Even IF you believe the world is only 6000 years old, does she not see any difference between our modern industrial civilization with 7 billion people and polluting cars and factories, and the ancient and medieval world? Did people foolishly dig uranium out of mountains thousands of years ago?

You can hear her colleagues' laughter in the background the first time she says it, and she replies "I know I'm going on and on and I'll shut up," as if volubility were her problem.

"If recent history is any guide, Allen will no doubt be elected to Congress, where House Republicans will position her to someday become the ranking member on the House Energy Committee."

With such an American grasp of reality, I don't think her future is limited to the House. This woman has "first female President" written all over her!

Asked about the dinosaurs, some of these creationists say Satan placed them here to deceive us.

Mind boggling.

Did we not already have the age of reason? Do we need another?

These people belong in 13th century Europe, not 21st century America.

steve, the magic of theology is thakin to the stereotypical sophomoric all-nighter dorm sessions -- with or without herbs -- in which eventually someone will say:

"hey, what if the world was created ten seconds ago just like it is now, and all of us were given memories?"

the only answer:

"wow, man! that;'s really heavy..."

poor ms. allen, stuck in an hallucinatory goof for ever...

Seems as though the lady enjoys her rafting trips down the Colorado River with Tom Vail and his Institute of Creative Research. In her spare time, she must shill for his book which remains on sale at the South Rim book store. Lots of fundies swear by both Vail's lectures and his book. She is not alone in her support of Vail, sorry to say.

Can we finally state the Truth about these young Earthers? That an ignorant conviction in the inerrancy of scripture exclusively drives their model of reality, and the debate is not about the relevance of the Theory of Evolution in the descent of homo sapiens--it is about ways of knowledge, and knowing, period. They utterly reject science. Period. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want? Maybe--but that doesn't mean that their beliefs are anything other than complete bullshit. It isn't just Darwin they reject--to believe in the Young Earth, you must reject Physics and Geology, as well, not to mention molecular biology, because DNA can tell us that we migrated out of Africa 2000 generations ago, which is considerably longer than 6000 years. A person as ignorant as this needs to wear a special tatoo on their forhead: Warning, Dangerously Ignorant!

Something very "flakey" about The Arizona Highways state.

Rep. Jeff Flake and, now, this state senator who represents Snowflake. Starting to make J.D. almost look sane.

The Fundamentalists., confronted with evidence, have generally adopted a damnable doctrine: God, at creation, set up the world with fake fossils and pre-radioactive decayed isotopes, in order to fool the Unrighteous. They will point to 'evidence' of Special Creation (the banana video making the rounds was a good example of the genre) but they now pretty much now have to believe that the Creator put lies in the great Book of Nature (as 18th century guys might say) in order that their Holy Book contain no error or contradiction, and the nonElect be led astray...

"The noblest word of Man is an Honest God."-Samuel Butler

OOps the Butler quote should read "Noblist WORK of Man.." Carry on.

Its quite odd to me that non-creationists consistently seem to be surprised, even amazed, by the existence of creationists. Yes they are out there and they constitute a significant portion of the population. It really should not be surprising in the least that there are some that are are government reps of one sort or another. Indeed, it would be quite shocking if that wasn't the case. I am not sure why Plait is "floored" by the revelation that a very large percentage of the population believes ridiculous things. That has been true since forever and, in the case of creationism in America, it will probably be true 100 years from now.

If anyone's feeling bright and chipper this morning, follow the link to the Arizona Republic story and scroll through the comments. That will bring you down right-quick. The state senator's position apparently has lots of supporters. Grammatically-challenged supporters, to be sure, but supporters nonetheless.

So I happened to catch the movie "Contact" the other night and had nothing to do but re-watch it even though I didn't think it was very well done. I'm glad I did because at the end of the movie when Dr. Airway was testifying before Congress about her "trip", and was being grilled by James Woods it occurred to me that, as she was trying to convince the panel that she really did enter a black hole, travel to Vega and speak to an alien, a religious believer would find this as incredulous as we do Bible truisms.

We have no proof that black holes even exist yet those of us faithful to science don't doubt it will eventually be proven, in the very same way a religious person has faith in a deity's ultimate existence.

