06-19-2010 at 6:30 AM

<b>NOTE:</b> I know I said I was going to respond to a lot of your guys' questions, but I really feel I need to stay out of this. Mind you, I'm not cowering. I'm perfectly able to defend what I believe, and if you'd like some info and whatnot, you can definitely send me a message.<br /><br />I just feel it'd be a waste of space here. And who wants to read a super long post anyway? So if you have questions, you are more than welcome to message me. :)

05-20-2010 at 8:14 PM

Everything you said Paya is great!<br /><br />In fact about a month ago in science, we were learning about that, like neutral and positive mutations and negative ones.

05-20-2010 at 1:42 PM

This is a fascinating topic to read - at least, from the proponents of evolution - I don't see any fact-based arguments from the pro-creationism side at all (not really surprising, considering that proof denies faith anyway). But some of those who support/believe in evolution have your facts a little bit wrong, which makes me wonder whether you guys have read "On the Origin of Species". The theory of evolution does not claim that species evolve from interbreeding with different species. It's about certain (usually mutation-oriented) traits in individuals allowing those individuals to better adapt to and survive in their environments, and passing those traits along to their young, who in turn are better able to survive than those members of the species without those traits. It follows that, over time, the individuals without the specialized adaptive traits become less likely to survive and are therefore less often chosen as mates when they *do* survive. Their genes are not passed on, so eventually the species as a collective possesses the new traits. Hence, a "new" species is created, which is really nothing more than the old species with a true-breeding mutation.<br /><br />You can see evolution in action simply by watching a jar full of fruit flies for a few weeks, and introduce controlled factors into their environment that they must adapt to.<br /><br />Anyway...ahem. As you can see, I'm a proponent of evolution. On the one hand, it's amazing almost to the point of miraculous that life, in all its myriad complexity, developed at all by chance. But for me, it's far easier to believe that than the idea that there is some undying and omniscient god who scooped up a handful of clay and fashioned a human being out of it. I do realize that most of the Bible is allegorical; however, we see time and again through human history how people attributed unexplainable natural phenomena (like lightning, drought, floods, etc.) to the whims of gods. We understand how all those things happen now, and no longer need the crutch of mysterious, powerful beings to explain them. Our own genesis is still a mystery to us, which is probably why it's so easy to continue to use creationism to explain it. But what will happen to religion should we figure out exactly how it is life on our planet began?<br /><br />No need to answer that unless you would like to do so for philosophical reasons; it's mostly a rhetorical question.<br /><br />Thank you for starting up this subject. It's most enjoyable to think about, and stimulating to write on.

05-20-2010 at 12:20 AM

Let's not turn this into a "Tigron v.s. Liger" board.

05-19-2010 at 5:40 AM

Oh guys, Tigers and Lions use to live in the same area, look up Asiatic Lions. There are a few left in the world.

05-18-2010 at 8:08 PM

Actually Gemini, Tigrons can't have babies but Ligers can<br /><br />Or is it the other way around? Either way I forget but one of them can have children, just search it up on National Geographic

05-16-2010 at 4:12 AM

Ligers and tigrons cannot become their own species because they cannot produce offspring. Just had to say that there. I may and more later on. Oh here's a good pro-evolution website that clears things up: http://www.creationtheory.org<br /><br />Oh, if you couldn't tell, I believe in evolution. That does not mean I don't believe in a higher power. It just isn't the Christian god.

