What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?

[jillio]

That was going to be my point...you jumped the gun on me lol.

OOPS!:Oops:

 

[KarissaMann05]

Oooh dino and bible!?

I love that discussion!

Can I post it with my old eassy and theory here, Liebling!?

Well, I hope they dont pick on my eassy & thought. -_-;;

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

Exactly. Evolution=to evolve. Adaptation is the means by which that occurs.

" Evolution " is extacly how I feel means to evolve and I agree. I have noticed some of them not want to see that point of view that ape could " evolve " in man. Other says GOD made Adam so it hard to say which.

 

[EagleCherokee63]

If your Bible doesn't have Job 40:15-24, then you don't have a complete Bible.

I remembered In 1992 or 1993 my former church talked about Job 40 about dinosaurs. I not believe that. I read KJV

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.


behemoth means, It might be a hippopotamus or an elephant? or you might right? God knew only!

 

[jillio]

" Evolution " is extacly how I feel means to evolve and I agree. I have noticed some of them not want to see that point of view that ape could " evolve " in man. Other says GOD made Adam so it hard to say which.

But, it also says God made Adam "in His own image". Since none of us have actually seen God, who can say what that image is? And, humans and Bonobos share 99% of the same DNA. Gotta make you think.

 

[Cheri]

But, it also says God made Adam "in His own image". Since none of us have actually seen God, who can say what that image is? And, humans and Bonobos share 99% of the same DNA. Gotta make you think.

being an Almighty God, God can designed anything.

God designed man in God's own image, meaning that human would have a spiritual dimension to their lives. God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and God breathed life into it.

 

[jillio]

being an Almighty God, God can designed anything.

God designed man in God's own image, meaning that human would have a spiritual dimension to their lives. God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and God breathed life into it.

Thanks. I understand that. But do we really know what God looks like?

 

[Cheri]

Thanks. I understand that. But do we really know what God looks like?

God is the light the holy spirits we can't see God alone, or otherwise we will be blind or we will die.

But, God does reveal Himself, God talked with Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses. Mostly God reveal Himself only through His prophet.

Even God took the time to reason with Adam and Eve's son Cain about his selfish and unreasonable anger and Cain rejected God's advice and murdered his brother Abel.

 

[fredfam1]

Do you agree that an adaptation is a positive trait of an organisim favoured by natural selection?

It can be positive or it can be negative. Look at sickle cell anemia. Hardly a positive adaptation. It allows the human to exist but in a deplorable condition. And adaptation can occur in one generation. Evolution requires abiogenisis to begin the whole process adaptation does not. Evolution requires an extroidinary time frame and adaptation does not. Adaptation is confined to a species. There is no adaptation between species and please don't site Lucy. She was a fraud as were countless other so called "links". The evolutionary tree is an artists imagination.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Oooh dino and bible!?

I love that discussion!

Can I post it with my old eassy and theory here, Liebling!?

Well, I hope they dont pick on my eassy & thought. -_-;;

Of course you can...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If your Bible doesn't have Job 40:15-24, then you don't have a complete Bible.

Again turning his attention to animal creation, God asked Job about Behemoth, generally identified as the hippopotamus. (Job 40:15-24) A full-grown hippo may be from 12 to 15 feet [4 to 5 m] long and may weigh up to 8,000 pounds [3,600 kg]. Behemoth’s “power is in its hips”—the muscles in its back. The thick hide of its belly is a real advantage as short-legged Behemoth drags its body over stones in riverbeds. Surely a man is no match for Behemoth, with its massive body, huge mouth, and powerful jaws.

Behemoth climbs out of the river to feast on “green grass.” Why, the greenery of an entire mountain seems necessary to sustain it! Some 200 to 400 pounds [90-180 kg] of vegetation go into its stomach every day. Its appetite satisfied, Behemoth lies under lotus trees or in the shade of poplars. If the river it lives in overflows, the hippo can keep its head above water and swim against a deluge. Confronted with Behemoth’s mammoth mouth and formidable tusks, Job would not have the audacity to pierce its nose with a hook


Liebling´s view: It could be elephant?

 

[VamPyroX]

But, it also says God made Adam "in His own image". Since none of us have actually seen God, who can say what that image is? And, humans and Bonobos share 99% of the same DNA. Gotta make you think.

If we were created in God's image and we share 99% the same DNA as monkeys, then that would mean that God is possibly a monkey?

