex also increases the rate of cheating after marriage" (Tant). Sex cannot make a person fall in love. Also, sex cannot heal a relationship. "Sex is such a definite experience that a part of each of us remains a part of the other" (Tant). Teenagers need to realize, once one s virginity is gone, it is gone forever. While maturity plays a large part in the decision to have sex, it may not be enough. There is no "right" age to start a sexual relationship. It is a very individual and personal decision. People need to be aware of the emotional consequences of premarital sex. Once one engages in premarital sex as a teen, one begins to have relationship problems. "Sex hinders communication" (Tant). Sex is often the easy way out to those who have never learned to communicate. In most teen relationships, "sex becomes the focus, and other aspects of the relationship have no chance to develop, like a friendship" (Tant). Relationships that are solely based on sex are troublesome. In order to have a good relationship a person needs to develop a sincere friendship with his or her partner. "Friendship lays the foundation for love to blossom. By obeying God s plan to wait for sex, a couple can discover other ways to communicate that will do much in building a healthy

relationship" (Tant). Sexual intercourse is not the great cure all for all problems one encounters in a relationship. One reason teenagers should wait to have sex is due to their moral and religious views. In the rules of the Catholic church, "premarital sex and any physical activity that causes the man or woman to be sexually stimulated, is inappropriate before marriage" (Tant). Sex should be for the purpose of reproduction and nothing else. According to the Catholic Church, reproduction is the main purpose of sexual intercourse. First Corinthians chapter six; verse thirteen states, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, the Lord for the body." Tant states that 1 Corinthians chapter six, verse thirteen implies,"God wants you to be Holy and pure, and to keep clear of all sexual sin so that each of you will marry in holiness and honor not in lustful passion as the heathen do, in their ignorance of God and his ways." In fact God sees premarital sex as an extreme sin. In Biblical times any married woman who had been proven to have had premarital sex, was stoned to death at the door of her father. This is man s understanding of God s view on fornication. Hebrews chapter thirteen, verse four states, "Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulters" (Bible). God knew many people would engage in premarital sex, for this reason He imposed rules to keep us from consequences. Christian religions have very strict teachings of abstinence. Hence, it is ironic that, "Catholics are engaging in premarital sex more than any other group of single Americans" (Rodriguez 53). The Church teaches us that when one has sex with another, they become one with them in spirit. People who have many sexual partners before marriage still have "soul ties" to other people besides their spouse. Soul ties meaning, encountering true love and the feel to never let one be alone. Despite these teachings, "only seventeen percent of all Catholics think that premarital sex is wrong," (Hjelle) This indicates that personal beliefs are stronger than religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION

To stay away from these harmful effects teenagers must maintain standards and understand their responsibilities. Teens today need to follow the law of chastity. Chastity is "a lifestyle that brings freedom, respect, peace, and even romance without regret; Chastity frees a couple from the selfish attitudes of using each other as objects, and makes them capable of their love" (Evert). Chastity is a very difficult lifestyle. "Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2337). This comes to show that chastity needs to be practiced amongst our youth today. Teenagers are prone to premarital sex, and are especially influenced by the media s casual attitude toward it. Teenagers today are bombarded with the image of premarital sex through advertising. "You can not watch cable television without seeing people kissing intimately, or even having sex" (Dave). Premarital sex is suggested everywhere in our society, as seen on billboards, in movies, and in magazines. Perhaps, if teenagers had more confidence, they would not be prone to, and influenced by these artificial advertisements. There is no better way for teenagers to protect themselves from all of the dangers surrounding sex except to leave sex for marriage. "Waiting as God commands gives peace of mind, which affects our physical health. We don t experience the stress of worrying about unwanted pregnancies, or an STD, that would kill or cripple our children" (Tant).Despite what society shows us, each individual needs to make the decision of premarital sex based on the physical, emotional, social, and moral effects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

