Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[CreosMary]

Ghosty:

CreosMary: You’ve not been here very long. You’ve likely not seen the work that people like Orogeny, vern, myself, and the curiously MIA PhilVaz (not to mention COUNTLESS others) have done to stick up for the Catholic faith in the face of real atheists who have attacked the Church for its stance on the Theory of Evolution. It’s frustrating to see people casting aspersions at some of the most ardent defenders of the Church that these forums have. These are people who are here because we love the Church, we love the Church’s teachings, and yet you cast around the word “atheist” so readily.

Heck, speaking for myself, I’ve dug in my heels and passionately defended the Church’s rulings against Galileo, something that very few today are willing to do. You’re not dealing with people who casually take the word of “science” over that of the Church.

My Dear Brother Ghosty,
My we are sensitive to challenges and I love the “you have not been here very long” thing.
I do not dispute your love of Church and its dogma’s but only ask that you listen to them.
I will not be made into dogfood because I may have less posts than others or I have been Catholic for only 7 years. I respect you and you respect me.
Remember I used the word Athiest once in this regard and I meant by that “thiestic evolutionists” who I still firmly believe reject Church teachings on the matter of Creation in favour of Mans fallible judgements inside and outside Science.
May God Bless and Mary protect you
Br CreosMary

 

[Philip_P]

CreosMary:

Your comment on “matter gets kinda messy” sounds a little like Gnosticism.
All matter and anima are made by God and God saw that it was very good.
God bless

CreosMary,

I’m not sure how this borders on gnosticism. The scientific method stresses observation and testable hypotheses, the opposite of the “secret” knowledge of the gnostics. Further, by embracing science, we are embracing the material nature of the universe, and as Christians we also affirm the goodness of the materiality. This, again, seems to be the opposite of gnosticism.

If anything, Creationism seems to nudge toward gnosticism. There are, I think, two elements in evolution most Creationists object to. One, it makes the literal interpretation of Genesis untenable and two, it stresses the material (or “animal”) nature of humans. Of these, the second is most relevant in the Catholic context, since Catholicism is not a literalist religion (what does it matter, after all, how old the earth is, so long as we can affirm God as creator?)

To affirm that the material universe is good means acknowledging the untidiness of matter and accepting it as good, too. That was my point with “matter gets kinda messy.” If the idea that Christ, as man, shares a biological kinship with pre-human ancestors (“savage beasts” if you will) causes problems, Creationists may wish to ask themselves if they are really okay with the idea of the Incarnation and, further, the idea of the the material universe as good.

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

The T-Rex was found in Limestone so…

Actually, the t-rex was found in sandstone at the base of the Hell Creek Formation. It would be very unusual for a terrestrial animal like t-rex to be found in a limestone.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Deacon Eugene McGuirk: I have a BA and an MA in education. My area of concentration was Exercise Physiology, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York City is one of my favorite places. (The dinosaur tie I wore that night was from the museum gift shop). When I graduated from high school I received a New York State Regents Diploma in Science in addition to my regular high school diploma. I worked for 8 years at Doll Medical Research, Inc. in New York. I was the Director of Research when I left that company. Our particular area of research was human blood flow. I taught physiology labs in college for one year, and I taught middle school math, science and computers for two years. In addition to this scientific background I have an MBA and I am half-way through a Master’s degree in Theology.

Based on what follows, the good Deacon should stick to teacing physical education!

I have learned that radiometric dating always errs on the side of making things older and not younger so the methods used to date rocks as billions of years old are questionable at best. I have learned how sediment forms in vertical layers, not horizontal ones, so the theory of the bottom layers being older than the top ones, used for dating fossils, is absolutely wrong. In these two areas alone, the time frame necessary for evolution to happen as taught, is called into question. The happenings of Mt. St. Helens prove that canyons can form overnight. The new canyon formed by Mt. St. Helens could be mistaken for the Grand Canyon, if the angle of the photograph was correct, because of its striations. The vertical fossil tress, and the manufactured artifacts found inside pieces of coal both create serious questions for the current theorists to explain since these two facts destroy the time elements necessary for the theory of evolution to work. Another problem is the out right fraud used by Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and others to “advance” the theory. Even when the frauds have been proven, the evolution camp continues using these “discoveries.”

