MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth that's completely false. evolution can be proven using mitochondrial DNA get educated In theory. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world. And It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved. There are 9 more of these each as compelling as the first. There is a strong belief in the jewish comunity that science and religion are complimentry. I happen to share this belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth There are 9 more of these each as terribly inadequate as the first. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 amusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 you are looking in the wrong place. Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):617-24. Epub 2004 Mar 7. Related Articles, Links Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES. The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. manoli@mit.edu Whole-genome duplication followed by massive gene loss and specialization has long been postulated as a powerful mechanism of evolutionary innovation. Recently, it has become possible to test this notion by searching complete genome sequence for signs of ancient duplication. Here, we show that the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from ancient whole-genome duplication, by sequencing and analysing Kluyveromyces waltii, a related yeast species that diverged before the duplication. The two genomes are related by a 1:2 mapping, with each region of K. waltii corresponding to two regions of S. cerevisiae, as expected for whole-genome duplication. This resolves the long-standing controversy on the ancestry of the yeast genome, and makes it possible to study the fate of duplicated genes directly. Strikingly, 95% of cases of accelerated evolution involve only one member of a gene pair, providing strong support for a specific model of evolution, and allowing us to distinguish ancestral and derived functions. PMID: 15004568 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] i don't see what scientific journal that stuff you cut and pasted came from. Evidence for the existence of a common ancestor of scorpion toxins affecting ion channels. Zhijian C, Yingliang W, Jiqun S, Wanhong L, Fan X, Xin M, Hui L, Dahe J, Wenxin L. Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People's Republic of China. All scorpion toxins from different 30 species are simply reviewed. A new classification system of scorpion toxins is first proposed: scorpion toxins are classified into three families (long-chain scorpion toxins with 4 disulfide bridges, short-chain scorpion toxins with 3 disulfide bridges, and intermediate-type scorpion toxins with 3 or 4 disulfide bridges). Intermediate-type scorpion toxins provide a strong proof for the conclusion that channel toxins from scorpion venoms evolve from a common ancestor. Common organization of precursor nucleotides and genomic sequence, similar 3-dimensional structure, and the existence of intermediate type scorpion toxins and functionally intercrossing scorpion toxins show that all scorpion toxins affecting ion channels evolve from the common ancestor, which produce millions of scorpion toxins with function-diversity. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 17:235-238, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (http://www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/jbt.10083 there's more, there's like 13 pages of results on a variety of organisms. you want a 'tree of life' i suppose though and won't accept all this proof of natural selection as something you could extrapolate so this is on the evolution of indonesians: Human Biology Indonesian mitochondrial DNA and its opposition to a Pleistocene era origin of proto-Polynesians in island southeast Asia. Cox MP. Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, United Kingdom. The origin of modern Polynesians, the route of their expansion into the Pacific Ocean, and the timing of their movements all remain contentious topics in modern anthropology. Numerous studies have used molecular data to elucidate settlement patterns in the Indo-Pacific region, but the same evidence is often interpreted in opposing ways by different researchers. Above all, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity has been used to discriminate between competing migration models and has narrowed the probable source of proto-Polynesian peoples to southern China and Taiwan or eastern Indonesia. Richards et al. (1998) used a dating method employing the p statistic to argue for an origin of Polynesian peoples in eastern Indonesia during the Pleistocene (> 10,000 years ago). Here, the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) is recalculated for a new series of Indonesian mtDNA sequences with Polynesian affinities. These data, which incorporate additional sequences published after 1998, produce dates that cannot rule out the possibility of a common ancestor for these sequences during the Holocene (< 10,000 years ago). This implies that previous estimates of TMRCA dates for Indonesian sequences lacked the statistical robustness necessary for replicability. The extant mtDNA evidence can no longer be viewed as favoring a Polynesian origin in eastern Indonesia, but instead remains consistent with an origin of proto-Polynesian peoples in southern China and Taiwan. this is another good one PLoS Biol. 2005 Oct;3(10):e376. Li, Zheng Yuan [corrected to Lee, Zheng Yuan]. Traces of archaic mitochondrial lineages persist in Austronesian-speaking Formosan populations. Trejaut