www. Google.copm/ Premarital sex www. Google.com/health awareness

INTRODUCTION

The conjunction of the two words "humanistic" and "biology" will probably seem artificial because very few scientists, and even fewer humanists, really believe that biological knowledge has relevance to the traits which account for the humaneness of man. Admittedly, biological determinants do not seem at first sight to play a significant role in the manifestations of life which are most characteristically human, for example, ecstasy, logic, or simply the experience of happiness and despair. Religious and ethical doctrines, philosophy, linguistics, literature, the arts, are part of the humanities because their problems obviously relate to the social and cultural history of man, but their connections with the biological attributes of Homo sapiens are not so readily apparent. "Man has no nature, what he has is history," wrote Ortega y Gasset. While it is obvious that man is the product of his social and cultural history, it is equally certain, on the other hand, that everything he does is conditioned by his biological attributes. The performance of each human being , and of each human group, reflects biological necessities and propensities inherited from the evolutionary and experiential past. Human decisions create social and cultural history, but the raw materials of this edifice are derived from man's biological history. This study signifies the behavior of man. The researcher wants to discover the primitive behavior of a person when it comes to memory and biologically.

BODY

It is always dangerous, of course, to use biological terminology and concepts in discussing human affairs. Half a century ago, for example, the illustrious biologist Elie Metchnikoff published under the title "Etudes sur la Nature Humaine" a book in which he attempted to explain the properties of the human flesh and the manifestations of the human spirit in the light of the biological knowledge of his time. His English translator, the zoologist P. Chalmers Mitchell, found it difficult to convey the full meaning of the expression Nature Humaine in Metchnikoff's title. As he wrote in the preface to his translation, " Human nature is not an exact equivalent of la nature humaine , for the latter phrase has a more complete significance, and definitely implies, not only the mental qualities of man, but his bodily framework, with its inherited and acquired anatomical structure and body functions." Mitchell thought that "The Nature of Man" was a more accurate rendering of Metchnikoff's title than "Human Nature." In 1930, the American biologist H.S. Jennings also recognized implicitly the limitations of the phrase "human nature" when he qualified it as "The Biological Basis of Human Nature" in the title of a book which he devoted to "those aspects of experimental biology that are of most interest in considering the problems of human personality and society." Throughout the present essay, I shall use the phrase "man's nature" instead of "human nature" to emphasize my conviction that the somewhat limited meaning implied in the English usage of human nature does not convey the depth and richness of the knowledge which biological sciences could bring to bear on cultural and social history. I shall attempt to show that the psychological and ethical attributes of man, and the preoccupations which constitute his humaneness, are inseparable from the physiological needs and urges which biological experience has inscribed in his flesh and bones. My theme is that better knowledge of man's nature would enlarge and deepen the understanding of man's history. The doctrine of evolution has made it obvious that living organisms cannot be understood except in the light of their past. Surprisingly enough, however, the science of human biology has been little influenced by the historical outlook. The knowledge of man has progressed far, of course, since Descartes and his followers tried to base it on the study of the mechanical models with which they were familiar, but its most spectacular advances have been along the road first opened in the 17th century. There is an almost universal tendency to identify the "science" of man's nature with the physicochemical description of the body's structures and mechanisms, and with the laws which govern the transmission of its hereditary characteristics. Yet, human life clearly constitutes an experience far more complex than the phenomena which are encompassed by this limited approach; its dynamic processes constantly alter the physical and mental structure of man as he responds to the challenges of the natural environment and of the ways of life that he himself creates. The almost complete irrelevance of present day biology to the humanities comes largely from the fact that it emphasizes the mechanical aspects of man's nature rather than his experiences; it is concerned more with his being than with his responding and becoming. Increasingly during recent decades, the exact biological sciences have been focused on the phenomena which are common to all mammalian species and indeed to all living forms. This trend away from the special attributes which particularize human beings makes scientific

biology appear even further remote from humanistic preoccupations. The kind of knowledge to which it leads throws very little light on the problems which are the primary concern of humanists, namely the experiences of the throbbing human person in a particular culture. Yet, while they appear at first sight so coldly detached from living man, the findings of orthodox biological sciences have nevertheless profoundly influenced some of the largest philosophical expressions of modern humanism.

