Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

reply to post by MrConspiracy


I paraphrase

"Science" so why do people hang on to it's every word so tightly? if..

Because by removing an outside moral agent or an inner belief in a higher power then science can experiment and know no bounds. Such is how the genocidal agenda was sold by Bertrand Russell and the likes of Hitler and Prince Charles. In line with the Club of Romes thinking Elitist Eugenicist Bertrand Russell stated in 1953, that populations would be made passive via “diet, INJECTIONS, and injunctions” thus rendering them passive and
psychologically impotent. Hitlers Nazism did not arise in a vacuum.

Likewise now when we're sold artificial non foods swimming with fillers and preservatives and passed off as food. Cloning is fast becoming a reality. Science will be able to clone body parts and or keep multiple copies of yourself ready to harvest as you age and ail. So whats left and who will speak up for the unheard sentient life destroyed?.
The scientist can sit back and take the high moral ground saying all they've done is objective based - in the quest for science; abrogating responsibility to policy makers and Industry heavy represented Governing associations said to act in the interests of all. ie FDA AMA The American Psychiatric Association.

Remove the moral compass, instead relying alone on ethics promulgated edicts from the same self serving Peak bodies and all manner of injustice and inhumanity is possible

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


Associating Eugenics and Nazism with Evolution (or in your case Science) is another dishonest (and in my view quite despicable) tactic.

Claim CA006:

Evolution promotes eugenics.

Claim CA006.1:

Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

For those who say that ID/God believers are constantly worried because science is bringing new info to light is completely mistaken.

If anything, when you look at science. It's making me more and more aware of how complex this whole life is an making me more aware that there is more than meets the eye than just "we evolved"... That's my opinion anyway (oops). Like one poster mentioned... Where did it all begin? Say you can prove properly evolution from species to species one day... there's never NOT going to be a God component... where did everything come from? Something came from nothing? I mean... as we go on.. the mind boggles, really.

This is why i believe evolution and design don't have to bat heads. I think they both have merit if i'm honest. It just bugs me when ID haters take evolution for their everything.

Where we came from and who we are is always going to be a huge question mark i think.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Associating Eugenics and Nazism with Evolution (or in your case Science) is another dishonest (and in my view quite despicable) tactic

How so? Both Science and Creationists play the same game from a position of power. The medical scientist is a little bit more discerning accepting grants and bribes from pharmaceutical companies, not acknowledging such donations; where the evidence points to the opposite outcome or causing harm by a drug its buried or reworded with pages and pages of "contra-indications and side effects" Or the study never sees the light of day. Likewise the 40 years it took for some of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be published

Why despicable?...pretty strong words. I stated that in the absence of a moral authority the likes of Betrand Russell and Hitler arise. Do you get my drift?

You dont find children being ripped from their homes and put into care away from their parents by the State simply because their parents dared question forced vaccinations, morally abhorrant or "despicable" ???
All while the Government sets up a taxpayer funded pool of money to pay for victims adverse reactions a bit ironic? All based on science of course. Where does you moral compass lie?


from guitarplayer

do not sh#t to close to the house and butter would not melt in their mouths. So how can one argue with the premise that scientist can walk on water and creationist are God's blight on mankind.

Use emotion much?

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


Hysterical false equivalency followed by a transparent appeal to emotion does not really make for a solid argument. I'm sure someone will take you up on it, but I am currently watching a movie..

OP I thought I would give an example of a creationist tactic of dishonesty seeing
they're a bit scarce in the OP.

Creationists will often dig up the past won't they ?



Very dishonest !

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

 

Hysterical false equivalency followed by a transparent appeal to emotion does not really make for a solid argument. I'm sure someone will take you up on it, but I am currently watching a movie..

LOL! I'm off to the lab for the week, I will check in from time to time, I'll leave you in charge of the thread.

flyingfish

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

 

Hysterical false equivalency followed by a transparent appeal to emotion does not really make for a solid argument. I'm sure someone will take you up on it, but I am currently watching a movie..

