If the universe is <10,000 old....

[TasManOfGod]

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This one explores the fossil record and looks at what the scientific evidences prove. If you go to the following page, you can see other videos dealing with the Big Bang theory, Noah's flood and science, etc.
Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

Well worth the watch

 

[Jig]

There is no reason a supernatural creation could not take place billions of years ago. The question is what does observation of creation tell us about its age. Not about whether observation tells us it was supernatural.

You are correct. A supernatural creation could have taken place billions of years ago. It also could have occurred last year. This has nothing to do with my point.

I also agree with your question. However, an observation of the universe only tells us it has some unknown level or quality of maturity. You have failed to explain how present observation alone can determine true "age" without subjective interpretation.

You have continued to state that maturity demonstrates age, but this is clearly false. Maturity only demonstrates maturity. Age is calculated by interpreting such maturity. This brings us back to the use of philosophical assumptions as the guide to forming conclusions.

It is only your philosophic assumption that scripture must be interpreted in a historical-grammatical fashion that requires that the supernatural creation of the universe happen a mere 6,000 years ago. And it is only the assumption of that "real" age that demands decoupling age from maturity.
And the only reason you have to decouple age from maturity, is because normal observation of creation tells you it is mature and therefore old.

This is not true. Maturity and age are simply not the same thing - there is nothing to "de-couple".

Maturity speaks of a state of condition.
Age speaks of a length of time.

IOW, because you are committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture, you need to invoke not only a supernatural creation, but one that occurred recently and makes young things appear to be older than they are.

You do realize that terms like "old" and "young" are relative, right?

So what is the reason for adhering to an interpretation that demands an apparent age different from actual age?

This is a fallacious question. Please rephrase.

What observations support a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture? i.e. what evidence does this interpretation demand as we study nature? And how does that compare with what we actually observe?

Well, a global flood that covered all dry land would demand that we observe billions of deposited and buried dead organisms all over the earth - even on top of the highest mountain.

If the world is supernaturally created in a mature state, that means it is endowed with an illusion of age that it does not really possess. But it is no distortion of its reality. In itself that would not be deceptive.

Wow, this is frustrating.

Once again: Maturity is NOT the same as age! You have not been able to prove otherwise, but you continue to pretend like you've got a valid point. I'm utterly confounded.

OTOH, if the world is created with an embedded history of events that never occurred, (and scripture certainly says nothing about that), then that is more than illusory--that is deceptive--for it suggests not only that the Creator wanted a mature universe ready for its human inhabitants to enjoy, but that he purposed to let them think the world is just as old as its mature state suggests.

How is God being deceptive? He told us He created everything supernaturally in six days FULLY MATURE!

There is no illusionary history if you interpret the evidence properly.

A miracle, no doubt. But I also note that only one creature out of millions was so affected. Hardly what one would call a fundamental change in creation as a whole.

So you don't believe that human sin effects creation on a universal and fundamental level?

Whats you take on Romans 8:20-22?

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

 

[Jig]

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This one explores the fossil record and looks at what the scientific evidences prove. If you go to the following page, you can see other videos dealing with the Big Bang theory, Noah's flood and science, etc.
Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

Thanks for the link. Very good video.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

This is also another excellent one as well.

 

[gluadys]

You are correct. A supernatural creation could have taken place billions of years ago. It also could have occurred last year. This has nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with my point. If the supernatural work of creation could have taken place anytime from several billion years ago to last year (or even last Thursday), why insist it took place 6,000 years ago?

Because you interpret the text in a historical-grammatical manner.

But why do you do use that interpretative model?

I also agree with your question. However, an observation of the universe only tells us it has some unknown level or quality of maturity. You have failed to explain how present observation alone can determine true "age" without subjective interpretation.

You have continued to state that maturity demonstrates age, but this is clearly false. Maturity only demonstrates maturity. Age is calculated by interpreting such maturity. This brings us back to the use of philosophical assumptions as the guide to forming conclusions.

I agree that if God chose to create the universe in a mature state, that state is no guide to its age. The age implied by the mature state is illusory.

