Was Jesus a real person?

[Rastapopoulos]

If you don't even know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution then why do you believe in evolution at all?

Does that mean you can't explain it?

 

[crowTrobot]

Huh really? Please show me a medical, scientific or archeological journal that has any species "missing link"? I mean if it's so easy to understand and the norm, then why haven't any discoveries of these links been published? I'm still searching for them.

you're searching for someone to publish a paper on finding a crockoduck i presume.

 

[julius]

were you singing surfin' bird at the restaurant by any chance?

Nope. But a huge rooster and I kept getting in a fight.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume this has already been posted:

[video=youtube;p6z0Zay9itk]

 

[magnifier661]

you're searching for someone to publish a paper on finding a crockoduck i presume.

And ironically you make a joke about it. We can see just how serious you are about your Faith. How can I take you seriously, when you haven't even explained true evolution; the backbone of Atheism? You question the moral or "logic" of faith driven Religion. Maybe you should channel some of that energy in proving the Scam known as evolution?

See the difference between Christians, or even Religious people are their pursuit of understanding or knowing their own Philosophy. Atheists just use "Hey well scientists and scholars believe it, so it must be true"

Do you know that some people are heavily involved with certain types of Religions, then go deep into that religion and discover it's got holes in it? They do further research and find a faith that best suits them. Have you been on this enlightened Journey? If you say you don't care, then I suppose you really can't judge those with Faith that pursue their Religion can we?

 

[crowTrobot]

And ironically you make a joke about it. We can see just how serious you are about your Faith. How can I take you seriously, when you haven't even explained true evolution; the backbone of Atheism? You question the moral or "logic" of faith driven Religion. Maybe you should channel some of that energy in proving the Scam known as evolution?

See the difference between Christians, or even Religious people are their pursuit of understanding or knowing their own Philosophy. Atheists just use "Hey well scientists and scholars believe it, so it must be true"

Do you know that some people are heavily involved with certain types of Religions, then go deep into that religion and discover it's got holes in it? They do further research and find a faith that best suits them. Have you been on this enlightened Journey? If you say you don't care, then I suppose you really can't judge those with Faith that pursue their Religion can we?

well that was coherent.

and again note that many theists believe in evolution, almost half of all scientists are religious, and at least some atheists don't believe in evolution. you're creating a false dichotomy here. it's not the point of evolutionary theory or the goal of evolutionary scientists to disprove god.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Fair enough, how about this one (from a professor of Folklore at Berkeley):

Dionysus and Minthra are both described in the video I already posted.


And what do you know about Justin Martyr? First off, he was born almost a century after the events of Jesus and His crucifixion took place and he was never an eyewitness like the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles claimed to be. During that time period Jews were persecuting Christians heavily so I highly doubt they would pass off genuine information regarding the life of Jesus. It's basically the same thing that's happening today and over the past 2,000 years. People have been trying to skew and undermine the Gospel message since the very beginning. In order to believe this you must hold this man's opinion above all the historical Biblical and extra-Biblical documents we have of Jesus Christ, the Bible and a whole and its fulfilled prophecies, and the spread of early Christianity.

I asked this before and will ask again: Do you believe Jesus existed? If not, who made Him up and why did they do it? Also, how could they have such unbelievable success spreading the message of a man who never even existed? It makes no sense. If the disciples and apostles of Jesus knew what they were spreading to be a lie, why would they undergo persecution and even death to spread their faith? What this would turn out to be is the greatest conspiracy theory ever known to man, one with no evidence whatsoever I might add.


And the other clip you provided is nothing more than this man's opinion, not to mention he seems to have very little knowledge of what it says in the Bible and what he does know seems a little dishonest. If you want truth, I recommend you read the New Testament yourself if you haven't already and form your own opinion. I also recommend reading the book of Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs and the book of Isaiah. Saying a prayer to God to reveal Himself in His Word is worth a try to. This is if you are genuinely interested.

Does that mean you can't explain it?

To paraphrase, micro evolution is an example of a species adapting to its environment over time with subtle changes. Macro evolution is literally animals transforming into an entirely new and different species. Basically they say we were all sea critters once which somehow originated from single celled organisms and then in turn produced every variety of land animal we see today. The amount of faith it takes to believe this is incredible to me seeing the irreducible complexity of nature and all its functions. For complex biological structures to come from a random, chaotic cosmic accident is zero. Not to mention that there is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis (life starting on its own) or macro evolution.

 

[magnifier661]

well that was coherent.

and again note that many theists believe in evolution, almost half of all scientists are religious, and at least some atheists don't believe in evolution. you're creating a false dichotomy here. it's not the point of evolutionary theory or the goal of evolutionary scientists to disprove god.

Oh okay so what do you or they believe then? How did we get here?

 

[MARIS61]

Oh okay so what do you or they believe then? How did we get here?

Beliefs are like fingerprints, no two people have the exact same ones.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Beliefs are like fingerprints, no two people have the exact same ones.

That doesn't mean truth doesn't exist.

 

[magnifier661]

Beliefs are like fingerprints, no two people have the exact same ones.

Well I was just asking him, but I can ask you the same question. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe there is a God? If you don't believe in either, then how were we created?

I'm not asking if you believe in my God either. I am talking about a "Supernatural higher being"

 

[Rastapopoulos]

And what do you know about Justin Martyr? First off, he was born almost a century after the events of Jesus and His crucifixion took place and he was never an eyewitness like the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles claimed to be.

Actually at least two of the Gospels make no claim to be by eyewitnesses (which is good, because they're full of contradictions, as everyone knows). It's generally accepted that Mark is the first, Matthew and Luke use Mark and one other work ("Q") and that John is just totally nutty, which is why it disagrees with the others on so many details. They were all included (instead of one coherent story) because each had its political base. One is pro-woman but anti-Jew (Luke, I think, but I can't remember) and another is much more pro-Jew and so on.

I asked this before and will ask again: Do you believe Jesus existed?

Do you mean was there a historical individual, possibly called Jesus, who roamed around preaching and who possibly had some disciples? Sure - there were tons of them. Do I believe that he was the son of God and rose again after three days? Of course not. I'm with Thomas Jefferson on that one.

If not, who made Him up and why did they do it?

Which part of "Him"? Who made up Robin Hood? Who made up King Arthur? Who made up Dionysus? Who cares?

And the other clip you provided is nothing more than this man's opinion, not to mention he seems to have very little knowledge of what it says in the Bible and what he does know seems a little dishonest.

Which one are you talking about? If you mean the narrator/guy who put together the film "The God Who Wasn't There" (also the writer of the musical "Batboy"), then I agree he goes a bit over the top. But he does have an axe to grind, as he was raised a fundamentalist. If he doesn't know the bible that well, it wouldn't be all that surprising.

If you want truth, I recommend you read the New Testament yourself if you haven't already and form your own opinion.

The Old Testament is much more fun. Who was it that was forced to read the Bible for a bet, and half way through just threw it down and said "isn't God a shit!" Winston Churchill's son, I think.

What I want to know is, did Judas die by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or did he die by falling and bursting open (Acts 1:18)? I like the bursting open one much better: he's strutting around in the field he's just bought with his 30 pieces of silver and just trips and SPLURCH! The other one makes him sound like such a Debbie Downer. He should cheer up - after all, if it wasn't for him, all of humankind wouldn't have been saved!

This is if you are genuinely interested.

In what?

To paraphrase, micro evolution is an example of a species adapting to its environment over time with subtle changes. Macro evolution is literally animals transforming into an entirely new and different species. Basically they say we were all sea critters once which somehow originated from single celled organisms and then in turn produced every variety of land animal we see today. The amount of faith it takes to believe this is incredible to me seeing the irreducible complexity of nature and all its functions. For complex biological structures to come from a random, chaotic cosmic accident is zero. Not to mention that there is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis (life starting on its own) or macro evolution.

Hmm. This sounds like one of those "strategically elastic" definitions mentioned here:

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[12] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][13] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][14] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[15] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[16][17]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

What are your views on ring species? Don't they rather threaten the idea of a species one which the purported distinction between macro- and micro-evolution depends?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Since we like WikiPedia.

I saw one quote in an earlier post that Evolution should be some steady process. Bullshit.

There are all sorts of environmental conditions that might speed things along for some species or slow them down for others.

Life first appeared 4B years ago, pretty not very recent in the geologic time scale. It took 1.5B years for that early life to convert CO2 to O2 in quantities enough for life that breathed oxygen to evolve and survive. Yet it took about 65M years for Man to evolve from rodents.

And there are numerous examples of fossils found that do bridge two species with significant differences in traits.

 

[crowTrobot]

Oh okay so what do you or they believe then? How did we get here?

i don't know which they you are referring to, but i don't pretend to know how life or the universe started. only that speciation occurs through common descent.

