Human evolution vs Creationism

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Modelworks
So you can't provide a paper showing it fact ?

He will probably question your ability to even read said paper, I'd only question your willingness. Like I said before, you're trying awfully hard to not accept the information that is being presented to you. You are intentionally misunderstanding the word theory and I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over again only to refute the answers, for no discernible reason.

If you don't accept evolution and want to cling to creationism, why even bother in the debate? You're free to believe what you want.

I don't accept either.
Both are only theories.

So is gravity, but somehow you aren't floating. Molecular theory is a theory too, as is atomic theory. Plate tectonics? That's a theory. And hey, that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist without computational theory, circuit theory or systems theory. In fact, there's a whole lot of scientific theories in the world that we take for granted. Do you just not believe in anything? That's very open-minded of you. Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse for singling out one theory and saying you don't support it because of nomenclature.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Modelworks
So you can't provide a paper showing it fact ?

He will probably question your ability to even read said paper, I'd only question your willingness. Like I said before, you're trying awfully hard to not accept the information that is being presented to you. You are intentionally misunderstanding the word theory and I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over again only to refute the answers, for no discernible reason.

If you don't accept evolution and want to cling to creationism, why even bother in the debate? You're free to believe what you want.

I don't accept either.
Both are only theories.

So is gravity, but somehow you aren't floating. Molecular theory is a theory too, as is atomic theory. Plate tectonics? That's a theory. And hey, that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist without computational theory, circuit theory or systems theory. In fact, there's a whole lot of scientific theories in the world that we take for granted. Do you just not believe in anything? That's very open-minded of you. Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse for singling out one theory and saying you don't support it because of nomenclature.

Where did I say the theory of evolution or creationism was scientific theory, I said they are theories, and they are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Modelworks
So you can't provide a paper showing it fact ?

He will probably question your ability to even read said paper, I'd only question your willingness. Like I said before, you're trying awfully hard to not accept the information that is being presented to you. You are intentionally misunderstanding the word theory and I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over again only to refute the answers, for no discernible reason.

If you don't accept evolution and want to cling to creationism, why even bother in the debate? You're free to believe what you want.

I don't accept either.
Both are only theories.

So is gravity, but somehow you aren't floating. Molecular theory is a theory too, as is atomic theory. Plate tectonics? That's a theory. And hey, that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist without computational theory, circuit theory or systems theory. In fact, there's a whole lot of scientific theories in the world that we take for granted. Do you just not believe in anything? That's very open-minded of you. Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse for singling out one theory and saying you don't support it because of nomenclature.

Where did I say the theory of evolution or creationism was scientific theory, I said they are theories, and they are.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

 

[Jeff7]

Again, go jump off a bridge.

Gravitational theory says that you will fall to your death, most likely accelerating at 9.81m/s², until reaching either terminal velocity, or the ground.

But it's just a theory.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
So is gravity, but somehow you aren't floating. Molecular theory is a theory too, as is atomic theory. Plate tectonics? That's a theory. And hey, that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist without computational theory, circuit theory or systems theory. In fact, there's a whole lot of scientific theories in the world that we take for granted. Do you just not believe in anything? That's very open-minded of you. Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse for singling out one theory and saying you don't support it because of nomenclature.

Where did I say the theory of evolution or creationism was scientific theory, I said they are theories, and they are.

Ah, so it's semantics. OK then. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of creationism is not a scientific theory. The theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory. "A scientific theory is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories because both rely on the existence of God; try designing an experiment to test for the existence of an omnipotent creator. Evolution, on the other hand, is the subject of many experiments, none of which have invalidated the claim that species develop adaptations over time.

 

[Jeff7]

Additionally, to falsify evolution, you'd need just one instance of life going POOF "I exist!" to disprove it.

Like the hypothesis that all swans are white. That works just fine, and maybe it'll hold true for quite some time. All it takes is the existence one black swan to disprove it.



And dammit, Atomic Playboy, I've had this avatar since I registered here. Go get your own!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
And dammit, Atomic Playboy, I've had this avatar since I registered here. Go get your own!