If he wants to understand even a little about geology, he needs to quit wasting time reading fundamentalist pages. There is so much wrong with this paragraph that it leads me to question his honesty.

Peace

Tim

 

[Norwich]

CreosMary:

Dear Mr. Owen,

I have learned that radiometric dating always errs on the side of making things older and not younger so the methods used to date rocks as billions of years old are questionable at best. I have learned how sediment forms in vertical layers, not horizontal ones, so the theory of the bottom layers being older than the top ones, used for dating fossils, is absolutely wrong. In these two areas alone, the time frame necessary for evolution to happen as taught, is called into question. The happenings of Mt. St. Helens prove that canyons can form overnight. The new canyon formed by Mt. St. Helens could be mistaken for the Grand Canyon, if the angle of the photograph was correct, because of its striations. The vertical fossil tress, and the manufactured artifacts found inside pieces of coal both create serious questions for the current theorists to explain since these two facts destroy the time elements necessary for the theory of evolution to work. Another problem is the out right fraud used by Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and others to “advance” the theory. Even when the frauds have been proven, the evolution camp continues using these “discoveries.”

I don’t know who this guy is but if he’s a deacon in the Church I feel very sorry for his parish priest.

Lets get one or two facts correct.

1. Mt Saint St Helens and the Grand Canyon. Mount St. Helens so called “Canyon” is made up of igneous rock expelled from eruption, haven’t seen a river running through it yet and unless one can start in the middle of a volcano I have doubts if anybody ever will. The Grand Canyon is formed from limestone (oolitic Limestone I believe) has has a thwacking great river in the middle of it. Volcanic eruption do not create horizontal canyons that go around corners, (unless it’s bloody clever explosive lava).
2. Poor Isaac Newton must be turning in his grave, to learn after all these years that gravity works sideways so that sedimentary rocks can be formed vertically must be an incredible revelation to him, and the rest of us I would imagine. At least it may explain that wonderful scene in one of Fred Astaires movies where he walked on the walls and then the ceiling, always did wonder how he did that, now I know.
3. As far as Radiometric dating goes, try this:

asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Could it be that the Grand Canyon was formed when one of the elephants standing on the back of a turtle and holding up the flat world sneezed?

 

[catholic2]

as far as radiometric dating goes, try this:

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Hooray! I finally figured out how to cut and paste on this site!

 

[catholic2]

Norwich:

Could it be that the Grand Canyon was formed when one of the elephants standing on the back of a turtle and holding up the flat world sneezed?

Interesting viewpoint you have there my friend.

Scripture is way ahead of you. It describes the earth as an orb hung on nothing at all.

 

[Lovez4God]

Hello all,
I know I am late in this forum.
Ok, so we have established the fact that:
vern humphrey descendended from monkeys,
and tuopaolo descendended from Adam and Eve.
What else do we need to argue about?!
At least that’s what they are intending to say based on their opposing views.
Make no mistake about it, people without scientific or worldly knowledge will ascend faster into heaven than all of you!
I hope we all will agree someday.

 

[Norwich]

catholic2:

Interesting viewpoint you have there my friend.

Scripture is way ahead of you. It describes the earth as an orb hung on nothing at all.

Thats strange, it seems to agree with the current scientific thinking, could it actually be that both science and the Church are in agreement and that there really isn’t any conflict in thinking? just as JP2 suggested!!! Wow!!!

 

[catholic2]

Norwich:

Thats strange, it seems to agree with the current scientific thinking, could it actually be that both science and the Church are in agreement and that there really isn’t any conflict in thinking? just as JP2 suggested!!! Wow!!!

