Example: On the first day of the tournament, three players are disqualifed.
The logical sense of temporal-order of the statement above is: First day preceded the disqualifying event.
BUT in that statement, there is already light+earth.
Before that “first day (of the tournament)”, there is already morning(light) passed.
So… how we define that before there is light+earth, Day-1 is already begin ?
A statement like: In the beginning of Day-1, God create the heavens & earth.
Doesn’t make sense to me, Jon.
If it’s argued:
But the Bible doesn’t say “In the beginning of Day-1”.
The Bible say “God create heavens and earth on Day-1”.
Me:
it still the same thing:
The first hour of the evening of Day-1 is already exist before the light+earth exist.
I don’t know when the first hour of day one occurred
We can know, if the light already exist.
After the light exist, part of the earth is evening (“world-A”), other part of the earth is morning (“world-B”).
So… the first hour of Day-1 of world-A began in evening while the first hour of Day-1 of world-B began in the morning.
I’m not “disturbed” by that, Jon.
The thing which bugging me is that I can’t make a conclusion that the first hour of Day-1 experienced by the whole part of the earth began in the evening.
Because if I hold that the first hour of Day-1 experienced by the whole part of the earth began in the evening., then world-B will say “nop… we don’t even have Day-1 yet”
When the world-A say “now we just have the second evening begin”, then world-B will say “nop… we haven’t experienced the second evening yet”.
Both part experience the same 24hours time passing. BUT the environment is different, world-A is evening, world-B is morning.
EXCEPT:
There is no other part of the earth. If > = light, then earth = ||. > ||.
So, the second | can never get the light, only the first | which can get light.
Only then it does make sense for a statement: the first hour of Day-1 began in the evening.
In other words,
only if the earth is flat then the first hour of Day-1 began in the evening. is the truth, globally true.
But if the earth is spherical, then the first hour of Day-1 began in the evening is not the truth, because it’s just partially true in the point of view of world-A.
The modeler must then analyze the present-day geometric model to describe the deposition
chronology and physical properties of the basin- fill materials and to identify postdepositional
processes—an undertaking that will enable reconstruction of the basin and its layers and
fluids throughout geologic time. This analysis establishes a basin history that is subdivided into an uninterrupted series of stratigraphic events of specified age and duration. These events are
summarized in a petroleum system events chart (next page). Each event represents a span of time during which deposition, nondeposition or erosion occurred. This summary describes the
chronology of the geologic elements in a petroleum system. Syn- and postdepositional episodes
of folding, faulting, salt tectonics, igneous intrusion, diagenetic alteration and hydrothermal
activity can be included to explain the model. Determining the timing of trap formation and of
the remaining processes—generation, migration and accumulation of hydrocarbons
The absolute age of each layer in the basin and petroleum system model is an important
parameter for determining the timing of the processes that generate, move and trap petroleum.
Age information may be available from paleontologic data, radiometric dating, fission-track dates
and magnetic-reversal tracking.15 In many basins, known petroleum source rocks have been
assigned to global geologic periods based on geochemical and biostratigraphic determinations.
Really!
The list of procedural parameters in your post don’t come close to even begin to address the quote you selected from one of my posts about the worldwide existence of coal and oil in sedimentary strata.
It may surprise you to know that I have some experience in regulating coal and oil industry extraction works through stratigraphic mapping of rocks entrapping hydrocarbon fuel and groundwater aquifers. Some industry work I conducted included detailed mapping of geologic strata around mine extraction locations to understand the local hydro-geology and determine where monitoring bore locations should be placed to assist in preventing aquifer contamination from coal, oil and natural gas extractive industries. Thus, please do not attempt to impress me with a list of in many cases questionable procedures that are already based on a deeptime worldview.
The fact remains, “there exists coal and oil in sedimentary strata in Antarctica, under the ocean basins and on all continents, a fact that is totally consistent with the fact of the global flood about 4,500 years ago.” If you claim to be a Bible believing Christian, I do not understand why you do not believe the Bible.
By the way you forgot to mention Helium diffusion rates that are absolutely empirically consistent with a maximum age of about 6,000 years for the leakage of He from granitic rocks that were collected at depths of a few miles below the surface.
If you want to read more about that, an excellent and fascinating paper as a PDF file can be found at:
I’m going to assume that you’re telling the truth here @Burrawang, and that you really do have the experience that you claim to have. I am going to recommend that others do likewise.
