tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post6065592475848749165..comments2023-08-08T06:45:13.513-07:00Comments on Fish With Trish: A great springboard for open air preaching...Fish With Trishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04278929770287008838noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-27883924051351091702009-05-31T18:57:31.149-07:002009-05-31T18:57:31.149-07:00Nothing? Clearly scared Trish and joeslplace off. ...Nothing? Clearly scared Trish and joeslplace off. Well I will remember that next time he comes sneering that I ignored him.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-21122126698830377422009-05-26T23:11:31.341-07:002009-05-26T23:11:31.341-07:00Ok easier question for you joelsplace (or Trish).
...Ok easier question for you joelsplace (or Trish).<br /><br />If I said to you "I am your father". Would you accept the results of a paternity test?BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-11562775372118767922009-05-26T22:55:17.203-07:002009-05-26T22:55:17.203-07:00Oh so you think Moses wrote part of the bible. Whi...Oh so you think Moses wrote part of the bible. Which Books exactly?<br /><br />So the new testament doesn't include some wonderful remarks as <br /><br /><I>"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."<br /><br />or <br /><br />"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."</I>I'll have to remember that.<br /><br />Funny the only one here talking about missing links is ....<br /><br />you.<br /><br />You linked to a quote about the paucity of primate fossils, Ida is a newly discovered primate fossil. That's the only relevance here.<br /><br />The Hype is just that, Hype! Something I have said plenty of times.<br /><br />You're trying to change the subject, I really don't care about Ida.<br /><br />I gave you 2 very specific examples. ERV's and Pseudogenes. If these examples are false and aren't evidence for common descent then you should be able to show that very clearly.<br /><br />It's transparent that you are struggling or you wouldn't just keep blowing it off as talk. Explain why. If you are right and I am wrong this should be trivial to do.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-80956957774886097822009-05-26T21:31:13.721-07:002009-05-26T21:31:13.721-07:00God is clearly a witness since He created the univ...God is clearly a witness since He created the universe. He had Moses write it down for us.<br />The Bible does not promote or denounce slavery. God used it to put Joseph in power. The passages you are referring to were part of the penal code for Israel. I am not Jewish and Romans chapter 7 explains why I don’t live by that law and neither should any Christian. I don’t ignore it or pick and choose to the best of my knowledge.<br /><br />About Ida – would a quote from two Profs at the Natural History Museum work for you? They are clearly evolutionists but here’s what they say about some of the popular missing links: “On this qualification, the Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx both fall down as true missing links: both have unique features that have not been passed on to any living creatures. In other words, despite their enormous importance, they are not true ancestors, but belong to small branches of the tree of life whose form is close to that of the true ancestor. <br />Is the same true of Ida? Well, her fossil's status as a missing link is controversial in a slightly different way. Ida lacks some of the features common to modern lemurs, but does not appear to possess any features unique to our own lineage of anthropoid primates. This renders Ida's evolutionary status ambiguous, at best.”<br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/evolution/5385793/So-could-Ida-be-the-true-missing-link.html<br />Your LALLAALALAL is the way you have been doing a lot of talking without giving any proof. I keep asking for proof and you keep talking. You did finally make an attempt with Ida but by another evolutionist’s evaluation it was “ambiguous at best”. I haven’t seen any proof for ERVs just a lot of talk and speculation.<br />I hope I have addressed all your questions from the last post. Joeljoelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-12856329750477493932009-05-26T07:12:44.599-07:002009-05-26T07:12:44.599-07:00Bathtub,
Sorry I missed that question. I was too ...Bathtub,<br />Sorry I missed that question. I was too busy looking up the other things. I also noticed that you did post after me and I didn't get the notice.<br />http://fishwithtrish.blogspot.com/2009/04/cute-laughable-absurd.html<br />I'm off to work so I'll address the other things later. Thanks, Joeljoelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-46963995412843726982009-05-24T23:04:59.180-07:002009-05-24T23:04:59.180-07:00So you didn't say
For words to be evidence they ...So you didn't say <br /><br /><I>For words to be evidence they would have to come from a witness to the events.</I><BR>Interesting. I wonder who did.<br /><br />The bible quite clearly condones slavery giving details on what sort of punishment is fine. You are the one who just used Jesus to argue for the authority of the old testament. There over 600 laws in there for you to follow. Including stoning rebellious children, stoning women on their wedding nights if they aren't a virgin, etc. Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Old Testament you like and which you don't?<br /><br />You said I ignored you, I have repeatedly asked you to link to the original thread so we could read it context. How hard is that question to understand?<br /><br />Your first AIG link complained about the scarcity of fossils in the primate line. Ida is a fossil in the primate line. See how the 2 magically go together? <br /><br />And how was my reasonably detailed description of the ramifications of ERV and psuedogenes in anyway ignoring the example I bought up?BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-85003447856365297982009-05-24T22:10:21.407-07:002009-05-24T22:10:21.407-07:00Bathtub,
“Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone...Bathtub,<br />“Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone you disagree with isn't 'a True Christian'.” <br />You are misquoting me. Anyone that disagrees with what the Bible says is not a Christian.<br /><br />“I agree since you believe it's fine to beat your slaves to death as long as they take over a day to die, there isn't really much to discuss.”<br />You clearly haven’t read the Bible or you read it in the same way you read my last post.<br /><br />“Heh so if no one witnessed something there is no way to prove it happened. You should be a defence lawyer!”<br />You clearly didn’t read what I said.<br /><br />“Besides since you refuse to link to the original thread I can't be sure you aren't just sneering to be a jerk or not.” <br />What are you talking about?<br /><br />“Ida of course contributes to any issues with the first one.”<br />What does that mean?<br /><br />“And the second one AIG have the exact same LALLAALALAL not listening response…” <br />Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with me?<br />Joeljoelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-21814230647022875162009-05-23T22:00:16.732-07:002009-05-23T22:00:16.732-07:00Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone you disag...Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone you disagree with isn't 'a True Christian'. <br /><br />I agree since you believe it's fine to beat your slaves to death as long as they take over a day to die, there isn't really much to discuss. <br /><br />Heh so if no one witnessed something there is no way to prove it happened. You should be a defence lawyer!<br /><br />Besides since you refuse to link to the original thread I can't be sure you aren't just sneering to be a jerk or not. <br /><br />The Answers in Genesis links are funny for two reasons.<br /><br />Ida of course contributes to any issues with the first one. <br /><br />And the second one AIG have the exact same LALLAALALAL not listening response that Ray Comfort did and specifically ignored the common descent ramifications. It's funny to see them pretend it's a junk or not argument. It isn't, some are, some aren't. It's why are they found in the genome EXACTLY how it would appear if they followed the path of common descent?<br /><br />Why do Chimpanzees and Humans have the EXACT SAME Retrovirus, in the EXACT SAME location in their genome, but Orang-utans don't?<br />But why do those 3 all share a different Retrovirus in the EXACT SAME place but don't share it with Gibbons? Why do those 4 all have a Different Retrovirus inserted into their Genome in the EXACT SAME place but not Old or New World Monkeys? You can create an entire family tree that matches the predictions of the theory of evolution from this nested Hierarchy. <br /><br />And remember that AIG article YOU linked to stated that ERVs came from outside the body by the viruses inserting their code into the genome.<br /><br />Then we could start on pseudo genes. Did you know there 19,000 psuedo genes in your DNA? That's a gene which is there, but it's turned off.<br /><br />You know genes for things like Prehensile Feet. You have a Gene for Prehensile Feet sitting there in your DNA, just it got deactivated by mutations. So it's still there, sitting dormant. <br /><br />Like your gene for making Vitamin C. Did you know that? You could make your own but the gene is turned off. Strangely enough it's turned off in all Simians. Hmm so we another set of items that have a traceable family tree. 19,000 of them in fact. You can trace the reasons for them being switched off. And guess what, the family tree matches again the prediction made by the theory of evolution.<br /><br />Pseudo Genes and ERVs are independent of each other, but their family trees just happen to match up, and they just happen to match up what is predicted by evolution. <br /><br />God just made it look that way apparently, for some reason. I guess to fool those scientist types. <br /><br />Even the Christian ones.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-87739193023677252552009-05-23T18:26:16.059-07:002009-05-23T18:26:16.059-07:00Bathtub,
Evidence for evolution has to be more tha...Bathtub,<br />Evidence for evolution has to be more than talk. For words to be evidence they would have to come from a witness to the events. I will assume you don't claim to have any witnesses to evolution. I expect something tangible. If all you have is talk then how is it any more credible than zombies? I can at least give you history and pictures of them.<br />If I'm a liar about Biologos then you are a liar about evolution and there is no point in discussing it. <br />If a book says something and you say it isn't true isn't that rejection? Maybe we are using different terms. Let's see... "That's not true" means "I agree and base my life and beliefs on it." I guess that is just part of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.<br />Catholics claim to be Christians but that doesn't make it so. If a Christian's belief system is not based on the Bible then why would they be called Christian? Christian means follower of Christ. Christ quoted the Old Testament as authoritative. Evolution also contradicts the Gospel. The Gospel tells us that wages of sin is death and that death came into the world as a result of sin. Evolution requires lots of death before humans and sin ever came into the picture.<br />I agree with the Answers in Genesis link that you can become a Christian without knowing evolution is false. I would disagree that you could continue to believe in evolution after seeing what the Bible has to say and how evolution contradicts scripture. Part of being a Christian is agreement with God and what He says. If you take a look at what He says and continue to reject it how can you claim to follow Him?<br />Here's a quote I came across about your evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/fossil.asp<br />Here's a link on ERVs http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp<br />Thanks for the site tip.<br />Joeljoelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-42456551726363602032009-05-23T03:19:57.100-07:002009-05-23T03:19:57.100-07:00Even Answers in Gensis concedes that nothing in Ch...Even Answers in Gensis concedes that nothing in Christs Messsage of Salvation requires you to believe in a literal Genesis reading. <br /><br />If that's your lame reason for suggesting that the Christians at BioLogos "Reject" The Bible.<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.aspBathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-47605860439887804172009-05-23T00:25:12.974-07:002009-05-23T00:25:12.974-07:00I'm sorry but what are expecting other than 'talk'...I'm sorry but what are expecting other than 'talk'? Honestly special magic rays beaming information into your head if you made the right incantation into google?<br /><br />Biologos does not reject the bible how blatently dishonest can you be?<br /><br />And in the few minutes between my response and yours how much of either site could you have possibly even looked at. <br /><br />Oh and do research on ERV's<br /><br />The first link in google for ERV is this blog http://scienceblogs.com/erv/<br /><br />I don't know what you are looking at. How about you stop with the sneering and do some actual reading. <br /><br />look I will give you a big head start so you don't even have to type ERV in google.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirusBathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-88897406681207008172009-05-23T00:07:19.999-07:002009-05-23T00:07:19.999-07:00http://www.biologos.org/ rejects the Bible so I wo...http://www.biologos.org/ rejects the Bible so I wouldn't call that a Christian site just because they toss around words like Bible and God. I think that people should take the Bible for what it says or toss it out altogether. If you pick and choose what to believe you might as well just write your own book to go by.<br />Thanks for the link and answer.joelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-62902762343480346572009-05-23T00:00:49.232-07:002009-05-23T00:00:49.232-07:00This was the first thing I found on ERVs' source "...This was the first thing I found on ERVs' source "Infection and integration via an exogenous source virus"<br />How does that prove common ancestry?<br />You did refer me to Talk Origins before but all I could find there was talk - big shock!joelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-79801915653784629352009-05-22T23:33:50.216-07:002009-05-22T23:33:50.216-07:00You'll have to refresh my memory about what specif...You'll have to refresh my memory about what specifically you asked because I don't recall skipping anything. What thread was it?<br /><br />I don't believe you've actually looked. a single site like Talk Origins would provide days and days of reading. <br /><br />Or if you want a specificly Christian website you could read The Biologos Foundation http://www.biologos.org/<br /><br />That includes Francis Collins former head of the Human Genome project someone who knows our DNA better than probably anyone else on earth.<br /><br />So what questions don't those sites answer?<br /><br />If you want 1 piece of neat and tidy evidence look up ERVs. They are the item that scared the pants off Ray and he refused to answer. Lets see if you can do better.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-44782776495158306912009-05-22T23:24:16.575-07:002009-05-22T23:24:16.575-07:00Bathtub,
