And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today.
Eh? Would you expect to see revisions? Would you expect there to suddenly be a galaxy where there wasn't one before?
My brother can confirm if necessary, but I believe that the Hubble has already found a number of galaxies that were not known previously, due to their extreme distance, due to the resolution power of the Hubble, and due to it's ability to pierce dust clouds.
And yes, I would expect any new and more powerful telescope to find even more, until you reach the point where the light traveling to the telescope had to start before the beginning of the universe. Curiously, this would not mean that there are not more galaxies, just that we are unable to see them.
I believe that the Hubble has already found a number of galaxies that were not known previously, due to their extreme distance, due to the resolution power of the Hubble, and due to it's ability to pierce dust clouds.
Absolutely... I didn't mean to say you wouldn't, but marc said "do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see – I know what answer I’ll get – nope, no revisions today." - and I just can't make any sense of that. I want to know WHY he expects (or doesn't expect) to find new galaxies in Hubble images and how that has any bearing on his original post.
I really wish marc would at least acknowledge that there are no ID based (or design based) hypotheses that can compare to the various candidates for (naturalistic) abiogenesis, at least not any that don't have "insert miracle here" at the core.
No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not “require” progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?
Personally, I think this a battle that you don't need to fight (eg beat your head against). We can agree that the term 'abiogenesis' refers to the development from chemicals, and that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation -- is rooted in the present day, and applying what we see in life around us to the fossil record to see if it explains the diversity of life as we know it, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in history, and in the world around us.
Abiogenesis is rooted in the past, a past so distant that there are no surviving fossils or records of how life began on earth. The first known fossils, some 3.5 billion years old, show life already fully developed in the form of cyanobacteria. We just don't know what preceded those organisms. It could have been any one of the five hypothetical scenarios quoted above, or it could have been something entirely different.
So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your message 73;
quote:Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
As the "PAH hypothesis" was originated in 2005 and I've been able to find no evidence that it's been tested, I'll still accept that abiogenesis fits it so far.
We know that your site is aware of this second part, and ignoring it to confuse the issue, because they discuss it later in a weird misrepresentation of circular polarization in nebulae. Nor are their further arguments any more honest.
So to sum up what you've said, we’re there, with naturalistic abiogenesis? The PAH world hypothesis, combined with claims that the early earth atmosphere posed no threats to it becoming a starting point for evolution to begin, is now a solid theory? I haven’t seen it on the news. What am I not being told about that keeps naturalistic abiogenesis in its current position of only a hypothesis?
Hi Marc. Just an encouraging note to tell you that you're the kind of ID proponent balance needed here at EvC for both ID proponents like me and for opponents who need to be challenged. They don't like twidling their thumbs waiting for a challenging debate.
I hope you don't become discouraged from posting. It's always tough for the minority PoV. You're doing great, teaching me and others including readers (not members) in layman's terminology.
I hope you hang in here and help us out with the kind of balance needed to make EvC even better.
Thanks! Stay tuned, be patient, contribute if you wish!
You’re right: they are very similar in some ways, and they do have some things to do with one another. But, similarity and relatedness do not automatically translate into interdependency. Just because they are similar doesn't mean that one can't exist without the other.
Furthermore, similarity doesn’t mean that arguments against one count as arguments against the other. Certainly there are some of the “shared logical fate” issues that I talked about earlier, but the simple point here is that created things can evolve in the same way that naturally-formed things can evolve, so evolution is not dependent on naturalistic abiogenesis.
Agreed?
Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis. And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into.
This is a statement that I really wish Christians would stop making. I don’t know any people who do worship science in the same manner that people worship deities and religion. And, there is good reason for this: science never proclaimed itself to be absolute truth, nor even capable of discovering absolute truth.
By worship, I really mean accepting something without question, similar to the way religious people do. Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them. A lot of politics involved, global warming comes to mind.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why people feel that ancient ideas are somehow superior to modern ideas. Read Genesis 30 for some good examples of the way the ancients thought: apparently, they believed that, if sheep conceived in front of striped sticks, they would bear striped young, and Jacob was able to manipulate this in his favor by controlling which sheep would bear striped young (which he had been granted as payment for his services).
