Evolution

[Nuc]

Curious to see what people think about evolution.

 

[Hobbit]

Curious to see what people think about evolution.

Evolution is nothing but a cute little theory used by atheists to tell themselves that there really isn't a God.

 

[USViking]

Evolution is nothing but a cute little theory used by atheists to tell themselves that there really isn't a God.

A majority of Christian denominations accept evolution, don't they?

Catholicism does, and that is about half of all Christians right there. So does Anglicanism, the church I was raised in.

I voted "Yes". I am not sure the theorists have evey detail correct, but I am confident in the basic accuracy of the theory.

 

[deaddude]

Evolution is nothing but a cute little theory used by atheists to tell themselves that there really isn't a God.

That is a bit harsh, Darwin himself was an agnostic. Evolution does not assume nor dismiss the existence of (a) God(s)

 

[Hobbit]

A majority of Christian denominations accept evolution, don't they?

Catholicism does, and that is about half of all Christians right there. So does Anglicanism, the church I was raised in.

I voted "Yes". I am not sure the theorists have evey detail correct, but I am confident in the basic accuracy of the theory.

Microevolution. Even I believe that a species alters itself to adapt to its environment. However, species jumping evolution is preposterous and has not basis in fact.

That is a bit harsh, Darwin himself was an agnostic. Evolution does not assume nor dismiss the existence of (a) God(s)

I don't blame Darwin. It's not an entirely rediculous theory and requires an active mind to think of such a thing. However, evolution, as it stands, is the secular progressive's way of looking at Christians and saying, "We don't need your fancy shmancy God, you ancient, superstitious old dingbats."

My original assessment stands as my true feelings on the modern incarnation of the theory. I'm open to the possibility of small-scale, God guided, species jumping evolution. However, I think the special care God took creating human beings according to Genesis precludes the idea that we descended from monkeys.

 

[USViking]

Microevolution. Even I believe that a species alters itself to adapt to its environment. However, species jumping evolution is preposterous and has not basis in fact.

I think the idea is that cumulative small changes result over long periods of time in entirely new species.

There appears also to be some evidence in the fossil record such for faster, more sudden species change (ie "Punctuated Equilibrium"), perhaps induced by such world-wide catastrophy as meteor impacts.

I don't blame Darwin. It's not an entirely rediculous theory and requires an active mind to think of such a thing. However, evolution, as it stands, is the secular progressive's way of looking at Christians and saying, "We don't need your fancy shmancy God, you ancient, superstitious old dingbats."

Again, most Christians do not hold your view, or at least the authority of their churches do not.

My original assessment stands as my true feelings on the modern incarnation of the theory. I'm open to the possibility of small-scale, God guided, species jumping evolution. However, I think the special care God took creating human beings according to Genesis precludes the idea that we descended from monkeys.

How do you defend a literal scriptural interpretation in light of the fossil record. Never mind hominids- what of all the fauna embedded deep in solid rock?

 

[-Cp]

How do you defend a literal scriptural interpretation in light of the fossil record. Never mind hominids- what of all the fauna embedded deep in solid rock?

The human fossil record is completely compatible with special creation. In contrast, the human fossil evidence is so contrary to evolution that it effectively falsifies the idea that humans evolved. Future fossil discoveries will not substantially change the picture because future discoveries cannot nullify the objective evidence already unearthed. This message is not what we hear from a hundred different voices coming at us from a dozen different directions. But the human fossils themselves tell the real story. I can best illustrate the situation by describing a project I have conducted a number of times in my college apologetics classes. Each student is to do research on several assigned fossils. Only fossils that are fully accepted as legitimate by the scientific community are included.

The rules are as follows:


The student is to spend a minimum of eight hours of research on each fossil.
He must use only evolutionist sources.
He is to determine the date the evolutionist has assigned to the fossil.
He is to determine the category (australopithecine, Homo erectus, Neandertal, etc.) assigned to the fossil by evolutionists.
He is to write a one-page paper outlining his findings and make copies for distribution to the class.
The paper must contain at least five documented sources.
The results have become quite predictable. After the first week, a number of students come to me complaining that they cannot find any agreement among evolutionists regarding the date or the category of their fossil. I could easily have told them about this situation in a class lecture, but it wouldn't have had the impact upon them that their own research provided. Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both. The two matters are sometimes related. For evolutionists, the category to which they assign a fossil is sometimes used to arbitrarily determine its date, or the date of a fossil is sometimes used to arbitrarily determine the category to which it is assigned. This is not an unbiased approach in interpreting human fossils. I suggest to the students that they go with the two or three evolutionists out of the five they have consulted who may agree on the fossil in question.

