The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher

The only Fact of Evolution is that it exists, but it hasn't proven a thing. The bible has a much better much more plausible explanation then Darwin saying Blacks were a sub species not as advanced as white people.

Before they go making up more reasons that tidbit of info isn't true or that "what he really meant was this or that blah cultural differences etc, The origin of species makes no excuses for things Darwin thought relevant.

Blacks evolving to adjust to sunny days in Timbuktu has no proof, in fact now they have discovered that we are related to all things the same? DNA can be reconfigured to create any creature moreover like Dogs and the various breeds all can be traced to the wolf. It didn't take millions and millions and millions of years to get to the point where now dogs have more variety then any other animal accomplished this in only 1500 years give or take a few hundred.

I understand why Evolution is compelled in a case like dogs to say these negative mutations would require that amount of time or otherwise it starts looking like the adaptations were already inherent in the DNA,

The Malamute and Huskies can live in Artic freezing weather, have specially adapted paws for snow, their fur is amazing how it keeps them warm. They have a much better adapted body structure for running in snow. The Bible talks about temperament or like Ashley said much of what is in animals DNA is hardwired in there. Their was no creative experiments done with genetics to get this Variety of breed. What they have discovered was mixing temperament with as little as a first generation litter ASTOUNDING changes took place.

The reason evolution many times trips over its own dogma and in the case of Blacks having more melanin because it’s sunny?

I would think that if a guy had to wait as long as evolutions negative mutations are going to take till finally they start becoming black, and then I guess the Hot sand is what makes them such good dancers.

The FACT is Not evolution but temperament THEY were Intact Black and it is easier to believe that they lived in sunny places because sunny places didn't burn the hell out of their skin. If you want to suggest otherwise, then I think they would have migrated OUT of there rather then wait for evolution to put the lime in the coconut and darken all up put the lime in the coconut and call Darwin in the morning,

Sun never bothered them because they WERE Black to begin with and THAT’S why they stayed there while us pork faces would say, Ill be back when Freon arrives on the scene.

- Con




[edit on 3-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by keeb333


The real problem here is that people have a hard time imagining geological timescales which macroevolution takes place over. Microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution over millions of years (and generations).

It happens over such a long time period that even with the fastest reproducing organisms, we can still only observe microevolution in the laboratory. It would take an experiment lasting for generations upon generations to produce scientific evidence of macroevolution.

I think I know what it is they feel like when we try to explain why it's hard to prove God to them Ashley. Believing what he just said is a hell of a leap of faith.

- Con

Originally posted by dave420
This is hilarious. Seriously. First of all, Darwin's theory of evolution does NOT deal with how life was created, but rather how one organism evolves from another. Secondly, evolution is observable. Thirdly, the only reason people think Creationism is real is because it's in the Bible (a book which relentlessly contradicts itself). If Creationism wasn't written in the bible, then no scientist would ever suggest it to be the cause for life as we know it.

These discussions are insulting to the intelligence of people in general. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It's never, ever correct about anything unknown to man at the time it was written (the Bronze age). It's about as legitimate as L. Ron Hubbard's own tall tale.

EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER pointing to the floaty-guy-in-the-sky-pulling-the-world-out-of-his-ass-in-a-few-days theory, apart from said flakey, inaccurate book. It makes you look foolish, and does nothing to discredit the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it, because as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If that's the case, and I suspect it is, you are very dangerous indeed.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it,

you must be one them dang ScienTeeeeists

Don't insult my intelligence

We Sorry Mr Dave!! We dun mean to hurt yo intellageeeince Why we Know yoo is a, vary "I M P O R T A N T" mayan.

why I am just happy to share the same metaphysical vortex with someone gots as much class as you. We sure dint mean to hurt your feewings,, aah got a bandayed if ya need one,, I only used it twice bafore and think its still got some sticky on it.

FREEBORN! THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!

