Intelligent Design

[Kane]

The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.

You state that it's a theory/fact. It has to be one or the other. Can't be both.

And the fact is that it's pure theory. It has never been proven. It has never been observed nor has it ever been duplicated/repeated.

Many scientists may prefer the evolution theory over intelligent design, but that doesn't make it fact.

Remember, leading scientists used to teach that the world was flat, too. And that was accepted as undeniable fact.

You don't know what the word "theory" means in scientific sense, do you? I'm not suprised.

Gravity is classified as a “theory” too. If you think this is due to lack of evidence then try jumping off a Skyscraper and let me know how it goes. Ever hear of “Atomic Theory?” Think they call it this because we don’t understand exactly how it works? If that were the case we wouldn’t be so worried about nutters in Iran enriching Uranium. None of these are called “theories” because we lack proof.

The reason Evolution is called a theory is – not - due to lack of evidence the reason is that the evidence is incomplete and what we have can be interpreted in many different ways. When you’re trying to study a series of events that span millions or even billions of years it is nearly impossible to know – exactly – what happened from one moment to the next all the way from inorganic chemicals all the way to modern Man. For instance there are a couple dozen different chemical combinations that will result in inorganic chemicals forming amino acids but we have no idea which combination was seminal in early life on Earth. For all we know they all were. We have various theories as to what happened afterwards. Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium represent two of the most popular ways of thinking about how life transitions from early to modern life forms. I personally prefer a hybrid of the two. The question is not – if – Evolution happened it is a question of – how - it happened and thus why we call it a “theory.” In point of fact Evolution isn’t about a single theory but an amalgam of several hundred that range from basic inorganic chemistry you could do in your garage to unraveling the mysteries of DNA to Geology to Botany and across the entire scientific spectrum. Every science there is supports Evolution.

So yes, macro-evolution is accepted fact. Now can you please read my last post carefull, as I provided evidence for claims while you have not. Most of the scientific community regards evolution as junk science or pseudoscience;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

The overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[5] or junk science. [6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]

The proof is on the table, in this post and the last one. You have to accept. You may not, and I may know why. Can you answer one of my original questions though? Are you Christian (if not what are you)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#_note-6

 

[pstarr]

Gosh, I didn't know that science was really a matter of semantics. I mean, when someone tells me that something is a "fact" I figure that that's exactly what they mean. And I'll bet every fifteen year-old high school student in the world does, too.

If they're told that macroevolution is a theory, that suggests one thing to them. If they're told it's a fact (even though scientists don't mean that literally...) it suggests something entirely different.

But enough of semantics. That's not the core of the arguement, anyway.

Clearly, part of the core of (your) interest lies in my religious affiliation. To satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am a Christian.

But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?


Or are you adhering to the suggestion made by the well-known physicist, Steven Weinberg who stated,

"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." *1

The list you provided regarding scientific instituitons that support evolution is impressive. On the other hand, Dr. Larry Hatfield stated in the Science Digest*2:

"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities....Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Indeed. A meeting of over 100 biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, and other scientists who held doctorates from universities such as Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Purdue, Duke, and many others...and which includes profs from Yale Graduate School, MIT - and which includes the director for the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the Nat'l Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian, Los Alamos Nat'l Lab, and Livermore Labs...was conducted because these scientists are skeptical about the validity of evolution and they no longer support it.

Of course, most scientific journals are not about to post news like this. These weren't backwoods hicks or rabid bible-thumpers; they were/are world-class scientists. Some are Christian, some not. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

When PBS aired a program on evolution declaring that "all known scientific evidence supports (Darwinian) evolution," these professionals published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine entitled, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

By the way, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium has been rejected by most evolutionists...it was a silly attempt to explain a quirk that is otherwise unexplainable.

Viewers of the PBS show weren't told about scientists who refuse to support this theory (oops...I mean fact) and a part of the scientific community published a detailed, 151 page critique claiming that the show "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for evolution" and even systematically ignored "disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists themselves."

As I said earlier, someone has an agenda.

 

[pstarr]

Oops- almost forgot....
*1:Quoted in Scientific American, July 2000.

*2:Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin", Science Digest (Winter 1979)

 

[KOROHO]

First off, Biological science-as I understand it-does not say that life can only come from life. The idea of life coming from something other than life is called abiogenesis, and is completely separate from evolution.

Thank you for the vocabulary lecture, but the word abiogenesis is not new me. I learned it in biology a long time ago. And they said there was no such thing.

The idea of abiogenesis is not at all disconnected from evolution theory. It is directly related.

The theroy of evolution requires a "first life" for everything to evolve from. Which means that "first life" was either created by God, or formed on it's own out of absolutely nothing.

You might want to try the useless old arrguement that the "first life" was formed by chemicals/amino acids, etc. during the "big bang". But then you have to explain where the chemicals/amino acids, etc came from/ Which there is no rational explaination for. In order to believe evolution you have to believe this:

There was an absolute state of nothingness.
From this nothing, various amino acids, chemicals and other elements formed.
These self forming elements mixed together and exploded, creating the universe and a single cell organism.
That single cell organism gave birth to a different type creature, which in turn gave birth to a different type of creature, etc, etc, etc. Until some fish crawled up onto the land and gave birth to a monkey that gave birth to a "monkey man" which later gave birth to a man.

And we are expected to accept this without question, because if we question it, then a bunch of Christian haters will call us "ignorant" and "un-educated" - even though, as already stated - there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

It takes the same kind of faith to accept evolution as it does to accept creationism.

Evolution has in a sense become a religion itself and people come on lists like this restating the dogma they were fed in their "churches" and then sent out to "preach the gospel". These mindless robots never once had the thought to say "excuse me professor, but what evidence do you have besides the fake skeletons and the totally disconnected bones that you found miles away from each other?". They just beleive what they are told to beleive and anyone who does not believe are just not as smart as they are. The eveolution zealots and bigots are far more arrogant and self rightoeous about the issue than any other religious people I know.

 

[Carol]

But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?

The Supreme Court voted down teaching the two side by side in a 7-2 decision in 1987, that Creationism is religion and not science and violated the seperation of church and state.

Personally I don't support teaching Creationism in school for a few reasons. I believe in God very strongly. But...I also stand in sharp disagreement with the way many schools teach different matters. I don't have kids of my own, but I have a niece and nephew that were home-schooled through 8th grade. They are now in high school. I've been to their high school, and I would not want that school teaching my sister's kids anything to do with their faith. I would like to see them learn they way they have....with their community and with thier parents.

I also believe in religious communities, and that it is the responsibility of those of faith to be active in their faith, to partake in their community, and to help one another with understanding their own beliefs. I do not think the schools as a sort of backhauling to to make up for those that do not attend their house of worship regularly and do not make an attempt to further understand the scriptures of their choice.

I do respect your opinion Sifu Starr, just sharing my own as well


In faith :asian:

Carol

 

[pstarr]

I understand what you're saying but the problem arises when the schools present evolution as proven fact. Then when the parents try to teach the children that that isn't necessarily the case, there's trouble. I think that the religion of evolution has been directly responsible for many youngsters becoming atheists over the years-

When my daughter was in her high school science class as a senior, her teacher asked how many students did not believe in evolution. About four kids raised their hands. He told them that they were foolish not to believe in it and so on...

I had a talk with this intellectual colossus and presented him with some information of which he was unaware...

But I'm sure that his behavior towards students who refused to believe in evolution hasn't changed. In fact, he threatened to fail any student who refused to accept the evolutionary dogma. And that ain't right.

Schools needn't present any extensive theological rhetoric on the subject - I think that they should simply make students aware that there is another approach to the subject and provide them with some very basic information...

 

[KOROHO]

excellent point re: teaching religion in school.
Do you really want some child molestor, homosexual or communist teaching your children about God?

The best thing you can do is keep your children out of publci schools altogether. They are cesspools filled with all sorts of corrupt, agenda-driven people who have absoluyely no interest in your child's well-being, education or the future of the U.S. There may be some good people who are school teachers, but the vast majority are not.

Ever since Jimmy Carter (easily the worst President we ever had) caved in to the left-wing teachers union and federalized the public schools - the goal of the schools shifted from educationg kids so they can be good, productive and self supporting citizens, to turning out zombies who can not think for themselves and unquestionably tow thier party line.

It took a long time, but now the only new teachers are those who are products of the left-wing establishment. They only way to end it now and restore America is to end the public education system altogether or keep fighting until the majority of teachers were "home schooled kids" who will then take an interest in the lives of the individuals.

 

[Carol]

I understand what you're saying but the problem arises when the schools present evolution as proven fact. Then when the parents try to teach the children that that isn't necessarily the case, there's trouble. I think that the religion of evolution has been directly responsible for many youngsters becoming atheists over the years-

When my daughter was in her high school science class as a senior, her teacher asked how many students did not believe in evolution. About four kids raised their hands. He told them that they were foolish not to believe in it and so on...

I had a talk with this intellectual colossus and presented him with some information of which he was unaware...

But I'm sure that his behavior towards students who refused to believe in evolution hasn't changed. In fact, he threatened to fail any student who refused to accept the evolutionary dogma. And that ain't right.

Schools needn't present any extensive theological rhetoric on the subject - I think that they should simply make students aware that there is another approach to the subject and provide them with some very basic information...

I can see your point there and I agree. I don't take it as a proven fact, either, nor was I taught it was when I was in school. That is not to say I think the theory is bunk, but I do not think it is fully complete. I don't have a problem with it being taught as a theory though. It is not a postulate (proven), but it is what science has to offer at the moment and that to me means something.

I don't really support the schools providing resources for other information becuase...I don't think the schools should have a say in which path a child should take when exploring their faith and what they believe. I do however, have no issue with a program at a house of worship that discusses their faith's creation story at length at any time, including when the child is studying evolution at school.

If a person attends their house of worship and studies their scripture on regular basis, he or she will have plenty of opportunities to study and discuss. Faith is not a spectator sport.

Personally, I think youngsters have become athiests because their parent do not take the efforts to practice their faith with responsibility and to show them the work and the rewards of following a spiritual path. If one is truly active in one's faith, teaching creationism in the schools isn't necessary. The schools will not, and should not, replace the efforts of studying one's scriptures or attending one's house of worship doing whatever one does to be more enlightened to the word of God and the path that one is on.

Appreciate the discussion very much. God bless. :asian:

 

[pstarr]

Thank you! I'm concerned because schools appear to teach this theory as absolute fact and children generally believe whatever their teacher tells them.

That's why we send them to school - so they can learn, and we generally assume that what they're learning is valid...and we also tend to let our children know that we support their teacher(s) and school.

Then when the teacher teaches something that isn't necessarily true and we try to tell the kids that we believe something different - the kids are confused as to whether they should believe anything the teachers says.

If the teacher would simply make the students aware that there are other approaches to this subject (without going into any great detail) AND stop "preaching" evolution as though it is proven fact, I'd be satisfied.

But I don't think they're ever going to do that.

 

[Carol]

Thank you! I'm concerned because schools appear to teach this theory as absolute fact and children generally believe whatever their teacher tells them.

That's why we send them to school - so they can learn, and we generally assume that what they're learning is valid...and we also tend to let our children know that we support their teacher(s) and school.

Then when the teacher teaches something that isn't necessarily true and we try to tell the kids that we believe something different - the kids are confused as to whether they should believe anything the teachers says.

If the teacher would simply make the students aware that there are other approaches to this subject (without going into any great detail) AND stop "preaching" evolution as though it is proven fact, I'd be satisfied.

But I don't think they're ever going to do that.

I'd actually be OK with that to. The way I was taught when I was a kid (In a public school in the Northeast) was that we were taught the theory of evolution and taught that some folks believe in a creationist theory....that Christian folks and Jewish folks believe that God created the world, that the Indians (dating myself) believed in stories of the Great Spirit. I'm all for leaving the door open like that.

But, you are right, I don't think that will be acceptable, and I think there will be more folks like my sister's kids that will be home schooled as an alternative.

Interesting times we live in.

 

[pstarr]

Truly. Like I said, someone has an agenda.

 

[Adept]

macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?

Evolution fits all the available evidence. Creationism does not. In fact, leaving the bible aside, there is no evidence in support of creationism at all.

 

[Adept]

Then when the teacher teaches something that isn't necessarily true...

The theory of evolution is the best theory we have to date. If you have evidence which indicates parts of it may be inaccurate, I suggest you approach your nearest university and have the theory ammended.

 

[pstarr]

The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.

If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.

 

[Kane]

Gosh, I didn't know that science was really a matter of semantics. I mean, when someone tells me that something is a "fact" I figure that that's exactly what they mean. And I'll bet every fifteen year-old high school student in the world does, too.

If they're told that macroevolution is a theory, that suggests one thing to them. If they're told it's a fact (even though scientists don't mean that literally...) it suggests something entirely different.

