But ID is not based on an argument from ignorance.

First, the event must be exceedingly improbable (so much so that it exhausts the available probabilistic resources).

Second, it must conform to a meaningful or independently given pattern.

Is it a "God of the gaps" agrument to say a book is was crafted by an intelligent designer?

On what basis does one argue that the fine-tuning argument is one of God of the gaps?

Furthermore, to assume that every phenomenon that we cannot explain as of yet must have a materialistic explanation is transposed logic "materialism-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

One might say that Intelligent Design cannot be tested because we cannot know or understand what actions God might take. Take God out of the above statement and enter Intelligent Design and we find that we can.

Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function example...complex and specified information.

Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems, example would be a blueprint.

Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems examples are wheels for cars and bikes etc, etc, etc...

Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function, example would be 'junk DNA.' From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much 'junk.'"


•ID directs research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences. This has practical implications not just for explaining biological origins but also for engineering enzymes and anticipating / fighting the future evolution of diseases. (See Axe, 2004; Axe, 2000; Axe, 2010 ba)


•ID predicts that scientists will find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments, including the Galactic Habitable Zone. This has huge implications for proper cosmological models of the universe, hints at proper avenues for successful "theories of everything" which must accommodate fine-tuning, and other implications for theoretical physics. (See Gonzalez 2001; Halsmer, 2009.)


•ID has helped scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates. (See Meyer, 2004b; Dembski, 1998b; McIntosh, 2009a.)


•ID has led to both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function. This of course has practical implications for fighting problems like antibiotic resistance or engineering bacteria. (See Behe & Snoke, 2004; Gauger et al. 2010).


•ID implies that there are limits to the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems. This particular example is relevant because Dr. McPeek cites the evolution of anti-biotic resistance, antiviral drug resistance, and insecticide resistance as his prime examples of the utility of Darwinian evolution. Ironically, one of the primary the ways that scientists combat such forms of resistance is based upon the premise that there are LIMITS to the amount that organisms can evolve. If biological realities like limits to evolution did not exist, it would be pointless for medical doctors to try to combat antibiotic resistance or antiviral drug resistance, because evolution could always produce an adaptation such that the target organism would become resistant without incurring a fitness cost. So ID's predictions about the existence of limits to evolution is what helps combat antibiotic, antiviral and pesticide resistance--not knowledge of Darwinian evolution. (See: Dembski and Marks 2009a; Dembski and Marks, 2009b; Ewert et al. 2009; Ewert et al. 2010; Axe et al. 2008.; Axe 2010a; Axe 2010b; Meyer 2004b; McIntosh 2009a; and many others.)


•ID thinking has helped scientists properly measure functional biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution. (See, for example, Meyer, 2004b; Durston et al. 2007; Chiu and Thomas 2002.)


•ID has caused scientists to investigate computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems. (See Sternberg, 2008; Voie, 2006; Abel & Trevors, 2006.)


•ID serves as a paradigm for biology which helps scientists reverse engineer molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum to understand their function like machines, and to understand how the machine-like properties of life allow biological systems to function. (See for example Minnich and Meyer, 2004); McIntosh, 2009a.)


•ID causes scientists to view cellular components as "designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution," allowing scientists to propose testable hypotheses about causes of cancer. (See Wells, 2005.)


•ID leads to the view of life as being front-loaded with information such that it is designed to evolve, expecting (and now finding!) previously unanticipated "out of place" genes in various taxa. (See, for example, Sherman, 2007; de Roos, 2005; de Roos, 2007; de Roos, 2006.)


•ID explains the cause of the widespread feature of extreme degrees of "convergent evolution," including convergent genetic evolution. (See Lönnig, 2004; Nelson, & Wells, 2003; Davison, 2005.)


•ID explains causes of explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life. (See Lönnig, 2004; Meyer, 2004b; Meyer et al., 2003.)


