Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Sair]

God is infinite…we are finite. Basically you just said in your quote that you really don’t understand the complexity of us and the universe…then you question God??? Interesting.

It would be quite arrogant for me - not even a semi-qualified biologist - to claim a genuinely thorough understanding of human evolution and development; much less, since I am even less qualified as a cosmologist, to attempt to evince a thorough understanding of how the universe arose. I’m happy to admit that there’s plenty I don’t know or understand; but I’m also more than happy to discuss such things as I can grasp and make sense of.

But the fact that no-one has ever reliably seen or otherwise experienced God/gods such that they might even begin to study such entities, there are still people who claim to understand that the God specifically formulated by the Christian religion is a real being - though immaterial, of course, so that we have an excuse for why no-one has ever experienced him - and not only that, but is all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite.

The primary reason for rejecting God as an explanation for the universe is lack of evidence, of course - but there is also the matter of his superfluity in the face of increasing scientific discovery. I much prefer the open-ended explanation offered by cosmology as to how the universe arose, with the possibility - even promise - of further discovery; what we get from the ‘god-did-it’ pseudo-explanation offered by creationists is just a shutting down of enquiry - a demand that we be content - forever - with not knowing.

 

[someperson555]

Can you offer any real support for this hypothesis?

Humans are anthropocentric by nature, tending to judge the world in human terms, including the concept that complex entities must have been designed.

But think about it this way - we actually have no way (yet) of knowing whether the physical constants of our universe could be any different than they are; even probability calculations applied for the ‘fine-tuning’ argument are suspect, since we don’t know whether the physical constants are interdependent, or what the threshholds of possibility are for those physical constants. As for mathematics, it is a means humans have developed to abstract the principles of cause and effect into a logical system. And the world of forms? What other world is there, do you think?

In this thread, it has been argued that the ‘intelligibility’ of the universe requires intelligence. But there’s no reason to suppose this intelligence was front-loaded. Consider the fact that we humans evolved within the system of our planet, in this universe. Given this fact, it should be no surprise that our very intelligence - our specific type of intelligence, and the same type of intelligence that is (perhaps quite misguidedly) extrapolated onto the supposed creator of the universe - should have evolved within the constraints of all the physical laws and conditions in which we exist, and have existed.

matematics was not “invented” by humans. we simply discovered it. this is actually one demonstration of the existence the human soul. the fact the we can recognize quantities and values is proof of a non physical immaterial aspect of the human person (i.e the soul). think about “three apples”. the “threeness” does not come from the material world. the only reason we are able to grasp such a concept as “three” is because we can tap into the spiritual world. what further proves this is that every human being shares these concepts universally. all human beings no matter where they were born and raised, no matter their culture have the same understanding when it comes to mathematics, perfection, etc.

in response to your first point, you are avoiding the question i raised. where do these intricate laws of physics come from which govern our universe? matter obviously has some innate properties, and these properties are so complex and ordered that it is indicative of a designer. if you were to see a classical painting in a window, would you assume that it just happened by accident or that there was a painter who painted it?

 

[Sair]

your so called evidence are merely assumptions…So, you know beyond a fact that you said happened happened??? You go off by observations, have you observed these observations yourself?

As I said, I’m no cosmologist, but based on what I can and have observed, the explanations for the origins of the universe that have their basis in scientific cosmology fit and make sense. Even more so as regards biological evolution. It’s fair to say you were not present during the purported six days of creation, yet you place absolute faith in the truth of the Genesis accounts. I merely await further explanation from those at the forefront of cosmological research.

I’m not sure what you mean by one of two of the Bible…there is only one could you clarify? Proof of creation? Answer: The Bible. I know you probably scoff at that answer but let’s all admit that it’s as good as yours.

Yes, I scoff because by all relevant criteria, it is not as good as the evidence offered by scientists who have actually researched the origins of the universe and the origins and development of life. Do you seriously believe the writers of the two - count them - two creation accounts in Genesis had the means to know beyond creative speculation what they were talking about?