If this is generally the quality of ancient knowledge, it seems foolhardy to claim that things of ancient date are superior to things of modern date. Do you agree with me on this?
Move along to chapter 31, and in verse 3 you’ll find; “Then the Lord said to Jacob” That was a different time and place, the record of scripture was being established. God directly speaks to no one today. But you’ll still find many ancient ideas in the Bible to be relevant today – money management and morality to name only two. There were wars then, there are wars now. Jealous leaders then, jealous leaders now. Human nature hasn’t changed.
You complained that an incomplete theory (as part of a chemistry lesson, it would seem) is discussed in a science classroom, yet you want religion taught by the state in clear opposition to your own constitution.
I don’t want religion taught by the state, never claimed that I did. I like the U.S. foundings just as they are, and don’t want my Protestant Lutheran views taught as science. The subject of ID is not religious. If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion. (Stenger/Dawkins) If its founders (Morris, Johnson) were Christians, it’s no different than abiogenesis proponents (Huxley, others) being non religious. The generation differences between Huxley/others vs Johnson/others doesn’t matter.
You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist. The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community. An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God. We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another.
Actually, Talkorigins is an archive, not a website "made up of many scientists". Also, could you provide me a reference that shows thtat a large part of the scientific community regard it as a scientific website?
By worship, I really mean accepting something without question, similar to the way religious people do.
You are thinking of dogma. That is the antithesis of science.
I think what you are reacting to is the body of established science, hundreds of years of trial and error, experiment, theory, data, and all the rest. Some of that doesn't need to be questioned at every step. Some of that is now well-established.
Scientists except that body of established science because it has been established and because no evidence has been produced to contradict it. Produce evidence and things can change, although not always turn on a dime. Two examples: continental drift and the channeled scablands of Washington. Both theories were resisted until the evidence was conclusive, then they were accepted.
That is the problem with religious dogma when it tries to masquerade as science: it has not, so far, brought the body of scientific evidence that would cause it to be accepted. Religious believers accept it without question but scientists want evidence.
Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them. A lot of politics involved, global warming comes to mind.
Perhaps it is because there is evidence there (once you can ignore the politics). And unfortunately, politics can overwhelm science in the short term, but in the long term the facts will win out.
But I would guess that you are not concerned so much about global warming or many of the other things science is working on as about your religious beliefs not being either accepted or confirmed--or, horrors, being contradicted--by science.
Would that be correct?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I'm in agreement with the above posters that the link provided is simply wrong at best, and intentionally misleading on some points. There is also virtually nothing on the link provided which would give me any insight into the qualifications of the author(s) and/or any research papers or other sources to support their suppositions. I would make one other point: The main page's subtitle is "A Resource for a Reasoned, Respectful, and Ready Defence of the Christian Faith". What does the "Christian Faith" have to do with biology, and why do they feel the need to "defend" that faith from objective scientific research? I'll answer that for you: because their faith is contradicted by the evidence of objective scientific research.
A better answer would be, because their faith is under political attack, and scientific research is the weapon being used.
I expanded on the PAH World Hypothesis to give you an example of the explanatory power of a real hypothesis. My brief (1 paragraph) paraphrasing of source material provided (hopefully) most of the main points.
I then asked you if you could expand on ID to give us an example of its explanatory power in helping to understand the world around us, to which you replied:
quote:marc9000 writes:
I'll need time - I do have a busy life.
As do the rest of us marc. But if you can find the time to say things like this (from your original post) ...
quote:marc9000 writes:
It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.
... then you should be prepared to support those comments with some form of evidence. We are all also busy people.
Just from my observations, from people I personally know, and my experiences in observing posting times, dates, and habits of posters, shows me that many people who frequent message boards such as this one often come from certain groups of people that have more time on their hands than most. Young people – mid teens or even early teens, as well as physically disabled people or retired people. There’s not a thing wrong with that, but they naturally may tend to get a little impatient with someone in the prime of their working career who disappears for several days at a time – it can be perceived as a weakness. I usually have time to post only in the evenings, and not all of them. I’ve been opposed by several in the past as a group[not here] and been taunted for missing just one or two evenings, as the new posts from different angles continued to pile up. I made the mistake of allowing myself to be rushed, and it resulted in less than my best, and I want to try to improve on that here. RAZD and you have both indicated that it’s not a problem. I’m just saying this as a response to what you said above, and also to make it clear to anyone who may be used to a more day-by-day exchanges, that discussions with me may not be what they’re looking for.
