If we are all descended from Noah ...

Quetzal, please tell me then why you were attracted to a forum labelled "If we are all descended from Noah ..."? It is obviously a thread concerning Bible apologetics, yet you find the subject "unutterably boring", inexplicably present and commenting.I am interested in geting involved on the science side of the issue, but I have a priority to demonstrate the Bible critics are ignorant of the Bible and don't know how to study it to fix their ignorance. Once that is established, I'll move on. However, I am already warned by reading ahead that I'll have to research answers besides employ personal knowledge of the sciences. My major was biology, but took many science courses, keeping up through mostly high school texbooks, lesson plans and the pressure of teaching facts, attending seminars, summer training camps, cotinuing ed. courses, some internet research and reading wihin websites devoted to both sides, and some personal live debating on and off the job there. But that wasn't enough to contend with some of the people that seem to really devote themselves to the debate. I am mostly a buyer/seller of timber now (timber broker) with almost no contact with people interested in the issue. But, I'll work at it.Thanks for the invite. Ya'll sho sound hospitable enough. I might just kick mah shoes off and sit a spell.

Nos: "I already have. As I've stated these errors and contradictions stand because the vast majority of Christians aren't bible scholars with access to the so-called "original" scrolls and manuscipes in the "Original" Hebrew. All they know is what is told to them out of the current bibles in English. They know nothing of translations and the like. What is in bibles, such as the KJV, is what has been taught to them as being literal and inerrant for many centuries now. The "original" scrolls and manuscripts are irrelevant in this context.If the bibles were actually the inspired word of their god than there wouldn't have been any translation errors and the like."WS: There are no "original" scrolls or manuscripts known to man. All we have are hand written copies of the originals, and most of those are fragments and partial copies that taken together present a good verification of full texts. The Septuagent is mostly complete, in the Vatican library museum, but it isn't anything close to the original Hebrew (Torah) scrolls that existed before 285 to 244 BCE. That Old Testament translation from Hebrew texts to Greek by Jewish scholars BCE is the main basis for most modern Bible versions of the Old Testament. It didn't include any of the Apocrapha, which were written much later in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It can be said there is no possibility any of the Torah is falsified, but it is apparent Jewish commentators differ from Christian commentators over interpretations.One way we know what is presented in the New Testament translations is what was written originally is very simple. Copies of manuscripts abound, at least 4,000 certified sources, are still available in protected collections, photocopies of which abound. It is understood by scholars that the texts agree overwhelmingly, but again, as with the Torah interpretations that differ, there is difference of interpretations over the agreed upon texts. The premise is sound that it is easy to detect corrupted copies. There was one original letter from Paul to the church at Rome. Once it got to Rome, it would have been copied for distribution to members and other churches, and let's say only ten copies from that one original were made, though it is apparent hundreds weremade immediately, later thousands. It wouldn't take long for proof readers to detect omissions or errors, and in the Christian community there would have been an observation of any textual differences. But for the sake of integrity of analysis, lets say one copy had error. All ten are distributed, some going out of town. All reach their destinations, each copied ten times each. That means the faulty one is present as 11 copies. It's lineage is easily traced to the original copy assuming the erors were carried forward without changes. But keep in mind how many correct versions of copies are in circulation, no doubt the originals placed in safe keeping in many geographic locations, from which even more copies are made in different generations of men. How many in that second generation of copies? The other nine original copies from Rome plus ninety copies of the original copy received (99). The ratio is now 99 true copies to 11 false ones. Continue that copying scenario for about ten copy generations, and you will realize there is a sea of true copies compared to the relatively rare false ones. Anytime down the road scholars, secular or religious, must acknowledge the more prevalent versions are the true ones, enabling them to discard the false, which has happened ever since the first copies went out. They can resist the claim the "true" ones were fabricated in large numbers, because they know too many were ensconced in libraries all over the known world during the lifetimes of the original authors who would have recognized a major problem of errant copies, kept safe from detection and tampering, such as with the Dead Sea Scrolls and known protected manuscripts in historically verified museums and collections. It would have been impossible for anyone to go around taking up all the oldest manuscripts lost through wide distribution, replacing them with forgeries. And with the modern forensic methods of detecting frauds, inks and writing mediums are easily verified as to antiquity.
The problem of translations is compounded by literary difficulties from translations into languages other than Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the most troublesome being translations from Latin to any other language. But those are only difficulties that can be overcome through proper exegesis of contexts within the Bible first and foremost, followed by other sources of valid facts such as knowledge of cultures and history in Bible times. Bible archeologists (real scientists) are adding to that knowledge base almost daily. Another valuable source of authenticity of original texts is the many writings around the world that borrowed phrases from the Scriptures. It is said the entire Bible text is represented in the collective mass of related books of the world.

