Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

[Nimos]

Surely you can't reasonably assume that an Atheist would be better qualified to explain the Bible? You guys and gals sure do have some imagination.

That was not really my question. It was about who were a better candidate for explaining it?

Also im not really sure why you would say that atheists have such wild imagination, after all we are not the ones claiming people rise from the dead, walk on water or turn water into wine. What exactly are we claiming that are so imaginary that its to much to be true?

First, you disqualify yourself, by denying any evidence of God, and without evidence claim there is no God.

I don't deny evidence, rather im waiting for some to be presented that points towards what is claimed. Wouldn't that be the same as to say that no one is allowed to comment on Islam unless they are a muslim, because clearly anyone else would deny what they are saying and therefore disqualify themselves? And if the muslims are the only ones that are qualified, then obviously Islam must be true.

According to the Bible writers, what was written, is by spirit, so it is not possible for someone who rejects the source of that spirit... let alone, the spirit itself, to grasp the content.
That person is merely deceiving themselves.

That might be a claim that they make. Which also should make everyone demand evidence for it. Simply claiming something doesn't make it so.

Those who have the spirit of God understand, and are in a position to explain it, (Acts 28:25-28; Proverbs 28:5)

Yet those with this spirit, still seems incapable of providing evidence that would convince someone that disagree.

 

[nPeace]

Why not?

I explained above.
Why. Did you miss that too.

You assume creationists are better qualified to explain evolutionary biology, don't you?

No. I believe all persons are in a position to point out what they consider flaws in opinions... on both sides. That is what we all have brains for.
It is up to the one with the opinion, to provide enough evidence to refute the criticism.
Some people feel that no one should question scientific dogma, and those same persons will say they agree that one should question it.
They seem to contradict themselves.

Scientists have beliefs too. They have opinions, and these are not right because they come from scientists.
That would be equivalent to making scientists infallible... like gods. ...and science would be a religion with religious doctrines.

 

[nPeace]

That was not really my question. It was about who were a better candidate for explaining it?

Also im not really sure why you would say that atheists have such wild imagination, after all we are not the ones claiming people rise from the dead, walk on water or turn water into wine. What exactly are we claiming that are so imaginary that its to much to be true?

Why do yo consider miracles imagined... Is that because you presume that there is nothing possible beyond man's knowledge, or understanding?
Doesn't that suggest that Atheists are not interested in evidence? They always start with a foregone conclusion, and without evidence, clam that their presumption is right.
Isn't that what is meant by Psalms 10:4?
Even though that's the way of Atheists, some don't always stay that way. Have you met Jim Warner Wallace.

I don't deny evidence, rather im waiting for some to be presented that points towards what is claimed. Wouldn't that be the same as to say that no one is allowed to comment on Islam unless they are a muslim, because clearly anyone else would deny what they are saying and therefore disqualify themselves? And if the muslims are the only ones that are qualified, then obviously Islam must be true.

Really? Really? So all the other Atheists - including Anthony Flew, were deluded, and jumped on the unpopular band wagon...
Don't worry, I understand that we each have to choose our path.

The example you used there is not a good one. If you had used the Quran, that would be appropriate, I think.
One has to read the Qur'an and get the spirit of what Muhammad wrote, before they can say they can critique it. It's not about Muslims, or Christians. It's about the writings.

That might be a claim that they make. Which also should make everyone demand evidence for it. Simply claiming something doesn't make it so.


Yet those with this spirit, still seems incapable of providing evidence that would convince someone that disagree.

You started with a wrong idea.
I say I have God's spirit, so therefore I must have God's spirit...
No. Everyone claiming to be a Christian is not following Christ, therefore they don't have God's spirit... no matter how much they quote scripture. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Those with God's spirit speak with one voice - in agreement.

 

[Nimos]

Why do yo consider miracles imagined... Is that because you presume that there is nothing possible beyond man's knowledge, or understanding?

I never said that. But I would not take someone's word on them having experienced a miracle as evidence for it. It doesn't mean that the person is lying or didn't experience something.

It is no difference in my eyes, as to people claiming to having been abducted by aliens. I wouldn't believe them either, even though its not a miracle. To me its about what fits into reality.

We have no physical evidence for aliens existing. We have a whole scientific community explaining what it would require to travel around the universe based on the knowledge we have today and it is not easy. There are no logical explanations to why aliens capable of travelling the Universe would not just announce their presence to us. If they want to study us for science, they could do so without us being able to interfere anyway. Yet cattle mutilations and abducting people on remote roads is what they care about. etc. etc. Adding it all together it is just not a very convincing case. So, Im not going to take their word for it, just as im not going to just accept someone claiming a miracle because they say so. Where would you stop then? If you believe in miracles, then why not ghosts? Aliens? Healing stones? and so on. If you believe in miracles, what would make you exclude these things? At least we are living proof that life exists in the Universe, giving a huge checkmark to aliens at least, as that is a pretty good start, much better than any of the others.

Doesn't that suggest that Atheists are not interested in evidence? They always start with a foregone conclusion, and without evidence, clam that their presumption is right.

It have nothing to do with being atheist. If I told you that I saw big foot last time I were taking a walk in the forest, you would be in your right mind to be skeptic about that. And also I would be very surprised if you just accepted it and then started telling others that big foot clearly existed because I told you.

Isn't that what is meant by Psalms 10:4?

The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks. And its from Psalms as well, so you consider that wise words as well?

Psalms 137:8–9
8. O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Even though that's the way of Atheists, some don't always stay that way. Have you met Jim Warner Wallace.

Never heard of him, but watched the video. And Im surprised of his reasoning. To make a comparison of what he is saying, it would be like him going to a crime scene and having a look around. And when he is not able to find any convincing evidence that points to the murderer, then everything goes. According to his logic, in such cases alien abduction could be a reasonable explanation then. I doubt you will find a lot of homicide investigation reports which haven't been solved, that would suggest that the supernatural is likely to be the best explanation and then consider the case closed. Obviously I might be wrong as I do not have any background in homicide investigations, but if Im wrong and in fact many of these cases suggest a supernatural explanation, then I would vote for the whole system to get a remake.

The example you used there is not a good one. If you had used the Quran, that would be appropriate, I think.
One has to read the Qur'an and get the spirit of what Muhammad wrote, before they can say they can critique it. It's not about Muslims, or Christians. It's about the writings.

The question still stands, who you would consider a good candidate then, regardless of my examples being good or bad?

 

[nPeace]

I never said that. But I would not take someone's word on them having experienced a miracle as evidence for it. It doesn't mean that the person is lying or didn't experience something.

It is no difference in my eyes, as to people claiming to having been abducted by aliens. I wouldn't believe them either, even though its not a miracle. To me its about what fits into reality.

We have no physical evidence for aliens existing. We have a whole scientific community explaining what it would require to travel around the universe based on the knowledge we have today and it is not easy. There are no logical explanations to why aliens capable of travelling the Universe would not just announce their presence to us. If they want to study us for science, they could do so without us being able to interfere anyway. Yet cattle mutilations and abducting people on remote roads is what they care about. etc. etc. Adding it all together it is just not a very convincing case. So, Im not going to take their word for it, just as im not going to just accept someone claiming a miracle because they say so. Where would you stop then? If you believe in miracles, then why not ghosts? Aliens? Healing stones? and so on. If you believe in miracles, what would make you exclude these things? At least we are living proof that life exists in the Universe, giving a huge checkmark to aliens at least, as that is a pretty good start, much better than any of the others.


It have nothing to do with being atheist. If I told you that I saw big foot last time I were talking a walk in the forest, you would be in your right mind to be skeptic about that. And also I would be very surprised if you just accepted it and then started telling others that big foot clearly existed because I told you.


The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks. And its from Psalms as well, so you consider that wise words as well?

Psalms 137:8–9
8. O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Okay then. So this is coming from someone who can inform me about the Bible.
Can we both agree that Atheists, especially, do a terrible job at picking apart the scriptures?
Let me help you with that.

Babylon is doomed to be destroyed. Correct?
Who will be her destroyer?
In case you are not into history much... Answer - Fall of Babylon - Wikipedia & Babylonia
So who delighted in dashing the children to pieces?

Here we see a clear example of how skeptics read the Bible, and then claims, the Bible says...
It's like reading, David slew the Giant Goliath, and took off his head, therefore the Bible says we should slay our enemies with the sword, and take off their head.
I think you would do better if you stick to the parts that are easier to understand, like ..."and God said..."

I don't want to repeat why you will always fail, but it would be good to take these little lessons into consideration.

Never heard of him, but watched the video. And Im surprised of his reasoning. To make a comparison of what he is saying, it would be like him going to a crime scene and having a look around. And when he is not able to find any convincing evidence that points to the murderer, then everything goes. According to his logic, in such cases alien abduction could be a reasonable explanation then. I doubt you will find a lot of homicide investigation reports which haven't been solved, that would suggest that the supernatural is likely to be the best explanation and then consider the case closed. Obviously I might be wrong as I do not have any background in homicide investigations, but if Im wrong and in fact many of these cases suggest a supernatural explanation, then I would vote for the whole system to get a remake.

Sounds to me your bias is speaking here.
This detective has a reputation of solving some of the hardest cases.
He's good at what he does, and he did what you seem unwilling to do - be open-minded, and not be glued to volition.

I think it's only fueling your skepticism, and no kind of blindness is a friend of ours.
By the way, the detective used other evidence. He doesn't just take the Witnesses word for it. You can see what other evidence he used, by looking at his videos... if you are interested.
Five Reasons to Trust the Bible.
A Key Reason Skeptics Reject the Resurrection
Speaking from his experience, as a skeptics, and the experience of other skeptics.

The question still stands, who you would consider a good candidate then, regardless of my examples being good or bad?

I explained that, in the same post where I said it.
Perhaps you didn't understand it. Now would that convince you to believe me?

 

[Nimos]

Here we see a clear example of how skeptics read the Bible, and then claims, the Bible says...

Not sure what you mean about a clear example?

Psalms 137:1-9
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows in that land, we hung up our harps.
3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs. Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy: “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you; if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, Yahweh, against the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, “Raze it! Raze it even to its foundation!”
8 Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, he will be happy who rewards you, as you have served us.
9 Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

How would you understand this any other way, that "Happy shall he be" referring to "Yahweh"

Sounds to me your bias is speaking here.
This detective has a reputation of solving some of the hardest cases.

Try to watch the video again. How on earth can a resurrection of a dead person, be more likely than someone lying? Clearly his criteria and demands for evidences are not equal. He might be good at solving homicides, just as there are good religious scientists. But clearly he is not qualified to solve 2000 year old crucifixions.

 

[nPeace]

Not sure what you mean about a clear example?

Psalms 137:1-9
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows in that land, we hung up our harps.
3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs. Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy: “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you; if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, Yahweh, against the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, “Raze it! Raze it even to its foundation!”
8 Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, he will be happy who rewards you, as you have served us.
9 Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

How would you understand this any other way, that "Happy shall he be" referring to "Yahweh"


Try to watch the video again. How on earth can a resurrection of a dead person, be more likely than someone lying? Clearly his criteria and demands for evidences are not equal. He might be good at solving homicides, just as there are good religious scientists. But clearly he is not qualified to solve 2000 year old crucifixions.

Clearly, you cannot follow his lines of reason, because as I said before... No need for me to repeat.

You have interpreted the scriptures the way you think is right, and I doubt anyone can convince you, otherwise. If a score of Biblical scholars suggested you were wrong, I'm sure you would still be right... in your mind.

So first...
You said...The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks.
Do you admit that you are wrong and the Bible did not say that.

Second...
Do you think this is the thread for this exercise, since I assume you have a barrage of scriptures you picked out to have a go are proving your objections valid?
Or would it not be better to create a new thread appropriate for that?
You can let me know.

Third...
While you are considering another thread, consider answering the question... who are the children of Edom?

 

[Nimos]

You have interpreted the scriptures the way you think is right, and I doubt anyone can convince you, otherwise. If a score of Biblical scholars suggested you were wrong, I'm sure you would still be right... in your mind.

Obviously not, but I would also expect them with their knowledge to present an excellent case for why I was wrong. If that were the case I would change my views. I mean I didn't just read the bible and came to a lot of conclusions about it. If you remember I linked you two lectures from Yale university, which is approximately 50-56 hours of bible history, and have nothing to do with whether you are religious or not, Christian or none Christian. So obviously as they explain a lot of things in context to why things are as they are, where there might not be consensus about something, then I adjust my views. These are just some of the stuff, I have watched a lot of debates, both between atheists and religious people, but also purely religious vs religious one.

But if someone say that they can proof that Jesus was the son of God for instant, and then instantly follow it up by saying.. "If we look at Luke X,X, it clearly say so.." then I do not find that to be valid evidence. Therefore I do not tend to care to much whether something we can't know is either. Simply because we can't verify it. But historically we can compare text and events with other texts and stuff we know about that period of time. We can also look at the character of Jesus and ask questions why some Jews might have seen him as the Messias, what does it mean to be the Messias and so on. None of which have anything to do with whether Jesus were the son of God or not.

You said...The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks.
Do you admit that you are wrong and the Bible did not say that.

I already quote where it says so. Obviously it doesn't mean that you should throw all babies into the rocks. But still I think you miss the point. Because this is about what one could consider pleasing to God, if he does not like them. So to me, I find it strange, how one can justify it. Because to me it would not matter, if a person came to me and said "I think its fine to throw African babies at the rocks, because I don't like them. But surely not those from Norway." What does it matter if its African or Norwegian babies? Don't throw any babies at the rocks you maniac!!

It doesn't make God any better if its only the Babylonian babies, what type of reasoning is that?

Second...
Do you think this is the thread for this exercise, since I assume you have a barrage of scriptures you picked out to have a go are proving your objections valid?
Or would it not be better to create a new thread appropriate for that?
You can let me know.

Well I answer what is written, its is not aimed at going anywhere in particular. But if I recall you correctly you have quoted quite a few yourself

While you are considering another thread, consider answering the question... who are the children of Edom?

The Edomites I would assume, or do you mean the children of Esau? Not really sure how its relevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

I explained above.
Why. Did you miss that too.

I saw it. Rather silly IMO.

No. I believe all persons are in a position to point out what they consider flaws in opinions... on both sides. That is what we all have brains for.
It is up to the one with the opinion, to provide enough evidence to refute the criticism.

So when it comes to science, everyone is equally qualified to critique it. But when it comes to your religious beliefs, only those who already believe (i.e. those who have "the spirit") it can critique it.

That's rather convenient.

Some people feel that no one should question scientific dogma, and those same persons will say they agree that one should question it.
They seem to contradict themselves.

Who said that, and where did they say it?

Scientists have beliefs too. They have opinions, and these are not right because they come from scientists.
That would be equivalent to making scientists infallible... like gods. ...and science would be a religion with religious doctrines.

As we covered earlier, we can tell whether a scientist's work is valid by what it leads to. If it leads to additional research and discoveries, and increases our understanding of the world, the work is highly likely to be accurate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you describe seems to be the m.o. of people with untenable positions.
A whistle-blower raises concerns about potential illegality in a politician's phone call to a foreign official. An investigation ensures. Rather than provide evidence showing that the call was legal, the official attacks the whistle -blower.
A creationist claims evidence X is false. The creationist is asked for an explanation. The creationist attacks those asking for an explanation to avoid having to admit they cannot understand the evidence much less show that it is false.
All cut from the same cheesy, thin, oily cloth.

Apparently, this tissue thin strategy is obvious to everyone except the creationist engaging in it. To them, they have fooled the world.

 

[nPeace]

Obviously not, but I would also expect them with their knowledge to present an excellent case for why I was wrong. If that were the case I would change my views. I mean I didn't just read the bible and came to a lot of conclusions about it. If you remember I linked you two lectures from Yale university, which is approximately 50-56 hours of bible history, and have nothing to do with whether you are religious or not, Christian or none Christian. So obviously as they explain a lot of things in context to why things are as they are, where there might not be consensus about something, then I adjust my views. These are just some of the stuff, I have watched a lot of debates, both between atheists and religious people, but also purely religious vs religious one.

But if someone say that they can proof that Jesus was the son of God for instant, and then instantly follow it up by saying.. "If we look at Luke X,X, it clearly say so.." then I do not find that to be valid evidence. Therefore I do not tend to care to much whether something we can't know is either. Simply because we can't verify it. But historically we can compare text and events with other texts and stuff we know about that period of time. We can also look at the character of Jesus and ask questions why some Jews might have seen him as the Messias, what does it mean to be the Messias and so on. None of which have anything to do with whether Jesus were the son of God or not.

Okay. Thanks for that.

I already quote where it says so. Obviously it doesn't mean that you should throw all babies into the rocks. But still I think you miss the point. Because this is about what one could consider pleasing to God, if he does not like them. So to me, I find it strange, how one can justify it. Because to me it would not matter, if a person came to me and said "I think its fine to throw African babies at the rocks, because I don't like them. But surely not those from Norway." What does it matter if its African or Norwegian babies? Don't throw any babies at the rocks you maniac!!

It doesn't make God any better if its only the Babylonian babies, what type of reasoning is that?

Okay. Thanks for that.

Well I answer what is written, its is not aimed at going anywhere in particular. But if I recall you correctly you have quoted quite a few yourself

I really thought it would have ended here, but then after a few more posts, you threw in another scripture. It was then, that it seemed apparent it wasn't about to end too soon, as you seemed to want to know how I would respond to particular scriptures you felt were valid reasons for dismissing the Bible.
It was at that point, I though it might go on way too long on Biblical issues in a thread about creation verses evolution.
I don't feel comfortable derailing threads. As a person who likes organization, I think someone interested in a topic, should be able to come on a forum, go to the title of their preference, and find conversation on that.

So if you are interested, I can continue this topic on the Bible, in a tread on the Bible.

The Edomites I would assume, or do you mean the children of Esau? Not really sure how its relevant.

Good. Meet me here, to find out why it is relevant.

 

[nPeace]

I saw it. Rather silly IMO.


So when it comes to science, everyone is equally qualified to critique it. But when it comes to your religious beliefs, only those who already believe (i.e. those who have "the spirit") it can critique it.

That's rather convenient.

Did I say that? Nope.

Who said that, and where did they say it?


As we covered earlier, we can tell whether a scientist's work is valid by what it leads to. If it leads to additional research and discoveries, and increases our understanding of the world, the work is highly likely to be accurate.

Oh good science depends on what it leads to. ...and here I thought good science was based on other things.
What is Good Science?
The rules of good science

One can claim (forget about honesty) a theory leads to something, when in fact, it's the field of study that led to increased understanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did I say that? Nope.

Which part? Do you think some people are more qualified than others to critique science? Do you believe a person doesn't need to have "the spirit" to evaluate the Bible?

Oh good science depends on what it leads to. ...and here I thought good science was based on other things.
What is Good Science?
The rules of good science

Those links are correct in that they describe how to do proper science. But how do we tell if the outcome of that process is valid and accurate? That's where what I described comes in...does it lead to new areas of research and new fields of study, and does it increase our understanding of the world?

One can claim (forget about honesty) a theory leads to something, when in fact, it's the field of study that led to increased understanding.

As the papers you cited in our discussion of junk DNA show, evolutionary common ancesrty most definitely has met the criteria above.

 

[nPeace]

Which part? Do you think some people are more qualified than others to critique science? Do you believe a person doesn't need to have "the spirit" to evaluate the Bible?


Those links are correct in that they describe how to do proper science. But how do we tell if the outcome of that process is valid and accurate? That's where what I described comes in...does it lead to new areas of research and new fields of study, and does it increase our understanding of the world?


As the papers you cited in our discussion of junk DNA show, evolutionary common ancesrty most definitely has met the criteria above.

This is English Jose Fly. No?
It's frustrating when you ask questions that are answered in a post, you supposedly read.
Maybe it is impossible for you to understand what I say.
So. I give up, because I think I know why, but then at times like this, I wonder if I really do.

Sorry, but no repeats are necessary here.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is English Jose Fly. No?
It's frustrating when you ask questions that are answered in a post, you supposedly read.
Maybe it is impossible for you to understand what I say.
So. I give up, because I think I know why, but then at times like this, I wonder if I really do.

Sorry, but no repeats are necessary here.

Lol...once again you post something vague, someone replies, you say "that's not what I meant", someone asks what you did mean, and you refuse to say.

And I noticed how you again ignore the fact that the material you cited illustrates the validity of evolutionary common ancestry.

So predictable.

 

[nPeace]

Lol...once again you post something vague, someone replies, you say "that's not what I meant", someone asks what you did mean, and you refuse to say.

And I noticed how you again ignore the fact that the material you cited illustrates the validity of evolutionary common ancestry.

So predictable.

It's not predictable, I'm sure.
You are just doing your best to misrepresent the truth of this situation... which is to follow me around on threads, and try to push your belief, and when I don't respond, make up ridiculous claims... all because you are hurt that I won't continue to discuss that belief with you.
So you feel that you are scoring every time you do that.
I hope your belt is long enough to hold the notches, or you have a long enough slate and enough chalk. You'll need them.

Don't feel bad though. You tried. You failed. That's life.
"Smart" people don't always hit.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not predictable, I'm sure.
You are just doing your best to misrepresent the truth of this situation...

So when I ask you to clarify what you mean, I'm misrepresenting you. Lol.

which is to follow me around on threads, and try to push your belief, and when I don't respond, make up ridiculous claims

As you noted earlier, this is a public debate forum. Therefore everything anyone posts is likely to be replied to and challenged by anyone else. If you're uncomfortable with that, I suggest you find a different place to post your views.

... all because you are hurt that I won't continue to discuss that belief with you.

Sweetie....darling...I've got news for you....you aren't that important. To me you're just one more in a very long line of creationists I've debated over the last 15- 20 years. At some point you'll leave RF and no one will really care.

So you feel that you are scoring every time you do that.
I hope your belt is long enough to hold the notches, or you have a long enough slate and enough chalk. You'll need them.

Don't feel bad though. You tried. You failed. That's life.
"Smart" people don't always hit.

That's quite an interesting choice of words. Very revealing.

 

[nPeace]

So when I ask you to clarify what you mean, I'm misrepresenting you. Lol.


As you noted earlier, this is a public debate forum. Therefore everything anyone posts is likely to be replied to and challenged by anyone else. If you're uncomfortable with that, I suggest you find a different place to post your views.


Sweetie....darling...I've got news for you....you aren't that important. To me you're just one more in a very long line of creationists I've debated over the last 15- 20 years. At some point you'll leave RF and no one will really care.


That's quite an interesting choice of words. Very revealing.

Great! Stated clearly. Now that that is clear, we both understand what to expect... hopefully.

 

[Jim]

Sweetie....darling...I've got news for you....you aren't that important. To me you're just one more in a very long line of creationists I've debated over the last 15- 20 years. At some point you'll leave RF and no one will really care.

I call that verbal abuse, the same kind of abuse that is used in domestic violence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I call that verbal abuse, the same kind of abuse that is used in domestic violence.

Lol....Oh no, someone told me I'm not that important to them! Whatever shall I do?

Get a grip bud.