Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Scofflaw
And its predecessor (Lake Lissan), whose sediments underlie the current lake, was only half as salty as the Dead Sea. It was preceded by a freshwater lake called Lake Gomorrah, whose sediments, in turn, are under those from Lake Lissan. Under that are the sediments from the cut-off piece of Mediterranean that originally formed Lake Gomorrah - sediments which overly the marine sediments of the Mediterranean
……could I gently remind you that ‘Gomorrah’ was a CITY in the Middle East…..and NOT a LAKE!!!!!:eek:
…..and HOW did your supposed ‘Lake Gomorrah’ become a FRESHWATER lake after supposedly forming from a cut-off section of the Mediterranean SEA????
Scofflaw
So I'm sorry to say you're simply talking rubbish - your story is a complete fiction based on almost total ignorance, extrapolated entirely from the mere existence of a salty lake.
Touché, Scofflaw……….:D
Scofflaw
Nevertheless, I admire, in certain extremely limited ways, your willingness to concoct such fantasies, and your ability to scatter them with terms like 'endorheic' - although admittedly the term is more normally found on the websites of soap makers and psoriasis remedy peddlers...
Endorheic Lake Basins are well defined phenomena in Geology…… Creation Scientists are very familiar with these geological features………..and I am surprised that you have had to resort to Soap Manufacturers to provide YOU with this information!!!!:eek:
……here is some more information on Endorheic Basins for your perusal and edification…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic
Moosejam
If he (God) didn't make the sun until the fourth day, what exactly were day's one two and three, can't really have a day without the sun. You say life was started with plants on the third day, before the sun ? plant life doesn't take too well to absolute freezing, water would also be frozen so you wouldn't be doing much dividing of it
For a DAY to exist the Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a discrete source of light (confirmed by Gen 1:3 as provided by God Himself for the first three Days of Creation).
From the Fourth Day of Creation onwards the Sun did mark times and seasons including DAYS on Earth!!!
God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – even BEFORE the Sun was created – a good example of God’s DIVINE MAJESTY in action.
It is also a statement by God that HE is more important than any astronomical object, including the Sun.
The ability and willingness of God to provide physical light (and heat) is also confirmed in the prophecy of Rev 22:5 about the future New Heaven and New Earth where “there will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.”
Daithifleming
How do you account for the fact that the universe is expanding?
The Universe is infinite………so any apparent (local) expansion is ephemeral and illusory!!!:D
Bonkey
As with almost everything else at this stage, its a question which JC has already manufactured a response for on this thread.
This could be called ‘vine fruit …..with a low pH’…….
…..AKA ‘Sour Grapes’!!!:D
Zod
Apparently Gannets and Pelicans and other high diving sea birds do NOT have nostrils.
Why were they saved JC, why ?
As I keep having to tell you, the Bible ISN’T a scientific textbook……it was written to convey the truth of what happened during the Flood to a (scientifically) lay audience.
A PLAIN reading of the reference in Gen 7:22 to “nostrils” (in which was the breath of life) would indicate that it was a figurative description of the typical representatives of Avian, Mammalian and Reptilian fauna……….and the fact that ALL birds (including Gannets and Pelicans) were saved on the Ark is confirmed by the repeated assertions that representative pairs of all bird KINDS were saved on the Ark ......and that ALL birds outside of the Ark died.:cool:
Galvasean
NOTHING is beyond doubt. I believe in evolution, however if some very good evidence (it would need to be a lot better than what has been posted here) contradicted the theory I'd be inclined to change my mind.
ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.
Evolution is a “unique and very strange beast” indeed. On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “Religious World View” for these people. On another level it is awarded the (undeserved) status of a Scientific Theory.
The people who hold it as a “World View” are entitled to do so if they so wish – I don’t believe in it – but I also don’t believe in several other faiths/philosophies either!!
Awarding it the status of a Scientific Theory is another matter entirely. All proper Scientific Theories are tentative – a single repeatable observation or experiment may invalidate them at any time – and that is how it should be.
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY therefore:-
1. Must be PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about. Evolution is very loosely defined with almost as many definitions as there are evolutionists!!!
2. Must lend itself to repeated testing by observation and/or experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to observation and/or experimentation. A Scientific Theory cannot be validated in the first place without being repeatedly tested – and because core aspects of Evolution cannot be tested by observation or experimentation, it has therefore never been a valid Scientific Theory.
3. Must be declared invalid or amended if ANY repeatable observation and/or experimentation detects any phenomenon, which is not in accord with the theory. A new hypothesis may then be proposed – but if no adequate hypothesis is available to “fill the gap” the theory must fall anyway. This is actually implemented with every other Scientific Theory – and should also apply to Evolution as well.
The evidence against Evolution is overwhelming – but there is no precisely defined scientific theory to disprove – and so it remains unassailable in it’s very own scientific “Twilight Zone” !!.
While Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest – it doesn’t explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Evolution “from GOO to YOU via the ZOO” requires a massive INCREASE in genetic information – and Information Theory shows that new information INVARIABLY originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.
The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction, their degeneration by mutation or their isolation/recombination through natural selection/speciation. The real challenge is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this purposeful genetic information arose in the first place.
Evolution is AT BEST a working scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different (often contradictory) working hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word ‘Theory’ in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation.
Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and it is subject to continuous (often contradictory) revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation – and so they can only be believed in through FAITH.
3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Equilibrium” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis. Equally, there is no objective evidence for scientific validity of “Punctuated Equilibrium” itself either – and indeed many leading Evolutionists now also reject this concept as well.
The Theory of Natural Selection IS a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t PRODUCE variation – and it tends to produce stability / mediocrity rather than novel / improved types of creatures. For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in environmentally-stable wild populations of animals - and that is why ‘improved’ populations of domesticated animals or plants rapidly become feral if returned to the wild.
The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population and in extremis a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any further environmental changes due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial selection process.
The basic sexual reproduction processes of meiosis and fertilization are observed to be precise ordered phenomena – as one would expect from systems handling enormous quantities of tightly specified critical information at ‘microdot’ levels of resolution.
When these precision processes actually DO get messed up (by critical mutations, for example) severe deformities or embryonic death normally results.
Sexual reproduction does allow RECOMBINATION of genetic material – but such recombination is observed to be tightly constrained within very defined limits – you may get a black-haired cat or a white-haired cat – but it is ALWAYS a cat.
These constraints also cause the so-called ‘genetic selection wall’ that animal and plant breeders rapidly come up against when intensively selecting for single traits. This ‘selection wall’ ALSO constrains how much change Natural Selection can ultimately achieve within any particular ‘kind’.
Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Artificial Selection – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
The Evolution Hypothesis is actually defunct, because it lacks any plausible mechanism for creating the genetic diversity that it claims to supposedly produce. The only ‘genetic modification’ mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in useful, ordered genetic information evident at all points on the spectrum between “primordial chemicals and man”.
The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST by Natural Selection. Irreducible complexity also means that it is logically impossible to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.
Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability. The belief that an “intermediate eye” would have partial sight or indeed partial light sensing ability is not founded on reality. Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron. This is where Punctuated Evolution tries to come in - but also fails the tests for a valid Scientific Theory. If one component is missing or any component is incapable of functionality that individual will be totally blind – and NOT partially sighted.
Molecular Biology also confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence. Even if it could blindly 'search around' in it’s immediate Amino Acid ‘combinatorial space’ it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequences for useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes cannot follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next biologically useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally USELESS, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypeptide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select.
It is analogous to a useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides, trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is literally like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack’ the size of the Earth while blindfolded.
It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' open a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and would never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e. biologically useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help, when faced with quadrillions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.
Because Evolution does not have any observable evidence for it’s existence it is scientifically invalid. Evidence for Natural Selection is often introduced in support of Evolution – and indeed both terms are often (incorrectly) interchangeably used by Evolutionists.
The two concepts ARE actually completely separate phenomena and should not be interchangeably deployed. Evolution is a decidedly ‘uphill’ postulate while Natural Selection is a ‘downhill or ‘sideways’ process.
Evolution attempts (but fails) to explain how primordial chemicals evolved into advanced life forms such as Man. It has NO repeatably observable evidence for the sketchy mechanisms it advances to explain how this supposedly occurred – and so it is stuck at the speculation stage in the scientific process.
The ‘big need’ of Evolution is for mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.
Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
For example:-
There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.
There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. Even using evolutionary timescales, there is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to randomly produce the SEQUENCE for a SIMPLE protein.
What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.
To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.
What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!
There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in living systems:-
The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 20 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.
The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.
The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.
Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.
Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.
There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. using pre-existing genetic diversity WITHIN Kinds). The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.
The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.:eek: 0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
And its predecessor (Lake Lissan), whose sediments underlie the current lake, was only half as salty as the Dead Sea. It was preceded by a freshwater lake called Lake Gomorrah, whose sediments, in turn, are under those from Lake Lissan. Under that are the sediments from the cut-off piece of Mediterranean that originally formed Lake Gomorrah - sediments which overly the marine sediments of the Mediterranean
……could I gently remind you that ‘Gomorrah’ was a CITY in the Middle East…..and NOT a LAKE!!!!!:eek:
Not only do I not mind you 'gently reminding' me of such things, I would even encourage you to do so, because it makes me laugh.J C wrote:…..and HOW did your supposed ‘Lake Gomorrah’ become a FRESHWATER lake after supposedly forming from a cut-off section of the Mediterranean SEA????
The salt precipitates out, and freshwater flows in from rivers. The process requires what is commonly called "lots of time". Mount Sedom, by the Dead Sea, is a salt diapir. It's a salt wall more than 2000 m thick formed by the squeezing upwards of the Lake Gomorrah salt deposits as a result of the weight of sediment from later lakes.J C wrote:Scofflaw
So I'm sorry to say you're simply talking rubbish - your story is a complete fiction based on almost total ignorance, extrapolated entirely from the mere existence of a salty lake.
Touché, Scofflaw……….:D
Like others, I am interested in whether you actually know what that expression means.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Nevertheless, I admire, in certain extremely limited ways, your willingness to concoct such fantasies, and your ability to scatter them with terms like 'endorheic' - although admittedly the term is more normally found on the websites of soap makers and psoriasis remedy peddlers...
Endorheic Lake Basins are well defined phenomena in Geology…… Creation Scientists are very familiar with these geological features………..and I am surprised that you have had to resort to Soap Manufacturers to provide YOU with this information!!!!:eek:
……here is some more information on Endorheic Basins for your perusal and edification…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic
It's not a term commonly used by geologists, though, you see, however common the basins - the normal geological term is "ensialic". You've shown no disposition to use 'endorheic' in the past, so I was idly interested in where you got it from. As a description of the Dead Sea, it's normally found in advertising blurbs...try, for example, "The Dead Sea is an endorheic lake of saline water " in Google.
I think I'll leave the rest of your post for those who haven't been over it before.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Not only do I not mind you 'gently reminding' me of such things, I would even encourage you to do so, because it makes me laugh.
We all can do with a laugh .....now and again!!!Scofflaw wrote:The salt precipitates out, and freshwater flows in from rivers. The process requires what is commonly called "lots of time". Mount Sedom, by the Dead Sea, is a salt diapir. It's a salt wall more than 2000 m thick formed by the squeezing upwards of the Lake Gomorrah salt deposits as a result of the weight of sediment from later lakes.
Thermal inversions, such as the one that began as recently as 1975 causes the water strata to MIX.
The upper water layer of the Dead Sea became actually saltier than the lower layer during the 1960's. The upper layer nevertheless remained suspended above the lower layer because its waters were warmer and thus less dense. When the upper layer finally cooled down so that its density was greater than the lower layer the waters of the Dead Sea mixed during the 1970's.0 -
-
Scofflaw wrote:It's not a term commonly used by geologists, though, you see, however common the basins - the normal geological term is "ensialic". You've shown no disposition to use 'endorheic' in the past, so I was idly interested in where you got it from. As a description of the Dead Sea, it's normally found in advertising blurbs...try, for example, "The Dead Sea is an endorheic lake of saline water " in Google.
Ensialic spreading-subsidence is thought to account for the FORMATION of SOME endorheic lake basins (for example, in rift valleys).........but the primary descriptor of all isolated lake basins without an over-ground outflow is 'Endorheic'f (from the Greek endo 'inside' and rhein 'to flow'!!!!:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:Ensialic spreading-subsidence is thought to account for the FORMATION of SOME endorheic lake basins (for example, in rift valleys).........but the primary descriptor of all isolated lake basins without an over-ground outflow is 'Endorheic'!!!!:D
JC, are you arguing with me about normal usage of terms in geology? Is it really that necessary for you to think you're right about absolutely everything?
The normal scientific (geological) terminology for such lakes is "ensialic basins". The term 'ensialic' is used rather than 'endorheic' because the latter only indicates a basin that is characterised by no outflow, which could include a back-arc basin or even an ocean, whereas ensialic specifically indicates a basin found on continental crust ('sialic' crust, from Si (silicon) and Al (aluminium), the two dominant elements).
'Endorheic' is certainly used in botany and zoology, because neither of those disciplines particularly care about the nature of the rock. However, we are discussing geology here, and the nature of rock is rather important to geologists.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
…..not absolutely everything......just most things......including Endorheic Basins.......and Wickipedia also agrees with me!!!:DScofflaw wrote:JC, are you arguing with me about normal usage of terms in geology? Is it really that necessary for you to think you're right about absolutely everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EndorheicScofflaw wrote:The normal scientific (geological) terminology for such lakes is "ensialic basins". The term 'ensialic' is used rather than 'endorheic' because the latter only indicates a basin that is characterised by no outflow, which could include a back-arc basin or even an ocean, whereas ensialic specifically indicates a basin found on continental crust ('sialic' crust, from Si (silicon) and Al (aluminium), the two dominant elements).
Ensialic spreading-subsidence is thought to account for the FORMATION of SOME endorheic lake basins, for example, in Rift Valleys where Continental Crusts MEET!!:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:…..not absolutely everything......just most things......including Endorheic Basins.......and Wickipedia also agrees with me!!!:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic
Ensialic spreading-subsidence is thought to account for the FORMATION of SOME endorheic lake basins, for example, in Rift Valleys where Continental Crusts MEET!!:D
Demonstrating your ignorance is one thing, and showing it off another. I'm aware that Wikipedia has an entry on "endorheic", which to me would seem to prove nothing about whether that term is a common geological one. Is there a reason you're on this particular hiding to nothing?
Do a search on "endorheic" at Google, and what comes back is geography, botany, hydrology. Try "ensialic", and you get geology articles back. I have no idea, of course, how the term is normally used in "Creation Science".
interested, if slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement