blackbird
-
Posts
8,889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
There is a lot more evidence and much stronger evidence about reincarnation (from unbiased, evidence based interviews with those reincarnated and evidence based research) than existence of heaven and hell or that Christ being son of the God or his resurrection.
The King James Bible, which is God's inspired revelation to mankind, is the only infallible rule of faith and guide in spiritual or supernatural matters and it says nothing at all about reincarnation. That is an invention of eastern religion.
"27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 9:27, 28 KJV
If there were such a thing as reincarnation, surely the Bible would have mentioned it.
-
38 minutes ago, eyeball said:
For me it's the opposite, I feel sad for people who accept things they cannot see, touch, measure or quantify. It's a dangerous and even deadly error too when considering how vulnerable people can become when they're in that state. Eschewing science-based medical treatment in lieu of prayer for example. I've lost a few friends to that and seen their families suffer the result.
Yes I am a materialist. I'm just not convinced we've uncovered all the material that's out there or may yet come into creation. I have faith in science and hope in what there is to still discover. I'm open ended and spiritualists are locked in.
I don't eschew science-based medical treatment. God gave us science, medicines and medical professionals. So believers can avail themselves of medical treatments and pray as well. There is no contradiction. I know there are some cultists who don't believe in medicine, vaccines, and science.
Materialism is a humanist world view which leads nowhere and will not help a person in eternity. God created man with a soul and a spirit. As the Bible says "it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment". That is why we need to be prepared now. One's relationship with God is the most important issue. We do not know when our life on this earth will end.
-
4 hours ago, eyeball said:
Faith and hope is all we have which is fine so long as it strives to remain rooted in the actual physical reality that we can touch, measure and quantify.
This is where you greatly err. You are obviously a materialist. You reject things you cannot see, touch, measure, quantify. That is a tragic error. Faith and hope do not fit into that definition. So you cannot have faith or hope if you reject things outside your definition. You reject the supernatural realm which is a fact and a reality. God is a fact and reality. The Bible says the fool rejects God. The universe and earth did not create itself and required an intelligent designer. The Bible tells us God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. We accept this on faith even though we do not know how. Since the Bible describes God as omnipotent and omniscient, we understand he is capable of creating the material universe out of nothing, which is exactly what he did. Therefore to try to pin down spiritual truth and say it must fit into your arbitrary mold of touch and measuring is a serious and foolish mistake. The supernatural and spiritual matters will never fit into your little man-made assumptions or mold. You cannot draw any rules or boundaries around God. He is infinite in power, knowledge and you are a mere created being, a speck of dust so to speak.
-
3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
The only science that has any actual value are those that have been peer reviewed, if you have any creationist literature that corresponds to that most basic criteria I would of course consider it fully, on the other hand pointing to a group of laymen ( on this or any topic) providing post hoc rationalizations to their presuppositional approach to everything is of little interest to me nor should it be to anyone, as all of science accepts evolution by means of natural selection the balls in your court my friend,
I'm excited to see your Nobel prize worthy research, seriously!!!!
Professor Philip Stott is a very knowledgeable scientist on the subject of creation, sometimes called intelligent design versus evolution. You can watch his short videos and hear what he has to say. He has spoken at conferences in different countries. I was honoured to have heard a series of four evening slide-show presentations by Philip Stott. I think you may find what he has to say interesting. He make reference also to what different scientists have had to say. This is very enlightening. You want to know what some important scientists have to say then this is a good place to start. Let me know how it goes. He has a a number of short videos that automatically follow each other at this link.
-
2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
Revenge, hate, punishment are all imperfections. The God of love and forgiveness as described in bible will not have those qualities.
The Bible says God is a God of love and forgiveness. But if you forgive someone, does it not require some sort of admission of guilt, repentance, sorrow, and a desire to be forgiven? Or do you think people like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, and all other sinners should just automatically be forgiven for their crimes and sinful life? The Bible teaches that we (mankind) cannot atone or pay for our sins ourselves. The only atonement the Bible says that God accepts is the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is why he came to earth and was crucified on the cross. Without atonement there is no basis for forgiveness. The book of Hebrews in the Bible tells about that. That is why God only accepts someone who has trusted in Jesus Christ as his atonement for his sin. God forgives that person on account of Jesus' shed blood. There is no other atonement or grounds for forgiveness. That is what makes God a just God. That is the basis for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not something that is just thrown out for no reason.