Really, do you ever disconnect assumed age from apparent maturity in any other context whatsoever? You do not. When you see person driving a car, you take it for granted that they did not appear in the world a mere two years ago. When you see nearly completed 30-story tower with a crane on top, you take it for granted the foundation was not laid this morning. When your friend catches a 10-lb fish, you take it for granted that it is more than a few days old.

There is no context other than your interpretation of Genesis in which you do not, like everyone else, assume that maturity is related to age.

So why make an exception here?

Because you choose to interpret the text in a historical-grammatical manner.

But why do you do interpret it this way?

This is not true. Maturity and age are simply not the same thing - there is nothing to "de-couple".

Maturity speaks of a state of condition.
Age speaks of a length of time.

Maturity implies there has been time to mature---unless the condition of maturity was given supernaturally. Only in that case are age and maturity uncoupled from each other. That is what makes the apparent age, in such a case, illusory.

You do realize that terms like "old" and "young" are relative, right?

Of course. Your point?

This is a fallacious question. Please rephrase.

Not fallacious at all. It is the heart of the matter at hand.
There is no necessity for imputing an age to the universe at odds with its mature appearance other than your allegiance to a historical-grammatical interpretation of the text.

You have not yet explained why you use this interpretation instead of one which does not demand a divorce between mature appearance and apparent age.

Nor have you even gotten into any other related issue such as the history embedded in mature-appearing stars and a geologically-mature planet.

Well, a global flood that covered all dry land would demand that we observe billions of deposited and buried dead organisms all over the earth - even on top of the highest mountain.

True.

However, 1] there are other explanations for buried fossils, and
2] a global flood explanation demands certain other evidence than just the fact that fossils exist.


For example, I don't know if you are one of the people who claim humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I have even seen drawings of Jesus riding a dinosaur--which would imply that some dinosaurs were domesticated like horses. And, of course, some people claim there are footprints of dinosaurs and humans walking together.

Now when it comes to human skeletons, we often find them with the bones of their dogs and with the bones of their dinners (birds, deer, etc.) And sometimes we may find human bones gnawed and chewed by animals that ate them. But nowhere among such camp leavings do we find dinosaur bones.

One could ask the same sort of question about trilobites. If all creatures were made within days of each other, I would expect trilobites to be on a human menu as often as shrimp or lobster. And on a the menu of a Mesozoic marine reptile as well. But the remains of trilobite dinners are never found with either human or plesiosaur remains.

I asked you earlier about a similar arrangement of plant fossils. Why do certain levels of sedimentary rock commonly contain mosses and ferns, but no trees, no grasses, no flowering plants of any kind. Why are these levels always much deeper than those which contain a greater variety of plant life?

I really do not comprehend how a flood explains these facts. A flood should deposit things that live together all jumbled up in the same layer of sediment, should it not?

How is God being deceptive? He told us He created everything supernaturally in six days FULLY MATURE!

There is no illusionary history if you interpret the evidence properly.

You are confusing a fallible human interpretation with the voice of God again.
You only think God said this because you choose to interpret the text by the human convention of historical-grammatical interpretation.

This conversation is not about God deceiving anyone.

The question is "Why do you adhere to a historical-grammatical interpretation of the text?"

You assume that conclusions made necessary by your interpretation are what God revealed. But if you were not using this particular interpretative model, there would be no reason to conclude that God told us he created the world in a mature state. St. Augustine found it perfectly satisfactory to hold that God created the world in an immature state: a state of seeds which would develop through time.

Whats you take on Romans 8:20-22?

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

I don't think it has anything to do with the sort of fundamental change in nature proposed by some young-earth creationists.

To me it suggests that the natural world is in a state of gestation which, once the children of God appear, will be delivered from bondage to decay. After all, in this world, and, to all appearances, in Eden, decay is a necessary aspect of life. Do you really think that, as Adam tended the garden, no leaves ever fell from the trees and decayed? And I expect Adam would be grateful for the decay of human and animal excrement. It makes good fertilizer you know.

Paul is voicing the Christian understanding that creation and humanity are inseparable. Creation cannot know the freedom that is its destiny without humanity and the salvation of humanity brings with it the liberation of all creation as well. After all, we are part of creation too.