But enough of semantics. That's not the core of the arguement, anyway.

Clearly, part of the core of (your) interest lies in my religious affiliation. To satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am a Christian.

But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?


Or are you adhering to the suggestion made by the well-known physicist, Steven Weinberg who stated,

"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." *1

The list you provided regarding scientific instituitons that support evolution is impressive. On the other hand, Dr. Larry Hatfield stated in the Science Digest*2:

"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities....Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Indeed. A meeting of over 100 biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, and other scientists who held doctorates from universities such as Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Purdue, Duke, and many others...and which includes profs from Yale Graduate School, MIT - and which includes the director for the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the Nat'l Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian, Los Alamos Nat'l Lab, and Livermore Labs...was conducted because these scientists are skeptical about the validity of evolution and they no longer support it.

Of course, most scientific journals are not about to post news like this. These weren't backwoods hicks or rabid bible-thumpers; they were/are world-class scientists. Some are Christian, some not. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

When PBS aired a program on evolution declaring that "all known scientific evidence supports (Darwinian) evolution," these professionals published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine entitled, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

By the way, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium has been rejected by most evolutionists...it was a silly attempt to explain a quirk that is otherwise unexplainable.

Viewers of the PBS show weren't told about scientists who refuse to support this theory (oops...I mean fact) and a part of the scientific community published a detailed, 151 page critique claiming that the show "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for evolution" and even systematically ignored "disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists themselves."

As I said earlier, someone has an agenda.

You don't understand do you? Evolution being a theory is very important. This is more than a semantics issue, it shows that evolution making the theory label is FACT. Gravity is a theory, and it is also scientific FACT. Making the theory label in the first place shows that evolution is passed the hypothesis and into the realm of accepted science.

I still think you need to read my post more carefully. I provided plenty of sources showing that most of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as junk science and pseudo-science. And guess what? The only people that call intelligent design a "theory" is the Christian fundamentalists that back it up. Where as most of the scientific community doesn't regard evolution as even a "theory". Therefore it isn't a theory and rightfully so. Pseudo-science and junk science cannot be a theory.

Clearly, part of the core of (your) interest lies in my religious affiliation. To satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am a Christian.

But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved.

No my friend you are wrong. The fact that you are Christian is the most important information to know. It shows why you question evolution. Why do you question the theory of evolution and not, say, the theory of gravity? Because evolution contradicts your religious beliefs, while gravity doesn't. Let's imagine if evolution didn't contradict the literal genesis creation story. Will there be any debate? No. Will you have questioned it because of it? No.

And the reason why you question evolution or any scientific theory you question is one of the worst reasons to question it. What did you expect? The genesis story was written in the Bronze Age. It, like any other creation story of the time would definitely be no where near the truth. The ancients lived in a totally different world with totally different ways to make sense of the amazing yet complex world around them.

All cultures have their creation myths. There is a West African tribe that believes the world was created by ant dung. The ancient Greeks have their own account where the world was birthed through intercourse between gods (in some accounts). The Avesta or the Zoroastrians have an even more interesting explanation for the origin of the world but we all know that these creation stories were not based on the scientific method. The Bible is no exception and to say that is unique is foolish. Why this book compiled nearly thousands of years ago is any different than the thousands of other culture's creation myths?

If you want to question evolution because your holy book said so why not question the world being round, revolving around the sun, and rotating on an axis? There are many Biblical verses that suggest the world was flat, center of the universe, and does not move (on its axis or at all). If you want I can post dozens of verses that may suggest this but I think you see my point (hopefully).

 

[Kane]

The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.

If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.

They have done tests with various bacteria species that have much faster generations than humans. After thousands of generation there was an isolated bacterium that did become a different species. It was very lucky though, as examining process which is a slow change over time is difficult. Don't think we can watch even the fastest bacteria evolve into a different genus in our life time.



We also have the fossil record and carbon dating. With these tools we find that that many creatures date back and were physically different than some of the latter specimans (such as animals found today).


For more information visit these forums;

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php?

They can provide all the sources you are looking for, but I'll look for some of the info they gave me when I wondered more about the proof behind evolution. Just keep in mind that we understand evolution so much better than Darwin. We have such a better understanding of it now.

Also read the wiki article on evolution;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Most of the info there should clear everything up. Especially look at the "Evidence of evolution" and the "Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary design". Read them carefully.