•ID has quite naturally directed scientists to predict function for junk-DNA, leading to various types of research seeking function for non-coding "junk"-DNA, allowing us to understand development and cellular biology. (See Wells, 2004; McIntosh, 2009a); Seaman and Sanford, 2009.)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Cite who you are quoting.

If you get to set your assumptions you can get any conclusion you want.

---

Cite who you are quoting.

1st quote. Which was not closed by me------Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in both science and law. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego. His Law Degree is from the University of San Diego. Believer of Intelligent Design.

Second quote-------same.



Please excuse me. Rushed it.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Quote from a lawyer.....


...that says it all!

---

Robert,
What do you mean, "God of the Gaps?"

Robert there are absolutely no gaps in the God story, none what-so-ever! The Bible is a 100% completely true story of the origins of human beings and all the life on this planet. But.....Yes, the authors of the Bible coded the story. The Bible is heavily coded in what is called "Prophesy". The Bible is also coded in metaphors and parables. The authors of the Bible coded the story so that it would only be decoded in the very "end times". That time is now!

Robert it really does sound like the atheists have gotten to you my friend. It sounds like the atheists have really sucked you in. They are fooling you Robert, they are blinding you with science that you are unable to prove or disprove.

Its a shame Robert, you seem like a nice guy. It would have been nice to meet you in heaven and we could share a laugh together about how we got one up on the atheists.

Don't let them blind you with science Robert. They can fool you with science! Among the scientific facts, they tell you stuff that sounds true, but its not. Unfortunately Robert, you have no way of knowing which bits are true, and which bits are lies.

So take your pick Robert - Do you choose Jesus Christ as your saviour? Or do you side with the atheist scientists, who are the devil in flesh and blood?

John.

---

John,

You misunderstand. I believe in the Bible as the Word.

Robert

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

... Don't let them blind you with science ...

Similarly, don't be blinded by the (religious) light!


;-)

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

You misunderstand. I believe in the Bible as the Word.

Which one? There's so many of 'em?

Including all the typos and transcription errors? (The name "Christ" is a mistaken embellishment from "Christos" for just one example...)

There's a lot of history in the Christian Bible. There is a lot of good metaphor in there. The 'interpretations' seem to have evolved to be a lot less harsh and nothing like as extreme as certain other 'fundamentalist' religions. There is also an awful lot of embellishment!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

You misunderstand. I believe in the Bible as the Word.

Which one? There's so many of 'em?

Including all the typos and transcription errors? (The name "Christ" is a mistaken embellishment from "Christos" for just one example...)

There's a lot of history in the Christian Bible. There is a lot of good metaphor in there. The 'interpretations' seem to have evolved to be a lot less harsh and nothing like as extreme as certain other 'fundamentalist' religions. There is also an awful lot of embellishment!


Keep searchin',
Martin

Keep searchin' Martin. You're not even close to the truth, so it will take much more for you to come to the truth. You have shown much ignorance on the subject. You have my pity.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Hi, Intelligent Design.

Like myself, you definitely know we are living in a materialistic world. A type or category 3 civilization really is Darth Vader and his command ship (or the Death Star, for that matter).

No place or room for angels, beliefs, mythology and mysteries in all of this.

Such things belongs to our own world of thinking.

We are trying to understand the Universe as it is and appears to us by means of observation and analysis. Mathematics is thought to be the fundamental building mechanism and foundation for this to be working out and readily understood.

While we are trying to understand the workings of the Universe - are we also trying to find flaws in the way it is supposed to be working? In order to try to understand such flaws, in some instances we think of the existence of the Universe as being a random event (not having been created by means of divine creation, but rather as a result of randomness and coincidence). Anyway such principles are readily explained by means of mathematics.

Some people are reluctant to believe or think that the laws of nature are governed by mathematical or physical laws because of their reluctance at believing in a divine creator or some other divine creation being behind the creation and origin of the Universe and the ultimate forces which may be the source and origin of its existence.

