The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[ricmat]

Seriously?

Do all of you just ignore me when I explain the very important facts that:

A) C-14 dating works only on organic material
B) C-14 dating works only for something between approx 5 and 60k years old.

After explaining, in detail, exactly why these things are true, you guys continue to talk about people dating rocks and fossils and other inorganic material. Why?

I haven’t been following the C14 discussion, but I have this question (which may have been answered already, if so, sorry).

If starting out you need to know how old it is in order to “date” it, doesn’t that make the whole dating process a self-fulfilling prophecy?

And a related question. If other types of dating mechanisms only work on things millions of years old, how do you know “from the start” that they are millions of years old? Don’t you need a whole bunch of samples that you already know the age of, in order to calibrate the whole test process?

With C14 there is probably a database of samples which go back a couple thousand years (e.g. parchments from ancient Egypt which include some reference to the actual date). So C14 dating back a few thousand years seems plausible. But beyond that…?

It seems to me that the whole dating thing would be highly speculative, regardless of the method used, beyond a few thousand years.

Note: I’m not a YEC’r.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1, I assume you make a distinction between “Creationist I” (which all of us monotheists are) and “Creationist II” (the anti-scientific perspective of YECs and IDers).

StAnastasia

That is correct, which is why granny’s response to my post was irrelvant in regard to my intended meaning of “creationist.”

The game in this thread of equivocating on “creationist” gets tiring.

 

[grannymh]

That is correct, which is why granny’s response to my post was irrelvant in regard to my intended meaning of “creationist.”

The game in this thread of equivocating on “creationist” gets tiring.

Only because of silly statements. Plus the Saint forgot “creationist III” which are those monotheists and some interesting others who follow Matthew Fox.

Then there is creationist IV for the pantheists who are polytheists who love polygenism and pancakes. Yes, you are right “creationist” does get tiring. All these labels.

FYI granny is never irrelevant, only wise beyond her years.

Unnecessary problems occur when verbiage becomes a weapon instead of an important element of the solution.

 

[Farsight001]

If starting out you need to know how old it is in order to “date” it, doesn’t that make the whole dating process a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Well, you don’t need to know the age. You need the general age - somewhere between 5 and 60k years old - or you will get false results because there either hasn’t been enough decay, or there has been too much.

And a related question. If other types of dating mechanisms only work on things millions of years old, how do you know “from the start” that they are millions of years old?

There are several types of dating methods. Radio-carbon dating is the most popular because it can turn out the most precise ages, other than tree ring dating, but tree ring dating only works on trees. But there are dozens, if not hundreds of other methods for providing a general age of an object and we can use those to narrow it down and tell us which radiocarbon method to use.

With C14 there is probably a database of samples which go back a couple thousand years (e.g. parchments from ancient Egypt which include some reference to the actual date). So C14 dating back a few thousand years seems plausible. But beyond that…?

Well, again, C-14 isn’t going to work on an object unless it is at least 5000 years old. I must admit here, that I do not know too much about other dating methods. Some of them are historical or archaeological in nature and so not something I know much about.

 

[StAnastasia]

That is correct, which is why granny’s response to my post was irrelvant in regard to my intended meaning of “creationist.”
The game in this thread of equivocating on “creationist” gets tiring.

I was visiting the Answers-in-Genesis website and noticed that they have a planetarium show bringing the viewer to stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away. How is that possible on the presuppositions of a universe that is only 6,000 years old? (Perhaps they claim the speed of light changed.)

 

[itinerant1]

ID and evo both come down to probabilities. ID is calculating the odds of design. That my friend is scientific.

That merely begs the question. There remains unaddressed in your post the objection that “intelligent design”, as conceived by the ID movement, is not even a scientific concept. If it is not a scientific notion, but rather a philosophical concept, however confused by ID theorists, then science itself, by its very nature, is incapable of providing “odds for design.”

Furthermore, if we grant for the sake of argument, that the odds for “intelligent design” could be calculated, that calculation, as any calculation regarding probabilities, cannot suffice as a conclusive proof. It remains only probable, a probability that itself is highly contingent on currently known facts and their interpretations.