Quetzal: I doubt you will find me all that hospitable. Civil, perhaps - that very much depends on you. It's interesting that we are on opposite sides on so many levels - even your current profession. To someone who spent a great deal of time working on ecology, conservation biology, environmental baseline and land-use studies, as well as other issues relating to halting the destruction of, or developing rational use patterns in, rapidly vanishing Central American forests, the idea of a timber broker is unlikely to engender joy.WS: Messed up facts there, for they are not vanishing, except around densely populated areas for housing. Central American forests are more extensive now than ever before. The climax for the central US ecozones is mostly plains vegetation and scrub trees if left alone. Wild, ranging and very frequent fires once kept forestation to a minimum, favoring vast expanses of grassy vegetation, which is the destiny of any forest left to nature, except bottomland hardwoods. They figured out the only way to have forests was to conserve, not preserve, and replant where forests declined for whatever reason. Now the growth of forestation has gotten to the point there won't be enough mills to process the growth coming on, and the demand is dropping because of imports and alternative materials anyway. Foresters manage ecosystems for perpetuation of the resources, practice conservation biology, perform those same studies to formulate better management plans, and carry on a host of other scientific exercises that made the forests what they are today, vast expanses of practically untouched restored wonders. Take a plane anywhere and try to find an open field to land in. Most of them are forested now, to the point quail hunting is almost a relic of the past. Your efforts were misguided, for the agenda moved onward anyway. Now I benefit from all those summers working for the Forest Service learning how to estimate stumpage and mark trees for harvest. I find people who have inherited those forests, show them how much timber is falling and rotting every year ($50-$200 worth per acre per year in mature timber, determined simply by scaling the trees on the ground that fell this year alone), and contract with them to thin for recovery of value being lost and make residual trees healthier. The people I've served the past 20 years still have beautiful, fully stocked forests with trees of all age classes, and healthy. All of them are now game refuges or hunting clubs that have game running them over. Deer, wild turkey, squirrels, bear, feral hogs, non-game birds, you name it, they flourish. Creeks running through are cleaned up by the filtering of the forest.
Their grandchildren and their children will enjoy the same high income off the land ($220-$375 per acre per year average perpetually), plus the side benefits and values added to their community, as long as there is a local market. So who needs tree huggers? God made all that for man to use, and use it we will. I make them rich, and am blessed with a great business that is very satisfying.What's vanishing? Forests in other countries that are trying to capitalize on the American market demand for imports. So-called ecologists have severely damaged national timber production, shutting down mills, putting extreme pressure on countries having no problems with ecologists. The result is deforestation of rain forests to grow the stuff for Americans that ought to be grown right here. We closed down our oil fields to clean up the environments, but turn your backs on vast areas of earth suffering from having to make up the difference. Ever seen pictures of the environment outside the US, say the oil fields of Mexico, S. America, and their coastline oli wells polluting the oceans? Blame it on the ecologists 'saving America'. At least here we had the money and technology, laws, and public interest to work out pollution problems, but those controls are not there. You chased it all down there, and now the earth IS in the balance there, eventually threatening life as we know it here. But our natural resources professionals are doing the best of what can be done HERE, whether there is a furture market for it or not.

Quetzal: "Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America."WS: I eliminated that 'Central America' as the subject since a 'timber buyer' in Arkansas was castigated, yet Quetzal admits the practice of forestry in central USA is "rather good". I think you have to admit also there is discontinuity in the last two posts, since there is no lasting success for forestry without a market for wood products which funds forestry practice, requiring buyers who use it or sell it to another user. Since the problem of clearcutting/ deforestation (net loss) is dramatically exemplified in Central America, why make the comments linking my business to something dreaded? I'm part of the success story in the USA, directly responsible for net gain and improvement of over 230 thousand of acres of American forest.

gene: "I agree completely. Polls are irrelevant to the issue of Creationism in public schools. First, religious tenets can't be taught there no matter how great the majoriy, which is why we have the Seperation of Church and State. The only way the majority can oppress the minority in this way is through a constitutional amendment. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Secondly public opinion does not decide what tenets of science are correct. If that were true then we'd probably be living in a geocentric solar system.WS: The geocentric issue was settled long before evolution or creation science came up. You need to get over that error promoted by the scientists of that time. It wasn't the general public that formulated that theory. In fact, you make the case for public distrust in purely science interpretations in the classroom. You use too many strawman arguments. The Church did support that science theory centuries ago, but that doesn't imply the Church now supports fallacies such as "flat earth", which the Bible does not teach. If you insist on disparaging the Church over that past mistake of taking the wrong side, bent towards taking the wrong side today, then the supposed endorsement by the most populous sect, RCC, taking sides with evolution mut be an indication they chose the wrong side out of habit. But what the RCC has o say about it has no bearing on the balance of the Church. The pope does not speak for them. If you would go read their official statements, you will find they are actually opposed to the notion of human evolution, remaining neutral about evolution of plants and animals. Just run a search on "evolution" in the Catholic Encyclopedia at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: HomeIt is fact that opponents of teaching of anything related to the Bible or Christianity rarely if ever complain over the latest inclusion of Islamic studies in public school curiculum to the exclusion of Christianity. Even the ACLU remained silent, proving bias against only one religion. Any other appears acceptable. That sort of bias only timulates Christians to rethink the net effects of blind tolerance. The result is Christians rising up immediately and putting the Bible and prayer to the God of the Bible back in public schools. It probably wouldn't have been attempted without that cause.The phrase "separation of church and state" was only used by T. Jeferson when he addressed a group of preachers concerned the new Republic might adversely affect them by favoring Presbyterians. The principle of not favoring any religion was explained to their satisfaction. Had he told them they would have nothing to do concerning accountability of government, separated out as a group, they would have resisted the new Repulblic. The phrase is nowhere used or referred to in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. A
The only restriction is two-fold: There would be no official church such as in England; the exercise of religion within the several states would not be hindered. Reading the papers of the founding fathers supports that interpretation. It is the opponents of Christianity who siezed upon the phrase, taking it out of the context of one speech, reversing the intent of the law. The US Supreme Court has corrected that interpretation, protecting the exercise of religion, which cannot legally be prohibited in any public school in any state. Wherever religion is hindered, there are Christian legal institutes who bring successful tort reversing those attempts. Those cases are decling as school officials learn the facts.There is no mandate in law to prohibit any teaching of religious tenets. Even if creation science was pure religion, it couldn't be hindered if offered voluntarily.Public opinion is a very powerful force. The only way to change a religious opinion is to convince people they are wrong. Some on these threads attempt to prove the Bible in error, failing to convince. Some attempt to prove there is no valid science associated with creation science, yet the latest great debates that went on for a decade were decidedly won by creation science debaters. Since then professional evolutionists avoid public debates, leaving that to their fan club. Why?gene: "Finally even if public opinion were in favor of it and it were legal, including Creationism would make no sense because elementary science courses are intended to teach what happens in the scientific community. This is essential so that (1) students can better comprehend society (2) tax payers can understand the value of science. There is no reason that Creationism should be given 'equal time' in science classrooms when it is not being discussed in the scientific community."WS: Creation is avoided in the bulk of the scientific community because they were taught that way. How could a student better comprehend society by continuing the practice of ignoring a significant segment of it? What you say there is like saying we should keep students away from knowledge of corporate crime since hardly any of them would become CEO's, fewer still who would be corrupt CEO's. There are many other possible examples that would show your reasoning is flawed. Want some more?
Christians are tax-payers too. Why do you suppose they would want their children trained up to be taught on their nickel there is no value of creation science in society when there are and have been many prominent scientists supporting creation science? The issue is most definitely part of our society, and it would be reasonable to equip students to grasp all of it.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The geocentric issue was settled long before evolution or creation science came up. You need to get over that error promoted by the scientists of that time. It wasn't the general public that formulated that theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Geocentrism stretches far further back in time than anything that could be called science. The idea is a pretty blatantly obvious one if you live on a few hundred acres of ground, as have your ancestors for generations. The point is that the Church cannonized Aristotle's reason's -- good one's actually, given his data -- for a geocentric universe and kept the idea alive for 1500 years past its prime. Quite a few civilizations had heliocentrism figured out long before the idea caught on in the west. The Greeks were one of them, just not Saint Aristotle.WS: The Church took it up because there was no other science explanation they knew about. The continuosly attempted to just settle such matters to end specualtion and get on with other things. The RCC, representing the branch of the Church that did that, continues to take that position. They are officially neutral as far as which belief catholics are to accept. They are not to argue those who disagree. They do stop at the issue of human evolution, denyig the possibility. Notice that when the centrist views faded away, replaced with ever increasing advanced ideas from better data, they didn't jump sides. It was settled as far as they were concerned until forced to yield on the geocentrism centuries later.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: In fact, you make the case for public distrust in purely science interpretations in the classroom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Based partially on your premise that science kept geocentrism alive, which I dispute. But besides that, faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data? That makes no sense.Also interesting is your wording. ".... distrust in purely scientific interpretations...." Sounds like an admission that your position isn't scientific.WS: You dispute that Aristotle and his disciples were not scientists in their day? Do you know the definition of science/scientist? The Church simply endorsed their belief, not originating or preaching it. They allowed it to be considered "fact", not opposing it as heretical. Had they decided it was heresy, they would have killed the idea and anyone holding on to it.Your "faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data?" attempts to have arguing for creationist data/conclusions, which you believe baseless, permissible on the basis of Aristotle's misinterpretation of data and lack of proper observation being accepted? Maybe I need to post some advice given by several evolution icons over the years who warn about assuming those things of creationists. Not heeding those warnings from the 'high priests' of evolution resulted in losing a decade of debates against creationists. The data is there, valid, and the conclusions are strong. It is weakness to simply deny belief in those facts simply because they agree with the Bible, which so many evolutionists reject without evidence or proper foundation to justify rejection.Now for your last line above. Thereare many scientists and other professionals who believe very strongly there are at leasttwo ways to regard the world around us. Some say it is all in the mind, that this doesn't really exist, that nobody can prove anything exists, that all of it is just thought, or maybe not even thought, but just a passing flicker of something called "life" or "energy". There are several 'religions' and phiolsophical theories centered around such notions. The other end of the spectrum is the people who believe everything simply is, that it just sprang up as matter that is undeniably real, moved around by energy, measureable, purposeless, a pure accident that began when time came into existence. Some scientists perform a role as 'priest' over that WYSIWYG realm, they alone able to explain it all to the commoners, making sense of everything that is, putting it into perspective, relating people to that great cosmic accident as having come out of it from the most primordial of organism.Then there is a third group somewhere in the middle that puts that all together, that the mind of God did envision all that is, brought all that was in His mind into a reality that can be felt, seen, touched. They find purpose in all that is, that all that is is because God had a plan. Some (creation) scientists approach all that is from a different point of view, looking at what is from the point of view revealed by the God who made it. They find all that is is measureable, can be observed, and can conclude some things about what they see on the basis of what God said those conclusions should resemble. He left it up to them to come up with the details, but spotted them the clues they needed to observe and conclude rightly. We are all observing the same things that are, but approach them from different perspectives. Since you cannot disprove the Bible accounts you cannot rightly say creationists are wrong in their initial premise. Many 'creation' scientists begin with the belief of the creation account, then move on beyond reliance on that to trictly science method, being more accurately labelled anti-evolutionists. Whatever that makes them phiolsophically is of no concern to them, and should not be to anyone else as long as they present their learned opinions in terms of science and not religion. So it is that when they present papers amongtheir science peers, they can omit any reference to religion as though they are agnostic, but when they present on a Christian website they can let their hair down and relate their opinions to coincidences of the biblical accounts. hen they do that they are castigated, thrown aside by evolutionists as deluded fools believing the "lie". But we know the Bible reports the fools are those who deny there is a God, that call that which is holy evil. I fear for them.quote:quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church did support that science theory centuries ago, but that doesn't imply the Church now supports fallacies such as "flat earth", which the Bible does not teach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Is this position you argue against not analogous to your implicit argument that since science has been wrong before we should distrust it? Perhaps you do not intend this argument but several claims you've made imply it.WS: As to that I think it would be supremely foolish for mankind to rule out any perspective for which there is no conclusive proof for or against. There is no logic in rejecting religion, especially that of the Bible, which is verified in so many ways. What yu seem to promote is that people are better off as non-integrated persons, rather than integrted persons. Trying to keep all the modules of life in separate little "boxes" that are never connected or inter-related isn't natural or healthy. My goals in life should be accountable to other values such as entertainment, my profession, politics, personal interests, religion, sexual preferences, and each of those inter dependent/accountable with one another. Integration of values prevents multiple standards tha generate uncertain behavior. For instance, I should weigh my choices of entertainment with my profession and goals in life. It wouldn't be appropriate or wise for me to choose to go to bars with nudity and other activities that compromise my goals in life, possibly ruining my profession should peers find me there, or should I be swept up in a sting, name in the newspaper. I integrate all my life values, and happen to place my religion in the center, integrating everythng directly to that as well as other values integrating with each other. That prevents chaos and destruction, preserving my place of trust in the community.But what I'm getting from you and others is that we should keep it all separate, similar to the belief one should be allowed to behave any way they want since there should be no connection to other values. You take a non-integrated approach to education. Science has nothing to do with other values learned? I believe science should be integrated as much as possible with other subjects, including religion, to give science depth of meaning besides just facts to be memorized, soon forgotten. What isn't integrated in those formative years is too remote to be valued enough to retain it.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the ACLU remained silent, proving bias against only one religion. Any other appears acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The ACLU does not speak for me.WS: I'm happy. But the fact remains that the ACLU has been a powerful force in campaigning against Christianity in America, tolerant of any other belief, championing efforts to exclude creation science from classrooms simply because it infers Christianity and the Bible, their position not based on merits of the science.

"Too bad we have essentially no old-growth forests."You don't know where they are? There are many, but so remote the average person can't enjoy hem, especially considering Clinton's road reduction program that has made even more of them invisible. There are many private holdings of forest as mature as it can get. I've walked "old growth" northwestern forests that can get just so old, then they begin to die off and become brushlands. Some "old growth" virgin forest was set aside in the Delta Nat. Forest, but now the area is almost impenetrable, taken over by brush covering mounds of fallen trees rotting. National forests harbor many old growth forests, except for where environmentalist policy required allowing forest fire to destroy them, like in Yellowstone. What most people think of as beautiful, fern strewn, open ground ancient forests in America are what foresters continuously make them to be through many silvicultural practices. Left to nature they deteriorate to open grasslands via wildfires, or brushlands not even preferred by most animals. Dense brushlands don't produce much food near the ground due to lack of sunlight on the ground. It takes frequent openings in the forest canopy to keep those picturesque visions of primordial forests fresh in our minds. Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's the way it is.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Let's pretend that you said 'faulty analogy' since that is the fallacy your describe.WS: Why do that since I meant and supported what I said? Taking another lap around it?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS:I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Not a problem.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Problem. This sentence and your previous sentence are not compatible. The first denies that polls have any bearing on what is actual fact. The second sentence sneaks the idea back into the machinery.You ARE using polls to determine a proper course of action, which is why my analogy is valid and not faulty. It is the same argument you use but with different values in key places. This is allowable. In both cases a public poll is used to determine a course of action. Perhaps I should substitute a disease such as cancer in place of an auto accident, because that takes away the sense of urgency. Otherwise, it is the same argument. I am not surprised that you object. But it is your formulation. You constructed the 'course of action via popular poll'.WS: You are misapplying the word "determine" by not making it clear which definition is in mind. Chose from this abbreviated one:
determine-
1 : to fix conclusively or authoritatively
2 : to come to a decision : settle, resolve
3 : to fix the form or character of beforehand : ordain; also : regulate
4 : to find out the limits, nature, dimensions, or scope of <~ a position at sea>
5 : to bring about as a resultAs for my application, you should have determined I was referring to #4. It would be illogical that a poll could effect in itself any of the other definition possibilities. None of the polls affected my own opinion, but all are a measure as to how well each party communicates their message, and how people interpret what is proposed. All of that indicates whether people are even giving an issue thought, and indicates whether a new trend is underway, which it is in the case of creation v evolution. Something significant is occurring, and I doubt it is people taking up textbooks and studying the topics. They are reacting to perceptions, the side issues that are rooted in the agendas of the competing ideologies. Whichever way the public does swing will determine the practice. The polls serve only to predict which way will be part of current culture. Even though the majority of Americans might not be true Christians attending church and reading/believing the Bible, I do perceive the majority to be willing to defend Christianity and the Bible whether they understand all that or not. They are realizing there is a threat to that and are rising up. Agnostic teachers I know are sympathetic concerning the Bible, not willing to castigate its contents, yet not willing to adhere to its teachings. They at least show respect for those who do revere its message.The sentence that you disagred with simply means that proponents of evolution should understand they are not convincing people there is validity to the claimed fact of it, and are faced with the prediction a majority question the science and ideology of it. Because evolution theory by itself is presented in a compartmentalized mode irrespective of other ideologies, stand-alone from the tests of religion, it can't be trusted as a stand-alone value to be taught as an absolute.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are again asking that theories be included for no other reason than public opinion. How can you on one hand make a statement like this and on the other claim that public opinion has nothing to do with what is true? It doesn't make sense.WS: I'm suggesting that it would have been wise for evolutionists to recognize from the poll results people are not buying the stand-alone presentation of evolution theory without some challenge to its conclusions. Even scientists reject science that is set as above challenge, which was so with Einstein's theories. I didn't propose that the polls reveal the truth or untruth about the topic, nor do they drive public opinion. Other forces do that, while the polls just measure the movement. Think of polls as yardsticks. No yardstick adds or takes away one inch to any stature.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------And this is an argument for your position?WS: Part of several. What people believe already will largely determine what else they will accept. Some don't trust the government, so can't be convinced the government sent men to the moon.
If enough people believed that way, there would be no more money spent on such endeavors. Rather than shove the truth down their throats the wise thing to do is to find other ways to convince the majority. Compartmentalization of something as significant as evolution theory raised to science level by believers in evolution is not the advisable way to go. If evolution can't stand in the presence of creaton science and emerge unscathed, then the theory is weaker than adherents think it is. That they refuse to allow the two to be compared through constructive thinking is evidence of a cover-up, which Americans are sick of these days. What are you afraid of? Creation science is the only check/balance system around to test the theory of evolution.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------No. Any creation scientist may come up with good data at time and is welcome to present it, but creationism as a science is ridiculous.WS: OK, I'll have to stop here, needing to go pull some statements from famous evolutionists that might convince you are ignoring sound advice. Your own experts disagree with you, who caution against such biased statements. By making such claims you convince people that don't believe in either theory that your choice is obviously severely faulted. How could the contributions of the creation scientists be actually "rediculous" without destroying their careers? Who would employ scientists considered rediculous? You damage your credibility. I'll try to come back to this post and finish it later, but this point needs special attention.

Howdy. Before addressing your post... You still haven't got the quotes function down. Your posts are not 'reply quoting' correctly. Only the first few lines show up. I don't can't tell you how to correct it as I can't see the source of you message. Maybe if you give me you password I'll debug for you.WS: I took the admin's suggestion and reverted to copy/paste using Reply. I haven't taken time looking into UBB, again chosingto reply tonight or go look it over. The (suggested) pattern for now is:
former quote
your response
my (WS response
former quote
etcquote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Why do that since I meant and supported what I said? Taking another lap around it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------But you didn't support it, and now stubbornly insist on you correct interpretation.I was thinking about this last night as I went to bed. My analogy was an analysis of structure. For any argument, you should be able to switch key values and still have the argument make sense. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with the argument.WS: No way. Your "key values" are personal choices subject to relativism. Your original "key value" was: 'group decision concerning injured child needing medical attention' made equal to group decision concerning subjects included in curriculum. No relationship exists, except 'group decision'. You next substituted 'group decision concerning cancer victim' equal to the fixed value 'group decision concerning subjects included in curriculum'. Those values don't equate unless you are equating the decision of including creation science in curriculum equal to critical, life-threatening decisions. Who is in danger of dying if the group decides the wrong way concerning curriculum? Evolutionist scientists out of work? I would suggest all of them could be put to more meaningful science endeavors.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: As for my application, you should have determined I was referring to #4. It would be illogical that a poll could effect in itself any of the other definition possibilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, any but #5 fit.Check your own arguments. While you may use #4 initially, as soon as you start applying the finding to school curriculum, you are using numbers 1, 2 and 3.WS: I have no power to command the curriculum set assemblage, even advised of the trends of public opinion through polls. The polls don't increase my power. Educators and associated elected officials and their appointees, who have the power, might change direction when they learn how the voters increasingly disagree with their current emphasis. Their values appear not to be shared by the majority of people with power to unseat them. I can employ the poll information to tell others whether they are properly represented by politicians or not, influencing their votes. Since I can't vote for them, they still remain the force of change, not my using the polls to effect change, since I have only one vote.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I'm suggesting that it would have been wise for evolutionists to recognize from the poll results people are not buying the stand-alone presentation of evolution theory without some challenge to its conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Would it also be wise to recognize that 40% of the population believes in astrology and so include it too?You are still arguing that public opinion, determined by polls, should dictate what is science.WS: Why consider including that when there is little or no public or institutional demand to do so? Educators have not been promoting inclusion of astrology. It's a non issue. The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science. Those trusted to carry out the will of the people (we are a democratic republic) should do so. They must face up to the challenge of allowing students to be presented creation science, allowing them along with their parents, to decide the validity of an evolution-alone scenario. If they fail to allow it, the public will work around that, possibly making an end of evolution theory in any textbook since denial of alternatives only convinces people of a cover-up, and indicates paranoia among proponents of the theory. That is perceived as a weakness of the theory, demanding an accounting of what is taught by comparing it to what the majority possibly believes as true. It is in that process that the true science should overcome the untrue, satisfying many people.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I didn't propose that the polls reveal the truth or untruth about the topic, nor do they drive public opinion. Other forces do that, while the polls just measure the movement. Think of polls as yardsticks. No yardstick adds or takes away one inch to any stature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------But you do insist that theories be included on the basis of poll results. This is effectively the same thing. The yardstick analogy is valid only if you stop once the measurement has been made.WS: The public insists on it. I am just reporting what the majority thinks about it. Whatever the will of the people is will be done unless we cease to be a democratic republic. A slight majority says include, so it should be included until the majority decides that was either the final decision or it was the wrong approach. At that time the decision could be made to alter the plan, to make inclusion law, exclude evolution altogther, permanently exclude creation science, or require both or neither to be taught. For now he decree is "include".
