It just doesn't happen

a reply to: toktaylor

The worship of many gods (by human) from time immemorial proves the idea of god is not original nor unique and also negate the authenticity of "a one true god" argument.

Nope nope nope the worship of many Gods is already explained by scripture
long before archaeology and science were even a twinkle in mankind's eye.

Satan and his angels were cast down to this Earth and caused men to worship
themas Gods. Not even a good try. See you have pay good reason to the Gods
by humans. The monuments alone prove you have to explain much more than
mankind falling for some lie or made up myth. The monuments weren't built
on lies. That's foolish science. I could just see myself in some college and a
professor try'n to convince me of what you just said. I would've disrupted
the entire class and made him look like a fool.

a reply to: Peeple

As I see it that God is trying to kill us all, so I figure trying to find out what it is might be helpful and concepts are the epithome of our intelligence.

Ah but doubt is the father of failure.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rom12345

But it's not what's happening for a long time. We went from H to Fe, that's no increase in entropy but in complexity.
We went from Cyano to reptiles, increase in complexity.
We went from something rat-like to apes increase in complexity.
We went from plasma and dust to planets and moons etc neatly on their orbit, decrease in entropy by a lot.
We went from primitive humanoids using bones and stones as tools to massive data cllection massive increase in complexity.
...

Many evolutionists assume that ancient living things were simple but then were supposedly driven by natural selection to become more and more complex through the ages. Recent studies have failed to find such a drive toward greater complexity. Dr. Dan McShea, a paleobiologist, examined the fossilized backbones of various mammals; another study focused on mollusk fossils. Neither study found any evidence of an evolutionary drive toward greater complexity. Nor did they find that greater complexity brought any survival advantage. According to The New York Times, experts say that these findings “will come as a surprise to many biologists used to thinking in terms of such trends.” Notes the Times: “According to Dr. McShea, the perception of drives toward complexity may be more a reflection of scientists’ desires to see some sort of progress in evolution rather than a reflection of any biological reality.”

Members of ISSOL (International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life) met in 1986 in Berkeley, California, for their eighth conference. After acknowledging the need for a “self-critical stocktaking of achievements to date,” ISSOL cofounder Professor Klaus Dose stated in Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, a German scientific magazine, that years of research have brought evolutionists no closer to understanding the origin of life.

Professor Dose writes: “Probably no discipline of natural science distinguishes itself by such a variety of contradictory ideas, hypotheses, and theories as does the whole field of the evolution of life. In 1986, more than 30 years after the initially promising start to the era of simulation experiments, we can hardly point to any more facts in explanation of the actual mechanism of the origin of life than Ernst Haeckel did 120 years ago. Unfortunately, it must be recognized that the products resulting from simulation experiments are, largely speaking, no closer to life than are the substances that make up coal tar.” Similarly, New York University professor Irving Kristol wrote that “the gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

While evolutionists continue to grope for answers, the Bible’s explanation fits all known facts. As the Bible writer David recorded with conviction: “For with you [God] is the source of life.”​—Psalm 36:9.


QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

When Science Speaks—How Do You Listen? (Awake!—1998)

...
[Box on page 11]

“The Overriding Supremacy of the Myth”

In recent years some scientists have raised serious doubts about the viability of the theory of evolution as expressed by Charles Darwin. This is especially true of molecular biologists.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, a researcher in biology, wrote: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.”

He continues: “The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago . . . Nothing could be further from the truth.”—Page 77.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 154.

“As the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases,* our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.” (Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe, pages 39-40) In other words, recent findings in the field of molecular biology raise serious doubts about Darwin’s theory.

“The result of [the] cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun.”—Darwin’s Black Box, pages 232-3.

a reply to: carsforkids

Man began to worship elements, the sun, fire and water, out of a sense of extreme fear, created by natural calamities, the predators and the intention to pacify them.

a reply to: toktaylor

I thank you for your cordial responses they seem to be rare around here.
And while of course the case you make holds water. It simply leaks at the
point of the world wide massive monuments. And their similar precision.

