See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[Deleted member 619]

It doesn't have to be abiogenesis or God.

Point of order:

It was abiogenesis, whether there was a deity involved or not. Our understanding of the universe is sufficiently complete to be able to state that there was a point in the history of the universe when there was no life. Now there is. Ergo: abiogenesis, however you slice it. Whether it was by chemical means or supernatural, that was what happened.

Oh, and panspermia doesn't help here, directed or otherwise. It only pushes the problem back a step from Earth to somewhere else. In short, abiogenesis happened.

 

[dotoree]

The problem is that you want to define "The Christian God" when AronRa is clearly talking about the definition of "God" in general. What AronRa presented is the definition of "God in general", there's no dispute about that, is there?

The problem is that you want to define "The Christian God" when AronRa is clearly talking about the definition of "God" in general. What AronRa presented is the definition of "God in general", there's no dispute about that, is there?

It's more precise than even that: it'd dotoree's version of the christian god that dotoree is concerned with. I suppose dotoree might argue that he has the true definition of the christian god, but I hope he understands that there are christians who have different interpretations, and thus his specific conception of the christian god is hardly universal and DOES need to be distinguished from the other possible interpretations of the meaning of "the christian god".

--
For some reason..still up at 3:40am..stupid me . People, remember, the original debate was about creation vs. evolution (PLUS Bible principles like health being testable, etc.). The definition I chose from the dictionary was exactly in line with that issue. I never ever even tried to defend others concepts of God. Anyone who thinks I was, really is not thinking very clearly.

God is a term used by many people. I am not required to say "dotoree's God" when I use that term. No one does that in real life. It should be obvious to the most infinitely casual observer as my professor used to say that I'm talking about my view of God or the normative Christian view of God since I am a part of that group NOT the entire planets view of that word.

You want me to define God? You do NOT know what you are asking. There are books of over 500 pages trying to do that and still they are insufficient. I limited my definition to the topic we are discussing. Would you prefer that I give you that 500 page version? If not, thank me for giving you the one I did .
Sigh.
Bryan

 

[masterjedijared]

Wouldn't it follow that if a thing/topic has insufficient or inspecific parameters then it cannot be discussed in any meaningful fashion?

 

[Yfelsung]

It doesn't have to be abiogenesis or God.

Point of order:

It was abiogenesis, whether there was a deity involved or not. Our understanding of the universe is sufficiently complete to be able to state that there was a point in the history of the universe when there was no life. Now there is. Ergo: abiogenesis, however you slice it. Whether it was by chemical means or supernatural, that was what happened.

Oh, and panspermia doesn't help here, directed or otherwise. It only pushes the problem back a step from Earth to somewhere else. In short, abiogenesis happened.

True enough, even if God did it it's abiogenesis.

Whether it be regular mud, or Jesus-mud, both theories claim we came from dirt. One just happens to involve actual science while the other is, well, magic Jesus-mud.

 

[Inferno]

Wouldn't it follow that if a thing/topic has insufficient or inspecific parameters then it cannot be discussed in any meaningful fashion?

What topic has insufficient or inspecific (nonspecific?) parameters?

For some reason..still up at 3:40am..stupid me . People, remember, the original debate was about creation vs. evolution (PLUS Bible principles like health being testable, etc.). The definition I chose from the dictionary was exactly in line with that issue. I never ever even tried to defend others concepts of God. Anyone who thinks I was, really is not thinking very clearly.

God is a term used by many people. I am not required to say "dotoree's God" when I use that term. No one does that in real life. It should be obvious to the most infinitely casual observer as my professor used to say that I'm talking about my view of God or the normative Christian view of God since I am a part of that group NOT the entire planets view of that word.

You want me to define God? You do NOT know what you are asking. There are books of over 500 pages trying to do that and still they are insufficient. I limited my definition to the topic we are discussing. Would you prefer that I give you that 500 page version? If not, thank me for giving you the one I did .

Once again though: There is a general definition of what a God is, a definition that also fits all personal definitions. I have absolutely no problems with you defining your own God, but at the same time don't attack AronRa for defining God in general.

 

[masterjedijared]

His definition of God. He says that it's a nigh impossible task and any effort to even begin would be at least 500 pages long. It seems that a definition of God like that would either be so broad (or irrational) that talking about this (God) would prove to be rather pointless.

