Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 376 of 404 (653115)
02-18-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 8:26 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Hi Rod,
Excellent first post, but you'll have to pardon my suspicion of a new member who appears to have a financial stake in the game and who includes links to three websites full of ways to send you money.
If you're here to debate, welcome aboard. If you're here to plant links to your websites, well, I just took care of that.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 8:26 AM Lone77Star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 9:20 AM Admin has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 377 of 404 (653117)
02-18-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 8:26 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Hi Lone77Star and welcome to EvC! I'm sure you'll find plenty to keep you busy here.
I agree with you that a naive literalist position stands falsified. What I don't understand is why you seem so determined to adopt a modified literalistic position rather than just accept that the stories in Genesis are purely mythic. It seems to me that when we see a raft of myths that do not conform to what we know of history then we should be willing to accept that the events described therein were not actual events. What you seem to be doing is trying to find an interpretation that allows you to cling onto them as somehow being real. I don't see the point in that. I also think that you are taking several of these Bible quotes out of context in order to force-fit them into some kind of believable time-line. I'll show you what I mean.
Genesis 5:2. Adam was both male and female (a "them," not a "him").
I don't think this is describing the creation of man as much as it is describing the family line of Adam - the House of Adam. Indeed in some modern translation this verse simply reads "mankind" where the text has "adam". It is not saying that Adam (which literally means man) was some sort of hermaphrodite. After all, this is much like Gen 1:27; "1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.". There is no hint of any sort of duel gender identity here.
You are making this into something it's not.
The seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs is obviously too short to reach the current 200,000 years for the age of humanity. But like Adam, the ages might not be for the individual patriarchs, but for the eponymous tribes.
Or maybe they're just tall stories. They sure sound like tall stories.
Genesis 6:3. The years of man shall be 120. This is all well and good, but clearly this did not happen right away in Genesis, if we're talking about the longevity of the patriarchs.
So it's just an inconsistency. What's the big deal? It has no special meaning, it's just an artefact of the Bible being written by disparate authors.
Using forty as a factor back from Moses yields a Flood date of 27,970 BC. What's fascinating is that one other Christian had already given us the approximate date of 28,000 BC for the Flood; Edgar Cayce in the first half of the 20th century. Merely an interesting coincidence?
Not even an interesting co-incidence. Not even a co-incidence really, given that Cayce was just a random lunatic.
Genesis describes God as satisfied with the results of the Flood. He said that He would never again use the Flood (whatever that event really symbolizes). But when in the last 30,000 years has humanity not suffered from some form of wickedness and violence? Clearly, something very specific ticked off the Big Guy and moved Him to act.
Or the story is just not true. You can't discount that possibility if you want to make any claim to being logical. Why does the flood need to symbolise any real-world event? Can't it just be symbolic of the wrath of God?
First of all, we need to understand God's purpose. It seems that His children had become lost (Genesis 3) and perhaps Homo sapiens were evolved/created for the purpose of rescuing His children.
Gen 3 doesn't mention the children of God, I think you mean Gen 6. The usual interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" is that these are angels or some other magical being.
Genesis 1:26 suggests that His children are non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation (created in His image).
No, definitely not. Gen 1:26 describes the creation of man, not the "children of God". Further, it doesn't even begin to suggest what you're proposing. To me it simply reads as saying that God built humankind to look like he did. You are assuming that God is non-physical and solely spiritual. This is not an assumption that the author necessarily shared. He may well have imagined that God was a physical being (at least in part) who looked much as we do. This was a common way for deities to be depicted in the ancient Near East.
Genesis 2:7 suggests that man is a physical being (Homo sapiens). So, God's children are immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh (a dual nature).
That may well have been what early Jews believed, but I don't think that you can derive that form the text in the way you're using. The two chapters are written by different authors from slightly different traditions. Trying to mush them together into a single harmonious text is, in my opinion, a big mistake.
In Genesis 6, the crime seems to involve the "daughters of men" who the "sons of God" found to be hot so they tied the knot.
If the "sons" were immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh, then the "daughters" must've been a different species.
No. It's the other way around. The "daughters of men" are... well, just that; the daughters of men, i.e. people, humans, Homo sapiens. The "sons of God" are the ones who are some sort of other.
Bingo! By general consensus, the bulk of Homo neanderthalensis died out about 28,000 BC.
Except that this theory can't possibly be true. For a start, the offspring of these unions were likely synonymous with the giants of Gen 6:4. They are, at the least, described as "mighty men". But Neanderthals were not larger than modern humans.
In fact we know what the offspring of matings between h. sapiens and H. neanderthalis would look like; they'd look like us. That's because they are us. Modern humans do have Neanderthal heritage. If God's flood was meant to wipe out these hybrids, then he failed miserably.
Current scientific consensus remains that Neanderthal could speak, but not nearly as well as Homo sapiens. Could Neanderthal have preferred violence to negotiation? Could they and their hybrid (half-human) offspring have been incapable of producing civilization? Could this have been sufficient reason to have them wiped out--muddying the human gene pool?
Even if it were sufficient reason, you have the problem that there is no evidence that it actually happened. There is no record of a massive flood around the Mediterranean at that time. What's more, the tow groups - H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis - overlapped each other both chronologically and geographically. To flood one would have been to flood the other. In other words, there would have had to have been a literal ark for that to work, and that would not have been possible with the incredibly primitive technology of the time.
One thing is for certain: Homo sapiens can never again commit the "crime" (if it was one) of sexual procreation with Homo neanderthalensis. The "Flood" event did its job well.
Either that or there never was any such crime because the story never took place. I think you need to face facts; regardless of whether the authors intended it to be taken literally or not, the flood story recounted in Genesis never was never a real event.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 8:26 AM Lone77Star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 2:54 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Lone77Star
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 9
From: Cebu, Philippines
Joined: 02-18-2012


