Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Insane, did you read the article all the way? While the 'full' skeleton was a fake, the two individual pieces were previously undiscovered animals, one a dinosaur that lived in trees, and the other a bird whose wings ended dinosaur's hands. It was not one, but two, missing links. However, the original point about scientists willing to accept fake evidence also stands. The researcher's claim that they told National Geographic they were concerned, while NG claim the researchers never told them squat. One of them is lying. Yea I read *most* of it... and I noted the end, however it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to prove - my point? They fudge fossils, and people blindly buy into it because it "proves" evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html What because one person fudges a fossil that the other 8 existing collections of Archaeopteryx (if you look at the images some look pretty complete) are invalidated? There is always someone out there that wants to become famous due to a great discovery. It's just not the scientists, how many people do you see who advertise their goods and claim if you don't buy it youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll burn in hell? :roll: Look at all these religious movies and Da Vinci Code I don't think any god would be pleased that some people are making a buck from his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Psycraft... the problem with the "void" always existing is that it isn't just a 'void', it contains energy and/or matter. The problem is, there are thermodynamic laws stating that after a large enough amount of time, *all* energy and matter in a closed system break down into it's smallest particles. So how come this energy that has always been is excepted from this Law? it seems kind of convenient. Also, the fossil evidence is quite too much minute to support evolution... And what about the Cambrian explosion Dusqi? You just said it there; Closed System. What if the universe is not a closed system and it existed in some sort of universe container. Then the universe is not a closed system such in the same way as Earth is not a closed system because of the sun giving us energy (and all the other stars around us). I've started a physics major and just done a whole section of work on thermodynamics and I still think the word 'closed system' is too convenient for this kind of discussion as you can't rule that our universe in fact a 'closed system'. Where is the object that done work on the universe (the system) in order to the change it's internal energy (I.E where did the big bang)? If you say that the universe is a closed system then you can pretty much exclude God from creating the universe since he is not part of the closed system (In fact he created the universe). Pretty much showing that creationism and a closed universe does not work together. The universe may close to become a closed system but this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically exclude other universes from being in existent (infinite amounts), many in which life does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 A COMMON, UNDER EDUCATED MIS CONCEPTION: the Bible is a book. The Bible is not a book. why do you see different names infront of passages? because it is from a different book OF the bible. there are 66 books within the Bible, all from different time periods, only a small amount written by the same people, the majority coming from different sources, but they all center around the same God. they decided to take all of the books that had been reproduced for teaching, and gather them together into one collection so that all knowledge and Good Word could be together conveniently, this didn't happen til hundreds of years after Jesus' first coming. the Bible was not written, many different books were written, it was decided to gather all the holy writings and teachings together to educate the masses. the Bible was not distributed to the public until around the mid-late first millenium, i think the 1500s. A COMMON, UNDER EDUCATED MIS CONCEPTION: University Physics with Modern Physics is a book. University Physics with Modern Physics is not a book. why do you see different names infront of passages? because it is from a different book OF University Physics with Modern Physics. there are 2 books within University Physics with Modern Physics, both from different time periods, only a small amount written by the same people, the majority coming from different sources, but they all center around the same set of Physics. they decided to take both of the books that had been reproduced for teaching, and gather them together into one collection so that all knowledge and Good Word could be together conveniently, this didn't happen til hundreds of years after Sciences' first coming. University Physics with Modern Physics was not written, many different books were written, it was decided to gather all the scientific writings and teachings together to educate the masses. University Physics with Modern Physics was not distributed to the public until around the late Second millenium, i think the 1990's. Let's take a look at my physics book: Just because it is a collection of thoughts does not make it more or less important see above for my physics book which fits your description perfectly.[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Mercifull, I think you trust bbc? http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml *shrugs* this is the one I was thinking about. Yes i do trust the BBS and i actually remember seeing a documentary about that particular fossil. It wasnt that widely belived in the first place despite how the BBC made out but it was a very authentic looking fake. Nowadays everyhting is tested for traces of DNA and carbon dated so this could never happen again. "The fossil, however, was anything but a disaster for palaeontology. By an extraordinary stroke of good luck, as scientists in China and America examined the head and tail separately, they found that both were, in their own right, unique and extremely valuable specimens. Both, in their different ways, contained powerful evidence that birds had evolved from dinosaurs." And what about all the people that fake religeous miricles and how many times has Noah's Arc supposedly been found :roll: You will get fraudsters both for and against, you just have to look at the real evidence to see the truth. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Well, at least our perception of time stands still, as it relies on motion. But who's to say that time is limited by our perception of it? It was just a quick thought i had. Im not sure if its correct that time stand still at 0 degrees kelvin, seems logical to me tho since the lack of energy would prevent any events of any kind. Time are just an human invention. A scientist would most likely tell you 'time' is just another dimension you can move in. But since i have no concept of 4d objects i cant really argue about it :oops: And if there was no time or motion in this void, how could our universe come into being in it and function in it? Well it seems like you can sum up any theory about the creation of the universe to absolute nothingness ( whether there is a 'void' or not ) strives to become everything, how and why are questions i dont think mankind will ever get answers to. Its fun arguing about tho :wink: No your right, as the universe slowly cools information takes longer to travel hence when you approach absolute zero (as you can never get there) you at the same time approach no transfer of information. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to understand 4D objects properly to see that time is an extra dimension. Imagine a line attached to every point in space and this line represents time. The point on this line will determine at what period of time you are in, simple. Finally let's assume our universe is slowing down (turning into a void) due to the laws of thermodynamics. It is harder to move about because everything around you is a similar temperature, it is not impossible but it is hard so this take a rather long time to move. At the same time you have these quantum fluctuations occurring which can cause a lot of random events which spring in and out of existence. It could take you millions of years to say hello or to walk a mile. If it takes longer to do things then is it more likely or less likely to see these quantum fluctuations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation According to the equation we are more likely to see more energy in shorter time spans, maybe there will be an event with so much energy is causes a new universe to come into existence. We have not observed this because we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been around long enough, maybe in the void this could become a common practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven. If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition. Actually you don't know much about fossils do you here is a page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation or check out any other site about it. Much like the document says it is rare because you need specific environments for fossilisation to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Reading through this, I've noticed that the Big bang theory comes up alot. However, scientists are now moving away from the Big bang theory. There is alot of new observations made that doesnt hold up the theory. Can you please provide any evidence of this, why has this not been on the news and why is the big bang still being taught in textbooks? Oh and there are quite a few animals that evolution will NEVER explain! Giraffes, bombardeer beatles and Woodpeckers (these especially) have baffled Darwinists for ages! Perhaps can so some research on these miraculous creatures. These are just a few of many! Also an experiment that NASA conducted once revealed that the sun had stopped moving for an almost 24 hour period! Your whole post is just insane but I'll answer the scientific ones: Giraffes - Giraffes are famous for their long necks which allow them to browse on the leaves of trees, and elongated forelegs (which are much longer than the hind legs). The bony structure of the neck is essentially unchanged from that of other mammals: there are no extra vertebrae, but each of the seven bones is greatly enlarged. Bone constitutes the bud-like horns called ossicorns, which are covered with the giraffe's skin like the rest of the skull. Bombardier Beetles - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html describes this evolution it would be too much room to paste here. It's basically an evolution from other bugs who use chemicals for no defense purposes. Woodpecker - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html same as above. Put quite simply talkorigins.org is a very good collection of well researched articles that explain things without resorting to lying. They all come with huge reference lists which shows they have actually spent the time to research these things and a place for you to find further information. NASA and the extra day - http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm this is just an urban legend nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N_Y_Massacre Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven. If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition. Actually you don't know much about fossils do you here is a page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation or check out any other site about it. Much like the document says it is rare because you need specific environments for fossilisation to occur. But there still seems to be many more discoveries of "normal" species rather than linking species. Also - read the link I posted about the fake fossil - why was everybody so quick to buy into it? I believe it makes sense that they were so desperate for a fossil to prove evolution that they blindly believed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grin_king Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 ...Also - read the link I posted about the fake fossil - why was everybody so quick to buy into it? I believe it makes sense that they were so desperate for a fossil to prove evolution that they blindly believed... Or, there is considerable other evidence already around, that a find of that kind is not a very long stretch at all from what is currently known... as opposed to that which was written, many years ago... by... someone. I've always found it rather incredible, that so many people are so willing to believe in something of which there is no tangible proof... aside from a book, which was written by a human, or even a number of humans... but human all the same. I have a very hard time believing that there's some dude up "there" looking down, with a finger poised over a big red button, waiting to "smite" those who don't behave, with his off-sider standing to one side, with his finger on the gate buzzer, only letting in those who have been to church to "confess" to having had lewd thoughts about their next-door neighbour... sounds more like some kind of Mario game to me... Don't get me wrong - I have a relatively open mind, and some of the arguments here have raised things which i've not previously considered, in regards to what STARTED evolution... but I will say in answer to that, that nature is an amazing thing/force, and it continues to change and adapt things - as I believe it has done for time uncountable... I have a much easier time, mentally, bridging the gap between what is and what possibly/probably was from a scientific point of view, than I do from the Mario point of view... One-time #13 smither.All-time #1 noob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 ...Also - read the link I posted about the fake fossil - why was everybody so quick to buy into it? I believe it makes sense that they were so desperate for a fossil to prove evolution that they blindly believed... Or, there is considerable other evidence already around, that a find of that kind is not a very long stretch at all from what is currently known... as opposed to that which was written, many years ago... by... someone. Ironically I find that science and/or philosophy can prove a creator, in a very simple way. We are here. Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. I find it ludicrous to believe that some energy has just always existed, it violates therodynamic laws and pure logic. However a God by definition would transcend our thinking and science (it is rather convenient I understand), and would make alot more sense to have always existed than this "matter" that somehow transcended thermodynamic laws. Therefore since we are here, there must be a creator. I don't really have time to go indepth to the thermodynamics but maybe after a little vaca. up north if this topic is still active I'll go more indepth. As for what you believe God to believe Grin (and I don't particularily think that your view of the "Christian" God to be exactly Biblical, unless this isn't the Christian God you were talking about), that's personal and irrlevant to this discussion. Of course, making God out to be a complete and utter jerk really makes it seem alot more unlikely that he exists than if you made him out to look alot better - that's compeltely illogical, but I wouldn't be surprised if alot of the posters buy into it. So I guess if it works, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodofEnd Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/434566.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm Articles from the BBC about genetic and fossil evidence showing that Whales are infact closely related to hooved animals. Anyone that denies evolution is a fool. However, as for your analogy my_pet_worm: Its a bit flawed. If everyone in the world forgets that I exist or dont belive doesn't mean that I don't. False drawings + Propaganda. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grin_king Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 False drawings + Propaganda. Enjoy! Erm... nicely-worded, well-though-out response, backed up with some very strong evidence there... I don't know HOW we can justify arguing against someone with such a strong case... :roll: Come on... if you're going to say something... back it up, as have the people before you... One-time #13 smither.All-time #1 noob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 False drawings + Propaganda. Enjoy! Erm... nicely-worded, well-though-out response, backed up with some very strong evidence there... I don't know HOW we can justify arguing against someone with such a strong case... :roll: Come on... if you're going to say something... back it up, as have the people before you... even though i disagree with Grin about evolution...i do agree here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Ironically I find that science and/or philosophy can prove a creator, in a very simple way. We are here. Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. I find it ludicrous to believe that some energy has just always existed, it violates therodynamic laws and pure logic. However a God by definition would transcend our thinking and science (it is rather convenient I understand), and would make alot more sense to have always existed than this "matter" that somehow transcended thermodynamic laws. Let's say it is true that something created us because we are here. It doesn't necessarily mean it is God, you fact implied nothing about what created you. Who says something can not come from nothing? YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re applying our laws of physics to other things, like applying American law in England. You are explicitly saying the matter came from inside the universe which created the universe. There are a billion different theories people have which explain how the matter came to being but it's impossible to tell due to the speed limit on light and the lack of interactivity of stuff outside the universe hence we could be talking about the same thing. Your god could be my colliding membranes, alternate world, Sprouting universe, Black hole universe etc. So long as the effects described are the same then the language is irrelevant. Do you think aliens will describe physics and what created the universe exactly the same way? They will have a different language, a different set of unit measures and a different mathematical framework. So this business of violating thermodynamics and what created is moot. We are talking about animals adapting and changing over time verses the crafting of each species by an outside force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/434566.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm Articles from the BBC about genetic and fossil evidence showing that Whales are infact closely related to hooved animals. Anyone that denies evolution is a fool. However, as for your analogy my_pet_worm: Its a bit flawed. If everyone in the world forgets that I exist or dont belive doesn't mean that I don't. False drawings + Propaganda. Enjoy! Genetic evidence + fossil records + your dreadful argument = you owned. ^_^ Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodofEnd Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 To merciful: you should read this article http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_ge ... _sci29.php :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 To merciful: you should read this article http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_ge ... _sci29.php :lol: To GodofEnd: I did read it, then I laughed and then decided that you should read articles from non-bias sources. Perhaps you should also remember that you are going to hell for using Gods name in vain with ure nick. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: :mrgreen::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::mrgreen: :mrgreen::mrgreen: :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodofEnd Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 That's the main reason i quited rs ( wasn't religious back then when i begun btw ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pur304 Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Its just a name in game anyway. Its not like your saying god is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tttia Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I find it fascinating that talk origins is taken as a credible source but any pro-creationist one is not. Let's at least be consistent. And I have seen some logical leaps in the talk origins stuff too. More on that later for those interested. As to my views (sorry this will be long) ..there may be evidence for evolution (adaptation), without doubt on the micro level, but there is not much evidence for spontaneous generation of life, which is often taught along with it. This is why origins are certainly separate from evolution. I don't buy into the usual theory of evolution though. I actually think what we see today is the result of DEVOLUTION (see below). First on to the origins question. Someone mentioned earlier the Urey-Miller experiment where they replicated amino acids. This is true...however, they didn't replicate ALL of them. Then they still had to speculate that some components were brought by extra-terrestial influences, whether meteors or actual aliens. The real problem is that, once formed, would these actually continue to develop or even survive? The ideal environment includes vast oceans for the necessary oxygen in the formula. But the physical presence of water and specifically oxygen seems to be problematic for forming life. So they speculate that the whole process took place on rocks floating in the water...hm....seems a bit convenient. The earliest life happened with elements from space, some natural ones, the proper gasses in the environment, a bit of lightning...and....viola. Now we have life which takes off and develops. A few quotes from wikipedia's article on spontaneous generation theories illustrates the unlikelyhood of the whole scenario: there is no truly "standard" model of the origin of life, however most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon the following discoveries, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence: 1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953. 2. Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane. 3. Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under certain specific conditions. "If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like; or in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth." Moreover, the whole process breaks down with oxygen present which there are some indications it was (especially with all that ...water). The origin (see Origin of organic molecules) of basic biomolecules such as components of amino acids, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. As of 2004, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. ie. You don't have the required materials, you may not have the right conditions, and even if you did there is no evidence it would work anyway. In short scientists who speculate about the spontaneous generation of life have made a god out of gas, scum, water and lots of time. Just because you stipulate tons of time does not mean something is going to happen. Some evolutionist scientists are recognizing this and are simply falling back to alien seeding as the only...ahem, rational.... solution. Now we won't get in to where the aliens come from. And as sad as I see this explanation to be , it is at least intellectually honest. But it points out a typical formulation for those who hold this view of origins. If you can't explain the data as it is then postulate that lots of time, or some unkown conditions on another planet will make sense of it. If the only way life could form spontaneously is for there to be a certain combination of gasses, water, etc...then it must have been that way. Kind of like evolutionists accuse religious folks of using religion to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Only scientists do the same with time and aliens. I think of the two I prefer God. Origins are by far the weakest argument of the evolutionist...though the two are really separate. One refers to creation of life, the other to properties observed in life. I would say the strongest argument evolutionists have would be radioactive dating. Even then carbon dating for instance, when compared with other forms of dating such as dendrochronology etc. seems less than accurate. Of course carbon is not the one used to substantiate long periods due to the half life, but it does raise questions about the process in general. For that matter, when you can only see a minute part of the whole time frame how do you know that there are not factors which radically adjust what we assume are very set principles. With radioactive dating there are two variables that we really have no empiracle data concerning. Those are 1. whether half lifes are the same no matter what the factors. In fact there seems to be evidence that under certain conditions half lifes do change. 2. Are the actual original proportions of isotopes consistent? Are there factors which change them? This one would be impossible to know in the remote past. Here are some other sources which raise questions about the methods: researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. You also have the problem that known items don't match up... There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14] Another dilemma: No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C. Fossil wood found in "Upper Permian" rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.[23] Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as "middle Triassic," supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.