-
6 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/PVhHPkJBW8FWvLyKHdRyGsh/?lang=en
Here's some information from people more qualified than both of us at vulgarizeing complicated scientific principles, please take the time to read this.
If you want to refer me to a long article which will require me to spend hours reading and examining it, you should also be equally prepared to study some articles on the creation side of the issue. Go to creation.com and start studying articles and watching videos on that website.
If you want to discuss this issue from your own knowledge instead of just pointing me somewhere else, then you should make your points on here as I have done and perhaps we can discuss some points. But having to spend hours reading somebody else's long speech is a difficult way to have a discussion. You will have to admit that it is not the best way to answer what I said. Yes, it can be complicated. But if you want to be involved in the discussion, you need to study both sides yourself and contribute some constructive comments. Just dropping a link and running away will not cut it.
Having said that, I am trying to read some of the article on the link you gave and may have a comment about it in a while. But it sounds like you have made up your mind and are not open to genuine facts. Do you believe others who spoke are "more qualified" and therefore you accept what they say as it fits into your pre-existing world view? Or are you open-minded and willing to accept a different view if a good case is put forward?
You also have not answered the point that the so-called transitional fossil record does not exist. If evolution were an actual fact, one would think the evidence would exist, but it doesn't.
-
2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
So do you really believe that the kind forgiving powerful God would burn his sinful children in hell?
Quote The Bible says that God created hell for Satan and the wicked angels who rebelled against Him, but there are people in hell also (Matthew 25:41). Both angelic beings and human beings are in hell for the same reason, sin (Romans 6:23).
Because God is completely righteous and morally perfect (Psalm 18:30), He always does what is right—there is no “darkness” in God, not the smallest speck of imperfection (1 John 1:5). God Himself is the standard for what is right, good, and moral. If it were not for God being the standard of moral perfection, created beings would have nothing to measure themselves against. In other words, if God is perfectly righteous, then anything that falls short of said perfection is sinful, and every human being who has ever lived, since Adam’s fall from grace, has committed sin (Romans 3:23). Because Adam sinned, the entire human race now has a sinful nature (Romans 5:12). But people do not go to hell because of Adam’s sin; they go to hell because of their own sin, which they freely choose (James 1:13–16).
Since God is eternal, immutable, and infinite, and all sins are fundamentally against God, God has decreed the just punishment for sin must also be eternal (Matthew 25:46). There is another aspect to consider, which is that God also created people to live eternally. So when someone commits a sin against another person, the offended person has also been eternally wronged.
God, therefore, has deemed all who commit sin will go to hell because they have failed to meet His righteous standard; they have broken His Law of moral perfection. If God did not send people to hell for breaking His laws, it could be said that God is not just (Psalm 7:11). A good analogy is a court of law with a judge and a lawbreaker. A just judge will always convict the person who has been found guilty. If that judge did not pursue justice for the crime, he would not be a just judge (Deuteronomy 32:4).
However, the good news is that God is also merciful. In His rich mercy, He made a way for sinners to avoid the punishment of hell by trusting in the atoning work of His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9). For Christians, the penalty of sin has been removed and placed upon Christ on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Because of the sacrifice of Christ, God is still just—the sin is punished—yet He is also merciful to all who believe. UnquoteWhy does God send people to hell? | GotQuestions.org
-
16 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
What happens to us after we die? This question has been in our minds for centuries. Many people believe that death is the end of everything and then there are many religions like Christianity who promote life after death promising heaven for good deeds or hell for bad deeds while also a few other religions with billions of followers promise or believe in reincarnation like Hinduism or Buddhism.
This question became important to me recently after I lost a very close beloved member of my family. I studied a lot about afterlife and reincarnation and it is believed that reincarnation if true could occur within family. By that I mean if I have a daughter since my mother loved me most, she would likely reincarnate in my daughter's body. Tat is her soul reborn in my daughter so I am thinking about having a daughter. Is this true? Any comments on reincarnation?
quote
What does the Bible say about reincarnation? The idea of reincarnation is never mentioned in the Bible, however, scripture does talk of being "born again" as a child of God through His Son, Jesus Christ. The Bible does not mention people having a second chance or coming back as someone or something different. God is very specific in His word that our body is mortal and our spirit will have eternal life either in heaven or hell. Learn more from our list of Bible verses on reincarnation and eternal life in the Bible below. unquote
Is Reincarnation In The Bible? Scripture Truth about Life After Death (biblestudytools.com)
You might say, why should anyone believe the Bible? Well, there are solid reasons:
-
Russia could also be using the war in the Ukraine as an excuse to test it's military technologies and capabilities.