JA, Kivisild T, Loo JH, Lee CL, He CL, Hsu CJ, Lee ZY, Lin M. Transfusion Medicine Laboratory, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. jtrejaut@ms1.mmh.org.tw Genetic affinities between aboriginal Taiwanese and populations from Oceania and Southeast Asia have previously been explored through analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y chromosomal DNA, and human leukocyte antigen loci. Recent genetic studies have supported the "slow boat" and "entangled bank" models according to which the Polynesian migration can be seen as an expansion from Melanesia without any major direct genetic thread leading back to its initiation from Taiwan. We assessed mtDNA variation in 640 individuals from nine tribes of the central mountain ranges and east coast regions of Taiwan. In contrast to the Han populations, the tribes showed a low frequency of haplogroups D4 and G, and an absence of haplogroups A, C, Z, M9, and M10. Also, more than 85% of the maternal lineages were nested within haplogroups B4, B5a, F1a, F3b, E, and M7. Although indicating a common origin of the populations of insular Southeast Asia and Oceania, most mtDNA lineages in Taiwanese aboriginal populations are grouped separately from those found in China and the Taiwan general (Han) population, suggesting a prevalence in the Taiwanese aboriginal gene pool of its initial late Pleistocene settlers. Interestingly, from complete mtDNA sequencing information, most B4a lineages were associated with three coding region substitutions, defining a new subclade, B4a1a, that endorses the origin of Polynesian migration from Taiwan. Coalescence times of B4a1a were 13.2 +/- 3.8 thousand years (or 9.3 +/- 2.5 thousand years in Papuans and Polynesians). Considering the lack of a common specific Y chromosomal element shared by the Taiwanese aboriginals and Polynesians, the mtDNA evidence provided here is also consistent with the suggestion that the proto-Oceanic societies would have been mainly matrilocal. mitochondrial DNA is a popular tool in evolutionary biology it is how the origin of AIDS was found Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Seriously dude, those two reasons are pretty bad, and show a very poor understanding of the workings of evolution and natural selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 yeah, there is no "host of missing links" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 heres some hot fossil record flossin for ya Dinosaur Called 'Missing Link' By Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 5, 2005; Page A08 Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a repentant poacher, researchers have unearthed the fossil remains of a dinosaur "missing link," a primitive plant-eater that had recently evolved from the carnivorous raptors, which also produced modern birds. The long-tailed dinosaur ate plants but still had the body of a meat-eater. It was a made-to-order victim for any passing marauder, except for its powerful, ropy arms and the four-inch talons on the ends of its forepaws. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050401397.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 oh snap! they said 'evolved' they better watch it there with the assumptions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Look I believe in evolution to a degree, it make sense, it even fits into the Bible, but my point is evolution like most theoretical siences have holes, missing links in the evolutionary chain. Science isnt bullet proof. How many times has it happened that a scientist came along twenty/ thirty years later and disproved a scientific theory? Evolution is a theory right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 a theory accepted within the scientific community as fact in other words, some major shit woul dhave to happen for science to question evolution here in the genetics lab, it's the way shit went down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] ALSO theory of evolution was written in 1859 it's been a bit more than 20 years http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 but still a theory. Just like G-d. A theory that in the religious community is accepted as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 if you want to believe god caused evolution, fine. to say darwin's 'theory' is still under scrutiny is like saying scientists are still debating the theory that water molecules are made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom now you are having a debate on semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 ok fine im glad we could come to such a civil conclusion its really been a pleasure ive learned alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 From an athietical standpoint... evolution like most theoretical siences have holes true, and the scientists are eager to learn what fills those holes, and so constantly poking around and gathering evidence that, so far, seems to support the theory of Evolution. Science, however, is always open to new ideas so if the imperical evidence suddenly pointed in a new direction you bet scientists would look into that... J A theory that in the religious community is accepted as fact. true, but nobody is considering rewriting the book at all... the books are written, the holes filled with pretty stories, tailored for delivery to the masses complete with rituals and and entire matrices dominating the social interaction of all followers. *Somethin' fer nuthin': When you're discussing astrophysics, it's the time to point out that Einsein believed in God. When you're talking