Point being is that there are no bridges between the two schools of thought (and may never be) but calling them ignoramuses and scoffing at their beliefs has never, ever brought us closer to toleration between either group.

Would all of you lefties slack off and allow Senator Allen to get back to her other two passions?

Tax breaks for homeowners so they can clear cut and clear brush to allow better fields of fire for their MG 42 machinegun emplacements.

Stopping abortion and birth control so families can have enough children to properly perform gun bunny duties on their personal 105s, or for the more finanicially set, self propelled 8 inchers.

We have no proof that black holes even exist yet those of us faithful to science don't doubt it will eventually be proven, in the very same way a religious person has faith in a deity's ultimate existence.

This is incorrect in several respects. One, there is no such thing as being "faithful" to science. The entire principle of science is to eschew faith and accept only that for which we can provide evidence.

Second, science doesn't deal in proof. Proof is a mathematical concept. Science provides evidence for its hypotheses and theories and that is a quite distinct project.

Third, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. It is a viable theory that is entirely consistent with what we have been able to observe about event horizons.

Fourth, science is all about doubt. Indeed, it cannot function without doubt as its central principle so if you have no doubt of what science will prove, then you are speaking for yourself and not for science. The entire project of any scientific experiment or observation is to try to disprove a hypothesis. The more a hypothesis can withstand that sort of experimentation, the stronger it will be considered to be.

Point being is that there are no bridges between the two schools of thought (and may never be) but calling them ignoramuses and scoffing at their beliefs has never, ever brought us closer to toleration between either group.

There may or may not be the bridges of which you speak but, in any case, tolerance is not the point and cannot be the point of scientific theory. The hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old is not one that can stand up to even a casual perusal of evidence. Pretending that it is a reasonable point of view for the purposes of tolerance will not be helpful to scientific inquiry or, indeed, any logically consistent understanding of reality.

"I think people are welcome to believe whatever they want about how old the Earth is."

I believe that Allen is a shape-shifting alien from the Planet R396 in Galaxy Cluster Cl0024+17. Saying it loudly in public, though, will result in involuntary medication.

Half the people on Earth are below average,

and they deserve representation, too.

In Oregon we have the John Day Fossil Beds (three small areas are preserved as a national monument), which contains a multitude of fossils from the age of mammals. Rock formations are from 16 million to 40 million years old. The newish visitor center/research facility* is named after Thomas Condon, a Protestant minister and self-trained scientist, who in 1865 began excavating fossils in the area, sending them to the East Coast which prompted many east coast scientists to come west. Condon became Oregon's first state geologist and later a geology professor.

ANYWAY, about the fossils found, here is a quote from Condon, who was, as I said, a Protestant minister: "The hills from which these evidences were taken were made by the same God who made the hills of Judea, and the evidences are as authoritative. The Church has nothing to fear from the uncovering of truth."

I think it's interesting that the center chooses to feature this comment, and Condon's role as both minister and scientist, perhaps consciously as pushback against the creationists who want to deny science.

*definitely worth visiting, and it's free!

Both her comments are complete nonsense. The radiophysics of uranium entirely depend upon the decay rates of its various isotopes. If they cannot be used for dating the Earth, they cannot possibly be used for fueling nuclear chain reactions in a power plant, either.

That's why Allen's comments are gibberish. Scientific knowledge is what gave us "the technology we have today." If we start treating it as a series of "beliefs," then we're going to end up trying to run nuclear reactors and everything else (like, say, the reclamation of mines she refers to) as if it were all governed by magical angel-power. That will not end well.

Asked about the dinosaurs, some of these creationists say Satan placed them here to deceive us.

Which is a tacit aknowledgement that the science they disparage truly is supported by the available data. I stumbled on a nifty quote from Nils Bohr awhile ago: “In physics we do not talk about God but about what we can know. If we are to speak of God we must do so in an entirely different manner.”

That's leaving aside the methodology by which this particular age of the earth has been derived. A bishop whose name I'm too lazy to look up did the math on all the begets and begots in the bible and wound up with 6000 years. But by this reckoning Jesus was born in 4BC - quite a margin of error over as short a timespan as we're talking about.