Not good enough. You may say "you're asking a lot" - but you are the one that implied in your original post that ID's propositions are as scientific as abiogenesis hypotheses, so I'm simply asking you to support this proposition with an example.
The fact that you don't have an example off the top of your head is cause for concern, considering that despite this you seem convinced that ID is something that should be taught in schools. With that sort of conviction, I would expect you to be able to provide even a small example of ID helping to explain or understand abiogenesis (or anything for that matter). But you cannot. I challenge you - with no time limit - to give us ANY example of an ID hypothesis (or anything!) that is of any value in explaining or understanding anything.
If the claim is that ID is of no value in explaining or understanding anything, do you claim that everything studied/taught as science must be able to show that value? Would you consider the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists to be of value in explaining/understanding anything? Considering the history and activity of The SETI Institute, it seems that a search for intelligence outside of human intelligence isn’t always off limits to science.
quote:Curiosity motivates both exploration and learning in schools, science centers, colleges and universities. In a less formal venue, several million people per year tap into the Institute's website and podcast radio show for cutting edge science, technology and opinion. Others learn about our astrobiology and SETI research through print and broadcast media via our SETI Thursday column, popular articles, and science-based television. We're in classrooms across the nation. Institute scientists are co-authors of college-level textbooks: Life in the Universe, a national best-seller for introductory astrobiology, and Perspectives on Astronomy, a widely adopted text for introductory astronomy. The Institute offers curriculum and teacher professional development programs.
This obviously isn’t first level, primary science, but in the ‘frequently asked questions’ section, we find the following;
quote:What is the connection between astrobiology and evolution? Astrobiology is an interdisciplinary science investigating life in the universe. Where did life come from? What is its future? Are we alone in the universe? These are the major questions driving astrobiology research. The origin and evolution of life on a planet follows stellar and planetary evolution. Scientists study cosmic evolution, planetary evolution, the origin of life and evolution of life on Earth, in order to understand life here and to consider how to find life beyond Earth. The basic scientific premise is that life evolved on Earth, and may have evolved on other planets in a similar way.
Why can’t intelligent design be an interdisciplinary science for both evolution and abiogenesis, that adds to exploration and searches for function and complexity that are currently only searched for by naturalistic forces that consist of only randomness/clumsiness/incompetence? There’s more to ID than “goddidit” – in Dembski’s words; ID “supplements material mechanisms with intelligent agency – intelligent design can subsume present biological research. Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.) Intelligent design can also look for function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them.” Also, “Design is always a matter of tradeoffs. ID can help us understand these tradeoffs and clarify the design problems that organisms actually face. This in turn keeps us from sweeping problems under the rug simply because evolution is purported to be a blind and wasteful process. A non teleological approach to evolution has consistently led biologists to underestimate organisms. Is, for instance, junk DNA really junk? Work by John Bodnar and his associates suggests that some of it is not.”
At the risk of sounding rude, you're right - off topic and not relevant. The next 3 paragraphs consist of nothing more than you chatting to us about what kind of guy you are and what you think. The one thing I gleaned from this is that you, like others, have this odd notion that people "worship" science. What's that about?
It’s about accepting what the scientific community tells them without question. It’s about scientific education being bent in such a way as to not inspire questions, or open inquiry. In 2007, Michael Behe stated that “On the origin of the cilium/IFT by random mutation, Darwinian theory has little that is serious to say. It is reasonable to conclude then, that Darwinian theory is a poor framework for understanding the origin of the cilium. The cilium is no fluke. The cell is full of structures whose complexity is substantially greater than we knew just ten years ago. Can mutation of DNA explain this? Or rather, can random mutation explain it? Life descended from a common ancestor, so DNA did mutate – change from species to species. But what drove the crucial changes?”