The creation we are part of has created matter by means of the existence of particles. The movement of particles gives room for the creation of energy.

Meaning that particles in motion constitutes such energy. The way particles are moving are subjected to physical laws. These laws are based on a general assumption that the Universe is three-dimensional and that particles can not move faster through space than the speed of light (c) which is assumed to be a constant.

Which means that the laws which are related to energy are synonymous with the laws that are given or readily accepted for particles by means of their mass or matter or at least their behaviour as such.

Particles are having weight because of both their intrinsic density as well as their individual atoms are thought of as having even more esoteric sub-atomic particles which are composing or making them up.

Thinking of the Universe as being the result of a creation, possibly divine - and you are ready to assume that the laws that are governing it are fundamental in nature.

Mathematical laws are being used to explain measurements within the physics world. Time and gravity are two of the elements which are the most fundamental, but still the hardest ones to explain and understand.

You may have been seeing those formulas (or to be more precise - equations) possibly been written up on cardboards in the physics labs.

Are these equations supposed to be dealing with variables - or are they rather dealing with constants instead?

Many physicists assume that the number of factors underlying the principles of physics becomes so large that they give rise to principles of randomness, chaos and uncertainty. When not excluding a possible divine factor behind the creation of the Universe - is it more easy to accept such a factor by means of the "sum of the results" rather than all the factors which are constituting such a result and possibly change this "sum of results" as a "result"?

In the same way as the understanding of the laws of electromagnetism is trying to explain one aspect of the GUI (or Grand Unified Theory), the science between the weak nuclear forces does it another way, also strong nuclear forces does this yet another way and the ultimate science behind gravity and time are yet to go when it comes to trying to accomplish this aspect or subject. We have not mentioned time yet, because there are currently no defined or known laws for the notion or presence of time as we know it.

One cosmological model is supposed to be better than another and thereby replacing what is already being generally known or accepted for the same.

Newton's laws of gravity replaced everything that was generally believed to be true earlier when it comes to the subect of theoretical physics. Albert Einstein introduced relativity into Newton's laws by means of the special and general theory of relativity. Today even Einstein's models are not thought to be satisfactorily explained for every aspect of the understanding of nature and is now being superseded by Quantum Theory instead.

It may be assumed that a theory is a substitute for a given law. It appears or emerges in advance - before everything is fully known or understood about it in every detail.

Our three-dimensional universe has gravity and time as options when it comes to its workings. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 tries to explain the notion of time (or what else which may rather be present).

A well-written book in my own language (in black and white only, the only thing missing is color) about astronomy gives an introduction to Newton's three laws of gravity. The third of these laws is quite complex.

These laws are not giving any explanation for the subject of time. Where are the laws for time as given or derived by Albert Einstein?

Clocks are a way of measuring time. We assume that time may be going either forwards (most logical) or maybe even backwards.

As stated by the laws of Albert Einstein, the speed of time is relevant to an observer from his point of view only (which may be either stationary or at the speed of light - or close to the speed of light). An observer traveling though space at close to the speed of light without any external reference points will not notice any special. However there would only be family graves to visit when returning back from such a travel through space.

Time is synonymous with the expansion (or inflation) of the Universe from a singularity. A singularity completely removes the notion of time. In such a singularity gravity is infinite.

Gravity is defined by means of mathematical laws. These laws include constants.

Einstein's law E=mc2 however does not assume that the values for E, m and c are constant when it comes to numerical values, only that the relation between these elements and factors may be regarded as being constants.

For laws to be fundamental, there is necessary to accept a creation behind these laws. Without a Universe, no laws - and vice versa.

Time may be interpreted or understood as being the fourth dimension. Gravity is the way this four-dimensional Universe is working. Assume a straight line between two places in space. Bend or pull the end-points of this line into an arc and the direct distance of the same points in space becomes much smaller.

If you do this enough many times, you may end up with a line which is vertical rather than horizontal. The distance between the two places in space has been reduced to a "point" (or "singularity").