Message 378 of 404 (653118)
02-18-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Admin
02-18-2012 8:57 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Thanks, Admin. I appreciate the heads up and the welcome.
I'm always looking for an intelligent discussion and it looks like this place has a good amount of that. I appreciate the opportunity to share what I've discovered in the last half century.
Should I leave off a signature until I'm no longer a newbie? If so, how many posts qualifies? I love playing by the rules and the spirit behind them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Admin, posted 02-18-2012 8:57 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2012 9:44 AM Lone77Star has replied
 Message 380 by Admin, posted 02-18-2012 10:59 AM Lone77Star has replied
 Message 381 by Phat, posted 02-18-2012 11:20 AM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 379 of 404 (653119)
02-18-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 9:20 AM


Re: New kid on the block
How about no links to advertising websites that want peoples money? How does that work for you? Works best for us.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 9:20 AM Lone77Star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 2:56 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 380 of 404 (653123)
02-18-2012 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 9:20 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Hi Lone77Star,
There are no explicit rules about signatures. There are a set of Forum Guidelines that serve as a guide for both members and moderators, and moderators deal with every situation, including signatures, on a case-by-case basis. Links to commercial sites are not consistent with this advertising-free website's mission. I left the deactivated URL's in your signature, but I would be more comfortable if they were removed entirely.
During discussion, links to pages containing information supporting your position (see Rule 5) that happen to be at a commercial site are fine.
Welcome aboard!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 9:20 AM Lone77Star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 3:01 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 381 of 404 (653125)
02-18-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 9:20 AM