Furthermore, if a mathematical demonstration of “intelligent design” was possible, at least in theory, which I think that it is not, it would remain inconclusive based on Godel’s incompleteness theorem for all none-trivial mathematical expressions.

In addition, if one grants that an organism is “intelligently designed” it does not necessarily follow that ID’s explanation of that design is correct, as the designed organism may have originated by means of secondary causes in such a manner that is not consistent with or admissible to ID theorists.

And, you have claimed that your “IDvolution” is not “creationist.” However, you made that claim right after I posed objections to it based on your notion of “kinds”, to which you have yet to respond. Perhaps, the objection is fatal to your idea and therefore you chose to ignore it.

Even more important is the question, “How long ago did God supposedly “breathe” all of this genetic info into the “kinds””?

Unless you can adequately address these and other questions and objections to your idea, then you have no logical grounds or other justification for that which you continue to claim; and as a direct consequence of this, your ideas deserve no credence. You have effectively undercut your own position.

 

[itinerant1]

I was visiting the Answers-in-Genesis website and noticed that they have a planetarium show bringing the viewer to stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away. How is that possible on the presuppositions of a universe that is only 6,000 years old? (Perhaps they claim the speed of light changed.)

A fundamentalist minister explained that to me one time. God created the light from distant galaxies already reaching the earth when the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

It is the young universe created to appear as an old universe trick that God pulled during Creation Week. It’s a much more impressive trick than pulling a rabbit out of a hat, don’t you think?

The real Creation act by God manifests infinite wisdom and power. The fundamentalist God isn’t near as smart or powerful – “Ignore that man behind the curtain.” (Wizard of Oz)

 

[grannymh]

That merely begs the question. There remains unaddressed in your post the objection that “intelligent design”, as conceived by the ID movement, is not even a scientific concept. If it is not a scientific notion, but rather a philosophical concept, however confused by ID theorists, then science itself, by its very nature, is incapable of providing “odds for design.”

Furthermore, if we grant for the sake of argument, that the odds for “intelligent design” could be calculated, that calculation, as any calculation regarding probabilities, cannot suffice as a conclusive proof. It remains only probable, a probability that itself is highly contingent on currently known facts and their interpretations.

Furthermore, if a mathematical demonstration of “intelligent design” was possible, at least in theory, which I think that it is not, it would remain inconclusive based on Godel’s incompleteness theorem for all none-trivial mathematical expressions.

In addition, if one grants that an organism is “intelligently designed” it does not necessarily follow that ID’s explanation of that design is correct, as the designed organism may have originated by means of secondary causes in such a manner that is not consistent with or admissible to ID theorists.

And, you have claimed that your “IDvolution” is not “creationist.” However, you made that claim right after I posed objections to it based on your notion of “kinds”, to which you have yet to respond. Perhaps, the objection is fatal to your idea and therefore you chose to ignore it.

Even more important is the question, “How long ago did God supposedly “breathe” all of this genetic info into the “kinds””?

Unless you can adequately address these and other questions and objections to your idea, then you have no logical grounds or other justification for that which you continue to claim; and as a direct consequence of this, your ideas deserve no credence. You have effectively undercut your own position.

If you like scientific odds, you might enjoy the 151 page book,* Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God* by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker ISBN: 978-1-931018-48-7

Though I should mention that one of the CAF posters robustly disputed the book’s information and position.

 

[edwest2]

So, let me see if I understand this:

God could do things from Column A but could not do things from Column B?

Why couldn’t God bring distant light into proximity to the earth instantly? Unless someone can show me a peer reviewed scientific paper analyzing the claims of Genesis, it seems all of this is mostly speculation, especially as it compares to what Jesus could do.

God bless,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

So, let me see if I understand this:

God could do things from Column A but could not do things from Column B?

Why couldn’t God bring distant light into proximity to the earth instantly?

You argument is totally without merit.

What God “could” do is irrelvant to the discussion. A man can spin off any kind of wild theory and then claim it must be so because God is capable of doing things the way so imagined. However, the illogic and hubris is glaring.

