Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 04:35 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:23 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Not passive aggressive. Passive aggressive definition is, "of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials."

I am not here to avoid any confrontation but to speak the truth in absolute and direct confrontation to those that oppose these views with their nonsensical logic. At the same time, I will pray for them but I will not follow any of their illogical claims, lies, or manipulative debate tactics. I also will not pout or procrastinate.

Bullshit, saying "I'll pray for you" is just another way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and then putting on a psuedo-christian mask over your stubborn refusal to accept evidence.

So since you've deigned to grace us with your presence again, maybe you'll answer questions this time.

Since you think viruses started mutating to get around vaccinations about the time Adam ate that fruit, then did this force of sin cause death, disease and suffering to enter the world?

DNA and fine-tuning of universe clearly show design. Step into theology. Study the different religions. Christianity is truth.

These are my theological beliefs after a life time of study of numerous subjects, including science. I am not trying to sound condescending or act like I am better than you. I mean it when I say that because these are my beliefs.

Sin led to all these things you mentioned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 05:24 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Truth is truth.

Evidence is required to establish truth.

Quote:Information in living systems and the construction of cells is undeniable,

I deny it. The tracks of evolution are clear in DNA.

Quote:as is the fine-tuning of the universe. From there, time to really turn to theology.

"Fine tuning" is a weak-ass hypothesis without merit. There is no evidence for it.

Quote:I also studied many religions and was Catholic for most my life. I converted to non-denominational Christian and I also have read the Bible and I study it frequently. The God of the Bible is righteous and sets the standard for moral righteousness for humans. He had to write a moral code, the Ten Commandments, simply to tell us to love Him and each other.

And yet, he drowns almost everyone and every thing on earth. Consider

Quote:His Government is based on this.

What government is that?

Quote:His Leadership is based on three critical elements; fear, trust, and love.

What leadership does an invisible thing provide?

Quote:This is true in any leadership scenario. Without one of these key ingredients, leadership with any species is not very effective.

What leadership?

Quote:Man fell when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command. The punishment for sin is death. All men sin.

A myth with no basis in fact, a story for which there is no evidence.

Quote:All other religions say you have to work your way to heaven based on your deeds. Christianity is the only religion which states, that is impossible. All men would fall short if that were the case. Hence, the Son of God (co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit) willingly came here, lived the only sin free life, and then allowed himself to be sacrificed for our sins so that we do not have to die eternally. It is a free gift of eternal life and we just need to truly believe in Him and follow Him to accept this free gift. Those that do not accept His free gift, die a second time permanently. I believe the Bible also implies that those who cannot make these decisions; either mentally due to age or disability are also saved and it could be written in the hearts of those that never heard or read the Scriptures.

More unsupported bullshit. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-06-2016, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2016 06:22 PM by jennybee.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:31 PM)jennybee Wrote:  In my experience you can only offer people information and facts. Sometimes it's a matter of not wanting to see facts for what they are. Sometimes brainwashing and cult-like behavior are in play (yes, I consider Christianity and various sects of Christianity to be a cult and engage in cult-style behavior including brainwashing of members).

I also think many religions like to get children when they are young, when they don't have the full ability to reason and will often believe what their parents or other authoritative adults tell them is truth.

When someone is brainwashed it is very hard for them to hear facts because they are taught anyone who doubts is "of the devil," is angering God, is going to hell, has no morals, and has not fully welcomed Jesus into their hearts. Fear and ex-communication by family and friends and community are huge roadblocks in people wanting to see facts or reality.

Additionally, some people legitimately want to believe. When you are dealing with someone who wants to believe, facts are not a hindrance to them because they live in the "faith zone."

I think people who want to see the facts for what they are have an internal impetus to do so. They want to do it for themselves. Something has generally happened that is no longer shaping their religious worldview. For me, it was the church's treatment of anyone who was not exactly like them, it's treatment of women, same sex couples, etc. I also never read the Bible (surprisingly) as a Catholic. They only cherry picked the good passages in church.

