News Is Creationism Gaining Support in Congress?

[SW VandeCarr]

He calls evolution a lie from the "pit of hell", not to mention embryology and the Big Bang theory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121006/us-congressman-creationism/

 

[lisab]

I posted that in "Funny pictures of politicians"

The amazing thing about this guy - he's an MD!

 

[Astronuc]

Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'
http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

 

[phinds]

America is, sadly, full of this kind of fruitcake and it's not something that any particular profession does not have examples of.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I posted that in "Funny pictures of politicians"

The amazing thing about this guy - he's an MD!

Yup! He must have graduated from one of these schools. I can see getting through medical school and not believing in the Big Bang or even evolution. But embryology?

http://www.ehow.com/list_5962459_christian-medical-schools.html.

Then again, he says he was taught these things, but now rejects them as lies from the pit of hell. Maybe he thinks babies come from the pit of hell?

EDIT: These three medical schools actually offer a fairly standard curriculum. However, as Catholic institutions, they may reflect the Vatican's view on abortion and birth control. However, I'm not aware that they do.

The Congressman holds fundamentalist views held by many evangelistic Protestants in the US.

 

[Evo]

Yup! He must have graduated from one of these schools. I can see getting through medical school and not believing in the Big Bang or even evolution. But embryology?

http://www.ehow.com/list_5962459_christian-medical-schools.html.

Then again, he says he was taught these things, but now rejects them as lies from the pit of hell. Maybe he thinks babies come from the pit of hell?

EDIT: These three medical schools actually offer a fairly standard curriculum. However, as Catholic institutions, they may reflect the Vatican's view on abortion and birth control. However, I'm not aware that they do.

The Congressman holds fundamentalist views held by many evangelistic Protestants in the US.

A quick look up is all you need to find out his educational background. He didn't specialize in embryology. He had no specialty.

Broun is a graduate of Athens High School and the University of Georgia at Athens (B.S., Chemistry, 1967) and earned his Doctor of Medicine (1971) from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta.[3] His internship was at Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland, Oregon and residency at University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He was known for maintaining a "general medical" practice based solely on house calls. Broun grew up as a Democrat, but became a Republican in the 1980s.

Wow, he's quite, uhm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun#Tenure

 

[CAC1001]

A Republican rejecting evolution and the Big Bang theory? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Although rejecting the Big Bang I find interesting. From what I understand, astronomers are not completely 100% sure if the Big Bang is how things started, but even if it is, the Big Bang does not go against Christianity. IF ANYTHING, it goes along with it. The Bible starts with God saying, "Let there be light!" and from what we can tell, that's exactly how the universe started. All the matter was compressed into a singularity, which then expanded outwards very quickly, and with a massive amount of light as well.

Scientists theorized that this light should still exist and should still be detectable, albeit it would now be in a different wavelength. Today, they believe that the microwave radiation that emanates from deep space is the light from the Big Bang, just now in a much elongated wavelength.

Big Bang theory says nothing about just how or who or what compressed all of the matter into a singularity. You could very much believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang. Christians refuse to accept evolution however, because evolution means no Adam and Eve, which means no Eve messing up and eating the fruit from the tree, and thus no humanity getting tainted with original sin, and thus no need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us all from it. Otherwise, one could just argue that God created evolution.

 

[Curious3141]

Fair enough - the Congressman is treating evolution as badly as evolution has treated him.

 

[rootX]

A Republican rejecting evolution and the Big Bang theory? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

I find it too common a Republican making some scientific dumb statement. A Recent example was Bobby Jindal promoting creationism in schools. Something related was Todd Akin statements on what constitutes as a rape. There are few other Republicans in:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=638517

 

[mheslep]

I find it too common a Republican making some scientific dumb statement. ...

Do you mean i) you observe politicians from both parties and make that conclusion primarily about Republicans, or ii) you are not interested in statements from Democratic politicians that may be scientifically unsound?

 

[Evo]

Do you mean i) you observe politicians from both parties and make that conclusion primarily about Republicans, or ii) you are not interested in statements from Democratic politicians that may be scientifically unsound?

Buwahaha! It was a joke! But you knew that and were just kidding around, right?

The 55 year-old Democratic member of the US House of Representatives claimed he was "obviously" joking when he made the remarks during evidence with a senior Naval officer about the US Military's build-up on the American territory.