Time is also a way of measuring distance. Regardless of distance, time is almost always present, which means that time is a factor when it comes to all the three dimensions (X, Y, Z). The presence of no time also means that X, Y and Z is no more present and we are once more back at the singularity.

But in the end there may still be the assumption around that the Universe has been created out of nothing and that there never has been a divine creator behind its origin and existence.

Where is religious belief in all of this? Where does it belong and has it any place at all when it comes to the subject of science?

It would have been nice to meet you in heaven and we could share a laugh together about how we got one up on the atheists.

Please reminder which book and verse guides us to, "Shun the non-believing, analytically-minded? Whoa, is he. For he shall make a wasteland of his home and yours"?

Oh, that was "Planet of the Apes", misquoted.

See, the Bible I learned from growing up told us to spread the Good Word. To love our neighbors. To love our enemies as we love ourselves. And, by what I would say is a reasonable extension, mourn those that will not let themselves be saved.

Do you choose Jesus Christ as your saviour? Or do you side with the atheist scientists, who are the devil in flesh and blood?

It is much more this type of attitude ... the fundamelntalist attitude from some Christians and some other faiths as well, that drove me to agnosticism, not the mathematics I know very well and the science I follow.

ID, are you happy that Johnney has already seen the mind of God and knows you are condemned to Hell?

Paragraph correction: subject - not subect.

Newton's laws of gravity replaced everything that was generally believed to be true earlier when it comes to the subject of theoretical physics. Albert Einstein introduced relativity into Newton's laws by means of the special and general theory of relativity. Today even Einstein's models are not thought to be satisfactorily explained for every aspect of the understanding of nature and is now being superseded by Quantum Theory instead.

ID, are you happy that Johnney has already seen the mind of God and knows you are condemned to Hell?

Johnney assumes the Mind of God can be contained in a Book. I do not. He gave us what He wished to give us so far. I don't assume anyone is condemned to Hell. I don't know the full Mind of God. Nor does anyone else...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Hi, Intelligent Design.

Like myself, you definitely know we are living in a materialistic world. A type or category 3 civilization really is Darth Vader and his command ship (or the Death Star, for that matter).

No place or room for angels, beliefs, mythology and mysteries in all of this.

Such things belongs to our own world of thinking.

We are trying to understand the Universe as it is and appears to us by means of observation and analysis. Mathematics is thought to be the fundamental building mechanism and foundation for this to be working out and readily understood.

While we are trying to understand the workings of the Universe - are we also trying to find flaws in the way it is supposed to be working? In order to try to understand such flaws, in some instances we think of the existence of the Universe as being a random event (not having been created by means of divine creation, but rather as a result of randomness and coincidence). Anyway such principles are readily explained by means of mathematics.

Some people are reluctant to believe or think that the laws of nature are governed by mathematical or physical laws because of their reluctance at believing in a divine creator or some other divine creation being behind the creation and origin of the Universe and the ultimate forces which may be the source and origin of its existence.

The creation we are part of has created matter by means of the existence of particles. The movement of particles gives room for the creation of energy.

Meaning that particles in motion constitutes such energy. The way particles are moving are subjected to physical laws. These laws are based on a general assumption that the Universe is three-dimensional and that particles can not move faster through space than the speed of light (c) which is assumed to be a constant.

Which means that the laws which are related to energy are synonymous with the laws that are given or readily accepted for particles by means of their mass or matter or at least their behaviour as such.

Particles are having weight because of both their intrinsic density as well as their individual atoms are thought of as having even more esoteric sub-atomic particles which are composing or making them up.

Thinking of the Universe as being the result of a creation, possibly divine - and you are ready to assume that the laws that are governing it are fundamental in nature.

Mathematical laws are being used to explain measurements within the physics world. Time and gravity are two of the elements which are the most fundamental, but still the hardest ones to explain and understand.

You may have been seeing those formulas (or to be more precise - equations) possibly been written up on cardboards in the physics labs.