They just now tried hypersonic missiles for the first time on the Ukraine. Is Russia doing this partly to test it's weapons on citizens just to see how effective these weapons are? What will they test next, chemical warfare? So the question is: Is Putin using Ukrainians as guinea pigs in his diabolical quest for military superiority in the world or is this just a spin-off result of the war?
Another question is the major violations of human rights by deliberately moving large numbers of citizens from the eastern Ukraine to Russia. This violation of human rights is similar to the Chinese putting three million Uighurs in detention camps without trial. Communist systems have zero respect for human rights and will do absolutely anything if they think there is some benefit to their systems.
Meanwhile a priest in Russia used the word "war" in a letter to his congregation and was charged and fined three hundred and something dollars. He is not out of the woods yet either. A second offence or charge could bring a long prison sentence. Another characteristic of Communist systems is message control and manipulation of the masses, very much like Orwell's book, 1984.
-
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
The Azovs are the actual war criminals in Ukraine, according to The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
You're absolutely wrong - you just described the exact main reason why a very large percentage of wars have started. They're also using military force to eliminate the threat from the biological warfare agents present in so many Ukraine biolabs, which are jointly funded by the US.
This war wouldn't have happened if Zelenski guaranteed that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO. Z even acknowledged it himself. So there's also that. This is as much a war of Zelenski's choosing as Putin's.
That's a lie, what you're describing isn't happening.
It was Zelenski who turned his civilian population into non-uniformed fighters, and made his civilian buildings into legitimate targets.
Cuba was a independent state and Kennedy declared that the US would be at war with Russia if Cuba didn't relent in their military support of Russia. No Americans or Canadians are calling Kennedy a war criminal or a dictator.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights thinks differently, and so do the people of Crimea, whose vote to separate was in large part due to Ukraine's war crimes. But I'm sue that you know more than they do, CCCG would have informed you if anything in Ukraine was even slightly amiss...... (that last part is dripping with sarcasm... like Niagara falls)
1) It was a 100% legitimate point that he made,
2) but it's questionable whether it was enough to start a war on this scale
3) lying is an important part of war, but he's actually in a war which is fairly legitimate by any measure. You should be more worried about the propaganda coming from the Americans who want to get more and more involved in the war.
They don't care about dead kids at all. Over 5M people died in Congo and you didn't hear a word about any of those non-blondes, many of them were kids. Ukrainian war dead kids are props for American propaganda. They want to make you mad to steel your resolve, and they're steeling your resolve because that gives them license to get more and more warlike.
The story of the "hapless Russian soldier who keep stepping on rakes" is like the story of "the bespectacled Japanese fighter pilots who'd surely drop from the sky like flies if they faced the mighty US war machine."
This is neither here nor there, but FYI the Americans got lucky to win at midway.
That part is just folly, no need to dignify that comment with a thoughtful reply.
You believe ridiculous nonsense. We will have to agree to disagree.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Maybe not to within the degree of accuracy expected by quantum scientists but evolution as a theory provides the strongest explanation that counters the alternative facts Creationists subscribe to. They can't seem to prove even the most rudimentary aspects of their theory.
It is not necessary to prove creation. It is just a fact. God says he created everything. The theory of evolution is just a theory and since it contradicts what the Holy Scriptures say that God created the universe, the theory of evolution must be rejected as a fraud.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Electromagnetism is only a theory yet look at what we can do with it.
Mayflies with 24 hour lifespans have been shown to evolve traits that confer better survival when successive generations are exposed to colder than normal temperatures. Flies become heavier with thicker bodies that better insulate the creature from the cold.
Selecting the tamest foxes from litters and breeding them leads to foxes with tails that wag and ears that droop...dogs in other words.
Like the evidence for the theory of electromagnetism the evidence for evolution is very strong. Strong enough to make predictions and replicate results. The true mark of a good scientific theory.
Theoretically you should be able to take the rib of a man and make a woman. What do you think?
Adaptation or minor changes within a species is well known and accepted, but it is not evolution. There is no evidence that one species evolved from another species. There are many different kinds of dogs for instance, but dogs or monkeys did not evolve from some lower form of creature such as a fish. Evolution claims species evolved from totally different species, but there is no evidence for that. Creationists believe in changes within a species, but that is not evolution. Evolution has never been proven.