Nah. It’s just that scripture is smarter than science, and the Church is smart too because it follows scripture. Where does that leave science?

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

This site, and this time I read it through looks also good:

trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Thanks for your expertise

Hi, catholic2.

I have visited the site and have a couple of general comments. Dr. Plaisted, the author of the paper, is a computer scientist, not a physicist, geologist or geochemist. I’m not sure when in his studies he took a class on radiometric dating.

His argument is based mostly on incredulity rather than science. He doesn’t give any scientific arguements against radiometric dating. He does meander through the subject quite a bit in an attempt to baffle with BS.

That being said, he is not attacking only radiometric dating, but physics, chemistry and geology at the same time. Actually, he doesn’t do the attacking, he just takes snippets from other people and uses them for his purposes.

That’s my take on his paper. How is your reading of Dr. Weins paper coming?

Peace

Tim

 

[catholic2]

I’m on my second read. Sounds convincing, but I am still looking for holes. Seems to me someone with a PHD regardless of what field he has it in should have some credibility. He has at least shown that he has a modicum of intelligence and could look at specific subjects of interest to him with a practiced discerning eye. However, I’ll look for papers from someone with a geological background for the Puka (Hawaiian word for holes) .

 

[Ghosty]

My we are sensitive to challenges and I love the “you have not been here very long” thing.

I should have figured you’d take that the wrong way. My point is that you haven’t been here long enough to have seen these folks laying it down for the Church, not that you being new invalidates your position. I was merely giving perspective to my frustration at these folks being called atheists, but apparently you are unwilling to read into what other people say even beyond matters of science. If you don’t want to listen, or experience a real back-and-forth, why bother participating in such discussions?

Remember I used the word Athiest once in this regard and I meant by that “thiestic evolutionists” who I still firmly believe reject Church teachings on the matter of Creation in favour of Mans fallible judgements inside and outside Science.

That you believe that does not give you the right to sling such slanderous labels as “atheist” at people who have devoted a LOT of time here to defending the Church. You’ve got your opinions, and that’s fine, but having an opinion is not a license to attack the sincerity of someone elses faith, espescially in a place where they’ve done nothing but stand up for it.

It saddens me that you can’t accept that there is no Dogma defining whether literalist creationism or theistic evolution is correct. It saddens me that you can’t accept that those of us defending theistic evolution are doing so as a defense of the Catholic faith in the face of reasoned atheistic objections. I can accept that you are an ardent believer in literalist creationism as a matter of your own personal preference and opinion, and I defend you for it. What I can’t accept is you casting aspersions at those within the Church who would gladly lay down the theory of evolution if it was Dogmatically opposed by the Magisterium, but who in the mean time use the allowances the Church has given us to absolutely destroy atheistic arguments through the use of reason. Remember, it was the work of Fr. LeMaitre that put the near-absolute stamp of God on physics, bringing science in line with theistic belief, not any hard-nosed literalists. Atheists are still cringing at the “God factor” he introduced, and have been working fruitlessly to excise it for two generations now.

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

Seems to me someone with a PHD regardless of what field he has it in should have some credibility. He has at least shown that he has a modicum of intelligence and could look at specific subjects of interest to him with a practiced discerning eye.

Well, I can tell you he hasn’t looked at Dr. Wiens paper. He has spent a lot of time at fundamentalist sites looking for refutation of a scientific method rather than looking at the method itself. His very first paragraph gives that away.

Peace

Tim

 

[CreosMary]

Orogeny:

Actually, the t-rex was found in sandstone at the base of the Hell Creek Formation. It would be very unusual for a terrestrial animal like t-rex to be found in a limestone.

Peace

Tim

Sorry Tim
My Typo
God Bless

 

[CreosMary]

**A Summary of
Theistic Evolution
**by Dr. Robert Bennett

     What does theistic evolution mean and why do       Catholic creationists oppose it?

     The atheistic formula for evolution is:

     Evolution = inert matter + random chance + positive       mutation + natural selection + death + eons of time.

     In the theistic evolutionary view, God is       integrated into materialistic philosophy, not as       omnipotent Lord of all things, but as an enabler of       evolution:

     Theistic evolution = Evolution + God ....... as a       single symbolic concatenation, thevolution.

     Evolution is the mechanism for all life on earth,       but God set evolution in progress and guided the       process of development, leading eventually to man.       Genesis is styled as an allegory, in the genre of       figurative language and fairy tales. Being more       socially and politically acceptable than creation,       theistic evolution tries to accommodate evolution and       creation at the same time, as a shot-gun marriage of       contraries. We are still responsible to our Creator,       yet somehow the Darwinist is also seen to be credible.

     Allied to theistic evolution is progressive       creation, proposing that God intervened at various       points in natural development, periodically creating       new kinds. It allows a considerable degree of change       after that, an evolutionary envelope within which       further limited variation is possible. The progressive       creationist would support multiple descent - a model       of multiple progenitors as a forest, where kinds       created in different periods would not share the same       genealogical tree.

     Thevolution is an ideology masquerading as both       naturalism and theology. Creation and evolution are so       strongly divergent that reconciliation is logically       impossible. Theistic evolution's attempted conflation       reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. By       lacking Scriptural support, theistic evolution loses       meaning through its own reductionism.

     The theistic evolutionist generally believes in:

• an old Earth, billions of years old
• wholly natural processes being responsible for life, once initial matter was created by God
• a figurative and non-literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account (Biblical illiteracy?)
• a God who uses evolution as a secondary and indirect means of creating life
• a Bible containing no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
• evolutionistic pronouncements that have priority over biblical statements
• reinterpreting Scripture when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view …Cont

 

[CreosMary]

**Theistic Evolution: Conflicts with Theology, Revelation and the Magisterium **

     1) Magisterial teaching is that Scripture       interpretation begins with a literal and holistic       exegesis, which always considers literary styles and       genres in context. Thevolution specifically violates       this teaching by:

     Denial of the       supernatural - Having days be megayears and miracles a       natural process refutes Scripture in order to believe       evolution's story of origins.

     Denial of Adam's       maturity - Adam was fully developed when created, able       to tend the garden, hear and understand divine law,       name the animals, speak and make moral decisions. Adam       is not evolution's ape-man, Homo erectus or Homo       habilis, a hominid that lacked these faculties.

     Denial that Eve came       directly from Adam, but by some sort of simultaneous       sexual evolution. The two sexes just happened to       evolve in the same part of the planet, mate and human       natural history started. The myth of Eve is refuted       by:
  *Have you not read that he who made them from the       beginning made them male and female?* - Matthew       19:4
  *But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by       his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a       sincere and pure devotion to Christ* - 2       Corinthians 11:3
  *For Adam was formed first, then Eve* - 1 Timothy       2:13.

     Denial of a six day       creation - Apes learned to walk upright and became       men, it is said, by using the Genesis 'day'       figuratively as a long time. Yet in Genesis 1 the days       are numbered. Nowhere in scripture is that done if it       doesn't mean a twenty-four hour period. The exposition       in Genesis is very clear that all the world was made       in six days, while evolution demands more time. The       details of Adam's creation contrasts strongly with the       origin of the other creatures created *ex nihilo*,       implying that God acted in a special way when he       brought the first man into being. These two different       views of origins cannot ever be reconciled. 

     Denial of core Biblical       integrity - The Bible is regarded as a myth, a       parable, or an allegory, not as a historical report of       biological, astronomical and anthropological facts       given in didactic [teaching] form. Scriptural events       are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding       of the message of the Bible as being true in word and       meaning is lost. Yet nowhere are there any indications       that the creation account should be understood in any       other way than as a factual report.

     The work of salvation is       undercut - Adam's fall into sin was a real event, the       direct cause of sin in the world:
  *Therefore as sin came into the world through one       man and death through sin, and so death spread to all       men because all men sinned-- *Romans 5:12.