Possibly (and here I speculate) had sin not entered the world, and the Tree of Life remained accessible, the gift of immortality conveyed thereby to humans would be extended to all of creation in some way.

In any case, with or without sin, God's intentions for creation are wholistic. They include us, indeed we play a key role, but they are not limited to us.


However, I do emphatically agree that human sin does have a fundamental effect on creation. Human sin has destroyed and polluted a great deal of God's creation, is destroying thousands of God's creatures and is now culminating in a severe change to the climate itself, which may render the earth nearly uninhabitable if it reaches catastrophic proportions.

In this crisis, more than ever, we are called to restore our original relationship to nature as its caretakers and protectors (which is the actual role of "dominion"). As God's image on earth, our stewardly role is to imitate God as the provider of the household, which in this case is the whole roster of species that co-inhabit this world with us. That is what a good lord does for all those under his dominion. To pillage and destroy as we have been doing, instead of providing, protecting and serving, is a gross dereliction of our responsibility under God.

 

[Calminian]

hey phil,

There are more miracles in the Scriptures than two. Pick another one and find the evidence for it. You are on the right track when you conclude that if there is no evidence for #1 then there won't be any evidence for #2, but I think that you'll find that the truth is that it's a lot more overwhelming than just #1 and #2. What you'll finally wind up having to say is, "Well so there's not evidence for #1 and #3 and #4 and #6 and #7,#8,#9,#10, #11, etc. etc. there can't be any evidence for #2." When you reach that conclusion, then yes, I'll agree as it is exactly my point.

As I have said here, if you're finding it difficult to find scientific, provable evidence that Jesus turned water into wine, then pick another miracle. There are certainly plenty more to choose from. Get back to me when you've got one that you can prove with scientific evidence.

Then you wrote: The argument simply doesn't work because it's not the act of creation that we are trying to find evidence for, it is the history of the earth we are trying to find evidence for.

Right! And it's not finding the evidence of the creation of the specific wine that Jesus made. After all, anyone can show you and demonstrate how to make water into wine. You take some concentrated grape juice and mix it with three canfuls of water as though you were making regular grape juice from concentrate, but after that you add some additional sugar and yeast and you allow it to ferment for an extended period of time, oh, a month or so. So, it's not the creation of the wine that's the miracle so much as it's the time and starting ingredients that Jesus used. Anybody can make wine!

You see, friend, any one who has made wine; even scientists who can explain the fermentation process will tell you that it is impossible to take a jug of water and within a matter of moments have wine. Therefore, Jesus could not have done it that way. Simple, right? Hopefully you see the correlation, but the design and scope are much grander and powerful and majestic in the creation.

Light travels at x speed. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have made the creation as it says. Hmmmmmm. Why does this sound familiar? Anyway, pick another one and let me know when you find just one for which you have scientifically provable evidence for how it was done.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

This is so true, and well explained. If an atheist, a TE and a creationist were transported back in time to observe the wine Jesus made after the fact, they would undoubtable interpret the existence of the wine differently. Assuming they approached the evidence with the same presuppositions they approach the issue of origins, here would be their respective conclusions.

The atheist would flat out dismiss the testimony of the witness that this was the product of an instantaneous miracle, claiming that wine has a very natural plausible explanation. It must have been started several months ago, in order for there to have been enough time elapsed for fermentation to take place. No miracle necessary.

The creationist, OTOH, would have had no problem with the testimony claiming that God is perfectly able to skip over processes that men can't. They would have declared the evidence perfectly compatible with the miracle reported by the witnesses.

But the TE or day-ager would have taken a middle road position. They, like the atheist, would have noted the uniformitarian process normally necessary to make wine and declared the wine also to be several months old. Thus they would also dismiss the testimony of the eyewitnesses. But in order to also show they believed in God's power, they would gleefully also declare a miracle of God has taken place.......... just several months ago.