The SETI Institute searches for signs of intelligence. If it receives a clear signal from space indicating intelligence, does it have to be disregarded until the source can be identified? The ID organization searches for signs of intelligence in biology. If they find an example of it, do objective scientists really have anything to be afraid of?
I can assure you that I do not awake in the morning and annoint myself with Dawkins' oil, or pray to my copy of "Life: An Unauthorised Biography" by Richard Fortey.
As I can assure you that I don’t seek to have my personal religion taught as science, and I don’t think the earth is flat. You don’t accuse me of that, but others do, and I hope for the sake of how it makes THEM look that they’ll knock it off.
quote:marc9000 writes: Just recently, about 40 years after that “giant leap for mankind”, we hear, “Hey man, the moon just might have WATER on it!!” What an amazing new discovery! And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today. Same amount of water there, too.”
What? I'm trying desperately to understand the point you are trying to make here. If there is one, but I cannot find it. The fact that evidence is piling up of water on the moon IS an amazing discovery - one that has been predicted and expected by many - the fact that the evidence is becoming concrete is exciting. What's this got to do with abiogenesis or ID?
Sorry for not being clear. I’m saying that if water on the moon is surprising to the scientific community, I don’t automatically accept as fact their proclamations about what’s going on in deep space, at unimaginable distances. It seems that a lot of what the scientific community proclaims is not falsifiable, something that is often required of subjects the scientific community doesn’t like.
quote:marc9000 writes: And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today.
Eh? Would you expect to see revisions? Would you expect there to suddenly be a galaxy where there wasn't one before? Why? And if not, then what is the point of this comment? The Hubble is utilised to great benefit, and to imply that scientists utilising it are sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying "Nope, nothing new today" (if that was your intended implication, hard to tell) - is just ridiculous.
I shouldn’t have brought it up, but now that I have, I’ll clarify it as briefly as possible, then be done with it. I’m saying they might be seeing a galaxy hundreds of billions of light years away, or they may be seeing a star similar to our sun one or two light years away, with dust around it. If all these foreheads are being smacked about water on the moon, I tend to not readily accept what they tell me about billions of light years. I was 15 in 1969, and dutifully believed we put men on the moon, at least until 30 more years went by, when I began to wonder if there was ever going to be any follow up on it. It was then that I saw a newspaper article where NASA said that if we were going back to the moon, the whole thing would have to be done over from scratch. All drawings and information about Apollo were lost, and two guys were laid off from NASA years ago – the only two who knew anything about the rocket boosters used. Then came the Percy/Collier vids, which implied that the whole thing was faked anyway. I don’t know or care if it was or wasn’t, but either way it was little more than a political stunt, for feel-goods about JFK (the one who predicted it would happen) and of course to “beat” Russia to the moon. If we’re only just now finding water there, obviously we got little return on our investment of the millions we spent on the Apollo program.
We live in a world of sales and marketing. I believe what the scientific community claims about as quickly as I believe a politician or used car salesman.
(PS - don't be offended by the snippy nature of my comments. As you've seen, others are far worse. I have only become "snippy" now because I feel that you haven't even tried to support the comments made in your original post. Despite this, I am grateful for your participation in the discussion and hope you will continue.)
quote:Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. ...
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...
Governing Goals
--To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. --To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
This document was produced by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. It apparently was an internal fundraising memo that was somehow leaked to the internet.
But we can look at their funding to see what's there:
quote:In 2003, a review of tax documents on GuideStar showed grants and gifts totalling $1.4 million in 1997. Included in the supporters were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of these foundations stated explicitly religious missions.[92]
In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[93] ...
In 2005, the Washington Post reported, 'Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." '[94]
Given all of this by the leading proponents of ID, I would doubt that you could make a legitimate case that ID is not religious. The religious nature of ID, incidentally, was also confirmed by a federal district court in the Dover decision.
ID seems to be explicitly religious, and explicitly anti-science and anti-materialistic in nature. It certainly is not science!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
But I would guess that you are not concerned so much about global warming or many of the other things science is working on as about your religious beliefs not being either accepted or confirmed--or, horrors, being contradicted--by science.
I'm honestly not worried about my personal religious beliefs. I don't necessarily believe in a young earth, but am not convinced the earth is billions of years old either. I don't really care about things like that. Behe believes in common descent - I don't. A study of ID being permitted to be on the same level as SETI won't forward my personal beliefs at all. It will do one thing - challenge the current godless evolution establishment, and they NEED a challenge!
A study of ID being permitted to be on the same level as SETI won't forward my personal beliefs at all. It will do one thing - challenge the current godless evolution establishment, and they NEED a challenge!
Then bring evidence. That's all you need.
No comments on the rest of my previous post?
Edit to add: Or #101, above?
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis.
I know a fair number of theistic evolutionists who would strongly disagree with you on this. Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "the Catholic Church"?
-----
marc9000 writes:
And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into.
Abiogenesis fits any definition of the word "science" that can be imagined, even the most stringent ones that ID fails to meet. It does not fit the scientific definition of the word "theory," which I think is what you're trying to get at.
To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.
My assessment is that Abiogenesis meets these requirements, while Intelligent Design does not. Specifically, I don't feel that ID meets the "evidence supporting the possibility that it is accurate" part.
But, I'm fully willing to admit that I may have misjudged it. I would like to hear your argument(s) that ID meets these three requirements.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them.
There are those, yes.
But, I also know a lot of educated and intelligent atheists who do all their own thinking and do a very good job at it.
Also, let's be honest. Let me adjust a few words in your statement:
Christians seem to automatically accept what the Bible or their minister tells them.
Do you agree that this is also a true statement (granted, not for all Christians of course, but I would say it works for the majority of Christians that I know).
I don’t want religion taught by the state, never claimed that I did. I like the U.S. foundings just as they are, and don’t want my Protestant Lutheran views taught as science.
great!
The subject of ID is not religious.
demonstrably false. strike one.
If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion.
True, this is why science in the classroom says NOTHING ABOUT GOD. strike two - since ID is religious and is used as a "weapon"
(Stenger/Dawkins) If its founders (Morris, Johnson) were Christians, it’s no different than abiogenesis proponents (Huxley, others) being non religious.
Well, this would be true - IF abiogenesis meant only "naturalistic abiogenesis". Let's call that a foul ball!
You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can and do only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist.
strike three! yeeeerrrrr outtatheeeeeeeeeerre.
All joking aside, you haven't shown this to be true. ID, on the other hand, has been shown in a court of law to have been dreamt up by creationists who failed to get creationism into the classroom on the establishment clause. You know this, right? You may not agree with the findings (when it suits you but thems they are.
The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community.
How? There's no scientific version of the "wedge", there's no presupposition in scientific endeavours (ID demands a designer who is intelligent - demonstrated to be "god", and all the CSI's of the world say something like "all our work must be in accordance with scripture"). I don't know of ANY non-religious ID proponents, but creationists are OFTEN crowing about their own who are scientists AND "YEC's", "OEC's" and so on.
An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God.
That's a valid proposition, and one that has interested philosophers for centuries. Not scientists though (as a function of their jobs). If that's your beef with the scientific community, then I'm sorry - science and scientists have nothing to say on the subject of god (except as a PERSONAL opinion, which they are more than entititled to). If in your opinion the facts borne out by experimentation threatens your view of your god, that is not a reason to discontinue experimentation and investigation - and this SEEMS to be the kneejerk reaction to people who proclaim that everything MUST agree with the bible but then discover that...well...things don't.
If ID were done AS SCIENCE IS, then I would have no problems with it. When it threatens REAL work, it's a problem.
It's not a problem you want it in schools, except when you call it the equal of all scientific endeavour without a shred of actual worthiness, and call shoving it in on a pedastal as "teaching the controversy" - because there is NO controversy there.
We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another.
It must be another thread, I think, unless you can tie it to ID specifically - although one thing you have to note is that you yourself said "science has an atheist bias", so my question is "what's this 'theistic evolution' thing then?"
Edited by greyseal, : rassen frassen autocopypasta
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