I switched to Christianity later on and when I did that I actually read the Bible from front to back on my own, I was shocked at what I found. The God of the Bible was not an entity I wanted to worship, for one. And for two, the Bible read like a folktale, a collection of myths and stories made up by man. It's embarrassing to me that one of my degrees is in Sociology and I actually studied various religions in other cultures such as the cargo cults, but all the while believed in Jesus and never reading my own Bible. Facepalm

I think the best antidote for religion is encouraging religious folk to actually read the Bible--most have not read the entire thing and are only going by what the church tells them is true and are sadly taking that at face value.

Truth is truth. Information in living systems and the construction of cells is undeniable, as is the fine-tuning of the universe. From there, time to really turn to theology.

I also studied many religions and was Catholic for most my life. I converted to non-denominational Christian and I also have read the Bible and I study it frequently. The God of the Bible is righteous and sets the standard for moral righteousness for humans. He had to write a moral code, the Ten Commandments, simply to tell us to love Him and each other. His Government is based on this. His Leadership is based on three critical elements; fear, trust, and love. This is true in any leadership scenario. Without one of these key ingredients, leadership with any species is not very effective.

Man fell when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command. The punishment for sin is death. All men sin.

All other religions say you have to work your way to heaven based on your deeds. Christianity is the only religion which states, that is impossible. All men would fall short if that were the case. Hence, the Son of God (co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit) willingly came here, lived the only sin free life, and then allowed himself to be sacrificed for our sins so that we do not have to die eternally. It is a free gift of eternal life and we just need to truly believe in Him and follow Him to accept this free gift. Those that do not accept His free gift, die a second time permanently. I believe the Bible also implies that those who cannot make these decisions; either mentally due to age or disability are also saved and it could be written in the hearts of those that never heard or read the Scriptures.

God is not a righteous character in the Bible. He is anything but. Just read Deuteronomy and you'll find some pretty horrific things that will happen to you for disobedience to God. The definition of righteous is morally justifiable. Have you read the story about God's punishment of the rape of David's wives by his son and death of David's baby--all as a result of *David's* sin. Not righteous in the least. The Bible is filled with God's unrighteous acts.

Not all religions believe in heaven or a heaven. You are going to find some similarities and differences in all religions--especially in nearby cultures as it was quite common for one culture to take and morph other religions of the time and call it their own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  The God of the Bible is righteous and sets the standard for moral righteousness for humans. He had to write a moral code, the Ten Commandments, simply to tell us to love Him and each other.

The Ten Commandments (whichever version you pick) is far to simplistic to be of any practical use. It also wastes quite a bit of time dealing with things that have nothing to do with morality.

Quote: His Leadership is based on three critical elements; fear, trust, and love. This is true in any leadership scenario. Without one of these key ingredients, leadership with any species is not very effective.

Any system that requires fear as a component is immoral.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
13-06-2016, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2016 07:16 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 04:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:10 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Spin and twist. I have watched numerous debates on this topic and the atheist scientist will not touch specified complexity or irreducible complexity arguments regarding the living systems.

Bullshit.













Quote:The best they will try (when all other manipulative debate tactics are exhausted and they know their credentials as credible scientists are on the line) is panspermia;
that we were seeded here by aliens.

More bullshit. Panspermia has nothing to do with it.

Quote:This then begs the question who designed the aliens since the entire universe is obviously designed as shown by it's extreme fine-tuning and the aliens would exist inside the boundaries of the universe. One constant of the twenty or more constants of the universe is so fine tuned that if you had a ruler the size of the universe (approx. 90 billion light years across) and you were to shift the constant value one-inch in either direction, life does not exist. That is one of twenty or more fine tuned constants.

Even more bullshit. The 'fine tuning' argument is silly. We have exactly one example of a universe; there is no reason to believe that the physical laws could be anything other than they are.

Quote:Many of the atheist scientist will not even try the multi-verse argument because they secretly know it is nonsense, as Michael Shermer told Dr. Meyer on a train ride after a debate, that multi-verse argument is pretty stupid or something like that.

The multiverse hypothesis is an answer to a non-existent problem.

Video 1:

His claim is that individual parts of irreducibly complex systems have no function. However, he shows that removing 40 of 50 parts of the bacterial flagellum leaves 10 parts which function as a different type of system.

He states, “These complicated machines do not arise from scratch they arise from combinations of components that have different functions, functions of their own, and the components originate with functions of their own as well. Therefore, natural selection will work every step of the way.” Then he starts talking about how the parts could do other jobs with natural selection or be useless on their own if designed. He says if 40 of the 50 parts are removed then irreducible complexity would mean the remaining 10 parts are function-less. He says the 10 parts remaining are fully functional and they are the Type-III Secretory System (10 parts).