Furthermore, the claim of Protestant fundamentalists, and certain Catholic followers of their ideas, that God recently created the universe as an old appearing universe, makes God out to be a trickster.

Furthermore, there is no sound reason for God’s to create a universe that is an intrinsically chronological paradox. God is also Reason, and creates according to His Reason.

Unless someone can show me a peer reviewed scientific paper analyzing the claims of Genesis, it seems all of this is mostly speculation, especially as it compares to what Jesus could do.

Genesis does not teach science, nor does it “teach” its pre-scientific cosmology, which was common to the sacred writers and audiences of Genesis. The claim for a young universe is based on a superficial and false reading of Genesis. This was explained in the excerpt by Dr. Ludwig Ott in one of my previous posts.

Scientific journals will not debate the pre-scientific notions in *Genesis. *However, science has already proven that the earth is not flat; that there is no solid firmament; that the earth does not rest on a body of suspended water; that rainwater is not stored above the firmament; that the earth is not stationary, and other such pre-scientific notions found in the Old Testament.

As Cardinal Schonborn said “A 6,000 year old earth is nonsense.” That is the bottom line. A discussion thread about the fundamentalists’ unrealistic view of the world and the Bible is literally a discussion about nonsensical ideas. It belittles God and Jesus to drag them into a discussion about nonsensical ideas, as you so frequently do.

Ludwig Ott, in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *explains the Catholic position. So, next time you imagine there is something Catholic in your “creationist” views, recall what Ott has said.

 

[Philipp]

You argument is totally without merit.

What God “could” do is irrelvant to the discussion. A man can spin off any kind of wild theory and then claim it must be so because God is capable of doing things the way so imagined. However, the illogic and hubris is glaring.

Furthermore, the claim of Protestant fundamentalists, and certain Catholic followers of their ideas, that God recently created the universe as an old appearing universe, makes God out to be a trickster.

Furthermore, there is no sound reason for God’s to create a universe that is an intrinsically chronological paradox. God is also Reason, and creates according to His Reason.

Genesis does not teach science, nor does it “teach” its pre-scientific cosmology, which was common to the sacred writers and audiences of Genesis. The claim for a young universe is based on a superficial and false reading of Genesis. This was explained in the excerpt by Dr. Ludwig Ott in one of my previous posts.

Scientific journals will not debate the pre-scientific notions in *Genesis. *However, science has already proven that the earth is not flat; that there is no solid firmament; that the earth does not rest on a body of suspended water; that rainwater is not stored above the firmament; that the earth is not stationary, and other such pre-scientific notions found in the Old Testament.

As Cardinal Schonborn said “A 6,000 year old earth is nonsense.” That is the bottom line. A discussion thread about the fundamentalists’ unrealistic view of the world and the Bible is literally a discussion about nonsensical ideas. It belittles God and Jesus to drag them into a discussion about nonsensical ideas, as you so frequently do.

Ludwig Ott, in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *explains the Catholic position. So, next time you imagine there is something Catholic in your “creationist” views, recall what Ott has said.

Scientific research in the past 50 years has moved more towards earth catastrophism than at any time in the past 200 years.

Evidence of rapid formation of the sedimentary strata within the period when the sediments were deposited is trending away from a uniformatarian slow 2 cm/1000 year type of rates.

This is supported by:

Parallel sedimentary rock layers
Uniform thickness in many layers
Absence of vertical erosion cuts
Meteorites only in topmost layer
Absence of vegetation or toposil between layers
Polystrate fossils

More and more people are realizing that evolution of life from stars and rocks is more like a fairy tale than anything that scripture has to say.

As more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia the more resentment there will be.

 

[itinerant1]

Scientific research in the past 50 years has moved more towards earth catastrophism than at any time in the past 200 years.

Evidence of rapid formation of the sedimentary strata within the period when the sediments were deposited is trending away from a uniformatarian slow 2 cm/1000 year type of rates.