To be fair, it makes more sense with my handle than with yours. Unless you glow in the dark, in which case AWESOME.

 

[Jeff7]

You givin' me lip, boy?

Bah, no matter. You'll reach your half life and expire long before me.
That'll learn ya!

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I thought we had a decent thread going until it got side tracked by the religious nut.

Yeah, because who would want a creationist in a creationism vs evolution thread anyway?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
You givin' me lip, boy?

Bah, no matter. You'll reach your half life and expire long before me.
That'll learn ya!

Why don't you two get a room instead?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I thought we had a decent thread going until it got side tracked by the religious nut.

Yeah, because who would want a creationist in a creationism vs evolution thread anyway?

Not a sane human being, mysticism belongs in the OT forum.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I thought we had a decent thread going until it got side tracked by the religious nut.

Yeah, because who would want a creationist in a creationism vs evolution thread anyway?

Your sig was hypocritical - now it's just stupid.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Evolution is by design, end of story. :beer:

Cheers. :beer:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I don't waste my time reading trash, unless of course its a Doc Savage book ?life is too short. For the record, I never asked you to hold my hand regarding the minutia of Dawkin's atheistic beliefs and had no expectation for you to do so. Dude?you're the one making ridiculous statements as if they were fact. You made this statement "His argument is that the existence of god is highly, highly improbable, and that is one that can be completely supported through science." All I'm asking is that you back it up. If you don't believe this statement, then please retract or further elaborate. I'll eat a large portion of humble pie if you can produce a credible scientific study that enumerates the probabilities against the existence of God. But who are we kidding? There is nothing in science that completely supports (or even remotely for that matter) the premise that the existence of god is highly, highly improbable. Zero, nada, zilch. I know where Dawkin is coming from?but, the $64 question is, are you coming from the same place?

In my opinion, Dawkin's first option was poorly constructed and did not adequately define the concept of a Creator. Contrasting "a complex being to account for the complexity that we see" with "simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge" as mutually exclusive theories is blatant logical fallacy. I worded the third option to show that there is no conflict between the two theories?as both are true IMO.

There will never be scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. But as human beings, we are much more than flesh and bones, and have the ability to look at a painting and fully understand that an artist painted it. There is incredible complexity, order and beauty in every minute detail of this universe. IMO?this not only implies Creator?.it screams Creator. But?to others, it doesn't. It's a personal choice that doesn't involve scientific theories or fabricated probabilities. You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

"Considering our hugely incomplete knowledge of the subject, there is certainly tons of room for a creator god to exist, but to take the stand that it is unlikely is certainly reasonable, and can be done with no twists of logic, and no subversion of science." - AGREE

Well if you're not going to spend the time to educate yourself on a topic, you should probably not try and debate on it. It's very strange that you would try to get into a discussion of Richard Dawkins' views on theism and evolution, going so far as to claim he endorses false dichotomies without consideration of options that you present, all with having absolutely no fucking clue as to what he has specifically written on it. You think the whole "maybe god just made the rules", aka. the divine watchmaker/Deism thing is a new idea? Not only is it hundreds of years old, but Dawkins wrote an entire book called "The Blind Watchmaker" on that subject among others. So yeah, there's just a small chance he's heard of your revelation before and taken it into account.

Furthermore, the two options are mutually exclusive. They only appear not to be because you are incorrectly representing them. One states that there is a creator that made the universe the way it is, the other is that there is no creator that made the universe the way it is. It would appear that you are quibbling with phrasing, but this would be another one of those cases in which had you read his extensive writing on the subject you would not have made this mistake. The second option means that there is no creator present, and he has made that abundantly clear. So again, your third option is merely a rephrasing of the first. Whether god is making everything, or just conjuring up principles, it is irrelevant. He's either the one behind it or he isn't. End of story.

