The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[StAnastasia]

Next, Pope Benedict has stated that evolution has not been scientifically proven, which is contrary to the mostly settled ideas presented here.

It appears that neither you nor Pope Benedict properly understand how science works. Science strives to falsify hypotheses. Some hypotheses associated with evolution have indeed been falsified (e.g. Larmarckian transmission of acquired characteristics), but as a whole, the theory of evolution has been strengthened over the years as its key elements have not been falsified.

StAnastasia

 

[Philipp]

“It’s not a science museum at all,” Horner said. “It’s not a pseudo-science museum. It’s just not science. There’s nothing scientific about it.”

The Glendive museum’s self-guided tour starts with a series of questions challenging established science on the origins of life. One of those questions asks whether dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago or coexisted with humans. Although the idea flies in the face of the consensus of scientific thought, it may hold sway with the one-third of adult Americans estimated by Gallup polls to believe the Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally."

thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/creation-museum-in-eastern-montana/

Thanks for posting the above link to the museum which showed photos of some of the exhibits. They were very impressive. I had not been inside the museum since 2007 for at that time the artist had only completed the beautiful murals on most of the interior walls with only a few exhibits such as the fossil human footprints available. In the summer of 2007 two of our children and the five grandkids took a fascinating train ride from Toledo OH to Glacier National Park and on the way back we stopped for a tour of Malta MT where there are two very interesting dinosaur museums. I highly recommend that train trip as the traveler is allowed three stops if scheduled when the tickets are purchased.

By the way there are 16 dinosaur museums in Montana. The Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum is the second largest. Jack Horner’s Museum of the Rockies is the largest.

One museum is in Malta MT, two blocks from the train station and motel. It was really more of a storage/research “lab” where *LEONARDO, “The Mummy Dinosaur, The World’s best preserved dinosaur” *was at that time undergoing study. The name is the Judith River Dinosaur Institute www.montanadinosaurdigs.com. We were given a guided tour and got to observe the “Mummy” up close.

At the Phillip County museum a few blocks in the other direction in
Malta MT is where *“The area’s most famous outlaw, Kid Curry, began his career here in 1894 with the murder of Pike Landusky. In 1901 Kid Curry and his gang, “The Wild Bunch”, robbed a train west of Malta.” ‘Elvis’, an original brachylophosaurus skeleton, named for its ‘pristine pelvis’ and measuring 33 feet long; A dynamically posed Albertosaurus" *

**Tour’s over; now to the “Saint’s” derogatory remarks. I called Otis Kline, director of the museum dinosaur museum and advised him of saint’s “remarks.” He observed that besides the many realistic exhibits such as a T-Rex, Acrocanthosaurus and cast of the human and dinosaur footprints he also has an exhibit showing the research reports etc. on dinosaur soft tissue and collagen. As you know that was published in the Journal Science in 2005. He asks: Perhaps that exhibit is NOT scientific? He is also preparing an exhibit for radiocarbon dating (RC) of dinosaur bone collagen and the actual bones that underwent sawing and core sampling. **

**Uhm! By the way when are John Horner and Mary Schweitzer going to C-14 (RC) date their dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue. Uhm? They’ve been challenged many times. Nate Murphy and Dr. Robert Bakker might also take the “challenge” as well, with old Leonardo, Elvis, Peanuts etc. Leonardo has also been Cat-scanned and bones so far studied are in Pristine condition, not petrified; a little coring would get them some great samples for testing for C-14 don’t’ you think? {Get yourself a video on Leonardo as I have done and you will learn a lot about dinosaur bones). Carl Baugh was ahead of his time by cat-scanning the Delk footprints just as Nate Murphy was ahead in his time in cat-scanning Laonardo’s bones. But come on guys let’s finish the job by testing for C-14. Bone collagen etc are not supposed to last more than 30,000 to 100,000 years, Right? **

 

[StAnastasia]

Tour’s over; now to the “Saint’s” derogatory remarks.

Philipp, I was being descriptive, not derogatory. It’s not being derogatory to say that the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is not scientific. Both the Glendive Museum and the Indiana Jones exhibit are entertaining, and although neither are educational they both offer good value for the admission charge.

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

Natural selection is not the issue. Even the most ardent YECr agrees that natural selection happens. The issue is the random mutations that allow NS to do it’s filtering.

The problem is that creationists consistently misunderstand random mutations. Why they choose to continue in their misunderstanding is perplexing.

Biologists Theodosius Dobzhansky correctly stated that “not even mutations are random changes, because what mutations can take place in a given gene is evidently decreed by the structure of that gene.”

Nonetheless, every creationist in this thread who reads the quote above will continue to whine about “random mutations” as if their objection has never been adequately addressed.

Proteins are not formed by the fortuitous conjunctions of amino acids. That is, proteins do not result from a situation like a stack of cards being tossed into a box.

I see it occasionally here (maybe not on this thread, I don’t remember).

Perhaps we should ask StA what her buddy Fr. George Coyne has to say about that. (Reminder, he says that even God did not know the outcome of evolution.)

Coyne’s errors are evident enough.

I don’t think so.

Chance is usually used to specify the opposite of guidance, design, purpose. If you win the lottery because it has been designed and guided so that you will win, then you didn’t win by chance.

Certainly I am ignorant of who exactly designed my computer, but I don’t attribute it to chance.

Is then, it a scientific notion that since it’s not chance, it must be the result of guidance, design, purpose?

You hastily rejected my initial explanation of “chance” and substituted it with your own explanation, which explanation you then argue is not a possibility. It’s no wonder you have missed the mark.

Creationists erect an artificial barrier between chance and design, thus creating for themselves a pseudo-problem. Chance and design, when properly understood, are not mutually exclusive.

Chance presupposes design just as randomness presupposes order. Max Born said, “Nature is ruled by laws of cause and laws of chance in a certain mixture.”

We may think of the results of a coin toss as a matter of chance. Yet on the physical plane, the toss is determined by the laws of nature.

In a previous post I tried to convey the difference between chance as used in science and by the average person in contrast to what I termed “irreducible chance” as an ultimate explanation on the level of metaphysical materialism. “Irreducible chance” is not a scientific notion, it is a notion belonging to philosophical naturalism.

Also, metaphysical design and purpose do not fall within the scope of the natural sciences. Design and purpose are more properly the subject matter of philosophy and theology.

So, your comparison with ‘who designed your computer’ shows a misunderstanding of both chance and design.

Of course chance can play a part. But it can’t be the whole story. If we attribute everything that exists as it is totally to chance, that is to say that it didn’t need to come about and be this way. That fits well perhaps with the idea of a deterministic universe, and we just lucked out and happen to be in the one multi-verse where chance happened to allow us to exist.

All is not chance, in any sense of the word, except in the mind of the philosophical materialist who attribute even the laws of nature ultimately to chance combinations. Such a view is as old as the pagan atomistic philosophers Lucretius and Democritus.

 

[ricmat]

The problem is that creationists consistently misunderstand random mutations. Why they choose to continue in their misunderstanding is perplexing.

Biologists Theodosius Dobzhansky correctly stated that “not even mutations are random changes, because what mutations can take place in a given gene is evidently decreed by the structure of that gene.”

Nonetheless, every creationist in this thread who reads the quote above will continue to whine about “random mutations” as if their objection has never been adequately addressed.

Proteins are not formed by the fortuitous conjunctions of amino acids. That is, proteins do not result from a situation like a stack of cards being tossed into a box.

Coyne’s errors are evident enough.

You hastily rejected my initial explanation of “chance” and substituted it with your own explanation, which explanation you then argue is not a possibility. It’s no wonder you have missed the mark.

Creationists erect an artificial barrier between chance and design, thus creating for themselves a pseudo-problem. Chance and design, when properly understood, are not mutually exclusive.

Chance presupposes design just as randomness presupposes order. Max Born said, “Nature is ruled by laws of cause and laws of chance in a certain mixture.”

We may think of the results of a coin toss as a matter of chance. Yet on the physical plane, the toss is determined by the laws of nature.

In a previous post I tried to convey the difference between chance as used in science and by the average person in contrast to what I termed “irreducible chance” as an ultimate explanation on the level of metaphysical materialism. “Irreducible chance” is not a scientific notion, it is a notion belonging to philosophical naturalism.

Also, metaphysical design and purpose do not fall within the scope of the natural sciences. Design and purpose are more properly the subject matter of philosophy and theology.

So, your comparison with ‘who designed your computer’ shows a misunderstanding of both chance and design.

All is not chance, in any sense of the word, except in the mind of the philosophical materialist who attribute even the laws of nature ultimately to chance combinations. Such a view is as old as the pagan atomistic philosophers Lucretius and Democritus.

Please read Signature in the Cell, and get back to me.

 

[itinerant1]

Please read Signature in the Cell, and get back to me.

Why should I read it?

 

[itinerant1]

Please read Signature in the Cell, and get back to me.

That does not respond to any of the statements I made in response to your post. Is this an evasion of this issues on your part by saying go read such and such a book?

Furthermore, ID is not science. It confuses the boundaries between science, philosophy, and theology. ID’s philosophical notions are garbled and unacceptable in classical philosophy. For example ID conflates design with finality and ultimate causes with proximate causes. So, in light of these and other problems I have not mentioned, why should I read the book?

 

[itinerant1]

There are a number of issues. Pope John Paul II spoke about not just one theory but theories of evolution. The document “Communion and Stewardship” cites a number of evolutionary theories that are not compatible with Church teaching, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance that explicitly deny to God any truly causal role for the development of life in the universe. If God is the easily discarded tack on, the Church is against that idea.

Next, Pope Benedict has stated that evolution has not been scientifically proven, which is contrary to the mostly settled ideas presented here. Pope Benedict also made it a point to say that the purely mechanistic process implies that we - man - are haphazard mistakes, but we must have the audacity to say that we are not haphazard mistakes.

Cardinal Schoenborn in his book “Chance or Purpose” also found it necessary to go against the Stephen Jay Gould idea that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently by citing the case of Father Coyne.

He also quotes Julian Huxley from a speech he made while marking the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s book:

“In evolutionary thought, there is no need or room for the supernatural, and no longer any place for it. The earth was not created, it evolved … So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. Religion, too, originated by evolution… The evolutionary man can no longer take refuge in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created.”

That quote outlines the point of conflict quite clearly.

God bless,
Ed

What you are referencing is Darwinian ideology. One needs to separate the ideology grafted onto the science, especially since a number of Darwinists take their ideology for science. In other words, they wrongly assume that methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism.

The bottom line is you need to be clear about whether you are objecting to Darwinian ideology or Darwinian science, or both. But you cannot logically object to Darwinian ideology and pretend then you have made an argument against evolution theory itself, or evolution science.

Things just aren’t as simple as one may wish them to be.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes it is: a “pedestile” is a turnstile you operate with you feet. An alternate meaning: it’s a pen used by pedophiles.

 

[buffalo]

It might help to be clearer about what you are against. The human body is material and as I understand it the Catholic Church allows its members to accept that our material bodies evolved. To that extent there is no issue between the Church and evolution.

No evolutionary biologist claims that the human soul evolved. Some may claim that it does not exist and other may say that God made it directly. I get the impression that your argument with evolution is more about the origin of the soul than about our material bodies.

$0.02

rossum

If you mean, evolved (as in adaptation and deleterious mutations) from Adam (the prototypical human) then the Church agrees.

 

[buffalo]

It appears that neither you nor Pope Benedict properly understand how science works. Science strives to falsify hypotheses. Some hypotheses associated with evolution have indeed been falsified (e.g. Larmarckian transmission of acquired characteristics), but as a whole, the theory of evolution has been strengthened over the years as its key elements have not been falsified.

StAnastasia

Lost of failed Darwinian predictions:

Darwin’s Failed Predictions

Introduction.
PBS asserts that the evidence “unequivocally supports [Darwin’s] theory of evolution by natural selection.” Do all scientists who approach biology with an open mind believe that the data “unequivocally” supports Darwin’s view? The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change. Moreover, key postulates of Darwin’s theory - universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record - have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology. Some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:

more…

 

[ricmat]

Why should I read it?

That does not respond to any of the statements I made in response to your post. Is this an evasion of this issues on your part by saying go read such and such a book?

Furthermore, ID is not science. It confuses the boundaries between science, philosophy, and theology. ID’s philosophical notions are garbled and unacceptable in classical philosophy. For example ID conflates design with finality and ultimate causes with proximate causes. So, in light of these and other problems I have not mentioned, why should I read the book?

You should read it because your ignorance of what ID really is, and is not, is astonishing. Your paragraph directly above is proof of that.

Just as you recommend to others not to rely on YEC websites, I recommend to you not to rely on anti-ID web sites.

The book is a good science book. Nothing about God. Nothing about the earth being 6000 years old. Your library probably has it, or can get it so it won’t cost you a dime. But if you know for a fact that its wrong before you’ve read it, then…that doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

 

[buffalo]

That does not respond to any of the statements I made in response to your post. Is this an evasion of this issues on your part by saying go read such and such a book?

Furthermore, ID is not science. It confuses the boundaries between science, philosophy, and theology. ID’s philosophical notions are garbled and unacceptable in classical philosophy. For example ID conflates design with finality and ultimate causes with proximate causes. So, in light of these and other problems I have not mentioned, why should I read the book?

Because it will show you the evidence that points to a designing intelligence. The philosophers can determine what or who the designer is.

 

[ricmat]

Why should I read it?

No doubt you have been turned off by YEC folks, maybe even ID folks who can’t explain their position clearly, or to your satisfaction.

From the other side, there are obviously some as well who can’t explain their side of things. That by itself doesn’t mean that your side is wrong.

But SITC is generally considered to be a well explained, well researched, well documented exposition of why ID is the best explanation of how life arose from muck. It doesn’t say that “X didn’t happen, this did”.

I’m one of those who can’t explain things to your satisfaction, so shame on me. I’m not very smart. But it seems to me that if you really want to know this side of things, that you’d want to read the best material available. Even if ricmat is wrong, it doesn’t make ID wrong.

 

[Philipp]

It suggest nothing of the sort. It suggests that some strata, formed in conditions where something analogous to “being poured” happened may have been formed in this way. As with Berthault’s original work some interesting and valid geology is being extended well beyond its limits.

Some interesting work of limited application. Attempting to apply it universally would be an error.

Answers in Genesis explicitly state in their Statement of Faith that they will ignore any evidence that disagrees with their predetermined point of view. They are not a reliable witness to anything in this area of science.

ICR is like AiG, their “Tenets of Scientific Creationism” ensure that anything they produce is so biased that they cannot be relied on. To see just how biased and incompetent their work is read: Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

rossum

Regarding Guy Berthault’s lab and flume studies and the above scientists and what they and he observed. Such phenomenon also can be seen in field studies. The reality of a massive flood in a western USA river and by Walthur in the Bay of Naples was referenced by Guy Berthault but which Henke et al. ignore. Why because the above date challenges Lyell’s and modern uniformitarian assumptions.

Furthermore, must I remind you (1) of the mudstone research in flumes showing that most of the sedimentary geologic column which is mudstone was formed in moving waters and (2) sand with ripples were most probably made in moving waters in the sandstone strata of the Grand Canyon instead of claims that they were laid down by sand storms?

ICR and AIG: Uhm! the same can be said for the folks you like to quote which you imply are unbaised. I shall now rephrase your above statement, “Those who believe in evolution and long ages ensure that anything they produce is so biased that they cannot be relied on.” Why can I use the same phrase for you guys? Simple: I have found that in almost all evolutionary technical articles where chronologies are invoked such ages are always worked into the framework of evolutionary ages of millions of years. Such is the nature of academic discipline.

Anyone who challenges the “Twin Sacred Cows” of evolution of life from non-life or the long ages required must immediately be put down in any way possible wilthout doing the lab work or other experimental research to check out the anomalous data. It is no less than a system of faith just as rigid as ICR or AIG. Only with AIG and ICR they are using the same available techniques as everyone else and getting different answers.

Why don’t your associates collect samples from the relatively recent New Zealand and Mt St. Helens volcanic eruptions and use the same methods to see what the labs report Better still why don’t the two sides come together, agree on what samples to date and perform double blind studies? Fat chance.

Case in point:

Scientists like Dr. Andrew Snelling who I think performed his research at ICR and who you criticize above has replied to the attacks on this thread regarding the dating of the volcanism in New Zealand as follows: ***Quite frankly, the comments from this gentleman are downright rude! They suggest that both the laboratory and myself are incapable of observing in my rock samples the xenoliths. I definitely saw the xenoliths in the samples, studying them in thin sections, and I made sure the portions of the samples that were sent to the lab for the K-Ar analyses were as free of xenoliths as possible. In any case, the samples were dated at a reputable laboratory where the scientist in charge at the time would have taken great care to avoid including xenoliths in the analyses, knowing full well that they could potentially produce spurious results. ***

---

Therefore any suggestion that we mistakenly included xenoliths in the K-Ar analyses, which thus supposedly produced the anomalous results, is insulting. Because of the care that was taken we know for sure that the anomalous K-Ar dates are due to inherited radiogenic argon in the andesite included in the lavas when they erupted, thus producing the spurious dates when interpretation of the analyses is based on assuming all the argon was derived by radioactive decay of potassium in situ since the eruptions.

Of course, this underlines the problems with all K-Ar dating. If we know that there is anomalous inherited argon in lavas of known ages, then how can we be sure that the radiogenic argon that we measure in ancient lava flows of unknown ages is also due to inheritance in the lavas when they erupted, rather than representing the true ages of the lavas? ***

 

[rossum]

Regarding Guy Berthault’s lab and flume studies and the above scientists and what they and he observed. Such phenomenon also can be seen in field studies. The reality of a massive flood in a western USA river and by Walthur in the Bay of Naples was referenced by Guy Berthault but which Henke et al. ignore. Why because the above date challenges Lyell’s and modern uniformitarian assumptions.

I have no problem with Dr Berthault’s work being applied where relevant. Unfortunately Dr Berthault tries to apply it where it is not relevant and that leads him into error.

ICR and AIG: Uhm! the same can be said for the folks you like to quote which you imply are unbaised.

Please indicate any academic institution where members are required to sign a Darwinian “Declaration of Faith” which requires them to ignore inconvenient evidence. AiG has one, now you show me one from the other side. For starters, where did Dr Berthault do his research?

Scientists like Dr. Andrew Snelling who I think performed his research at ICR and who you criticize above has replied to the attacks on this thread regarding the dating of the volcanism in New Zealand as follows: ***Quite frankly, the comments from this gentleman are downright rude! They suggest that both the laboratory and myself are incapable of observing in my rock samples the xenoliths. I definitely saw the xenoliths in the samples, studying them in thin sections, and I made sure the portions of the samples that were sent to the lab for the K-Ar analyses were as free of xenoliths as possible. In any case, the samples were dated at a reputable laboratory where the scientist in charge at the time would have taken great care to avoid including xenoliths in the analyses, knowing full well that they could potentially produce spurious results. ***

The problem was not only xenoliths, it was that Dr Snelling was using a completely inappropriate dating method. The laboratory he used said that its equipment cound not distinguish K/Ar dates less than 2 million years old and yet Dr Snelling gave it a young sample to date. That is not good science, it is awful science and deserves all the criticism it received. The numbers he got are more a reflection of the dating lab’s equipment than the actual date of the rocks.

YECs are frantically flailing around looking for something, anything, to justify their ludicrously short timescale for the age of the Earth. Since they do not have enough faith in their Biblical interpretation to let it stand on its own, they look for outside support in science. They can find no good science to back them up, so they are reduced to using junk science is a feeble attempt to prop up their theologically and scientifically failed position.

rossum

 

[Philipp]

May I respectfully point out that a basic course in genetics cannot explain the true, fully complete human nature. Genetics, being science, is limited to the material/physical realm. It cannot address the supernatural, immaterial, immortal, eternal, spiritual soul. It is important to realize that human nature is a unique unification of rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul and body destined for complete happiness with God, the lone Creator.

It is your free will choice to deny the reality of Adam and Eve. But then, what do you do about people who have the same nature as Adam and Eve. Do you also deny their existence?

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

Pity the poor souls that take the genetic courses recommended by the Saint. They will never hear Dr. Giertych’s rebuttal to Rossum which I post here:

I am not a medical man, so the details of the manner in which cholesterol kills are too far from my speciality to comment. But I have a question. On what basis do the discoverers of this variant claim that it is a mutation? Are the parents of the people with this variant devoid of it? There is variation in nature, lots of it. An unknown so far variant was found. So what? We keep on finding new species all the time and variants within species. Is lack of this variant ‘evidence’ for a negative [or positive] mutation? This did not come from research on induced mutations. Induced mutations are negative or neutral. No positive ones were found. I stand by my statement. Maciej Giertych I added the phrase [or positive] in brackets.

Neither will they hear the discoveries of Dr. John Sanford of Cornell UN or another geneticist in Cincinnati; the one in Cincinnati was unaware of Dr. Sanford.

Dr. Saanford told this story: One of the leading evolutionist’s replied to his book when provided a copy by saying something like: I’m sure we will find the mechanism of how evolution works. I heard and viewed Dr. Sanford’s power point presentation last October. So much for the science of genetics and proof that underminds what the church has taught for almost 2000 years.

 

[Philipp]

Dr. Giertych is incorrect. The Apolipoprotein A-I Milano helps prevent heart disease, see A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients.

The HbC mutation increases resistance to malaria.

Both of these are positive mutations. I would also point to your own previous post in this thread where you quote Dr Seiler on the advantages of a mutation by which insects on islands lose their wings. Another example of a positive mutation from one of your previous posts.

As I said, Dr. Giertych is incorrect.

rossum

Students will never hear Dr. Giertych’s rebuttal to Rossum’s claims [or others] which I post here:

I am not a medical man, so the details of the manner in which cholesterol kills are too far from my speciality to comment. But I have a question. On what basis do the discoverers of this variant claim that it is a mutation? Are the parents of the people with this variant devoid of it? There is variation in nature, lots of it. An unknown so far variant was found. So what? We keep on finding new species all the time and variants within species. Is lack of this variant ‘evidence’ for a negative [or positive] mutation? This did not come from research on induced mutations. Induced mutations are negative or neutral. No positive ones were found. I stand by my statement. Maciej Giertych I added the phrase [or positive] in brackets.

Neither will they hear the discoveries of Dr. John Sanford of Cornell UN or another geneticist in Cincinnati; the one in Cincinnati was unaware of Dr. Sanford.

Dr. Sanford told this story: One of the leading evolutionist’s replied to his book when provided a copy by saying something like: I’m sure we will find the mechanism of how evolution works. I heard and viewed Dr. Sanford’s power point presentation last October. So much for the science of genetics and proof that undermines what the church has taught for almost 2000 years.

 

[itinerant1]

Because it will show you the evidence that points to a designing intelligence. The philosophers can determine what or who the designer is.

I think you missed my point completely. Design according to the ID theory is misunderstood. It is philosophically confused. Evidence that points to a designing intelligence cannot be scientific evidence. Cardinal Schonborn has made that clear. Furthermore, ID theory is confused as to the nature of design itself, as I said, ID theory confuses design with finality. My posts weren’t fer nothin’.

 

[itinerant1]

No doubt you have been turned off by YEC folks, maybe even ID folks who can’t explain their position clearly, or to your satisfaction.

From the other side, there are obviously some as well who can’t explain their side of things. That by itself doesn’t mean that your side is wrong.

But SITC is generally considered to be a well explained, well researched, well documented exposition of why ID is the best explanation of how life arose from muck. It doesn’t say that “X didn’t happen, this did”.

I’m one of those who can’t explain things to your satisfaction, so shame on me. I’m not very smart. But it seems to me that if you really want to know this side of things, that you’d want to read the best material available. Even if ricmat is wrong, it doesn’t make ID wrong.

Well, in the interest in giving ID more than a fair hearing, first of all, what is SITC? Did you explain what SITC is in a previous post? If not, one should not just drop acronyms and expect everyone to know what they refer to.