Lot’s of famous scientists including Louis Pasteur and many others have dis-proven it where have you been?

Disproven what, exactly?

Have you even studied church history?

History is one area of study with which I am familiar, and, yes, I have studied the history of Christianity. It is far less straightforward and far more questionable than I was led to believe whilst growing up Catholic.

There are many stories about creation in other parts of the world, let’s take that and also bring up the fact that Christians brought on education, Christians built most of the colleges we have including Harvard and Yale, Christians built hospitals and so on…

Given that the church was a primary source of power and wealth at the time when most hospitals and universities were established in Western Europe, who else would or could have done so? Not the Ancient Greeks or Romans, had their civilisations not deteriorated at roughly the same time as the spread of Christianity? Not the Muslim Middle East, whose medical advances in the first millennium far outstripped those of the Christian West? And of course it wasn’t real Christians who were responsible for the destruction of civilisations in the New World, or for the continued oppression of women, or for the Inquisition…

Do secularists teach that? Nope!! They claim everything came out of the Enlightenment of the 18th century.

The majority of the values we presently live by in the West did have their origins in the Enlightenment - which was itself the result of at least a couple of centuries of questioning traditional political - and religious - authority.

There is no evidence that their creation stories are valid.

Keep telling yourself that - whilst science will continue to pursue knowledge of the natural universe, and keep finding more evidence of our origins and development.

However, the one in the Bible is and written on stone in several countries.

Well, if it’s written on stone, it must be true…

The Apostle Paul went all over to preach the good news, but kept finding himself in prison…why was that?

Perhaps because he was a dangerous dissident, like Jesus - an instrument of social upheaval. Organised societies such as those established by the Romans tend to frown on such people, and like to lock them up.

Even Bart Ehrman who is an Atheist writer knows that there is evidence for Jesus Christ, and if you like to go through the piles of manuscripts of Greek and Hebrew writings we have those as well.

Oh, I have no doubt there’s evidence of an actual, flesh-and-blood person around whom the stories of Jesus were embroidered. That tells us nothing about his relationship to a divine, transcendent being. There is no record of his resurrection - not in any sources that are not deliberate hagiographical propaganda; and not even in the earliest of these. The Gospel of Mark had a brief mention of the resurrection tacked on much later than it is thought to have been composed.

Again I will ask you a question; Why did science fake Lucy and Piltdown man and say that was the ONLY evidence included to prove evolution?

Piltdown man was indeed a fake; Lucy was not. You may be interested to know that it was not creationists who identified Piltdown as a fake, but actual biologists who knew what they were looking for. I doubt you’ll find any biologist who would claim that these two specimens are the ‘only’ evidence for evolution - where would you get such an idea, except from a loony creationist website?

Whilst we’re on the subject, though - how many theologians did it take to identify the Shroud of Turin as a fake?

Micro-evolution exists that’s how we have different breeds of animals, there are many types of dogs and they have a common ancestor…a dog! Macro-evolution is a lie and cannot be proven. And I’m sorry Sir you have not proven anything here.

The distinction between ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-evolution’ is an invention of creationists desperately trying to explain away as much of the evidence for evolution as they possibly can. There is really no distinction, because the mechanisms are exactly the same. The only difference is the time scale, and that’s something we can’t hope to ever observe in person unless science finds a way to extend our lives indefinitely. Incidentally, modern dogs are descended from wolves who, in their turn, are descended from a common ancestor with bears…

 

[tonyrey]

matematics was not “invented” by humans. we simply discovered it. this is actually one demonstration of the existence the human soul. the fact the we can recognize quantities and values is proof of a non physical immaterial aspect of the human person (i.e the soul). think about “three apples”. the “threeness” does not come from the material world. the only reason we are able to grasp such a concept as “three” is because we can tap into the spiritual world. what further proves this is that every human being shares these concepts universally. all human beings no matter where they were born and raised, no matter their culture have the same understanding when it comes to mathematics, perfection, etc.

in response to your first point, you are avoiding the question i raised. where do these intricate laws of physics come from which govern our universe? matter obviously has some innate properties, and these properties are so complex and ordered that it is indicative of a designer. if you were to see a classical painting in a window, would you assume that it just happened by accident or that there was a painter who painted it?