For that matter, I would suggest she reinforced the Big Bang theory simply by making her idiotic comments into a live microphone. It is, after all, by knowing how electrons behave that (in part) enables us to determine when and how they first started getting flung about.

calling them ignoramuses and scoffing at their beliefs has never, ever brought us closer to toleration between either group.
Posted by: MissMudd

Why should we tolerate easily disproven Bronze Age mythology?

OMG! America's teachers have much to answer for. we must have the most ignorant population in the advanced democracies, perhaps even in the less-advanced democracies and totalitarian states as well

The narrative that needs to take hold in our public discourse is that Ms. Allen's beliefs, anyone's beliefs, are IRRELEVANT when discussing issues of evidence based knowledge. As pointed out above, what we are really seeing here are issues, a battle if you will of epistemologies, and one of the most successful tactics of the right over the last twenty years has been to frame public discussion of evidence based knowledge as matters of "belief." Even folks who should know better (Pelosi, for instance) talk about issues such as climate change in terms of whether he/she "believes" it to be true.

This has to stop. I blame it on a hangover from the touchy/feely, "I'm ok/you're ok" generation, combined with the general American tendency towards polite tolerance as opposed to honest confrontation, where every point of view has to be given equal time. These tendencies have been thoroughly exploited by flat earthers to lever their ignorance into public debate. As noted by Mr. Benen, it's reached the point where reductionist, cognitively handicapped revival tent hokum is spewed as if it's common and commonly accepted knowledge. This has happened ONLY because people who should know better have allowed their public statements, and response to willful ignorance, to be framed by a deliberate and highly successful program of propagating false equivalencies, of conflating incredibly simplistic, rigid, and (let’s be real) childish belief systems with the evidence based, self correcting, and complex epistemology of science, by far the most reliable method of predicting outcomes yet devised.

Once again, this has to stop. Ms. Allen's "beliefs," anyone's “beliefs” are IRRELEVANT when discussing evidence based knowledge. Unless and until public figures on the public stage start publicly and repeatedly stating this, gently if possible but forcefully if not, the Allen's of this country will continue to contaminate the discourse surrounding the scientific method - the most accurate, reliable, and useful system of knowledge we have for truly understanding, and most importantly predicting the universe we live in.

I think the question at the heart of this lies in the gap between we have the right to freedom of speech and the unspoken duty to take responsibility for what we say.

What most creationists say seems to be about as rational as someone saying "two plus two equals five" and I'd like to think anyone spouting off that particular statement would get corrected quite firmly. Maybe we need to hire some educated people just to hang around congress and point out loud and clear whenever one of them is making a mistake, say confusing micro and macro economics...

You know what else God did? He erased all the depictions of dinosaurs running around with humans, in all of those cave paintings.

In Allen's defense, her statements are entirely accurate.

The Earth has been around for 6000 years... and 6000 before that, and before that, and so on.

People are welcome to believe whatever they want about how old the Earth is. And many people's beliefs are wrong.

Why should we tolerate easily disproven Bronze Age mythology?

I don't know why, Screamin', other than if we want tolerance it's probably best we try to practice it.

And Brent, a fundamentalist would offer that there's plenty of proof of the existence of a deity.

I'm just asking if our intolerance of religious people is any worse than their intolerance for us? Yes, it's annoying and yes, I too am prone to guffawing, but people are raised to believe certain things, and often their religious upbringing will take sway over "book" knowledge. Making fun of them only strengthens their resolve. My thought is that instead of chiding them at every turn, why not seek out the teachable moments and have a conversation instead?

I'm glad "brent" said what he did, because now I don't have to be so eloquent.

MissMudd, teachable moments are valuable only to the extent that someone is willing to be taught.

(By the way, in the movie "Contact", those aren't "black holes" that the main character travels through, they're wormholes.)

MissMudd: My thought is that instead of chiding them at every turn, why not seek out the teachable moments and have a conversation instead?

What has happened when you tried that? When I have tried it, I have been labelled "evil", "the spawn of Satan", and been called "rude" for even questioning these beliefs, regardless of the words used or the tone of voice in which the question was delivered. And that's by my family members!

"Teachable moments" are only possible with those open to being taught. At the very best, polite society would shun those who refuse to learn, and deny them any support until they come around. Unfortunately, they have their own substantial support network, and the shunning is quite ineffective.

And Brent, a fundamentalist would offer that there's plenty of proof of the existence of a deity.