[24] The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the "date" was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system. there are many, including the fact that various dating methods don't match up on the same item. For more information on these and other problems, including the vast array of indications of a young earth see here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html The geologic column itself could actually favor creationists due to lack of transitional forms, the seeming reversals of strata in various locations, the presence of species in strata where they don't belong, seeming rapid changes in species, etc. These factors have indeed led to changes in the theory of in gradualism, such as punctuated equilibrium, or catastrophism, the idea that we don't see gradual ultimately predictable changes, but long periods of little change with sudden times of much change. The change of animals, even species level change, might be verifiable. Why not teach that? What is debated is whether animals can change beyond their Genus. While we have the time to observe the one, we don't to observe the other. The fact that birds could change their beaks over time is a bit different than a dinosaur turning into a bird for instance. We even have cases of sterilization when some animals with different characteristics mate (mules for instance). This might indicate an upper ceiling on diversity. In fact, since I am on that subject, I think that the observation of Darwin on the changes that take place rapidly due to niches could have a definite application to the concept of a Genesis flood event. Let me lay out what I see as the likely scenario, along with a few explanatory principles of the scenario. a. mutations tend to be deleterious, not beneficial. The likelyhood of a single beneficial mutation being prolonged, and actually becomging dominant is unlikely. It would take many generations to happen, and often times would mean that the whole group of creatures who previously occupied that niche would have to be so disadvantaged as to dissapear completely. An unlikely event. One well adapted creature with a slight evolutionary change is not going to suddenly displace droves of nearly as well adapted creatures and then become the model. b. devolution is more likely than evolution. This is related to the above.if most mutations are bad. And the majority of those that actually take are bad, with only a precious few being good, then I think devolution is what we should expect to see. This is the case with say cave fish or dodos, that once had sight, or flight ability, but because they didn't need it in their new environment they lost it eventually. Moreover, the big buzz term among creationists lately is irreducible complexity, folowing Behe's work on the subject, "Darwin's Black Box." The classic scenarios are of course blood clotting, the eye, etc. A system which requires multiple, interdependet, irreducibly complex structures, all of which must be functioning for one part to have any meaning can not come about through gradual change. Because their would be no advantage whatsoever to one part of an eye without another. So then rather than expound how these came into being Darwin simply charted the various stages...a sensor...a bit more complex here, a bit more color there, etc. But he doesn't explain how these intricately designed systems in later eyes, that need every part to work, suddenly came onto the scene fully working. You can't evolve parts that all need to be there to work. Because a partial system gives no genetic advantage at all. the idea of irreducible complexity comes from Darwin himself, in his book "Origin of the Species." He wrties, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. The eye is the most popular argument polemically speaking because Darwin supposedly referenced this concept in the following quote, in a letter to a friend, though the reliability of this I am not qualified to say: I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over. The upshot is that there are parts of the complex eye that require all other parts to be there to have any function whatsoever. There would be no reason to gradually develop those parts that had no function until all were combined. How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities. Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p. 475. Darwin's succession of simple eye concepts ignores the fact that even the 150 million year old trilobite eye had a double len's and was fairly complex. Early eyes don't seem to be all that simple. They require a system which cannot come about slowly because they give no benefit until complete. A simpler example of the concept is the bat. Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs (the "front toes") developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the "front toes" grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transitional stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct. There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to the bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats. Now some would note that vampire bats actually do get around on the ground fairly well. True enough...but BETTER than if they had wings? I don't think so. They would be an obstacle. So we see an enigma. Mutations happen slowly. But you have then to answer why they would happen at all? Why would they take hold in a population when a small change makes no difference? So for instance, lets say a creature with a slightly longer limb would have a greater chance of survival. But would a microscopic change per generation make any difference? Of course part of the answer is that you are using averages. The idea is that there is variation all the time, and those at the longer end would be prolonged. rather than a .005 change per generation you would actually see....one with a fairly longer limb...which stays...then another eventually with longer yet...which stays.. But all of this assumes a ton of rather unlikely conclusions. That the new creature would even survive to further this new mutation...that it would successfully mate, especially given it is a mutant...that it will take hold in the population...or even that creatures with longer limbs give birth to more creatures with longer limbs. We see that doesn't even happen today with regularity. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I am 6'11, but my dad was 5'11". There is no readily available reason for why my brother and I are so tall as none of our immediate ancestors are, other than genetic diversity. So even if we go on to have kids ( I have some, but the data is still out! )...what guarantees that this genetic mutation would in fact be preserved? Diversity might simply be a phenomenon which has fixed limits, rather than a means to further develop new traits. Let's take deer populations. It is readily observed that deer populations go through changes in weight, stature etc. sometimes based on adaptations to environmental conditions. But we certainly haven't seen a change over time to say...giant deer. What we see is they fluctuate over observably short periods of times from larger to smaller, etc. based on the already present diversity. Those that are best suited to survive based on their already present diverse traits stay for a generation...but conditions might change the next generation and they are not favored. We don't see even nominal changes towards lasting genus level changes, but instead we see continual fluctuation within parameters to meet the situation. In other words, diversity within