However, should the powers decide there is no opinion "out there" at some point, or if the will of the people is clearly known, then whatever is currently acceptable is to be taught.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Part of several. What people believe already will largely determine what else they will accept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------And we should compound the error?WS: Atempting to force the population to accept the one belief the academic elite says is truth is similar to religious gnosticism. Americans will decide for themselves and select representatives accordingly.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than shove the truth down their throats the wise thing to do is to find other ways to convince the majority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------This would make sense if you were arguing to include a course debunking creationism.WS: Acceptable if you add to that a course debunking evolution.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: OK, I'll have to stop here, needing to go pull some statements from famous evolutionists that might convince you are ignoring sound advice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Why not just prove the claim wrong? Where is the scientific theory of creation?WS: If it were possible to prove creation wrong scientifically, it would already have been. You should by now have come across the manifold theory of creation science which can't be contained in any one book. If you don't have a clue, I'll point you to some book titles and websites that will educate ou about that. For now, consider what the experts among evolutionists had to say:Niles Eldridge cautioned evolutionists concerning the whipping they took in that great decade of debates with creationists. "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics."Professor Corner: "The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact
that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of
natural affinity.""Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution -from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found
for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell
of the theory of evolution.""Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.""Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced --- the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution.""If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation.""The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"
Prof. E.J.H.Corner- Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK"We take the side of science in SPITE OF the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in SPITE OF its failures to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism.""It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin'a review of Review of Carl Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World'."Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the
fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the
evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it
precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of
organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links'."
Arthur Boucot, Ph.D.geology; Professor of Geology, Oregon St. U. "Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls", Amsterdam, 1975,
p.196.Those are circulating in several forums, gaining in popularity, quite predictably. I think they are all in a creation science Revised Quote Book, author unknown to me today. You can paste the quotes into a search engine and find the individual quote sources. They are all well known. I need to relocate that website that has them ready for copy/paste. You can probably find related sites that make things tough for creationists, but my point is you err in insinuating creationists have no science, or that evolution theory is fully science with conclusive fact based on a perfect data set. The data for evolution is largely brought together into the assumptions that make the theory through many interpolations between missing transitions in the fossil record. From a tooth or tail bone entire creatures and their apparent shapes, phisiology and lifestyles are surmised. Fossil remains resembling apes are categorically declared hominids in a rush to deny the creatures could have been actual apes. The rush slams on without the truth ever catching up to it all, too often requiring scientists to retract their opinions here and there or just hope nobody noticed their errors. Eventually honest scientists make the corrections, but not until after much damage to truth occurs.Listen to the evolution experts. They have offered much good advice about the real challenge of creationsits. If you ignore them, you are destined to repeat their costly mistakes.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: No way. Your "key values" are personal choices subject to relativism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Then choose something else. The point is that if your argument is valid for your choice of values it is valid for any other.WS: It is your problem that you can't understand my argument which doesn't need to be tested with unrelated "key values". You are not making any sense about that.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: No relationship exists, except 'group decision'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Problem + poll result = decisionC or E + poll result = decisioninjury + poll result = decisionThe values don't matter.WS: Wrong again on all three counts except that "a" decision is common to all, but they are very different kinds of decisions, by groups, by individuals, by pre-existing concensus, virtually a cultural reaction. A medical emergency doesn't require a poll to decide whether to provide service to the injured. Most people already know what is expected of them. The will of any group above age 6 is already known about that, not requiring a poll.
The cancer example is very personal, mostly a decision between doctor and patient/family. Public opinion for that makes no sense for an individual case. Those decisions are made very personally concerning actions to be taken for that. As for the curriculum issue, there are already two decisions pre-existing in the population. One group says evolution only, the other says creation too or none at all. Those decisions are not known until a poll is taken, the results of which could provide a deciding opinion, that of the majority, which is known only by the sums of agreement. That decision is meaningless until a group acts upon the knowledge. The numbers themselves have no power to change anything, but indicate which group is most likely to effect change if they act. There is probably no simple "key value" you can substitute for such a decision process. That one is unique.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I have no power to command the curriculum set assemblage, even advised of the trends of public opinion through polls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------What does that matter? You have made the argument that polls ought to decide the issue of including creationism in class.WS: One last time....the polls reveal what is already decided. The die is cast and the numbers detect the "shape" of it. Remember the Florida vote mess? TV stations carried a false report that Gore had a landslide victory, so thousands of Repulicans left the polling places in apparent defeat. When the truth came out the reported poll information was wrong, the voting hours were extended to allow the voters to return. Those people had decided to vote for Bush, but when told he was losing beyond help of their votes, gave up, but had not changed their minds about Bush. Exit polls showed they went back and voted for Bush in time to be counted. In that case, the polls didn't ordain anything, only revealing the probable winner, encouraging voters to go add their vote to make sure he won.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Ya know. If that doesn't say it all then what does?WS: I thought so too. quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Those trusted to carry out the will of the people (we are a democratic republic) should do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If they fail to allow it, the public will work around that, possibly making an end of evolution theory in any textbook since denial of alternatives only convinces people of a cover-up, and indicates paranoia among proponents of the theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Desperate?WS: I'd say the evolutionists often express desperation, fearing more verification of a living God who will judge them who are of unbelief.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The public insists on it. I am just reporting what the majority thinks about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Really? All you are doing is reporting?WS: That is all I did in the beginning, pointing out the fact the public has obviously decided what they believe and are making adjustments already commensurate with their beliefs.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: For now he decree is "include".
However, should the powers decide there is no opinion "out there" at some point, or if the will of the people is clearly known, then whatever is currently acceptable is to be taught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------This country was never set up to be what you presume.WS: I don't know about Germany, even more uncertain considering the election there. But the USA is most definitely working the way I describe, as a fully functional democratic republic. The people do govern themselves through elected representatives. Maybe you are one of those Electoral College critics. It won't be going away, requiring a very large majority vote. It is demonstrated more strongly on the state and local level, though. There are great examples very often that the principle still works. I won my national votes, and most of the local and state votes. Aside from that, I've seen many of the promises carried out which would not have been done had the opponents been elected. More importantly our school board is very nearly ideal, making much needed changes we've demanded for years. One of those is a significant reduction of paperwork that keeps teachers from doing what teachers were trained to do, one of the reasons I quit. I loved teaching, but not all the junk thrown in later, like the reports for convincing people you are doing your job. Course test scores and aptitude tests ought to answer that. Another thing our elected representatives did was condition of getting our votes was to reduce the emphasis on sports, making academic activities equal. All the way up the line we have a good team of representatives doing the things we asked for, especially the Bush team concerning education. The former administration had 8 years to fix it, leaving it in an almost impossible mess.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If it were possible to prove creation wrong scientifically, it would already have been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Pretty much every testable aspect of creationism has been shown to be wrong. What is left is not testable so how does one prove it one way or the other?WS: If that were true there would be no creation scientists left. They would all have joined the evolution teams. But their ranks are growing, not shrinking. If you were correct, why did the evolutionists lose the debates over the past decade, avoiding those embarassing moments by avoiding new debates? The responses to that have been centered around simple denial of facts and accusations of out-showmanship, yet the transcripts generated by creationists carried heavy technical material while evolutionists mostly tried to discredit the religion of the creationist debaters, avoiding the technical arguments. Why is that? The debate transcripts were once online, but hard to find now. I wonder why.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You should by now have come across the manifold theory of creation science which can't be contained in any one book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I have seen many many theories of creation, many of which are mutually incompatible. Which do you mean? And, by the way, which theory does 'the public' ordain to be true?WS: I am aware of what you refer to. One of those theories is the "canopy theory" which I really disagree with. There are others not well thought out. However, the public hasn't appeared to prefer any one set of creation theories making up a whole. They want it generally considered equal time with evolution. Evolution theory is also composed of many subset theories, some of which evolutionists disagree over, as I mentioned earlier, such as punctuated equilibrium, taken by some as an embarassment and shame on the cause.
I'd say the learning spiral would accommodate students having opportunity to cover all of the theories, regarding all the dirty laundry as well as the good stuff.

Skipping over circular reasoning..."So it is your opinion that schools should teach whatever the polls say people believe irrelevant of the truth of theory?This is incomprehensible to me."WS: I said "One last time", but you missed the signal that you are not getting a very simple point. Look at it this way, then. Say I had a bakery that produced one type of bread that many people purchased for decades. Gradually the business falls off, so I decide to sample all my customers by mail, asking them questions about my service. 51% say they formerly would not consider another bakery in the past, but now visit others because the others offer more variety, even though they are accustomed to my bread. They are willing to pay a little more for the same bread if there is variety, understanding it requires more machinery and personnel to produce variety. I discover there is definitely a trend among customers to eventually abandon my bakery to the point I will go out of business if there is no change. I have a decision to make. Continue offering the same bread that was seemingly so successful for so long, or add variety. The intelligent thing to do is what the customers want, or sell the bakery while it still has value.I already knew there was a problem. I didn't need the poll to tell me that. What the poll told me that I couldn't otherwise figure out was the extent of the customer problem, assisting me in prediction how far the problem would extend, knowing the quality of the bread was not an issue. The poll didn't change the minds of the customers, nor would it affect them if they knew the results of it. They know what they want- more variety. A competitor would enjoy the results, using them to his advantage, probably adding variety regularly to stay ahead of my business.Education officials and educators are faced with a similar decision. They have believed all along the exclusion of creation science from science curriculum was proper because they BELIEVE it isn't science. They believed their product, evolution, was proper. But now they see the polls and the trend that people are not satisfied with that. People obviously don't trust the opinions of educators to decide what is "truth of theory". They prefer to make that decision themselves. I doubt they are aware of the contents of these debates and discussions, the facts we discuss, the substance of the differences between theories. Few are. It doesn't enter in to the issue. Few educators themselves are really aware of the facts, "knowing" on the basis of lesson plans that don't allow objective thinking. It is a matter of memorization, not of process, so it doesn't stick. I don't have a poll revealing how bad the problem is among teachers, but I suspect it is significant. The teachers themselves are not convinced or interested enough to learn it. They just "teach" it. They don't often have time to really teach anything, needing time for the mountains of reports to generate. Most teachers just 'throw' it at the students when it comes up, leaving them wrestling it with what they might have learned at home and church. The students are faced with a false dualism at the hands of their science teachers who are mostly unwilling, unable, and 'prohibited' to consider "the alternative" explanation of origins of species and other related processes. Only the theory of evolution is offered whether it takes or not. One result of that long-standing method of teaching is a general decline of interest in science, so now there is a groundswell among educators who araware of the benefits of single-sex schools, thinking that will bolster the numbers. It would significantly benefit young boys in elementary school, girls in high school, but would only be a cover-up of the science problem, not satisfying parents. The polls confirm the dissatisfaction of the public, revealing the need to reconsider. The fact there are creation scientists and textbooks promoting creation science is enough to encourage Bible believing people there is merit in presenting the alternative theories. The poll doesn't settle the issue, nor does the poll reveal which theory is truth. It predicts the future of public education. If the public schools don't offer what they want, they will go elsewhere. They will leave the poor and disadvantaed in inner cities clustered around the public schools, moving to private schools, more progressive public schools, or home schooling. Vouchers will effect change for those able to get their children to a distant preferred school. I can say that with confidence because it's already happening.