B.S. Chemistry, UCLA - 1949; Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkley - 1953 I think the author of my article is a scientist and if you had read his article you would know that some of the expressed evidence for the big bang theory in yours has been proven to be a negative to the theory.
Oh and what does a biochemist know about astrophysics..??
EDIT: To add, thats the same institution that you posted a link about the "Young Earth" theory.. Which essentially stated that the oil in the ground is between 1500-2000 years old..
This is of the same ilk as Intelligent Design.. Pseudoscience
Last edited by burn_this_city; 02-16-2008 at 10:25 PM.
What a terrible comparison.. Black people don't choose to be black, they are born that way.. You folks choose to believe in God, religion, and everything related.. Why is it that religion can't be questioned, poked fun at or examined in detail? After all isnt it just a theory?? Is there actual compelling evidence that God exists?
You conveniently missed the point: Because of Cheese's consistent and tiresome attacks on Christianity you can't take his attempt at humor to lack malice. His history betrays his heart. Look at his thread/post history.
Likewise if a member of the KKK made fun of a black man you wouldn't believe his attempt at humor lacked malice. His association with that group betrays his heart.
Cheese hates Christianity and takes every opportunity to attack and belittle it. If your honest you can't deny that. I as a Christian don't enjoy the attack or being belittled and have no intention of being silenced by it. I hate bullies of any strip.
By the way you can't chose what you believe is the truth. You can change what you express the truth to be(lying) and you certainly can come to a different conclusion on a matter given more data and thereby change what you believe is truth. But what you believe is true is what you believe is true. It's not a choice but, rather a conclusion.
Oh and what does a biochemist know about astrophysics..??
EDIT: To add, thats the same institution that you posted a link about the "Young Earth" theory.. Which essentially stated that the oil in the ground is between 1500-2000 years old..
This is of the same ilk as Intelligent Design.. Pseudoscience
Again your argument consists of discrediting the source so you don't have to consider the scientific evidence.
Regarding the oil article: The day after I posted it I was listening to CBC radio and they were interviewing some scientist in New Mexico who is researching the viability of taking carbon and converting it into oil by using solar heat and some other processes. He hoped one day it would be viable as a modest means for oil production with the added benefit of using up waste carbon from industry.
photon your above posts lacks information. You accuse me of being ignorant of the big bang theory and misrepresenting it and thats that. You make no attempt to impart knowledge yourself.
I would gladly enter into a discussion if you gave any sort of indication that you'd actually have one, but unfortunately I haven't seen that yet.
Do some reading about BBT, and find out why what you represented as evidence that supports both BBT and creation isn't the observed reality at all. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Quote:
Here is a link to an article on the big bang theory. The fellow is a scientist but, he is also a creationist so I guess that gives you permission to disregard him.
See, typical passive aggressive crap mixed in with an appeal to authority, how is one supposed to address that in a discussion?
Do I address the passive aggressive part that accuses me (and probably all of science) of disregarding works just because of the direction a work of science takes? That's of course absurd of course, tons of journals challenging the established views are published every year. But you hang onto that scrap since you seem to take comfort from it.
Or do I address the appeal to authority, you found a link so it must be true right? I've already talked about things that BBT doesn't cover, and yet in the SECOND PARAGRAPH this link makes the same mistake.
If he can't even get what a theory covers right, what hope is there for the rest of the piece?
Let's see, he starts out with a presumption of truth, "we know that the universe did not begin with a big bang", so automatically this piece isn't science at all, it's dogma; he's operating from a pre-formed conclusion not based on any observations or evidence.
He names a few names from history that dissented, but doesn't mention why (which is VERY funny since Hoyle liked the steady state universe model because he thought the Big Bang model pointed towards God, which he didn't believe).
He then talks about homogeneous distribution and somehow says the clumps of galaxies disproves the BBT, which is another straw man. In fact the clumps are one of the most successful predictions of the BBT. It predicted what we should see with respect to cosmic background radiation, and the sizes of the clumps of galaxies, and what we observe is what is predicted. So either the article was written a while ago (there's no date), or they're ignorant of or misrepresenting scientific data.
The rest of the article is a mash of outdated information.
The funniest part is when he sets up the part where if the universe is homogeneous and he's right, then the cosmic background radiation will be smooth. If it's lumpy and BBT is right, the CBR will also be lumpy. Then he trumpets that the "discovery" that the background radiation is smooth proves his point, when in fact measurements show the background radiation is not smooth!!!!! Owned comes to mind.
I wonder if he changed his mind when he found out he was wrong? Doubtful, since he set out at the beginning with an assumed conclusion, then proceeded to find evidence to support it.
To top it all off, the author is a biochemist, not a cosmologist.