However, this does mean that you should expect to be held to a much higher standard in terms of the factual accuracy and technical integrity of your claims. In particular, you should be expected to know and understand the basic rules and principles of accurate and honest measurement. You should also be expected to understand and do any necessary maths when challenged, to substantiate your claims with evidence, and to make sure that the information you are providing in support of your position is kept up to date. You should certainly not be making claims that demonstrate an ignorance of GCSE level mathematics or the basic principles of how measurement works, nor should you be making claims that can be falsified with nothing more than a simple Google search. Nor should you be presenting flawed studies from several decades ago as if they were representative of the state of the art in evolutionary research.
People with limited scientific experience can be excused on the grounds of ignorance if they make claims that are inaccurate, incorrect, incoherent, misleading or outdated. Since you have told us that you have relevant experience in the field, you do not have the luxury of that excuse.
But in the pov of YEC, it does matter.
Because “it was evening and it was morning” is explained by YEC that it means a progression of time. So, the first hour of day-1 occured in the evening according to the YEC.
According to the quote above, the existence of Day-1 is not after the separation but BEFORE the earth exist:
and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
So, according to the SDA, the chronological order :
----- the first hour of 24 hours starts ----
Evening exist (Gen 1:1)
Earth created (Gen 1:1)
Light created (Gen 1:3)
Separation (Gen 1:4)
Morning exist (Gen 1:5)
----- the last hour of 24 hours ends----
Using the YEC argument:
God not wait for billion of years to create the earth, in a blink of an eye, the whole of the universe suddenly exist
I agree with the argument (as I put myself that I don’t have a knowledge about evolution), but still… the “WAITING” to the next creation is there, isn’t it ?
----- the first second of 24 hours starts ----
Evening exist (Gen 1:1)
Earth created (Gen 1:1) … one second
Light created (Gen 1:3) … in that one second of #2
Thus it is incumbent upon your good self to be truthful and not make the outlandish accusations that you have leveled against me and other Christians who believe the Bible means what it so plainly says in earlier posts under this subject.
The fact of the matter is that you appear to have a jaundiced stereotype view of what people like myself believe.
The truth of all being discussed on this Biologos website, is one of worldviews through which an individual interprets the world we live in. As professing Christians, being truthful is a given, or at least it should be a given. We all have an audience of One in Heaven who sees all that we do. We should always be mindful of Him and make our actions, our words and thoughts in alignment with Jesus who showed us how to live.
We should not be surprised when we are attacked for what we believe, as we are not of this world and the world hates those that love the Lord and are His.
If I understand correctly from what you have inferred about yourself on a previous occasion, I’m certainly not sure, but see that it is possible that you once believed as I do now, that evolution is a deceptive unfalsifiable lie, devoid of any real supporting evidence and that belief in eons of the deeptime billions of years is just a modern myth that sets itself up against the truth of real creation about 6,000 Earth years ago as the Bible so clearly informs us through simple addition of the provided genealogies.
I’m sorry Jon, but that’s just deflection. Whataboutism.
If you think that I am in error to dispute a particular young earthist claim, then it is up to you to point out the mistakes in my reasoning. If I have misunderstood the procedures involved, or haven’t taken something into account, it is up to you to explain to me what I am overlooking or have misunderstood. If you think that I am wrong to say that a young earthist teacher is lying, then it is up to you to justify their claims and to explain to me precisely why I am in error to say that they are lying. But you do need to provide evidence, explain precisely what mistakes I am making, and justify any corrections that you bring. You will not do this by simply hand-waving away the points that I make as “outlandish accusations.”
It’s one thing to be attacked or persecuted for genuine and honest Christian faith, Jon. It is a different matter entirely to be confronted for sloppy thinking, falsehood, unjustified assertions, or resistance to critique.
Jon, my worldview is simply that honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information is non-negotiable. Honesty has rules and if you don’t want to be accused of dishonesty then you need to stick to them. If you think that I am not applying the rules fairly, or that the rules that I am applying are invalid, then it is up to you to explain exactly why you think they are unfair or invalid. If you are in any doubt about what rules I am applying or why I am applying them, then it is up to you to ask for clarification.
I’ve explained what I’ve changed my position on here:
Bottom line: I’ve learned the hard way, through painful experience, that not taking mainstream science seriously is simply not an option. I’ve learned the hard way that science has rules and honesty has rules, and that not sticking to the rules has consequences. The change that I’ve made has been is simply to tighten my standards and to insist that the rules be adhered to by anyone trying to challenge a scientific theory, evolution included. If you want to try to make a case that evolution is a “deceptive unfalsifiable lie,” then that’s up to you, but I expect you to stick to the rules while doing so.
But in the pov of YEC, it does matter.
Because “it was evening and it was morning” is explained by YEC that it means a progression of time. So, the first hour of day-1 occured in the evening according to the YEC.
