Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

I don't even know what I believe most of the time.

I believe in evolution. I know what my political beliefs are.

But beyond that, idk. I consider myself an agnostic these days.

In the past four years I've looked into Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Pagan, and various other ideas. This isn't counting 18 years of baptist doctrine. Spiritually I'm all over the place. I think there is something just beyong the edge of perception but beyond that I don't really have a concrete idea.
 
I wonder how evolution has taken place on other planets and moons. I know a lot of comics like the Superman and Avatar want us to think it would be similar and in humanoid form just like Earth, but I doubt it highly. Those places would have similar, but greatly varying environments on them.

Actually, if the goldilocks concept is true, and if the panspermia hypothesis is true... combined with convergent evolution... we will very likely encounter some very humanoid aliens outside the Solar System.
 
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”

- Carl Sagan
 
I don't even know what I believe most of the time.

I believe in evolution. I know what my political beliefs are.

But beyond that, idk. I consider myself an agnostic these days.
A good friend of mine is agnostic and we get along great because we have so many other things in common. He is a lot like the guys that I've been talking to on here. In fact, if I didn't know any different, I would swear that I was talking to him. He and I are really passionate about Home Theater technology and technology in general. We both love games and we have a great time when we hang out.
 
In the past four years I've looked into Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Pagan, and various other ideas. This isn't counting 18 years of baptist doctrine. Spiritually I'm all over the place. I think there is something just beyong the edge of perception but beyond that I don't really have a concrete idea.

I've tried Christianity and couldn't take it seriousy, and had passing interests in Wicca/Pagan and Buddhism, but I've never been able to take any religion seriously enough to commit to it.

I do respect and admire Buddhism though.
 
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”

- Carl Sagan

To add to this

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

Lawrence Krauss Theoretical Physicist

Its a beautiful concept, and one that puts a smile on my face.
 
I wonder how evolution has taken place on other planets and moons. I know a lot of comics like the Superman and Avatar want us to think it would be similar and in humanoid form just like Earth, but I doubt it highly. Those places would have similar, but greatly varying environments on them.
Yeah. It depends on the size of the planet, distance from mother star, etc. Bigger planet, for example, would mean shorter species. They won't be as tall as Earth's species because of greater gravitational pull. They'd be more like pancakes.
 
Convergent evolution does give us an idea of what aliens might look like. Assuming they come here.
 
I've tried Christianity and couldn't take it seriousy, and had passing interests in Wicca/Pagan and Buddhism, but I've never been able to take any religion seriously enough to commit to it.

I do respect and admire Buddhism though.
Same. If I were to adhere to a religion, it would be Buddhism.
 
I've tried Christianity and couldn't take it seriousy, and had passing interests in Wicca/Pagan and Buddhism, but I've never been able to take any religion seriously enough to commit to it.

I do respect and admire Buddhism though.

I've got a LOT of resepct for Buddhism and its adherents. As far as life philosophies go it doesn't get much better. If I had to live as Buddhist I wouldn't complain.
 
Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you. I am at work though and I guess I ought to at least TRY to get some work done. Even though I will be checking in on SHH from time to time during the night. I just can't stay away! :funny:
 
Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you. I am at work though and I guess I ought to at least TRY to get some work done. Even though I will be checking in on SHH from time to time during the night. I just can't stay away! :funny:

Glad to have ya.:yay:
 
Nah, that's OK. Thank you for the suggestion though. I've been around a long time and have seen and heard theories on evolution, but it's just not what I believe in. Just like you don't believe in God (at least that's what I assume from reading the few posts that I have read of yours) and nothing that you watch or listen to would ever change your mind. Know what I mean? It kind of works both ways.

I believe in God and I urge you to open your mind. Your opening statement in here was that we evolved from monkeys and then asked why monkeys are still around. That means you aren't educated on the matter and I strongly urge you to do so. Evolution doesn't dismiss God or intelligent design. It can easily be God's mechanism for why humans exist. The Bible is not literal and if you take it as literal then your religion falls apart. If you bring reason and science into the Bible, it can be a perfectly fine inspirational tool. If you take it as a strict instruction manual of historical facts then you are robbing yourself and your kids or future kids of any chances at intellectual advancement. Just open your mind. Man is the one saying that evolution contradicts God and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Man ruins religion. Just open your mind.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Kryptonian Warrior
Nah, that's OK. Thank you for the suggestion though. I've been around a long time and have seen and heard theories on evolution, but it's just not what I believe in. Just like you don't believe in God (at least that's what I assume from reading the few posts that I have read of yours) and nothing that you watch or listen to would ever change your mind. Know what I mean? It kind of works both ways.

