The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

kiffer said:

The Book of Genesis is not literally true, at the very very least the time scale is wrong, regardless of whether or not God did it.
Some people are over invested in Genesis... so anything that disproves Genesis must be wrong, no mater what.
To them no mater what evidence is presented the world must be ~6Ka old...

Any thing that says otherwise can be seen as an attack on their whole religion.

As Soul Winner pointed out, a theological argument can be made for an Earth much older than the creation week of Genesis 1. Some have tried to put a prior biosphere in there, giving an explanation of the fossils.

Most creationists discount the whole thing. Here's my brief case against:
1. It is not required by the Hebrew text.
2. It is theologically problematic in requiring a prior biosphere that perished, to be followed by ours that also falls into sin and death.
3. It creates the need of strange arrangements for the prior world: the present Sun, Moon and stars were definitely created in the creation week, so a previous biosphere would have existed without them, or they had to vanish leaving only the earth as a record of the prior universe.

So I agree - as a creationist I have to reject either Genesis and its supporting scientific theories, or reject the competing scientific theories.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

as a creationist I have to reject either Genesis and its supporting scientific theories, or reject the competing scientific theories.

Well, you're free to say that genesis is a metaphor. I'd imagine you do that to other bits of the bible, so why not genesis too?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Talking of dishonest propaganda, you've reminded me about the last bit of Ken Ham's "statement of faith":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ham
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
That's really quite cool: Ken has (a) defined himself to be right and everybody else to be wrong if it suits him and (b) implied that a description of an event is more reliable guide to an event than the event itself.

Way to go Ken.

Nothing dishonest about that - he was laying out the religious parameters of the Answers In Genesis organisation. It is a self-confessed religious organisation - but one devoted to promoting a scientific explanation of our universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not a scientist. So I seek to point you to their works. I don't know how to tell an essay from a paper, so I'll keep linking until I find something that fits your criteria.
I'm fascinated at this point. You've been contributing to this thread for enough time to have finished a degree-level university course in evolutionary biology.

I've different priorities - evangelism of the lost and the edification of the saved. Others may be called to labour in the scientific field, I am not.

Genuine question here -- how on earth have you managed to learn nothing in all that time?

I have learnt much, some of about science, but a lot more about scientists and their liabilities.:D

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, you're free to say that genesis is a metaphor. I'd imagine you do that to other bits of the bible, so why not genesis too?

I'm not free so to do, for it presents as historical narrative. I may as well treat the gospel accounts of the life of Christ as metaphor.

One has to have a principle governing one's hermeneutic, rather than just changing the meaning to suit the desired outcome.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

'We don't know what could have possibily caused this, but we know it was not an Intelligent Designer'?

More accurate is We don't know how this arose but we certainly have no reason to say it was an Intelligent Designer, and it certainly doesn't look like it was

You guys cannot explain why if it was an Intelligent Designer that it doesn't look like it was, and in fact it looks like it the higgidly piggildy of evolution.

You introduce huge unfounded concepts like the Fall to explain this way, ignoring the more simple and obvious explanation, it wasn't an intelligent designer.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not free so to do, for it presents as historical narrative. I may as well treat the gospel accounts of the life of Christ as metaphor.

One has to have a principle governing one's hermeneutic, rather than just changing the meaning to suit the desired outcome.

So, why don't you just drop your religion?

I mean what do you have in support of your religion? A feeling you had one day that it was true?

You think that trumps hundreds of biological and geological models that have been shown to be accurate to a very high degree through millions of experiments. Maybe you were just having a stroke.

You that ego-centric? :pac:

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware of any religion whose founding members laid down their lives rather than deny a lie they made up. I do know many religions whose later members died rather than deny the doctrines they had handed to them and believed to be true.

Perhaps you are confusing these two catagories?

Islam?

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

"We" being a delusional minority? Just because DNA is so complex does not mean it was designed. You are using the " we dont understand it must be god" defence like i said.
The complexity of DNA actually greatly reduces the odds of it being designed because for something that complex to be intelligently designed it would need to have been designed by something even more complex, and that designer in turn would have to have been designed by something more and more complex and it would just go on and on and on, making the odds very slim indeed.

