Creation

[aridite]

buffalo:

An additional point is the fossil record is trying to describe a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces.

I agree. The evidence for global species evolution is rather spotty – and there is plenty of room to suppose that God has played a rather heavy hand in the development of species. Hard-core (atheistic) Evolutionist start with an assumption that God could not have been involved, and that the whole process had to have been the result of natural processes. The evidence is open to various theories. But given that the fossil record is very, very old, intelligent design fits rather nicely. More nicely than rejecting the idea that the fossil record is very, very old.

 

[PhilVaz]

buffalo << Uh No, Phil Actually Darwinian is ruled out, and an Intelligence ruled in >>

Yes, I posted Cardinal Schonborn’s editorial from the NY Times in here first. Schonborn is not a scientist. It depends how one defines Darwinian evolution. The main point of “Darwinian evolution” is methodological naturalism (MN), that science seeks to explain things by natural means and causes. This doesn’t rule out God philosophically or theologically however. As I’ve pointed out many times, Darwin himself believed in a Creator (mentioned at least 7 times in Origin of Species), although at the end of his life he became an agnostic. One of the best explanations of MN comes from an evangelical geologist:

“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, Evangelical geologist from Kansas State, in “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? [1999])

The International Theological Commission statement endorsed by Ratzinger says this view is OK. And Schonborn is out of line on the science (in my opinion). He is not a biologist.

“In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.” (paragraph 68)

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation…In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.” (paragraph 69)

I.E. Methodological naturalism in science, and (theistic) macroevolution as how God did it. BTW, it seems we keep posting the same material over and over. But repetition is the mother of learning.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

buffalo << Uh No, Phil Actually Darwinian is ruled out, and an Intelligence ruled in >>

Yes, I posted Cardinal Schonborn’s editorial from the NY Times in here first. Schonborn is not a scientist. It depends how one defines Darwinian evolution. The main point of “Darwinian evolution” is methodological naturalism (MN), that science seeks to explain things by natural means and causes. This doesn’t rule out God philosophically or theologically however. As I’ve pointed out many times, Darwin himself believed in a Creator (mentioned at least 7 times in Origin of Species), although at the end of his life he became an agnostic. One of the best explanations of MN comes from an evangelical geologist:

“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, Evangelical geologist from Kansas State, in “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? [1999])

The International Theological Commission statement endorsed by Ratzinger says this view is OK. And Schonborn is out of line on the science (in my opinion). He is not a biologist.

“In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.” (paragraph 68)

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation…In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.” (paragraph 69)

I.E. Methodological naturalism in science, and (theistic) macroevolution as how God did it. BTW, it seems we keep posting the same material over and over. But repetition is the mother of learning.

Phil P

He ruled it out in the last few paragraphs.

 

[PhilVaz]

buffalo << He ruled it out in the last few paragraphs. >>

Then he is defining Darwinian evolution different than I do. BTW, an editorial in the NY Times is an editorial. An International Theological Commission statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have a bit more force. But again these are scientific issues ultimately which the Church does not define or make decisions about.

What is ruled out is Richard Dawkins view, not the view of a Kenneth Miller or Keith Miller or Keith Ward or Loren Haarsma or Denis Lamoureux or Fr. Stanley Jaki or Fr. George Coyne or billions of others representing theistic evolution.

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

aridite:

I agree. The evidence for global species evolution is rather spotty –

what is global species evolution?

The driving force of evolution is that species develop from isolated populations.

aridite:

and there is plenty of room to suppose that God has played a rather heavy hand in the development of species.

Room to suppose but no evidence…that is why they call it faith

aridite:

Hard-core (atheistic) Evolutionist start with an assumption that God could not have been involved, and that the whole process had to have been the result of natural processes.

“Hard core”?

All scientists (hard or soft) can only deal with natural processes

That’s what science is

aridite:

The evidence is open to various theories.

No not really

aridite:

But given that the fossil record is very, very old, intelligent design fits rather nicely. More nicely than rejecting the idea that the fossil record is very, very old.

There is plenty of room for ID in theology or philosophy but by its very nature it cannot be proven using natural processes

 

[aridite]

Steve Andersen:

what is global species evolution?

I mean the view that all species evolved for some one set of ancestors. I don’t claim any evolutionary biologist believes this, but this is a common (mis)understanding of what “evolution” is supposed to stand for.
Steve Andersen:

Room to suppose but no evidence…that is why they call it faith

Hard-core-atheist Evolutionists are those who claim that the truth of evolution entails the falsity of God’s active role in directing differentiation of species, and ultimately the creation of the human species. These evolutionist claim that the evidence for evolution entails the denial of faith. I don’t claim that there are any evolutionary biologists who fit this description, but many atheist make these claims.

I don’t think anyone claims that there is evidence within evolutionary biology for ID. I am only claiming that there is no evidence in evolutionary biology against it.

“Hard core”?

see above
Steve Andersen:

No not really

By “various theories”, I mean versions of evolution which either exclude God or any divine direction. The various theories are philosophical/theological in nature. So, yes really.
Steve Andersen:

There is plenty of room for ID in theology or philosophy but by its very nature it cannot be proven using natural processes

Right. And it can’t be ruled out using natural (biological) processes, which is what many atheists try to do.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

aridite:

I mean the view that all species evolved for some one set of ancestors. I don’t claim any evolutionary biologist believes this, but this is a common (mis)understanding of what “evolution” is supposed to stand for.

Misunderstanding?
Common ancestry is the core of the observable data that leads into the support of the theory of natural selection.

(BTW great article in Scientific American this month on the oldest discovered fossils of a creature with bilateral symmetry i.e. out ancestor)

…… I don’t claim that there are any evolutionary biologists who fit this description, but many atheist make these claims.

 They’re clearly not scientific claims since science can’t address the question of God one way or another

aridite:

I don’t think anyone claims that there is evidence within evolutionary biology for ID. I am only claiming that there is no evidence in evolutionary biology against it… And it can’t be ruled out using natural (biological) processes, which is what many atheists try to do.

I think we are talking about different things here.

In science you start with data and then try to fit a mechanism to explain it. If there is no evidence for it then it doesn’t really matter if there is no evidence against it.

Frankly I don’t care how some atheist use or misuse science but the move is on in some school districts to include ID in science classes which is clearly wrong.

 

[aridite]

Steve Andersen:

Misunderstanding?
Common ancestry is the core of the observable data that leads into the support of the theory of natural selection.

(BTW great article in Scientific American this month on the oldest discovered fossils of a creature with bilateral symmetry i.e. out ancestor)

Really? There is observable data of one common source for all life on earth? I mean, this source has been observed? I thought common ancestry was the conclusion drawn from the observable data of anatomical/physiological similarities (like bilateral symmetry).

So you believe there is global species evolution? I thought the data was too spotty to draw such a radical conclusion. I thought I was overstating the claims of genuine evolutionary biologists.
Steve Andersen:

They’re clearly not scientific claims since science can’t address the question of God one way or another

Would that all who wrote about the theological conclusions of evolution were so careful as yourself. I believe, though, that your claim that science can’t address the question of God is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one. I agree with it, but on philosophical grounds. Everyone does philosophy, just some better than others, some more consciously than others. A lot of these disagreements are over philosophical issues.
Steve Andersen:

I think we are talking about different things here.

This would not surprise me.
Steve Andersen:

In science you start with data and then try to fit a mechanism to explain it. If there is no evidence for it then it doesn’t really matter if there is no evidence against it.

Right. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it. Some atheist do not understand this point of logic.
Steve Andersen:

Frankly I don’t care how some atheist use or misuse science but the move is on in some school districts to include ID in science classes which is clearly wrong.

I care how atheists misuse science, just as I care how theists misuse it. In both cases it leads to confusion.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

aridite:

Really? There is observable data of one common source for all life on earth?

yeah

aridite:

I mean, this source has been observed? I thought common ancestry was the conclusion drawn from the observable data of anatomical/physiological similarities (like bilateral symmetry).

Those are the observable data
Plus the fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, etc

aridite:

So you believe there is global species evolution?

What is “global species evolution”?
Evolution by definition occurs when populations are isolated.
And it is not something to be believed in or not, it is something that is observable

aridite:

I thought the data was too spotty to draw such a radical conclusion. I thought I was overstating the claims of genuine evolutionary biologists.

While I may not be a genuine biologist I do think I have a pretty good educated layman’s grasp of the basics.

Evolution is two things (1) there is the fact of evolution; things change over time and isolated populations speciated. (2) the theory of evolution which proposes natural selection as the mechanism. This is one of the most thoroughly proven theories we have nothing spotty about it.

National Geographic (that radical rag) did a nice cover story on this last winter. It is very approachable for the non scientists.

…….I believe, though, that your claim that science can’t address the question of God is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one.

Not particularly. Science can only address the natural and the measurable. The supernatural can’t be dealt with

aridite:

I agree with it, but on philosophical grounds. Everyone does philosophy, just some better than others, some more consciously than others. A lot of these disagreements are over philosophical issues.

I’m an engineer not a philosopher. If I say that X is so then my business, my license, and my house are forfeit if I’m wrong. So my knee jerk reaction is only to deal with the tangible. It makes me a little dull at cocktail parties but when I do open my mouth I’m generally pretty spot on

…….Right. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it. Some atheist do not understand this point of logic.

yes, but it is a lack of evidence
that may be fine under the rules of logic but in science you can’t propose a mechanism that is not supported by data.

aridite:

I care how atheists misuse science, just as I care how theists misuse it. In both cases it leads to confusion.

confusion seems more the fault of poor science education (and probably poor education in logic and philosophy too) and really bad press coverage

 

[aridite]

Steve Andersen:

Those are the observable data
Plus the fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, etc

The original organism from which all life on earth derived has not been observed as it is supposed to have lived millions of years ago. What are observed (fossils, similarities in anatomy), coupled with an explanatory model, derives the conclusion that there are common ancestors for given species. I’m OK with drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence, but I think we need to be clear on what is the evidence, what is the conclusion, and what is the explanatory model.
Steve Andersen:

What is “global species evolution”?

Already defined: All life comes from just one primitive organism. That is a radically strong claim. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence for this. I thought this was the result of extrapolating the theory of evolution (and excluding any non-natural causes) back to a theoretical beginning. I’m not saying it could not be true, just that it is highly speculative.
Steve Andersen:

Evolution by definition occurs when populations are isolated.
And it is not something to be believed in or not, it is something that is observable

Sure, it’s something to be believed, as many on this thread apparently do not believe it. A person either believes or disbelieves in the value and veracity of the scientific method, or in the existence of the data (I have not actually examined very many fossils) or in the integrity of scientists (that they’re not agents of the devil trying to destroy people’s faith). There are excellent reasons for believing in (some version of) evolution, but there are at least some non-observable (or certainly non-quantifiable) features to such reasons.
Steve Andersen:

While I may not be a genuine biologist I do think I have a pretty good educated layman’s grasp of the basics.

Ah…
Steve Andersen:

Evolution is two things (1) there is the fact of evolution; things change over time and isolated populations speciated. (2) the theory of evolution which proposes natural selection as the mechanism. This is one of the most thoroughly proven theories we have nothing spotty about it.

I’m OK with micro- evolution. This has apparently been observed and documented. But macro- is less empirical, more theoretical and speculative. By spotty, I mean, there is not very complete fossil record for all species, and I dare say (though I know I am going out on a limb) that there is no fossil record for some species at all. (If shown otherwise, I will immediately retract this claim.)

The point is, hardcore believers in evolution often confuse data with conclusions, and overstate the data. I believe evolution has occured. But there are still some unanswered questions, such as: why do mutations occur at all? They don’t appear to be completely random, as the fossil record supposedly shows that evolution occurs in fits and starts. (If it mutations were completely random, you would expect species differentiation to happen more or less uniformly over time.) Perhaps there is a biochemical explanation for this, or one that includes environmental factors, but as I understand it, this explanation has not yet been found.

 

[aridite]

Steve Andersen:

National Geographic (that radical rag) did a nice cover story on this last winter. It is very approachable for the non scientists.

aridite:

…….I believe, though, that your claim that science can’t address the question of God is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one.

Not particularly. Science can only address the natural and the measurable. The supernatural can’t be dealt with

The statement “Science can’t address the question of God” is neither observed nor measurable, nor entailed by anything observed or measurable. Therefore, it is not scientific. It is true, but it is philosophical.
Steve Andersen:

I’m an engineer not a philosopher. If I say that X is so then my business, my license, and my house are forfeit if I’m wrong. So my knee jerk reaction is only to deal with the tangible. It makes me a little dull at cocktail parties but when I do open my mouth I’m generally pretty spot on

You exhibit laudable professional prudence. If only those who discuss evolution were so careful before saying X about what evolutionary biology has actually been able to prove. Everyone is a philosopher, though. Everyone makes philosophical assumptions. The trick is to do this well, and reasonably.
Steve Andersen:

yes, but it is a lack of evidence
that may be fine under the rules of logic but in science you can’t propose a mechanism that is not supported by data.

ID may lack biological evidence, but I believe there is excellent philosophical evidence to support it, at least in the case of humans. So, ID may not be a biological theory, but no biological theory entails its falsehood, and it may make sense of biological theories in terms of the grand scheme of things. I think this may be the sourse of our confusion: I don’t think anyone is saying that ID is a biological theory. I think it is a philosophical/theological context for evolutionary theory. On the other hand, some (not you, Steve, I don’t think) seem to believe that evolution is a philosophical/(a)theistic theory; which, of course, it isn’t.)
Steve Andersen:

confusion seems more the fault of poor science education (and probably poor education in logic and philosophy too) and really bad press coverage

agreed.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

aridite:

The original organism from which all life on earth derived has not been observed as it is supposed to have lived millions of years ago.

      Well billions…but what’s an order of magnitude or 3;)

aridite:

What are observed …, coupled with an explanatory model, derives the conclusion that there are common ancestors for given species. I’m OK with drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence, but I think we need to be clear on what is the evidence, what is the conclusion, and what is the explanatory model.

oh, I think we’re all fairly clear on that

aridite:

Already defined: All life comes from just one primitive organism. That is a radically strong claim.

Not particularly
We all share the same basic biochemistry and the most primative organisms and the furthest from us can make us sick

aridite:

I don’t think there is sufficient evidence for this.

ok…

aridite:

I thought this was the result of extrapolating the theory of evolution (and excluding any non-natural causes) back to a theoretical beginning.

no, it’s the result of extrapolating the observable fact of evolution back through time
the theory of evolution as a mechanism to explain it is a separate item

aridite:

I’m not saying it could not be true, just that it is highly speculative.

not particularly

aridite:

Sure, it’s something to be believed, as many on this thread apparently do not believe it

and if they had strong opinions on the shape of the earth or on whether an object would fall if pushed off the table would that make gravity subject to belief?

………I’m OK with micro- evolution. This has apparently been observed and documented. But macro- is less empirical, more theoretical and speculative.

that micro/macro split si semantic slight of hand at best
where is the line drawn between the two?
It is fairly obvious that a “macro” is just enough “micros” added together
So once you conceded one it is the small end of the wedge…or even the micro end

aridite:

By spotty, I mean, there is not very complete fossil record for all species, and I dare say (though I know I am going out on a limb) that there is no fossil record for some species at all.

I suppose preponderance of the evidence doesn’t really mean a whole lot in your phase book? How much of a fossil record would you need for it to be complete? And for how many species? And since molecular biology can fill in many of the gaps does it even matter?

aridite:

The point is, hardcore believers in evolution often confuse data with conclusions, and overstate the data.

Why do you think it is a matter of belief?
I’ve heard many people repeat that sort of mantra …something like “evolution is like a religion too”
But nothing is further from the truth. It is just a cold hard analysis of what we can observe. If a new data were presented then the theory would be modified. there is no emotional or spiritual investment

aridite:

I believe evolution has occured.

Concession accepted

aridite:

But there are still some unanswered questions

Of course there are…that’s why we have scientists

aridite:

, such as: why do mutations occur at all?

Oh come on even I can answer that one
Even ignoring environmental effects, no natural system is 100% without errors
There are innumerable cellular replications occurring every day. Even with a miniscule failure rate the number of possible errors is fairly high.
Besides mutation is no the correct term for what diversifies populations….variation is more correct

aridite:

They don’t appear to be completely random,

you begin to understand…evolution is a deterministic process not a random one

aridite:

as the fossil record supposedly shows that evolution occurs in fits and starts. (If it mutations were completely random, you would expect species differentiation to happen more or less uniformly over time.)

No, since speciation occurs in response to isolation or environment stress there is no reason to assume that it would be uniform over time.
The fact that mass extinctions and explosions in diversification are coincident with natural disasters or major geologic shifts supports this.

aridite:

Perhaps there is a biochemical explanation for this, or one that includes environmental factors, but as I understand it, this explanation has not yet been found.

like I said before, while the details of the mechanism are constantly debated and revised, the broad framework of the theory is pretty well established.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

aridite:

…ID may lack biological evidence, but I believe there is excellent philosophical evidence to support it, at least in the case of humans.

no…I design things for a living. There are many design flaws in living organisms. Humans are obviously built upon what came before and not purpose built

aridite:

…: I don’t think anyone is saying that ID is a biological theory.

Tell that to the Kansas school board and the guy in DC
It is fine for a philosophy or theology class; but not a science class

 

[buffalo]

Steve Andersen:

no…I design things for a living. There are many design flaws in living organisms. Humans are obviously built upon what came before and not purpose built

Tell that to the Kansas school board and the guy in DC

 It is fine for a philosophy or theology class; but not a science class

The guy in DC stated that students should be taught what the debate is about. Get it right.

 

[I_Leatherman]

A question about physics I suppose:
Does time shorten with acceleration?

 

[buffalo]

I Leatherman:

A question about physics I suppose:
Does time shorten with acceleration?

or if you are in a jet flying at 30,000 feet.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

buffalo:

The guy in DC stated that students should be taught what the debate is about. Get it right.

Yeah, I know what he said, but even stating that there is some sort of debate gives more weight to the notion than is required. There really is no debate as the two subjects are in different fields.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I Leatherman:

A question about physics I suppose:
Does time shorten with acceleration?

The passage of time is different if the observers are at different speeds relative to each other…not necessarily different accelerations

 

[I_Leatherman]

Steve Andersen:

The passage of time is different if the observers are at different speeds relative to each other…not necessarily different accelerations

Thanks,
What if, you were measuring a fixed signal which had, say, 1 beat every second.
Say you measured the signal for 60 seconds and recorded 60 beats at your start point, then you find that you are accelerating from the signal at a very large, exponential, rate, at which point you took a second reading from the fixed signal.
If your time, as far as the signal is concerned, has somehow shrunk, would your second reading of the signal have fewer beats per (your) 60 seconds than your first reading?

 

[aridite]

Steve Andersen:

Well billions…but what’s an order of magnitude or 3

An order of magnitude of 3 is not relevant to the point that the original organism from which all life on earth derived has not been observed. You claimed in post #67
Steve Andersen:

Common ancestry is the core of the observable data

So you grant that this original organism is not part of the data, but a theoretical supposition to explain the data. As such it is a conclusion and not observed.
Steve Andersen:

ok…
no, it’s the result of extrapolating the observable fact of evolution back through time
the theory of evolution as a mechanism to explain it is a separate item

OK, whatever. But you accept the postulation of an original ancestor for all life IS an extrapolation. It is an extrapolation from observed fact. You will also grant, I hope, that the further one extrapolates, the more there is room for error, and the more speculative and less certain the conclusions are.
Steve Andersen:

and if they had strong opinions on the shape of the earth or on whether an object would fall if pushed off the table would that make gravity subject to belief?

Not that I have ever encountered such a person, but if they are doubting the truth of gravity, they must be doubting the reports of their senses, or that the future will be like the past. To deal with their doubts, you have to overcome their philosophical position of skepticism. It does no good to simply appeal to scientific observation, and repeatedly push objects off table. With evolution, if someone doubts the veracity of scientist, it does no good to produce more scientific papers. One has to address the non-scientific beliefs that lie at the basis of both the acceptance and denial of science.
Steve Andersen:

that micro/macro split si semantic slight of hand at best
where is the line drawn between the two?

Here is a real evolutionary biologist who thinks the distinciton is important. newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=12468 (from another thread). I don’t endorse his conclusions, but he is one who accepts micro/macro distinction.
Steve Andersen:

It is fairly obvious that a “macro” is just enough “micros” added together

It isn’t at all obvious as it has never been observed. This is a theoretical conclusion, which may be justified in every species but human. No amount of physical variations in non-rational animals will allow rationality to just “emerge.” Rationality cannot be accounted for physically, so neither can it be accounted for biologically. This is a philosophical point, and one not easily argued. It is certainly not falsified by evolutionary biology, unless one goes beyond the evidence and confuses biology with the philosophical position of physicalism (which many people versed in evolution do, in fact, unconsiously do).
Steve Andersen:

I suppose preponderance of the evidence doesn’t really mean a whole lot in your phase book? How much of a fossil record would you need for it to be complete?

100% – what does complete mean to you? It becomes less certain with diminishing completeness.
Steve Andersen:

Concession accepted

Have you read my prior posts? If you had you would realize that my comments are not a concession.