 

[Denny Crane]

i don't know which they you are referring to, but i don't pretend to know how life or the universe started. only that speciation occurs through common descent.

I think there is merit to the claim science is a form of religion. It has it's own creation stories and even apocalyptic stories. There's an evangical nature to it, and even a "you'll burn in hell if you don't stop AGW."

 

[magnifier661]

i don't know which they you are referring to, but i don't pretend to know how life or the universe started. only that speciation occurs through common descent.

Then why place such condemnation to Creation? You base your ideology on science and are adamant about proving Christianity being a shame. Look at Denny here. You can see or "Feel" that he understand's "His Faith" of science and can explain it. This is how I can respectively have a nice debate. One side has deep faith in their belief, while I have deep faith in mine.

So my advice, if you even care to accept it, is "Before you are so quick to judge a Religion or Faith; you may want to use that energy to support your own".

 

[crowTrobot]

I think there is merit to the claim science is a form of religion. It has it's own creation stories and even apocalyptic stories. There's an evangical nature to it, and even a "you'll burn in hell if you don't stop AGW."

been over this. you may have an issue with al gore and the liberal press, and possibly some individual scientists who may or may not have political agendas, but you have no reason to fault the scientific method itself or the scientific community as a whole.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay this has been fun, but I got to get my party on.... Happy New Years everyone!!!!

 

[Denny Crane]

Then why place such condemnation to Creation? You base your ideology on science and are adamant about proving Christianity being a shame. Look at Denny here. You can see or "Feel" that he understand's "His Faith" of science and can explain it. This is how I can respectively have a nice debate. One side has deep faith in their belief, while I have deep faith in mine.

So my advice, if you even care to accept it, is "Before you are so quick to judge a Religion or Faith; you may want to use that energy to support your own".

I am quite sure the Bible was written by men and is difficult to accept it as historical truth. It's a good collection of stories with morals. Creationism is silly to me because I see TWO creation stories in the Bible - which one am I supposed to believe? There's the six days creation story and the garden of Eden one.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Actually at least two of the Gospels make no claim to be by eyewitnesses (which is good, because they're full of contradictions, as everyone knows). It's generally accepted that Mark is the first, Matthew and Luke use Mark and one other work ("Q") and that John is just totally nutty, which is why it disagrees with the others on so many details. They were all included (instead of one coherent story) because each had its political base. One is pro-woman but anti-Jew (Luke, I think, but I can't remember) and another is much more pro-Jew and so on.

Again with the out-of-context "contradictions". And your base your opinions on what exactly? What agenda were they trying push?

Do you mean was there a historical individual, possibly called Jesus, who roamed around preaching and who possibly had some disciples? Sure - there were tons of them. Do I believe that he was the son of God and rose again after three days? Of course not. I'm with Thomas Jefferson on that one.

So I ask you again, what was the motive behind making up the stories? Political power? So they could be killed and martyred for their known fabricated lie?

Which part of "Him"? Who made up Robin Hood? Who made up King Arthur? Who made up Dionysus? Who cares?

Christianity has 2.5 billion adherents in the world today who believe in Jesus is Lord so I'm not sure how that correlates to "Robin hood". That argument is completely bunk especially when there is evidence and archaeology backing up the events that happened in the Bible.

Which one are you talking about? If you mean the narrator/guy who put together the film "The God Who Wasn't There" (also the writer of the musical "Batboy"), then I agree he goes a bit over the top. But he does have an axe to grind, as he was raised a fundamentalist. If he doesn't know the bible that well, it wouldn't be all that surprising.

All three videos you posted seem intellectually dishonest to me.

The Old Testament is much more fun. Who was it that was forced to read the Bible for a bet, and half way through just threw it down and said "isn't God a shit!" Winston Churchill's son, I think.

I quoted books from the Old Testament, if you had knowledge of the Bible you'd know that. Why don't you form your own opinion instead of going off what others have to say?

What I want to know is, did Judas die by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or did he die by falling and bursting open (Acts 1:18)? I like the bursting open one much better: he's strutting around in the field he's just bought with his 30 pieces of silver and just trips and SPLURCH! The other one makes him sound like such a Debbie Downer. He should cheer up - after all, if it wasn't for him, all of humankind wouldn't have been saved!

Now this man ... - The money which was given for betraying the Lord Jesus was thrown down in the temple, and the field was purchased with it by the Jewish priests. See Matthew 27:5, Matthew 27:10, and the notes on that place. A man is said often to do a thing when he furnishes means for doing it. Compare Matthew 27:60, "And laid it (the body of Jesus) in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock." That is, had caused to be hewn out. John 4:1, "when, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus "made and baptized" more disciples than John." Through his disciples, for Jesus himself baptized not, John 4:2. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known maxim, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se."