While questioning Admiral Robert Willard, the head of the US Pacific fleet, the two-term Congressman from Georgia expressed concerns about the plans to post up to 5000 extra marines, and their families, to the island.

“My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," the former judge told the House Armed Services Committee hearing.

At the same time he leant to his left and added hand motions suggesting a large vessel tipping into the sea.

After a pregnant pause, Admiral Willard, replied that officials did not expect such a problem.

"We don't anticipate that,” he said in a deadpan response, while trying hard not to laugh.

 

[mheslep]

Buwahaha! It was a joke! But you knew that and were just kidding around, right?

Johnson was joking at the time because, later, he said he was joking?

 

[rootX]

Do you mean i) you observe politicians from both parties and make that conclusion primarily about Republicans, or ii) you are not interested in statements from Democratic politicians that may be scientifically unsound?

Well, if you are serious why don't we see how many dumb Democrat politicians you can find

So far, we have 1 dumb statement from Democrat vs 5 from Republicans.

P.S. I didn't start Dem vs Rep thing, it started somewhere in the other thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4103876&postcount=46.

 

[Evo]

Johnson was joking at the time because, later, he said he was joking?

You seriously believe that? <snork>

From your link

Madeleine Bordallo, Guam's delegate to the House, told Kuam News that she understood his comment were in jest.

"I know Congressman Hank Johnson, and I'm sure that - he's been here to Guam - so I'm sure that it was just a joke," she said.

Sailors on the island reportedly took the comments in good humour.

One is said to have shown up for his duty posting wearing a life vest "just in case”.

Update 6:30 p.m. ET: Johnson released a statement on Thursday saying he was joking, according to CNN.

"The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island," the statement said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001567-503544.html

 

[CAC1001]

<snork>

That's a new word for me

 

[SW VandeCarr]

People are commenting about Broun's position on the Big Bang and evolution, but it's his position on embryology that floors me. He's an MD! Does he believe in the Stork Theory?

 

[Jack21222]

A Republican rejecting evolution and the Big Bang theory? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Although rejecting the Big Bang I find interesting. From what I understand, astronomers are not completely 100% sure if the Big Bang is how things started, but even if it is, the Big Bang does not go against Christianity. IF ANYTHING, it goes along with it. The Bible starts with God saying, "Let there be light!" and from what we can tell, that's exactly how the universe started. All the matter was compressed into a singularity, which then expanded outwards very quickly, and with a massive amount of light as well.

Scientists theorized that this light should still exist and should still be detectable, albeit it would now be in a different wavelength. Today, they believe that the microwave radiation that emanates from deep space is the light from the Big Bang, just now in a much elongated wavelength.

Big Bang theory says nothing about just how or who or what compressed all of the matter into a singularity. You could very much believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang. Christians refuse to accept evolution however, because evolution means no Adam and Eve, which means no Eve messing up and eating the fruit from the tree, and thus no humanity getting tainted with original sin, and thus no need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us all from it. Otherwise, one could just argue that God created evolution.

Astronomers are as sure the universe started in a big bang as doctors are sure that HIV causes AIDS. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the universe started exactly with "let there be light." The universe started with "let's be in a hot, dense state" if anything.

The problem for young Earth creationists is that they believe the Earth and universe are only about 6,000 years old, where the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. That's why they would reject the big bang.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I wonder if he objects to the practice of embryology, not the theory.

 

[Astronuc]

The problem for young Earth creationists is that they believe the Earth and universe are only about 6,000 years old, where the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. That's why they would reject the big bang.

Or 9000 years old according to Rep. Broun, who is also a member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of Representatives.

“There are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth, ” Broun said in a videotape of the Sportsmen’s Banquet held on September 27 at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “I don’t believe that the Earth is but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them.”

(my bold for emphasis) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-science-member-says-earth-is-9000-years-old/

He apparently claims to be a scientist.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I wonder if he objects to the practice of embryology, not the theory.

That is a joke, right?

 

[Ken Natton]

One question to those expressing astonishment at the stupidity of the congressman’s remarks – is there a possibility that he really is not that stupid but is just that dishonest? In other words, he knows as well as you and I that his remarks are stupid, but he is prepared to make them anyway because it plays well among those on whom he relies for votes?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

One question to those expressing astonishment at the stupidity of the congressman’s remarks – is there a possibility that he really is not that stupid but is just that dishonest? In other words, he knows as well as you and I that his remarks are stupid, but he is prepared to make them anyway because it plays well among those on whom he relies for votes?

It would be fair to say that most if not all, evangelistic/fundamentalist Christians do not believe in biological evolution or any description of "creation" that does not literally agree with the book of Genesis. However, I don't think they deny the existence of embryos, human or otherwise.

EDIT: It's interesting that the Roman Catholic church, also Christian, not only believes in embryos, but considers them full fledged human beings, deserving of all the basic rights of human beings. I believe that's also the case with the pro-life Protestant Christians including the fundamentalists.

 

[jackmell]

I do not think he is against embrology but rather the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" part, and if strong religious beliefs contribute to the survival and reproductive success of a group of people, then is he not implicitly contributing in a positive manner, to that which he rejects?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I do not think he is against embrology but rather the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" part,

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is simply an observation. Human embryos develop gills at one point. They are simply there. You just have to look at them. To deny the gills is to deny the embryo.

 

[jackmell]

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is simply an observation. Human embryos develop gills at one point. They are simply there. You just have to look at them. To deny the gills is to deny the embryo.

Perhaps I am in error. Has he denied the existence of the gills? I suspect not. And if so, then I think he can acknowledge their existence and still not believe in evolution. I would think someone could be a good embryologist and not believe in evolution. I would think further some religious people are more successful in surviving and reproducting than non-religious ones and part of that success is due, I believe, to their religious beliefs.

I recall reading a book some time ago entitled, "The Biology of Religion" and I believe the premise of the book was how religion imparts survival and reproductive success to the believer.

I think this is the book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0582300215/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It was a long time ago but I seem to recall the front cover.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Perhaps I am in error. Has he denied the existence of the gills? I suspect not. And if so, then I think he can acknowledge their existence and still not believe in evolution. I would think someone could be a good embryologist and not believe in evolution.

This is the quote:

"God's word is true." Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Embryology is largely a descriptive science, at least as taught to students. You do not have to believe in evolution to accept the content of a course of study. Nevertheless he mentioned it in his statement as a "lie from the pit of hell". I don't know why he mentioned it, maybe for the reason you stated. But that's an interpretation, not part of the content of embryology itself.

 

[Astronuc]

So let's get into the spirit

 

[jackmell]

Case in point:

Kidnap Jackmell, fly to the center of Iran and drop him down. Jack now has two choices: he can either run his mouth about atheism and get his head chopped off or he can be smart, adapt to his new environment, begin praising God, and hopefully walk his butt on out of there. To me the choice is simple: allah ak-bar everybody.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Case in point:

Kidnap Jackmell, fly to the center of Iran and drop him down. Jack now has two choices: he can either run his mouth about atheism and get his head chopped off or he can be smart, adapt to his new environment, begin praising God, and hopefully walk his butt on out of there. To me the choice is simple: allah ak-bar everybody.

It seems he would have been fine just attacking evolution and the Big Bang as far as his own constituency goes. But in terms of what he actually said (as opposed to what he might have thought he said), embryology is a lie from the pit of hell, just like evolution.

 

[nonequilibrium]

That guy, together with the "women have a way to deal with rape" guy, are members of the so-called committee of space, science and technology?

The US is doomed...

 

[SixNein]

That guy, together with the "women have a way to deal with rape" guy, are members of the so-called committee of space, science and technology?

The US is doomed...

http://science.house.gov/about/membership

My favorite quote from Ralph Hall on the science committee:

NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the Earth to become warmer?

Hall: I can't say it doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls.

Sigh...

 

[Angry Citizen]

And that, my friends, is why the Republicans have no business in politics. We need a separation of church and state amendment that bars even the mention of God in politics.

 

[CAC1001]

Astronomers are as sure the universe started in a big bang as doctors are sure that HIV causes AIDS. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the universe started exactly with "let there be light." The universe started with "let's be in a hot, dense state" if anything.

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS. These guys were not around back when the universe started. It's a theory. It's a very good theory and one with a lot of evidence that makes a large amount of sense, but still a theory. Look at what happened in 1998, when the astronomy and physics community were rocked when two independent teams inadverdently found that the universe is continuing to expand, and expand faster and faster, which up until then if one had said this, they'd have been going against most of the astronomical community. This told astronomers that they actually know a lot less about the universe then what they thought they did (it's only the UNIVERSE for crying out loud).

 

[Jack21222]

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS.