about evolution, it's appropriate to mention that Darwin believed in God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 thanks for the tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Smart, I think you misrepresented a couple of the asian philosophies. Not by purpose but just general misconception Specifically, Taoism is a very hard thing to understand when... I would venture to say that Confucianism is not a religion but a theological exploration into the ethics of Taoism. Next is Bhuddism. You hit shintoism on the head though. Well, they say you always hurt the ones you love... It's difficult to distill into the easily recognizable, should I say 'digestable', in few words. Stereotypes are there for a reason and I hope I didn't debase my explanations by taking it that far but... yep, I kinda just shined up the outside but that doesn't mean the inside is not rich... Ah, but then that is why I said about it being the "undeniable counterpart", the sole problem of your argument being that Confucius wasn't really a Taoist... Otherwise Confucianism would just be a chapter under the Taoism heading but, again, undeniably it occupies the stage as an equal. Mmmm, well, I'm not too keen on Zen Bhuddism. I like the gardens and I understand the need for inner pursuits, however, I think that to truly abscribe... I think you end up chasing your tail... and let us not forget that while subscribing to asceticism they do wear golden robes (saffron, whatever, I paint and I know what color that is) and their statues are quite large and covered in gold... so... um... I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle Glad to be on point with Shintoism but, really I dig the iconograpy the MOST... I'm trying to say that like a 60's beatlemaniac girl, that shit is hot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] ALSO theory of evolution was written in 1859 it's been a bit more than 20 years http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ I would like to point out, that' darwin's theory on evolution has been disproved long ago. but the theory of evolution wasn't "invented" by darwin, it has been around for thousands of years... the greeks (amongst many other cultures) theorized the rudiments of it... darwin's contribution was to suggest the mechanism, the process, the "how" of evolution... and he brought popularity to this concept at a time of philospohical and economic flux in europe... but most of what Darwin posited has been refined and disproved... in other words, it has evolved... most of our understanding of evolution at this time is focused on genetics... evolution is not FACT. there are NO facts. just theories and ideas. and all ideas are subjective and relative. but the theory of god or whatver people want to call that concept is just a theory/ idea too... but much like astrology, that idea has been refined and discarded except by those who have personal., subjective agendas to keep it as a popular concept... but yous all know that intuitively irregardless or what you may say publically... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 and when yous all talk about "belief" and "truth" , it makes me wonder what everyone means by that.. those are just subjective concepts also... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 the greeks (amongst many other cultures) Um, the stereotype in this case actually says the ancient greeks were mostly amongst the young boys... does wiki have grammar lessons? among vs. amongst, further, look into the definition of the word FACT (you love to capitalize so I followed suit)... but really study, don't just assume you know the definition, look it up on Wiki and double check... or google fact vs. truth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Um' date=' the stereotype in this case actually says the ancient greeks were mostly amongst the young boys... does wiki have grammar lessons? among vs. amongst, further, look into the definition of the word FACT (you love to capitalize so I followed suit)... but really study, don't just assume you know the definition, look it up on Wiki and double check... or google fact vs. truth...[/quote'] hmmm, unless your being facetious and agreeing with me, then i think much of what i say is over your head... its 9pm, and I need to hit the packy, but let me respond first, as a warm-up for later, lol "Um, the stereotype in this case actually says the ancient greeks were mostly amongst the young boys..." ...not sure what this means "does wiki have grammar lessons? among vs. amongst," ...grammar is based on usage, not the other way around... its the same word, but we say it "amongst", but techinically I should have said "of amongst", that what the phrase I meant to write "further, look into the definition of the word FACT" ...I've been doing this for years, I think thats what we are all doing right now on this thread "(you love to capitalize so I followed suit)" without formatting, its hard to emphasize key words i'm discussing. but also i've been editing a study for work and have been bolding key words/concepts. I find it helps highlight important information in otherwise tedious, over technical writing... "but really study, don't just assume you know the definition, look it up on Wiki and double check... or google fact vs. truth..." you are being facetious, but is it an ironical facetiousness? but I hate saying facetious cuz it sounds so fucking pretensious. ok beer time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 i think much of what i say is over your head... "Um, the stereotype in this case actually says the ancient greeks were mostly amongst the young boys..." ...not sure what this means "does wiki have grammar lessons? among vs. amongst," ...grammar is based on usage, not the other way around... its the same word, but we say it "amongst", but techinically I should have said "of amongst", that what the phrase I meant to write "further, look into the definition of the word FACT" ...I've been doing this for years, I think thats what we are all doing right now on this thread "(you love to capitalize so I followed suit)" without formatting, its hard to emphasize key words i'm discussing. but also i've been editing a study for work and have been bolding key words/concepts. I find it helps highlight important information in otherwise tedious, over technical writing... you are being facetious, but is it an ironical facetiousness? but I hate saying facetious cuz it sounds so fucking pretensious. ok beer time... Yeah, that's probably it. Way to be on top (no pun intended) of stereotypes and terms of the sex trade Oh, I didn't realize you WANTED (see how I did that like you do?) to come off like a pretencious fuck. Yes, and all this time you have actually been searching for TRUTH. See what I did with the bold type in my response to the 'among-amongst' response? Is that the sort of thing you were talking about? I was being serious. Beer time for me started 5 hours and 45 minutes ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 i didn't get out the office until 7pm and after driving home, getting supper etc, I'm kinda late getting my drink on (east coast style i gues)... plus getting dark at 9:30 throws me off... and in terms of amongst vs among, amongst is prevalent in NE and Britian in usage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 and I still don't get the greek thing... as a freindless drug addicted alcoholic who reads too much, I don't get out enough to leran about the sex trade and the jargon of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 So familiar with Wiki, so unfamiliar with Google... I think that really says something about the basic nature of your character... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Science tends to be as imperfect as religion sometimes. take evolution for example*. Its improvable, in fact there have been scientists that have proved the opposite. Or the big bang, where did it come from? Who made it? What does our universe expand into? You have to make leaps of "faith" in science the same as religion because science is filled with theoreticals. Alot of very famous and learned scientists believe in G-d, Einstien is a perfect example. *I do not feel science is false I'm just pointing out its imperfections. And I am not saying that it isnt ok to beleive in god I am saying that if you beleive allegorical literature the basis of all organized religions to be the LITERAL WORD OF GOD passed down to man via god himself or through angels and visions to chosen prophets then you are a fucking pre historic idiot. It is as simple as that. These are fictional stories written by HUMAN BEINGS. The possibilities for a god existing or not are endless. There are scientists who beleive that god could have created evolution or the big bang. When you take into account other science discoverys in the last 100 years it becomes easy to realize that the human race isnt special. There are BILLIONS of planets in our galaxy and most likely billions of galaxies through out the entire universe. Maybe there is a god in charge of it all maybe it is a series of random events. One thing is for certain. The fictional writtings of humans on the planet earth 2000 - 2500 years ago do not hold any answers to the reality of a god or gods existance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 The problem lies in the fact that billions of people are raised with these stories to be undeniable truth when from a biblical historian and scientist point of view they are completely unprovable. Most people will never be able to break away and look at the bigger picture be it from the rules of the religion itself (eg: christianity) or they are simply to afraid to. People raised within these cultures and taught these stories as undeniable truths need them. They could not live a life without this 'god' being exactly how he is in this book and in their mind. They could not bare the thought of there truely being nothing once you die or that man isnt shaped in the image of god and we are his special little creation on this one planet he looks down on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 21, 2006 Author Share Posted May 21, 2006 The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Similar to the pagans who do not know. (and the people on 12 oz. who argue forever bringing blah, blah for days) Allâh will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing. (Al-Baqarah 2:113) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth And I am not saying that it isnt ok to beleive in god I am saying that if you beleive allegorical literature the basis of all organized religions to be the LITERAL WORD OF GOD passed down to man via god himself or through angels and visions to chosen prophets then you are a fucking pre historic idiot. It is as simple as that. These are fictional stories written by HUMAN BEINGS. You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want, but dont judge me for it. It just makes you look ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 People who follow organized religion shouldn't even be aloud to use the word ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.