Re: New kid on the block
77 writes:
I'm always looking for an intelligent discussion and it looks like this place has a good amount of that. I appreciate the opportunity to share what I've discovered in the last half century.
Im interested....what have you learned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 9:20 AM Lone77Star has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 02-18-2012 11:27 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 382 of 404 (653127)
02-18-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Phat
02-18-2012 11:20 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Phat writes:
Im interested....what have you learned?
Check out Message 375.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Phat, posted 02-18-2012 11:20 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2012 1:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 383 of 404 (653135)
02-18-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Percy
02-18-2012 11:27 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Looks like he learned a lot of woo and pseudoscience crap.
Nothing to see here folks, keep moving along.
ABE
Whats the deal with these woo-meisters and their need for "special" formatting?
Edited by Theodoric, : Format thought

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 02-18-2012 11:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 3:30 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Lone77Star
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 9
From: Cebu, Philippines
Joined: 02-18-2012


Message 384 of 404 (653186)
02-19-2012 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Granny Magda
02-18-2012 9:17 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Hi, Granny. Thanks for the welcome.
"Modified literalist position?" Why not "modified metaphorical position?" I could call yours, "modified bigoted position." Do such labels make you feel better? Do they help?
Purely mythic? Outstanding. And I suppose you have proof of this. That would save a lot of effort in being able to dismiss the entire book. Wow. Can you share this proof?
You pose an approach to myth which is quite well-worn and which has some minor merit, but it isn't "gospel" on the treatment of myth.

Cases in point


  • Troy
  • Minoan Crete
  • Mycenaean Greece
  • Amazon warriors
  • Ulysses's island of Ithaca
  • Atlantis
Some scientists of the past, concluded in advance (not at all the mode of scientific method), that there was nothing to these myths. Five of these have been found to have substantial evidence in support of a past real event and/or location upon which the myth was based.
It took an amateur (sloppy one, at that) to scoop on Troy. And an amateur may have scooped scientists on Ithaca, too.

Logical Fallacies and Bias

Deciding that something is unworthy of study before a thorough investigation, is unworthy of science. Yet, regrettably some scientists do this. Far too many skeptics do this, but that is the nature of "skepticism"to remain biased (toward doubt).
Not many years ago, the myth of Atlantis was dismissed because there wasn't any evidence of a civilization that far back. But this was an argument to ignorance (logical fallacy). The recent discovery of Gobekli Tepe, Turkey (9500 BC) blows that argument out of the water. My own research of the literature turned up three items that prove an Atlantis-like event occurred right when Plato said the legendary island collapsed into the Atlantic. One of those pieces of scientific evidence is a veritable "smoking gun" in the death of Atlantis. Was Atlantis a reality? I don't think I will be going out on a limb to say, "We don't know, yet." Such restraint and humility trumps skepticism, because they lack the bias that scientific method warns against.
Anyone can refuse to look. That's their business. There were a number of so-called scientists who refused to look below the Clovis horizon in North American anthropology; in fact, ridiculing those who did. That's not science. That's dark age egotisma know-it-all attitude that stands in the way of discovery rather than helping to illuminate.
No evidence? So very typical of the truly biased: Yes, there is evidence, blatantly overlookedover two hundred myths worldwide that suggest that a worldwide flood might have happened. One of those happens to reside in Genesis. And, oh yes, Homo neanderthalensis disappeared at the same time. I'd call that ~200 pieces of evidence. Do we need something more substantial? You bet we do. But we also need to dispense with unsupported dismissiveness (as you've displayed) and self-indulgent ridicule (that other skeptics have displayed).
I appreciate you calling it like you see it. I can't help but return the favor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Granny Magda, posted 02-18-2012 9:17 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Granny Magda, posted 02-19-2012 7:22 AM Lone77Star has not replied
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2012 10:54 AM Lone77Star has not replied
 Message 392 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 12:23 PM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Lone77Star
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 9
From: Cebu, Philippines
Joined: 02-18-2012


Message 385 of 404 (653187)
02-19-2012 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Theodoric
02-18-2012 9:44 AM


Re: New kid on the block
@Theodoric, thanks. Sounds good to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2012 9:44 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Lone77Star
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 9
From: Cebu, Philippines
Joined: 02-18-2012


