[quote]dmaddox wrote:
We all keep looking at vegetation as being a tree, or bush. Bacteria or algea could be considered vegetation. Those two really do not need the sun to grow.[/quote]
How would you consider bacteria to be vegetation, exactly?
Wow,just wow. Trying to debate the scientific mechanism and counterarguments for the creation story is like trying to have a serious debate about the physics necessary to prove that Santa’s sleigh can travel at the projected speeds necessary to hit every kid’s house in the world.
Suffice to say that if you believe in “it” , God, Allah, whatever you choose to call “it” time is a fragment of a nanosecond and everything can be created in time that is not easily comprehended by us and certainly not by the guys that wrote the Bible tales.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.
Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus
Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle
Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.
Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.
Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up.
Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.
And that’s just to scratch the surface.[/quote]
You sir, are the drive by artist. Read the entire argument, with references. You apparently don’t know your bible as rigorously as you would have us believe. If you can refute it by simply “scratching”, I suggest you step up to the task at hand and put together your thesis under the rules of engagement laid out.
Go ahead, I’ll wait. Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself? I cosign the basic arguments in that link. You want to “debate” me? Refute them under the rules of engagement. Let me save you the time; you or the other poster here, can refute the arguments in their entirety. Hence my earlier comment to you that this age old “debate” will bear no fruit.
[/quote]
You’re try to pedal this garbage on two threads? You must really think that guy is something?? Problem 1, he doesn’t actually make an argument. He just a lists a bunch of shit he thinks is wrong with Christianity. Second, the attempted premises are false. “Faith healing” really? Whatever.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.
Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus
Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle
Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.
Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.
Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up.
Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.
And that’s just to scratch the surface.[/quote]
You sir, are the drive by artist. Read the entire argument, with references. You apparently don’t know your bible as rigorously as you would have us believe. If you can refute it by simply “scratching”, I suggest you step up to the task at hand and put together your thesis under the rules of engagement laid out. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself? I cosign the basic arguments in that link. You want to “debate” me? Refute them under the rules of engagement. Let me save you the time; you or the other poster here, can refute the arguments in their entirety. Hence my earlier comment to you that this age old “debate” will bear no fruit.
[/quote]
You must feel pretty cool sitting back on your high horse, using someone else’s argument and intellectual capital, to engage in a discussion in which you seem to have no interest in using your own arguments or intellect to participate in.
And then, when someone using their own brain to counter the argument you posted, you just sit back and say why don’t you follow the ‘rules of engagement’.
Or better yet, and I’ll quote YOU here from the above post,
“Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself?”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
So how do we know that the sun and moon were not created on day four? It’s because if you look at day 3 at Genesis 1:11,12 God creates vegetation and vegetation begins to grow. I’m sure you know that vegetation could not grow without sunlight.[/quote]
With all due respect, friend, this is a completely ridiculous claim to make, that vegetation could not survive less than 24 hours without the sun in place. C’mon man, it’s no different than the period of darkness all plant life on earth goes through EVERY SINGLE NIGHT since then. Think!![quote]
How long is a day to God? It’s not a 24 hour period. [/quote]
There’s no reason not to think it’s a 24 hour day. The transcriber of Genesis 1 could have used the Hebrew word for “indefinite period of time or ‘age’ or ‘eon’” but instead chose to use the exact word used everywhere else in the Old Testament for a 24 hour day.[quote]
Second Peter 3:8(NIV) states:
“8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”[/quote]
This is how God views time, he sees it all at once. This verse is not connected to the literal length of creation days. You’re pulling it out of context…even thought you’re doing it with good intentions.[quote]
So a creative day in the Bible is at least 1000 years.[/quote]
This simply won’t hold up under careful, shoot, even casual thinking. Don’t do this.[quote]
I hope that clarifies your understanding of the creation account and of how long a day is to God.[/quote]
No, this approach greatly complicates things.[/quote]
Push with all due respect, do me a favor. Get a Bible and read Genesis chapter 1 carefully because it is obvious you did not do that. Genesis 1:12,12 states:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”
And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds . And God saw that it was good.
Think!! Verse 12 states that the land produced vegetation and trees bore fruit . What tree do you know of that grows to the point of bearing fruit in a 24 hour period from a seed. That verse shows that vegetation and trees went through the natural growth cycle from seed up. So it is clear my friend that this did not happen OVER NIGHT.
Also, on the first day God said let there by light and states the difference between night and day so it is clear that the sun was already in existence before day 4.
I meant to include this in my previous post but forgot. The heavens mentioned at Genesis 1:1 is not referring to the spiritual heavens where spirit creatures reside it refers to the physical heavens which is outer space.