....it is INFORMATION and NOT order/complexity that is the ISSUE in relation to PROVING Intelligent Design ... please read Dr Stephen Meyer's quote again:-
"To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence "ABABABABAB ABAB" to the sequence "Time and tide wait for no man." The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.
Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages." DNA and Other Designs

J C

robindch wrote: »

ID states that "complexity" cannot arise from "simplicity", and therefore, that "complexity" needs a designer. ID avoids the question of how the designer arose, since the designer must possess similar "complexity" to be able to design the "complexity" you're trying to explain.

...a Designer of infinite knowledge and power COULD do so ... and NOTHING ELSE can actually produce life de novo!!!

robindch wrote: »

Hence invoking ID to explain something is useless.

Mickeroo's post may not have been the clearest, but nonetheless, he's basically correct.

....ID Proponents, in common with all other scientists, observe VAST QUANTITIES of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in all living organisms ... and they find that such vast quantiites of CSI cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed processes.

This is now an established scientific FACT!!!

....faced with this awkward FACT, some Materialists go into denial, and start to mutter about the supposed 'amazing powers' of 'crystals' or 'muck' to spontaneously generate genetic information without any intelligent input.
Other 'cooler heads' admit that an Intelligence WAS obviously involved in the production of Terrestrial life ... but they suggest that the 'Intelligence' that produced life on Earth had to be some kind advanced Alien Civilisation that 'seeded' life here...but the 'Alien Lifeform' was itself produced by Materialistic Darwinian Processes in the other galaxy!!!!

The problem with this hypothesis is that it only moves the ULTIMATE origin of life to another Galaxy .... and so the Materialist is 'dragged roaring and kicking' to ultimately face the reality that an Intelligence of inordinate power and complexity exists ... and He/It is the ONLY LOGICAL pro-genator of all life... WHEREVER life may be found in the Universe!!!!:D:D:eek:

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...a Designer of infinite knowledge and power COULD do so ... and NOTHING ELSE can actually produce life de novo!!!


....ID Proponents, in common with all other scientists, observe VAST QUANTITIES of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in all living organisms ... and they find that such vast quantiites of CSI cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed processes.

This is now an established scientific FACT!!!

....Materialists suggest that the Intelligence that produced life on Earth was some advanced Alien Civilisation that 'seeded' life here. The problem of with this hypothesis is that it only moves the ULTIMATE origin of life to another Galaxy .... and so the Materialist is 'dragged roaring and kicking' to ultimately face the reality that an Intelligence of inordinate power and complexity exists ... and He/It is the ONLY LOGICAL pro-genator of all life... WHEREVER it may be found in the Universe!!!!:D:D:eek:

Evolution is responsible fr the complexity of life.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

A more interesting question for me is how does someone who admits such ignorance of this subject still know we are all wrong?

I know you are wrong by Divine revelation - the Bible tells me you are wrong, and the Spirit confirms it.

I suspect you are wrong from listening to Christian scientists who produce scientific arguments in support of that conclusion.

I also have a common sense suspicion that finds naturalism no answer to our complex universe.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Islam?

I'm not aware that Muhammad - the one who claimed to have the visions - was martyred for his faith. I understood he died of natural causes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

His followers believed him, so also would not have died for something they knew to be a lie.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution is responsible fr the complexity of life.

...the BIG question is HOW Evolution could be responsible for the (vast quatities) of highly SPECIFIC INFORMATION in life???

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

So, why don't you just drop your religion?

I mean what do you have in support of your religion? A feeling you had one day that it was true?

You think that trumps hundreds of biological and geological models that have been shown to be accurate to a very high degree through millions of experiments. Maybe you were just having a stroke.

You that ego-centric? :pac:

Creationists share with non-creationists the vast number of scientific models. The ones they differ on would be a lot fewer than you suggest, as far as I know - but perhaps you can list them?

As to support of my religion:
Positively, I have had God's intervention on many occasions, as well as the daily operation of His Spirit in my heart.

Negatively, the alternative offered by yourself is logically nihilistic and contradicts all meaning for life. You are only able to hold to it by blocking out these facts and imposing meaning on your life. Why do you do such a ridiculous thing? The answer: anything is preferable to having to face up to the truth about God and yourself.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

More accurate is We don't know how this arose but we certainly have no reason to say it was an Intelligent Designer, and it certainly doesn't look like it was

You guys cannot explain why if it was an Intelligent Designer that it doesn't look like it was, and in fact it looks like it the higgidly piggildy of evolution.

You introduce huge unfounded concepts like the Fall to explain this way, ignoring the more simple and obvious explanation, it wasn't an intelligent designer.

Even allowing for the distortions caused by the Fall, life is still incredibly complex, and looks it. So complex only an Intelligent Designer could have caused it.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Please do. A few people have chimed in on what a scientific investigation involves. The key thing for you to bear in mind is that a scientific investigation will involve an experiment of test or some sort; an essay will be a story, full of speculation and assumption and no experiment will be performed.




I have no reason to doubt that radiohalos were found in the rocks in question. There is absolutely NO evidence that these are solely related to polonium decay and it is complete nonsense to assume the rocks in question were 'primordial.' Hence, it has nothing to do with creationism.



A curious effort in statistical navel-gazing that clearly shows that resampling existing (flawed) barmin data adds nothing to the interpretation except to show how subjective the original baramin research was! Thanks wolfsbane - you've just given a great example of how unscientific baraminology is!

Any other gems? Something that actually provides evidence of creation, perhaps? Or maybe something disproving evolution? Keep trying, sport!

A case against evolution is made here:
Protein families: chance or design?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf

And in this brief article some contra-indications to evolution are given:
Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

toiletduck

wolfsbane wrote: »

And in this brief article some contra-indications to evolution are given:
Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

This is something I've always found interesting. You slate evolution and link to these guys but creationists do adhere to a kind of evolution (Evolution of Kinds :pac: ) so what's your problem. I mean you accept you can happen (at a much higher rate than science says) but at the same time you argue against it...

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware that Muhammad - the one who claimed to have the visions - was martyred for his faith. I understood he died of natural causes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

His followers believed him, so also would not have died for something they knew to be a lie.

You can believe something to be true, which is also a lie. That is quite simple. Your point about early Christians being the only ones who suffered defending their faith, and this being proof that they were not lying is total nonsense. Given the amount of religions dreamed up by humanity over the past several thousand years, it is not difficult to imagine many of those dying in the cause of their beliefs, even if it weren't true. Religion, and pseudo-religion (communism, nationalism, etc) can make humans do very strange things indeed.

The Mad Hatter

toiletduck wrote: »

This is something I've always found interesting. You slate evolution and link to these guys but creationists do adhere to a kind of evolution (Evolution of Kinds :pac: ) so what's your problem. I mean you accept you can happen (at a much higher rate than science says) but at the same time you argue against it...

The argument seems to be that either life came about (somehow), and then gradually, millennium by millennium, changed into what we have now,

Or

That God made lots of living creatures, they stayed exactly as they were for a few thousand years, then it rained enough to drive everything to almost the point of extinction (oh, and did I mention that everything was a vegetarian at this stage? That's why nothing on the Ark got eaten), then it stopped raining and all the animals bred and evolved at an exceptionally high rate and spread all over the world, before slowing to the rate of evolution that we see today.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I would rather you found the answer, just as I did. But by all means keep looking. That's much better than pretending the spirit world does not exist.

Your belief in the 'Naturalism of the Gaps' is poignant.
It's called Occam's Razor.

I find God to be much simpler explanation for life and spiritual phenomena than naturalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That would mean non-creationist science has to explain how energy/matter came to be, or it's not science in your view.
They do have to explain that. They're working on it.

Really? What have they found? That energy came into existence or that it always existed? Even indications either way I would find most interesting. You have the links?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't have such exacting standards for science - it is enough that it has to explain what things are, how they work and what laws are involved.
Isn't that what we're doing?

We sure are. But you are saying we also must explain how things ultimately came into existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is the evolution model not science because it refuses to deal with abiogenesis?
You'd have an argument if we weren't doing active research into abiogenesis. But we are. There's a difference between drawing the lines between the remit of a given theory and placing limits on scientific enquiry. Evolution would be bad science if biologists were unwilling to ask where the first life came from, but they're asking that question.

Ah, so JC was right to raise abiogenesis as an objection to evolution! I'm glad light has dawned for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems so, if the creation model isn't because it doesn't deal with what happened before Day One of creation.
The creation model encompasses in its scope more or less the entirety of physics, chemistry and biology. It is not a simple analogue of Evolution, but an attempt to explain the universe. It is a parallel of science itself, except that it places a limit on how many questions may be asked. Beyond day one you have to stop asking and just say "God did it". That line is the reason it is not science.