Man in the great chain of being The doctrine of evolution has influenced all aspects of modern culture by providing biological evidence for the social concept of historical change. Surprising as it may seem to us, it is only during modern times that the myth of eternal return has been displaced in the Western mind by the concept of progress, namely the belief that the universe, and especially the world of men, are constantly moving toward states differing not only from those of the present, but also from anything in the past. Whatever its origins, the doctrine of progress idd not become part of collective consciousness until the theory of biological evolution provided a scientific model for it. Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos- from heavenly bodies to human beings- has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. The great religions of the West have come to accept a historical view of creation. Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change. One of the most practical contributions of biological science to sociology has been to provide a scientific basis for the ancient ethical and religious doctrines of the brotherhood of man, by demonstrating that all human beings belong to the same species. Comparative biology has revealed, furthermore, that man is linked to all living organisms through a common line of descent, and shares with them many characteristics of physicochemical constitution and of biological organization; the philosophical concept of the "great chain of being" can thus be restated now in the form of a scientific generalization. Even St. Francis's love of his brothers the beasts and the Hindoo reverence for life can be regarded as the poetical, ethical, and philosophical expressions of the biological law that all living forms exhibit a deep underlying unity even though they are so strikingly diverse. Paradoxically, the very success of comparative biology and evolutionary doctrines in relating man to the rest of creation may have retarded the growth of knowledge concerning man himself. Since all living forms have so many characteristics in common, biologists and even medical scientists naturally tend to focus their investigative efforts on organisms which are simpler than man, and therefore easier to manipulate in the laboratory. This tendency is based on the widespread, though unproven assumption, that understanding of man will eventually emerge from detailed knowledge of the elementary structures and functions which occur in all living things. One of the deplorable consequences of this attitude is the common belief that the only fields of biology which deserve to be called "fundamental" are those which deal with the

simplest manifestations of life, and preferably with lifeless reactions and structures derived from living things! Yet it is certain that such a limited approach is not sufficient to create a science of life, let alone of man. Vague though they are, words such as "mind" and "emotion" nevertheless symbolize essential aspects of human life which cannot be related to isolated morphological structures, or formulated in physicochemical terms. Thus, some of the most interesting aspects of human life, and certainly the most influential, do not come within the purview of what is presently called "fundamental" biology. I hasten to emphasize that this statement does not imply surrender to hoary vitalistic theories. The failure to account at present for many cognitive and emotional aspects of human life does not come from inadequacy of knowledge concerning the universal aspects of life; it has its origin in the fact that the words "mind" and "emotion," as commonly used, cannot possibly refer to attributes located in fragments isolated from the body or associated with special chemical reactions. They denote activities of the integrated organism responding as a whole to external or internal stimuli. In consequence, the aspects of biological science which are most relevant to the interests of the humanist are probably those which deal with the response of individual human beings to their total environment. But information on this score becomes much more meaningful if seen in the light of man's evolutionary past. Anthropological studies and evolutionary doctrines have suggested useful hypotheses concerning the progressive emergence of the physiological and behavioral characteristics which define each animal species and particularly Homo sapiens . Man, it now appears, was not yet fully evolved, either physically or mentally, at the time when he began creating the crude elements from which most of his culture derives. Recent evidence indicates that, one million years ago, very primitive hominids with brains hardly larger than those of anthropoids had reached the stage of tool making. The further growth of the human brain apparently coincided with a progressive change in the hominid way of living. For example, when primitive man shifted from hunting small animals to big game hunting, this change required new skills in planning, in leadership, and in communication- and this created selection pressure for the development of these capacities. Contrary to the old belief that men anatomically like ourselves slowly invented culture, it is probably, in other words, that the increase in the size of the human brain occurred simultaneously with the first phases in the unfolding of human culture. Man and his culture evolved, simultaneously, as it were, through a complex series of feedback processes. It seems a reasonable kind of science fiction to imagine that the first subhuman creature who used a tool thereby opened an evolutionary channel in which greater ability to use tools provided a selective advantage. Through analogous evolutionary mechanisms, somatic changes and organization of reaction patterns followed upon the development of family structure and of practices for hunting in groups. Soon after, perhaps, the primitive forms of art, of religion, and even of "science" also played their part in affecting the development of neural processes and their integration. New reaction patterns thus became progressively molded on the ways of life, as the brain enlarged. And reciprocally, the ways of life evolved as the brain and its functions became better fitted to them and more complex. The "higher" functions of the human brain probably result therefore from progressive structural-functional transformations giving rise to a system which permits the physiological and behavioral adaptation of man to his own culture. By necessity, of course, this adaptation cannot be perfect, since culture is continuously evolving. What is almost certain, however, is that the