So anyway, I'm bored now. I went through a useless exercise of looking at one random article you googled and didn't even read (otherwise you'd have seen the glaring problem at the end (assuming you knew anything about cosmology EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean this as a dig or insult, it's poorly worded, I just meant I assumed you did know some and thus didn't read it)). And what will it accomplish? Nothing I suspect, there's no end of articles on AiG et al that will get it wrong in such a way to support the pre-made conclusion.
Sorry Cheese, I killed the humour in your thread. Bad form for a moderator.
I've always wondered, how do people that see a divine figure on their toast know it's them when there's no picture of that divine figure in the first place?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Your problem then seems to be with science itself. The answers science tries to find are by definition natural, not supernatural. So of course it's not going to invoke "Goddidit" when it comes to an unknown, otherwise research would stop advancing. "Goddidit" can't be proven or disproven, it doesn't make predictions, it can't be tested.
...Sorry Cheese, I killed the humour in your thread. Bad form for a moderator...
No fear. Whilst a mere moderator is unable to restore humour, biblical scholars are all powerful:
Quote:
The Exegesis of Stop Signs
Suppose you're travelling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.
1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign with his bumper, ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic doesn't bother to read the sign, but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A fundamentalist, allowing the text to interpret itself, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A suburban preacher looks up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discovers that it can mean: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
1) Take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law.
2) Stop at the stop sign, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop," wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed. Incidently, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: "Be still, and know that I am God." R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: "Stop, father!" In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: "Out of the mouth of babes." R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: "Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens." R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: "let them serve as signs." R. Yeshuah says: ... [continues for three more pages]
8. A Karaite does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
9. A Unitarian concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
10. A divinity professor notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunately omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
11. A tenured divinity professor points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".
12. A rival scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglects to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, a later scholar emends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occured because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Lol, that's all kinds of awesome. And another example of something I find tremendously funny, but if I gave it to anyone that I know in real life would read half way through it, look at me, shake their heads, and walk away.
I can go to sleep happy now.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon here is a part of an article by Eric Lerner in the NewScience from May 2004:
Bucking the big bang
22 May 2004
Eric Lerner
Magazine issue 2448
BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
Unfortunately the rest of the article requires a subscription but, as of May 2004 the background radiation was smooth. I wish you could read the whole article because Dr. Lerner speaks in length about the difficulty of being heard within the scientific community if you dare question the big bang theory. He also identifies why there is so much resistance. Two thing I've been trying to tell you for a while now but, you keep denying the problem. I'm confident that if Dr. Lerner was a Creationist the difficulty he finds today would turn into an impossibilty.
By the way, if the link I provided was unscientific because it started with "a presumption of truth" do you think your post passes as scientific using the same standard?
No fear. Whilst a mere moderator is unable to restore humour, biblical scholars are all powerful:
14. The atheist, seeing all the religious quacks screwing up at the stop sign, stops to laugh and then gets angered by the others follies causing the religious to get angry too. Causing a traffic jamb.
15. The enlightened one also gets caught up in the traffic but not the anger and when coming to the stop sign. He waits until the traffic is clear and proceeds.
And by the way the phrase "Be still, and know that I am god" is a powerful way for me to go inside and know.
14. The Atheist sees the stop sign and ignores it. Reason being: He sees no one standing near the stop sign who could have made it. He therefore concludes that the stop sign just randomly appeared over the course of millions of years, by chance and has no purpose for being there. He proceeds into the intersection and gets hit by a bus.
Sorry Cheese, I killed the humour in your thread. Bad form for a moderator.
I've always wondered, how do people that see a divine figure on their toast know it's them when there's no picture of that divine figure in the first place?
photon here is a part of an article by Eric Lerner in the NewScience from May 2004:
Bucking the big bang
22 May 2004
Eric Lerner
Magazine issue 2448
BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
Unfortunately the rest of the article requires a subscription but, as of May 2004 the background radiation was smooth. I wish you could read the whole article because Dr. Lerner speaks in length about the difficulty of being heard within the scientific community if you dare question the big bang theory. He also identifies why there is so much resistance. Two thing I've been trying to tell you for a while now but, you keep denying the problem. I'm confident that if Dr. Lerner was a Creationist the difficulty he finds today would turn into an impossibilty.
By the way, if the link I provided was unscientific because it started with "a presumption of truth" do you think your post passes as scientific using the same standard?
First Cause Argument.
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false.
Unfortunately the rest of the article requires a subscription but, as of May 2004 the background radiation was smooth. I wish you could read the whole article because Dr. Lerner speaks in length about the difficulty of being heard within the scientific community if you dare question the big bang theory.
Of course there's going to be difficulty when trying to go upstream of an established theory, no one claims it's easy. Out of the dozens of questions I ask you but you never answer, one was your definition of a theory. I asked for a reason, because that's relevant right here, what a theory is in terms of science is directly relevant to why publishing upstream a dominant theory is more difficult.
Yes sometimes scientists are slower to change their minds than they should be, but time and again history has shown that science is self correcting; if Lerner's theory is better eventually it will rise to the top, even if it's not in the timespan Lerner would like.
The problem again is that you've pre-determined BBT is wrong, so you need to find things that challenge it, and when you do and the challenge isn't successful then you assume it's because of a grand conspiracy. You've always had this point of view, at least since you've posted here. What if the failed theory is actually weak, maybe it's rejected for that reason. Until you see how the reasoning you have is flawed, you'll be stuck in the position you are in.
Quote:
Two thing I've been trying to tell you for a while now but, you keep denying the problem. I'm confident that if Dr. Lerner was a Creationist the difficulty he finds today would turn into an impossibilty.
You being confident of something doesn't make your position any stronger. You're confident in that not because of any evidence, but because of the reasons I described above.
Difficult != Impossible
It wouldn't be impossible if they brought evidence to support their theory, I've been trying to tell you that for a while now but you keep denying the problem.
Quote:
By the way, if the link I provided was unscientific because it started with "a presumption of truth" do you think your post passes as scientific using the same standard?
Where have I presumed truth? I'll say it again, and I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Science doesn't presume truth, in science there IS NO TRUTH. There is only the best theory to describe reality at any given time.
Your way of knowing runs contrary to this, and is the root of why you can't accept any scientific evidence. For you, the possibility of an absolute unquestionable correctness (which you call Truth) exists, and you apply that to science when it isn't applicable. Most other Christians realize that Truth is in the realm of the spiritual, not the scientific.
You think I started with a presumption of truth about BBT because that's the way you approach the world. However I didn't. I know all scientific knowledge is provisional, I know theories have places where they break down, and I know the kinds of evidence it would take to overturn a theory.
Here's another question for you to ignore, God created Adam with a belly button and fully grown. God created trees with the rings already in place. God created coral reefs full sized and operational. God created the earth in such a way that it appeared older than it was, correct? God didn't create Adam as an embryo and all the plants and animals as embryos and germinated seeds.
Why can't this same logic be applied to the earth and the universe? Why fight against an old universe, when it's consistent to believe that God created the universe to appear old. There's no difference between the universe appearing to be billions of years old and Adam wandering around after being booted from the garden, cutting down a tree, and counting thousands of rings in that tree (indicating the tree is older than creation) is there?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
You hold a distaste for anyone who holds Christian beliefs. You only get along with those whose christian convictions are so weak they allow you to walk all over them. Of course you like Textcritic. He doubts the Bible and many orthodox doctrines. His faith is closer to yours than mine.
Sorry. I'm late to the party again. But I must take issue with this.
Since you pretend to know something about what I believe, I feel that I should set the record straight. So, here is a sampling of a little something that I have been working on. It's long, and I don't have a link for it. My apologies.
...As an evangelical, I have always come to identify my self in relation to God and to his Son Jesus. Within evangelicalism, my interest in who God was, why Jesus was important, and how God continues to live, breathe and act among us were always secondary; of primary improtance for the culture of evangelicalism is “The Word.” It is “The Word” that is Holy. It is “The Word” that is perfect. It is “The Word” that is without error. It is “The Word” that is the standard for correct living, and reciprocally, it is “The Word” that requires constant defense, and unwavering commitment. The difference between who I was as a subscriber to evangelicalism, and who I am as an evangelical is in how I understand “The Word”. In evangelicalism, “The Word” is the Protestant Bible. As an evangelical, I have come to know that the “The Word” is Christ. The Scriptures bear witness to “The Word”; the Bible contains “The Word”, but “The Word” is so much greater than the contents of the sacred writings from Genesis to the Apocalypse of John. In fact, were it not for Who Jesus was and is, the Scriptures would effectively be meaningless.
This becomes a shocking—and yes, an offensive—declaration among many within the culture of evangelicalism, and this makes me very sad. Evangelicalism—no matter how well intentioned and effective it once was—can never grow beyond this gross and inappropriate misprioritization of the Bible. For, because it has traded God for a mere reflection of his character, evangelicalism remains in danger of collapsing upon itself, as the world continues to change and as the Church continues to grow and to live, the inadequacy of the Scriptures alone will become more and more evident. The Bible has become the sole foundation for evangelicalism. The foundation is unbalanced, and this is why: it is an imperfect product, and it is non-linear. To treat it as infallible, inerrent, and wholly unambiguous is to completely misconstrue its very character and function. The Bible is rich and complex, and it is to be cherished among Christians as an indespensible gift. But to reduce it to it’s lowest common hermeneutical denominator, and to strip it of the support of thousands of years of Church tradition and spiritual support is to quash its purpose. It bears considering how the perception of the Bible became so transformed particularly in the past two or three centuries, and how the impact has been felt amoong evangelicals. I fear that most evangelicals are ignorant about their own history; having replaced it with a well-populaized myth about an “early church” heritage. They have done so to their own deteriment. And unless I and my evangelical brothers and sisters are willing to learn from the historical, sociological and political factors that have shaped our way of thinking, we will remain theologically and sacramentally stunted.
The history of Evangelicalism: The rationalistic over-reaction.
The best histories of of Evangelical Christianity have been written by George Marsden, and the best critics of its historical and theological roots have been written by James Barr, and John Barton. In a very recent exposition on the history of the Christian Scriptures written explicitely for an evangelical audience, Craig D. Allert asserted that while we may correctly affirm the Bible is inspired and authoritative, the evangelical doctrine of innerency and the more problematic notion of sola Scriptura is not historically viable. One must wonder how it is that these two tenets have come to define a whole extremely powerful religious movement in spite of this. Without delving too deeply into the history “proper” of evangelicalism (I leave that to much more learned men such as Marsden, Barton and Barr), I should like to offer my own interpretation of this history. I am much more interested in how evangelicalism came to be and why it persists. My own fairly simplisitic understanding of things has led to the conclusion that evangelicalism is a product of the challenges posed to Christian faith by enlightenment thinking and the birth of modernity. It was fully the spawn of the early nineteenth-century rationalists and deists, and because it was formed amid dialogues that subscribed to the supremecy of reason and logic, it is only natural that evangelicalism has preserved a highly rationalistic, modernistic mandate in its approach to faith. Modernity and rationalism were dismissed decades ago for their inadequacies in handling the real-life tension of existence and subsistence. Quantum leaps in scientific dicovery, economic growth, cultural diversity and change, technological transformation, and ethical and moral evolution have left evangelicalism practically alone in an idle state of intransigence. Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton wrote decades ago about a dualistic theology that compartmentalizes our world according to things that are “godly” or “spiritual” and those that are “secular”. They rightly condemned this kind of platonic way of thinking, but then proceeded to compartmentalize life according to their own form of special dualism that sees all spheres of life according to a “right” representation of God and everything else that they considered “idolatry”. The premise for this construction is found in Joshua 24:14–15:
Quote:
Now therefore revere the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
The application according to Walsh and Middleton is that if you are not serving God in every aspect of your life, or committing everything to the glory of God, you are a quasi-idolator. The solution is to think “biblically” in our evaluations of every sphere of life, whether the Bible fits or not. This same sort of black/white metaphoric perception is commonplace among evangelicals, and it comes as no surprise, then that by their own measure, evangelicalism is idolatrous on two counts: Guilty are many of replacing their God with the god of modernistic rational thinking, and—perhaps even more seriously—they have replaced their God with the Bible. I say more serious, because while the first form of idolatry is something that evangelicals practice somewhat in ignorance, they are mostly fully cognisent of their own improper veneration for Scripture, or, more appropriately, for their own biblical hermeneutic. This sort of biblicistic approach that has given birth to nomenclature such as “biblical theology” and “biblical worldview”, and it presumes that the Bible in its Protestant form is exclusively normative.
It was the rationalists who were chiefly concerned with conceiving the world and the cosmos according to only what can be known; the way to know for certain was through scientific experimentation and discovery. Because this methodology was so effective in making observations and drawing conclusions about the natural world, it was tempting for many to dismiss the divine. God became irrelevant when he could not be understood rationally. Evangelicalism is built upon a premise that God is rational because the world as we have come to know it is also rational. In essence, God became the lacky of rationalism, and it became assumed that for God to be true, he must be “proved” and known rationally. Certainty and order became critical to theology, and in an ironic contradiction spawned the very popular notion of “reasonable” faith. But how could we know God when God is unseen, unheard, and intangible? It was a problem that evangelicalism would find to be irreconcilable with everything they came to understand about rationalism, and the solution was to reconstitute the Bible into something alien that would serve their insatiable need to make sense of a world that quite suddenly had no need for God. The solution was to make the Bible normative. Because the Bible was now the measure of all things, it must be perfect. Because the Bible was imperfect, a doctrine must be invented to hedge its imperfections. Inerrency was the new key that would unlock all mysteries. Things were no longer right or true an and of themselves; they were not even right or true because God willed it; they were now right and true exclusively because the Bible “says” so. “Literal truth” was the only kind of truth that mattered, so the Bible must be entirely and always literally true for it to maintain its place as the measure by which all of life has meaning. Rationalism, it was assumed, could only be corrected rationally, and because it was now more important to be “right” than “good”, the Bible was transformed into something it is not: logical, coherent, correct, exclusive and autonomous.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