limits. For that matter I saw some referring to the transition from apes to men. This is of course actually not what evolution claims. They instead claim that we evolved from a common pre-human ancestor. But there is debate about whether the time given for the change from pre human man (Australopithecus, etc.) is sufficient to account for the change in the genome. See, it is fine and well to say that over millions of years you can have one species change to another. But once you tie it to a timetable, as you have to do by dating pre human fossils, then you have to prove that the time table is real. The famous case being the roughly 3 percent difference in the genome between chimps and man. It was proposed that there was not near enough time in the proposed fossil record for mutations to result in 3 percent change to the genome. This was then debated by evolutionists, and is to this day. Haldane's delimma is the classic formulation. You can find the actual delimma and its would be debunkers on a simple web search. Here is the dilemma in a nutshell: Imagine a population of 100,000 of those [pre-human] organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees). Now of course the actual dilemma has some flaws. a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time. b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens. These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather COMPLETELY unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented. Second whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time. Of course the other solution some offer is to say that we don't know the actual genome difference between humans and their ancestors millions of years ago. It is not necessarily true that they were the same as a chimp. True enough. But given that both the chimp and the human had a common ancestor a ways back, wouldn't it make some sense to say that the ancient common ancestor was LESS EVOLVED THAN EITHER THE CHIMP OR THE HUMAN? Otherwise evolution sure isn't doing it's job. A more substantial answer is that some of the 3 percent difference, perhaps a great deal, involves neutral, non beneficial differences. This could well be. But the point is the evolutionists have to show how that kind of change could in fact happen in that amount of time, whether beneficial or not. c. The biblical account fits better with devolution than evolution. You have the degeneration of creatures due to the introduction of sin. They go from perfect to imperfect. From a genetic standpoint we would say that the original creation, according to its Genesis "kinds" would be more genetically diverse than that of today. Over time animals have devolved. We see this phenomenon in sightless fish, flightless birds etc. It is especially true when a niche does not provide competition. Only because, as the evolutionist would agree, the devolved creatures would be killed off otherwise. This is in fact precisely the type of situation we would see after a Genesis type flood. You have a very limited population that would spread out over large areas of now competitor free niches. It would lead to a huge amount of seeming diversity, which would really be devolution into various new forms due to lack of competition in new niches. Creatures that could not survive before now could. Certain creatures would be lost in a flood...dinos etc. And certain species would simply die out, perhaps after the flood etc. By the way devolution from very diverse genetics to less diverse, with new species created by niches would explain why all the animals could fit in the ark as well. Their was less diversity among actual creatures, but more genetic potential diversity which eventually expressed itself in various species and sub-species. So my general view would be that the earth is short-aged...not tied to exactly 6k years. We also see definite variation at the species and even genus level, and adaptation as well. But I see a fixed limit to this variation, and I don't see new genus level creatures being formed over time. Rather I see variation based on competition within a fixed scheme. In fact on a whole we see a process of devolution, and the inescapable conclusion that things are getting worse, not better. Not only does this make sense to me from a scientific view, but also from a biblical view which shows the earth subject to the decay of sin. The upshot is that all the pieces of evidence are just that. They are evidence which both sides disagree over. Both have strong points and drawbacks. To me creation makes more sense, both by my faith and by science, so I go for it. There are also a good number of people here discussing theistic evolutionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâthe idea that God created THROUGH the process of evolution. That is fine, but if you accept that then you have trouble reconciling it to the biblical account (which I realize is only a problem for Christians or Jews who take a literal reading). How can you have a perfect man (Adam) with no sin, no death in the world, no decay, if everything everything evolved based on a system of death and decay and imperfection? Was there a fall? How did sin start? How can God blame man for acting out on millions of years of evolutionary process? I don't doubt by the way the translation of the Hebrew "Yom." It certainly is ambigiuos in some settngs. However, given it lists numerical references that does limit it, given in that context it is always literal days in the scriptural usage. Not only that but the whole "evening and morning" thing is pretty clearly indicating literal time periods. This whole issue though pales in comparison to the endless problems one has in reconciling evolution with theological understandings of a. the nature of man (in the image of God) b. The nature and origin of sin c. universal depravity, etc. For these reasons I am not big on theistic evolution. It is a theory meant to reconcile religious people to the view of evolution because they think the evidence is overwhelming. As the rest of my post states I don't think it is overwhelming at all, and skewing what the Bible says to fit theories is not good theology OR good science. Having said that, if Genesis is not a foundational document to you, then I can see how theistic evolution makes good sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_wilson Posted July 9, 2005 Author Share Posted July 9, 2005 ... i was going to read all that but i have a short attention span. on like page 2/3 people where saying "god" created the base animals and they evolved into what's here today. That contradicts what the bible says with the "in the image of himself" stuff. First and only pixel thinger I