As for the 'scientifically supported' thing, perhaps I misphrased it, but it should have been completely obvious that I did not mean scientific studies showed god to be improbable.(considering in this same thread I've mentioned how science can't prove that) What I should have said was that it was logically supported. Again though, I can't imagine how a rational person reading my post would think that I meant there was experimental evidence of some sort.

I'm sorry, but the reasoning is sound. We have no evidence that supports the existence of god, nor do we have any evidence that supports the existence of eternal matter and principles. The eternal matter argument requires fewer steps, requires no creator entity, and requires no anthrocentric view of existence. It is simpler, and therefore more probable. (note: probable)

As usual, our discussions devolve into personal insults and condescension. I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. Why do you keep making things? Let me repeat and be absolutely clear on this ---> I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. It's difficult to have a decent conversation with you when you constantly twist my words and then start personally attacking me.

I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Thanks for admitting your "misphrasing" after my several requests for you to back up your statement. But then again, we have your snide off-handed personal attack "I can't imagine how a rational person reading my post would think that I meant there was experimental evidence of some sort." Well?let's be clear on this?I asked you several times to explain your meaning and now you accuse me of being the irrational one because I didn't recognize your 'obvious to you' "misphrasing". Wow?just wow.

I no expert on Dawkins and have only read bits and pieces of his writings (there?I admitted it?lol), but it's clear that he believes two things: (1) atheism is the logical extension of understanding evolution and (2) religion is incompatible with science. Personally I disagree with him on both points?but hey?I just be a guy on the internet.

I find it interesting that Dawkins himself admitted "I have no explanation for complex biological design." He obviously sees the design, but denies a designer exists. He offers no explanation (except a hope that we'll eventually find one) of the complexity that's so evident in biological design as well as in every aspect of our universe. It's really very, very simple, God's either exists or he doesn't. Dawkins, or anybody for the matter, has zero proof that answers this question and never will. It's pure folly to say the existence of God is improbable and this particular belief is "supported by science". But hey, I'll keep an open mind if you want rub my nose in my ignorance since I haven't read any of his books (and don't intend to).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I don't accept either.
Both are only theories.

Ah, the problem revealed. Basking in the glory of ignorance, and somehow proud of it. Like Palin ("I kid you not, they want to study fruit flies!") you need to go back to school.

This is why these discussions go nowhere.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see a difference in those two statements.

Designer created the complexity we observe = God exists.
No designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles = God doesn't exist.

They're saying the exact same thing, just with a few more words to be a tad more specific.

 

[Moonbeam]

When a rational mind looks at the universe and sees complexity he concludes that the universe is by nature complex. When a religiously indoctrinated mind, one trained to the notion of God, sees the universe he sees a designer.

We see what we want to see unless we have no wants. In that case we see what we think makes sense without embellishment.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When a rational mind looks at the universe and sees complexity he concludes that the universe is by nature complex. When a religiously indoctrinated mind, one trained to the notion of God, sees the universe he sees a designer.

We see what we want to see unless we have no wants. In that case we see what we think makes sense without embellishment.

That's all well and good. And that's the discussion ID proponents would love to have, that scientists are anti-god, and that is the main reason they oppose ID.

But that mischaracterizes the most basic issue in the debate. ID is not a scientific theory. There is no getting around that fact. It does not fall within the parameters of the scientific method. You cannot debate a scientific theory with one based on the supernatural and expect to have a rational discussion. It is impossible. And luckily the educated judges who have ruled on the issue have put aside their personal faiths enough to recognize that. You can be religiously indoctrinated up the yin yang, but somehow religious judges, and the Pope, concede evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, and that ID is junk science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When a rational mind looks at the universe and sees complexity he concludes that the universe is by nature complex. When a religiously indoctrinated mind, one trained to the notion of God, sees the universe he sees a designer.

We see what we want to see unless we have no wants. In that case we see what we think makes sense without embellishment.

That's all well and good. And that's the discussion ID proponents would love to have, that scientists are anti-god, and that is the main reason they oppose ID.