 

[Stadred]

Wanna poke in here; Perhaps we simply assume Dotoree is using God (the pronoun) and we make an internal equivalence, replacing god (noun defining the category) to deity.
Then, Dotoree gets his pronoun, and we get the standard definition that we all understand of a god, AKA deity....

 

[RichardMNixon]

This appears to be one of the points you keep coming back to. How do you define "biogenesis?" God creating humans from dust is most certainly NOT "biogenesis" as I understand it since dust is not alive, so why do you claim it as evidence for divine creation?

No, I don't have a different definition for this. If you can't see the relevance, either read the archives or wait until we get to it in more detail. I'm too exhausted to explain it again and again and again and again. Why can't you people read for yourselves? You are 15+ (maybe MANY more) against 1 for heaven's sake. It's not that hard.
Bryan

It was abiogenesis, whether there was a deity involved or not. Our understanding of the universe is sufficiently complete to be able to state that there was a point in the history of the universe when there was no life. Now there is. Ergo: abiogenesis, however you slice it. Whether it was by chemical means or supernatural, that was what happened.

You need to address this Dotoree, do you understand that the act of creation and abiogensis are both singular events in which life was formed from things that weren't alive? We have never observed either of these things. We have never observed life being formed from inanimate chemicals, nor have we observed life being formed by god. We have observed complex biomolecules form spontaneously from simpler chemicals, but we have not observed complex biomolecules formed from nothing by god. That's all there is to it. We're halfway there, and you're still at the starting line. When you observe god reaching down out of the heavens to actively create things, let us know. Until then, your act of creation is a baseless assertion.

 

[borrofburi]

You need to address this Dotoree, do you understand that the act of creation and abiogensis are both singular events in which life was formed from things that weren't alive? We have never observed either of these things. We have never observed life being formed from inanimate chemicals, nor have we observed life being formed by god. We have observed complex biomolecules form spontaneously from simpler chemicals, but we have not observed complex biomolecules formed from nothing by god. That's all there is to it. We're halfway there, and you're still at the starting line. When you observe god reaching down out of the heavens to actively create things, let us know. Until then, your act of creation is a baseless assertion.

I'm not sure there's a point in any of this until after we have definitions set... But my guess is, so far as I understand, he's saying that life comes from life, and that all life we see comes from already existing life, therefore it had to be supernatural for life to come from non life...? I think?

 

[RichardMNixon]

I'm not sure there's a point in any of this until after we have definitions set... But my guess is, so far as I understand, he's saying that life comes from life, and that all life we see comes from already existing life, therefore it had to be supernatural for life to come from non life...? I think?

But that's an entirely baseless assertion. I'm eating peanuts out of a plastic jar. I've only ever seen peanuts grow on trees, not in jars. Does that mean god put them in the jar?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

But that's an entirely baseless assertion. I'm eating peanuts out of a plastic jar. I've only ever seen peanuts grow on trees, not in jars. Does that mean god put them in the jar?

Yeah, look, we're talking about the guy who thinks in terms such as "bible science" and assumes criticism directed at his definition of a word is an attack on his faith. Really, what do you expect?

Moderators. It is people like Yfel that need to be banned or at least given serious warnings since they continually state false things and waste everyone's time with utter nonsense like this.

Also, laughing my smooth pink buttocks off at this. You're not exactly in a position to backseat moderate here, buddy.

 

[Karlheinzofwpg]

Have you all noticed that dotoree has now deleted the comment on page two, wherein he answered AronRa's post on definitions?

He replaced the entire post with this comment below...

Aronra,
I'm utterly flabbergasted that you don't think I have the right to define what my OWN VIEW is. That is a non-starter unless you have an iota of consistency and allow me to define your view without the least regard for facts. You can NOT be a moral or intellectual person and do this. This IS a non-starter.

I also must insist for health, family and academic reasons (I'm already way behind on grading many papers of my university students) as well as for reasons of clarity so that we don't miss important points, that this debate by limited to a maximum of 3 people and NO, you cannot choose the three creationists. That also would be a non-starter. The way you are starting arguments is textbook straw man fighting and is a complete non-starter. You simply have ZERO right to define what my view is. I will not participate in any discussion that starts with such BRAINLESS nonsense.