 

[owen06]

It can be positive or it can be negative. Look at sickle cell anemia. Hardly a positive adaptation. It allows the human to exist but in a deplorable condition. And adaptation can occur in one generation. Evolution requires abiogenisis to begin the whole process adaptation does not. Evolution requires an extroidinary time frame and adaptation does not. Adaptation is confined to a species. There is no adaptation between species and please don't site Lucy. She was a fraud as were countless other so called "links". The evolutionary tree is an artists imagination.

Hemoglobin type "S" is the type of hemoglobin associated with the development of sickle cell anemia. In people with only one copy of the gene, when they get infected with malaria, hemoglobin type S is basically activated to the point that the cells become deformed, and are then killed. This prevents the parasite from spreading throughout your body. The problems occur when people have two copies of the gene. People rarely have two copies.

Maps plotting the malaria endemic parts of the world, coinside with maps plotting prevelence of the sickle cell gene. So sickle cell is actually a positive trait but adaptation isn't perfect and sometimes you end up with two copies of the S gene. People who had two copies didn't usually live for long (this has changed due to medical advances). The adaptive advantage of having one copy of the S gene is balanced by the negative effect of having two copies. Thus, people in high malaria areas were naturally selected to have one copy of the type S gene (which is positive) and people with two copies were selected out.

I would also like to point out that modern science doesn't actually use the traditional evolutionary tree, however, with advances in technology, science has been able to analyse protiens that make up every living thing. Because we know the rate that these proteins change, we can plot the divergence of the various species on earth. We can actually show that mammals and insects both divereged from the same common ancestor as plants, at the same time. I'm not discounting that adaptation occurs (i.e. Darwin's finches).
With regards to adaptation in one generation, are you referring to definitive, structural changes or modifications in gene expression? I disagree with the former but agree with the later. If there are two populations of the same species, each having to adapt to different environments, over time, the sum of those adaptations could make it so that those two populations could no longer successfully reproduce with one another and they would now have evolved into different species. Therefore, adaptation is the process by which evolution occurs.

 

[Reba]

Liebling´s view: It could be elephant?

Does an elephant have a tail like a cedar tree?

If it's an elephant, why no description of the trunk or big floppy ears included? Those are very distinctive parts of elephants.

 

[fredfam1]

Hemoglobin type "S" is the type of hemoglobin associated with the development of sickle cell anemia. In people with only one copy of the gene, when they get infected with malaria, hemoglobin type S is basically activated to the point that the cells become deformed, and are then killed. This prevents the parasite from spreading throughout your body. The problems occur when people have two copies of the gene. People rarely have two copies.

Maps plotting the malaria endemic parts of the world, coinside with maps plotting prevelence of the sickle cell gene. So sickle cell is actually a positive trait but adaptation isn't perfect and sometimes you end up with two copies of the S gene. People who had two copies didn't usually live for long (this has changed due to medical advances). The adaptive advantage of having one copy of the S gene is balanced by the negative effect of having two copies. Thus, people in high malaria areas were naturally selected to have one copy of the type S gene (which is positive) and people with two copies were selected out.

I would also like to point out that modern science doesn't actually use the traditional evolutionary tree, however, with advances in technology, science has been able to analyse protiens that make up every living thing. Because we know the rate that these proteins change, we can plot the divergence of the various species on earth. We can actually show that mammals and insects both divereged from the same common ancestor as plants, at the same time. I'm not discounting that adaptation occurs (i.e. Darwin's finches).
With regards to adaptation in one generation, are you referring to definitive, structural changes or modifications in gene expression? I disagree with the former but agree with the later. If there are two populations of the same species, each having to adapt to different environments, over time, the sum of those adaptations could make it so that those two populations could no longer successfully reproduce with one another and they would now have evolved into different species. Therefore, adaptation is the process by which evolution occurs.

Sickle cell anemia reduces the fittness of the population even in some of those with the trait, or recessive gene and there for is not a positive overall trait. The fact that a virus may not be able to live in this particular environment does not even constitute an argument for adaptation and results in an over all loss of genetic information which is not evolution or even macroevolution.

"Many individuals will have decreased ability to concentrate their urine. There may be an increased incidence of urinary tract infection during pregnancy. Painless hematurea does occur in 1 to 4 % of individuals with sickle cell trait . This complication is usually not a significant problem, however, a minority of individuals may have significant problems with recurrent hematurea requiring medical intervention, transfusion, and iron therapy. Complications such as splenic infarction, pain episodes, and sudden death may be induced by severe hypoxia, severe dehydration, and exertion at the limits of human endurance."