I'll then admit the difference between science and creation science - if you show me the data science has about either the eternality of the universe or what was before energy came into existence. If there is no data, then all science is non-science by your definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Do all your colleagues share your view on this?
That science must constantly seek answers? I would hope so.

Without seeing your pre-existence data, sounds like 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?' is a valid scientific question in your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's a new one for me. I never understood science to deal with the spirit world. I know of psychic research/ghost-hunters and the like - but I thought that was psuedo-science, since in my experience the spirit world cannot be measured by material devices. But if you say so.
Of course this stuff has been studied. It's how we discovered ideometer motion (the principle behind things like the Ouija Board), the placebo effect and all of the psychological tricks that our brains like to play on us.

You are not dealing with the spirit world then, just man. I thought you meant you had some data on demons, angels, prescience, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Using your definitions, the spirit world can be scientifically probed. Specific answers to specific prayers. Imparted knowledge that is not gained by reasoning or material report. These are clear indicators of a spirit world.
If a spirit world exists and interacts with the world in a manner that is observable (ie at all) then yes, of course it may be examined scientifically.

Hmm. I thought you held any observable phenomena had to explained by natural causes, if it is to be science? That God or a spirit causing such phenomena is not to be part of the scientific explanation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The spirit world is observed - by living things. It cannot be observed by instruments.
A good thing scientists are alive so.

Indeed it is. But would their experiences not be classifed as 'anecdotal' in your system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all. Most of it is trickery, I'm sure. But I've lived long enough to know the reality of some of it - both good and evil. God did not forbid us to contact the spirits because they are not real - but because they are only too real, and malicious.
I'm sorry, but there's just no evidence of that. Just a lot of anecdotes.

Yes, see previous. No matter who or how many scientists reported contact with spirits, you could not accept it as scientific evidence. So how can science test the spirit world?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, he was quite open about his purpose - at least until is threatened box-office receipts:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...es_underm.html

All part of an excellent yarn. And an excellent yarn is just the vehicle with which to indoctrinate kids. As a story, I found the series lived up to the hype - utterly memorable, complex characters and plot. A really good read.
But again, I don't think Pullman considers his audience to be unable to detect metaphor, which is what I suspect his pantheism is- just a metaphor for the laws of physics.

Without the metaphor, it would be standard evolutionary hogwash, and the kids would have no explanation of the spirit world - a world they have some awareness of in their consciences. To undermine the Christian explanation, Pullman has to give a pantheistic alternative. Naturalism just doesn't hack it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One certainly needs self-examination to guard against self-deception. But it is not a big problem to the honest enquirer. We are discussing things on this board, in the knowledge that we are not imagining ourselves doing it.

To really test answered prayer, all we need is to be specific enough to rule out naturally occuring uncommon events.
But that needs to be systematically done. We need lots of people, we need different groups, randomisation, controls. Otherwise we cannot say that it works. I'm not expecting a 100% success rate here, but if prayers are really answered it stands to reason that it should be quantifiable.

Not at all. Just enough to make it beyond credible chance: one 'incredible' happening may be chance, even two or three - but specific answers to specific prayers over an extended period is a good indication that something beyond chance is operating.

For me, it did not require such a sequence of evidence before I believed. I believed having experienced one big answer - and my belief did not follow that for some time. Rather, I half-believed about God for some time before He answered my prayer, but did not commit myself to Him in full belief until maybe a year after He granted my request.

Since then I have experienced several big answers and many smaller ones.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You can believe something to be true, which is also a lie. That is quite simple. Your point about early Christians being the only ones who suffered defending their faith, and this being proof that they were not lying is total nonsense. Given the amount of religions dreamed up by humanity over the past several thousand years, it is not difficult to imagine many of those dying in the cause of their beliefs, even if it weren't true. Religion, and pseudo-religion (communism, nationalism, etc) can make humans do very strange things indeed.

You have misread my post then. The objection was raised that the apostles made up the story of Christ's resurrection and His commissioning of them to bring the gospel to mankind. It was Soul winner (?) who pointed out that they died rather than renounce the faith. I thought that a good reason to think they believed all they said about Christ. They knew the truth about it, so why would they die for it if they knew it to be false?

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

They knew the truth about it, so why would they die for it if they knew it to be false?

