How do Creationist Explain This?

[youknowme]

Since you have addressed nothing and answered no questions...what is the point of this interchange?

What have you got apart from being stuck on Darwin? Please tell me why you feel it is urgent for me to read the book? Are the experts who reviewed it not reliable enough for you?

Which book did you read.... oh come on lets get real, you have not read a single book on evolution. Stop lying.

Also you have not actually posted anything at all for me to address, all I have seen you do is totally ignore the Law of Parsimony without posting a shred of evidence to support your views. When you have some actual evidence then we'll have something to discuss.

 

[Bear Wild]

Since you have addressed nothing and answered no questions...what is the point of this interchange?

What have you got apart from being stuck on Darwin? Please tell me why you feel it is urgent for me to read the book? Are the experts who reviewed it not reliable enough for you?

So you have never read the Origin of Species? No wonder you do not understand his theory and make so many incorrect statements. How many college evolution classes have you taken or any graduate classes?

 

[Bear Wild]

LOL...dangerous for whom? Those who depend on lucrative science grants and large teaching salaries? If you dig, you will see where the money trail leads.



What "natural processes"? Are you telling me that intelligent humans had to discover these "natural processes" in order to copy them?
The copy needed intelligent design but not the originals.....gotcha.



Genesis explains everything in enough detail to see that the writer had no scientific knowledge of the things he was recording, whatsoever....but he still got it right.

How could he know that the planet was at first a formless waste devoid of all life? How did he know that the dry land emerged from the vast watery deep that engulfed the whole planet? How could he know about earth's atmosphere, the importance of light being first thing to begin the whole creative process and who told him about the order of creation? He couldn't know that the "days" were not 24 hour periods but eons of undeclared time to accomplish all that the Creator allotted to be done for each stage.
How could Isaiah know that the earth is a "circle" (or sphere. Isaiah 40:22) or the writer of Job know about the water cycle and the fact that "the earth hangs upon nothing". (Job 26:7-8, Proverbs 8:22-31)



And this is a perfect example of what can happen when science is used to create products that are not bio-degradable. Do you realize that if hemp had been used to create all the plastic in the world, we would have no threat to the environment or the marine habitats where a lot of it ends up? Being a naturally sourced bio-degradable plant based product, it would have broken down naturally in the soil as fertilizer in landfill, and it would have fed the marine creature in the oceans.

We can blame greedy humans and the misuse of science for that. They knew hemp was a better product, useful for so many applications...fiber for clothing, and the production of other fabrics, a good food source for feeding livestock , and a healthy product for human consumption as well...so many things that could have been in everyday use......not to mention keeping farmers in work providing a fast growing, easily harvested ongoing crop.
Did you know that Henry Ford made a car completely out of hemp? Imagine!!!



World leaders are a reflection of the people who put them in office. The manipulated masses blindly believe political promises that are never kept. I would have no idea why they keep swallowing the same lies, if it wasn't for the Bible's explanation of the times we are living in.

We are in the outworking of an object lesson.....God has allowed us to experience for ourselves the folly of trying to rule the world without him....so how's that working out for y'all?

Lucrative grants in evolution studies? You can not be serious. You must be referring to lucrative churches and the selling of religion. Ignorance is what is dangerous. Genesis explains nothing it is myth and it has no meaning on what is happening to our world today. The quotes you give have so many different interpretations even on the parts you have sited Science does not create the products that are destroying our world that is the industrial revolution. Science is showing us what we are doing wrong from overpopulation, to excessive carbon dioxide and methane release, destruction of biodiversity and destruction of the life that gives us oxygen. Ignorance of this science is what will be the downfall of human society and it is already starting. Waiting for a god to fix everything is to not take responsibility for ourselves.

 

[tayla]

How do creationist explain this this video?

They call it micro-evolution and that makes it OK. Notice that the bacteria in question did not become birds or dogs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

believing that he doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away

And believing he does exist, no matter how hard, does not make him come into existence

unbelievers OTOH have their very lives at stake according to the Bible.

What does the Harry Potter series have to say on the matter?

I never find scientists to be open minded in their approach to evolution

No, you only find open-mindedness among creationists attacking science.

Deeje Oct. 3, 2016: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago".

Oh lookie there. There you are being open-minded.

Are these a typical closed-minded scientist and a typical open-minded creationist to you? :

• The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian. Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Steven Meyer observed that "no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell"

So what?

Science has no answers to the most important questions. Where and how did life originate?

That's not an important question, just an interesting one. We will be fine if we never get an answer.

And only science has any answers as to how life came to be, albeit an incomplete one at this time, as this is a work in progress.

Religion only has faith-based claims lacking supporting evidence, mechanisms, or explanatory power. Those are not answers, just distractions from finding them.

He is patiently waiting for those humans who have yet to decide

Yeah, we know. That's about all that this god does is wait.

This god, when given the choice to act in a way that only a god could, always chooses to behave in exactly the way things would be if there were no god. A universe with a god in it might experience any number of unmistakable manifestations of this god - perhaps the absence of gratuitous suffering, or the creation people that are automatically kind, generous responsible, etc..

But a godless universe wouldn't be expected to produce either of those.

Given the choice between writing a holy book that no human being could have written, and one that ancient human beings could write, we see the latter. Given the choice between answering all prayer and appearing to ignore most prayers, we see the latter. Given the choice between fashioning a universe that obeys the instantaneous whim of that creator and one running according to blind rules that would be necessary in a godless universe that is regular and stable enough to eventually generate life and mind, we see the latter again.

Over and over again, this god always chooses to imitate the nonexistent god.

The best way to understand this is to conclude that this god either doesn't exist or doesn't want to be discovered.

More generally, if situation 1 (s1) can lead to result A (rA) or result B (rB), and situation 2 (s2) can only yield one of these - let's say result B - and result B is the one always found, that constitutes compelling evidence that situation 2 is the case.

If the flip of a fair coin (s1) can result in heads (rA) or tails (rB), but the flip of a loaded coin (s2) only comes up tails (rB), and the coin keeps coming up tails, guess what?

If an honest tax preparer makes a mistake on his taxes (s1), it might be an error that costs him money (rA) or saves him money (rB), but when a dishonest tax preparer makes a mistake (s2), it will be in his favor (rB). If all 21 errors in his tax return are in his favor, guess what?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The creation account is perfectly compatible with what science "knows"

Science refutes most of both of the Genesis creation stories, which is why so many creationists are anti-science and anti-education.

The ones who interpret their evidence fit their theory, rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself?

Those would be the religious ones, who take the scientific account and decide which features of the creation story to offer as evidence that Genesis got it right, while ignoring all of the contradictions and omissions - a fallacy called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

We have no substantiated proof of our God either.

Still with the proof? Can you not learn? Proof is not the currency for justified belief. Convincing evidence is.

We each have a belief system founded on our assumption based mindset. That is the truth.

No, that is only the truth for you. I'll let somebody else answer you:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

Incidentally, that's what open-mindedness sounds like, the opposite of your pronouncement that nothing could ever change your mind.

we have no evidence for "macro" evolution?

You might not, but we do.

What we have is the tree of life and no other credible explanation for how it came to be. The choices seem to be either abiogenesis followed by biological evolution, or creationism. We have evidence for abiogenesis and evolution, but none for creators, making the former the preferred and better evidenced explanation. There's my evidence.

Out of interest, can you give a clear and unambiguous example of what you think evidence of "macro" evolution would look like?

Can I try? How about a diverse array of biological forms all made of cells which utilize related metabolic pathways and share a single genetic code, with evidence for no other explanation. That is what I would expect a world that evolved to look like.

I have carefully read all the material supporting evolution that has been offered to me over many years on this site

That's not credible. You're still struggling with the concept of proof.

What science creates is an unsupported story of what they want to believe happened when there was no one there to record the data.

The theory of evolution is settled science. Nobody's waiting for the creationists to catch up or agree. Their opinions are simply irrelevant to the scientific community..

Genesis explains everything in enough detail to see that the writer had no scientific knowledge of the things he was recording, whatsoever....but he still got it right.

The Genesis creation story got almost none of it right. There is no mention there of the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, etc..

He couldn't know that the "days" were not 24 hour periods but eons of undeclared time to accomplish all that the Creator allotted to be done for each stage.

Genesis says days, not eons. It got that wrong as well.

How could Isaiah know that the earth is a "circle" (or sphere.

The earth isn't a circle. A circle is flat. The Bible got that wrong as well.

"the earth hangs upon nothing"

The earth doesn't hang. The Bible got that wrong as well. These are your examples of what the Bible got right?

Also, elsewhere, we read that the earth is supported by pillars. The Bible got that wrong as well.

we actually have nothing to lose if we are mistaken

Sure you do, and you have already paid that price.

 

[Deeje]

Lucrative grants in evolution studies? You can not be serious.

I didn't say grants specifically for evolution studies, did I? Science is generally funded by grants.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/where-search-funding

How much money is available from grants? This is just in Australia.

You must be referring to lucrative churches and the selling of religion. Ignorance is what is dangerous.

Yes, anything that furnishes gain is subject to corruption...there is nothing more corrupt that greedy religions seeking to fleece their flocks to live the high life.
Its like God is not watching. (Ezekiel 9:9-10)

Genesis explains nothing it is myth and it has no meaning on what is happening to our world today. The quotes you give have so many different interpretations even on the parts you have sited Science does not create the products that are destroying our world that is the industrial revolution.

Science developed the means to produce plastic from petroleum by products. They developed the means to split the atom and produce atomic weapons that could destroy all life on this planet. How close have we come several times?

Genesis explains what science can never furnish answers for. They are still scratching their heads about how life began...but don't mention abiogenesis to evolutionists, because they will be quick to tell you that it has nothing to do with evolution. Now that is rather funny because the whole theory falls apart if the Creator reveals himself one day. He says he will when the time is right...so lets just wait and see, shall we?

Science is showing us what we are doing wrong from overpopulation, to excessive carbon dioxide and methane release, destruction of biodiversity and destruction of the life that gives us oxygen. Ignorance of this science is what will be the downfall of human society and it is already starting. Waiting for a god to fix everything is to not take responsibility for ourselves.

Science seems to be in no hurry to help clean up the mess they helped create. As I said, if hemp had been used to produce the plastic, we would not be choking the world, we would be feeding it.

Your last sentence there is rather comical actually because in reality, waiting for man to take responsibility for his actions is not exactly something for which we have any evidence based hope at all......he has failed at every attempt to make this world a safe, clean place for humans to live....waiting for God is more realistic to me that expecting man to do anything. Lets be real about that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unreal! I knew someone would object to that comment. Dogs and cats don't change one to the other gradually, over time, over many generations, either. And if they did, the Bible would still be right, each after its kind.

I'm still trying to get a usable definition of "kinds" out of you. Since you refuse to answer my questions.

Is there a dog kind that encompasses all dogs, and if so, does that include wolves, or are wolves their own separate kind? How about cats? Are leopards the same kind as house cats? Are they both the same kind as lions? Are butterflies and moths related, or are they two different kinds? What about squirrels and chipmunks are they different, or the same kind? Where are the original "created" kinds of all of these groups? And if all of these kinds are individually created by God, why does the evidence demonstrate a nested hierarchy of relatedness where groups of related organisms share collections of similar characteristics which increase with their level of relatedness? If your beliefs about kinds are true, then we shouldn't expect to see such a thing.

 

[Bear Wild]

I didn't say grants specifically for evolution studies, did I? Science is generally funded by grants.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/where-search-funding

How much money is available from grants? This is just in Australia.

Yes, anything that furnishes gain is subject to corruption...there is nothing more corrupt that greedy religions seeking to fleece their flocks to live the high life.
Its like God is not watching. (Ezekiel 9:9-10)



Science developed the means to produce plastic from petroleum by products. They developed the means to split the atom and produce atomic weapons that could destroy all life on this planet. How close have we come several times?

Genesis explains what science can never furnish answers for. They are still scratching their heads about how life began...but don't mention abiogenesis to evolutionists, because they will be quick to tell you that it has nothing to do with evolution. Now that is rather funny because the whole theory falls apart if the Creator reveals himself one day. He says he will when the time is right...so lets just wait and see, shall we?



Science seems to be in no hurry to help clean up the mess they helped create. As I said, if hemp had been used to produce the plastic, we would not be choking the world, we would be feeding it.

Your last sentence there is rather comical actually because in reality, waiting for man to take responsibility for his actions is not exactly something for which we have any evidence based hope at all......he has failed at every attempt to make this world a safe, clean place for humans to live....waiting for God is more realistic to me that expecting man to do anything. Lets be real about that.

Science has the answers and is not the problem. It is the lack of understanding of what will happen and what we need to do that is the problem. Unfortunately it also seems that people will not see what is coming until there is too much suffering and then maybe it will be too late. If there is a compassionate God that exists its time for that God to take action otherwise it is up to us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's because "macro" evolution is a strawman concept made up by Creationists. "Macro" evolution, as you insist on calling it, is nothing but the accumulated change after thousands or millions of "micro" evolutions. The evidence of "macro" evolution you are demanding doesn't exist, but the theory of evolution doesn't claim that it does.

Out of interest, can you give a clear and unambiguous example of what you think evidence of "macro" evolution would look like?

A land animal becomes a

So, I take that as a "No, I have zero interest in discussing what I posted". I guess you were just expecting everyone here to take your assertions as unquestioned gospel?

Huh? Microevolution, small changes, are well-known. There is nothing we can observe currently or forensically to prove absolutely, without just-so conjecture, that land animals "over a long time" took to the air and etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well yes, you should, because it was inaccurate.

Who says they did?

And why do you never answers questions asked of you? Are you not interested in making sense and elucidating your ideas to others?

As to the kinds argument ... Are dogs and wolves the same kind? How about cats and dogs? Are squirrels and chipmunks the same kind? What about zebras and horses? How do you delineate between the kinds in any useful way, and where can we find the pairs of original kinds that your God supposedly created, and what are they?

[/QUOTE]

Why the argument? The Bible agrees with you--no creature changes kinds when it reproduces. A dog pair can give birth to a new dog species or classification. No dog births cats or whales or anything that you and I would say isn't a dog. The wolves to dog descent is controversial. Regardless, the Bible agrees with you.

We cannot find original pairs via gene mapping that God created, because God "filled the Earth" with creation but Noah took some descended genetic pairs aboard his ship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A land animal becomes a


Huh? Microevolution, small changes, are well-known. There is nothing we can observe currently or forensically to prove absolutely, without just-so conjecture, that land animals "over a long time" took to the air and etc.

How many times do I have to remind you that you are the one with "just so stories"? As a Christian you really should try to learn what that phrase means. Also you need to learn what macroevolution is. It has been directly observed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm still trying to get a usable definition of "kinds" out of you. Since you refuse to answer my questions.

Is there a dog kind that encompasses all dogs, and if so, does that include wolves, or are wolves their own separate kind? How about cats? Are leopards the same kind as house cats? Are they both the same kind as lions? Are butterflies and moths related, or are they two different kinds? What about squirrels and chipmunks are they different, or the same kind? Where are the original "created" kinds of all of these groups? And if all of these kinds are individually created by God, why does the evidence demonstrate a nested hierarchy of relatedness where groups of related organisms share collections of similar characteristics which increase with their level of relatedness? If your beliefs about kinds are true, then we shouldn't expect to see such a thing.

I like to be Socratic, especially when skeptics seem angered. Calm down, this discussion isn't the end of the world...

I've prior said that most scholars take the biblical "kind" as what a taxonomist would call the family level. The Bible agrees with you, and with me, that fish don't give birth to fowl or vice versa. No bearing animal or mating pair gives birth to a different family of animal or plant. Do you disagree?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science refutes most of both of the Genesis creation stories, which is why so many creationists are anti-science and anti-education.



Those would be the religious ones, who take the scientific account and decide which features of the creation story to offer as evidence that Genesis got it right, while ignoring all of the contradictions and omissions - a fallacy called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.



Still with the proof? Can you not learn? Proof is not the currency for justified belief. Convincing evidence is.



No, that is only the truth for you. I'll let somebody else answer you:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

Incidentally, that's what open-mindedness sounds like, the opposite of your pronouncement that nothing could ever change your mind.



You might not, but we do.

What we have is the tree of life and no other credible explanation for how it came to be. The choices seem to be either abiogenesis followed by biological evolution, or creationism. We have evidence for abiogenesis and evolution, but none for creators, making the former the preferred and better evidenced explanation. There's my evidence.



Can I try? How about a diverse array of biological forms all made of cells which utilize related metabolic pathways and share a single genetic code, with evidence for no other explanation. That is what I would expect a world that evolved to look like.



That's not credible. You're still struggling with the concept of proof.



The theory of evolution is settled science. Nobody's waiting for the creationists to catch up or agree. Their opinions are simply irrelevant to the scientific community..



The Genesis creation story got almost none of it right. There is no mention there of the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, etc..



Genesis says days, not eons. It got that wrong as well.



The earth isn't a circle. A circle is flat. The Bible got that wrong as well.



The earth doesn't hang. The Bible got that wrong as well. These are your examples of what the Bible got right?

Also, elsewhere, we read that the earth is supported by pillars. The Bible got that wrong as well.



Sure you do, and you have already paid that price.

That's why I'm so glad that the tree of life is so clear, unambiguous, and universal among all evolutionary biologists. It's so clear, really. Praise the Lord!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why the argument? The Bible agrees with you--no creature changes kinds when it reproduces. A dog pair can give birth to a new dog species or classification. No dog births cats or whales or anything that you and I would say isn't a dog. The wolves to dog descent is controversial. Regardless, the Bible agrees with you.

Wait, so you're saying that a "dog pair" can give birth to a "new dog species?" As in, two dogs can give birth to a dog that is a different species from the parents? How is that supposed to work?

Where do we find all these original pairs of "kinds" that God supposedly created? What does all life demonstrate a nested hierarchy of relatedness, if God individually and separately created all of these kinds?


That dogs and wolves are related is not controversial. Your point of view that dogs and wolves were separately created by a deity (and a very specific deity, at that) certainly is; and it certainly isn't supported by the available evidence.

We cannot find original pairs via gene mapping that God created, because God "filled the Earth" with creation but Noah took some descended genetic pairs aboard his ship.

Then they should exist in the fossil record.

You have a claim lacking in evidence then, don't you? Given that, I see no reason to accept it or even consider it, until you've come up with some.

Why does all life demonstrate a nested hierarchy of relatedness, if God individually and separately created all of these kinds?

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh? Microevolution, small changes, are well-known. There is nothing we can observe currently or forensically to prove absolutely, without just-so conjecture, that land animals "over a long time" took to the air and etc.

Given your proclivity for just posting talking points and refusing to discuss them, your further assertions about science are worthless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I like to be Socratic, especially when skeptics seem angered. Calm down, this discussion isn't the end of the world...

We've been having this discussion off and on for months, possibly years, and I'm still waiting for you (or anybody) to adequately explain "kinds" to me, in some useful way.

I've prior said that most scholars take the biblical "kind" as what a taxonomist would call the family level. The Bible agrees with you, and with me, that fish don't give birth to fowl or vice versa. No bearing animal or mating pair gives birth to a different family of animal or plant. Do you disagree?

So you do think that, for instance, dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes are all related?
Call me crazy, but those all sound like different "kinds" to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We've been having this discussion off and on for months, possibly years, and I'm still waiting for you (or anybody) to adequately explain "kinds" to me, in some useful way.

It's never going to happen. Nor will you get a clear definition of the cutoff between what is called microevolution and macroevolution. Creationist arguments need to be vague so that they cannot be disagreed with.

Microevolution, small changes, are well-known.

Yep, and they accrue over time into larger changes. There is nothing known that can prevent it.

There is nothing we can observe currently or forensically to prove absolutely, without just-so conjecture, that land animals "over a long time" took to the air and etc.

Proof is irrelevant.

Furthermore, there is no burden of proof (or burden to provide compelling evidence) when dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world by faith rather than by the valid application of reason to the relevant evidence. It's simply not possible to convince another person of that which they have a stake in not believing. Teaching in the academic style, which is distinct from indoctrination, requires certain skills and dispositions in the student. It's a cooperative effort when it occurs. The faith-based thinker is not going to cooperate. He will resist.

No dog births cats or whales or anything that you and I would say isn't a dog.

Irrelevant to the theory of biological evolution, which not only makes no claim that such a thing could happen, but implies that it cannot. Change is always gradual, and offspring resemble their parents, but not necessarily their great-great-great ... great-grandparents.

If we go back enough generations, our ancestors would be marine forms with fins, gills, and scales. Further back, some form of invertebrate worm. Each of these had offspring closely resembling themselves, but a little different. Over deep time and separated by millions of generations, the descendants look a lot different than their distant ancestors.

• "Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain - a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it. " - Dawkins

No bearing animal or mating pair gives birth to a different family of animal or plant.

Irrelevant again.

If you want to critique the theory, don't you think that you should learn what it says rather than rebutting straw men? What chance do you have to be convincing if you make irrelevant claims such as a lack of proof, or that existing forms don't transform into one another across a generation?

And please explain why we would trade in a useful scientific theory that has already improved the human condition for an idea like creationism that has no practical application even if correct?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Huh? Microevolution, small changes, are well-known. There is nothing we can observe currently or forensically to prove absolutely, without just-so conjecture, that land animals "over a long time" took to the air and etc.

What you call macroevolution is just many microevolutions. Saying "micro evolution happens regularly, but macro evolution is impossible" is exactly like saying "walking across town is common, but walking across the country is impossible".

I'd still like to hear unambiguously what you think "evidence of 'macro' evolution" should look like, if you don't accept what the scientists say is evidence of it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Given your proclivity for just posting talking points and refusing to discuss them, your further assertions about science are worthless.

Wow, way to demonize your debate opponent. I'm happy to discuss with people--who don't demonize me, make ad homs and say ALL I have to say on ANY one subject is "worthless".