These are his claims above.

The latest definition of irreducible complexity states, “A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.” Hence, if there is an irreducibly complex system and one part or set of parts is damaged or fails then the overall system is degraded or fails to function. For instance, in your car, if the door falls off, the car is degraded but is still functional and it is still classified as a car. However, if the motor is removed the car is no longer functional. In addition, if you remove the structure of the vehicle and leave just the engine, you then still have a fully functional engine but you no longer have a car.

Similarly, in this video he is trying to say if you remove 40 of 50 parts of the bacterial flagellum you no longer have a bacterial flaggelum but instead you have a fully functional Type III Secretory System of 10 parts. How this provides any argument at all for natural selection is beyond me. Seems to me like he is just trying to confuse people who have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I think I have an idea of what he is talking about and he definitely has me confused.

Video 2:

Richard Dawkins mentions that Charles Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” has a chapter on irreducible complexity or at least something exactly like it. Dawkins then gives his own definition of irreducible complexity as, “a phrase that’s used for something which is alleged to be too complicated to have come about. Not only too complicated to have come about by chance because everybody agrees about that. Too complicated to have come about by gradual evolution by natural selection.”

Dawkins incorrectly defined irreducible complexity here. Irreducible complexity is "a system performing a given basic function which includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." Irreducibly complex means these micro-machines in the living cells have parts or components that if one part or a set of parts fails, the overall system is degraded or fails to function as intended. See my example above under Video 1 for examples of this. Beyond this point, these living system micro-machines are also extremely specific and extremely complex to perform precise functions inside the cell. They are very clearly designed. Ultimately, natural selection is random chance so I am glad he thinks everyone agrees that it could not happen by random chance. Either this universe and everything in it is designed or random. It is clearly designed and there is no way this occurred randomly.

Just as a side point, The Origin of Species book was written in 1859 and DNA was discovered in 1953, nearly a century later. Irreducible complexity was first defined in 2005 and clearly is not defining a system that is just too complicated to understand. This is obviously a contrived and manipulative argument being made here by Dawkins and it is clearly a straw man argument.

Dawkins also mentions in the video that some people think living systems and subsystems (eyes, heart,…) are too complicated to come about by evolution or chance. He then says natural selection is a non-random process and mutation is random which is where candidates for natural selection are put up. He says you cannot get an eye by one random stroke of luck, it takes a long time and slow gradual change.

In response, I agree with Dawkins that living systems evolve and mutate over time which is part of the implementation of the design on a micro-scale. Often, these systems become more specified and complex over time and learn to operate more effectively and efficiently which is absolutely incredible. Simple systems learning to become more organized and improved defies the second law of thermodynamics in the sense that these systems are tending more toward order rather than going from order to disorder as with entropy.

Dawkins then says if there is anywhere in the animal kingdom, an organ which is too complicated to have come about by natural selection then Darwin’s theory is blown out of the water. Then he says no such case has ever been known. He then says it is a matter of not understanding how an eye could come about by natural selection and then says well that is your problem. He then says there is no such thing as irreducibly complexity in the sense that we understand how eyes come about and other organs,…

Again, the point is not whether these systems are too complicated to understand or to understand how they could come about randomly through mutation and then be chosen somehow by natural selection, rather, the argument is that these systems have parts where if one or more fail the machine fails or is degraded. These machines are also extremely highly specified and extremely complex.

Additionally, he says the bacterial flagellum is a beautiful piece of miniature engineering.

Finally! At last! A point that Mr. Dawkins and I agree on. I agree that the bacterial flagellum is a beautiful piece of miniature engineering.

He then mentions the propeller and bearing,… He mentions the tiny molecular motor which drives the propeller. He says even if no one could think of how it could evolve it would just be an argument of personal incredulity. He then says the evolutionary case is well worked out and he cites a source of reference. He then mentions how the bacterial flagellum came about from a filter type mechanism which was just modified step-by-step to create the flagellum motor, so called.

