tdrehfal

I'm glad you admit that abiogenesis is not evolution, so thanks for stating that it's just a hypothesis and doesn't even make it a theory. It's not really even a good hypothesis. I bet Miller and Urey would even admit that. You talk about a 98.3% similarity to "monkeys". There are 264 species of "monkeys". I doubt you've mapped them all. Get real. I don't know if this similarity issue is real or not but you certainly haven't mapped every "monkey" Maybe you're referring to one species, a chimpanzee perhaps? Common sense tells me that, according to evolutionary theory, unicorns are certainly possible and if we defined a unicorn as basically a "horned horse" and a horn gave a horse an advantage in its environment than unicorns would be probable. So I guess you believe in unicorns after all. There isn't an entire book that claims to be eyewitness testimony about Santa Clause that matches up with things he's done in history. But i'm glad you admit that "common sense" is of no value to you. Saying slowly getting an ever slightly faster set of legs has nothing to do with being able to outrun predators if the speed differential is so negligible that they can't outrun them. Why don't you factor in the predator-to-prey speed gap and see if this really works. You confuse acquired knowledge over time with intelligence as though you spitting back textbooks verbatim means you're the one who can claim to have come up with the idea. The fact that humans can know produce guns would be knowledge over time. This doesn't really seem to happen in the animal kingdom outside of humans. So, unless I know how to make a gun from scratch, my intelligence isn't different than those that existed thousands of years ago and I could be walking in the forest and eaten by a bear rather than shooting it. So I guess intelligence isn't as advantageous as you think it is. Functional Advantages appear to be more so. I can't outrun a lot of animals and a lot of them can kill me. What my intelligence as a human does is tell me to stay away from areas of a complex ecosystem that have predators that I can't kill. The aliens in the movie "alien" or "aliens" are a better example of something that evolution should produce. Assuming their intelligence is equal to humans, or even if it is moreso, look who has the advantage and why. Now apply that to evolutionary advantages. They are way better adapted to the environment and simply HARD TO KILL. It seems like being HARD TO KILL, in the physical sense, rather than intellectual sense would be the logical outcome of evolution. Intelligence requires one to think and acquire knowledge and pass it on, being physically hard to kill is much, much easier. Hoaxes and frauds prove that perhaps we shouldn't trust scientists so blindly if it takes them decades to figure out that they were duped and they don't scritinize data and evidence without bias enough to prevent this kind of duping from occuring. There's no excuse for these kinds of hoaxes in the scientific community because this supposedly infallible peer-review should prevent this from happening. Hoaxes are a product of utter incompetence. I'm not going to discuss the dates/rocks/young earth/old earth since there are various theological stances on it. Radiometric dating certainly does have problems. And you're supposed to be using multiple dating methods to confirm samples not just one. All it takes is a glance at youtube to prove that morals aren't coming from evolution, either. People saying we need to burn every Bible and "eliminate creationists from the gene pool" aren't biased?

...

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

OK, see, you've made a bridge between literal sound (God speaking so loud he makes bubbles glow) and symbolic/spiritual sound. The student was talking about literal sound, as in a wave of vibration. A physical force that can be measured. I enjoyed reading your post, Matthitjah, but as a scientific-minded person your post struck me much more like poetry than science. In order to assess a scientific claim, we must look at it scientifically, not poetically. If you think I'm just being a grumpy old agnostic, rejecting the student's hypothesis in a kneejerk reaction, consider this: Q: Where does the light in the universe come from? A: From nuclear fusion in stars, not sonoluminescence in bubbles. Boom, theory refuted. I admit this theory seems rather strange to put it midly but that aside, the statement "Let there be light!" could be the literal creation of light. The light in the universe does not come from nuclear fusion in stars, it comes from photons or lightwaves, wether it be from a lightbulb, a star, a candle flame, or anything that emits these photons can produce light. A shooting star produces light and it isn't even a star. The northern lights are lights also. No stars there. God created light and seperated it from the darkness. It might be a creation of the photon or more specifically the CONCEPT of light. Sound is also another thing that really has no definition the way I see it. It needs a medium to travel in, like air. Sound is defined as a waveform, what the heck is that? Only something that can be measured by the effects its having. The waveform is obviously real because it effects the air but the air is not the sound, the waveform is the sound. It doesn't need air though, sonar works. It's really unknown what the actual waveform is other than a concept that's being used to describe the mechanical effects it has on a medium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound It's just a waveform that requires a medium. Wiki explains it perfectly, but WHY does the waveform happen. If I pluck a string on a guitar it vibrates and for some reason vibrations travel in waveform as long as they have a medium to exist on. Light and the absence of light need to be separate, of course. If we define space as something rather than nothing than that could be said to be the medium that light requires to travel. Is darkness the absence of light or is light the absence of darkness? It's relative. Our universe is very strange. Is the earth moving around the sun? In relation to the sun. Is the sun moving? In relation to other things. Is the universe moving? According to big bang theory it is moving, it's expanding. Are objects still being 'dragged along' with space? Weirdness. There are probably quantum physics explanations for these but I consider that field to be very hypothetical. Besides all this, If God exists in a separate unperceivable dimension, the 'sound' traveled in that dimension and indicated to the beings in that dimension God's decision to create light in our universe. I wouldn't say God's audible voice was heard in the universe, due to the nature of God that's debatable... He could do it being God, but it doesn't seem necessary.