05-14-2010 at 5:01 AM

Like Seppy said, you'll never find the missing link, because the changes happened so gradually. If you think about it, every human born before you were is sort of a missing link. <br /><br /><br /><i>"-nod- So the environment is what made us 'different from other species'? If we live for many generations in, let's say, the rain forest you've mentioned, we should evolve into something else, yes?"</i><br /><br />Aside from the millions of years it would take for that to happen, humans are different from other species in one important aspect. We adapt our environments to suit US. People who live in the jungle make clearings, they use tools, and importantly, they make weapons to defend themselves and the weaker members of their tribes/family groups etc. Like Tiger said, natural selection isn't happening. Our large brains give us a massive advantage.<br /><br />We share a common ancestor with today's great apes. So, for those of you who are saying "Why haven't humans who live in rainforests evolved into apes?"... we have. Because of that common ancestor, who moved into the jungle and evolved. The evolutionary path of great apes diverged from ours. In the grand scale of things, we are still not that different from them, genetically. <br /><br /><i>"Actually, I was about to ask something of a close subject. If, for many generations, lions and tigers interbreed with each other, will they become 'extinct' and 'evolve' into ligers/tigons?"</i><br /><br />Lions are tigers don't actually live in the same habitats and their phenotypes reflect that. The only ligers and tigons who have been born were born in captivity, they were put in contact with one another by humans.<br /><br />However, some species do get absorbed into others. That is one of the theories surrounding the extinction of the neanderthal - they interbred with homo sapiens, who had the dominant genes. <br /><br />On the subject of Neanderthals...<br /><br /><i>"Also, Neanderthals were proven a hoax a long time ago. They never existed." </i><br /><br />I would like to see a source for this statement. The bones that have been found are different enough from human bones to prove they are a different species.<br /><br />In fact, I would like to see some of this evidence of creationism that we have heard about. It makes for a weak debate when only one side is bringing facts to the table.

05-14-2010 at 3:27 AM

I just want to toss out that evolution isn't a claim that species turn into each other. It's not that humans evolved from apes, it's that humans and apes share a common ancestor much further back. Also, Neanderthals did exist; as more evidence has been found, we've discovered that somet things we thought about them were wrong, but that doesn't mean their existance was a hoax.<br /><br />That said, there's no way I can come anywhere close to matching the amazingly detailed post Seppy just wrote, so I'm gonna slip out now. >.>