     Theistic evolution does       not recognize Adam as the first man, created directly       from the dust of the ground by God:
  *Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the       ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of       life; and man became a living being*. - Gen 2:7.

     However, the sinner Adam       and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible       by Romans 5:17-19:
  *If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned       through that one man, much more will those who receive       the abundance of grace and the free gift of       righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus       Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation       for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads       to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's       disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's       obedience many will be made righteous.*

     Any Biblical view which       deconstructs Adam's role undermines Jesus' work of       redemption.           cont..

 

[CreosMary]

1. Original sin brought death into the world for all living things. Death before the fall of man must have occurred over the eons of evolution.
   

     The nature of God as       good is falsely represented because death and       suffering are ascribed to the Creator as principles of       creation.
   
     Death due to Adam's sin       is a serious challenge to theistic evolution, as many       creatures already would have died in the theistic       evolution process.
   
     Evolution portrays       fossils (which imply death, disease and bloodshed) as       formed before people appeared on earth. Yet Scripture       says that everything is in 'bondage to decay' because       of Adam's sin:*

   For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;* because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21)
   

     3) Theistic evolution is a compromise based on a       contradiction. The Bible doesn't teach evolution, and       evolutionists cannot believe the Bible. Sin is made       meaningless, a harmless evolutionary factor, in       opposition to the declaration of the Holy Spirit that       sin means breaking our relation to God. This isn't       resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary       scenario.
   
     4) The Church teaches the impossibility that the       first man could have been the son of an animal,       generated by a beast in the proper natural sense of       the term. "Only from a man can another man       descend, whom he can call father and progenitor."
   
     5) Theistic evolution trangresses the liberty of       discussion allowed by the Magisterium regarding       evolution. It assumes the origin of the human body       from preexisting and living matter were already fully       demonstrated by the scientific facts discovered up to       now. Then, by reasoning on them, it ignores the       sources of revelation which demand the greatest       reserve and caution in this controversy.
   
     6) It is a consensus of modern theologians, not a       Magisterial declaration, that transformism, the       evolution of the first man's body from a lower       species, is compatible with the faith. Two conditions       are added to this concession:
   
     the       soul was immediately created by God out of nothing
   
     somehow God exercised a       special providence over whatever process preceded the       origin of man's body, so that the first man was not       literally generated by a brute beast.
   
     7) The only niche allotted to God is whatever       evolution cannot explain with current scientific       theory. God is reduced to filling in the unknown gaps       of knowledge. Far from being immutable God Himself is       changing and evolving - a God of the gaps!

Cont…

 

[CreosMary]

1. The Bible provides a time-scale for history:
   

     Both       beginning and end are defined -
   
     *In       the beginning God created the heavens and the earth*       - Genesis 1:1

   And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14.
   
   The duration of creation was six days -
   for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day - Exodus 20:11.
   

     The       age of the universe may be estimated, but not computed       exactly, in terms of the Patriarchal genealogies, as       more than six thousand years, not billions. But       thevolution favors time-scales involving gigayears,       for which there is no convincing and undisputed       physical basis. This undermines the credibility of       Scripture in other places.
   
     9) Theistic evolution worships the false idol of       Darwinism as its god, as the Hebrews worshipped the       golden calf at Mt. Sinai. Scientifically it differs       not from atheistic evolution, accepting purposeless,       naturalistic and material processes for the origin and       development of life.
   
     10) Human presence in evolution is accidental and       unplanned, a vagary of random natural selection,       likely never to occur again. This view destroys the       basic message of Scripture, God's love for us.
   
     **Theistic Evolution :** **Conflicts with       Science              **
   
     All scientific arguments against evolution hold as       well for theistic evolution. A few of these are:
   
     1) The 2nd law of thermodynamics and overall       increase of entropy would have caused the heat death       of the universe over billions of years.
   
     2) The increase of genetic information complexity       required for evolution has never been observed.
   
     3) Even cultural anthropology does not confirm that       the bridge between man and animal has been crossed by       any credible facts. To read man's nature, detecting       thought and volitional powers, distinguishing purely       animal instincts, all from the incomplete earliest       known archaeological remains - all this is raw       speculation, not science.
   
     **Theistic Evolution: Conflicts with Philosophy              **
   
     1)Intelligence and the capacity for free choice       involve self-reference and self-causation. This       presupposes the personal self, which only human beings       possess. Nor can these capacities be rooted in matter       as modifications of organically based functions, as       matter has never demonstrated such capacities.
   
     2)Fossil remains and primitive tools do not       necessarily show the presence of morally responsible       persons. Subhuman primates today evidence some       tool-making ability which can be explained through       imitation or instinct.
   
     3) It is philosophically inconsistent to conflate       God (theism) with evolution (naturalism). God's use of       evolution would make Him unnecessary. Evolution has no       purpose or teleology, contrary to the God of       Scriptures. Theistic evolution is inherently       paradoxical, promoting a 'providential randomness'       where God disguises His goals with evolution as though       without purpose - a purposeless purpose...........cont....

 

[CreosMary]

**Theistic Evolution: Some Questions and Puzzles **

If man’s creation took millions of years through successive transformations of life-forms, why does Scripture tell us that God made man from dust?

     If truly an apelike prehuman, Adam would die; so       why the warning - *but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. *- Genesis 2:17.

If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line and thousands of evolving men had already died, then how could death come by Adam?

If Adam was surrounded by his ape brothers, why was he lonely? The Bible recounts that there was not found among the animals a suitable mate or helper for Adam.

     Did God erase from Adam's mind what he used to be?

     Did God also remove from his hominid relatives all       recognition of Adam?

Why couldn’t God have started from dirt to make man, as in the literal reading, not just re-soul an existing creature?

     Did Adam evolve but not Eve? The Bible says she was       made from Adam's side.

In what language or myth does ‘human evolution’ mean ‘create from dust’(Adam) or ‘create from Adam’s side’(Eve)? Certainly not Hebrew.

     When Cain wed and bred with a woman from Nod, was       she human or simian?

     If Cain's wife was neither, had God made a hybrid       variant of human and beast, one that wasn't sterile?

     When did Adam lose his ape hair?

     After the first man was ensouled and then sinned,       didn't his ape brothers become potential food?

How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, to create everything?

If death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life? The Word of God clearly says - *For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive - *1 Cor 15:22.

If the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical, though written as plain narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other Biblical facts are figurative?

     It is written -
  *But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men…. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.* 2 Peter 3:7,10, and

     *Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more - *Rev       21:1 .

Why then should God want to destroy creation and build a new heaven and earth, if the world now is just as it was when created, and He called all creation ‘good’?

     **How long is a day?              **

Probably nothing typifies the battle of theistic vs. creationist Catholics more than the debate over the Genesis meaning of the Hebrew word for day, yom. Its liberal and fuzzy interpretation is key to undermining faith in the Word of God right from the very beginning of Holy Scripture and to plant the seeds of doubt which bloom ultimately in evolution.

     *Yom* is said to be flexible to the point of incredulity. Hiding within these three letters is said to be a span of epochs, as many as 3 gigayears or over a trillion days (in the common use of day). Parallels are drawn to the use of day in modern English, which usually means the 24 hour variety, but on occasion has other colloquial meanings, such as “daytime”, the length of sunlight, or a indefinite period or era, as when using “the present day” to mean modern times. It’s this last sense which the theistics apply in the attempt to conflate modernity with Church dogma. 

     Indeed, some uses of *yom* in the Bible do follow the English semantics. There are instances where the use of day there does follow the current English usage. But this is more a proof of the unity of human thought over four and a half millennia, as expressed orally in language patterns. Pointing out possible meanings for ‘day’ has nothing to do with the actual correct choice of exegesis for *yom* in Genesis.

. cont…