A powerful post!

 

[tonyrey]

The majority of the values we presently live by in the West did have their origins in the Enlightenment - which was itself the result of at least a couple of centuries of questioning traditional political - and religious - authority.

What are those values and who were the inventors?

 

[Sair]

What are those values and who were the inventors?

Human equality, for one thing - paid lip-service by Western Christian societies, but given the lie by notions with equal scriptural support, such as the divine right of kings, and the idea that slaves should always obey their masters (never mind that the latter was urged by those who believed the apocalypse was imminent); universal education; women’s rights; non-human animal rights. Two of the major advocates of these values were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, later joined by the likes of Mary Wollstonecraft and the Suffragettes. Not to forget that the Enlightenment really set the tone for scientific progress, not just in physics, cosmology and biology, but also in more specific applications such as medicine; and social sciences, including revisions of history, economics, politics and eventually sociology. Essentially, the Enlightenment picked up where Renaissance humanism left off, challenging the last remaining chains that bound humanism to religious superstition and with that, opening it up to more fully realise its potential.

Like most social and intellectual revolutions, major shifts in collective thought patterns, a convergence of various disciplines heading in the same overall direction, the Enlightenment cannot easily be credited to any specific individuals, although it did have those who are now considered its leading lights, the prominent intellectuals who captured and expressed the ideas of the age.

 

[Sair]

matematics was not “invented” by humans. we simply discovered it. this is actually one demonstration of the existence the human soul. the fact the we can recognize quantities and values is proof of a non physical immaterial aspect of the human person (i.e the soul). think about “three apples”. the “threeness” does not come from the material world.

The ‘threeness’ is abstracted from the physical existence of three of an object, and applied to three abstract objects - an extrapolation in imagination from material reality. There’s no way you can argue that ‘threeness’ or any other abstract quantity is unrelated to the physical reality of multiple instances of objects. You’d have to stretch your argument out of all proportion to suppose that this ability to consider things in abstract is evidence of a supernatural soul.

 

[someperson555]

The ‘threeness’ is abstracted from the physical existence of three of an object, and applied to three abstract objects - an extrapolation in imagination from material reality. There’s no way you can argue that ‘threeness’ or any other abstract quantity is unrelated to the physical reality of multiple instances of objects. You’d have to stretch your argument out of all proportion to suppose that this ability to consider things in abstract is evidence of a supernatural soul.

with all due respect, youve gotta be kidding me. “three” does not exist in the material world. it belongs to the spiritual realm, just like the forms. when the light reflects off of the apples and hits your eyes and the image enters your brain, there is nothing contained within that image or the apples which is 'three"
it is not the work of the imagination either. for if this were the case, there would be no universal understanding of mathematics within the human race.
same with perfection. we have never observed or encountered pefection, yet we can still concieve of it. the man born and raised in sweden has a conception of a straight line, a circle, etc. so does a person born and raised in the congo.

 

[tonyrey]

What are those values and who were the inventors

1. So you do believe values are human inventions and not objective facts…
2. Please give the name of the precise individual who **invented **the principle of human equality.
3. What is the **rational **basis of the principle of human equality? Or is it irrational?

Like most social and intellectual revolutions, major shifts in collective thought patterns, a convergence of various disciplines heading in the same overall direction, the Enlightenment cannot easily be credited to any specific individuals, although it did have those who are now considered its leading lights, the prominent intellectuals who captured and expressed the ideas of the age.

An evasion of the fact that it was Jesus who taught that we are all equal because we are all children of the same Father in heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

with all due respect, youve gotta be kidding me. “three” does not exist in the material world. it belongs to the spiritual realm, just like the forms. when the light reflects off of the apples and hits your eyes and the image enters your brain, there is nothing contained within that image or the apples which is 'three"
it is not the work of the imagination either. for if this were the case, there would be no universal understanding of mathematics within the human race.
same with perfection. we have never observed or encountered perfection, yet we can still conceive of it. the man born and raised in sweden has a conception of a straight line, a circle, etc. so does a person born and raised in the congo.

Irrefutable! It is absurd to think mathematical descriptions do not correspond to physical reality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

You nicely evade the question of comparing Genesis with Carl Sagan so far as the Big Bang is concerned.

And I’m not even going to start on the vast discrepancies between Genesis and the scientific accounting of biological evolution…

And a good thing that you don’t. In all the ancient accounts of creation, none even comes close to the general insights of Genesis: that the earth was created and divided into the land and the sea; that the first living animals were in the sea and the sky, that life moved from the water to the land, that all the animals then appeared, and that the appearance of man was last … all this precisely agreeing with the theory of evolution in its general outline, even if the particulars discovered by Darwin could not have been revealed to a pre-scientific civilization such as that of the Jews.

And I’m not even going to start on the vast discrepancies between Genesis and the scientific accounting of biological evolution…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**Essentially, the Enlightenment picked up where Renaissance humanism left off, challenging the last remaining chains that bound humanism to religious superstition and with that, opening it up to more fully realise its potential.

Like most social and intellectual revolutions, major shifts in collective thought patterns, a convergence of various disciplines heading in the same overall direction, the Enlightenment cannot easily be credited to any specific individuals, although it did have those who are now considered its leading lights, the prominent intellectuals who captured and expressed the ideas of the age.**

Many of whom were religious and believed in God, including Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and Voltaire.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**Like most social and intellectual revolutions, major shifts in collective thought patterns, a convergence of various disciplines heading in the same overall direction, the Enlightenment cannot easily be credited to any specific individuals, although it did have those who are now considered its leading lights, the prominent intellectuals who captured and expressed the ideas of the age. **

While the Enlightenment codified new institutions and trends in human history, it is overrated as the exclusive source of change. One thinks, for example, of the 13 th Century theologian Thomas Aquinas, who sowed the seeds of the Enlightenment when he said:

In the 1a 2ae, question 105, article first, “One of the principal things to be considered, with regard to the good establishment of princes [rulers] is that all should have some part in the government; for in this way peace is preserved amongst the people, and all are pleased with such a disposition of things and maintain it. The next thing to be considered is the form of government, of which there are principally two kinds: a Kingdom, in which one rules, and an Aristocracy, in which a few exercise the authority. The best form is that in which one rules over all, and under him there are others having authority, but the government pertains to all, because those who exercise authority can be chosen from all and are chosen by all. . . . Hence the best government is a mixture of a Kingdom, of Aristocracy and of Democracy, i.e., of the power of the people, inasmuch as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the election of the rulers belongs to the people.”

 

[aragonjohn1]

There is only one creation story and it is found in the Bible///In the beginning GOD!! No one including atheists have refuted it, because they can’t. I have given quotes the debate is over, creationism wins…AGAIN!! Atheists we love you with all God’s love, but you have to understand you think that what you believe is new and it’s not. There were atheists in the Bible, read Acts 17 and many others I will list later. Atheism gives way to tyranny, you have been duped!! Plus, you also have to look at the real dark ages which was actually called the “enlightenment”. Please learn some history and real science instead of ridiculous garbage. And for heaven sake, if your going to call the Bible a myth…how about try reading and studying it.

Yes, our savior Jesus Christ redeemed all of them too.
Jesus the Christ taught about the infinite worth and dignity of every human creatures life for a reason.