Since you dodged my challenge to give me ...Bathtub,<br />Since you dodged my challenge to give me some evidence for evolution so I’ll follow you over here and ask again. I guess evolution does fit Trish’s statement (or quote) “nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.' ”. I’ve searched for all this evidence and find nothing but sketches and talk. (Not that I’ve spent a lot of time searching – you would think that it would be simple to find if it existed) I could give you a lot more evidence that zombies exist than you have given me for evolution. It’s sounding more like a religion all the time to me. You guys are the evangelists of evolution. You probably believe in global warming too. Why waste so much time arguing about words instead of giving evidence of what you propose? Do you not really believe what you are preaching or is it just more important to win a debate? Your definition of a theory would make everything a theory. Does anything exist? Are there any laws or facts? I’m still waiting for the “body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment” you keep insisting is out there somewhere. Bassicallymike? I know you weren’t in on the last discussion but there are scientists that don’t believe in evolution or God. We established this before Bathtub… More fun to come...joelsplacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948127740538085634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-41769562806518799992009-05-21T19:29:10.102-07:002009-05-21T19:29:10.102-07:00I did actually include the Troll option if you rec...I did actually include the Troll option if you recall. <br /><br />Now I will admit to not fully understanding your intent. <br /><br />Quite simply, facts aren't immutable. And I don't know anyone who has said otherwise. Your (and my) quotes agree with that perfectly fine. Follow the example you quoted, we don't know everything about gravity, we are still learning the details, but we don't deny Gravity. Newtons incorrect Law of Gravitation was used for 300 years before Einstein solved the problem.<br /><br />Only a very very tiny percentage of Biologists (and Scientists in general) would disagree with Evolution being a fact. And almost 100% of those dissenters would be fundamentalist Muslims or Christians. Note, ID proponents aren't deniers of Evolution.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-46712867841421615372009-05-21T19:12:38.214-07:002009-05-21T19:12:38.214-07:00Whateverman said...
Incidentally, sorry about the...<I>Whateverman said... <br />Incidentally, sorry about the implied slam against your favorite movie :)</I><BR>LOL You feeling conflicted again WEM? Those crises of faith will do that to a fellow! {;o)bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-40201884601871347922009-05-21T19:06:33.018-07:002009-05-21T19:06:33.018-07:00Tub ...Did you read my response?.....My statement ...Tub ...Did you read my response?.....My statement "Well two can play that game" was a clear indication of what I was going to do, yet you started beating me like a rented mule over your (wrong)perception that I was taking you to task for something I was doing myself. (cherry picking)<BR>Matt seemed to get what I was getting at. LOL Didn't say he was impressed did I? I guess he understands Troll speak better than you. <BR>"Some scientific explanations are <B>so well established</B> that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. <B>Not so in science.</B> In science, the word theory refers to a <B>comprehensive explanation</B> of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,<br /><br />A scientific theory is a <B>well-substantiated explanation</B> of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been <B>repeatedly confirmed</B> through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but <B>reliable accounts</B> of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is <B>as factual</B> an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."<br /><br /><BR> <br />Looks like some think it is set in stone anyway. Last I looked comprehensive meant all-inclusive. <BR>I know that this definition is from the NAS but would there be any scientist out there that would disagree with the ToE presented as such a well established fact?bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-64714888299067824412009-05-21T13:25:41.813-07:002009-05-21T13:25:41.813-07:00Incidentally, sorry about the implied slam against...Incidentally, sorry about the implied slam against your favorite movie :)Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-55089985071645088292009-05-21T13:25:04.082-07:002009-05-21T13:25:04.082-07:00basicallymike wrote WEM..based on Tub's tutelage o...basicallymike wrote <I>WEM..based on Tub's tutelage on the difinition of the ToE. Well..... let's just say it kinda came across as a set in stone fact beyond any question.