Message 386 of 404 (653188)
02-19-2012 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Admin
02-18-2012 10:59 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Thanks, Percy.
I understand the policy and concur with the spirit of it. The original signature contained links to no website which explicitly sold anything, though one contained peripheral ads, and one other contained a donate button (giving away all articles for free). I have removed both of these and substituted two others. Now, all 3 links are to "ad-less" websites.
And thanks for the welcome!
Edited by Lone77Star, : corrected spelling "explicit" to "explicitly"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Admin, posted 02-18-2012 10:59 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Lone77Star
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 9
From: Cebu, Philippines
Joined: 02-18-2012


Message 387 of 404 (653190)
02-19-2012 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Theodoric
02-18-2012 1:04 PM


Re: New kid on the block
Well, @Theodoric. Don't hurt yourself with that sharp stick.
At least @Granny Magda attempted to tackle specifics.
Pseudoscience? Anthropology saying that Homo sapiens is at least 200,000 years old? What books have you been sniffing?
And "special" formatting? Do I detect a note of envy-provoked spite? Or is it merely a miserly curmudgeon's bitterness that someone else has a talent? Okay, so I had 20+ years experience as a Hollywood artist. (Maybe you were merely trying to add more gravitus [weightiness] to the delightfully cute avatar you use.)
Anyone can work from a hypothesis that there is nothing to a specific myth or legend--that it remains merely a story with no basis in fact. That's one hypothesis. But is it the right one?
I happen to have a different hypothesis.
Of course, I usually don't like discussing specifics with curmudgeons. Egos are such messy things; I despise my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2012 1:04 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Admin, posted 02-19-2012 9:28 AM Lone77Star has not replied
 Message 390 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2012 10:02 AM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 388 of 404 (653202)
02-19-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Lone77Star
02-19-2012 2:54 AM


Re: New kid on the block
"Modified literalist position?" Why not "modified metaphorical position?" I could call yours, "modified bigoted position."
Sure you could. If you want to start being a dick this early into proceedings, then calling me a bigot would be the perfect way to go.
Purely mythic? Outstanding. And I suppose you have proof of this.
Well the stories in Genesis clearly contain a mythic element. They are morality plays, symbols about God and our relationship with him. This is undeniable. The question here is whether you have a shred of proof that the stories are also true accounts on some level. In the absence of such proof, I shall assume that they are merely mythic.
You go on to mention Troy. This is in fact a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The remains of Troy are enough to convince us that the city was real and even that some parts of the myth might have been real, but they are not sufficient to convince us that Zeus and Poseidon are real. In a similar way, even if you had archaeological evidence that some of the locations mentioned in Genesis were real, it ought not be enough to convince us that man was made from clay. The supernatural elements of the story require a far greater level of evidence before such unlikely things can be believed.
And you don't really have much archaeology for Genesis anyway.
Deciding that something is unworthy of study before a thorough investigation, is unworthy of science. Yet, regrettably some scientists do this. Far too many skeptics do this, but that is the nature of "skepticism"to remain biased (toward doubt).
I am not being biased. I am merely basing my opinion on the available evidence. I notice that you provide no evidence that the Genesis creation story is true. Meanwhile, there is a vast plethora of evidence showing that it is false. We know how humanity evolved and it was not from clay.
Not many years ago, the myth of Atlantis was dismissed...
Yup. Rightly so. It's still dismissed now and unless you feel like providing us with some evidence that existed (which I notice you do not), then it will continue to be dismissed. That's how things generally work; evidence first, then belief. No evidence, no belief.
The topic is not Atlantis, so that topic properly belongs in its own thread. Although I have to say, if you want to convince people you're not a nut, Atlantis may not be the one to choose.
There were a number of so-called scientists who refused to look below the Clovis horizon in North American anthropology; in fact, ridiculing those who did. That's not science. That's dark age egotisma know-it-all attitude that stands in the way of discovery rather than helping to illuminate.
That's another topic again. Nothing to do with the flood.
No evidence? So very typical of the truly biased: Yes, there is evidence, blatantly overlookedover two hundred myths worldwide that suggest that a worldwide flood might have happened.
And all of them disagree on the specifics. This is evidence against the flood.
And, oh yes, Homo neanderthalensis disappeared at the same time.
You have not presented a shred of evidence that places the flood at that date, nor have you addressed the objections that I raised previously. In fact your entire post fails to address my points. The only reason you have to place the flood at this date is a rather dubious number game that you've played. That is puny evidence indeed compared with the obvious lack of a worldwide flood layer in the Earth's geology. A single flood capable of wiping out such a geographically widespread species as H. Neanderthalensis would leave evidence in the rocks. No such evidence exists. End of story. In fact the evidence of interbreeding between us and our Neanderthal cousins suggests a gradual demise for the species, not a sudden catastrophe.
Oh, by the way, a cursory check reveals that the youngest definite Neanderthal remains are over 30,000 years old, not 28,000 years old, so you have your figures wrong on that score. What's more, there is evidence that might be interpreted as evidence of Neanderthal activity from well after your flood date. There are also remains of a Cro-Magnon population with extensive Neanderthal traits dating back to 24,000 years. This leaves your hypothesis in tatters I think.
I appreciate you calling it like you see it. I can't help but return the favor.
If you want to return the favour you might try actually addressing my arguments. I took on your points, you seem to have almost entirely ignored mine and gone off on a side issue.
Your posts so far are long on supposition and short of evidence. The nearest thing to evidence you have is a sort of "this could have happened" attitude. Well that's great, but unless you have concrete evidence that it did happen (and can deal the wealth of evidence that shows that it did not) then you really have nothing.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 2:54 AM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 389 of 404 (653215)
02-19-2012 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Lone77Star
02-19-2012 3:30 AM