This is supported by:

Parallel sedimentary rock layers
Uniform thickness in many layers
Absence of vertical erosion cuts
Meteorites only in topmost layer
Absence of vegetation or toposil between layers
Polystrate fossils

More and more people are realizing that evolution of life from stars and rocks is more like a fairy tale than anything that scripture has to say.

As more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia the more resentment there will be.

It does not take much background in geology to see how questionable are so many of your claims, including the ones you stated above. This strongly suggests that your judgements in scientific matters are motivated more by a non-scientific agenda rather than by an objective consideration of physical data.

Regardless of what you may think about my stated observation, you have presented dubious “scientific” arguments for your position. So the situation dictates that I go with the best evidence in regard to the actual ancient age (and not the creationists’ fictitious age) of the earth and the universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

More and more people are realizing that evolution of life from stars and rocks is more like a fairy tale than anything that scripture has to say. As more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia the more resentment there will be.

Sorry Philipp – you must not know many college educated people; the “more and more people” you speak of simply don’t exist. I work with many academics, and with Catholic parishioners in numerous regions around the US. I’ve never met or even heard of these “more and more people” before logging onto Catholic Answers. I fear you are trapped behind the one-way mirrors of your YEC imagination!

 

[grannymh]

And, you have claimed that your “IDvolution” is not “creationist.”

What is the Thomistic philosophy regarding the earth?

Seriously, you have referred to “causes” in metaphysics in snippets. It is time that you explain firmly the Thomistic philosophy concerning the earth. If you wish, add in age.

Thank you in advance for your response.

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[StAnastasia]

As more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia the more resentment there will be.

Philipp, I’ve been reflecting on why there is no evidence for your claim of “more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia.” This morning I opened the paper to find a front page article on the work being done by cladistic scientists at the California Academy of Sciences, who traced the common ancestry of shrews and elephants more than 100 million yea5rs ago.

This article is one of thousands that appear in newspapers daily, reflecting the tens of thousands of research articles appearing annually in professional science publications. If YEC and catastrophist flood geology were true, shouldn’t we be seeing thousands of articles daily in mainstream newspapers on your subject? I would expect to see scientific analyses of:

the biological diversity of the garden of Eden
the duration of the pre-Fall ecology
proposed migration routes of humans out of Eden
post-diluvial water recession patterns
diluvial dynamics and the possible route of the ark
the speed of speciation after Noah’s Flood
the NACL content of the salt pillar that had been Lot’s wife

The interesting thing is that I never see such articles in the press. Is this because no one believes this stuff, or (2) no one is trained to conduct YEC science, or newspapers are more interested in Miley Cyrus’ dancing than in diluvial water recession?

Curiously,
StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

I would expect to see scientific analyses of:

the biological diversity of the garden of Eden
the duration of the pre-Fall ecology
proposed migration routes of humans out of Eden
post-diluvial water recession patterns
diluvial dynamics and the possible route of the ark
the speed of speciation after Noah’s Flood
the NACL content of the salt pillar that had been Lot’s wife

Curiously,
StAnastasia

With the possible exception of the last two items, the presented list has been treated in either books by Charles Darwin and his followers or in research papers presented at conferences and published in professional science journals. Number three was part of a TV special. One just needs to translate the above items into scientific jargon. For example, number three is the “Out of Africa” theory.

Easter Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Philipp]

Scientific research in the past 50 years has moved more towards earth catastrophism than at any time in the past 200 years.

Evidence of rapid formation of the sedimentary strata within the period when the sediments were deposited is trending away from a uniformatarian slow 2 cm/1000 year type of rates.

This is supported by:

Parallel sedimentary rock layers
Uniform thickness in many layers
Absence of vertical erosion cuts
Meteorites only in topmost layer
Absence of vegetation or toposil between layers
Polystrate fossils

More and more people are realizing that evolution of life from stars and rocks is more like a fairy tale than anything that scripture has to say.

As more and more people realize that they have been hoodwinked by academia the more resentment there will be.

ITINERANT REPLIED: It does not take much background in geology to see how questionable are so many of your claims, including the ones you stated above. This strongly suggests that your judgements in scientific matters are motivated more by a non-scientific agenda rather than by an objective consideration of physical data.