I also have spent NUMEROUS hours on this already (just the first response took about 4-5 hours, largely due to you making up your own straw man definitions of my views instead of asking me what my view is or using an objective dictionary). I should NOT have done so and I DO NOT have the time for that. I sacrificed many hours of sleep to do that which if continued will damage my health. So stop misrepresenting me Aronra. I'm not going to be so immoral or arrogant as to tell you how much time you do or do not have. I'm sure you're very busy too and I have the basic human decency to recognize and be concerned about your real life priorities. Have the basic decency to recognize that I also have real life concerns, since I have a family and daughter, ~2-3 jobs (including teaching at a university, hospital and an elementary school), am planting/running a church, going through a complicated lawsuit with people who broke a contract (they were not religious people and directly caused me to lose $150,000, but I would never be so stupid as to say that proves all atheists/non-religious people are immoral or to lump all atheists into the same category as some here have done to creationists and Christians including yourself in alleging or at least strongly implying that all creationists are liars), writing a number of books and just presented at a major international conference and am also engaged in a number of other debates, some trying to educate some Christians on the problems with Fox news and some republican politic views and other things. I doubt you know anyone busier than me, but there could be a few.
Bryan

Originally AronRa gave 31 definitions, dotoree commented on all of them and even noted something like 'it is good to have precise definitions' (I can't quote exactly because he deleted it). Are these the actions of an honest person? Honesty is about personal integrity. It's about actions as well as words.

AronRa responded to dotoree's reply so we now have (had) a record of the areas of disagreement (15 of the 31). They are as follows.

Religion, God, Magic, Faith, Theism, Atheism, Secularism, Humanism, Fact, Evidence, Hypothesis, Knowledge, Spontaneous generation, Abiogenesis, Creationism

If the mods (or anyone) have an archived copy of dotoree's original post from page 2, wherein he provides the views he so desperately wants us to accept, please repost it for the record. Do not allow him to run dishonestly from his own words. Anyone who has actually thought deeply about their position, on any topic, should be able to precisely define what they mean by the words they use. I believe dotoree erased his attempt at definitions because precision and accuracy are directly opposed to his position. Ambiquity is his ally!

I would also note that though he continually claims to be pressed for time and overworked and busy busy busy, he still finds the hours in his day to post 71 times (at time of this writing) compared to 5 times by AronRa. Yet it is AronRa who has shaken dotoree (almost effortlessly it seems) into his recent litany of shrill responses and accusations. He could have easily devoted four posts to each of the 15 remaining definitions yet to be agreed upon, thus amplifying and further explaining exactly what it is he believes. He seems to be allergic to precision.

One last point, I made a comment directed at dotoree on youtube. Here it is along with his reply...

@dotoree - I suggest you put a link to the League of Reason Forum on your own youtube home page so that people who know and follow you can see how you do. It's important that they judge for themselves how honest you are.

You mention that you are a teacher at two schools. I would also like, to see you provide the link to the League website for your students so they too can follow your reasoning as you attempt to defend creationism honestly. I think it would be a real eye opener for them. ...

@KarlHeinzofWpg That's a good idea Karl. I'll do that later today...but have to go make a test for my students for my next class coming up in a few minutes. You are jumping to apriori conclusions. Try to reserve, judgement until you've actually seen some of the evidence. Btw, I never lie. I do make mistakes at times&have rarely unintentionally misrepresented things ,but thanked those who corrected me. But,most creationists I know refuse to lie. Having different views of evidence is not lying. ...

That was four days ago, he still hasn't provided any link on his youtube homepage. No doubt he will post 30 times to explain that he couldn't because he was too busy.

What was that about creationists and honesty? Further to that, he made this comment on page 11 of this forum when replying to someone else...

I am currently a professor teaching in the linguistics field. You really don't know what you are talking about above and it has nothing to do with reality (and by the way, certain things in this discussion will be used in my units dealing with logical fallacies and teaching my students how to avoid these rational errors and I've already used many examples from atheists in the past, ...

The reason I wanted him to post a link BOTH on his youtube page and to his students is because I assumed he would do the very thing he admits to in the quote above. That is, provide short comments without the benefit of context to a group of impressionable students. In other words, he would press his religious point but not allow the 'students' to see the rebuttals. I will be watching to see if he corrects this.

BTW - when he says he is a professor teaching in the linguistics field, he means he is an ESL teacher in Korea. He teaches english to Koreans. Which is an excellent vocation. Why not just say that instead of attempting to imply something else by saying "teaching in the linguistics field"?

"Bryan Bissell has been teaching English in Korea for over 10 years and has also started and directed 2 language institutes. He researches materials for teaching English that improve effectiveness in learning, increase motivation and he is especially interested in using English to teach principles and truths that will benefit student's lives outside of the English class and help them live life to the fullest. "

So he is an ESL/Missionary. A modern Jesuit but with a 7th day Adventist theology.

I'll be watching to see if he provides links to this discussion to those students (I suggest your G.I.F.T. ministry facebook page Bryan) so they can read and discuss amongst themselves what should be considered 'principles and truths'. I sincerely hope he does.

(forgot to post link to facebook page, here it is...)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55504317105

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Meh, deleting a post on page 2. Wasn't reading that anyway, not going to assume the worst unless he actually DOES do the worst and acts as if it was always like that, which I doubt he will.
Him not posting up a link on his youtube page. Wooooo. Really, really don't care. Not going to get on his ass for things like this. Give him a way out if he needs to. Total humiliation in front of peers like this just isn't good.

Honestly I'd like to hear more of his "bible science" and how it proves creationism and how he is planning to single-handedly disprove our current understanding of nature. And I'd like some good stuff please. Not just "LOL PPL WHO USE BIBLE DIET LIVE LONGER". That's not evidence for creationism.

 

[Inferno]

Meh, deleting a post on page 2. Wasn't reading that anyway, not going to assume the worst unless he actually DOES do the worst and acts as if it was always like that, which I doubt he will.
Him not posting up a link on his youtube page. Wooooo. Really, really don't care. Not going to get on his ass for things like this. Give him a way out if he needs to. Total humiliation in front of peers like this just isn't good.

Nah I disagree. I agree with Karlheinzofwpg. Dotoree has just shown to an absolute degree that he is dishonest, will lie AND try to cover up his lies. This is worse than I thought.

However, I too am hoping to see some more "Bible science". Should be a good laugh.

 

[australopithecus]

Does he not realise that people have quoted that original post? Further more, he's deleted the original post here he replies to AronRa's definitions and posted this:

(changing colors to be more readable).

That was 3 days ago and he still hasn't reposted. Honesty? My arse.

 

[Prolescum]

BTW - when he says he is a professor teaching in the linguistics field, he means he is an ESL teacher in Korea. He teaches english to Koreans. Which is an excellent vocation. Why not just say that instead of attempting to imply something else by saying "teaching in the linguistics field"?

Not just that...

I am currently a professor teaching in the linguistics field.

teaching at a university, hospital and an elementary school), am planting/running a church,

writing a number of books and just presented at a major international conference and am also engaged in a number of other debates, some trying to educate some Christians on the problems with Fox news and some republican politic views and other things.

One wonders if he gets any sleep at all.

I was also wondering why you'd plant a church, although I then realised that a church's main requirement is to grow.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I must say I am impressed that you were able to use the real quote from Dr. Wald. I have corrected many a creationist for using the fabricated quote. Kudos.

a) BILLIONS of confirmations of biogenesis which has always been part of creation science FROM GENESIS.
B) the minute few and EXTREMELY speculative cases of abiogenesis, none of which so far have even produced even the tiniest living cell, let alone more complex life Which do you think is more logical.

Be fair and logical. Which has more evidence, a or b?[/color]

A is not logical because only having biogenesis leads to an infinite regress.

We both accept abiogenesis; you simply wish to call it god whereas I think there is a naturalistic process, one that we do not know about, yet. The reason this is the case is that how can you claim a god(s) to be alive? Do you even know what it means to be alive? If a god(s) started life, anywhere, it would still be known as abiogenesis for the simple fact that a god(s) would not be considered alive by any biological definition of the word. Perhaps you will now try to redefine what it means to be alive.