No It doesnt work both ways.
Reading your posts, I cannot understand how or why someone could be so willfully ignorant

I'm sure every non believer on this thread would agree with me here. If God revealed it/himself, and the evidence for it's/his existence was irrefutable then I would believe. In fact it would'nt be a case of believing, it would be simply accepting the truth and reality.

To deny evolution is to deny reality.
Its backed by mountains of evidence throughout many scientific professions.
Besides the belief in god is independent to evolution. You can believe the former, and accept the latter.
What is so threatening about evolution to your beliefs that you have to be willfully ignorant and deny the science, thus deny reality?

I just dont understand the mentality.
Don't you care whether what you believe is true or not?
.
 
Last edited:
More sophisticated wiring, not just bigger brain, helped humans evolve beyond chimps

Human and chimp brains look anatomically similar because both evolved from the same ancestor millions of years ago. But where does the chimp brain end and the human brain begin?

A new UCLA study pinpoints uniquely human patterns of gene activity in the brain that could shed light on how we evolved differently than our closest relative. Published Aug. 22 in the advance online edition of Neuron, these genes' identification could improve understanding of human brain diseases like autism and schizophrenia, as well as learning disorders and addictions.

"Scientists usually describe evolution in terms of the human brain growing bigger and adding new regions," explained principal investigator Dr. Daniel Geschwind, Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics and a professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "Our research suggests that it's not only size, but the rising complexity within brain centers, that led humans to evolve into their own species."

Using post-mortem brain tissue, Geschwind and his colleagues applied next-generation sequencing and other modern methods to study gene activity in humans, chimpanzees and rhesus macaques, a common ancestor for both chimpanzee and humans that allowed the researchers to see where changes emerged between humans and chimpanzees. They zeroed in on three brain regions – the frontal cortex, hippocampus and striatum.

By tracking gene expression, the process by which genes manufacture the amino acids that make up cellular proteins, the scientists were able to search the genomes for regions where the DNA diverged between the species. What they saw surprised them.

"When we looked at gene expression in the frontal lobe, we saw a striking increase in molecular complexity in the human brain," said Geschwind, who is also a professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Behavior at UCLA.

While the caudate nucleus remained fairly similar across all three species, the frontal lobe changed dramatically in humans.

Dr. Daniel Geschwind is UCLA's Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, a professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Behavior at UCLA.

"Although all three species share a frontal cortex, our analysis shows that how the human brain regulates molecules and switches genes on and off unfolds in a richer, more elaborate fashion," explained first author Genevieve Konopka, a former postdoctoral researcher in Geschwind's lab who is now the Jon Heighten Scholar in Autism Research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. "We believe that the intricate signaling pathways and enhanced cellular function that arose within the frontal lobe created a bridge to human evolution."

The researchers took their hypothesis one step further by evaluating how the modified genes linked to changes in function.

"The biggest differences occurred in the expression of human genes involved in plasticity – the ability of the brain to process information and adapt," said Konopka. "This supports the premise that the human brain evolved to enable higher rates of learning."

One gene in particular, CLOCK, behaved very differently in the human brain. Considered the master regulator of Circadian rhythm, CLOCK is disrupted in mood disorders like depression and bipolar syndrome.

"Groups of genes resemble spokes on a wheel – they circle a hub gene that often acts like a conductor," said Geschwind. "For the first time, we saw CLOCK assuming a starring role that we suspect is unrelated to Circadian rhythm. Its presence offers a potentially interesting clue that it orchestrates another function essential to the human brain."

When comparing the human brain to the non-human primates, the researchers saw more connections among gene networks that featured FOXP1 and FOXP2. Earlier studies have linked these genes to humans' unique ability to produce speech and understand language.

"Connectivity measures how genes interact with other genes, providing a strong indicator of functional changes," said Geschwind. "It makes perfect sense that genes involved in speech and language would be less connected in the non-human primate brains – and highly connected in the human brain."

The UCLA team's next step will be to expand their comparative search to 10 or more regions of the human, chimpanzee and maque brains.
 
So according to rodhulk...our ancestors had tails??? If the tail bone is a vestigial organ...that means we once had tails yes? Our ancestors were created in God's image...does God have a tail and a working appendix?
That's not actually what was said... you should go re-read the post and link!
 
Sorry, that's not how this works. You make the claim, you have to prove it. The rest of your post is trying to have it both ways.



Over and over and over again people have explained to you why this line of thinking doesn't work. Drawings of "dinosaurs" and blurry UFO photos are insufficient evidence. They're a place to start, but in the lack of any corroborating evidence, they prove nothing in and of themselves. You have to actually prove these things. You can't just go "well if they're real..." How can you not see how tenuous a position that is to take.
You're making a claim, too, so prove your point.

No, the "over and over and over again" explanations is simply just a single line of thought, and I'm giving you another line of thought. Like I said, it can't be ignored but that's what you do because it works against you.
 
How do we know those are possibilities as opposed to simple people's fancies? Where is the evidence? Why is science a closet, with its mass of evidence from the real world? What Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled that they serve as evidence of Christian truth claims? What about the claims of other faiths that are contradictory? Are we to also consider them? If UFO phenomena has evidence, fine, but where is it?
There's no such thing as micro speciation, and changes inside a species is not speciation. Evolutionary processes by which new species arise -- this is speciation, and whatever you believe, there are documented instances of speciation. This contradicts the Bible's "after its kind" model as you have defined it.

How does that answer as to why Satan is deceiving people of other faiths but not Christians? I don't mean sometimes, I mean deceiving them into believing in their faiths? If Satan is not, why are the truth claims of Christianity superior to those of other faiths with which Christianity cannot be squared?

Job is a story -- cobbled together from a poem and a framing folk tale found in another source -- about a man who stripped of everything after God tells the Adversary (Satan) to test him. That is evidence enough that the story is mythological. But if you need more, read Robert Alter's introduction to his translation of the book. Try: The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation where fragment variants of the book at different ages are documented. Try the introduction tot he Anchor Bible Job where all the problems of dating and composition are outlined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is your evidence that Job is historical, particularly since the poem itself makes no such claim? Does Beowulf have to prove it is a fairy tale? The Iliad?

There is no science "closet," unless the science Baugh used to date the artwork is also suspect. How else does he know how old the artwork is? One can't have it both ways, using science when it says what one wants it to say but then rejecting those same methods as being in a closet when it doesn't. It is upon him and other supporters to prove that the artwork depicts a dinosaur, not for others to prove that it does not. But if one requires such proof, the mass of paleontological evidence goes a very long way. So hard scientific data can be looked at whereas "This looks like that" without evidence and contrary to the evidence already dug up can be ignored. Scientists did not dismiss it because it threatens evolution -- they dismiss it because it provides no evidence to back it up. Massive evidence vs. "lots of pictures" (apparently dated using unscientific methods, since science means being "in a closet") "look like a dinosaur -- no scientist would take that seriously. It is Baugh and his followers who need this "evidence" from the artwork, to confirm their belief -- a belief without evidence.

The difference is, one side has a mass of fossil evidence independently verifiable, while the other has "this looks like that" without any corroborative evidence. According to the evidence, it is much more likely that a prehistoric person saw a dinosaur fossil and decided to depict it (again, assuming he IS depicting a dino -- for which there is no evidence) than that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs.
What mant by science in a closet is you are limiting your thinking only to tat. Step out and there is so much more, but that "more" might go against what the science closet tells you and it seems like you don't want to go there.

All the evidence or at least things that can't be ignored, all the dino artwork (?), UFO stuff, ghosts sightings, etc....

Biblical propehecies provide evidence because of their clear "observed" fulfillment, look at Israel, everything that is happening to it is fulfilled prophecy, from the Jews returning from all over the world to the nation becoming a nation in one day, too remarkable to pass it off as meaningless.....

I never used thterm micro speciation and there was a mentioning somewhere that a new breed of dog was considered speciation (I 'll have to dig it up but if that isn't speciation as you say, no problem). As for cases of new species (speciation), I haven't seen that. You keep making the claim but creation scientists and even some non-creation scientists don't accept your statement.

How are non christians being deceived? Because they are not searching for God and are simply not guarded by God from the deceiving acts. The Bible tells christians to put on the armor of God for one example. But you're attempting to deviate from what you said earlier and that was "why are christians not being deceived." To which I answered "they are." Obviously you were "caught" and attempted to go somewere else to get out of it. Now, there is nothing wrong with further exploring it but why not admit your mistake just as I mentioned mine of speciation above?

There are always people that will attempt to dismiss the Bible but the Bible itslef says it is true, prophecy is a fine example of this and you know Job could be telling a real story of his surroundings which included dinos at least just as much as it is all myth. You imply take just one side. Well, why not consider the other side. As for satan's attacks onhim and his sufferings, why can't it be true. We have people suffering badly every day, losing their families to accidents, etc....

I've already said that too many religious people are in a relgiious closet or room and they miss the stuff onth outside so I have actually been fair with this topic with both religion and science.

The evidence in Braugh is that it can't be ignored just like the UFO footage, too much photos/vids, regardless of how you want to look at it through the closet of science, I look openly at it.....

And you're only "assuming" that it was a dino fossil that somebody saw and that is how they knew what a dino looked like. But even that you don't know if it is true. It could be because the artist actually saw a real living dino, just as recorded in the book of Job.
 
You're making a claim, too, so prove your point.

No, the "over and over and over again" explanations is simply just a single line of thought, and I'm giving you another line of thought. Like I said, it can't be ignored but that's what you do because it works against you.
But that "single line of thought" is essentially the scientific/empirical method. Visual impressions of carvings and paintings without corroboration to back up one's conclusions do not constitute an viable alternate "line of thought" to the strong paleontological evidence that contradicts Baugh and Hovind's assertion that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs. So of course that assertion can be ignored, and that's why it is by mainstream science -- not because it works against that science. The conclusion that humans did not share the earth with dinosaurs is not held on to because it is dogmatic, but because it is what independently verifiable scientific data has led to.
 
Last edited:
But that "single line of thought" is essentially the scientific/empirical method. Visual impressions of carvings and paintings without corroboration to back up one's conclusions do not constitute an viable alternate "line of thought" to the strong paleontological evidence that contradicts Baugh and Hovind's assertion that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs. So of course it that assertion can be ignored, and that's why it is by mainstream science -- not because it works against that science. The conclusion that humans did not share the earth with dinosaurs is not held on to because it is dogmatic, but because it is what independently verifiable scientific data has led to.
Yes, it's the science that keeps the artwork from being seen as any type of evidence, real world thinking goes beyond science as this takes into account virtually everything. Until science is perfect just as many christians claim the Bible is, there really might be something more than just science which isn't composed of only facts but evidence, explanations, and theories. Your science isn't concrete and is a single line of thought among many different ways to think. I use science, but so far, the "facts" as I know it as having been presented to me confirm the Bible, not deny it.
 
You're making a claim, too, so prove your point.

No. I'm not making a claim. I'm working from the null hypothesis. You can't prove a negative (prove there's not a flying spaghetti monster that created the universe with his noodle-y appendage) The burden of proof doesn't fall on the one making the negative assertion, but the positive one. You are making the positive claim. My position is since there is lack of evidence to support the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans (and for the last time, the artwork you keep harping on is not evidence) , I lack that belief. I have no reason to give is credence. You say they did, therefore it's on you to prove that. You make the claim, you back it up. That's how this works. If we can't get past this very basic idea, this debate is over.
 
What mant by science in a closet is you are limiting your thinking only to tat. Step out and there is so much more, but that "more" might go against what the science closet tells you and it seems like you don't want to go there.
That's just defining closet as anything that won't fit into what you want to promote. Rival faiths could say the same as you, so unless you're giving equal possibility to them -- that is, unless Satan is not deceiving them -- that idea doesn't work. I don't want to "go there" because it is not backed up by evidence.

All the evidence or at least things that can't be ignored, all the dino artwork (?), UFO stuff, ghosts sightings, etc....
Visual impressions without corroboration are not evidence, unless mythological carvings of the Picts, etc means that the Druid God might exist. And what about the art of rival faiths?

Biblical propehecies provide evidence because of their clear "observed" fulfillment, look at Israel, everything that is happening to it is fulfilled prophecy, from the Jews returning from all over the world to the nation becoming a nation in one day, too remarkable to pass it off as meaningless.....
No they don't. They are so vague they could be linked to any event and said to be fulfilled. If prophecy is evidential, what about Islamic prophecies that have also said to be fulfilled? Are they true also?

I never used thterm micro speciation and there was a mentioning somewhere that a new breed of dog was considered speciation (I 'll have to dig it up but if that isn't speciation as you say, no problem). As for cases of new species (speciation), I haven't seen that. You keep making the claim but creation scientists and even some non-creation scientists don't accept your statement.
Yes you did; I quotes your post where you used that term. And all dogs are a subspecies of the gray wolf -- breeding is not a "micro" form of speciation. Speciation is an evolutionary process giving rise to new species. I have already linked to evidence of speciation in previous posts. Other examples: (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1690834) (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1690834)
(http://www.genetics.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12663534)
There are dozens and dozens of others, if one looks for them.

How are non christians being deceived? Because they are not searching for God and are simply not guarded by God from the deceiving acts. The Bible tells christians to put on the armor of God for one example. But you're attempting to deviate from what you said earlier and that was "why are christians not being deceived." To which I answered "they are." Obviously you were "caught" and attempted to go somewere else to get out of it. Now, there is nothing wrong with further exploring it but why not admit your mistake just as I mentioned mine of speciation above?
More assertions. Other faiths would say the same about their God and deception. What makes you right and them wrong? I did not deviate; go back and read my post to see this. You claimed Satan is deceiving people of other faiths. I asked you why is Satan deceiving them and not you. You said Christians are deceived sometimes. I said we were talking about people being deceived into being of other faiths, not just "sometimes." Since you never answered that, I would say it is you who is "caught," unless you actually have evidence that Satan is deceiving people of other faiths and not you.

There are always people that will attempt to dismiss the Bible but the Bible itslef says it is true, prophecy is a fine example of this and you know Job could be telling a real story of his surroundings which included dinos at least just as much as it is all myth. You imply take just one side. Well, why not consider the other side. As for satan's attacks onhim and his sufferings, why can't it be true. We have people suffering badly every day, losing their families to accidents, etc....
The same could be said of other faiths and their scriptures. What makes them false and you true -- you can't all be right. Everyday suffering is not evidential of your view -- why not turn to the Hindu goddess of healing, or to the Greek god of healing? Why can't it be Kali making people suffer and not Satan? Or the asuras of Hinduism? What is the evidence that it is Satan and not, say, Kroni, the devil-figure of South India's Avvyavazhi

I've already said that too many religious people are in a relgiious closet or room and they miss the stuff onth outside so I have actually been fair with this topic with both religion and science.
That's just a cop out. What have these people missed and you have not?

The evidence in Braugh is that it can't be ignored just like the UFO footage, too much photos/vids, regardless of how you want to look at it through the closet of science, I look openly at it.....
That's not evidence, just another assertion. Without corroboration, WHY can't it be ignored? What about other mythological art depicting interactions with fairies, monsters, etc? Are they historical documents also? What about Islamic art depicting Muhammad's religious experiences? Or art from other cultures and religions concerning their traditions? Can they be ignored? If they can, why?

And you're only "assuming" that it was a dino fossil that somebody saw and that is how they knew what a dino looked like. But even that you don't know if it is true. It could be because the artist actually saw a real living dino, just as recorded in the book of Job.
I did no such thing. Go back and actually read my post. I posited a what-if that, given the evidence, is more possible than your assertion that humans and dinosaurs shared the earth. And the paleontological evidence -- actual hard evidence, not a visual impression -- precludes the artist seeing a living dinosaur. And given that the preponderance of evidence is that Job is not a historical document (however taken by the Biblical canonizers) but a mythological work cobbled from two separate works written centuries apart -- evidence for which I also cited -- the Job poet almost certainly "recorded" nothing. If he did, where is the evidence outside of the document itself?

Yes, it's the science that keeps the artwork from being seen as any type of evidence, real world thinking goes beyond science as this takes into account virtually everything. Until science is perfect just as many christians claim the Bible is, there really might be something more than just science which isn't composed of only facts but evidence, explanations, and theories. Your science isn't concrete and is a single line of thought among many different ways to think. I use science, but so far, the "facts" as I know it as having been presented to me confirm the Bible, not deny it.
Of course science keeps the artwork from being seen as evidence without corroboration. Because without that science, you have nothing but a visual impression telling you what you want to be true -- that humans walked with dinosaurs. Unfortunately, independently verifiable fossil evidence says otherwise. That IS "real world thinking," not the magical thinking that vague visual impressions without corroboration are. Science relies not on "perfection" but on ever-refined theories that encompass observations of phenomena. Christians claiming the Bible being perfect does not make it so, particularly given its massive amounts of internal contradictions and inconsistencies. What is the difference between those claims and the claims of Muslims about the Quran? You can't both be right -- so why are you right and they wrong? Of course science is concrete -- it is "this looks like a dinosaur, therefore dinosaurs walked with humans" that is not concrete, as opposed to the concrete mass of paleontological evidence contradicting Baugh's claim that humans and dinosaurs shared the earth. Science isn't a single line of thought that has a viable alternative. What "facts" does the Bible confirm?
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Collapsed this into the previous post.
 
Last edited:
That's not actually what was said... you should go re-read the post and link!

I read the link. We have a tail bone, which is a vestigial organ. That means our ancestors had tails. Yes or no?

If yes, that means that our ancestors had a tail and God has a tail since he created our ancestors in his image.

If no, that means God gave us a tail bone for no reason what so ever....meaning he is imperfect. There is no reason for us to have a tailbone.
 
The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

There are more too, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Discussing all sorts of different scientific principles.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,586
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"