The argument against the simplicity of the mainstream account is far to
great. When you even have such great professors such as Dr. Robert Schoch
pushing dates back. It is undeniable that mainstream is resisting these solid
ideas. And that just isn't good science. Surely you must agree to that much
even if merely in scientific good conscience?

a reply to: whereislogic

Science seems to fail often when it comes to accounting for the
bias and cognitive dissonance of it's own human scientists. Everyone
of us are human first. And we want it our way by nature. I appreciate
your post.

a reply to: carsforkids
If we are raised from childhood to believe that something called “God” exists, that perception becomes our reality.

If our entire worldview is wrapped around the idea of God, it can be a difficult idea to escape. Years of indoctrination, repetition, Sunday school classes, sermons, Christian schools, emotional songs, the perception of answered prayers, religious experiences, and even casual conversations about God (like this thread), can all serve to reinforce the idea that God exists.

Eventually, we may come to “just know” God exists because our brains have been hardwired to believe it. And because this idea cannot be easily disproved (which shouldn’t be mistaken for actual evidence), the idea is not readily dispelled.
All of this may lead to us feel as if God’s existence is intuitive and obvious. But think about some of the other things our cultures teach us, and how they too might seem intuitive and obvious.
The inherent danger in assuming that one “just knows” anything is that it stops one from thinking. It discourages further education, and inhibits well-informed decisions.

a reply to: toktaylor

While I believe what you say here is at best arguably correct shall we say?

The inherent danger in assuming that one “just knows” anything is that it stops one from thinking. It discourages further education, and inhibits well-informed decisions.

I believe it is prudent that I dismiss what you say here.

If our entire worldview is wrapped around the idea of God, it can be a difficult idea to escape. Years of indoctrination, repetition, Sunday school classes, sermons, Christian schools, emotional songs, the perception of answered prayers, religious experiences, and even casual conversations about God (like this thread), can all serve to reinforce the idea that God exists.

Only because it doesn't account for the rather small percentage of
believers like myself. I was never indoctrinated or sent to any church.
My parents never stepped thru the doors of any church with me. And
while if asked they would claim baptist. Upon my query for guidance
from them sadly I was told it was something I had to decide for myself.

I truly feel as tho I missed out not being brought up in a family of
true believers. Suffice all of that to say, I had my mind made up by the
time I was twelve. After two years of my own Bible studies weighed
against what science and atheists of the time and scientific evolutionists
had to say about the matter. at twelve yrs old I saw the evolutionary
account for our being here as more fantastic and absurd then anything
I could even imagine.

I made my own completely unbiased decision based on my own freedom
to think and come to my own Conclusion. And after 53 years of waiting
for any good reason. From the scientific academic community too believe
what I chose might be wrong. Even in the slightest way? Your scientific
communities discoveries as well as archaeological recent finds. Have more
than only served to bolster what I decided as a fledgling 51 yrs ago.

Today I am 100% assured that in my life time you nor the whole of science
will never present anything to the world that will change my mind. That's
why you can take this argument any where you like with me. There're holes
in it at every turn. That are only filled by what I have decided was the truth.

Science and atheism are most definitely vulnerable to the fallacy of man.
The tremendous advantage of what I believe to be our story? Is the
simple possibility that the true God is not fallacious in his word or in his
actions. 51 years and I have seen nothing to change my view. This thread
should prove at least the fact that there is no good reason for me to
even consider it. You keep your trust in men I feel safe in the possibility
that I do not.




Secret message for Conc embedded lol

a reply to: carsforkids

Okay... then what the heck was the point in opening a discussion on this subject if you have zero interest in accepting new information or changing your mind?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Okay... then what the heck was the point in opening a discussion on this subject if you have zero interest in accepting new information or changing your mind?

Well come on Chaz, am I a horrible person for challenging you? Or is it
okay to be fascinated with this conversation? I've already admitted that
while the OP is the truth from my prospective, I was a bit to abrasive .
As I already said I just wanted to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Also at this point I feel I was pretty hard on you a couple times. I said some
things that now I see weren't even true. And therefore I apologize. You are a
very tuff customer. Your knowledge is astounding and I won;t be taking that
back.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Maybe for the same reason that so many of us participate in : " Creationism vs Evolution debates (ad nauseam) " ?

A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements.

Molecular Machinery of Life
Information Processing in Living Cells

Oh, and whatever happened to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' when people like Dawkins and Sagan (who popularized that phrase) are making the claims? Claims that are not only extraordinary, but also extremely far-fetched and basically “sheer hubris” as Professor John Barrow puts it? Much like these claims as promoted by Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins and many others who jumped on the same bandwagon:


Talking about Dr. Sagan...

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

1, 2. What mechanism is said to be a basis for evolution?

THERE is another difficulty facing the theory of evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.

2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.(⁠1) Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠(2) And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”(⁠3)

3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?

3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”(⁠4) And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations​—sudden changes in heredity—​breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”(⁠5)

But according to Dr. Carl Sagan, evolution is a religion which masquerades as science. . . .

Source: “Evolution Is a Religion Which Masquerades as Science” (Awake!—1987)

I think I've already spoken enough in this forum about:

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.(19)

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

Another 'extraordinary claim' that contradicts all the evidence we have from mutation research in general and more than 80 years of mutation breeding in particular (note that I'm including Sagan's way of phrasing the same claim and proven myth, as evidenced by what I just referred to without spelling out all the stuff concerning what Dr. Lönnig referred to as “the law of recurrent variation” that I've gone through before on this forum*).

*: Or as Science magazine put it back in the 80's (before Lönnig coined that phrase):

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

Source: When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”(22)

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

Here's a valid question for self-reflection for those who believe in this myth in spite of all the evidence against it and the lack of any proper evidence in favor of it, as mentioned at the end of my previous comment:

When Science Speaks—How Do You Listen?

Just remember for those who are thinking about the term "speciation" or "hybridization", just calling it a new species doesn't make it one. Like Darwin did with his finches because they had different beak sizes and shapes. They're all still finches. Pff, imagine they'd start classifying humans into different species based on the size and shapes of their mouths. Scenarios such as the way the Nazi evolutionists were measuring people's noses to determin if they should be classified amongst the supposedly less evolved jews (they had them even lower in the evolutionary tree than Africans) or the most evolved Aryans, or somewhere in the middle.

Kind (Insight on the Scriptures)

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle genetically.

Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges” between “kinds” are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds” without evolving into other “kinds.” The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds” during the final creative days.​—Ge 1:20-25.

I made up my own religion centering around the Mother of God. The blessed Virgin of Guadalupe... and I'm not even a Catholic.

Prove me wrong all you Biblical Fundamentalist; I don't need some wanna be theologian to tell me how to worship.

agreed. everything is too perfect. perfect air to breath, perfect water to drink, perfect food to eat.
Watch Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Great on this subject. a reply to: carsforkids

originally posted by: HODOSKE
agreed. everything is too perfect. perfect air to breath, perfect water to drink, perfect food to eat.
Watch Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Great on this subject. a reply to: carsforkids

I don't understand why something would evolve that would need to breath different air, drink a different liquid, and eat different foods than the things that were available within the environment in which they were evolving.

I mean, there is life on earth in other environments that (for example) lack oxygen but thrive because they evolved in an environment lacking free oxygen -- and they evolved into organisms that COULD thrive there. Humans and other land animals thrive in the environment in which they live because they evolved to thrive there.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I don't understand why something would evolve that would need to breath different air, drink a different liquid, and eat different foods than the things that were available within the environment in which they were evolving.

I don't understand how you suppose random chance could create a digestive system that is able to regulate water levels in the body and transport water accordingly across very precise water pump proteins. I also don't understand how you think random chance could generate the ability to digest food into useful resources for the body and allocate it efficiently through a vascular highway system throughout the body. I also don't understand how you think random chance could have made kidneys and a liver to allow toxic chemicals that are in foods to be removed through a very meticulous detoxification process.

You're acting like evolution is a miracle worker or something

I mean, there is life on earth in other environments that (for example) lack oxygen but thrive because they evolved in an environment lacking free oxygen

How? How could this ever happen? You have replaced the notion of "God did it", with 'evolution did it'. You have no idea how, you just suppose due to faith in evolution that it must have done it. Somehow.

-- and they evolved into organisms that COULD thrive there.

If there were organisms that require oxygen and they were living in an environment with no oxygen they would all die. They would have no time to magically evolve, because they would all be dead. You see how all these evolutionary hypotheticals are impossible?

Our world is designed.

Humans and other land animals thrive in the environment in which they live because they evolved to thrive there.

Organisms thrive in the environment for which their genetic code was designed.

a reply to: whereislogic
W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

The term "higher categories" is referring to the way people in the field of biology categorize organisms into different categories such as species, families, phyla, kingdoms, etc. (a more complete list is mentioned in the footnote below). So he's speaking about higher categories than "species".

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29*

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31*
...
[Footnotes]
The biological term phyla (singular, phylum) refers to a large group of animals that have the same distinctive body plan. One way that scientists classify all living things is by a seven-step system in which each step is more specific than the one before it. Step one is kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the categories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. For example, the horse is categorized in the following way: kingdom, Animalia; phylum, Chordata; class, Mammalia; order, Perissodactyla; family, Equidae; genus, Equus; species, Caballus.

It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution. [whereislogic: stubborn and zealous as they are for what Dr. Sagan referred to as a religion which masquerades as science, as mentioned by someone else in my previous comment, I left out the context there who was saying that about Dr. Sagan*]

29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.
30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.
31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.

Source: QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

*: it was this guy saying it:

“Evolutionists don’t want to fight. They have already declared victory and view any assault on their domain as pretension. Could it be that the reason they want to avoid a fight is because they evolved from chickens?”​—Cal Thomas’ column in the New York Daily News, Friday, August 22, 1986.

Didn't even notice the joke at the end the first time. It's pretty funny though.

Source: “Evolution Is a Religion Which Masquerades as Science” (Awake!—1987)

originally posted by: cooperton

How? How could this ever happen? You have replaced the notion of "God did it", with 'evolution did it'. You have no idea how, you just suppose due to faith in evolution that it must have done it. Somehow.

Early Earth lacked oxygen. The life on early Earth thrived in the non-oxygen environment. The entire first half of the history of life on Earth (the first 2+ billion years) was a time when this non-oxygen (anaerobic) life thrived.

One of those early earth life forms (cyanobacteria) that thrived in the oxygen-free environment gave off oxygen as a waste product. These cyanobacteria thrived on the CO2 in the atmosphere and thrived well enough to begin pumping more and more oxygen into the oceans and atmosphere.

Oxygen is very reactive, and many of the anaerobic (non-oxygen) life found the oxygen to be so reactive that it was toxic to them. That anaerobic life had to skulk away to other deep recesses of the earth to survive, such as deep underground where they still remain today, leaving the oxygenated surface a ripe new ground for any organism that could get a foothold there a withstand the toxic effects of oxygen.

This change in the environment -- like any change in the environment -- boosted evolutionary changes. That is, there were always mutations going on, but if the environment didn't change, then none of those mutations would be particular helpful for an organism to thrive more than those without the mutation.

However, because of the changing environment, that mean that organisms can begin taking full advantage of mutations, and the mutations that best helped them survive in the new oxygen-rich environment were the mutations that were more likely to get passed along to subsequent generations -- such as mutations that allowed organisms to take full advantage of oxygen's extremely reactive properties, and begin to use that oxygen that was otherwise a waste product of some of the existing life.

That's a nutshell explanation, edited for brevity.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I don't understand why something would evolve that would need to breath different air, drink a different liquid, and eat different foods than the things that were available within the environment in which they were evolving.

What science suggests what you are suggesting. What all atheists and
the better part of academia are trying so hard for some reason. I can't
understand why you are trying so hard to sell this mindlessness to the
world?

And there in lies your answer. You simply can't expect mindlessness to be
responsible for both food and air to be present at the perfect time
coinciding with life. Not to mention water and beautiful scenery on Earth
and in the sky etc etc etc. How do you solve the problem of the timing for
all this not even being off at all in a single case?

Our existence can only be attributed to mind not mindlessness. It's as
ridiculous as it sounds.

Just seems too implausible for everything to work in perfect harmony. Take for instance the Fibonacci code in nature. Almost like a computer program how everything is a perfect pattern. That shouldn't happen if something is random. a reply to: Soylent Green Is People