When I made the fossil assignments, I did not make them randomly. I purposely gave the more obscure fossils to students who I knew were good at research. However, after about two weeks, members of this group began coming to me. They complained that they were not able to find anything on a particular fossil. Besides using our own college library, they often checked several of the large state university libraries in our area. More than one student suggested that there was no such fossil as the one I had assigned. Laughingly, I was accused of sending them on a wild-goose chase. Their experience was what I had anticipated. I wanted them to discover first-hand that there are many legitimate fossil discoveries about which it is very difficult to obtain information. When I was satisfied that the student had spent at least eight hours in searching for information on a particular fossil, I would give him copies of the materials in my own file on that fossil so that he could write his report. He could not possibly duplicate my 25 years of research on the human fossils in the time allotted. I do not wish to imply that the difficulty in finding material on many of the human fossils represents some kind of evolutionist plot. What happens is that only the most sensational fossil discoveries receive much publicity. Most discoveries are reported in some scientific journal and then forgotten by all but a very few experts. The fossils mentioned in most popular presentations of human evolution represent just a small portion of the total fossil material that has been uncovered. As the students prepared to write their reports, a third group comes to me. Because of the conflict they see between the shape (morphology) of their fossil and the assignment given it by evolutionists, they have questions.

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

The Fossils Falsify Evolution
Because there is an obvious conflict between the shape of some fossils and their category assignment by evolutionists, I encourage the students to go by the shape of their fossils, as documented by evolutionists themselves, in making their assessments. That is the way paleoanthropologists are supposed to do it. Then comes ‘F’ Day—Fossil Day! The students bring their reports to class and place their fossils on the master chart according to the evolutionist dating. As the process takes shape, it becomes very apparent that the human fossils do not show evolution over time. In fact, it is obvious that the fossils themselves falsify the concept of human evolution. Regarding this exercise, some people ask me, ‘Aren’t you taking quite a chance? What if the exercise doesn’t always work out that way?’ In spite of the ambiguities in many of the fossils, because of the very large number of fossils involved, the over-all testimony of the human fossils is very clear. It always works out that way! In this exercise, the stark reality of the human fossil record hits the student with greater force than anything I could have said. The key in this exercise is to study all of the relevant fossil material and to place it all on a ‘time chart’. Besides more than 300 Neandertal fossil individuals, this material includes more than 49 fossil individuals in the archaic Homo sapiens category, more than 220 fossil individuals that can properly be classified as Homo erectus, and more than 63 fossil individuals that are indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens and are dated by evolutionists from 30,000 years all the way back to 4.4 million years in the past. It is no accident that evolutionist books seldom include charts listing all of this material. For example, one of the more recent texts (1989) on the human fossils is by University of Chicago professor Richard G. Klein.2 In his 524-page work, Klein has 20 different charts dealing with various aspects of the human (hominid) fossil record. Yet, there is no way a student could get the over-all picture. The student would simply have to accept by faith Klein’s thesis that the fossils demonstrate human evolution. The one chart that would most interest students—a chart showing all of the relevant fossil material mentioned above—is not to be found anywhere. By this type of omission, the true nature of the human fossil record continues to be the best-kept secret in modern paleoanthropology<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1409.asp" target=_blank">.</a>

 

[archangel]

While in college I had a professor say to me;"Theory without fact is hypothesis...fact without theory is chaos" Being that hypothesis is a educated guess...well I changed my major from pre-med to admin of justice...I for one hate chaos...so I did something about it!...Just food for thought! :rotflmao:

 

[Nienna]

How do you defend a literal scriptural interpretation in light of the fossil record. Never mind hominids- what of all the fauna embedded deep in solid rock?

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here... I think this is a very interesting question, especially from a pro-evolution, old-earth point of view. If rock layers formed very slowly over long periods of time, how could there be all the fossil record that we see? In order for a fossil to form, the organism must be covered rapidly with sediment, or else it will rot. When we look at the fossils, we can often see fossils spanning several layers. How could the layers have slowly built up around the organism over ages of time? The exposed section of the organism would have decayed.