"If there are two populations of the same species, each having to adapt to different environments, over time, the sum of those adaptations could make it so that those two populations could no longer successfully reproduce with one another and they would now have evolved into different species. "

Any ornithologist will tell you that a species is an artificial designation defined by those whoever is needing the funding at that time. Consider the Bard owl and the Spotted Owl, with out mans help eventually the Bard owl will win out. But they are still both owls.As the Bible says, they reproduce after their KIND. There is no evidence of evolution between kinds. Only adaptation, which some scientists prefer to label MICROevolution. A donkey plus a horse equals a mule. Clasified as an entirely different species. It is still equine and NOT fertile. As for genetic similarity: read the following from ICR on the subject:

Many secular scientists have used this information in a variety of ways to support evolutionary hypotheses about human origins and the origin of all life forms. At ICR, we have also begun to investigate the field of genomics to provide scientific evidence supporting the Biblical position that man was created distinctly different from the animals, and that each "kind" of animal was created distinctly different from other "kinds."

One area of research currently being conducted at ICR is a comparison of the human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genomes. The Biblical teaching that man was a special creation (Genesis 1:27), different from any other created "kind," is contrary to the evolutionary paradigm that man evolved from a primitive ape. Following the evolutionary line of reasoning, evolutionists have proposed that the chimpanzee is the nearest relative of modern man--both have evolved from a common hypothetical ancestor. Evolutionists are using certain fossils and the general similarity of man and chimpanzee as proof of their common ancestry. As molecular data (including amino acid sequences in proteins) have accumulated over the past thirty years, this evolutionary link has supposedly been confirmed. Many protein-coding sequences in the genome have been reported to have a 98.5% sequence homology (the percent of DNA that matches between two organisms) for humans and chimpanzees. However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.3 However, preliminary research at ICR using genomic databases and the current literature indicates that the sequence homology between humans and chimpanzees may be less than 90%, as more genomic regions, such as heterochromatin (regions of condensed noncoding DNA) and unresolved alignment gaps are included in homology studies.

Major differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are increasingly being documented in scientific journals. An example of this was reported in an article in Genome Research identifying chromosome rearrangements between human chromosome 21 and the homologous chimpanzee chromosome 22.4 Using many long-range human PCR primers (primers used to sequence 10,000 bases at a time) that spanned 32.4 Mb (1Mb = 1 million bases) of human chromosome 21, approximately 27 Mb of chimpanzee chromosome 22 were successfully sequenced. This left 5.4 Mb of corresponding human sequences undetectable in chimpanzee chromosome 22. Assuming the 5.4 Mb of DNA that was unable to be sequenced in the chimpanzee genome was 70% homologous to the corresponding human sequence (very generous for sequences that are not alignable!) and combining this with the 27 Mb of sequenced chimpanzee DNA (assuming this region is 95% homologous, see above) would give a homology of 90% for human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22. If the unalignable region is less than 70%, the homology of human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 will be even less than 90%. Considering all the elements that determine sequence homology, when an entire sequence comparison is finally made between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the actual amount of DNA sequence homology is almost certainly going to be less than 90%.

What is the significance of 98.5% versus 90% homology? If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. To get 150 million nucleotide changes in 250,000 generations, the two lines of descent would require 600 beneficial mutations fixed in each population of ancestral humans and chimpanzee per generation. However, nearly all mutations are neutral, having no effect and therefore are not selectable, or are slightly deleterious, causing genetic deterioration in a population of organisms. A few beneficial mutations have been observed, such as mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria and sickle cell trait in humans. But even these mutations are deleterious when the individual is returned to optimal conditions for survival and forced to compete with other individuals lacking the mutation. Recognizing the high genetic cost of fixing any mutation in a population, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionist, determined mathematically that it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 beneficial mutations in humans through natural selection.5 If only 1,000 of the mutations are beneficial, then nearly all of the 150 million mutations in the human lineage would be slightly deleterious or neutral. Deleterious mutations would lead to degeneration of the genome resulting in extinction, and the neutral mutations would cause no change. This does not lead to some "great leap forward" to a more adapted creature. Because there is no feasible evolutionary solution to this problem, this whole situation has been termed "Haldane's dilemma." Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations.

 

[owen06]

Sickle cell anemia reduces the fittness of the population even in some of those with the trait, or recessive gene and there for is not a positive overall trait.

Let me preface my response by saying I am not in any way trying to attack you. I simply disagree and believe there is more evidence to support my beliefs. However, I am enjoying our conversation immensely.
I am assuming the definition of fitness you are using is in reference to ones ability to pass on ones genes to the next generation (a population genetics concept central to evolutionary theory). More precisely, it is the proportion of that individuals genes that make up the sum of all the genes in the next generation. Now, if a genotype affect fitness negatively (as you claim the sickle cell trait does) then we should see this ratio become smaller and smaller; and eventually due to negative selection pressures, die out as it would not confer an advantage. HOWEVER, this is NOT the case regarding sickle cell trait.
The persistence of the sickle gene is explained by the concept of "heterozygous advantage" where in a given population; individuals who are heterozygous for a particular gene, compared to those who are homozygous, have some selective advantage. The stable frequency of the genes in question existing in areas of hyperendemic falciparum malaria, is the result of a balance between premature death of homozygotes (negative pressure) and gene selection due to the resistance of heterozygotes to death from malaria (positive pressure). Sickle cell trait is significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality among children 2-16 months of age (ie most at risk of severe disease). Specifically, sickle cell trait is associated with protection against severe malarial anemia, high-density parasitemia, and cerebral malaria. As a result of the selective advantage against death from malaria conveyed by the sickle cell gene, its worldwide distribution parallels that of falciparum malaria, with its highest frequencies occurring in the "malaria belt”. [1]
I also would like to bring it to your attention that the sickle-type of hemoglobin beta chain is actually inherited in a codominant manner; not in a recessive pattern as you would suggest. Hemoglobin is a tetramer (4 proteins) of which the Beta subunit has two relevant types in this conversation (type A, and type S) which in the trait are both expressed. If it were a simple matter of dominant and recessive genes the type S gene would not be expressed except in people suffering from sickle cell disease.

The fact that a virus may not be able to live in this particular environment does not even constitute an argument for adaptation and results in an over all loss of genetic information which is not evolution or even macroevolution.

Sorry, I just wanted to let you know malaria is due to a parasite not a virus, specifically of the genus Plasmodium and of these, the most deadly is often quoted as Plasmodium falciparum and for the sake of completeness they are transmitted by female mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus. But according to your post I thought you were insinuating I must assume these binomial taxonomic classifications used and recognized globally (mostly to ensure that, when communicating with one another, scientists are talking about the same thing) are inconsequential (something to do with funding? *confused*).

"Many individuals will have decreased ability to concentrate their urine. There may be an increased incidence of urinary tract infection during pregnancy. Painless hematurea does occur in 1 to 4 % of individuals with sickle cell trait . This complication is usually not a significant problem, however, a minority of individuals may have significant problems with recurrent hematurea requiring medical intervention, transfusion, and iron therapy. Complications such as splenic infarction, pain episodes, and sudden death may be induced by severe hypoxia, severe dehydration, and exertion at the limits of human endurance."

I am not sure where this quote is from. Can I have a reference for it please? There is a large differential diagnosis for painless hematuria but in those that it is due to sickle cell trait and that it causes significant problems are truly unfortunate. It is worthwhile to note that this complication's rate is usually insignificant and that the severe problems you mentioned were associated with exertion at the limits of human endurance, a state that those who could be afflicted with sickle cell are advised to avoid.

Consider the Bard owl and the Spotted Owl, with out mans help eventually the Bard owl will win out. But they are still both owls.

I wont disagree with you on this point. They are still owls. But I was discussing how species can be genetically defined as not being able to produce viable offspring. And you stole my example! lol as mating a horse and a donkey does produce a mule but because a mule cannot successfully mate (not even with another mule) because of an abnormal number of chromosomes, this is a hybrid and NOT a separate species according to the biological definition. There are numerous kinds of hybrids and the vast majority of them run into the same problem, they are not genetically viable.


As the Bible says, they reproduce after their KIND. There is no evidence of evolution between kinds. Only adaptation, which some scientists prefer to label MICROevolution.

If you are talking about organisms that are put into categories because they are similar that’s ok. But by this argument I never stated that evolution occurs BETWEEN kinds. I would have stated that evolution leads to the production of different kinds. One kind evolves into another kind. That sorta thing.
And you seem to be saying that microevolution is possible while macroevolution is not. I am simply saying that numerous microevolutions could and do result in a macroevolution (akin to how many small steps make up a mile).

As for genetic similarity: read the following from ICR on the subject:...