made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tttia Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Paul. agreed, that is IF you accept the Genesis account. You might read the last three paragraphs or so of my post right above yours as it addresses the issue And all 8 pages only took roughly 30 minutes :) It won't hurt you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I find it fascinating that talk origins is taken as a credible source but any pro-creationist one is not. Let's at least be consistent. And I have seen some logical leaps in the talk origins stuff too. More on that later for those interested. When I talk about credible sources I don't take sides on pro or against. I may appear bias against creationist sources but that is due to the fact that most of them openly lie. An example would be http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php (This was posted in another thread which was locked but there are other links to this site in this thread) LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s look at it: 1. It looks like a published book (however any git can self publish, or better yet use a Christian one to help spread the word) which is decently referenced. I would be automatically suspicious because the 5th question has no reference AT all. I wouldn't mind if it was based of a study of any kind but it seems it's just pulled from nowhere. 2. Looking at references he is lacking any use of the terms: ibid, op. cit and loc. cit. He is rewriting all his references to help fatten up the relatively small list. It would be ok but when you include something from a magazine from 1955! ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just pushing it; do you really think we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t refined our research in 50 years (not just evolution but anything)?!?! 3. While looking at the references one stuck out my mind #20. It comes from a credible source and implies evolution is wrong. With a bit of further research it appears that more current research (2005) suggests it is impossible to tell if it is bipedal (stands on two feet) as they only have a skull and lack anything else. The positioning of the spinal cord hole leaves the head unbalanced and without the rest of the body it is hard to really make a conclusion. Hence the source here is rather weak and not really that damning against evolution but it is very interesting none the less. 4. I would automatically dismiss anything that claims that 'Evolution is theory not fact' but an quick dictionary lookup on the word theory. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory Very First Entry: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Is evolution a set of statements, check. Used to explain phenomena, check. repeatedly tested, check. Can be used to make predictions, check. Hmm sounds like a theory according to this definition; you can even replace this with anything like physics, chemistry or math. 5. The forth question is a direct attack on people who do not support creationism practically calling them godless and communists by stating that Darwinists believe in 'dialectical materialism' (matter comes before thought and that things act together to produce a whole) which was used by the soviet union. This is not even an argument but a personal attack :roll: . This is only a brief analysis of the first page and I can already call this highly suspect if not completely a load of garbage. If you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are good creationist sources that disprove or bad talk origin articles (with an explanation why of course) that I have previously used then I see your in no situation to talk. EDIT: I see you have used a creationist website for Carbon-14 dating information. This area is actually an area where I have SOME (read: not all) knowledge in (radiation) compared to biology so Ill try and share some inconsistencies to you. See how the 'references' section to "how carbon dating works," it only gives some further explanation and is missing any reference to the physics book or site used. Also you mentioned that there are other dating methods which I like to stress since carbon dating is not the only thing used. 1. When you carbon date things although the half-life is 5,730 years you can not say conclusively that something will be 50% after 5,730 years after all each object will have slight randomness to it. This only matters to really young things such as years old so it's not really valid here. However you can say a similar thing about really old things. If you have 2 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s it only has a quater left, after 3 you will only have 1/8 left. After about 9 or 10 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s it will have such a small reading it would be THEORETICALLY impossible to date something older then 50000 years. Example: If you take a small sample (lets pretend it contains a billion "carbon/nitrogen 14 atom" mix) lets say for convenience sakes that its 5.73 million years old (which is plausible considering the age of some of these fossils) then it would have undergone 1000 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s. Let's consider the size of the object lets say a skull of 3 kg (in reality it will be a lot less but lets use a large size), now for the math (you can skip the parts between the lines if you trust my math): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We say a half life is decided the time it take for half to decay and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s about 5730 years so for a 5.73 million year old object it would occur 1000 times. In short hand this is 0.5^1000 To work out the number of atoms you need to know a little chemistry. There are 6.02 * 10^23 atoms for a mole of substance, the weight of carbon 14 are approximately 14 so 3000/14 is about 214. 214 * 6.02 is about 1288 * 10^23. Now lets combine the number of atoms with the percentage of atoms that should have not have decayed (the number of carbon 14 atoms to expect left in the skull to test with). I unfortunately don't have an expensive math program with me and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m forced to rely on the standard calculator so first I will work out what 0.5^1000 is first and multiply it by the number of atoms. According to the Microsoft calculator's answer is 9.3 * 10^-302 so we multiply this answer with 1288 * 10^23 and we get 11978 * 10^-279 or ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 * 10^-276 of Carbon 14 atoms will be left after 5.73 million years, which for all intensive purposes is 0! It is smaller then the smallest unit of length in the fabric of the universe! Light can not travel this incredibly small distance as the laws of the universe do not allow it! You see the problems with 'ideal' physics it just never exists! There will always be a small ratio of carbon 14 and when you guess the amount of carbon in the air you are bound to get strange numbers when you go back millions of years. Whoops, I just explained something already on their website so I'm going to say that carbon dating isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the end all solution but only to be taken as a guide along with other dating methods but just because Carbon 14 exists after 50000 years doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that it breaks the laws of physics. 