A literal reading of Genesis gives a very good explanation for this. Most of the fossil record was created during the massive volcanic flood that covered the entire earth. The creatures were buried immediately, perhaps still alive, if they hadn't drowned.

We can also observe through repeated experiments today, that several rock layers can form simultaneously. They don't need millions of years to build up. The continuous motion of a wavy sea can sift rock particles and sediment. When the motion stops, several wet layers can be formed at once, and they harden together. We see evidence of this in rock layers which exhibit "hairpin turns," or sharp bends of several layers. These layers had to have bent while still wet, or else they would have cracked, and they are all roughly parallel.

 

[USViking]

The human fossil record is completely compatible with special creation. In contrast, the human fossil evidence is so contrary to evolution that it effectively falsifies the idea that humans evolved. Future fossil discoveries will not substantially change the picture because future discoveries cannot nullify the objective evidence already unearthed. This message is not what we hear from a hundred different voices coming at us from a dozen different directions. But the human fossils themselves tell the real story. I can best illustrate the situation by describing a project I have conducted a number of times in my college apologetics classes. Each student is to do research on several assigned fossils. Only fossils that are fully accepted as legitimate by the scientific community are included.

The rules are as follows:


The student is to spend a minimum of eight hours of research on each fossil.
He must use only evolutionist sources.
He is to determine the date the evolutionist has assigned to the fossil.
He is to determine the category (australopithecine, Homo erectus, Neandertal, etc.) assigned to the fossil by evolutionists.
He is to write a one-page paper outlining his findings and make copies for distribution to the class.
The paper must contain at least five documented sources.
The results have become quite predictable. After the first week, a number of students come to me complaining that they cannot find any agreement among evolutionists regarding the date or the category of their fossil. I could easily have told them about this situation in a class lecture, but it wouldn't have had the impact upon them that their own research provided. Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both. The two matters are sometimes related. For evolutionists, the category to which they assign a fossil is sometimes used to arbitrarily determine its date, or the date of a fossil is sometimes used to arbitrarily determine the category to which it is assigned. This is not an unbiased approach in interpreting human fossils. I suggest to the students that they go with the two or three evolutionists out of the five they have consulted who may agree on the fossil in question.

When I made the fossil assignments, I did not make them randomly. I purposely gave the more obscure fossils to students who I knew were good at research. However, after about two weeks, members of this group began coming to me. They complained that they were not able to find anything on a particular fossil. Besides using our own college library, they often checked several of the large state university libraries in our area. More than one student suggested that there was no such fossil as the one I had assigned. Laughingly, I was accused of sending them on a wild-goose chase. Their experience was what I had anticipated. I wanted them to discover first-hand that there are many legitimate fossil discoveries about which it is very difficult to obtain information. When I was satisfied that the student had spent at least eight hours in searching for information on a particular fossil, I would give him copies of the materials in my own file on that fossil so that he could write his report. He could not possibly duplicate my 25 years of research on the human fossils in the time allotted. I do not wish to imply that the difficulty in finding material on many of the human fossils represents some kind of evolutionist plot. What happens is that only the most sensational fossil discoveries receive much publicity. Most discoveries are reported in some scientific journal and then forgotten by all but a very few experts. The fossils mentioned in most popular presentations of human evolution represent just a small portion of the total fossil material that has been uncovered. As the students prepared to write their reports, a third group comes to me. Because of the conflict they see between the shape (morphology) of their fossil and the assignment given it by evolutionists, they have questions.