 

[gluadys]

But the TE or day-ager would have taken a middle road position. They, like the atheist, would have noted the uniformitarian process normally necessary to make wine and declared the wine also to be several months old. Thus they would also dismiss the testimony of the eyewitnesses. But in order to also show they believed in God's power, they would gleefully also declare a miracle of God has taken place.......... just several months ago.

Actually, that is just not true. As a TE, I have no problem with the wine at Cana being minutes old thanks to an instantaneous miracle. Nor do I know of any TE who has a problem with instantaneous miracles.

You are simply barking up the wrong tree with this pseudo-objection to TE.

 

[Jig]

Gluadys,
It has
been nice dialoguing with you, but I simply do not have the time to continue past this post.

Because you interpret the text in a historical-grammatical manner.

But why do you do use that interpretative model?

Because...

I am philosophically committed to the truth of the Bible and it's claims. I believe the Bible was written in normal human language that can be interpreted plainly in light of its own historical setting and literary context.

Thus, I do not suspect it of containing errors - theologically or historically.

Maturity implies there has been time to mature---unless the condition of maturity was given supernaturally. Only in that case are age and maturity uncoupled from each other. That is what makes the apparent age, in such a case, illusory.

This seems to be our major point of conflict. I'll attempt to clarify my position one last time.

To say that the universe "appears" old is nonsensical unless one subscribes to a philosophical worldview that requires such a perception.

For instance, your philosophical assumptions requires that the universe be billions of years old.

My philosophical assumptions do not require that the universe be billions of years old.

Therefore, the universe doesn't appear old or young to me.

I really do not comprehend how a flood explains these facts. A flood should deposit things that live together all jumbled up in the same layer of sediment, should it not?

It is not my fault that you are not convinced by the arguments made by creation scientists. However, truth is not dependent on your comprehension.

However, I do emphatically agree that human sin does have a fundamental effect on creation. Human sin has destroyed and polluted a great deal of God's creation, is destroying thousands of God's creatures and is now culminating in a severe change to the climate itself, which may render the earth nearly uninhabitable if it reaches catastrophic proportions.

So you believe that sin affects creation indirectly through the acts of humans? Interesting.

I disagree, however. This would mean that only a very small part of creation is affected by sin. The Bible is clear that the "whole creation" is affected, not just earth.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I really do not comprehend how a flood explains these facts. A flood should deposit things that live together all jumbled up in the same layer of sediment, should it not?

The location of the the fossils in the sedimentary layers is solely contingent on the ability of the creatures to survive a catastrophic flood. This would obviously cause a regular distribution within the layers but irregularities can be acceptable.

 

[gluadys]

The location of the the fossils in the sedimentary layers is solely contingent on the ability of the creatures to survive a catastrophic flood. This would obviously cause a regular distribution within the layers but irregularities can be acceptable.

Can you explain this in more detail please? Especially in regard to the relative placement of plants or of any animals which are thought to have been contemporaneous with humans. Note that it doesn't matter that trilobites were marine animals. So are fish, yet we find fish bones in terrestrial garbage dumps because they have been caught and eaten by people. So we ought to expect the remains of trilobite dinners to be found where people were living for the same reason.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys,
It has
been nice dialoguing with you, but I simply do not have the time to continue past this post.

Of course, one always withdraws when one can no longer hold up one's end of the conversation.

Because...

I am philosophically committed to the truth of the Bible and it's claims. I believe the Bible was written in normal human language that can be interpreted plainly in light of its own historical setting and literary context.

Doesn't answer the question. I also am philosophically committed to the truth of the Bible and believe it was written in normal human language which can be interpreted in light of its own historical setting and literary context. And that is why I DON'T use a historical-grammatical interpretation.

For example, I am aware that "normal human language" includes mytho-poetic stories and figurative symbols like comparing the creation of the world to the construction of a temple. I am aware that the historical setting of the authors of Genesis and the literary context of their work was not that of a modern reporter or journalist attempting an "objective record by an unbiased observer" of chronological facts. Rather it was committed to a theological viewpoint and set out its cosmology to support a strict monotheism in the face of surrounding polytheistic beliefs to which the people of Israel often succumbed.

So what does your answer have to do with supporting a historical-grammatical interpretation?

This seems to be our major point of conflict. I'll attempt to clarify my position one last time.

To say that the universe "appears" old is nonsensical unless one subscribes to a philosophical worldview that requires such a perception.

For instance, your philosophical assumptions requires that the universe be billions of years old.

Not true. My philosophical assumptions only require that the age of the universe be what the evidence suggests. If the evidence suggested a young-earth, my philosophical assumptions would require that the universe be young.

My philosophical assumptions do not require that the universe be billions of years old.

It is stronger than that. Your philosophical assumptions demand a historical-grammatical interpretation of the text of scripture and that interpretation requires that the universe be approximately 6,000 years old.

But what philosophical assumption demands a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture?

It is not my fault that you are not convinced by the arguments made by creation scientists. However, truth is not dependent on your comprehension.

What arguments? I have not seen any creation scientist attempt to deal with the issues I raised. They have offered no reason at all why we do not find dinosaur and human bones mixed in the same fossil bed. Whether dinosaurs were the predators or the prey, if the two life forms were contemporaneous, we ought to find that. Even more so if dinosaurs were domesticated.

So you believe that sin affects creation indirectly through the acts of humans? Interesting.

I disagree, however. This would mean that only a very small part of creation is affected by sin. The Bible is clear that the "whole creation" is affected, not just earth.

Paul, I think, would disagree with you. No doubt he believed the heavens were not affected by sin. Only the earth.

 

[Calminian]

dupe post.......

 

[Calminian]

Actually, that is just not true. As a TE, I have no problem with the wine at Cana being minutes old thanks to an instantaneous miracle. Nor do I know of any TE who has a problem with instantaneous miracles.

You are simply barking up the wrong tree with this pseudo-objection to TE.

I anticipated this response, but in fairness I prefaced my comment with this statement.

"Assuming they approached the evidence with the same presuppositions they approach the issue of origins, here would be their respective conclusions."

Yes, I'm well aware the most TE have no problem with most miracles in the bible.

 

[philadiddle]

This is so true, and well explained. If an atheist, a TE and a creationist were transported back in time to observe the wine Jesus made after the fact, they would undoubtable interpret the existence of the wine differently. Assuming they approached the evidence with the same presuppositions they approach the issue of origins, here would be their respective conclusions.

The atheist would flat out dismiss the testimony of the witness that this was the product of an instantaneous miracle, claiming that wine has a very natural plausible explanation. It must have been started several months ago, in order for there to have been enough time elapsed for fermentation to take place. No miracle necessary.

The creationist, OTOH, would have had no problem with the testimony claiming that God is perfectly able to skip over processes that men can't. They would have declared the evidence perfectly compatible with the miracle reported by the witnesses.

But the TE or day-ager would have taken a middle road position. They, like the atheist, would have noted the uniformitarian process normally necessary to make wine and declared the wine also to be several months old. Thus they would also dismiss the testimony of the eyewitnesses. But in order to also show they believed in God's power, they would gleefully also declare a miracle of God has taken place.......... just several months ago.

Since this has come up in a few threads I have tried to explain it better in a new thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7649688/

 

[TasManOfGod]

Can you explain this in more detail please? Especially in regard to the relative placement of plants or of any animals which are thought to have been contemporaneous with humans. Note that it doesn't matter that trilobites were marine animals. So are fish, yet we find fish bones in terrestrial garbage dumps because they have been caught and eaten by people. So we ought to expect the remains of trilobite dinners to be found where people were living for the same reason.

Only if people actually did eat trilobytes and only if they were eating them during the flood rather than trying to get away from it. Makes sense doesn't it?

 

[gluadys]

Only if people actually did eat trilobytes and only if they were eating them during the flood rather than trying to get away from it. Makes sense doesn't it?

We eat shrimp, and crab and lobsters. Why wouldn't we eat trilobites if they were available? Same food family.

And did the flood only bury what people were eating on the very day they were overtaken by the flood? What about all the leftovers during the 120 years prior to the flood? Or even the seven days between the time Noah and family entered the ark and the day the flood waters came? Surely somebody had a trilobite or a dinosaur dinner. Why would the leftover bones not be buried along with the plates and bowls and dining room tables when the flood arrived, even if the family was scurrying for the hills?

So, no, it doesn't make sense. If all these animals lived together with humans, why are their remains never discovered with human remains or artifacts? For that matter, why are trilobite shells never found with whale skeletons?

There are hundreds and hundreds of rock formations containing hundreds of thousands of ammonite shells. Not one of them is found along with a whale, walrus or seal skeleton. Both sets of fossils are found all over the world, but never together. Skeletons of marine mammals are always found in beds well above shells of ammonites.

How does a global flood make sense of that?

 

[TasManOfGod]

gluadys:
Tell me if you can find any evidence of a rubbish dump on tsunami ravaged Japan And that was just a splash compared to the big one: Sometimes you have to be practical as well as right you know.
As for the different final resting places for trilobytes and whales -well it surprises me frankly that you are not aware of the differing abilities of the two to survive. Just to let you know that whales survived and trilabytes didnt so I quess that says a lot about why they are not found together in the "fossil record"

 

[gluadys]

gluadys:
Tell me if you can find any evidence of a rubbish dump on tsunami ravaged Japan.

Probably, someplace, there is. I haven't done a survey. Did the tsunami only erode soil from the land or did it also deposit sediment on the land? YECs would have us believe the flood deposited enormous amounts of sediment. Why would such depositions not bury garbage dumps?

Erosion, of course, is a different matter. But when water sweeps material away from its place of deposition, it doesn't discriminate. All of it gets swept away together.

And that was just a splash compared to the big one: Sometimes you have to be practical as well as right you know.

Better to be both. That is why I am asking practical questions.

As for the different final resting places for trilobytes and whales -well it surprises me frankly that you are not aware of the differing abilities of the two to survive. Just to let you know that whales survived and trilabytes didnt so I quess that says a lot about why they are not found together in the "fossil record"

As far as I know they both have a similar capacity to survive and a similar capacity to die. Are you telling me that not a single whale died at any time between the fall and the flood? Every last whale survived for over 2,000 years and through the flood as well? So all those trilobite shells were buried in layers and layers of sediment with not a single whale bone in them? Even taking the pre-diluvian ages literally, no human managed to live that long.

So my practical self says some whales died before the flood and their bones drifted down through the water to land on the bottom of the ocean among the trilobites. And they were slowly covered with silt and then deeply covered with flood sediments. So, we should find traces of pre-diluvian whale and pre-diluvian trilobites together in the fossil record. Right?

If not, why not?



But if you want to compare non-survivors with non-survivors, lets consider trilobites and mosasaurs. Neither type of fossil is found with any marine mammal fossil. Nor are they found together. All mosasaur fossils are found above all trilobite fossils and below all whale fossils. Yet as air-breathing marine animals, mosasaurs had no more need than whales to escape a flood, and the same capacity to survive one. Yet whales did and mosasaurs didn't.

To me this separated placement of fossils from similar environments is very mysterious if the geologic column is primarily sedimentation from a single event and all creatures originally lived in the same time frame.

What can you offer to clear up this mystery? I think you will have to dig deeper than you have so far. You are not really thinking things through.

 

[TasManOfGod]

With all due respects glaudys it seems you are not thinking things through. It is logical that different creatures possess different characteristics for survival even in turbulent conditions . Some survive and some perish. Some survive for a period until the conditions get overpowering. This would explain all the inconsistencies you would want to bring up about what you think should be seen in the sedimentary layers but is not there. I am sorry but I will not be going through each one you think of ad- infinitum; there are far too many other things we could be talking about

BTW I thought you would have known that animals don't fossilize except if buried rapidly as with a flood or other catastrophic event . That might explain your boneless dead whale theory

 

[mark kennedy]

Since the YECs who responded in the other thread I tried to make are ignoring my followup question, I'll try to be a little more direct.

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?

The Bible makes no reference to how old the universe is, it does clearly state that the first man was Adam. That's Old and New Testament. As far as how I respond to atheists, for the most part, I simply point them to real issues.

Grace and peace,
Mark