You're still not getting this. Once again, science isn't interested in "proof" of things that are then proved. That is the realm of math. Science is interested in evidence for things that are its theories. It constructs testable hypotheses for that theory that are then falsifiable based upon an examination of evidence and it is always and forever revisable based upon the examination of new evidence-based hypotheses. It relies entirely upon continued skepticism and doubt for all of its theories, which is precisely why scientific assertions are called theories in the first place. There is no equivalent between that process and the sort fundamentalist's claim that you suggest. If you really think there is, then you quite simply don't understand science or fundamentalism, the latter of which relies on an entirely opposite belief structure - "faith."

Faith is a principle that posits a lack of doubt and belief despite what evidence may show. Moreover, a fundamentalist can claim proof all they like. Saying stuff is easy. But if that claim could even come close to providing the evidence in a falsifiable hypotheses in the manner of even the simplest scientific claim like say, the boiling point of water, let alone a scientific hypothesis as firmly evidenced and tested as the physics of black hole theory, then it would be the first time in human history and that fundamentalist would be the most celebrated human being alive, by scientists and non-scientists alike.

I'm just asking if our intolerance of religious people is any worse than their intolerance for us?

And my answer is, I have no idea but when we want to try to understand things, it is not helpful to treat claims that contradict reality that we can observe as if they do not, in fact, contradict reality. The "teachable" moment here, in other words, is one of confrontation with objective reality, not "tolerance." If you mean that we should try to do that in a polite tone, then sure. Why not? But politeness is not tolerance.

In the context of this very conversation, you have repeated your false equivalence of fundamentalist faith and scientific principle. You are flatly wrong about this and I have tried, perhaps inadequately, to explain why this is so. In other words, I am having a perfectly straightforward conversation with you but I am not "tolerating" your claim in the least.

OK, already. I'm properly shredded. Enjoy!

Would all of you lefties slack off and allow Senator Allen to get back to her other two passions?

Tax breaks for homeowners so they can clear cut and clear brush to allow better fields of fire for their MG 42 machinegun emplacements.

An absolutely insane view, if Allen really holds it. The MG 42 used the German 7.92mm Mauser round, which is obsolete. Arizonans that want to build machine gun nests in their back yards should be forced by law to use the American 7.62x51mm NATO round. Anything else is just unpatriotic.

Isn't she the same Arizona politician that spearheaded the push to enact an Arizonan Constitutional ban on any public health option?

I'm pretty sure she is, or at least looks a hell of a lot like the morally stunted quasit that Ed Schultz interviewed a week or so ago on his cable show.

Can anyone confirm this?

I may be wrong about this, because its 40++ years since I read the book, but:
There is pair of novellas by Heinlein, published together, (and still available) called Waldo and Magic Incorporated. All scifi requires suspension of disbelief, of course, but I believe the basic premises behind both stories posited that the public at large had to believe in both phenomena, just about Tinkerbell-style, or they wouldn't work.
This of course is what brent decries and MissMudd was trying to make us understand.
No, science is not a belief system.
No, science should not be taught nor acknowledged as equal to or an alternative to faith or religion. As someone said above, apples and screwdrivers.
No, science is not superior (nor inferior) to faith and religion. One is a long series of provable, constantly-challenged facts, going as far back as early man noticing the repeatability and predictability of the movements of the sun and moon and the cycle of the seasons. The other is not provable, challengable, repeatable or predictable.

Enough already. That nutcakes like this dipsh*t continue to get elected in this country proves that PT Barnum and HL Mencken were and are right, now and forever.

OMG! America's teachers have much to answer for.

It's not the teachers' fault, really. Fundamentalist parents tell their kids not to pay attention to the lies their teachers tell them about the way the world came to be. More and more, the True Believers are either sending their children to Christian schools that teach creationism, or are homeschooling their kids.

"I think people are welcome to believe whatever they want about how old the Earth is."-Allen

But why 6000 yrs?

This is how idiots get into congress. Is she just completely uneducated or a willfully ignorant closed minded fanatic. Careful, it's a trick question. 6000 is the number of times the Bible has been edited and rewritten and they still can't get it straight.

Allen has evolved though. She used to worship Apollo back when man was riding on the backs of dinosaurs a couple of years ago when the flintstones were on TV.

"I just totally have ignored this. It's just ridiculous," she said. "I think people are welcome to believe whatever they want about how old the Earth is." -- Arizona State Senator Allen

I suppose no one can stop people from believing what they want to believe, but it should disqualify one from holding a position in which they set policy.

The larger issue may be that people who share Allen's beliefs are the successful products of intentional and quite comprehensive propaganda campaigns to further a very bleak worldview.

Check out this blog post: Republicans reject Science; Scientists reject Republicans, and excerpts from The Republican War on Science.

...and this, the infamous Wedge Strategy from the so-called Discovery Institute. Behold, another arm of the vast right wing conspiracy.

"and this, the infamous Wedge Strategy from the so-called Discovery Institute"

That's pretty funny. They had me laughing at "The Center for Renewal of Science & Culture." Science needs to be renewed? Really? I thought science was doing just fine. Maybe a little underfunded, but still doing good work. But I have to say, that publication is well worth the read. It's always good to know what your enemies are up to.

Half the people on Earth are below average,
and they deserve representation, too.
: alan

Actually, that common "truism" is false. It confuses the median with the mean. Depending on the distribution (if e.g. it is not "normal") then easily more or less than half of the sample can be below the average value. Just consider this example:
1,1,2,3,7,10. The average is 4. Four of the six members are below average.

BTW, that counterintuitive result is *very* typical of income and wealth! A large majority has below average income and wealth.

What religious non-believers often miss is this:

In order for dinosaur fossils and other evidence of the ancient age of the earth and the universe to be Satanic creations to deceive us, Satan has to be capable of physical creation.

And in mainstream Christianity, that's a heresy. By the standards of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and mainstream Protestantism, the fundamentalists are heretics.

In Catholic school in the 1960s, I was taught the theory of evolution, what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, and that interpretations of the Bible that contradict major, cohesive, well-supported bodies of scientific evidence, is heresy. The Bible isn't about a detailed understanding of the physical world; it's about other things entirely.

(And even then, over forty years ago, Catholic School was already one of the safer places to send your kids if you wanted them to be taught science by people who weren't intimidated by the fundies and their anti-science ideology.)

How do you think uranium decay demonstrates that the earth is millions of years old?

All isotope decay can do is to provide a lower bound. We do not know what the original proportions of the uranium isotopes were. And even if we assume that the supernova produces equal amounts of each isotope, all that does is to date the uranium to the supernova not aggregation into the earth.

Carbon decay gives us datings for millions of years, but that's different (and does not get us to deep geological time scales).

Relevant xkcd.

http://xkcd.com/154/

"if we want tolerance it's probably best we try to practice it"

I'm not arguing but asking. Do you/I actually believe that (a) we would be tolerated by this group who freely state that we are going to burn in hell, and (b) we should tolerate these people who believe and impose this fairy tale upon us?

The reason why we lete everyone have their say (aka trye democracy in its idealogy) isn't down to merit - its so might doesn't have to be right. by forcing everyone to have equal say doesn't make them equal in merit, it just gives them a chance to be. The arguement on average is true (and very well out I might add). While should we lower the bar for these people except as a safety mechanism?

My apologies for the spelling.

trye = true
well out = well put

ooops
:)

Someone help me here. Just how old is the Grand Canyon?

"(The Earth) has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn't been done away with,"

By this "reasoning" we shouldn't give a shit about the Ten Commandments because evidently we didn't need them before they were "created."

Another question is where we stand in correcting people. It seems that to instruct someone to change their view, even by stating the obvious, has been stigmatised as some sort of authoritarianism. Now I suspect many of these people hold very few qualifications in the fields of science involved, yet they speak freely and are afforded an audience. Should parents therefore, when they are told to go jump in the proverbial lake by rebellious teenagers, consider it as a reasonable option? Feed their children whatever they demand (actually, bad example for the US, but hopefully you get my meaning). Where does the line get drawn for when ignorance is no longer tolerated? It's no wonder there's so much money in advertising!

Why are creationists, global warming deniers and other anti-intellectual/anti-science people treated any more seriously than someone who "believes" the earth is the center of the universe?

How would valuing their opinions as anything but wrong accomplish anything of value?

What business would they have setting policy for NASA?

Sylvia Allen is lucky she grew up in the conservative American SW. If she grew up in 1930's Germany she would have been a devout Nazi, in the old Soviet Union a devout Communist, in Cambodia a dedicated follower of Pol Pot. It is a deeply human need to believe in whatever those around us believe in, but some of us suffer from it worse than others.

This dingbat along with the dingbat now heading the Texas State Board of Education and the dingbat who just left the TSBE are correct in saying that anyone is welcome to believe what they want. True enough.

But reality is oblivious to what anyone believes so no harm done. The harm comes when you ACT on a false belief such as creationism in any of its multiple forms. That is where reality comes in, when an action occurs. No one is welcome to act on false beliefs, only to have them, because acting involves the well-being of other people who would suffer unjustifiably.

Toleration is overrated when it comes to reality. The place for tolerance is when someone else's difference has no or negligible negative effect on other people. Jefferson said that it didn't matter if someone else believed in one, none, or twenty gods. It doesn't break my arm. That is a place for tolerance.

It doesn't matter who someone else marries because they are the only ones affected. It does matter if a factory is allowed to spew mercury into the atmosphere or if petroleum plants are allowed to dump chemicals into someone's drinking water. Then it doesn't matter if you believe that no harm is done because harm IS being done and tolerance has no place.

The place where tolerance is dysfunctional is when it is used to permit actions, such as mining for uranium in the Grand Canyon, that would have strongly negative effects on other people.

So, Miss Mudd, please, forget about tolerance and gaining tolerance. It serves the same goal as trying to write the health bill to get Republican support, it defeats the very object of the exercise.

The author of this article does not understand radio isotope dating methods and the TREMENDOUS assumptions built into them by evolutionists. It is the same for astronomy.

Why don't people in the media urge debate between specialists on both sides? It's hidden fear they cover with sarcastic (and worse) comments about us YECs.

There is more evidence for YEC surfacing quite regularly as science (as in true knowledge) progresses. These misled "scientists" of today and the past have been deluded and delude the masses. No? Debate publicly then, with the best chosen by each side; NOT the evolutionists choosing the creation scientist (as in knowledge) they want.

Just as important as whether the chicken or the egg came first, is who is the chicken here?

Can I believe that the Moon is made of green cheese?

but this is a simple fact woven into her mind just like the Sun revolves around the Earth

Fixed that for you there, Phil.

A few comments above, a YEC wonders why we don't engage them in scientific debate. The reason is that they have nothing scientific to present. Furthermore, their arguments have been refuted over and over and over again. I don't think they've come up with a new one since the moon dust argument (which, not surprisingly, is flawed). To be a YEC, one must believe that geology, physics, chemistry, and biology are all based on misconceptions.

That a significant number of people think biblical timescales are "long" explains why problems approaching geological timescales like nuclear waste, plastic waste, environmental toxins, peak oil, global warming, and species extinction are not being seriously addressed. If people believe the second coming of Christ will happen before some now standing will taste of death, why should they give a damn about 0.6-2m of sea level rise in 100 years. It's as if the believers are playing a game of "he who dies with the biggest church wins". Senator Allen's pile of plastic trash is going to last longer than her church, unless it is vinyl sided.

PHB, why would uranium ore just happen to have (for some *other* reason), just the isotopes that come from prolonged decay of the uranium? Sure, it just might be, but what is the most reasonable hypothesis and in triangulation with other data?

Good afternoon. Nice site - pity you have to go to such lengths to moderate it. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Paintball guns free shipping. I found only this - good paintball guns. Each other around while shooting guns at one anotherpaintball guns that is. Free classifieds, new and used paintball guns, speed loaders, paintball field and team listings. Thank you very much :eek:. Halona from Samoa.

Hi everyone. Get pleasure out of life...as much as you can. Nobody ever died from pleasure.
I am from Singapore and learning to speak English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Zithromax, dexter, chicago wear n't be included doctor consider yourself constantly!"

Waiting for a reply ;-), Do not combine zithromax.

Excuse me. Nobody can be exactly like me. Sometimes even I have trouble doing it.
I am from Oman and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Management training, waterways may be cultural placement or thoughts."

With love :(, Website management training.

I took my first business loans when I was very young and this aided my relatives a lot. Nevertheless, I need the auto loan again.