2. They say atomic bombs made the atmosphere contain more CO2, well thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fine. All carbon-14 dating is done relative to the atmosphere of the time of the sample not today. 3. Carbon can be calibrated with other things of the era (i.e. in the same rock layer) so you can get an idea of the age but then the article goes on to say other dating methods are used? Is your source saying that there are other methods used in determining age? Great then consider this argument finished but I will go on a little more. 4. The strength of the magnetic field has little to do with the ability to deflect cosmic rays. The magnetic field strength is tiny, a brain scanning machine (MRI) is 60000 times more powerful and we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even feel a thing. Since cosmic rays are just a simple term for anything energetic, it does not state anything about the charge of the atom. Statistically you can say with the high number of cosmic rays coming that are coming you are bound to get an overall neutral charge (electrons and protons cancel and all neutral elements are of cause neutral). Changing strength will have little impact with the date since dates are not correct the same year (or even thousands). 5. The genesis flood would not have an impact since the flood occurred everywhere at once affecting all locations. If this were true then there would be a very large anomaly in the dating of objects before and after the flood. If this were a significant effect then why havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we seen any evidence of this moving between the different layers of rock? Between which of these rocks do we see a jump between 50000 years and 5 million (or any other significant number)? 6. They do not mention anything about Carbon Dating for the Sun. Why is that, the sun has no carbon so how do we know its date? There are many factors that affect the exact date but I can be done through the tried and tested laws of physics. WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this alone invalidate a young earth after all the Earth was made up of left over elements from the Sun, unless the Earth magically appeared 50000 years ago of course! In conclusion they say Carbon dating is bad (the articles focus) they then admit there are other methods. They pick out a couple of methods which can give false readings such as air bubbles in magma giving false readings (what do you know, I would consider this a form of contamination) which have nothing to do with fossils. They argue that dating methods don't match which again is to be expected if methods are approximate and some methods can be contaminated easily. They fail to mention that theoretical framework does not work 100% in real life. There will always be Carbon-14 in objects no matter how old it is since you can not divide atoms up much in the same way we think space is a perfect vacuum, but it's not. In the case of the perfect vacuum there are many stray particles that exist so if you travelled from one side of the universe to the other you would slow down slightly. Lastly I would like to say that more creationist sites would be bad due to the fact that they have something to lose and evolutionists don't. The World will not magically disappear if evolution is wrong. If creation is wrong then SOME of Gods word is also wrong and for many Christians this is unacceptable. This is why Creationist websites furiously defend their theory even resorting to lies. On the other hand Evolutionists will not gain from lying since it destroys the whole idea of Science. Do Evolutionists worship some god of Darwin? I know I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t so therefore I have no reason to lie to preserve it. I support the practice of science not the practice of Darwinian Evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not Science yet some Christians promote it as if it were. This is unacceptable and I will die fighting this cause or until Creationism can become testable (which is never). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 As to my views (sorry this will be long) ..there may be evidence for evolution (adaptation), without doubt on the micro level, but there is not much evidence for spontaneous generation of life, which is often taught along with it. This is why origins are certainly separate from evolution. I don't buy into the usual theory of evolution though. I actually think what we see today is the result of DEVOLUTION (see below). First on to the origins question. Yes you may be right with a lack of evidence for spontaneous generation and you should be pleased to know that abiogenesis is not part of Evolution at all. Evolution deals with the change over time, not origins. I think this sums it up nicely which is the intro to the evolution section at Wikipedia. "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time." Wow look at that origins are not covered at all, so you god started evolution people are actually evolutionists without it actually infringing on your beliefs of God (unless you believe in the intelligent design aspect of creationism). It not evolutions fault that this spontaneous generation theory is taught next to evolution, it compliments evolution much in the same way you teach addition before subtraction. Maybe you should complain about not having clear headings instead of a direct attack on evolution. I guess most people mistake common ancestor with origins but this common ancestor is really just an arbitrary starting point to talk about the change of our species over time. It is no species of animal called common ancestor; it is just a catch all term we use. However if you want to talk about where did the first common ancestor came from then you could use anything you like such as God, spontaneous generation, parallel worlds or whatever; it does not concern evolution. I hope this has cleared things up for the people reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now