 

[benthemiester]

SCALEY BLUE


I think you might want to read the threads more carefully. I was speaking of the fact that we have been told that human DNA is almost 99 percent similar to chimps for years, and is still repeated by many. As I have cited the difference can be as allow as 70%. "Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%." Sequence divergence does not mean total similarity. These are two different things. The ToE is automatically assumed, this is no big secret. I am not sure why you think this helps your case. We don't even have an accepted and accurate molecular clock yet.

 

[australopithecus]

SCALEY BLUE


I think you might want to read the threads more carefully. I was speaking of the fact that we have been told that human DNA is almost 99 percent similar to chimps for years, and is still repeated by many. As I have cited the difference can be as allow as 70%. "Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%." Sequence divergence does not mean total similarity. These are two different things. The ToE is automatically assumed, this is no big secret. I am not sure why you think this helps your case. We don't even have an accepted and accurate molecular clock yet.

Are we to pretend that you didn't quote mine wiki while you throw out more tired arguments?

 

[dotoree]

Very quick comments.
NO Karl, I did NOT delete my big post. Don't even know how to delete a post now...only how to edit and erase. I have edited a couple posts for typos as I have time or to tone down my anger at being misrepresented so many times...a few things like that

My academic qualifications are not really that important and neither are anyone's and it's a red herring. The Wright brothers didn't have the right qualifications, yet contributed to flight. The Kanzius machine is a brilliant device to probably cure cancer even though the inventor had no medical training whatsoever. But, yes, I was and am an ESL/missionary in Korea teaching English to Koreans who are right now beating the pants off Americans educationally because they are teachable and willing to learn and ask questions and acquire knowledge from any source they possibly can and where the largest churches in the world are, just 1 has over 1 million members. Unfortunately very few of my students would be able to comprehend this discussion although I would LOVE it if they could and would have NO problem showing it to anyone...a few might though, but those few are doctors who I helped win the #1 prize in the world in ENT surgery a couple years go and they barely have time for the English class I teach to them. (thanks Karl for reminding me to post a link..just did so on my youtube page). But, I am also a professor at Dongseo University and was also at another university before that (plus all the other duties and projects I mentioned, ALL of which have many confirmations (the GIFT ministry is one I started with another professor, YES...good detective work Karl...Thanks for adding to my credibility for being honest ) . Here's a definition of linguistics so you understand what it means:
the science of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and historical linguistics.

I've taught all sort of classes in English, ranging from conversation English, to business English, syntax, grammar, composition and others. Do I have to spell it out for you how these are part of linguistics??? I know you want to demean me and your opponents by red herrings like this and you probably think language is very simple and easy. You could not be more uninformed. It takes around ~70,000 hours to learn your first language fluently and to help people to speak it easily and fluently, esp. in a foreign country, is a herculean task far more difficult than trying to get some of you to understand the basic intellectual right that I have to define the God that I'm defending (I DID define the crucial aspect that relates to this topic specifically and it was NOT even close to vague, false misrepresentation. We can understand all sorts of aspects about God, but Christian theology teaches that our finite minds cannot comprehend everything about God, thus I am not able to define all that God is comprehensively, but can easily define numerous aspects of him. Sheesh...this is like pulling teeth sometimes, but I have to keep remembering that you all are victims of censorship and know as little about God as the average communist in North Korea knows about democracy because of that). Language has all sorts of theories about how it's learned, acquired, activated etc. I won't bore you with the details since it's not your field. But, it has all sorts of professional journals dealing with it all over the world and anyone who thinks it's something simple and easy because you can speak your own language is extremely ignorant. I understand the ignorance because I never realized how complicated it is until I began to teach it. So you can be forgiven your ignorance.

Yes, I'm an Adventist (one of the 4 longest living people groups in the world and some experts say the longest due to an age related scandal in Okinawa). If you were willing to learn from the Bible and Adventists who are one of the very few Christian groups who follow it's health principles, you could learn ways to live at least 10+ years longer like we do, even if you never become Christians. That's an EXTREMELY practical benefit. And we have many principles from God that we are following that are very helpful that ted.com didn't even touch on. By the way, Karl. If you had done better research, or even read what I wrote on this forum better, you would know that Adventists have no connection whatsoever to Catholic theology. While individual Catholics love God and can be sincere, the Catholic system is Christian in the same way that someone who refuses to follow the scientific method is a scientist.