-
I see the Russian Communist Party led by Putin as evil war criminals. Regardless of whether Ukraine wants to join Europe and the west, or join NATO, the Communists had no right to use military force to destroy the Ukraine, kill many children, civilians, and others and bomb the country into oblivion. They are a bunch of war criminals. Ukraine considers itself an independent state since the former USSR fell apart. If Putin and his gang were unhappy with that, that is too bad but it is the right of people like the Ukraine to determine their own system and government. I don't believe Putin's claim that there was genocide against the people of Russian descent living in the Ukraine. That was just more propaganda from Putin. Practically everything he says is a lie. He is one of the last Tsars of imperial Russia who think they can expand and return to their former greatness by force and murder of neighbouring people.
-
Putin and the anti-Covid restriction people on here have something in common. They both call democratic countries Nazis. Putin would be so happy with you..
-
12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
Well now that NATO seems to support Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and you can buy Azov Battalion bling on Amazon, I guess “Nazi” isn’t such a slur in CTV-CBC-LPOC officialdom anymore, Eyeball. Freeland can wear her extremist scarf. Nice pivot from calling the opposition Nazis to saying they have mental illness. I guess I fit the bill, have been labeled a “retarded 9 year-old.”
Guess what? Putin calls western democracies Nazis and had a rally with thousands of supporters. Putin had a sign on the stage that said "For a world without Nazism". So you folks on here who call Canada's government Nazis have something in common. Putin and yourselves call democratic countries Nazis. Putin would love you.
-
2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
Theory in the "scientific realm" is synonymous with and can be replaced by Law.
Scientists, unlike theists possess the humility to admit we don't (and may never) know everything
One interesting fact is that Darwin predicted that transitional evidence (fossils for example) would be found showing the gradual transition between species. The truth is no such transitional evidence has been found.
Quote
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’
by Gary Bates
Published: 18 February 2008 (GMT+10)
Anyone reading creationist literature for a few years soon becomes aware that we often use quotes by evolutionists which discredit their own belief system. This raises the ire of many in the evolutionary establishment, and often they will accuse creationists of ‘taking their remarks out of context’. This is rarely the case. However, one can imagine that the spectre of condemnation from fellow evolutionists would these days tend to limit any careless remarks from the pro-evolutionary camp.
One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 Unquote
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils - creation.com
There are countless articles on this subject refuting the theory of evolution.
-
2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
With some basic research you will quickly realize that vaccines and evolution are ostensibly based on the exact same scientific principles, so by not accepting both you're expressing what is called. Cognitive dissonance, another thing i would suggest you research
No, the theory of evolution has not been based on the same research as vaccines. Evolution is only a theory and has never been proven to be true. Because of the vast time scales involved, it is impossible to replicate evolution in a laboratory.
Vaccines have been developed, tried and tested, and proven to work. So they are two totally different subjects. Trying to equate or link the two subjects and claim they are both based on science or more correctly the scientific method is indeed cognitive dissonance on your part. Ask any scientist. Evolution is purely a theory or speculation and has never been proven by the scientific method, which is the gold standard for science. Yet it is taught in schools and around the world as if it is fact, only proving truth is difficult to find in the world. It is taken as fact by many people but in reality it is pure dogma with no solid evidence or proof.
The theory of evolution has been found wanting in a number of ways.
There are many articles that debunk the theory of evolution. This website has many and this is just one article:
Appendix 1: Common arguments for evolution that have been rejected - creation.com
-
It seems there are a number of people on here who are severely mentally challenged and they have zero logic skills or knowledge of the real world and what is going on. For example, the anti-Covid restriction people are a clear example of these kind of people. They love to call the vaccine passport a Nazi health pass. This is a prime example of severe mental delusion. I am not sure how anyone equates an identification card which is simply meant to prove one has had two shots of vaccination to help protect people in a restaurant from catching Covid with a Nazi ID card. Not sure how they reason this has anything at all to do with Nazis in Hitler's Germany. Nobody is forced to get vaccinated or get a vaccine passport. Nobody was forcing them to go to those restaurants. They can buy groceries, eat at home, or go through a drive-through to take out food. So it is ridiculous nonsense to equate the card with Nazis. The kind of people who push this idea will never be normal, sane, rational people as far as I can tell. They are in need of serious counseling over a long period of time. The Covid health measures were there to protect everyone's health and life. These people who are obsessed with such nonsense and think the Nazis are in control need help. We need to pray for them. But it is no use trying to engage with them.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Faramir said:
Being patriotic makes one a nut case? Do you hate Canada?
It's not patriotism. The large flags are carried to fool people like you. Apparently they are doing a good job.