Some (kid) swallows a Sam Harris book reads a few virulent lectures from Dickie baby and gets all stuck up on his own staggering intelligence, goes out googling to all the dumb ass athiest run Christian hate sites like Bobby the bibliobigot to get the latest new Atheist insulter mantra how the bible contradicts itself! I can't count how many I have had to correct but it isn't what this kid came here for apparently he came to first Laugh!! ha ha then establish Atheisms Science as

FACT OF UN-GOD !! Ta DA!!!

Then he gets all indignant like HOW DARE YOU QUESTION EVOLUTION!

Then he goes back to his tree fort and bitchs about the Christians acting like "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD!! Atheist are getting more fundie everyday.

It makes you look foolish

And Just what do you think you look like Dave,,

The alternative?????

Lose the attitude we have all heard what Atheist got to say

It's real old and I just think people that act like a "punch in the face waiting to happen" while acting like a Christian Fundamentalist
only this one is Atheist a dichotomy we will never reconcile.

Jeez you would think the more "reasoned" crowd the more "Logical" group, the more "Scientific" intelligent elite could be held to a modicum of civility here but without all the veiled ad hom and Bible bashing

Christianity Bad

Evolution GOOD

Oh and by the way,, Evolution,, It's Pathetic and full of contradictions. Ill be brb I got a list of them I got off google.

I mean haven't we seen every word this guys has said ten thousand times

These discussions are insulting to the intelligence of people in general.

Ya THINK!

- Con





[edit on 3-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

So, in between Melatonin desperately trying to provide knowledge, AshleyD seeming to forget the object of her own thread, and Conspiriology once again proving that anything you can do, he can do with more spittle, has this thread progressed any? Has anyone learned anything?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Has anyone learned anything?

I have!

I've learned about the selection part of natural selection

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I believe in micro but not macro. With the time you talk about there should be tons of the in between animals.

But they are not there.

every single fossil you dig up is an "in between animal"
the problem is fossilization...not everything fossilizes. in fact, not even a significant percentage ends up fossilizing and in some areas next to nothing does
but from what we see, we do have "in between animals"

here's a big one, bird-dino
en.wikipedia.org...

every single species alive today is a transitional form, unless it goes extinct the next day

Ok I think I understand what you are saying. How about animals like crocodiles that are exactly the same over vast time periods. If everything is constantly evolving why didn't they?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So, in between Melatonin desperately trying to provide knowledge, AshleyD seeming to forget the object of her own thread, and Conspiriology once again proving that anything you can do, he can do with more spittle, has this thread progressed any? Has anyone learned anything?

YOU WERE RIGHT ASH!! HA HA HA

O she JUST sent me a message saying "watch fox will be next to toss some digs at ya too.

Sure enough !


HA HA Good one Ash

BTW Fox?? what is your excuse?

- Con

[edit on 3-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Evolution is a pretty good mechanism for explaining how things "change" from one form to another, but no, it can't currently explain how a bunch of chemicals can magically form together to form a living cell.

That being said, having some vague, poorly defined supernatural entity doing all the heavy lifting is not even a good alternative to "I don't know." Theorizing some kind of intelligent boogie man creates all kinds of logical and conceptual problems that are arguably worse than having no "answer" at all.

I have yet to see any kind of "creationist" theory present a coherent, reasonable definition of what they posit did/does all the creating in the first place. Yeah, "God." But what exactly do you mean by that? Offer a good definition, then come up with a coherent theory that can be logically and systematically tested. If that can't be done, then this is yet another wrong tree being barked up.

Originally posted by Nohup
Evolution is a pretty good mechanism for explaining how things "change" from one form to another, but no, it can't currently explain how a bunch of chemicals can magically form together to form a living cell.

Darwin's theory downgraded
About the time Ohio's Board of Education refused to allow science classes to "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory," a evolutionist scientist was busying knocking down one of Darwin's key tenets.

What has long been the position of creationists and evolution critics is now being heralded as a scientific breakthrough because an evolutionists announced it.

A team led by David Deamer, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, essentially proved that life could not have emerged from hot volcanic springs.

Several factors prohibit the springs from being the breeding grounds for life. The clay prevelant in those springs attach themselves to organic material and prevent the needed chemical reactions. Soap-like molecules were also added to the pools and they did not form the required membranes.

Deamer, being a supporter of evolution, proposed shallow, cooler pools of fresh water as the more likely source for life on Earth. I await the future study of his hypothesis. It only took someone 140 to test out Darwin's guess.

What is telling even in this experiment is that Deamer's team had to add all of these ingredients into these springs to test the hypothesis. That had to add the "organic material" and the "soap-like molecules." I'm sure if and when they test his theory, they will again add these materials to the cooler pools.

Who added the materials the first time?

I understand this is an experiment and those things must be present, but the more accurate experiment would be to simply allow the pool to exist and see if organic material can find its way to the pool and then see if it can create the building blocks for life, then create single-cell organisms, etc., etc.

I know most people like to avoid the origin of life question, but it must be evaluated. We cannot simply start with life and then say it evolved. Life must have started somewhere and no one has ever been able to prove that something living can come from something non-living.

Until you do that, evolution is dead in the water
www.twoorthree.net...

reply to post by Conspiriology


If the shoe fits...

Why call evolutionists gullible? Seems to be rather judgmental to me. I don't cotton to the Creationists point of view, so I am labeled gullible. Of course I am none too sure about evolution, but it seems to have more going for it than Creationism.

What is more gullible, belief in something that could be proven as true or false, or believing in something that can not be proven true or false?

At least evolution has the first part of that covered, saying "God did it" is not too provable. if at all.

Originally posted by Nohup
Evolution is a pretty good mechanism for explaining how things "change" from one form to another, but no, it can't currently explain how a bunch of chemicals can magically form together to form a living cell.

Of course, that's not evolutionary theory as we all know and love.

Could be called 'chemical evolution', or more correctly abiogenesis. Plus, I'm not sure that chemistry is magic, although the alchemists possibly thought it was.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Of course, that's not evolutionary theory as we all know and love.

Could be called 'chemical evolution', or more correctly abiogenesis. Plus, I'm not sure that chemistry is magic, although the alchemists possibly thought it was.

Well, chemicals do interesting things. The way they relate to each other. Stuff that happens at certain temperatures. After all, bubbles are pretty close to being like cell membranes, I suppose. And you can get some basic amino acids out of a chemical soup if you shock it with high voltages. So some chemicals tend to hook up to each other with some degree of predictability.

But honestly, you can toss chemicals around and shock them all you want, but there's no figuring how they could randomly fall together into a living cell with a membrane and functional, splitting living cell with a point of view and taste preferences and a joie de vivre. You can take a whole ocean full of intact DNA and slosh it around for a long, long time, but there's no guarantee it will eventually randomly fall into the shape of a living cell. Even complete, intact DNA is just a long, dead, stringy chemical if it don't have the container that makes it a living thing. A baseball without the cover is just a wad of string.

I have a few ideas of my own about how a functional lifeform can come into being. Even without the "help" of some kind of mystical, magical boogie man. But they're just ideas. Nowhere near even decent theories. But I will admit that as much as I like the way evolution explains the growth and change of species, at the moment, there's no decent evolutionary mechanism or theory that even comes close to explaining how life showed up out of clumps of chemicals. Personally, I don't think any kind of "God" is necessary.

I really find the OP title very insulting, offensive and biggoted. It's a real shame that the moderators have not seen fit to trash it. I don't come here much anymore as it seems that prejudice and slander against atheists and those who accept evolution is condoned. I have noticed many others posting less as well. What will that lead to? It certainly won't lead to denying ignorance as when all the "evilutionists" have been chased out of the origins forum it will just become a platform for creationist propoganda.

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....

[edit on 3-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by melatonin


Speaking of abiogenesis, I found this article to be thoroughly fascinating:

New hypothesis for origin of life proposed

Life may have begun in the protected spaces inside of layers of the mineral mica, in ancient oceans, according to a new hypothesis.

