Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[A2J]

By WILL SENTELL

wsentell@theadvocate.com

Capitol news bureau

High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.

If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.

Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.

The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.

It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.

"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.

Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.

Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.

"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.

"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."

Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.

The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.

"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."

Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.

The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.

A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.

"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."

Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.

Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.

White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.

He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.

"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.

John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.

Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.

Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."

[viaveritasvita]

"(Insert random Mencken quote here:__________)"

Ok....

[viaveritasvita]

LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC?

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either [Jesus] was, and is, the Son of God [Immanuel, God with us], or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool...or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[usastandsunited]

I think the idea that every species that ever existed (or at least the ones we have fossils from) were created at one point in time (and thus existed all at the same time at the same place) is not compatible with current evidence. Of course it can also be that those critters we believe to have lived more than 10000 years ago (like trilobites or dinosaurs), didn't really exist but their fossils were created together with the earth as reported in Genesis.

Hmmmm. What version of Genesis says those things ? Please give me the version & chapter of Genesis that makes these claims. Also, please provide some evidence of how we analyse our findings of fossils and the determination of when these species first appeared on earth. Links will do. Thanks for replying to my question.

[Phaedrus]

Near the beginning of the book, he lays out four possible hypotheses of consciousness. He labelled them A, B, C and D. "A" is that brains are computers, in effect. I forget what "B" was. He advocated "C", which boiled down to "consciousness is material but not algorithmic". "D" states that consciousness is not material (your position).

Here is Penrose in his own words at page 12 of Shadows of the Mind:

"It seems to me there are at least four different viewpoints -- or extremes of viewpoint -- that one may reasonably hold on the matter:
A. All thinking is computation; in particular feelings of conscious awareness are evoked merely by the carrying out of appropriate computations.
B. Awareness is a feature of the brain's physical action; and whereas any physical action can be simulated computationally, computational simulation cannot by itself invoke awareness.
C. Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.
D. Awareness cannot be explained by physical, computational, or any other scientifc means.

"The point of view expressed in "D", which negates the physicalist position altogether and regards the mind as something that is entirely inexplicable in scientific terms, is the viewpoint of the mystic; and at least some ingredient of "D" seems to be involved in the acceptance of religious doctrine. My own position is that the questions of the mind, though they lie uncomfortably with present-day scientific understanding, should not be regarded as being forever outside the realm of science. If science is yet incapable of saying much that is of significance concerning matters of the mind, then eventually science must enlarge its scope so as to accommodate such matters, and perhaps even modify its very procedures. Whereas I reject mysticism in its negation of scientifc criteria for the furtherance of knowledge, I believe that within an expanded science and mathematics there will be found sufficient mystery ultimately to accommodate even the mystery of the mind ..."

At page 7, he writes:

"In this book, I shall attempt to address the question of consciousness from a scientific standpoint. But I shall strongly contend -- by use of scientific argument -- that an essential ingredient is missing from our present-day scientific picture. The missing ingredient would be needed in order that the central issues of human mentality could ever be accommodated within a coherent scientific world-view. I shall maintain that this ingredient is itself something that is not beyond science -- although, no doubt, it is an appropriately expanded scientific world-view that we shall need ...

And at page 8:

"A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretentions of completeness. Consciousness is part of our universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world. I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, of computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness and consequent intelligence; but that should not deter us from striving to search for one. It is with such asperations in mind that the arguments of this book are presented ..."

Boldings and underlinings are mine. Physicist, this is definitively not Materialism and I do not disagree with Penrose. This is a rejection of Materialism.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[js1138]

He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the devil of hell.

Silly, false dichotomy.

[viaveritasvita]

Your arrogance // immaturity // hopelessness is . . .ASTONISHINGLY - - - boring // lazy // pitiful.

Best!

[f.Christian]

hmmmmm. . . pitiful ! ! !

bessssssssssssttttttttttt !

[viaveritasvita]

Some of the strongest arguments for Jesus, the historicity of the Bible, and the resurrection....

The resurrection could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned. Paul Althus

In 56 A.D. Paul wrote that over 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus. John Warwick Montgomery

Think of the absurdity of a little band of defeated cowards cowering one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence--and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication they were trying to foist upon the world. This simply wouldn't make sense. J.N.D. Anderson

There are two...vital differences between Christianity and Islam. Islam has no Cross and no resurrection, articles of the faith that are of the essence of Christianity and of ultimate importance to the plan of the God of the Bible. Mohammed made no atonement for our sins when he died. And when he died, he remained so. R.C. Sproul

If all wicked governments and their leaders fell, evil would still exist because it is nurtured in the human heart. Franklin Graham

There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan. C.S. Lewis

At a time when even uneducated slaves working at the Egyptian turquoise mines were inscribing their records on the tunnel walls, it is inconceivable that a man of Moses' background would fail to record the details of one of history's most significant epochs. Josh McDowell

We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favor as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world cold faith to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true. Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England

The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyr's deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce the lie. J. P. Moreland

When therefore the disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem and people responded, and when religious authorities stood helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty. The simple fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus' resurrection, came into existence and flourished in the very city where He was executed and buried is powerful evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb. Wm. Lane Craig

Are these men, who helped transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is no shred of evidence to support them. Paul Little

...it is hard to see how the Christian church could have come into existence [without the truth of the resurrection]. That church was founded on faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. A crucified messiah [would have been] no messiah at all. H.D.A. Major

...either Jesus was the Just One, the Man of God, or among men He is the greatest of criminals. If He presented Himself as one from the dead, whereas He was not such, He is guilty of falsehood, and must be denied even the most common honesty. E. Le Camus

If Jesus Christ were not risen again (I speak the language of unbelievers), He had deceived His disciples with vain hopes of His resurrection. How came the disciples not to discover the imposter? Wilbur Smith

The simple faith of the Christian who believes in the Resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of the skeptic who will accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness of historical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater. George Hanson

Unique among criminal trials is [Jesus' trial] in which not the actions but the identity of the accused is the issue. Irwin Linton

Without the belief in the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being. The disciples would have remained crushed and defeated men. Even had they continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, His crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of His being the Messiah [the Savior as predicted in the Old Testament]. The cross would have remained the sad and shameful end of His career. The origin of Christianity therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Wm. Lane Craig

But when He said that He himself would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said something that only a fool would dare say, if he expected [the continued] devotion of any disciples—unless He was sure He was going to rise. No founder of any world religion known to men ever dared say a thing like that! Wilbur Smith

...we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in the ancient world. Wilbur Smith

[For many years, I have studied] the histories of other times, and [have examined and weighed] the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. Thomas Arnold, Oxford University


And a favorite (wonder what beliefs we have today based on these writings of non-Christians from antiquity?)...

The Gospel account of the darkness which fell upon the land during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians. [Non-Christian writing from antiquity] did not doubt that Jesus had been crucified and that an unusual event had occurred in nature that required an explanation. What occupied [non-Christian writers from antiquity] was coming up with a different interpretation. The basic facts were not called into question. F.F. Bruce

Read the Bible cover-to-cover, then we can talk. My dad

Blame not before thou hast examined the truth. Ecc. 11:7

<><

[Sentis]

bunch of prattling demagogues ... dullard//false God and false witness --- zealots

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up and the excerpts!

I agree fully with your reading of Penrose's statements and wish to add these two observations:

1. Penrose did not speak whatsoever to the subject of unconsciousness, though he acknowledges that it exists as well consciousness.

2. In Emporer's New Mind Penrose emphasizes math which pre-exists (like the Mandelbrot set) and was later discovered. Though it is evidently offensive to some, pre-existence seems obvious to me. For instance, Schwarzchild Geometry was not created by Schwarzchild, it was discovered by him.

Penrose is not a computationalist (as he calls it.) Therefore, it is not surprising to me that so many researchers in Artificial Intelligence are not keen on his findings. I suspect they may be upset because simulating human thought is the "holy grail" of their life work.

At any rate, I agree that he is not a materialist. I would say he is a true scientist who has indentified the point at which current science fails and new science is needed to go any further.

[Sentis]

Having been brought up a Southern Baptist which means i have read that damn Book More times than I like to think of before my 18th birthday I think I'll say something about this post.

viaveritasvita wrote "The resurrection could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned. Paul Althu"

12 strong able bodied men could easily empty that tomb in the night.
It wasn't maintained even for a single day. There are literally hundreds of empty tombs in Jerusalem. Jesus in fact may not have even existed as the man portrayed in the Bible. The accounts of his life are written years after his death and each account of his life is different(and you can read each one in the Bible Matthew Mark Luke and John). Each book gives a different account of the Life and death of Jesus. If the Bible is divinely inspired why would God give each author of each Gospel a widely differing account of jesus' life. I mean no two are the same in fact for all the accounts to be true Jesus would in fact be four different people especially as the accounts of his birth differ. If you don't believe me read that Book.

viaveritasvita wrote "In 56 A.D. Paul wrote that over 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus. John Warwick Montgomery"

What are the names of these 500 people? Where are there accounts of this risen Jesus. Manufacturing tales hmmm Jim Jones preached quite a few manufactured tales, Adolf Hitler manufactured quite a few tales himself in fact most messianic leaders produce weird wacky tales. And if twelve able bodied men want to hide a body I doubt anyone could find it or produce it especially fishermen ...can we say bait.

viaveritasvita wrote "cowering one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence--and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication they were trying to foist upon the world. This simply wouldn't make sense"

They cowered quite a bit longer than one day in-fact they got fed to lions for quite a long time after-wards. The fact that a bunch of con artists has fooled the world is no surprise to me anyone remember that guy named Karl Marx?

viaveritasvita wrote "slam has no Cross and no resurrection, articles of the faith that are of the essence of Christianity and of ultimate importance to the plan of the God of the Bible. Mohammed made no atonement for our sins when he died. And when he died, he remained so. R.C. Sproul"

How is this any proof of anything?
I'm also skipping a few more because they are sort of nonsequitors.

viaveritasvita wrote "n that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favor as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world cold faith to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true. Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England "

This makes little sense but I think he is saying that no jury would say jesus didn't die on the cross because of the evidence. What evidence we are always told about all this evidence of jesus' life I haven't seen it. Is this evidence the bible? Where is the Roman writ authorizing jesus' death? Were is his tax records? Were are the contemporary Roman accounts of his life? If he was so important trust me the Romans would have wrote volumes on him ... history is silent.


viaveritasvita wrote "The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyr's deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie"

The nazis had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new reich. They faced hardship (prison), ridicule (trust me adolf was ridiculed before he wrote Mein Kampf) , hostility (ever see news reels of nazis fighting other street gangs), and a martyr's death. In light of this they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie.



I'm skipping some more of this drivel


viaveritasvita wrote "...we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in the ancient world. Wilbur Smith"

Really the only account I know of is the Bible. In fact there are lengthy accounts of the hours before the death of several ancient men look to Froissarts chronicles, The accounts of Socrates death (yes accounts more than one), and some of the Lives of Plutarch. Case in fact this assertion just isn't true



viaveritasvita wrote "the histories of other times, and [have examined and weighed] the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. Thomas Arnold, Oxford University"

What??? I mean what evidence is there? I mean the Bible gives an account but what physical evidence do we have and please don't say the fraud of Turin. I can name plenty of historic facts that can be proved more fully I'll point to the eruption of MT Vesuvius and burial of Pompey. There are many contemporary accounts of this eruption, there is geologic evidence for the eruption and its outcome, and there is the entire city that was buried by the eruption. I can't think of an event as well documented.

viaveritasvita wrote "The Gospel account of the darkness which fell upon the land during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians. [Non-Christian writing from antiquity]"

Can you please point me to the nonChristian account of this Darkness. I mean you can say there are accounts of it but where is this evidence? Show this evidence


Oh and accounts written hundreds of years after jesus' death don't count I mean people still write science fiction.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Many working mathematicians have the notion that mathematics is invented not discovered. (I don't remember what these are called.) Others (the Platonists) believe that mathematical objects exist independent of being discovered. The problems raised by the Axiom of Choice make both positions uncomfortable.

What's funny (to me at least) is that many non-mathematicians tell me that they support the Platonist line, but they balk at saying the complex numbers exist. I'm not sure if this group of people accept vector spaces or abstract groups.)

[viaveritasvita]

Our measly 4200 + posts!! We have a loooooong way to go folks.

Nully (if I may use the familiar nick): To say that our posts are "not even close" to a record is an understatement of Biblical proportions!!!


Posted by null and void to viaveritasvita
On General Interest 01/09/2003 9:09 PM EST #775 of 775

Not even close:
Our first thread ( New Zealander builds Hobbit hole ) reached 4,100 posts, and we thought that was big. Our second thread (The New Hobbit Hole ) held us for over 48,000 posts, and we loved it dearly.

[Physicist]

This is a rejection of Materialism.

It absolutely is not. His viewpoint is C, which begins, "Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness". How could he be more explicitly materialist? Furthermore, Penrose is quite clear in stating that he "shall maintain that this ingredient is itself something that is not beyond science -- although, no doubt, it is an appropriately expanded scientific world-view that we shall need ". In other words, he thinks that physical material is fully up to the task; it is only our understanding of material that (currently and correctably) falls short. We don't know everything, but materialism isn't about what we do or do not know; it's about how things work.

[Physicist]

See #4295.

"Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness," -- Roger Penrose

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus: This is a rejection of Materialism.

Physicist: It absolutely is not ... In other words ... We don't know everything, but materialism isn't about what we do or do not know; it's about how things work.

Sorry, Physicist. It absolutely is, and Penrose's words speak for themselves. Materialism is a limited and incomplete description of how some things work. There is a huge void in our scientific knowledge. I applaud Penrose's candor and believe that his efforts, and those of others of like mind, will bear fruit.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the background and explanation!

For lurkers who are interested in learning more on Axiom of Choice

From all that I've read, I must be Platonist. That may be because of my overarching interest in geometry.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

To help explain my position: Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind

materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms.

physicalism - The view that everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. See also materialism, knowledge argument, non-reductive physicalism.

I'm with Phaedrus on this. Penrose is not a materialist, though he might be a physicalist. He never even addresses unconsciousness, which he says exists. And he asserts that consciousness cannot be simulated. He is not a computationalist.

I do take issue with Penrose in that he ties awareness to the body. I'm not convinced that is the case.

[Nataku X]

Sorry for jumping in.

Jesus in fact may not have even existed as the man portrayed in the Bible. The accounts of his life are written years after his death and each account of his life is different(and you can read each one in the Bible Matthew Mark Luke and John). Each book gives a different account of the Life and death of Jesus. If the Bible is divinely inspired why would God give each author of each Gospel a widely differing account of jesus' life. I mean no two are the same in fact for all the accounts to be true Jesus would in fact be four different people especially as the accounts of his birth differ. If you don't believe me read that Book.

Let's take my father as an example--a retired Navy captain, now a beloved high school teacher and occassionally gives Christian seminars.

Suppose a group of people decided to write memoirs of him--his wife, me, one of his high school students, one of the officers from his military days, and one attendee of his seminars. Would you not say that our memiors would be very unique?

Moreover, people do not "remember" things about another person in chronological order, and nor do they remember the same things. The synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--are actually very remarkably similar, although they are still unique in their own ways. Matthew decided to emphasize the religious qualities of Jesus. Mark's gospel is pretty action-filled. In the first part of Luke, it mentions many, many gospels that have been written about Jesus. How sad that history lost such valuable documents! Only the Gospel of Thomas has been found (which is simply a collection of Jesus's sayings), and fragments of a few others.

You are wrong in your information. There are very early originals from the first century by Paul, who was in commune with Peter and the original Apostles, and there is Joseph Flavius. Churches just don't raise around a Person so quickly.

This makes little sense but I think he is saying that no jury would say jesus didn't die on the cross because of the evidence. What evidence we are always told about all this evidence of jesus' life I haven't seen it. Is this evidence the bible? Where is the Roman writ authorizing jesus' death? Were is his tax records? Were are the contemporary Roman accounts of his life? If he was so important trust me the Romans would have wrote volumes on him ... history is silent.

There are many political references in the New Testament, all of which collaborate with historical accounts of what we know about Pilate, Caesar, Herod, etc. Joseph Flavius. The Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, Peter. If Jesus didn't exist, there certainly was a huge cult formed over a nonexistant man and his resurrection very soon after his death.

I'm going to skip the rest of your arguments about Nazis, Karl Marx, and so on--you must realize, after all, taken to their logical conclusion--everything we know could possibly be a lie. No amount of evidence in the world will convince you, nor anyone else, after all--which is why I rarely engage in those kinds of debates. A decision must be made to believe--called "faith".

For what it's worth, I am a firm believer in evolution and in the separation of the supernatural from science. To me, the anger that Christians hold over evolution is pure silliness, and only pushes otherwise open-minded people away from Christianity. what's even more silly is that for most Christians almost everything they know about evolution, they know from 10th grade biology and/or read in other Christian publications, and they can't name a peer reviewed journal.

This wasn't an attempt to convert you or anything, but to make a few arguments. Best wishes to you. NX