According to the quote above, the existence of Day-1 is not after the separation but BEFORE the earth exist:
and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
So, according to the SDA, the chronological order :
----- the first hour of 24 hours starts ----
Evening exist (Gen 1:1)
Earth created (Gen 1:1)
Light created (Gen 1:3)
Separation (Gen 1:4)
Morning exist (Gen 1:5)
----- the last hour of 24 hours ends----
Using the YEC argument:
God not wait for billion of years to create the earth, in a blink of an eye, the whole of the universe suddenly exist
I agree with the argument (as I put myself that I don’t have a knowledge about evolution), but still… the “WAITING” to the next creation is there, isn’t it ?
----- the first second of 24 hours starts ----
Evening exist (Gen 1:1)
Earth created (Gen 1:1) … one second
Light created (Gen 1:3) … in that one second of #2
Separation (Gen 1:4) … in that one second of #2
Morning exist (Gen 1:5)
----- the last second of 24 hours ends----
Please cmiiw.
Hi Reko,
thank you for your post. I am sorry but I am having a little difficulty in getting to the questions you have and the cause of the problems with understanding the straightforward creation account text in Genesis.
I don’t really know why we need to think about at what second various components of the creation historical narrative occur. God has clearly informed us through the Holy Spirit inspired author of Genesis that creation occurred in six normal consecutive days. The genealogies in the Bible clearly inform us when the creation took place, through simple addition, creation occurred about 6,000 Earth years ago.
As far as I am concerned that is all need to know.
We are commanded to observe the Sabbath and I do understand that it is likely that the Seventh Day Adventists have the correct day for the Sabbath. It is of course more prudent to follow what Jewish people held as the Sabbath day and again it is Saturday.
The fact that most of the western world Christian denominations have Sunday as the Sabbath is fine as far as I understand the scriptures. We are told in the NT to let each one do according to his own conscience and in so doing each one is doing what is right and good.
But to hopefully complete somewhat relevantly answering your question, it maybe as you say, and it may be different, the text is silent about the breakdown within the first day.
It is enough for me to know that in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth as the Bible states on the first normal day, (that we know as a 24 hour period, or in another way as one full revolution of the Earth), in:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Sorry Reko, but I still really don’t understand why you are having difficulty understanding the clear text in the first five verses of Genesis.
That is what I draw as my own conclusion after reading Genesis 1. I’m as the “YEC” (doesn’t have evolution knowledge) find out that it can’t be literal 24hour-Day.
“and there was evening, and there was morning” verse can’t be interprated as a progression of time where Day-1 started in the evening.
Therefore (to me, the “YEC”) a statement "the first hour of Day-1 starts in the evening" —> cannot be the truth (globally true).
On the other hand of my conclusion :
only if in reality the earth is flat then "the first hour of Day-1 starts in the evening" is the truth.
Yes. I dig deep enough the internet about my question, but I can’t find any YEC article which cover about the evening and the morning happen simultaneously on earth. Too bad … I can’t find any YEC forum… that’s why I register here in Biologos Forum to ask about that.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean here, but I presume you are insisting that the flood in Noah’s day was a local flood and not a global flood.
But don’t you see that makes absolutely no sense!
Why would Noah spend about 100 years of his life building a huge ship without power tools and machinery, if all he had to do was move several hundred miles to higher ground?
As I have already written above, but you have failed to address, I will add bold text to make the parts of the relevant text more obvious for you.
The rivers named in the Bible for the preflood period such as the Tigris and the Euphrates would not be the same rivers in the same location post flood. The global flood was catastrophic, responsible for depositing uncountable trillions upon trillions of tons of sediment and fossils, all over the planet that was completely reshaped from a single land mass surrounded by ocean to the world we know today with multiple continents. Right now, there exists coal and oil in sedimentary strata in Antarctica, under the ocean basins and on all continents, a fact that is totally consistent with the fact of the global flood about 4,500 years ago. The tectonic movements alone that ripped the land apart would have totally destroyed the preflood world, so that all that remains now is sedimentary strata and well preserved fossils.
Genesis 7 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.23 So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days.
Genesis 8 21…the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22 While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”
Why do you not understand that the flood was global and destroyed every living thing?
Surely you can see that the texts above in Genesis 7 and 8 make it absolutely clear that the flood was GLOBAL. The whole planet was underwater. Fact: There is enough water right now to submerge the entire planet to a depth of about 3 kilometres if the planet surface was smoothed out to a constant surface level of the Earth in all directions.
In other words the water of Noah’s flood is still there to this day, it is just that it is now partly in deep ocean basins, some in the polar and and high mountain ice caps, some in freshwater lakes and watercourses, but mainly in the crust the rocks are saturated to great depths far deeper than the ocean basins.
Me:
Then it can’t be said that “Day-1 started IN the evening”, because evening (of Day-1) is the consequence of the existence of the earth. But then it still need flat earth is a fact to state that “evening time is the first hour of Day-1 of earth” is the TRUTH.
So, if I don’t think about other components in my knowledge, then of course I will say that: “evening time is the first hour of Day-1 of earth” is the TRUTH.
This is the state where I don’t need to read the Bible. Just receive it on what my parents told me.
But because I do think about other componnents in my knowledge, then “evening time is the first hour of Day-1 of earth” is NOT THE TRUTH. It’s just partially true.
Is the statement ‘Earth Day-1 started IN the evening’ the truth to you?
Let me know if you ever do. Years ago when I looked, I couldn’t find any that would allow any voices to be present other than those who would echo their prescribed scripts. I suspect this may still be the case.
But their voices are welcomed here since we believe that real seekers of truth have nothing to fear.
Yes, I will put the link here if I find there is a YEC forum where the member can ask a question.
I couldn’t find any that would allow any voices to be present
Since I’m also still unable to find the YEC forum site, it seems to me that it is their strategy to not having a forum so even beginners in YEC will be unable to ask questions. They have to simply swallow what they are told or read. Maybe ?
I don’t, You brought up that you consider the Bible a science reference, and those are just a few of the scientific inaccuracies the Bible references. You claim ancient people knew the earth was a sphere, yet were unable to find a word to articulate that and instead use the word circle. I am sure they had balls with which the children played. There is nothing wrong with that, as the Bible was not affirming those things to be true, just referencing them in revealing scientific truth. It is you affirming that scientific proof is present and part of the purpose of the Bible, and as such, you have a lot of explaining to do. Evolutionists do not read evolution into the Bible in general, but allow the Bible to speak for itself. You can’t say that for YEC folk.
Where does the Bible state that these were not the same rivers? Nor is there anything about the geography being changed, ect, ect. All of that is extra-biblical.
The validity of radiometric dating is supported by thousands of studies published in both general and dedicated journals. To insist that they are all wrong is an extraordinary claim requiring commensurate proof, not just something cooked up by the RATE team. There is no problem with Helium. There is a huge, intrinsic problem with accelerated decay by release of planet destroying heat.
I’m familiar with the RATE project’s study on helium diffusion in zircons.
It is by far the most complex young earth claim that I’m aware of. When I was researching for my blog series on Answers in Genesis’s ten best evidences for a young earth, it took me two whole evenings to even start to get my head round what was going on. I’ve read the RATE project report, the critiques by Gary Loechelt and Kevin Henke, the RATE team’s responses to the responses, Loechelt and Henke’s responses to the responses to the responses, and so on. But I also had to do quite a bit of background reading as well. To be able to respond in detail requires an understanding of multiple areas of geology, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and mathematics. There’s a lot of dense technical jargon involved, with terms such as Q/Q_0, a and b flying around, and it can easily leave your head spinning if you don’t have a lot of time on your hands and specialist knowledge. But hey, at least I now know the difference between gneiss and granodiorite, and on top of that I got reminded of something from my physics degree that I’d all but forgotten, but that I’ve since managed to put to good use in my day job.
Because it’s so complex, only a subject matter expert in diffusion chemistry is going to be able to do a complete, in-depth critique. However, for those of us with some scientific education but not necessarily an in depth expertise in the subject, there are some general principles that we can apply anyway.
First and foremost of these is what I call the FizzBuzz Principle. Specifically:
If there are egregious, deal-breaking technical errors in aspects of the claim that you are able to fact-check, you can safely assume that aspects of the claim that are beyond your competence will also be in error.
This is called the FizzBuzz Principle after an interview question that is common in the software development industry. In order to save costs, recruiters need to weed out candidates who can’t code their way out of a paper bag at a very early stage in the process. To do this, they ask a question based on a children’s game, “FizzBuzz”:
Print out the numbers from 1 to 100. But for every number divisible by three, print “Fizz”. For every number divisible by five, print “Buzz”. If a number is divisible by both three and five, print “FizzBuzz”.
Even entry-level developers should be able to answer this question with their eyes closed. But many candidates – some of whom even have PhDs in computer science – struggle with it.
Only if they manage to complete FizzBuzz does the interview then proceed to more advanced topics such as object oriented design patterns, regular expressions, database concurrency, test driven development, or machine learning. If they don’t, they are thanked for their time, the phone screen is cut short, and they are not invited for a second on-site interview.