various components of human culture are now required not only for the survival of man, but also for his existential realization. Man created himself even as he created his culture and thereby he became dependent on it. Another fact which relates biological studies to humanistic problems is that the higher the position of an animal on the phylogenetic ladder, the more unpredictable is its behavior with regard to environmental stimuli. Up to the lower mammals, the emergence of relative independence from external influences can be correlated with the appearance of novel neural mechanisms, but no such anatomical substratum is yet known to account for the high degree of freedom exhibited by the higher mammals. Irrespective of explanation, however, it can hardly be doubted that man is the most evolved organism with regard to the degree of his independence from the direct effects of the physicochemical environment. One of the most profitable approaches to the definition of Homo sapiens might therefore be to describe the mechanisms through which his evolutionary ancestors have progressively increased their experiential independence, thus creating his biological identity. But I shall limit myself here to a few remarks concerning man as he exists today, or rather concerning his reactions with, and his responses to, the forces which impinge on him. I have purposefully differentiated reaction from response because these two words symbolize in my view the two extreme ends of the wide spectrum of interplay between man and his environment. From one end of the spectrum, man appears as an ordinary physicochemical machine, complex of course but nevertheless reacting with environmental forces according to the same laws which govern inanimate matter. From the other end, man is seen as a creature which is rarely a passive component in the reacting system; the most characteristic aspect of his behavior is the fact that he responds actively and often creatively. Man is able to shut out some of the stimuli to which he is exposed; he modifies others through symbolic and sociocultural mechanisms; most importantly, he can use the effects of stimuli to his own selected ends. All degrees of variation exist between the passive reactions with the environment and the creative responses through which the personality asserts itself. Man is the more human the better he is able to convert passive reactions into creative responses.

CONCLUSION

The performance of any living organism in any given situation is conditioned of course by environmental forces. But its characteristics are determined by the potentialities and the limitations which the organism has acquired and retained from its evolutionary and experiential past. Admittedly, man often behaves as if he were completely independent of his biological history. However, while his outward behavior reveals such a large degree of freedom, physiological reactions elicited in him by environmental and sociocultural forces appear to be very similar to those manifested by his paleolithic ancestors. His ancient needs and urges persist even when their overt manifestations are so masked or distorted that he himself is not aware of their existence. The survival of the paleolithic past in modern man accounts for many puzzling aspects of his responses to the total environment-for the pathological as well as the expressive and creative aspects of his behavior. The extraordinary degree to which the physiological processes of human life are still linked to cosmic rhythms provides a striking illustration of the persistence of traits having their origin in man's evolutionary past. Modern man is wont to boast that he can control his external environment; he can indeed illuminate his rooms at night, heat them during the winter, and cool them during the summer; he can secure an ample and varied supply of food throughout the year. But even when he elects to follow unchangeable ways of life in an environment which appears uniform, all the functions of his body continue to fluctuate according to certain rhythms linked to the movements of the earth and of the moon with respect to each other and to the sun. His hormonal activities, in particular, exhibit marked diurnal and seasonal rhythms and probably other rhythms also linked to those of the cosmos. All aspects of behavior are affected by physiological processes. Man's responses to any situation are different in the morning from what they are at night, and different in the spring from what they are in the autumn. The writers of Western stories are on a sound biological basis when they recount that the Indians always attacked at dawn, because the spirits of the white man were then at a low ebb. The wild imaginings of the night, and the fears which they engender, are indirectly the effects of the earth movements because the human organism readily escapes from the control of reason under the influence of the physiological changes associated with darkness. The lunar cycles are also reflected in the physiology and behavior of animals and probably therefore of man. It would not be surprising if the moon worshippers as well as the "lunatics" were really affected-as the words suggest-by lunar forces to which all of us are also sensitive.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.google/ primitive behavior of man www.google/ vygotsky s work

