Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[westwall]

Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?

So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

I asked you why ?

I gave you one example. Why don't you deal with that one first. The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby. That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.

 

[itfitzme]

The bible contradicts the bible!

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.

Living fossil - RationalWiki

no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .

How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?

No, "they" don't. Evolution is based on mutations. Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism. It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial. If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around. Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial. In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years. Everything depends on the environment. That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.

We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every living organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.

 

[Hollie]

How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?

No, "they" don't. Evolution is based on mutations. Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism. It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial. If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around. Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial. In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years. Everything depends on the environment. That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.

We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every ling organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.

What really incompetent designers your gawds turned out to be.

They should be fired for such gross errors.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?

So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.

God said that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due to heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

 

[westwall]

How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?

No, "they" don't. Evolution is based on mutations. Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism. It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial. If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around. Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial. In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years. Everything depends on the environment. That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.

We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every living organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.

Yes, I KNOW that. Copying errors? What, all of a sudden God is simply a Xerox machine?
Practice what you preach sister. Educate yourself. You're doing a piss poor job of it right now.

 

[itfitzme]

Here it is;

"RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE"

RMK-QLEE-KVY-ELL-SKVAC-LEY-EV-ARLK-KVGE

RiMK-QueLEE-KiVveY-ELL-SKiVAC-LEY-EV-ARLaK-KiVGE

Which translates to "Sometimes, good shit happens".

 

[westwall]

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

 

[Youwerecreated]

your explanation is based on a false premise...
by definition it's not valid.

Do you have an example ?

Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!

Listen if you wish to do this don't Dodge! and respond to what I posted. Oh and do give credit to your source.

 

[Youwerecreated]

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

I asked you why ?

because evolution is not perfect just good enough..

You don't have a clue as to why even though I provided the answer to you ?

 

[Hollie]

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

Even by the standards of creepiness that define your comments, the above is really, really creepy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

I agree. The Bible is a historical reference in one case and a historical novel in the other. It is however, not concerned with science in the slightest.

That is where you're wrong.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

 

[Youwerecreated]

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

I asked you why ?

I gave you one example. Why don't you deal with that one first. The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby. That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

 

[daws101]

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

smells like creationist bullshit to me.

 

[westwall]

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

I agree. The Bible is a historical reference in one case and a historical novel in the other. It is however, not concerned with science in the slightest.

That is where you're wrong.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

I'm sorry. The Bible was written at least 50 years after all of these things were "predicted". Climate change fraudsters do the exact same thing and it is just as ridiculous when they do it.

Put another way, Nostradamus "predicted" a whole bunch of stuff too. The only problem is you have to turn your head a little sideways and close your eyes and cover one ear for it to really make sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, "they" don't. Evolution is based on mutations. Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism. It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial. If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around. Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial. In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years. Everything depends on the environment. That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.

We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every living organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.

Yes, I KNOW that. Copying errors? What, all of a sudden God is simply a Xerox machine?
Practice what you preach sister. Educate yourself. You're doing a piss poor job of it right now.

I have, that is why I am now a creationist.

What did I have wrong concerning your theory ?

 

[westwall]

I asked you why ?

I gave you one example. Why don't you deal with that one first. The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby. That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

No, you didn't. You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you. Just like the climate change fraudsters do.

 

[daws101]

Do you have an example ?

Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!

Listen if you wish to do this don't Dodge! and respond to what I posted. Oh and do give credit to your source.

know what, fuck you .. I did not dodge..
what I posted answers your post fully...too bad you are too willfully ignorant to understand.

 

[westwall]

We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every living organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.

Yes, I KNOW that. Copying errors? What, all of a sudden God is simply a Xerox machine?
Practice what you preach sister. Educate yourself. You're doing a piss poor job of it right now.

I have, that is why I am now a creationist.

What did I have wrong concerning your theory ?

First off it's not my theory. Secondly you focused on one side of the equation not on both. That's your flaw. And you are a creationist because you believe in it. There is no scientific support for creationism. None. Any time you have to ignore vast amounts of observed data and historical fact you have no case. It's as simple as that.

However, I don't care. In my perfect world you are free to believe as you wish and to teach what you want to whoever you want. Just never, ever deny me the ability to do the same.

 

[itfitzme]

Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!

Listen if you wish to do this don't Dodge! and respond to what I posted. Oh and do give credit to your source.

know what, fuck you .. I did not dodge..
what I posted answers you post fully...too bad you are too willfully ignorant to understand.

Aparently, god created flaws in his brain and perception. He must have commited some really bid sin.

Sorry, couldn't resist.