LOL! I'm off to the lab for the week, I will check in from time to time, I'll leave you in charge of the thread.

Ack... I'm off to bed. I'll try and check in now and again from work tomorrow..

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


Why is it religious people bring up naziism and hitler when the guy was a devot catholic and even painted a pictures of mary and baby jesus?

If your wondering where people got the idea to ruthlessly murder and enslave, look no further than the old testament.

randyvs
OP I thought I would give an example of a creationist tactic of dishonesty seeing
they're a bit scarce in the OP.

Creationists will often dig up the past won't they ?

Very dishonest !

edit on 17-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Ok, so 100 years ago 1 dishonest individual perpetrated a hoax. Once we discovered fluorine absorption test the "fossil" was discredited by other scientists. Doesn't seem like all scientists are in cahoots in that context does it? Why are modern scientists called to task for the errors and frauds perpetrated a century ago? That would bethesame as me deciding that all religions act like the Branch Davidians or the Moonies or Heavens Gate when I know they aren't all that way.

randyvs
OP I thought I would give an example of a creationist tactic of dishonesty seeing
they're a bit scarce in the OP.

Creationists will often dig up the past won't they ?

Very dishonest !

edit on 17-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Ok, so 100 years ago 1 dishonest individual perpetrated a hoax. Once we discovered fluorine absorption test the "fossil" was discredited by other scientists. Doesn't seem like all scientists are in cahoots in that context does it? Why are modern scientists called to task for the errors and frauds perpetrated a century ago? That would bethesame as me deciding that all religions act like the Branch Davidians or the Moonies or Heavens Gate when I know they aren't all that way.

my whole problem with creationists is that they want actual laws and policies put in place for the rest of us to live by. the want to change how people live and interact with each other, not simply the belief in a god.

reply to post by flyingfish


There is no need for creationist such as myself to be dishonest, when the real science facts and evidence points to intelligent design in all things.

Most of the dishonestly, lies, and coverup come from the Evolutionist side, I would say 99% does. Many of these frauds are still in museums and textbooks today, such as Lucy being one of the latest frauds.

Evolution violates known scientific laws and some ideas like:
Evidence of complex design always leads to an intelligent designer in all things....except biology.
Universal law that things naturally going from order to disorder, evolution violates this.
Where did the information come from for the first DNA.
Why did and how did two sexes evolve including the food for them evolve at the same time and all from the same initial pile of DNA.
Bio-genesis- that only life can produce life.
Natural mutations are always a loss of DNA information.
Lack of transitional fossils, we should be swimming in them, many fossil creatures didn't change at all and found alive today.
Age of earth- lots of evidence pointing to a younger creation age, comets for example.
the list goes on...

OP I wrote this for you.
Science is merely a lens through which to view the world around us. The picture that we perceive when looking through this lens is called a world view. The world view that science paints for us is depicted as being superior to all other world views in that in can be verified by observation and peer review, its language is precision and mathematics, and also because it's practical application-namely technology-is proof of concept. The strength of Science in theory is that, ideally, it does base it's predictions, premises and conclusions on that which is observable, that which can be observed and understood, and that which can be manipulated for verification. Furthermore the theories and axioms of science, in theory, will always be subject to the possibility of falsifiability by counter-example.

One could approach scientific criticism by attacking any number of its specific conclusions. For example it is possible in theory to show that the speed of light is not a constant by demonstrating it traveling at a velocity other than C. Another way that one could approach scientific criticism is to demonstrate that the foundations and methods it rests upon are fundamentally flawed in principle.

One such example of a foundational principle that is assumed without categorization by the physical and natural sciences, is that everything is material. If there exists any such things in the physical Universe which are not material (comprised of neither matter nor energy), observable (whether directly or indirectly), manipulable(to be experimented upon, industrialized, or commercialized), or predictable (meaning if this hypothetical thing does not conform with Science, it's accepted ideas, and implicit assumptions), then Science can not say, for it refuses to allow for both that which is seen and unseen, and consequently science emphatically declares that this thing therefore does not exist.

This implicit rejection, by science, of that which is metaphysical, or beyond that which is physical, may prove it's greatest short sight, and its most glaring fundamental flaw. Practically speaking this worldview communicates itself in the class rooms of liberal public and higher education, and is further reinforced through various sociological institutions and phenomenon like mass media, or pop culture. This worldview is communicated as the idea that Science doesn't need God to make sense of the Universe, of life, or the Human experience, and that therefore God doesn't exist, nor that which is metaphysical, or supranatural; as the notion that it can explain everything in the Universe with the simplest, yet inaccessible, equation; that a quantum particle, which may or may not be a figment of sciences imagination, is tantamount to God; by the promises and future hope of paradise and salvation in knowledge and technology. To a cynical skeptic perceiving this idea via socialization, it seems communicated as smug, and exaggerated pride, for it's theories are evidently neither air tight nor incorruptible.

Science teaches theories of the laws, axioms, and forces that govern the physical Universe with mathematical precision, yet fails to recognize that these are merely ideas permeated throughout the Universe. For persons 'law' is merely an idea communicated; it is a decree expressed by authorities over the governed; it is that which an authority establishes that ought to be obeyed. The laws that govern the physical bodies of the Universe are ideas that are seldom deviated from, for if they were, it is for Heaven to know what may come of it.

If by some miracle the Universe did deviate from the worldview decreed by Science, what would it look like? What would it be called? Would it be written off as an anomalous outlier? Where do miracles or extraordinary circumstances of divine intervention fit into the equation for science? Regarding those laws that so efficaciously govern our Universe, where did they come from, and for what reason? In a Universe with a planet such as ours, host to intelligent life such as us, who ask questions such as these, is it folly to wonder if these laws that govern in the Universe in general, and in particular this Universal body we call Earth, are there for us? What if it could be demonstrated to be true that the Universe science paints for us looks an awfully lot like a Universe designed with us in mind, is it possible for science to acknowledge at least this? It is the intention of this essay to attempt to do just that, to understand and communicate the world view science paints for us, and by this picture highlight criticisms of science, to demonstrate that the Universe which science teaches about, is abounding with phenomenon that is better understood if it existed in a Universe intelligently designed by the inconceivable genius, and efficacious power of a Creator God.


The Big Bang: did it make a sound?


The prevailing cosmological theory in science to explain how this Universe came to exist is that of the big bang theory. The theory posits that some time more than 10 billion years ago there existed a singularity bound up in a moment. This singularity was so dense it contained all of the mass and energy in the entire Universe in a point of space and time, smaller then even a Plank length, which is the smallest unit of space. What bound up this singularity, where it came from, and what caused it to spontaneously expand, are questions science attempts to answer as a function of quantum fluctuations, or as an infinitely oscillating system. While these theories are ambitious and imaginative, it seems evidently so that unless science has created some sort of Einstein-Rosen bridge that allows them to closely observe the origins of the Universe from a space and time far removed from the origins of the Universe, then it would seem that this is a matter that science is unable to answer with any degree of certainty. Why is this a question that science is unable to answer? By it's own criterion it is beyond the scope of science to make predictions, hypothesis, experiment, and reach conclusions, if the matter in question is unobservable and/or immeasurable.

continued...

The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today is not able to be observed, and therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative to say the least. Even still science does offer us a story about where the Universe came from and how it unfolded and developed over time, and it does so with an air of confidence unfitting to mortal creatures. Science makes the argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe, it is possible to extrapolate to that which can not be directly observed, and as such it is possible to test hypothesis and reach conclusions.

I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then. It would seem that esteemed theoretical astrophysicist, and world renown expert on the matter, Professor Steven Hawking, is in agreement:


“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

...Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.” (Lecture by Professor Steven Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”. Hawking, S.W., www.hawking.org.uk...)

Without retracting the previous contention that there is really no way to conclude with any certainty what the Universe was like before, during, or after the big bang, but allowing the possibility that science is more veritable than feared, and in acquiescence to greater minds, perhaps science is onto some great truth about the origins of the Universe, and deserving, at least, of an open mind and fair consideration of the theory.

The prevailing cosmological theory that describes the unfolding of the Universe, where matter, stars, solar systems and galaxies come from is a story about rapidly expanding super heated plasma that was distributed unevenly at the moment of spontaneity, which will refer to the moment when the Universe began to expand.

In this scientific cosmology, just moments after spontaneity the Universe began to cool down as it expanded, which is when it believed the laws of physics and the unfolding Universe reached some sort of stasis. This stasis is assumed to have disintegrated from a hypothetical unified state prior to spontaneity which existed in the high energy vacuum called the singularity. Due to the equilibrium arrived at in the first few minutes of the Universe by 'universal forces', quantum particles, matter and anti-matter, a proportional resolution of protons and electrons, the cosmological constant, etc. it was possible for lighter elements like H and He to appear, and later for the first stars to forge in whose furnace the light elements would be transmuted into heavier elements.

Within the framework of this theory it is also accepted that the timely and precise resolution of these cosmological quantum variables constitute critical factors in what would later become a Universe hospitable to life. It is not unreasonable to wonder if the number of such critical factors are as numerous as the quantum particles potentially bound up in the singularity. In light of the stark unlikelihood of this fortuitous coinciding of variables critical to life, and the observation in hindsight that this Universe is hospitable to life, it seems a peculiar thing for a Universe hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause; that the unintending tumult of a lifeless singularity would, and in a spontaneous moment, be ordered precisely such that this unpredictable and hostile universe gives birth to the nurturing environment necessary for life, such as that on Earth, to be possible. This sows doubt to the premise of a strictly material and deterministic existence that permeates the scientific worldview, or at least beckons the possibility, that the Universe was calibrated by some sort of infinitely intelligent, powerful, Creator transcendent of the unfolding singularity. This possibility evokes a question that demands an honest answer. It is is a timeless question: Did God Create this?

In light of this awareness of the sheer unlikelihood of its occurrence, an awareness catalyzed by a open-minded examination of the facts derived from the physical sciences, is there reason to believe that the Universe was brought forth by a transcendent Creator who designed and calibrated its tumultuous forging precisely and efficaciously to bring forth life? Which is more likely given the facts: that the Universe is the result of intent and efficacy, or that it is the circumstance of a cosmic coincidence, as unlikely as that coincidence is absent intent?

It seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, according to the prevailing scientific teaching, it is an inevitability to arrive at this question, and it is more then compelling, yet even still science refuses to assent to the possibility that the Universe is created, or admit that it reeks of efficacious and intelligent design. On what grounds? Must we attempt to flesh out some equation by which we can calculate the probability that all the requisite conditions for this Universe to exist should coincide? This would be a futile endeavor no doubt, as it seems at first glance that its measure would be multiplied by an infinite degree of uncertainty, for objectivity sake.

Much like the moments pervading that of spontaneity, the modus operandi for defending scientific claims breaks down here, and rather than appealing to scientific data to justify their rationale, a new sort of counter argument is formed: the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle is a principle that implies we either turn a blind eye and ignore the sheer improbability for the life giving Universe to exist, without a Creator, to be so efficaciously ordered from even the first moment so as to not only produce an environment hospitable to life, as unlikely as that would be in an impersonal, hostile, and otherwise meaningless Universe, but to produce complex life like human persons, of sufficient complexity to intelligently and purposefully ponder the likelihood of it's meaning, or we assume the existence of a multi-verse consisting of every possible Universe such that the probability that a Universe such as ours should exist approaches certainty. This second possibility infinitely regresses into begging the question, for who then Created the efficacious multi-verse? In any case, it doesn't appear that the anthropic principle addresses the contention that is in question which is the theoretical degree of unlikelihood that this Universe should exist, in the absence of an intelligent and efficacious Creator.

continued...

The anthropic principle reasons that if the Universe were not tuned in such a way so as to eventually produce a hospitable environment, and life, in spite of its likelihood, it would not be home to life, and therefore there would be no intelligent life to ponder its meaning. Furthermore because there is intelligent life pondering the likelihood that it should exist, it therefore follows that the probability of the Universe being perfectly tuned to eventually host and give birth to life is certain, and consequently there is no need to infer whether the coinciding fortuity of the Universe is a matter of Providence, or likelihood. The anthropic principle begs the question of existences likelihood, and often presented as such that its significance is conflated with both science and veracity, of which it is demonstrated to be neither.

This anthropic principle is deceptively clever, and lest fall into the snare of its fallacy, it is important to better understand. The challenge being presented originally is as such: due to the number of critical factors perquisite for the Universe to not only be hospitable to life, but host to life, a number with an exponential effect, combined with the extremely low cumulative probability that these variables should precisely coincide given the disparity between the infinitesimally narrow window of possibility that the Universe was ordered such as to be hospitable to life, compared with the much greater range of possibilities for the Universe to be ordered such that it would not ever affect conditions hospitable to life, let alone those that would result in the emergence of complex, diverse, or intelligent life such that exists, it is a matter of intellectual necessity, given these facts and accepting sheer improbability as a reasonable approach to criticism, to consider intelligent design and creation as a more compelling explanation for the existence of a Universe such as ours, which is host to the most unlikely of things-complex biodiversity.

Any student of biology can appreciate just how complex, intricate, interconnected, interdependent, efficient, efficacious, and ruggedly fragile life, in all its diversity, is, even down to the microscopic level. Are these characteristics not some of the very fingerprints that one would expect to find about a thing that is designed with intent?

To cling stubbornly to the anthropic principle in response to what was originally posited as a seemingly reasonable conjecture inspired by an honest examination of the scientific facts, suggests an insecurity on the part of science. Why should the intellect loathe to consider higher questions inspired by that discipline of human inquiry which is so highly regarded? Why does science find it repulsive for its discoveries to illuminate greater meaning in life, or lend its evidences as weight in favor of the existence of a Creator God who transcends the corporeality and corruptibility of this dimension, and space-time? Is it hard to accept that all Creation bears witness to its maker? Or is it simply a refusal to recognize the fingerprints of God?

Is this aversion to approaching the timeless questions of life and God inextricably entwined to the notion of intelligence in contemporary western thought? Is this bias peculiar to the physical sciences? If only it were! It is a maladaptive artifact-a stubborn vestige of recent history-of the struggle between the legitimate institutions of society for epistemic authority. The story science tells is implicitly tinged with bitter and resentful undertones towards religion and philosophy, as it prides itself in the allegedly self-evident superiority of its so called enlightened intellectual rigor and objectivity, as contrasted with what it (implicitly) assumes, and thus perceives, to be the relative ignorance, inferiority, and gullibility of the intellect of the philosopher, believer, or zealot?

Contrary to what one would expect in light of prevailing scientific consensus, integrating critical science and statistical reasoning, leads to a conclusion that the existence of a Universe hospitable to life, the emergence of life, and thriving of life is fantastically improbable in a Universe with no intervening Creative Principle. Yet life does exist, and against all odds! Imagine all of the variables, constants, and physical laws that needed to be precisely in the right place at the right time in order for life to have even one chance! What makes more sense, that God wanted to create life, knew exactly what was necessary to create life, and had the power to order the Universe to accomplish His will, and so He did, or the story that the Universe got lucky and stumbled upon the astronomically improbable winning cosmic lottery numbers?

The creatures of the Earth cry out “we are not an accident”; the stars sing of their Maker!

Suppose for a second, that life on planet Earth really were a cosmic afterthought in a Universe that lacks foresight, how elsethen could we explain this fortuitous coinciding of incalculable variables like the physical laws, Universal constants, preexistent biological principles which permit life , and the physical conditions necessary for life to unexpectedly and suddenly exist from whence there was no life? Not only does life exist but the myriad of beautiful creatures that have emerged from a hypothetical ancient ancestor of all life-the first life form-are postulated to be so numerous and diverse under serious reflection it becomes dubious how this all happened: is this beautiful planet, which is conveniently whirling around its axis at approximately 1,000 mph, while at the same time whizzing 26,000 MPH through space in an orbit around a giant fusion reactor, our Sun, which blazes on the surface at approximately 6,000K degrees, at just the right distance so that we neither freeze nor fry, etc. ad on. ^x, is this place we call home the result of an cosmological accident as Darwinian evolutionary would imply, or is all of this a manifestation of the inconceivable Knowledge, Power, and Love of our Creator?

continued...

At the moment of spontaneity how does one account for how that chaotic floodgate of mass and energy that became ordered in such a way that gave rise to the biological principles and physical laws that are not just conducive, but also necessary for life to have emerged, survived, thrived, and evolved. How did the Universe learn to assemble proteins and amino acids? It must have already been established in the metaphysical laws that govern the physical Universe for the chemical reactions to yield certain molecules that function in a necessary way, and it must have established in the metaphysical(physical) laws for compounds to spontaneously assemble in precisely a manner for some urgently needed peptide or protein. All of that critical and meaningful information encoded in biodiversity needs to be accounted for! How did the Universe learn to encode genetic material? How did the Universe know cell nuclei would require water with properties that dissolves many critical minerals, or discover the semi permeable membrane of a cells nucleus? Spindles? Golgi apparatus, electron chain pumps that transport ions, and the list goes on and on. How did the Universe arrange ahead of time for all the necessary variables to align for life to emerge, as unlikely as it is? How could an impersonal Universe absent a loving God accomplish, not just any of these things, but all of these things, and many more than can be tallied or conceived?

One could scrutinize these questions for ions, one by one, Heaven knows there are a lot of them; maybe even imagine a clever story for each statistical anomaly to explain how a purely natural Universe, absent design, just happened to get every single facet right; how the universe was ordered perfectly for something as unlikely as life to emerge; how it did emerge; and how the universe did all of this without God's help.

Reinforced in this materialistic worldview by these intellectual vanities it is easy to fail to consider how much time and energy is spent conjuring and entertaining endless hypothesis to defend some common hidden presumptions unknowingly caught like a germ, in liberal academia, from a buddy or perhaps an admired celebrity idol. These unqualified intellectual assumptions, that there is no God, no miracles, that there is nothing supernatural or metaphysical, or the ideas that consumer culture, money, pleasure, property, or prestige are the path to the good life, thoughts like these are like a virus in the hearts, minds, and consciences of this generations Zeitgeist.

Contemporary science as an institution and academia, liberal public and higher education, and other conduits of modern mainstream culture-mass media for instance-have planted in the minds of many a story that suggests belief in God, the feasibility of the supernatural, the prudence and pragmatism of traditional morality, are somehow incompatible with intelligence, critical thinking, or reason; that the accomplishments and progresses of scientific and technological knowledge and capability in some way established science as the de facto epistemic authority; an idea that implies the theories and laws of science to be immutable, irreproachable, or infallible.

It is a dishonest story that the world presents, albeit with a shiny veneer. The zeal and emphasis placed on the certainty of this premise is disconcerting, and raises the insightful question for what reason?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

That was a nice long heap of nothing.

Those within the scientific fields recognize the limits of their respective fields and you want to paint that as a bad thing?

There is a difference between saying this isn't true and saying we don't know or we don't have enough evidence.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Do some research into logical fallacies and then re-read your posts. Those 3 massive posts are just giant masses of logical fallacies.

To pretend to be someone interested in philosophy or science and gish gallop your way to "god did it" is very dishonest.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

rationalwiki.org...

Wertdagf
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Do some research into logical fallacies and then re-read your posts. Those 3 massive posts are just giant masses of logical fallacies.

To pretend to be someone interested in philosophy or science and gish gallop your way to "god did it" is very dishonest.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

rationalwiki.org...

edit on 17-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Well at least give me one example if you would be so kind. I'm not certain you are correct, but I allow the possibility that I am too close to my own nose to see my face.