May the peace of holy God be with ya
Merry Christmas
God bless

 

[Jesusaves777]

But the fact that no-one has ever reliably seen or otherwise experienced God/gods

OK well there’s only one God,

 

[Jesusaves777]

It would be quite arrogant for me - not even a semi-qualified biologist - to claim a genuinely thorough understanding of human evolution and development; much less, since I am even less qualified as a cosmologist, to attempt to evince a thorough understanding of how the universe arose. I’m happy to admit that there’s plenty I don’t know or understand; but I’m also more than happy to discuss such things as I can grasp and make sense of.

But the fact that no-one has ever reliably seen or otherwise experienced God/gods such that they might even begin to study such entities, there are still people who claim to understand that the God specifically formulated by the Christian religion is a real being - though immaterial, of course, so that we have an excuse for why no-one has ever experienced him - and not only that, but is all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite.

The primary reason for rejecting God as an explanation for the universe is lack of evidence, of course - but there is also the matter of his superfluity in the face of increasing scientific discovery. I much prefer the open-ended explanation offered by cosmology as to how the universe arose, with the possibility - even promise - of further discovery; what we get from the ‘god-did-it’ pseudo-explanation offered by creationists is just a shutting down of enquiry - a demand that we be content - forever - with not knowing.

Well, That’s why Catholics came up with science to quote Johann Kepler who said “To think God’s thoughts after him.” Until people started questioning the church like the enlightenment, that may have been brought on by Martin Luther and the reformation. It is truly a better explanation than the pseudo-science indoctrination of something-came-from-nothing. Where did matter come from? Where did time come from? And I’m sorry but didn’t even Richard Dawkins who is known to be an evolutionary biologist…he’s actually a Zoologist, say and I quote;“We don’t need evidence for evolution, we just need to know that evolution is true.”…which is a statement of faith, he also says that faith has no evidence…really??

 

[Jesusaves777]

As I said, I’m no cosmologist, but based on what I can and have observed, the explanations for the origins of the universe that have their basis in scientific cosmology fit and make sense. Even more so as regards biological evolution. It’s fair to say you were not present during the purported six days of creation, yet you place absolute faith in the truth of the Genesis accounts. I merely await further explanation from those at the forefront of cosmological research.

If you’re awaiting more information, how can you say that you truly believe that evolution is true?

Yes, I scoff because by all relevant criteria, it is not as good as the evidence offered by scientists who have actually researched the origins of the universe and the origins and development of life. Do you seriously believe the writers of the two - count them - two creation accounts in Genesis had the means to know beyond creative speculation what they were talking about?
There’s only one creation account in the Bible…where’s the second? and have you rread the Bible and studied it?

Disproven what, exactly?
Spontaneous generation, haven’t you read any of my posts?

History is one area of study with which I am familiar, and, yes, I have studied the history of Christianity. It is far less straightforward and far more questionable than I was led to believe whilst growing up Catholic.

**How so? Can you give sources? and please no Google or Wikipedia, as they are horrible sources. **

Given that the church was a primary source of power and wealth at the time when most hospitals and universities were established in Western Europe, who else would or could have done so? Not the Ancient Greeks or Romans, had their civilisations not deteriorated at roughly the same time as the spread of Christianity? Not the Muslim Middle East, whose medical advances in the first millennium far outstripped those of the Christian West? And of course it wasn’t real Christians who were responsible for the destruction of civilisations in the New World, or for the continued oppression of women, or for the Inquisition…

Well, the Inquisition (Spanish) to be precise was an ecclesiastical court system that the church started to protect the innocent and guilty. Even though Monty Python and Mel Brooks had made lite of it, their versions of it are not true. If you were taught all they did was torture and kill…you’ve been fed a lie.Christians oppress women? where does it say that? You should look at Muslims and Sharia Law, actually, Christians defended the rights of women, there were TONS of important women in the Bible.I think you might be talking about Muslims and the Qu’ran, which is an invalid religion, and an invalid book per the Word of God. I’m sorry Sir but so far your theology is abysmal.

The majority of the values we presently live by in the West did have their origins in the Enlightenment - which was itself the result of at least a couple of centuries of questioning traditional political - and religious - authority.

And there are also atheists spoken of in the Old Testament.Atheism also brought fourth such gems as Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx (who dedicated his book Das Kapital to Darwin), Pol Pot and other tyrants

Keep telling yourself that - whilst science will continue to pursue knowledge of the natural universe, and keep finding more evidence of our origins and development.

But, wait a second…If you don’t know ALL the details as a whole…then why is it considered a fact? Facts have to be factual not, well, this is all we know…we’ll find more later? it doesn’t work like that evolution (granted that you don’t have all the answers) is an opinion and a hypothesis…and you still haven’t given us any concrete evidence. Scientists would disagree with you hypothesis, don’t all stories have to be the same? And of course none of these “scientists” have a bias?]

Well, if it’s written on stone, it must be true…

If it’s on the internet it must be true, date those stones!

Perhaps because he was a dangerous dissident, like Jesus - an instrument of social upheaval. Organised societies such as those established by the Romans tend to frown on such people, and like to lock them up.

Oh, I have no doubt there’s evidence of an actual, flesh-and-blood person around whom the stories of Jesus were embroidered. That tells us nothing about his relationship to a divine, transcendent being. There is no record of his resurrection - not in any sources that are not deliberate hagiographical propaganda; and not even in the earliest of these. The Gospel of Mark had a brief mention of the resurrection tacked on much later than it is thought to have been composed.

Piltdown man was indeed a fake; Lucy was not. You may be interested to know that it was not creationists who identified Piltdown as a fake, but actual biologists who knew what they were looking for. I doubt you’ll find any biologist who would claim that these two specimens are the ‘only’ evidence for evolution - where would you get such an idea, except from a loony creationist website?

Whilst we’re on the subject, though - how many theologians did it take to identify the Shroud of Turin as a fake?

The distinction between ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-evolution’ is an invention of creationists desperately trying to explain away as much of the evidence for evolution as they possibly can. There is really no distinction, because the mechanisms are exactly the same. The only difference is the time scale, and that’s something we can’t hope to ever observe in person unless science finds a way to extend our lives indefinitely. Incidentally, modern dogs are descended from wolves who, in their turn, are descended from a common ancestor with bears…

 

[Jesusaves777]

**Jesus was dangerous?When did Jesus lock anybody up? Jesus was dangerous by social upheaval? I don’t know which Jesus you’re talking about. He told the Pharisees that they were monsters because they were, He healed people, brought peace to the land for all who believe, loved children and rebuked his disciples when they yelled at them, Jesus was God manifested in the flesh brought down lower than the angels as a servant to us. as He says, “For the Son of man also is not come to be served, but to serve, and give His life for a redemption for many”.(Mark 10:45) also Mary Magdalene was an adulterer, by Mosaic Law He could have stoned her to death like everyone wanted. He said "He here who is without sin cast the first stone…He was without sin, and He didn’t, He forgave her sin in an instant…yea, he was a real monster that Jesus/B]

Jesusaves777:
**

 

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777:
**Propaganda??And what are these supposed propaganda info?? Is it in the same locker as Lucy and Piltdown Man? **

 

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777:
]On piltdown man and Lucy,Um no actually Piltdown man was in textbooks and encyclopedias before through social pressures that they were found fake, also just out of curiosity why did it take biologists 40 years to see it was a fake? I know that their not stupid.If they observed the material they would have seen they were two different types of bone, and the jaw bone was ground down to fit the faked piece…and they passed it off as real? Lucy’s bones were found a mile and a half away from each other and in different parts of the strata, 200 feet deeper to be exact according to Donald Johanson in 1974. Why were they all over? Colin Patterson a senior paleontologist and evolutionist, when someone asked him about where the missing links are in his book, he responded, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I know of any, fossil, or living I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil."