• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

FIVE FLOOD STORIES

sooda

Veteran Member
Seems legit list to me. They have twitter accounts, maybe you wanna tweet them. If they are scientists or not.

A
  • S. Thomas Abraham, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Campbell University School of Pharmacy (a religious university). Now Associate professor. Has some publications in unrelated fields.
  • Bernard d'Abrera, Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology, British Museum. A fellow of the pro-intelligent design organization International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, who has described the theory of evolution as “viscid, asphyxiating baggage” that requires “blind religious faith,” since, according to this particular PRATT, it is unfalsifiable. Arthur Shapiro aptly described d’Abrera as “profoundly anti-scientific – not unscientific, but hostile to science.”[18] According to the British Centre for Science Education, d’Abrera is not a scientist by training.[19]
  • Gary Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University. Currently works with the USDA Forest Service, doing (genuine) research on smoke management and air quality. Has dedicated himself to “removing stumbling blocks that keep God's people from coming before his throne,”[20] and written a book, “Cultural Espionage”, on the “evolution-creation controversy”.[21]
  • Joel Adams, Professor of Computer Science, Calvin College
  • Marshall Adams, Ph.D. Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Neal Adrian, Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Oklahoma
  • Domingo Aerden, Professor of Geology, Universidad de Granada
  • Rafi Ahmed, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Florida
  • Mauricio Alcocer, Director of Graduate Studies, Autonomous University of Guadalajara
  • Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
  • Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of British Columbia
  • Wesley Allen, Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
  • Gail H. Allwine, Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired), Gonzaga University
  • Jesus Ambriz, Professor of Medicine, Autonomous University of Guadalajara
  • Yoshiyuki Amemiya, Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics, The University of Tokyo
  • Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics, University of Tennessee
  • Richard Anderson, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Duke University
  • Todd A. Anderson, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Kentucky
  • Mark Apkarian, Ph.D. Exercise Physiology, University of New Mexico
  • Janice Arion, Ph.D. Animal Science, Cornell University
  • William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University
  • Neil Armitage, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town
  • D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics, Complutense University
  • Eugene C. Ashby, Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Paul Ashby, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Harvard University
  • Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Vet. School. Was the guy who was responsible for “peer reviewing” Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”; at least Behe has claimed that Atchison’s 10 minute phone communication about book with Behe counted as peer review.[22]
  • Joseph Atkinson, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Massachusets Institute of Technology
  • Gregory A. Ator, Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Kansas Medical Center
  • Richard Austin, Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences, Piedmont College
  • Douglas Axe,[23] Director, Biologic Institute. Has published real, peer-reviewed papers in real journals, which are hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views, despite the fact that the papers, even according to Axe, provides no evidence for Intelligent Design.[24] Seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would be correct,[25] which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design creationism is not a scientific theory and thus not even in the running. Struggles with basic notions of biology.[26]
Under letter A [list of Scientist dissenting Darwinism]
Sampled and confirmed:
Joel Adams

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janice-arion-1902b239



Sure Jesus mentioned parables. You know why?

Mark 4:11 New International Version (NIV)
He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

So you thought of parables because the secret of the kingdom was not given [yet] to you.



Jesus is not God - that is my position, my belief and my faith.
No Trinity for me, Jose.

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Mark 4:10-12
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Long before the Bible was written, The Flood was a blockbuster of the ancient Mesopotamian and Mediterranean worlds. It originated in Sumer over 4000 years ago.

New versions were deposited in the greatest imperial libraries of the Mesopotamian empires (Babylonia and Assyria). The Biblical authors fashioned their own versions of the tale, and post-biblical authors continued to ruminate on its potential for meaning-making.

The Flood found its proper place in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and flood stories crop up in Hindu, American Indian, and African story-telling as well.

The first known flood story comes from Sumer in the tale of Atra-hasis (19th century, BCE). This story sets the basic elements of the ancient genre: gods try to eradicate humanity, while a flood hero builds a boat to save the animals. A tragicomedy about polytheism starring petty gods who complain like tired parents annoyed by their noisy children. With plans to destroy a boisterous humanity, they are thwarted not once but three times by the flood hero’s personal god and eminent trickster, Enki.

With each divine attempt at total genocide, Enki gives the flood hero secret knowledge about which god to appease with a sacrifice. This worked against the first two rounds of disease and drought. However, Enki had to get creative for the third and final attempt. For the deluge, Enki instructs the flood hero to build a boat for family and fauna.

In this Sumerian version, the gods, like bickering politicians, provide plenty of comic relief. But two characters communicate the tragedy of the flood event: (1) the womb goddess who fashioned humanity cries: “How could I join the gods and command total destruction? I am locked in a house of lamentation.” (2) The flood hero, with scant few lines, cries: “How long will the gods make us suffer…will they make us suffer forever?”

Cruel and petty powers govern human fate, and with the exception of Enki, the gods could care less about the plight of humanity upon the earth.

If Atra-hasis paid only lip-service to the tragic, existential questions of the flood hero, the Epic of Gilgamesh shines a light on the flood hero’s excruciating experience. Dated somewhere between 1200-900 BCE, the Mesopotamian epic says little about the divine drama. We only hear that “the hearts of the gods were moved to inflict the flood.”

The rest of the tale focuses on the flood hero, who builds an ark in a brave abandonment of his wealth: “tear down the house and build a boat; abandon wealth and seek living beings; spurn possessions and keep alive living beings.”

He not only rescues his family and the animals from the deluge, he saves his workers, the craftsmen, who helped him build his boat. The moral suppleness of the flood hero crescendos with his first reaction to the post-flood world. Stepping into a sun beam, looking out the window of his ark, he sees that all humanity returned to clay, and with tears streaming down the lines of his face, he slumps down weeping.

The biblical account owes much to the Gilgamesh version in numerous nit-picky details, but not in ethos or theme. Noah never feels anything in the biblical account. Noah doesn’t even have any lines until he curses his grandson in the last chapter of the story. If Noah experienced anguish, we don’t know about it.

Noah did not give up the status of wealth or pay any mind to the genocide outside his boat. Instead, every single one of Noah’s actions fulfills a command given him by the dominant character, God.

When it comes to Noah, the Qur’anic depiction as exemplar of obedience is on point. He is an emissary, a prophet who penetrates reality with a perfect understanding of the Sacred. His exemplary ability to follow divine commands marks him as a “true messenger of Allah.”

While Islamic tradition focuses on the character of Noah, the Genesis Flood is entirely about God, about a new monotheistic construal of both divine judgment and the pro-human reversal of that judgment. With no comedy to speak of, God sees human behavior, regrets that he made humans, overwhelms them with a flood, changes his mind about how to manage human behavior, and needs the rainbow as a reminder not to fly off the divine handle at them in the future.

Along with the character of God and this newly minted monotheism, the biblical authors take up the problem The Flood attempts to solve. Human violence in the antediluvian world, best represented by Cain’s murder of Abel, springs from the evil machinations of man.

After the flood, God issues the first religious law. It’s about blood and ultimately about being responsible for the blood you shed (animal and human blood). When Darren Aronofsky’s Noah depicts the ground saturated with blood, he’s hit a major theme of the Genesis Flood. In Aronofsky’s cities of Cain, both animal and human blood run wet over the ground with impunity, and Russell Crowe’s red feet show us the meaning of a world gone bad.

The biblical Flood emphasizes the unique role humans played in corrupting the earth. In contrast, the post-biblical tradition of Enochic Judaism lays blame on a human civilization that was corrupted by supernatural forces.

Society is shot through with war, industry, and vainglory, all of which were taught by fallen angels. Called Watchers, these divine dissidents not only gave nascent humans the wrong advice about building their world, they ravished human women to produce destructive giants who cannibalize each other and wreak nothing but military havoc over the land.

The Enochic Flood has a major job to do. This is a world of cultural decay, upturned by massively destructive forces of real consequence and fantastic origin. The Flood itself is hardly reported, but Enochic readers can rest assured in its justification.
If the story of Enoch’s Watchers cleanses society, the Hindu flood myth cleanses the mind.

The ancient Hindu scriptures emphasize a novel feature of The Flood: enlightenment. In the Mahabharata (and later in the Puranas), the flood hero rides out the deluge in a boat with animals just like Noah. But Manu, the Hindu protagonist of the Flood, does not bring his family; rather he is joined by seven sages. The fish that pulls the boat reveals himself at the end as the deity, Brahma, who teaches them austerities so they might acquire power over illusions. The Hindu flood hero emerges with new insight and wisdom.

With such an ancient and cross-cultural pedigree, among the earliest stories written down by civilized humans, The Flood is less like a fixed tale etched on a tablet and more like an arrow, shooting through time. Indeed, it shoots straight to the heart of what it means to be human. The Flood forces us to grapple with the deeply impersonal forces of the universe that are set against human civilization. It is a story about the end of an age, a massive transition.

And in the flood hero, we have a basic personality type, someone who cannot reconcile himself to the world as it currently stands, who does not feel at home. And though epically and in some cases tragically destructive, The Flood is also about healing.

With Noah, Darren Aronofsky has joined himself to a powerful and creative stream of religious meaning-making offering numerous throw-backs, references, and truly novel innovations on the Great Flood story. This may be a biblical re-telling or it may not be, but it most certainly is a Flood story. Noah is The Flood. This is our world and this is our story. Or if it’s not, write another one.



http://religiondispatches.org/five-flood-stories-you-didnt-know-about/


The Gilgamesh epic is more likely a corruption of the flood of Noah.

Consider the Gilgamesh epic... a cube shaped boat that would float over the ocean like a volleyball?

Consider the Noah Epic... a ship shapes like a boat and with very stable dimensions for withstanding high waves

There are numerous flood legends and many more than five. I believe the original is the Noah Epic.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The Gilgamesh epic is more likely a corruption of the flood of Noah.

Consider the Gilgamesh epic... a cube shaped boat that would float over the ocean like a volleyball?

Consider the Noah Epic... a ship shapes like a boat and with very stable dimensions for withstanding high waves

There are numerous flood legends and many more than five. I would say the original is the Noah Epic.

Noah's Ark was shaped like a box..

Gilgamesh is much older.. The myths were written on clay tablets found in Sumer, Babylon, the Ugarit and Dilmun 1500 years before Abraham's time.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Noah's Ark was shaped like a box..

Gilgamesh is much older.. The myths were written on clay tablets found in Sumer, Babylon, the Ugarit and Dilmun 1500 years before Abraham's time.

Noah predated Abraham

I think you're mything the boat.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Noah predated Abraham

I think you're mything the boat.

No.. That's why it was called an Ark.. and ark is a box.

The Jewish world is only 5778 years since Creation. The civilizations of Sumer, Dilmun and Egypt are older than that.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Seems legit list to me. They have twitter accounts, maybe you wanna tweet them. If they are scientists or not.

A
  • S. Thomas Abraham, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Campbell University School of Pharmacy (a religious university). Now Associate professor. Has some publications in unrelated fields.
  • Bernard d'Abrera, Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology, British Museum. A fellow of the pro-intelligent design organization International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, who has described the theory of evolution as “viscid, asphyxiating baggage” that requires “blind religious faith,” since, according to this particular PRATT, it is unfalsifiable. Arthur Shapiro aptly described d’Abrera as “profoundly anti-scientific – not unscientific, but hostile to science.”[18] According to the British Centre for Science Education, d’Abrera is not a scientist by training.[19]
  • Gary Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University. Currently works with the USDA Forest Service, doing (genuine) research on smoke management and air quality. Has dedicated himself to “removing stumbling blocks that keep God's people from coming before his throne,”[20] and written a book, “Cultural Espionage”, on the “evolution-creation controversy”.[21]
  • Joel Adams, Professor of Computer Science, Calvin College
  • Marshall Adams, Ph.D. Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Neal Adrian, Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Oklahoma
  • Domingo Aerden, Professor of Geology, Universidad de Granada
  • Rafi Ahmed, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Florida
  • Mauricio Alcocer, Director of Graduate Studies, Autonomous University of Guadalajara
  • Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
  • Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of British Columbia
  • Wesley Allen, Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
  • Gail H. Allwine, Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired), Gonzaga University
  • Jesus Ambriz, Professor of Medicine, Autonomous University of Guadalajara
  • Yoshiyuki Amemiya, Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics, The University of Tokyo
  • Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics, University of Tennessee
  • Richard Anderson, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Duke University
  • Todd A. Anderson, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Kentucky
  • Mark Apkarian, Ph.D. Exercise Physiology, University of New Mexico
  • Janice Arion, Ph.D. Animal Science, Cornell University
  • William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University
  • Neil Armitage, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town
  • D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics, Complutense University
  • Eugene C. Ashby, Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Paul Ashby, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Harvard University
  • Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Vet. School. Was the guy who was responsible for “peer reviewing” Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”; at least Behe has claimed that Atchison’s 10 minute phone communication about book with Behe counted as peer review.[22]
  • Joseph Atkinson, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Massachusets Institute of Technology
  • Gregory A. Ator, Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Kansas Medical Center
  • Richard Austin, Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences, Piedmont College
  • Douglas Axe,[23] Director, Biologic Institute. Has published real, peer-reviewed papers in real journals, which are hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views, despite the fact that the papers, even according to Axe, provides no evidence for Intelligent Design.[24] Seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would be correct,[25] which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design creationism is not a scientific theory and thus not even in the running. Struggles with basic notions of biology.[26]
Under letter A [list of Scientist dissenting Darwinism]
Sampled and confirmed:
Joel Adams

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janice-arion-1902b239



Sure Jesus mentioned parables. You know why?

Mark 4:11 New International Version (NIV)
He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

So you thought of parables because the secret of the kingdom was not given [yet] to you.



Jesus is not God - that is my position, my belief and my faith.
No Trinity for me, Jose.

This is early on in that so called petitions time. Some honest scientists that understood evolution were taken in and signed it, but very very few. Many of them demanded that their name be taken off but the dishonest people behind that did not do it. Your list is self refuting. Practically no biologists in the field and I doubt if the few that you have found believe that. For actual scientists in the field the acceptance of evolution is over 99%. In any large enough field you will find a few cranks. That there are so few tell us that evolution is all but universally accepted

For all scientists the acceptance rate is over 99%. For biologists and paleontologists the acceptance is over 99%. Watch this video if you want to see how your source is dishonest:


 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
This is early on in that so called petitions time. Some honest scientists that understood evolution were taken in and signed it, but very very few. Many of them demanded that their name be taken off but the dishonest people behind that did not do it. Your list is self refuting. Practically no biologists in the field and I doubt if the few that you have found believe that. For actual scientists in the field the acceptance of evolution is over 99%. In any large enough field you will find a few cranks. That there are so few tell us that evolution is all but universally accepted

For all scientists the acceptance rate is over 99%. For biologists and paleontologists the acceptance is over 99%. Watch this video if you want to see how your source is dishonest:



Even many biblical believers accept that mankind had developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors, and that the Son of Man, according to our concept of one directional linear time, is still yet developing within the body of Mankind, and when the umbilical cord is severed, he is able to mentally/spiritually descend into his dead past and reveal himself and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the sins of the flesh in which he developed, as we all are held accountable for the sins of our flesh.

But many atheists cannot accept this, they seem to believe that mankind closed the book on evolution, and that nothing can evolve from Man, who currently stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution, and is the MOST HIGH in the creation.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
The Gilgamesh epic is more likely a corruption of the flood of Noah.

Consider the Gilgamesh epic... a cube shaped boat that would float over the ocean like a volleyball?

Consider the Noah Epic... a ship shapes like a boat and with very stable dimensions for withstanding high waves

There are numerous flood legends and many more than five. I believe the original is the Noah Epic.

I'm with you mate.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Even many biblical believers accept that mankind had developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors, and that the Son of Man, according to our concept of one directional linear time, is still yet developing within the body of Mankind, and when the umbilical cord is severed, he is able to mentally/spiritually descend into his dead past and reveal himself and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the sins of the flesh in which he developed, as we all are held accountable for the sins of our flesh.

But many atheists cannot accept this, they seem to believe that mankind closed the book on evolution, and that nothing can evolve from Man, who currently stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution, and is the MOST HIGH in the creation.
Atheists tend to be more moral than those Christians and understand how one cannot inherit a sinful nature for something that they never did. And Christians tend to be the ones that avoid accountability for their wrong doings. Please do not accuse me of your flaws.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
The Gilgamesh epic is more likely a corruption of the flood of Noah.
All the evidence points to the Gilgamesh epic being older. I do not see what you are basing your claim on, unless it is a desire to support a view of biblical infallibility.

Consider the Gilgamesh epic... a cube shaped boat that would float over the ocean like a volleyball?
So. The Noah story is a corruption of that, not a complete copy. Volleyballs are not cube-shaped, but I do not see how that description of floating like an inflated ball does not apply to the ark of Noah as well.

Consider the Noah Epic... a ship shapes like a boat and with very stable dimensions for withstanding high waves
Somebody familiar with the Gilgamesh story and with a passing knowledge--not a lot--of boat construction was involved in the rewrite. That is very likely given the difference in age of the two stories.

There are numerous flood legends and many more than five.
Not all cultures have flood stories like the Gilgamesh or Noah story. Not all cultures have flood myths of any kind. Those that do, are often about local flooding more often than some global flood. Many that have global flood stories were in contact with cultures that had those same stories and it is very likely and in some cases, well established that the stories are cultural contamination.

I believe the original is the Noah Epic.
Sure. Believe whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary. You are free to.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
All the evidence points to the Gilgamesh epic being older. I do not see what you are basing your claim on, unless it is a desire to support a view of biblical infallibility.

So. The Noah story is a corruption of that, not a complete copy. Volleyballs are not cube-shaped, but I do not see how that description of floating like an inflated ball does not apply to the ark of Noah as well.

Somebody familiar with the Gilgamesh story and with a passing knowledge--not a lot--of boat construction was involved in the rewrite. That is very likely given the difference in age of the two stories.

Not all cultures have flood stories like the Gilgamesh or Noah story. Not all cultures have flood myths of any kind. Those that do, are often about local flooding more often than some global flood. Many that have global flood stories were in contact with cultures that had those same stories and it is very likely and in some cases, well established that the stories are cultural contamination.

Sure. Believe whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary. You are free to.

In EVERY flood story that Anointed listed there were survivors so the Noah's Ark (box) story clearly doesn't float.... and of course Egypt, China, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula, Ireland and Mesopotamia were NEVER underwater.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
In EVERY flood story that Anointed listed there were survivors so the Noah's Ark (box) story clearly doesn't float.... and of course Egypt, China, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula, Ireland and Mesopotamia were NEVER underwater.
Survivors where they should not exist and continuous culture where they should not exist along with heaps of other evidence refuting a global flood and still the demand that the story should be taken literally.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Mark 4:10-12

That's in the bible.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
This is early on in that so called petitions time. Some honest scientists that understood evolution were taken in and signed it, but very very few. Many of them demanded that their name be taken off but the dishonest people behind that did not do it. Your list is self refuting. Practically no biologists in the field and I doubt if the few that you have found believe that. For actual scientists in the field the acceptance of evolution is over 99%. In any large enough field you will find a few cranks. That there are so few tell us that evolution is all but universally accepted

For all scientists the acceptance rate is over 99%. For biologists and paleontologists the acceptance is over 99%. Watch this video if you want to see how your source is dishonest:



Even they are a thousand too few, they make sense.


In the video it discusses the improbability of
DNA protein forming by chance
The first step of life.

I even asked @blü 2 the question
can nothing make something?
He acknowledge with the answer - "Never"
I think that is a basic truth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Gilgamesh text is not older than the Hebrew oral story as handed down from generation to generation.

What evidence do you have for an oral tradition? Are you saying that the Hebrews were not as bright as the Babylonians since they managed to get their story on paper first?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Even they are a thousand too few, they make sense.


In the video it discusses the improbability of
DNA protein forming by chance
The first step of life.

I even asked @blü 2 the question
can nothing make something?
He acknowledge with the answer - "Never"
I think that is a basic truth.
This is why I keep saying that you are relying on idiots and liars. DNA did not form from "pure chance". They are once again either lying or idiots. It formed from RNA which itself formed by following the laws of chemistry. Their odds are wrong since they approached the problem incorrectly.

The fact that you cannot find real scientists that support these claims should tell you something.
 
Top