The problem with creationism is that you cannot rule out the Creator using any alternative methods to bring about the evidences we see today. The hypothesis cannot therefore be falsified and is unscientific. Ok, enough. We can falsify the creator if we can find something in nature that creates a code (organized information) by itself. If you can find a code that doesn't derive from intelligence you can falsify the creator's existence. DNA is a code. No, it's not like a code, anologous to a code, or related to as a code. It is a code, period. Information Theory would define DNA as a code. Every code comes from a will or mind, hence a creator. Find me a code that doesn't come from a will or mind and you can falsify my hypothesis. I predict by my hypothesis that you will not find a code that doesn't come from at least some form of intelligence. To make things clear, a code would be organized information that serves a purpose which can exist independent of the medium used. The information in the DNA can exist this way, because that's what it is: information. And do not try to argue that information is not real, because it produces real effects. Information even though it is not "tangible", is most certainly real. What are you reading right now? Words. You're not reading LCD pixels, electron-to-phosphrous beams or any such thing, you're reading real words and you can speak them and write them down on paper and represent them in binary by ASCII code and they're still real words because they produce real effects. Your response to this post would be a real effect, and it would be the same if i wrote it to you verbatim and you mailed me back a letter. I want a code that doesn't come from intelligence.

Christ is the image of the invisible God. We can safely say that he is indeed the same God of the OT, in man-form. He is literally God in the flesh. This does not however mean that the God the father and God the Son cannot be metaphysically seperate since Christ sits at God's right hand. What you're really driving at is a discussion of the Trinity. If you read a "new world translation" of the scriptures I would suggest getting rid of that and getting something else... any other standard Bible should do.

This is a good thing, unless the virus mutates into some evil virus that kills all...

Will it someday be possible? Sure. Will this day come before we manage to completely destroy the environment, blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, die of a genetically-engineered plague, etc? Probably not. Atom by atom engineering? I disagree. Regardless of how many Star Trek the next Generation episodes one watches, there is no Heisenberg Compensator

Ok, tdrefal. Does this mean that you are comparing your anger as it is justified by your own belief to the anger of a muslim as it is justified by his? Are you also admiting that both you and the muslim are equally certain about which faith is true, even though you both disagree? Where then does the real truth and justification for requiring people to believe in something one way or the other come from? A muslim would have a right to be angry if you called allah jelly doughnut instead of simply witnessing, noone would expect otherwise. I do not believe, however, that the muslim really knows exactly what he believes due to my study of Islam as a faith. The truth is they don't even know what they pray when they pray. I dont really think the muslim is really "sure" like we are, no. My anger isn't the same thing as some muslim hatred (i certainly dont hate you or think you're the devil or whatever)... It stems from an attack on a faithful brother in Christ and its very limited. It is not going to lead me to hate you or want to kill you or think you're an idiot. Those are the differences. The real truth is based on the NT eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ. And in case you didn't quite catch it, anger isnt hatred. What some of the muslims do is hatred, not anger. Being angry doesnt necessarily imply hatred.

You are too quick to be offended. First, I wasn't comparing the jelly doughnut to the christian God, I was comparing it to the lake of fire. Second, it wasn't used to insul, t any of you, it was to get your attention in following the logic. I wanted to go into more detail and build up to it, but since both of you are taking the comparison so harshly that you find it suiting to return premature insults at me then i'll explain on the point here and refur to the rest of Josh'd post when I get around to it. Obviously, being afraid of a jelly doughnut is outlandish and it is not a truth I really claim to. Josh's point was that there was reason to believe and that reason was simply for the existence of belief itself or the fact that others are believing and that clues in life can guide you toward which nonprovable thing is the right thing to believe in. So i pointed out that in the extreme case of a Jelly doughnut that you don't see, it's clear that not only is it unlikely, but let's say that it turned out in the end to be true? If that were so then what morality is there to gauge from believing in it? For if it were the reality that God surounded or placed us in the center of a Jelly doughnut, or even so much as allowed this to be our fate due to some evil devil's actions, it would be a case of God mocking us. Therefore, why respect or care is such a God were real? If such a God were real then God wouldn't be taking us seriously or treating us fairly, and those of us with sound minds meant for logic would just wait, while enjoying life in other ways, till the time came when the jelly doughnut truth were revealed, and we'd have nothing left to worry about. We might all just laugh at Gods rediculousness. I''m not saying that you wouldn't laugh too. I'm not even saying that this is what you blieve in. I'm only pointing out that it is as rationally logical as what you do believe in. So let's say that doughnutism is far too outlandish for any God to expect us to believe in. Ok, then how about Paganism, witchcraft, egyptian pharoahs, greek gods, and tribal beliefs in small cultures that have not touched the benefits of industry yet. Are they also far too outlandish for our real god to expect us to believe in? Is it still the reasonability that makes a difference in christianity from these beliefs? OK, then what about Bhudism, hinduism, and islam? Are those beliefs also far too outlandish for a God to expect us to believe? can you still cling to christianity above these and accpet christianity as a fact, when these are also possibilities of what God might want us to believe in for our salvation? Fine, then what about Judeism? How can you know that God wants you to believe in christianity over judeism? How do you know that God isn't saying, "the jews are still my people and the christians are just gential people who blame all of my people over what a select few have done". My point wasn't to make a mockery of your religion, it was to point out that all of these religions have an unreasonable requirement of belief, which can by no means justify ones morality nor claim ones immorality. If anything, the only belief that is capable of causing one to act morally for having believed is one that is tested and questioned continuously to the bitter end, not one that is believed in as it's own justification. So if you have no place in your religion to continuously question your beliefs, then I'm afraid that your faith means nothing more by any means than the faith of a doughnutist. = Thanks for your quote seanpont. It explains more clearly why I did have to use a jelly doughnut for an example, because if i put out another belief that people with reasonable minds believe in, it wouldnt have been noticed at all. I am certainly not quick to be offended. This would be the first time ever i've been offended in these forrums and I have 200+ posts. What we believe is based on testimony, not stupidity. I just said dont attack josh, and that's all... If you're not a Christian, you dont understand WHY I might get mad about that. Try using a jelly doughnut for an example of allah in iraq. When someone knows something is true, they know its true.

Wait a minute now... millinons of years ago and carbon-dated stones? hello? c-14 dating doesn't go back millions of years as everyone knows. This is simply stupid. Any scientist would even say it's stupid. Noone would ever talk about "carbon dated stones". Radiometric dated stones, perhaps, certainly not Carbon dated. Silliness.

Chimpanzee stone age? Hello pseudoscience and goodbye science.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive? You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this. Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though. Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief. You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said. Thanks tdrehfal, I didn't take it as a direct attack on me though it was an attack, I just saw it as imaturity in mocking without taking time to understand, been there done that, that comment about God being a jelly donout, I've actualy said that before I knew the grace and the mercy of the Lord. It just reminded me of how blind I was, and further encouraged me because The Lord has directed me to know him. Well josh, I aspire to be what you are. Perhaps you are just smarter than I am, I don't know... I am humbled by your response. Thank you. I don't likie my Brothers being attacked, however, and Jesus did say it would be better for someone to have millstone tied around their neck than to offend one of these little ones that believes. I'm sorry I get a little upset when someone who is even > me is attacked.

Yes, it is pretty funny most of the time!

I would say here though that the author here refers to things as "my quotes" when they are simply not my quotes. And I'm certainly not trying to "debunk science". That's just silly. The scientific method is sound. I simply say however that it does not conflict with Christianity in any way. The Genesis 1 thing was totally deceptive. Genesis 1 begins with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". SO? You added the second verse to prove your point. It does not negate the first verse.