The hypothesis was developed by Helen Hansma, a research scientist with the University of California, Santa Barbara and a program director at the National Science Foundation. Hansma will present her findings at a press briefing on Tues., Dec. 4, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in Washington, D.C.

The Hansma mica hypothesis proposes that the narrow confined spaces between the thin layers of mica could have provided exactly the right conditions for the rise of the first biomolecules –– effectively creating cells without membranes. The separation of the layers would have also provided the isolation needed for Darwinian evolution.

It really appeals to me because mica can form clay...

Sorry I've been away all afternoon. Will reply to this one first:

Originally posted by riley
I really find the OP title very insulting, offensive and biggoted.

I find a lot of titles geared towards Christianity insulting, offensive, and bigoted, too. Then I cry myself a river, build a bridge, and get over it. But if this title gets changed, it wouldn't bother me at all.

I don't come here much anymore as it seems that prejudice and slander against atheists and those who accept evolution is condoned...the origins forum it will just become a platform for creationist propoganda.

Oh ya. Total creationism propaganda. With threads stickied like "Dr. Dino goes to prison." I didn't even know who he was until joining ATS and seeing the thread. Or the fact there is another sticky rebutting creationist claims but not too much that questions evolution. Or the very description of this forum:

"This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts..."

Not complaining, though. I really don't care.

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....

Evolution is politics? I'm learning so much.

There is a characteristic of a human that is often exploited by controller groups. That is one of understanding or knowing something or being educated a particular way. "Our frame of reference" seems to lead us, more often than not, to view and even rush to accept things a certain way. I was once in a multi-car accident in which I saw what caused the accident in the rear view mirror. But, I was not prone to examine the evidence as I had seen for myself, but to accept what I was conditioned to believe, that it was the fault of the last person in the chain. ... The point being that stopping to really consider evidence and different points of view is often something we just plain avoid. It's much easier to take what we "know" from memory and just apply it. I think that someone must have a strong innate desire for the truth in a particular instance to really care enough to challenge their habits and conditionings. In part, this is what "education" has been for in the last several hundred years, to provide the individual with a first line of conditionings that will often stifle their ability to really understand. Sad, but true we are multi-generations into this ignorance pre-conditioning which doesn't make it any easier.

[I]Originally posted by adigregorio
[I]reply to post by Conspiriology

 

If the shoe fits...

Why call evolutionists gullible? Seems to be rather judgmental to me. I don't cotton to the Creationists point of view, so I am labeled gullible. Of course I am none too sure about evolution, but it seems to have more going for it than Creationism.

What is more gullible, belief in something that could be proven as true or false, or believing in something that can not be proven true or false?

At least evolution has the first part of that covered, saying "God did it" is not too provable. if at all.

Oh I think the shoe fits fine, I couldn't have said it any better then Ashley did saying it's gullible, but I am a little less into sugar coating things.


See, me, I think evolution is the one of the biggest hoax Science never invented. I don't see either one as relevant, not when they are motivated by two diametrically opposing philosophy.

At least evolution has the first part of that covered, saying "God did it" is not too provable. if at all.

Yeah I understand what you're saying; that we either are all in on this HUGE conspiracy believing in something, we KNOW doesn't exist just to entertain ourselves... OR we know something YOU don't and WE were willing to get the proof under the same terms paleontologist has to get theirs. If someone says the proof of that dinosaur is buried in that glacier. Then what ever I have to do to get to it, become the terms of getting that proof etc.


We have the proof, YOU DONT.

We believe because it was proven

You won't believe it till see proof

Difference is, You never really wanted the proof.

The proof is there but NO AMOUNT OF PROOF is going to convince a God hater / denier... Wouldn't be nice though if people were that honest with themselves?? Ya know all the 911 truthers and the Atheists and debunkers were to just say, LOOK I don't believe it because I simply don't want to.

I just haven’t seen anyone so desperate to prove they don't believe in something like Atheists.

So you see the predicament I am in trying to prove anything like that. I don't even waste my time going to Atheist threads saying HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE PROOF OF GOD!! IT IS INSULTING TO MY INTELLIGENCE!

Hence the reason to get it on his terms.

Either way,,, I don’t care

- Con

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You forgot one: TheWalkingFox adding nothing to the discussion but criticizing his typical nemeses while patting anyone and everyone on the back who is not a Christian.

reply to post by logictruth


Thanks for providing an excerpt from The Idiot's Guide to Irritating a Christian. I swear, I see that exact same accusation in just about every thread that even remotely pertains to Christianity. Such an accusation is a dead giveaway that the person spouting off the rhetoric knows nothing about the Christian philosophy. So unless you have anything new to add...

reply to post by Areal51


But then that goes back to the old question as to whether or not science and religion should even be compared. Theology vs. science, in other words. Although I disagreed with much of what you said, I did give you a star for putting forth a good argument and wording your opinion eloquently.

reply to post by XyZeR


Almost everything you just said would still hold true if you reversed the words 'creationism' and 'evolution.' It works both ways. Both sides should be opened to criticism, both sides are working off a hypothesis, both sides are at odds with each other, etc.

reply to post by keeb333


I'm aware of everything you just said. I'm simply saying 'I do not agree.' Yes, I promise I am not totally ignorant regarding evolutionist claims. I'm saying they are dismissing a lot of problems that bring up questions. Their 'time lines' is most certainly an issue.

reply to post by nikolat23


It's that kind of attitude that makes me go . Or if I'm in a hyper mood, maybe even . Or tired maybe it makes me go . No worries though. Regardless of my mood, saying such silly things will still make you look like a to me.

Tell me, when was the last time you checked out a couple of books from the library or bought a few books from Barnes and Noble concerning creation science? Their research? Some of their very well founded criticisms of evolution?

reply to post by dave420


Wow Thanks. Didn't know I had to have a PhD in a certain field in order to discuss it on ATS. Sure, I could stay in my 'comfort zone' in the religion forum where I thump my Bible and apologetics like a tired battle axe. However, I only end up answering questions I know the answer to. Or talking about things I already know. In other words, you learn more by asking questions than answering them. Yes, I ventured a tad into an area that I already admitted is not my area of expertise. That is how we learn. If my ego was an issue, I'd hang out only in the forums where I am an 'expert.' Carry on.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by AshleyD]

I hope this doesn't get trimmed because I think it's all needed to make the point for creationism. Heck, I'm not expert in anything, but I think this is really interesting in showing how much fine-tuning is necessary to make life as we know it exist.

Source: www.reasons.org...

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition


[edit on 3/3/08 by idle_rocker]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Sorry I've been away all afternoon. Will reply to this one first:

Originally posted by riley
I really find the OP title very insulting, offensive and biggoted.

I find a lot of titles geared towards Christianity insulting, offensive, and bigoted, too. Then I cry myself a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

But if this title gets changed, it wouldn't bother me at all.

You just called EVERYONE who accepts evololution gullable. Do you have no respect for other members and guidelines or are you deliberately out to pick fights?

Oh ya. Total creationism propaganda.

Trying to get people to think that all 'evolutionists are gullable' IS propoganda.

With threads stickied like "Dr. Dino goes to prison." I didn't even know who he was until joining ATS and seeing the thread.

The guy was found guilty of a number of crimes.. including tax evasion. Whats your point?

Or the fact there is another sticky rebutting creationist claims but not too much that questions evolution. Or the very description of this forum:

"This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts..."

Not complaining, though. I really don't care.

As you can see the forum is ABOUT the conspiracy against evolutionary science. Your posting biggoted statments about 'evolutionists' just makes you part of the conspiracy.

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....

Evolution is politics? I'm learning so much.

Religious activists tried to get creationism into schools by calling it "ID".. trying to get around people's rights to freedom of religion by trying to call it science. Of course it's political. Maybe you should reread the guidelines and lay off insulting entire groups of people.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by riley]