Re: New kid on the block
Hi Lone77Star,
Unless you've disabled Javascript you've seen the notice that this thread closes for summations at message 400. There's a "Thread Details" link near the top of the page, and if you click on this you'll see the details about Summation Mode on the right hand side.
If you post a copy of your first post to the Proposed New Topics forum I'll promote it into a new thread. If you click on "Edit" or "Peek" you'll be able to see the raw markup for cut-n-pasting.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 3:30 AM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 390 of 404 (653217)
02-19-2012 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Lone77Star
02-19-2012 3:30 AM


Re: New kid on the block
I happen to have a different hypothesis.
With no evidence. Therefore pseudoscience.
it must need a code or factor to make it compatible with those of science.
The woo is strong in this one.
Genesis 5:2. Adam was both male and female (a "them," not a "him").
Provide some sort of rationale for this radical interpretation. Show us the original language and how you foot to that interpretation. What version of the "Bible" are you using for this bizarre interpretation. Do you not think it is a little strange that no one has seriously proposed this before you?
Granny touches quite well on other points but I ahve a couple.
If indeed, Neanderthal was wiped out 30,000 years ago, then they may well have been the target of the Flood. Why?
Please show evidence for the flood in the geological record. Also, what is your mechanism for how th Neanderthals and the hybrid population were wiped out but not Homo Sapiens. I assume you will just present more wild ass conjecture.
One thing is for certain: Homo sapiens can never again commit the "crime" (if it was one) of sexual procreation with Homo neanderthalensis. The "Flood" event did its job well.
Hmm, no. Remember this is a science thread. You are reaching a conclusion on based upon wildass conjectures with no evidence to back them up. That makes your conclusions meaningless.
"crime"? really? You want to bring in moralizing to this thread?
Of course, I usually don't like discussing specifics with curmudgeons. Egos are such messy things; I despise my own.
Sounds like a psychological issue, get therapy. I love and embrace my ego.
But then again depends on what definition of ego you are using. If you are using the Freudian concept, you are a bigger woo-meister than I thought.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 3:30 AM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024