But that mischaracterizes the most basic issue in the debate. ID is not a scientific theory. There is no getting around that fact. It does not fall within the parameters of the scientific method. You cannot debate a scientific theory with one based on the supernatural and expect to have a rational discussion. It is impossible. And luckily the educated judges who have ruled on the issue have put aside their personal faiths enough to recognize that.

What are you talking about? Where in what I said was there anything anti-God? The Western notion of God is a cultural construct. There are multitudes of other constructs. If you believe in any construct it colors what you see. If you are construct free you are color free and can see what is without bent, limited, of course, by the constraints of human perception.

To see, of course, is to be, and in being there are no divisions or questions, but that's another story.

 

[Moonbeam]

You edited your post as I was doing mine. Again, I said nothing in my opinion which mis characterizes anything you added. I see no conflict between what I said and what you added at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Intelligent design does many things for Christians. It provides them with a sense there is some real debate about evolution and thus keep them from feeling alone in their stupidity. It is vital for loons to surround themselves with other loons to feel group think and persecution mentality. It provides them with a feeling of the gift of special knowledge to counter their sense of worthlessness and to feel they are special in how they carry their burdens for the Lord.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
As usual, our discussions devolve into personal insults and condescension. I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. Why do you keep making things? Let me repeat and be absolutely clear on this ---> I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. It's difficult to have a decent conversation with you when you constantly twist my words and then start personally attacking me.

I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Thanks for admitting your "misphrasing" after my several requests for you to back up your statement. But then again, we have your snide off-handed personal attack "I can't imagine how a rational person reading my post would think that I meant there was experimental evidence of some sort." Well?let's be clear on this?I asked you several times to explain your meaning and now you accuse me of being the irrational one because I didn't recognize your 'obvious to you' "misphrasing". Wow?just wow.

I no expert on Dawkins and have only read bits and pieces of his writings (there?I admitted it?lol), but it's clear that he believes two things: (1) atheism is the logical extension of understanding evolution and (2) religion is incompatible with science. Personally I disagree with him on both points?but hey?I just be a guy on the internet.

I find it interesting that Dawkins himself admitted "I have no explanation for complex biological design." He obviously sees the design, but denies a designer exists. He offers no explanation (except a hope that we'll eventually find one) of the complexity that's so evident in biological design as well as in every aspect of our universe. It's really very, very simple, God's either exists or he doesn't. Dawkins, or anybody for the matter, has zero proof that answers this question and never will. It's pure folly to say the existence of God is improbable and this particular belief is "supported by science". But hey, I'll keep an open mind if you want rub my nose in my ignorance since I haven't read any of his books (and don't intend to).

You claimed that you were offering a third option that neither I nor Dawkins had considered. Keeping in mind that he wrote an entire book on just such a topic, your comment was awfully silly. It unfortunately also highlights the difficulty of having a conversation about a topic when only one of the participants actually knows about the subject. Had you read his books, or if you had even a cursory knowledge of the titles of the books he had written, you would not have made such a foolish remark. I honestly should just refuse to talk with you about this until you have an idea what you're talking about.

This appears to be reinforced by the fact that it looks to have just happened again. The idea that Dawkins would say he has no explanation for complex biological design seemed crazy to me, and so I looked it up. What I found was this:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Unless you can supply a different quote, you have grossly mischaracterized his position in this one. In fact, you are claiming it says the exact opposite of what it really does.

As for your designer bit, the fundamentally dichotomous choice is either A.) Designer of the universe as we see it today or B.) No designer of the universe as we see it today. The bit about complexity is merely an attempt at explanation of the complexity otherwise, and it is not the operative part of the choice at hand.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see a difference in those two statements.

Designer created the complexity we observe = God exists.
No designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles = God doesn't exist.

They're saying the exact same thing, just with a few more words to be a tad more specific.

It appears that Eskimospy is our resident Dawkins "expert"...hopefully he can clarify Dawkin's argument. I just paraphrased what I read on Wikipedia and don't want to offend our good friend by potentially misinterpreting or misrepresenting Mr. Dawkins.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see a difference in those two statements.