Bible writers often use the term heavens to refer to the upper atmosphere or outer space. Isaiah 13:10 (NIV) states this well which reads:
“10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.”
1 Corinthians 15:40 (NIV) states:
“There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.”
This will hold up to both critical and casual thinking.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.
Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus
Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle
Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.
Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.
Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up.
Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.
And that’s just to scratch the surface.[/quote]
You sir, are the drive by artist. Read the entire argument, with references. You apparently don’t know your bible as rigorously as you would have us believe. If you can refute it by simply “scratching”, I suggest you step up to the task at hand and put together your thesis under the rules of engagement laid out. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself? I cosign the basic arguments in that link. You want to “debate” me? Refute them under the rules of engagement. Let me save you the time; you or the other poster here, can refute the arguments in their entirety. Hence my earlier comment to you that this age old “debate” will bear no fruit.
[/quote]
You must feel pretty cool sitting back on your high horse, using someone else’s argument and intellectual capital, to engage in a discussion in which you seem to have no interest in using your own arguments or intellect to participate in.
And then, when someone using their own brain to counter the argument you posted, you just sit back and say why don’t you follow the ‘rules of engagement’.
Or better yet, and I’ll quote YOU here from the above post,
“Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself?”[/quote]
That’s why I put the guy on ignore. I’m tired of reading his “smoking gun” articles that when you offer a counter he says you’re wrong. Look at guys like FightinIrish. He’s actually willing to discuss something with you not just argue.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Think!! Verse 12 states that the land produced vegetation and trees bore fruit . What tree do you know of that grows to the point of bearing fruit in a 24 hour period from a seed. That verse shows that vegetation and trees went through the natural growth cycle from seed up. So it is clear my friend that this did not happen OVER NIGHT.
[/quote]
I dont mean to be an ass, but do you think if God wanted a seed to become a fruit bareing plant in a 24 hour period he could not do it? I do not like putting God in a box and say you have to do it this way.
God is bigger than all of us. He could have put the whole world together instantaniously. A day = 1 millisecond, or a day = 1000 years. I really do not have the answer, and all of us that say they do might want to rethink what God is trying to say.
Maybe we should move on to another subject. BBriere what is next on the list? I like this thread. I would like hope we all could keep our cool.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Think!! Verse 12 states that the land produced vegetation and trees bore fruit . What tree do you know of that grows to the point of bearing fruit in a 24 hour period from a seed. That verse shows that vegetation and trees went through the natural growth cycle from seed up. So it is clear my friend that this did not happen OVER NIGHT.
[/quote]
I dont mean to be an ass, but do you think if God wanted a seed to become a fruit bareing plant in a 24 hour period he could not do it? I do not like putting God in a box and say you have to do it this way.
God is bigger than all of us. He could have put the whole world together instantaniously. A day = 1 millisecond, or a day = 1000 years. I really do not have the answer, and all of us that say they do might want to rethink what God is trying to say.
Maybe we should move on to another subject. BBriere what is next on the list? I like this thread. I would like hope we all could keep our cool.[/quote]
I was waiting for someone to say that. Of course God could make it grow instantly, heck God could have made everything that happened in Genesis chapter 1 instantly instead of spreading it out over six creative days.
But apparently God took his time to make the various parts of the earth so there is no reason to think God on day 3 sped everything up. God took his time with each day, observed his creation in it’s natural state and then said it was good.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While I’m still here, who wants to place bets on push responding to my posts while knowing I can’t see them?[/quote]
I place a $1,000,000 on it. I am not a betting man, but he posted just before you did.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]
Is that why plants die overnight?
EDIT: Ah, I see what you meant. Tricksy!
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Think!! Verse 12 states that the land produced vegetation and trees bore fruit . What tree do you know of that grows to the point of bearing fruit in a 24 hour period from a seed. That verse shows that vegetation and trees went through the natural growth cycle from seed up. So it is clear my friend that this did not happen OVER NIGHT.
[/quote]
I dont mean to be an ass, but do you think if God wanted a seed to become a fruit bareing plant in a 24 hour period he could not do it? I do not like putting God in a box and say you have to do it this way.
God is bigger than all of us. He could have put the whole world together instantaniously. A day = 1 millisecond, or a day = 1000 years. I really do not have the answer, and all of us that say they do might want to rethink what God is trying to say.