With regards to the large article from the “Institute for Creation Research” (ICR) that you posted. I would just like to say the following. That nearly 10 years after decoding the human genome (which is not the same in every person) we know only the tip of the iceberg as a scientific community. It is the field of proteonomics that will start to take the lead for, as important as DNA is, it is the proteins in a cell that actually determine what happens, even so far as to whether or not cells live or die if certain pathways are activated. Most people would be surprised to learn that their DNA has, in all likelihood, changed considerably since they were born. Mutations occur on a regular basis as the mechanisms inside your cells that repair DNA have inherent error rates. There is also the problems of free-radical and radiation-induced DNA damage. Add on to this the fact that there can be spontaneous rearrangements in your DNA and that certain viruses propagate by integrating into your DNA and you may be surprised that you haven’t filled up with tumors and made it as far as you have (I am at times). However, we are lucky as, even though there are approximately 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, only approximately 1.1% of this DNA is composed of exons – the actual protein coding DNA. And of this DNA only a small percent is active at any given time (thanks to the modulating effects recently discovered in the branch of genetics known as epigenetics). Of the rest - 24% is introns, and 75% is intergenic DNA of which we are still trying to figure its purpose. However, to make a really long story short, if a mutation affects a protein that is when it matters.

How can we know that these changes in proteins are constant in time? Well, there are two possible hypotheses. One states that proteins change when DNA mutations accumulate during the process of replication (the stance taken by the ICR in the posted article). Another states that if proteins change due to random chemical degradations of DNA then the mutation rate should be constant over absolute time. To tell which is most likely we can look at the divergence of the protein cytochrome c in insects and mammals. Insects have generational times far shorter than most mammals. If it is the replication of DNA that leads to the mutations in the proteins; from the time insects and mammals split from a common ancestor insects should have evolved more differences. But, using a phylogenetic tree we can see that the average number of differences between insects and plants (45.2) and mammals and plants (45.0) is essentially the same. We must therefore conclude that cytochrome c accumulates mutations at a uniform rate. Furthermore, we must conclude that the point mutations in DNA that are accumulated in a species over time occur due to random chemical change, rather than errors in the replication process. [2]

Finally, to conclude, before you go back and read earlier in my response that DNA repair mechanisms have inherent error rates and assume this is contradicted by the above I urge you to remember that point mutations are only one type of mutation that can occur.

[1] Hoffman, Ronald, et al. Hoffman: Hematology: Basic Principles and Practice, 4th ed. 4th ed. Ed. Kimberley J. Cox. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone, 2005.
[2] Voet, Donald, and Judith G. Voet. Biochemistry. 3rd ed. Eds. David Harris and Patrick Fitzgerald. 111 River Street, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004.

 

[fredfam1]

I would like to respond to each of your points individually for purposes of those who may be reading. And I will, but I will have to postpone my response. (I am enjoying these discussions as well because my daughter is due to graduate from George Fox with a degree in Large Mammal Biology and she read your posts. While she disagreed with you, she urged me not to respond till she got home because she said your arguments though flawed were really well set up and needed an adequate response. {obviously she didn't feel her mom with only a degree in art and psychology with a biology minor could defend her postition well enough}) So I will take your responses one at a time later because I threw my back out this weekend and can only sit at the computer for 5 mins at at time. Will get back to your later.

 

[Awauphi]

Yes there are verse in the bible that did say something about dinosaur.. only bible said Great things.. Great mean Big... i gotta find the verse..and will post ok.

 

[Awauphi]

Again turning his attention to animal creation, God asked Job about Behemoth, generally identified as the hippopotamus. (Job 40:15-24) A full-grown hippo may be from 12 to 15 feet [4 to 5 m] long and may weigh up to 8,000 pounds [3,600 kg]. Behemoth’s “power is in its hips”—the muscles in its back. The thick hide of its belly is a real advantage as short-legged Behemoth drags its body over stones in riverbeds. Surely a man is no match for Behemoth, with its massive body, huge mouth, and powerful jaws.

Behemoth climbs out of the river to feast on “green grass.” Why, the greenery of an entire mountain seems necessary to sustain it! Some 200 to 400 pounds [90-180 kg] of vegetation go into its stomach every day. Its appetite satisfied, Behemoth lies under lotus trees or in the shade of poplars. If the river it lives in overflows, the hippo can keep its head above water and swim against a deluge. Confronted with Behemoth’s mammoth mouth and formidable tusks, Job would not have the audacity to pierce its nose with a hook


Liebling´s view: It could be elephant?

Or rhinoceros ???

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

I would like to respond to each of your points individually for purposes of those who may be reading. And I will, but I will have to postpone my response. (I am enjoying these discussions as well because my daughter is due to graduate from George Fox with a degree in Large Mammal Biology and she read your posts. While she disagreed with you, she urged me not to respond till she got home because she said your arguments though flawed were really well set up and needed an adequate response. {obviously she didn't feel her mom with only a degree in art and psychology with a biology minor could defend her postition well enough}) So I will take your responses one at a time later because I threw my back out this weekend and can only sit at the computer for 5 mins at at time. Will get back to your later.

Hope your back gets better. I know what it like to get my back thrown out too, it can't be fun at all with a aching back.