Yeah... i CANT even respond to this.. the system is just too messed up for that mods please help us

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive? You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this. Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though. Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief. You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

If we don't see a firey lake, but a book or a fool tells us there is one, and that the only way to avoid the lake is to believe it's all around you and that you have a reason to fear it, then yes, it's beyond human logic to assume such a threat. The fact that it is beyond human logic is more reason to think that we are of no moral consequence to choose one way or another. It's the difference between gambling and not gambling. I don't have to gamble at all, because I can know the truth. The idea that god made such a lake and requires us to believe in him to get ourselves away from it is all the more proof that God is narcissistic, or just sick in the head. I could just as soon decide all of my choices with a coin toss. I'm not risking anything by knowing that God wouldn't care about which path we chose if such work was his own making. Expecting me to believe in something that I haven't enough reason to believe in is no different thanexpecting me to believe in a superstition. How do you deal with superstitions? If someone tells you that you'll be saved if you believe that they are God, is that the beyond human logic you are supposed to follow? This sounds a lot more like you are separating ordinary logic from your own special logic. God faith vs Car faith. You aren't even arguing what makes them different, you're just assuming that the God of the bible can't let you down. Honestly, in this metaphor, is it a sin to wear a seat belt when you're riding in your god? And here we have the metaphysical differences that cause one to view another as being out of their mind. I say that God is a big jelly doughnut and if you don't believe it you will not be able to eat your waay out. Praying to St. Homer Simpson should help you to believe. My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist this guy is? Probably 12.

1. Maybe because there isn't any that has been peer-reviewed? Scientists will sit up and take notice the moment that some real science comes up with support for a biblical truth where that conflicts with existing science. 2. Indeed. when I was a lad, I had to read about valves, in spite of the fact that everyone was using those new-fangled transistors back then. However, in the biology field (I assume that this is what you are getting at), the theory of Evolution has only been strengthened with each new find. For example, the dinosaur-to-bird fossil gap only had Archaeopteryx, but now has some beautiful intermediates - dinosaurs with feathers, dinos with wishbones, birds with reptile teeth, etc. Every fossil find that bridges a gap in evolutionary evidence tightens up the theory. 3. So I should have seen some, then? Curious. I've not seen a single scientific paper implying any exisitence of a god of any sort. I have, for example, seen some scientific papers (available on the internet) that show evidence that geological strata could not have been laid down by a catastrophic flood, but which then bizarrely conclude that a flood was responsible. It just isn't in the realm of science to prove God. 4. That'll be founder and Executive Director of the Institute of Contemporary Christian Faith, would it? Do you think that he might just be a tad biased? And maybe attempting to justify his position, and overlook evidence that inconveniently doesn't fit his agenda? Or that maybe his interpretation is just that, an interpretation, where the conclusion is already established in his mind before he started looking at the evidence? 5. Just list ONE 'fact' please. It will be the first fact that real science has encountered, so we can view it as a breakthrough. 6. Not really. If science says that the universe is 13 billion years old, and the bible says 6,000 years, it doesn't seem at all surprising that most people find the two in contradiction. 7. Yes, indeed. Galileo had so much trouble with the church that he probably would have been executed if he hadn't appeared to believe it. It seems that not much has changed in 500 years, sometimes - science vs the Bible Newton wasted most of his time with Alchemy, too, and he was way off line there. 8. The crucial word there is 'incredible' - Strict meaning: 'Unbelievable'. Spot on. 9. Your ignorance here is simply staggering. Were you educated at all in science? Where is the relevance of the General Theory of Relativity to evolution? It doesn't touch it. Do you even know how DNA is copied? Do you know the difference between the Special and General Theories of Relativity? 10. I'm very knowledgeable about probability theory, but fail to see what that has to do with the bible. This analysis says different, and that's the very first chapter that's already inconsistent. 11. I can't think of one. Please name just one. 12. This story has been around since the early sixties, but I've never found a source for it, or the methodology used. I've asked several times for the source of this info, yet nobody can provide me with it. Can you quote the original, please? 13. Where in the bible does it posit a 10-event creation? I can only see Genesis, which gets it the wrong way around (Plants before the Sun). Please, if you want to believe in the bible, then do so on the basis of faith. Science is not involved. Leave science out of it. Regards Dave 1. Appeal to "I've read every peer-reviewed article that ever existed". I bet you did. 2. Attempting to confuse historical information with outdated information. Didn't buy it. Then makes baseless claims without sources about intermediates. Where's the link to the peer-reviewed article about the intermediate. And I want that thing radiometrically dated too. 3. Admits that a flood was responsible but could not be responsible at the same time? Nice. 4. Appeal to bias. Too bad every human is biased to some degree. Nice try though. 5. Appeal to "if it's not my view or the view of my peers, it's not real science!" 6. Appeal to non-existant verses of the bible that tell us exactly how old the earth is. 7. Appeal to sympathy for some scientist that got hassed by Christians in the past. We do not argue from sympathy or empathy. 8. Appeal to wordgames. 9. Appeal to "You're ignorant". Admits that relativity has nothing to do with the subject matter, and then asks questions about relativity! 10. Appeal to false knowledge. I'm sure you're really a probability theorist. And you wouldn't attempt to APPLY it to the Bible., so this is also "Appeal to a scientific experiment that I will never conduct, because God can't exist, because well, he just can't!" 11. Appeal to ignorance of the facts. The Bible says the heavens were stretched out. Why on earth would any man come up with that? Oh wait Big Bang, stretching of space, hello? 12. Appeal to "Christians have some urban legends, therefore they are all stupid" Yeah, well, everyone has some urban legends. 13. Appeal to wordgames and well, just not reading Genesis. And by the way, plants don't need "The sun". We have indoor plant lights that can make plants grow. The Bible says there was LIGHT. LIGHT would be fine. I guess thats what it's photosynthesis and not sun-synthesis.