Maybe we should move on to another subject. BBriere what is next on the list? I like this thread. I would like hope we all could keep our cool.[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. I didn’t realize you asked me a direct question. Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I don’t know if there is a God or not. But, if there is, that God is a part of the universe, by virtue of its existing. It doesn’t exist outside of the universe. [/quote]
That’s an interesting quote, because that insinuates that there could be many gods in many universes. It also means that the creator of the universe is not the creator of the earth. Does that mean every galaxy can have a god?[/quote]
Universe = everything.
All galaxies = same universe.
Please, less semantics.[/quote]
Semantics? They’re not semantics. There’s some very smart folks who are subscribing to the idea that there are many universes, string theory and all that.
So before you go trying to make me sound like a dumbass, read a fuckin book or two.[/quote]
Universe = all
Multiple planes of existance = same universe
multiple dimensions = same universe
multiple galaxies/solar systems = same universe.
If your point was about multiple universes, why ask if each GALAXY “can have a god?”
…er…existence.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just a quick thought. I’m not sure why I wasted my time arguing. Not when I can point out that Obama is a self-proclaimed Christian. Ooooooh, you racists! Ok, I’m going to scurry along now.[/quote]
When Obama starts operating a faith based Government, I’ll worry. Until then, your point is moot.[/quote]
God told him to tax the rich.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I’ve made this point several times in the past myself. To some extent, even the scientific minded still have to rely on faith. How do you know evolution is real? Have you ever examined the fossil records yourself? Do you have any knowledge on DNA structures, biology, bio-chemistry, geology, etc.?
If not, then you really have to go on faith of what scientists have said. Same can be said of the universe. We know, obviously, that it exists, that the sun is the center of the solar system, that the moon revolves around Earth. How do we know other things? Scientists have told us based on their calculations, but the calculations have been wrong before.
Ptolemy, who calculated the Earth to be round, thought it was also the center of the solar system. He created an entire branch of mathematics to explain the irregular revolutions of the planets around Earth. The Sumerians, who with the only the aide of simple mathematics calculated the Great Year, thought the Earth was bowl shaped.
When I was a kid we were taught that Cro-magnon man evolved from Neanderthal. Now we are taught differently. So it definitely takes a little faith in what science teaches unless you have personally examined the evidence.
[/quote]
You’re actually making my argument for me.
I have no problem with faith based on the best avaliable information/hypothesis. Pick up any text book from 60 years ago and you’ll find a wealth of misinformation – thats the nature of learning and knowledge, we take our best guess, test it out, keep what works, change what doesn’t.
The theory of evolution is far more sound than the theory of spontaneous generation. The theory isn’t perfect, of course. It will be challenged and changed and modified as we learn more.
The problem I have is the fact that Christians are like people with one of those textbooks screaming that it’s right and that it has to be right and everyone who doesn’t agree with it will be punished, despite the fact that all evidence we have now contradicts much of what is in it.[/quote]
Well, my only point was that for those who say they only believe in science, there are very few who could actually explain why they believe what is in a science book. Take a person that believes in the Red Shift. Have they worked out the mathematics to prove it? Have they ever checked scientists work to prove it?
Doubtfully, yet they will say a Christian is accepting things on blind faith. Well, if that Christian is going on what somebody told them was in the Bible then, yes. However, if they actually read and studied what is in the Bible then that is different. The bottom line is whether you put your stock in pure religion or pure science there is a degree of faith in either.[/quote]
There is also the option to put full stock in neither. I don’t believe the bible, nor do I believe we have a perfect understanding of our universe. I believe most if not all of what we “know” will eventually be disproven. But, in the case of science, its honestly the best we can do with what we have.
In the case of the bible, you have people screaming and threatening when you refuse to ignore all that has been disproven (just read back to when Push TOLD me I’d be standing in front of his God one day… sure sounds like the threat of eternal punishment to me).
Is there a higher power? Are there things we don’t and can’t understand? Sure, I believe that. There are spectrums of light and sound we cant see or hear, but we know they exist. So the issue for me isn’t so much IF stuff is out there, but the fact that one particular interpretation of the metaphysical which makes no sense and has a holy book full of impossible history is so prevalent.
There probably is a higher power out there. I don’t know if it’s sentient. It’s certainly not benevolent. It’s sure as hell not a white man with a big white beard wearing a white robe. It doesn’t choose random groups of people as its “chosen” and burn everyone else. It doesn’t send the creations it “loves” to eternal torment because they happened to be raised Buddhist or Hindu or Baha’i.
