Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

I don't think it is a false accusation this time. I think you raise the issue of qualifications (which you obviously took no time to check out) solely because you disagreed with their point of view. That knee-jerk reaction says much more about you than about them.

I considered carefully all the qualifications and found that they lacked the criteria you insisted on. That is a plain and simple oversight on YOUR part not mine and has nothing at all to do with oversight. Consider this, many times you and I have talked about differing ideas between the scholars on certain issues. I have in every one expressed not only an understanding of the controversy but also an acceptance that we simply don't know, there is not a concenses in the scholars on the topic. Do you think that I am talking about everyone who calls themselves a scholar? or do you think that I am referring to those people whose expertise and choosen field of study is that of the area we are disscussing? You like to accuse me of knee jerk reactions when they don't exist. My only knee jerk reactions are comments about our stubbornness and difficulty. In fact, I am one of the least knee jerk arguers I have ever known. But when you put forth a criteria that I must adher too and then go off and site anyone you want to dispite that criteria, I have a problem. It isn't a knee jerk problem it is a problem with fair and balanced communication. Any you don't show any in this situation. I love knowing what the scholars of different fields have to say, in fact, though it weakened your case it was interesting to see these two opinions in particular 1. it is both and 2. it does not conflict with the beliefs of the denomination. The problem here is that you haven't made your case with or without the criteria you insisted on. When I point that out to you, instead of understanding that and working within the criteria, you try to make me out to be insulting the scholars. If someone came up to me and called me an expert in the field of medicine because I could put a bandaid on my son's knee, it would offend me. That is what you are doing here, you are offending the scholars because you refuse to accept that they put thier time and energy into a field that they chose. Deal with it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Please assume that I am and answer the question.

So, in relation to these tests, what are the particular variables scientists are not accounting for?

read my fingers (lips) the things that we still don't know. Now I have said it about a dozen times and showed sites that show some of the variables that need to be considered and you still ask me the question. Either you aren't listening or you aren't phrasing the question the way you want it answered. The variables are all the things we don't yet know.

 

[razzelflabben]

Actually, it is neither the age of the light nor the age of the earth that is relevant here, but the age of the star. I raised stars as an example of things with appearance of age.

My assertion is that the apparent age of the star is not explained by being necessary to support life on earth. (Nor are stars beyond the range of unaided sight necesssary for measuring times and seasons). So why, in a young-earth scenario do we see such old-appearing stars?

How is it that we measure the stars? Did we fly to this star and I missed the news report? What we still are measuring is the light not the star not the earth, the light. so how old is light? where does it come from? These are questions that the measurements should help us identify.

 

[razzelflabben]

If it is a viable hypothesis with some evidence to support it, somebody (not necessarily you personally) can present it in an appropriate scientific forum. Until that happens, why should you expect it to be taken seriously in any scientific discussion even on this board?

and as demonstrated time and time and time again, that simply ain't gonna happen. All kinds of valid ideas are discarded here as well as in the scientific community only to resurface later as someone elses idea and therefore suddenly valid.

We have established that scientists derived their opinion of the age of the crater from the tests they used to determine its age.

Now, some young-earth creationists want to say, that is not real age, it is only apparent age. Where do these yecs get the idea from that it looks old at all? Did they run tests on the crater too and also get results of 65 million years?

You will have to ask them. In playing the devil's advocate you don't have to know and understand all the intricacies of a belief, only the general. In otherwords, every individual will have their own beliefs that vary from person to person and theory to theory. I don't have to know and understand each and every one of them in order to understand and argue the general theory. In the case of the meteor, it isn't necessary to accept it's "apparent age" in order to argue for yec.

 

[razzelflabben]

So assume that you are the doctor. What do you tell a patient about their blood sugar when 19 tests say it is within acceptable limits but one says it is way too high?

I don't really care what your bias is. I just want to know what you will tell the patient.

wouldn't that fit under the category of personal opinion and belief? A topic to told you up front I wouldn't get into since every time I have discussed it with you, you treated it as if it didn't exist so that you could accuse me of things like knee jerk responses, and my beliefs not allowing me to see the evidence.

The evidence shows that the bias can and does affect the dr.s response that is all I need do.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. I said the accusation of bias had to include a who and a what. Now we have the who---the [scientific] community as a whole.

And an intimation of the what.



So let's get specific about the what. What is the evidence the scientific community is allegedly refusing to accept?



And what actual scientific experiments and calculations are you referring to?

done several times with referenced sites for evidence. And just today summaized it for you

 

[Gottservant]

[...]

I would also say that faith does not give us a right to invent things about God that allow us to wrap our minds around him.

[...]

You concerns about fanciful invention of detail out of desperation instead of faith is noted, however, I am not limited to invention to make my point, I am also able to use rhetoric:

What good is worshipping a God who is not alone (next to nothing) in the beginning and without parallel in the end?

What demonstration of power is it for the most powerful being in the universe if He does not create something from nothing but simply something from something else?

What hope of life through God is there if there is no comprehension of nothing that that which separates us from God in sin should become nothing?

Or do you want to worship the deep?

Or do you find comfort in the abyss?

Or do you think yourself stronger than God?

I will stop there but suffice it to say that I do not mean to say that you are necessarily glorifying yourself if you deny that God created something from nothing, but I rather wonder at your motivations. Certainly it is a difficult question - "how can one person have so much power?" - not made easier by the fact that we were once in darkness and without comprehension ourselves. Perhaps if it were any less difficult to answer we would be that much less in awe of Him.

 

[gluadys]

I considered carefully all the qualifications and found that they lacked the criteria you insisted on.

I would be surprised if you so much as did a google search.

In any case where do you get the expertise to make such a judgment? Do you know biblical Hebrew? Did you teach these people? Did you mark their papers? Did you study under them? Did you interview them for their positions? Did you review the articles they submitted for publication?

Have you even read anything they wrote other than what I provided?

Have you researched the reception they have received in the community of biblical scholars? Do you know how often their work has been reviewed in published papers and how often it has been cited or at least referenced in other publications?

You want to demonstrate that they are incompetent, go find out from the people who know their work. Find a person you respect who has reviewed their work and publicly dismissed it on the grounds they were speaking outside their field of expertise.

Or stop talking through your hat.

 

[gluadys]

read my fingers (lips) the things that we still don't know. Now I have said it about a dozen times and showed sites that show some of the variables that need to be considered and you still ask me the question. Either you aren't listening or you aren't phrasing the question the way you want it answered. The variables are all the things we don't yet know.

"Variables" are things that change. We know plenty of variables. To use the word as a synonym for "what we don't know" is to misuse the term. That is not what it means.

In any case that just takes us back to the question posed earlier. How does what we don't know invalidate what we do know? How does it make what we do know less accurate than claimed?

If I have a ruler marked off in inches, I can tell to the nearest inch how long a piece of string is, for example, I can tell it is more than 5 inches but less than 6 inches. But I can only guess at whether it is closer to 5 1/4 or 5 3/4 inches.

If I get a ruler marked in 1/4 inches, I can now get a more accurate measurement. But that doesn't mean my first measurement was wrong. Getting a better ruler doesn't mean the string grew to 9 inches or shrunk to 3 inches.

The tests we are most interested in here are those that test for age. Sure there are things about testing for age we don't know yet. But we know enough to be sure of which ballpark our numbers are in. Discovering new variables can make our current estimates more accurate, but they won't lead to scrapping them all together.

Unless you have something in mind that would do that.

What would that be?

 

[gluadys]

How is it that we measure the stars? Did we fly to this star and I missed the news report?

You mean to say you honestly didn't know that scientists measure stars? They can tell you what a star weighs, what its external and internal temperature is, what elements it is made of, how long it has been active and how long it will continue to be active before it goes out. And, in some cases, whether it has planets around it.

A basic book on astronomy will tell you how they do it.

What we still are measuring is the light not the star not the earth, the light. so how old is light? where does it come from? These are questions that the measurements should help us identify.

Remember, we got started on this because I presented stars as objects which appear very old, but do not qualify as necessary to supporting life. So the key question is, how old is the star.

Light comes into it, because a star must be at least as old as the light we see coming from it.

But how do we know how old that light is?

We know that from measuring the distance from the star to the earth.

How does measuring the distance the light travels give us its age?

Through the simple formula distance/speed=time.

We know how far the light travelled. We know the speed it travelled. So we know how long it was travelling to get from the star to us. The star has to be at least that old. In many cases it is older, much older. But it cannot be younger, because then the light could not have reached us yet. It would still be somewhere between the star and us.

When we see Alpha Centauri today, we are seeing light that left the star 4 years ago. So the star had to be there 4 years ago to send the light.

When we saw Alpha Centauri 16 years ago, we were seeing light that left the star four years earlier than that--20 years ago. Someone viewing Alpha Centauri in 1688 would be seeing light that had left Alpha Centauri four years earlier in 1684. Someone viewing Alpha Centauri in 2567 BC would be seeing light that left Alpha Centauri in 2571 BC.

Because it takes four years for light to make the journey from Alpha Centauri to earth, whenever we have a recorded observation of that star, we know it must have been in existence four years earlier than the sighting---or there would not have been a sighting.

When Adam first saw Alpha Centauri, he was seeing light that left the star four years earlier. So the star had to be four years older than the day he first saw it.

Now Alpha Centauri is the star closest to us (except for the sun, of course). Every other star is farther away and it takes its light longer to get here. But the same basic principle applies.

If we know it takes 10,000 years for light to travel from star X to earth, we know that star is at least 10,000 years old. Maybe older, but not younger. And if we have a record of an observation of that star 5,000 years ago, we know it was at least 10,000 years old then and is now at least 15,000 years old.

And, of course, any light that has been around since before the creation of the stars is older still than the oldest star.

 

[gluadys]

In playing the devil's advocate you don't have to know and understand all the intricacies of a belief, only the general. In otherwords, every individual will have their own beliefs that vary from person to person and theory to theory. I don't have to know and understand each and every one of them in order to understand and argue the general theory. .

IOW you don't know and you don't care because it's not really your position and you haven't really researched it that far.

Fair enough.

In the case of the meteor, it isn't necessary to accept it's "apparent age" in order to argue for yec.

In general that's right, because yec doesn't stand or fall on the "appearance of age" argument. But when you set out to be a devil's advocate on this, you chose to defend it via the "appearance of age" argument.

And that means accepting the crater's appearance of age. That acceptance, that agreement that the crater (or a star or a fossil, etc.) appears old is the fundamental first premise of the appearance of age argument.

Once you reject that the item appears old, you have also renounced the appearance of age argument.

It is still possible to be a yec without that argument, but yec would then need to be defended on other terms.

 

[gluadys]

wouldn't that fit under the category of personal opinion and belief?

Not at all. It's a role play with you in the character of the doctor. The words you script for the doctor don't have to be what you personally believe.

Just tell us what you, in the role of the doctor, would tell the patient in this situation. The patient is expecting a diagnosis and you have to say something.

 

[gluadys]

done several times with referenced sites for evidence. And just today summaized it for you

If you expect to be taken seriously when you claim you have evidence, please point to the evidence. At the very least give the post number.

As far as I recall, you have not provided the requested evidence. You will note that I asked for specific evidence which the scientific community is allegedly refusing to accept.

What you have provided falls into two broad categories.

1. Situations in which there is scientific controversy because of incomplete and contradictory evidence.

2. General and vague references to "variables" which you now seem to define as "unknowns".

As far as 1 is concerned, it doesn't meet your description of bias as something which the whole scientific community is refusing to acknowledge. That controversies exist is readily acknowledged. And in controversies, the scientific is divided, not united, in how it interprets seemingly contradictory evidence. There is no wholesale rejetion of any evidence by the community as a whole.

And 2 is just too vague, especially if we are talking about unknowns. How can one possibly reject what is not known yet? Bias consists in rejecting what is known, not what is unknown.

So if you have any more specific example of scientific bias, I have not seen it yet.

 

[razzelflabben]

You concerns about fanciful invention of detail out of desperation instead of faith is noted, however, I am not limited to invention to make my point, I am also able to use rhetoric:

What good is worshipping a God who is not alone (next to nothing) in the beginning and without parallel in the end?

What demonstration of power is it for the most powerful being in the universe if He does not create something from nothing but simply something from something else?

What hope of life through God is there if there is no comprehension of nothing that that which separates us from God in sin should become nothing?

Or do you want to worship the deep?

Or do you find comfort in the abyss?

Or do you think yourself stronger than God?

I will stop there but suffice it to say that I do not mean to say that you are necessarily glorifying yourself if you deny that God created something from nothing, but I rather wonder at your motivations. Certainly it is a difficult question - "how can one person have so much power?" - not made easier by the fact that we were once in darkness and without comprehension ourselves. Perhaps if it were any less difficult to answer we would be that much less in awe of Him.

Where are you getting the idea that either God created the heavens and earth from nothing or He didn't create anything from nothing? This is what I am talking about when I spoke of creating God in an image we can wrap our brains around. consider this, it is biblically possible and hinted to that God created the angels before He created the heavens and earth. So what then would have stopped Him from also creating the elements necessary for the heavens and earth before the actual creation of them? The point is, the bible doesn't specify that the heavens and earth were created from nothing and so reading it into the text is creating an image of God that we can wrap our brains around rather than simply accepting God for who He is. Did He create something from nothing. Yep, that fits the general biblical understanding of God. Is the heavens and earth His first creative act? Possibly we don't know, but it seems unlikely given the bibles position on angels. Is the heaven and earth a creation of God's from nothing? don't know, can't say, will ask after I have worshiped Him about a million years after I get to glory.

 

[razzelflabben]

I would be surprised if you so much as did a google search.

In any case where do you get the expertise to make such a judgment? Do you know biblical Hebrew? Did you teach these people? Did you mark their papers? Did you study under them? Did you interview them for their positions? Did you review the articles they submitted for publication?

Have you even read anything they wrote other than what I provided?

Have you researched the reception they have received in the community of biblical scholars? Do you know how often their work has been reviewed in published papers and how often it has been cited or at least referenced in other publications?

You want to demonstrate that they are incompetent, go find out from the people who know their work. Find a person you respect who has reviewed their work and publicly dismissed it on the grounds they were speaking outside their field of expertise.

Or stop talking through your hat.

Gluady's I can't figure out what you are going on about. The experts you presented, primarily agree with the ones I presented, but rather than just simply accepting that you were wrong, you go off on some insane arguement that "my expert is bigger than your expert mentality" all the while belittling the work and education that goes into become an expert in any field. You insult the whole process of becoming an expert and scholar instead of appreciating it and admiring it and applauding it, and why, all because you are too stubborn and arrogant to accept that on the issue of framework, you can't eliminate chronology.

 

[razzelflabben]

"Variables" are things that change. We know plenty of variables. To use the word as a synonym for "what we don't know" is to misuse the term. That is not what it means.

In any case that just takes us back to the question posed earlier. How does what we don't know invalidate what we do know? How does it make what we do know less accurate than claimed?

If I have a ruler marked off in inches, I can tell to the nearest inch how long a piece of string is, for example, I can tell it is more than 5 inches but less than 6 inches. But I can only guess at whether it is closer to 5 1/4 or 5 3/4 inches.

If I get a ruler marked in 1/4 inches, I can now get a more accurate measurement. But that doesn't mean my first measurement was wrong. Getting a better ruler doesn't mean the string grew to 9 inches or shrunk to 3 inches.

The tests we are most interested in here are those that test for age. Sure there are things about testing for age we don't know yet. But we know enough to be sure of which ballpark our numbers are in. Discovering new variables can make our current estimates more accurate, but they won't lead to scrapping them all together.

Unless you have something in mind that would do that.

What would that be?

I am confident that you are intelligent enough to know that if the question is what are the variables, the answer will explain what the variables are rather than to provide a definition for variables.

Now, that said, your purposeful difficulty here, is getting unbareably old. Remember our ruler that is 1/4 inch off. We don't know that it is off and because we have nothing with a baseline for determining that it is indeed off by a 1/4 inch, we assume that it is accurate and start measuring. Along the way, we discover that using a ruler to measure over the mountains and in the valleys won't give us a real good answer because the ruler doesn't bend with the turrain, and so, we tell everyone we have taken that variable into account and keep measuring. In the end, we have a measure and every time we measure using the formula given for the variable we accept, we get the same answer, and thus we proclaim the measure to be truth. All the while, there is that pesking 1/4 that we didn't know existed and we didn't allow as a variable into our calculations that is staring us in the face, but we ignore it because we have already devised truth. That is the problem science has with variables, it ignores the things that we don't know in exchange for calling it truth.

Now, I asked a question on the other thread that got ignored, and it does apply to the discussion here, so instead of letting it slip away, I will ask it again. Who sets the laws of nature? How do we know what the laws of nature are? Who defined those laws for us? Answer these questions and much of this discussion can go away. Are you interested in knowing truth, or in arguing your point? Your answers will tell us all.

 

[razzelflabben]

You mean to say you honestly didn't know that scientists measure stars? They can tell you what a star weighs, what its external and internal temperature is, what elements it is made of, how long it has been active and how long it will continue to be active before it goes out. And, in some cases, whether it has planets around it.

this is the very kind of thing that drives me to laugh at you rather than to take you seriously. I present this question as a discussion of the inaccuracy of our formula, and present a referenced site about how stars are measured to show not only knowledge and understanding but evidence as well. You reply is an accusation of me not knowing that the stars are measured and then a lengthy lecture about how it is done. Never once did you consider my words, my point, or the referenced site, all in exchange for your arrogant assertion of superior thought. Boring Deal with the issues presented or don't but stop boring us to death with your insults and illusions of grandure.

A basic book on astronomy will tell you how they do it.



Remember, we got started on this because I presented stars as objects which appear very old, but do not qualify as necessary to supporting life. So the key question is, how old is the star.

Light comes into it, because a star must be at least as old as the light we see coming from it.

But how do we know how old that light is?

We know that from measuring the distance from the star to the earth.

How does measuring the distance the light travels give us its age?

Through the simple formula distance/speed=time.

We know how far the light travelled. We know the speed it travelled. So we know how long it was travelling to get from the star to us. The star has to be at least that old. In many cases it is older, much older. But it cannot be younger, because then the light could not have reached us yet. It would still be somewhere between the star and us.

When we see Alpha Centauri today, we are seeing light that left the star 4 years ago. So the star had to be there 4 years ago to send the light.

When we saw Alpha Centauri 16 years ago, we were seeing light that left the star four years earlier than that--20 years ago. Someone viewing Alpha Centauri in 1688 would be seeing light that had left Alpha Centauri four years earlier in 1684. Someone viewing Alpha Centauri in 2567 BC would be seeing light that left Alpha Centauri in 2571 BC.

Because it takes four years for light to make the journey from Alpha Centauri to earth, whenever we have a recorded observation of that star, we know it must have been in existence four years earlier than the sighting---or there would not have been a sighting.

When Adam first saw Alpha Centauri, he was seeing light that left the star four years earlier. So the star had to be four years older than the day he first saw it.

Now Alpha Centauri is the star closest to us (except for the sun, of course). Every other star is farther away and it takes its light longer to get here. But the same basic principle applies.

If we know it takes 10,000 years for light to travel from star X to earth, we know that star is at least 10,000 years old. Maybe older, but not younger. And if we have a record of an observation of that star 5,000 years ago, we know it was at least 10,000 years old then and is now at least 15,000 years old.

And, of course, any light that has been around since before the creation of the stars is older still than the oldest star.

Let me once again remind you that every actual scientist knows that what we are measuring here is light, not the stars or the earth. But light and so the evidence is evidence for the age of light and nothing more. If we infer some conclusion into the equasion, that is cool, but we must always remember that the conclusion is not evidence at all, thus is absolutely challengable and should be challenged every step of the way. The evidence which is different from conclusion only measures light. So the bottom line here is that I have challenged your conclusion that the light being measured is originating from the star and taken you back to the evidence being presented, that of age of light. The age of light therefore has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the earth if we understand that light existed before the heavens and earth took any form at all.

 

[razzelflabben]

IOW you don't know and you don't care because it's not really your position and you haven't really researched it that far.

Fair enough.

IOW's I don't care because it doesn't really affect the discussions we are currently having and delving into the reasons and positions of another topic would further confuse an already long and off topic discussion.

In general that's right, because yec doesn't stand or fall on the "appearance of age" argument. But when you set out to be a devil's advocate on this, you chose to defend it via the "appearance of age" argument.

and the evidence of this thread shows that the issues of appearance of age that were valid were discussed and accepted by me. Therefore the evidence once again shows you to be WRONG.

And that means accepting the crater's appearance of age. That acceptance, that agreement that the crater (or a star or a fossil, etc.) appears old is the fundamental first premise of the appearance of age argument.

I will and have accepted for discussion all appearances of age that were a valid argument given the criteria of what appears old, not what science deems old appearance. Thus things like the cooling of the earth were absolutely accepted and discussed and fit the argument. Your problem is that whether you provide the criteria (as in scholars of ancient heb. lang.) or I do, as in appearance of age not scientific conclusions of age, you refuse to accept them so that you can go off and invent an argument to fit your claims. I have absolutely no problem with the appearance of age. I do have a problem with some of the scientific conclusions of the age of the earth and a huge portion of this thread has become a discussion of those problems. Now those problems are indeed the devils advocate, but they are also overlapping with some of my personal beliefs which is why I worded it the way I did. A conclusion is not evidence of anything but a conclusion What we want to discuss is the actual evidence. So for example, you talk about the age of the crater. The evidence is the age tests. But the age tests are questionable. Not because the tests are flawed but because we don't take into account everything we know. Therefore what we first have to talk about is the methods of testing. After we get through that we need to talk about the evidence that exists in relation to the environment created by the crater. A discussion that you agreed was not yet well researched because the questions necessary are not yet being asked. Given time they probably will be asked but for the moment they aren't. And so the discussion of the evidence of the crater is insufficient to determine the appearance of age or it's impact on the earth. Why, because we dealt with the evidence and not with the conclusions of the scientists. All I have ever asked you on this topic is that we discuss the evidence not the conclusions and all you have brought to the discussion is the conclusions and none of the evidence.

Once you reject that the item appears old, you have also renounced the appearance of age argument.

It is still possible to be a yec without that argument, but yec would then need to be defended on other terms.

Only problem is, we are discussing the evidence of age of the earth, not the conclusions. Therefore, the argument isn't renouncing the appearance of age, only the conclusions of age. If you want to continue to discuss the topic of appearance of age, you need to present the actual evidence that supports age.

 

[razzelflabben]

Not at all. It's a role play with you in the character of the doctor. The words you script for the doctor don't have to be what you personally believe.

Just tell us what you, in the role of the doctor, would tell the patient in this situation. The patient is expecting a diagnosis and you have to say something.

I already gave you a real life instance of two completely different diagnosis based on the exact same criteria. The same is true for this one. Based on the individual dr.s bias, the diagnosis would be different. So you then have two opposing possibilties here. Now that leaves us with a problem in the way you have worded your question.
1. the way you word the problem asks me to answer it based on my own bias and I refuse to do so because my biases are not part of this discussion.
2. the way you word the problem, asks me to assume an answer based on your bias. Again, not something that is going to happen in this discussion because doing so would cloud the issues being discussed and we would once again get off topic.

So the bottom line is that the question as it is asked is not going to happen friend. If you want to reword it to eliminate some of the variables go ahead. Like what diagnosis would a biased dr. give? Or what diagnosis would an unbiased dr. give? or something like that. If you choose to reword, please remind me of the entire question with background so that I don't get confused by what you want from the answer.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you expect to be taken seriously when you claim you have evidence, please point to the evidence. At the very least give the post number.

As far as I recall, you have not provided the requested evidence. You will note that I asked for specific evidence which the scientific community is allegedly refusing to accept.

What you have provided falls into two broad categories.

1. Situations in which there is scientific controversy because of incomplete and contradictory evidence.

2. General and vague references to "variables" which you now seem to define as "unknowns".

As far as 1 is concerned, it doesn't meet your description of bias as something which the whole scientific community is refusing to acknowledge. That controversies exist is readily acknowledged. And in controversies, the scientific is divided, not united, in how it interprets seemingly contradictory evidence. There is no wholesale rejetion of any evidence by the community as a whole.

And 2 is just too vague, especially if we are talking about unknowns. How can one possibly reject what is not known yet? Bias consists in rejecting what is known, not what is unknown.

So if you have any more specific example of scientific bias, I have not seen it yet.

You still willfully close your eyes don't you? How sad really. Anyway, I think that you are so endoctrinated by what you have been told and believe that if your favorite scientist came up and told you that they were biased of the evidence you would argue with them. If I thought for a nano second that you really didn't understand what I was saying and were doing more than just pretending this discussion to be something it is not, I would answer your questions. However, all the evidence suggests that you are just talking to hear yourself talk and so it is time to systematically end the discussions. This relization came to me in reading this post and so, I will be dismissing (with warning) all topics in which it has become apparent that all you want to do is hear your own voice and not discuss the topic at all. This is the first. Moving on.........