This goes to show that the unscientific don't know anything about the theory of Intelligent Falling. This is a well-established theory that the evangelical scientific community has supported by tons of peer-reviewd articles and evidence. Do they even know what an Intelligon particle is? I bet not. And don't confuse Intelligent Falling with the Agravofalling hypothesis, one is a theory and the other is a hypothesis. When an Intelligon collodies with a Materialon Falling is produced and even the geologic record supports the massive amount of Materiolons which show collision rates of up to 50km/hr based retro dating through trajectory splicing. Perhaps people should study up on this. Man, i'm just so sick of people who don't know science!

Oh, I just noticed this part unless you were editing while I was taking forever to post my rambling replies yes, EST very scary but not at the time of being involved. At first it was empowering but like any untruth not of God, will eventually lose the power, the emptiness will return because it is a man made organization started with the idea of one man and developing it, refining it, and teaching his underlings to go out and get more people, somehow planting the notion that yes, it is costly for the seminar but do what you have to do to get the money to pay and then one continues to pay and pay and pay and not only with $$ but a false sense of self control. Seriously deceptive. It's really par for the course with cults. The most successful ones seem to be those that that give the greatest sense of empowerment or purpose. I studied such things a bit when I took psychology, and it's downright scary how people can be manipulated. I'm surprised you never heard of the Raelians, as they were all over the news a few years back. They were pretty big in Quebec a few years ago, and they claim to have 60,000 members worldwide. Here's their statement of belief from their site: They basically think Mankind's destiny is to use human cloning to seed other planets, and therefore become Gods ourselves. No, I don't understand it either. I added the bit in my edit there because I had a similar discussion before, and an overly sensitive type read things into what I said that weren't really there. Just figured I'd head any potential problems off at the pass This is funny. "We were the ones who designed all life on earth" - Really? So couldn't you have done without making us DIE? What a crappy design. My God tells me its my fault I die, but you're telling me its YOUR FAULT. So explain your crappy designs or fess up that you made a mistake. "You mistook us for gods" - It would've been a good idea for you not to pine yourself off as Gods. The simple statement "We're not gods" would've been sufficient. Duh. "We were at the origin of your main religions" Really? So you're creating multiple belief systems? Only thing can be the truth at at time. Thanks for all the chaos and confusion. "Now that you're mature enough..." Yeah? So why didn't you help us mature by telling us that a) you're not gods, and b) not creating a bunch of belief systems, and c) why the heck did you abandon us in the first place? You might also wanted to have warned us about the dangers of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons. You know what? You're full of crap. Maybe on your planet someone came to you and tried to peddle this crap, and you fell for it, but here on earth, we actually have something called logic. Go Home ET. Wait, hold on a sec and take a breath before you reply with ugly insults along with the choice of verbage. Saturn wasn't claiming that he adopted the Raeliens insanely ridiculous ( maybe drug induced the creativity of "Rael" like Hmmm Alice in Wonderland ) tale of such an experience and to actually have such a large and must say, lost, number of followers is baffling. I believe Saturn was answering my question on who are Raeliens. If your your reply is directly at him, I'd say an apology might be the mature thing to do. If your post is directed to these "Raeliens" then disregard. I would appreciate it though if you could clear it up either way with a pretty please to boot Heh, it was directed at the "alien".

Yah, I forgot my semicolons. return(0) is the old-school C way of doing things. The 0 isn't really necessary, I just put it in there out of habit. psst-I don't actually know PHP actually i would probably put the 0 there too out of habit.

Best use of PHP I've seen! Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0