How does this relate to proving God? I THINK you guys accept that predictions being fulfilled are part of the scientific method don't you? If not, you can just drop all your views on Darwinian levels of evolution (family to kingdom) right now and become creationists (species to ~family levels), because it rests almost entirely on predictions instead of observable evidence. The more predictions in different areas you have that are confirmed as true for a worldview, the more likely it is true. The Bible makes 1000s of predictions in science, history, prophecy and other areas that have nearly all been proven conclusively true (except for a few future ones and a few that our knowledge hasn't advanced to comprehend yet. Don't be so arrogant as to think that current science knows everything and doesn't have any errors in it. That's just foolish in the light of history) and there isn't the slightest chance that shepherds and bronze age people that you ridicule could get them consistently accurate 1000s of years ahead of science and when they frequently disagreed with the establishment they lived under. Moses for example got all his learning from the Egyptians. How is it that soon after he left Egypt with the Egyptians that he could write books of medical knowledge that were in direct opposition to much that he was taught and that were only found in recent centuries and sometimes only in recent decades to be correct scientifically. To speculate that shepherds with their knowledge could get things right time after time after time after time in opposition to the scientific establishments conventional wisdom for a 1000 years is just absolute LUNACY. A few could be common sense...I'll grant, but hordes of them are not and were not for most of ancient history and other cultures. The ONLY reason you think they are is because you grew up in a culture that was filled with Bible knowledge for centuries. So, we have enormous science benefits from the Bible...I've barely touched on them with health...then there are specific prophesies, indisputable miracles and many eyewitnesses who saw God or supernatural beings like angels and who were willing to die for that truth (please don't even start with the red herring of terrorists dying being similar. I'll expose the foolishness of that falsehood instantly and you'll look ignorant...save yourself from embarrassment. Don't believe me? Fine. Test me ). PEOPLE just do NOT die for things that they have firsthand confirmation are false.


Regarding biogenesis comments..many errors again.
A) Christianity NOWHERE teaches that life came only from material things. It teaches that it was material things PLUS the life power from God. Sort of like how you can make computers from metal, plastic, etc. but it won't do a thing until it has electricity. So please stop with the nonsense that it has anything to do with life from mud. It is life created by God using materials AND giving it his own life power. No scientist has ever been able to create life yet even though many have tried. They may be able to do so someday. God never banned us from doing that...actually he gave us the power to create lives through sex, which was also his wonderful creation for YOUR enjoyment . God invented sex and it never was dirty or impure in the right place. One of God's first commands was to be FRUITFUL and multiply, which requires sex..and the song of Solomon is quite an erotic book, esp. in Hebrew (English censors it some unfortunately).

B) There is no infinite regress in Christianity. God is the prime mover and never had a beginning. How can something not have a beginning? I don't know. PERIOD. This is one of the few things I take on faith without any evidence of that specific thing being possible (most faith has evidence) and I'll be upfront about it. But, infinite regress also must be taken on faith and actually more faith and so must abiogenesis. But, we have confirmation from SOOO many of sooooooo much else, and ALL worldviews must use some faith without direct evidence, including the science worldview.

C) No, Abiogenesis is NOT real and is NOT even halfway there. What they are claiming so far is similiar you are basically saying is that since dirt and water can combine, a whole city can spring up by naturalistic means. That's basically where the science of abiogenesis is. When you've provided TESTABLE evidence of chemicals getting to the cell level WITHOUT human intervention, monkeying, setting up all the conditions, AND in ways that I can personally test and verify, ONLY THEN will you have a case for abiogenesis. Again, I've been to the actual sites of some of the best abiogenesis researchers and best atheists and best evolutionists MANY times and read as much as I could spare time to do....which at present would be 1000s of hours. It's called CHECKING PRIMARY SOURCES for those who need to learn how to do research. Very few atheists even begin to do that on creation science, and they almost NEVER do research on the top creationists with ph.ds. in relevant fields...almost NEVER. They straw man creation science with teenagres and pastors (thunderfoot does this a TON and so does almost every other atheists on the planet) . JUST REALLY immoral straw manning.

Well, that's it...have a class now and just missed breakfast ....thanks guys .
Bryan
P.S.

By the way, if you want to watch a great video explaining some of my ACTUAL views about Christianity and how the world started and how sin started, this is a great start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh6YcmNWM_4