05-14-2010 at 3:03 AM

There are two primary methods used to date fossils. First is relative dating, which is used to establish simply which fossils are older versus fossils that are younger in undisturbed geologic strata. Now if you combine this method of establishing order with radiometric dating, you have a method which can in the vast majority of cases, give you a pretty good estimate as to the age of rock.<br /><br />Does it not follow that older layers of rock are in undisturbed ground, deeper? Let’s assume then that all the likely at this stage, millions, of fossils extracted are the same age. How would they get buried in such a way, except through deposition and sedimentation? Ah perhaps some sort of cataclysm put them there, perhaps Noah’s flood. How then, did so much marine life die during this proposed flood event?<br /><br />Fossils occur in sequence. Around 1800, William Smith discovered the first principles of stratigraphy. He was able to map out great tracts of rock on the basis of their contained fossils. And the sequence of layers found in one part of the country could be correlated to the sequences in another. Older fossils lie below younger ones, in a predictable order. Building on his findings, geologists built the stratigraphic column (Jurrassic, Cretaceous etc) with each unit of time being categorized by the fossils it contained. <br /><br />Looking at the types of fossils each layer contained, geologists were able to make a few connections, the oldest rocks contained no fossils, while as you move upwards through the layers you begin to see a pattern emerge. Simple sea life, then more complex life such as fish, then land animals appear, then reptiles, mammals, humans and so on… clearly something was going on. That something would finally explained with Charles Darwin’s world changing work, On the Origin of Species. <br /><br />Now you claim that geologists use a “the fossils date the rock, the rock dates the fossils” form of circular logic, but that’s a very oversimplified way of looking at modern dating techniques. This may well give the appearance of circularity, but when you look at the sources used for the data in question, it is not.<br /><br />When a sample is collected for dating, there are independent constraints on its numerical and relative age. Its position in the stratigraphic layer is an obvious one, but there are others. There’s no way to predetermine what numbers a radiometric test will give, and every measurement taken is an independent check of the last one.<br /><br />When Baadsgaard and Lerbekmo (1988) dated the age of the K/T boundry using 3 different isotopes at three different areas in the US and Canada methods, Potassium/Argon, Rubidium/Strontium, and Uranium/Lead, the results were 64.3 ± 1.2 million years ago, that’s 3 different radioisotopes being tested at multiple locations, which when averaged together provide us with that timeframe.<br /><br />Or, take a look at this chart, it’s a good example of how radiometric dating can be used to identify the age of fossils. <br /><br />http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4083/bearpaw.gif<br /><br />As you can see from the chart, two volcanic ash layers are used to establish a date of occurrence of the ammonite shell Baculites reesidei, which is used zonal fossil for western North America. It consistently occurs below the first occurrence of Bacultes jenseni and it consistently occurs above Baculites cuneatus. There are about 40 of these ammonite fossils which form zones that are used to carve up the Cretaceous period. <br /><br />Modern dating techniques are accurate. Radiometric dating has been, time and again demonstrated as accurate, not faulty as you claim. By integrating relative and numeric dating techniques, you are able to accurately date within an acceptable margin of error. This is error on the order of a few million years for the oldest samples, not orders of magnitude. The accuracy of a radiometric technique is only constrained by the halflife of the isotope being measured; you wouldn’t use radiocarbon to date something older than 70 thousand years.<br /><br />Now if you look at geology over the course of the use of radiometric dating, one would think that inconsistencies in the dates measured would be on the increase as the techniques and technology become more advanced and the number of measurements taken increases, but the opposite is true.<br /><br />In the 1930s, the age assigned to the boundary of the Tertiary typically varied by 20-30%, since then, estimates have become more and more consistent as geologists update their techniques and the timescales themselves to reflect areas that did indeed need revision, now we have accuracy that is rarely off by even 5%. The same has been observed for all boundaries.<br /><br />Here is a chart from 1990 (A Geologic Time Scale, Harland, W.B.; Armstrong, R.L.; Cox, A.V.; Craig, L.E.; Smith, A.G.; Smith, D.G., 1990.)<br /><br />http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7729/timescale.gif<br /><br />Since 1990 there have been even more revisions updating the geologic time scale as more scientific data is uncovered. There are hundreds if not THOUSANDS, of papers providing ranges of fossil occurrences, and the collection and synthesis of all these works is exactly what the geologic time scale is meant to demonstrate. <br /><br />Geologists can generally argue over whether a sample is 100 million vs 110 million years old, but the idea that there are orders of magnitude of difference that could be applied for the calibration of the scale is insane from a scientific standpoint. The data doesn’t support this claim; the methods used are as I’ve said before, accurate.<br /><br />When attempting to disprove a body of data, you don’t pick apart the outliers (as there are outliers in every scientific discipline) instead, your sights should be set at the most accurate and consistent dates set, as these are the ones actually used by geologists to make the time scale.<br /><br />Now to address your and the videos misrepresentation of evolution, there are not, as is claimed, 6 types of evolution (at least not based on what we’re talking about here). What a biologist would agree to is that that microevolution (which is defined as genetic changes occurring below the species level) can over time of geologic significance become apparent resulting in new speciation in the form of allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation.<br /><br />There are transitional species (which itself is a misleading term, since according to evolutionary theory all organism are in transition) observed in the fossil records, the presence of so many varied species with logical similarities but also clear differences, as well as the separation of millions of years between the two shows that life changes over time. <br /><br />Hell, there are arguably transitional species alive today such as legless lizards many of which have only vestigial remnant legs and retain the ability to let pieces of their tail be broken off to allow their escape from predation, the presence of pelvic spurs in species of primitive snakes (still existent in modern boas and pythons, such as the Burmese) also support the idea that morphology can change over time.<br /><br />But the fossil record can never be complete and since species are in constant flux you’ll never find that perfect “missing link” because that singular missing link is actually a series of morphological and genetic changes accumulating over time, the variety of early hominids found in the fossil record reflects this. Some have proposed that bipedalism in apes may have stetched back as far as 7 million years ago with the Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, but not enough data exists yet to back up the claims of Michel Brunet’s claims. The fact is that we can see the existence of different types of hominids over a period of approximately (if the most recent data proves to be correct) 7 million years, until all other members of our family tree died out.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils<br /><br />Comparing cosmic evolution to biological evolution makes about as much sense as comparing the “evolution” of the internal combustion engine since it’s inception to the “evolution” of sandwiches since the middle ages. Apples to apples, we’re discussing biology. “Doesn't give much wiggle room for the evolution theory.” Because one theory of the Big Bang (which is a whole ‘nother ball game) has some sort of discrepancy, you cannot assume that biological evolution is somehow disproven.<br /><br />However in response to your portrayal of the big bang, I’ll keep it short and simple.<br /><br />“Some agree that it was a soup-like mixture that swirled and swirled around, until all of a sudden, it exploded, and here we are today.”<br /><br />The big bang was not an explosion; space expanded and continues to this day to expand.<br /><br />The idea that because of some original spin in the singularity which our universe expanded from, everything should spin in the same direction is also false. The big bang is different than solar system formation; rotations in the universe are not related to any other rotation in cosmos. <br /><br />Galaxies are theorized to have arisen as a result of differences in relative densities of various portions of the originally expanding universe, forming clusters of higher density and higher gravity than each other. This early difference in density was apparently random, galaxies have as a result also developed random axis of rotation. <br /><br />Solar system formation has different origins than galaxy formations, and a result of collisions (in the case of Venus it is theorized that a catastrophic collision in it’s early formation led to it having a “backward” spin) gravitational and other interactions we have varied orientations of spin observed in the planets and their satellites.<br /><br />Conservation of momentum in no way whatsoever requires everything to spin in the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for as a change in spin in one or more objects. <br /><br />Retrograde planets don’t violate angular momentum, during solar system formation collisions between the building blocks of the solar system would set the objects spinning in different directions. The only moons observed with retrograde spins are small, asteroid sized moons which were picked up gravitationally by the larger planets such as Jupiter, and these asteroids by no means needed to spin in the same direction as their orbital partner.<br /><br />Orbital motion, not planetary spin, account for 99.9% of the angular momentum in a system anyway. And nowhere in our solar system will you find a planet orbiting in the opposite direction, if there was a planet orbiting in the other direction, then nebular hypothesis would need another look.<br /><br />Now then, I think you’re referring to Ernest Haeckel when talking about the scientist who was refered to as a fraud. Haeckel’s theory was that throughout embryonic development, the embryo in advanced species goes through stages representing adult organisms of the species it shared common ancestors with. His work placed overemphasis on the similarities observed between embryos of different species, and while his original work has been rejected by modern biologists, the theory surrounding it, that there are morphological similarities between embryos of different animals has found support. <br /><br />For example, in whale embryos (whales evolved from land animals) during development in the womb legs develop only to recede into the vestigial organs, other anatonomical irregularities involving vestigial organs occur in a wide range of animals, this lends support to evolutionary theory.<br />http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/<br /><br />The idea that humans living in jungles not having evolved into apes somehow disprove evolution is preposterous. Humans are special in that we are able to (through our wonderfully powerful minds), resist selective pressures which are typically the most powerful influences on evolution. Beyond that, modern Homo sapiens emerged from Africa some 70 thousand years ago, a blink of the eye in geologic terms. There is no way that humans living in jungles would ever differ significantly genetically or morphologically in the space of 70 thousand years, not with the rate at which human generations are propagated. This is the only difference between the evolution of small things, such as bacteria, viruses (antiviral and antibacterial resistant), pest plants and insects (pesticidal and herbicidal resistant), and other organisms, the rate at which genetic mutations are passed on, not the fact that those traits being passed on make them slightly different than previous generations.<br /><br />When were Neanderthals proven to be a hoax? I’d say you were trolling when you wrote this part, but the amount of effort you put into what you previously wrote implies otherwise.<br /><br />There is a different between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism, and that is evidence, pure and simple. You provide none in support of creationism, and yet you can continue to cling to anachronistic explanations for the origin, and you have the audacity to put creationism and evolution in the same boat when there is an ocean of evidence separating them. Creationism makes no sense, and that is why I support the theory of evolution.<br />

05-14-2010 at 1:35 AM

&quot;It's a figment of the imagination.&quot;<br /><br />...Uh, again. It would REALLY help the arguement if I could see proof for creationism, rather than against evolution. Because so far the only proof for creationism is something written down by some old guys a few thousand years ago. ..Not the best evidence.

05-14-2010 at 12:28 AM

<i>No. Because they aren't in the same habitat. They don't live together and can't interbreed in nature, for one thing. For another, ligers and tigons don't have full DNA structures. They are born much more susceptible to diseases than tigers or lions alone. Therefore, they survive worse. Therefore, tigers and lions wouldn't interbreed in nature. Because it wouldn't help their species at all. Which is the point of evolution; natural selection and the creation of a better generation.</i><br /><br />I love how this keeps coming up again and again. Interbreeding within a species -can- occur. It happens. But it doesn't prove evolution. Evolution claims that man evolved from an ape, which are -two- different species. Nowhere in nature have we -ever- seen one species turn into another. It's a figment of the imagination.

05-13-2010 at 11:41 PM

So, for as much "proof" there has been posted for evolutionism being wrong, there still isn't any proof that creationism is right. There just isn't any. Because it was written down on a piece of paper, by a human. That is what the belief in creationism comes from--a piece of paper. (Which is why I have so many issues with religion, but.)<br /><br />Evolution, at least, has its roots in science.<br /><br />Now, I personally believe in evolution, but I also think there's a lot still to learn about it, stuff that could potentially change everything we know. I'd likely be one of the people who believes in creationism and evolutionism, except I don't believe in a god.<br /><br />Anyway. Watching the posted video right now. So far it's very much circular logic, and nonsensical arguments.

05-13-2010 at 10:46 PM

"Before I go on, could you read what you just said? =3=<br />What are people in general doing to help then?<br />If we're that horrible, why aren't others doing anything?"<br /><br />Read it. I don't see what you're getting at. I never said people who aren't spreading the "good news" are great either. I'm just asking why those spreading the "good news" deserve a better life. Honestly, most people are horrible BECAUSE they don't help the rest of society. And spreading so called "good news" doesn't really help. Honestly, I would do something to help. If I had money. If I could help, I would. And it isn't because some book tells me to, or because I want to spread my "good news."<br /><br />"Actually, I was about to ask something of a close subject. If, for many generations, lions and tigers interbreed with each other, will they become 'extinct' and 'evolve' into ligers/tigons?"<br /><br />No. Because they aren't in the same habitat. They don't live together and can't interbreed in nature, for one thing. For another, ligers and tigons don't have full DNA structures. They are born much more susceptible to diseases than tigers or lions alone. Therefore, they survive worse. Therefore, tigers and lions wouldn't interbreed in nature. Because it wouldn't help their species at all. Which is the point of evolution; natural selection and the creation of a better generation.

05-13-2010 at 10:02 PM

For some people who say "There is no solid proof to evolution" I'd like to know some solid proof to "Creation" my self them xD

05-13-2010 at 7:06 PM

<i>-nod- So the environment is what made us 'different from other species'? If we live for many generations in, let's say, the rain forest you've mentioned, we should evolve into something else, yes?</i><br /><br />To go off of what Euphony said, there actually -are- people who live in the rain forests. They live in the jungles of Africa. Yet they haven't evolved into apes, and the apes that live there haven't evolved into humans.<br /><br /><i>There were other species of 'hominids', much like humans. They are all extinct. Nothing else could evolve into humans, because they are a different species (you might as well ask why lions haven't evolved into tigers), but they were close enough.<br /><br />For instance, I'm sure you've heard of the Neanderthals. They were significantly different to modern humans, and they evolved to adapt to the cold climate of Europe. They are extinct, and it's commonly thought it's because Homo Sapiens (that's us) moved in on their territory, or because they couldn't cope with the changing climate.</i><br /><br />Dae hits it right on the nail by saying humans and primates are a different species. I agree. Nothing has, and nothing will, evolve into a human. It's not possible, and it can't happen. Macro-Evolution cannot happen, and it's never been observed in nature.<br /><br />Also, Neanderthals were proven a hoax a long time ago. They never existed.

05-13-2010 at 5:43 PM

"<i>-nod- So the environment is what made us 'different from other species'? If we live for many generations in, let's say, the rain forest you've mentioned, we should evolve into something else, yes?</i>"<br /><br />That would require natural selection, but humans have for the most part stepped outside of nature and NS because we fight for our weak and everyone ends up breeding. But if you look at the human species, if you look at the cultures where inter racial breeding hasn't happened, there are big differences, essentially sub species, like Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers, or Red Wolves and Artic, or Asian Elephants and African.

05-13-2010 at 4:43 PM

<br>

05-13-2010 at 7:58 AM

The only difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is time. Those tiny changes add up.

05-13-2010 at 6:48 AM

For those of you who believe in evolution, I would challenge you to watch this video:<br /><br />http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150<br /><br />Bare in mind, the speaker -does- come from a Christian perspective, but it doesn't hinder him from proving evolution is false with <i>scientific</i> facts that modern scientists would say are accurate.<br /><br />With that said, I do believe in Creation.<br /><br />Now, the Geologic Column is a piece of science that many evolutionists would say prove evolution. For those of you who don't know what the Geologic Column is, it is a column of layers of earth that represent the earth's crust. Each layer is a certain number of millions of years, and each layer is dated by the fossils and bones found there. But also, each fossil and bone found in a layer dates that layer. Isn't that circular reasoning? The fossil dates the layer, and the layer dates the fossil.<br /><br />If that doesn't convince you that the Geologic Column is a hoax, there are pictures of trees standing upright in those layers of earth. Now, we all know that trees -do- take a long time to grow, but not millions of years.<br /><br />Carbon dating and other methods of dating fossils have been proven faulty over and over again. And as far as I know, no one has ever found a bone that says, "I'm 16 billion years old." It won't happen. I'm being sarcastic in that sense, but it's to illustrate that fossils cannot and will not prove evolution is true. I need more evidence than that.<br /><br />Now, going off of the video I've posted (because some of you may not want to see the whole thing), there are six different types of evolution.<br /><br />1. Cosmic Evolution - origin of time, space, matter, i.e. Big Bang<br />2. Chemical Evolution - origin of elements from hydrogen<br />3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution - origin of stars and planets<br />4. Organic Evolution - origin of life<br />5. Macro-Evolution - evolving from one kind into another<br />6. Micro-Evolution - evolution within a kind<br /><br />The only evolution ever observed in nature is Micro-Evolution. I don't doubt that there is evolution within a species. It's possible. BUT. You will only get -that- same species. A dog produces a dog. A dog cannot produce a cat. Yet evolutionists argue that Micro-Evolution proves evolution is true, when it does not. Man supposedly evolved from ape to human, which are two different kinds. And may I say, humans are -not- animals. But that's a different topic.<br /><br />Now, as Dae said, humans only evolved to meet their current needs. Only when they had to adapt. What I find curious is why we still haven't found bones from "the missing link." We've heard of all sorts of missing links, but none are accurate, and all are hoaxes. Anyone can pick up a bone and say they found the missing link. But do you realize that we have never found a whole skeleton? All pictures you see are artists' conceptions.<br /><br />Now, you've all seen the picture of the different kinds of fetuses, right? It's in your high school textbook. Did you know that the man who drew that -knew- he was lying? Did you know the university he worked for called him a fake and and a fraud? He -knew- the picture he drew was false. That picture does -not- prove evolution is true.<br /><br />Why is it that no one can actually estimate when the Big Bang happened? It's between millions and billions of years. That's a big margin of error.<br /><br />No one agrees on how the Big Bang actually happened. Some argree that it was a soup-like mixture that swirled and swirled around, until all of a sudden, it exploded, and here we are today. Have you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? This is a law of physics. It states that when anything is spinning in a certain direction (say clockwise), anything that flies off of it will spin in the same direction. So if the Big Bang happened, why is Uranus spinning vertically? And why is Venus spinning backwards? All other planets are spinning counter-clockwise, yet Venus is spinning clockwise. And did you know that 8 out of the 91 moons that we know of are spinning clockwise as well? Doesn't give much wiggle room for the evolution theory.<br /><br />Now I know all of you have your own beliefs on -exactly- how we all came to be. No one will ever 100% agree. But let me leave you with this: Those of us who believe in Creation, agree with each other 100%. Let me also say that both evolution and Creation are just <i>theories</i>. Neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's which theory has more scientific evidence to back it up. And I don't believe the evolution theory has more evidence.<br /><br />I do challenge you to watch the video above, even those of you who believe in Creation. It's a challenge for all of us. If you'd like more information, more evidence that evolution is false, send me a PM. I have a wealth of information to offer. For sake of space, and for the sake of your sanity, after having to read all of this (and kudos to those of you who did), I can't share everything I know.<br /><br />But even if we disagree, let's not let it ruin our friendship. We can agree to disagree. :)