Regardless of what you may think about my stated observation, you have presented dubious “scientific” arguments for your position. So the situation dictates that I go with the best evidence in regard to the actual ancient age (and not the creationists’ fictitious age) of the earth and the universe.
Yesterday 7:01 pm

ITINERANT says: "Dubious “scientific” arguments. I say don’t be too sure!

Let’s review what is observed in the field by paleontologist Joe Taylor and two major evolutionary paleontologists:

JOE TAYLOR SAYS: ***The buffalo appear to have died naturally, been scavenged, and then buried in low places by slow but steady rains. The dinosaurs appear to have been buried rapidly, in vast layers of mud that appears to have lacked oxygen which would have decayed all flesh and soft tissue inside the bones.

Paleontologists have insisted all along that dinosaurs died natural deaths, were subjected to scavenging by fierce meat eating dinosaurs and laid on the surface for long periods of time and were buried as a result of local rains. These are contradictory to explaining why there are so many well-preserved dinosaur bones, much less why so many articulated skulls and jaws; and certainly not mummies!
Joe Taylor
Mt. Blanco Fossil Research studies. ***.,._

Dr. John Horner: “We have discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs…There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area, but a catastrophic inundation…We believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment” [Horner, John R…, Digging Dinosaurs, 1988, p. 131]

Dr. Robert Bakker, field paleontologist, in his book, The Dinosaur Heresies” (1986) argues against the consensus that “dinosaurs were plodding, dim-witted giant lizards too awkward and ill-equipped to survive the ravages of environmental change.” Rather he “depicts dinosaurs as never before imagined: hot-blooded, amazingly agile and surprisingly intelligent.” (Would God have created these critters any other way? Good logic, Bakker). What does he find in the field? Let him explain his field research on page 31: “Collagen has long since rotted away, along with all the muscle fibers and blood vessels. But the fossilized bone faithfully preserves the canals left by every capillary that made its passage through it to serve the dinosaur in life. These living cells, now gone left one other signature on this carcass. A black powder rubs into my gloves as I finger the bone chips. This powder is carbon dust mixes with granulated bone, the dried and distilled residue of all the cell membranes, cell fluids, and organelles who work within the bone was ended when the dinosaur died.” Now thanks to Horner and Schweitzer Collagen and even soft pliable tissue have been found and even C-14 dated by others — all great scientific research that challenges the accepted “consensus.”

And yes, there are huge graveyards of these dinosaurs (and many other different species) world-wide: Western USA, China, South America, and Africa. Why? Could the story in Genesis 1-11 be true that there was a world-wide flood whatever it’s called? The preponderance of evidence in the fossil record says YE. Over 100 asteroid or boloid impacts suggest YE. Over 200 different cultures in their traditions say YE. Most in Academia says NE. What an embarrassment

 

[Philipp]

CONTINUED

John Heffner, a math professor and a fossil hunter/digger like myself has shown that population genetic calculations using the accepted math formula {Biology, by Raven and Johnson, page 525) can trace the earth’s population of 6.5 billion people today back to Noah’s family of eight. Some factions of Academia (on this thread) have suggested that we descended from a group of 1000 to 3000 pairs of evolving hominids 100,000 to a few million years ago? Do the math; there aren’t that many electrons in the whole universe let alone people. We and Noah’s family obviously descended from one pair of humans and not so long ago, whether you wish to call them Adam and Eve or not.

JOE TAYLOR ALSO PERFORMED.AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT ----“about 15 years ago I was washing Triassic crocodile bones and Blancan horse bones in my kitchen sink. The residue mud from both was poured into a quart jar. The red clay from the Triassic mixed with the whitish gray clay from the Blancan to make a nice pink slurry. The Triassic is, by the evolutionary view, about 180 million years old, The Blancan about 30 million. Everywhere I have collected Triassic reptiles in these canyons in West Texas, they are overlaid by Pliocene or Pleistocene mammals. The contact between the two stratums is almost always flat, with no canyons between the layers. After 24 hours, a fine line began to form in the slurry, with Blancan mammal clay above Triassic red clay, just as they are found in the field. I conceived a test, which I haven’t made yet, of mixing Blancan mammal bones with Triassic bones and their respective matrixes and see if the bones sort into ‘mammal above, reptile below.’ The same clays could be used with recent reptiles and recent mammals to see if they follow the same pattern.”
Joe Taylor
Mt. Blanco Museum

What does the above experiment tell you? If you can’t figure it out then e-mail the above to your paleontology professors and let them do similar experiments. Most paleo guys don’t mind playing in the dirt.

I simply ask that these experiments be performed so that we all might learn from them as I did when I ran a similar experiment in five inch tall fruit jars back in 1990 with our youngest daughter for her school science exhibit. I was using a Guy Berthault experiment from his 1988 paper which I had come across in a University library. I simply obtained 60 and 320 mesh sand from a store: (1) Put about one inch each thick of the course and fine sands into the jars. (2) Added water almost to the top. (3) Attached the lid. (4) Shook vigorously and almost instantly the particles settled into two separate strata with the course on the bottom [apparently following the laws of mechancis and physics]. After shaking the jar contents many times we noticed that more fines were produced from erosional contact and they took a lot longer to fall out—even up to 24 hours before the solution was again clear.

Joe Taylor’s red and grey clay particles from the West Texas red and grey clays took over 24 hours to segregate so they must have been very fine in size and perhaps were produced by vigorous water movement as they eroded each other down to such tiny sizes. Your paleontology professors can use the following references to guide their lab and flume experiments.

Berthault, G. 1988. Sedimentation of a heterogranular mixture, experimental lamination in still and running water. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sci¬ences, Serie II 306:717–724.

Berthault, G. 2002-a. Geological dating principles questioned. Paleohydraulics: A new approach. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics 22 (3): 19-26 China.
Berthault, G. 2002-b. Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data. Lithology and Mineral Resources, vol. 39. No. 5, Vol. 37, No 5, 2002, pp. 509-515.
Berthault, G. 2004. Sedimentological interpretation of the Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River) Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Lithology and Mineral Resources, vol. 39. No. 5,
Fineberg, J. 1997. From Cinderella’s dilem¬ma to rock slides. Nature 386:323–324.

Flood, R. 1981. University professors probe Flood geology. Moody Monthly 81(5):96–98.

Julien, P.Y., Y. Lan, and G. Berthault. 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 164(5):649–660.

Lalomov, A.V. 2001. Flood geology of the Crimean Peninsula, Part I: Tavrick For¬mation. CRSQ 38(3):118–124.

Makse, H.A., S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley. 1997. Spontaneous strati¬fication in granular mixtures. Nature 386:379–382.

McKee E.D., E.J. Crosby, and H.L. Berry¬hill. 1967. Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965. Journal Sedimen¬tary Petrology 37:829–851.

Juergen Schieber and John B. Southard, “Bedload transport of mud by floccule ripples—Direct observation of ripple migration processes and their implications”, Geology, June 2009, v. 37, no. 6, p. 483-486, doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.

Juergen Schieber, John B. Southard, Kevin Thaisen,“Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating floccule ripples", Science, 14 Dec. 2007, v. 318, no. 5857 p. 1760-1763

 

[StAnastasia]

With the possible exception of the last two items, the presented list has been treated in either books by Charles Darwin and his followers or in research papers presented at conferences and published in professional science journals. Number three was part of a TV special. One just needs to translate the above items into scientific jargon. For example, number three is the “Out of Africa” theory. Easter Blessings,
grannyHuman life is worthy of profound respect.

No granny, these subject are not discussed in science literature, because scientists and theologians recognize a literal interpretation of the Bible as nonsensical.

 

[StAnastasia]

I simply ask that these experiments be performed so that we all might learn from them as I did when I ran a similar experiment in five inch tall fruit jars back in 1990 with our youngest daughter for her school science exhibit.

Playing with fruit jars in your kitchen does not constitute science. No wonder your experiment wasn’t reported in Nature or Science.