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: But the USA is most definitely working the way I describe, as a fully functional democratic republic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, wrong again. The slow, brooding, internally feuding US government was set up to prevent just this sort of thing. What you describe is more of a pure democracy-- governed purely by popular vote. You've said yourself that in the US this is not the case. We vote for representatives. Ever wonder why the country's government is so segmented? It is common knowledge that the authors of the nation put great effort into preventing any aspect of the government from gaining too much power. What is not so commonly known is that the founders were equally fearful of direct democracies-- mob rule. The government was to check the whims of the populace even as the populace checked the government. Brilliant system actually.WS: Too bad you don't understand the system. It's one of checks and balances, not checking government against population, but between arms of government. The judicial arm is the least volatile for change, but the Executive and Legislative are highly volatile, subject to relatively rapid change. For 8 years it appeared that people loved Clinton, around here "the man of men". But that suddenly changed. Next comes the needed change in the legislative branch, putting republicans back in charge. The government has no power to deal with such "whims". The people, whimsical or not, will determine the government course.Your characterization of my argument being a pure democracy vote is off center. The poll indicates the people will support representatives that promise to give them what they want. So far no poll has directly changed anything in education, leaving people frustrated. Learn about the "democratic repuplic" which is the USA.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If that were true there would be no creation scientists left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You assume 100% honesty in these scientists and underestimate the power of faith. As for the latter, I cannot count the times that people have openly admitted to me that I won this-r-that debate, yet still refuse to change their mind. I am sure you've had similar experiences.WS: I would trust the honesty of the creation scientists long past that of people who subscribe to something favored by anarchists, satanists and atheists who are on record as determined to destroy Christianity regardless the dishonesty required. Those groups promote evolution as part of the agenda to change the world. It fits their beliefs like a fine glove on the hand.As for faith, our faith is in the Lord our God and in His Holy Word, not in science. There are many who have found that faith compatible with creationist explanations of science. The faith in God is a constant, while we can be flexible concerning science, which is a dynamic exercise of the mind. Christians are less prone to hang onto secular untruth or any other ideology once the fallacies are known. I've alrady discarded several popular creationist explanations. By "less prone" I mean that many evolutionists have no other alternative to believe, so are not likely to change at all regardless the facts. They must hang onto something.You might win a debate over some highly technical aspect of science, but not be able to convince over all the associated arguments that separate us. 'Winning' a particular debate segment only demonstrates you have greater command over one set of points. Science itself is self-correcting and subject to drastic changes, not being as absolute as faith of a religion.

"As for you bread store story: Once again you explain how schools ought to teach what the polls say the people want. Verifiable science doesn't enter into it. People's personal tastes are valid concerns when you are baking bread, not when you are trying to determine and teach what happens to actually be the truth."WS: Evolutionist scientists have been for quite some time victim of a terrible conflict concerning absolute certainty, unable to decide what is real, since the emergence of quantum mechanics. Many "creationist"(*) scientists are laboring under no such loss of deterministic reality.
We take seriously the Scripture that sets the basis for determining what is real, being what is of an infinite lifetime. 2 Cor. 4:18
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."* Let's review the term. Many scientists are Christians, many believe the Bible accounts as literal, though are not all involved in the creation/evolution issue. If they are revealed as Bible believers, they are considered "Creationist" anyway. Other Christian scientists are active in the issue, rightly labelled "Creation scientists", who are also contributing to their respective science fields apart from the issue at hand. There are also non-Christian scientists who are ecidedly anti evolution, taking positions closer to those of Creation scientists.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Federal Convention, Hamilton expressed the concern that if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy
----------------------------------------------------------------------Try reading: http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/polybius.htmWS: Hence the move to a democratic republic. Supposedly the popular vote would have placed Gore in office by mob rule, taking into account many illigitimate votes in Florida. But the mechanics of the republic prevented that, offsetting fraud in any one large group of voters. If the US got what many cried out for, supremacy of popular vote, we would have a Democracy ("mob-rule"). But that didn't happen, did it? The "Electoral College" came into play, which is based on the popular vote, but handled through delegates of the parties- representation, not democratic rule.I wasn't aware of the Polybius contribution. Interesting. So what are we arguing? The USA is not a Democracy, never was, for then the will of the current majority is law, not the Constitution which grants the limited government the law by which it rules under power granted by "We the People". The truer government is vested in the several states under our system, while that which is specified as duties of the federal government is of the national government. Democracy has a part in shaping the mix of representatives that carry out and make the laws. The representatives themselves determine the shape of rule, within bounds of the US Constitution, secondarily the state constitutions."Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."WS: I agree. The GOVERNMENT is a republic, but not the PEOPLE, the society of the United States of America. We are "We the People" who grant power to the republic government. OUR part is democratic vote, determining who the representatives will be in in both state and federal houses, using EC to determine the Presidency by representation of the parties. The democratic principle is limited."Still think there was no thought toward checking the whims of the populace?"WS: The "whims" of the people follow in the change of the guard, every politicians' nightmare. The republic government shields itself from temporary whims of the people, but if those "whims" turn out to be the WILL of the people, those whims determine how the republic will rule within bounds of the Constitution.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The people, whimsical or not, will determine the government course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, but very very slowly, hence negating the whimsical.WS: Sure, but certain to sort whimsical from lasting will.

Is post 163 on topic? If so I'll answer it. If not, someone please clue me in on where the topic left off. I really don't have time to read back.