 

[heretic888]

excellent point re: teaching religion in school.
Do you really want some child molestor, homosexual or communist teaching your children about God?

Ever since Jimmy Carter (easily the worst President we ever had) caved in to the left-wing teachers union and federalized the public schools - the goal of the schools shifted from educationg kids so they can be good, productive and self supporting citizens, to turning out zombies who can not think for themselves and unquestionably tow thier party line.

It took a long time, but now the only new teachers are those who are products of the left-wing establishment. They only way to end it now and restore America is to end the public education system altogether or keep fighting until the majority of teachers were "home schooled kids" who will then take an interest in the lives of the individuals.

These quotations explain perfectly why no rational adult should take anything you have to say about these matters with anything more than a grain of salt.

Un-friggin'-believable. . .

 

[heretic888]

The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.

Ah, yes, the predictable "well, X scientist says this about Y" tactic!!

Opinions are like, well, you know. Everyone's got one. Not all of them are right, regardless of how many degrees or "authority" the person claiming them may have.

The "proving ground" in science is found in peer-reviewed academic journals. You publish experiments or research articles that make an argument for your hypothesis or theory. This makes them open to critique from other peers in the appropriate field of study.

Guess how many articles in support of intelligent design have been published in such periodicals?? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "hero" and starts with a "z".

If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.

I would like to see solid evidence of the cell theory, as well. The germ theory, too. Since they're on equal footing with evolution. . .

 

[elder999]

Evolution is not just a theory, it is the unifying principle of biology. Yet President Bush thinks that “intelligent design” should be presented as an alternative to evolution because both are sometimes called theories. Since he has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States, he should be aware that in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that “creation science” is a religious, not a scientific, point of view and that teaching it in a public school is in violation of the First Amendment.

Intelligent design is an updated attempt to force educators to teach a specific religious view by masquerading it as science. Faith should not require the scientific proof of God. But what concerns me the most is that this only serves to distract us from serious bioethical issues that require not a belief in, but an acceptance of, the law of biological evolution, which is simply change over time.

Since this change is genetic in nature, the father of genetics, Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel, bears just as much responsibility for the formulation of the law of evolution as Charles Darwin. So why are Mendel and his work not the target of the intelligent design movement? Most likely because Mendel was a monk who rose to the level of abbot in his Augustinian order. It is ironic, but not surprising, that a man of the cloth had the patience and passion to perform the experiments that jump-started biological science in the beginning of the 20th century.

The proof of change over time is all around. If it weren’t for evolution we wouldn’t have to get flu shots every year, antibiotic resistance would not be a concern, we wouldn’t get cancer, and we wouldn’t have DNA testing as a tool in criminal cases. Stem cell research has the promise to find therapies for injury and disease because these cells retain their full evolutionary potential. We need to discuss issues such as how long we extend life using stem cells and not waste our time with arguments over what constitutes a scientific theory versus a religious belief. Here is a solution: Don’t come into my classroom and preach intelligent design, and I won’t come into your church and teach evolution.

Darwin’s use of the term theory to describe his hypothesis of descent with modification was appropriate in 1859. Since then, the work of Mendel, Morgan, Mueller, McClintock, Watson, Crick, Wilkins, Franklin and numerous others provides overwhelming evidence to upgrade Darwin’s theory to a law of evolution: change over time.(and, to correct the earlier poster, it's no longer a "theory of gravity," it's the "law of gravity")The 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species occur in 2009, providing the perfect milestone to finalize the declaration of the biological law of evolution. Maybe then we can discuss the ethical application of evolution to improving the human condition.

 

[heretic888]

You don't understand do you? Evolution being a theory is very important. This is more than a semantics issue, it shows that evolution making the theory label is FACT. Gravity is a theory, and it is also scientific FACT. Making the theory label in the first place shows that evolution is passed the hypothesis and into the realm of accepted science.

Technically, there is a difference between the fact of evolution, which predates Darwin and Watson, and the theory of evolution via natural/sexual selection, which dates to those individuals.

Evolution is a fact, period. The exact explanatory framework (or theory) for how that fact operates, however, is still under debate.

I still think you need to read my post more carefully. I provided plenty of sources showing that most of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as junk science and pseudo-science.

I believe one Republican judge from Pennsylvania holds a similar opinion. If I recall correctly, he judged that Intelligent Design is "creationism re-labeled".

I'm inclined to agree.

Laterz.