The reward of iniquity - The price which he had for that deed of stupendous wickedness - the betraying of the Lord Jesus.

And falling headlong - The word here rendered "headlong" - πρηνής prēnēs (Latin "pronus," whence our English word "prone") - means properly "bent forward, head-foremost"; and the idea is, that his position in hanging himself was such that when the cord broke he fell headlong, or fell forward on his face. This can easily be supposed if he threw himself from a rock or elevated place. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder. See the notes on Matthew 27:5.

http://bible.cc/acts/1-18.htm

In what?

Truth.

Hmm. This sounds like one of those "strategically elastic" definitions mentioned here:



What are your views on ring species? Don't they rather threaten the idea of a species one which the purported distinction between macro- and micro-evolution depends?

Sorry, macro evolution has never been observed or proven. Ever. That's why it's still a theory, one that's passed on as fact. Consider the source.

Ring species are an example of micro evolution if anything. Just like bacteria mutating into a new form after being exposed to certain toxins (which many evolutionists claim to be macro evolution in action). One species "evolving" into another has no proof or backing whatsoever

 

[Denny Crane]

been over this. you may have an issue with al gore and the liberal press, and possibly some individual scientists who may or may not have political agendas, but you have no reason to fault the scientific method itself or the scientific community as a whole.

It's not a matter of "if" but "when" earth will be struck by a really big asteroid. There could be one that'll hit next week, because we haven't tracked them all.

Is this generally accepted science? I sure see it a lot.

Well, that's an apocalypse story, right down to the fire and brimstone, no?

This is beyond the meaningless AlGore.

 

[crowTrobot]

Then why place such condemnation to Creation?

why claim to know something you can't possibly know?

You base your ideology on science

you base your "ideology" on science in all areas with the exception of your relgious belief.

and are adamant about proving Christianity being a shame.

only where it clashes with science. otherwise i don't really care what you believe.

i do like to argue that faith is a waste of time, but that's more of a recreational activity.

nite

 

[crowTrobot]

It's not a matter of "if" but "when" earth will be struck by a really big asteroid. There could be one that'll hit next week, because we haven't tracked them all.

Is this generally accepted science? I sure see it a lot.

based on the historical record it's 100% certain that the earth will be hit again multiple times over a time frame of tens or hundreds of millions of years.

yeah if a scientist is saying something like "give me lots of money for research because there could be one next week" that's a little over the top, but it is actually a remote possibility.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Again with the out-of-context "contradictions". And your base your opinions on what exactly? What agenda were they trying push?

"Out of context"?

So I ask you again, what was the motive behind making up the stories? Political power? So they could be killed and martyred for their known fabricated lie?

People make up shit all the time, and even believe it when they do. You could ask the same question about any religious martyr. You are aware there are other religions besides Christianity, right? And they have martyrs too?

Christianity has 2.5 billion adherents in the world today who believe in Jesus is Lord so I'm not sure how that correlates to "Robin hood".

Ah, the old "appeal to popularity". So if/when Islam passes that number, it'll be more reliable? So if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb on the most populous Christian country, that would make Christianity less true, because it had fewer believers?

That argument is completely bunk especially when there is evidence and archaeology backing up the events that happened in the Bible.

Which events? You're not going to tell me that the Grand Canyon is evidence of The Flood are you? Please say you're not that nutty.

All three videos you posted seem intellectually dishonest to me.

The videos? Or the people in them? Actually, don't bother answering because I don't really care. What "seems" intellectually dishonest to you is (a) your business, and (b) a fact about your psychology, not something I'm concerned with.

I quoted books from the Old Testament, if you had knowledge of the Bible you'd know that. Why don't you form your own opinion instead of going off what others have to say?

You quoted a lot of things. Did I say you didn't quote the Old Testament ever in your ramblings? You were talking about the so-called New Testament at the time.