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

The Fossils Falsify Evolution
Because there is an obvious conflict between the shape of some fossils and their category assignment by evolutionists, I encourage the students to go by the shape of their fossils, as documented by evolutionists themselves, in making their assessments. That is the way paleoanthropologists are supposed to do it. Then comes ‘F’ Day—Fossil Day! The students bring their reports to class and place their fossils on the master chart according to the evolutionist dating. As the process takes shape, it becomes very apparent that the human fossils do not show evolution over time. In fact, it is obvious that the fossils themselves falsify the concept of human evolution. Regarding this exercise, some people ask me, ‘Aren’t you taking quite a chance? What if the exercise doesn’t always work out that way?’ In spite of the ambiguities in many of the fossils, because of the very large number of fossils involved, the over-all testimony of the human fossils is very clear. It always works out that way! In this exercise, the stark reality of the human fossil record hits the student with greater force than anything I could have said. The key in this exercise is to study all of the relevant fossil material and to place it all on a ‘time chart’. Besides more than 300 Neandertal fossil individuals, this material includes more than 49 fossil individuals in the archaic Homo sapiens category, more than 220 fossil individuals that can properly be classified as Homo erectus, and more than 63 fossil individuals that are indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens and are dated by evolutionists from 30,000 years all the way back to 4.4 million years in the past. It is no accident that evolutionist books seldom include charts listing all of this material. For example, one of the more recent texts (1989) on the human fossils is by University of Chicago professor Richard G. Klein.2 In his 524-page work, Klein has 20 different charts dealing with various aspects of the human (hominid) fossil record. Yet, there is no way a student could get the over-all picture. The student would simply have to accept by faith Klein’s thesis that the fossils demonstrate human evolution. The one chart that would most interest students—a chart showing all of the relevant fossil material mentioned above—is not to be found anywhere. By this type of omission, the true nature of the human fossil record continues to be the best-kept secret in modern paleoanthropology<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1409.asp" target=_blank">.</a>

I see you accept the ancient nature of hominid fossil finds, so I am not sure my point was addressed to your views.

The age of the Human Race is somewhat beside the point; they have been moving it consistently backward since I was in college (35-50k then, at least 150k now). Were it to be moved back millions it would upset the present state of theory; I am not sure it would upset the theory's ultimate gist.

I looked up KMN-ER 1470, and its cranial capacity (800cc), although within range of modern humans, is about 30% less than average human size, right?

As for the Australian finds, the oldest are dated at around 30k now, up from about 10k previously. If humans are well over 100k old, I do not see why this would play into an argument on the validity of evolution.

 

[-Cp]

In a video distributed by the American Skeptics Society, Dr Michael Shermer says Charles Darwin contributed seven notable things to the world. How do these seven contributions of Darwin compare with what the Bible says?

1. Darwin 'changed the world from being seen as static to evolving' (changing). That is, microbes, over billions of years, changed into trees, animals and men. Living things do not reproduce true to their type after all, but change into different things, the evolutionist believes.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1:11-12). Things reproduce after their kind.

2. Darwin 'established the implausibility of creationism'. God did not create things; they arose through natural processes.

The Bible: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is' (Exodus 20:11).

3. Darwin 'refuted cosmic teleology' (that is, that the universe has a purpose). The existence of the universe is just a giant accident; it has no purpose.

The Bible: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork' (Psalm 19:1).

4. Darwin 'established materialistic/naturalistic philosophy'. That is, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The Bible: 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psalm 14:1).

5. Darwin 'ended Aristotelian essentialism' (that is, the belief that things live because of some vital essence, life force, or spirit, rather than because of mechanisms understandable to scientists).

The Bible: The (Darwinian) belief that life would carry on without God is not biblical. 'And he [Jesus] is before all things, and by him all things consist' [hold together] (Colossians 1:17).

6. Darwin 'refuted catastrophism'. For Darwin, present processes operating over long periods of time accounted for the world and everything in it.

The Bible: 'Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished' (2 Peter 3:3-6).

7. Darwin 'ended absolute anthropocentrism'. That is, Shermer claims that Darwin established that man is just an animal; man is nothing special. He is just another accident of cosmic evolution, with no ultimate purpose.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwin.asp" target=_blank">.</a> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them' (Genesis 1:26-27). 'The heavens declare the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1).

It should be obvious that the Bible contradicts all seven 'contributions' of Darwin in some way. Mixing the two results in an unholy mess. Do oil and water mix? What fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible — they just don't go together!

 

[USViking]

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here... I think this is a very interesting question, especially from a pro-evolution, old-earth point of view. If rock layers formed very slowly over long periods of time, how could there be all the fossil record that we see? In order for a fossil to form, the organism must be covered rapidly with sediment, or else it will rot. When we look at the fossils, we can often see fossils spanning several layers. How could the layers have slowly built up around the organism over ages of time? The exposed section of the organism would have decayed.