Are these equations supposed to be dealing with variables - or are they rather dealing with constants instead?

Many physicists assume that the number of factors underlying the principles of physics becomes so large that they give rise to principles of randomness, chaos and uncertainty. When not excluding a possible divine factor behind the creation of the Universe - is it more easy to accept such a factor by means of the "sum of the results" rather than all the factors which are constituting such a result and possibly change this "sum of results" as a "result"?

In the same way as the understanding of the laws of electromagnetism is trying to explain one aspect of the GUI (or Grand Unified Theory), the science between the weak nuclear forces does it another way, also strong nuclear forces does this yet another way and the ultimate science behind gravity and time are yet to go when it comes to trying to accomplish this aspect or subject. We have not mentioned time yet, because there are currently no defined or known laws for the notion or presence of time as we know it.

One cosmological model is supposed to be better than another and thereby replacing what is already being generally known or accepted for the same.

Newton's laws of gravity replaced everything that was generally believed to be true earlier when it comes to the subect of theoretical physics. Albert Einstein introduced relativity into Newton's laws by means of the special and general theory of relativity. Today even Einstein's models are not thought to be satisfactorily explained for every aspect of the understanding of nature and is now being superseded by Quantum Theory instead.

It may be assumed that a theory is a substitute for a given law. It appears or emerges in advance - before everything is fully known or understood about it in every detail.

Our three-dimensional universe has gravity and time as options when it comes to its workings. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 tries to explain the notion of time (or what else which may rather be present).

A well-written book in my own language (in black and white only, the only thing missing is color) about astronomy gives an introduction to Newton's three laws of gravity. The third of these laws is quite complex.

These laws are not giving any explanation for the subject of time. Where are the laws for time as given or derived by Albert Einstein?

Clocks are a way of measuring time. We assume that time may be going either forwards (most logical) or maybe even backwards.

As stated by the laws of Albert Einstein, the speed of time is relevant to an observer from his point of view only (which may be either stationary or at the speed of light - or close to the speed of light). An observer traveling though space at close to the speed of light without any external reference points will not notice any special. However there would only be family graves to visit when returning back from such a travel through space.

Time is synonymous with the expansion (or inflation) of the Universe from a singularity. A singularity completely removes the notion of time. In such a singularity gravity is infinite.

Gravity is defined by means of mathematical laws. These laws include constants.

Einstein's law E=mc2 however does not assume that the values for E, m and c are constant when it comes to numerical values, only that the relation between these elements and factors may be regarded as being constants.

For laws to be fundamental, there is necessary to accept a creation behind these laws. Without a Universe, no laws - and vice versa.

Time may be interpreted or understood as being the fourth dimension. Gravity is the way this four-dimensional Universe is working. Assume a straight line between two places in space. Bend or pull the end-points of this line into an arc and the direct distance of the same points in space becomes much smaller.

If you do this enough many times, you may end up with a line which is vertical rather than horizontal. The distance between the two places in space has been reduced to a "point" (or "singularity").

Time is also a way of measuring distance. Regardless of distance, time is almost always present, which means that time is a factor when it comes to all the three dimensions (X, Y, Z). The presence of no time also means that X, Y and Z is no more present and we are once more back at the singularity.

But in the end there may still be the assumption around that the Universe has been created out of nothing and that there never has been a divine creator behind its origin and existence.

Where is religious belief in all of this? Where does it belong and has it any place at all when it comes to the subject of science?

musicplayer,

Intellect is a gift from God. Please don't insult mine.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

>musicplayer,

>Intellect is a gift from God. Please don't insult mine.


Our three-dimensional universe has gravity and time as options when it comes to its workings. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 tries to explain the notion of time (or what else which may rather be present).

Define our presence by means of a materialistic world - not a non-materialistic one - which implies religion or some other kind of metaphysics.

The physical vs. the meta-physical world that is.