I don’t know if there is a God or not. But, if there is, that God is a part of the universe, by virtue of its existing. It doesn’t exist outside of the universe. [/quote]
That’s fine. I can respect pretty much anyone’s beliefs. I believe that most of what science tells us is correct to the best of their knowledge. Obviously, we know more things now than we did 1000 years ago. Some people really act though like you should believe everything science tells you until proven wrong.
When I was a non believer I believed something like the universe itself was God. There were powers in the universe that could be tapped if we had the proper knowledge. I don’t slam anyone over what they believe because they could easily do the same to me. [/quote]
What converted you?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. I didn’t realize you asked me a direct question. Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?[/quote]
To whom is that question directed?[/quote]
I think it is an open question for discussion. BBreire is the OP and Since he started the thread and we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on. This thread is really good, and very civilized. We had a few run ins, but it continues on to new topics.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I’ve made this point several times in the past myself. To some extent, even the scientific minded still have to rely on faith. How do you know evolution is real? Have you ever examined the fossil records yourself? Do you have any knowledge on DNA structures, biology, bio-chemistry, geology, etc.?
If not, then you really have to go on faith of what scientists have said. Same can be said of the universe. We know, obviously, that it exists, that the sun is the center of the solar system, that the moon revolves around Earth. How do we know other things? Scientists have told us based on their calculations, but the calculations have been wrong before.
Ptolemy, who calculated the Earth to be round, thought it was also the center of the solar system. He created an entire branch of mathematics to explain the irregular revolutions of the planets around Earth. The Sumerians, who with the only the aide of simple mathematics calculated the Great Year, thought the Earth was bowl shaped.
When I was a kid we were taught that Cro-magnon man evolved from Neanderthal. Now we are taught differently. So it definitely takes a little faith in what science teaches unless you have personally examined the evidence.
[/quote]
You’re actually making my argument for me.
I have no problem with faith based on the best avaliable information/hypothesis. Pick up any text book from 60 years ago and you’ll find a wealth of misinformation – thats the nature of learning and knowledge, we take our best guess, test it out, keep what works, change what doesn’t.
The theory of evolution is far more sound than the theory of spontaneous generation. The theory isn’t perfect, of course. It will be challenged and changed and modified as we learn more.
The problem I have is the fact that Christians are like people with one of those textbooks screaming that it’s right and that it has to be right and everyone who doesn’t agree with it will be punished, despite the fact that all evidence we have now contradicts much of what is in it.[/quote]
Well, my only point was that for those who say they only believe in science, there are very few who could actually explain why they believe what is in a science book. Take a person that believes in the Red Shift. Have they worked out the mathematics to prove it? Have they ever checked scientists work to prove it?
Doubtfully, yet they will say a Christian is accepting things on blind faith. Well, if that Christian is going on what somebody told them was in the Bible then, yes. However, if they actually read and studied what is in the Bible then that is different. The bottom line is whether you put your stock in pure religion or pure science there is a degree of faith in either.[/quote]
There is also the option to put full stock in neither. I don’t believe the bible, nor do I believe we have a perfect understanding of our universe. I believe most if not all of what we “know” will eventually be disproven. But, in the case of science, its honestly the best we can do with what we have.
In the case of the bible, you have people screaming and threatening when you refuse to ignore all that has been disproven (just read back to when Push TOLD me I’d be standing in front of his God one day… sure sounds like the threat of eternal punishment to me).
Is there a higher power? Are there things we don’t and can’t understand? Sure, I believe that. There are spectrums of light and sound we cant see or hear, but we know they exist. So the issue for me isn’t so much IF stuff is out there, but the fact that one particular interpretation of the metaphysical which makes no sense and has a holy book full of impossible history is so prevalent.
There probably is a higher power out there. I don’t know if it’s sentient. It’s certainly not benevolent. It’s sure as hell not a white man with a big white beard wearing a white robe. It doesn’t choose random groups of people as its “chosen” and burn everyone else. It doesn’t send the creations it “loves” to eternal torment because they happened to be raised Buddhist or Hindu or Baha’i.
I don’t know if there is a God or not. But, if there is, that God is a part of the universe, by virtue of its existing. It doesn’t exist outside of the universe. [/quote]
That’s fine. I can respect pretty much anyone’s beliefs. I believe that most of what science tells us is correct to the best of their knowledge. Obviously, we know more things now than we did 1000 years ago. Some people really act though like you should believe everything science tells you until proven wrong.
When I was a non believer I believed something like the universe itself was God. There were powers in the universe that could be tapped if we had the proper knowledge. I don’t slam anyone over what they believe because they could easily do the same to me. [/quote]
What converted you?[/quote]
I would like to hear this also.