Bones do not exactly "rot", I don't think- they are very tough stuff.

I would think erosion and shifts in the ground could produce the effects you are speaking of.

A literal reading of Genesis gives a very good explanation for this. Most of the fossil record was created during the massive volcanic flood that covered the entire earth. The creatures were buried immediately, perhaps still alive, if they hadn't drowned.

More different species missed the Ark than made it, then.

We can also observe through repeated experiments today, that several rock layers can form simultaneously. They don't need millions of years to build up. The continuous motion of a wavy sea can sift rock particles and sediment. When the motion stops, several wet layers can be formed at once, and they harden together. We see evidence of this in rock layers which exhibit "hairpin turns," or sharp bends of several layers. These layers had to have bent while still wet, or else they would have cracked, and they are all roughly parallel.

Moisture is not needed for deformation without fissure.

 

[archangel]

Then again BS 101 takes the forefront in this posting...why are y'all arguing hypotheisis when life experience 101 is the most important factor...uh guys we are in a fight for our lives ie:the terrorist(Radical Islam) crusade to to revisit the Ottoman Empire attack on Christianity!....sigh :cof:

 

[MissileMan]

A literal reading of Genesis gives a very good explanation for this. Most of the fossil record was created during the massive volcanic flood that covered the entire earth. The creatures were buried immediately, perhaps still alive, if they hadn't drowned.

Can you provide some verses that describe this massive volcanic flood?

 

[Nuc]

I was in Tasmania at a street fair and a creationist group had a booth set up that said, "Evolution-the great lie. Darwin was wrong. The world was created 6000 years ago."

I asked them, "Hey, you guys are a comedy group right? When does the show begin?"

They said they were serious. I asked how could the world be only 6000 years old. If that were true humanity would have historical records of encounters with dinosaurs and so on.

They told me that the dinosaurs never existed. God made dinosaur fossils to trick doubting people into thinking the world has been around for more than 6000 years. And people of faith know the dinosaurs never existed.

Something to think about, I guess.

 

[archangel]

I was in Tasmania at a street fair and a creationist group had a booth set up that said, "Evolution-the great lie. Darwin was wrong. The world was created 6000 years ago."

I asked them, "Hey, you guys are a comedy group right? When does the show begin?"

They said they were serious. I asked how could the world be only 6000 years old. If that were true humanity would have historical records of encounters with dinosaurs and so on.

They told me that the dinosaurs never existed. God made dinosaur fossils to trick doubting people into thinking the world has been around for more than 6000 years. And people of faith know the dinosaurs never existed.

Something to think about, I guess.

just make this shit up as you go...c'mon at least find another area to site...Tasmania...geeeez!

 

[Nuc]

just make this shit up as you go...c'mon at least find another area to site...Tasmania...geeeez!

Sorry pal, that story is 100% true. Just because you don't travel, don't assume the same about others.

 

[Gunny]

Curious to see what people think about evolution.

Are you referring to the common misconception that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exculsive?

Evolution is the constant changing of life to adapt to its ever-changing environment. Life is either evolving or it's dead.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the various scientific theories on the origin of man as "evolution," they are no more valid, and IMO far less reasonable than a Creator.

Life, in all its forms, is too perfect to be an accident; which, is what science would have us believe. Out of nothingness -- some great void -- we just "happened." There wasn't lfe, then there was in some great, magical moment.

Sound like some superstious religious belief to me.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you referring to the common misconception that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exculsive?

Evolution is the constant changing of life to adapt to its ever-changing environment. Life is either evolving or it's dead.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the various scientific theories on the origin of man as "evolution," they are no more valid, and IMO far less reasonable than a Creator.

Life, in all its forms, is too perfect to be an accident; which, is what science would have us believe. Out of nothingness -- some great void -- we just "happened." There wasn't lfe, then there was in some great, magical moment.

Sound like some superstious religious belief to me.

I even have a hard time wrapping my mind around there ever being a void.

 

[archangel]

Sorry pal, that story is 100% true. Just because you don't travel, don't assume the same about others.

I think you watch way too many cartoons...Tasmania as in Tasmanian Devil...not the Island next to Australia...did ya surf over there from Australia too? If you were having a conversation with so called religious people... well they must have been escapees from a mental ward!