INTRODUCTION

The truth about the nature of man is an outstanding example of the necessity to adhere faithfully to the overall teaching of Scripture, as it is here that a wrong understanding leads necessarily and logically to false or inadequate views about regeneration, the atonement, sanctification, and the whole plan of salvation. How easily this occurs, and how it is occurring around us, will be shown in subsequent pages. For the moment, we shall concern ourselves with what the Bible teaches about this all-important subject. Man needs to see his situation in correct perspective. He is incapable of reaching a correct understanding of that situation intuitively. He needs to view it, so to speak, from the outside. As a fallen creature, he can only obtain a complete and correct view of himself by revelation, in other words, by reference to what God has spoken of him. The teaching of Scripture is clear and unequivocal. Man is totally depraved, that is to say, the fall of Adam, in which all men participate,[46] extends to all man's faculties:[47] his heart (which in Scripture denotes the very center of man's being the seat of his affections and personality),[48] his mind,[49] his will,[50] his conscience,[51] and every other part of him. Sin is described as being a state of enmity against God, and of transgression of his commandments,[52] and forasmuch as fallen men have no power of themselves to think, speak or will anything that may please God, until they be regenerate and renewed by the Spirit of the Lord, all works done before justification have the nature of sin, as the Anglican Prayer-Book Article XIII says. 'They that are in the flesh cannot please God.'[53] There is therefore not a single thing that a man can do that will please God, if he has not been born again. Every man, woman and child born into this world, with the exception of our Lord, is a slave to sin,[54] is dead in sin,[55] sins in all things,[56] and cannot cease from sin until God in his mercy delivers him or her from it. The sinfulness of man does not consist solely of the voluntary sins which he commits; for these are the fruits of his corrupt nature.[57] Empirically, we observe daily that sin abounds; but the Scriptures reveal to us that the situation is infinitely more desperate than we could ever have realized. Man's sin is not only what he does which we can see but what he is, which we cannot see as God sees it.

BODY

At this point, an objection may be made by some: If man is totally depraved, and cannot but sin, while, as we asserted above, God's providence rules the actions of men, does it not follow that man's sin is something that man cannot be held responsible for? Is not God, then, the author of sin? These are important questions, and we will not attempt to avoid them, but to tackle them later. But a few remarks here will be appropriate. It is noteworthy that Adam's reply to God, when asked if he had disobeyed God's commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was, in effect, to put the blame upon God. 'The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.'[58] The unregenerate man, like Adam, attempts to cover his transgressions by objecting: 'Why doth he still find fault?...Why didst thou make me thus?' The answer of Scripture to such talk is: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' 'Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!'[59] We are not bound to explain these things, but to hold both to the impossibility of not sinning, apart from the grace of God, and to the fact that God holds man utterly responsible for his sin, and will condemn him, unless he flees to him for mercy. The problems center around what for centuries has been a theological and philosophical minefield 'freewill'. A common argument runs as follows: God holds man responsible for his sin. Man cannot be held responsible for something he cannot refrain from doing. Therefore: Man's will must be free to choose between sinning, and not sinning; and hence, to choose between 'accepting' Christ, or rejecting him. We would assert that this conclusion is false, and highly dangerous, because of the falsity of the second premise, namely, that man can only be held responsible for what he has the ability to perform. We hold that this is false for two reasons: First Because Scripture denies it. We have already seen that man's will, like every other part of him, is depraved, and in bondage to sin. Anything that is in bondage evidently cannot be free. Man's will, therefore, being part of a dead nature, is not free towards God in any sense, but is 'free' only to sin. Paul says absolutely: 'They that are in the flesh cannot please God'; Job says: 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.'[60] Neither is man free to turn to Christ for mercy-he cannot, of his own volition. The one thing that, above all others, surely pleases God, that thing over which the angels of heaven rejoice, is the sight of a sinner turning to God, and repenting. Yet, men in the flesh cannot do this; it is impossible: God's Word says so. Notwithstanding, God commands and requires all men everywhere to repent of their sins,[61] and will judge them if they do not do so. God, who is righteous, will only judge a man for something for which he is responsible.