So where is the FizzBuzz in the RATE project’s zircons study? Answer: accelerated nuclear decay.
Billion fold accelerated nuclear decay is science fiction. It didn’t happen, it’s as simple as that. It doesn’t take a “secular” or “materialist” worldview to see this, and you don’t have to have “been there to see it happen” either. The RATE team themselves admitted that the amount of nuclear decay they needed to accelerate would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,400°C. Four times hotter than the surface of the sun, and hot enough to vaporise the Earth’s crust many times over.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a link to the page in the RATE technical report where Dr Andrew A Snelling, PhD, Director of Research at Answers in Genesis, did the calculations:
If you wonder why young earthists have such a hard time getting taken seriously by scientifically literate people—including scientifically literate Christians—this is why. I remember the first time I came across their claims of accelerated nuclear decay. I was like, “They’re claiming WHAT?!!?” I later mentioned it to a young earthist friend who said he thought it was some sort of atheist parody to “discredit creationism.” I’m sorry, but when even your own supporters aren’t able to tell the difference between your own arguments and parodies of them, you have a problem.
Only because you don’t know enough geology to be able to tell the difference. Anyone with a decent education in geology easily recognizes that “Flood geology” is just wishful science fiction.
The mere existence of coal is contrary to any global flood – a global flood could not have produced the thick seams of coal that we actually find. Getting coal seams requires many thousands of years of vegetation growing and dying in the same place when there were no bacteria that could digest cellulose, enough so that the mere existence of coal shows that the Earth has to be many thousands of years old, not a mere six thousand.
More science fiction – indeed science fiction as a rescuing device!
It’s amazing how much non-biblical material has to be invented to support an interpretation of early Genesis that doesn’t even fit the text itself!
Yes, it would have generated enough heat to boil the oceans and melt the planet back to a ball of magma.
Because the text doesn’t support it.
Why do YECers refuse to actually study the text of the scriptures? Why do they insist that ancient literature should be read as modern literature?
There is no way to make sense out of it because there are two entirely different cosmologies involved. The opening Creation account in Genesis operates on a cosmology where the entire Earth was what we might call a single time zone: the whole Earth was in day, or the whole world was in light.
This alone is enough to tell us both that the Creation story writer didn’t know the Earth was a globe and that Yahweh wasn’t interested in accurate science.
Exactly! The writer of the first Creation story regarded the Earth as a flat disk a few thousand kilometers wide with a solid dome over it.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
So you were already told where the deposits were, you just built on work done by others.
He does – the problem is your definition of things.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
For what it’s worth, the presence of the deep and of the chaotic Earth are before Day One. The narrative structure begins each day with the declaration, “And Elohim said”, so Day One starts in verse 3.
This, BTW, is consistent with the account being a temple inauguration; a temple inauguration assumes that the general location for the temple is already there, and just uses seven days for making and filling the temple.
Where did bring up that I “consider the Bible a science reference”?
Again, I do not recall that, and that certainly was not my intention, where have I affirmed “that scientific proof is present and part of the purpose of the Bible”?
whilst that may or may not be a provable point…how would you explain that Gods revelation to us (through his prophets for example) was largely given via verbal and visionary methods?
Are you honestly going to make the claim that God’s visions of the earth to Moses were not of a spherical planet?
We know that the claim “early Christian church fathers believed the earth was flat, and or stationary in the universe” is a fabricated lie aimed at nothing more than supporting false theology and doctrine. It has been comprehensively proven that ancient Greeks, who under Alexander the Great ruled and directly influenced the Israelite nation hundreds of years before Christ, knew the earth was neither flat nor stationary long before early church fathers…
In the **5th century B.C.** , Empedocles and Anaxagoras offered arguments for the spherical nature of the Earth. During a lunar eclipse, when the Earth is between the sun and the moon, **they identified the shadow of the Earth on the moon. As the shadow moves across the moon it is clearly round.** [library of congress.gov](https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology)
I would argue that in fact the reason for the conjuring up of the flat earth was the result of the Catholic church attempts to stifle religious investigation and freedom in order to maintain control over early Christians (which eventually resulted in the rejection of the shackles of the early Catholic Church, and the rise of the Reformation movment)
Also, how do you explain the apostle Peters’s words in 2 Peter chapters 1 and 2 where clearly the apostle writes about a literal historical account of Noahs flood and the physical literal destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorah?
1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge;
16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses
19We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt.
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,
5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah,
6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c7and if He rescued Lot,
I have done O&G wellhead engineering. If you were a energy company reservoir engineer and dismissed the procedures that are based on a deeptime worldview, you could not do your job and you would be gone.