Again, he is just repeating himself and is basically saying if you don't understand how it evolved that's your problem. However, I agree it evolved which is part of the implementation of the design and part of a extremely specified and extremely complex fine-tuned machine using new parts to serve a different function. 10 of the parts serve as a filter, then and today, and 50 parts today serve as a motor.

Below toward the end of the video, Dawkins is confronted with the question of where information bearing properties of DNA come from. Dawkins had to concede that "maybe we were seeded here by aliens."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

Video 3:

Video did not work. I received an error stating, “An error occurred,…”

In response to your comments:

I agree that panspermia is a joke. I was just saying what I have heard some of your sources (atheist scientists) say in response to the specified complexity of living systems as a source of the DNA (aliens).

If these fine-tuned constants were anything but the value they are, no life. Some of them are fine-tuned to orders of magnitude beyond comprehension, like the cosmological constant; 1/ 10^120. There are 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe, to give you an idea of how fine-tuned that one figure is. There are over 20 other finely-tuned constants.

I agree, the multi-verse is nonsense, pretty much like Dr. Shermer said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 04:45 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:10 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Spin and twist.

Sorry, that's the theistic approach.

Quote: I have watched numerous debates on this topic and the atheist scientist will not touch specified complexity or irreducible complexity arguments regarding the living systems.

"Specified complexity" is a non-starter until there is a definition of what it is. I'm still waiting for anybody to say who specified what. Irreducible complexity has been debunked countless times. Read up on the Dover/Kitzmiller trial and see what a beating Behe took when he tried to claim that.

Quote:The best they will try (when all other manipulative debate tactics are exhausted and they know their credentials as credible scientists are on the line) is panspermia; that we were seeded here by aliens. This then begs the question who designed the aliens since the entire universe is obviously designed as shown by it's extreme fine-tuning and the aliens would exist inside the boundaries of the universe.

Citation required. The only example I know what Dawkins being forced to come up with any explanation at all for life on Earth that was not the result of abiogenesis and evolution.

No reputable scientists thinks that panspermia is a final answer since, as you note, it suffers the same regression problems that "god did it" does.

Quote: One constant of the twenty or more constants of the universe is so fine tuned that if you had a ruler the size of the universe (approx. 90 billion light years across) and you were to shift the constant value one-inch in either direction, life does not exist. That is one of twenty or more fine tuned constants.

Can the constants be different than they are?
Can they be altered independently?
Is the universe we observe unique?
Without being able to answer the questions all we can say is that we appear to have evolved to fit the universe. Claims to the contrary make invalid assumptions.

Quote:Many of the atheist scientist will not even try the multi-verse argument because they secretly know it is nonsense, as Michael Shermer told Dr. Meyer on a train ride after a debate, that multi-verse argument is pretty stupid or something like that.

No, it is not nonsense but it is unsupported by evidence. If anybody is claiming that there actually is a multiverse then they are jumping the gun. At this point it is an interesting conjecture and it will be fascinating to see if science can find evidence to support or discredit the idea. In the meantime, the answer is "we don't know" and not "it is nonsense". The thing is, it answers the questions of fine tuning at least as well as the claim for a god without requiring that a hugely complex intelligence simply exists without cause. If I had to bet on one or the other then Occam's Razor favors a multiverse of some sort.

Specify means "1. identify clearly and definitely. 2. state a fact or requirement clearly and precisely."

Complexity means, "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated."

Hence, specified complexity of living systems and molecular machines means they are both 1.clearly and precisely identified and 2. intricate and complicated.

The DNA to molecular machines are beyond that even. They are so precise and so complex it boggles the mind. A fully functional 747 is a joke in comparison to how these micro-machines were built and operate.

I provide the definition of irreducible complexity in a post above and show how it is not refuted.

There is the Dawkins example and all of this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...scientists

If constants of universe were different, life would not exist.
No, if one of the over 20 constants were off, life would not exist.
This is the only universe we know of or have any evidence for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 07:34 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:19 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I won't. Holding the breath is practiced as part of meditation in some eastern religions. I will just continue to pray for you.

I'm guessing that meditation and yoga are 'against your religion'. Consider

Yes sir, yoga in the sense of oh and um is. I will use simple breathing techniques to relax if ever needed but usually I just pray.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 07:40 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:13 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:57 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Additionally, the Bible is not intended to be a science manual but it is scientifically accurate in it's scientific claims.