Second Because 'free-will' and responsibility are different things. If, by 'freedom of the will', what is meant is 'freedom of action' ,i.e. that when I do something, I do it freely, without compulsion or constraint, then, it is agreed, man is a free agent, and is responsible, precisely because he is not forced to act against his volitions. 'Freedom',in this sense, therefore means nothing more than the harmony that exists, normally, between a man s volitions and his actions. If I am forced at gunpoint to rob a bank, then I am not responsible for my action, since I acted under compulsion, against my (law-abiding) volitions not to do so. Clearly, when a man sins, his will and his actions are united in sinning, and so man is to be held responsible for his sin. His volition and his action are both results of the corrupt nature which is his. But then, 'freewill' is a misnomer, and a misleading term to express the liberty of spontaneity which man does possess. The notion that man is responsible only for what he has the ability to perform is utterly false. The fact that sinful actions spring inevitably from a sinful nature is no excuse; it rather aggravates the guilt. For man's sinful nature is no part of God's original creation, and man's duty (by which responsibility is to be judged) is determined by God's moral law, which unfallen man could keep. The fall and its consequences do not lessen our responsibility, they increase it. Our sin in Adam[62]. has rendered us unable to do good, yet the sinner, each one of us, is accountable to God in every respect, thought, word and deed. God commands us to render complete obedience and satisfaction to the moral law of the ten commandments. That we cannot do so is patently obvious. Nevertheless, it is required. Man, then, in all his faculties, is as chained and imprisoned in the darkness of his sins, in captivity to Satan, as Peter was bound by Herod on the eve of his intended execution;[63] as dead as Lazarus in the tomb;[64] as blind as the man Jesus healed.[65] We must be on our guard against the theory that man's will is free, and not bound, or dead, or corrupted and hence, that man can please God, if he wills to do so for Scripture is against such a theory. Man, then, is responsible for his sin, and he is under the condemnation of God. Even if man offended in only one part of the Law, he would be under sentence of death, for 'Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.'[66] That condemnation which, but for the mercy of God, would be the just deserts of each one of us is declared in Scripture to entail a place of torment, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of everlasting fire, of eternal separation from God.[67] These are truths about which we hear little, yet the Word of God plainly declares them. Scripture knows nothing of universal salvation, or of the annihilation of the wicked, or of purgatory, of a second chance, and so on. The truth set before us is one of condemnation to eternal punishment. The plight of man, therefore, is truly dreadful. Unless he repents of his sin, and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he is heading straight for hell. God commands, exhorts, beseeches him to repent and believe, in order that his soul might be saved; yet man cannot and will not do so. He is 'fast bound in sin and nature's night', unable to lift a finger towards the attainment of his salvation. Yet only as he sees himself shut in between the condemning finger of the Law, which shows him to be a miserable sinner, and the command of God to flee from his sin and lay hold of Christ, which he cannot obey,[68] does he see his true condition, and consequently, the direction from which deliverance must come.