-
27 minutes ago, dialamah said:
I read the first 'debunk' (masks) and knew that the rest would be equally false.
Time to take off the tinfoil.
You are 100% correct. I realized long ago that I am talking to a group of programmed robots on here and it is largely a waste of time. They are ideologically driven and no amount of reasoning will change their minds. Science doesn't mean a thing with them. They are part of a lunatic fringe. I saw one today driving a pickup with a trailer with big Canadian flag hanging off the back of the trailer. The good thing about them having a big flag is it serves as a warning that the guy driving the truck is a nutcase and we should avoid them at all costs.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Faramir said:
What do you think of Ukraine cozying up to that little globalist fascist, Zuckerberg?
I don't believe or follow that kind of stuff, that sounds questionable.
-
3 hours ago, myata said:
There are shades and there's black and white, moral right and atrocity, war crime, hell. What Putin and his country is doing in Ukraine now, and in many places before that we managed to look the other way, is nothing short of the crimes of the Nazi's Germany. This is nothing to do with "russiaphobia" just the stark reality.
Yes, Putin, his circle, and the Russian military are committing war crimes in the Ukraine. They are deliberately targeting civilians, families, children and destroying complete residential buildings and cities. Anybody who thinks Russiaphobia is a thing needs to seek mental help.
quote
On Saturday, Russia bombarded cities across Ukraine, pounding Mariupol in the south, shelling the outskirts of the capital, Kyiv, and thwarting the efforts of people trying to flee the violence.
In Mariupol, which has endured some of the worst punishment since Russia invaded, efforts to bring food, water and medicine into the port city of 430,000 and to evacuate civilians, were prevented by unceasing attacks. More than 1,500 people have died in Mariupol during the siege, according to the mayor's office, and the shelling has even interrupted efforts to bury the dead in mass graves. unquote
Russians strike closer to Polish border, port city reels (msn.com)
-
Another thread started by and commented on mostly by the ignorant Commie-Putin lovers.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Yes but you're not with Putin and you've been okay with COVID measures...giving me the odd like and thanks recently is probably what really clinches it though.
You're not just a lefty buddy, you're a full blown commie and probably a closet Nazi too.
haha. You're not making much sense there. Can't figure out what you're trying to say. Let's stay asway from Covid on this thread. Stick to the subject and the meat of comments.
Is the world polluting the minds of young people with a false narrative of the origin and meaning of life?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted · Edited by blackbird
Regarding the link and article you gave, I read part of it and realized it is a bit of smoke and mirrors type of article.
For example, in the first or second paragraph, it mocks creationists by linking them with so-called flat-earthers. But I have never heard of anyone who believes the earth is flat. So right there that should tell you they are out to do a smear job and mock those who don't buy into the theory of evolution. Secondly they also refer to creationists or anti-evolutionists as anti-vaxxers. Again, trying to falsely link creationists with the cult of anti-vaxxers. Vaccine has proven it is valuable and based on sound medical science. It has saved millions of lives in the past 70 years or so. Again it is false to claim that everyone who questions the theory of evolution is some kind of wacko or anti-vaxxer type. This proves right there they are trying to portray their dogma as superior science and anyone who disagrees as kooks. They refer to their opponents as anti-science movement. This is false. In the video which I gave the link for, Professor Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable scientist, quotes what other well know scientists have said about evolution theory. Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God. Evolution is not based on real science as they try to claim. Real science can prove things that are true with the scientific method. That method was developed 500 years ago by a famous scientist by the name of Francis Bacon. So it is possible to believe in real, genuine science while believing in God and creationism. God created man and gave him knowledge and part of that is the study of science which is the study of God's created universe and how it functions.
Secondly, the article refers to the scientific method and tries to paint the picture that the theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, which it clearly is not. The lack of evidence to support evolution is serious. Early on when Darwin put forward the theory, it was said that the fossil record would prove the theory to be true. However, this is not the case. The transitional fossils were not found. The theory falls flat on this one point alone.
Genesis says God created each species of life "after their kind".
"24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. " Genesis 1:24, 25 KJV
Creationists do not deny that modifications developed by some biological process within each species. As for example different kinds of dogs developed over time and different kinds of cats developed over time. But this is not considered as evolution. It is some other biological method. So there was no evolution as the theory claims from some kind of blob of cells in a pond to humans. God created each species as the Bible says. If you haven't watched them yet, I would urge you to watch the link of the presentations by the scientist Professor Philip Stott that I gave above.