Dispute it all you want, you'd be wrong. There are some fringe scientists who still believe in the steady state theory of the universe just like there are some fringe scientists who deny HIV causes AIDS. I wouldn't claim that either is known 100%, but it's known so close to 100% that denying it would be crazy.

Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to the universe beginning in a hot dense state. Astronomers have considered the case where there is no big bang, and observations rule it out by so many standard deviations that you might as well call it a 0% chance that there was no big bang.

It's a graph of Omega_m vs Omega_Lambda, let me try to find one...

Image from lbl.gov, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Our universe is in the intersection of those red and blue curves. You can see the "no big bang" case far up and to the left. It's been ruled out by observation.

Argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

On one hand, this is a bit off topic, but on the other hand, logical fallacies like argument from incredulity are some of the tools that congresspeople use to dismiss science.

 

[CAC1001]

Dispute it all you want, you'd be wrong. There are some fringe scientists who still believe in the steady state theory of the universe just like there are some fringe scientists who deny HIV causes AIDS. I wouldn't claim that either is known 100%, but it's known so close to 100% that denying it would be crazy.

Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to the universe beginning in a hot dense state. Astronomers have considered the case where there is no big bang, and observations rule it out by so many standard deviations that you might as well call it a 0% chance that there was no big bang.

It's a graph of Omega_m vs Omega_Lambda, let me try to find one...

Image from lbl.gov, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Our universe is in the intersection of those red and blue curves. You can see the "no big bang" case far up and to the left. It's been ruled out by observation.

Argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

On one hand, this is a bit off topic, but on the other hand, logical fallacies like argument from incredulity are some of the tools that congresspeople use to dismiss science.

Not arguing from incredulity here. The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. But with something like the universe, while we can be 99.99% sure about something regarding it, no one can be 100% sure is my point as no one was around back then to observe it. There is always the small chance that there is something missing that can pop up and change people's understanding around.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think that guy took a time machine here from the dark ages.

 

[daveb]

Whether he was being disingenuous and pandering to his constituents (though why I can't fathom since the article said he was running unopposed), or actually believed it is neither here nor there. I have a friend with a degree in biochem, specializing in microbiology, and she completely rejects evolution and says the Earth was created almost 7000 years ago in 6 days. So the idea that he has an MD and rejects evolution isn't all that odd. Tipler believes he has mathematically proven the existence of life after death, so it's not uncommon for otherwise well educated scientists to hold unscientific views.

The problem occurs when those views are used to set science policy. I haven't seen any evidence that it has (though I'm sure his views have been used to set policy - I just haven't found evidence yet). Anyone find any links that say this?

 

[Ken Natton]

Well there is another possibility. There is a school of thought that in some ways is more consistent than most of the anti-evolutionary arguments, that does not necessarily deny the science but holds that it is sinful even to make scientific enquiry. We should not presume to poke out noses into Gods affairs and should just accept the word of God as given to us in the bible, this view holds. Of course there is an inconsistency in holding that view and yet being prepared to enjoy other fruits of human technology. But just leaving that aside for a moment, it is the only argument I can perceive that has any basis on which to object to embryology, because, while the arguments that evolution is not testable are actually false, patently embryology is perfectly observable in action. The fact that it offers such powerful evidence in support of evolution might indicate why it is despised by anti-evolutionists, but they have to know that they are walking right into an unavoidable trap if they try to build any logical argument against it. Of course, this congressman was not building any logical arguments, he was offering only bluster and white noise. But somewhere in his heart, he must know that what he is saying is just so much nonsense.

 

[Jack21222]

while we can be 99.99% sure about something regarding it

We are much more than 99.99% sure. To characterize it as only 99.99% is to be disingenuous. Observations have ruled out a "no big bang" case to much more than the 3.8 sigma you're suggesting.

 

[CAC1001]

We are much more than 99.99% sure. To characterize it as only 99.99% is to be disingenuous. Observations have ruled out a "no big bang" case to much more than the 3.8 sigma you're suggesting.

I understand what you are saying, but when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the universe, no one can ever be 100% sure about something such as the beginning of the universe. If you were to time travel 100 years into the future, and look into astronomy research, you might find quite a few things that astronomers and physicists right now think they are certain about that they turned out to be wrong about.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There is a school of thought that in some ways is more consistent than most of the anti-evolutionary arguments, that does not necessarily deny the science but holds that it is sinful even to make scientific enquiry. We should not presume to poke out noses into Gods affairs and should just accept the word of God as given to us in the bible, this view holds.

The kosher laws in the old testiment make it impossible to to forego scientific inquiry. For example, it is forbidden to eat fish that don't have scales. Birds, of course, do not have scales and yet are edible. Why shouldn't they be, birds aren't fish. As you can easily tell just by looking. That is to say, by scientific enquiry.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

 

[rootX]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the world. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before the beginning?

Some religions say God creates and destroys universes. So, he must be busy with universes that existed before ours. But, it's an interesting question where all this began.

I wonder if someone can answer it but I am satisfied with some questions left unanswered.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Some religions say God creates and destroys universes. So, he must be busy with universes that existed before ours. But, it's an interesting question where all this began.

I wonder if someone can answer it but I am satisfied with some questions left unanswered.

Well, if there are an infinite number of universes being created and destroyed, then we don't need a beginning, so Genesis must be wrong.

Second question. Christians (or at least Roman Catholics) believe that Jesus was the product of an "Immaculate Conception" but a conception nonetheless. Therefore he must have been an embryo at one time. What might the good Congressman think about that?

EDIT: I suppose Genesis is just referring to our universe. But if God is infinite and eternal, as I think most Christians would believe, then the mere creation of one universe out of an infinite number would hardly be worth mentioning, would it?

Then again, this is supposed to have happened only 9,000 years ago, so maybe it's relevant to our history: Creation, some ice, some arrowheads, some cave paintings, some mammoths, then agriculture and before you know it the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. (Lies put some of this stuff earlier than 7000 BC). I'm not sure about things like the dinosaurs and trilobites. Those fossils must have been put there by the devil.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

Just sitting around doing nothing. You know, kinda like what he's doing right now.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Just sitting around doing nothing. You know, kinda like what he's doing right now.

No! No! We can't have that! Idleness is a sin. Read my last post (and the quote of rootX) above. (#44)

 

[SixNein]

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS. These guys were not around back when the universe started. It's a theory. It's a very good theory and one with a lot of evidence that makes a large amount of sense, but still a theory. Look at what happened in 1998, when the astronomy and physics community were rocked when two independent teams inadverdently found that the universe is continuing to expand, and expand faster and faster, which up until then if one had said this, they'd have been going against most of the astronomical community. This told astronomers that they actually know a lot less about the universe then what they thought they did (it's only the UNIVERSE for crying out loud).

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

 

[phinds]

I understand what you are saying, but when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the universe, no one can ever be 100% sure about something such as the beginning of the universe.

You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It is totally agnostic (has no comment about) how the universe BEGAN. It is all about what happened starting at one Plank time AFTER the singularity (whatever that was) occurred. You can argue all you want about what the singularity is (which is what I think your arguemnt really is about) but arguing against the Big Bang theory is just foolish.

Your misconception about what "Big Bang" means is VERY widespread, since it certainly SOUNDS like it means an explosion that started everthing.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

Personally, I don't think God did such a great job with our universe. It seems to be coming apart.

 

[BobG]

Well, if there are an infinite number of universes being created and destroyed, then we don't need a beginning, so Genesis must be wrong.

Second question. Christians (or at least Roman Catholics) believe that Jesus was the product of an "Immaculate Conception" but a conception nonetheless. Therefore he must have been an embryo at one time. What might the good Congressman think about that?

EDIT: I suppose Genesis is just referring to our universe. But if God is infinite and eternal, as I think most Christians would believe, then the mere creation of one universe out of an infinite number would hardly be worth mentioning, would it?

Then again, this is supposed to have happened only 9,000 years ago, so maybe it's relevant to our history: Creation, some ice, some arrowheads, some cave paintings, some mammoths, then agriculture and before you know it the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. (Lies put some of this stuff earlier than 7000 BC). I'm not sure about things like the dinosaurs and trilobites. Those fossils must have been put there by the devil.

You're mixing at least two different religions together (and maybe more) that don't necessarily have the same beliefs and at least one (Catholic) that doesn't apply to the Congressman.

I'm not exactly sure how his church views Mary, but the semi-deification of Mary was one of the reasons Protestants split away from the Catholic church. On the other hand, he would be more likely to take a literal view of the Bible than Catholics would.

Aside from that, even if there were an infinite number of universes, ours would be worth mentioning to us. It's only the others that wouldn't be worth mentioning. With over 6 billion people in the world, your life is hardly worth mentioning to the vast majority, but you probably find it worth mentioning to your friends family.