"Experience shows that man can do and will do that which is good"

The doctrine of total depravity is not that every man is as bad as he could possibly be; but that man's nature is corrupted and disabled in every part and aspect his mind and will as well as his body, affections, etc. So we do not deny that the natural man is capable of doing and willing things which are in themselves good. This is an effect of God's 'common grace' that is, the work of the Holy Spirit in restraining men from sin and in leading them to do good, which extends to all men. Such grace is necessary to prevent the world from sinking into a condition as evil as hell itself; yet it is not the same as saving grace, and the good which results is despite the sinners' corrupt nature. These good deeds are not acceptable to God, because they are without the only motive with which God is pleased love to God and humble faith in Christ.[69] When the Pharisaical Jews kept every outward commandment of the Law, they were doing that with which God is indeed pleased, in itself but he was not pleased with them, because every act was marred by the sinful and unsuspected enmity of their hearts.[70] Their best deeds were as filthy rags in the sight of our Holy God.[71] Prayer is pleasing and honoring to God; yet he will not hear the prayer of the wicked.[72] The unsaved man may do good works in order to obtain reputation; or to justify himself before God or man; or to quieten his conscience and silence the pangs of conviction of sin; or from the working of the common grace of God in him: he will never do good works to glorify God, from a grateful, penitent heart, for it is against his corrupt nature. Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?[73] "The commands of Scripture imply ability" This inference hardly deserves refutation, but simply denial. The sphere of moral ability is quite different from that of natural ability. The commands of Scripture imply moral responsibility or duty; and in no way does 'I ought' imply 'I can'. If man's inability to obey the commands of the Law were natural or physical, he would indeed lack responsibility, and there would be no point in commanding him to do that of which he is absolutely incapable. But 'as the inability of the sinner to repent and believe, to love God and to lead a holy life, does not arise from the limitation of his nature as a creature (as is the case with idiots or brutes); nor from the want of the requisite faculties or capacity, but simply from the corruption of our nature, it follows that it does not exonerate him from the obligation to be and to do all that God requires' (C. Hodge). A sinful nature imposes a moral inability as inflexible as prison bars, yet the sinner is responsible to do that which his own fallen nature renders impossible. If it were not so, a man would become less and less responsible as he became more and more sinful an absurd conclusion which would make the punishment of Satan quite unjust. It is worth adding that there is a point in commanding sinners to obey, even though they cannot do so. For through the Law comes discovery of sin in all its sinfulness.[74] The sinner who realizes his condition, his guilt under the Law, may be driven by the Holy Spirit to Christ for refuge. It is just as when Christ called 'Lazarus, come forth!': Lazarus was dead; he could not obey; yet in that instant he was quickened by the power of God, and came forth.[75] A closely related argument is that responsibility for sin implies that one could have avoided sinning. The answer is again very simple: responsibility for sin implies that one ought not to have sinned. When the unregenerate man sins, he does so freely, as a free agent, and in accordance with his own wishes; and it is this which makes him responsible. It is true that his action is doubly necessary necessary as all events are, because foreordained of God; and necessary because of the corruption of his enslaved nature but moral necessity in no way limits responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Meaning in life is tied directly to our beliefs about who we are. The issue of purpose is central here. Purpose gives us answers to questions such as, are we basically good or are we inclined to rebellion? Are we able to make moral decisions or are we conditioned to act by our environment? Is mankind destined to live for but a brief moment in time and then to meet with utter extinction, or do we spend eternity somewhere based on events in this life? All of these questions bring us back to the issue of purpose. Why is man here? Human beings are complex 'machines'; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand. The process of evolution is sufficient to explain all that man is, even if difficulties exist in its application. Man is a highly evolved animal, that is all. Let's look at what the creation account tells us about the nature of man. What strikes me first is that mankind's creation is different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Although man shares the sixth day of creation with the other creatures and is made of dust, God says, "Let us make" in reference to man instead of "Let the earth bring forth" as He did with the other creatures. Verse 26 of chapter one also informs us that man bears God's personal image. This fact is of critical importance in understanding man's needs and nature. Humans were created to have personal fellowship with God. Man's original position on earth was to be God's agent and to have dominion over His creation. The disobedience of Adam resulted in a break in that fellowship, only to be corrected by the redemptive work on Christ on the cross. Mankind without God is in a sinful, rebellious state. Enslaved by sin, he feels guilt and shame, which is real and not simply imagined, as well as an emptiness that should be filled with the fellowship of his Creator.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.google/nature of man www.google/the man

All the graphics were creatively designed for on-screen presentations. They will look fantastic whether displayed on-screen or projected onto a large screen. As an added bonus they can also be used handouts and notes pages. High quality, low cost, all original images "By Default!". Each graphic is really different from the normal powerpoint clip art. Highly stylized powerpoint pictures give your presentation the edge. Designed by experienced experts in presentation design. Once purchased, you are free to use awesome presentation pictures for whatever you want. Easy to use. Full instructions included. Royalty Free - All pictures are completely royalty free. Which means there are no restrictions upon the use of them in presentations and web sites etc. You can create power point presentations and distribute them freely or use the graphics on the web or in any other application. However they cannot be re-sold as graphics or pictures You will soon be creating presentations like the professionals with these graphics, no more presentations that look like all the other powerpoint presentations, stand out from the crowd. Imagine the freedom to pick from hundreds of pictures to best present your information.

y y y y y

Keeps the audience interested Photos help to create memorable presentations Pictures optimized for use with microsoft powerpoint Images add interest Choose from photos or graphics

Need to impress your audience, but don't have time to create a killer presentation yourself? Let our Creative Services experts take the load off your shoulders. They'll create a high-impact presentation design for PowerPoint that combines easy-to-follow organization, exceptional graphics, highly readable text, and crowd-pleasing animation! Whether you need to simply enhance your current slides or build an all-new interactive PowerPoint presentation, our professional PowerPoint designers can help give your audience an unforgettable experience. It will interest and inform them like no other presentation they've ever seen before and you can take the credit! Graphics can be inserted into PowerPoint by clicking 'insert tab,' selecting a picture and editing the image. Insert graphics into Microsoft PowerPoint slides with tips from a software developer in this free video on computer software solutions.

Lets open up Microsoft PowerPoint by clicking on the Start button. Going to All Programs. Select Microsoft Office, and then lets launch PowerPoint. What we want to do is insert a graphic onto this slide. To do so click insert tab at the top and then the illustrations lets select picture. Navigate to where your picture is located. Here is a picture of our garden. Since the image is selected we can resize it within PowerPoint by dragging this little handles on the side. I'm going to make it smaller. I'm going to center it in the slide. It's that easy to insert graphics. My name is Dave Andrews and I've just showed you how to insert graphics into PowerPoint presentations. http://www.ehow.com/video_4983835_insert-graphics-powerpoint-presentations.html Microsoft PowerPoint offers a number of ways to insert images into PowerPoint presentations. You can insert a link to the picture which keeps the size of the PowerPoint presentation smaller. However, if you copy that presentation to media or another computer you have to remember to copy the images also or they will not be available. It is very embarrassing to begin

your presentation and find all the images missing. The easiest way is to insert the image directly into the presentation. This increases the size of the file but assures that the images are part of the presentation. Follow these simple steps to add some photo pizazz to your presentations, Instructions

Things You'll Need

y y
1.

Microsoft PowerPoint 2003 or later Copies of images for experimentation

Open your PowerPoint Presentation. Decide where you want to place the image in your presentation. Do not insert the image into a text box or graphic box. After positioning your image and editing the image you can add additional text boxes if you need additional text on the slide.

2 From the INSERT menu, select PICTURE and then FROM FILE to open a browser window for image selection. You can select multiple images to insert more than one at a time. After you have selected your image click INSERT. Once your image is placed on the page it will be automatically selected and the Picture Toolbar will be visible. The toolbar allows you to edit the image. You can lighten it, darken it, adjust contrast and resize the photo. Use the image handles to resize and relocate the image on the presentation page. You can also use the toolbar to crop the picture, rotate the image and add a border to the composition.

4 You can format the picture by selecting FORMAT and PICTURE from the drop-down format menu. Here you can resize the image to an exact size and preserve the aspect ratio or distort the aspect ratio of the original image. The format menu contains some of the same features as the toolbar and you can also access the format menu from the picture toolbar.

5 Finally, add additional text or additional images to the same presentation page. Keep in mind that images should be used to enhance your presentation. PowerPoint also has the ability to create slideshows, but there are other ways to create slideshows that are easier than using PowerPoint for this application.