The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly the term creation scientists is an oxymoron. Secondly if you really think it's science you should be encouraging its teaching in schools. And finally I think professor Behe would disagree with the above statement.

Firstly it is Spontanous Evolution that is the real oxymoron ... with the 'oxy' prefix actually being superfluous!!!

Secondly, we Creation Scientists don't wish to force our opinions on children below the age of majority and we DO accept that parents have certain Constitutionally protected rights in regard to the education of their children as well!!!

Finally, what Prof. Behe and his Theistic Evolutionists / ID Proponents do is their own business... and it has nothing to do with Creation Scientists!!!:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by spontaneous evolution. If you mean abiogenesis, that's not evolution and you should not confuse the two. If you mean random genetic mutations in DNA that result in physical changes in the life form, that's been proven to the same extent as gravity.

The fact that mutations degrade genetic information has certainly been proven to an extent that is similar to Gravity!!!:)

...and I have yet to meet an Evolutionist who would volunteer to be exposed to a mutagenic agent... despite their loud proclamations of the supposed amazing powers of mutagenesis!!!!:eek::eek::D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The whole point of the experiment was that it reproduced the conditions of the time. They had to coax the experiment along because if they were to wait for it to happen on its own it could take a billion years but what it proved was that it could have happened. Just because they had to artificially reproduce the circumstances does not mean those circumstances could never have arisen on their own. They just didn't have a billion years to wait

What you're suggesting is like saying that if someone pushes a load of sand together and creates a sand dune and that this sand dune was created using intelligent design, that it's impossible to create any sand dunes without intelligence.

...your reference to 'coaxing along' is a clear euphamism for the deployment of large amounts of intelligence and intelligent design in an experiment that was supposed to prove that 'spontaneity did it'!!!

...what I'm actually suggesting is that if somebody mixes sand together with cement and manufactures and assembles a vast number of other components to build a new block of flats that this CONNOT be done using undirected random processes.
...ditto with living systems as well!!!:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now you see this is a common misconception among christians. Statistically impossible is a much misused term. Say something has a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quintillion) chance of happening, extremely unlikely I'm sure you'll agree, you might say statistically impossible. But now imagine (some rough figures here) a universe that contains 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) planets, which is probably drastically underestimated btw, and they all have chemicals swirling around and that these planets have existed for 14,000,000,000 (14 billion) years. Now imagine that the chemicals come close to being in the right order 10 times a year somewhere on each planet. That means that since the beginning of the universe life has had 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (140 sextillion) chances to come into existence. Suddenly 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 doesn't seem that unlikely anymore

...I have found that the 'common misconceptions' are ALL found amongst Evolutionists when it comes to the mathematics of life ... and they tend to get hopelessly confused by their own meaningless big numbers!!!

Firstly the odds of producing the sequence for one specific protein of 100 Amino Acids in length choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain isn't a quintillion. .. it is the vastly greater figure of 10^130 or the number 10 with 130 zeros after it.

Secondly, the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) stars and there are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Known Universe ... and the number of electrons in all of this matter is 10^82 i.e. 10 with 82 zeros after it.

It therefore can be seen that the odds AGAINST producing a SPECIFIC protein sequence, even if every electron in the known universe were each to produce a sequence would be 10^48 to one.

The number of nano-seconds in 14 billion years is 10^26 ... so if every electron in the known universe were to produce a new 100 Amiono Acid sequence every nano-second for 14 billion years the odds of getting one specific protein sequence from all of that matter and time would be 10^22 to one against it happening.

....that is what I would call IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Your statement that we should "imagine that the chemicals come close to being in the right order 10 times a year somewhere on each planet" is hopelessly naive wishful thinking ...
Firstly, your figure of "coming close to being in the right order 10 times per year" is a number that is just 'plucked out of the air" with no basis in reality.
Secondly, "coming close to being in the right order" is meaningless as functionality is usually zero until the EXACT sequence is reached!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course if those scientists who made RNA were going to allow it to happen on its own it could take another 14 billion years but that does not mean that it's impossible to do without intelligence guiding it. In a universe that is so vast and that has existed for so long, anything that is physically possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem, actually becomes almost inevitable

...the 'vast universe' argument may seem to be superficially plausible ... to the 'mathematically challenged'!!!!:D

.....but when you do the ACTUAL mathemetics and you find that the odds against getting the sequence for just one small specific protein would defeat all of the electrons in the known universe working for an effective eternity of time ... it proves that even in a vast universe, the Spontaneous Evolution of life via undirected processes is an impossibility!!!:eek::D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Evolution accounts for the manipulation of pre-existing information ... it doesn't account for the ultimate origin of the information!!!:pac::):D

Evolution does account for the increase in molecular information. You claim it doesn't because you are using a definition of information that is wrong.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Firstly it is Spontanous Evolution that is the real oxymoron ... with the 'oxy' prefix actually being superfluous!!!

Secondly, we Creation Scientists don't force our opinions on children below the age of majority and we DO accept that parents have certain Constitutionally protected rights in this regard as well!!!

Finally, what Prof. Behe and his Theistic Evolutionists / ID Proponents believe is their own business... and nothing to do with Creation Scientists!!!:D


The fact that mutations degrade genetic information has certainly been proven to an extent similar to Gravity!!!:)

...and I have yet to meet an Evolutionist who would volunteer to be exposed to a mutagenic agent... despite their loud proclamations of the supposed amazing powers of mutagenesis!!!!:eek::eek::D


...your reference to 'coaxing along' is a clear euphamism for the deployment of large amounts of intelligence and intelligent design in an experiment that was supposed to prove that 'spontaneity did it'!!!
...an oxymoron if ever I saw one!!!!

...what I'm actually suggesting is that if somebody mixes sand together with cement and manufactures and assembles a vast number of components to build a new block of flats that this CONNOT be done using undirected random processes.

...I have found that the common misconceptions are ALL found amongst Evolutionists when it comes to the mathematics of life ... and they tend to get hopelessly confused by their own meaningless big numbers!!!

Firstly the odds of producing the sequence for one specific protein of 100 Amino Acids in length choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain isn't a quintillion. .. it is 10^132 or the figure 10 with 130 zeros after it.

Secondly, the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) stars and there are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Known Universe ... and the number of electrons in all of this matter is 10^82 i.e. 10 with 82 zeros after it.

It therefore can be seen that the odds AGAINST producing a SPECIFIC protein sequence, even if every electron in the known universe were each to produce a sequence would be 10^50 to one.

The number of nano-seconds in 14 billion years is 10^26 ... so if every electron in the known universe were to produce a new 100 Amiono Acid sequence every nano-second for 14 billion years the odds against getting one specific protein sequence would be 10^24.

....that is what I would call IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

....your statement that we should "imagine that the chemicals come close to being in the right order 10 times a year somewhere on each planet" is hopelessly naive ... coming close is meaningless as functionality is usually zero until the EXACT sequence is reached!!!

...this may seem to be superficially plausible ... to the 'mathematically challenged'!!!!:D

.....but when you do the ACTUAL mathemetics and you find that the odds against getting the sequence for just one specific protein would defeat all of the electrons in the known universe working for an effective eternity of time ... it proves that even in a vast universe, the Spontaneous Evolution of life via undirected processes is an impossibility!!!:eek::D

You have made two arguments here. You have argued that proteins, in their current form, could not have happened by chance, which is irrelevant. You have also argued that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins, but have not supported your argument with evidence. This is no good to anyone.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution does account for the increase in molecular information. You claim it doesn't because you are using a definition of information that is wrong.

I too was in denial for a very long time!!!!:pac::):D

Genetic information is just like all other information ... it is the instructions required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function whereby even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

So prove me wrong by giving me (and the others here) an alternative explanation. Remember how it goes - he is executed, then this happens:

He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong.

I think most impartial observers will agree it must mean a resurrection - even if they dismiss it all as mythology. They and I await your insight.

The idea of resurrection hadn't even occurred to me until I got that far in your post, tbh. I would have thought 'prolong His days' would have meant 'make him very old' - a serious advantage and rare trait in those days.

No, I think that's just an example of confirmation bias on your part, I'm afraid.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You have made two arguments here. You have argued that proteins, in their current form, could not have happened by chance, which is irrelevant. You have also argued that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins, but have not supported your argument with evidence. This is no good to anyone.

...my statistics prove that it couldn't happen ... neither in one go ... nor via a large number of small steps ... IF undirected processes were used.

...because multiplication is distributive, the total odds remain the same, for multiple small steps or one large step, once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!:pac::):D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Genetic information is just like all other information ... it is the instructions required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!

Information carried by our DNA can be quantified using molecular information theory. Evolution can account for the development of such information, and can be applied to molecular information research (Here is an example).

Your "functional specific" concept of information cannot be quantified in the context of biology and natural history, and your arguments against evolution based on it are therefore incorrect.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...my statistics prove that it couldn't happen in one go ... or via a large number of small steps IF undirected processes were used.

...the total odds remain the same once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!:pac::):D

It is incredibly silly to claim that your statistics show that evolution cannot account for complexity when you have neither presented your statistics nor any relevant analysis of such statistics.

Please show me the statistics supporting your claim that evolution cannot account for protein complexity.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

It is incredibly silly to claim that your statistics show that evolution cannot account for complexity when you have neither presented your statistics nor any relevant analysis of such statistics.

Please show me the statistics supporting your claim that evolution cannot account for protein complexity.

... there is nothing silly about my figures...
....I have just shown YOU how undirected processes cannot account for protein functionality in posting #16262 above ... but here it is AGAIN:-

Firstly the odds of producing the sequence for one specific protein of 100 Amino Acids in length choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain isn't a quintillion. .. it is the vastly greater figure of 10^130 or the number 10 with 130 zeros after it.

Secondly, the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) stars and there are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Known Universe ... and the number of electrons in all of this matter is 10^82 i.e. 10 with 82 zeros after it.

It therefore can be seen that the odds AGAINST producing a SPECIFIC protein sequence, even if every electron in the known universe were each to produce a sequence would be 10^48 to one.

The number of nano-seconds in 14 billion years is 10^26 ... so if every electron in the known universe were to produce a new 100 Amiono Acid sequence every nano-second for 14 billion years the odds of getting one specific protein sequence from all of that matter and time would be 10^22 to one against it happening.

....that is what I would call IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I have just done it in posting#16262 above ... but here is it AGAIN:-

Firstly, the odds of producing the sequence for one specific protein of 100 Amino Acids in length choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain isn't a quintillion. .. it is vastly greater figure 10^130 or the number 10 with 130 zeros after it.

Secondly, the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) stars and there are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Known Universe ... and the number of electrons in all of this matter is 10^82 i.e. 10 with 82 zeros after it.

It therefore can be seen that the odds AGAINST producing a SPECIFIC protein sequence, even if every electron in the known universe were each to produce a sequence would be 10^48 to one.

The number of nano-seconds in 14 billion years is 10^26 ... so if every electron in the known universe were to produce a new 100 Amiono Acid sequence every nano-second for 14 billion years the odds against getting one specific protein sequence amogst all of that matter and time would be 10^22 to one.

....that is what I would call IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

You said your statistics show that evolution cannot account for protein complexity. I asked you for such statistics, and you have given me a heuristic argument against a protein forming by chance, which is irrelevant.

I am noticing a trend of irrelevance in your posts, which suggests that you are unaware of the issues you are arguing about.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You said your statistics show that evolution cannot account for protein complexity. I asked you for such statistics, and you have given me a heuristic argument against a protein forming by chance, which is irrelevant.

I am noticing a trend of irrelevance in your posts, which suggests that you are unaware of the issues you are arguing about.

I have given you ALL of the (independently verifiable) statistics which you need to work out that the spontaneous production of the sequence for a specific protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY...and I have even done the maths for you...

...I can only conclude from your postings that you are in denial when faced with this incontrovertable EVIDENCE!!!:pac::):D

...I understand your denial...I too was in denial that evolution was impossible ... for many years !!!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

... there is nothing silly about my figures...
....I have just shown how undirected processes cannot account for protein functionality in posting #16262 above ... but here it is AGAIN:-

Firstly the odds of producing the sequence for one specific protein of 100 Amino Acids in length choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain isn't a quintillion. .. it is the vastly greater figure of 10^130 or the number 10 with 130 zeros after it.

Secondly, the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) stars and there are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Known Universe ... and the number of electrons in all of this matter is 10^82 i.e. 10 with 82 zeros after it.

It therefore can be seen that the odds AGAINST producing a SPECIFIC protein sequence, even if every electron in the known universe were each to produce a sequence would be 10^48 to one.

The number of nano-seconds in 14 billion years is 10^26 ... so if every electron in the known universe were to produce a new 100 Amiono Acid sequence every nano-second for 14 billion years the odds of getting one specific protein sequence from all of that matter and time would be 10^22 to one against it happening.

....that is what I would call IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Aside from the straw man argument that anyone apart from creationists have ever even suggested that long protein sequences just popped into existance magically. There is another 'minor' flaw in your argument.

This would be would be the fact that amino acids occur naturally and in great abundance in nature and are therefore already ready to be used as discreet building blocks in protein formation. How does that affect the numbers? Or has whoever you copied and pasted that rubbish from not done the calculation?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Aside from the straw man argument that anyone apart from creationists have ever even suggested that long protein sequences just popped into existance magically. There is another 'minor' flaw in your argument.

...this is no straw man argument...

....I have ALREADY told you that my statistics proves that it couldn't happen ... neither in one go ... nor via a large number of small steps ... IF undirected processes were used.

...because multiplication is distributive, the total odds remain the same, for multiple small steps or one large step, once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!

marco_polo wrote: »

This would be would be the fact that amino acids occur naturally and in great abundance in nature and are therefore already ready to be used as discreet building blocks in protein formation. How does that affect the numbers? Or has whoever you copied and pasted that rubbish from not done the calculation?

...the fact that Amino Acids do not occur naturally and require very specialised biomolecular manufacturing 'machinery' is a FURTHER element that would make the production process of proteins impossible by undirected means... but I didn't even (need to) go there to prove my point!!!

I have cut and pasted nothing ... biochemistry (and mathematics) happen to be some of the areas that I am qualified in!!!!:D

marco_polo

Homework JC: Give the probability of the each of the twenty different amino acids that form the protein chain existing is 1, what are the new odds on formation of a 100 amino acid length protein?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Homework JC: Give the probability of the each of the twenty different amino acids that form the protein chain existing is 1, what are the new odds on formation of a 100 amino acid length protein?

...I am ALREADY assuming that the Amino Acids exist for the purpose of my calculations... and, as I have already said, this is quite an assumption!!!!

..my calculations are based on assuming an abundant supply of every Amino Acid ... all I am calculating are the odds against the specific amino acid sequence being produced....which is a long way off from an actual Protein being actually produced

....please go talk to a mathematician ... and stop embarassing yourself!!!!:pac::):D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...please go talk to a mathematician ... and stop embarassing yourself!!!!:pac::):D

Too late . Remind me never to post after just waking up

I hearby Facepalm myself.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Too late . Remind me never to post after just waking up

I hearby Facepalm myself.

...I feel your pain!!!:D

When I think of the things that I used to say, when I was an Evolutionist, I start to 'facepalm' myself too!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

...but then I realise I am no longer an Evolutionist and I am Saved ... and I stop 'facepalming' myself!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

The last thing I will take you up on is that you said you don't want to force your opinions on children. If it's science, it's not your opinion.

Now, I've made my point as best I can. You are simply ignoring a multitude of scientific facts because they don't fit with what you desperately want to be true, not to mention deliberately misinterpreting them such as your insistence that abiogenesis is evolution when the two are completely unrelated. I have provided you proof that life can come from non life and given a plausible explanation as to how it could have happened given enough time and sufficient chances. The blatant flaws in your rebuttal have already been pointed out by others so there's no need for me to point them out again and arguing with you further will serve no purpose other than to irritate me and possibly make the boards servers crash through rampant overuse of smileys

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The last thing I will take you up on is that you said you don't want to force your opinions on children. If it's science, it's not your opinion.

...it is my scientific opinion ... and despite the fact that it has a great deal more validity than the scientific opinions of the 'Spontaneous Evolution Brigade' ... I will not force it upon anybody!!!:eek::pac::):D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now, I've made my point as best I can. You are simply ignoring a multitude of scientific facts because they don't fit with what you desperately want to be true, not to mention deliberately misinterpreting them such as your insistence that abiogenesis is evolution when the two are completely unrelated. I have provided you proof that life can come from non life and given a plausible explanation as to how it could have happened given enough time and sufficient chances. The blatant flaws in your rebuttal have already been pointed out by others so there's no need for me to point them out again and arguing with you further will serve no purpose other than to irritate me and possibly make the boards servers crash through rampant overuse of smileys

...I have JUST mathematically PROVEN that the Spontaneous Evolution of functional proteins couldn't occur ... and this is your 'best' response???!!!!:pac::):D

...and BTW the desperation is all on one side in this debate...

...I have mathematically proven my point ... and I am Saved ... what more could a Creation Scientist ever want or desire?:D:eek::D

Sam Vimes

That's right, you proven that the 50 millionth stage in evolution is very unlikely to have been the first stage due to its level of complexity and continued to misuse the meaningless term spontaneous evolution to mean abiogenesis. Congratulations, I am slain

Morbert

J C wrote: »

I have given you ALL of the (independently verifiable) statistics which you need to work out that the spontaneous production of the sequence for a specific protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY...and I have even done the maths for you...

As I said, your heuristic argument is entirely irrelevant. I asked you for statistics showing that evolution (i.e. not spontaneous production) cannot account for protein complexity.

togster

Anyone know where this notion of an additional gospel (Q gospel) arose from?
I realise it has something to do with similarities between the gospels and to me it makes sense that there may have been a central document(s) written when Jesus was alive.

Surely if there are such similarities between some gospels then these are the parts which are most valuable when trying to get to the core of Jesus?

Soul Winner

togster wrote: »

Anyone know where this notion of an additional gospel (Q gospel) arose from?
I realise it has something to do with similarities between the gospels and to me it makes sense that there may have been a central document(s) written when Jesus was alive.

Surely if there are such similarities between some gospels then these are the parts which are most valuable when trying to get to the core of Jesus?

How dare you drag this thread off topic. Shame on you.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The idea of resurrection hadn't even occurred to me until I got that far in your post, tbh. I would have thought 'prolong His days' would have meant 'make him very old' - a serious advantage and rare trait in those days.

No, I think that's just an example of confirmation bias on your part, I'm afraid.

How would He have been made very old when He had already been executed?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's right, you proven that the 50 millionth stage in evolution is very unlikely to have been the first stage due to its level of complexity and continued to misuse the meaningless term spontaneous evolution to mean abiogenesis.

...if spontaneous systems cannot EVER produce a simple specific biomolecule...then all the of rest NEVER happened spontaneously EITHER ... and so Spontaneous Evolution NEVER happened either!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Congratulations, I am slain

...OH don't be so dramatic about it all ... nothing has happened to YOU...it is just the unfounded Theory of Spontaneous Evolution that has just come crashing down!!!:pac::D:eek:

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

How dare you drag this thread off topic. Shame on you.

Togster is just panicking because Evolution has 'hit the rocks' on the thread ... and he is prepared to discuss ANYTHING else in order to remain in denial!!!!:pac::):D

..it's what is known as a 'red herring'!!!!:D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

As I said, your heuristic argument is entirely irrelevant. I asked you for statistics showing that evolution (i.e. not spontaneous production) cannot account for protein complexity.

Spontaneous Evolution supposedly 'used' matter, mistakes, time and selection to 'search out' optimum biomolecules and to 'test out' various biosystems to eventually produce Man.

I have proven that even if all of the matter and time in the suposed Big Bang Universe were available to it, Spontaneous Evolution couldn't get much further that the sequence for ONE specific 80 chain protein!!!!!:pac::):D

Look, the thing is a 'Cod' ... and it's study is 'Codology'!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution supposedly 'used' matter, mistakes, time and selection to 'search out' optimum biomolecules and to 'test out' various biosystems to eventually produce Man.

I have proven that even if all of the matter and time in the suposed Big Bang Universe were available to it, Spontaneous Evolution couldn't get much further that the sequence for ONE specific 80 chain protein!!!!!:pac::):D

You have proven no such thing. You have made irrelevant claims about spontaneous production, but have not addressed the issue of evolution. I must remind you (again) that it is extremely silly to claim you have done something when you have not done it.

Now I will ask again: Please provide the statistics which show that current proteins could not have evolved. Note that protein evolution is not the same as spontaneous generation of proteins.

I should also let you know that I am becoming very suspicious about your motives on this thread. You have said things that are so blatantly wrong that I suspect you are only pretending to believe in creationism.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

How would He have been made very old when He had already been executed?

I'd have thought that execution broke that particular prophecy.

togster

J C wrote: »

Togster is just panicking because Evolution has 'hit the rocks' on the thread ... and he is prepared to discuss ANYTHING else in order to remain in denial!!!!:pac::):D

..it's what is known as a 'red herring'!!!!:D

Eh what?

I asked a basic question.

To quote Karl Pilkington "a seal is a cross between a dog and a fish" and similarily your post is a cross between not knowing what you are talking about and too many exclamation marks.

..it's what is known as over compensating.