</I><BR><BR>Thanks sincerely for that honesty, 'mike.<br /><br />Discussions like this tend to get polarized pretty quickly, Creationists on one side with their absolute truth, and Darwinists on the other. I can't say why it happens, but the ToE often gets portrayed as fact, which almost always gets equated with "absolute truth". While I believe the theory is fact, it's most certainly not absolute truth.<br /><br />It is most definitely going to change. I'm certain that parts of it will be found to be wrong and be changed with enthusiasm.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Any person familiar with science should know that nothing can ever be proven to be infallible fact. It's possible that when you compare the surety of a faith-based answer with the uncertainty of an empirical answer-in-progress, those who champion the latter are seen to be portraying all scientific answers as "fact". <br /><br />In reality, those answers are merely "the facts as we know them to be at this time".Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-2871212538298634932009-05-21T13:16:06.512-07:002009-05-21T13:16:06.512-07:00wow basicallymike, in attempting to cover himself ...wow basicallymike, in attempting to cover himself fell into exactly the same trap of ignorance that Trish fell into.<br /><br />Twice in one thread!<br /><br />You did even read my post?<br /><br />But you seem to have stopped responding to me so I guess you are conceding the error.<br /><br />Let me quote part of a previous comment.<br /><br /><I>"Our understanding of gravity <B>is still a work in progress</B>. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."</I><BR>Wow, set in stone huh?<br /><br />Or did you just skip over that part.<br /><br />Or are you desperately grasping at straws to cover up your mistake?BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-3108580050847154342009-05-21T12:52:42.390-07:002009-05-21T12:52:42.390-07:00ExPatMatt wrote Checkmate Darwinists!Terry is a wa...ExPatMatt wrote <I>Checkmate Darwinists!</I><BR><BR>Terry is a walking-talking advertisement for atheism, and he doesn't even know it...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-72627795656921834712009-05-21T12:52:03.868-07:002009-05-21T12:52:03.868-07:00WEM..based on Tub's tutelage on the difinition of ...WEM..based on Tub's tutelage on the difinition of the ToE. Well..... let's just say it kinda came across as a set in stone fact beyond any question.bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-2774749633946150002009-05-21T12:39:31.782-07:002009-05-21T12:39:31.782-07:00I guess Trish is going to sit this one out and hop...I guess Trish is going to sit this one out and hope the whole things blows over...<br /><br />Guys,<br /><br />Creationists don't <I>always</I> assert that scientists think the ToE is perfect and never-changes. When it suits them, they'll happily point out that it 'changes from day to day, whereas God's Word NEVER changes!'<br /><br />Checkmate Darwinists!<br /><br />Basicallymike,<br /><br /><I>"But for the words "nothing more" Trish was pretty accurate according to the definition we choose to use. "</I>.<br /><br />But she did use the words 'nothing more', didn't she?<br /><br />Oh, and since when did you (we) get to 'choose' which definition applies?<br />I'll trust the NAS to properly define scientific terminology over a creationist blogger, if you don't mind.<br /><br />Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-35176073099157531172009-05-21T12:09:35.629-07:002009-05-21T12:09:35.629-07:00After asking him to explain something, basicallymi...After asking him to explain something, basicallymike responded to me <I>Darwinist haven't ever had to reel something in shortly after it was rolled out as some great breakthrough discovery</I>I'm a "Darwinist"? Neat, I learn something new every day.<br /><br />Well, if you had read what I wrote honestly, you'd understand that I was describing science in general. Nothing in science is set in stone; no scientific "law" ever is perfect, complete and unchanging. Every single thing we discover is subject to change if conflicting evidence is found.<br /><br />You know that, right?<br /><br />So, I wasn't giving myself a caveat. I was telling you how science generally (and the theory of evolution specifically) operates.<br /><br />Are you of the opinion that something which changes is imperfect? You would be correct.<br /><br />Only Creationists assert that science claims the ToE is perfect unchanging fact. Scientists themselves never make this claim.<br /><br />So, what exactly was your point?Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.com