Have you read Bart Ehrman?

Do you know what Orthodoxy means and how it was established?

Do you know about the Council of Nicea and the compilation of the bible?

Is he the scientist that wrote a book and then when in an actual university as a professor he refuted his own book and spoke of the reliability of the New Testament? I think I heard of him, if that is who you are referring to.

I believe there has been much corruption in the church from before the time of the Son of God up until present and according to the Bible, until the end of days.

The New Testament documents are 95 percent identical and there were 24,000 copies dating back 2000 years. There are only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

Below is more information:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:59 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  No, either the universe and living systems are designed or came about by random chance. Those are the ONLY two options.

Constant repetition of your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less false.

Quote:Design is so evident, it would take willful ignorance to deny it if studied.

So, is the ichneumon wasp intelligently designed? It paralyzes a host (such as a caterpillar) and lays an egg on, near, or inside the host's body. Upon hatching, the larval ichneumon feeds either externally or internally, killing the host when it is ready to pupate.
Note that the larva eat the host while it is alive.

Nice design.

If one looks at the actual details of life, it becomes abundantly clear that is is not intelligently designed.

Can't argue the facts or refute the obvious case that these extremely specified and complex and irreducibly complex living systems are obviously, clearly, and totally 100 percent absolutely designed so try to attack the design and the Designer. Nice try but I seen this trick before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:05 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 05:46 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 05:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Truth is truth. Information in living systems and the construction of cells is undeniable, as is the fine-tuning of the universe. From there, time to really turn to theology.

I also studied many religions and was Catholic for most my life. I converted to non-denominational Christian and I also have read the Bible and I study it frequently. The God of the Bible is righteous and sets the standard for moral righteousness for humans. He had to write a moral code, the Ten Commandments, simply to tell us to love Him and each other. His Government is based on this. His Leadership is based on three critical elements; fear, trust, and love. This is true in any leadership scenario. Without one of these key ingredients, leadership with any species is not very effective.

Man fell when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command. The punishment for sin is death. All men sin.

All other religions say you have to work your way to heaven based on your deeds. Christianity is the only religion which states, that is impossible. All men would fall short if that were the case. Hence, the Son of God (co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit) willingly came here, lived the only sin free life, and then allowed himself to be sacrificed for our sins so that we do not have to die eternally. It is a free gift of eternal life and we just need to truly believe in Him and follow Him to accept this free gift. Those that do not accept His free gift, die a second time permanently. I believe the Bible also implies that those who cannot make these decisions; either mentally due to age or disability are also saved and it could be written in the hearts of those that never heard or read the Scriptures.

God is not a righteous character in the Bible. He is anything but. Just read Deuteronomy and you'll find some pretty horrific things that will happen to you for disobedience to God. The definition of righteous is morally justifiable. Have you read the story about God's punishment of the rape of David's wives by his son and death of David's baby--all as a result of *David's* sin. Not righteous in the least. The Bible is filled with God's unrighteous acts.

Not all religions believe in heaven or a heaven. You are going to find some similarities and differences in all religions--especially in nearby cultures as it was quite common for one culture to take and morph other religions of the time and call it their own.

I read it all. In Deuteronomy laws and rules are laid down.

God is the absolute standard of righteousness and justice. Sin and disobedience to the Lord carries a penalty often but the Lord is also very forgiving. When God kills someone He is transferring them from this existence to the next. God is the Creator of all of us and death is a part of life as punishment for sin. Truly believe and follow the Son of God (co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead) and you die once, since He freely took on your sins to save you from a second death. Those that do not die twice.

Christianity is the religion which has the creation story which matches up with science and which prophesies (foretells) thousands of years of this world's history, sometimes centuries and millennium in advance. Even lesser known prophesies are in the Bible, such as the relationship between Cleopatra and Caesar described hundreds of years prior to their birth. There are tons of them. The U.S. is prophesied as is the Catholic Church, Greece, Medio-Persia, Rome kingdoms. Jesus fulfills over 100 Old Testament prophesies for the Messiah, etc. Some prophecies are symbolic but there are keys to understand the symbols:

http://www.bibleprophecytruth.com/topics/bible-symbols

Science proves design which is where it plateaus. From there theology is needed. Christianity is the theological and final answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: