Dear Atheist

[chicken little]

"Survival of the fittest is beyond question"
wait a minute ..can I question this one ?
if we look at it purely scientifically.. meaning what can be demonstrated .

yes there is big questions here !
1.st
When we have wars and in that process who is it they send home the "unfit" and inferior come home right .
2. then during the war the braviest and strongest and smartest take the biggest risks to save others in the attempt.
so more of who is it that comes back home ?
3. well then the rich ,arrogant and narsissitic never went at all either!
so who is home now? who survived that anyway?

or say introduce any kind of tragedy
the weak, fearful, narsistis the paranoid come back one way or the other .

no the theory dont' work out that way in real life..'survival of the fittest" favors the paranoid! is this why a full 60% of americans and almost as high in their children are on mood altering drugs just to function, because they have been diagnosed with "imbalances".

I say all this just proves the bible all the more.
Since creation has the only real fossil record, in that we were created on the 6th day , with 6 fingers and two rows of teeth and created to chew forever .. and were at least 12 ft tall or more. and in no way is any monkey no matter how much putty they add, will it ever be or become what we were created to be by a loving God who had only our eternal good as his intentions. All of which is proven by eye witneses inspite of sciences destroying most of the evidence ever given to them..
Since the science has also found these and wishes to hide them .. They hope that these same are their " missing links" , they vailed them in what they call " heidleburgensis" and claim them only to be 6 feet tall and do not mention the extra fingers or the two rows of teeth( with rarely a tooth missing because they most likely replace themselves if they fall out, maybe as if they were created to chew forever ?). so instead they have hid them.. and these which are in our original created form, proves that we have been de -evolving ever since the fall . which is what God said .. he said " you will surely die" and something in us died that day.. I say first to go was probably first was our genes and our immortality .. next our ' intellect' and with it any kind of real "Logic " then went our bravery as seen by the cowering Adam and Eve.. so then nothing has changed since .. except we got worse in all areas.
go to S8ints ,...... com read all of the OOparts.

so NO !I don't believe in survival of the fittest... I believe survival of the fittest favors Paranoid schizophrenia and narcissist and weak in mind or body or both , and I believe that is more than demonstrate-able in the last 6000 years, because look how far we have fallen :shade:
now maybe you were talking about adaption to our individual environments .. but I sure believe that if anyone could understood those adaptations at the cellular levels, I believe they would find that those adaptations assure that the individual can function the same in all environments equally so more adaptations in their genes means more and more rafts connected to their life boat which makes them even less likely to need "gills" or to change physically in anyway . because with more life boats they wont' have to take a swim and would never need gills .

I think the theory of survival of the fittest is a lame and raciest excuse for "manifest destiny" which was started by evolutionary athiest and not christians at all .. but has since been blamed for that nasty bag of garbage atheism brought to the world..

I wish God would but some of those highly 'evolved' desk jockeys out in the jungle for a few days to let them get a since of just how evolved they really are at least it might be fun to watch.. OH yes they call it Survivor..

course those kids are fed, doctored and cared for all the time.
but they pretty much demonstrate how de-evolving we really are!!:shock:

 

[Neuroscience101]

Why do you assume they would throw out a "theory"?

Since when was theory absolute fact?

the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a or that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

Actually, Chad - speaking as someone in academia - if the theory was debunked, biologists and biochemists would indeed stop using the paradigm. However, I think you're confusing "evolution" with the theory of "Evolution Through Natural Selection" which is the big "theory" behind evolution, covered in Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species.'

It's true that "theory" is not tantimount to absolute fact, but I get the feeling that you're using the word as it refers to scientific inquiry incorrectly. A "theory" isn't equivalent to the latter few definitions in terms of (general) science. A theory - in actuality - is the upper-crest of one of the goals of the scientific research: explanation.

Most research in any science can be broken down into four goals" Description, Prediction, Explanation, and Control -- though we sometimes leave out the "control" idea because it isn't necessary. Stanley Milgrim, for instance, wanted to be able to describe, predict and explain the obedience to authority but didn't really want to harness it; he only wanted to learn how to protect against it.

The reason most "explanations" are termed "theories" is so that they can be redacted and changed as new information becomes available. This does not mean that there isn't any support for the theory and it does not mean that the theory is a simple "guess." Rather, it is an explanatory model for why a particular event occurs given certain the availably researched parameters, how it happens and when we can predict that it will happen.

In essence, "evolution" - working off of some past research articles (in terms of experiments, general fossil records, etc.) are more the description of the event with Darwin's "Evolution via Natural Selection" being the explanatory mechanism.

Theories are a bit like physical laws; the only thing that makes a law a law is that, no matter what we do, it always works out that way. F=ma is only a law because we haven't found something that refutes it. It's a bit like the idea behind the theory of gravity. The description - when things fall on Earth - is not the actual theory part; the theory is that the things fall because the Earths mass emits gravity waves and that everything with mass does too, known as 'G'. It's only a theory because we haven't been able to test it every which way yet, and it's possible that one day it could be shown that things fall because they get tired of being in the air - although that's highly unlikely.

Point being, "theory" isn't really a guess or hypothesis. Yeah, if micro/macro evolution were disproved tomorrow, you can bet that scientists and researchers would go out and look for another explanation.

'survival of the fittest" favors the paranoid! is this why a full 60% of americans and almost as high in their children are on mood altering drugs just to function, because they have been diagnosed with "imbalances"

Well, no, not really. "Survival of the fittest" is an overly crude generalization of natural selection; the theory doesn't say which traits specifically help a species, it just says that populations gear towards particular traits. After studying the literature for awhile, I wouldn't say it favors the paranoid - especially not in our current timeframe.

As for 60%, where are you getting those numbers? I don't think it's that high for prescription anti-psychotics or major tranquilizers. The LTP for most mental disorders is not even the equivalent to that, I don't believe.

 

[David777]

Hello neuroscience.

You said,

"Theories are a bit like physical laws; the only thing that makes a law a law is that, no matter what we do, it always works out that way. F=ma is only a law because we haven't found something that refutes it. It's a bit like the idea behind the theory of gravity. The description - when things fall on Earth - is not the actual theory part; the theory is that the things fall because the Earths mass emits gravity waves and that everything with mass does too, known as 'G'. It's only a theory because we haven't been able to test it every which way yet, and it's possible that one day it could be shown that things fall because they get tired of being in the air - although that's highly unlikely."

I am a partial fan of science, but i am aware of its limitations.
Science is dependent on the rational ability of the human mind.
Our human mind has it's limitations. Science studies what it can see and detect. If an entity lies outside of our ability to study it, then it cannot be understood or known.

Now, neuroscience, if God exists and He is spiritual then it follows He will be undetectable by science. Science deals with the physical.
Is it possible for mankind to ever answer the important questions?
Not if the origin and structure of the universe has a spiritual core.

If your waiting for science to peer into the mind of God. You will wait forever. The Bible states that God is spirit. It states that you can not know God unless He reveals it to you. It also states that the purpose of life is to know Jesus Christ. Not attempt to unravel the cosmos.

Neuroscience, some of these threads are flawed. It is a talk Jesus website. The basic ideas are correct though. This theory of Evolution
is only a theory, perhaps never more than a theory. Of course taking Genesis as the explanation, then Evolution will not be able to discover the evidence for mankinds evolution. Is this what has happened, yes, to this day no progress has been made in this area.

 

[Neuroscience101]

I am a partial fan of science, but i am aware of its limitations.
Science is dependent on the rational ability of the human mind.
Our human mind has it's limitations. Science studies what it can see and detect. If an entity lies outside of our ability to study it, then it cannot be understood or known.

I'm glad you're a partial fan. You should really consider becoming a full fan. We have fun stuff :shade:

"on the rational ability of the human mind" --- I do concede this to a point, but it sounds like we're moving into metaphysics which many people try to put along the same lines however the actual scientific method (science) which involves simple observation and measurement is different than the fundamental ideas of "what is?" and "how do we know what we know?"

"Studies what it can see" -- Well, not to split hairs, but "see and detect" is not entirely accurate. For example, I'm a Psychology major, and we use behavior as observable measurement. However, we can't "see" introversion when we attempt to create a measurement scale; we have to work around that by defining it and trying to ask questions that show introversion. If a question doesn't work, we get rid of it and have a better one. Now voila, we have several good measurements for the OCEAN personality traits.

But, I get your meaning and yes, science is - if we're discussing philosophy as well - based on ontological naturalism. I would argue that's not a bad thing however, unlike the journal articles coming out of University of Biola. :embarasse

Now, neuroscience, if God exists and He is spiritual then it follows He will be undetectable by science. Science deals with the physical.
Is it possible for mankind to ever answer the important questions?
Not if the origin and structure of the universe has a spiritual core.

Well, this same question has been asked time and time again, however it's a fundamental question of two dimensions interacting. Most would argue that - if asking about the existence of God - even if God belonged to a supernatural plane, his presence and action on Earth would be detectable as he would have to exist in our world as a natural - and not supernatural - force.

To argue that a natural component is not needed leads to the age-old Decartisian "Mind-Body Problem" with Dualism (idea that the soul or mind is housed in the brain): How could a non-material mind produce movement in a material body when it would break the law of conservation of energy?

I, personally, haven't researched the problem but I can't wait for some new articles on the topic.

If your waiting for science to peer into the mind of God. You will wait forever. The Bible states that God is spirit. It states that you can not know God unless He reveals it to you. It also states that the purpose of life is to know Jesus Christ. Not attempt to unravel the cosmos.

Regardless, I'm unaware of a rule that says we can't know more. I mean, if we're still dealing with the "if God exists" question, then science is just an explanation of God did everything and how. Truthfully, I would think that knowing how God did the amazing feat of bringing the Universe into existence - in a more scientific sense - is a worthwhile endeavor.

Neuroscience, some of these threads are flawed. It is a talk Jesus website. The basic ideas are correct though. This theory of Evolution
is only a theory, perhaps never more than a theory. Of course taking Genesis as the explanation, then Evolution will not be able to discover the evidence for mankinds evolution. Is this what has happened, yes, to this day no progress has been made in this area.

Again, you're using the idea of a scientific theory in the same kind of context as a colloquial theory. They're not the same thing. Evolution - as well as Darwin's ideas - would be thrown out if there was evidence for it.

I would also argue that you're using "Evolution" in a way that doesn't make much sense. "Evolution" is not a paradigm or a framework of thought. It's a description that many consider, with "Natural Selection" being the explanatory mechanism.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the theory, saying that "to this day no progress has been made in this area" is simply false. Numerous advances have been made to the idea of evolution via natural selection. If you need more convincing other than my not-so-knowledgable-mind, then you'll have to read a couple of books and articles on the subject. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology is a good publication, the European Journal of Biochemistry, and Current Genetics. These are all good publications to start with, if not more than a bit difficult. Though, it's much easier with the advent of Wikipedia

Truth be told, Science doesn't have to turn you away from Christ. Maybe understanding Science - and all of the little things he's done - more will help you get closer to him.

 

[Chad]

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (apologetic / science site)

CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (apologetic site)

Bible Questions Answered (ask questions, receive answers).

Only 3 yet powerful, abundant answers and proof that GOD is real, Bible is His infallible word, so forth.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Only 3 yet powerful, abundant answers and proof that GOD is real, Bible is His infallible word, so forth.

?

I'm not exactly how this ties into anything I just said, but alright. Though, I don't think that you can use the Bible to prove the Bible. I'm still trying to learn anyway.

Unless you mean CARMs section on the historicity of the Bible and the "textual criticism" as well as the argument that 'if we chuck the New Testament then we have to chuck all of recorded History as well' -- That one is a really bad argument and I'm shocked that they could make it.

 

[james g]

As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4). ..........
derived from a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are.

 

[Chad]

As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4). ..........
derived from a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are.

Psalm 10:3-4
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-14045">3</sup> He boasts about the cravings of his heart;
he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-14046">4</sup> In his pride the wicked man does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Psalm 10:3-4
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-14045">3</sup> He boasts about the cravings of his heart;
he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-14046">4</sup> In his pride the wicked man does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

?

Again, not sure what this verse has to do with the last few posts.

 

[Chad]

Let me make it very simple to you. You know GOD is real, but you are denying Him.

The truth is all over the place for you to see, but you do not wish to see.

Science? Great subject, fun. But is it the beginning and end of truth? Nope.

 

[Property Of God]

Atheism turns out to be too simple...
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

~C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Neuroscience, I don't know exactly what you believe in, and I won't judge or assume things myself, but I really suggest that you read that book, Mere Christianity. C.S Lewis spent most of his life as an atheist. The book is very challenging and entertaining to read. Hope you check it out

 

[Neuroscience101]

Let me make it very simple to you. You know GOD is real, but you are denying Him.

The truth is all over the place for you to see, but you do not wish to see.

Science? Great subject, fun. But is it the beginning and end of truth? Nope.

Chad, I'm going to make it even simpler for you -- as if I haven't made it simple enough for you.

You don't know what I believe. I've never told you and you have no basis for claiming what I do or do not deny.

Second, I've offered to you, David, and others why the Atheist does not believe in God. Instead of dealing with that, you're sitting at a computer and doing this:

"Nuh uh!"

I told you Atheism is a lack of belief. "Nuh uh!"

I explained to you why the theory of evolution would be thrown out. "Nuh uh!"

I've told you nothing about what I believe. "Nuh uh!"

At what point are you actually going to respond to what I'm posting and stop circling around everything that I say by making completely baseless and antagonistic remarks simply because I'm trying to help correct your incorrect assertions?

No, Atheism (also never said I was an Atheist) is a lack of belief. It is not a refusal, as any atheist who does not believe in God would believe in a second if you showed Him unquestionable proof of the God of the Bible.

Yes, academia would throw out the theory. In fact, the dirty little secret of Evolution is that it can be almost completely disproved if someone finds a particular type of modern animal in the precambryian fossil record.

No, Chad, I would love to see the same truth that you do. That would be much easier than having to correct your incorrect assumptions about Evolution, Cosmology, and Atheism. If I could see things exactly as you, I'd be better off in the long run. However, I, for one, want to make sure that I can at least be honest enough to fully understand the things I oppose without having to resort to word games, incorrect assumptions, or special pleading.

 

[jiggyfly]

Chad, I'm going to make it even simpler for you -- as if I haven't made it simple enough for you.

You don't know what I believe. I've never told you and you have no basis for claiming what I do or do not deny.

Second, I've offered to you, David, and others why the Atheist does not believe in God. Instead of dealing with that, you're sitting at a computer and doing this:

"Nuh uh!"

I told you Atheism is a lack of belief. "Nuh uh!"

I explained to you why the theory of evolution would be thrown out. "Nuh uh!"

I've told you nothing about what I believe. "Nuh uh!"

At what point are you actually going to respond to what I'm posting and stop circling around everything that I say by making completely baseless and antagonistic remarks simply because I'm trying to help correct your incorrect assertions?

No, Atheism (also never said I was an Atheist) is a lack of belief. It is not a refusal, as any atheist who does not believe in God would believe in a second if you showed Him unquestionable proof of the God of the Bible.

Yes, academia would throw out the theory. In fact, the dirty little secret of Evolution is that it can be almost completely disproved if someone finds a particular type of modern animal in the precambryian fossil record.

No, Chad, I would love to see the same truth that you do. That would be much easier than having to correct your incorrect assumptions about Evolution, Cosmology, and Atheism. If I could see things exactly as you, I'd be better off in the long run. However, I, for one, want to make sure that I can at least be honest enough to fully understand the things I oppose without having to resort to word games, incorrect assumptions, or special pleading.

Neuroscience101 are you the spokes person for atheism? I am questioning your motives for being here @ TalkJesus. Can you please clarify why your here?

 

[Neuroscience101]

Can you please clarify why your here?

Jiggy, I've answered this same question to Chad several times. I even believe I've answered it in several threads. If you want the transcript, I will gladly send it to you.

As for being the spokesperson for Atheism, I believe I - literally - just answered that for you:

...I, for one, want to make sure that I can at least be honest enough to fully understand the things I oppose without having to resort to word games, incorrect assumptions, or special pleading.

 

[jiggyfly]

Jiggy, I've answered this same question to Chad several times. I even believe I've answered it in several threads. If you want the transcript, I will gladly send it to you.

As for being the spokesperson for Atheism, I believe I - literally - just answered that for you:

Nah, that won't be necessary now, you actually just gave me all I needed.

 

[Dazed]

Maybe it's karma, or if you preferred God's will, that I stumbled to this website while googling "Atheist for Jesus". And I first heard of this term on Richard Dawkins' "The God's Delusion" audio book.

There is a common refrain from the Christians on this thread. Science can't explain it so it had to be God. We can't explain it either because God work in a mysterious way.

If God can appeared out nowhere and created the universe than it would be possible that a giant ball of gas appeared out of nowhere and created the universe. It is more plausible that more complex life forms created from a primodial ooze than a knowing God.

 

[dannibear]

If God can appeared out nowhere and created the universe than it would be possible that a giant ball of gas appeared out of nowhere and created the universe. It is more plausible that more complex life forms created from a primodial ooze than a knowing God.

God did not just appear out of nowhere.
Our minds can not really fathom eternity,
but a God who made time, and is outside the
realm of time would understand.
John 1:1

 

[Dazed]

God did not just appear out of nowhere.
Our minds can not really fathom eternity,
but a God who made time, and is outside the
realm of time would understand.
John 1:1

A much more elegant way of saying "we can't explain it because God work in a mysterious way".

Let's take the Noah's story. God destroyed everything, except for animals and seeds in the Ark. Let's overlook the fact that penguins and panda bears could magically trekked miles to find the Ark. What did the penguins and panda bears ate for 40 days and nights? What did the lions eat? How did the penguins and pandas get back to their present habitat?

With the Earth covered with water, not a form of water, there was no ice caps at the poles. How was that possible? One of the poles must be cold. How long did it take to melt all those ice? Wouldn't that made the ocean water less salty and thus made it impossible for ocean marine life? Similarly, wouldn't that have made fresh water fish died off as well because the lake water would be too salty? I don't think the Bible mention of saving the fish. And how long did it take for the ice to form again so that penguins and polar bears can live at the poles?

According to the Bible, it's about 8,000 years since the flood. We are all descendants from Noah. That meant the Semitic's genes gave rise to the Caucasians, Africans and Asians! Remember that the Bible didn't mention God had a second Genesis. Because if He did, why didn't he just wiped Noah out as well and started all over? The Chinese has 5,000 years of recorded history. Maybe God was Darwin before Darwinism was cool. Even more remarkable that we achieved this human diversity in 3,000 years because the Chinese has a 5,000 recorded history.

I understand it's difficult to fathom that the current bio diversity was developed within 3000 years. So, it must be God's work.

 

[Somanyprophets]

I read your list Chad, inspiring but very topical. You basically describe what it's like to be alive and cite it as proof of God, I don't find this overly profound. You also mention thousands of artifacts attesting to the validity of the scriptures and have one link to the dead sea scrolls.

I would like to raise a point that may have been raised, I'm not sure. If a Christian type God does exist why is there, and has there always been a considerable lack of agreement on the existence of it? No human on earth would deny that they have a father or a mother, this knowledge is so deep within our species that we don't ever question it.

If God is essentially the father of the human race what is stopping him from once and for all exerting his presence upon us? Surely he could communicate this omnipotently to all upon the earth simultaneously could he not?

To me the myriad of interpretations of God found throughout time on this planet speak more towards the human condition of being unsure of our origins and destination. Keep in mind that the Bible is but one of many religious texts and if you're white and American you were probably raised with it and have never considered anything else.

 

[dannibear]

Let's take the Noah's story. God destroyed everything, except for animals and seeds in the Ark. Let's overlook the fact that penguins and panda bears could magically trekked miles to find the Ark. What did the penguins and panda bears ate for 40 days and nights? What did the lions eat? How did the penguins and pandas get back to their present habitat?

Have you read and studied this in the Bible?
Have you taken the time to research online and in Bible
handbooks for a possible solution? Not every solution
has to be man-made. Miracles for these things should not
lower God's status in anyone's eyes. For through Him,
all things are possible. The story contains many miracles
in just BRINGING the animals there. Genesis 6:20, 7:9,15

Genesis 6:21
Most days, I don't care what I ate last week, nor do
I even remember. I just know that I ate, it was good,
I am alive. :giggle: If I were required to write down everything
I ate, I would stop making that list before the day was over. Heehee.
If the Bible contained a list of things ALL the animals ate,
would anyone care to read pages and pages of it? Not
so much.

With the Earth covered with water, not a form of water, there was no ice caps at the poles. How was that possible? One of the poles must be cold. How long did it take to melt all those ice? Wouldn't that made the ocean water less salty and thus made it impossible for ocean marine life? Similarly, wouldn't that have made fresh water fish died off as well because the lake water would be too salty? I don't think the Bible mention of saving the fish. And how long did it take for the ice to form again so that penguins and polar bears can live at the poles?

I just took physics class, and what I learned there, is that anything
will cool down faster (or melt) if there is a dramatic temp. difference.
Ex.) boiling tea cools faster at room temp. which is why people always try to find ways to keep heat inside the cup. The ice would not have taken long to melt.
As for the salt, there is a lot more salt water than fresh water. Lots. It would not be less salty.
Fresh water is fresh because the process of going downstream picks up small amounts of sediment and minerals that are too small to taste, and they build up at the end (oceans and seas). Like Nemo says, rivers lead to the ocean. ^-^

According to the Bible, it's about 8,000 years since the flood. We are all descendants from Noah. That meant the Semitic's genes gave rise to the Caucasians, Africans and Asians! Remember that the Bible didn't mention God had a second Genesis. Because if He did, why didn't he just wiped Noah out as well and started all over? The Chinese has 5,000 years of recorded history. Maybe God was Darwin before Darwinism was cool. Even more remarkable that we achieved this human diversity in 3,000 years because the Chinese has a 5,000 recorded history.

Man's opinion of customs differ from each other a lot, and therefore, most of the descendents would have formed their own groups and customs, and packed up. If you look at the possible population a few years from now, it will be HUGE. Diversity would not have been a problem because people are the fastest producing species on Earth.
Just in Genesis, there are so many people, I ran out of room on my piece of paper to record them all. (I tried making a family tree thingy).

I understand it's difficult to fathom that the current bio diversity was developed within 3000 years. So, it must be God's work.

I understand a lot more than most people think. (Except physics, I passed that class with a C, I was lost most of the time.) lol.