Atheists and agnostics are not supposed to be believing in "angels".

What are you getting back in return? Just UFO's (or the unexplained)?

Definitely. Not all on this message boards are supposed or assumed to be "believers". Some are even de-bunkers, although I have not seen anyone for now.

How much do we have to know or heed to know about this stuff? Are just the equations enough to satisfy everyone's needs?

Our three-dimensional universe has gravity and time as options when it comes to its workings. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 tries to explain the notion of time (or what else which may rather be present).

Time is not---an option. It's linear.

Define our presence in a materialistic world - not a non-materialistic one.

Physical vs. meta-physical that is.

You would have to have more then a nodding acquaintance with the Bible. It has to do with the Fallen Nature of man, Google it.

Atheists and agnostics are not supposed to be believing in "angels".

Atheists, yes. Agnostics, some.

What are you getting back in return? Just UFO's (or the unexplained)?

Myself? A better understanding of what is and what is not true as far as science, ergo less of the unexplained. I do not believe in UFO's and Seti has proven that everyday of it's existence, as I have already posted.

"me" wrote:

People, humans, know a lot more then they themselves can describe. But we do, it is obvious. This is done by knowing a face in a large crowd. Anyone of us can pick out a loved one in a crowd. We do so by understanding the design of our loved one. It is almost instantaneous depending on the size of the crowd. It is much harder to tell someone what a loved one looks like, examples, if someone is lost and you need to tell another what they look like, or, if you were to tell an artist and he is to paint your loved one, but you yourself can pick out that loved one very quickly in the crowd. You do so by their design.

When a person reads, like you do right now, you do not read each letter and come up with the word, a child does at first but you do not. You attend from the letters the word to their meaning. We focus on the meaning embedded in the arrangement not the letters themselves.

Natural scientist do the same as the above to define design in nature here on earth and the universe. Life itself is a book, one that is read in DNA. It's design is also obvious. Such complexity as a book would be not by a chance happening. Looking at it just like the written word tells of a design, this I'm sure will be denied by some, but, the overall vast majority of us will not deny it.

Irony? Maybe. However, the more we learn about what it takes for life to root and grow into a thinking being like us the more remote the chance of life being on another planet. The Copernican Principle and indeed SETI actually reduces hope of finding intelligent life on another planet. With the revised Drake Equation we find that it takes a lot more for intelligent life to pop up then we once thought in the 60's. As I have said the more deeply we read the book of nature the more complex the book becomes and the less likely it is that life has popped up elsewhere. Chance in effect precludes chance the more complex things become.

Life as we know it, the placement needed for life, and complexity all deny a chance happening.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

>Myself? A better understanding of what is and what is not true as far as science, ergo less of the unexplained. I do not believe in UFO's and Seti has proven that everyday of it's existence, as I have already posted.

> Repeat: I do not believe in UFO's and Seti has proven that everyday of it's existence, as I have already posted.

I.D. Seti@home as a project is being run on the assumption of the presence of this existence. How do you prove the opposite of the presumed fact?

Meaning - Prove the unproven....

If it was not for my 4 millon+ Seti@home credits I would have kicked the staff in the ass. Right now I am not so sure I would do this kind of thing.

Back to the subject regarding astronomers being biased when it comes to the subject.

Reminds me that I was visiting my dentist here the other day.

This dentist was an "all-practitioner" - meaning standard when it comes to quality of performance.

You are not supposed to get everything you want this way. It does not cost you a fortune in money either.

You know - Pluto is always supposed to be a planet... even when including Charon and Nix and ?.

Huh - again!

Anyway - need to know - not heed to know.

Oh, another important question, perhaps: So what then is the purpose of "Intelligent Design"?

Does it all get bogged down into the subject which is related to "intelligence"?

For this kind of stuff we do have brain-storming, projects, construction work and human therapy (for those pf us who had a bad day on the job experience and possibly needs to consult a pshychologist regarding such a matter or job experience).

Buh!