What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch


How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.

god.

How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen

god.

Where did this tiny singularity come from

god.

was the tiny thing made of one element or many

god.

If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

god.

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is,

god.

why and how did it change states from its original state,

god.

why did all matter go to one place,

god.

why did energy compress rather than expand.

god.

Why did matter compress rather than expand

god.

More questions than answers

All the answers you'll ever need...god.

and we have a typical atheist evolutionist, this is the standard I have come expect, short of bullying and name calling.

This character is a reflection on the evolutionist argument.
Rather than sincerely try answer questions, you all know that this type of defence/attack is your best and only remaining option to bait and switch the issue.
The "you are stupid and I am smart" con is usually done a little better

The answer is true though, it is God
My opinion
to

originally posted by: borntowatch

STRAWMAN

I defined that I didnt believe in the evolution aspect of those sciences, strawman.

No it is extrapolating what you are saying to the sciences described. You are discounting mountains of evidence to support these various theories, just because. So I see no reason why you should believe any other evidence. You haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise. You haven't listed ANY evidence you disagree with, so I have no basis to determine what you consider credible evidence. You won't even analyze the information I gave you when you demanded evidence. Though considering that much of the evidence used to prove these theories is VERY credible, if you cannot accept that evidence as credible, then I see no reason to believe that you can accept ANY evidence for any other theory as credible. Otherwise you are being hypocritical. So pick your poison, you are either a huge hypocrite or you deny science.

I did Not say all aspects of those sciences, thats a strawman argument.
You dont strike me as honest, if you are honest then you have another issue.

Says the guy arguing off of rhetoric, no sources, and refuses to address his opponent's argument or evidence.

I accept science, serve a God who created the word, word lead to sciences growth.

To say I dont accept science is ludicrous and you should be ashamed as a learned person to turn to that kind of argument, to belittle some one, to make yourself feel good.

Just calling it like I see it. I'm not here to make you feel good. I am very logic oriented about my argumentative approach. I don't let emotional appeal or preconceived notions affect my judgment, which you clearly do.

If you don't think I'm honest, that's your problem. You are the one practicing poor debating techniques.

Are you scared, are you questioning something.

Scared of what? What is there to be scared of? That I may not know the answer to a question? Because that looks like what you are scared of. Me, I'm willing to admit when I don't know the answer to a question. How did life begin? I don't know. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. Does God exist? I don't know.

There are questions, try and answer them, try be honest

There certainly are questions. But I don't try to answer them if they are unanswerable with the technology and knowledge sources at my disposal. I just say "I don't know," and wait until better information is available or better technology to answer the question. For some reason you can't accept that the answer to a question can be "I don't know," so you reason that if we don't know, it is wrong, therefore god. Well that is terrible logical reasoning and you are wrong. To say otherwise is to accept ignorance. This isn't anything personal towards you or anything. It's just the truth.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.
A tiny thing?
How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen
Where did this tiny singularity come from
was the tiny thing made of one element or many
If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is, why and how did it change states from its original state, why did all matter go to one place, the tiny thing, why did energy compress rather than expand. Why did matter compress rather than expand

More questions than answers

Those are great questions that scientists are working very hard to answer at this moment. But you see, just because answering one question, creates many new questions, isn't reason to discount the whole thing. That is SUPPOSED to be how it works. You gleam little bits of information until you can answer a question about existence, but upon answering that question, many new questions appear. That is why science is a never ending process. It continually adds to our knowledge of things while discarding things that are shown to be untrue. But just because we don't know an answer doesn't mean you can say that all the science up to that point (in this case the big bang) is wrong and untrue. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove the evidence put forth that corroborates the theory. Not just ask a bunch of questions that science either hasn't gotten around to answering yet, or doesn't have the capability to answer yet.

Plus we can prove that the Big Bang happened because of the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. The proof is there.

Well I already tried giving him proof twice in this thread. He ignored both attempts. But I'M the one being dishonest here... *rolls eyes*

originally posted by: borntowatch

and we have a typical atheist evolutionist, this is the standard I have come expect, short of bullying and name calling.

This character is a reflection on the evolutionist argument.
Rather than sincerely try answer questions, you all know that this type of defence/attack is your best and only remaining option to bait and switch the issue.
The "you are stupid and I am smart" con is usually done a little better

The answer is true though, it is God
My opinion
to

Lighten up a bit borntowatch. It's obvious after 13 pages that no one is going to get through to you.

No, I am not an atheist. That claim would need far more knowledge than I have available (well perhaps as for the normal religious type gods I could be).

I don't think you are "stupid" at all and I'm not overly convinced that I am clever. I think you are wrong, but I'll get over it.

In fact, I see every reason to believe you are a nice normal person with beliefs that I don't hold and opinions that differ from mine. I'll get over that also.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.
A tiny thing?
How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen
Where did this tiny singularity come from
was the tiny thing made of one element or many
If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is, why and how did it change states from its original state, why did all matter go to one place, the tiny thing, why did energy compress rather than expand. Why did matter compress rather than expand

More questions than answers

Those are great questions that scientists are working very hard to answer at this moment. But you see, just because answering one question, creates many new questions, isn't reason to discount the whole thing. That is SUPPOSED to be how it works. You gleam little bits of information until you can answer a question about existence, but upon answering that question, many new questions appear. That is why science is a never ending process. It continually adds to our knowledge of things while discarding things that are shown to be untrue. But just because we don't know an answer doesn't mean you can say that all the science up to that point (in this case the big bang) is wrong and untrue. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove the evidence put forth that corroborates the theory. Not just ask a bunch of questions that science either hasn't gotten around to answering yet, or doesn't have the capability to answer yet.

Plus we can prove that the Big Bang happened because of the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. The proof is there.

Well I already tried giving him proof twice in this thread. He ignored both attempts. But I'M the one being dishonest here... *rolls eyes*

Yes, how dare we use facts! How irresponsible of us!

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

God!

Thats a good question

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

God!

Thats a good question

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

But we can see the residue from the Big Bang! We can measure the red shift of the various stars and galaxies!

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch

and we have a typical atheist evolutionist, this is the standard I have come expect, short of bullying and name calling.

This character is a reflection on the evolutionist argument.
Rather than sincerely try answer questions, you all know that this type of defence/attack is your best and only remaining option to bait and switch the issue.
The "you are stupid and I am smart" con is usually done a little better

The answer is true though, it is God
My opinion
to

Lighten up a bit borntowatch. It's obvious after 13 pages that no one is going to get through to you.

No, I am not an atheist. That claim would need far more knowledge than I have available (well perhaps as for the normal religious type gods I could be).

I don't think you are "stupid" at all and I'm not overly convinced that I am clever. I think you are wrong, but I'll get over it.

In fact, I see every reason to believe you are a nice normal person with beliefs that I don't hold and opinions that differ from mine. I'll get over that also.

Lighten up?

You are not adding anything of value to this thread, its borderline childish.
I have seen your other posts and they dont strike me as sincere or reasoned either.

Far to many times comments like your previous one is used to belittle mock and or attack.

So why did you choose to comment like you did

As for lightening up, this is nothing I am overly concerned about

Truth be known I was just interested to see if I could get an evolutionist to say "I can kind of understand why you struggle with evolution", nothing more.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

STRAWMAN

I defined that I didnt believe in the evolution aspect of those sciences, strawman.

No it is extrapolating what you are saying to the sciences described. You are discounting mountains of evidence to support these various theories, just because. So I see no reason why you should believe any other evidence. You haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise. You haven't listed ANY evidence you disagree with, so I have no basis to determine what you consider credible evidence. You won't even analyze the information I gave you when you demanded evidence. Though considering that much of the evidence used to prove these theories is VERY credible, if you cannot accept that evidence as credible, then I see no reason to believe that you can accept ANY evidence for any other theory as credible. Otherwise you are being hypocritical. So pick your poison, you are either a huge hypocrite or you deny science.

I did Not say all aspects of those sciences, thats a strawman argument.
You dont strike me as honest, if you are honest then you have another issue.

Says the guy arguing off of rhetoric, no sources, and refuses to address his opponent's argument or evidence.

Just calling it like I see it. I'm not here to make you feel good. I am very logic oriented about my argumentative approach. I don't let emotional appeal or preconceived notions affect my judgment, which you clearly do.

If you don't think I'm honest, that's your problem. You are the one practicing poor debating techniques.

Scared of what? What is there to be scared of? That I may not know the answer to a question? Because that looks like what you are scared of. Me, I'm willing to admit when I don't know the answer to a question. How did life begin? I don't know. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. Does God exist? I don't know.


There certainly are questions. But I don't try to answer them if they are unanswerable with the technology and knowledge sources at my disposal. I just say "I don't know," and wait until better information is available or better technology to answer the question. For some reason you can't accept that the answer to a question can be "I don't know," so you reason that if we don't know, it is wrong, therefore god. Well that is terrible logical reasoning and you are wrong. To say otherwise is to accept ignorance. This isn't anything personal towards you or anything. It's just the truth.

Extrapolating....hmmmm strawman from where I sit
and

there is no debate, I am not debating. Just making a statement and then asking a couple of questions.
Thats not a debate. My questions, the few there are remain unanswered.

It scares me the blind faith in science some have

a reply to: borntowatch

Is that your final answer?

I'll give you a chance to expound upon your answer, or not, before demonstrating why my question was essential to your OP.

Thanks!

ETA - This would be the equivalant of your seeking an "evolutionist" to explain why you don't understand the concept.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

Thanks for proving you know absolutely zero about evolution. Sorry, but if you have evidence for anything you've said, let's have it. If you are just preaching, then your opinion is just as valid as the guy in times square who thinks the end is near. I just don't get how somebody could be so vehemently against an area of scientific study while ignoring all evidence presented and not even attempting to learn about it first. Why the crusade against evolution? That's my question. What is the big friggin deal? I wouldn't be surprised if your ancestors were part of the salem witch trials making things up like, "oh yeah, if that mole doesn't bleed you are a witch. I can't prove it but I say it so it's true!!" People were really stupid back then. I'm just glad people like you are around today with 'dark ages' mentality, to show us how absolutely idiotic most religions are. I thank you, because you are the reason there are more atheists and freethinkers in the world than there ever has been. If you are trying to recruit you are doing a terrible job. I think you're just upset the foundation of your religion is crumbling because the world is advancing it's scientific knowledge. You can't just throw people into torture devices anymore for doing research that doesn't go hand in hand with the church.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Lighten up?

You are not adding anything of value to this thread, its borderline childish.

I have seen your other posts and they dont strike me as sincere or reasoned either.

Far to many times comments like your previous one is used to belittle mock and or attack.

So why did you choose to comment like you did

As for lightening up, this is nothing I am overly concerned about

Truth be known I was just interested to see if I could get an evolutionist to say "I can kind of understand why you struggle with evolution", nothing more.

Quite the serious soul.

Short of taking you in some magical time machine, to watch the big bang, I doubt anyone will supply this thread with what you want. Even then I'm not sure (no doubt god will be hiding somewhere).....

I chose to comment like I did, because it's obvious you believe that and are impervious to anything else.

Are you open to the possibility that other people aren't struggling with the notion of evolution?

Why don't you try something novel and explain your position. How exactly did the old fella manage all of this? Surely you must have a good idea, being so sure?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

God!

Thats a good question

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

But we can see the residue from the Big Bang! We can measure the red shift of the various stars and galaxies!

So the best answer for the residue, the red shift is a big bang.
Thats a scientific answer based on evidence

I have given a personnel story about why I dont accept evidence, especially based on a dubious (big bang from a little thingy with a huge (Cant think of another word that means big but is little) amount of density and no apparent trigger) beginning that makes no sense

Trees dont have a big bang

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

STRAWMAN

I defined that I didnt believe in the evolution aspect of those sciences, strawman.

No it is extrapolating what you are saying to the sciences described. You are discounting mountains of evidence to support these various theories, just because. So I see no reason why you should believe any other evidence. You haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise. You haven't listed ANY evidence you disagree with, so I have no basis to determine what you consider credible evidence. You won't even analyze the information I gave you when you demanded evidence. Though considering that much of the evidence used to prove these theories is VERY credible, if you cannot accept that evidence as credible, then I see no reason to believe that you can accept ANY evidence for any other theory as credible. Otherwise you are being hypocritical. So pick your poison, you are either a huge hypocrite or you deny science.

I did Not say all aspects of those sciences, thats a strawman argument.
You dont strike me as honest, if you are honest then you have another issue.

Says the guy arguing off of rhetoric, no sources, and refuses to address his opponent's argument or evidence.

Just calling it like I see it. I'm not here to make you feel good. I am very logic oriented about my argumentative approach. I don't let emotional appeal or preconceived notions affect my judgment, which you clearly do.

If you don't think I'm honest, that's your problem. You are the one practicing poor debating techniques.

Scared of what? What is there to be scared of? That I may not know the answer to a question? Because that looks like what you are scared of. Me, I'm willing to admit when I don't know the answer to a question. How did life begin? I don't know. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. Does God exist? I don't know.


There certainly are questions. But I don't try to answer them if they are unanswerable with the technology and knowledge sources at my disposal. I just say "I don't know," and wait until better information is available or better technology to answer the question. For some reason you can't accept that the answer to a question can be "I don't know," so you reason that if we don't know, it is wrong, therefore god. Well that is terrible logical reasoning and you are wrong. To say otherwise is to accept ignorance. This isn't anything personal towards you or anything. It's just the truth.

Extrapolating....hmmmm strawman from where I sit
and

there is no debate, I am not debating. Just making a statement and then asking a couple of questions.
Thats not a debate. My questions, the few there are remain unanswered.

It scares me the blind faith in science some have

You seem to have a somewhat exaggerated idea of how scientists come to conclusions. They don't sit in a big room and plot how to destroy religion. They don't pull scientific ideas out of their nether regions. They don't think up fanciful ideas that can't be proven. They investigate, test, publish, recheck and rely on evidence. I'm uncertain as to why you seem to think that there's even a debate over evolution in the Twenty-First Century. There isn't.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

God!

Thats a good question

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

But we can see the residue from the Big Bang! We can measure the red shift of the various stars and galaxies!

So the best answer for the residue, the red shift is a big bang.
Thats a scientific answer based on evidence

I have given a personnel story about why I dont accept evidence, especially based on a dubious (big bang from a little thingy with a huge (Cant think of another word that means big but is little) amount of density and no apparent trigger) beginning that makes no sense

Trees dont have a big bang

Trees don't operate complex equipment. Trees can't see the evidence. And I'm sorry, but your personal story means nothing in this context.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Extrapolating....hmmmm strawman from where I sit

That's fine, you don't know what a strawman is either.

and

there is no debate, I am not debating. Just making a statement and then asking a couple of questions.
Thats not a debate. My questions, the few there are remain unanswered.

Yes you keep insisting this. You have questions, you aren't debating, and you certainly aren't accepting any answers or proof from us. This is why I say that you are content to swim in ignorance. You have no desire to change your thinking despite being wrong.

It scares me the blind faith in science some have

Here we go with the rhetoric again... Do you even know what the phrase blind faith means? It means believing something without evidence. I've SHOWN you evidence of these things. Regardless of your feeling about the evidence, there is actual evidence of these things. There is nothing "Blind" about believing them.

Just because YOU don't think that there is any evidence for these things doesn't make you correct. I've told you time and again throughout this thread that the evidence exists. It's there. This isn't blind faith. This is rational faith through the application of reviewing the evidence. There is nothing BLIND about it. What IS blind faith, is believing in a god. There is no evidence for or against the existence of a god so believing in one is blind faith. Science doesn't work on blind faith. I have reviewed enough evidence of these things to determine that they are true.

This last sentence is SOOO hypocritical that I'm just astounded. The whole basis of religion is to just believe it blindly. Then you say that you are scared because people believe science blindly, science, which is founded on evidence and is the exact OPPOSITE of blind faith. Your blind faith in your god is causing you to disbelieve REAL evidence that corroborates these theories.

FUN FACT: There is more evidence for the Theory of Evolution than for the Theory of Gravity. So if there isn't enough evidence to say that evolution is true, then we certainly shouldn't be believing that gravity is true either. This is what I am talking about when I discredit your belief in any science. You are being selective with your evidence choosing to believe some evidence but not others all because it doesn't jive with a book written thousands of years ago.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Are you open to the possibility that other people aren't struggling with the notion of evolution?

Why don't you try something novel and explain your position. How exactly did the old fella manage all of this? Surely you must have a good idea, being so sure?

I think I have made myself clear over and over and over again, not just in this thread but many others.
I understand why people dont believe in God, I also understand and accept that many dont believe in evolution. I am aware that many Christians dont believe in the Genesis account and I accept that as well. I understand why and have no problem with it.

Why dont I explain my position? Whats the point. I am not here to win people over, especially the people who haunt these threads and are clearly antagonists.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Why dont I explain my position? Whats the point. I am not here to win people over, especially the people who haunt these threads and are clearly antagonists.

Seems convenient. Perhaps you can't.....?

One of us doesnt... obviously
I have made a claim that I dont believe in the evolutinary aspects of some sciences, you claimed I dont believe in science, and you dont think thats absurd. Seriously? strawman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's fine, you don't know what a strawman is either.

One of us doesnt... obviously
I have made a claim that I dont believe in the evolutinary aspects of some sciences, you claimed I dont believe in science, and you dont think thats absurd. Seriously? strawman

edit on b2014Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:59:53 -050063020142pm302014-06-03T12:59:53-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

edit on b2014Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:01:14 -050063020142pm302014-06-03T13:01:14-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)