Designer created the complexity we observe = God exists.
No designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles = God doesn't exist.

They're saying the exact same thing, just with a few more words to be a tad more specific.

It appears that Eskimospy is our resident Dawkins "expert"...hopefully he can clarify Dawkin's argument. I just paraphrased what I read on Wikipedia and don't want to offend our good friend by potentially misinterpreting or misrepresenting Mr. Dawkins.

If by 'expert' you mean 'has the slightest clue about the subject' then yes. I've read two of his books. This is apparently two more than anyone else around here, which explains the difficulties we're having in discussing his views.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
As usual, our discussions devolve into personal insults and condescension. I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. Why do you keep making things? Let me repeat and be absolutely clear on this ---> I never said "maybe god just made the rules" was a new idea. It's difficult to have a decent conversation with you when you constantly twist my words and then start personally attacking me.

I agree, as you stated in your post above, that these two options are mutually exclusive (1) God exists or (2) God doesn't exist. However, Dawkins doesn't frame it that way now does he. He frames it this way; (1) Designer created the complexity we observe or (2) No Designer, complexity arises from simple origins and principles. I'm going to stop here to allow you to comment if this gross simplification is inaccurate in any way. I want you on record before going forward so that we have a clear starting point and don't misunderstand or misrepresent what each other is saying.

Thanks for admitting your "misphrasing" after my several requests for you to back up your statement. But then again, we have your snide off-handed personal attack "I can't imagine how a rational person reading my post would think that I meant there was experimental evidence of some sort." Well?let's be clear on this?I asked you several times to explain your meaning and now you accuse me of being the irrational one because I didn't recognize your 'obvious to you' "misphrasing". Wow?just wow.

I no expert on Dawkins and have only read bits and pieces of his writings (there?I admitted it?lol), but it's clear that he believes two things: (1) atheism is the logical extension of understanding evolution and (2) religion is incompatible with science. Personally I disagree with him on both points?but hey?I just be a guy on the internet.

I find it interesting that Dawkins himself admitted "I have no explanation for complex biological design." He obviously sees the design, but denies a designer exists. He offers no explanation (except a hope that we'll eventually find one) of the complexity that's so evident in biological design as well as in every aspect of our universe. It's really very, very simple, God's either exists or he doesn't. Dawkins, or anybody for the matter, has zero proof that answers this question and never will. It's pure folly to say the existence of God is improbable and this particular belief is "supported by science". But hey, I'll keep an open mind if you want rub my nose in my ignorance since I haven't read any of his books (and don't intend to).

You claimed that you were offering a third option that neither I nor Dawkins had considered. Keeping in mind that he wrote an entire book on just such a topic, your comment was awfully silly. It unfortunately also highlights the difficulty of having a conversation about a topic when only one of the participants actually knows about the subject. Had you read his books, or if you had even a cursory knowledge of the titles of the books he had written, you would not have made such a foolish remark. I honestly should just refuse to talk with you about this until you have an idea what you're talking about.

This appears to be reinforced by the fact that it looks to have just happened again. The idea that Dawkins would say he has no explanation for complex biological design seemed crazy to me, and so I looked it up. What I found was this:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Unless you can supply a different quote, you have grossly mischaracterized his position in this one. In fact, you are claiming it says the exact opposite of what it really does.

As for your designer bit, the fundamentally dichotomous choice is either A.) Designer of the universe as we see it today or B.) No designer of the universe as we see it today. The bit about complexity is merely an attempt at explanation of the complexity otherwise, and it is not the operative part of the choice at hand.

Sorry for the misquote...my bad.

Look...I thought you wanted to discuss Dawkins as you appear to know a lot about his views. I'm admittedly ignorant on the details of his beliefs and the intricacies of his reasoning regarding the improbability of the existence of a Designer. I've made every attempt to be honest and straight forward with you and the insults and condescension are getting old. I had hoped otherwise. Really, there's no point in us going further. I'm done. Peace.