Well, I guess neither of us can know that for sure. But just as an exercise, can you think of any reasons why?

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, I guess neither of us can know that for sure. But just as an exercise, can you think of any reasons why?

Dying for what you know to be a lie? Hmm, suicidal? Can't think of anything else. How about you?

It would require an awfully big specific group of suicidalists. Much more likely that they believed what they said.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dying for what you know to be a lie? Hmm, suicidal? Can't think of anything else. How about you?

Delusion.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Delusion.

Quite a band to suffer from the same delusionary visions - and then another former leading opponent joins them claiming to have seen similar visions. He too endures years of suffering and imprisonment, and finally is beheaded.

Must have been smoking some strong stuff! Or you you think it was the result of a CIA Manchurian Candidate type operation?

2Scoops

*sigh*

wolfsbane wrote: »

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physicshttp://www.globalflood.org/biography.html

Essays and some C14 data that we’ve already established does not support creationism. Inactive for the last 6 years.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dr. Leonard R. Brand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_R._Brand

Inactive for 5 years. No research about creationism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dr. Danny Faulkner, Professor of Astronomy/Physics, USC Lancaster http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/

Inactive for 5 years. No research about creationism.

If it's not too much trouble, I would prefer if you linked to perceived examples of creation science rather than pointing out an individual where I have to check their entire back catalog. A single example of creation science please - shouldn't be too difficult, if any exists.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists share with non-creationists the vast number of scientific models. The ones they differ on would be a lot fewer than you suggest, as far as I know - but perhaps you can list them?

You don't have any models of your Intelligent Designer, nor models of what he is supposed to have done.

You have been asked for them over and over throughout this thread and none have been presented.

And if memory serves me you have openly stated you don't have any models of this nor do you want any. You and JC have argued that you don't need models because that isn't what "science" is about, which is a bit like arguing Christianity doesn't need Jesus because Jesus is not what Christianity is about.

Name on prediction of your intelligent designer model that we can test to determine if it is accurate or not

wolfsbane wrote: »

Positively, I have had God's intervention on many occasions, as well as the daily operation of His Spirit in my heart.

which doesn't mean anything. You could have had a series of hallucinations. you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Heck you could be completely nuts, how would any of us tell? How would you tell? Do you know the difference between this and having God's spirit in your heart?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Negatively, the alternative offered by yourself is logically nihilistic and contradicts all meaning for life.

Utterly irrelevant to whether it is true or not, though a very good motivation for you to reject it even if it is true.

You only have personal assessment to go on, and your personal assessment is fundamentally untrustworthy because you disgusted by what you see as nihilistic and meaningless version of reality.

You can argue if you like that I am just as biased as you and as such you don't want to trust my personal assessment either. And I would be all for that. You shouldn't trust my personal assessment but neither should you trust your own.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even allowing for the distortions caused by the Fall, life is still incredibly complex, and looks it. So complex only an Intelligent Designer could have caused it.

That is sort of the point. Life is overly complex. It is wasteful and inefficient. If a job can be done with single bone or a single muscle you can bet you will find life sticks half a dozen of them in there instead.

Why?

Because it had 6 bones doing something else, and evolved a new function for them. It had to keep the old components but modify them slightly to get new function.

The idea that an intelligence would do this is laughable. Look at your ear. There isn't an audio engineer in the world who would design the ear that way if they were starting from scratch. But it had to evolve that way because it wasn't starting from scratch, it was evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite a band to suffer from the same delusionary visions - and then another former leading opponent joins them claiming to have seen similar visions. He too endures years of suffering and imprisonment, and finally is beheaded.

Must have been smoking some strong stuff! Or you you think it was the result of a CIA Manchurian Candidate type operation?

As I said, people behave strangely when promised an eternal life. Whether through nationalist martyrdom or a metaphysical eternal bliss.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that an intelligence would do this is laughable. Look at your ear. There isn't an audio engineer in the world who would design the ear that way if they were starting from scratch. But it had to evolve that way because it wasn't starting from scratch, it was evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function.

...the ear ... and the auditory areas of the brain are marvels of design ... that only an Infinite Intelligence could design ... and PRODUCE!!!!

.... never heard of an audio engineer being able to produce an ear or a brain ... have you?!!!!:D

...have a look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/hearing-ear

..and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPiXlJ3eIwo