Exactly what counts as "forming my own opinion"? Given that I can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek (and neither can you) and I don't know which of the thousands of incompatible versions of the books of the Bible is the oldest or "purest", how am I going to do that?

http://bible.cc/acts/1-18.htm

Ah, presumably YOU wrote this, because otherwise you're not exactly forming your own opinion, are you? Perhaps you'd like to give me your opinion of it, because it seems frankly laughable to me (that's my opinion). We're asked to believe that the passage in Acts where it says Judas bought the field with the 30 pieces of silver (where elsewhere it says that the field belongs to other people, and that Judas cast aside the 30 pieces of silver) is actually compatible with the story in Matthew where he hangs himself. So... in Acts it just neglects to mention the part where he hangs himself. It doesn't think that's really important. He's walking around, apparently happy and content, and then suddenly he gets a fit of repentance and hangs himself, but that's not worth mentioning? And who owns this field anyway?

Truth.

Since I, unlike you, don't have a magic Truth-O-Meter, I am forced to rely on Evidence and The Scientific Method. Not as good, I understand, but I do what I can with what I've got.

Sorry, macro evolution has never been observed or proven. Ever. That's why it's still a theory, one that's passed on as fact. Consider the source.

So you keep saying. Almost like a mantra. Like an article of faith, almost.

Ring species are an example of micro evolution if anything. Just like bacteria mutating into a new form after being exposed to certain toxins (which many evolutionists claim to be macro evolution in action). One species "evolving" into another has no proof or backing whatsoever

So what, according to you, is a "species"? You don't seem to be getting the point of a ring species.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think it is a fundamentalist/creationist's duty that, whenever he or she visits the Doctor, to ask, "are you using medicine that was developed in accordance with belief in the theory that evolution is a biological fact?" and if the Doctor says "Yes", to refuse the treatment. In fact, I think there should be separate hospitals: those that use medicine based on the assumption that Darwin got it basically right, and those based on the assumption that we were created about 4000 years ago and all humans are descendants of Noah, and there is no such thing as evolution.

That would be an aid to evolution right there.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I think it is a fundamentalist/creationist's duty that, whenever he or she visits the Doctor, to ask, "are you using medicine that was developed in accordance with belief in the theory that evolution is a biological fact?" and if the Doctor says "Yes", to refuse the treatment. In fact, I think there should be separate hospitals: those that use medicine based on the assumption that Darwin got it basically right, and those based on the assumption that we were created about 4000 years ago and all humans are descendants of Noah, and there is no such thing as evolution.

That would be an aid to evolution right there.

It is an interesting bit of hypocrisy that fundies simultaneously deride and benefit from scientific advancements.

If for anything, those crackpot Christians in Oregon City who refuse medical treatment because they believe that prayer will cure everything deserve our respect for putting their lives (no matter how short) on the line for their beliefs. That they subject their kids, who CAN'T make the conscious decision to believe in such things, is the real crime.

 

[Denny Crane]

based on the historical record it's 100% certain that the earth will be hit again multiple times over a time frame of tens or hundreds of millions of years.

yeah if a scientist is saying something like "give me lots of money for research because there could be one next week" that's a little over the top, but it is actually a remote possibility.

There is a lot of money being spent on this research. They land probes on asteroids, design plans to deflect one should it be on collision path, etc.

I'm fine with it.

I wasn't "attacking" science for things like this, just pointing out it's a surrogate sort of religion. Science and Religion seem to be looking for the answers to the same questions.

 

[crowTrobot]

There is a lot of money being spent on this research. They land probes on asteroids, design plans to deflect one should it be on collision path, etc.

I'm fine with it.

I wasn't "attacking" science for things like this, just pointing out it's a surrogate sort of religion. Science and Religion seem to be looking for the answers to the same questions.

religion is looking for ways to deflect asteroids?

 

[Denny Crane]

religion is looking for ways to deflect asteroids?

Religion is looking to explain creation, the End, our role in things, and to drive our behavior.

Science is looking to explain creation (big bang), the End (big rip, big crunch, etc.), our role in things, and to drive our behavior (curb CO2 emissions, etc.).

In his book, "A Brief History of Time," Steven Hawking (the Pope!) wrote:

"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

Seems to me he's admitting that Science and Religion seek the same Truths. Or do tell me what it means to "know the mind of God."

 

[MARIS61]

Religion is looking to explain creation, the End, our role in things, and to drive our behavior.

Science is looking to explain creation (big bang), the End (big rip, big crunch, etc.), our role in things, and to drive our behavior (curb CO2 emissions, etc.).

In his book, "A Brief History of Time," Steven Hawking (the Pope!) wrote:

"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

Seems to me he's admitting that Science and Religion seek the same Truths. Or do tell me what it means to "know the mind of God."

To realize he's nothing more than a mythical character in early literature?

I see no mention of religion in the quote. In fact, it appears he deliberately left it out.